Navratilova calls for Margaret Court Arena to be renamed.

[Ricardo]

I hear what you're saying, and i understand it...

However, the philosophical mishmash won't solve the problems of the world, i think you agree there are some very serious ones atm.....

That's why i think that your "stance", if you can call it that, is completely useless, at least if you look at it with solving those problems in mind.....

That's why when i hear someone say he/she's an atheist i start to facepalm, i know i'm dealing with a hindrance, or something even worse.....

I mean i used to enjoy shooting the shit with Clydey (also an atheist, and a very lovable person) in mtf's Philosophical Paradise thread, like 10? years ago but these are much uglier times, at least here in Europe, so i hope you understand if i find the atheist whatever you call it annoying.....

and then ofc i get why some people think Christians are annoying, and i'm not saying they should be silenced or whatever.....

In this case too, it's Navratilova who wants to silence or at least humiliate Court......

yeah well, self entitled gays, feminists (funny they usually go hand to hand) there are too many.....which we allowed it to happen in the first place, now they think they should be the ones calling the shots.

 

[mightyjeditribble]

Disagree with Nav, the arena was named after Margaret Court's tennis exploits. I don't think it should be renamed because of her religious beliefs.

Sorry, but I disagree with you quite profoundly. Firstly, this is not about religious beliefs. This is about Court publicly disparaging and criticising people, and fellow tennis players, for who they are, and for how they live their own lives.

Secondly, the kind of honour that naming a major tennis court after somebody goes beyond their achievements in tennis, IMO. Surely you must concede that there are some things that she could do (beyond tennis) that would see her name removed. (For an extreme example, what if she murdered an LGBTQ person? It would still not affect her tennis exploits.) So this means that it is a question of where the line is, and what the consequences should be.

I for one believe that her hateful speech has crossed the line of something that should bar her from being honoured in this manner. Ilie Nastase is no longer welcome in Wimbledons' Royal Box, for example, how is this qualitatively different?

 

[mightyjeditribble]

I am truly shocked by the level of bigotry exhibited by posters on this thread.

No, this is not about Margaret Court's religious beliefs. It's about her telling fellow tennis players, and many others on the planet, that who they are is wrong, and connecting it with the devil, Nazis, etc.

I'm with mrzz in his argument that there is a line, and the question is where it is crossed. In my opinion, it was crossed, and indeed so far that no HawkEye review should be necessary.

Just as well that I spend my time on the ATP thread, I guess. :shudder:

 

[mightyjeditribble]

sure you always turn deaf to things that don't suit you. Simply put, you don't know if someone cares what he says, and that (none of top 100 men is gay) he knows for sure better than you do.

Case closed.

I think Stakhovsky has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he doesn't know anything.

 

[Ricardo]

I think Stakhovsky has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he doesn't know anything.

he's been on the tour for years, while you've been on the couch.....proves beyond a reasonable doubt that you don't know anything, and certainly not qualified to comment.

 

[Ricardo]

I am truly shocked by the level of bigotry exhibited by posters on this thread.

No, this is not about Margaret Court's religious beliefs. It's about her telling fellow tennis players, and many others on the planet, that who they are is wrong, and connecting it with the devil, Nazis, etc.

I'm with mrzz in his argument that there is a line, and the question is where it is crossed. In my opinion, it was crossed, and indeed so far that no HawkEye review should be necessary.

Just as well that I spend my time on the ATP thread, I guess. :shudder:

be as pro-homo as you like, who are you to say those who don't support is wrong....or cross the line?

just ridiculous how self-righteous pro-homo PC simpletons are.

 

[britbox]

be as pro-homo as you like, who are you to say those who don't support is wrong....or cross the line?

just ridiculous how self-righteous pro-homo PC simpletons are.

Let's keep it civil, if we're going to say Court has the right to voice an opinion then the reverse should be true also.

However, I think what seems to have become a "media-lynching" of Court is over the top. She's speaking as a christian pastor, not as a tennis ambassador. I don't think being against same-sex marriage is an outrageous opinion. For many, the term marriage means a union between man and wife. Are all these people bigots? I don't think so. Bigotry means lack of tolerance... so some of the people and media vehemently suggesting these opinions shouldn't be aired might be guilty of some bigotry themselves. Tolerance cuts both ways. Court is hardly preaching violence... she's just expressing a personal opinion.

