Interfering corporates should stick to their knitting
You rightly condemn the hypocritical virtue signalling of some leading companies (“Folau row raises questions about corporate activism”, 28/6). This controversy, wrought by sponsors of Israel and Maria Folau’s professional sports, highlights its chilling effects on free speech and religious belief.
What sort of arrogance is it that can presume to regulate the private lives even of those not employed by the companies concerned? Most of us, directly or via superannuation funds, are shareholders in those companies. But few such owners have, I suspect, granted them the authority to indulge in social engineering.
As Peter Dutton once said, a company should stick to its knitting instead of indulging the whims of its directors who, although free to express their views privately, are not entitled to inflict them on others.
Your editorial about corporate activism was excellent but did not go far enough. This involves any group or even individuals, just not corporate organisations. The crux of this issue is people do not like to be forced to do something they don’t want to do — it is a loss of a freedom. If anyone decides to force their views on others, they cross a clear line and become self-appointed authoritarians.
This nasty trait should be strongly countered every time it raises its ugly head. Anyone in a free society is free to do anything they want and lead by example. Those who think it is a good idea will follow their lead voluntarily. Within our society, like-minded people can join an organisation and lose some freedoms believing the net benefits justify this decision.
Your editorial is correct in criticising organisations that lose focus on their purpose. They become authoritarians and force their social mores on all others, inside and outside their organisation. This rarely has anything to do with their primary role — playing excellent rugby, for example.
An interesting point in the Israel Folau debate is whether freedom of religious expression overrides hate speech. We could reasonably define “hate speech” as any spoken or written words that could cause harm to a person, thus removing the problem of lowering the bar to the level of merely taking offence.
It could be said that Folau’s words in question are likely to cause harm. For a young gay person, just coming out with bravery that has taken years to muster, to be told by an admired and influential public figure that you are going to hell could conceivably be a final trigger for suicide.
The statistics for the dire state of mental health in this cohort, back up this risk.
The millions of dollars donated to Israel Folau’s legal fund come from quiet Australians, whereas organisations such as GetUp are angry mobs.
A sportsman ought to be free to vilify minority groups, but corporate sponsors should shut up about damage to their image.
Faith-based schools have the right to fire a gay teacher, but Rugby Australia can’t terminate an employee for a breach of a code of conduct.
Selectively quoting a biblical prohibition on homosexuality is simply freedom of religion, but posting “lest we forget Manus” on Anzac Day shows bad taste and disrespect to the flag. Perhaps Folau’s supporters could reflect on Proverbs 20:23: “The Lord detests double standards: he is not pleased by dishonest scales.”
Angela Scheiner (Letters, 28/6) says Israel Folau’s “views have no place in our society”. Folau is not stating a view that is a discretionary artefact, but a religious belief inculcated in him from childhood and still taught by his church.
Until recently, that belief was accepted by a majority of Christian Australians as a matter of faith, even by those for whom it might have jarred against their inner convictions.
Rejection of a religious belief is a very difficult process and not all people evolve at the same rate. It is not so long ago that Penny Wong declared that marriage was between a man and a woman, and yet when she changed her mind she expected everyone else to immediately fall in line with her views. This is the same sort of intolerance at work.
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.