 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Further implications
The public furore surrounding Margaret Court's comments on same-sex marriage raises the question of the extent to which public figures, especially sporting champions, enjoy freedom of expression.
Margaret Court has indicated that she believes it is inappropriate for those who criticise her opinions on homosexuality and same sex marriage to draw her tennis prowess into the argument. Referring to calls for the Margaret Court Arena to be renamed, Court has stated, 'It's very sad that they think like that ... I think it's just a way of thinking they may be able to hurt me, but they can't.'
The difficulty is that Margaret Court's opinions have only attracted attention because of her sporting prowess. If she were the relatively unknown pastor of an obscure Christian denomination in Western Australia her threat to boycott Qantas in response to its CEO's public support for same sex marriage would not have attracted media attention. Her celebrity is what has made Court's views newsworthy.
Sporting champions are a select group within Australia. The country's high level of interest in sport and the extent to which sporting figures are expected to be exemplars of certain types of behaviour effectively limits their freedom of expression. Both the AFL and Cricket Australia have assumed a prominent role in promoting the acceptance of different racial groups, different genders and all sexual orientations.
Though Tennis Australia does not have a declared position on tolerance of different sexual orientations, its membership protocols advise all clubs to open 'your club doors to anyone regardless of age, gender, marital status, culture, ability. Creating an environment that is warm, friendly, open minded and welcoming for all members and public.'
Court's public statements on homosexuality would appear to be out of step with the inclusivity that Tennis Australia promotes.
Both Tennis Australia and Margaret Court Arena management have issued statements distancing themselves from anti-homosexual comments made by Margaret Court.
The Tennis Australia statement reads, 'As a legend of the sport, we respect Margaret Court's achievements in tennis and her unmatched playing record. Her personal views are her own, and do not align with Tennis Australia's values of equality, inclusion and diversity.'
Management for Margaret Court Arena, named after Court, issued the statement: 'Melbourne and Olympic Parks do not support Margaret Court's comments and we remain an organisation committed to embracing equality, diversity and inclusion...'
The question then becomes whether it is possible to separate Court's unfashionable and, for some, offensive views from the sporting achievements which made her famous and led to her having a sporting stadium named in her honour. For some the answer would appear to be 'no'.
What has contributed an additional dimension to the debate is that current Australian grand slam champion, Samantha Stosur, has indicated that Court's recent remarks could prompt some players to boycott the Margaret Court Arena while it bears Court's name. This creates a major dilemma for Tennis Australia. They have either to call for the stadium to be renamed or be prepared to take disciplinary action against players who boycott the Margaret Court Arena.
The current number one men's tennis player, Andy Murray, has called on Tennis Australia to clarify the situation before the Australian Open. Murray has stated, 'I think if something was going to be happening... that should be decided before the event - before the event starts.'
The issue revolves around symbolism. The arena was originally named to act as a symbol of the highest level of achievement in tennis. Now Court's name has come to be associated with bigotry and division. There are those who argue that they should not be made uncomfortable by having to play or be a spectator within a stadium bearing the name of someone whose views they reject.
Were the stadium to be renamed, however, there will be many who will be regretful. Some will be outraged, seeing such an action as an assault on free speech.
If the stadium is renamed then perhaps there should also be a debate on the appropriateness of CEOs declaring their position on controversial issues. If Margaret Court's iconic status is undermined by her expression of divisive views, then is it appropriate for people such as Qantas' chief executive officer, Alan Joyce, publicly to state his opinion on controversial issues? As Court's letter to the West Australian newspaper indicated, she was made uncomfortable at the prospect of flying with an airline that promotes views she rejects.
Another alternative would be for both Court and her opponents to accept that their views differ and leave each others' positions unchallenged or engage in rational debate around the issue, rather than grandstanding.