Should Tennis Australia change the name of the Margaret Court show court @ the AO [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Should Tennis Australia change the name of the Margaret Court show court @ the AO

tennis2tennis
12-18-2011, 02:56 PM
In light of the recent row that erupted when Margaret Court gave an interview to The West Australian (http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/12256170/legend-condemns-gay-marriage/) in which she came down strongly not just against gay marriage, but gays themselves.


Her comments were condemned by many in the sport (http://www.tennischannel.com/news/NewsDetails.aspx?newsid=10078) by both gay and non-gay in the tennis heirarchy (http://tennis.si.com/2011/12/16/tennis-tweets/?sct=tn_bf1_a4)

what's your view?

Sham Kay
12-18-2011, 03:08 PM
Good to see Aloimeh found themselves something to do while banned.

thetennistimes
12-18-2011, 04:36 PM
No.. why would they event think about changing the name??

HKz
12-18-2011, 04:43 PM
Now she was in a weak era.

Sunset of Age
12-18-2011, 04:50 PM
Eh, no. A player's personal opinion is something he/she is entitled to, however despicable that opinion might be. It takes nothing away from her achievements in tennis.

Good to see Aloimeh found themselves something to do while banned.

:spit:

Nathaliia
12-18-2011, 05:01 PM
who cares about wta

ffs

woman to kitchen

Johnny Groove
12-18-2011, 05:10 PM
They should switch the name to Hewitt Court. He's a very humble, well spoken, non-controversial person.

Just ask his best friend Guillermo Coria.

Vilnietė
12-18-2011, 05:18 PM
who cares about wta

ffs

woman to kitchen

:rolls:

though I agree that WTA is boring to watch...

tennis2tennis
12-18-2011, 05:56 PM
who cares about wta

ffs

woman to kitchen

not a fan of the WTA either but it can have a negative affect on the sport in general...the scene in tennis is usually open-minded

Dougie
12-18-2011, 07:08 PM
Changing the name of the court doesn´t make a big difference, but obviously Tennis Australia should make some statement abotu it, and then keep their distance to someone who is this stupid and ignorant.

mark73
12-18-2011, 07:30 PM
Eh, no. A player's personal opinion is something he/she is entitled to, however despicable that opinion might be. It takes nothing away from her achievements in tennis.



:spit:


The fact that someone has the right to voice religious mumbo jumbo about gays (what a retarded person) does not mean we should not take a stance and say that we will not tolerate a society that ACTS to limit the right of gays. This woman is playing a role in trying to reduce gay rights (mainly through her ideas). We should fight her ideas and actions with those of our own. Changing the name of the court would be a symbolic way of asserting that we want a society that treats gays equally.

Most people have not had there minds warped by religion and can only stare in disbelieve at how any one can have a problem with what two men or two women do in their private bedroom.

mark73
12-18-2011, 07:35 PM
What is funny about the poll options is that they are not mutually exclusive. They are consistent with each other, that is one can agree with both poll options. The part about her having the right to her own opinion and that bigotry is unaccepatable. :lol:

Sunset of Age
12-18-2011, 07:42 PM
The fact that someone has the right to voice religious mumbo jumbo about gays (what a retarded person) does not mean we should not take a stance and say that we will not tolerate a society that ACTS to limit the right of gays. This woman is playing a role in trying to reduce gay rights (mainly through her ideas). We should fight her ideas and actions with those of our own. Changing the name of the court would be a symbolic way of asserting that we want a society that treats gays equally.

Most people have not had there minds warped by religion and can only stare in disbelieve at how any one can have a problem with what two men or two women do in their private bedroom.

Don't misunderstand me, I fully agree that there should be something done about this - an official statement from Tennis Australia, for instance, that they do NOT condone Mrs. Court's opinions, would be most welcome.
I just don't think it's adequate to rename the court, as that court was renamed after her because of her tennis achievements, not because of her private opinions/activities. :shrug:

Pretty hard to adequately deal with religious nuttery, unfortunately.

Dr.Slice
12-18-2011, 07:47 PM
I am not even slightly religious, but I agree with her views on gay marriage 100%. Of course, she was brave in saying what she said, because the "tolerant ones" will harrass her to maximum now.

Vilnietė
12-18-2011, 07:49 PM
If I remember right in Switzerland there was a discussion about giving a name of Roger Federer to some street but the society disagreed to name the stree after a living person because who knows what he'll do in the future. I like that way of thinking, tennis results is not everything the person should be respectful in all ways...

mark73
12-18-2011, 08:09 PM
Don't misunderstand me, I fully agree that there should be something done about this - an official statement from Tennis Australia, for instance, that they do NOT condone Mrs. Court's opinions, would be most welcome.
I just don't think it's adequate to rename the court, as that court was renamed after her because of her tennis achievements, not because of her private opinions/activities. :shrug:

Pretty hard to adequately deal with religious nuttery, unfortunately.

I responded to you because you are a good poster. And I was rewarded with a good post. :)

Pirata.
12-18-2011, 08:59 PM
I am not even slightly religious, but I agree with her views on gay marriage 100%. Of course, she was brave in saying what she said, because the "tolerant ones" will harrass her to maximum now.

I don't understand you--you aren't religious yet you agree with her views that marriage is, according to god's word, between a man and a woman? If you aren't religious, I don't get how you can agree with her views on the laws of a deity?

Change it to Bernard Tomic Arena :shrug:

leng jai
12-18-2011, 09:07 PM
Just change to Atomic Tomic arena already...

siffleanimaux
12-18-2011, 09:55 PM
Just change to Atomic Tomic arena already...

Fucking love it.

Benny_Maths
12-18-2011, 11:57 PM
How is her opinion on something non-tennis related event relevant? You could argue that it gives the AO a bad image, but most of the revenue-generating public wouldn't even know who Margaret Court is. Besides, I initially read the title as "Should Tennis Australia change the name of the Margaret Court to slow court @ the AO", in which case it's a resounding yes given the aptness of the reflection upon the surface.:D

Slice Winner
12-19-2011, 01:03 AM
Just change to Atomic Tomic arena already...

Yes, and play must only be allowed until 9pm. ;)


Dr. Slice, I'm saddened to share one word of my user name with you.

Nathii - AHAHAHA :lol:

Topspindoctor
12-19-2011, 01:22 AM
In light of the recent row that erupted when Margaret Court gave an interview to The West Australian (http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/12256170/legend-condemns-gay-marriage/) in which she came down strongly not just against gay marriage, but gays themselves.


Her comments were condemned by many in the sport (http://www.tennischannel.com/news/NewsDetails.aspx?newsid=10078) by both gay and non-gay in the tennis heirarchy (http://tennis.si.com/2011/12/16/tennis-tweets/?sct=tn_bf1_a4)

what's your view?

No. Court is entitled to her opinions, even if they conflict with opinions of the liberals. Australia is a country where freedom of speech is still practiced. Even though I am an atheist and couldn't care less about the "magic book" I believe in person's right to express his/her ideas, no matter how delusional they might be...

tripwires
12-19-2011, 02:00 AM
Good to see Aloimeh found themselves something to do while banned.

:lol: couldn't goodrep you for this.

I disagree vehemently with her hateful drivel but it doesn't take away from her contributions to her sport. She's entitled to her own (shitty) opinion.

Zare1
12-19-2011, 02:26 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPvVnrV1tow

Topspindoctor
12-19-2011, 03:09 AM
The idea that what Court said is just a private opinion that should just be ignored is :bs:. Activists in various countries are trying as hard as they can to stop suicides among LGBT youths, and it has been documented that the kind of hate speech spewed by public figures like Court in the name of her deity is one of the root causes of the self-hate and despair these young people feel. To argue that renaming MCA to censure one of the sports' most prominent Aus. legends for her CONTINUED hate speech would somehow be a blow against free speech is laughable. No one would be stopping Court from continuing to speak her bigotry by renaming MCA; they'd just be sending the counter-message that many people vehemently disagree with her brand of idiocy. :shrug: :cool:

If they are so weak they they commit sucides because of comments someone made, they probably don't deserve to be here anyway. This planet has over 7 billion people already. I doubt they'll be missed.

As for the idea, I'd love to see MCA renamed but there clearly isn't the will or leadership to make it happen. As the ridiculously ignorant comments in this thread proves, there would be a bigger public uproar over the renaming of an arena to censure a bigot than there would be over the bigot's actual odious behavior, which is a sad comment on people. :) I much prefer the idea of ticketholders going to MCA with rainbow flags and/or banners protesting Court's words. If people can wave their flags around in the stands in a show of jingoistic d-ck-waving, surely a rainbow flag or a "Court Doesn't Speak for Me" banner would be perfectly acceptable.

She has a right to express her opinion, end of story. Thankfully Australia is still democratic and people are still free to speak their mind unlike in communist Europe where you can get jailed for denying holocaust :wavey: People are free to do what they want, no matter how controversial it is, so wipe the foam from your mouth and accept it. :wavey:

abraxas21
12-19-2011, 04:00 AM
Eh, no. A player's personal opinion is something he/she is entitled to, however despicable that opinion might be. It takes nothing away from her achievements in tennis.

thats true but it doesnt address the issue.

arthur ashe didn't get the new york stadium named after him mainly because of his tennis and some of the residents of basel have refused to name their street 'roger federer' not because of his lack of achievements...

stewietennis
12-19-2011, 04:34 AM
thats true but it doesnt address the issue.

arthur ashe didn't get the new york stadium named after him mainly because of his tennis and some of the residents of basel have refused to name their street 'roger federer' not because of his lack of achievements...

But Laver and Court have ones named after them specifically for tennis achievements (I don't know of any causes that they sponsor or if they've contributed any other way to society). If other tournaments choose to name theirs a certain way it's their prerogative. There's no hard and fast rule on how to name venues.

emotion
12-19-2011, 04:41 AM
Rafter is obvious choice if they rename it, though Hewitt would also have a shot. As they should. What an awful ambassador

I personally like "Chris Guccione Arena"

abraxas21
12-19-2011, 04:43 AM
But Laver and Court have ones named after them specifically for tennis achievements (I don't know of any causes that they sponsor or if they've contributed any other way to society). If other tournaments choose to name theirs a certain way it's their prerogative. There's no hard and fast rule on how to name venues.

true but at the time their images were not tainted by controversial opinions that defied the common establishment.

to use a rather common but inexact analogy, i can assure you that uncle laver wouldnt have a court named after him if he had been pro-nazi, regardless of how many Grand Slams he would have won.

Pirata.
12-19-2011, 04:47 AM
If they are so weak they they commit sucides because of comments someone made, they probably don't deserve to be here anyway. This planet has over 7 billion people already. I doubt they'll be missed.

You have said some pretty awful stuff, but this is just... :help:

allpro
12-19-2011, 04:50 AM
no.

abraxas21
12-19-2011, 04:52 AM
You have said some pretty awful stuff, but this is just... :help:

Fantastic comment, quoted for posterity. :yeah: MTF continues to impress.

at first i was also shocked by it but then i noticed who was the author and i wasnt surprised anymore

abraxas21
12-19-2011, 04:54 AM
Rafter is obvious choice if they rename it, though Hewitt would also have a shot. As they should. What an awful ambassador

I personally like "Chris Guccione Arena"

:lol:

after so many colourful incidents throughout hewitt's career, he'd be lucky to get the fluffed teddy bears' store named after him.

Pirata.
12-19-2011, 04:58 AM
Aussie Kim Arena sounds perfectly legit to me :shrug:

emotion
12-19-2011, 05:04 AM
:lol:

after so many colourful incidents throughout hewitt's career, he'd be lucky to get the fluffed teddy bears' store named after him.

Eh, the only truly controversial thing was the Blake thing and that was on-court, spur-of-the-moment.

Johnny Groove
12-19-2011, 05:05 AM
Verd making some good points in here, Topspindoctor proving once again what an idiot he is.

Aussie Kim Arena sounds perfectly legit to me :shrug:

Eh. I agree with whoever said Guccione Arena :p

abraxas21
12-19-2011, 05:09 AM
Eh, the only truly controversial thing was the Blake thing and that was on-court, spur-of-the-moment.

the blake thing was the most serious/notorious but certainly not the only one

but don't get me wrong, i used to loathe hewitt but now i realize he was a great real life troll

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnH092Qtyhc

deserves respect, imo

abraxas21
12-19-2011, 05:10 AM
bogan arena

Pirata.
12-19-2011, 06:29 AM
bogan arena

:worship:

fast_clay
12-19-2011, 06:36 AM
who cares about wta

ffs

woman to kitchen

f'ken oath... at least there is some sanity in amongst this bullsh!t...

court should be renamed the Tony Roche Arena that houses the Fromberg Stand and the Masur Commentary Booth...

as i am all for equality, the food kiosk that sits behind the western end of HiSense should be renamed the Margaret Court HotDog Stand... the commercial kitchen that is found in the massive complex beneath Rod Laver arena which caters food for the Garden enclosure and other kiosks can be renamed the Goolagong-Cawley Kitchen... she should get the better kitchen than Court because Court is white and we should always use some obvious politically correct sentiment when renaming important venues...