 

[britbox]

Sorry, but I disagree with you quite profoundly. Firstly, this is not about religious beliefs. This is about Court publicly disparaging and criticising people, and fellow tennis players, for who they are, and for how they live their own lives.

Likewise, Court has been publically disparaged and criticised for her views also... do you think those people should be banned from having arenas named after them too?

Secondly, the kind of honour that naming a major tennis court after somebody goes beyond their achievements in tennis, IMO. Surely you must concede that there are some things that she could do (beyond tennis) that would see her name removed. (For an extreme example, what if she murdered an LGBTQ person? It would still not affect her tennis exploits.) So this means that it is a question of where the line is, and what the consequences should be.

Of course I would concede that certain things would go across the line and murder and violent crime would be one of them. However, Court has not broken the law or killed anybody... so I don't equate the two. Yes, there is a line but Court's opinions on same sex marriage are nowhere near it IMO. Court does a lot outside of tennis that should be applauded anyway - like her Outreach charity that helps the poor and needy. She's not the devil incarnate and by all accounts a warm person, face to face. The charity she founded gives 20 tonnes of food per week to the homeless and poor in Western Australia... but hey, let's hang, draw and quarter her.

I find it pretty sad in some ways, that the media and a lot of the public zoom in on one dimension of a person to the exclusion of everything else.

 

[mightyjeditribble]

Likewise, Court has been publically disparaged and criticised for her views also... do you think those people should be banned from having arenas named after them too?

Did these people suggest that she is in league with the devil for who she is and how she lives her life? I don't think so.

Now, one can reasonably disagree over whether the arena should be renamed or not.

But leaving that to one side, how can you actually defend her, and compare her hateful rhetoric to the people who are calling her out for it? Would you defend her if she said that interracial couples should not be getting married / have children, would you defend her then? (Actually, she did make positive comments about apartheid in SA back in the day.)

This is what she says: "That's all the devil. But that's what Hitler did and that's what Communism did — got the minds of the children. And there's a whole plot in our nation and in the nations of the world to get the minds of the children."

How much more vile can you get?

 

[mightyjeditribble]

PS. I sort of like John McEnroe's suggestion of keeping the name, and then having a mass gay wedding in Margeret Court Arena when gay marriage becomes legal ...

 

[britbox]

Did these people suggest that she is in league with the devil for who she is and how she lives her life? I don't think so.

Now, one can reasonably disagree over whether the arena should be renamed or not.

But leaving that to one side, how can you actually defend her, and compare her hateful rhetoric to the people who are calling her out for it? Would you defend her if she said that interracial couples should not be getting married / have children, would you defend her then? (Actually, she did make positive comments about apartheid in SA back in the day.)

This is what she says: "That's all the devil. But that's what Hitler did and that's what Communism did — got the minds of the children. And there's a whole plot in our nation and in the nations of the world to get the minds of the children."

How much more vile can you get?

I'm defending her right to a view. I'll defend most peoples rights to a view whether I disagree with them or not. I'm more of an old fashioned liberal who likes the "each to their own" concept - not the newest form of the word, which seems to relate to "agree with my progressive ideology or you'll be shamed as a bigot" type of thinking, which is far from being liberal in the true sense of the word.

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up things that she didn't say... on interracial marriage, it was Muhammed Ali who said he was against it - what you gonna do, tear down all the monuments for him too?

I'm really not too sure why people get overly bothered by remarks made... Court would probably have got less press if she'd stabbed a granny and taken her purse.

 

[mightyjeditribble]

I'm defending her right to a view. I'll defend most peoples rights to a view whether I disagree with them or not. I'm more of an old fashioned liberal who likes the "each to their own" concept - not the newest form of the word, which seems to relate to "agree with my progressive ideology or you'll be shamed as a bigot" type of thinking, which is far from being liberal in the true sense of the word.

