part II
Dear self,
We have to talk.
As you well know, I am your biggest admirer. Your achievements, although we know you are too modest to list them, are stupendous. A former sporting Adonis, you achieved new fame as a man of letters, at least in the quantity, if not quality, of books you have written. You also hold the Order of Australia. I dinkum dips me lid to you. Rah!
But despite the fact you regularly and loudly espouse fashionable and progressive principles, I can’t help thinking there’s an insincerity about you. I think you know what I mean. You’re forever deploring the intolerance of others, but no-one can sneer, condescend, harangue, and patronise like you do.
Perhaps you think being on the side of the angels releases you from the burden of tolerating those with different views. Certainly many of your inner-city readers would agree. But it doesn’t. Your manner is boorish and predictable, and you specialise in cheap shots.
Take for example your views on same sex marriage, of which you were one of the loudest supporters. Good for you. But remember when Margaret Court, Christian and tennis legend, spoke out for the ‘No’ camp? “Tennis is an inclusive game”, you wrote, ridiculing her beliefs. “Does Melbourne Park really want to have an arena named after someone who stands so firmly against such inclusiveness, who is becoming a byword for bigot?” That’s right, you immediately called for the Margaret Court Arena to be renamed. That’s not “blowing raspberries in her general direction” as you referred to it, Peter. That’s bullying.
In the case of Israel Folau, you were similarly intolerant. Instead of saying what you did, you could have, as an experienced sportsman who has also said some pretty dumb things in your youth, offered to meet with Folau and mentor him. But no, you had to rush to the keyboard and publicly denounce him to look good for your readers. I’m sure he appreciates your condescending ‘open letter’.
Can I ask, Peter, why you didn’t do the same to for a certain indigenous Muslim athlete who also opposes homosexuality? “I like Anthony Mundine!” you tweeted in 2013, “A very fine and admirable man.”
Where was your condemnation, Peter, when this very fine and admirable man starred on Network Ten’s show ‘I’m a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here!’ this year and suggested that homosexuals should be executed? His comments were a lot more harmful than Court’s or Folau’s but they never made your column, despite your interest in the show. Why did you not, if Margaret Court is an example, call for the show to take action? Or would that have been slightly awkward given your wife, Lisa Wilkinson, had just joined the station?
You might also recall that in 2001 Mundine, citing his religion, said on national television that the 9/11 attacks were “not about terrorism”.
“America brought it upon themselves,” he stupidly added. Do you remember what you said at the time, Peter? “Disagree with great vigour with those views if you like,” you wrote, “but can we keep it in some kind of perspective?” Or this. “The outcry … has been nothing less than extraordinary … he has instantly become something close to public enemy No.1 simply on the strength of a couple of stray comments on a TV show.”
It gets better. You claimed this reaction was “reminiscent of McCarthyism,” plaintively asking “Aren’t we better than that?” And this: “The thing we have to remember, surely is that this was simply Mundine’s opinion, freely expressed.” For good measure you also cited Voltaire’s apocryphal saying.
So just to get this straight, Peter: you go the full Voltaire when a Muslim athlete on national television condones a terrorist atrocity in the name of religion. You stay silent when the same man suggests homosexuals should be executed. But if a Christian athlete so much as sends a tweet opposing same sex marriage or posts on Instagram what supposedly happens to gays in the afterlife, you publicly browbeat and belittle him, with the censoriousness of a firebrand preacher. THERE’S A WORD FOR THAT, AND IT’S CALLED ‘HYPOCRISY’ — GET IT?
Regards,
Fitz
P.S. You would be better off putting your considerable energies into the Australian Republic Movement, of which you are chair. Yes, I know you’re forever talking about the supposed “surge” in support for your movement, but did you know the latest Newspoll shows the number of Australians who oppose a republic is at its highest in 18 years? I have an idea for changing that, and it involves you losing the bandana attire and the bombastic attitude.
Incidentally, if you are reading this, Israel Folau, permit me to give you some advice. FitzSimons will be
hosting a cruise on the Seine this year. Can you imagine being stuck on a boat with him for eleven days? Day 1: ‘Why we need a sugar tax.’ Day 2: ‘Selected readings from every book I’ve written.’ Day 3: ‘I’ve stopped playing rep football, so why should the government build new stadiums?’ Day 4: ‘Famous people I’ve known and befriended.’ Day 5: ‘Mike Baird was right to ban greyhound racing.’ Day 6: ‘Why we should ban boxing.’ Day 7: ‘Why you should, as I have, give up drinking.’ Day 8: ‘Religious people are bad because they try to ban things you enjoy doing.’ Mr Folau, my point is this: hell does exist, but it is a place here on earth.
