Margaret's Court

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

Go down

Margaret's Court

Post by Henman Bill on Wed 31 May 2017, 4:29 pm

First topic message reminder :

Margaret Court won 24 grand slam titles, vs Serena Williams 23 and Steffi Graf 22.  

However tennis records are less important than respecting others. Margaret Court has once again renewed her attacks on the LGBT community. This isn't something she's being doing just recently, it's been going on for years.

It's time to change the name of the stadium so that tennis stands with the LGBT community.

The Australian Open has plenty of time to make the decision. This is going to an issue with sponsors considering not backing the tournament, players refusing to play on that particular court, and so on. Either the AO takes the decision in advance of the next tournament or things could really get interesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Court_Arena
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Court
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Court#Post_tennis_career_and_religious_views

Henman Bill

Posts : 5017
Join date : 2011-12-04

Back to top Go down


Re: Margaret's Court

Post by Guest on Sat 03 Jun 2017, 3:07 pm

Margaret Court never said anything about Muslims. Stop making things up.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Margaret's Court

Post by Haddie-nuff on Sat 03 Jun 2017, 3:12 pm

Jimmy Savile died without ever having his knighthood stripped from him.. what a crazy world we live in

Haddie-nuff

Posts : 6901
Join date : 2011-02-27
Location : Returned to Spain

Back to top Go down

Re: Margaret's Court

Post by temporary21 on Sat 03 Jun 2017, 3:28 pm

Come in lads it's obvious isn't it

You can say you don't like someone 

But you can't say you want something bad to happen to someone 

Freedom of expression. And inciting violence in hate speech are easy to distinguish

Going straight to an extreme example is a straw man. That's obviously not the same

temporary21

Posts : 5092
Join date : 2014-09-07

Back to top Go down

Re: Margaret's Court

Post by temporary21 on Sat 03 Jun 2017, 3:29 pm

Your knighthood is striped from you when you die 

It couldn't have been taken from him

temporary21

Posts : 5092
Join date : 2014-09-07

Back to top Go down

Re: Margaret's Court

Post by JuliusHMarx on Sat 03 Jun 2017, 3:31 pm

No name Bertie wrote:Margaret Court never said anything about Muslims.  Stop making things up.

Nobody said she did, so nobody is making things up. We are presenting relevant hypotheticals.

JuliusHMarx
julius
julius

Posts : 17515
Join date : 2011-07-01
Location : Paisley Park

Back to top Go down

Re: Margaret's Court

Post by JuliusHMarx on Sat 03 Jun 2017, 3:33 pm

temporary21 wrote:Come in lads it's obvious isn't it

You can say you don't like someone 

But you can't say you want something bad to happen to someone 

Freedom of expression. And inciting violence in hate speech are easy to distinguish

Going straight to an extreme example is a straw man. That's obviously not the same

To some people it may be the same. We need to establish if it is a matter of principle, or a matter of degree.

JuliusHMarx
julius
julius

Posts : 17515
Join date : 2011-07-01
Location : Paisley Park

Back to top Go down

Re: Margaret's Court

Post by Haddie-nuff on Sat 03 Jun 2017, 3:36 pm

temporary21 wrote:Your knighthood is striped from you when you die 

It couldn't have been taken from him

It could have done posthumously

ts all about what is seen to be PC we are hung up on what people think is the right thing to say .. often what the majority think or want but in fear of what is acceptable by the minority.. we are supposed to live in a democracy..one must be entitled to an opinion whether that opinion is acceptable or not.. everyone has the choice of agreeing with it or not. Seemingly the repercussions can offend the majority but as long as the minority are seen to be right then that's ok

Haddie-nuff

Posts : 6901
Join date : 2011-02-27
Location : Returned to Spain

Back to top Go down

Re: Margaret's Court

Post by temporary21 on Sat 03 Jun 2017, 3:37 pm

No it can't be. 

He wasn't a knight the second he died. It's literally only a lifetime award

You really think they would have let him keep it?

temporary21

Posts : 5092
Join date : 2014-09-07

Back to top Go down

Re: Margaret's Court

Post by Guest on Sat 03 Jun 2017, 7:01 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
No name Bertie wrote:Margaret Court never said anything about Muslims.  Stop making things up.

