Open Letter to Peter Fitzsimons


Dear Peter Fitzsimons AM,

Photo by Visit Victoria

I read your recent article about Margaret Court. In it you propose to rename Margaret Court Arena for the reason that she has stuck to her own value system regarding marriage, and said so publicly. You criticised her for not being ‘inclusive’. You then proposed that the arena ought to be named after Evonne Goolagong Cawley, who is part aboriginal. ​

​I thank you for your considered opinion on this, and now would like to give my own, on yours.

​Let me start by asking you a question. Suppose an aboriginal person had a dearly-held value system, which she believed to be the truth. Suppose she decided to stick to her value system, rather than change it to what is currently popular. Would you criticise her for sticking to her traditions and culture? I don’t think you would. In fact, I think you would praise her for maintaining her traditional beliefs. I think you would say that she had integrity.

​Similarly, would you criticise a Muslim for holding onto his traditional beliefs, rather than apostatising and becoming Westernised for the sake of his comfort and wealth? I don’t think you would criticise such a man either. In fact, I think that you would praise any traditional or religious people for holding true to their values and beliefs except Christians. The Left seems to have a special scorn for Christians.

Perhaps you will get a glimpse of what so many other people in this country see clearly — that your Leftism is simply a form of anti-Christianity.

Now, on the topic of ‘inclusiveness’, which you referred to in your article. Children raised by same-sex couples will not have either their natural father or mother ‘included’ in their family. Mrs. Court actually referred to this problem herself, earlier criticising lesbian tennis player Casey Dellacqua and her partner for denying the child whom they are raising of its father. Therefore, your same-sex marriage is actually uninclusive itself. Or, do you think that a child does not have the right to have both of his natural parents ‘included’ in his family? If so, why are you so uninclusive?

​(Parenthetically, why are so many of the ‘freedoms’ you on the Left promote, at the expense of the wellbeing of children? Haven’t you ever wondered that? Same-sex marriage denies children of one of their real parents. The Left also supports abortion, as well as Islam, which favours child marriage. And then there was the Safe Schools debacle.)

​I wonder also if your idea of inclusivity in tennis, which is getting ever more inclusive, as you said, extends to allowing transgender women to play in mixed doubles, or in ladies’ singles? If not, why not? And if so, what do you think the attendees of matches in your new Evonne Goolagong Cawley Arena will think about that? They are ordinary, hardworking people who just want to watch a little tennis. Maybe they might feel a little annoyed and left out by all this political correctness and wish they could just watch some tennis in peace. You might say they could feel ‘unincluded’.

I and many others have looked closely at the values of your Leftism, and found it lacking. As well as being primarily anti-Christian, it mainly seems to be based on whim and emotion, and not sense.


Gagudju Man, by Bill Neidjie, from

Bill Neidjie (Big Bill) in his book Gagudju Man criticised white people for changing our values so often. Changing the values implies that those values are not regarded as the truth, nor even as particularly valuable. On the contrary, Big Bill said that the values of his people did not change. He had an excellent point. We Christians don’t change our values, or at least shouldn’t. The Bible is the Bible. This is why, when asked his opinion about marriage, Jesus did not say what was fashionable in the first century AD, or describe what everyone else was doing. Instead he quoted Genesis and said that that was how marriage was ‘from the beginning’.

​​But secular whitefellas like you do change your values, a lot. It is people like you whom Big Bill was talking about. What will be your next change? Whatever it will be, there is no doubt what it will be based on: whim, emotion and anti-Christianity.

​Let us have the plebiscite about same-sex marriage. You know that it’s the best way to sort this out once and for all, either accepted or rejected. You know that people in Australia are divided about this issue. I would like a real debate, and so would many others. Let you on the Left put forward your arguments for this change, and let us Christians and conservatives put forward our arguments. And let people decide which argument is most reasonable and best for the country. Why not? You want to have a referendum for a republic, which means you value the people’s opinions. Why not a plebiscite on same-sex marriage?

​But the Left really doesn’t want a plebiscite, even though a few years ago, many of you did — there you go, changing your values again, just as Big Bill criticised you for doing. You only wanted a plebiscite when you were dead sure you were going to win it. But then you realised that maybe you wouldn’t win it. You don’t care about the voting process. You just want to go against Christianity any way you can.

