Qantas and Rugby Australia were wrong to try to gag Israel Folau
The current standoff between Rugby Australia, its superstar player Israel Folau and Qantas over Folau’s views on homosexuality poses a fascinating PR and moral dilemma: should an organisation try to gag the private views of an employee on contentious issues if they undermine a commercial relationship?
A devout Christian, Israel Folau was castigated for a comment on Instagram recently in which he said gay people would go to “HELL unless they repent of their sins and turn to God”. It was in response to a question about “God’s plan for gay people.”
The Wallaby player has previously spoken out against same-sex relationships after the Wallabies publicly expressed support for the ‘Yes’ campaign last year. In a tweet posted last September during the postal plebiscite Folau said: “I love and respect all people for who they are and their opinions but personally, I will not support gay marriage.” A social media backlash ensued with accusations of homophobia against the player.
I love and respect all people for who they are and their opinions. but personally, I will not support gay marriage.✌❤?
— Israel Folau (@IzzyFolau) 13 September 2017
Wow. You just called hell and imaginary Biblical place. Talk about tolerance and inclusion. Your comment wasn’t tolerant not inclusive. It was offensive to Christians who believe in Heaven and Hell. But your comment was Free Speech. So you are just as guilty of Falou in making personal comments that are offensive to others. Maybe Mumbrella should gag Southam.
But it is an imaginary place? You can’t argue with facts?
It is impossible to prove something doesn’t exist, surely someone familiar with the scientific method would know this?
‘There’s no Hell mentioned in the Old Testament. The punishment of the dead is not specified there. It’s only with gentle Jesus, meek and mild, that the idea of eternal torture for minor transgressions is introduced.’ – Chris Hitchens
What has the Hitchen’s quote got to do with proving a negative?
well, C Hitchens was anti Christian, but never criticised O T Judaism
There are no facts that support hell is imaginary, there would be billions of people that would not agree with you.
I suppose the debate centres around whether the Gay and lesbian community deserve equal rights. I am sure that if Folau had suggested that Asian or black people are not equal he would have shut down immediately. Yet his belief that gays will go to hell is tolerated in 2018. I believe that Folau is on the wrong side of history. One day the gay and lesbian community will have the same respect in the media as people of different races. I am pretty confident that there are anti- discrimination laws in heaven. These laws will protect Folau and everyone else.
I 100% agree with this statement!
100% this comment. One day we will look back and cringe at the things we were “debating”
@Nick Very well said sir!
Asian and black gays are equally entitled to go to hell. Seems pretty equal rights to me.
He is entitled to his religious belief, the same as you are entitled to not believe in religion
Hell is the continuous debate about this.
Nice opinion piece, and savy advice for organisations with respect to Free Speech
This seems pretty straightforward legally. Folau has breached his contract, but he’s been let off the hook. He has not apologised as he sees nothing wrong with his comments.
However Folau has a responsibility as a role model. His comments are extremely damaging, particularly to young people. There should be criticism of him for this.
It’s not about free speech – of course he can say what he wants, but he needs to be able to deal with the consequences. Qantas is free to pull their sponsorship and if it’s because of him, he should be held accountable.
Really? Qantas are somehow besmirched here? They should get their own house in order first. Who is Qantas in bed with internationally? That’s right, Emirates, Take a good look at the treatment of gays, and gay rights in the UAE for a moment..to say Alan Joyce is a hypocrite is an understatement….or do those values only apply in Australia?
Only applies to the [Edited under Mumbrella’s comment moderation policy] because, quite simply, they [Edited under Mumbrella’s comment moderation policy]! When Qantas is in bed with Islam but condones anyone in the west as bigots [Edited under Mumbrella’s comment moderation policy]
[Edited under Mumbrella’s comment moderation policy] Alan Joyce has a personal dog in the fight. He should ask shareholders before opening his mouth
If a gay man finds anti gay comments offensive, they are homophobic.
If a black man finds anti black comments offensive they are racist.
If a woman finds anti female comments offensive they are sexist.
It is not free speech, it is offensive speech.
It is frowned upon by society’s moral and ethical code.
There is no place for a high profile role model sprouting offensive homophobic comments in a public arena, then hiding behind the cloak of religious beliefs and their right to free speech.
