‘Shut up’ in the Name of ‘Tolerance’

Since the re-definition of marriage, no one is denying the validity of the “slippery-slope” argument anymore. Instead, they’re simply shaking their heads and wondering, “Has the world has gone mad?” It seems as though the world is hurtling down the slope faster than the Gadarene swine. Media pundits, business leaders, as well as current—and former—sporting heroes all seem to be in front of the pack but, as Andrew Bolt points out, one of the most galling aspects is how much Australians are being silenced by the leftist cultural elites.

Let me attempt to further cut through all the white noise by suggesting a list of ten people and corporations—who have pitilessly joined in on the “pack-attack” against Folau:

1/ Raelene Castle and Rugby Australia. You know we’re living in strange times when Peter Singer—the atheist and infamous Princeton ethicist—comes to the defence of a devout Christian such as Folau. But that’s precisely what he did when he accused Rugby Australia of kicking an “own goal”. As Singer writes:

As this example shows – and as John Stuart Mill argued in his classic On Liberty – once we allow, as a ground for restricting someone’s freedom of speech or action, the claim that someone else has been offended by it, freedom is in grave danger of disappearing entirely. After all, it is very difficult to say anything significant to which no one could possibly take offense. Mill had in mind restrictions imposed by the state, but when employers dismiss employees who make controversial utterances, that is also a threat to freedom of expression – especially when the employer has a monopoly on the employment of workers with special skills, as Rugby Australia does.

 2/ GoFundMe — with its rainbow flag flying — gave the Folau camp the biggest handball he’s received since a short stint with the GWS Giants. They punted his page and sparked a situation the anti-Folau mob feared most: widespread and generous support for the man they tried to make disappear. The public perception was of being controlled — you can donate to this cause, but not that one — and if there’s one thing Australians have more in common than cash, it’s a hatred of being told what they can and can’t do. 

3/ Roy Masters. The former rugby league coach of Wests (1978-81) and the Dragons (1982-87) wrote in The Sydney Morning Herald, “What’s the odds any surplus would have been used to buy another property?” But as Neil James Foster, associate professor at Newcastle University, wrote on Facebook: 

This is a disgraceful article attacking Israel Folau. It claims he “abandoned the Wallabies in a World Cup year”. Umm, no, RA abandoned him for his comments based on his religious beliefs expressed on his own social media page. And then it basically says he is a liar by suggesting that any “surplus” from his attempt to raise funds to defend himself in a fight instituted by RA, would have been used to buy another house. No, the now closed GFM site clearly indicated that the funds would be used for legal proceedings, it just said that donors did not have the right to direct *how* the legal proceedings should be run.

4/ Peter Beattie. The Chairman of the ARL Commission really threw Folau into the fiery furnace when he prohibited him from even returning to Rugby League. Cue the progressive Newspeak that, “We are an inclusive game with respect for all” (except those we exclude). If only Folau had committed a less serious crime such as sexual assault, domestic violence or even just drug abuse. But paraphrasing a passage of the Bible is apparently a bridge too far for the ARL. 

5/ Peter FitzSimons. There’s probably not a week that goes by where FitzSimons doesn’t have a shot at either Folau or the religious in one form or another. But as Andrew Bolt pointed out, FitzSimons was “typically unfair” and “typically wrong” in saying that the majority of the Australian people would not support Folau. What’s more, as Rita Panahi wrote in the Herald Sun: 

The Folaus should thank their many high-profile media detractors, from preachy commentators determined to miss the point to former sportspeople suffering relevance deprivation syndrome to a grown man who inexplicably dresses like a pirate and gets everything wrong. 

6/ Drew Mitchell. Who needs enemies when you’ve got former teammates like this? Rather than give Folau a call to discuss the issue, instead of putting his body on the line, Mitchell retreated to the safety of Twitter. But as Will Swanton wrote about Mitchell’s tweet in The Australian: 

That’s an extraordinarily bitter and juvenile message from one ex-Wallaby to another. The more I think about it, the more it comes across as complete nonsense. 1. Mitchell says Folau has broken the terms of his contract. I’m guessing Mitchell has not laid eyes on Folau’s contract. 2. Mitchell says the ill and injured children are in a position they have not chosen. Is he implying that Folau thinks differently? 3. Mitchell accuses Folau of believing he deserves money more than those kids. When has Folau said this? 4. Mitchell says the matter is now about Folau’s greed. That’s a big call. A personal call. A nasty call. Made from a distance. Folau’s response? Again, respectful silence. 

