[Discussion on Issues raised by] AJ getting pie in the face

[Danger]

Interesting that Margaret Court has raised a furore stating she will not fly Qantas due to their pro stand on same sex marriage and equality.

In a democracy she is perfectly entitled to her opinion and I think that her shaming in public as a result of her stating her thoughts is a total disgrace.

Margaret Court Arena: Calls to rename stadium following Court’s views on gay marriage

It would be absolutely priceless if John Borghetti put his hand up in support of marriage equality.

Hello, Indian Pacific.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Maybe someone asked

It was an open letter to the West Australian.

 

[BacchusMarsh]

It would be absolutely priceless if John Borghetti put his hand up in support of marriage equality.

I don't know that it necessarily takes JB to do it.

Almost two years ago:

https://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/we-support-gay-marriage-australia

 

[Pushka]

It was an open letter to the West Australian.

Ok. Still think she has the right to say it. I don't agree with her. It's also why a plebiscite is harmful.

 

[esseeeayeenn]

Greyhound Coaches have added themselves to her boycott list and declared their support for marriage equality.
Margaret Court has every right to express her opinion but that doesn't mean there won't be consequences if the opinions she expresses are abhorrent.

 

[BacchusMarsh]

Margaret Court has every right to express her opinion but that doesn't mean there won't be consequences if the opinions she expresses are abhorrent.

Exactamundo. Everyone's right to express an opinion is equal. The inherent worth of each individual opinion is not. And it seems particularly naive to argue that criticism is unfair when she's gone out of her way to criticise someone else's stance.

 

[ermen]

Not all people are 'equal'. No one gives a rats what I think for example. Role models on the other hand have influence, and they have a platform (media) to disseminate their views. With that comes responsibility. It's not so much the holding of the views, it's the dissemination.

If Margaret doesn't want it fly qantas, who cares? just shut up and not fly qantas. Why make a song and dance about it?

On a similar note you should get AJ to shut up too.

 

[Pushka]

Greyhound Coaches have added themselves to her boycott list and declared their support ofr marriage equality.
Margaret Court has every right to express her opinion but that doesn't mean there won't be consequences if the opinions she expresses are abhorrent.

Yes. Agree with that too.

 

[drron]

It would be much better if there was a lot more of this in the world.I tried it and have never been happier-
The Power of Forgiveness | HuffPost

 

[turtlemichael]

It would be much better if there was a lot more of this in the world.I tried it and have never been happier-
The Power of Forgiveness | HuffPost

Agree - and it works more than one way.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

On a similar note you should get AJ to shut up too.

There is that argument... although AJ is speaking for a minority, many of whom will experience bullying and discrimination at some time in their life. Not sure if the straight majority need champions in the same way?

 

[dajop]

Hello, Indian Pacific.

Well if she can hitch a lift between Esperance and Ceduna, and Ballina to Brisbane, she can get as far as CNS on Rex, a who have sexual orientation specifically absent from their diversity policy (although it may be covered by "etc."):

Rex believes that diversity is about recognising and valuing the contribution of all staff regardless of their differing backgrounds of gender, age, disability, culture, ethnicity and religion etc.

 

[ermen]

There is that argument... although AJ is speaking for a minority, many of whom will experience bullying and discrimination at some time in their life. Not sure if the straight majority need champions in the same way?

I kinda tend to view it the other way.

I think these days, it is the non supporters of SSM (maybe the silent majority - for arguments sake because I do not know who the majority is) is also suffering bullying and discrimination (cf some examples cited above).

Put another way, how do you think people will react if the CEO of a major Australian corporation came out and said I do not believe in SSM and thinks the marriage act should be left "as-s"?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I kinda tend to view it the other way.

I think these days, it is the non supporters of SSM (maybe the silent majority - for arguments sake because I do not know who the majority is) is also suffering bullying and discrimination (cf some examples cited above).

Put another way, how do you think people will react if the CEO of a major Australian corporation came out and said I do not believe in SSM and thinks the marriage act should be left "as-s"?

I don't think there is bullying of Ms Court here... she put out a statement she knew would be contentious, and her timing was designed to reignite an issue rather than heal. She's fighting for something negative. And if you can put it out you can also suck it up when people react.

I think there are fundamental causes (such as equality) that you can speak in favour of, leading to positive change. If you're against it, knowing your position and comments have the ability to demean people and strike at their self esteem, you express your thoughts privately.

 

[samh004]

I too believe Margaret Court is getting a little too much heat from the public/press, and calls to rename the arena named for her are a little silly. However, that being said, there is a line that has to be drawn somewhere. For instance, if she was convicted of child abuse like Rolf Harris, I'd imagine the arena would have the name removed. I'm in no way linking SSM with child abuse of course, for the benefit or detriment of either side, but just pointing out that while one contribution to society shouldn't lose its value on account of a detraction to society, free speech only goes so far. In this case, I don't think she's crossed a line.

Going further though, I saw her on The Project tonight and think she's got the wrong idea. At one point in the interview she appeared to state that those of a same-sex persuasion were that was because of child abuse... which is not how sexual orientation comes about. Perhaps she thinks that if SSM were to be legal, there'd be more child molesters? I wonder how she explains Rolf Harris.