Hewitt =Legend
12-19-2011, 06:52 AM
^ :lol:

the bogan and gooch arena names are also reasonable suggestions

Vilnietė
12-19-2011, 09:20 AM
If they are so weak they they commit sucides because of comments someone made, they probably don't deserve to be here anyway. This planet has over 7 billion people already. I doubt they'll be missed.



She has a right to express her opinion, end of story. Thankfully Australia is still democratic and people are still free to speak their mind unlike in communist Europe where you can get jailed for denying holocaust :wavey: People are free to do what they want, no matter how controversial it is, so wipe the foam from your mouth and accept it. :wavey:

That's not democracy, that's anarchy...

ossie
12-19-2011, 09:41 AM
no she is just trying to protect families.

Sunset of Age
12-19-2011, 09:45 AM
All you apologists who are :bigcry: and whining that this is just Court's "private opinion" and that she is free to express her beliefs are missing the mark.

Hmm. I hope you don't count me in into this category. I just wonder whether renaming the court is the adequate action. I just think that a venement statement from Tennis Australia, and even better, other PTB (governmental?) as well, would be even better, but like I said, pretty impossible to properly deal with religious nutcases, as they seem to be pretty oblivious to any scientific factualities concerning this matter. Sadly so. :(

The idea that what Court said is just a private opinion that should just be ignored is :bs:. Activists in various countries are trying as hard as they can to stop suicides among LGBT youths, and it has been documented that the kind of hate speech spewed by public figures like Court in the name of her deity is one of the root causes of the self-hate and despair these young people feel. To argue that renaming MCA to censure one of the sports' most prominent Aus. legends for her CONTINUED hate speech would somehow be a blow against free speech is laughable. No one would be stopping Court from continuing to speak her bigotry by renaming MCA; they'd just be sending the counter-message that many people vehemently disagree with her brand of idiocy. :shrug: :cool:

I see all kinds of religious leaders (n)uttering the same kind of :bs: all the time, nothing is being done against that either. As soon as one throws the factor 'religion' in the ring, it appears they become immume to any rational reasoning, and discussion becomes void. That is bad enough as it is, but there are even societies/cultures/PTB on this planet claiming that homosexuality among their circles doesn't even exist, as they claim it's a so-called form of 'western decadence'. :stupid: :help:
Ignorance and repression, that's what it's all about, and all in the name of 'religion'. Damn.

I much prefer the idea of ticketholders going to MCA with rainbow flags and/or banners protesting Court's words. If people can wave their flags around in the stands in a show of jingoistic d-ck-waving, surely a rainbow flag or a "Court Doesn't Speak for Me" banner would be perfectly acceptable.

I would really like to see that happening. Judging on the number of gay folks among tennis fans (at least this forum indicates that there are plenty :)), one would hope that the gay society in Australia will be able to summon enough fans to make it happen. "OCCUPY", I say! :rocker2: ;)

If they are so weak they they commit sucides because of comments someone made, they probably don't deserve to be here anyway. This planet has over 7 billion people already. I doubt they'll be missed.

:cuckoo: :help: :smash:

scoobs
12-19-2011, 09:56 AM
If they are so weak they they commit sucides because of comments someone made, they probably don't deserve to be here anyway. This planet has over 7 billion people already. I doubt they'll be missed.


One of the most disgusting things I have read on this forum.

I don't support Court's name being removed from the arena, at this point, though I would appreciate Tennis Australia putting out a statement unequivocally rejecting her views - a few more male tennis players wouldn't go amiss either.

Court's views on this are consistent, she doesn't tend to wade in with them in the media on a regular basis for what I can see, it's the gay marriage debate in Australia that has prompted her latest interjection. I think her views should be condemned and then she should be left alone, unless she decides she's going to become a regular poster-girl for anti-gay bigotry in the media, in which case TA should review the situation. Her tennis achievements are still paramount - for the moment.

Hewitt =Legend
12-19-2011, 11:19 AM
I think T-doc is deadset one of the loneliest, saddest individuals I've ever encountered. I actually feel a bit sorry for him...

Chirag
12-19-2011, 11:47 AM
If they are so weak they they commit sucides because of comments someone made, they probably don't deserve to be here anyway. This planet has over 7 billion people already. I doubt they'll be missed.


:mad::mad::smash::smash::shrug::no::facepalm:

leng jai
12-19-2011, 11:53 AM
I think T-doc is deadset one of the loneliest, saddest individuals I've ever encountered. I actually feel a bit sorry for him...

He lives in the same country as us. Lets get him. I'll fire up the ute.

tripwires
12-19-2011, 11:59 AM
One of the most disgusting things I have read on this forum.



I think T-doc is deadset one of the loneliest, saddest individuals I've ever encountered. I actually feel a bit sorry for him...

Not surprising really, considering the comments he made about Muslims in another thread. What I find sad is his lack of self-awareness - he claims to be tolerant and yet is obviously intolerant of Muslims.

no she is just trying to protect families.

:haha:

leng jai
12-19-2011, 12:07 PM
Don't let Topspindoctor touch your genitals - he is not a real doctor.

fast_clay
12-19-2011, 12:18 PM
I think T-doc is deadset one of the loneliest, saddest individuals I've ever encountered. I actually feel a bit sorry for him...

sadly he is representative of a scarily large percentage of the australian population that include several members of my immediate family who i have refused contact with for a numbers of years now...

purebred bogan... the real mccoy

noddzy
12-19-2011, 02:31 PM
time to change your avatar fast_clay...

fast_clay
12-19-2011, 03:06 PM
time to change your avatar fast_clay...

elvis sold more records in 'death'...

rtgy
12-19-2011, 03:19 PM
Should Tennis Australia change the name of the Margaret Court show court @ the AO

Off course! that bigoted bitch is a shame! I do respect her achievements and great tennis career but evangelical fanaticism and gay bashing can't be tolerated!

rtgy
12-19-2011, 03:52 PM
If they are so weak they they commit sucides because of comments someone made, they probably don't deserve to be here anyway. This planet has over 7 billion people already. I doubt they'll be missed.


WTF?!?


She has a right to express her opinion, end of story. Thankfully Australia is still democratic and people are still free to speak their mind unlike in communist Europe where you can get jailed for denying holocaust :wavey: People are free to do what they want, no matter how controversial it is, so wipe the foam from your mouth and accept it. :wavey:

are you mental?

Slice Winner
12-19-2011, 05:16 PM
Fred Stolle Arena.

As it was written, may it come to pass.

r2473
12-19-2011, 05:53 PM
Is it called "Margaret Court" Court?

Just wondering wondering.

tennis2tennis
12-19-2011, 06:01 PM
Is it called "Margaret Court" Court?

Just wondering wondering.

:worship:

Pirata.
12-19-2011, 08:02 PM
Is it called "Margaret Court" Court?

Just wondering wondering.

:lol:

Margaret Court Arena, like Rod Laver Arena, Hisense Arena. USO's major show courts are stadiums, Wimbledon doesn't have official names, RG uses Stade, but maybe Lenglen is Court?

viruzzz
12-19-2011, 08:15 PM
Don't let Topspindoctor touch your genitals - he is not a real doctor.

Okay, after the worst post in history of MTF, we have the best one here.
Leng Jai, also known as "Tommy Haas" (yeah, admit it, you are him, you're Tommy himself), is the winner of the Viruz - Mtforumer award of the month.

HKz
12-19-2011, 08:47 PM
Why are Topspindoctor and his 6 other accounts of Failerko, tard da fail and clay fail still here? Clay fail and tard da fail are banned, so continue on with his other accounts.

stewietennis
12-19-2011, 08:57 PM
true but at the time their images were not tainted by controversial opinions that defied the common establishment.

to use a rather common but inexact analogy, i can assure you that uncle laver wouldnt have a court named after him if he had been pro-nazi, regardless of how many Grand Slams he would have won.

I'm not sure about "controversial opinion" because she'll probably get an equal number of supporters as she does detractors – that's why it hasn't been passed as law yet. It may be a "controversial" in NYC but not so much in Texas; maybe yes in America but not so much in Asia. I'm certain if Rod Laver came out and opposed Margaret Court's opinions, you'd have a lot conservatives yelling for his name to be removed from his stadium.

I believe you have to look at Court and her age, upbringing… etc. It's not uncommon to have this opinion for someone in her age bracket.

Sofonda Cox
12-19-2011, 09:02 PM
mtf homophobes out in force....NID.

Sofonda Cox
12-19-2011, 09:04 PM
If they are so weak they they commit sucides because of comments someone made, they probably don't deserve to be here anyway. This planet has over 7 billion people already. I doubt they'll be missed.


One of the most disgusting posts I have read on any forum. I'm sorry I mistook you for a decent poster.


BURN.

Sunset of Age
12-19-2011, 10:27 PM
Well perhaps it should indeed be renamed... I'd suggest "Martina Navratilova Court". :yeah:
A much better player than M.C. was anyways. Oh, wait...

Certinfy
12-19-2011, 10:41 PM
Couldn't care less. I mean it's just the name of a fucking court.

Would be interesting if they puts guys like Lopez, Verdasco etc. to play on it though. :lol:

Guy Haines
12-20-2011, 12:04 AM
Navaratilova Arena has a good ring to it, not that it'll ever happen.

It would have extra meaning because Martina was singled out by Court when Court first began making phobic comments to the press years ago. Regardless of what one thinks of her personality, Martina is a hero for being out at a time when it was much harder to be, especially when her chief opponents -- Evert Lloyd and Austin -- were seen as representatives of all-American wholesomeness. It's wild to see some of her major finals, at the USO in particular. The stadium is packed beyond anything we see these days yet she really seems alone out there.

Goolagong Arena would be great too, like Verd says.

It'll be interesting to see if there's a pro-LGBT presence at Margaret Court Arena this year -- off and on court -- and if there is, to what degree the media acknowledges it.

Pirata.
12-20-2011, 12:11 AM
I can't imagine them would name it after Martina, she's not Australian :lol: If they want to name it for an Aussie woman, they have Evonne Goolagong--Goolagong Arena sounds much cooler than Margaret Court Arena anyway.

Topspindoctor
12-20-2011, 12:14 AM
Navaratilova Arena has a good ring to it, not that it'll ever happen.


Uhm no. She's a foreigner, so how does she deserve an AUSTRALIAN tennis court named after her? What has she done for this country? I'd rather it be called Jullia Gillard arena than Navratilova arena.

leng jai
12-20-2011, 12:16 AM
Atomic Tomic Cauldron

Guy Haines
12-20-2011, 12:18 AM
Uhm no. She's a foreigner, so how does she deserve an AUSTRALIAN tennis court named after her? What has she done for this country? I'd rather it be called Jullia Gillard arena than Navratilova arena.

Uh, I realize this. I said, 'Not that it'll ever happen.' I know you're angry in this thread, but do I have to spell it out?

qDSUsQbS6BQ

Sunset of Age
12-20-2011, 12:20 AM
Uh, I realize this. I said, 'Not that it'll ever happen.' I know you're angry in this thread, but do I have to spell it out?

qDSUsQbS6BQ

:hearts:
May it happen again, again, again, again, and oh, again. Preferably at the Goolagong Court coming January.

Guy Haines
12-20-2011, 12:20 AM
Atomic Tomic Cauldron

Still one of the best.

It's unlikely the name will be changed unless she keeps on with the commentary. But I'm hoping there will be some responses to what she's said at this year's tournament.

HKz
12-20-2011, 12:41 AM
:baby:

Did you lose your pacifier? Mommy will buy you a new one, don't you worry. :lol:

okay failerko/clay fail/tard da fail

Topspindoctor
12-20-2011, 12:50 AM
okay failerko/clay fail/tard da fail

Is that all? Double account accusation? I'd expect something more from the local tennis "expert", but I guess your comebacks are as limited as your tennis knowledge :awww:

Egreen
12-20-2011, 01:04 AM
No.

RafaNadal2012!!!
12-20-2011, 02:22 AM
No, her opinions have no effect on the great results she produced.

HKz
12-20-2011, 03:34 AM
Is that all? Double account accusation? I'd expect something more from the local tennis "expert", but I guess your comebacks are as limited as your tennis knowledge :awww:

Yeah my tennis knowledge is so limited. You on the other hand must have heaps of tennis knowledge, can anyone vouch? :lol:

Hewitt =Legend
12-20-2011, 03:51 AM
T-Doc has vast experience and knowledge of how to hang off Nadal's scrotum..

Pirata.
12-20-2011, 06:58 AM
This thread is a disaster :lol:

Mr.Michael
12-20-2011, 10:50 AM
They should consider someone outside of Australia? And at the same time they could give Margaret Court the finger? The solution would obviously be naming it the Bill Tilden show court.

tripwires
12-20-2011, 11:39 AM
They should consider someone outside of Australia? And at the same time they could give Margaret Court the finger? The solution would obviously be naming it the Bill Tilden show court.

T-Doc has vast experience and knowledge of how to hang off Nadal's scrotum..

