.

Something wrong with the link to the brief explanatory note on that bill.

Best to open the link to the article and click on the words "new law" in the second line of the second paragraph.

Sorry about that.

.

Banjo Paterson wrote: "If Israel Folau wants to express his opinion about LGBT people’s sexual orientations and practices, he should be free to do so, but in a calm and reasonable manner – not in an aggressive, threatening and offensive manner. He should refrain from is making outlandish public statements and trying to force his misinformed, archaic religious beliefs on others."

I agree that Israel Folau expressed his opinion derived from an archaic religious belief in an aggressive, threatening and offensive manner. It is nasty, stupid and offputting.

However, it seems to me that he has the right to do that. A better educated person with those same sentiments might be able to express those nasty sentiments in a much, more acceptable manner, but freedom of speech should not be limited to those with a smoother manner. In fact the very offensive nature of Folau's speech makes it more unlikely that his views will be forced on others.

Falou was expressing his thoughts and opinions.
In doing so, I don't think he gave much thought to the inflections in his delivery of his message.
The fact that 'some' people saw it as aggressive, threatening and offensive, is merely their opinion and reaction to what I, and many others, see as someone delivering an opinion which well describes 'his' feelings on the issue(s).
As for his beliefs being archaic.
Isn't that the case for 'all' religions?
His anti queer comments stem from an 'in your face' attitude these people have.
I never really had anything to say or bothered with them before because they did keep themselves and their acts of physical interactions behind closed doors.
But since they decided to engage in these activities in public, they have made many people uncomfortable around them.
In doing so they have left themselves open to criticism and condemnation.
I notice, Banjo suggesting, 'as long as they don't encroach on the lives of others'.
I agree, and always have, even at the behest of all our wallflowers and pansies on OLO.
So then to back Falou and Banjo, the queers ARE, by their very existence, and in todays new world of queer freedoms, 'encroaching on the lives of others'.
And we, like Falou, don't like it, so I applaud him saying what most people are too scared to say, but are thinking.

Dear davidf,

You wrote;

“I have changed my mind. I support the action of the black athletes in the United States who 'take a knee' during the national anthem to protest police killing unarmed blacks. I agree with their views. If I support them I must also support Israel Folau's right to express his views even if I do not agree with those views. “

I had used Kaepernick in a similar thread attempting to make the argument that while I don't agree with their actions the owners of the franchises deciding not to purchase his services, I felt they shouldn't be forced to do so. Rugby Australia has decided not to continue its contractual arrangements with Folau, not directly because of his religion, nor his race, nor his politics but because of the harm his actions could do to the brand.

His free speech hasn't been denied. He stand on a street corner and spout this stuff to his hearts content. He has over 300,000 Instagram followers. The vast proportion of those would have been gained via the high profile his employment with Rugby Australia afforded him.

Of the 300,000 there would of course be gay people, some of them dealing with a society still not fully accepting their sexuality. Some of them would be in their formative years, where bullying and vilification can end lives.

He may feel the meme he posted was not hateful yet it does not take much imagination to recognise it could be harmful. The black athletes “taking a knee” were championing a right while Folau was doing the opposite. I understand you come from a country that holds free speech in very high esteem. Here however, while supportive of the principle, we have allowed ourselves to be a little more circumspect. I do not accept there is an equivalence of the two forced purely on free speech grounds. Folau is promoting intolerance while the athletes in the US were raising the issue of intolerance. For me these most certainly need to be taken into account when personally deciding on this issue.

Steele,

You put your finger on it: sometimes, differing rights conflict. One person's right may be seen as offence, even oppression, by others. That other person's 'right' not to be offended may be seen as suppression of opinion by someone else. And they be all correct. Rights may throw up all sorts of contradictions and irreconcilabilities (Marx and Mao would say). That's life.

Joe

Dear SteeleRedux,

The black athletes were protesting intolerance while Folau was promoting intolerance. However, if the content of the speech determines whether it is allowed we don't have free speech. I don't like what Folau said nor the narrow religious prejudice which inspired his disgusting speech. However, if I am for free speech I cannot restrict speech to what I approve of or find acceptable. Others may not approve of or find acceptable what I do. If I have the right to shut them up they have the right to shut me up. If we have free speech we must allow speech that we think is loathsome.