Wednesday, November 29, 2023
It's frankly Orwellian that Britain could face censure by the UN for daring to state that biological sex matters
What awful crimes might it take for a nation to be blacklisted by the UN on human-rights grounds? Detention without trial? Summary executions? Torture, public floggings and the persecution of racial minorities?
Perhaps. But, in Britain's case, the answer may be rather more surprising. Merely to state that biological sex matters could be enough to confer this disgrace.
Yesterday it was reported that Britain might soon be expelled from the UN's 'Human Rights Council' because our own Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has previously recommended that single-sex spaces should be protected according to a person's physical sex rather than their more nebulous 'gender identity'.
In plain terms, that means that a male-bodied individual who wishes to use a female-only changing room could do so simply because they 'identified' as a woman. Anything else could be a breach of their human rights.
Following complaints against the EHRC from trans-rights groups — including Stonewall — a process has begun that could see the EHRC's ranking by the UN slip below that of comparable organisations in such bastions of liberty as Palestine and Zimbabwe, leaving us on a par with Libya and Venezuela. We would be, in short, a pariah.
The Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions, an independent body that provides accreditation to the UN, will rule on the EHRC's fate next spring.
Now, it goes without saying that Britain, like other Western countries, helped to shape human rights as the world understands them. It's frankly Orwellian that we should face censure on such grounds.
But the truth is that no one should be surprised at this preposterous state of affairs. For this is only the latest in a series of increasingly bizarre tussles involving the UK and the UN.
Earlier this month, the British government received a lecture of inconceivable pomposity, as the UN's 'rapporteur on climate change and human rights', Ian Fry, took us to task over the imprisonment of two Just Stop Oil eco-zealots.
Marcus Decker and Morgan Trowland were convicted of halting traffic on the M25 last year by dangling off a bridge on the Dartford Crossing, and in April were jailed for two and three years respectively.
Cue anguished wails from Fry over the 'severity' of these jail terms — which strike me as having been lenient — and limiting the rights of activists to mount 'peaceful protests'.
Fry, an Australian-born environmental lawyer, even asked ministers to explain how the treatment of the pair 'is compatible with international norms and standards', as though Britain were a rogue state rather than the pioneer of parliamentary democracy.
Yet Fry's employer, the UN, has itself an appalling record of support for genuinely oppressive regimes, barbarous terrorist movements and corrupt despots.
Its 'Human Rights Council', so ready to censure Britain over whether trans women should enter female changing rooms, has members from the notably liberal regimes of China, Cuba and Pakistan.
Only a few weeks ago, it appointed Iranian diplomat Ali Bahreini to chair its 'Social Forum' in Geneva.
Bahreini is the representative of a savage theocracy that hangs gay people, executes protesters and deploys its squads of moral guardians to beat up women who refuse to wear the burka.
Fry's absurd bleating about the Just Stop Oil bridge-climbers, coupled with the UN's ugly embrace of Iran, is typical of the body's repellent double-standards.
This bloated bureaucracy trumpets its role as a global peace-keeper, yet stands accused of helping to bankroll Hamas through its mis-directed aid programmes and its collusion with Iran.
It loves to shriek about the iniquities of racism yet is plagued by anti-Semitism. It is ferocious in denunciating oppression, yet its recent record is packed with sex scandals in which its own employees have oppressed women.
Given the UN's obvious failings, it is particularly galling that the West — and the UK in particular — should so consistently prove the targets of its criticisms. Any potential sanctioning of the EHRC would be clearly absurd.
Many in Britain will be wondering how much longer we can endure the UN's pious lectures and hypocrisy.
**************************************************
Here We Go Again: Americans Prepare to Teach Target Another Lesson Over LGBTQ Christmas
There’s a popular meme that originates with an episode of “SpongeBob SquarePants” in which a previously beaten-up individual once again is surrounded by angry townsfolk. As they close in, one attacker shakes his fist and shouts, “How many times do we have to teach you this lesson, old man?”
Target Corp., the popular American department store chain, may be in for another round of lessons in the consequences of annoying its consumers with “Pride” merchandising. With the Christmas season approaching quickly, Target has a special gift for Americans: a woke Christmas.
Shoppers can expect to see “gay Santas and LGBTQ-themed nutcrackers” on Target’s shelves of this season, the Washington Examiner reported.
Erik Thompson, identified as a “Senior LGBTQIA+ Segmentation Strategist & Pride Lead,” announced he would be joining Target in an Instagram post earlier this week. His post appears to have been deleted.
