Unfinished Izzyness

Staying on the topic of Australian labour laws and following on from this story, Israel Folau is back in the news:

Sacked former rugby international Israel Folau has launched legal proceedings with the Fair Work Commission against Rugby Australia (RA) and NSW Rugby for breach of contract.

Folau’s lawyers said under Section 772 of the Fair Work Act, it was unlawful to terminate employment on the basis of religion.

I had a feeling he might do this. Folau got into trouble for expressing views which form the basis of several mainstream religions, including his own, on his private Instagram feed. I don’t have much faith in any Australian judge not just ruling however progressives demand, but on the face of it I think he has a case. How can an organisation claim it does not discriminate on the grounds of religion – which is a set of beliefs – and then fire someone for expressing those beliefs outside the organisation?

RA and NSW Rugby released a statement confirming they would maintain their ground following Folau’s decision to launch legal action.

The organisations stated they “did not choose” to be in this position but they were committed to upholding the values of “inclusion, passion, integrity, discipline, respect and teamwork”.

Inclusion? That’s the word you’re going to go with here? And I notice you didn’t include tolerance.

“We will defend those values and the right for all people to feel safe and welcome in our game regardless of their gender, race, background, religion or sexuality,” the statement said.

We welcome people regardless of their religion provided they don’t express its underlying beliefs, even in a private capacity. This article does a good job of explaining the Gordian Knot identity politics has tied for itself:

Sport is to be commended for striving to uphold the best values of a modern society, but what happens when those values clash — the human right of sexual orientation versus the human right to freedom of religion?

Does quoting from the Bible constitute hate speech? Was Folau inciting violence?

There is little to no distinction between the “public face” of a sport and the “individual” who may want to express his or her own views or religious beliefs — as they are entitled to under the charter of Human Rights.

His Instagram account doesn’t describe him as a Wallaby or mention rugby at all. It says, “Israel Folau. Living for Jesus Christ. #TeamJesus.”

All eyes will be on the outcome of this court case. I hope Folau wins, but I won’t be holding my breath. Ultimately, it will come down to who sits higher in the victim hierarchy and we already know that gays outrank Christians by a mile and a half. But the courts are going to have to tread carefully because gays don’t outrank certain other religions, and unfortunately for progressives discrimination laws lump all religions in the same basket. The head honchos at world rugby must be praying Sonny Bill Williams doesn’t tweet anything similar before the world cup starts.

Share

Lead, follow, or get out of the damned way

This is interesting:

The Royal College of GPs has rescinded Julia Hartley-Brewer’s invitation to speak at its 2019 conference after doctors complained about a tweet defending Enoch Powell.

Hundreds of people signed a petition calling for the cancellation over her “highly controversial views”.

Ms Hartley-Brewer said “Twitter offence archaeologists” were punishing her.

The RCGP said it “promotes inclusivity” and her views were “too much at odds” with its “core values”.

In his conversation with Jordan Peterson, Milo Yiannopoulos made a remark about this story:

Cambridge University has rescinded its invitation of a visiting fellowship to an academic whose views on gender have been condemned by critics.

University of Toronto psychology professor Dr Jordan Peterson had planned to be with Cambridge’s Faculty of Divinity for two months in autumn.

But on Wednesday the university took the invitation back after a review.

A university spokeswoman said: “We can confirm that Jordan Peterson requested a visiting fellowship, and an initial offer has been rescinded after a further review.

“[Cambridge] is an inclusive environment and we expect all our staff and visitors to uphold our principles. There is no place here for anyone who cannot.”

In a statement to the Guardian, the university’s students’ union said: “We are relieved to hear that Jordan Peterson’s request for a visiting fellowship to Cambridge’s faculty of divinity has been rescinded following further review.

“It is a political act to associate the University with an academic’s work through offers which legitimise figures such as Peterson.”

Yiannopoulos rather bluntly said that Peterson had set himself up for this by putting himself out there as a dissident while still wanting to take part in polite society. Milo contrasted Peterson with himself (who else?) who accepted some time ago he was not welcome in polite society so refuses to play on their terms. I thought it was a good point, one Peterson had no response to. I expect this is because Peterson doesn’t consider himself a dissident, thinking himself a moderate centrist who only upsets hard-left snowflakes. The problem is the institutions have lurched so far to the left, and so embraced lunatic progressive ideology (or proven themselves utterly spineless in the face of an SJW mob), that Peterson sits out there with Mussolini as far as they’re concerned.

