A few days before Australia Day, a source told me Margaret Court was set to be appointed an AC, Companion of the Order of Australia, the highest of the Order of Australia honours.
It pissed me off. Court has used religion to attack gay and transgender people for years.
So I began to write an opinion column for Melbourne’s Herald Sun.
Public knowledge of the honour was trapped under a media embargo until the official announcement on January 26, and my plan was to write it up so it’d be ready.
I tapped at the keyboard loudly and angrily, but then I stopped and wondered why I was waiting.
And I started to get pissed off for a different reason.
The people giving Court the honour would know the ruckus it would cause. The tennis great had been polarising, controversial and unyielding in her damaging views. They were relying on the embargo to protect them until Australia Day.
By then it would be too late. She would be decorated with the gold pin and the unelected people who gave it to her could retract into obscurity.
So to hell with that. The debate needed to be had before January 26.
As a freelance writer and broadcaster I was in a unique position: I did not receive the embargoed list and the information didn’t come from any organisation I’m involved with.
I’ve accepted the terms of many embargoes and received a lot confidential information in the past. I have never broken one and never would. But I wasn’t a party to this one. It was not my embargo to break. And I wouldn’t have done it if Court was merely an interesting choice. I did it because a large section of Australia would hate the idea.
So I got information from sources, worked to get the facts right, considered the public interest and assessed any possible damage to innocent parties, and released the story on Twitter on January 22.
Anyone trying to guess the sources need only imagine how many other people were pissed off by the Court decision. I was far from alone. Her views are despised by many in government, the public service, the media, and beyond.
The idea that the information was embedded inside some kind of Da Vinci Code contraption — seen only by an anointed few — is just crap.
Within an hour of the tweet, the question was being asked of state premiers — mainly Victoria’s Daniel Andrews, who was angry. His quotes were grabbed by every media outlet and the story was away.
The prime minister was then ambushed at a press conference.
“I have no official knowledge,” was Scott Morrison’s line. Clearly he was also relying on the embargo — and perhaps the talking points on Court had yet to be written.
Meanwhile, any media outlet that had momentary annoyance at any perceived breaking of the embargo quickly got over it and joined in the coverage.
The story was reported across the country before getting picked up by The New York Times and the BBC.
Then past recipients — such as Canberra GP Dr Clara Tuck Meng Soo — began returning their honours in protest, and journalist Kerry O’Brien rejected his AO before they even had the chance to give it to him.
The debate soon became thick with irony. Members of the Order of Australia Council leaked to The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald “on the condition of anonymity”, saying Court’s honour was to rectify a gender disparity that came after Rod Laver got an AC in 2016.
So it seems some leaks are OK and some break an embargo — it all depends on your agenda.
The weekend after Australia Day, I spoke to council chair Shane Stone about this on a podcast. He said he did not approve of the leaks, and although there was a gender imbalance that wasn’t a matter for the council. The problem, he said, came from too few female nominations.
The Court debate raised important question about these honours — not just about who gets them and why, but who gives them out.
Possibly it’s also smoked out those with strong sympathies for Court’s views. There are far more of them than should make us comfortable.
As for the embargo, arrangements like this should exist to coordinate a celebration. It shouldn’t be there to help control divisive information that’s in the public interest. That’s not an embargo. That’s just a secret they’re trying to keep from the rest of the country to be released only on their orders. That’s hardly a way to celebrate a national day.
Ok Justin : what is to be the criteria for awards? It seems that 60 or 70 years ago if one was a Como one would not be given an award either.
Leaving tolerance to one side, is is ok for homosexual marriage to be on display with those who disagree being disenfranchised as to awards? May I suggest that you take some time to think a few matters through.
Then there has been the displays of bravery (fires etc) and the threat of the award being withdrawn for smacking the missus (intoxicated or otherwise). The subtly of receiving an award for the recognition of bravery AND NOT FOR behaviour befitting a gentleman is too great metric for the Australian mind.
