Maybe an unfashionable view but I don't think you can re-write history - just re-evaluate it.  The arena was named to commemorate Mrs Court's 24 grand slam titles, not to celebrate her personality be it charming or otherwise.  The people and events that so many landmarks are named after rarely look a 100% brilliant choice with the benefit of hindsight and changing social positions.  I think the stadium name should stay, but TA should emphasise in any plaques, publicity etc that it was named to celebrate the remarkable number of titles and not eulogise Mrs Court in any other way.  That said, I won't lose any sleep over it if they do change it.  I think she is probably not so much a product of her time but of her religion.  I spent a couple of months in the US 'deep south' a few years back and was shocked to find remarkably similar attitudes generally backed up by an interpretation of the bible or what local pastor had said.  There was just no rational argument that could get through!

There are as many people, if not more, who agree with Margaret Court. Most folk who have a strong sense of right and wrong don't change their views to suit the perceived wisdom of the day, which in Britain is dictated to us by the aggressive left wing media, who have managed to brainwash thousands of easily manipulated people into changing their views on matters which they had previously held for many years.

I don't particularly like the naming of courts' as you can usually make an equal case for someone else, I hope Wimbledon never go down this line. It has been named after Court because of her tennis achievements all be it in a bygone era which does not compare to today.

The name should stay if only to show that the Aussie's won't give in to this horrible PC agenda. That's all I have to say on the matter!

brendan wrote:

---

you don't need to be an aggressive left winger to believe that 2 people who love each other should be allowed to marry - you only need to NOT be an arsehole and even most of the Tory party can at least manage that

---

 

Laura Robson is in the Evening Standard today saying she thinks it should be renamed, if a fair number of people feel uncomfortable playing on it or paying money for tickets to sit in it, if they feel they're therefore endorsing Court's views.

I see your point, Mark1968, and skib.

And (as an aside) I love the fact that this forum can have both views without having degenerated into a mud-slinging competition.

It's rather like the problem we have with statues of old industrialists etc. who based their business on 'colonial exploitation' or whatever.

My feeling is: why is the court named after Court? Is it purely in recognition of her achievement in tennis at the time? Or is it, in recognition of her achievement, to thereby inspire the new generation of Aussie players, and others?
Having a court named after you is not a right, it's a courtesy.
If Court had been awarded some medal for services to tennis, or whatever, I wouldn't take that away - she's earned it, for her achievements at the time.
But I think I would rename the court.
Because that is a message going forward and, because she is now so vocal about her opinions (that a lot of people dislike and, indeed, are basically illegal), it's not the right message.

-- Edited by Coup Droit on Thursday 18th of January 2018 05:29:28 PM

Coup Droit wrote:

---

Laura Robson is in the Evening Standard today saying she thinks it should be renamed, if a fair number of people feel uncomfortable playing on it or paying money for tickets to sit in it, if they feel they're therefore endorsing Court's views.

I see your point, Mark1968, and skib.

And (as an aside) I love the fact that this forum can have both views without having degenerated into a mud-slinging competition.

It's rather like the problem we have with statues of old industrialists etc. who based their business on 'colonial exploitation' or whatever.

My feeling is: why is the court named after Court? Is it purely in recognition of her achievement in tennis at the time? Or is it, in recognition of her achievement, to thereby inspire the new generation of Aussie players, and others?
Having a court named after you is not a right, it's a courtesy.
If Court had been awarded some medal for services to tennis, or whatever, I wouldn't take that away - she's earned it, for her achievements at the time.
But I think I would rename the court.
Because that is a message going forward and, because she is now so vocal about her opinions (that a lot of people dislike and, indeed, are basically illegal), it's not the right message.

Spot on CD, especially about not being a mentalist when talking about your own views

-- Edited by Coup Droit on Thursday 18th of January 2018 05:29:28 PM

---

 

Personally I wish we had the word marriage for a man and a woman, and the word civil partnership for other relationships, but that's long gone.

The other thing is that even if one disapproves of or has no inclination for, eg homosexuality for oneself, it doesn't mean that you treat those with same sex partners any differently from anyone else.  Some people equate condemnation of the practice with condemnation of the people, or put in another way, you can hate the actions of a person, but still have respect for them as a person.

As people seem to be now offering their personal views, Im with you completely Brendan. Why people believe someones actions should be condemned for falling in love with a consenting adult and wanting that union to be recognised by society completely surprises me.

By allowing only civil partnership, you would be treating their relationship as other than heterosexual relationships. Im so glad society has changed such that gay people can be part of society and just get on with their lives along with everyone else. As for Margaret Court, its a shame she is using her position as a sporting great to promote views that many people find abhorrent. I always preferred Yvonne Cawley anyway!