:haha: :haha:

This thread is epic.

PiggyGotRoasted
12-20-2011, 12:34 PM
I vote calling it "Alex Bogdanovic Stadium" or "Yannick Noah"

emotion
12-20-2011, 12:38 PM
If there were a set criteria, they shouldn't take it away as freedom of speech. However, a business trying to sell tickets should strive to avoid offense, and these comments were clearly ignorant and offensive. I still think Guccione Stadium would be a good idea

BroTree123
12-20-2011, 01:04 PM
In all seriousness, who gives a shit lol.

a_boy
12-20-2011, 01:21 PM
I suppose they can't call it the Jelena Dokic arena anymore...

nobama
12-20-2011, 01:23 PM
I am not even slightly religious, but I agree with her views on gay marriage 100%. Of course, she was brave in saying what she said, because the "tolerant ones" will harrass her to maximum now.I guess she didn't get the memo on being PC. Bravo I say. :cool:

nobama
12-20-2011, 01:29 PM
Well perhaps it should indeed be renamed... I'd suggest "Martina Navratilova Court". :yeah:
A much better player than M.C. was anyways. Oh, wait...
Why? To prove tennis Australia isn't homophobic? :confused: if she was an Aussie it would make sense...

Sunset of Age
12-20-2011, 01:57 PM
Why? To prove tennis Australia isn't homophobic? :confused: if she was an Aussie it would make sense...

That's why "oh wait..." ;)

Sophocles
12-20-2011, 02:09 PM
I was under the impression she had the court named after her because of her achievements in tennis rather than her political views.

Shouldn't this be in Off Topic?

Jimnik
12-20-2011, 02:21 PM
Tennis courts shouldn't be called "courts" anymore. Does Wimbledon know about this? Center Court is screwed.

Basketball courts also need a new name.

Sophocles
12-20-2011, 02:49 PM
:spit: MTF never fails to disappoint.

All you apologists who are :bigcry: and whining that this is just Court's "private opinion" and that she is free to express her beliefs are missing the mark.

No sh-t, under a free society she is free to express her beliefs, and guess what: under a free society the public is equally free to censure her for that speech. :wavey: Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from scorn for that speech, or freedom from consequences of that speech. If I was in school and I called a female teacher a b-tch or a black schoolmate the n-word or my gay teacher a f-g, do I get to cry "freedom of speech!" just so I can get out of being put in detention for three days after hatefully insulting someone for their nature? Pretty hilarious stuff to see all the so-called liberty-minded in this thread acting like renaming MCA would somehow be equivalent to putting a gag order on Margaret Court herself. :spit:

As for the "private opinion," argument, do any of you honestly think Court's "private opinion" on an equal rights issue would have made the news had she not been speaking in her capacity as a public figure as a minister and former tennis great? Let me remind people that she is not just addressing the public policy issue of same-sex marriage but was speaking about the very nature of gay people themselves, going so far as to say a crappy, dysfunctional heterosexual relationship is far better to raise a child in than a loving, caring, but "unnatural" same-sex home. :haha: And for those of you who clearly don't follow this type of news, let me remind you that this is not the first time Court has made anti-gay remarks, nor has she shied away from involving the tennis world in her anti-gay remarks (for those of you who think her views have nothing to do with the sport), famously remarking that lesbians ruined women's tennis... which is not only a hateful statement, but an extremely :stupid: one, considering the WTA would not exist were it not for the efforts of one lesbian in particular, and the respected status Navratilova currently holds among anyone who follows sports.

For all we know Laver or Rosewall might feel the same way as Court, but you don't see them yapping to the press about how LGBT people are malformed and incomplete and have ruined tennis and don't deserve the same rights as everyone else because even the sh-ttiest hetero couple would make better parents than two well-adjusted men or women. Even if they held the same private opinion, the fact that neither of them have voiced those opinions in their capacity as public figures means that they have brought less harm on their sport. If you seriously think public comments like Court's aren't bad for the future of the sport and recruiting young people into the game when increasingly younger generations show an increasingly higher acceptance of LGBT people and when many young gay men are attracted to the sport for the absence of teammates who police each other's machismo and the relative unimportance of tiresome macho peacocking compared to other sports, then I have a bridge in the Gobi Desert to sell you. :wavey:

The idea that what Court said is just a private opinion that should just be ignored is :bs:. Activists in various countries are trying as hard as they can to stop suicides among LGBT youths, and it has been documented that the kind of hate speech spewed by public figures like Court in the name of her deity is one of the root causes of the self-hate and despair these young people feel. To argue that renaming MCA to censure one of the sports' most prominent Aus. legends for her CONTINUED hate speech would somehow be a blow against free speech is laughable. No one would be stopping Court from continuing to speak her bigotry by renaming MCA; they'd just be sending the counter-message that many people vehemently disagree with her brand of idiocy. :shrug: :cool:

As for the idea, I'd love to see MCA renamed but there clearly isn't the will or leadership to make it happen. As the ridiculously ignorant comments in this thread proves, there would be a bigger public uproar over the renaming of an arena to censure a bigot than there would be over the bigot's actual odious behavior, which is a sad comment on people. :) I much prefer the idea of ticketholders going to MCA with rainbow flags and/or banners protesting Court's words. If people can wave their flags around in the stands in a show of jingoistic d-ck-waving, surely a rainbow flag or a "Court Doesn't Speak for Me" banner would be perfectly acceptable.

In a free country adults should't get punished for their political views. What's important in naming tennis courts is what's important to tennis. Court's achievements on the court are vastly more important to tennis than any political statements about homosexuals. Not everybody is in favour of gay marriage & gay adoption & there's no reason why they have to be. Blather about allowing people to state their views while advocating punishment/ostracization by every supposedly autonomous organisation is disingenuous in the extreme, & uncomfortably parallels the situation homosexuals used to be in, when their careers could be ruined even if they weren't prosecuted. Persecution doesn't have to be state persecution to be persecution & the tyranny of the majority is still a species of tyranny.

I have no objection to the kind of protest you suggest at the end of your post but we should not expect autonomous institutions with no political purpose to count their members' political views above their contributions to the organisations' actual purposes.

octatennis
12-20-2011, 02:51 PM
Should be call the supreme cout, where gay rights are respected.

Orka_n
12-20-2011, 03:01 PM
Court got the court (pun intented) named after her due to her tennis achievements. Unless Court gets convicted in court (somebody STOP me) she shouldn't get attacked/punished for some statement she makes. That said, Court is nearly 70 now and I wouldn't want to court her. (Okay, that last one was ugly. :o)

Btw, why is this thread in General Messages?

Sunset of Age
12-20-2011, 03:09 PM
Court got the court (pun intented) named after her due to her tennis achievements. Unless Court gets convicted in court (somebody STOP me) she shouldn't get attacked/punished for some statement she makes. That said, Court is nearly 70 now and I wouldn't want to court her. (Okay, that last one was ugly. :o)

Btw, why is this thread in General Messages?

:lol: :worship: Best post in this entire thead.

PiggyGotRoasted
12-20-2011, 05:04 PM
If there were a set criteria, they shouldn't take it away as freedom of speech. However, a business trying to sell tickets should strive to avoid offense, and these comments were clearly ignorant and offensive. I still think Guccione Stadium would be a good idea

Guccione is above having an outside stadium named after him, he would refuse and be very insulted at the idea.

tennis2tennis
12-20-2011, 05:30 PM
I was under the impression she had the court named after her because of her achievements in tennis rather than her political views.

Shouldn't this be in Off Topic?

Question - would the newspaper have called for an interview with her if it wasn't for her tennis background?
- I don't think she answered the questions in her remit as a former player...but its certainly why she was interviewed would her outburst get an inch of column space, let alone provoke such a strong reaction from the tennis community - if she wasn't the winner of 20 something grandslams...and an Australian tennis icon?

Guy Haines
12-20-2011, 05:48 PM
This shouldn't be in Off Topic, though I know anything that contains the word "gay" is shunted there as soon as possible by people who are a little more subtle with their condescension and disdain.

This subject pertains to the Australian Open, which is coming up in a month or so. It's one of the most relevant threads on the first page of GM right now.

While the gay marriage issue is at the forefront in Australia, I also think it's weird that Court is back in anti-gay action right after a countrywoman who is likely a lesbian won a major title. Court has continually been this way, since losing to Bobby Riggs before BJK owned his ass. She attacked Martina when Martina was at the top of the women's game taking considerable heat for being out. She is by no means a benign public figure.

Margaret Court shot off her mouth, and if there's any justice, she's going to get a visible and vocal public response to her comments at the arena named after her.

tennis2tennis
12-20-2011, 06:09 PM
If I remember right in Switzerland there was a discussion about giving a name of Roger Federer to some street but the society disagreed to name the stree after a living person because who knows what he'll do in the future. I like that way of thinking, tennis results is not everything the person should be respectful in all ways...

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a355/Emily-b/erte.jpg

Sophocles
12-20-2011, 08:32 PM
This subject pertains to the Australian Open, which is coming up in a month or so. It's one of the most relevant threads on the first page of GM right now.

It does not pertain to the tennis at the Australian Open. It is about the political opinions of an ex-player. If threads about players' looks & families are officially Off Topic, I really don't see why threads about their political opinions aren't too. If people feel the need to engage in ritual abuse of everybody who dares to criticise current policy on homosexual matters, I wish they'd do it there.

Sophocles
12-20-2011, 08:34 PM
Question - would the newspaper have called for an interview with her if it wasn't for her tennis background?
- I don't think she answered the questions in her remit as a former player...but its certainly why she was interviewed would her outburst get an inch of column space, let alone provoke such a strong reaction from the tennis community - if she wasn't the winner of 20 something grandslams...and an Australian tennis icon?

I guess not. If I were a newspaper editor I shouldn't give a flying fuck about an ex-athlete's views on homosexuality but no doubt that's impossibly high-minded.

Amukinado
12-20-2011, 08:47 PM
I'd love to see the result of this thread if instead of gay people she had talk about black people.

Kip
12-20-2011, 10:24 PM
Margaret Court's name graces the stadium because of what she did as a player, not for her personal beliefs. Therefore, I would not support changing the name, despite not agreeing with Court's beliefs.

PiggyGotRoasted
12-20-2011, 10:47 PM
I'd love to see the result of this thread if instead of gay people she had talk about black people.

Its obviously so much different...

Amukinado
12-20-2011, 11:02 PM
Its obviously so much different...

Discrimination when it comes to sexual orientation is acceptable but not when it comes to the colour of the skin? lol

PiggyGotRoasted
12-20-2011, 11:03 PM
Discrimination when it comes to sexual orientation is acceptable but not when it comes to the colour of the skin? lol

No its the same

Amukinado
12-20-2011, 11:03 PM
Margaret Court's name graces the stadium because of what she did as a player, not for her personal beliefs. Therefore, I would not support changing the name, despite not agreeing with Court's beliefs.

What if she was a neo-nazi?

Amukinado
12-20-2011, 11:05 PM
No its the same

I fail to understand what's your point, then...

Yolita
12-20-2011, 11:24 PM
I wonder whether some players will refuse to play there... It would be a statement.

Topspindoctor
12-20-2011, 11:32 PM
I wonder whether some players will refuse to play there... It would be a statement.

IF some mug will refuse to play there, no big loss. No big name will ever boycott a slam because of someone saying something controversial. It's not possible. Most of the stink is made on the forums by very loud and vocal group anyway, I doubt most players even care. :shrug:

stewietennis
12-20-2011, 11:59 PM
I wonder whether some players will refuse to play there... It would be a statement.

I don't think it would be much of a statement. They'll probably end up in the news looking like some douchey rich kid kicking up a stink because of the name of a stadium? Would it be worth it for a player's public image to make a big deal about it – not knowing how the public will react? Most will probably go "Huh? It's just a name". The final isn't played at the Margaret Court Arena anyway, they play it at Rod Laver Arena.

Guy Haines
12-21-2011, 01:01 AM
IF some mug will refuse to play there, no big loss. No big name will ever boycott a slam because of someone saying something controversial. It's not possible. Most of the stink is made on the forums by very loud and vocal group anyway, I doubt most players even care. :shrug:

Pot, meet kettle.

True, ,as others have also said, it's going to be an uphill battle to encourage any players to respond. Money talks, bull--- walks in the mega-corporate sports world of today. There isn't a Martina on the front lines, or even an Amelie. The men's side is even more closeted.

I guess the "very loud and vocal group" of people should stay silent while Court uses her standing to spout off in the media?

Guy Haines
12-21-2011, 01:13 AM
It does not pertain to the tennis at the Australian Open. It is about the political opinions of an ex-player. If threads about players' looks & families are officially Off Topic, I really don't see why threads about their political opinions aren't too. If people feel the need to engage in ritual abuse of everybody who dares to criticise current policy on homosexual matters, I wish they'd do it there.

Yes it does pertain -- tennis is going to be played at Margaret Court Arena, and there may be visible or vocal responses to Court's comments at that arena, off and on court.

The very title of this thread asks whether the name of the second biggest show court of the event should be changed.