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up things that she didn't say... on interracial marriage, it was Muhammed Ali who said he was against it - what you gonna do, tear down all the monuments for him too?

I'm really not too sure why people get overly bothered by remarks made... Court would probably have got less press if she'd stabbed a granny and taken her purse.

Where do you get this idea that I am trying to deny her the right to a view? Everyone has a right to a view, no matter how hateful. But they don't have the right to have this view go unchallenged, and they certainly don't have some god-given right to have a major tennis stadium named in their honour, no matter what hateful bile they spout, and no matter how much they thereby damage their former sport.

Now, if you genuinely want to take the view that naming major sporting venues after former stars should strictly only take into account their own sporting achievements, I will grant you that that is a consistent stance. I look forward to your championing the creation of the OJ Simpson Stadium.

Meanwhile, in the real world, people understand that having a stadium named after you is an honour, a recognition that transcends the on-court behaviour and takes into account service to (at least) the sport as a whole. So as far as I am concerned, it is entirely legitimate to consider the renaming of the court.

I might be more willing to see her just as a product of her age, if it wasn't for the fact that there are plenty of others who are much more open-minded, and that people are still prosecuted and indeed killed for their sexuality in many parts of the world. Even in supposedly western countries, there is still a stigma attached, and children will grow up questioning themselves, whether what they feel is normal, and find it hard to be who they are and be accepted. As a heterosexual white male, I can't really know what they are going through, but I can empathise. And I want my son to grow up being able to be himself, and be comfortable with his sexuality, whatever it may turn out to be. So no, I won't stand for someone like Margaret Court, who has been given a platform because of her achievements in tennis, to tell people and in particular children that who they are is wrong, when their sexuality is nobody's business but their own, and when they are not hurting anybody.

I despise the thought that gay tennis players - some of whom, particularly on the men's side, may not feel comfortable disclosing their sexuality to the public and therefore may be hesitant to speak out - should be asked to play on a court named in honour of a woman who is telling them that who they are is wrong. I hope that, if the arena is not renamed, players will refuse to play there. And I trust that you will respect their right to a view as you defend Court's, as well as their right not to forfeit matches if they do so (as their right to earn a living seems to me to be at least as important as Court's right to see her name up at the arena).

 

[britbox]

Where do you get this idea that I am trying to deny her the right to a view? Everyone has a right to a view, no matter how hateful. But they don't have the right to have this view go unchallenged, and they certainly don't have some god-given right to have a major tennis stadium named in their honour, no matter what hateful bile they spout, and no matter how much they thereby damage their former sport.

The tennis stadium was named after her with regard to her tennis exploits, as you well know.

Now, if you genuinely want to take the view that naming major sporting venues after former stars should strictly only take into account their own sporting achievements, I will grant you that that is a consistent stance. I look forward to your championing the creation of the OJ Simpson Stadium.

Sigh... I think I already answered this hypothetical... what if she'd done this or that... what if she killed somebody argument. She didn't kill anybody, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing up these hugely exaggerated hypotheticals... she isn't OJ Simpson... she just has a different view on same sex marriage (which actually ties in with current Australian law) than you support.

Meanwhile, in the real world, people understand that having a stadium named after you is an honour, a recognition that transcends the on-court behaviour and takes into account service to (at least) the sport as a whole. So as far as I am concerned, it is entirely legitimate to consider the renaming of the court.

Like I mentioned before, Court has done plenty for years outside of tennis for the common good. Her charity gives 20 tonnes of food to the homeless per week. However, you seem to overlook everything she's done on-court and off-court other than comments on same sex marriage.

I might be more willing to see her just as a product of her age, if it wasn't for the fact that there are plenty of others who are much more open-minded, and that people are still prosecuted and indeed killed for their sexuality in many parts of the world. Even in supposedly western countries, there is still a stigma attached, and children will grow up questioning themselves, whether what they feel is normal, and find it hard to be who they are and be accepted. As a heterosexual white male, I can't really know what they are going through, but I can empathise. And I want my son to grow up being able to be himself, and be comfortable with his sexuality, whatever it may turn out to be. So no, I won't stand for someone like Margaret Court, who has been given a platform because of her achievements in tennis, to tell people and in particular children that who they are is wrong, when their sexuality is nobody's business but their own, and when they are not hurting anybody.

