I believe one could argue that the Pride Parade Board, who turned last years pride parade of 30 000 attendees into a mere 2000 this year with their woke exclusion ideology caused far more damage to the rainbow community than an Instagram post by a rugby player.
I could argue that, I can’t of course because even the mere suggestion I have made in the above paragraph is enough to trigger woke activists and my comparison quickly gets labeled heteronormative patriarchal hate speech.
Likewise any defence of Assange gets shouted down by Fourth Wave Feminists, middle class Guardian readers and #MeToo activists who decry him as a rapist and blame his leaks for sinking Hillary Clinton.
The danger our comrades create with their woke hecklers veto is that they are creating long fuses which can easily become toxic rebellion.
Part one of attacking Folau is that he breached his contract, which turns out to be a lie…
Rugby Australia bungled its contract negotiations with Israel Folau by failing to insert social media restraints, according to a Sydney media report.
The Daily Telegraph says that Folau, who inked a $4m four year deal last year, refused to have the additional clauses retrospectively inserted into the contract.
If this is so, it will place added pressure on RA’s Kiwi CEO Raelene Castle, whose tenure has turned into a giant headache because of Folau’s inflammatory social media posts.
…once you remove the ‘blame the contract’ argument you always get ‘free speech doesn’t mean no consequences’ argument. Of course freedom of speech is not freedom of consequence – buuuuuuuuut a liberal progressive democracy worth its salt can tolerate speech that is offensive because by burying it we make it far more toxic.
Folau is guilty of stupid speech, false speech, ridiculous speech, idiotic speech, offensive speech – but not hate speech because that’s a very specific type of speech that we wilfully agree should be banned. If we can not debate the mammoth stupidity of Folau’s speech we allow it to fester unchallenged.
Likewise, Assange openly attacked state secrets, he was far from perfect but he allowed the world to see the despicable war crimes committed for so called freedom and democracy.
If Folau fights his exclusion (turns out he will) and Assange fights his extradition, you are talking legal process that will stretch for months and months.
In Folau’s case, we already have the Bishop promising ‘war’ and with Assange, you have a country on the edge with Brexit about to crush free speech and capitulate to the US.
Each are fuses that will take months to burn and during that burning, anger and resentment can flare up dangerously.
As we step into the darkness of a future where identity politics takes on a far more dangerous mutation, we must keep people in the town square, not the poisonous alleyways.
I think Folau’s comments were disgracefully stupid, but I don’t believe he should have been sacked because the long fuse now lit as he battles for legal reinstatement will produce far more heat than light.
I think Assange is a victim of geopolitics and Western Governments fearing transparency of their crimes, and that pretending to claim this is about a Swedish rape case is intellectually bankrupt. His trial set against a country divided over Brexit could produce all sorts of dangerous political mutations.
Once angry people are given a righteous grievance and a martyr to symbolise that grievance, anything is possible.