As usual there's tons of talking down in your post -- "dares to criticize current policy on current homosexual matters." Okay, I get it, your hat's off to Ms. Court for her daring. If that's not what you mean, then consider your words.

As inferred by another poster above, people are so glib and condescending about homophobia, treating it as trivial, when they aren't that way about other forms of prejudice.

rickcastle
12-21-2011, 01:46 AM
I could think of a thousand worse things to do to her but this could be a good start.

I don't understand anyone who's so vehemently against gay marriage - how does it affect you in any way? If two people want to get married and spend their lives together, what does have to do with you? And don't give me that bullshit about the sanctity of marriage when people like Britney Spears can have a 55 hour marriage and Elizabeth Taylor can get married 7 times and it's okay and it's legal because they're straight and they're marrying people of the opposite sex? Give me a break. I've even heard of a Christian pastor who's been married 20x and I'm sure God does not look too kindly upon that either, but because he's sticking it in a woman and not a man, it's okay and doesn't offend the sensibilities of conservatives? SMH at this world and its double standards.

Chirag
12-21-2011, 02:33 AM
Of course not .She has the freedom of speech and that should not put a blot on her tennis achievements

Kip
12-21-2011, 02:49 AM
What if she was a neo-nazi?

What if she was?

You have to ask the Australian Open if they named the court in honor of Court's tennis achievements or because of her personal beliefs?

I think we all know the answer.
Her name will stay.

tennis2tennis
12-21-2011, 04:35 AM
What if she was?

You have to ask the Australian Open if they named the court in honor of Court's tennis achievements or because of her personal beliefs?

I think we all know the answer.
Her name will stay.

She's free to have personal beliefs but so are the Australian Open organisers - when it comes to the reputation of the game -

You ask so what if she was a neo-nazi - exactly what kind of a message would TA be sending if they allowed all the Jewish/Muslim/non-white players to play in a stadium names after someone who thinks they're inferior beings!

Sophocles
12-21-2011, 09:29 AM
You ask so what if she was a neo-nazi - exactly what kind of a message would TA be sending if they allowed all the Jewish/Muslim/non-white players to play in a stadium names after someone who thinks they're inferior beings!

It would make the statement that the views of the person concerned were irrelevant.

Sophocles
12-21-2011, 09:34 AM
Yes it does pertain -- tennis is going to be played at Margaret Court Arena, and there may be visible or vocal responses to Court's comments at that arena, off and on court.

The very title of this thread asks whether the name of the second biggest show court of the event should be changed.

As usual there's tons of talking down in your post -- "dares to criticize current policy on current homosexual matters." Okay, I get it, your hat's off to Ms. Court for her daring. If that's not what you mean, then consider your words.

As inferred by another poster above, people are so glib and condescending about homophobia, treating it as trivial, when they aren't that way about other forms of prejudice.

It does not pertain any more than a player's looks or families do. Players who play at the A.O. are still going to be visible, aren't they? Their families are likely to be courtside, no?

I don't mean to talk down to anybody; I simply find modern-day p.c. censoriousness breathtakingly arrogant & stupid & impossible to take seriously. Obviously the phrase you quote is ironic, but the point stands: there is indeed a large & vocal lobby on this forum that has a pack mentality when it comes to any statement less than glowingly celebratory about homosexuality.

As for other forms of "prejudice" (i.e., adverse statements about p.c.-protected groups), I regard them all as trivial if confined to words.

tennis2tennis
12-21-2011, 11:40 AM
It would make the statement that the views of the person concerned were irrelevant.

that's were we split...it says we endorse what she says and your feelings are irrelevant

Sophocles
12-21-2011, 11:55 AM
that's were we split...it says we endorse what she says and your feelings are irrelevant

Indifference is not endorsement & it's borderline totalitarian to insist otherwise. There is more to life than politics.

tennis2tennis
12-21-2011, 12:46 PM
Indifference is not endorsement & it's borderline totalitarian to insist otherwise. There is more to life than politics.

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing

indifference is endorsement because it allows biogtry to go unpunished!

Sophocles
12-21-2011, 12:56 PM
All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing

indifference is endorsement because it allows biogtry to go unpunished!

Being against gay marriage isn't "evil" & nor must it be punished.

Dougie
12-21-2011, 02:15 PM
While it´s true that the court was named after Margarert Court because of her accomplishments ( not opinions), it is not supposed to honor the GS-titles she won, but to honor the person who accomplished all those titles. And that person happens to be someone with horrible, discriminatory, stupid and ignorant opininons. Does she have a right to have those opinions? Of course. But Tennis Australia has an equal right ( in fact, a responsibility) to distance themselves from that person and those comments, and say "these are not our values, this is not what we stand for, and these opinions have no place in tennis". Yes, the court should definitely be renamed. There must be better role models and ambassadors of the game in Australia.

There is a thing called "silent approval", and if Australian Tennis Federation doesn´t take a stand here, they are not only continuing to respect someone like Court, they are also disrespecting every gay player and fan attending the AO.

Originally I didn´t think the whole issue was that significant, but after reading this thread, I realise that opinions like Court´s are still worryingly common. And these kind of opinions should not be defended, or even silently approved. In fact, every chance should be taken to make the world get rid of this kind of nonsense. And Australian Tennis Federation has that kind of chance right now. I hope they do the right thing.

Sophocles
12-21-2011, 02:43 PM
This is like trying to argue with a religious sect. Can we please move this to Off Topic?

tennis2tennis
12-21-2011, 03:36 PM
Being against gay marriage isn't "evil" & nor must it be punished.

what she said goes beyond the realms of politics and into 'civil rights'...it doesn't matter whether you believe homosexuality is natural or not - saying people should not be allowed the same rights she enjoys is evil -

Yolita
12-21-2011, 04:00 PM
Naming an arena after a player is a big honour. It doesn't only reflect the player's achievements as a sportsperson, trophies reflect those achievements.

When you honour somebody, you're making a statement that the person honoured represents the values and ideals of the body doing the honouring.

I don't think this is about being politically correct, it's about making a statement about what modern tennis' values are. In that sense, I think Margaret Court's comments should be an embarrasment for Tennis Australia. But maybe those statements accurately represent Tennis Australia's views, and that's one of the many reasons why she was chosen for that honour.

Sophocles
12-21-2011, 04:28 PM
what she said goes beyond the realms of politics and into 'civil rights'...it doesn't matter whether you believe homosexuality is natural or not - saying people should not be allowed the same rights she enjoys is evil -

No, no, no & NO. What are "civil rights" other than a political concept? Whatever else it may be, it simplly is not evil to argue that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry.

Sophocles
12-21-2011, 04:30 PM
When you honour somebody, you're making a statement that the person honoured represents the values and ideals of the body doing the honouring.

Yes, but those values & ideals may have nothing to do with the highly niche concerns of a particular vocal minority.

Kip
12-21-2011, 04:30 PM
She's free to have personal beliefs but so are the Australian Open organisers - when it comes to the reputation of the game -

You ask so what if she was a neo-nazi - exactly what kind of a message would TA be sending if they allowed all the Jewish/Muslim/non-white players to play in a stadium names after someone who thinks they're inferior beings!

Did anyone say they were not? The Australian Open can choose to respond or not, in whatever manner they deem fit.

I simply hold the belief that Margaret Court like Rod Laver received the honor based on athletic achievement. Otherwise, neither would have the honor and you wouldn't care what they believed in their personal life.

tennis2tennis
12-21-2011, 04:48 PM
Did anyone say they were not? The Australian Open can choose to respond or not, in whatever manner they deem fit.

I simply hold the belief that Margaret Court like Rod Laver received the honor based on athletic achievement. Otherwise, neither would have the honor and you wouldn't care what they believed in their personal life.

Why are players tested and punished for use of recreational drugs?

Techinically they're not cheating, its their personal lives! Because what you do outside of a tennis court can bring the sport into disrepute! People don't just say Maragret Court is a homphobe or a racist ...etc they say Maragret Court the Australian tennis player is a homphobe or a racist

PiggyGotRoasted
12-21-2011, 04:53 PM
I fail to understand what's your point, then...

My first comment was sarcastic

Sophocles
12-21-2011, 04:56 PM
Why are players tested and punished for use of recreational drugs?


God knows. They shouldn't be: it's an infringement of liberty & privacy.

Dougie
12-21-2011, 05:10 PM
God knows. They shouldn't be: it's an infringement of liberty & privacy.

So saying "Martina Navrátilová and other lesbian and bisexual players are ruining the sport of tennis and setting a bad example for younger players" is quite okay, but then getting tested for illegal drugs is "an infringment of liberty and privacy"??

abraxas21
12-21-2011, 05:16 PM
What if she was?

You have to ask the Australian Open if they named the court in honor of Court's tennis achievements or because of her personal beliefs?

I think we all know the answer.
Her name will stay.

of course maggie got her name stamped in the arena because of her tennis achievements but that doesn't mean that if her vocal personal beliefs (whatever they were) had been controversially enough at the time, the tennis federation of oz would have still decided to name the arena after her.

at the grand scheme of things tennis is only a sport and there will always be more important things for the people of a any nation. i can assure you that if maggie had showed critical opinions about sensible topics like being pro-terrorism, anti-australia or whatever, she would have been forgotten and most likely she would have even been banned from playing in tennis.

so, in response to your "what if she was" a neonazi, i think it's pretty fair to say that it does matter a hell of a lot.

Kat_YYZ
12-21-2011, 06:09 PM
With all due respect, Sophocles, this world you are describing exists only in theory - in the pages of philosophy textbooks; this is not reality and never will be.

The reality is people are affected by words and bullying; younger people hear words and see no reaction (because everyone is "not dignifying it with a response" as you'd have people do) and they assume such hateful attitudes are normal and acceptable, and so it continues. Someone yells bigoted insults at another person in the street and everyone pulls up their collar and quickens their step and pretends not to notice so they don't have to do anything about it.

Then it goes from words to little gestures and acts of omission: a couple is ignored in a restaurant for 40 minutes while the staff serve people who arrived much later than them -- "oh, it was an oversight, we're just busy..."even though the waitstaff are sneering and snickering openly. There are lots of such ways you can discriminate against people without doing anything overt that they can prove, and then just insist that the other party is paranoid. And then you pair that with people being allowed to say whatever they want and you wonder why young people feel bullied and like they have no options, and take their own lives.

Margaret Court has the right to voice her opinion but she does not have 'the right to be honoured.' That's not a right. Is it bullying to "out" people with prejudiced hateful views and subject them to societal scorn?? Yes, it is, but so what? Turnabout is fair play. Think of all the centuries that blacks, Jews (look up the origin of the term "ghetto" sometime), gays, even women, could be openly scorned with no right of redress. So now it's the bigots' turn to be bullied. It'd be nice if we as a species could give up bullying altogether, but looking at thousands of years of human history, this doesn't seem likely.

Amukinado
12-21-2011, 07:06 PM
No, no, no & NO. What are "civil rights" other than a political concept? Whatever else it may be, it simplly is not evil to argue that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry.

They are a political concept just like the ones who state black people or woman can vote.

LoveFifteen
12-21-2011, 07:12 PM
:hearts: @ Goolagong Arena!





P.S. Am I the only one whose gut is telling them that Margaret Court has spent her entire life repressing her bisexual desires? :lol:

tennis2tennis
12-21-2011, 07:13 PM
OK this is a never ending debate - i'll just finish by saying - you jeopardise your civil rights when you ask for someone to be stripped of theirs!

Dougie
12-21-2011, 07:36 PM
Civil rights go beyond traditional political concepts...this isn't left versus right...this is about your humanity ...about your right to exist as equals ironically court is exercising her civil right of freedom of speech while simultaneously asking for others to be stripped of theirs

That is very well said.

Mr.Michael
12-21-2011, 07:50 PM
Just imagine if Court and Navratilova were active players today? The WTA would be very, very interesting. You could feel the tension on court from miles away. This would be the greatest rivalry in tennis.

a_boy
12-21-2011, 07:59 PM
Court will always have freedom of speech in Australia, presumably. Which is great. She can say nutty stuff like this if she wants.

BUT... freedom of speech doesn't mean "freedom from criticism." Everyone else has the right to condemn her views. Actions and words have consequences, and most of the developed world has gotten around to deciding, by some kind of blurry, overall concensus, that "it's okay to be gay." They probably haven't all gotten around to deciding it okay to be gay and married, but the fact remains that if you open your mouth about a controversial subject, you know what response you're gonna get. And if the Aussie tennis people decided they wanted to rename their arena, they have every right to do that, because it's their private property. That isn't affecting her right to freedom of speech one bit. Personally, I wouldn't rename the arena unless this escalated a lot. But a statement from the relevant authorities would be nice. Of course that might escalate things and force them to rename it, if she comes out with some more batshit stuff... but that's her right, and their right to feel the need to do whatever.