In the post, which decried the devastating consumer boycott over the summer after Target sold creepy LGBTQ-themed merchandise marketed to minors, Thompson promised “Glitter & Hellfire” to “rip that old world to shreds.”
Quite frankly, I’m almost awestruck at the doubling-down amid what has been, unequivocally, the most powerful year for boycotters of absurdly liberal business promotions.
Lest we forget, the conservative backlash against Anheuser-Busch for partnering transgender activist Dylan Mulvaney with its Bud Light brand cost the company at least $15.7 billion. It also resulted in lots of Bud Light sitting unpurchased on thousands of pallets around the country.
Benoit Garbe, Anheuser-Busch’s former U.S. chief marketing officer, was removed Nov. 16 after Bud Light sales refused to bounce back.
Target suffered similarly, with stock losses of nearly $14 billion and sales slumps of 5.4% in stores and 10.5% online in the second quarter. Target’s CFO blamed the losses on the “reaction to our Pride assortment.”
The Walt Disney Co.’s woke strategies met similar reactions, with streaming subscriptions slumping, park attendance abysmal, and movie releases failing box office expectations. Releases of the live-action “The Little Mermaid” and Disney-owned Marvel’s “The Marvels” lost hundreds of millions apiece for the megacorporation.
In September, Disney CEO Bob Iger told investors that he would endeavor to “quiet the noise” of Disney’s previous political posturing, and since has delayed release of the live-action version of “Snow White” by a full year, following leaks that revealed a serious departure from Disney’s original animated movie from 1937.
Despite crystal-clear indicators that this is the perfect time for companies to quit political posturing and pushing liberal propagandistic efforts, it looks like Target will take the same lessons yet again—and stubbornly so.
The reaction to Luke Gentile’s reporting in the Washington Examiner already looks bad for Target.
Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., calls it an insult to his constituents and warns of legislative consequences.
“When companies like Target that insult conservatives seek Republicans’ help on Capitol Hill,” Cotton said, “our response will be: ‘I’m sorry that’s happening to you. Best of luck.’”
In a market where traditionally brick-and-mortar stores face increasingly threatening competition from online retailers, Target can’t afford to play so loosely during the holiday season. Anheuser-Busch’s decision to double down after the Mulvaney fiasco cost the beermaker far more than profit margins; such arrogance cost many of its employees their jobs because of the brewery company’s unwillingness to appease the market.
The answer to such inflammatory shenanigans is deceptively simple: Apologize and get back to doing what you do best.
Heckler & Koch, a German arms manufacturer I’m quite fond of, previously employed a social media manager who had begun to use her platform at the brand to lecture H&K fans about sexism.
The backlash began to build following a Twitchy article, with boycotts almost certain. But Heckler & Koch then broke the mold. It fired the woke social media manager and issued a statement on X, formerly Twitter: “H&K does not engage in identity politics. A policy was violated. Changes were made.”
Since that post, H&K sales have risen comfortably. No boycotts, no drop in sales, no problem.
If Target wants a merry Christmas and a happy new year, it only has to stop with the identity politics that have fatigued millions of Americans. We don’t need to hear about Santa’s sex life or which gender the nutcracker is pretending to be.
As one consumer posted on X: “This is so annoying, I just want to shop.”
How executives can miss the forest for the trees in such a monumental blunder is truly beyond me. If Target wants to learn the same lesson again, then by all means we will deliver until the corporation’s leaders get the message.
*************************************************
Banning ‘Thin Blue Line’ Flag on Township Property Is Unconstitutional, Court Rules
A Pennsylvania town’s resolution prohibiting the display of the “Thin Blue Line” flag supporting law enforcement was ruled unconstitutional by a federal court.
According to several reports, U.S. District Judge Karen Marston ruled that the town’s ban on the flag restricts free speech of public employees under the First Amendment.
“The Township repeatedly suggests that the Thin Blue Line American Flag is of limited, if any, public value or concern because it is ‘offensive’ and ‘racist,’” Marston reportedly wrote in the court opinion. “But as this Court previously told the Township, ‘the First Amendment protects speech even when it is considered “offensive.”’"
The township argued that the flag was creating “discontent and distrust” in the community against the police. The dispute initially began in 2021, around the time of the Black Lives Matter riots in the aftermath of George Floyd’s death (via AP):
Tensions began when the township police department’s union voted to incorporate the flag into its logo in 2021. Several of the township’s commissioners opposed the decision, due to the fact the symbol has become associated with Blue Lives Matter, a term which has been used by some police supporters in response to the Black Lives Matter movement.
