Peter Baldwin on the menace of identity politics

For the benefit of people who don’t regularly see The Weekend Australian this a fine contribution that appeared last weekend. The good news is that it attracted almost 700 comments, overwhelmingly in support.

Peter Baldwin Racing to tear down the pillars of reason

We are witnessing nothing less than a cultural revolution, with distinct echoes of
the one that rent China in the 1960s and 70s. We see mob hysteria in the physical
and online space, and ritual denunciations of anyone expressing the slightest
disagreement with the ever-changing orthodoxies of the identity politics creed, as
even the hitherto impeccably politically correct JK Rowling has found.

This entry was posted in Culture Wars, Rafe, Western Civilsation. Bookmark the permalink.

38 Responses to Peter Baldwin on the menace of identity politics

  1. stackja

    Reeducation and self criticism by the big ones.

  2. What I find intriguing is how far the woke left is taking all of this (the last link perhaps explains why). For example:

    Halle Berry had to remove herself from a role where she was supposed to play a woman transitioning to a man. The woke Left demanded that the role be played by an actual transgender.

    – Vogue slammed for using Annie Leibovitz and not a Black photographer to photograph a black gymnast. Leibovitz has photographed just about everyone including the Queen.

    – Men now must appear on the cover of Sports Illustrated.

  3. Takes a former left wing Hawke minister to clearly set out the defining challenge for our society. Where are the conservative warriors still actually in parliament with a platform?

  4. Iampeter

    If you oppose identity politics then you would’ve supported RA’s right to fire Folau, even if you didn’t agree with the reasons. Instead you played identity politics to the hilt, going so far as to encourage posters at what’s meant to be a right wing blog to send money in support of this farce.
    Conservatives are just as guilty of this as progressives, but as always, not even aware when they do it.

  5. a reader

    Your obsession with Israel Folau is unhealthy.

  6. Colin Suttie

    “If you oppose identity politics then you would’ve supported RA’s right to fire Folau”

    Today I learned identity politics, free speech, contract law, and the right to religious expression are all exactly the same thing. You muppet.

  7. mundi

    RA is free to fire him.

    We are free to point out the problems with this and rally against such corporations.

    I don’t see a problem on either side.

    Anyway, RA is about to collapse.

  8. Roger

    What I find intriguing is how far the woke left is taking all of this…

    History teaches us that left wing revolutionary movements always end up as a circular firing squad.

  9. John Brumble

    Colin, Iampeter is a cartoon version of a Randroid made up by some leftist troll or other. It’s a bit similar to the way in which one of our other trolls, Googlery, has made up the Ed Case cartoon, but obvious without the same menace of intent.

    You can tell this not because he uniformly attacks any position to the right of Mao – there are plenty of real left-leaning libertarians on the site who wouldn’t give the right credit if their lives depended on it – but rather because he does it by using exclusively left-wing talking points and, most importantly, takes his set of “facts” from the daily left-wing talking points. You’ll note that, on most occasions, the center of his argument rests on everything CNN has ever said about the topic being true.

    An actual Objectivist, even if they disagreed with the right wing position would, at some time, reject the fake-news narrative that the left had put forward. An actual Objectivist would, at some time, apply their views to the left of politics (even if they couldn’t stand to credit the right). Finally, an actual Objectivist would, at some time, come up with some topic of discussion or statement that wasn’t entirely a half-smart misrepresentation of one half of politics.

    Iampeter makes the same assumptions as a leftist, reads from the same narrative set as a leftist, and even uses the same childish insults of the left. Nothing he says would be out of place on TYT or their youtube copy-cats, and that’s because that’s where he gets all his material.

  10. PB

    Men now must appear on the cover of Sports Illustrated.

    Don’t we have trans-athletes to manage that?

  11. Boambee John

    Cui Bono
    #3512474, posted on July 14, 2020 at 11:18 am
    Takes a former left wing Hawke minister to clearly set out the defining challenge for our society. Where are the conservative warriors still actually in parliament with a platform?

    Add in Mark Latham, Pauline Hanson, the old traditional left have become the voice of reason. There is also another ex-Hawke minister, from WA I think, but his name escapes me at the moment, who has had sensible things to say.

    When John Faulkner joins the chorus, perhaps the MSM might notice? Nah, nothing outside the “narrative”!

  12. Lee

    John Brumble
    #3512571, posted on July 14, 2020 at 12:55 pm

    Couldn’t agree more.

    I don’t know if anyone else has noticed he never criticises a post by Monty or Numbers (perhaps the two most outspoken left wing commenters here) or the position they take, nor do they take him to task.

