Rugby Australia takes Shorten’s road to oblivion in hellish Folau saga

Israel Folau was sacked by Rugby Australia this week. Picture: Getty Images

Those running Rugby Australia have become the Bill Shortens of sport — talking a self-indulgent game, buoyed by their army of media apologists but dramatically removed from reality.

I suppose, though, if you only talk to yourself, you will always enjoy full support.

But if Rugby Australia, like Bill Shorten, cared to talk to the battlers and strugglers and volunteers about the Israel Folau fiasco, they might learn how far off the mark they are as they stare into a Rugby abyss.

I have written several stories for this newspaper. They have enjoyed almost three million “views”. If you add the responses to those on my Facebook page, the total of comments is almost 50,000.

But in the narcissistic world of rugby administration, Rugby Australia don’t care about people such as Michael who writes: “I’m a fornicator, idolater, an atheist so I have three times the reason to be offended … but I’m not. Lighten up everyone”.

Hugh says: “For once I agree with Jones. I wonder if players have been lent on or encouraged to side with the boss.”

Andrew: “Well said Mr Jones. Freedom of expression is a right. Rugby’s merely a game. Unfortunately no longer played in heaven because playing it there might upset someone. Izzy is not claiming he’s bigger than the game. Keep up the fight, Izzy.”

Anthony: “For more than 50 years I’ve supported both codes of rugby. Unfortunately, now, I couldn’t care less about union, the Reds or the Wallabies.”

Tom: “Totally agree and have been telling them, and that is the whole board, the CEO and the coaching staff should step down immediately. We need people who have a vision and a passion for the game and who will take time to develop the code instead of sitting on leather seats … bring Twiggy in to fix it up.”

Bernard: “I suspect that Rugby Australia are only reluctantly taking this action because they fear they’ll be labelled politically incorrect if they do not and consequently will be vilified by the thought and speech police. Folau is merely stating what he believes and he is entitled to publicly inform others of his beliefs. Even though I do not accept his beliefs, I consider that he’s performing a valuable service by informing me of his position on these matters, otherwise I would never know where he was coming from.”

Josh: “Who are all these outraged and offended, apart from (Alan) Joyce and a few serial activists? I’ve spoken to over 50 different people over the last couple of days … listened to multiple radio stations, watched a bit of TV. And not an offended person to be seen or heard anywhere … talk about a massive over-reaction by Rugby Australia and the coach Michael Cheika. These people are not fit for the job and they are the only people that need to be terminated and shown the door.”.

Well despite all of this, Israel Folau has had his contract terminated. The three-person panel found he had committed a “high level breach of his contract” for quoting the Bible on social media.

He has now rightly decided to bypass the appeal process. The matter will now go to the fair dinkum courts. I repeat what I’ve said many times.

It is not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with Israel. It’s a matter of understanding and respecting his views, views that are shared by many other Polynesian footballing Christians.

We may think the views are antiquated. We may find difficulty with them. But if you don’t believe in heaven and hell, then no one will go to hell, so you can’t be offended.

But, if you believe in heaven and hell then the authority is the Bible so you surely can’t be offended by someone quoting from the world’s most read text.

Of course I’ve spoken to Folau. Often. I am not the only one tired of the erosion of free speech in this country.

I’ve had people write to me since the election on Saturday to say how disturbed they are to think that in the lead-up to the election they were frightened to express a view because they knew they would be vilified.

Rugby Australia talks about diversity and inclusiveness. What they really mean is uniformity and exclusion for someone with whom they disagree.

We have reached a dark place.

In a recent sermon Folau said he was resigned to having his contract terminated and with it the associated loss of income. He said it was the work of Satan that was tempting him to bow to pressures and take his social media posts down, which could have saved him from a high-level breach.

He said: “There have been many opportunities to potentially make the situation a little bit easier for me … I could go back and play the game … but the way Satan works is he offers you the stuff that could look good to the eye and make you feel comfortable and if you follow that path, all the worries and troubles will go away … but it’s always the will of God that comes first.”

