‘Could Folau speak at a uni?’

Change.org Sally Rugg didn’t hold back as the panel explored religious and academic freedoms.

Would Israel Folau be free to walk onto a university campus in Australia and deliver a speech about his views on homosexuals and Christianity?

This was the question of the night on Q&A this week, in an episode that explored religious and academic freedoms on the day Israel Folau’s GoFundMe campaign was shut down.

Host Tony Jones was joined by Minister for Education Dan Tehan, Labor spokeswoman for infrastructure Catherine King, Centre Alliance senator Rex Patrick, executive director of Change.org Sally Rugg, and people’s panellist and avowed Christian, Ash Belsar.

FOLAU, FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH

Responding to a questioner who viewed Israel Folau’s warning that homosexuals were destined for hell as a “brave act of love” to help them avoid hell, Mr Tehan said Australia needed a religious discrimination act.

“What isn’t clear at the moment is how we define the boundaries about what we should be free to say, and what we shouldn’t, especially when it comes to our religious faith.

If Israel Folau is just trying to "help people repent" and avoid hell, how can that be “hate speech”? #QandA pic.twitter.com/qNduB0hPbX

— ABC Q&A (@QandA) June 24, 2019

“We have it for sexual discrimination, we have it when it comes to disability, we have it when it comes to age. But we don’t have anything which defines the boundaries in Australia properly when it comes to religious discrimination. I think that’s the key take-out and key lesson from the Israel Folau case,” he said.

Ms Rugg, who was a proponent of the ‘Yes’ campaign during the marriage equality survey, called comments Folau made about transgender children “disgusting”.

“That comment doesn’t exist in a vacuum. That comment exists in a reality where if you’re a teenager in Australia who’s transgender, you have a one in two chance of attempting suicide. One in two.

“The words that Folau uses about gay Australians — people like me — they exist in a context where the Morrison government is currently looking at whether people really care or not that religious schools can exclude LGBTI teachers and students. How do they make me feel? They make me feel a bit sick, they make me feel tired.

“Protections are there to protect people, there meant to be shields. I wouldn’t want to see any religious protection act that takes away the protective shield that anti-discrimination laws have for people like me and the more vulnerable members of my community.

“I would talk about how words do things and words mean things, and that people can have as much religious freedom as they like, as long as it doesn’t encroach on other people’s freedom or other people’s safety. I think we have the capacity to get the balance right,” Ms Rugg said.

Responding to Ms Rugg, Mr Belsar said that while “we need to be thoughtful” of the danger words could have, “the hurt and fear actually does go both ways”.

"The hurt and the fear goes both ways". People's panellist Ash Belsar says people of faith are victims of discrimination too #QandA pic.twitter.com/shkdZfaSLp

— ABC Q&A (@QandA) June 24, 2019

Mr Belsar said that people of faith ask themselves what will happen if they speak out about their beliefs, and whether it they will risk their jobs in doing so.

“For a lot of us, these are issues that go to the depth of our conscience,” he said.

Ms King said Australia already has protections for people practising religion.

“It is enshrined within the Australian Constitution. There have been a number of High Court cases that say when are you practising your religion and when are you not.

“Within any issue of issue of rights, there is always a balance between an individual’s rights to practice their religion, and an individual’s rights then to discriminate or not be discriminated against. I think the balance is right.”

She also said it would be “almost impossible” for the parliament to legislate a protection that would have allowed Israel Folau to make his comments without voiding his contract.

The next questioner, an academic, asked Mr Tehan about freedom of speech on campus, which prompted Jones to bring up the French Review into University Freedom of Speech, which concluded that universities would have the duty to protect staff and students from discrimination, and asked if that meant universities would have the right to stop Israel Folau from repeating his comments about homosexuals on campus.

Is there a “a loud minority of activists” on university campuses “aggressively censoring free speech”? #QandA pic.twitter.com/6qq0yoYPSv

— ABC Q&A (@QandA) June 24, 2019

Mr Tehan acknowledged there was no clear answer to the question, and that “it would depend on the circumstances on which he was on the campus, and it would also depend on how it was interpreted”.

“My hope would be that he would be able to go there, and express his fundamental beliefs on that campus and do so, and my hope would be that someone like Sally (Rugg) could be there and could express her fundamental beliefs if they were contrary to what Israel Folau is saying,” he said.

Ms Rudd then furthered the hypothetical, asking about the free speech implications if she were to bring “a whole bunch of my mates” to the university campus Folau was speaking at and protest against his speech.

“How can we have this thing called free speech without the freedom of protest?” Ms Rugg said.

Ms King said: “If you’re discussing rights, it is about balance … about individuals versus the greater good.”

Ash Belsar says 'alternative' views are sometimes discouraged at unis. @CatherineKingMP says there needs to be a balance. #QandA pic.twitter.com/D3XqghWFA4

— ABC Q&A (@QandA) June 24, 2019

“All of those things are really important. If that’s what you’re trying to do at universities, I know a number of universities are already sort of developing their own codes. So long as you’re not allowing hate speech, not actually allowing harm to be done to people, and the Folau case — I think you have to think about the harm — people are not really understanding that the harm that that does,” she said.

Mr Tehan responded that it was “very easy for people to say a certain amount of speech is hate speech, to try and then impinge on that speech”.

“Once again, how do you define it?” he asked.

TAX CUTS

On Labor’s hesitance to fully support the Coalition’s proposed tax cuts, Ms King said: “Labor is deeply concerned about wealth inequality”.

She said Labor had accepted stage one of the plan — to supported tax cuts to low and middle income earners.

“We’ve accepted that stage one, we have said that all the way along. Stage one for low-income earners is actually really important.”

Labor now says $200k a year isn’t the ‘top-end-of-town’: are they in danger of losing their “fair go” commitment? #QandA pic.twitter.com/nw4vpXcge2

— ABC Q&A (@QandA) June 24, 2019

She said the shadow cabinet had met on Monday and had decided that “a particular part of stage two” — which is due to start in July 2022 — should be brought forward as a “stimulus to the economy”.

Ms King said Labor hadn’t ruled out stage three of the cuts, which is to abolish the 37 per cent tax bracket in 2024.

Mr Patrick said: “We have been through this before … where we had three stages of tax cuts. We rejected the third. Sent it back to the lower house, and the government said, ‘No, it’s all or nothing’.”

“I’ve spoken directly to Mathias Cormann on a number of occasions. We are being told — I have no reason to disbelieve him — that it will not be split up. And it’s for that reason that Centre Alliance is now looking at ways in which we can move forward, making sure that with this very, very large decision we don’t end up in a situation where down track we end up cutting services to education, to health, and to aged care.”

As Australians pay more for gas than foreigners, and pensioners shiver through winter, is it time to “bring the Australian gas cartel under control”? #QandA pic.twitter.com/Fb3rFxoBs2

— ABC Q&A (@QandA) June 24, 2019

The show also featured questions on why Australian natural gas is cheaper when exported to Japan than it is locally, as well as Victoria’s new euthanasia laws, and public school funding.