A quotation from the article: Mr Kellahan claims some Muslims, atheists, and even gay people have contacted him to say they donated to the fund, not because they agree with Folau "but because they're more concerned about the silencing".
And in regard to the contract, that was part of the silencing right from the start, and made a mockery of RA's pretence of inclusivity.

So, why did Folau sign it? Why was he an agent in his own 'silencing'?

Unlike your preposterous 'Niemöller' analogy where the powerful oppressed and intimidated the powerless, Folau had agency and power over his own choices. He had the capacity to negotiate and, if necessary, withdraw from the process.

It's a question that just won't go away and one that Folau will have to answer before he can legitimately accuse 'others' of 'silencing' him.

And, taking the 20,000 figure at face value, what about the 15+ million who didn't contribute?