If Alan Joyce tweeted all Polynesian people are hell bound because of the colour of their skin, would Israel Folau be offended do you think?
Steven Fry
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzdpxKqEUAw
Free speech means he won’t face criminal charges…not that expressing his views won’t have consequences.
If Israel was not an international rugby player he might have a a few hundred followers on social media and his comments would have no impact on anyone. Fact is he is an international rugby with 342,000 followers on Insta…he only has this platform due to his employment by the game. Therefore he would be aware that his comments have to be subject to scrutiny by his employer.
What if one of the players believes that people of different colour are inferior to him because he is white…he should expect some repercussions – even if he can legally say it.
Agree. It’s interesting those that cry “Free Speech” use it as though it is a shield against criticism of their original statement. If “free speech” exists, it doesn’t protect you from consequences or from being questioned on your beliefs. If you believe free speech means that no-one can challenge you, then you don’t really believe in free speech.
At the end of the day, this isn’t about “speech”, it’s about money. How Australian Rugby values its brand Vs the bums on seats power of Israel Folau, Vs the sponsorship $$$ of Qantas.
no, free speech is not a shield against criticism. Critics can use the courts. They should not threaten a person’s livelihood, or use threats from sponsors
Umm … actually no. He isn’t attacking gays. He is simply stating that according to his religion, they are going on in sin, and are therefore bound for hell unless they repent. He’s not attacking them or saying they are inferior. Everyone has completely misinterpreted him and his opinion.
This is a free country and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Unless, of course, they are a majority and their opinion slights the opinions of minorities. Then they are not allowed to have an opinion, much less display it.
Disgusting. And this is politically correct? I do not think so. Back of Israel Folau and assess yourselves. Hypocrites. You are attacking him for viewing his opinions. Some gays find his opinions offensive. He probably finds your opinion of him offensive.
Hell is not imaginary to those who believe the teachings of the Bible.
So its imaginary then
And i find this comment offensive. Getting the hint? You can’t please everyone. So give up trying. Move on.
Surely Folau’s views are as valid as Joyce’s. Why are some more equal than others. Just because Joyce is gay and disagrees with Folau doesn’t give him the right to use financial threats to silence someone he doesn’t agree with. How would he feel if all the passengers who disagree with his views jump ship to another airline unless he recants. Folau’s comments are not “homphobic”; just the sincere views of someone with a faith based conviction. Personally I don’t believe in Hell or the whole religious thing but I will fight for the right of people to express and opinion honestly held and sincerely expressed. Joyce should stop using his public position to force a private agenda.
Well said Malcolm.
I believe there’s absolutely nothing wrong with what Folau said, he was answering the question honestly. But to put it plainly, it’s not just gay people who will go to hell if they do not repent and turn to God. The Bible says everyone is destined for hell if they do not repent and accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. Everyone, that includes you and I.
I don’t see the big deal, if you don’t believe in sin then you shouldn’t believe in hell and heaven for that matter. Why be offended by something you don’t believe in.
100% agree.
Joyce has a bad habit of promoting Qantas values without referring to shareholders
He suggested that gays will (and should) suffer eternal damnation.
People were right to disagree with him. Commercial bodies he is associated with are right to suggest he can have his views, but if those are his views he shouldn’t broadcast them on social media if he wants to continue a commercial relationship.
Just imagine if a sports star said the same thing about a racial minority and play that out in your mind. But I guess hating gays is more palatable still for some reason…
“I guess hating gays is more palatable for some reason”….or persecuting people for their religious beliefs.
Like the author said. Cuts both ways. Tolerance yes, but only for the woke is pretty hard ground to defend, even in your own conscience.
There’s a fundamental issue with your comparison. Sexuality is the same as gender or race. It’s not a belief, or a choice. It’s a biological outcome. Attacking someone for something that they can’t (and shouldn’t have to) change is worse than bigotry.
Religious beliefs on the other hand are just that – beliefs. Religious people choose to believe what they believe, just like Trump supporters choose to support Trump and vegans choose not to eat animal products. Our choices and beliefs should be fair game for freedom of speech, especially if we choose to share or promote them in a public forum.
The comparison that other commenters have made highlights the issue. If Folau had said whites will burn in hell, or women will burn in hell, this would have been a very different incident.