The same thing has happened with Julia Hartley-Brewer. She wants to be considered a moderate conservative, someone who can hold right wing views but still participate in polite society and be invited to speak at prestigious institutions. She’s not yet understood that in this environment you can’t do both: if you want to swan around people with letters after their name giving talks in old buildings, you’d better adopt progressive ideology wholesale or you’ll find yourself on the end of a humiliating rejection. That she didn’t see this coming speaks volumes for her ability to gauge the current political climate, and no amount of bleating in The Spectator will change that.

Milo pointed out in the podcast that when he got picked off, conservatives said nothing. They then said nothing when Alex Jones and Sargon of Akkad got taken down. If prominent right wingers said anything at all, it was to punch right – as Ben Shapiro habitually does. As I’ve said before, those who consider themselves moderate conservatives police the boundaries of right wing political discourse tightly, afraid of being outflanked by proper conservatives and desperate to retain the lucrative label as an “acceptable” right winger who gets invited onto talk shows. This is why Hartley-Brewer fell over herself to condemn Trump on Twitter last April: she thought it would win her points among her enemies and prove she wasn’t a nasty right winger like that Robinson chap. She was wrong, and what she and other conservatives should have been doing is closing ranks against their enemies on the left, not sucking up to them in the hope the mob won’t stop them getting Establishment favours.

Milo warned Peterson in his podcast that thanks to the disunity and lack of courage on the right, the mob will pick them all off, one by one, including Peterson. He reckoned that Peterson has been allowed to build himself up only because his inevitable fall at the hands of the left wing mob will be that much harder. His point was that Peterson and others have no idea of the battle they are in, and that he should snap out of it if he wishes to save himself a grisly fate. I think he might have been onto something, and even if his predictions are wrong he is correct that conservatives need to start thinking and acting like dissidents, not people desperate to be accepted into institutions which are unrecognisable from their former glories save the buildings. Another example of this muddled, unserious thinking popped up this morning from the normally sensible Eric Weinstein:


The IDW refers to the Intellectual Dark Web, a term used to describe a bunch of moderate academics, commentators, and thinkers who have set themselves up as an antidote to progressive lunacy. Their movement, if that’s what you’d call it, has already suffered a casualty as some of them turned on David Rubin for having Lauren Southern on his podcast, Southern of course being the sort of right winger “acceptable conservatives” consider beyond the pale. Now with Weinstein you’ve got another supposed voice of reason publicly dressing down one of his colleagues for the heinous crime of interviewing the elected president of Hungary. These people are not serious, whereas the left, despite their lunacy, are.

Little wonder the right has lost so badly, and continues to lose. I don’t know who will wrest control of western civilisation back from the Cultural Marxists who currently run it root and branch, but I’m confident it won’t be the “moderate” right wingers who still haven’t understood the nature of the fight they’re in. If I were to guess, it’ll be those who understand the battlefield, refuse to play the game on the left’s terms, and don’t set themselves up for humiliating rejections by trying to ingratiate themselves with those who despise them. They might also be quite unpleasant, but winning ugly is probably the only option left at this point.

Share

Sick for the Cure

From the BBC:

Ann Widdecombe has come under fire after she suggested science could “produce an answer” to being gay.

In an interview on Sky News, the newly elected Brexit Party MEP was asked about previous comments she made concerning gay conversion therapy.

She said she had “pointed out that there was a time when it was thought impossible for men to become women”.

Labour MP Luke Pollard said Ms Widdecombe was “continuing her sick anti-LGBT campaign”.

I can’t be bothered to look at what Widdecombe actually said, but I’d put a hundred quid on her words being twisted by the media so the ranks of the permanently offended and grifting MPs like Luke Pollard have something to be outraged about.

