#SSM

Boycotters’ bluster

CM was not a fan of Israel Folau’s tweets on homosexuals, fornicators, sinners, adulterers etc. Yet CM defends his right to say it. Come to think of it, CM has never sought moral guidance from the controversial Wallaby rugby star. Nonetheless Folau thinks CM and many others are destined to burn in hell too. Yet he is protected by the Constitution of Australia whether we like it or not. That supersedes an ARU contract.

We now hear that if his contract is sustained, several players have threatened to boycott the side if he is selected.

That’s their choice. However the threat sounds so much like all of those Hollywood celebrities who promised to leave the country if Trump was elected. Pretty much every single one remains in the US. Even Jamie Oliver, the Naked Chef, said he’d leave the UK if Brits voted to leave the EU in the 2016 referendum. He still lives in a £9m mansion in Hampstead, London. Idle threats. Here is betting every player threatening to boycott Folau will end up putting lucrative player contracts ahead of virtue signaling when pressed to make a stand. Which is hypocritical. If they stand for nothing, they’ll fall for anything.

Folau had very similar views publicized ahead of the Same Sex Marriage (SSM) debate when he first caught the ire of social media opinion. He was on record for telling team mate David Pocock of his beliefs on the matter leading into the plebiscite. Pocock still played with him and there is plenty of footage showing both embracing after tries were scored even when SSM was legislated.

We live in a society that is constantly threatening free speech. Folau’s comments may well cost him other endorsements. That is the market price he bears for holding his deeply devout Christian views in a society too afraid to say anything controversial. He never called for the murder of these groups. Only that their ultimate destiny was decided by God as written in the Bible.

Hypocrisy in the way the West deals with (certain) faiths is rife. The tragedy that was the Christchurch terror attack has led the Canterbury Crusaders rugby team to reconsider its name so as not to offend Muslims. Devout Muslim Sonny Bill Williams even played for the side after his conversion to Islam. Didn’t seem to phase him and he didn’t protest once. Although he did take exception to having Bank of NZ sponsorship displays on his uniform as it conflicted with his religious beliefs. Did we call for an inquisition? His religious beliefs were protected.

Where have those same activists been to bully The Saracens in Middlesex to select a more palatable name for the sake of countless victims of Islamic terror? Nowhere and most wouldn’t find any links between the two. No one in their right mind ties the Saracens or Crusaders as inciting hatred against the religions of either. They’re rugby clubs – period. 99.99% get that. Yet activists make out the majority leans the other way.

Izzy Folau May have offended some with his tweets. Everyone gets it. Many have just dismissed it with a roll of the eyes. Surely their lives have moved on without so much as a skip in the beat.

Yet we live in a world where some see offense and outrage in everything to the point of demanding litigation to protect hurt feelings. Canada even introduced a bill (C-16) compelling speech where jail terms for the incorrect use of a pronoun are a punishment. It is a slippery slope.

We should be careful what we wish for. The free speech noose will only tighten and eventually we won’t be able to speak our minds or the truth. That’s when society splinters.

Best let the Folau’s of the world make grandiose tweets and let society judge on an individual basis rather than trying to force our value sets on others. Do we honestly think we can force Folau to repent? If his contract was rescinded would he suddenly give up the teachings of his faith? Not a chance. We need to accept the views of others, even those we disagree with.

Do we truly believe the overwhelming majority of homosexuals/fornicators/sinners/adulterers a) believed Folau’s tweet or; b) were deeply offended? Or did most shake their heads and chuckle at his views?

CM is surprised that white Christian missionaries haven’t been chastised for converting so many Pacific Islanders, including Folau, to become devout followers over the centuries. Surely that must follow.

Nike & Colin Kaepernick

7EB3D471-D052-4233-BB4D-E2C3C5F66DCC.jpeg

Ultimately consumers will vote with their feet (no pun intended) after Nike’s use of original kneeler Colin Kaepernick as its latest “Just do it.” campaign face. Arguing over who is right or wrong over this has become somewhat irrelevant. The kneeling debate is over 12 months old.

