Freedom of Speech Part 2: Margaret Court and gay rights

[David]

While I agree, isn't it possible to support free speech while opposing public monuments to someone you find odious? I support Pauline Hanson's rights to free speech but don't necessarily want to see a statue of her in the middle of the city. Are we possibly conflating two issues here?

[Tannin]

Margaret Court ... doesn't agree with Gay Marriage ..... Predictably, there's an outcry, she's labelled a homophobe and there's calls to change the name of the arena.

Personally, my opinion is she's entitled to her opinion. She's old and religious and even if she's not in step with current opinion she's entitled to express it. She hasn't gone out like our ABC friend to self aggrandise in poor taste, she just expressed an opinion.

But because that opinion doesn't fit the agenda, she's pilloried.

yes, our ABC friend copped a bit of a hiding on social media, but she's the exception that proves the rule that it's the progressives who use social media to bully anyone who speaks differently to their agenda.

Haven't heard such a load of bullshit in a long, long time.

Court is a nasty homophobe who doesn't deserve any respect at all for her outdated and anti-social views. So what? She is perfectly entitled to be an ignorant, blinkered bigot. It's a free country.

She was howled down, but no actual action was taken against her.

Yassmin Abdel-Magied expressed a perfectly reasonable view (not one I agree with, but it is a perfectly reasonable view nevertheless) in a stupid and divisive way. She too was howled down. That's fine too. Court is entitled to hold dumb views. YAM is entitled to express views in a dumb way. Both can expect to be criticised.

The difference is that YAM was sacked.

Pretending that it is somehow "the progressives" who run things is not just false, it's downright stupid. Just go and ask the unemployed woman who lost her job because of right-wing conservative outrage. Any chance Court will be sacked too? No, I didn't think so.

[Tannin]

While I agree, isn't it possible to support free speech while opposing public monuments to someone you find odious?

Get a grip on it David. Seriously, if you think it would be worse to sit in the Margaret Court Arena than it is to sit in the Tony Locket Stand, you need to go and barrack for GWS or Freemantle.

[Tannin]

Oh, and one more thing. I spit on this stupid modern practice we have of trying to pretend that bad things never happened by erasing all evidence that we once thought something different. It's childish and stupid.

No, do not rename the Margaret Court Arena just because she is a nasty bigot. No, do not pull down that statue of Lenin just because he did some bad things. No, do not smash that glorious stained glass window just because it was built by the same people who burned witches at the stake and tortured Protestants to death. No, do not paint over that Rolf Harris mural just because he was a nasty groper. No, do not blow up those priceless Roman temples just because they were not followers of the Prophet.

If you can't learn to accept that the world changes and our view of the world changes, and not all of it agrees with the way you look at it, then HTFU princess.

[stui magpie]

Margaret Court ... doesn't agree with Gay Marriage ..... Predictably, there's an outcry, she's labelled a homophobe and there's calls to change the name of the arena.

Personally, my opinion is she's entitled to her opinion. She's old and religious and even if she's not in step with current opinion she's entitled to express it. She hasn't gone out like our ABC friend to self aggrandise in poor taste, she just expressed an opinion.

But because that opinion doesn't fit the agenda, she's pilloried.

yes, our ABC friend copped a bit of a hiding on social media, but she's the exception that proves the rule that it's the progressives who use social media to bully anyone who speaks differently to their agenda.

Haven't heard such a load of bullshit in a long, long time.

Court is a nasty homophobe who doesn't deserve any respect at all for her outdated and anti-social views. So what? She is perfectly entitled to be an ignorant, blinkered bigot. It's a free country.

She was howled down, but no actual action was taken against her.

Yassmin Abdel-Magied expressed a perfectly reasonable view (not one I agree with, but it is a perfectly reasonable view nevertheless) in a stupid and divisive way. She too was howled down. That's fine too. Court is entitled to hold dumb views. YAM is entitled to express views in a dumb way. Both can expect to be criticised.

The difference is that YAM was sacked.

Pretending that it is somehow "the progressives" who run things is not just false, it's downright stupid. Just go and ask the unemployed woman who lost her job because of right-wing conservative outrage. Any chance Court will be sacked too? No, I didn't think so.

The difference is that YAM held a job with the publicly funded brodcaster.

If she was sacked for her comments, I agree that is poor darts. She posted something dumb, copped a whack, should be the end of it.

I personally think she got sacked because her show was shit.

[stui magpie]

Oh, and one more thing. I spit on this stupid modern practice we have of trying to pretend that bad things never happened by erasing all evidence that we once thought something different. It's childish and stupid.

No, do not rename the Margaret Court Arena just because she is a nasty bigot. No, do not pull down that statue of Lenin just because he did some bad things. No, do not smash that glorious stained glass window just because it was built by the same people who burned witches at the stake and tortured Protestants to death. No, do not paint over that Rolf Harris mural just because he was a nasty groper. No, do not blow up those priceless Roman temples just because they were not followers of the Prophet.

If you can't learn to accept that the world changes and our view of the world changes, and not all of it agrees with the way you look at it, then HTFU princess.