Nobody said she did, so nobody is making things up. We are presenting relevant hypotheticals.
Okay like if my auntie had balls she would be my uncle. Anyway this is not hypothetical it is a specific to Margaret Court, the naming of a stadium, and her view as a Christian minister that Christian marriage does not extend to homosexuals. This is an issue concerning traditional Christianity - and we are going around in circles because all this was said above.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Margaret's Court

Post by summerblues on Sat 03 Jun 2017, 9:36 pm

Henman Bill wrote:However just saying something more benign like "I don't personally agree with gay marriage" can effectively, if considered an acceptable comment, lead to an atmosphere where violence thrives. I mean look at this comment from Putin: "We have no ban on the non-traditional forms of sexual intercourse among people. We have the ban on the propaganda of homosexuality and pedophilia. I want to stress this: propaganda among minors. These are two absolutely different things: a ban on certain relations or the propaganda of such relations."
Once again, I could not disagree more.

To say, as you are sort of saying: "even though your views do not advocate violence, they are unacceptable because they will ultimately lead to an 'atmosphere' of violence" is the hallmark of totalitarianism.  Armed with that sort of weapon, all sorts of things can become unacceptable - Islam, Christianity, all religion, civil rights movement, unions, environmentalists, whatever your heart desires.

Interesting choice of a Putin quote.  I think that quote just reinforces my position.  Putin is kind of saying "gays can have their relationships but they cannot advocate for their further recognition".  That sounds much more similar to what you are saying than what Court is saying.  Admittedly, Putin is going further than you.  But let's say he softened his position and said:  "Yes, people advocating for LGBT have the right to free speech, but we need to ensure that their views do not become widely acceptable".  I doubt you would be happy with that, yet that would be just about equivalent to what you yourself are promoting.

summerblues

Posts : 4550
Join date : 2012-03-07

Back to top Go down

Re: Margaret's Court

Post by Guest on Sat 03 Jun 2017, 10:40 pm

If everyone became homosexual then the human race would end within a generation - but of course that would be a hypothetical scenario.

And saying Christian Marriage should be between a man and a women is not the same as saying homosexuality should be banned, or paedophilia should be mandatory, or ethnic cleansing etc.  False equivalence.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Margaret's Court

Post by JuliusHMarx on Sat 03 Jun 2017, 11:59 pm

No name Bertie wrote:If everyone became homosexual then the human race would end within a generation - but of course that would be a hypothetical scenario.

Same as if everyone became priests.

JuliusHMarx
julius
julius

Posts : 17515
Join date : 2011-07-01
Location : Paisley Park

Back to top Go down

Re: Margaret's Court

Post by Guest on Sun 04 Jun 2017, 6:38 am

JuliusHMarx wrote:
No name Bertie wrote:If everyone became homosexual then human race would end within a generation - but of course that would be a hypothetical scenario.

Same as if everyone became priests.
??? Are you suggesting that if everyone became priests the human race would end within a generation.  

If so that statement contains at least two errors I can see.  Priests are allowed to procreate (It depends on the Christian order).   Not everyone can become priests at the same time.  It is do with structuring a group - not everyone can be leaders - as there wouldn't be anyone to lead if that were the case.  It is like the saying - too many chiefs and no Indians.

Anyway I am bowing out of this thread.  What was in the end something very straight forward has been overcomplicated by some coming up with hypothetical non-realities.  I just can't afford the time or have the interest to engage with these types of open ended, non-relevant to the case (in my view) hypotheticals.  However, that is just me - maybe I am biased towards the banal, empirical aspects of such matters - whereas others are more creative in allowing their minds to take flight.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Margaret's Court

Post by Haddie-nuff on Sun 04 Jun 2017, 7:17 am

NNB +1 Wink

Haddie-nuff

Posts : 6901
Join date : 2011-02-27
Location : Returned to Spain

Back to top Go down

Re: Margaret's Court

Post by dummy_half on Sun 04 Jun 2017, 9:26 am

It's an interesting question of how much you recognise the sports star and how much you recognise the human being.

