No, Margaret isn’t venturing into politics. The party confirmed Porter’s replacement as Linda Aitken, City of Wanneroo councillor, and a member of Court’s Perth-based church, Victory Life Centre.
Naturally, the announcement stirred the Twitterati tolerance brigade into a frothing rage, incensed that modern, accepting Australia could give any place in the public square to a professing Christian whose beliefs aren’t dictated by the ever-shifting trends of pop culture.
“Hard to believe they could have picked someone worse than Porter, but here we are,” one user commented.
“We’re turning into a theocracy,” another lamented.
“Margaret Court deserves no place in public life, so neither does Linda Aitken,” another said.
“Separation of church and state,” yet another cried.
Of course, Court is no stranger to the Inclusion Inquisition. They’ve had their target on her since the same-sex marriage plebiscite in 2017, and they’re intent on purging any positive public recognition towards any of her achievements for her unpardonable crime of believing the Bible.
Earlier this year, ABC journalist Kerry O’Brien rejected his Order of Australia in protest of the decision to appoint Court Companion of the Order of Australia for “eminent service to tennis as an internationally acclaimed player and record-holding grand slam champion, and as a mentor of young sportspersons.”
At the time, O’Brien wrote to the governor general’s secretary saying there is something “fundamentally wrong” with the honours system, describing Court’s award as a “deeply insensitive and divisive decision.”
A week prior, Clara Tuck Meng Soo, one of the first GPs in Australia to undergo a gender transition, handed back the Order of Australia Medal he received in 2016 for his work with the LGBTQ community.
Soo explained, “I do not want to be seen as supporting the values that the Council of the Order of Australia seem to be supporting with this promotion of Mrs Margaret Court.”
O’Brien said Soo, not Court, “epitomises the true spirit of the Order of Australia.”
Even Victorian Premier Dan Andrews weighed in at the time, describing Court’s Christian faith as “disgraceful” and unworthy of oxygen.
“I don’t want to give this person’s disgraceful, bigoted views any oxygen,” Andrews said.
“But when others insist on rewarding them with this country’s highest honour – I think it’s worth saying again: Grand Slam wins don’t give you some right to spew hatred and create division. Nothing does.”
Little wonder the rabid love mob are now setting their sights on Aitken. It’s inevitable. It’s expected. But it’s the same old boring play we’ve seen time and time again.
Rank bigotry, hatred, and intolerance cloaked in the language of acceptance, love, and inclusivity. But as noted before, slapping the label “bigot” on someone you disagree with doesn’t make you less of a bigot yourself.
The Oxford Dictionary defines bigotry as, “intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.”
So, who’s the “bigot” in this picture?
The answer is obvious if you simply reverse the ideologies and imagine a Christian refusing to be named alongside anyone who identifies as LGBTQ. As is often the case, those who talk most about love, inclusion, and acceptance tend to have a zero-tolerance stance for diversity in thought, belief, and opinion.
They demand tolerance and acceptance from others, but they’re unwilling to tolerate anything short of complete ideological submission. They want acceptance from those who think differently and yet can’t accept diversity of thought themselves. They claim to be championing inclusivity but demand the exclusion of anyone who’s not like them.
Look through the self-advancing pearl-clutching and Aitken’s critics, just like Court’s, will prove to be exactly those things they’re feigning to oppose: intolerant, hateful, bigots.