Jot a few notes (or or against) on woke and let’s see where our morality resides. It seems that for this century “tolerance” is uni-directional.
These awards are stupid, so I don’t like being drawn into arguments about them, but here we go anyway!
Courts award has been upgraded for apparently diversity reasons, helping pad the number of women while matching Laver’s award. On the other hand some believe this was all in service of culture war. Disclosure: The latter is my assumption.
Some people handed back their stupid awards and Court got hers.
You rightly point out that you can already be excluded from the awards for arbitrary reasons, but the disenfranchisement argument has 2 problems.
First, Court got her award, already happened, it is an upgrade to a previous honour given for the same stated conduct.
Second, if someone cares about the ‘merits’ of this award they have accepted a process subject to arbiters deciding who is an upstanding citizen of excellence. If they don’t think Court fits the bill on account of cringe there is no contradiction here. They don’t need to hold themselves to some other set of principles. Statists using state power, just another page in history.
So not only does it not own progressives to point out what they’re doing, but the act of being outraged about it didn’t even work this time. A lot of noise that amounted to nothing, and frankly not even worth thinking about.
In broad terms : agreed. For the record (indeed inception) I have not advocated for Court. My objection concerns the “need” for the “right attitude” in order to be considered deserving at all.
Also for the record, I did not believe you were advocating for her, and if anything in my post implies otherwise then I apologize.
Wow! Two blokes agreeing that it’s all a hill of beans. Viva your tolerance!
Ok M, where is the fault? If, as you convey (above), it is with “her bigotry in expressing her disagreement” then, clearly, such is not a criterion that those who make such awards recognise.
That does not make them right or you wrong (or v.v.) because the alternative is something akin to “a hill of beans” – in this case.
You said it yourself, Eras. ‘such is not a criterion that those who make such awards recognise.”
I don’t want my tax dollars to be spent on ‘recognising’ known bigots.
Perhaps you haven’t been personally affected by the garbage that spews out of Court’s mouth. I have, and it hurts. I don’t want any recognition by my country of that hurt.
In that case, M, I’m a tad surprised that you took the the remark(s) seriously. Speaking for myself, I tend to be less concerned with what is bleated and more concerned with why something was bleated. The competence of the author of the utterance needs to be taken into account too.
A few aphorisms from Parkenson or Mencken will undoubtedly cheer you up.
You have a strange concept of hurt that you think it can be thus cheered up.
It’s not Court’s ‘disagreement’ that is the problem E. It’s her bigotry in expressing that disagreement.
The writer starts with “her damaging views” which then become “very ugly and damaging thinking”.
You repeat yourself that you don’t want her to express her views.
What would you like done about her thinking?
Fancy giving awards for accomplishments rather than for the novel and bizarre. I’d be pissed off as a journalist if I had a story that would create notoriety but couldn’t publish it.
Isn’t the only thing Journos and academics have in common – Publish or Perish?
Accomplishments several generations ago, followed by decades of bigoted and hateful comments.
What! A Journalist with a conscience that submits to Muckraker Murdoch.
Come on Justin, you will have me believing in elves and all manner of fantasy.
I for applaud you on your stance, the outraged individual who thought Court getting the award cannot express themselves through outlets you have available.
Keep up the good work and report the facts and not some Editorial opinion dissuade you.
Now I have to find that leprechaun !
Who cares? I believe it now mediocre award system for elites (friends and associates of the government) Compliant government, compliant mainstream media.
Didn’t Rupert also receive an award? Remember Sir Phillip Windsor from a few years back? How long before we see Sir Twiggy Forrest. I just don’t care any more. And you are all welcome to your own opinions. I have just expressed mine.
Another spectacular own goal from the clueless David Hurley AC DFC, who along with the Queen’s Edward Young KCVO PC adds so much “continuity and stability” to Australian democracy.
To be fair, Mr Hurley’s job is to do as he’s told. He didn’t select Ms Court for an honour and probably wasn’t in a position to question the nomination.