[David]

Oh, and one more thing. I spit on this stupid modern practice we have of trying to pretend that bad things never happened by erasing all evidence that we once thought something different. It's childish and stupid.

No, do not rename the Margaret Court Arena just because she is a nasty bigot. No, do not pull down that statue of Lenin just because he did some bad things. No, do not smash that glorious stained glass window just because it was built by the same people who burned witches at the stake and tortured Protestants to death. No, do not paint over that Rolf Harris mural just because he was a nasty groper. No, do not blow up those priceless Roman temples just because they were not followers of the Prophet.

If you can't learn to accept that the world changes and our view of the world changes, and not all of it agrees with the way you look at it, then HTFU princess.

Hear hear!

(How did you manage to get me and Stui on the same page? )

[swoop42]

While I agree, isn't it possible to support free speech while opposing public monuments to someone you find odious? I support Pauline Hanson's rights to free speech but don't necessarily want to see a statue of her in the middle of the city. Are we possibly conflating two issues here?

No.

People are free to attack the views of Court but calling for some kind of penalty to be attached to them is plain wrong.

People calling for that are no different to conservative politicians calling for that ABC personality to be sacked for her comments on Anzac Day.

[think positive]

Oh, and one more thing. I spit on this stupid modern practice we have of trying to pretend that bad things never happened by erasing all evidence that we once thought something different. It's childish and stupid.

No, do not rename the Margaret Court Arena just because she is a nasty bigot. No, do not pull down that statue of Lenin just because he did some bad things. No, do not smash that glorious stained glass window just because it was built by the same people who burned witches at the stake and tortured Protestants to death. No, do not paint over that Rolf Harris mural just because he was a nasty groper. No, do not blow up those priceless Roman temples just because they were not followers of the Prophet.

If you can't learn to accept that the world changes and our view of the world changes, and not all of it agrees with the way you look at it, then HTFU princess.

First post brilliant, 2nd post.......even better!

[Mugwump]

Oh, and one more thing. I spit on this stupid modern practice we have of trying to pretend that bad things never happened by erasing all evidence that we once thought something different. It's childish and stupid.

No, do not rename the Margaret Court Arena just because she is a nasty bigot. No, do not pull down that statue of Lenin just because he did some bad things. No, do not smash that glorious stained glass window just because it was built by the same people who burned witches at the stake and tortured Protestants to death. No, do not paint over that Rolf Harris mural just because he was a nasty groper. No, do not blow up those priceless Roman temples just because they were not followers of the Prophet.

If you can't learn to accept that the world changes and our view of the world changes, and not all of it agrees with the way you look at it, then HTFU princess.

A great post, though Lenin's statues are much more problematic than the other cases mentioned. Court's name is on the tennis arena because she was a great and sportsmanlike tennis player. Her views on other matters are irrelevant unless she is a complete monster, and no, disliking gay sex for religious reasons does not make her Myra Hindley.

Lenin's statues, like those of Stalin or Kim Il Sung, however, are there as a homage to his politics. He is a slightly ambiguous figure, better than Stalin, and no Hitler, but his politics were still brutal, murderous, dictatorial, and historically disastrous. He considered it perfectly acceptable to shoot children in cold blood for political reasons, and he led Russia into a regime that was built on lies, gulags, show trials, a suppressive imperialism, and an economic and historic dead-end. A statue glorifying Lenin's political achievements is like a statue celebrating Lance Armstrong's service to cycling. If the people of Russia or Eastern Europe want to tear it down for that reason, that seems reasonable to me.

The Tony Lockett stand always makes me imagine a stand named after Jim O'Dea. Lockett was just luckier than O'Dea, because what he did to Peter Caven was more intentionally thuggish and more likely to kill. Success is its own morality, as ever.

[think positive]

Oh, and one more thing. I spit on this stupid modern practice we have of trying to pretend that bad things never happened by erasing all evidence that we once thought something different. It's childish and stupid.

No, do not rename the Margaret Court Arena just because she is a nasty bigot. No, do not pull down that statue of Lenin just because he did some bad things. No, do not smash that glorious stained glass window just because it was built by the same people who burned witches at the stake and tortured Protestants to death. No, do not paint over that Rolf Harris mural just because he was a nasty groper. No, do not blow up those priceless Roman temples just because they were not followers of the Prophet.

If you can't learn to accept that the world changes and our view of the world changes, and not all of it agrees with the way you look at it, then HTFU princess.

A great post, though Lenin's statues are much more problematic than the other cases mentioned. Court's name is on the tennis arena because she was a great and sportsmanlike tennis player. Her views on other matters are irrelevant unless she is a complete monster, and no, disliking gay sex for religious reasons does not make her Myra Hindley.

Lenin's statues, like those of Stalin or Kim Il Sung, however, are there as a homage to his politics. He is a slightly ambiguous figure, better than Stalin, and no Hitler, but his politics were still brutal, murderous, dictatorial, and historically disastrous. He considered it perfectly acceptable to shoot children in cold blood for political reasons, and he led Russia into a regime that was built on lies, gulags, show trials, a suppressive imperialism, and an economic and historic dead-end. A statue glorifying Lenin's political achievements is like a statue celebrating Lance Armstrong's service to cycling. If the people of Russia or Eastern Europe want to tear it down for that reason, that seems reasonable to me.

