The chairman of Rugby Australia, Cameron Clyne in an interview with the Herald after the breakdown of talks between them an Izzy Folau before the Fair Work Commission says corporate sponsors and the state and federal government would have deserted the game if they hadn't sacked Israel Folau.
He went on to say, “We’d have no sponsors at all because no sponsor has indicated they would be willing to be associated with social media posts of that sort and that includes government, because we've also heard from them," he said.
Questions:
I wonder how many potential sponsors wouldn’t want to be associated with a sporting code who has climbed to the peaks of self-serving moralist. A code that appears to have caved in to the bullying of sponsors instead of standing up for the rights of an employee. A code like so many others who has forgiven drug abusers, wife beaters and thugs without the moralising associated with this recent event.
Who in Govt either state or federal has contacted them & hinted they’d have to sack a person which appears to be what the chairman is suggesting. This is a very serious accusation given religious freedom is a constitutional right. For anyone representing an elected Govt to try and suppress that right is deeply alarming to me.
Clyne also said, “We would also potentially be in litigation with employees who are gay and who would say we're not providing a work place that is safe or respectful." Rugby Union employees are not employees of Instagram where the post was made and Folau has not directed his post to any individual at RA. Clyne is suggesting any employee who holds or expresses an opinion on social could leave them open to litigation because another employee doesn’t feel safe or respected after reading it. What a load of hogwash.
This has gone well beyond Folau’s sharing of his religious teaching and his desire to motivate people to repent. Religious freedom is a constitutional right that includes the right to talk about religious teaching. Whilst many don’t share religious beliefs and others think trying to save souls is evil, quaint or just plain ridiculous those with a strong religious conviction take it seriously. Folau is one of those people. He wants to help people.
However from where l sit there is a bigger issue at play here. Following the RA decision the courts need to answer is this. Does a business have the right to take away someone’s livelihood because they see saving souls as part of their private life mission and they share that mission publicly. Remembering Folau is a professional football player who has been sacked by Rugby Australia for exercising his constitutional rights. And, following that officials from the Rugby League code have stated they would not employee him either. This effectively kills off his football career in this country and potentially any other country.
The courts decision has ramifications for all of us. If the courts decide in favour of Rugby Australia that effectively means employers have control over how we conduct our private lives and what we say on social media far beyond any direct comment about the company who employs us. That is a significant assault on our rights and not just religious rights. We should all be concerned about that and it is for that reason I’ve been very vocal on social media since Qantas CEO Alan Joyce claimed Folau’s sacking had nothing to do with his company which set off a chain reaction of comments and threats (albeit denied) from companies like ANZ & HCF. When ANZ & HCF then started to pressure Maria Folau’s employers that really was over stepping the mark for me. For all our sakes and our freedoms I pray the courts make the right decision. Businesses pay us for our expertise and work we do in servicing their customers both internal and external they do NOT own us.
