Where do you stand on Israel?

A week or so back Israel Folau, the Australian rugby player who’s been ostracised for exercising his religious freedom in a way which displeased the LGBTQ political lobby, decided to set up a Go Fund Me campaign ostensibly to help him with his legal fees. Now I don’t suppose Folau needs the money – he’s been a top-class professional athlete across three sports since he was 18 years old – but he might have done it to gauge how much support he had. Turns out it was quite a bit and the fund quickly passed five figures, leading the Sydney Morning Herald to abandon journalism for activism and ramp up the pressure to get the appeal shut down. After all, the last thing progressives want is for a designated wrongthinker to have an avenue of financial and moral support once the moral gavel has fallen.

Sure enough, once the inevitable mob had formed Go Fund Me dug around in their terms of service and discovered they reserve the right to yank any funding campaign on a whim, which they duly did. The smug grins of the SMH activists probably didn’t last long, though. Within hours the Australian Christian Lobby had set up an appeal which, when I looked this morning, had attracted over $1.9m dollars. That’s a lot of money, and I expect many donors aren’t even Christian but are seeing this as a way to signal their opposition to the increasingly restrictive speech codes being forced on Australians by their employers and with the full backing of politicians.

But the saga doesn’t end there. Via William of Ockham, the Sydney Morning Herald is now urging the government to intervene:

The Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission has been asked to investigate the Australian Christian Lobby over its role in helping Israel Folau raise more than a million dollars for his legal fight against Rugby Australia (RA).

Asked by whom?

A number of complainants, however, have confirmed to the Herald that they have raised their concerns with the charities commission over the fundraising role played by the ACL.

So it’s basically another attempt to sabotage Folau’s ability to raise funds. For all we know there might be no more than two complaints, both originating from the offices of the Sydney Morning Herald.

According to the ACNC, a charity must be able to show that the use of its funds furthers the charitable purpose in which it is registered, meaning the ACL would need to prove it is “advancing religion”, for example, by agreeing to help raise money for Folau’s individual purposes.

I’d say defending an outspoken Christian who is being persecuted for his religious beliefs is doing more to advance Christianity than the combined efforts of the Pope and Archbishop of Canterbury over the past twenty years.

“We got legal advice on this before we went ahead with it,” [ACL’s managing director Martyn] Iles  said. “Israel Folau is not a member and our charitable purpose is to advocate for changes in law and public policy and the advancement of the Christian religion. This is a religious freedom issue which for law has implications for law and public policy.

Quite, which is why it’s attracted so much support:

“Over 15,000 people have donated and the average donation is about $100 and about 10 donors per minute. That’s pretty incredible stuff. There’s a lot of juice left in this.”

It’s as if a lot of people understand this is a lot bigger than what Folau thinks about homosexuals. Which brings me onto this story:

A disabled grandfather has been sacked by Asda for sharing an ‘anti-religion’ sketch by Billy Connolly on his Facebook page. Brian Leach, who had worked at the Asda store for five years in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, was let go by the supermarket after a colleague complained the comments in the sketch were anti-Islamic.

Now Britain is not Australia, but the progressive mindset which dominates the ruling classes and the subsequent authoritarianism is much the same in both countries. We’ve arrived at a situation whereby expressing Christian beliefs on social media gets you fired while disrespecting Islam on social media also gets you fired. I don’t agree with other commentators who say blasphemy laws are being applied in the UK, this is something else. Far from being inconsistent, the two approaches are quite logical once you understand the objective of those in charge is to denounce, undermine, and ultimately destroy what was until recently the prevailing culture in the developed, Anglo-Saxon world. In practice, this means those who rule over us will pick and choose who can say what and when as they see fit, and deprive us of our livelihoods should we speak out of turn. For now, this means Christians cannot say anything mean about homosexuals and ordinary folk cannot say anything which might be perceived as a slight against Islam.

And you can be sure this won’t stop here. I expect Folau will soon find his bank withdrawing their services, sending him a curt letter that he has 14 days to find an alternative (having made sure the other Australian banks will also deny him). What then? Will his phone company cut him off because the Sydney Morning Herald is piling on the pressure, backed by various government bodies stuffed with vinegar-drinking cat-ladies and the sort of men who, when they were in school, told the teacher which kid drew the picture on the blackboard? Nobody should feel too sorry for Folau, but this is about much more than a multi-millionaire sportsman. What happens when they start coming for ordinary people, like a grandad who works in Asda for example? What happens when they come for you?

