It’s Daniel Andrews who should be checking himself for ‘hateful’ comments

Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews has condemned the awarding of the Order of Australia to Margaret Court and misrepresented her opposition to same-sex marriage as “hateful”, thereby disrespecting the 40 per cent of Australians who share her views (“Court’s return of serve over honour”, 23-24/1).

Andrews needs to have a good look at his own speech before he accuses anyone else of being “hateful” and he should take into account the wisdom of leading US liberal democrat and lawyer Alan Dershowitz, a stalwart defender of free speech, who nails it when he says the Left hides “their intolerance and bigotry behind a veneer of social justice and progressive values” (“Fighting for the right to speak”, 23-24/1).

Alan Baker, Mansfield, Qld

I’m no fan of the Australia Day honours system (and I’m an atheist to boot) but I was enraged by Daniel Andrews’ reported comments on Margaret Court’s Australia Day award. Having stated that “Victorians wanted people to be unified, respected, respectful and able to live safely”, he states that Court’s expressed views on gender and sexuality will take away these virtues. How would this happen? Revealingly, freedom of speech is not included in the list of what Victorians apparently want.

It’s hard to know whether these comments from Andrews represent his genuine beliefs or whether he has simply taken advantage of the publicity around the award to send virtue signals to his woke base. Either way, his comments reflect what we have come to expect from his left-wing regime, obsessed as it is with centralisation, conformity and a pandering to the views of the LGBTI community and its academic cheerleaders.

Andrew Lambeth, Adelaide, SA

Since when is it acceptable for an elected representative to verbally castigate a fellow citizen simply because she holds a contrary view on a religious or social issue? I refer, of course, to Daniel Andrews who so roundly criticised the awarding of a further Australia Day honour to former tennis champion Margaret Court. The Premier should be mindful that many Australians support the right of an individual to speak freely without being subjected to such abuse and regard such behaviour as petulant, juvenile and without merit.

Merryl Symons, Hamilton, Qld

Margaret Court Arena, in Melbourne, was named in honour of Margaret Court’s many outstanding achievements, including winning 24 Grand Slam singles titles. Throughout her playing career Court was the epitome of outstanding “sportsmanship” (or sportspersonship for those that way inclined) — fair, skilful, well mannered, ethical, professional and respectful of her opponents.

The debate on the suitability of Court’s inclusion in the Australia Day honours list, in further recognition of these achievements, ignores these qualities and focuses on long-held personal opinions and viewpoints, which in a free and democratic society Court is entitled to have and express.

Nothing Court has said is illegal, inappropriate or demeaning. It is a sad indictment on today’s society that an individual’s right to express an opinion is challenged by those who believe their viewpoint is correct, and the only one that should be heard.

Holding and expressing a personal viewpoint should never be an impediment to being recognised for worthwhile and exceptional accomplishments.

Ian Macgowan, Ceduna, SA

Margaret Court is being recognised for her tennis achievements and nothing more. Double fault, Dan.

Randall Whyte, Sherwood, Qld

Contest of ideas

The Australian is often characterised as a right-wing newspaper, yet the The Weekend Australian (23-24/1) has an article by Peter van Onselen that vilifies Donald Trump’s presidency (“Biden faces bigger tests than cleaning up Trump’s mess”) and one by Adam Creighton, who comments on the great job Trump did with the economy, reducing unemployment to record levels, particularly for African-Americans (“Trump’s record on economy is strong”). We all have our beliefs, which vary considerably, and I feel The Australian does a great job catering to us all.

William C.L. Horn, Blairgowrie, Vic

Adam Creighton outlined the practical and financial achievements of Donald Trump during his presidency in spite of “the political ‘narratives’ constructed by the media and political elites” and pointed out that it was the “the virus that finished off Trump”.

Peter van Onselen spent paragraph after paragraph using demeaning rhetoric about the “Trump catastrophe” and ignoring the practical and financial achievements of Trump.

This is a good example of “when the Opposition’s policy cannot be faulted, play the man, not the ball”.

James Cowling, Horsham, Vic