During the January 2019 Australian Open Tennis Grand Slam, Anna Wintour, long time fashion editor with Vogue, spoke publicly about her disagreement with champion tennis player, Margaret Court, over homosexual marriage.
Dame Anna Wintour DBE dived into the 'intolerance' issue against homosexuals. Her target was tennis champion, Margaret Court.
The Age reported that Wintour 'has thrown her support behind the push to rename Margaret Court Arena over the tennis champion's opposition to same-sex marriage'.
Wintour stated, 'I find that it is inconsistent with the sport for Margaret Court's name to be on a stadium that does so much to bring all people together across their differences"', in a speech delivered at the Australian Open Inspirational Series in Melbourne on Thursday [24 January 2019] , to applause.
She continued: 'This much I think is clear to anyone who understands the spirit and the joy of the game.Intolerance has no place in tennis" emphasis added).
Wintour continued her broadside against those who support traditional family values:
"I have been alarmed by your prime minister's record on LGBTQ rights, which seems backward in all senses," she said.
"That no one can be expelled from school for their orientation, should not require clarification. A government should protect its people, not make it unclear whether they will be accepted."
Not once in that article did the journalist mention Anna Wintour's intolerance towards Margaret Court and Scott Morrison.
I find it disconcerting when a person opposes the 'intolerance' of Margaret Court on the subject of homosexuality and doesn't see her own intolerance towards Margaret Court's values.
It is a self-contradictory statement to accuse another person of intolerance while perpetrating the same oneself.
Other media joined the Wintour refrain
There were a considerable number of mass media examples who promoted the Wintour homosexual chorus. Three examples were from:
ABC News Brisbane, Qld reported that 'Wintour said when Australia passed same-sex marriage in 2017, "the world sang in celebration" with it'. Wintour continued:
"Intolerance has no place in tennis. What we love [is] watching these remarkable men and women exceed themselves while being themselves in many different forms.
"Margaret Court was a champion on the court but a meeting point for players of all nations, preferences, and backgrounds should celebrate somebody who was a champion off the court as well."
Do you hear Wintour's 'off the court' intolerance towards Margaret Court's sexual values as a Christian?
This article quoted Margaret Court's views about the approach of her opponents who call for the renaming of the Margaret Court Arena at Melbourne Park. Court called this 'another example of freedom of religion under threat…. I should be able to have my say as a minister of the Gospel…. I believe I shouldn't be bullied for what I did in my past'.
Not a word was stated in this article about Wintour's intolerance towards Margaret Court's views.
MSN Channel 9 explained the Wintour event with similar quotes to those by The Age and ABC News Brisbane about Primer Minister Scott Morrison and tennis champion and now Christian minister, Margaret Court.
Wintour didn't hold back about her views on the proposed amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act:
""That no-one can be expelled from school for their orientation should not require clarification," Wintour added, referring to previous proposals for the Sex Discrimination Act to be amended in a way to allow religious schools to do so.
"A government should protect its people, not make it unclear whether they will be accepted and we are struggling with these issues in the United States as well."
This article failed to expose Wintour's own intolerance in her speech.
News.com.au provided similar details on the Wintour speech, with a sub-heading, 'Fashion legend Anna Wintour has taken a swipe at Australia's Prime Minister and one of our greatest tennis stars in a scathing speech'.
This news report and others were pleased to use Wintour's statement in her speech: 'This much I think is clear to anyone who understands the spirit and the joy of the game. Intolerance has no place in tennis'.
Again there was no effort to demonstrate Wintour's own intolerance.
In this article I point to an apparent lack of discernment by journalists into the nature of intolerance that Wintour actively perpetrated. She practised the very thing she complained about with Margaret Court and Scott Morrison.
Let me explain!
Dr Jeremy Sherman exposed the nature of Wintour's intolerant intolerance with examples from other situations that can be applied specifically to Wintour's proclamation at the speech delivered at the Australian Open Inspirational Series in Melbourne on 24 January 2019.
- "It's true. We shouldn't tolerate intolerance. We should nip it in the bud, set clear boundaries."
- "If we tolerate intolerance it spreads: Racism, sexism, prejudices of all sorts, judgmentalism, negativity, bigotry, factions squaring off and fighting: right vs. left, this fundamentalism vs. that."
- "An eye for an eye just leaves the whole world blind."
- "To bring about greater harmony we must all of us be tolerant. No exceptions. Loving, listening, caring for each other, respecting each other's opinions whatever they may be."
Sherman exposed our hypocrisy when we try to tolerate certain behaviours yet name others as being intolerant. He said the 'truest practical question' is 'not whether to be tolerant or intolerant but when to be which'.
So far, I have not noticed the mass media I read expose Wintour's intolerance of her own views – against Margaret Court's and Scott Morrison's views.
Sherman rightly exposed the dilemma: 'Folks who don't notice the hypocrisy don't appreciate the bind we're all in and they cut themselves unconscionable slack. They manage the bind ineptly at best, self-servingly at worst, telling people not to be judgmental when they're being criticized, and not noticing they're being judgmental when criticizing others'.
In applying this to Wintour's speech content, Wintour didn't seem to be aware that she herself was intolerant towards Margaret Court's and Scott Morrison's values. It would been startling to hear Wintour admit: 'I oppose Court's views on homosexuality, but in saying that, I'm making an admission this is an intolerant statement I'm making'.
It would have been even more remarkable to hear Wintour admit: 'We live in a free society where freedom of religion and thought are allowed. It shouldn't be surprising that a modern society like ours accepts homosexual behaviour, but I should not lambast Margaret Court's worldview as that would demonstrate my intolerance'.
Michael Mendis calls it 'theparadox of tolerance' because tolerance is a 'self-contradictory principle' as it is reflexive. The phrase is not original with him:
He stated that the principle of tolerance 'dictates that we must be tolerant of everything. We cannot pick and choose what we will tolerate and what we will not. If this is so, then tolerance requires us to tolerate even intolerance'.
Thus, if somebody is proclaiming or practising intolerance, Mendis rightly observes that 'the tolerant person cannot, in principle, speak out against what the intolerant person is doing, since speaking out against intolerance would itself be an act of intolerance".
Therefore, his assessment was that 'tolerance as a principle, then, is clearly illogical, and therefore irrational. It is much more logical and rational to espouse intolerance, for then one does not get entangled in any contradictions-self or otherwise. Intolerance as a principle does not require us to be consistently and universally intolerant'.
Who raised this paradox?
Enter Sir Karl Popper, Austrian-British philosopher of science and political philosopher:
"Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them".
In my view, it shows the lack of logical precision by the Australian mass media that they don't expose the intolerant intolerance by Dame Anna Wintour's statements against Margaret Court's Christian beliefs about homosexuality and the Prime Minister's views on amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act.
Intolerant tolerance of Court's & Morrison'svalues
The Collins' Dictionary (online) defines 'intolerance' as an 'unwillingness to let other people act in a different way or hold different opinions from you' (2019. s.v. intolerance).
Therefore, for Wintour to accuse Margaret Court of intolerance because she didn't support same-sex marriage is to engage in an act of intolerance towards Court's values. When will the supporters of certain values wake up to the fact that to accuse opponents of being intolerant is to engage in an act of intolerance perpetrated by themselves?