In case it hasn't already been said, I'll point out that Margaret Court ought to feel lucky that she has the right to vote as a woman. She's also lucky to have been allowed to compete in professional sport/earn money and have the right to own land, rather than be the property of a man. You could find stuff in the Bible that suggests she shouldn't have any of these rights. It's interesting how she ignores those parts of the Bible when it suits her, but refuses to let go of the bits about sodomy.

But it's hard to expect rational thought from somebody with a delusional mental illness. Albeit, a socially acceptable one.

Kip
12-21-2011, 09:32 PM
Why are players tested and punished for use of recreational drugs?

Techinically they're not cheating, its their personal lives! Because what you do outside of a tennis court can bring the sport into disrepute! People don't just say Maragret Court is a homphobe or a racist ...etc they say Maragret Court the Australian tennis player is a homphobe or a racist

That argument is flawed because drug testing is in direct link to the possible validity of one's athletic achievement in which the sport wants to be drug-free. And which players agree to adhere to, knowing that basically drug testing means they are presumed guilty if or until the test proves the counter.

People can agree to disagree and proceed as they see acceptable.
And changing hearts and minds take time which is a foreign concept in an instant modern society. And I will say that returning venom with venom will make any fight that much harder.


In regards to BJK, Navratilova, & Stubbs, it was good and wise to refute the comments without nastiness whether warranted or not.

Mae
12-21-2011, 10:04 PM
The court was named for her because of her achievements in Tennis so I think her name should remain for that court.

Consigliere
12-21-2011, 11:19 PM
Interesting to see the discrepancy between the results of this poll and the one on tennisforum.

Pirata.
12-21-2011, 11:28 PM
Interesting to see the discrepancy between the results of this poll and the one on tennisforum.

Probably because TF members are 50% gay, 45% girls who love the gays. MTF has a larger straight male userbase, they're more inclined to be less concerned with stuff like this, sadly.

rhinooooo
12-22-2011, 12:13 AM
Yeah, change the name. No reason why players, coaches, fans especially those who are LGBT should have to be associated with this horseshit.

The people arguing that this is anti free-speech or that it shouldn't be political. That argument in itself is political. Either way, what do you care? It doesn't bother you. So let the people who are pissed off have the 'right' to complain and change things, in the same way that Margaret Court had a platform as a public figure to express her views, according to her 'right', right?

Tennis is not bigger than politics or bigotry. Never will be.

Slice Winner
12-22-2011, 12:18 AM
Probably because TF members are 50% gay, 45% girls who love the gays. MTF has a larger straight male userbase, they're more inclined to be less concerned with stuff like this, sadly.

And I thought MTF had a lot of gays.
How many gay girls on TF?

fmolinari2005
12-22-2011, 12:21 AM
People are not perfect, despite the impression one might have of reading some people's post in here. What Margaret said was dead wrong and she should be criticized for it. Period.

However, can you imagine if we start stripping off names of places because the persons that were honored with it showed some flaws of carachter?! Walk around in your city and research the lifes of the guys that have places, streets and etc named after them. Actually, I ask the following question: name important figures of the past that you cannot find some skelletons in their closets.

Yolita
12-22-2011, 12:33 AM
People are not perfect, despite the impression one might have of reading some people's post in here. What Margaret said was dead wrong and she should be criticized for it. Period.

However, can you imagine if we start stripping off names of places because the persons that were honored with it showed some flaws of carachter?! Walk around in your city and research the lifes of the guys that have places, streets and etc named after them. Actually, I ask the following question: name important figures of the past that you cannot find some skelletons in their closets.

This is precisely the reason why places should only be named after dead people, a few years after their deaths, so that all the relevant facts about the person to be honoured would be known to the people deciding.

Of course they would all have flaws, but they would be known and determined whether they were imporatant enough to merit a veto. This would save a lot of embarrasment. I'm sure Tennis Australia cannot be pleased about this turn of events, whatever their views on homosexuality and gay marriage. Notoriety and controversy are never welcome.

rhinooooo
12-22-2011, 12:33 AM
People are not perfect, despite the impression one might have of reading some people's post in here. What Margaret said was dead wrong and she should be criticized for it. Period.

However, can you imagine if we start stripping off names of places because the persons that were honored with it showed some flaws of carachter?! Walk around in your city and research the lifes of the guys that have places, streets and etc named after them. Actually, I ask the following question: name important figures of the past that you cannot find some skelletons in their closets.

Yeah there are loads of pieces of shit who have been falsely idolised.

But what's this 'skeletons in the closet' thing? Margaret Court doesn't have a skeleton in a closet, she has a stupid bigoted hate-filled narrow-minded ignorant viewpoint that she's expressed as a public figure. Screw her and her achievements, who gives a fuck.

I couldn't give a shit about 'skeletons in the closet'. Skeletons in the closet is when you build up these false idols and then we get some bullshit collective shock because they did drugs, or cheated, or some stupid shit, or they liked to have a nice big turd in their mouth for pleasure... who gives a fuck about any of that? That's the sensationalised garbage that we usually get in the media, and hear complaints from various family and religious and moral authorities who would most likely AGREE with Margaret Court has said. Fuck them.

We ought to care when people say bigoted shit and they are public figures, who benefit from that status. Whether you like it or not, Margaret Court will always have this associated with her. Sticking with the name is not an active endorsement of her views, but it is complicity. That's bad.

paseo
12-22-2011, 12:42 AM
Don't let Topspindoctor touch your genitals - he is not a real doctor.

:lol:

With all due respect, Sophocles, this world you are describing exists only in theory - in the pages of philosophy textbooks; this is not reality and never will be.

The reality is people are affected by words and bullying; younger people hear words and see no reaction (because everyone is "not dignifying it with a response" as you'd have people do) and they assume such hateful attitudes are normal and acceptable, and so it continues. Someone yells bigoted insults at another person in the street and everyone pulls up their collar and quickens their step and pretends not to notice so they don't have to do anything about it.

Then it goes from words to little gestures and acts of omission: a couple is ignored in a restaurant for 40 minutes while the staff serve people who arrived much later than them -- "oh, it was an oversight, we're just busy..."even though the waitstaff are sneering and snickering openly. There are lots of such ways you can discriminate against people without doing anything overt that they can prove, and then just insist that the other party is paranoid. And then you pair that with people being allowed to say whatever they want and you wonder why young people feel bullied and like they have no options, and take their own lives.

Margaret Court has the right to voice her opinion but she does not have 'the right to be honoured.' That's not a right. Is it bullying to "out" people with prejudiced hateful views and subject them to societal scorn?? Yes, it is, but so what? Turnabout is fair play. Think of all the centuries that blacks, Jews (look up the origin of the term "ghetto" sometime), gays, even women, could be openly scorned with no right of redress. So now it's the bigots' turn to be bullied. It'd be nice if we as a species could give up bullying altogether, but looking at thousands of years of human history, this doesn't seem likely.

Too much sense. Me outta here. Sensibility no fun.

stewietennis
12-22-2011, 12:54 AM
I believe it's a generational thing. Ask any 70 or 80 year old about this subject and they'll likely be of the same opinion as Court. It's not because they're consciously discriminating against a type of person but it's because that's their experience in their generation, they were more conservative back then. Court simply has a platform to voice her opinion and is more known than the average grandparent.

Arakasi
12-22-2011, 01:02 AM
To all the people saying "the court was named after her for her achievements in tennis so they shouldn't change it" would you still use this logic if it turned out she was a pedophile/serial killer/everything terrible under the sun?

You can argue they shouldn't change the name of the court but the "only tennis achievements matter" logic doesn't really stand up. When you name a court after someone their actions and behaviour outside of tennis do matter. So then the question becomes, does her view on homosexuality sufficiently tarnish her character to warrant removing her name?

In my opinion, not yet. However, if she continues being vocal in her outdated views then Tennis Australia should do everything they can do disasscoiate themselves from her or else they run the risk of being seen to tacitly approve of her behaviour.

stewietennis
12-22-2011, 01:05 AM
To all the people saying "the court was named after her for her achievements in tennis so they shouldn't change it" would you still use this logic if it turned out she was a pedophile/serial killer/everything terrible under the sun?

Are you equating someone who has a controversial opinion about something with Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy?

Sunset of Age
12-22-2011, 01:11 AM
I believe it's a generational thing. Ask any 70 or 80 year old about this subject and they'll likely be of the same opinion as Court.

There has been plenty activism from the gay movement in the past 50 years or so to even make older people open their minds. It's the stubborn and stupid of any age to not do so.

It's not because they're consciously discriminating against a type of person but it's because that's their experience in their generation, they were more conservative back then. Court simply has a platform to voice her opinion and is more known than the average grandparent.

Uhm. Court is most definitely discriminating against an entire group of people, because she's a believer, even active in some kind of a church that states that gays are inferior sinners. Or something the like. Whatever, it's despicable. :o

Arakasi
12-22-2011, 01:16 AM
Are you equating someone who has a controversial opinion about something with Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy?

No, I'm just using hyperbole to show the flaws in the "only tennis matters" reasoning.

Either you believe that only tennis matters, in which case everything from a controversial opinion to a penchant for killing is one and the same in its irrelevance. Or, you think things outside of tennis do matter and then it just becomes a case of assessing the magnitude of the actions in question.

fmolinari2005
12-22-2011, 01:58 AM
This is precisely the reason why places should only be named after dead people, a few years after their deaths, so that all the relevant facts about the person to be honoured would be known to the people deciding.

Of course they would all have flaws, but they would be known and determined whether they were imporatant enough to merit a veto. This would save a lot of embarrasment. I'm sure Tennis Australia cannot be pleased about this turn of events, whatever their views on homosexuality and gay marriage. Notoriety and controversy are never welcome.

I am sorry to say but even naming shit after dead people won't save us from it. Specially if you consider that in the past it was much easier to hide things from the public eye. Look ... people can bring up problematic issues on the life of Ghandi, Madre Teresa and whoever. I've read a couple of articles debating if Ghandi had racial issues against african people for example. Bigotry is an issue that permeates humans. The main difference is the exposure level of today's public personas.


Yeah there are loads of pieces of shit who have been falsely idolised.

But what's this 'skeletons in the closet' thing? Margaret Court doesn't have a skeleton in a closet, she has a stupid bigoted hate-filled narrow-minded ignorant viewpoint that she's expressed as a public figure. Screw her and her achievements, who gives a fuck.

I couldn't give a shit about 'skeletons in the closet'. Skeletons in the closet is when you build up these false idols and then we get some bullshit collective shock because they did drugs, or cheated, or some stupid shit, or they liked to have a nice big turd in their mouth for pleasure... who gives a fuck about any of that? That's the sensationalised garbage that we usually get in the media, and hear complaints from various family and religious and moral authorities who would most likely AGREE with Margaret Court has said. Fuck them.

We ought to care when people say bigoted shit and they are public figures, who benefit from that status. Whether you like it or not, Margaret Court will always have this associated with her. Sticking with the name is not an active endorsement of her views, but it is complicity. That's bad.

The problem I see is: where should we draw the line?! The issue, for me, is that the tendency of seeing things in black in white. Either something is bad or good. The problem is: who decides what is good or bad. And in what terms?! Sometimes this rationale of trying to delete whatever might be associated with something that goes against what is the currently accepted way of seeing things sounds to me like trying to edit history.

A better way, IMO, is not editing history by deleting whatever might make us uncomfortable. Because who knows what this tred might lead us into. Should we open this precedent?! A better solution would be, for example, they holding some event during the AO to raise awareness against prejudice towards gay people. The problem when you start editing history is that you never know in which hands the scissor will end up with. Now you might agree with what they are deleting. But what about in the future?!

Topspindoctor
12-22-2011, 02:02 AM
Yeah, change the name. No reason why players, coaches, fans especially those who are LGBT should have to be associated with this horseshit.

The people arguing that this is anti free-speech or that it shouldn't be political. That argument in itself is political. Either way, what do you care? It doesn't bother you. So let the people who are pissed off have the 'right' to complain and change things, in the same way that Margaret Court had a platform as a public figure to express her views, according to her 'right', right?

Tennis is not bigger than politics or bigotry. Never will be.

As an Australian, I am against changing the name - Court is a legend of the sport despite being a bible-humping religious zealot. She has right to say whatever she wants and as far as I know this country still practices free speech. The arena name is a homage to her achievements in tennis not her political or religious views, if members of LGBT community feel this strongly about a simple name of the court, perhaps they should vote with their wallets and boycott AO? (We all know this won't happen).

Sunset of Age
12-22-2011, 02:04 AM
A better way, IMO, is not editing history by deleting whatever might make us uncomfortable. Because who knows what this tred might lead us into. Should we open this precedent?! A better solution would be, for example, they holding some event during the AO to raise awareness against prejudice towards gay people. The problem when you start editing history is that you never know in which hands the scissor will end up with. Now you might agree with what they are deleting. But what about in the future?!

Interesting point indeed.
My own country holds several 'national hero's' from the past who would in modern times be regarded as bloody pirates and slave-drivers... :o

Topspindoctor
12-22-2011, 02:07 AM
Interesting point indeed.
My own country holds several 'national hero's' from the past who would in modern times be regarded as bloody pirates and slave-drivers... :o

History favors heroes, rather than madmen. Society needs more of former than the latter, no matter what crimes they commited.

stewietennis
12-22-2011, 03:18 AM
No, I'm just using hyperbole to show the flaws in the "only tennis matters" reasoning.

