Free speech bit of a myth
I HAVE been following the developments and media commentary in respect of Israel Folau, and to suggest his views have polarised opinions is an understatement.
We have the free speech advocates, with or without religious convictions, and those who don’t really care either way, and those who see it for what it is, and that’s a breach of an employment contract.
Freedom of speech and expression is clearly defined in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In summary, it states that everyone has the right to hold opinions without interference, along with the right to freedom of expression, and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing, and through art, or any other media of choice.
This seems quite straightforward and implies you can say what you want, when you want and how you want.
However, the second part of the definition states that to exercise this right there are responsibilities which may have restrictions provided by law.
In lay terms, and depending on which nation you reside in, there can be further legislative restrictions on speech and expression.
It’s quite simple really, you can say what you want but you need to be mindful that in some cases there are consequences ranging from punishment under law, civil action or good old-fashioned public condemnation. So whether your opinion is derived from the bible, the education system, life experience or discussions with family or friends, there is no absolute right to speech which is free in the literal sense.
For me, the notion of speech with restrictions is a good thing, because in essence it holds people accountable for spouting untruths, as well as offering inflammatory and discriminatory remarks, which are often derived from ignorance, hate and bigotry.
I also believe that is where the issue lies. How free is speech and what are the boundaries, especially when opinions can be so subjective? I believe such boundaries are dependent on your individual values and beliefs, and just because an opinion conflicts with another that should not be a reason to refrain from expressing it.
When it comes to employment, there are many public and private entities which provide employees with those boundaries, normally in the form of a code of conduct, contract or a combination of both. So for many of us, whether we like it or not, there are restrictions on our speech and behaviours both in and out of the workplace.
Israel Folau represents a sporting code aiming to break down the Neanderthal thinking which promotes unwanted homophobic attitudes in today’s society. He chose to express his views on homosexuals based on the bible, which some believe provides him with the moral basis to override his contract.
Nevertheless, Rugby Australia has previously given him the benefit of the doubt and allowed him to continue representing Australia. This came with a warning to refrain from making such comments in the future, especially in the public domain. Let’s not forget one of their major sponsors has a CEO who is a homosexual, which just adds another factor to the equation.
Despite this reasonable approach, Israel chose to spew his condemnation of homosexuals for a second time in public.
Some might argue that he also remonstrated about thieves, drunks, adulterers and fornicators, but this did not draw the same attention, and therefore represents hypocrisy and double standards within such organisations.
I believe this is a valid point, and to some extent appears to have merit. Although I am unaware of Rugby Australia’s desire to recruit convicted thieves and as far as drunkenness goes, well that depends on whether you are a two-pot screamer and unable to control yourself. As for the adulterers and fornicators, well if Israel is correct, it will be standing room only in hell.
In summary, does Israel Folau’s condemnation of homosexuals impact negatively on Rugby Australia’s brand, and was it a breach of his contract in doing so, especially after a previous warning?
I don’t know the definitive legal answer to that, but from what has been reported I have no problem whatsoever with him being shown the door. CHRIS WHITWORTH, Idalia.