7/ Liz Ellis. Things definitely took a turn for the worse when Ellis had a go at Folau’s wife. But then Ellis swiftly backpedalled on her original statement that it was “not good enough” for Netball administrators to let Maria Folau offer public support to her husband. And in an article—published in Fairfax Media no less—Ellis wrote: 

I understand that my tweet was interpreted to mean specifically that Maria was not welcome. I get it. It was poorly worded from that point of view. I am devastated to think that the way I wrote it may have suggested the sort of bigotry that I passionately dislike. I don’t want to fight bigotry with bigotry.

8/ ANZ. Whereas Liz Ellis had the good sense to back down somewhat, the ANZ bank doubled-down on the issue. I know, I know especially after the Royal Commission into the unethical behaviour of our banking system. One can’t help but feel that it’s a bit rich for this bank to be taking the high moral ground on anything. But this is the ‘wokeocracy’ we’re talking about here, and having been blinded by their own virtue-signalling that’s precisely what they did. As Jack Houghton wrote in The Daily Telegraph: 

…ANZ — the largest sponsor of New Zealand’s domestic netball competition — revealed it approached Maria’s bosses to complain because the Kiwi athlete had shared a link to the fundraiser of her husband, who is engaged in an unlawful termination claim against Rugby Australia.

“We do not support the views of Silver Fern Maria Folau and have made our views known to her employer Netball NZ,” ANZ media manager Stefan Herrick said in a statement.

Further, according to The Australian, the Health Insurance company HCF—the sponsor of Maria Folau’s team. the Adelaide Thunderbirds, has also publicly denounced her stance in supporting her husband. But note the latent hypocrisy in the bank’s media statement (emphasis mine):

There is no place in our society for discrimination of any kind, including on the basis of gender, religious belief, age, race or sexual orientation.

9/ Peter van Onselen. You’ve gotta hand it PVO. He really knows how to lay the boot in, especially when he knows that it’s completely safe to do so. As soon as Folau had his contract with Rugby Australia torn up, van Onselen tweeted:

10/ Scott Morrison and Anthony Albanese. Unfortunately, both the Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader have refused to be drawn on the issue, with Scott Morrison claiming that, “iit has already had enough oxygen”. But as Martyn Iles, the Managing Director of The Australian Christian Lobby, rightly argued, “they cannot wash their hands’’ of Israel Folau’s case “like Pontius Pilate”.

Now, there are a number of other examples I could give, but I think this particular decalogue makes the point. It is now demonstrably clear that our media and cultural elites think that people, particular those of faith, need to simply shut-up and stay in the closet. However, it’s once again time for all of those proverbial “quiet Australians”, just as they did on May 18, to start making some noise while we still have the freedom to do so.




12 thoughts on “‘Shut up’ in the Name of ‘Tolerance’

  • pgang says:

    How many times must it be said? This is our enlightened humanism at play. At the moment it’s soft humanism. It will become hardened idealism. Put God back in charge. Get your butt back into church and start taking our Christian heritage seriously on a personal level.

  • SB says:

    The most important point to note is that yet again our ‘conservative’ politicians are cowering in the corner, hoping that nobody will notice their silence. Don’t blame the Left for destroying our society; blame ‘conservatives’ for doing nothing to stop them.

  • ianl says:

    I have no regard for superstition, religious or otherwise, so Folau’s rhetoric is just an irrelevant noise in the din of public hubbub.

    Of course he is entitled to say it, as we are entitled to ignore it, laugh at it.
    If it is alleged that he breached some condition of his employment contract, he is entitled to test this in court.

    If people wish to freely donate to the undoubtedly huge expense in this advancing legal saga, then of course they may do so. Peter Ridd (JCU) did exactly that when sacked for an alleged breach of employment conditions and so far his day in court has proved fruitful for him.

    What perturbs me, quite deeply, is the spiteful hypocrisy of the GoFundMe organisation and, worse, the speed with which this hypocrisy was engaged into gear when it became obvious Folau’s case would attract sufficient donated funds to allow it to proceed through the courts.