USO had it easy in naming a court after Arthur Ashe - may not have been as much of a great player as MC, but arguably had greater significance in broadening the appeal of the game, and as a person no-one ever seemed to have a bad word for him.

Opposite (hypothetical) extreme would be O J Simpson - undoubtedly did enough in his sport to merit the Bills stadium being named in his honour, but his personal history would make that idea ludicrous.

Margaret Court is somewhere in between - no doubt as a player she merits the honour of an AO show court named after her, but she holds and expresses views that, while common in her generation, are now seen as out-dated by the mainstream. Personally, since what she has said has never pushed the boundaries of hate speech, I think removing her name from the court would be a step too far, but it's clearly something the AO organisers have to discuss and perhaps issue a statement distancing themselves from the views M has expressed - re-iterating that the honour is for the record of an all time great player.

BTW, does anyone know Suzanne Lenglen's opinion on same-sex marriage?

dummy_half

Posts : 4732
Join date : 2011-03-11
Age : 46
Location : East Hertfordshire

Back to top Go down

Re: Margaret's Court

Post by temporary21 on Sun 04 Jun 2017, 10:14 am

NNB +2. This is too heavy for me

temporary21

Posts : 5092
Join date : 2014-09-07

Back to top Go down

Re: Margaret's Court

Post by JuliusHMarx on Sun 04 Jun 2017, 11:13 am

No name Bertie wrote:something very straight forward

Fair enough. To bring it back to basics - Court has some appalling views, that imho have no place in modern society, cause offence to a great number of people, and which can and should be vocally criticised. I for one would have no problem with the AO renaming the court, as I don't feel that withdrawing an honour equates to punishment.

JuliusHMarx
julius
julius

Posts : 17515
Join date : 2011-07-01
Location : Paisley Park

Back to top Go down

Re: Margaret's Court

Post by Haddie-nuff on Sun 04 Jun 2017, 11:15 am

Rolling Eyes

Haddie-nuff

Posts : 6901
Join date : 2011-02-27
Location : Returned to Spain

Back to top Go down

Re: Margaret's Court

Post by Guest on Sun 04 Jun 2017, 11:33 am

JuliusHMarx wrote:
No name Bertie wrote:something very straight forward

Fair enough. To bring it back to basics - Court has some appalling views, that imho have no place in modern society, cause offence to a great number of people, and which can and should be vocally criticised. I for one would have no problem with the AO renaming the court, as I don't feel that withdrawing an honour equates to punishment.
Thank you.  I can understand that opinion.  I disagree with it - but I think we recognised half way down the first page of this thread that we disagreed.  I take it you are not Christian in belief and hence don't believe in Christian marriage anyway (as sanctified by the Christian God of Christian belief).  Civil marriage is something else and a valid alternative to a Christian sanctioned marriage.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Margaret's Court

Post by CaledonianCraig on Sun 04 Jun 2017, 11:43 am

With all due respects I abhor religion. It is a big reason for all the bitterness/wars and terrorist sects there are in this world. And this has nothing to do with Court's remarks directly - just my personal opinion.
avatar
CaledonianCraig

Posts : 17808
Join date : 2011-05-31
Age : 49
Location : Edinburgh

Back to top Go down

Re: Margaret's Court

Post by Guest on Sun 04 Jun 2017, 12:02 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:With all due respects I abhor religion. It is a big reason for all the bitterness/wars and terrorist sects there are in this world. And this has nothing to do with Court's remarks directly - just my personal opinion.
I understand the opinion that abhors religion.  I disagree with the view that without religion there would be no bitterness, no wars and no terrorism.  Marxist guerrillas, communism, wars of independence, eugenics, socialism versus capitalism, wealth inequalities, exploitation, slavery etc these are not caused by religion.   But I am not going to argue - because we are again moving away from the issue in question.

