I plan to renounce my award if this goes ahead

In 2019, I was unexpectedly made a member of the Order of Australia (AM) for ‘‘significant service to social welfare initiatives and law reform’’ after more than 25 years of endeavour, and I accepted it with pride.

In 2007 Margaret Court was made an officer of the Order of Australia ‘‘for eminent service to tennis as an internationally acclaimed player and record-holding grand slam champion, and as a mentor of young sportspersons’’. Now in 2021 she is reportedly to be receive Australia’s highest honour, AC, but for what reason? AC recipients are honoured for ‘‘eminent achievement and merit of the highest degree in service to Australia or humanity at large’’. Court has already been awarded for her tennis achievements.

In the intervening 14 years she has promoted views on sexuality, which have been soundly rejected by Australians in the plebiscite in 2017 and by the Australian Parliament.

If Margaret Court accepts this award, I will with regret be renouncing mine. I do not support this decision by the Council for the Order of Australia and do not wish to be associated with such company.

Rodney Syme, Yandoit Hills

The difference between Court and Laver

Your correspondent (‘‘Right to diverse views’’, Letters, 23/1) contends that Margaret Court has a right to her contrary views and opines that perhaps we should ask Rod Laver for his views on various topics and remove his name from his arena if we find them unpalatable.

But Laver doesn’t use the pulpit, and the media, to broadcast his views to the public. He doesn’t espouse views that are harmful and hurtful to his fellow Australians. Margaret Court has made her choice and, with the apparently implicit backing of the PM, I’m sure she’ll live with it.

Steve Campbell, Kangaroo Flat

We need more transparency around the process

You report that the Governor-General is pushing for reform of the Australia Day honours (The Age, 23/1).

One reform that would provide more transparency and background information to the public would be the publication of the nominator/s for each recipient.

Jenny Callaghan, Hawthorn

The community has moved on

Margaret Court did not ask for this award, she was awarded it. It is the people who are running the awards that need to be modernised and inclusive.

It is to the Order of Australia that we should turn and to the institutions and the governance and laws that hold us back. These laws and ways of thinking need to modernise, they are lagging behind changing sentiment in the community. Let this be the catalyst for change. At least people have an issue with it, years ago it would been unremarkable. Things are changing. Sue King, Somers

Where’s the tolerance, love and respect for others?

The last sentence of your correspondent’s letter says it all (‘‘Right to diverse views’’, Letters, 23/1). ‘‘Tolerance, love and respect for others’’ are the very things Margaret Court is not offering to people who aren’t like her.

She publicly comments and preaches her views, which are offensive to many Australians. Australia Day Awards should be presented to those that offer hope and unity, not division.

Paul Hamilton, West Preston

The basic point is being buried

The many critics of awarding another gong to Margaret Court, focus on her consistent divisive speech directed against the LGBTQI+ community. It’s a good point and speaks to her character.

But the basic point is being buried: why do sports players deserve a gong? It’s an activity they pursue for their own benefit, and I have no problems with that, but in what way have the grand slams of Court etc made this country a better place for the people in it?

Carmel Boyle, Alfredton