    It is quite obvious that the “wokes” fear open court argument and as a corollary GoFundMe must be made a “woke” ally.

  • Lawrie Ayres says:

    By the way the quiet Australians reacted to GFM shutting down Israels page and ACL giving an alternative avenue they have shouted loudly to those who do not want to hear including the politicians. They have said that we have taken a stance what about you Scott Morrison, what about you Mr Albanese? Where do you stand?

  • Wyndham Dix says:

    In the matter of Israel Folau, Scott Morrison and Anthony Albanese might be observing Mark Twain’s dictum “It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.” In saying that which follows I am happy to be judged by the same standard.

    Over the years, politicians have cultivated the soil in which the Folau mess took root. They are bereft of ideas about fixing it.

    We need far fewer laws telling us what and what not to say and do, save the obvious exceptions concerning life, limb and property. Any attempt to prescribe religious freedom and proscribe attacks against it will be just another recipe for disaster. Pharisaism today is as much to be deplored as it was 2,000 years ago.

    Alfred the Great, 9th century King of Wessex and later Anglo Saxons, inverted the Golden Rule with this principle: “What ye will that other men should not do to you, do ye not to other men.” Would that ostensibly smarter people almost twelve centuries later could rub along together with this simple creed.

    We don’t need it enshrined in law. Rather, let it be in the form of moral suasion as the then non-politicised National (or Road?) Safety Council of Australia did in my youth in the 1940s with the slogan for motorists “Courtesy is Catching.”

    The One from whose birth we continue to reckon the years of our Gregorian calendar gave us just two precepts for regulating our lives: love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, and a second like it, namely, love your neighbour as yourself.

    But the modern mind, wise in its own conceits, rejects God and His providential ordering of the universe in which we live, including the obliquity of planet Earth, daily rotation on its axis, and annual solar orbit, all to give us, among other things, the four seasons and food we eat. These things all just, well, ‘happen’. They are ‘there’, without a thought as to ‘how’.

    As pgang says, “…start taking our Christian heritage seriously on a personal level.”

  • Lacebug says:

    Laceyunderpants (off topic). I notice that Angela Merkel was getting all shaky again. Some pundits think it may be Alzheimer’s. I think it’s the realisation she allowed one million people to invade her country

  • Doubting Thomas says:

    It’s surprising how many of the outspoken commentariat seem anxious to assert their atheism, apparently in fear of not being taken seriously by their target audience. Unfortunately it does not reinforce their inherently stupid arguments to assert or imply, as they do, that the tenets of Christianity are irrelevant in this modern “woke” age. Quite the reverse.

  • lloveday says:

    lacebug, I think it looks like the effects of short term alcohol abstention. She is known as a heavy drinker, even praised for her ability to hold her alcohol by Jens Stoltenberg (“..those long nights in Copenhagen’) and the videos I’ve seen of her are very reminiscent of a friend (RIP) who was the heaviest drinker our group had ever seen – in the words of the manager of his local “We have drinkers, heavy drinkers and X”.

  • Alistair says:

    If you really want to talk about “quiet Australians” you should listen to all the sporting codes who take sponsorship money from Emirates and Qatar etc.

  • Simon Morgan says:

    The real disappointment for me is Scott Morrison, again. He is supposed to be religious and his party is supposed to foster freedom of religion and freedom of speech. And yet, there’s the deafening silence we have come to expect.

    Perhaps it’s time we didn’t put so much faith in Mr. Morrison, and recognised that he only really won the election because Shorten was entirely un-electable?

  • Simon Morgan says:

    @lacebug – Unfortunately Merkel has quashed rumours of her impending demise. She’s a bit like T May, an ugly carbuncle that just won’t go away.

  • Bwana Neusi says:

    Has anybody else noticed the perverted inversion that is taking place.

    It used to be that Christians proudly held their faith up for all to see and some were chastised for not being seen to practice it. Homosexuality on the other hand was seen not only as an abomination of nature, but a mortal sin.

    Now it is the LGBTQI+ that display their calling with “Pride” and are forcing Christianity into the closet by denouncing them as bigots, “Sinning” against the new order.

    Which begs the question. When will the LGBTQI+ cohorts have the courage to take on Islam and its position on homosexuality?

Leave a Reply