​The call for same-sex marriage is not based on righting a past injustice, but on your Leftist values. Especially your anti-Christianity. The Left really is against the Church. That is why, I think, the honest comments of a Western Australian pastor stuck in your craw so much.

​As to your quoting of 1 Timothy 2 to criticise Court. Allow me with pleasure to cite the full verse, 1 Timothy 2:12, as well as a little context. It’s from a letter written by the Apostle Paul, a man whose knowledge of the Scripture was perfect, but whose heart was cold as stone, until something amazing happened to him and his life turned around. Paul said, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.” And it’s true that Court is a leader in her church, so I can’t fault your citation.
​Let’s only mention in passing what Paul wrote two lines before, that women should adorn themselves not with finery but with good works. By supporting real marriage, Court is doing exactly that. But the problem for you is that Court is teaching, which seems to be against the Scripture.

​If you’ve ever been a teacher, you might know how frustrating it is when your students just don’t understand what you are teaching. Some days they just plain old hate you, and won’t even bother listening to you. Sometimes being a qualified teacher simply does not get the job of imparting knowledge done.

Margaret Court was not Biblically qualified but she still gave you a lesson about marriage and the gospel, as well as a lesson about shooting off your mouth, and considering the implications of things that you propose. (Do you really mean that a great sportsperson ought not be honoured if he or she holds views that support of the law and long-standing tradition of a country, but which a certain group of people in the country recently decided were not ‘inclusive’ enough, using a definition of ‘inclusive’ which ignores other kinds of inclusiveness? Sorry, but any normal person can see that is foolishness. I wonder what Big Bill would have said about that way of thinking!)

Pirate Pete.

Who else was going to get under your skin the way Court did, and make you write a whole article about a churchy septuagenarian whom you describe as ‘sad’? Who else was going to incite the reaction which ensued from your article, which then caused me to write this? Who else would have got you to think about marriage and even cite the Bible, which says of itself (2 Timothy 2:15), “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness…” I’m glad you’ve read a bit of the Bible, and encourage you to read more of it. You might find something really juicy to use against us.

​It seems to me that God may well have got through to you, in his own way, and his choice of teacher for you was nonpareil. He saw what was inside you, what really inspired you write that article, what made you write the word ‘yes’ three times and then put the word ‘right’ (meaning Court’s right to an opinion) in quote marks, thinking as you did that it would somehow make your voice seem more authoritative, and not realising that it might instead reveal your hidden doubts.

​One last thing. Suppose, as a result of all this, that you went down a certain new way of thinking. Say you made a minor change to your thinking only, and decided to support the plebiscite. What do you think the reaction would be? I think you know the answer. Fear of the repercussions is why you will not change your mind, even as you mock Court for not changing hers. You are not really free to think. You have to think the Left’s way. There is too much at stake for you. If you did change your view, the Left might mock you, punish you, or abandon you. You might find yourself not invited to a writers’ festival, or lose a job opportunity, or worse. Basically, you won’t be allowed freely to change your opinion without a penalty. That’s how the Left operates. Just look at their reaction to Court if you want to see how the Left treats those whom it considers think the wrong way. It’s all very 2 Timothy 3:2, if you’ll permit me one more Timothy reference. (Sorry for all the Bible references. I know they are a bit of a turn off to some people. But hey, you started it!)

That stifling lack of freedom of thought is one of the main reasons I left the Left. And if you can lose me — who called himself a feminist and read Monique Wittig and Andrea Dworkin at uni, who sometimes wished he was gay and thought about converting to Islam, who wrote to your SMH describing the US president as ‘Lord Bush’, and who truly despised John Howard — then you can lose anyone. Well, anyone who is not profiting from it, like you are.
​The Left sucks, and your article proved it.

Marc Schmidt

Photo by Eva Rinaldi Celebrity and Live Music Photographer

  • Deplorable Steve

    Was this actually sent to Fitzcucksimons???

    • Addelad

      It would need explanatory text and pictures

  • Möwe

    I sent it to the SMH. Whether or not he gets it, I don’t know.

    • babanapeal .

      If he got it, he still wouldn’t get it !!

    • Möwe

      He’s replied and we are talking.

      • David Hiscox

        Nice work.

    • James Elliott

      Even if he does get it, I would be very surprised if he responds. His ilk are great at attacking but shirk when replying.

