Sunday, April 04, 2010

Fear of debate calmed by traditional political hypocrisy

Two things spring to mind when I hear the story of the 'scandal' which Chris Grayling has brought upon himself by daring to have an opinion.

A key Conservative has been recorded suggesting people who run bed and breakfasts in their homes should have the right to reject homosexual guests.
But shadow home secretary Chris Grayling said hotels should not be allowed to discriminate in that way.
Labour and the Lib Dems said the Tories would allow discrimination "to thrive".

Firstly, that I think that a Conservative has expressed an opinion, albeit not one he thought he was acknowledging in public, which could be considered libertarian.

Secondly, he's a bloody great hypocrite for trying to wriggle out of engaging in debate on state control by boasting that he voted for the draconian legislation in the first place.

If someone owns a building, why is it not up to them who can stay in there? They own it, not the state. The state really should fuck off.

In much the same way as a landlord should say whether people should smoke in their pub, not a group of politicians for whom the rules don't apply and who feather their nests with our cash.

I would have had respect for Chris had he said 'yes, that's what I believe in. I am allowed to have opinions, these are what they are and why don't we talk about this instead of hurling the threats of homophobia and racism around. Like the person who resorts to shouting in a pub argument because they don't have the ability to have rational debate, those special interest groups who want everyone to dance to their tune can't see that people have, and should be entitled to have objections.


JuliaM said...

How exactly are his comments 'libertarian'?

He didn't after all, argue for everyone to be given this choice. Only the religious.

Trixy said...

I don't think he was asked about everyone, was he? I am saying that I think there was a libertarian basis to that statement because he was saying that people should be allowed to have different views. It's nowhere near as far as I'd like but there's something in there, somewhere.

Trooper Thompson said...

It's libertarian because it upholds individual property rights against the interferring state.