singer171_AnthonyAu-YeungGettyImages_folaurugbyplayerhandovermouth

Culture

„Vlastní gól“ australské ragbyové unie

Jun 11, 2019 Peter Singer

MELBOURNE – V ragby sice nic jako vlastní gól neexistuje, ale unie Rugby Australia, vedoucí orgán tohoto sportu v Austrálii, se opravdu vynasnažila si jeden dát, když Israeli Folauovi ukončila smlouvu. Přišla tak o služby hvězdného obránce, který pro Austrálii zahrál 73 pětek.

Důvodem Ragby Australia k ukončení Folauovy kariéry bylo, že na svůj účet na Instagramu vyvěsil fotografii oznámení, které říká, že „alkoholiky, homosexuály, cizoložníky, lháře, smilníky, zloděje, ateisty a modloslužebníky… čeká peklo“. K němu Folau doplnil vlastní vyjádření: „Kdo žije v hříchu, skončí v pekle, pokud se nekaje. Ježíš Kristus tě miluje a dává ti čas, aby ses odvrátil od hříchu a přišel za ním.“

Ředitelka Rugby Australia Raelene Castleová v prohlášení po Folauově vyhazovu uvedla: „Komunikovala jsem přímo s hráči, abych jim dala jasně najevo, že Rugby Australia plně podporuje jejich právo na vlastní přesvědčení a aktuální události na tom nic nemění. Hovoříme ale o inkluzivnosti naší hry, hovoříme také o respektování rozdílů. Když říkáme, že ragby je hra pro všechny, myslíme to vážně.“

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to PS Digital

Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.

Subscribe Now

Peter Singer

Writing for PS since 2001
219 Commentaries

Peter Singer, Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, is Founder of the nonprofit organization The Life You Can Save. His books include Animal Liberation, Practical Ethics, The Ethics of What We Eat (with Jim Mason), Rethinking Life and Death, The Point of View of the Universe, co-authored with Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek, The Most Good You Can Do, Famine, Affluence, and Morality, One World Now, Ethics in the Real World, Why Vegan?, and Utilitarianism: A Very Short Introduction, also with Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek. In April 2021, W.W. Norton published his new edition of Apuleius’s The Golden Ass. In 2013, he was named the world's third "most influential contemporary thinker" by the Gottlieb Duttweiler Institute.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 7 Comments on this article

Paul Akhurst Jun 28, 2019

I do not often agree with Peter Singer, but in this I do.

But first, why is it only homosexuals who are offended by Folau’s remarks? Why are the drunks, adulterers, etc etc not also complaining? Is it because society considers all the others to be sinners and deserving of hell? Or is it that, unlike homosexuals they do not have a strong lobby built over many years?

Folau’s case should open up many avenues of discussion, not just his right or not to make a comment that some find offensive. If we confine our view to simply ARU v Folau then many issues in need of mature discussion will be missed with the risk that however this case is settled unfortunate precedents will be set.

The difference between an offensive comment and one that incites.
Folau’s comments do not incite anyone to take action against another person, they may offend more forgiving Christians and supporters of Falou’s list of sinners though individuals can choose to be offended or not. The only people who should fear Folau’s remarks are Born Again Christian sinners, and they should already be in fear of God and hell by the nature of their beliefs. Anyone from a more contemporary Christian faith, some other faiths and non-believers have no reason to fear. Had Folau sought to incite hatered or worse against sinners in the present world then there would be a cause for concern and possibly a breach of law not just an employment contract. Comments that incite harm on another are not generally acceptable and is freedom without responsibility, expressing a view with which another disagrees is called freedom of speech.

What right do employers have to impose views on employees?
In a world already worried about the power of multi-nationals this should be an issue of great concern. If an employer’s world view can be imposed how long before we are told to photo our ballot papers for review by the HR manager? Whilst it may appear self-evident that an employee speaking on-behalf of or representing an employer should toe the company line, it would be a serious infringement on the freedom of speech if this were to apply to comments made as a private citizen. Some may argue that Folau only has a platform because of his association with the ARU, this may be so but he did not claim speak on their behalf nor wearing a Wallaby jumper. It might also be argued that people should not work for nor be employed by companies with opposing views. For some individuals this might be a true expression of conscience, but were does it stop? Would it be acceptable not to employee someone because of colour or because they vote Green? Whilst individuals can choose who they work for, to allow companies to discriminate other than on factors that effect a person’s ability to perform a job would set a dangerous precedent. If Folau relentlessly pushed his views during training sessions and so disrupted the team then the ARU might have a case to drop him from the squad as they could any disruptive player but to sack him for his views rather than his actions can only be described as discrimination.

What of religion?
A number of Christian and non-Christian religious groups hold views that might be described as anti-homosexual (and anti other things too, but there is not space to go there). If Folau’s actions are deemed to be an offence against (a section of) society, then all those religious groups are tarred by the same brush and must be broken-up and declared illegal without delay. Clearly a ridiculous scenario. In a tolerant society alternative opinions are allowed and opposed with reasoned argument - something that is lacking in the ARU v Folau situation. The argument has all but moved on from the alleged sins of homosexuals to employment law. The ARU would have been much better off restating their position on an inclusive society, making clear that all players were expected to treat each other with respect and stating that any player unable to do so should withdraw from the Australian squad or would not be selected. Such a strategy would have moved the debate from the very narrow field of homosexuality to the broader and more important issue of tolerance - the ARU should be able to tolerant Folau’s view so long as he is able to tolerate the views of the ARU and his team mates.

We are entering dangerous waters because of an over-reaction to the (mis-informed) comments of one person.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Tom Joad Jun 11, 2019

If Rugby AU had laughed off its biggest star’s bigoted remarks, what message would it have sent to the kids playing the sport? Would it be ok for them to tell a Christian gay teammate that he has to repent his sin or he is going to hell? That’s possibly not the best way to create an inclusive environment and Rugby AU is entitled under the law to run its organization as it sees fit. They are prioritizing the future over the present, a move that most people wouldn’t consider an own goal.

Folau made a conscious decision to prioritize his right to free speech over adhering to his employer’s code of conduct. He can continue preaching his first century of the Christian era beliefs as he wishes, just not wearing the Aussie colors.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.