Nike is free to market how it chooses but must bear full responsibility for the firestorm it creates for itself. There is no doubt the social media impact will be huge and the marketing department might wax lyrical at the attention gained all it wants but the question is will the majority of it be positive? Virtue signaling for corporates is a dangerous game. More often than not it backfires.

CM has always held that corporations should stay out of politics because as much as they might profess a united face on certain issues, there is no way they speak on behalf of all those that work for them. The risk is creating an unfair working environment to those who do not wish to participate in the manner the corporate desires, even if they might privately agree. Coercing staff to openly tow the party line is tantamount to making them slaves if forced against their will for fear of repercussions in the workplace.

Don’t think for a second it doesn’t happen. Think of the same sex marriage (SSM) debate. If you had a rainbow flag screen saver you would have been cheered by the internal apparatchiks. Had you a “Vote NO for SSM” screen saver it is likely you would have been hauled in front of your manager and HR to explain your inappropriate workplace behaviour. The matter was a vote of democracy. What place is it for corporates to enforce one type of opinion on changes to the Marriage Act? Let’s not forget the results of the 2011 Census where 0.03% of the population identified with being husband and wife in a same sex relationship. Yes. 1,338 people only. All that fanfare for less than 1,400 people.

We are already seeing people in the US burn Nike products to protest the company’s move.

4F2A07F8-BC36-4AB6-8CDE-DCE3E822DAD3.jpeg

In much the same vein as Democrat Party activists boycotting In-N-Out burgers for donating to the GOP, there is no real sense in die-hard NFL fans pushing to #boycottNike. What is the obsession with boycotts? Surely disgruntled fans can make up their own minds whether they’ll choose to buy Nike products or not. It is just more of the oppression obsession.

Nike will ultimately survive. The NFL has already seen ratings take a proper beating. The question is does this help? Probably not but Nike want to make a statement.

Knee jerk reactions where people burn football jerseys, season tickets, Superbowl pennants or Nike sneakers have become less and less about the subject protested about (Black Lives Matter) but more about people getting sick and tired of political correctness and social justice rammed down their throats on an almost daily basis. Even Buzz Aldrin is sick of the politically correct overtones in ‘First Man’ that went out of its way to delete scenes of an epic moment in America’s history – planting an American flag on the moon. Don’t forget Buzz punched a reporter who disparaged him in public. He said he is a “proud American

Sadly, many Americans feel their patriotism is under fire. That they should feel guilty for displaying Old Glory outside their homes. Maybe those loyal fans want to go and watch a NFL match to leave the financial, relationship, work, marital stresses behind. They pay money to unwind, not have political messaging paraded in front of them. Even if they think Black Lives Matter is a worthy cause, kneeling every match won’t make it sink in any deeper but dilute the message, as has been displayed by making Kaepernick the poster child.

Not all NRA members are cold blooded murderers. Those people that voted Republican in the last election aren’t all white supremacist, bigoted, racist Nazis any more than all those people that voted Democrat aren’t all whining, virtue signaling liberals.

Open debate is what is needed. Kicking people out of restaurants through open harassment, burning runners or boycotting businesses won’t fix a thing. Listening and debating the issues based on logical reason is the only way forward.  The only thing worth boycotting is the boycotters themselves. Sadly the lesson is unlikely to be learnt.

Compelling the cake maker?

192634A8-A578-40DC-B48A-192EA9847047

The transcript of the Supreme Court on the Masterpiece Cakeshop vs Colorado Civil Rights Commission (CCRC) hearing can be found here. It is 113 pages long (but double spaced). What is fascinating is the way the case is argued from both sides and the words of several judges who should just enforce the tenets of the constitution not leverage personal prejudices. CM doesn’t profess to be a lawyer but the biased language is pretty obvious, including one set of attorneys debating Colorado laws of  2018 rather than those of 2012 when the dispute first came to light.