She also kept repeating that the bible tells her what's right etc... but no one bothered to ask her if she ate shellfish (like majority of Australians I'd expect) or wore clothes of a wool/cotton blend. Not to mention she said she had no issue with gay people in general, which is also noted as an abomination, but does have an issue with marriage. Surely that's picking and choosing right there, if you think SSM should be allowed because of the text of the bible, you also shouldn't think a man can lie with another man as that's an abomination... you can't overlook one. You should accept all, not choose what works best for you, or you're just as bad (probably) in God's eyes.

And didn't another member her who is an expert in theology point out that marriage wasn't a word in the bible until a thousand years ago or so, that the very word is not christian in origin. Something like that.

Anyway, that was my view from the interview, but I do think she should be able to have an opinion. She's said what she wants, doesn't bother me how she feels, and nor should it.

 

[GladstoneTim]

I don't think there is bullying of Ms Court here... she put out a statement she knew would be contentious, and her timing was designed to reignite an issue rather than heal. She's fighting for something negative. And if you can put it out you can also suck it up when people react.

I think there are fundamental causes (such as equality) that you can speak in favour of, leading to positive change. If you're against it, knowing your position and comments have the ability to demean people and strike at their self esteem, you express your thoughts privately.

I watched Margaret Court in The Project tonight. I admire her for being willing to stand up for what she believes in knowing she will be targeted by the SSM proponents. Anyone who expresses a differing opinion is pilloried. So much for free speech in this nation. I was embarrassed by the panel on The Project not showing basic courtesy in allowing her to actually answer their questions and not be mocked. If Labour had supported a plebiscite this would all have been done and dusted, wouldn't it?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I watched Margaret Court in The Project tonight. I admire her for being willing to stand up for what she believes in knowing she will be targeted by the SSM proponents. Anyone who expresses a differing opinion is pilloried. So much for free speech in this nation. I was embarrassed by the panel on The Project not showing basic courtesy in allowing her to actually answer their questions and not be mocked. If Labour had supported a plebiscite this would all have been done and dusted, wouldn't it?

That's the issue isn't it? If they held a plebiscite you'd have all sorts coming forward condemning SSM, homosexuality, the full suite of GLBTI issues. It could be hugely damaging. If a prominent sportsperson, a role model, thinks it's ok just to write an open letter to inflame discrimination, how bad would it be in the campaigning for a plebiscite?

The point is that there was just no need for her to express this opinion. This isn't a debate on the economy, housing affordability, or one of hundreds of other issues where there is room for robust debate. This is something deeply personal, which doesn't affect Ms Court, but she wants to get involved knowing it will create division. Strong renunciation of those views by others shows support for the GLBTI community. Just as we all strongly condemn divisive comments on race, gender, or other equality issues.

Free speech? Absolutely - where it matters. But do we really need it as an excuse when people deliberately set out to create division or hurts others?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Anyway, that was my view from the interview, but I do think she should be able to have an opinion. She's said what she wants, doesn't bother me how she feels, and nor should it.

It may not bother you... but how does it bother a young member of the GLBTI community who's calling lifeline because they're relentlessly bullied for being different? Ms Court has her opinions - that's fine. But using her position to get a platform for divisive comments? Why not use your position for something positive instead of negative?

 

[GladstoneTim]

That's the issue isn't it? If they held a plebiscite you'd have all sorts coming forward condemning SSM, homosexuality, the full suite of GLBTI issues. It could be hugely damaging. If a prominent sportsperson, a role model, thinks it's ok just to write an open letter to inflame discrimination, how bad would it be in the campaigning for a plebiscite?

The point is that there was just no need for her to express this opinion. This isn't a debate on the economy, housing affordability, or one of hundreds of other issues where there is room for robust debate. This is something deeply personal, which doesn't affect Ms Court, but she wants to get involved knowing it will create division. Strong renunciation of those views by others shows support for the GLBTI community. Just as we all strongly condemn divisive comments on race, gender, or other equality issues.

Free speech? Absolutely - where it matters. But do we really need it as an excuse when people deliberately set out to create division or hurts others?

So in essence you are saying free speech is fine as long it isn't contrary to what you think? Or can we only discuss topics that some determine worthy of discussion? Her opinion represents a vast number of Australians. Because we haven't been able to hold a plebiscite the numbers cannot be ascertained one way or another. Bring on a plebiscite, bring it on as fast as possible so a result is known and this debate can cease. Those who claim sexually confused people will be harmed by the debate can be alleviated of much of this risk by not dragging it out!

 

[MEL_Traveller]

So in essence you are saying free speech is fine as long it isn't contrary to what you think?

...

Those who claim sexually confused people will be harmed by the debate can be alleviated of much of this risk by not dragging it out!

Not at all. I'm questioning the value of using your celebrity to make very public comments on issues that you know are potentially harmful and divisive. You can't just hide behind 'free speech' when people call you out on it.

That being said I just watched The Project interview. I sort of felt a bit sorry for her.

I'm not sure how to interpret your comment about 'sexually confused' people. LGBTI people aren't necessarily 'confused' or in doubt.