- Joined
- Jun 24, 2008
- Messages
- 25,426
- Reaction score
- 19,913
Just call it the Israel Folau bill. And Australia’s biggest sporting bodies aren’t happy about it
https://www.foxsports.com.au/more-s...gVyvbULt-cRreYxdYQxKvHOHAxxuN6OqHcDSK5wrXPkSE
Some of the biggest sporting bodies in Australia have let their opposition be known at the federal government’s proposed religious freedom bill, arguing it will make it harder to discipline players who make discriminatory comments that threaten lucrative sponsorship deals.
Under the legislation, it would be illegal for sporting bodies that bring in more than $50 million of revenue per year to stifle or stop religious expression in players’ appearance, behaviour or dress.
The Coalition of Major Professional & Participation Sports (COMPPS) — which includes the AFL, NRL, FFA and Cricket Australia, as well as Tennis Australia, Rugby Australia and Netball Australia — filed a submission arguing that it would impose onerous demands on them.
The proposed bill comes after Rugby Australia settled out of court with sacked Wallaby Israel Folau over his unlawful dismissal suit, for a sum believed to be in the vicinity of $3.1 million.
The bill does allow for sporting bodies to restrict such discriminatory expression from an athlete if they can prove it did so to “avoid unjustifiable financial hardship on the business”.
However, they argue that is too vague and nebulous, saying the draft of the bill “provides no guidance (or definition) as to the level of financial hardship that might be ‘unjustifiable’”.
“Sponsors seeking to engage with COMPPS members will seek to align themselves with organisations with similar values and beliefs,” the submission reads, one of 7000 filed to the proposed legislation.
“It is essential that COMPPS members, who rely on revenue from sponsors to grow and promote their sports for all Australians, can establish codes of conduct which allow them to protect the reputation and value of their brand and the brands associated with them.
“Damage could include but is not limited to: failure to attract new sponsors, damage to reputation, media distraction, reduced rates of participation, reduced interest in sport and loss of confidence in the brand.
“COMPPS subscribes to the right of all employees to demonstrate their religion via dress, appearance or behaviour however while this right is important, there may be instances in major competitive sporting organisations where it is desirable for the sport to limit or exert control over certain types of dress, appearance or behaviours.”
The bill states that a “statement of belief” from an athlete cannot be considered discrimination.
But COMPPS believes that will prove problematic.
“Particularly within the sporting context where passionate statements of belief, whether of a religious belief held by a person or made by a person who does not hold a religious belief, frequently form the basis for public commentary,” the submission reads.
“We are concerned that the breadth of the definition of ‘statement of belief’ and the absence of a clear test within the bill to assess such beliefs could lead to the protections in the bill being used in bad faith to justify statements which are otherwise discriminatory or against the values or beliefs espoused by COMPPS members,” it continues.
And the failure to mention the impact of social media in the bill is also troubling, COMPPS argues.
“COMPPS members must have the ability to sensibly regulate the public speech of its employees to promote inclusiveness and protect against the real risk of disrespectful online behaviour.
“The bill essentially gives the person who makes statements of belief a privileged position over other rights, which does not accord with global human rights doctrines or the underlying intentions of sport to promote respectful relationships.”
https://www.foxsports.com.au/more-s...gVyvbULt-cRreYxdYQxKvHOHAxxuN6OqHcDSK5wrXPkSE
Some of the biggest sporting bodies in Australia have let their opposition be known at the federal government’s proposed religious freedom bill, arguing it will make it harder to discipline players who make discriminatory comments that threaten lucrative sponsorship deals.
Under the legislation, it would be illegal for sporting bodies that bring in more than $50 million of revenue per year to stifle or stop religious expression in players’ appearance, behaviour or dress.
The Coalition of Major Professional & Participation Sports (COMPPS) — which includes the AFL, NRL, FFA and Cricket Australia, as well as Tennis Australia, Rugby Australia and Netball Australia — filed a submission arguing that it would impose onerous demands on them.
The proposed bill comes after Rugby Australia settled out of court with sacked Wallaby Israel Folau over his unlawful dismissal suit, for a sum believed to be in the vicinity of $3.1 million.
The bill does allow for sporting bodies to restrict such discriminatory expression from an athlete if they can prove it did so to “avoid unjustifiable financial hardship on the business”.
However, they argue that is too vague and nebulous, saying the draft of the bill “provides no guidance (or definition) as to the level of financial hardship that might be ‘unjustifiable’”.
“Sponsors seeking to engage with COMPPS members will seek to align themselves with organisations with similar values and beliefs,” the submission reads, one of 7000 filed to the proposed legislation.
“It is essential that COMPPS members, who rely on revenue from sponsors to grow and promote their sports for all Australians, can establish codes of conduct which allow them to protect the reputation and value of their brand and the brands associated with them.
“Damage could include but is not limited to: failure to attract new sponsors, damage to reputation, media distraction, reduced rates of participation, reduced interest in sport and loss of confidence in the brand.
“COMPPS subscribes to the right of all employees to demonstrate their religion via dress, appearance or behaviour however while this right is important, there may be instances in major competitive sporting organisations where it is desirable for the sport to limit or exert control over certain types of dress, appearance or behaviours.”
The bill states that a “statement of belief” from an athlete cannot be considered discrimination.
But COMPPS believes that will prove problematic.
“Particularly within the sporting context where passionate statements of belief, whether of a religious belief held by a person or made by a person who does not hold a religious belief, frequently form the basis for public commentary,” the submission reads.
“We are concerned that the breadth of the definition of ‘statement of belief’ and the absence of a clear test within the bill to assess such beliefs could lead to the protections in the bill being used in bad faith to justify statements which are otherwise discriminatory or against the values or beliefs espoused by COMPPS members,” it continues.
And the failure to mention the impact of social media in the bill is also troubling, COMPPS argues.
“COMPPS members must have the ability to sensibly regulate the public speech of its employees to promote inclusiveness and protect against the real risk of disrespectful online behaviour.
“The bill essentially gives the person who makes statements of belief a privileged position over other rights, which does not accord with global human rights doctrines or the underlying intentions of sport to promote respectful relationships.”