The Tony Lockett stand always makes me imagine a stand named after Jim O'Dea. Lockett was just luckier than O'Dea, because what he did to Peter Caven was more intentionally thuggish and more likely to kill. Success is its own morality, as ever.

Good point re the statues and Margeret courts opinion too.fact is it's an opinion.

Scary when the world seems to bend to the opinions of sports stars and screen stars, over more qualified sources, but obviously having the weights big name helps causes, but unless they do the work, their opinion is just that, an opinion.

We all have them just like.....!

[HAL]

Oh, and one more thing. I spit on this stupid modern practice we have of trying to pretend that bad things never happened by erasing all evidence that we once thought something different. It's childish and stupid.

No, do not rename the Margaret Court Arena just because she is a nasty bigot. No, do not pull down that statue of Lenin just because he did some bad things. No, do not smash that glorious stained glass window just because it was built by the same people who burned witches at the stake and tortured Protestants to death. No, do not paint over that Rolf Harris mural just because he was a nasty groper. No, do not blow up those priceless Roman temples just because they were not followers of the Prophet.

If you can't learn to accept that the world changes and our view of the world changes, and not all of it agrees with the way you look at it, then HTFU princess.

A great post, though Lenin's statues are much more problematic than the other cases mentioned. Court's name is on the tennis arena because she was a great and sportsmanlike tennis player. Her views on other matters are irrelevant unless she is a complete monster, and no, disliking gay sex for religious reasons does not make her Myra Hindley.

Lenin's statues, like those of Stalin or Kim Il Sung, however, are there as a homage to his politics. He is a slightly ambiguous figure, better than Stalin, and no Hitler, but his politics were still brutal, murderous, dictatorial, and historically disastrous. He considered it perfectly acceptable to shoot children in cold blood for political reasons, and he led Russia into a regime that was built on lies, gulags, show trials, a suppressive imperialism, and an economic and historic dead-end. A statue glorifying Lenin's political achievements is like a statue celebrating Lance Armstrong's service to cycling. If the people of Russia or Eastern Europe want to tear it down for that reason, that seems reasonable to me.

The Tony Lockett stand always makes me imagine a stand named after Jim O'Dea. Lockett was just luckier than O'Dea, because what he did to Peter Caven was more intentionally thuggish and more likely to kill. Success is its own morality, as ever.

Good point re the statues and Margeret courts opinion too.fact is it's an opinion.

Scary when the world seems to bend to the opinions of sports stars and screen stars, over more qualified sources, but obviously having the weights big name helps causes, but unless they do the work, their opinion is just that, an opinion.

We all have them just like.....!

Did you clean it up?

[Mugwump]

Why triple-lock protect it? Do you have such little faith in our society's ability to debate issues on their merits and come to a sensible conclusion? If so, perhaps your problem is with democracy.

Let me get this straight: I'm not telling you that I know for a fact that there will never be a major push to have same-sex marriages solemnised in churches. It seems unlikely that such a move would gain enough traction to be enshrined in law, but who knows how society will change in the future? Perhaps we will also one day be able to marry our pets. Surely you understand how ridiculous that argument is, though.

Any same-sex marriage bill that passes in Australia in the current climate will permit religious institutions to opt out of performing marriage ceremonies. We know this. No major marriage equality lobby is proposing otherwise. So why fear some activist movement in five, ten, thirty years time seeking to overturn that provision? Are you afraid that the majority of the population will one day support it?

I think belief in democracy requires a little more faith in the ability of the people to decide these matters on their own merits. Otherwise, slippery-slope arguments are considered a fallacy for a reason.

Several important points here. Slippery slope arguments are not at all fallacious. History is built upon slippery slopes. The acceptance of gay marriage, when coupled with anti-discrimination legislation, has a very clear logical tension built into it which will certainly make it hard to defend the churches against charges of discrimination, just as a cake shop owner can be arraigned for refusing to provide a cake. If the latter can happen, how are the churches logically different ?

The appeal to "democracy" as a kind of omniscient god is jejune. "The people" will vote for all kinds of barbarism given the right incentives or enough sentimentality. The dangers of democracy were well (and I suspect very presciently) understood by the American founding fathers, one of whom wrote the following :

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: "From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage."

It's been ca 230 years in the case of America, but this seems a fairly good summary of the progress of democracy since its brave inception there. Hitler rose to power through free elections. In 1940 he'd have been re-elected resoundingly. That the shiftless, always-malleable people can be persuaded by determined propaganda and an impoverished education system to scorn and trample on the liberty of those gentler, or more thoughtful than themselves is well-evidenced. Triple lock, please.

[Skids]

Why not push to change the name of Etihad?

This is an airline, from a part of the world who enforces Sharia law to deal with homosexuals..... the silence is deafening.

[HAL]

When do you think artificial intelligence will replace lawyers?