It is beyond disgraceful that a young man can be “wiped out” simply for holding such views.

He said: “Such an opportunity had presented itself. It crossed my mind.” But as he told me, it would mean he would be in breach of his faith.

We read the hypocrisy of rugby administrators “reaching out” to Pacific players. What does that mean? Encouraging them to shut up, keep quiet, practise their faith behind closed doors.

I have to say I feel some sympathy for Raelene Castle. Surely she works under the direction of the board and the chairman, Cameron Clyne. They must therefore have approved of her decision to dismiss Folau.

“Where,” as one writer asks, “is that bold hero, the chairman? He should be standing beside her accepting his share of the odium and the slings and arrows of dis gusted, disenchanted former Rugby supporters and ticket-buyers.”

Clyne, being Clyne, has become invisible.

What on earth does Castle mean when she says, “I’ve communicated directly with the players to make it clear Rugby Australia fully supports their rights to their own beliefs and nothing that has happened has changed that. But when we’re talking about inclusiveness in our game we’re talking about respecting differences …”

That could only be the language of someone utterly confused by the decision she’s taken.

“Respecting differences” means excommunicating Folau because he holds a view different to the Board of Rugby Australia and its sponsor.

A Polynesian Christian apparently can’t publicly express his Biblical views about sin and hell.

Well may we ask what other views are they not free to express.

Or is the sacking because the views were expressed publicly. Would Folau have been sacked if he had expressed the views in church?

I made the point last week that article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which came into force in 1976, provides: “Everyone should 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”.

Folau has been denied that right; to say nothing of a sponsor embracing a commercial arrangement with another airline whose country has an appalling human rights record in relation to women and homosexuality.

I have made the point before that Mark Latham, recently elected to the NSW parliament, will be moving a motion at the next sitting to enshrine in law among other provisions that the parliament “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”.

But more importantly, Latham makes the point that I have made many times, that no entity, in particular Rugby Australia, should be free to lease sporting grounds and facilities unless it can ensure that all residents are eligible to participate in whatever sporting code or game and that no one should be excluded because of their political, cultural or religious opinions.

Indeed as long-time rugby writer Spiro Zavos pointed out recently: “Point 1.3 of the code of conduct for players says, ‘Treat everyone equally, fairly and with dignity regardless of gender or gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnicity, cultural or religious background, age or disability …”

It is in fact Rugby Australia who have violated the code of conduct in respect to their treatment of Folau.

But on the same day that Folau was banned from rugby for life by RA, who would have you believe it had something to do with “values”, the Test hooker Tolu Latu was charged with drink driving, allegedly slumped behind the wheel of his car at 4.30am, driving on a suspended licence. He played for the Waratahs at the weekend.

At the same time, another Australian, Nick Kyrgios, swore, abused an umpire, abused other tennis players and threw a chair onto the court in the Italian Open.

He got a piddling fine but he certainly wasn’t kicked out forever.

Perhaps that makes sense to some. It makes no sense to me.

Well, where to from here?

Termination now allows Folau to challenge RA in court for breach of any number of laws. RA lose on two fronts — a palpable waste of money and a disgraceful waste of talent and a total erosion of trust in those who run the game.

Over and over again members of the rugby family are saying that freedom of speech, freedom of religion and the freedom of grassroots rugby are cornerstones of Australian society.

Is Rugby Australia going to impose its so-called code of conduct on all clubs, all players, volunteers and supporters? If so, how?

Or only Folau.

Does the brave and gifted Kurtley Beale get punished because he says he’d willingly play with Folau?

Perhaps the final word belongs to another member of the rugby family, one of the many ignored fans. “Why does a guy who, with a punch, breaks another’s jaw get banned for six weeks and a guy who says something that others don’t like gets banned for life? I know there is a lot of power in words but this is ridiculous.”

Amen to that, if I’m allowed to say that.