5 Worst Moments of The Project’s Interview with Margaret Court

Paragons of partisan propaganda, The Project, were delighted and surprised that Margaret Court would “front up” on their show for yet another “gotcha” moment which their flavour of journalism is known and loathed for by anyone not left of centre. Margaret Court is no stranger to the spotlight though, after a spectacular career representing Australia on the tennis court and the world stage.

She never lost a match while representing you and I. That’s impressive.

What’s more impressive is that she’s prepared to speak up publicly as a Christian pastor of a large church in Perth, Western Australia. Impressive if only because it’s so rare, which is a shame. I don’t know why it would be rare. Jesus promised the world would hate His followers. I hope it isn’t because Church leaders and Christians are afraid of being ridiculed on national television for speaking the Truth in love, exactly as the panel of The Project proceeded to do.

Let’s hope Mrs Court’s courage is contagious. Indeed, she acknowledged the courageous example she was following of my recent guest, Stuart Ballantyne. Stuart wrote an open letter to Qantas stating that his (significant) travel business would be secured by an airline not arrogantly leading the campaign to deliberately deprive children of one or more parents. #MarriageReality

But in their unrestrained mockery of a 74 year lady, a Christian minister and undefeated national sporting hero, The Project and their audience full of juvenile sheeple created some truly terrible moments of television.

1. Waleed Aly rudely interrupts Margaret Court’s answer because he disagrees with her.

When the frequently facile host of The Project asked what initimidation is being conducted by corporate homosexual marriage advocates like Allan Joyce, he characterised their excessive and well-funded activism as merely “expressing support”. He asked what was wrong with that misrepresented activity and asserted the notion has,

“…Overwhelming majority support amongst the Australian public, and hence his customers, his staff, and probably his shareholders.”

Margaret Court began to courteously challenge the smug interviewer’s subjective assertion and his wildly speculative claim to know the views of people he’s never met. And rightly so. It’s fair to assume the Islamic Apologist and the Christian Minister don’t move in the same crowds. He gave her 20 seconds before belligerently cutting her off and completely ignoring her attempts to finish answering the question he asked, an answer he clearly didn’t like.

His earth-shaking evidence she was wrong? “There is polling that suggests…” What, Waleed? That Trump won’t win? That Brexit will fail? Heaven forbid a leftist’s polling be not considered infallible gospel. Heresy! Stone her!

2. Meshel Laurie Mocks The Minister

Asked why she doesn’t support homosexual marriage, Pastor Margaret Court answered because the first two chapters of Genesis teach us that “God ordained marriage between a man and a woman; and that a child shall have a mother and a father.” She explained that she has “nothing against homosexual people or the way they lead their life”, but that in her opinion marriage is not to be touched.

Meshel Laurie, famous for her ability to get a laugh, attempted to interrupt Margaret, but due to the obvious lag in the live satellite feed from Perth Margaret didn’t hear her first interjection straight away and continued saying marriage is “covenant and very precious.” The impatient comedienne continued the interruption of her guest with a condescending “Yep, yep, yep, I get all that,” to which the obliging audience howled with laughter. Meshel almost blushed at their appreciation for her ability to deride a Christian appreciation of marriage and cracked a smile belying her sincerity.

Refusing to be intimidated by the bullying, Margaret responded that she didn’t think that was funny. Meshel snarled back sarcastically that, “I don’t think you and I agree on a lot of things, including what’s funny.”

3. Meshel Laurie Verbals Her Guest and Misrepresents “Secular Society”

When will the social justice warriors ever begin to listen sincerely? Meshel followed up her sneering comments with a question mischievously misrepresenting what Margaret clearly said.

“Do you understand how hurtful it is for LGBTQI Australians when someone of your stature sort of actively promotes the idea that they’re not equal, to you; that you’re better than them; and deserve more?”

“You deserve marriage and they don’t, is what you’re saying.”