Court didn't sign her letter to the Sydney Morning Herald...
Yours, Margaret Court, 24 time Grand Slam Winner and Tennis Champion

She signed it as a Christian Pastor for her church in Perth. Maybe you don't think she's entitled to voice an opinion about anything.. which is a pity. The press then jumped all over it, followed by some former tennis players... giving it far more publicity than it was worth.

I despise the thought that gay tennis players - some of whom, particularly on the men's side, may not feel comfortable disclosing their sexuality to the public and therefore may be hesitant to speak out - should be asked to play on a court named in honour of a woman who is telling them that who they are is wrong. I hope that, if the arena is not renamed, players will refuse to play there. And I trust that you will respect their right to a view as you defend Court's, as well as their right not to forfeit matches if they do so (as their right to earn a living seems to me to be at least as important as Court's right to see her name up at the arena).

People need to put this in perspective - Margaret Court hasn't killed anybody and even if you don't like her stance on this, look at the whole Margaret Court package and consider the good things she does out in the community, year in, year out. I'm not sure how "punishing" Margaret Court for her view is going to help anybody. Just sounds vindictive and petty. But hey, of course that would be their right.

 

[mrzz]

Where do you get this idea that I am trying to deny her the right to a view? Everyone has a right to a view, no matter how hateful. But they don't have the right to have this view go unchallenged, and they certainly don't have some god-given right to have a major tennis stadium named in their honour, no matter what hateful bile they spout, and no matter how much they thereby damage their former sport.

Now, if you genuinely want to take the view that naming major sporting venues after former stars should strictly only take into account their own sporting achievements, I will grant you that that is a consistent stance. I look forward to your championing the creation of the OJ Simpson Stadium.

Meanwhile, in the real world, people understand that having a stadium named after you is an honour, a recognition that transcends the on-court behaviour and takes into account service to (at least) the sport as a whole. So as far as I am concerned, it is entirely legitimate to consider the renaming of the court.

I might be more willing to see her just as a product of her age, if it wasn't for the fact that there are plenty of others who are much more open-minded, and that people are still prosecuted and indeed killed for their sexuality in many parts of the world. Even in supposedly western countries, there is still a stigma attached, and children will grow up questioning themselves, whether what they feel is normal, and find it hard to be who they are and be accepted. As a heterosexual white male, I can't really know what they are going through, but I can empathise. And I want my son to grow up being able to be himself, and be comfortable with his sexuality, whatever it may turn out to be. So no, I won't stand for someone like Margaret Court, who has been given a platform because of her achievements in tennis, to tell people and in particular children that who they are is wrong, when their sexuality is nobody's business but their own, and when they are not hurting anybody.

I despise the thought that gay tennis players - some of whom, particularly on the men's side, may not feel comfortable disclosing their sexuality to the public and therefore may be hesitant to speak out - should be asked to play on a court named in honour of a woman who is telling them that who they are is wrong. I hope that, if the arena is not renamed, players will refuse to play there. And I trust that you will respect their right to a view as you defend Court's, as well as their right not to forfeit matches if they do so (as their right to earn a living seems to me to be at least as important as Court's right to see her name up at the arena).

We agree on one thing (as you noticed before). There is a line there. You think she crossed it, I don't. Again, I do not agree with her, and if I were press I would simply let her letter be forgotten (as it would, if it wasn't for the opposition...).

Some remarks: She does not have the right to have a court named after that. People did that freely. The word "right" does not apply here.

And her name is already there: if the Arena wasn't named already, and people were discussing should or should not her name be the one chosen, then fine. But it is already there. To strip her name out is something quite strong, too strong for me in this case.

And, more importantly, situations like these is were you really assure people the right to a view. When there are fundamental differences. I do not know the exact content of her letter, but if she did not go further than saying that homosexuality is a "sin" (all sins are devil thing's for Christians, correct if I am wrong), even if I find it completely wrong and pitiful, this is not a crime. People are all the time trying to impose moral codes over others. She is just one more.