  13. miltonf

    Peter Walsh. No longer with us unfortunately.

  14. Tim Neilson

    If you oppose identity politics then you would’ve supported RA’s right to fire Folau,

    This is, of course, complete bullshit.
    Whether one agrees or disagrees with the proposition that terms of employment ought to relate to the employment in question, one’s view on the issue need not have anything to do with identity politics.

    Of course, since Iamashiteater has never been able to hold down a job in his entire life, his views on employment carry very little weight.

  15. miltonf

    Also Graeme Campbell

  16. Rex Anger

    IamRaeleneCastle’sSidepiece also deliberately ignores that the mass objection to Israel Folau’s cancellation (Actualy ritual necklacing if I’m gping to be the crude little Anger I am) had nothing to do with his identity, but the deliberate and vexatious campaign of slander, smear and dogpiling pursued through QANTAS, RA and their fellow travellers in the meeja and Blue Checkmark Land. All of it actually illegal. All of it utterly at odds with society. And all at odds, I suspect even with the ideals of one Ayn Rand herself.

    But IamRemarkablyPersistentInMyDelusions still hammers at it.

    If IamAnAngryMan would just be honest and say he hates Folau because he believes in a Higher Power than his own self, the attitude might be tolerable. But all we will hear instead is.that we know nuffink and we iz all projektunk on him cuz we iz tiggurd, then we will just have to fight on.

  17. Boambee John

    miltonf

    No, it’s another one, short surname, appointed a couple of years ago to a commission of some kind.

  18. pbw

    Now that Peter Baldwin has spoken up, we can be confident that Iampaul Keating, the great Aussie abuser, is carefully preparing his defence of Western civilisation.

  19. Boambee; yes there are a few sensible voices out there…just none in the present Coalition! Do they not know there is a war on….or not willing to have an attention grabbing go?
    Our country’s being mauled and they’re silent.
    That’s fraud.

  20. dover_beach

    Why would anyone deny Folau the opportunity to dispute the termination of his contract with the RA in a court or tribunal? Aren’t employees or contractors entitled to hold the other party to their agreement? I would certainly encourage anyone that is ‘cancelled’ to defend their rights at law in all the appropriate forums. Never make it easy for those more powerful than you dodge their obligations, legally, or morally.

  21. Rex Anger

    @ dover_beach

    + 1 . Accountability flows down as well as up.

  22. Lee

    + 1 . Accountability flows down as well as up.

    I don’t think IamYouKnowWho would agree, Rex!

  23. Rex Anger

    I don’t think IamYouKnowWho would agree, Rex!

    Of course not! IamTheVeryCaricatureOfTheSJWsIProclaimToDespise would be terrified if anyone ever held him to account in the meatspace for anything he has said or done. Or worse, challenged him the way he challenges others here, or we to him.

    It is easy to hide behind a username and a screen, and keep on sniping and snarking when the point has been clearly decided in an attempt to provoke a rise. Not so much when someone plonks their beer down opposite you and says “Prove your point, champion!”

  24. Squirrel

    One of the silver linings of the virus crisis/panic may be that fewer people will have patience for the utter crap which has infected so much of what passes for mainstream thinking.

    For many, who have hitherto had little, in truth, to worry about the seductions of identity politics and other PC nonsense may fade when they are focused on more pressing stuff like keeping a roof over the head and putting food on the table.

  25. Hay Stockard

    I don’t care if has has his Road To Damascus moment. He and his ilk have done almost irreparable damage to our society. He is trying for some relevance now because he is an attention seeking drama queen.

  26. Bill Thompson

    I read the article on Saturday & my reaction was: Give that man a Walkley, or a Pulitzer, or a Nobel Prize! What a great article! It’s amazing how my 70 year-old brain works – I can’t remember where I put my car keys 20 minutes ago but as soon as I saw Baldwin’s name, I recalled the news pictures from 40 years ago of his battered face, which I think may have resulted from sectarian differences in the ALP? Now our entire society is riven by sectarian differences & I don’t think I’ve read a better analysis than this!

    Just a couple of quick observations – I was born in the US in 1949 – the son of a US soldier & his youthful Aussie war bride, who was originally from Newcastle, NSW. I lived in the racially segregated US of the 1950’s, before their marriage failed & Mum brought me back to Oz in 1963. I was struck by the lack of (official) segregation here, as well as the moves to address racial discrimination, via the 1967 Referendum & the 1973 end of the White Australia Policy & other advances, however, I also watched advances in Civil Rights in the US & hoped that we were all moving in the right direction.

