Eels Blogs

Former Australian sports-person Israel Folau, is the multi-millionaire public poster-boy and Christian champion of free speech - standing up for the "Word of God".

Folau v RA. The battle between religious personal religious freedom of speech rights, versus the rights of an employer to enforce their codes of conduct. To maintain the integrity of their brand and inclusive culture.

And high stakes: $10m plus in damages, potentially bankrupting RA and the Waratahs.

Almost the gay marriage vote part 2. 

Meanwhile, Team-Folau has successfully rallied public opinion aginst RA painting them as the bad guy.

After failing in the Fair Work Commission, Folau v RA is set for a Federal Court showdown.

Folau claims an unlawful termination, by religion discrimation, under Section 772 of the Fair Work Act.

RA claims Folau incurred 11 high level breaches of their codes of conduct, after been repeatedly warned.

To fund his legal action Folau has raised circa $2.2m hitherto, with the support of the Australian Christian Lobby. 

Though, the best result would be settlement Folau said he's ready to go to the High Court.

The recent Ngole v University Of Sheffield victory in Britain's second highest court may embolden Team-Folau to get as much blood from the stone as possible.

Legal experts disagree

Michael Bradley, workplace lawyer and Managing Partner at Marque Lawyers, believes Folau's argument is weak:

“It’s a really difficult case for him, legally speaking... he is going to run is an anti-discrimination case, basically that he has been discriminated against on the basis of his religion, and he’s got to establish that the reason he got sacked was because of religion...[but] That’s quite a stretch.”

“The fact that it was religious content isn’t particularly relevant, it could have been lots of things."

"[Folau’s argument] ignores the distinction between what he did, which was express his religious faith and make the statements that he made, and the reason for his termination, which was contractual."

Team-Folau has a few points

RA didn't put any "social media restraint" clauses in his massive $4m deal last year, because Folau refused it.

It could be argued he is merely reiterating the Bible. After all, according to the Bible, the accepted practice of homosexuality was a primary reason the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, and "all" its inhabitants, were supposedly destroyed by God's fiery sulfur.

As such, on the surface, it may seem, to many punters, and most especially ones who agree with his views, that Folau has been very hard done by.

And as Folau proclaims: “No Australian of any faith should be fired for practising their religion."

But is that wholly true?

Is Team-Folau really about religious freedom of speech of any faith ?

Firstly, freedom to practise one's religion has not always been a good idea. Hitler also acted as a practising Christian, in God's name.The Church's Inquisition even burnt people to the stake too, if he didnt agree that God said the earth was flat and centre of the universe.

So the consequences of religious practice must be considered.

In Folau's case he damaged RA's interests, via social media, which breaches the codes of conduct for players.

And if it is about "all" faiths - where were any of Team-Folau's "freedom of speech" warriors when Yassmin Abdel-Magied’s offered her public views on Islam? 

Christians were part of the lynch mobs, petitioning for her to be sacked, deported and sending death threats. Even after she apologised and deleted inflammatory posts. Something Folau never has done.

Why didn't the above apply in Yassmin Abdel-Magied’s case?

In an arguably hypocritical  stance, Catholic Christian Schools have made it clear it will not tolerate gays and lesbians in its ranks, or students, and threatens to sack them. 

The church has a problem when it feels an employer is discriminating against one of its own, but no problems when it discriminates against others as an employer.

And despite all claims by Team-Folau's that his freedom of speak is under siege - the opposite has occured. His "public" freedom of speech had not been impeded, nor censored. It's on social media, the wider media, and on radio. It's on steroids.

He has been sacked for breaching a mutually agreed contract - not muted.

And really, absolute "public" freedom of speech without consequences, it could be argued, has never existed.

In your personal time, try calling clients by various one and two word expletives starting with "f..." or "c..." or the word "mother..." and invite them to Allah's Love Club. Already forgotten what happened to Yassmin Abdel-Magied free speech sharing her Muslim values?

Good manners are required, relative to "cultural" settings and codes of conduct.There is a blurry line of cultural sensitivity and mutual respect. In the right context.

And Folau "public" vilification of homosexuality does not fit the context of a culture of modern "inclusivity" in western secular business practices; nor Western human rights laws.

Folau was employed by RA, not Hillsong. He choose that.There was a mutual contract - for $4m.

Folau broke it. His abused his freedom of speech in that context, and arguably other ways beyond that.

He continually disrespected, and damaged their brand, inclusive codes of conduct, their team ethos, their business and relationships with all of its stakeholders and sponsors. Despite warnings. 

That's why Folau was sacked - not because of his religious beliefs. The RA was not demanding he stop practicising Christainity. They supported it. For years. But draw a line on bigotry.

Also, if they never drew line to protect their culture from the likes of Folau - RA would risk litigation from its own employees for RA's implied support of sexual anti-discrimination. 

If RA say their brand is inclusive but don't act on it- to appease conservative Christianity subjective homophobia with pedigree, what's that?

"Equality" is a central component of anti-discrimination in RA code of conduct. As well as appropriate social media use not damaging to RA's  image, or "interests".

Very difficult to argue Folau acted in the best interests of RA and didn't damage their image.

Look at Folau's social media post that was the final straw for RA.

It lacks equality.

No mention of "heterosexuals", nor "false Christians, including those who sexually molest young boys" on that advertised list "awaiting hell".

