The new church of Equality, Diversity and Inclusion

That’s the alternative description of the Scottish Nationalist Party, the ruling party of Scotland, according to pastor David Robertson, minister of St Peters Free Church in Dundee Scotland, who also blogs as the Weeflea. Aye, Scotland! Sure and begorrah, Ireland is going the same way. Mr. Robertson’s own words: “Cycling home from St Peters I saw a poster that took my breath away.  Sometimes you see that something is going to happen and yet it still shocks you when it does.  These posters are currently being displayed in towns and cities all over Scotland. 

Dear-bigots-1-641x900Dear-transphobes-2-1_640x345_acf_cropped

“You will note that these are posters from the Scottish Government and the Scottish Police. At one level they seem fine. Who is going to argue against the idea that we want rid of hatred? That people should not call others names, or be violent, or mock and abuse? But that is not what is happening here. Note the following:

The posters themselves are somewhat ambiguous, unless you speak the code. If you do speak the language of the Scottish Government and Police then what they are saying is that any kind of disagreement with homosexuality, the trans philosophy, or Islam  makes you guilty of hate and you have no place in ‘our’ community. They are selective – Its only certain groups that are mentioned.  Look at what they leave out. They are intimidatory – It is not the job of the police to police our thoughts and hearts.  They can have no idea what we do or do not hate or love.  Their responsibility is to deal with crimes that are committed. They do not have the time, money or ability to deal with our thoughts. But it seems they are going to try.  The new State morality is going to be imposed through education and enforced by the State police – welcome to modern Scotland – the Saudi Arabia of Secularism. They are self-contradictory – A poster which is designed to combat hate – spreads hate.  Imagine a poster which said – ‘Dear bigots, you can’t spread your homosexual hatred here!’. You would be arrested immediately for putting that up.”

Now my turn: A “hate crime” is synonymous with thought crime, because how does one know what the perpetrator harbored in his mind or heart? Hatred is defined as intense dislike or ill will; a “hate crime”, legally, is “a crime motivated by racial, sexual or other prejudice”. First of all, it’s a crime, which means either a felony or a misdemeanor, and is therefore prosecutable. But the problem is with the next word, motivated by….. Statutes say the perpetrator targets the victim because of their perceived membership in a certain group. I have two BIG problems with the whole concept: 1. I have already mentioned that the term itself implies ability to know the motives of a perpetrator, which is pretty much guesswork, and is very subject to a prevailing narrative. The best example I can think of is Matthew Shepard, who was murdered in 1998. I would suggest you do your own research. The narrative was that his murder was a hate crime because he was homosexual. That narrative has been challenged by an author who is himself homosexual, and who has interviewed over 100 people with knowledge of both the victim and the perpetrators. This author insists that Shepard was murdered by a homosexual acquaintance and meth dealer who wanted the meth that he believed Shepard was carrying. Regardless of the actual truth, the original Shepard narrative (along with the murder of James Byrd) was a major factor in expanding federal hate crime legislation to include those motivated by sexual orientation. 2. Is it somehow worse to the victim to be targeted for their race or sexual orientation? If you are beaten senseless and wind up dead or paralyzed, is it any comfort to know that it is being prosecuted as a hate crime? If a victim could somehow go back in time to before the crime, and be forced to choose between a beating due to his race, or the very same beating due to the attacker’s having a bad day, can we presume that a majority would choose the latter? No, we can’t. In fact, interviews with victims, or families of those who were killed, say that a senseless crime feels worse.

Do you think I am getting a little too worked up about this hate crime stuff? Doesn’t really affect you? Mr. Robertson wrote a letter to “Police Scotland” about a religious position being called “hate speech” or a “hate crime.” He received reply from Superintendent David Pettigrew, Equality & Diversity Unit, Specialist Crime Division, Safer Communities, Scottish Crime Campus (sounds Orwellian to me) which contained the following paragraph: “A hate crime is any crime which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated (wholly or partly) by malice and ill-will towards a social group. A hate incident is any incident which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated (wholly or partly) by malice and ill-will towards a social group but which does not constitute a criminal offence.

The Police Scotland Hate Crime Standing Operating Procedure (SOP) directs that ordinarily, the perception of the victim or any other person is the defining factor, in determining whether an incident is hate related for recording purposes. I would highlight however that although a SOP sets out processes and procedures, it is recognised that there will be circumstances requiring action on the part of officers or staff, which may require them to exercise professional judgement or discretion.”

YEAH, I’M MAKING TOO BIG A DEAL OF IT. WATCH OUT FOR THAT PERCEPTION BANANA PEEL WHILE YOU’RE STANDING ON YOUR RIGHTS….OVER A PRECIPICE! Read the WeaFlea blog here. scots

 

Buy ice cream, fight oppression, yeah!