Margaret rejected Meshel’s judgement of her motives, and explained her reason for her convictions was Scripture. Of course, this argument is never going to persuade a convert to Buddhism like Meshel, but Margaret’s is still an equally valid voice in a pluralistic, inclusive secular society, though Meshel didn’t agree.

“But we’re a secular society, Margaret. I for one, I’m not a Christian person. So why should I have to live by what’s written in the first two chapters of the Bible?”

Meshel and many leftists seem to think “secular society” means all worldviews except Christianity. It doesn’t. It means you have to live by the laws of the land which everybody gets an equal voice in debating and voting on, including those pesky Christians. No one is saying you have to believe the Bible. We’re saying we do, and our voice counts too. If you ask someone why they disagree with you, the answer is merely academic. It doesn’t matter. You don’t get to rule their worldview in or out of bounds. That’s forcing your beliefs on someone. Someone having beliefs and participating in a debate or voting with them isn’t.

4. Meshel Emotionally Blackmails Her Guest

“But what you can’t argue with is the suicide rate of the LGBTQI community is wayyy out of wack with the rest of Australia. So if anyone’s being bullied, or suffering trauma from this debate, surely you can’t argue that it’s white heterosexuals?”

Yes, you can argue with that. And we must. The intellectual dishonesty of this statement is monolithic. Show me the evidence. Show me here and now: where is the research that conclusively links a higher rate of suicide (not just attempts) for people suffering sexual and/or gender confusion with being exposed to public debates on social policy, excluding all other possible factors such as – oh I don’t know – sexual and/or gender confusion?

There is none. I don’t know where Meshel heard it, but it fits her dogma so she flings it around as fact, perhaps even believing it herself.

Margaret Court rightly points out that reliable research indicates that 92% of sexually confused people have experienced some kind of trauma in their lives. But that couldn’t possibly increase a risk of poor mental health, could it.

Meshel dismisses this statistic because it is inconvenient, she hasn’t read it, and there was a chance to score cheap laughs on Margaret’s rejection of Aly’s claim that “polling suggests…” [cue compliant audience laughter].

Meshel, try arguing with facts and evidence instead of emotional manipulation.

5. Gorgi Coghlan Asks If Tantrums Are Understandable

“Would you understand if current “gay” tennis players refused to play at Margaret Court Arena?”

Urghhh. Of all the dumb questions… This show has never been credibly accused of intelligent journalism.

If a “professional” tennis player refused to play tennis at a specific arena because it was named after someone who disagreed with a proposed change in legislation and concurrently repeated over and over their high regard for all people’s dignity and worth, that would not be a professional tennis player.

That would be a child masquerading as a grown up, a person who had never grown up. That would be a snowflake, the kind who gets hysterical and behaves irrationally when the candidate or cause they voted for loses. That would be someone pouting and stomping their feet while they take their racket and ball and go home to cry themselves to sleep because somebody disagreed with them.

And it was an appallingly childish question. No reasonable person would “understand” such ridiculous behaviour.

Margaret Court responded well.

“I think it’s very sad that they’re bringing my tennis into it. This is why I say it’s become bullying from the homosexual “gay” side of people. They’re now bullying us that we have to think like them. And I have my rights to say that I love them; I’ve got nothing against them. I’ve got nothing against any people of any kind.

I’m just saying that marriage is between a man and a woman. It’s a covenant in God’s eyes, and it’s a covenant which is very, very precious.”

Our Prime Minister rose above the insipid bullying of one of our living legends, still audaciously fighting for Australia not on the court but in the culture war, and concluded the conversation by being quoted as saying earlier in the day.

“Whatever people may think of Margaret Court’s views about gay marriage – and she is entitled to have them and she is entitled to fly on whatever airline she likes or not – but she is one of the all time greats and the Margaret Court Arena celebrates Margaret Court the tennis player,” the Prime Minister said.

“She is one of the greatest of greats of tennis and that’s why the arena is named after her.”