Now Margaret Court is a Christian Minister and her views concern the meaning of Christian Marriage.   I posted a link where she gave her response.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Margaret's Court

Post by CaledonianCraig on Sun 04 Jun 2017, 12:04 pm

No name Bertie wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:With all due respects I abhor religion. It is a big reason for all the bitterness/wars and terrorist sects there are in this world. And this has nothing to do with Court's remarks directly - just my personal opinion.
I understand the opinion that abhors religion.  I disagree with the view that without religion there would be no bitterness, no wars and no terrorism.  Marxist guerrillas, communism, wars of independence, eugenics, socialism versus capitalism, wealth inequalities, exploitation, slavery etc these are not caused by religion.   But I am not going to argue - because we are again moving away from the issue in question.

Now Margaret Court is a Christian Minister and her views concern Christian Marriage.   I posted a link where she gave her response.

End of the day there is a simple solution to all of this.

Margaret Court publicly apologizes for offended so many people - a lot of which play the sport she once excelled and and had a court named after her. She does that and hopefully everyone can move on and the matter is closed.
avatar
CaledonianCraig

Posts : 17808
Join date : 2011-05-31
Age : 49
Location : Edinburgh

Back to top Go down

Re: Margaret's Court

Post by Haddie-nuff on Sun 04 Jun 2017, 12:14 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:
No name Bertie wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:With all due respects I abhor religion. It is a big reason for all the bitterness/wars and terrorist sects there are in this world. And this has nothing to do with Court's remarks directly - just my personal opinion.
I understand the opinion that abhors religion.  I disagree with the view that without religion there would be no bitterness, no wars and no terrorism.  Marxist guerrillas, communism, wars of independence, eugenics, socialism versus capitalism, wealth inequalities, exploitation, slavery etc these are not caused by religion.   But I am not going to argue - because we are again moving away from the issue in question.

Now Margaret Court is a Christian Minister and her views concern Christian Marriage.   I posted a link where she gave her response.

End of the day there is a simple solution to all of this.

Margaret Court publicly apologizes for offended so many people - a lot of which play the sport she once excelled and and had a court named after her. She does that and hopefully everyone can move on and the matter is closed.


Yahoo👏The voice of reason

Haddie-nuff

Posts : 6901
Join date : 2011-02-27
Location : Returned to Spain

Back to top Go down

Re: Margaret's Court

Post by Born Slippy on Sun 04 Jun 2017, 12:52 pm

She's not going to apologise though, so that's a non-starter.

Personally, I think that her comments that transgenderism is the work of the devil and stating that the LGBT community is, just like Hitler, after the minds of children are far outside what is acceptable opinion. As a result, I would probably be in favour in this instance of the court being renamed.

Born Slippy

Posts : 4322
Join date : 2012-05-05

Back to top Go down

Re: Margaret's Court

Post by naxroy on Mon 05 Jun 2017, 12:19 pm

Australian Open shall rename that court


naxroy

Posts : 472
Join date : 2011-06-28

Back to top Go down

Re: Margaret's Court

Post by Haddie-nuff on Mon 05 Jun 2017, 1:46 pm

picard

Haddie-nuff

Posts : 6901
Join date : 2011-02-27
Location : Returned to Spain

Back to top Go down

Re: Margaret's Court

Post by temporary21 on Mon 05 Jun 2017, 1:56 pm

Well so long as it's their decision, and not because SJWs threatened them for not doing anything

temporary21

Posts : 5092
Join date : 2014-09-07

Back to top Go down

Re: Margaret's Court

Post by barrystar on Mon 05 Jun 2017, 3:19 pm

According to the Guardian, Court gave rather a rambling interview - the point she seemed to have wanted to get across was that the gay lobby was attempting to get into the minds of children, through things like anti-bullying programs at schools  These are extracts from the Guardian article which quote some of what Court:

“Tennis is full of lesbians. Even when I was playing there were only a couple there but those couple that led took young ones into parties,” Court said. “And what you get at the top is often what you’ll get right through that sport.”


She added: “We’re there to help them overcome. We’re not against the people..
The gay lobby is behind that bullying program in schools and children not knowing, whether they are taking out a ‘he’ or a ‘she’ and an ‘it’ and a ‘we’ or ‘they’ and if you feel like being a girl you can dress like a girl. I think, ‘what confusion for a child’. I get confused talking about it,” Court said.


