I think you can find many stories where the punishment handed down to the culprit is considered too lenient by some. I think in almost any situation at any level of severity, the suffering of the victim and those close to them is likely to be greater than the punishment given to the offender.
A tribunal reviewed the evidence presented to them and came up with a punishment by determining all the factors (both aggravating and mitigating).
Clearly the punishment for sexual harassment is not to be sacked for any and all sexual harassment regardless of the severity. Zero tolerance does not mean that someone is terminated if found guilty of any offence. It just means that there are consequences for any offence.
Clearly the punishment for sexual harassment is not to be sacked for any and all sexual harassment regardless of the severity.
I think you need to look around a bit harder. There are many who have been sacked for this. Off the top of my head I can think of 17 recently in defence.
I can even think of Public servants recently being sacked for tweeting public criticism of there own departments.
I think you can try to trivialise this with generalisations but you are merely adding fuel to the fire. Treating the public with contempt as they have and insulting the public intelligence is just more of a display of ignorance and how out of touch the ARU and some factions are, and that's on top of the demonstration of stupidity that abounds us.
FACT - we have a player, who is on public record being sanctioned on several other occasions for behavioural issues and it has been suggested was on his last chance.
FACT - the same player has provided, in writing, a confession
FACT - there is another allegedly more offensive text (It seems to be a new legal principle that we compare texts sent by different people about different things to determine how offensive something is considering a basic legal principal is each count on its own merits - and based on the decision directing an offensive message at you using your name is less offensive than calling you something random!)
FACT - there are other players involved and no action to identify them
FACT - there was no transparency as it was all behind closed doors, and before ARU hand picked persons
FACT - there is a difference between what is offensive to a female and male. How many females were involved in the Beale hearings/ decision?
FACT - why have people, including the victim, quit?
FACT - the player has been continually defended by team mates for an act (behaviour) that is unacceptable
To be clear, its your right to defend these issues as you choose, but lets be clear, you are in the minority, and rightly or wrongly it doesn't matter. This is the peoples game and the public will judge rightly or wrongly. As is being made very clear in the media, the public will judge, and are doing so - and they are the ones that will determine the fate of the game.
If its a choice of a player, or players over the game its an easy choice.