Rugby Australia board has failed on Folau and should fall on its sword

Rugby Australia chief executive Raelene Castle. Picture: Tim Hunter.

With a World Cup in the offing and a Super Rugby competition in which the rugby family appears increasingly uninterested, Rugby Australia continues on this mindless prosecution of Israel Folau.

It is extraordinary to reflect how, in this country, we have managed difficult situations like this in the past without such a conspicuous lack of leadership and the consequential inability to resolve the issue. We seem to be in a situation where conflict between religious and other views, on certain issues, has spiralled out of control.

Express a religious view on issues that others find “offensive” and there are cascading and immediate demands that someone be sacked. Yet there are any number of existing conflicts of opinion where debate and protest are the order of the day without the same degree of intolerance as has been displayed towards Folau.

The intractable debate over abortion has raged for decades. Both sides are outspoken, publicly and privately, and not shy of protesting to promote their views. The conflict of opinions on this issue is also equally as personal as someone’s sexuality; after all, it deals with a woman’s body. The debate is also potentially hurtful and involves religious views given that much of the objection to abortion is based on religious beliefs.

Yet somehow society is able to incorporate these opposing views, and the expression of them, one largely religious, the other not, without calling for those who express the possibly unpopular religious view to be sacked.

Why is the same tolerance not extended to Folau’s recitation of extracts from the Bible?

The issues of freedom of speech and to express one’s religious views must win out and Rugby Australia must show leadership and common sense to celebrate these cornerstones of Australian society. While Rugby Australia operates in denial of these freedoms, the situation gets more costly and damaging to individuals and the game.

Christopher Hitchens was a controversial British-American author, essayist, journalist and social critic. It was he who said: “Freedom of expression must include the licence to offend.”

If, as a nation, we want freedom of speech, then the corollary is that people will be offended.

If Folau has offended some people with his remarks but he hasn’t defamed them or slandered them or pushed his views down anyone else’s throat, then he must be within his rights. And if, as Rugby Australia seems to want to suggest, there is a code of conduct that he has “breached”, then that code of conduct merely says you must: “Use social media appropriately.”

Surely in this age where Christianity is under siege, it must be appropriate for a player to express his Christian views whether they be, in the eyes of some, disagreeable or antiquated.

But then, there is also a coaches’ code which argues that coaches must “treat everyone equally regardless of gender or gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnicity, cultural or religious background, age or disability. Any form of bullying, harassment or discrimination has no place in rugby”.

Unless words have lost their meaning, Folau is being discriminated against on the basis of his “cultural and religious background”. And he was ruled out of the Waratahs and the World Cup campaign before being allowed to state his case.

There is another code for administrators, that you “do not make any public comment that is critical of … a player, (an) employee of any club or a union … or on any matter that is, or is likely to be, the subject of an investigation or disciplinary process …”

But Raelene Castle, Michael Cheika and Daryl Gibson were publicly critical of Folau before he had a hearing and even before an independent panel had been constituted. Why aren’t these people in breach of the code?

The code also provides that “any investigation or disciplinary proceedings (must) ensure that no inaccurate and/or misleading information is provided by you during the course of an investigation or hearing under this code …”

Castle is claiming that Folau agreed to stop making controversial posts on social media when she had spoken to him previously. This is “misleading”.

At the “previous” meeting with Castle, there was no formal warning to Folau, no punishment, just a reassurance to continue on and “be respectful”.

No one is more respectful than Folau. Yet when he was summoned in relation to the latest episode, the meeting lasted about 10 minutes.

Castle arrived with lawyers. Israel is grateful that the Rugby Union Players Association CEO was there. But Folau was simply told there was no way forward.

Allegations have subsequently been made that the social media post was done on purpose.

He was told that if he took the post down, all would be well. But as he told me, to do that would be to “deny my faith”.

He said he was offered a settlement but gently argued, always in soft tones, that this is not about money but about principle.

He has heard from no one, not from Gibson, the NSW coach; not from Michael Hooper, the Australian captain; not from David Pocock, a former captain.

Yet he was merely stating his beliefs and his Christianity. How dare he quote from the Bible.

As I said last week, quoting a text that would have been repeated over and over again in cathedrals around the world, Paul’s words to the Church of Corinth.

But to argue as Castle has, that Folau agreed to stop making “controversial posts on social media” is, according to Israel, completely untrue.

If Castle has put out misleading information to make it look as if she is in control, then she is in breach of the same code.

If Folau is in breach of rugby’s code of conduct, so too are Cameron Clyne, Castle and others.

But it is worth pointing out that such codes play second fiddle to the law. Folau has a right to express his religious beliefs under Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which came into force in 1976.

Article 18 of the ICCPR provides:

1. “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom … either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.”

Simply, Folau is being denied this right; to say nothing of a sponsor embracing a commercial arrangement with outfits like Emirates Airlines, China Eastern Airlines and China Southern Airlines, countries with appalling human rights records, particularly in relation to homosexuality.

Mark Latham, recently elected to the NSW parliament, will be moving a motion at the next sitting of parliament to enshrine in law, among other provisions, that the parliament of NSW “supports the basic human rights of NSW workers to express political, cultural and religious opinions in their private time, away from their place of work, without suffering employment penalties and sanctions (and) condemns Rugby Australia for its denial of religious freedom to Folau, well away from his workplace, and the message it has sent to other Christian rugby players that they, too, are not welcome in the game (and) condemns Rugby Australia for the way in which it has redefined the Bible as a form of vilification and hate speech.”

In a significant point, the Latham motion, “calls on the NSW government to develop leasing practices for its sporting grounds and facilities that ensure all NSW residents are eligible to participate in sporting codes and games and that none are excluded due to their political, cultural or religious opinions.”

The sadness in all this is not Israel’s alone.

He is a gifted and gentle soul with not a sinew of hate in his body.

While he is at peace with his god he says to me, simply and plaintively: “They make me feel like a murderer.”

Yet even murderers and rapists get a reduction in their terms.

As one rugby fan has written, “our reputation as a great sporting nation is going down the tube … why does a guy who, with a punch, breaks another player’s jaw get banned for six weeks, yet a guy who says something that others don’t like gets banned for life?”

To every problem there must be a solution. Invariably in life, those who create a crisis are then incapable of resolving it.

And so it is with the board of Rugby Australia. They have a phalanx of legal advisers whom they can’t afford. But even they could not design a code of conduct that works in such a way that no one is offended.

Rugby Australia presume to argue, apparently, that the game is bigger than Folau.

Folau would be the first to admit that.

But equally, the game is bigger than the board of Rugby Australia.

They would be the last to admit that!

Given that it appears they won’t admit they are wrong and given that rugby and its proud legacy are being destroyed, the board should simply say, this is a problem we don’t believe we can satisfactorily resolve, nor, we believe, should this be pursued to its ultimate legal conclusion.

The board can yet salvage something in the interests of the game.

Resign graciously. Allow a new administration to address all the problems of the game, including this, and start again on an equal footing honouring the twin principles of fairness to everybody and the preservation of our game.

Where we are today can be simply expressed.

It is either goodbye the board of Rugby Australia or goodbye democracy and goodbye freedom.

This must stop before it gets worse.