The court session covered ground from anniversary cakes at a Michelin 2-star restaurant, mixed race or mixed religion marriages, an African American designer making a cross for the Ku Klux Klan and even the fairness of rejecting an order to bake a cake to celebrate Kristallnacht. The case also looked into the problems that might be created for a baker on a remote US military base who may not want to bake a cake for a same sex marriage because of his/her religious beliefs.

Mainstream media coverage has been pretty obvious but the transcript puts many things to light including the fact that all sides acknowledge the baker was prepared to sell a rainbow cake and almost anything else in the shop to the couple, just not the “compelled” words they wanted on it, which triggered the baker’s religious beliefs and led the Supreme Court to suggest that the baker’s 1st Amendment rights must be sustained.

Religious beliefs are a murky backwater where justification on a plethora of topics can be concocted. CM first learnt of “proper” religious fervor on a trip to Israel a decade ago. Seeing people wail as the were baptized in the River Jordan, watching them cry inconsolably as they placed pictures of family members atop the marble slab that Jesus’ body was laid on after his crucifixion, the scene of Jews of all ethnicities praying at the Western Wall or Muslims feverishly protecting entry to the Temple Mount. This is not the average punter going to a Sunday Mass or praying five times a days to Mecca. It is on another level. Some people walked bearing a cross along the exact route that Jesus did. Religion to some takes a different life form, some of it for the worse.

To think that a $500 wedding cake has cost both sides $100,000s in legal fees goes to show how serious both sides were prepared to defend their legal rights. No matter how silly some may view the outcome, the question remains whether the 14th Amendment be changed to more specifically define LGBT protections. Associate Justice Sotomayor made this point in her closing remarks, “That’s what the public anti-discrimination laws require.”

Zip It or be Zapped

EE607F58-63C2-419F-8427-7C4C0E6A322F.jpeg

It seems that everywhere we turn these days someone else is raising a flag to suggest “we need to move with the times.”  What are “the times?” Whose times are we required to move for? Mine? Yours? Theirs? A chat on social media the other day raised the conversation of an HR director saying that he would not sign off on a hire who didn’t agree with his subjective view over a trivial subject. He argued that it was for the best interests of diversity and inclusion not to hire someone who wasn’t offended by said subject. CM retorted “so if I don’t agree with your thinking on a topic which is completely unrelated to the job task that I might be hypothetically the most qualified for, you’ll sink it on that alone…sounds like a totalitarian power trip.” This confirmed the ‘unconscious bias, conscious bias‘ piece on HR last week.’ 2+2=5. HR departments are becoming all powerful autocrats.

It is hard to know whether to laugh or cry! The conversation went further to suggest that I simply must accept change on the grounds of diversity. That word is chucked around as loosely as a Casanova saying “I love you” to his multiple conquests. It simply seeks to force compliance. Surely all things work better when there is mutual buy-in rather than threatening to burn people at the stake. Why is my subjectivity any more or less valuable than someone else’s?

The idea of forcing conformity is dangerous ground. As long as one’s views don’t openly impact others why should it matter? Why should HR apparatchiks use bullying behaviour which goes against the grain of every appropriate workplace behaviour training seminar staff are required to take? Well it is only “some” behaviour. So much for equality in the workplace.

Just like the same sex marriage (SSM) debate. Anyone with a rainbow screen saver could proudly display it in the office without attracting a whimper because they were ‘on message’. Anyone that didn’t believe it and had a “Vote NO” as a computer screen background would have been summoned before HR for hate speech and reprimanded or worse, sacked. Is that freedom of opinion? Is that diversity? Or inclusion? Accept or face the consequences is hardly a way to encourage it. Diversity and inclusion only creates division and exclusion because only some people are allowed to voice free speech.  When the government funded Diversity Council tells Australian workers that the use of the word ‘guys’ is offensive then just how far are we willing to trade everyday freedoms and cultural norms? If one is triggered by the use of the word ‘guys’ or a preferred pronoun then they need a shrink not an HR department to help them.

