I’m not writing this as an exercise for anyone except myself; I’m well and truly aware that far too much ink has already been spent on the Israel Folau and Rugby Australia matter for my contribution to be of any interest to anyone but myself. I’m also aware that I am neither a sponser of Rugby Australia, or a gay man, or a man of Pacific Islands heritage. I did play rugby for a few years, and enjoyed it, and, despite the many failings of Australian Super Rugby teams, I do consider myself a fan.
However, with my academic hat on, I do think the Folau matter is a deeply interesting one, simply because it has so effectively divided the different sides of politics in new and (for me, attempting to be an objective bystander) potentially interesting ways. Obviously, I should start off by saying that I think any attacks on gay people – and I think Folau’s post was an attack – are reprehensible, and my opinion is that, if your religion requires you to act in such a way, it might be time to get a new religion. Equally, I don’t have an issue with people’s right to exercise their religious freedom, but this is a limited right. It exists up until the point that it impacts on other people’s rights to live in Australia, free from attacks and persecution.
However, back to the division I mentioned earlier. I’m pretty broadly progressive on most of these issues. I’m a supporter of gay marriage, and I voted yes in the marriage equality survey. I think everyone should have a right to marry whomever they way, as long as they are of an age of consent. I acknowledge that gay people have, and continue to experienced discrimination – sometimes even state-sanctioned discrimination For that reason, I think Folau’s comments are reprehensible – and, according to some articles I’ve read – possibly not even a true interpretation of the bible. I don’t really feel that people have an unalloyed right to say anything they like about anyone they like. This is especially true of people with a significant public profile.
But… I’m also an officer who works with a trade union, and I regularly deal with people who are on the verge of losing their jobs because of things that they’ve said outside their workplaces. Often, it’s things they’ve shared on Facebook, or Twitter. Sometimes, it’s pretty ordinary stuff about workmates. Others, it’s generic stuff that goes against the ‘values’ of the employer. It makes me really uncomfortable that employers can reach into what people do in their private lives and make employment related decisions based on what they find. To me, it smacks of indentured servitude.
Conservative forces are equally held in a bind. They have, for the most part, championed what is often called religious freedom. I’m unsure what this means – and even what freedoms are at risk in Australia. Even more excessively, they have argued that people have the right to be a bigot. In that respect, they are keen to support Folau’s right to say whatever he likes about homesexuals (and presumably anyone else). I can understand that. But, of course, by pursuing that line, they are also supporting people’s rights to say whatever they like outside of the work context – and therefore that letters of appointment and contracts are meaningless. Supporting such a position is a dangerous one for their position.