If someone is offended to play in an arena named after such a person, she (just one pronoun, offended males please try to find me and sue me. Next time I will use "he" just to piss feminists) can refuse to play, and thus make a political statement.

Edit: A better statement would be to play with something as "proudly gay" written on the shirt.

 

[Ricardo]

Let's keep it civil, if we're going to say Court has the right to voice an opinion then the reverse should be true also.

However, I think what seems to have become a "media-lynching" of Court is over the top. She's speaking as a christian pastor, not as a tennis ambassador. I don't think being against same-sex marriage is an outrageous opinion. For many, the term marriage means a union between man and wife. Are all these people bigots? I don't think so. Bigotry means lack of tolerance... so some of the people and media vehemently suggesting these opinions shouldn't be aired might be guilty of some bigotry themselves. Tolerance cuts both ways. Court is hardly preaching violence... she's just expressing a personal opinion.

yeah ok i was deliberately over-reacting to the hypocritical bigots.....namely the pro SSM PC people, as someone needs to counter them. So Court has an opinion, these PC media gets blood thirsty not to mention other nasty ones (Navratilova, and others) who want to inflict maximum damage on her, silence her, strip off her honour (rename the arena) and etc.

Its utterly ridiculous that now everyone who gets interviewed on the media would start with saying 'i don't agree with her' before defending her right to express an opinion, as if you have to be PC (pro-SSM) before you say or do anything else......and honestly, i know a lot of people who are not pro-SSM but you don't even find one single person on the media other than Court.

Seriously since when is it not ok to not be pro-SSM? you see all these thoughtless people saying 'gay couples don't affect me in any way', really? i for sure know if many gay couples move to the suburb where my property is, i would be wary of its value dropping......a lot of people would choose elsewhere.

 

[mightyjeditribble]

Sigh... I think I already answered this hypothetical... what if she'd done this or that... what if she killed somebody argument. She didn't kill anybody, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing up these hugely exaggerated hypotheticals... she isn't OJ Simpson... she just has a different view on same sex marriage (which actually ties in with current Australian law) than you support.

So you admit now that your stance is not about some abstract and general defence of her right to a view, but rather that you think her views are acceptable enough. That was exactly the point that I was making, thank you for confirming it.

Like I mentioned before, Court has done plenty for years outside of tennis for the common good. Her charity gives 20 tonnes of food to the homeless per week. However, you seem to overlook everything she's done on-court and off-court other than comments on same sex marriage.

That's good for her and commendable. I'm not sure that it's entirely relevant to the discussion.

Court didn't sign her letter to the Sydney Morning Herald...
Yours, Margaret Court, 24 time Grand Slam Winner and Tennis Champion

She signed it as a Christian Pastor for her church in Perth. Maybe you don't think she's entitled to voice an opinion about anything.. which is a pity. The press then jumped all over it, followed by some former tennis players... giving it far more publicity than it was worth.

Give me a break. Does every pastor's letter receive the international attention that hers did? Her standing as a tennis player is what gives her a forum, and she knows it and uses this. And again, she is very much entitled to voice her opinions, indeed I believe this is crucial in democracy. But she should also expect to be called out and judged on them, as she was happy to judge and criticise a fellow tennis player who had just started a family.

People need to put this in perspective - Margaret Court hasn't killed anybody and even if you don't like her stance on this, look at the whole Margaret Court package and consider the good things she does out in the community, year in, year out. I'm not sure how "punishing" Margaret Court for her view is going to help anybody. Just sounds vindictive and petty. But hey, of course that would be their right.

It is about taking a stand when someone says and does things that are wrong and hateful. Enough is enough.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tennis/2...says-tennis-full-lesbians-transgender-people/

 

[mightyjeditribble]

And her name is already there: if the Arena wasn't named already, and people were discussing should or should not her name be the one chosen, then fine. But it is already there. To strip her name out is something quite strong, too strong for me in this case.

I agree it is strong, but I think it is appropriate. Anyway, I accept we can reasonably disagree about this.

