Proposal to give award to bigot

An email I sent to those who allegedly make the decisions about the honours system in Australia - and forwarded to my MPs. 

***

Dear Members of the Australian Honours and Awards Secretariat,

Re: Considerations around award or cancellation of Australian Honours

While your response to last year's controversy over Bettina Arndt made some good points (e.g., “In a system that recognises hundreds of people each year, it is inevitable that each list will include some people who others believe should not be recognised. Unanimous community approval is not a criteria for Council to make a recommendation. These are Awards from the bottom up. Similarly, individuals are neither qualified nor disqualified on the basis of their political leanings, social views or religious convictions. The Council’s recommendations are not an endorsement of the political, religious or social views of recipients, nor is conferral of an honour an endorsement of the personally held beliefs of recipients. Nor are they directed by governments or influenced by lobbying or public campaigning”), and stated that consideration will be given to cancellation or termination for convictions for criminal conduct (e.g., George Pell, whose conviction was overturned on appeal and the issue of cancellation therefore not considered), the issue of controversial or unpopular awards can potentially cause damage to the Australian honours system.

Now, I recall the fierce pride I felt in recent years when one of my friends and someone else I knew were awarded honours under our system. They well deserved that recognition, and many of us celebrated, and it gave encouragement to others who were attempting to do such work that benefitted the Australian community.

However, to subsequently have people like Margaret Court, who has ACTIVELY and maliciously sought to perpetuate harm against Australians, a matter which goes beyond religious “convictions” (views which are disputed by other members of the Christian faith and members of other religions), also awarded honours, both cheapens the value of those awards to my friends, and risks bringing discredit on the entire honours system.

The issue here is not only formal conviction of a criminal offence; it is offence against Australian values and norms. For Court or anyone else to  so egregiously act against inclusion, decency and tolerance - values confirmed by other awards that have been made - is, irrespective of criminality, unacceptable to most Australians.

This issue is akin to the protests overseas in recent years against honouring slaveholders from past eras: slavery had not yet been abolished, but there is a growing recognition that, notwithstanding the then lack of criminality, the awards were unacceptable.

Similarly, notwithstanding the (arguable) lack of criminality of the means Court has chosen to campaign for harm, we, as a society, accept that such harm is unacceptable - and have laws against the most egregious forms of that hate, actions which are regularly reviewed and no doubt will, eventually, include more clearly the actions of Court and others like her.

When that happens, past awards risk being viewed with, at the very least, discomfort.

However I suspect, in view of your response to the controversy last year, you will not change your stance on this year’s award.

I therefore, for the future of the current honours system, strongly urge you to be more careful and thorough in your future deliberations, lest you being the honours system into general contempt in the view of Australian society - whether that contempt be held by all, most, or significant sections of our nation.

The unsung heroes of Australia merit recognition, but they will not accept attempts to offer such recognition that gives them membership of a group some of whose members are viewed with contempt.