    No such luck! If anything, we’re moving rapidly back to segregation! Among countless other examples, I’ve experienced two, myself. In 2017, I attended a public event at the Melbourne Convention Centre – it was entitled “Black Lives Matter: In Conversation” & featured an indigenous Aussie MC, Jack Latimore, a US BLM activist, Patrisse Cullors & Rodney Diverius, a Haitian/Canadian BLM activist. I arrived early in order to get a front row seat, for two reasons – firstly to see better & secondly to give me more chance of being able to ask an audience question, if an opportunity arose at the end of the session. After an hour or so of conversation between those on stage, Jack began referring to the availability of roving mics for audience questions & I immediately raised my hand. Here’s what happened next – white folks need not have applied…

    (It seems that I can’t put two links in the same post, so here’s the first & the second will follow later)

    https://youtu.be/lT5wnb0x9ps

  27. Bill Thompson

    Further to the above – here is my second link regarding the return of segregation:

    In 2019, I attended an episode of their ABC’s “Q&A”, in Melbourne & I was invited to ask the panel a question about race relations – you can see the result via Twitter (Geez, did I get some abuse via Twitter afterwards!):

    https://mobile.twitter.com/QandA/status/1151023662667096064

  28. Alex

    Why are so many fixated on a lump of turd? If, like we do on a footpath, we simply for a moment alter our path to avoid such turd then the turd is left unhappy in its isolation and thus we are left with clean footwear (happy). In other words avoid the turd and get on with the intended direction with life.

  29. Iampeter

    Today I learned identity politics, free speech, contract law, and the right to religious expression are all exactly the same thing. You muppet.

    What you learnt is that you don’t know what any of those terms are and got triggered by this discovery.

    An actual Objectivist, even if they disagreed with the right wing position would, at some time, reject the fake-news narrative that the left had put forward.

    None of you are “right wing,” nor do you have any right wing positions. You are confused leftists.

    Why would anyone deny Folau the opportunity to dispute the termination of his contract with the RA in a court or tribunal?

    I don’t. I was pointing out the identity politics of those supporting him.
    In any case, Folau did not dispute his contract termination in front of a tribunal, because he had no case. Instead he dragged his employed to FWA for a shakedown, which is the same as dragging someone to the HRC. And conservatives supported this too, because they have absolutely no idea what’s going on.
    As usual, your response manages to get everything wrong on every level possible and goes off on a random tangent.

    Never make it easy for those more powerful than you dodge their obligations, legally, or morally.

    Ok, Bernie Bro.

    It is easy to hide behind a username and a screen, and keep on sniping and snarking when the point has been clearly decided in an attempt to provoke a rise.

    As usual you are describing what many here, including yourself are doing in every thread, while dishonestly trying to attribute it to me.

  30. dover_beach

    I don’t. I was pointing out the identity politics of those supporting him.
    In any case, Folau did not dispute his contract termination in front of a tribunal, because he had no case. Instead he dragged his employed to FWA for a shakedown,

    The FWC is a tribunal. The FWA is the relevant statute. Folau’s case at the FWC:
    On 6 June 2019, Folau launched legal proceedings with the Fair Work Commission against Rugby Australia and the Waratahs under section 772 of the Fair Work Act, which makes it unlawful to terminate employment on the basis of religion.
    He also undertook legal proceedings in the Federal Court:
    On 1 August 2019, Folau launched legal action in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, against RA and NSW Rugby for unlawful termination on the basis of religion, breach of contract and restraint of trade.
    Again, you clearly demonstrate your ignorance of the most basic facts and yet this never stops you from offering an opinion. Moreover, it again proves your dishonesty. You do, in fact, want to criticize him for defending his legal and moral rights as a contractor/ employee.

  31. Rex Anger

    As usual you are describing what many here, including yourself are doing in every thread, while dishonestly trying to attribute it to me.

    REEEEEE! Says IamCaughtOutYetAgain.

  32. Iampeter

    The FWC is a tribunal. The FWA is the relevant statute.

    What I was clearly saying is that he didn’t sue them for breach of contract, because he had no case, so he took them to the FW tribunal for a shakedown. As always, this shouldn’t need clarifying.

    Fair Work Act, which makes it unlawful to terminate employment on the basis of religion.

    Yes. But this is left wing. Those of us who are right wing oppose making it “unlawful” to terminate anyone for any reason. Just like we oppose making it “unlawful” to hurt someone’s feelings. In other words, in another example of something that shouldn’t need clarifying, supporting the FWC is the same thing as supporting the HRC. The fact this needs explaining is not a recoverable position for conservatives.

    And most importantly, all of this misses the actual point, which I’m repeating here now for the third time for you, dover: I was discussing the support for Folau being classic identity politics and you’ve gone off on a tangent as usual.

