World of difference between Folau and Banerji cases
Katrina Grace Kelly says Israel Folau should take note of the High Court decision that deemed the sacking of Michaela Banerji for her social media posts as justified (“Folau take note: High Court backs boss in social media sacking”, 10/8).
There is a world of difference between the two. Folau was in his own time, posting quotes from the Bible that underpin his religious faith. His actions had neither connection nor contradiction to the purpose of his employment. In delivering on the field of play, Folau was arguably Rugby Australia’s best employee and would only attract more adherents to the sport.
The same could not be said for Banerji. Her actions were aimed to attack and undermine the purpose of her employment. One would expect the interactions of a public servant to be consistent with government policy. It is evident Banerji disagreed with government policy.
If one speaks with an employee of the Australian Taxation Office, one would expect to be given fair and unbiased advice on tax. If an ATO employee was fervently opposed to tax policy, where would we be? Similarly, were it to involve an institution such as ASIO, the disloyal employee could be committing treason. No High Court in its right mind could support retention of employment in that situation. If Folau did not like rugby, he could have walked away from the job. If Banerji did not like the direction of her employer, she could have walked before she was pushed.
Katrina Grace Kelly says “this is a win for business and government”. And she says: “Let it be clear, this decision is not a blow for free speech. All Australians have the right to freedom of expression.”
She should have added providing it is in line with the intellectual advancement of the thought police at the ministry of truth.
In Folau’s case he did not criticise or post detrimental comments to the disadvantage of his employer Rugby Australia. The loss of a player of Folau’s stature could be instrumental in lost ticket sales.
His meme has had little effect with no public outcry from the other supposed adversaries listed. In his eyes, does his last line not say “repent”, perhaps not a message of inclusivity or one that most would use, but a blunt, direct message of forewarning, love and caring for his fellow humans.
Two arguments against Katrina Grace Kelly’s view were made by Urbain Grandier, priest of Loudun, in about 1620, and summarised by Aldous Huxley in the context of breaching celibacy. The first is: “A promise to perform the impossible is not binding. For the young male, continence is impossible.” Second is the maxim that we are not bound by promises extorted under duress. The priest does not join the church for the love of celibacy, but to practise a profession.
It is the nature of Israel Folau’s belief that he is bound to expound upon his religion. It is impossible for him to do otherwise. He signed the contract under duress — it was the only way to practise his profession. The Michaela Banerji case is a different kettle of fish.
I agree with Katrina Grace Kelly that the High Court decision in the Michaela Banerji case was sensible and just, but don’t agree it is ominous for Israel Folau. Banerji was an employee in the Immigration Department and was critical of government policy. Folau was a rugby player who tweeted his religious beliefs — albeit beliefs that his employer, RA’s sponsors and most of the population don’t share.
Kelly says that “when taking money from an employer, we must comply with all terms and conditions the money comes with”. Surely she must accept there are some terms and conditions that employers cannot impose on employees. That is what the Folau case is about.
Despite Katrina Grace Kelly’s contention otherwise, the Folau case has merit not withstanding the High Court decision in the Michaela Banerji case. Surely an employer can’t have the right to sack workers for making social media posts the employer doesn’t approve of. The implications of this decision, if Kelly is interpreting it correctly, are absurd. It would most surely be an attack on free speech. Yes, an employer is entitled to insist on loyalty. But that is not what the Folau case is about.
Kamikaze cricket
While I’m inspired by the youthful optimism of Sam Konstas and the potential benefits of his kamikaze approach to batting at the MCG, I am totally pessimistic about the kamikaze approach to energy policy by Chris Bowen.
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.