The sad reality is that diversity should be won on the grounds of the argument rather than legislation. Just like the F1 race queen ban from this year. It doesn’t much matter to CM personally on what the F1 wants to do. Go on the MotoGP website and there is a “Paddock GirlssectionTo suddenly reverse a decision it so actively promotes would be utter hypocrisy. While the need to halt the objectification of women argument is bandied about, the women who do it are clearly happy to be objectified for a price. Instead of viewers being told to “get with the times” shouldn’t they be hammering the message to the umbrella girls to tell them they’re letting down their own side? Could it be they can exploit their beauty for some decent coin because they don’t share offense over the issue? Their looks are a virtue in their eyes. Are they wrong to use it their advantage? Would a Harvard MBA graduate apply to McDonalds for a cash register role so as to check his or her privelege to those that weren’t so lucky to study there?

Whether one likes it or not why not let sponsors decide how they want to spend their ad dollars and let consumers bury them if they find the use of advertising across a cleavage as “not with the times”? Why state control? Casey Stoner ended up marrying his pit girl and has a wonderful family now. If 10% of teams decided to keep pit girls but got 75% of the TV coverage before the start of the race could you blame them? Advertising is literally all about ‘exposure’. Or would race control demand the camera operators avoid them?

Further to that, perhaps F1 should ban the popular cockpit radio transmissions of drivers like Kimi Raikkonen who drop the F-bomb every other lap. Or is profanity now ‘in with the times’?

Should the forthcoming Tokyo Motor Show ban the use of scantily clad women standing next to cars? Last year Porsche, VW and Audi had several slick cut male models parading their products. Ladies were lining up to take selfies with these foreign himbos. If not for objectification, then what? Girls could be heard saying “cho kakkoi” (so handsome). As a male was I feeling insulted and triggered? No. I figured it was time to sign up for the gym, visit Hugo Boss for a sharp suit and book an appointment at a $300 hair stylist after I got back in shape. If I had made a song and dance about feeling uncomfortable at handsome men being treated like slabs of meat would I be granted the same rights to being offended? Not for a second.

Should pretty women be banned from starring in adverts?  Cosmetics companies have products that are pitched pretty much solely toward women but no one bats an eyelid when Giselle pouts a lipstick. Luxury goods stores also cater predominantly to women. No shortage of flesh showing off shoes, handbags or miniskirts. Why no outrage? Should Subaru be raked over coals for targeting same sex couples in its adverts? No. If it feels that is a market it wishes to tap then it should feel free to push for it. If I was offended then I could simply refuse to buy an Impreza WRX. I shouldn’t have a right to tell Subaru who it can and can’t sell to. That’s accepting diversity. Not enforcing my view of the world on others with respect to Subaru. Choice.

Put simply why should the subjective opinions of people (within reason) be such that we must comfort the wowsers at all times? Yarra Council is telling it’s 1,000 staff it mustn’t use the word “Australia Day” to refer to Janury 26, a Day celebrated since 1815! Aussie nurses and midwives are being told to check their white privelege and admit their colonial roots should a patient demand so. Shouldn’t the safe delivery of children be the only priority than have a “code of conduct” to force behaviours that have probably never if ever been an issue in decades? Bad bedside manner for healthcarers is one thing less likely to do with race, gender or sexual orientation than individual attitudes.

