If this is true, it’s remarkable. Because last I checked, rainbow rights aren’t just a personal cause.
New Zealand Rugby has signed up to the Pride Pledge, a public commitment to diversity and inclusion. The organisation’s diversity and inclusion strategy specifically names rainbow communities as one of its targeted groups. And of course, many of the Black Ferns team are openly members of the rainbow community.
If Ruby Tui had wanted to appear with the logo of a specific political party, of course, that would be different. If she’d insisted on wearing branding for a personal company, that would be different too.
But surely if a player’s personal cause directly overlaps with the broadly-stated and celebrated cause of the organisation they’re representing, then it’s no longer just a personal cause.
I’m glad we live in an age where players feel they can make a stand. I admired Sonny-Bill Williams for his decision not to wear logos from sponsors in industries he opposed. In Ruby Tui’s case, she’s ultimately leaving money on the table and making a principled stand. We’d all like to think that for an issue or a cause we cared about, we’d have the integrity to do the same thing.
We don’t know what would have happened if Ruby Tui and Sanitarium had properly discussed her request. Given it’s owned by the church, there’s good reason to believe Sanitarium might ultimately have opposed Ruby Tui’s appearance. I wonder what might have happened if other players had followed Ruby’s lead and insisted on holding rainbow flags. Sanitarium might have found itself in a very tricky position indeed.
But that’s on Sanitarium.
And if the reporting this week is accurate and it was ultimately New Zealand Rugby that stepped in, it adds a very different dynamic to the whole situation. I think it says something about the character and priorities of the organisation. Sure ... we’re all for rainbow rights, until it impacts our bottom line.