Expressions of harm

On Friday night I was watching the tennis when the cameras shot to the stands and the commentators spotted Julia Gillard in the VIP box along with former tennis champion Margaret Court. Having read a column she wrote for The Herald Sun the day before, I was genuinely upset to see her in the presence of the Prime Minister. I tweeted as much and the responses I got were varied. Several agreed but others didn't. Some said I was being hypocritical and intolerant. They argued Margaret Court is entitled to her opinion and just because I disagree with it doesn't mean she shouldn't be allowed to be in the VIP box or in the presence of the PM.

I didn't say that she can't hold her views - as much as I wish she didn't. And I didn't say she shouldn't be allowed to be there. I said I felt genuinely uncomfortable seeing her occupy that prestigious position in the stands. Not because I thought over the duration of a gruelling tennis match she would or could influence the PM's policy or opinion. That's ridiculous. But simply being in that public position, in close quarters with the PM, lends a degree of credibility to her views that is undue. Credibility to views that should be ignored, not bolstered.

To be honest, until last week, I'd never heard of Margaret Court. To be even more honest, I wish I still hadn't. What I've learned is that her stance on homosexuality is unequivocal. 'It' shouldn't be allowed and 'it' is undermining the fabric of Australian culture, as if 'it' is a choice individuals make. As if 'it' is the single biggest issue confronting Australians. What disturbed me most about her words, and what continues to upset me, is her unwavering lack of compassion for the individuals she condemns. There wasn't a scintilla of understanding for the real people affected by her words.

Like gender and race, sexual orientation is not a personal choice. It is among those qualities divined upon us at birth. Condemning a man because he is attracted to another man, is as useful, archaic and merciless as condemning a woman for being a woman. Or an Aboriginal for being Aboriginal. We all know that for centuries those denunciations prevailed. But thankfully progress and compassion eventually intervened.

There was once a time when supporting slavery in the United States was acceptable for a President. Just as it was to deny women the right to vote. It was only after a few bold individuals questioned the wisdom of those entrenched beliefs, and momentum developed as groups of people started to open their minds and fight for change, that we got to be where we are now. In a place where the current President shares his race with those enslaved for centuries. In a place where no political leader could survive denying women the right to vote. There are still many individuals who cling to a time when prejudiced rebukes on the basis of gender or race were tolerated. But the point is they aren't tolerated anymore. Certainly not in any public forum.

We are at a point where discrimination on the basis of sexuality needs to be dismantled. As far as homosexuality goes, it is time for acceptance to reign. There will always be people, like Margaret Court, who believe homosexuals should not be entitled to marry. Just as there will always be men (and women) who believe women shouldn't work outside the home, or occupy board seats, or lead countries. It is unrealistic – albeit optimistic – to expect otherwise. It is more realistic, however, in a country committed to affording its citizens equality, to expect beliefs repugnant to that right, be denounced.

I don't deny Margaret Court, or anyone else, the right to have views that are different to mine. But I can and will deny her my admiration. I can and will express my disapproval of the prejudice in her views. I will question the judgment in publishing an opinion that openly promotes and encourages discrimination against a group of individuals. (Individuals, who, in many cases, are vulnerable precisely because of that very intolerance). And I will object to celebrating a person so unwilling to afford other human beings understanding.

Freedom of speech is often the catch-cry, fiercely wielded, as the defence whenever someone promotes a view that others hope to silence. In Australia I'm proud to say freedom of speech is not an absolute right. Freedom of speech, here, is not an excuse to harm others. Our laws limit speech. Those limits exist because our laws deem that an individual's right to have their integrity intact, or their right not to be vilified for their culture, ethnicity or background, supersedes the right for another to insult them. That's the litmus test that applies to most of Australia's legislation and case law. We are a democracy that values personal liberties. But one person's personal liberties extend only to the point where they harm another. At that point, the law intervenes. We are free to hurt ourselves, but we are not free to hurt others.

And the words of Margaret Court do hurt others. Any notion that a person who is homosexual is not as right, or as good, or as equal, as a heterosexual hurts thousands of Australians – and their families and friends – every single day. It really, really, hurts them. A quick glance at the rate of suicide among young gay men in this country, and around the world, is more than proof of that. Yet I can't see any single person who is actually hurt by extending the right to marry to all consenting adults.

The harm in Margaret Court's words is aggravated because she is a celebrated public figure and because her views are given an audience not afforded to everyone. I live in hope for the day that a column like Margaret Court's isn't published. A day when views like hers simply aren't sanctioned on a national stage.

Failing to accept a person for a choice they didn't make is inhumane. Publically punishing them is even worse. I hope the Mayor of New York was right when he said recently of legalising gay marriage –"It's not a question of if, it's a question of when". Until that day I will express my disappointment in individuals who fail to afford other citizens that simple act of human decency. Tolerance.

He’s ba-ack

Well, my dear readers, it is a happy week indeed here at NABM homequarters. Having generously reluctantly donated Mr G* to Wagga Wagga for three months I have now taken back possession and my three-piece family puzzle is complete once more. Halleluiah.

We coped, none of us suffered any major traumas and we even had some fun along the way. While I wouldn't go so far as to agree with my cheeky friend who observed on the weekend "Wow those three months went by so fast!", I have to admit it was better – and easier – than I'd expected. For me the time certainly didn't fly by the way it might have for, say, other lucky people not living in this house for the duration. But it also wasn't the eternity I envisioned.

Polling with passion

I'm not overtly political. I read the paper, I watch the news, I vaguely understand our parliamentary system, I loved The West Wing and I follow what's happening in Canberra with varying degrees of interest but a political expert, I'm certainly not. Which is why over the years I've questioned my scepticism of polls.

I've often wondered whether there is some great purpose, to which I am not privy, of taking the electorate's temperature every thirty seconds when we only elect a new party, say, every few years. I struggle to see the point.

2012

So. 2012. Here we are! I hope you’re well, rested and ready to conquer the year?!? I will be just as soon as I transition from beach goer to work doer. I’m at the end of my Yamba holiday and am coming to terms with the fact that tomorrow I will resume urban life. I missed NABM but feel good for having abandoned technology for a few weeks.