Still the message is zip it or be zapped. Next time you’re being told it is for diversity start running for the hills. Your subjective opinion is as equal as anyone elses provided you don’t disagree with the Marxist’s definition of ‘with the times

 

National Re-education League (NRL)

53B04D0C-2E62-490C-B84A-4EEA429CD5BC.jpeg

Welcome to the world of assigned re-education.  The sanctimonious ritual of blatantly using a venue to promote one side of any debate. In Australia the NRL (National Rugby League) has decided to have Macklemore as half time entertainment at the Grand Final to sing  “Same Love”. For all the lame excuses as to how his song has zero to do with the same sex marriage (SSM) debate Macklemore has been on the radio waves in Australia banging on about the tweets he’s getting from white homophobes. If the “No” side gets up in this plebiscite I’ll have absolutely no sympathy because this finger wagging just has the opppsite impact of the goal it seeks to achieve. People just get tired of the name calling and in your face campaigning. Trump, Brexit, Merkel etc – if the onslaught continues people tune out and vote in secrecy. Then people are shocked? How clear can it be? I’ve yet to meet a person that likes to be on the receiving end of condescending talk

Let’s not forget I firmly believe in civil rights. That has never been in question but it’s the blatant propaganda that is tiring  (for most people). There is one issue which is clearly defined. This isn’t an election. We are not debating energy, housing, taxation, poverty or superannuation ahead of an election yet it’s day in day out. If indeed the “Yes” side has already claimed an emphatically victory then why not just give it a rest. No no  we must have the rainbow flags flown on the town hall, rainbow stickers on the work security gates and now the Finals – non stop

Why doesn’t the NRL have Kevin Bloody Wilson sing for the “No” case? Would the NRL allow a gospel choir group singing about “we are family” a la Aretha Franklin? Of course not.  There in lies the issue. Why can’t sports finals be just that instead of propaganda filled events.  Once again 99.999% of the population have already made up their minds over the subject so this is just senseless droning. PM Turnbull was on ‘The Project’ lamely submitting to the idea Macklemore’s just an entertainer and people are reading too much into his song.

To be honest – whether yes or no – the subject should be well and truly kept out of sporting events. It is the obsession with people claiming “free speech” therefore it should be fine.

OK I’ll be knocking on your door at 9:30pm with yes campaign leaflets and a ghetto blaster playing Macklemore on reasonable volume because it’s free speech and it isn’t disturbing the peace legally. So if you think it’s ok to re-educate me at the footy. I feel it’s ok to re-educate you at home. “Sorry, did I wake the kids?”

The idea of watching the game is to get away from the grind of work, stress, financial woes and so on. Now that sanctuary is being destroyed because indoctrination is part and parcel of everyday life. Shut up and submit!

Take me out to (just) the ball game

DBE21564-76BA-4733-B340-0A9075502831.jpeg

Isn’t the sole reason to buy tickets to a ball game is so that you can relax and forget about stresses at work or home? It is a distraction. Family time. A way to unwind. Paying to see elite athletes do what they do best. What fans don’t pay to see is a game which is dressed in politics. Once again the President has smacked more people eager to disrespect the nation. While hardly presidential, he none-the-less made a very good point – “fire those sons of bitches” referring to those grossly overpaid players who make political gestures such as taking a knee when the national anthem is being played. When this whole ‘kneeling’ malarkey kicked off, NFL ratings have been on a slide and the 2017 start has showed a shocking 24% (FOX) and 15% (CBS) drop in the Prime 18-49 viewership stats.

09362026-88F3-4C45-87EC-1A0449117402

Now the facts are simple. 30 of the 32 NFL teams are owned by whites. The other two by Americans of Asian decent. The idea that Colin Kaepernick was fired because of racism is plain dumb. 70% of the players in the NFL are black. These players are paid huge salaries  and to all intents and purposes are employees of the club. Therefore the boss contracts players to behave in ways that not only win ballgames but respect their customers (i.e. fans) who ultimately fund their salaries. Kaepernick was on $12mn per year. Hardly skimping by because of his supposedly racist bosses. Yet in his quest to protest police brutality he decided to shove his politics into fans’ faces. While they just wish to enjoy a game he wants to sour the experience.