People, especially politicians, often get asked where they stand on Israel. I think that question may develop a second meaning, and one no less important than the original.

Share

Standing on the shoulders of giants

Want to promote diversity in your institution but don’t know how? Why not turn to Harvard Medical School for inspiration:

The walls were entirely bare. Thirty-one oil portraits of medical and scientific leaders that had made the room distinctive were gone. Images of Harvey Cushing, Soma Weiss, George Thorn, Eugene Braunwald — and other historic figures — had been removed.

Before:

After:

It seems the modern way to welcome women and minorities into organisations is to wipe the achievements of white men from the institutional memory and pretend they never existed. Not that the technique is new, of course:

Back to the article:

Unlike disputed portraits and statuary related to slavery and the Civil War, these men made contributions to medicine and research that stand up well to current scrutiny.

Yes but you don’t understand: they were white and male and therefore Nazis (probably).

Removing all the historic amphitheater portraits — leaving bare walls in their place for the past year — won’t advance diversity. What might? An array of art that reflects today’s rapidly changing physician leadership, while recognizing essential but less male-dominated health-related professions, such as nursing and social work.

Let’s not pander to minorities by removing portraits of exceptional white male physicians but instead we should include art depicting run-of-the-mill social workers. Yes, we wouldn’t want to pander now, would we?

Perhaps a rotating subset of older portraits displayed alongside newly commissioned works — with the reasons for the choices conveyed in historically informed commentary.

This man was a pioneer of brain surgery. This women is…well, a woman. And she’s brown.

Gender and ethnicity must cease being barriers to positions and recognition.

Is that the case now? Is there any minority or woman who you believe ought to have their portrait displayed alongside those which were removed, but was not due to their ethnicity or gender? If there was, I rather suspect you would have named them.

As that day approaches, public portraiture should be reconfigured to promote pride in institutional history, education about the difficult path to progress, and a welcoming environment for today’s diverse communities.

In other words, public portraiture should reflect participation not excellence. This doesn’t sound very much like progress.

Share

Pervaids

This story speaks volumes about what is wrong with modern Britain:

A charity supporting transgender children and young people has issued an apology after thousands of emails were made public online.

Mermaids UK said it was “deeply sorry” for what it called a “historical data breach” after it was first reported by the Sunday Times.

The paper claims the correspondence included “intimate details”, names and addresses, but the charity denies this.

Mermaids said it had taken immediate action and reported the breach.

We have a political lobby group masquerading as a charity which is granted access to young children in order to “support” them should they believe they are of the wrong sex and wish to transition. But that’s all fine, apparently: what’s not is they’ve mishandled people’s data. This is like prosecuting Al Capone for tax evasion while being quite happy with the murders and bootlegging.

If Britain was a serious country those who founded this “charity” would have been run out of town on a rail the very first time they brought the topic up. But it seems degeneracy is nowadays to be celebrated, and adults with an unhealthy obsession with sex and sexuality given access to children regardless of parents’ wishes. I mean:

Transgender and gender variant children and young people need support and understanding, and freedom to explore their gender identity whatever the outcome.

This is taking place 9 years after a supposedly conservative party took the reins of the nation. Everyone is focused on Brexit, but it’s quite obvious the country has far deeper problems than membership of the EU.

Share

The men on the slap ’em omnibus

Sometime last week a couple of foreign women on a London night bus encountered a group of young men who somehow worked out they were lesbians and demanded they kiss for their entertainment. When they refused, the youths beat them up. At least, that’s the story we were told. A few days later the youths were arrested, five of them between 15 and 18. We haven’t been given any names or descriptions, perhaps because they’re minors but probably because it might give people the wrong idea about London’s vibrancy. Naturally, progressives took to social media to denounce the attack and declare this is why corporations need to subject its employees and customers to a month of LGBT propaganda.

The story didn’t sit right with me from the beginning. As always, there is a lack of details. How did the encounter start? What was said? Where was the CCTV? What did the driver see? Were there other passengers? Then yesterday I read this:

Melania Geymonat, 28, and her American partner Chris, 29, said they were punched and robbed following an evening in West Hampstead, north west London, in the early hours of May 30.

