EDITORIAL
A story carried in the sports pages of yesterday’s edition of The Barbados Advocate compels us to cogitate on the precise nature of religious freedom.
In the report, a star player of the Australian rugby league national team, fondly referred to as the Wallbies, is said to be “deeply saddened” and considering his options after being sacked from the national squad for homophobic comments.
The aptly named player, Israel Folau, a devout Christian, was found guilty of a high level breach of Rugby Australia’s code of conduct that, according to a tribunal instituted for the purpose, warranted the immediate termination of his four million dollar four-year contract. The decision is subject to appeal.
Mr Folau’s offence was the posting of a message on social media to the effect that Hell awaits gay people and other sinners.
It will be recalled that religious freedom is constitutionally guaranteed to all entities in Barbados under the rubric of freedom of conscience. Section 19 of the Barbados Constitution provides:
“Except with his own consent, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of conscience and for the purpose of this section the said freedom includes freedom of thought and of religion, freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others, and both in public and in private, to manifest and propagate his religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and
observance”.
We cite this provision, not so much in support of Mr Folau’s stance, since we do not agree that any human being has the wherewithal to condemn another to Hell or whatever other form of damnation he or she may believe to be the fate of those who do not follow his faith, but rather to contrast the consequences of Mr Folau’s simply expressing what he believes to be the stance of his religious persuasion on a matter with those that attended a member of the Rastafarian faith in a neighbouring regional jurisdiction, whose religious persuasion permitted him, according to a recent judicial decision, to defy the current laws that criminalise the cultivation and possession of marijuana for supply to another.
Indeed, Mr Folau might justifiably feel that his rights have been doubly infringed in that he could also claim to have been exercising his identically guaranteed freedom of expression.
We are aware that the distinction may lie in the current populist acceptance of the respective manifestations of each individual’s religion, with marijuana consumption currently enjoying popular acclaim, given its vaunted religious and therapeutic properties, while, to the contrary, it is scarcely perceived as proper these days to be critically derisive of the sexual preferences of others; hence, perhaps, the varied receptions of the two exercises.
As stated above, we do not agree with Mr Folau’s choice of expression. After all, it is not a decision that he has a mandate to make, but we find the decision to deprive him of his chosen livelihood in a circumstance he might justifiably claim to be merely propagating the views of his religious faith, to say nothing of exercising his freedom of speech, particularly draconian.
When we further contemplate the old adage by John Stuart Mill that “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others”, the Folau decision seems even less persuasive.