What would be interesting, though, is how many gay men and women would choose to take a “cure” for homosexuality if one existed. In his recent interview with Jordan Peterson, Milo Yiannopoulos said he wishes there had been a simple cure for his own homosexuality because it would have made his teenage years much easier to bear. I am sure he is not alone, and I suspect there is a large number of married men who wish they could suppress the homosexual urges which threaten to destroy their family. If a simple and effective “cure” could be found, I think it would prove extremely popular among both men and women, even in the enlightened west.

But I am equally sure that if such a cure were discovered the LGBT lobby would fight tooth and nail for it to be banned, denying it to those who would prefer to live a straight life. You can get a hint of the underlying attitudes in tweets like this:


Who’s this we, then? Now I can understand the reaction of gays to anything which smacks of “conversion therapy”, but if men can supposedly undergo treatment to become women and vice versa it’s hardly beyond the realms of science to come up with a cure for homosexuality, particularly for those who aren’t too far along the spectrum. Unless this is forced on people I don’t see why it’s a bad thing, let alone discussion of it.

The answer, of course, is the LGBT movement is nowadays a political movement seeking power, money, and privilege at the expense of everyone else. If something comes along to thin their ranks of unwilling footsoldiers, they’ll naturally oppose it. This stopped being about freedom a long time ago.

Share

PC Comics

A reader sends me this from a comic book convention in London:

It appears Dennis the Menace, Minnie the Minx, or Beryl the Peril wouldn’t even get through the door of this particular comic convention. But it’s good to know the organisers take a robust stand against physical assault and battery, which lesser conventions presumably allow to occur unimpeded. I’m disappointed they appear reluctant to disavow murder and kidnapping, though. Then again, they reserve the right to take action in “any form they deem appropriate” so maybe they didn’t want to limit their options.

And thank heavens someone is on the lookout for bathroom policing in relation to citizenship: no longer will comic book fans have to swipe their passport just to access the clean toilets.  Readers who understand the difference between “inappropriate physical contact” and “unwelcome physical attention” or “gender identity” and “gender presentation” are welcome to leave explanations in the comments.

Share

Lovers and Other Strangers

Via Tim Worstall, this article needs a fisking:

David Isaac, chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, told the Observer that identity politics had been hugely important in advancing the civil rights of many groups. But he warned of a danger that “individual interests” were narrowing people’s views and diminishing their connection to wider society.

Assigning special protections and privileges to certain minority groups at the expense of the wider population has weakened the social fabric? Who would have thought?

Speaking amid an intensifying row in Birmingham, where a group of predominantly Muslim parents have staged protests outside schools accused of promoting same-sex relationships, he suggested the commission would be prepared to use its legal powers to protect the teaching of LGBT issues in the face of opposition from faith groups.

You might just as easily say the commission could use its legal powers to protect the right to practice one’s religion and peacefully oppose government policy in the face of LGBT activists.

“We are a strategic regulator,” Isaac said. “We can’t support absolutely everybody, but we will take cases where we thinks it moves the law forward to protect human rights.”

Let’s be honest, your only problem here is that one protected class is facing off against another. If it were anything else, you’d be “moving the law forward” to hound the majority population into cowed acquiescence. Human rights really doesn’t have much to do with it.

Recently the commission has become more vigorous in using its legal powers against groups it believes threaten equality.

Equality being where certain, select groups are given special consideration under the law.

“We are about to make a decision whether to investigate antisemitism in the Labour party, and that’s a good example of where, without fear or favour, we are saying in relation to political parties, whether it is Islamophobia in the Tory party or whatever, that if we find unlawful acts we are prepared to use our powers to do something about it,” Isaac said.

If members of political parties hold opinions which contravene our self-serving and deliberately vague laws defining which views may be held, we will use our powers to prosecute them. To protect human rights.

On Friday, Birmingham city council took the decision to close Anderton Park primary school, where parents have been protesting for seven weeks, early for the half term. The MP for Birmingham Yardley, Jess Phillips, has attacked the decision, which she said was down to “bullies and bigots” and contrary to the Equality Act.

Isn’t the right to protest a fundamental human right? Or is there a clause which makes protesting certain viewpoints a crime? I’m confused.

“Everything that is happening at the Anderton school in Birmingham is probably making some headteachers nervous about their commitment to teaching about minority [same- sex] families,” Isaac said.