Ms Geymonat, a doctor from Uruguay and a Ryanair flight attendant, said that the incident was primarily ‘an attack towards women, and then after homosexual women’, revealing that she was told to ‘get the hell out of the country’ by her friends after the incident.

In an interview with Channel 4 News she said the attackers firstly saw them as ‘sexual objects’ who were ‘there to entertain them’. Her partner Chris said that a gang of young men saw they were a couple – as they were holding hands – and demanded they kiss before attacking the pair.

When asked if she still feels safe in public, Chris said: ‘If anything I’m more confident in myself because I know I will stand up for myself.’

Chris also said the reason their attack had caught so much attention was that the picture was ‘very striking’, depicting ‘two white women who were tidily packaged into sympathetic victims’.

When the interviewer brought up that Boris Johnson seemed to be the most likely person to be the next Prime Minister, and referenced comments he had made in 2001 comparing homosexual marriage to ‘bestiality’, Chris said that the Tory frontrunner was not ‘fit to lead anything, much less the United Kingdom’.

A clip from the interview can be seen here; the photos in the Daily Mail show one of the women wearing some sort of anti-fascist t-shirt.

So here’s what I think happened. These two women are political activists, steeped in third-wave feminism and high on the fumes of the extremely dangerous narrative that women can go head-to-head with men and come out on top. They were on this bus when they encountered a bunch of feral thugs of the sort who plague British cities but remain untouchable thanks to the efforts of the same lefty do-gooders who encourage open displays of homosexual affection. These gangs roam the streets and public transport actively seeking trouble and an excuse for violence, and don’t target gay women any more than straight men. Every man who’s grown up in the UK has at least one story of a confrontation with a group of young men itching for a fight, and they learn to avoid these situations like the plague. I went to university in Manchester and students there soon learned when to cross the street, not make eye-contact, get off the bus, or stand near the driver. What you never, ever do is engage with these thugs.

I expect these women, being foreign, didn’t sense the danger. Maybe they believed Sadiq Khan’s tweets about London being a welcoming utopia where diversity is celebrated by all? So when these thugs first noticed them instead of getting up and leaving or moving closer to other passengers, they engaged, perhaps with some sassy feminist boilerplate while thinking feral British youths have some sort of code about smacking women around. Big mistake.

Of course, the blame lies wholly with the thugs and those who defend them, and it is disgraceful that two women should have to move seats or leave a bus because of violence and intimidation. Frankly, these people should be drowned in the Thames. However, some common sense would not have gone amiss. Unfortunately, modern feminism says women should not act sensibly and take basic precautions because bad men ought not to exist. And the fact they’ve been rather silent on exactly who attacked them, and followed it up with a stupid interview where they’ve leveraged their ordeal to make lame political points, shows they’ve not learned their lesson and likely never will. I’m reminded somewhat of this story:

A left-wing German politician who was raped by three migrant men in January in the city of Mannheim has admitted that she lied about their nationalities and falsely claimed they had spoken German because she was afraid of encouraging racism.

Having believed they can legislate their way to utopia, progressives are unable to navigate the world they’ve built for themselves.

Share

Pride Hailing App

In April last year I wrote a post about Uber hiring Bo Young Lee, an Asian lady who started her professional life as an Accenture consultant and thereafter spent 15 years working in diversity-related positions, in the new role of Chief Diversity & Inclusion Officer. I suspect she’s had a strong hand in this:

As an asexual, Vietnamese-American, Heather is a force to be reckoned with on and off the road. When she’s not driving, Heather spends her time pursuing an acting career with the interest in bringing stories of powerful women to light.

I think this Twitter user puts it best:

There’s a whole page of this stuff, with each employee carefully placed in their little sexual identity box in front of the corresponding flag (it seems this heads-up and subsequent post came just in the nick of time).

Simply by sharing her story with us, Heather is already inspiring others. “I think I’ve always identified as asexual. Even when I was little. Because my crushes on people are usually aesthetic attraction, attraction to people’s personality, kindness or intelligence. But never sexual,” Heather said.

Uber’s Diversity & Inclusion department have handpicked Heather for special mention because she’s discovered this thing called friendship.