“We know that homosexuality is a lust of the flesh, so is adultery, fornication, all those things … they too know this, this is why they want marriage, because it’s self-satisfying. I think they know it comes against Christianity, the beliefs of God, but in some way it’s justifying.”


“Everybody knows that [gay marriage] is wrong but they’re after our young ones, that’s what they are after”

“There is a whole plot in our nation and in the nations of the world today to get the minds of the children.”

It feels as though she was rather going beyond simply saying that her attitude is live and let live, but as a Christian minister she doesn't want her Church to endorse same-sex marriage.  The thrust suggested by the article is that she's pointing to a long-running plot by the gay lobby to recruit more gay youngsters.  One implication of those quotes is that she'd rather see anti-LGBT bullying at school because that is preferable to recruitment of young children into the ranks of lesbians &c.  I can can see why Navratilova is peeved by those remarks - on one view they portray the likes of her as a bunch of sinister predators trying to drag impressionable girls over to the dark side.  Court may be malevolent, or just a bit clumsy and stupid.  If she wants to make the more nuanced points of believing that gay sex is seen by God as a sin, not wanting gay marriage in church, and thinking that certain anti-bullying programs go too far by promoting risky lifestyles or challenging traditional religious beliefs or introducing confusing ideas at the wrong stage in a child's development, then she ought to make them more accurately and fairly to the likes of Navratilova.  I'd still disagree with her (beyond accepting the Church's entitlement to decide who it marries), but she can be engaged with as making 'real' points in a way that is designed to set out her position rather than the rambling nonsense she's quoted as having said.

It's not really a free speech issue - removing Court's name from the Arena does not stop her talking.  What it would do in truth is something rather different.  It defines the ATF's position, something like 'we, the ATF, in common with the rest of the professional tennis community abhor the suspicion and lack of support shown to LGBT people by the likes of Court, and we are not prepared to be associated with someone who expresses such views'.  If they are going to do that, they need to avoid falling into a similar trap to Court by not defining their position too widely - they can't realistically say that they do not wish to be associated with every religious person who regards homosexuality as a sin in a society which permits freedom of religious belief to religions of which many adherents believe teach that gay sex is a sin.  Instead, they would rather need to explain why what Court said went too far.  I do not think that Navratilova's judgment on that issue should be the final arbiter.

If Court has committed an offence in Australia it's easy.  If, as I suspect, she has not, it becomes more complex.  If what she has said would entitle the ITF or the WTA to charge her with bringing the game into disrepute, then the ATF could possibly say that they don't want to keep a stadium named after someone who, if she was still playing, would be bringing the game into disrepute - that may not be an answer, take Hingis who was never charged for some v. off-colour remarks made when she was a player.  If neither path is open to the ATF, they are probably better off saying something like, it's a free world, they don't agree with her views and even find them rather offensive, but she has a right to hold and express them so long as she does not do any legal wrong, they hope she'll express herself more carefully in the future, but she remains the most successful player in Grandslam history, part of the history of Australian tennis, and they do not envisage changing the name of the arena because she has expressed herself clumsily in relation to unpopular beliefs which she lawfully holds.

If tour players are going to increase the pressure on the ATF they really need to think about what statement they are asking to be made on their behalf and, assuming it's a matter of principle, how far their principles take them.  If they go as far as kicking an easy target and not attempting more difficult ones, then I, for one, would be unimpressed.

In relation to the 'all Muslims' point - that's less difficult.  If Court said all Muslims are awful and ought to face some consequences as a result, that's unacceptable.  If she said that she thinks Islam is a collection of rank bad ideas, that would be perfectly acceptable - if controversial - no worse than saying the same about Christianity or any other religion.  There is a vital distinction between labelling 1 billion people beyond the pale and saying that you believe a religious or political philosophy is a load of bunk.
avatar
barrystar

Posts : 2960
Join date : 2011-06-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Margaret's Court

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum