Does the furore over the Manly pride jersey sound familiar?

Manly’s self-imposed problem goes far beyond the issue of players’ conflicting religious beliefs, writes The Mocker. Picture: Manly Digital

It would be an understatement to say the reaction to the Manly Sea Eagles’ rainbow dalliance was not what club officials expected. You have to feel sympathy for them. After all, they appeared to have done the necessary background work to launch the club’s inaugural pride jersey, the first NRL club to do so.

They had obtained the NRL licensing team and the Manly board’s endorsement. They also got the go-ahead from the football department of the club. They brought in Hollywood stars Hugh Jackman and Chris Hemsworth to help with PR. In short, they consulted just about everyone except the coaching staff and the players. You know, the ones expected to wear the jersey. The first they knew of the decision was when they read about it on social media.

But that was just a minor oversight. Inexplicably, however, many of the Manly players cannot accept their perspective counts for nothing. Consequently seven of them will sit out Thursday night’s match against the Sydney Roosters rather than wear the pride jersey. Given this matter will fester for the remainder of the season, the team can forget their chances of making the top eight.

If only there had been some way for the club to ascertain how the players felt when this policy was just a proposal. If only had someone twigged that half the team belong to an ethnic and cultural demographic that is deeply conservative and religious. And if only there had been some precedent in Australia to alert the club how players from that group would react.

But let’s be clear: the players are the ones being unreasonable. At least that is what former Canterbury Bulldogs player and England captain James Graham reckons. “For me personally I think it is an overreaction from the players,” Graham told Fox Sports’ NRL 360. “It is just a few colours on a jersey. It is not worth missing a game over.” That’s the same James Graham who received a 12-week suspension for biting the ear of Melbourne Storm player Billy Slater during the 2012 grand final.

What this policy amounts to cannot be accurately summarised as “just a few colours on a jersey”. It would also be simplistic to say this was simply about supporting vulnerable members of the gay community. The rainbow colours represent LGBTQIA, a nomenclature of disparate groups. For many in that classification, its purpose is to emphasise that sexuality is innate and cannot be overridden. For others, it is a platform for advancing an ideology.

As such, Manly’s self-imposed problem goes far beyond the issue of players’ conflicting religious beliefs. In adopting these colours, it also gives comfort to the ideologies they represent. For example, does the club believe that subjective beliefs trump science? Does the club agree with activists who hold that biological lesbians refusing to date trans-women are hateful? What happens to a player who publicly states it is nonsensical to claim that some men can give birth?

But none of these questions matter to the club’s defenders. Criticise the decision to go ahead without consulting the players and you are likely to be met with an exaggerated sigh followed by “Because it’s 2022,” or “I cannot believe we are having this discussion”. It is a repeat of the cynical and censorious tactics used by ‘yes’ campaigners in the same-sex marriage plebiscite. We cannot allow the ‘no’ campaigners to speak because lives are at stake here. Sound familiar?

Publicly, activists are bemoaning and decrying the actions of the dissenting players. In reality, the outcome is a win for them. The players, despite their wish to attend the match, have been warned off the ground due to security reasons. No longer can they reject rainbow ideology provided they are discreet about it. Now they must expressly affirm LGBTQIA mantra or suffer constant opprobrium.

But this is about inclusivity and diversity, activists will insist. If you are tolerant, you will welcome the club’s decision. If you do not, you are prejudiced. And they can count on the media to support this false dichotomy. Take for example Nine’s Wide World of Sports journalist Matt Bungard. According to him, the players refusing to don the jersey were “homophobic”.

I don't want to hear one single thing about 'respecting other people's opinions' or using religion as a crutch to hide behind while being homophobic.

No issues playing at a stadium covered in alcohol and gambling sponsors, which is also a sin. What a joke https://t.co/9K4N1HlWSb

— Matt Bungard (@TheMattBungard) July 25, 2022

And there is nothing like an angry denunciation by Sydney Morning Herald columnist Peter FitzSimons to exemplify the progressive version of tolerance. “What the hell is wrong with you blokes that you don’t get it?,” he wrote in reference to the seven Manly dissenters. “Your religion? I tell you nothing you don’t know when I say that it seems more than passing weird,” he sneered, adding they had “embarrass(ed) the game, the club and themselves”.

But being a magnanimous and tolerant fellow, he does not believe their careers should suffer.

“For all that, when it comes to what to do with them, I wouldn’t sack them outright,” he wrote. Really? That’s exactly what he insinuated in a tweet the day before.

The short answer for all seven should be: "No probs, and good luck with your new club!" https://t.co/cpSKIkoq2X

— Peter FitzSimons (@Peter_Fitz) July 25, 2022

Inconveniently for FitzSimons, he had taken the opposite stance earlier this year when AFLW Giants player Haneen Zreika decided she could not wear the club’s pride jumper because it clashed with her Islamic faith and her community’s beliefs. Gently chiding her for this “regrettable” and “disappointing” decision, he considered the matter at an end.

“Ms Zreika … is quietly saying that, purely personally, she is not comfortable wearing the Pride jersey because she believes it contravenes her religion,” he wrote. In other words, nothing to see here.

As I wrote earlier this year, I did not believe Zreika did anything wrong. Fortunately, she was supported by her club. Contrast that with the treatment of Jason Saab, Christian Tuipulotu, Josh Schuster, Haumole Olakau’atu, Josh Aloiai, Tolutau Koula and Toafofoa Sipley, who were ambushed by the announcement they would be wearing a pride jersey. It appears officials deliberately did so, believing that presenting this as a fait accompli would forestall protest. That was insulting and the club was right to apologise to them.

FitzSimons, incidentally, bristles when readers contrasted his firebrand treatment of the Manly players with his kid glove treatment of Zreika. Those accusing him of hypocrisy, he wrote this week, are “space cadets”.

Fitz, all I can say is that you’re the one talking out of Uranus.