Either you believe that only tennis matters, in which case everything from a controversial opinion to a penchant for killing is one and the same in its irrelevance. Or, you think things outside of tennis do matter and then it just becomes a case of assessing the magnitude of the actions in question.

It's not really hyperbole, more like reductio ad absurdum but anyway that's the kind of view that says jaywalkers get the same jail sentence as bank robbers.

Who draws the line of what is acceptable and where? No one's perfect, if Court was convicted of anything in your previous examples, sure the venue should be renamed, but having an opinion is not a crime.

Arakasi
12-22-2011, 04:05 AM
It's not really hyperbole, more like reductio ad absurdum

I know but I was trying to prevent this becoming a philosophical debate.

if Court was convicted of anything in your previous examples, sure the venue should be renamed, but having an opinion is not a crime.

That is fair enough. Perhaps I shouldn't have used crimes as examples.

Consider this instead, say Court had come out and said that Australians are sub-human and shouldn't be allowed to reproduce (ignoring the fact that she herself is Australian). Everyone would be calling for her name to removed from the court even if it is just "an opinion".

I'm using extreme examples but what I'm trying to prove is that an opinion can be sufficient cause to strip the court of her name, despite her tennis achievements. I'm not saying that this particular opinion in question warrants it.

For me this has nothing to do with "punishing" Court. She has the right to say whatever she wants. It's more about whether Tennis Australia wants to be associated with her or not.

tennis2tennis
12-22-2011, 05:06 AM
That argument is flawed because drug testing is in direct link to the possible validity of one's athletic achievement

sorry your losing me, what exactly does RECREATIONAL drugs have to do with the validity of an athletic achievement?

Mr.Michael
12-22-2011, 07:11 AM
Wonder why Court is so serious about this? Of course there is her religious beliefs and all that but perhaps she experienced the tennis scene in the 60's as very disturbing to her? There were loads and loads of lesbians during that time in the locker rooms and around the tournaments. Propably saw some harassment going on? Maybe she found it very distressing and odd and that has affected her later in life?

Court's tennis achievements are actually quite overrated. She really played during a weak era and won Aussie Open when it was closer to a challenger. Only King was young and dangerous during that time. If Court would have been 10 years older, she would have won maybe three slams.

1664
12-22-2011, 08:38 AM
Wonder why Court is so serious about this? Of course there is her religious beliefs and all that but perhaps she experienced the tennis scene in the 60's as very disturbing to her? There were loads and loads of lesbians during that time in the locker rooms and around the tournaments. Propably saw some harassment going on? Maybe she found it very distressing and odd and that has affected her later in life?
I'd be inclined to say that homophobia is actually very rarely a result of being harassed by homosexuals, most homophobes don't know/aren't friends with any gay people.

Sillyrabbit
12-22-2011, 12:05 PM
If they are so weak they they commit sucides because of comments someone made, they probably don't deserve to be here anyway. This planet has over 7 billion people already. I doubt they'll be missed.



She has a right to express her opinion, end of story. Thankfully Australia is still democratic and people are still free to speak their mind unlike in communist Europe where you can get jailed for denying holocaust :wavey: People are free to do what they want, no matter how controversial it is, so wipe the foam from your mouth and accept it. :wavey:

Stupid trolls are just the worst kind. At least try to be clever in your trolling. Seriously, there should be auto-bans for crap like this.

Sophocles
12-22-2011, 01:24 PM
So saying "Martina Navrátilová and other lesbian and bisexual players are ruining the sport of tennis and setting a bad example for younger players" is quite okay, but then getting tested for illegal drugs is "an infringment of liberty and privacy"??

Yes.

Court is just expressing an (in this case, absurd) opinion. It has no effect on anybody who is sensible enough to ignore it.

Sophocles
12-22-2011, 01:30 PM
With all due respect, Sophocles, this world you are describing exists only in theory - in the pages of philosophy textbooks; this is not reality and never will be.

The reality is people are affected by words and bullying; younger people hear words and see no reaction (because everyone is "not dignifying it with a response" as you'd have people do) and they assume such hateful attitudes are normal and acceptable, and so it continues. Someone yells bigoted insults at another person in the street and everyone pulls up their collar and quickens their step and pretends not to notice so they don't have to do anything about it.

Then it goes from words to little gestures and acts of omission: a couple is ignored in a restaurant for 40 minutes while the staff serve people who arrived much later than them -- "oh, it was an oversight, we're just busy..."even though the waitstaff are sneering and snickering openly. There are lots of such ways you can discriminate against people without doing anything overt that they can prove, and then just insist that the other party is paranoid. And then you pair that with people being allowed to say whatever they want and you wonder why young people feel bullied and like they have no options, and take their own lives.

Margaret Court has the right to voice her opinion but she does not have 'the right to be honoured.' That's not a right. Is it bullying to "out" people with prejudiced hateful views and subject them to societal scorn?? Yes, it is, but so what? Turnabout is fair play. Think of all the centuries that blacks, Jews (look up the origin of the term "ghetto" sometime), gays, even women, could be openly scorned with no right of redress. So now it's the bigots' turn to be bullied. It'd be nice if we as a species could give up bullying altogether, but looking at thousands of years of human history, this doesn't seem likely.

This is a good post but largely based on a false premiss. Court was not, as far as I am aware, approaching lesbian players and shouting, "Fuck off you dyke!" That sort of thing is not done and we'd be right to condemn her for it (although I still wouldn't rename the court, just as I wouldn't, for example, rename Martin Luther King Day in the light of revelations about his serial adultery). She was expressing an adverse opinion on homosexuality and personally I a) couldn't give a shit & b) do not believe she should be bullied for it.

Sophocles
12-22-2011, 01:50 PM
:haha: When there is systematic discrimination against homophobes in the workplace and in marriage law and in religious institutions, and when homophobes are beaten up in the street outside of bars for whom they love, by all means, go ahead and talk about "persecution." :wavey: For you to equate the oppressive conditions homosexuals and other sexual minorities face in even the most "enlightened" countries on Earth to "persecution" and "tyranny of the majority" is absolutely hilarious and shows how clearly ignorant most people are of who is actually affected by the "tyranny of the majority" in situations like these.

Truly amazing how those who pay lip service to libertarian, free-thinking ideals of freedom of thought and expression decide that this ideology somehow doesn't also apply to the prerogative of private citizens and private organizations to decide what sorts of speech they want to support or oppose. Free societies "punish" people all the time for certain forms of speech, which is what teachers do when they put their student in detention for using racist slurs against their classmates. It would not be in any way a suppression of Court's speech for her name to be removed from a stadium, unless anyone here is willing to explain to us all how the removal of her name from an arena somehow stops her from speaking out to the press or from her pulpit. :spit: And it would not be "persecution" :haha: for ATP or Tennis Australia to come out against her statements in a meaningful way.

Lastly, the idea that this is just a political affair and that private views and statements have nothing to do with her tennis achievements is rubbish. First of all, her statements are not at all being made in her capacity as a private citizen but as an extremely public figure, and when players like Federer and Nadal are feted in trophy ceremonies and exhos and events, do the announcers praise them for their tennis achievements alone? No, people talk about their personalities, their giving nature, their sportmanship on the court, and their work off the court as ambassadors for the sport.

All these factors that attest to a person's private character do end up playing a part when honoring top athletes in the game, and suddenly because we're afraid of "persecuting" an active campaigner against equal rights who spews hateful statements that have been soundly rejected by the scientific, medical, and psychiatric communities decades ago we have to decide all of a sudden that an athlete's character and off-court statements are off-limits for discussion? :spit: Do people talk about BJK's achievements on the tennis courts alone when discussing her legacy to tennis? Do they only discuss results on court with Ashe or Althea Gibson and ignore their role in breaking barriers? Give me a break.

As I said in my last post, it's clear that there is no will for anything even remotely/symbolically punitive to happen to Court, as the posts in this thread and the reaction to this news elsewhere shows that most people are more eager to get upset over the censuring of a bigot than over the actual damage a bigot causes with her hate speech. Which is why it's even more laughable that some people dare to cry "tyranny of the majority" in Court's defense. :lol:

You're missing the point. You seem to be arguing - & if you're not, what are you arguing? - that autonomous institutions are morally obliged to "discriminate" against "homophobes" (the latter, by the way, is a barbarism - try and think of a better word). If you had your way, "homophobes" would be in the same position as homosexuals used to be. Of course institutions should be free to decide how to respond to what their members say, but in most cases institutions don't give a shit about politics, & there's no reason they should be made to; it would compromise their autonomy & distract them from their purposes, which in the case of Tennis Australia is holding a tennis tournament. This is an extremely important point. There have been plenty of societies in history in which every darts & knitting club has been obliged to promote a particular political point of view, & they are generally described by the word "totalitarian". A society with a moral atmosphere in which institutions merely feel obliged to promote a particular political viewpoint is less bad than a fully totalitarian one, in the way the (social & moral) tyranny of the majority is less bad than tyranny, but it's hardly something to aspire to.

An athlete's personal qualities no doubt play some part in our decision to honour them, but only insofar as they pertain to their performance on the field, & their political views simply don't. We're not likely to get a Ben Johnson arena any time soon, but there's nothing wrong with a Margaret Court Arena. There's nothing morally wrong about arguing against gay marriage & doing so has zero effect on tennis. As I say, I'd be more than happy for Court's pronouncements to be ignored - it's not obvious why an athlete should have anything interesting to say about politics, any more than a politician about sport - & I think you & your fellow "homophobe"-bashers would be a lot happier if you ignored her too.

Sophocles
12-22-2011, 01:51 PM
Yeah, change the name. No reason why players, coaches, fans especially those who are LGBT should have to be associated with this horseshit.

The people arguing that this is anti free-speech or that it shouldn't be political. That argument in itself is political. Either way, what do you care? It doesn't bother you. So let the people who are pissed off have the 'right' to complain and change things, in the same way that Margaret Court had a platform as a public figure to express her views, according to her 'right', right?

Tennis is not bigger than politics or bigotry. Never will be.

Tennis is much more important to me - & to most tennis fans - than "gay rights". That's why I care.

Sophocles
12-22-2011, 02:24 PM
To all the people saying "the court was named after her for her achievements in tennis so they shouldn't change it" would you still use this logic if it turned out she was a pedophile/serial killer/everything terrible under the sun?

You can argue they shouldn't change the name of the court but the "only tennis achievements matter" logic doesn't really stand up. When you name a court after someone their actions and behaviour outside of tennis do matter. So then the question becomes, does her view on homosexuality sufficiently tarnish her character to warrant removing her name?

In my opinion, not yet. However, if she continues being vocal in her outdated views then Tennis Australia should do everything they can do disasscoiate themselves from her or else they run the risk of being seen to tacitly approve of her behaviour.

Expressing any political opinion, however twisted - & Court's falls far short of the worst - is in a different moral category from murder.

Sophocles
12-22-2011, 02:27 PM
There has been plenty activism from the gay movement in the past 50 years or so to even make older people open their minds. It's the stubborn and stupid of any age to not do so.

For heaven's sake Karin, homosexuality was abominated by the vast majority of people for centuries. Basically between the fall of the Western Roman Empire & the 1960s. You don't seriously believe 50 years of lame gay activism is going to overturn centuries of cultural conditioning do you? Most old people have views that a lot of the more intolerant "liberals" on this forum would want them tarred & feathered for - and most of those old people are decent people who happen to have different views.

Amukinado
12-22-2011, 03:22 PM
You're missing the point. You seem to be arguing - & if you're not, what are you arguing? - that autonomous institutions are morally obliged to "discriminate" against "homophobes" (the latter, by the way, is a barbarism - try and think of a better word). If you had your way, "homophobes" would be in the same position as homosexuals used to be. Of course institutions should be free to decide how to respond to what their members say, but in most cases institutions don't give a shit about politics, & there's no reason they should be made to; it would compromise their autonomy & distract them from their purposes, which in the case of Tennis Australia is holding a tennis tournament. This is an extremely important point. There have been plenty of societies in history in which every darts & knitting club has been obliged to promote a particular political point of view, & they are generally described by the word "totalitarian". A society with a moral atmosphere in which institutions merely feel obliged to promote a particular political viewpoint is less bad than a fully totalitarian one, in the way the (social & moral) tyranny of the majority is less bad than tyranny, but it's hardly something to aspire to.

An athlete's personal qualities no doubt play some part in our decision to honour them, but only insofar as they pertain to their performance on the field, & their political views simply don't. We're not likely to get a Ben Johnson arena any time soon, but there's nothing wrong with a Margaret Court Arena. There's nothing morally wrong about arguing against gay marriage & doing so has zero effect on tennis. As I say, I'd be more than happy for Court's pronouncements to be ignored - it's not obvious why an athlete should have anything interesting to say about politics, any more than a politician about sport - & I think you & your fellow "homophobe"-bashers would be a lot happier if you ignored her too.