Headteachers are “probably” nervous? Time to abandon party politics and form a unified, national government until this existential threat is eliminated, don’t you think?

“Part of our job is to remind people that the law is the bottom line.”

And thanks to the vagueness with which it is written and the subjectivity with which it is enforced, the law is whatever we decide it is.

Anderton, a number of other Birmingham schools, and several outside the West Midlands have been targeted by religious groups who say they have concerns about teaching materials shared with pupils, which they claim promote LGBT equality and conflict with the teachings of their faith.

So you have conservative authoritarians arguing with progressive authoritarians over how children are best indoctrinated. Meanwhile, those who think kids should simply be taught reading, writing, and arithmetic at school are unrepentant bigots who must be purged from society.

“As a gay man who’s been very involved in the LGBT movement, I think identity politics have been hugely important historically, and it would be very easy to say identity politics has gone too far,” Isaac said.

Just in case anyone thought the chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission ought to be neutral on this issue. Is his deputy an Imam?

But he acknowledged that such politics could be corrosive. “We are living in a world that is more divided, there’s more individualist thinking in relation to what is happening and less empathy, less hope.”

Thanks in large part to that industry you head which goes around slapping labels on people and threatening them with criminal prosecution for wrongthink.

The challenge, he suggested, was to ensure “we don’t end up in the siloed world where everybody is hypersensitive about their own individual interests and less empathetic about how other people are treated.”

Rarely does the head of an organisation come out and state their biggest challenge is the result of their own efforts.

He added: “The key issue is how do we move beyond the ‘I’ to the ‘we’, how do we think of ourselves as citizens in a country or in the world who are not just focused on what works for me and my narrow group. How do we ensure that we think about people who are different to us?”

Ooh, I don’t know. Maybe we could try a version of politics which emphasises what makes us the same – language, culture, shared history, values – rather than what makes everyone different and thus deserving of special treatment.

One solution, he suggested, would be for schools to include citizenship classes in their curriculum, to help them become “citizens of the 21st century”.

Yes, because the one thing missing from the lives of the parents protesting outside the schools is an appreciation of when Britain got its first female MP.

“Teaching kids about not just same-sex relationships but what it is to be a good citizen would be a really important start,” he said.

So Soviet kindergartens only with Lenin in drag.

Finding common ground where all parties accepted that they were subject to the law that protected minority rights would help remove the “binary” nature that engulfed much of the debate swirling around identity politics, Isaac suggested.

It’s those laws protecting minority rights that are the root cause of this problem, you clot.

“People do see it as a zero-sum game,

That’s because it is. Modern rights always come at the expense of someone else.

and my view is that it’s completely possible to teach the tenets of your faith in school, but at the same time say ‘that child over there has two mothers’.

I find it amusing when people who clearly don’t know the first thing about a religion start talking about how its adherents ought to think. Like with the Israel Folau case they think everyone holds the same wishy-washy pick ‘n choose views as your average pencil-necked modern CoE vicar.

We are asking them to respect somebody else’s lifestyle choice or desire to love someone of the same sex.”

The irony here is that in the theocracies of the Middle East, respecting Islam often means endorsing Islam, particularly during Ramadan. What we’re seeing here is less about respect than forced endorsement.

Isaac drew comparisons between the battle to promote equality and human rights and that now being waged to arrest the climate crisis.

In the sense that it’s a privileged, middle-class angst fest driven by a hatred of the plebs and the phenomenal achievements of developed, western societies, he’s quite right.

“Some things are in crisis, particularly in relation to what is happening to disabled people. We’ve made progress in other areas, LGBT being the obvious one, but when I look at gender and race I think we’ve made less progress.”

As the Communists were always just a million more corpses from utopia, progressives think we’re always another few thousand laws from the population thinking as they should. Note that in among all this hand-wringing there wasn’t a single mention of the majority population and what they might want: it’s all about the minorities. Little wonder society is fragmenting.