There are more heterosexuals in the Australian community than gays; sowhy the discrimination?

And why then, isn't Team-Folau preaching the whole Bible?

Including respect of employers as if they were "Christ", no-tattooes, not-working on the Sabbath, denigrating woman, and not wearing mixed woven clothes.The hypocrisy is it ignores 2000 odd years of evolving interpretation of scripture. If we continued to take every biblical injunction seriously, slavery, the subjugation of women, stoning, cutting off hands, and being barred from wearing clothes woven of two kinds of fabric would be still in force.

Subjective pickings of the Bible.

And there are still many other places in the world that share the church's disdain of gays. Gays are in hell in many Muslim countries, Chechnya, most parts of the Middle East, and some parts of Asia, countries in Africa, where homosexuals are imprisoned or sent to the firing squad. Homosexuality is a capital offence in 12 countries and criminalised in 72. ISIS lynched gay men and threw them off high buildings; Boko Haram and militias in Yemen continue to target and murder gay men. Counties that align with Team-Folau's view of homosexuality as unnatural.

But Team-Folau his supporters are facing a losing war.

A bigger opponent than Rugby Australia.

The english-speaking secular world of reason and humanity, driven by human rights over the last 200 years. An Western World, that though imperfect, legally supports and protects homosexuality and does not support discrimination in principle.

Despite homosexuality having been wide-spread since the dawn of time -1791 France was the first West European country to decriminalize homosexuality.

And a growing list of new countries such as Mongolia, that afford homosexuality some protection - hate crimes and hate speech against them has outlawed in the country since 1 July 2017. This year Taiwan became the first Asian country to legalise gay marriages.

Australia was a bit slow, but has been in since 1994. Just a few years after NRL's salary cap was introduced.

In 1994, the Commonwealth passed the Human Rights (Sexual Conduct) Act 1994 – Section 4,[17] legalising homosexual activity. In 2017, Australia's Marriage Act omitted “a man and a woman” and substituted it for “2 people” - legalizing homosexual marriage.

Team-Folau can blame civil rights groups and "lefties" for all that.

Meanwhile, our Mardi Gra's continue to openly celebrate homosexuality and transgenders. Ravishingly so. And our laws continue to grow in their acceptance.

And Folau and his supporters should note what happened to "all" of Sodom's inhabitants. 

There are, and will be painful consequences.

It is naive, to assume a Team-Folau high-fiving victory dance over the grave of a bankrupt RA and the Waratahs won't affect hundreds of people with families.

It already has caused divisions in RA.

A Team-Folau legal victory, could also mean there no  "workplace" consequences for free-pot-shots at gays, or in-house religious wars. A freedom of speech without consequences. Legalised madness.

As workplace lawyer Michael Bradley, notes:

“ If he won his case then that would be a pretty earth shattering decision. It would establish a principle that the expression of a religious belief is, per se, protected, regardless of context.”

It is also naive to assume this will help workplace relationships. Employers will be in an "impossible position" as to try and resolve workplace discrimination between sex-based and religious and inter-dependant conflicts that can extend publically for all to view at any time.

And it may in fact increase religious discrimination.

By alerting "inclusive" minded employers, and stakeholders to the dangers of employing highly religious folk who want their money and jobs - but not their rules; who aren't team players.

You would rather dodge a bullet than play Russian roulette with divisive individuals.

And what has largely been understated in this saga, is employers have a real-life right to choice who they want to employ. Whom they feel fits their culture.

If conservative church groups were more honest they would accept this reality. For all. As they do when they act as employers. After all, they do the same thing as RA. They want people who fit.

And what about the bigger picture: is it still to help gays and all people, or only it's own kind?

It is naive to assume gays won't be offended by this saga, turning further away from the church and the Bible teaching - God's love, so to speak.

Wasn't Folau's initial intentions to help gays turn towards God's love as the Church's ambassador; champion? Well he failed. Miserably.

Not as much by Folau's anti-gay rants - but the tsunami that happened after. Team Folau's militancy.

With Team-Folau, the community and church galvanised together. On TV, radio, newspapers basically saying it's okay to take a pot-shots without any consequences. All because the Bible says so.

It is also naive to assume all the above-mentioned, won't affect younger confused gays who may be conflicted about their attraction to the same sex, on the verge of suicide, for believing they are damned for "hell", for being the way they are.

In Australia, one in four youth suicides is an LGBTQI kid. And we have open season on them. It is naivety akin to pseudo-sociopathy to presume Team-Folau's actions can do anything except worsen the situation.

RA should have a look at the legacy of the all-conquering All Blacks. One of the most successful sporting brands in history with a team first ethos and "No Dickheads Policy".

Unfortuantely, Folau either changed his mind, selectively, when it suited him, or even lied, that he was a team player with RA. 

Well, at least Folau is finally playing for the right team now - to match his primary value systems.

And lessons will be learnt by both employers, and hopefully employees, too. Including the consequences of not working as a team.

Causing divisiveness may be handsomely rewarded by a favourable court decision, and celebrated by the public as a righteous victory, but if it causes substantial pain and suffering I question it's real value. And would God really approve of such religious practice?

Freedom of speech is important, and good-intentioned; but words, like all actions, can hurt and harm if they are not applied with reason and consideration of consequences. 

The road to hell is paved on good intentions.