Ben and Jerry’s ice cream brand tries to be cool, laid back and woke. After all, wasn’t their first flavor Cherry García? If you millennials out there don’t get the significance, have you ever heard the Grateful Dead, or are they “so yesterday”? Anyway, Ben and Jerry’s hypocrisy helps me understand why the dead might be grateful. The company is owned by Unilever. Who dat? Only a British-Dutch transnational which is the world’s largest consumer goods company by revenue, that’s who. Just hours after I published my blog post on cultural appropriation, Ben and Jerry’s announced the release of a new flavor–pecan resist–that will fight oppression and president Trump. Just as there’s no cause effect relationship between my blog post and the new flavor, there’s no cause effect relationship between B and Js new flavor and Unilever’s corporate profits (and since I’m on a roll, no cause effect relationship between Nike sponsoring Colin Kaepernick and their corporate profits). After all, if there’s anything the shareholders of a publicly traded company care about more than profits, it’s being woke (not to be confused with waking up in a shareholder meeting).

Justin Solheim, CEO of Ben and Jerry’s, in an interview with Wharton Business School on January 15, 2016, stated that “if Ben and Jerry go out and say, ‘social justice is not our mission anymore’ it undermines the value of the acquisition.” He was answering the question of whether Unilever would allow Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, whose likenesses adorn (or deface, depending on your perspective on physical attractiveness) every container of the ice cream bearing their name, to continue to preach their mission of “social justice”, after they sold the company to Unilever for heap big moolah i.e. $326 million.

How does ice cream fight oppression, you might ask? Solheim said “it’s hard to be angry while eating ice cream” and “lots of people will stop and sign a petition if free ice cream is offered.” I totally agree with the second contention, but the first is highly questionable. Angry people can be angry no matter what they are eating, though I will grant that ice cream is the food most likely to degrade while you are on your angry rant. So what “social justice” causes is “pecan resist” fighting for? Don’t worry, I will deconstruct the social justice slogan by and by.

The flavor is not new; it used to be called New York Super Fudge Chunk, so only the name and design of the container have changed. The new name is meant to “celebrate activists who continue to resist oppression, harmful environmental practices and injustice.” Man, how can you NOT get down for such lofty ideals?? The label is described as “female forward and multicultural.” Is anyone losing their appetite? The company is donating $25,000 to each of four activist groups: color of change, honor the earth, women’s march and neta. You can look them up, I am not devoting blog space that could be used for my heretofore non-existent sponsors. Hey, maybe Ben and Jerry’s will become my first…or maybe not. So they change the name from a decidedly uptown gentrified vibe to a more activist vibe, more in keeping with the Antifa-style of political action, and the label to attract guilt ridden hoi polloi who would dress like the people on the label if they didn’t fear cultural appropriation backlash.

How much revenue will the renamed flavor generate for Unilever? I would wager a tad more than the $100,000 they are donating. Ben and Jerry’s had about $1.8 billion in sales in 2017, good for 4th place among all brands. Unilever, with 8 of the top 15 brands, racked up a 22% market share, far larger than its next competitor. Ice cream has the highest profit margin of any snack food, 23%. I have tried, but failed, to discover the value of Unilever’s sales or profits on ice cream, but if it’s 4th ranked brand had $1.8 billion in sales, the total sales of all its brands is certainly more than double $1.8 billion. 23% of $1.8 billion is $414 million profit on just Ben and Jerry’s sales, let alone those of the parent company. $100,000 is 2/1000% of that–a rounding error, as they call it. So why are People magazine, a variety of media outlets and personalities touting this new named flavor so much?

It isn’t the amount of money, it’s the thought that counts, right? As I said, their ideals have a lofty sound, as does social justice. What grinch wouldn’t want that stuff? But shouldn’t we consider what all that loftiness looks like on the ground? In 2009 they changed the name of Chubby Hubby to Hubby Hubby to celebrate legalization of same sex mirage marriage in Vermont. Their enthusiasms are sexual deviants’ rights, taxing the United States for the future effects of global warming, in the streets political activism, especially by angry women, and immigrants’ rights. I for one am happy that Ben and Jerry’s is so stingy about their social justice.

Addendum to post: I just read a company statement about their ice cream, to whit: Alongside all those nutty chunks, this pint packs a powerful message under its lid: together, we can build a more just and equitable tomorrow. We can peacefully resist the Trump administration’s regressive and discriminatory policies and build a future that values inclusivity, equality, and justice for people of color, women, the LGBTQ community, refugees, and immigrants. Pecan Resist supports four organizations that are working on the front lines of the peaceful resistance, building a world that supports their values. Obviously, there are more “nutty chunks” in B and J’s marketing dept. under the lid!!!