The word "homophobe"-basher is as good as say... racist-"basher".

Amukinado
12-22-2011, 03:23 PM
Tennis is much more important to me - & to most tennis fans - than "gay rights". That's why I care.

You've got your priorities all wrong then... I hope most tennis fans don't.

LoveFifteen
12-22-2011, 04:14 PM
For heaven's sake Karin, homosexuality was abominated by the vast majority of people for centuries. Basically between the fall of the Western Roman Empire & the 1960s. You don't seriously believe 50 years of lame gay activism is going to overturn centuries of cultural conditioning do you? Most old people have views that a lot of the more intolerant "liberals" on this forum would want them tarred & feathered for - and most of those old people are decent people who happen to have different views.

You could easily substitute gays for Asians, blacks, Jews, Muslims, etc., and the idea would be exactly the same. Just admit you find gay people disgusting and you enjoy insulting them. There are old Americans who are still alive who "abominate" black people, and you don't just say, "Oh sorry, those old people are decent people who just happen to have different views. You can't expect the lame activism of Martin Luther King, Jr. et al to overturn their culture."

Some Europeans in my grandparents generation, who are still alive, supported the Holocaust and hated Jews. Do you just excuse them as decent people because anti-Semitism was culturally acceptable in Europe for hundred and hundreds of years?

scoobs
12-22-2011, 04:35 PM
You could easily substitute gays for Asians, blacks, Jews, Muslims, etc., and the idea would be exactly the same. Just admit you find gay people disgusting and you enjoy insulting them. There are old Americans who are still alive who "abominate" black people, and you don't just say, "Oh sorry, those old people are decent people who just happen to have different views. You can't expect the lame activism of Martin Luther King, Jr. et al to overturn their culture."

Some Europeans in my grandparents generation, who are still alive, supported the Holocaust and hated Jews. Do you just excuse them as decent people because anti-Semitism was culturally acceptable in Europe for hundred and hundreds of years?

I don't think that's what's going on here - I think that in a some cases it's quite simply, as a western white male, to really understand or empathise with being discriminated against or treated a second class citizen, and many people unfortunately do not even attempt it. Minds closed in unimaginative complacency.

Sophocles
12-22-2011, 04:48 PM
You could easily substitute gays for Asians, blacks, Jews, Muslims, etc., and the idea would be exactly the same. Just admit you find gay people disgusting and you enjoy insulting them. There are old Americans who are still alive who "abominate" black people, and you don't just say, "Oh sorry, those old people are decent people who just happen to have different views. You can't expect the lame activism of Martin Luther King, Jr. et al to overturn their culture."

Some Europeans in my grandparents generation, who are still alive, supported the Holocaust and hated Jews. Do you just excuse them as decent people because anti-Semitism was culturally acceptable in Europe for hundred and hundreds of years?

Actually, yes, it is standard for old people to be "racist" in modern liberal terms, and most of those old people are indeed perfectly decent people. It is a ludicrous over-correction to go from the mistreatment of the past to the idea that anybody who is "racist" is evil, & I suspect it has happened just because the last century afforded us - in the Holocaust - a world-shatteringly horrific instance of mass murder with a racist justification. The vast majority of elderly people, although racist, are against mass murder, so it is absurd to treat them with the same opprobrium you would give a Nazi. Real Nazis are obviously a different case.

I don't, as it happens, have anything against homosexuals: not merely some, but arguably most of my best friends are gay (I'm saying this without irony because it's true). But I do find homosexual activism, along with all other kinds of p.c. liberal-bigot activism, intensely irritating.

Sophocles
12-22-2011, 05:07 PM
I don't think that's what's going on here - I think that in a some cases it's quite simply, as a western white male, to really understand or empathise with being discriminated against or treated a second class citizen, and many people unfortunately do not even attempt it. Minds closed in unimaginative complacency.

Possibly.

But I suspect I simply haven't made myself clear.

If we were talking about renaming the Margaret Court Dance-floor at G.A.Y. Night Club I should be the first to agree that renaming was a good idea. If we were talking about renaming the Margaret Court Chamber of the Australian Parliament I'd have no strong objection, beyond wondering why on earth it was named after a tennis player in the first place. But as we're talking about renaming one of the biggest tennis arenas in Australia, which is named after one of Australia's greatest tennis players, I find the argument for renaming it disturbing, for the following reasons.

1. The renamers are taking it for granted that Court is wrong.

Do I have to explain that this isn't really the way political debate works in a free society?

2. The renamers are taking it for granted that being wrong on this particular issue is morally wicked.

Guys, this is what the religious people are supposed to do. You know, the people you are against? Just because somebody has political views you find repugnant, does not make them morally inferior to you. Debate starts from neutral, not from, "I'm right & anybody who disagrees is evil."

3. The renamers are taking it for granted that institutions that have nothing to do with politics have a duty to promote, or at any rate express solidarity with, (the renamers' particular) political views.

This is totalitarian in tendency. Contrary to what some people seem to believe, politics is a small & mostly unimportant part of life, having far less effect than politicians imagine & occupying only a tiny part of most people's consciousnesses - and this is how it should be. One of the most noticeable features of a tyranny is how much politics impinges on people's lives & thoughts. You can't organise a sodding whist drive without checking with the local party secretary that the right "messages" are being conveyed. I don't want autonomous institutions put under pressure to make political statements or gestures, nor do I want them making such gestures. It is inimical to their instrinsic purposes (if those purposes are not political) & there is no need. If you want to know what to think about Margaret Court's comments, reading this thread would be far more help than going to a renamed arena. The arena's role is in tennis and Court's achievements are in tennis.

4. The renamers have completely missed the best reason for renaming it the "Ken Rosewall arena".

Court played on the WTA.

LoveFifteen
12-22-2011, 05:39 PM
Actually, yes, it is standard for old people to be "racist" in modern liberal terms, and most of those old people are indeed perfectly decent people. It is a ludicrous over-correction to go from the mistreatment of the past to the idea that anybody who is "racist" is evil, & I suspect it has happened just because the last century afforded us - in the Holocaust - a world-shatteringly horrific instance of mass murder with a racist justification. The vast majority of elderly people, although racist, are against mass murder, so it is absurd to treat them with the same opprobrium you would give a Nazi. Real Nazis are obviously a different case.

I don't, as it happens, have anything against homosexuals: not merely some, but arguably most of my best friends are gay (I'm saying this without irony because it's true). But I do find homosexual activism, along with all other kinds of p.c. liberal-bigot activism, intensely irritating.

So, you find minorities of all kinds, whether black, Jewish, Muslim, or gay, to be intensely irritating when they fight for equality? I suppose you're the kind of person who would have found the slaves irritating when they pressed for freedom?

LoveFifteen
12-22-2011, 05:46 PM
I don't think that's what's going on here - I think that in a some cases it's quite simply, as a western white male, to really understand or empathise with being discriminated against or treated a second class citizen, and many people unfortunately do not even attempt it. Minds closed in unimaginative complacency.

Scoobs, he is constantly getting in digs like "lame gay activism" and "p.c.-bigot liberals" when describing gay people who want equality. It's disgusting. It wasn't so long ago that we gays used to be put to death for existing; in fact, we are still put to death in several countries throughout the world. Sophocles seems to be saying that people who fight for gay rights are just annoying and bigoted. In many countries of the world, these activists are fighting for the right to live. Apparently that's annoying, to want the right to live without being harassed, jailed or killed.

And, it wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that Sophocles claims to be a Christian. :rolls:

Sophocles
12-22-2011, 06:15 PM
So, you find minorities of all kinds, whether black, Jewish, Muslim, or gay, to be intensely irritating when they fight for equality? I suppose you're the kind of person who would have found the slaves irritating when they pressed for freedom?

I live in 21st-Century Britain & I am talking in that context - i.e., a context in which homosexual acts between consenting adults have been legal for about 50 years. Most people accept this state of affairs but there are many people - again, I am not among them, I don't give a toss what people do in their bedrooms - who continue to disapprove of homosexuality & I think it's ridiculous & unfair to exhort or bully them to "celebrate" it, & I also think you can oppose gay marriage without having anything against gays, although I can imagine your incredulity at such an idea.

Sophocles
12-22-2011, 06:17 PM
Scoobs, he is constantly getting in digs like "lame gay activism" and "p.c.-bigot liberals" when describing gay people who want equality. It's disgusting. It wasn't so long ago that we gays used to be put to death for existing; in fact, we are still put to death in several countries throughout the world. Sophocles seems to be saying that people who fight for gay rights are just annoying and bigoted. In many countries of the world, these activists are fighting for the right to live. Apparently that's annoying, to want the right to live without being harassed, jailed or killed.

And, it wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that Sophocles claims to be a Christian. :rolls:

Er, no, I don't. I'm an atheist.

For the rest, please see my post above. Of course I don't find it annoying when people are protesting against being prosecuted or worse for engaging in sexual activity with consenting adults. This is a rather different matter from a crusade against affording any kind of honour to anybody who disapproves of homosexuality.

Please tell me you can see that.

scoobs
12-22-2011, 06:41 PM
Possibly.

But I suspect I simply haven't made myself clear.

If we were talking about renaming the Margaret Court Dance-floor at G.A.Y. Night Club I should be the first to agree that renaming was a good idea. If we were talking about renaming the Margaret Court Chamber of the Australian Parliament I'd have no strong objection, beyond wondering why on earth it was named after a tennis player in the first place. But as we're talking about renaming one of the biggest tennis arenas in Australia, which is named after one of Australia's greatest tennis players, I find the argument for renaming it disturbing, for the following reasons.

1. The renamers are taking it for granted that Court is wrong.

Do I have to explain that this isn't really the way political debate works in a free society?

2. The renamers are taking it for granted that being wrong on this particular issue is morally wicked.

Guys, this is what the religious people are supposed to do. You know, the people you are against? Just because somebody has political views you find repugnant, does not make them morally inferior to you. Debate starts from neutral, not from, "I'm right & anybody who disagrees is evil."

3. The renamers are taking it for granted that institutions that have nothing to do with politics have a duty to promote, or at any rate express solidarity with, (the renamers' particular) political views.

This is totalitarian in tendency. Contrary to what some people seem to believe, politics is a small & mostly unimportant part of life, having far less effect than politicians imagine & occupying only a tiny part of most people's consciousnesses - and this is how it should be. One of the most noticeable features of a tyranny is how much politics impinges on people's lives & thoughts. You can't organise a sodding whist drive without checking with the local party secretary that the right "messages" are being conveyed. I don't want autonomous institutions put under pressure to make political statements or gestures, nor do I want them making such gestures. It is inimical to their instrinsic purposes (if those purposes are not political) & there is no need. If you want to know what to think about Margaret Court's comments, reading this thread would be far more help than going to a renamed arena. The arena's role is in tennis and Court's achievements are in tennis.

4. The renamers have completely missed the best reason for renaming it the "Ken Rosewall arena".

Court played on the WTA.

The vast majority of your entire argument here seems to treat this as an academic exercise - a debate - where there are two valid arguments to be considered and then a view can be reached. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I am suggesting that trying to reduce emotive and controversial issues to the level of an Oxford Union warm-up is taking it to the other extreme. This is the sort of issue where taking some of the passion out of it is helpful - but not all - because then you reduce complex human interactions to an overly simplistic level and risk missing the point entirely.

I agree that the court was named as a result of her tennis achievements and it should take something beyond the pale to get her name taken off it again.

So the real question is where that balance lies - that "beyond the pale" line.

Some clearly believe that this sort of public statement - not just against gay marriage, but the whole ethos of tolerance of homosexuality in a civilised society - is beyond that pale, and others don't. That's fine, and I agree that people can be over-zealous in the pursuit of political correctness, but equally I feel that there's a false argument being made that there needs to be some sort of balance between "tolerance" and "intolerance". That intolerance of "intolerance" is a bad thing in and of itself. I do not want to live in a society where, in the interests of some sort of misguided "balance", bigots and other narrow-minded, intolerant people who refuse to live and let live, are allowed equal space to spew their hate-filled bile without any sort of consequences.

I don't think her name should be removed from the court. I would like to see TA issue a statement next month rejecting her position on homosexuality and regretting her need to make her opinions public, using her platform as a public figure from tennis to disseminate her views widely. That's up to them, though, but given, as you said, the tide of intolerance towards homosexual people has only really turned in the last 50 years, and then only partially, I think that is something they should do. Pro sport is one of the places where homophobia and other forms of bigotry are often still considered acceptable, or at least, too difficult to challenge and overcome. Here is an opportunity for pro tennis at least to show a wider, more encompassing view of humanity than that of Margaret Court, without resorting to dishonouring her achievements in tennis.

Sunset of Age
12-22-2011, 07:12 PM
For heaven's sake Karin, homosexuality was abominated by the vast majority of people for centuries. Basically between the fall of the Western Roman Empire & the 1960s. You don't seriously believe 50 years of lame gay activism is going to overturn centuries of cultural conditioning do you? Most old people have views that a lot of the more intolerant "liberals" on this forum would want them tarred & feathered for - and most of those old people are decent people who happen to have different views.