There is still a core issue at play here that racism and sexism are, as they should be, unacceptable, but homophobia is somehow okay, especially if it offends your religious convictions (which you choose to hold). Which highlights another core issue that needs to change – religion’s special protected status. Religion is a choice, like politics, and should therefore be fair game.
And how do you know that religion is a choice? Take this sentence.
“I just am a Christian. Its who I am. I didn’t find it, it found me”
Now try replacing “Christian” with any other word you want to try…Jew, Muslim, heterosexual, homo-sexual, bi-sexual, disabled etc. and you will see that anti-religious bigotry is still bigotry.
Or you could say “Nah its a choice I know better than them what their own experience is”….and repeat that exercise with the substitute words again.
Feels uncomfortable doesn’t it. Hate it still hate.
Your comparison is clearly unreasonable. No one chooses to be disabled. And the same goes for sexuality. Attraction to someone (of the same or the opposite sex) is a chemical process, driven by hormones. Granted, some people try to fight it, particularly when they are confronted by views like Folau’s, but that doesn’t change the fact their sexuality is pre-determined.
Religion is clearly a choice. It is a belief system, and people choose their beliefs. Beliefs don’t find anyone. A person may be raised in an environment where there is no perceived choice, but when they reach maturity (or often even earlier) they realise they can choose, and they do – they choose to continue believe, or not to.
If someone chooses a particular belief, no matter what it is, they should expect, in a society that embraces freedom of speech, to have their beliefs talked about, challenged and even mocked. And that’s not hate. It might be uncomfortable, but if they hold their beliefs strongly, this shouldn’t be a concern for them. If they’re not so sure, challenging viewpoints could well be a cause for concern (and are probably beneficial).
You can’t take the same approach with fundamental aspects of a person’s genetic make-up – such as race, skin colour, height or sexuality – because they didn’t choose them and they can’t change them. Comment’s like Folau’s tell a significant percentage of our population that they are less worthy than others just because of the way they were born. Now that’s hate.
How do you know religion is a choice? People are in part formed by their experiences. Folau, for example can’t change his cultural history. He will always be not just racially who he is, but culturally too due to his experiences. He can not undo his history and how it has formed him. He cannot pretend to not have experienced his history. If his history and experiences make him believe, then he can’t well just stop. You can’t unmet someone, you can’t unhear a conversation you had. You can’t stop being a dad once you’ve had a child etc.
But even if you choose to disregard that argument, who are you to say what someone else’s experiences have been? Why do you claim to know what the experiences of all those who become religious are? Ask around, not all will tell you they chose it. Or do you know their life better than they do?
Religion is clearly a choice for people because they can change it. They may choose not to, and they may even feel they can’t because of social pressures or their beliefs themselves, but the simple fact is they can change their religious beliefs. It may be hard, and even feel impossible, but it is obviously possible. I don’t claim to know what people’s experiences are, and you’re right that people can’t change their experiences, but they absolutely can change how they respond to them. Some choices may be subconscious, but they are choices nonetheless.
And people may say that religion chose them, but that’s clearly misattribution. Religion is a concept – it can’t choose anything. People make choices, big and small, important and insignificant, all through their lives. One of those choices (or possibly several), is their religious belief. They also choose how they integrate their religious beliefs into their lives, evident in the widely differing degrees of devotion amongst people of all religions. The fact that a person’s religion may be more important to them than other choices in their lives doesn’t change the fact that it is a choice.
Right but you can’t stop believing something you have experienced, and many (I don’t know if its most) religious people will base their “choice” to being religious on a personal experience. I suppose if I was kissed on the cheek by my wife this morning I could “choose” to not believe it had happened, but I’d never really convince myself. That isn’t really a choice.
A religious “experience” is very different from a kiss.
Your wife’s kiss actually physically happened. Someone other than you could prove it, with a photo for example. And you’re right, you could attempt to convince yourself it didn’t happen, and you might even change your perception or memory of the kiss, but it wouldn’t change the fact that it actually did happen.
Religious “experiences” can’t be proven (I’ve certainly never seen any proof), and are most likely examples of cognitive bias; post-rationalisation of a real-world experience in support of their beliefs (e.g. a child survives a deadly disease, which becomes “evidence” of divine intervention. To a non-religious person this is evidence of good medical care, genetics, etc). This is why religious people have faith, because their beliefs are never presented to them in a physical way.
To your point, maybe you can’t stop believing that an experience happened, but you can absolutely change your reaction to the experience. You choose how you respond to it. You choose to accept it, or reject it, or re-imagine it in a different light, or something else altogether. An experience may not be a choice, but your reaction to it is up to you. Subconsciously or not, this is a choice.
Ultimately though the focus on experiences makes my original point. People are born with a genetic make up that determines things such as skin colour and sexuality. Publicly criticizing a group of people just for being born the way they were born is discriminatory and divisive. They didn’t choose the way they were born, and they can’t change it.
No one is born religious. A baby may be born into a religious family, but that baby does not share its family’s beliefs until later in its life, based on its experiences with its family and their social circle. Later still in life, he or she chooses to continue to believe, or not to, again based on experiences. The difference here is that experiences drive choice, and choices, like opinions, should be able to be discussed openly in a society that values freedom of speech. Publicly criticizing a person or group’s choices is yet another experience. They may not have chosen to be criticized, but they do choose how to react to it – they can choose to maintain their position, or they can change their minds based on new information. And this is the most important difference to the examples of race and sexuality.
I think we are a fair way from discussing Israel’s comments now, though we could drag it back to this ground discussing information in your last paragraph. You’ve said that opinions should be discussed openly – which I think would rather be a support of the article author’s point that Qantas and RA were wrong to respond the way they did?
As to earlier points – You seem quite confident that the religious experiences of others are examples of bias or rationalisation, but again – if you didn’t have the experience how do you know? And what makes you confident you understand what happened to that person when you didn’t experience it first hand? In general it seems a sound idea that people who experienced something first hand know more about it than those that didn’t. Or to put it another way, its makes sense to assume people are the experts about their own lives.
Also re your view people aren’t born religious I think that’s clearly refuted by the very existence of religion. If people aren’t born religious where did religion come from? Either religion is man-made, in which case we are born that way. Or its God-given, in which case we are born that way.
But sexuality (and more pertinently sexual behaviour) is a choice – i.e. homosexuality in prisons.
[Edited under Mumbrella’s comment moderation policy] Science has not discovered a “Gay” Gene.
Actually he quoted a verse of the bible.
So if I quote a book, I am going to be held personal accountable for the books content?
if you quoted fifty shades of grey to defend the fact that you think that all women are sex objects and should be treated as such, you’d probably be held accountable for aligning with the book.
He isn’t being held accountable for what the bible says, he is being held accountable for broadcasting his belief, when that belief is discriminatory or damaging to a specific group of people.
Just imagine if Tugby players filmed themselves having sex with highly intoxicated women and posted it on social media. Just imagine also if they filmed themselves having sex with a dog and posted on social media, or ‘bubbling’ (isn’t that all just such wonderful good clean fun for their vulnerable youth fans to witness). Qantas should cut their partnership with Emirates immediately in accordance with their ‘values’. They’ve landed themselves the international award for The Flying Hypocrites airline.
As a ‘Yes’ voter, a white heterosexual male and an atheist, I support Israel Folau’s right to free speech.
I deplore the hypocrisy of ‘inclusion and tolerance’ – ‘as long as you agree with us’.
Also, as a fellow Irishman, I deplore Alan Joyce imposing his personal morals on the company he leads – and, as is pointed out above – leads hypocritically in respect of Emirates.
I also agree with the smackdown of the author’s comment re hell being imaginary. As an atheist, I don’t believe in hell either, but backhander comments (and personal opinions) like that are counterproductive to the point you otherwise made well.
Well put!
How dare someone express their genuinely held beliefs!…..hang on, wait, Mitchell….are we the baddies now?
If I owned Boeing and disagreed with Alan Joyce I’d stop selling Qantas new planes. Then if the CEO of McDonnell Douglas disagreed with that action he could stop selling Boeing engines and then if….
The problem is that this ISN’T a free society, nor is free speech a human right in any country in the world besides the US.
I’m glad people have discovered the hypocrisy here, but this isn’t anything new, the left has been doing this for years now. Now that leftist policies and ideologies are entering mainstream media and social platforms, anyone who has an opinion that differs in ANY way is immediately shamed or aggressively abused until they either disappear in to silence, or worse the person defies the haters and keeps pushing their differing opinion and is VERY quickly labelled a racist, homophobe, nazi, white supremacist etc
There is a general notion in mainstream that anyone on the ‘right’ is a racist, but this is not true at all, this is just the left trying to paint anyone with a differing opinion to theirs as a monster.
Disagree about gay marriage? You must hate all gay people.
Disagree about BLM’s tactics? You must be a racist white supremacist.
Disagree about modern feminism? You must be a misogynist.
It’s funny because this is the same group that say they fight for equal rights, while at the very same time doing everything possible to destroy any chance we have of obtaining equal rights for generations to come.
Section 116 of the Australian constitution gives the right to religious freedom, discrimination on the basis of religion in Australia is also illegal. Not surprising that Rugby Australia have not taken action against Folau really, as it would cost them dearly to do so.
Not sure there is much protection for other forms of free speech in Australia, though our constitution “implies” freedom of political communication (I am not a lawyer so I don’t know how strong this is).
I see.
Because I disagree with your interpretation of free speech – within the confines of the law of the land – that makes me a leftie?
Do you actually realise that your second paragraph is you doing exactly what you accuse those with ‘leftist policies and ideologies’ of doing to you.
There are no so blind as those who cannot see. Ironically, you should know where to look it up.
so what whingers..adulterers murderers fornicators backsliders and anyone else who dosent repent are off too hell too.forgot that just about means everyone but boohoo for the gays….get over it.
The Satan is strong in you, my son!
That would be an ecumenical matter
I think its the christian faith that has a PR problem. Letting their name be used for horrific homophobic statements, and not responding is reprehensible.
Christianity has had a PR problem since 0 AD and the gospel quotes Jesus telling his followers they will be hated for following him. Its not news.
Despite how medieval his views are, he had the right to express them. The right to do so doesn’t mean he should have.
I dont know Folau, but it would appear he takes his responsibilities to his faith (as he sees it) more seriously than he does his responsibilities to his employers.
Also have a certain sympathy for Castle and RA in this. The current state of the game means that a soon to be off-contract Folau can behave as he sees fit – he was never going to be censured.
One point many seem to ignore is that Joyce is using his position as a (senior ) employee of a shareholder owned company to voice his personal views and use that companies business relationships as a bargaining point. Many seem OK with that because they agree with his viewpoint. What happens if Joyce leaves and the replacement CEO besides being an experienced executive in the airline industry is also a Seventh Day Adventist, and shortly after taking position starts using his role to promote his/her opinions (which would probably be more conservative that IFs) – is that now acceptable. Or would that not be ok.
We need to stop letting people refer to ‘consequence-free speech’ as ‘free speech’. Israel Folau has a legal and protected right to voice his opinion, which he did. His critics have a legal and protected right to publicly disagree with him, which they did. Consequence-free speech has never been guaranteed, nor should it be. Free speech is doing fine. Folau’s not in jail, and the ‘PC Police’ don’t exist outside of certain people’s persecution fantasies.
Your onto a famous argument Steely D, you’ve referenced the “market place of ideas” approach where people get to say what they want, and let the audience decide who is right. To be fair Folau has made it pretty clear he counts his faith as more important that his employment – so I don’t think he is unaware of the potential consequences.
Where you go wrong it the idea that PC police are fictional – they are rare but not fictional. Here in Oz we’ve had a lady sacked for expressing opposition to marriage equality on her facebook feed:
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/sep/20/company-that-fired-woman-for-saying-its-ok-to-vote-no-may-have-broken-law
and there is of course the famous US cake case:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/05/us/politics/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-cake.html?mtrref=www.google.com.au&gwh=526C2E6FB5E32570A3BFC2228194FB6F&gwt=pay
In both these cases because someone has been offended by another person not agreeing with them – they’ve taken it to court (your tax payer dollars at work) instead of you know – dealing with it like an adult.
I’d say its beyond parody but of course there is that Big Gay Al being kicked out of the scouts episode of South Park.
Hands up any company that doesn’t have a clause in their employment contracts allowed dismissal on the grounds of bringing the organisation into public disrepute or causing potential reputational damage!
Equally, hands up an employer who isn’t bound by anti-discrimination law (which makes it illegal to terminate someone on the basis of expressing their religious views)
Enjoying the free flow of views on my op-ed, I think the Israel Folau “issue” has divided Australians pretty evenly, it seems. As an aside, in the 2016 Census “No Religion” overtook Catholic as the No.1 religious status for the first time. A good number of Folau’s critics are likely not religious and would presumably regard “Hell” and his reference to “God’s plan” in the Bible as fictitious. In that context it’s been It’s been intriguing reading some of the online comments on Facebook/Twitter about his very religious stance on gays.
Mr Southam, you were making fair points until you dismissed hell as an imaginary place.
Your bigotry exposed itself right there ol’ chap, and instantly diminished the rest of your argument.
With the burden of proof on religion to prove it – show me why hell isn’t imaginary.
I’ll wait.
We don’t have to prove it isn’t imaginary. However, your comment could be seen as discriminatory by the billions – literally – of Christians worldwide. And I am one of them.
Seriously, people. What has Israel done wrong? He hasn’t personally attacked anyone – people have been personally attacking him. He hasn’t criticised anyone’s beliefs – people are criticising his beliefs. He hasn’t even criticised anyone’s actions.
All Israel said was that, in his opinion, LGBT+ is a sin, and therefore members of that community are headed for hell, unless they repent. How does that make him homophobic? He isn’t attacking gays at all. I completely agree with him.
Is it just me, or is there some serious hypocrisy going on here? Attacking someone for airing his opinions? Hmm … definitely an instance of the ludicrousness of political correctness.
It’s a really notable contrast how the All Blacks have handled the diversity and inclusion challenge in comparison to the Rugby Australia team in the last couple of weeks, with their AIG campaign partnership. The All Blacks are notorious protective brand guardians (notice how their players rarely slip up) and have never stepped into this cultural change – it’s amazing to see the coaches, CEO and senior players on TV news supporting diversity and protection of the LGBT+ community in sports. Never thought I’d see the day. Rugby Australia could learn from them.
Very interesting article. Thank you for sharing this information !!
Thanks for this article. It’s interesting that the NRL also won’t touch Israel either now. The NRL has bent over backwards to accommodate cashed up NRL players who have been guilty of the most atrocious behaviour. But there is one commandment that results in capital punishment and that is the commandment issued from Mt. Qantas in concert with the other corporate and academic heavies that determine what does and does not pass for free speech. And that commandment is: ‘’Thou shalt not criticise homosexual behaviour’’. Qantas is god because Qantas has the power to punish and Qantas won’t hesitate to punish. Neither is Qantas bound by its own commandments. Does Qantas fly to ‘’sharia law’’ Brunei ? Of course it does. Is Qantas in a ‘’not to be criticised’’ cosy corporate relationship with Emirates Airlines ? Of course it is. Qantas owns Rugby Australia and the Australian contracted Rugby players body, soul and mind. It seems Israel Folau doesn’t like the idea of Qantas owning his mind and soul and visiting that particular commandment on him. Seems the corporate heavies also own the NRL . Don’t hold your breath waiting for the taxpayer funded ABC to support Israel Folau against the big end of town or to take a ‘’balanced approach’’. If you do you’ll die of asphyxiation.
Scott Morrision said Folau’s post is “terribly insensitive” and ScoMo claims to be a Pentecost Christian.
For those who reads the Bible, if Folau’s message is insensitive then we may as well say that Jesus is insensitive, John the Baptist is insensitive. The words Jesus and John used against sinners are harsh.
The problem is churches now adays do not preached the true message. They all bend to social norms because people don’t want to hear the truth because the truth hurts. This why when someone like Folau preached the truth, everyone gets worked up about it.
God made man for woman and woman for man. [Edited under Mumbrella’s comment moderation policy]
Take a step back, look at why throughout in history, every man for every woman. [Edited under Mumbrella’s comment moderation policy]
The point is not one agrees if God exists or not, the point is that in a free western democracy people do not have the right to be offended. Free speech is the bedrock of democracy.
Take it outside godboy.
Falou has a right to defend his ability to work
His bible comments are not good but he has a right to work like every other citizen
Any Sponsors leaning on ARU -not smart .