  • Gregoryno6

    Too many words of more than one syllable will give Bandana Boy a headache,
    On another point, his devotion to hopeless causes – leader of the republican movement ffs – pretty much guarantees there will be no name change.

  • y. Iamu

    Peter Fitzsimmons again. Here is a man that thinks wearing a hanky on his head is the way to go. Defence rest your honour.
    There isn’t many people in the world that has had a sports career like Court. If we compare Fitzsimmons to courts career she made him look like an amateur..
    how could you even think of changing the name of arena to another name when their isn’t another person in the sport that comes close to her achievements.
    While we’re on the subject of sport, what make these has been jocks think since they are no longer relative in the sports arena we want them to pontificate and force their substandard views on all subjects that matter to them. Court has been attacked because of a personal stand she has made because of her faith. She didn’t make a big fuss and call a press conference about it she simply did it. Why doesn’t she have a right to an opinion without Berks like Fitzsimmons trying to make himself relevant by taking things to exstreme. I’m not religious myself so my post is not because I have a religious view one way or another. I just don’t see how the sport has anything to do with this. For that matter I don’t see what the bloke with the hanky on his head either. Whether you like her religious beliefs or not Margaret Court is an elite Australian athlete and is an outstanding world champion. Fitzsimmons has had too many knocks to the head it starts showing up as you get old.

  • Alan Key

    Thanks Marc. “Suppose an aboriginal person had a dearly-held value system …”
    The Uluru Bark Petition (2015):
    “The heart of the Petition states that marriage between man and woman is, and has always been, sacred to the oldest living culture on earth.”
    Uluru Media page:

    • Addelad

      Except when you’re too pissed to care and you cave her head in because she was annoying – oh well, I guess you just get another one in that same sort of sacred union.

    • Aboriginals have severe issues with violence and child abuse…not sure they have any ” dearly held value system”……..

      But, I suppose it is all the fault of the white fellas, ho hum.

      • Möwe

        Well, put it to you this way. Do you think Fitzsimons would ever write an article mocking say, Welcome to Country ceremonies? He could say, “Land isn’t ‘sacred’! It’s just dirt! And your Dreaming is just fairy tales!”

        I think we all know the answer to that one.

  • Pirate Pete…..what an unabashed yobbo moron dickwad.
    He never fails to deliver.

  • Breza Lily

    Very good letter,I agree entirely.

  • Sadsak

    Fitsimmons, the Darren Hinch of Dishcloths,what a dickhead.

  • entropy

    You make an excellent point about the hypocrisy of those who would only allow ‘fashionable’ cultures their traditional beliefs.

    However, I do think it’s ineffectual to focus on religious arguments against gay marriage, and possibly even counter-productive. Simply because beliefs arguments are only valid for those who hold those same beliefs, in which case you’re preaching to the choir.

    There are many positions against changing the definition of marriage that will influence a broader audience. The fact that all societies, evolving in geographical isolation from one another, only solemnised romantic relationships between a man and a woman. The fact that the nuclear family gives children the best chance at life and deserves special recognition. The simple expedient of nomenclature – that gay romantic relationships are fundamentally different from others in ways which more than justify a distinction in language.

    But first, we need to challenge the Orwellian doublespeak that is used to frame this debate. Terms like ‘marriage equality’. Gays have always had marriage equality. They’re free to marry someone of the opposite sex as countless gays have done throughout history. Changing the definition of an ancient social institution to cater for one wealthy, entitled demographic while specifically excluding other relationships between consenting adults doesn’t come close to resembling ‘equality’, and anyone who uses such demonstrably false language should be called out for their lies.

    I’m not sure why we’re supposed to accept that same sex marriage is popular when even its proponents are terrified to call it by its name.

    • I find it so strange how Gay/Sodomy advocates are so very passionate about homosexuals having the rights to get married, when the lefty media usually does everything it can to paint marriage as a whole in a bad light, glorifies extramarital affairs in their TV programs and the like, but when it comes to homosexuals getting married, all of a sudden marriage is a good thing.
      As Christian values wane and degeneracy increases, what vile agenda is next ?
      Bestiality will be acceptable too ?
      Pedophilia will be normalised ?

      • entropy

        Like most activists, they use arguments of convenience, not conviction.

      • Joe Ombud

        What about child marriage.

  • not wanting to do clickbait, but rather than long comment, my take here:

    And well said sir.