Not 'overturn', no, unfortunately not. But I do believe that there are plenty of intelligent people (of whatever age) who have managed to open their closed minds due to information, education, and yes... even activism.

BTW, I do not want to see anyone 'tarred' for their ridiculous beliefs and opinions. I rather feel pity for them.

You could easily substitute gays for Asians, blacks, Jews, Muslims, etc., and the idea would be exactly the same. Just admit you find gay people disgusting and you enjoy insulting them. There are old Americans who are still alive who "abominate" black people, and you don't just say, "Oh sorry, those old people are decent people who just happen to have different views. You can't expect the lame activism of Martin Luther King, Jr. et al to overturn their culture."

Exactly. Don't forget 'women', btw. ;)

Some Europeans in my grandparents generation, who are still alive, supported the Holocaust and hated Jews. Do you just excuse them as decent people because anti-Semitism was culturally acceptable in Europe for hundred and hundreds of years?

*pawned*

I don't think that's what's going on here - I think that in a some cases it's quite simply, as a western white male, to really understand or empathise with being discriminated against or treated a second class citizen, and many people unfortunately do not even attempt it. Minds closed in unimaginative complacency.

I remember that Arthur Ashe, in his days of 'lame activism', quite often got remarks like "what's your problem?, you're rich eh?" and the like, to which he answered that one only really knows what it feels like to be discriminated against when one's part of that discriminated group of people.

As fantastic a tennis player Ashe was, I respect him even more for the fact that while he indeed became part of the 'rich & famous', he never forgot his background and did all he could to emphasize the value of equal human rights for all - and fight for them, even ending up in jail for a short period.
Quite a difference to Mrs. Court I daresay.

Mr.Michael
12-22-2011, 09:10 PM
Such a shame that Court expressed herself the old fashioned way. Would have been great if she had pulled a stand up and produced a similar performance as Eddie Murphy did in his '87 classic "Raw". Check it out on YouTube, Raw part 2, 1.00-2.20. "Pull over, pull over, pull over". I laughed so hard.

Kat_YYZ
12-22-2011, 09:30 PM
Tennis is much more important to me - & to most tennis fans - than "gay rights". That's why I care.

"Gay" rights are human rights :shrug:

fmolinari2005
12-23-2011, 12:47 AM
This is totalitarian in tendency. Contrary to what some people seem to believe, politics is a small & mostly unimportant part of life, having far less effect than politicians imagine & occupying only a tiny part of most people's consciousnesses - and this is how it should be. One of the most noticeable features of a tyranny is how much politics impinges on people's lives & thoughts. You can't organise a sodding whist drive without checking with the local party secretary that the right "messages" are being conveyed. I don't want autonomous institutions put under pressure to make political statements or gestures, nor do I want them making such gestures. It is inimical to their instrinsic purposes (if those purposes are not political) & there is no need. If you want to know what to think about Margaret Court's comments, reading this thread would be far more help than going to a renamed arena. The arena's role is in tennis and Court's achievements are in tennis.



Ditto.

Topspindoctor
12-23-2011, 12:57 AM
"Gay" rights are human rights :shrug:

Which should have nothing to do with sport.

tennis2tennis
12-23-2011, 04:21 AM
Actually, yes, it is standard for old people to be "racist" in modern liberal terms, and most of those old people are indeed perfectly decent people. It is a ludicrous over-correction to go from the mistreatment of the past to the idea that anybody who is "racist" is evil, & I suspect it has happened just because the last century afforded us - in the Holocaust - a world-shatteringly horrific instance of mass murder with a racist justification. The vast majority of elderly people, although racist, are against mass murder, so it is absurd to treat them with the same opprobrium you would give a Nazi. Real Nazis are obviously a different case.

I don't, as it happens, have anything against homosexuals: not merely some, but arguably most of my best friends are gay (I'm saying this without irony because it's true). But I do find homosexual activism, along with all other kinds of p.c. liberal-bigot activism, intensely irritating.

You wouldn't be white middle class male would you? geniune question!

Pirata.
12-23-2011, 04:29 AM
Utter clusterfuck of a thread complete with typical privileged responses from straight males who have no idea what being discriminated is like :rolleyes:

Smiling Buddha
12-23-2011, 04:42 AM
Usually only top players play in MGA so know any homosexual top players? I have got my suspicions but given my lack of experience with homosexual men, my hypotheses as to who might be gay might be completely off and it would be wiser to hear others' opinions.

Dougie
12-23-2011, 06:00 AM
Yes.

Court is just expressing an (in this case, absurd) opinion. It has no effect on anybody who is sensible enough to ignore it.

Court´s comment is a reflexion of a bigger problem, that should not be ignored. Anyone sensible enough should NOT ignore it.

Tennis is much more important to me - & to most tennis fans - than "gay rights". That's why I care.

Tennis is more important to you than human rights? That must be very easy to say for someone who has never had to fight over his rights, or be discrimnated by his race, skin color, religion or sexual orientation. I ´d say "most tennis fans" are a bit more sensible than that.

For heaven's sake Karin, homosexuality was abominated by the vast majority of people for centuries. Basically between the fall of the Western Roman Empire & the 1960s. You don't seriously believe 50 years of lame gay activism is going to overturn centuries of cultural conditioning do you? Most old people have views that a lot of the more intolerant "liberals" on this forum would want them tarred & feathered for - and most of those old people are decent people who happen to have different views.

The history is full of other horrible things as well, do you think black people should still be treated as slaves? Has it all just been "lame activism" to improve their rights? I´m sure some people feel they should still be nothing more than slaves. do you think these people are decent people as well?

Or maybe we should take the voting rights away from women. That´s also a relatively new phenomenon, and I´m sure not everyone agrees. But I suppose anyone who feels women have a right to vote are just "intolerant liberals", as you put it.

Point is, you can´t cherry pick which human rights are worth fighting for, and which are not. I suppose it´s easy to have that kind of distorted view if you´re a white, british, straight male. But that doesn´t make it the right view.

tennis2tennis
12-23-2011, 06:35 AM
Utter clusterfuck of a thread complete with typical privileged responses from straight males who have no idea what being discriminated is like :rolleyes:

My sentiment exactly, most people who mock civil rights movements are those who have never had their rights jeopardised – people who have never had to fight to get the vote, employment rights, social acceptance – because they happen to come from socio-ethnic group which has historically been the dominating not the dominated

fmolinari2005
12-23-2011, 11:17 AM
You wouldn't be white middle class male would you? geniune question!

Wouldn't this very question be discrimatory?! Because it sounded as if you made a generalization there based on colour of the skin and social status.

I don't think Sophocles is mocking activism. But here is the thing with some forms of activism: it outcasts anyone who thinks differently. It is almost a knee-jerk reaction- people react without even thinking. Look at the reactions on this thread at people who just thought that the court shouldn't renamed (even expressing their thoughts that it is wrong being homophobic, but pointing out other reasons they disagree with renaming it): they were instantly accused of being homophobics, narrow minded and reactionary.

The problem with a lof of the PC activism is that it, at some point, takes a bad turn. How did the gay rights movement started?! With people questioning the status quo, questioning what was accepted to be the truth and "correct" moral way of living life. The problem, to me, arrives when the issue becomes holy moral territory- when nothing that concerns the issue can be even debated.

For instance: in my eyes, society evolved enough for us to acknowledge that prejudice towards gay people is wrong. Period. And when people act with prejudice towards them, they should be called out. Society should react against it. The entire question about "should tennis australia rename the court" revolves around the following "how should society react". Should the courts be renamed?! And here comes the catch: one can be against bigotry but can also think that erasing an entire person's life work isn't right. But this very proposition seems to stir people up. As if either you are "with us or against us". I mean, if they first named the court "Margaret Court" it shows that this woman did some good things in life. Should it all go down the toilet because on a particular issue she is, in today's society eyes, wrong?

Specially when you consider that the very discussion about homosexuality has numerous loop-holes. My view on human sexuality is simple: it is none of my business what two (or more! :lol: ) consenting people do in the bedroom (or other venues, for that matter). And it has no bearings in the person's carachter: being a jerk has no relationship with being straight, gay or bisexual. Therefore I see no reason why we should treat gay, straight or bisexual differently. However, it comes from a standpoint that human sexuality and moral behaviour are not linked.

To try to make my point clear I ask the following: what if Margaret said that she is against people being promiscuous and having multiple sexual partners, and that people who act that way shouldn't be allowed to get married. Would the reaction be the same?! Would people ask for the courts to be renamed?! I mean, the logic is the same: people shouldn't be discriminated because of their sexual behaviour.

LoveFifteen
12-23-2011, 01:55 PM
people who just thought that the court shouldn't renamed (even expressing their thoughts that it is wrong being homophobic, but pointing out other reasons they disagree with renaming it): they were instantly accused of being homophobics, narrow minded and reactionary.

I haven't seen that at all in this thread.

Chirag
12-23-2011, 03:31 PM
"Gay" rights are human rights :shrug:

but that has nothing to do with sports right

Guy Haines
12-23-2011, 07:31 PM
but that has nothing to do with sports right

This is such a false ruse (also voiced by Topspin Doctor), and it speaks to how thoroughly today's sports fans have been conditioned to think of top athletes as nothing more than (subhuman?) products. It also ignores all the comparatively uncontroversial human rights work of top tennis professionals from Federer on down.

Tell Jesse Owens, Hank Aaron, Arthur Ashe or Muhammad Ali that sport has nothing to do with human rights. Tell Martina Navratilova.

In fact, if that were the case, people with that viewpoint should be going after Margaret Court, not the gay fans or athletes (or those supportive of gay rights) here or elsewhere who might respond to her.

It was Margaret Court who, knowing she has an arena (in fact an arena named after her) as a public sports figure, used her profile and privilege to speak out against gay rights at a time when they are at the political foreground in Australia.

So gay fans or athletes or those supportive of gay rights are supposed to ignore her and carry on as if nothing happened because of some mythic division between sports and politics? It's ridiculous.

Sports have all kinds of political dimensions, from the national divisions implicit in the Olympic Games, World Cup, and other events on down to personal stories of struggle.

Over on TennisForum this issue/thread has -- at least at first, before the sniping and entrenched argument -- manifested differently, with the OP trying to instigate some kind of visible action. But in the public eye, aside from comments by Billie Jean King, Rennae Stubbs, and Martina (who Margaret Court attacked by name years ago when Martina was still a top athlete), the most I've seen is Brad Gilbert inferring he wants to wear a rainbow kerchief during broadcast. Not much.

For a gay or lesbian athlete (or one strongly supportive of gay rights), being asked to play at Margaret Court Arena could be a dilemma. But I'm expecting the majority in this day and age to carry on corporate and closeted or simply exercising their right to steer clear of the issue. I'd actually be surprised if a top player, especially on the men's side, made a statement, whether verbal or visual.

While at this point I'm not yet sold on changing the venue's name, I'm hoping that something interesting happens during the Australian Open in reaction to Margaret Court's message, at the venue named after her. If nothing does, it'll be a shame.

tripwires
12-25-2011, 09:44 AM
Possibly.

But I suspect I simply haven't made myself clear.

If we were talking about renaming the Margaret Court Dance-floor at G.A.Y. Night Club I should be the first to agree that renaming was a good idea. If we were talking about renaming the Margaret Court Chamber of the Australian Parliament I'd have no strong objection, beyond wondering why on earth it was named after a tennis player in the first place. But as we're talking about renaming one of the biggest tennis arenas in Australia, which is named after one of Australia's greatest tennis players, I find the argument for renaming it disturbing, for the following reasons.

1. The renamers are taking it for granted that Court is wrong.

Do I have to explain that this isn't really the way political debate works in a free society?

2. The renamers are taking it for granted that being wrong on this particular issue is morally wicked.

Guys, this is what the religious people are supposed to do. You know, the people you are against? Just because somebody has political views you find repugnant, does not make them morally inferior to you. Debate starts from neutral, not from, "I'm right & anybody who disagrees is evil."

3. The renamers are taking it for granted that institutions that have nothing to do with politics have a duty to promote, or at any rate express solidarity with, (the renamers' particular) political views.

This is totalitarian in tendency. Contrary to what some people seem to believe, politics is a small & mostly unimportant part of life, having far less effect than politicians imagine & occupying only a tiny part of most people's consciousnesses - and this is how it should be. One of the most noticeable features of a tyranny is how much politics impinges on people's lives & thoughts. You can't organise a sodding whist drive without checking with the local party secretary that the right "messages" are being conveyed. I don't want autonomous institutions put under pressure to make political statements or gestures, nor do I want them making such gestures. It is inimical to their instrinsic purposes (if those purposes are not political) & there is no need. If you want to know what to think about Margaret Court's comments, reading this thread would be far more help than going to a renamed arena. The arena's role is in tennis and Court's achievements are in tennis.

4. The renamers have completely missed the best reason for renaming it the "Ken Rosewall arena".

Court played on the WTA.

Excellent post. :worship: