diedpretty
Well-known member
Hope they all boycott it - then there will be no tennis during summer - yeeha - the most boring game on earth.
Rename Margaret Court Arena?
- Thread starter Byron_Bay_Fan
- Start date
jirskyr
Well-known member
@ said:
Margaret wouldn't allow that.
@ said:
So you agree the powerful LGBT lobby should keep their views to themselves?
For years this lobby has said its people had to hide in the shadows in fear because people would attack them based on their 'different' views.
Now they are doing exactly the same to people who dare to voice an opinion contrary to theirs.
jirskyr
Well-known member
I honestly think some of you are missing the point.
Margaret Court can say whatever she likes, she has the right to an opinion. But her opinion gets more coverage than the average Joe, so it's prone to more scrutiny.
She should not be comparing any minority groups with "the devil"? Imagine if she'd said that about Aboriginies or asylum seekers. She hides behind her religion, because that appears to give her licence to stand fast with her opinions. Court should not be bullied, but if you are going to make controversial public comments you should expect public criticism.
But all that aside, the thing about the actual arena itself is that it wasn't just named for her tennis achievements. The naming of the arena is a symbol of the history of Australian tennis, and the venue is the property of Tennis Australia. When Margaret Court starts making controversial statements, she brings other organisations, tied to her name, into potential disrepute. You can't divorce the person and the name, and you can't truly say that you name venues, or statues, or awards for only the sporting achievements of a person, totally ignoring their off-field personality.
So the point is her name has for years represented something for Tennis Australia and The Australian Open, both businesses, and now she is affecting their reputation as well as her own.
It's like when sponsors abandon a club over off-field behaviours. You can argue all you like that players are allowed opinions, should be forgiven where possible for indiscretions, but for sponsorship business that isn't enough, they don't want to be associated with bigotry, negative behaviour, criminality etc.
Margaret Court is literally a bigot.
Margaret Court can say whatever she likes, she has the right to an opinion. But her opinion gets more coverage than the average Joe, so it's prone to more scrutiny.
She should not be comparing any minority groups with "the devil"? Imagine if she'd said that about Aboriginies or asylum seekers. She hides behind her religion, because that appears to give her licence to stand fast with her opinions. Court should not be bullied, but if you are going to make controversial public comments you should expect public criticism.
But all that aside, the thing about the actual arena itself is that it wasn't just named for her tennis achievements. The naming of the arena is a symbol of the history of Australian tennis, and the venue is the property of Tennis Australia. When Margaret Court starts making controversial statements, she brings other organisations, tied to her name, into potential disrepute. You can't divorce the person and the name, and you can't truly say that you name venues, or statues, or awards for only the sporting achievements of a person, totally ignoring their off-field personality.
So the point is her name has for years represented something for Tennis Australia and The Australian Open, both businesses, and now she is affecting their reputation as well as her own.
It's like when sponsors abandon a club over off-field behaviours. You can argue all you like that players are allowed opinions, should be forgiven where possible for indiscretions, but for sponsorship business that isn't enough, they don't want to be associated with bigotry, negative behaviour, criminality etc.
Margaret Court is literally a bigot.
@ said:
I 100% forgot about the Stig comments. I had to look them up.
To answer your Thurston question ill pose one to you. Did you think Joey Johns would become an immortal after he admitted he spent the majority of his career on drugs and racialy abused Greg Inglis, publicaly referring to him as a black c###? Do you think he should have kept his immortal status after his behaviour at Toowomba Airport?
Byron_Bay_Fan
New member
@ said:
Sometimes It goes in reverse direction, usually because of religion or a religion mix. Now in Malaysia they are going more conservative Islamic and are whipping gays and jail sentences of up to 20 years.
@ said:
Do you seriously believe that? This world will never be a kind place. I think the gay community have far bigger problems then some people calling them names and saying harsh things about same sex marriage. There are millions of people out there who will kill them given the chance.
Tigerdave
Well-known member
Being able to have her own opinion doesn't make her immune from criticism.
She's a fool, but the stand name shouldn't change, as it's been pointed out, that was done due to her tennis achievements and nothing else.
She's a fool, but the stand name shouldn't change, as it's been pointed out, that was done due to her tennis achievements and nothing else.
AL The Tiger
Well-known member
It's ironic how those in favour of gay marriage are able to express their views without much repercussion. Gay pride is literally forced down my throat through every avenue I turn to face, mostly from P-C Buzzfeed (scum of the earth). I am not homophobic by any means and will accept anyone from anywhere, but it's really hypocritical that we focus on the freedom of speech and views and have allowed gay pride into society, yet when someone expresses views against it action must be taken. I don't think many of you still realise gay marriage is illegal, why not go after the government?
AL The Tiger
Well-known member
@ said:
100% agree ck. I am not homophobic and do not support Court's comments but it is really ironic.
jirskyr
Well-known member
@ said:
It's one thing to show contrition, another entirely to be steadfast in the wake of public backlash.
I haven't done the research but I'm fairly sure Johns was publicly apologetic for his racist slur. Same as Paul Gallen and no, people don't forget it. Does it cast a cloud over Johns' entire reputation? Absolutely! He's a tarnished Immortal, that's for sure. I would not have been surprised at all if they didn't install him.
But like his brother, he's done penance and rebranded himself, and not been a recidivist. Some people can accept that, some can't, but neither of the Johns boys are actively causing social outrage at this time.
jirskyr
Well-known member
@ said:
Well the thing is, the LGBT lobby shouldn't have to make a comment, they shouldn't need to defend themselves.
Yes I agree they are attacking Margaret Court, but that's because she is a public figure making divisive comments about the LGBT lobby. People are allowed to defend themselves in public, same as people are allowed to make their opinions in public.
This is not a chicken-and-egg thing however, nobody from the LGBT lobby would have said anything about Margaret Court ever if she hadn't started making anti-homosexuality comments in public. She uses her public position to elevate her commentary over the din, she isn't some nobody from down the road.
It would be like criticising someone who got punched in the face, for punching back. "Isn't it ironic how Robbo punched me in the face after I punched him in the face first. Didn't expect he'd have to stoop to that level. Who does he think he is, calling me out for punching someone in the face, when he punched me in the face himself." It's an extreme example, but Court isn't giving her opinion on favourite jam flavours, she is openly criticising people's lawful way of life. There are very few scenarios when this would be acceptable from a public figure.
And Court has started trying to leverage her opinion against brands like QANTAS. That's no longer an opinion, that is activism.
AL The Tiger
Well-known member
@ said:
You are absolutely right
jirskyr
Well-known member
@ said:
You're a cynic but honestly it makes a different in the public sphere. I'm not saying wrong or right, just saying public apologies often work, so long as what you have done can be forgiven.
What are your thoughts on Russel Packer coming to the club? Should he have been blacklisted?
Maybe we could just rename Margaret Court and keep the arena name as it is…