    So to summarize everything for you so you don’t get confused again:

    1. Folau shook down RA by dragging them to Fair Work. This was not a breach of contract lawsuit, anymore than the Bolt HRC fiasco was a “defamation” lawsuit
    2. FWC is the same thing as the HRC, allowing people to sue for things you can’t normally sue people for because there aren’t any damages. These are leftist organizations and regulations
    3. All of this is irrelevant to the actual point I was making which is that conservative support for Folau was textbook identity politics, from bad faith claims of discrimination, agreeing that discrimination should even be a legal matter in the first place, trying to suggest violation of “group rights,” in this case Christians, instead of LGQBT, women, blacks, etc.
    4. None of this should need explaining and the fact that it’s in dispute is proof of what I always say: conservatives are nothing more than religious and politically illiterate leftists

    I look forward to your next response as you continue to play the usual word games in order to keep avoiding dealing with the show stopping problems for conservatives, who are as left wing, if not more so, on every single issue, as the progressives they try to criticize.
    Only without even realizing it.

  33. Kneel

    1. Breaking a contract in an illegal way is a breech of that contract.
    2. Having your contract terminated illegally results in a loss.
    3. Just because I choose to support someone in a legal battle doesn’t mean I think we’re “mates” or of the same “tribe”.
    4. Just because you take an extreme position doesn’t mean that people who don’t are of the complete opposite position.

    None of this should need to be explained – again – but you’re “speshul”, just like Mummy always says, right? That’s why you take the short bus with the rest of the window lickers.

  34. Tel

    Why would anyone deny Folau the opportunity to dispute the termination of his contract with the RA in a court or tribunal?

    People who don’t believe that there is a law, unless it happens to support their case in this particular instance … i.e. hypocritical leftists.

    Eventually it always shows through, no matter what the assumed persona.

  35. Rex Anger

    Are you saying, IamAgainstLibertiesandFreedomsForEveryoneIDislike, that Israel Folau was not allowed to speak his mind without risk of retribution? A right that is protected and nurtured (at least for the time being) by government, exactly as you believe governments should do?

    Why?

    Because he is brown and has a funny name? Because he recognises a Higher Power than himself, and seeks to live and speak in a manner consistent with his beliefs?

    Is that why you keep claiming he had no case? And that the successful legal action he took was a ‘shakedown?’

    Is that also why you say anyone who supports the concept of people having the freedom to live as they please within the limits of the law and their own morality, is engaging in identity politics?

    Are you actually an individualist and a capitalist, given that you, without fail, damn every individual person you don’t like? Israel Folau? Mike Flynn? Donald J. Trump? Unborn babies?

  36. Putrid

    You idiot contracts are made on the presumption of the legality of objects. The argument Dover made is not materially reliant on the FWA.

    The Contracts Review Act or Australian Consumer Law/CCA also matter as well do common law and equitable principles.

    If a boss can control speech and thought then there is no actual agreement of the objects of the contract or *meeting of the minds* hence there is no contract to perform and/or no intention to be bound.

    In principle their contractual claims were unenforceable. Either they were wrong or the contract should not exist.

    Folau was not wrong. You are arguing he made a fundamental breach or series of minor breaches that amount to repudiation and either a right to terminate with damages or rescission.

    This is absurd considering he was objectively (by Super Rugby tries scored) the best player in the world and the purpose of the contract was to play football.

    Rescission would be absurd given his performance. No ab initio restitution for both parties is possible. It defies principles like unjust enrichment.

    Contracts require privity. If they wanted to regulate his speech he should have had a separate contract with Qantas.

    Anything short of that is impliedly a restraint of trade, and the theoretical basis is to allow contracts like that to stand cannot possibly be agreed to, and thus either cannot form, or are invalid to the extent of that invalidity. All Qantas could do is claim consequential loss if he started promoting a competitor like Tiger Air. That’s a tort issue really. Once again Qantas could have dropped the Wallabies or employed Izzy, or RA could have made a collateral contract to perform for Qantas. The code of conduct simply did not do this.

  37. dover_beach

    What I was clearly saying is that he didn’t sue them for breach of contract, because he had no case, so he took them to the FW tribunal for a shakedown. As always, this shouldn’t need clarifying.

    He sued them for termination of contract, which involves a breach of contract, dunderhead. Not only at a tribunal but also at the Federal Court. And RA folded like a deck of cards during the latter and settled for millions, undoubtedly, because Folau had no case.

    Everything you said following the above added nothing beyond demonstrating, again, that you are a know-thing and dishonest clown.

Comments are closed.