Cricket Australia is in the Australian news once again. This time, the issue isn’t sandpaper and ball tampering, but abortion.
Cricket Australia employee, Angela Williamson, had her position terminated following comments she made on twitter in relation to abortion laws in Tasmania.
Williamson had criticised the Tasmanian Government over its restrictive abortion laws, which resulted in her flying to Melbourne in order to have her child aborted. In her frustration, she tweeted:
Most irresponsible, gutless & reckless delivery in early ever #politas
Cricket Australia released a statement, saying it “respects an individual’s right to their opinion”… and it also “expects that employees will refrain from making offensive comments that contravene the organisation’s policies.”
Do I think Angela Williamson’s views are gross and immoral? Absolutely. Let’s stop hiding the reality of what we’re talking about behind clinical words like ‘abortion’ and ‘medical procedure’, and behind power words such as ‘women’s rights’. No matter how you look at it, this is about killing children, taking away their right to live.
Despite me strongly disagreeing with Angela Williamson’s views on abortion, should this have been a sackable offence?
Do I think Angela Williamson’s views are gross and immoral? Absolutely. But like others, I struggle to understand how an employee of a ‘secular’ organisation can lose their job for making a political comment of this nature.
Like others, I struggle to understand how an employee of a ‘secular’ organisation can lose their job for making a political comment of this nature. Perhaps there is a clause in her employment agreement which she has clearly broken (apparently this was the second occasion), perhaps the issues are more complex than Williamson and the media are presenting, I don’t know.
The Right to Dissent (for Everyone)
Let’s assume that the issue is no deeper than what the media has presented. If this is the situation—and it appears to be so—then I agree with those voicing concerns over Williamson’s dismissal. I don’t like what she said, but in a civil society, citizens have a right to voice opinions about social and political issues. How can public policy ever be resilient if commentary and opinions are squashed? In the case where the integrity of the organisation is put into question as a result of an employee’s public comments, it is understandable that a disciplinary process would be undertaken, but it’s hard to see how this could be the case here.
What’s been most interesting to watch over the last 48 hours, is the level of protest being voiced in the media and by various social commentators. Oh, the irony!
John Birmingham of The Age wrote,
CA demonstrably does not respect anybody’s right to voice any opinion that might make things a little awkward in the members pavilion the next time some freeloading politician is there hoovering up the triangle sandwiches and complimentary fairy cakes. And it can expect whatever it wants, but it has no legal authority to decide what makes a comment offensive, and it has never even tried to explain how Williamson contravened any written policy of her employer. Mouthing the words after the fact doesn’t make it so.
And on last night’s The Drum, Dr Kerryn Phelps said,
I’m concerned about this case. What extent is there a crossover between peoples’ personal views on social media, and their employment? Can you be gagged in your job for something that you feel very strongly about personally?
Only a few months earlier, Dr Phelps said of Israel Folau,
People are entitled to their views, but not everyone is entitled to express their views if they’re hurtful to a group of people and you’re a celebrity.
There is more spin here than Warnie on his best day. This isn’t about fairness and consistency, but a team of socially left ideologues complaining when the umpire’s decision doesn’t go their way. As it happens, I agree with their appeal for “not out,” but let’s not pretend that the current outrage is about defending peoples’ “right to voice any opinion.” This is about defending those views that conform to the narrative being created by social progressives, and it’s about denouncing voices who dare raise a different story.
There is more spin here than Warnie on his best day. This isn’t about fairness and consistency, but a team of socially left ideologues complaining when the umpire’s decision doesn’t go their way. This is about defending those views that conform to the narrative being created by social progressives
If we are to take them seriously, where are their voices speaking up for religious Australians who are being bullied into silence forever daring question the morality of same-sex marriage? How many of these social progressives stood on the field to defend Israel Folau? Where were the Fairfax and ABC opinion pieces jumping to the aid of Julian Porteous who did nothing more than publish a gracious word to Catholics about the Catholic view of marriage? How many of our journos, political progressives, and gender revisionist advocates drank a Coopers Beer in protest against the vile reaction to Tim Wilson and Andrew Hastie? The two men sat down over a Coopers beer and enjoyed a civil conversation about marriage. Within minutes pubs across the nation were boycotting Coopers, and tirades of abuse hit social media. So incensed were non-beer drinkers and craft-beer drinkers across the nation, that they bought bottles of Coopers beer only to smash them in alleys across the nation until Cooper’s management joined the fight for same-sex marriage. The implications are clear: There will be a public backlash, and even financial loss, for those who will not openly affirm the current and popular philosophic views of sexuality.
Win at All Costs
The Federal Government is expected to shortly release their report, following the Ruddock review on Religious Freedom. Religious groups are not asking to change the rules of society, but rather, to hold onto the freedoms that have been, until recently, assumed and enjoyed by all Australians.
Sadly, cricket in Australia today is no longer about how you play the game, it’s become about winning at all costs. And no, I’m not talking about the sport. With groups like Amnesty International calling for faith-based organisations to lose their funding, should they not sign up to the new sexual ethic, and with the public square demanding total allegiance, it is reasonable for Christians and Australians of other faiths to expect unfair dismissals.
It is important to note that there are Christians defending Angela Williamson, despite disagreeing with her opinions. Michael Kellahan (Executive Director of Freedom for Faith), said, “Cricket Australia—you no more own Angela Williamson’s conscience than Rugby Australia owns Izzy Folau’s soul. Big mistake to sack her.” Unfortunately though, the same cannot be said of a growing number of institutions and public commentators who have little interest in keeping to the same standard for other Australians. Many Australians are losing confidence that our society is willing to play fairly and consistently, and until we see a change in the rhetoric and public views of many authoritarian secularists, these doubts will remain.
Photo: Chris Schmich, flickr First published at https://murraycampbell.net/