And, more importantly, situations like these is were you really assure people the right to a view. When there are fundamental differences. I do not know the exact content of her letter, but if she did not go further than saying that homosexuality is a "sin" (all sins are devil thing's for Christians, correct if I am wrong), even if I find it completely wrong and pitiful, this is not a crime. People are all the time trying to impose moral codes over others. She is just one more.

Oh no, she goes much further than this. Look at the link that I posted above. She uses her stature in the game as a platform to hold forth on her homophobic views. She feels it is appropriate to write to a newspaper to criticise a fellow tennis player who has had a child, stating that that child is being "deprived of his father".

Anyway, I have said all I have to say on the matter.

If someone is offended to play in an arena named after such a person, she (just one pronoun, offended males please try to find me and sue me. Next time I will use "he" just to piss feminists) can refuse to play, and thus make a political statement.

In English there is the "singular they", which I feel circumvents your problem quite well. I know some people dislike it, but you can find it already used by Shakespeare. In German, alas, there is no such construct.

 

[mrzz]

Oh no, she goes much further than this. Look at the link that I posted above. She uses her stature in the game as a platform to hold forth on her homophobic views. She feels it is appropriate to write to a newspaper to criticise a fellow tennis player who has had a child, stating that that child is being "deprived of his father".

Anyway, I have said all I have to say on the matter.

I saw the link and thank you for posting it. Again, I disagree with her 100%, and do not sympathize with her cause, her words and her attitude. But even after reading it I do not think it crosses the line. But yes, we can reasonably disagree on this.

In English there is the "singular they", which I feel circumvents your problem quite well. I know some people dislike it, but you can find it already used by Shakespeare. In German, alas, there is no such construct.

Thanks again for the information. My initial impression is that it is a bit clumsy, as it seems to introduce noise and confusion, but I need to think and look at it more carefully. In Portuguese we can circumvent it differently, and actually we live with both the circumvention and the use of masculine pronouns without much problems.

 

[britbox]

So you admit now that your stance is not about some abstract and general defence of her right to a view, but rather that you think her views are acceptable enough. That was exactly the point that I was making, thank you for confirming it.

I share her view on SSM but don't agree with some of the other things she said. Perhaps you should have the courtesy to ask somebody what their opinion is before making it up on their behalf.

That's good for her and commendable. I'm not sure that it's entirely relevant to the discussion.

Why not? Didn't you say arena naming should go beyond tennis? Then look at the bigger picture. Court's good deeds are far reaching.

Give me a break. Does every pastor's letter receive the international attention that hers did? Her standing as a tennis player is what gives her a forum, and she knows it and uses this. And again, she is very much entitled to voice her opinions, indeed I believe this is crucial in democracy. But she should also expect to be called out and judged on them, as she was happy to judge and criticise a fellow tennis player who had just started a family.

Of course she gets more attention, but that doesn't mean she should just shut up and never be allowed to express a view. She has a right to speak as much as anyone else. I don't care if you want to call her out... it's fair enough if that's your opinion. What the topic was about, was if the Arena's name should be changed... and we clearly differ on that. You think it should, I don't. No big deal. I'm guessing the AO will cave in and do it before January anyway, so you'll have your way.

 

[Ricardo]

So you admit now that your stance is not about some abstract and general defence of her right to a view, but rather that you think her views are acceptable enough. That was exactly the point that I was making, thank you for confirming it.


That's good for her and commendable. I'm not sure that it's entirely relevant to the discussion.



Give me a break. Does every pastor's letter receive the international attention that hers did? Her standing as a tennis player is what gives her a forum, and she knows it and uses this. And again, she is very much entitled to voice her opinions, indeed I believe this is crucial in democracy. But she should also expect to be called out and judged on them, as she was happy to judge and criticise a fellow tennis player who had just started a family.



It is about taking a stand when someone says and does things that are wrong and hateful. Enough is enough.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tennis/2...says-tennis-full-lesbians-transgender-people/

enough is enough, you can have your pro homosexual views......we get it. but your argument is so flawed and thoughtless that its simply silly and agenda driven (fashionable thing to do these days).