Folau case is a fundamental test of democratic rights
Israel Folau goes to court to plead for his right to express his religious views (“Starting gun fired on challenge with huge implications”, 1/8). If he has not urged violence or hostility against other citizens, it’s hard to imagine how we could deny his claim and still call ourselves a democracy.
I don’t share his belief that God damns gays, but if views can’t be heard, they can’t be debated. That can only arrest the progress of civilisation.
Janet Albrechtsen makes a good summary of the Israel Folau situation. I never read the Bible and do not react to any quotations being made from it. Those of Christian faith who know the Bible should accept this is the reality. Those of no faith should accept that it is just an opinion so there is no need to get upset by it.
I was a strong supporter of rugby union but this affair has poisoned my interest.
The only reason Israel Folau’s comments have spiralled out of control into the courts is because, since the same-sex marriage debate, certain sections of the nation have developed an unhealthy obsession and super sensitivity to any criticism of homosexuality. Had he said those who voted for Brexit would go to hell, no one would have said a word.
Israel Folau wished ill on nobody but in accordance with his faith he believed he offered a path of salvation to drunks, fornicators and homosexuals by quoting from a letter by St Paul.
I doubt that anyone of a non-Christian faith would have been treated with so much outrage. And with the LGBTI lobby it seems that anyone can take offence at anything. People are entitled to their opinions and others are entitled to disagree. Meanwhile those who drink too much and the adulterers go about their lives as usual.
It will be imperative that the Federal Circuit Court, when it hears Israel Folau’s case against Rugby Australia for unlawful termination of his contract, upholds the right of free speech.
As Janet Albrechtsen correctly points out, even if the bench contains progressive jurists, they will have to consider Folau’s claims with care. Whatever the court finds it will have to be seen as not being influenced by the brakes put on free speech by activists when they disagree with statements made by another.
Janet Albrechtsen has chosen to throw her own hand grenades, not just fire up a starting gun on the conduct of proceedings in the Folau case. It may now be deemed almost heretical to suggest that this case is “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”.
The material now in the public forum goes nowhere near elevating this case to the levels of complexity requiring a top-notch legal team, nor identify any “interaction between sport, sponsors, religious freedom and the law”, let alone this being “sensational”.
The suggestion that “the court’s decision will have profound consequences for workers beyond the rugby field” is speculative.
It beggars credulity to expect the court to decide anything other than whether the terms of a contract, presumably meticulously drafted, were such as to include as a “fundamental” term (empowering termination), expressly or by implication, the specific requirement that Folau will not do that which he allegedly did, enabling Rugby Australia to rely on the breach for the ensuing repudiation.
It is thus incredible that he is now seeking to invoke the employer-employee relationship when the only reason for doing so is that the terms of the authentic contract may not be sufficient to save him.
Either way, it is virtually impossible to perceive the bundle of joyful outcomes suggested by Albrechtsen, nor any value to the funding of the litigation on either side.
Janet Albrechtsen’s reasoning on the Israel Folau case is interesting, contrasting with Katrina Grace Kelly’s opinion that appeared in recent articles in The Weekend Australian. Kelly’s view has merit: Folau hasn’t got a snowflake’s chance in hell of winning. He must give up his pursuit of money, return the donations to his supporters, go home, take a Bex and have a good lie down.
Voters must heed warning on ‘dangerous’ Bandt
It is not too clear what sort of an Australia Bandt wants, but all of the signs suggest it is not what the majority of Australians want. Bandt, the politician, is a very dangerous person.
ACU has abandoned its values in wake of de Bruyn controversy
The dreadful conduct of staff, students and administration in the Joe de Bruyn controversy points to a sickness at the Australian Catholic University.