Whether about her race or sexuality, Heather makes an effort to change the way we communicate. “I think we could alter the language we use in our conversations with others. Ask people questions in a way that doesn’t imply something.” With her family and friends by her side, Heather’s unique view is empowering so many others.

Her view about as unique as a portrait of the Kims in a North Korean army base.

From an early age, Dom knew she was different from her friends. And in some ways, that may have made coming out a little easier, because many of her friends and family had already been suspecting.

But does she refrain from cancelling your trip when you’ve been waiting 40 minutes and the app says she’s now just 2 minutes away?

“I’m what people think a lesbian would look like. But I can see how that diminishes and erases half of a community,” Dom explained.

“Explained” is a little generous here, I feel.

As opposed to the pink shades of the lesbian flag, Dom more closely identifies with the rainbow flag. “What I like about the flag, is that it’s not unique to one identity. It reminds us that everybody has been in a similar situation in the past, and knowing that sort of ties us together in a community,” she elaborated.

This sounds awfully conservative. Are we sure she’s not a Trump supporter?

Now living with her fiancée in San Francisco, Dom defines success as being comfortable with who you are and living your personal truth. “You can’t measure yourself or your success against anyone else. If you can do that, the people who love you will be there.”

In the days of traditional cabs you ran the risk of a driver who’d rant about blacks taking over and would take you from Tower Hill to Soho via Thurso. Nowadays, thanks to technology, you get an Uber driver who shares their high-school intersectional philosophy with you.

With support from the Uber community, Lana found the courage to come out a second time as transgender. “It always felt disingenuous to wave around the rainbow flag because it’s largely been controlled by the gay man. The trans flag was at first a rejection of that. I like seeing the trans flag with all of the other flags. It shows we’re evolving,” Lana explains.

They’re really taking this flag stuff seriously, aren’t they? How long before factional rivalries spill over and “capture the flag” games start?

Though challenging at times, Lana’s journey has made her the activist she is today and she now stands with immense Pride. As one of the first people to openly transition at Uber, Lana pioneered the updated community guidelines for transgender employees and allies.

So Bo Young Lee delegated the writing of HR guidelines governing workplace behaviour to a trans-activist employee? What could go wrong?

Originally from Jamaica, Francois is currently a model and Uber driver-partner in New York City. “A lot of LGBTQIA+ people drive for Uber in New York City because it’s so hard to find employment where you’re actually accepted for who you are,” Francois explained.

I suspect the “who you are” in this context is more about your skills, experience, and immigration status than your sexual preferences, but it’s a neat conflation.

Identifying as genderqueer, Francois has felt misunderstood in the past. “People don’t get that being Genderqueer isn’t about me being able to wear a skirt and a dress. I have to think about all the different nuances of myself; my masculinity and my femininity. It’s not about cross-dressing, it’s about expressing who I am,” Francois said.

Does anyone else detect the strong whiff of narcissism which is common to all these profiles?

Francois feels that the genderqueer community is often misunderstood, and he encourages people to stop being shy and start asking questions.

Here’s mine: don’t you think it’s a little sad that your entire identity is wrapped up in your sexual preferences to the exclusion of everything else?

With the freedom to explore, Jacob now identifies as polysexual. “I’m attracted to a deep personal bond, I want to get to know who someone is as a person before I’m with them,” he explains.

As opposed to the rest of society which presumably gets married following a one-night stand.

Today, Trevor feels more empowered to identify as non-binary. “Some days I present as male, some days I present as more female.” For Trevor, discovering the non-binary flag was liberating. It meant representation, validation, and a place within the LGBTQIA+ community.

Does it now? In unrelated news:

On an operating basis, Uber losses widened to over $1 billion in Q1, up from a loss of $478 million in 2018.

It underscored the central challenge the company faces: Like other big tech companies going public this year, Uber has no immediate path to making money in a fiercely competitive sector.

Uber’s stock sank immediately after it debuted on the New York Stock Exchange on May 10, at the low end of its initial public offering range.

Now I’ve almost finished my MBA I think I can see the root cause of Uber’s financial difficulties: there is no polyamorous employee featured in their Pride page, and no polyamory flag. From now on I’m using Lyft, bigots!

Share

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