Folau’s rights were not undermined

RIGHTS have always been and always will be in tension and in a certain amount of competition with each other. The exercise of one right must be weighed against how it affects the exercise of another.

In other words few rights are absolute. We have the right to happiness, for instance, but no guarantee of it. The same goes for employment and any other number of enumerated and non enumerated rights.

Probably the most misunderstood right of all is that to freedom of expression. People are under the misapprehension that it’s absolute. They’re under the misapprehension that their freedom of speech entitles them to a platform to say whatever it is they want to say.

Beyond the restrictions placed on freedom of expression by the rather stringent libel laws that exist in this country, if a media organisation or social media company finds what you have to say objectionable or hateful or fascistic they’re well within their rights not to publish.

The non-platforming of certain viewpoints – the alt-right and their fellow travellers usually – is often criticised on the right as an assault on the freedom of speech, but as far as we’re concerned that’s a fundamental misinterpretation – or a bad faith misreading – of what freedom of expression means.

You’re entitled to say whatever you like, but that doesn’t make you immune from the consequences of it. You’re entitled to think whatever you want or believe in whatever you want and you’re entitled to say it like Israel Folau did with his regressive views on homosexuality amongst other things.

He’s entitled to say what he said, but he can’t expect to free from the consequences of it. His employers, Rugby Australia, took exception to it. They didn’t want to be associated with the views he expressed and as a result terminated his contract. In as much as Folau has a right to say what he said and to believe what he believes, Rugby Australia – and their sponsors – have a right to distance themselves from his views. His freedom of expression and religious belief isn’t acutally at issue, despite what he and his various defenders might say.

Folau can still say what he wants – and he has been ever since last week – he just can’t do it while representing Rugby Australia and their sponsors. If his beliefs mean so much to him it’s a trade off his should happily embrace.

What’s the value of a couple of million Aussie dollars – in contracts and endorsements – compared to his conscience and immortal soul.

Seeing as Folau is such a committed Christian surely he knows what Jesus said about wealth in Matthew 19:23-26: “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God”.

Otherwise Folau is just another moralising hypocrite and we’ve had a few too many of those already, haven’t we?