Share

Holy Wars

A few weeks ago a mate asked me if I thought the climate change hysteria would begin to die down as skepticism increases and the alarmists’ predictions fail to materialise. The infantile reaction to Greta Thunberg’s nonsense aside, I think environmentalists are already forging ahead with Plan B:

Today, it has become clear that plastic is having a devastating effect not only on wildlife but on ourselves. It is now polluting every corner of our planet. I have seen first-hand, how it is choking our oceans and rivers.

It entangles animals with lethal effect. It causes perforated stomachs and starvation. Mammals, birds, fish and marine invertebrates – over 180 different species in all – have been identified accidentally eating it.

But the impact on humans is less well known. Now a report published jointly by the conservation organisation Fauna & Flora International and others highlights for the first time the effect of plastic waste on the health of the world’s poorest people.

It shows that 400,000 to one million people are dying every year as a result of mismanaged waste. If the upper end of this estimate is correct, then one person is dying every 30 seconds as a consequence of this dreadful pollution.

In the space of about three years plastic in the ocean has gone from something fringe campaigners banged on about to being ubiquitous in media, politics, and business. Barely a day goes by without somebody reminding us how much plastic is in the ocean and how terrible it is (although never actually admitting where it comes from).

As always, the proposed solutions are bans, restrictions, and higher prices imposed by central government following an increase in power, money, and privilege for politicians and environmental campaigners. Nobody considers more practical solutions (such as proper landfill whose CO2 emissions are captured), just as those claiming climate change is an imminent, existential threat refuse to endorse nuclear power. The plastic issue is cloaked in the language of morality whereby plastic is bad because it’s artificial but clearing the rainforest to grow plant-based alternatives is good. Whereas climate change was a political movement which became a quasi-religious one, the war on plastic is a spiritual campaign in which wealthy, middle-class mothers seek to capture politics in order to advance their cause. You’ll notice that of all the plastic items deemed unnecessary by our moral superiors, women’s cosmetic products never make the list. Nor do disposable nappies. If you were to get accurate data on how many men are really on board with environmentalism, organic produce, and bans on junk food compared with those who just wearily go along with whatever their partner deems important, I’d guess the latter outnumber the former ten to one.

So while I don’t think the climate change hysteria will die down, I reckon it my lose prominence to moral crusades such as the war on plastic. Climate change was always political, a route to power for authoritarians who found socialism no longer an option due to the collapse of the Soviet Union. But as western societies scrabbled around for something to fill the vacuum left by the departure of Christianity, it took on a religious bent. Now that seed has been planted we’re seeing cults forming for whom politics is the means to their spiritual ends. They’re already calling for the customary dietary restrictions. I expect what we’ll see is new cults springing up – indeed, identity politics probably already qualifies, perhaps third-wave feminism too – and fight among one another for state recognition, support, and resources. Meanwhile normal people will think they’re in the middle of a Third Great Awakening, dominated by box-wine suburban housewives, corporate power skirts with a repeat prescription for Prozac, children in Ralph Lauren jumpers with double-barreled surnames, and twenty-eight year olds who still live with their parents because they don’t like the idea of being on a cleaning roster.

It’s going to be fun, isn’t it?

Share

Sex Flags of a Nexus

I think most people nowadays are familiar with the gay pride rainbow flag, but until a few days ago I was blissfully unaware the entire LGBT[a][b][c]…[z] list each has a flag of its own. I discovered this because a reader emailed me these photos taken at the Whitney Art Museum in New York:

There was a time when folk had to learn the meanings of a set of flags in order to signal to one another. How long before we’re expected to learn a different set in order to signal our virtue?

Share

Social Womengineering

In the comments under my last post, David Thompson remarks:

But apparently, it’s more important to have women “in every role,” at “fifty percent,” because people mustn’t “see policing as primarily a male-dominated job.”

When it comes to gender equality we are rapidly abandoning equality of opportunity in favour of equality of outcomes, the latter of which can only result in a deeply unhappy and dysfunctional society. Here’s another example:

By 2028, Qantas hopes 40 percent of its pilot intakes are female – a move that comes after Virgin Australia exceeded its goal of having at least 50 percent of its pilot cadet intakes female in 2018.

And another (H/T Ken):

Goldman Sachs wants half of the next intake of its junior recruitment programme to be women, and will hold its managers responsible for promoting more minorities to managing director as part of a new diversity push.