Ah yes, he has a right to free speech. Indeed he does. However when he is on the ‘company clock’ he is still required to follow the boss’ instructions. That is part of the contract of employer/employee. In a sense what Kaepernick was doing was dissent. If he wants to protest such matters why doesn’t he do it off the field. In fact his actions have spawned copycats in kid’s sports. What values are we teaching these kids? Instead of looking at ways to sensibly heal rifts, coaches are trying to brainwash innocent kids to doing their protests for them.

The AFL is also guilty of this political posturing over same sex marriage (SSM). The AFL has not been the poster child for best in class ethics (e.g. bosses having affairs with junior female staff) yet feel they should put “yes” on the footballs and their HQ logo. All fans want to do is watch the game and escape all the ills in society. They don’t pay to have it served up to them. It doesn’t matter if these fans support SSM it’s a question of why are corporates or sports teams campaigning on what consenting adults do behind closed doors. It is irrelevant.

The argument we often hear is that corporations should use their profiles to promote social issues. Corporations are nothing but buildings with desks, chairs some pot plants and desktop PCs. They aren’t people. Sure people work inside them but to think that “the corporation speaks for us” is nonsense. In most cases it’s a small committee forcing their sense of political will on staff about how they should behave. Sure basic standards in the office are fair but since when did political views, gender or sexual orientation become such a fertile ground for companies to push on staff. Surely the only true goal of the staff is to work as a team to produce results efficiently in the interests of their customers. Not seek to rebrand their logos and shopfronts to promote political causes.

If companies feel so strong about such issues perhaps they should chisel those principles under the other core goals respelendent in the office foyer. Yet it is different. Corporates are becoming so scared of lawsuits and reputational damage that they embark on social crusades to chalk up a track record to deny they discriminate in the workplace hence all these social targets. So while some staff see the corporate actions as virtuous many don’t realize the public point scoring element to the cheerleading

Ultimately consumers have choices. When it comes to sport people want to relax and enjoy the game, not absorb political posturing. When it comes to drinking coffee they don’t want Starbucks explaining their rationale as to why the removal of Christmas cups was done.

Here is an idea. If the NFL or AFL IR anymother business for that matter wish to push political causes offer fans/customers a choice. Half price tickets/services/goods with a political pamphlet handed out or a full priced ticket/service/good with none. That way the fan/customer can choose. I’d only suggest to put a recycling bin right by the ticket booth/register so you can see how many fans/customers  actually care what you have to say on political matters! You’ll soon realize the majority don’t care and your revenues will have halved. Best stop the politics and charge full prices.

If you do it for churches make sure you enforce it for every other faith too – no exceptions!

IMG_0887

In 2012 Denmark ruled that churches would be legally forced to marry gay couples regardless of the beliefs of many of the clergy. With Australia’s same sex marriage (SSM) debate on the table will parliament protect the rights of the church to decide on the way it chooses to conduct its affairs? If Australia votes in favour of SSM then we should accept society’s decision on the matter. Period. However, will churches be forced to do things against their will like Denmark? Why only churches? Shouldn’t gay people of the Buddhist, Shinto, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish and any other faith be equally able to force their relevant house of prayer to conduct a gay wedding ceremony? It must be one rule for all, not just the soft target. Where are the activists demanding this? Exactly, nowhere to be seen. Given we live in a world where certain sandwich chains refuse to sell pork products to avoid offending certain customer groups perhaps we should insist that hardware stores refrain from selling timber and nails because it might offend Christians.

The question is not about whether gay couples have the right to marry. If they are allowed to do so is it fair that people who hold different beliefs to them (which does not equate to homophobia) be forced to do things against them? Surely the whole purpose of marriage is to celebrate love, togetherness and commitment. Will that day feel more special when you know the priest has a gun to his head? To reiterate – if we are to force one religion to tow the line, we must prepared to accept without question all other faiths to obey the law. No exceptions.