[...]
In October 2022, the matter escalated when the township’s lawyer and manager sent a cease-and-desist letter to the union, saying that the use of the flag in the union’s logo “unnecessarily exacerbates the ongoing conflict between police officers and the communities they serve,” directing the union to stop using the flag or remove Springfield Township from its name.
After the union refused to drop the flag or change its name, the commissioners adopted a policy that barred township employees, agents or consultants from displaying the flag while on duty or representing the township. It prohibited the display of the flag on personal property brought into a township building or from being displayed on township-owned property, including vehicles.
Wally Zimolong, an attorney representing the police officers, said that the court’s ruling was a victory for free speech.
"It was a resounding win for the First Amendment and free speech," he said. "It showed once again that the government cannot engage in viewpoint discrimination based upon a message it disagrees with or finds offensive."
*******************************************************
ICC bans transgender women from elite cricket to protect ‘integrity and safety’
Australian-born Canadian trans cricketer Danielle McGahey has expressed disappointment but vowed to continue to fight for equality over the International Cricket Council’s decision to ban transgender women from playing international women’s cricket.
The international career of McGahey appears over after the ICC ruled players who have been through testosterone-fuelled puberty will not be able to compete in international women’s cricket.
The change in regulations appears to have been prompted by the case of McGahey, who became the first transgender cricketer to take part in an official international match when she featured in a Women’s Twenty20 fixture for Canada against Brazil.
The Brisbane-born 29-year-old, who played grade cricket in the men’s competition in Melbourne, moved to Canada in 2020. After her transition, she began playing women’s cricket in Canada and was called into the national team in October 2022.
The opening batter went on to play all six of Canada’s matches during the Women’s T20 World Cup Americas region qualifiers event in Los Angeles, to add to national team appearances previously in fixtures which did not hold official ICC status.
Canada came second in the four-team event, failing to qualify, with McGahey making 118 runs at 19.67 with a top score of 48 against Brazil.
Transgender athletes have been banned from taking part in elite women’s competitions in other sports such as swimming, cycling, athletics, rugby league and rugby union.
“Following the ICC’s decision this morning, it is with a very heavy heart that I must say that my international cricketing career is over. As quickly as it begun, it must now end,” McGahey wrote on social media.
“Thank you so much to everybody who has supported me in my journey, from my all of my teammates, all of the opposition, the cricketing community and my sponsor …
“While I hold my opinions on the ICC’s decision, they are irrelevant. What matters is the message being sent to millions of trans women today, a messaging say that we don’t belong.
“I promise I will not stop fighting for equality for us in our sport, we deserve the right to play cricket at the highest level, we are not a threat to the integrity or safety of the sport. Never stop fighting!”
Brazil women’s captain Roberta Moretti Avery said on Wednesday the timing of the ICC’s decision had been “unfortunate”.
“It’s a decision that appears to have been made by the ICC in good faith with the benefit of the most recent scientific advice. That said, the timing of the decision is really unfortunate,” Avery told ESPNCricinfo.
“Danielle McGahey was allowed to play in the recent World Cup qualifier on the basis of the rules that applied at the time. As a result, she was subjected to a lot of abuse from people who have never met her and who do not understand the difficult journey she has been on.
“She and her teammates also had a reasonable expectation that she would be allowed to play in future matches. So it’s unfortunate that this decision has been made after the event, once Danielle’s hopes had been raised and after she has already been exposed to a huge amount of scrutiny and abuse. That can’t be good for anyone’s mental health. The ICC lifted the hopes of a whole community and it feels like those hopes have now been dashed.”
Under the ICC’s previous regulations, which were effective from October 2018 and amended in April 2021, McGahey had satisfied all of the eligibility criteria.
However, following an ICC board meeting, new gender regulations have been announced, which follow a nine-month consultation process with the sport’s stakeholders.
“The changes to the gender eligibility regulations resulted from an extensive consultation process and are founded in science, aligning with the core principles developed during the review,” ICC chief executive Geoff Allardice said.
“Inclusivity is incredibly important to us as a sport, but our priority was to protect the integrity of the international women’s game and the safety of players.”
The review, led by the ICC medical advisory committee and chaired by Peter Harcourt, relates solely to gender eligibility for international women’s cricket. Gender eligibility at domestic level is a matter for each individual member board.
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
/>
Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair
Bliss: What every woman wants: to feel safe and secure in the arms of her man. Robert Irwin and Rorie Buckey. See 
No comments:
Post a Comment