If men aren’t taking note of this direction of travel and preparing to do something about it, things aren’t going to turn out well for them – nor anyone else.

Share

Israeli Thought Crimes

This isn’t surprising:

Israel Folau’s contract has been terminated by Rugby Australia after he said “hell awaits” gay people in a social media post.

The Waratahs full-back, 30, was sacked in April but requested a hearing, which was heard by a three-person panel.

They found him guilty of a “high level breach” of RA’s player code of conduct and have upheld the dismissal.

It’s not the first time Folau has got into trouble for expressing views consistent with his unapproved and unprotected religion.

The fundamentalist Christian posted a banner on his Instagram account in April that read: “Drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists and idolators – Hell awaits you.”

This is another example of tolerance and diversity only extending as far as government-approved opinions. Note that Folau is not demanding homosexuals be punished, nor is he refusing to play with them. Instead, he is expressing his religious views that homosexuality is a sin for which they will ultimately pay in the afterlife. A charitable interpretation is he’s not even being malicious, he genuinely fears for such people and wants to save them. His opinions on the fate of homosexuals are derived directly from his religion, which in theory he has the freedom to practice. But as far as Rugby Australia are concerned, he’s free to practice Christianity provided he doesn’t pass remarks on what that entails. This doesn’t sound like an organisation which embraces diversity or practices tolerance.

The other daft thing is Heaven and Hell are religious concepts, and Folau is clearly using the term “hell” in it’s religious context here. So unless you’re religious like Folau, the whole idea of Hell ought to be meaningless. In which case what’s the problem? Homosexuals seem to be taking offence that Folau is condemning them to a fate in an afterlife they don’t themselves believe in. They might as well fret about stepping on cracks in the pavement.

Rugby Australia is a foundation member of Pride in Sport Index (PSI), which is a sporting inclusion programme in Australia set up to help sporting organisations with the inclusion of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex community.

And to the exclusion of practicing Christians whose views have brought no problems whatsoever to the game (unless you count Michael Jones refusing to play on Sundays).

“We commend Rugby Australia, as well as New South Wales Rugby Union, for their leadership and courage throughout this process,” said PSI co-founder Andrew Purchas.

Chucking outspoken Christians under the bus to appease the gay lobby is hardly courageous. What would have been really courageous is for Rugby Australia to state that Folau is entitled to practice his religion and express the views derived from it on his social media platforms.

“Their swift and decisive actions shows that homophobic and transphobic discrimination is not acceptable in sport and individuals – irrespective of their social or professional stature – will be held accountable for their words and actions.”

Held accountable for their actions, eh? Funny, these are the precise sentiments which have just got Folau fired. What we’re seeing here is new quasi-religious dogma pushing out the old. Only Christian societies had a 2,000 year run. How long do you think modern society will last in its current guise?

Share

Trans Forms

There are many problems in society that are inevitable. There are others which are wholly of their own making. This is an example of the latter:

When the man arrived at the hospital with severe abdominal pains, a nurse didn’t consider it an emergency, noting that he was obese and had stopped taking blood pressure medicines. In reality, he was pregnant — a transgender man in labor that was about to end in a stillbirth.

“The point is not what’s happened to this particular individual but this is an example of what happens to transgender people interacting with the health care system,” said the lead author, Dr. Daphna Stroumsa of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

“He was rightly classified as a man” in the medical records and appears masculine, Stroumsa said. “But that classification threw us off from considering his actual medical needs.”

No, she was wrongly classified as a man, hence hospital staff assumed she couldn’t possibly be pregnant. I suspect Dr Stroumsa is treading on eggshells here.

Transgender people often run into problems getting gender-specific health care such as cervical cancer screening, birth control and prostate cancer screenings.

If they were honest about their sex, rather than insistent upon the entire world changing their systems to align with their personal preferences, these problems would not arise.

More needs to be done to improve medical awareness and recognition of diversity because “the consequences can be so dire, as this case shows,” Branstetter said.

So scarce resources should be diverted to cater for a statistically insignificant minority who wish to interact dishonestly with a system designed for tens of millions. Alternatively, we could just regain our sanity.

Share