Monday, February 05, 2007
Bi-centenary of the abolition of the slave trade
The local "newspaper" informs us of a "walk-tribute" to William Wilberforce, who of course was instrumental in the abolition of the slave trade.
I couldn't help noticing that William Wilberforce was also MP for Hull in his day and I wonder what his views would be on the present incumbent.
Anyway I digress, when discussing the slave trade, it is all too easy to forget the part played by England and Britain in the abolition of the same. Whilst it is true that the abolition doesn't cancel out all that was done, it is also true that the actions taken for abolition shouldn't be ignored.
It was in England that indignation about this trade caused people to campaign against it and ultimately outlaw it. It will be interesting to see just how widely this anniversary is marked. The actions of William Wilberforce and his contemporaries should be a source of pride and honour for the whole nation, I hope to see this reflected in the breadth of the commemorations of this event.
I couldn't help noticing that William Wilberforce was also MP for Hull in his day and I wonder what his views would be on the present incumbent.
Anyway I digress, when discussing the slave trade, it is all too easy to forget the part played by England and Britain in the abolition of the same. Whilst it is true that the abolition doesn't cancel out all that was done, it is also true that the actions taken for abolition shouldn't be ignored.
It was in England that indignation about this trade caused people to campaign against it and ultimately outlaw it. It will be interesting to see just how widely this anniversary is marked. The actions of William Wilberforce and his contemporaries should be a source of pride and honour for the whole nation, I hope to see this reflected in the breadth of the commemorations of this event.
Tags: justice, liberty, rights, freedom
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Friday, February 02, 2007
Bias in The Times?
Following on from the well publicised defeat for the Catholic Church and it's failure to secure an opt out from the Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs), we have the not so well publicised unintended consequences.
Yesterday in The Times page 14 (not apparently online oddly enough) we have a report that "Gay tourist hotels fear equality law". Contrast this approach with a story on the 10th of January "Church group challenges new law banning discrimination of gays" online here. The two stories are virtually identical, the only difference being who is complaining. So The Times are happy to report about objections to a "liberal" law when they come from the usual suspects, but downgrade a story if a "favoured group" is objecting. Clearly they're employing too many ex-BBC types.
Anyway the story tells us there are hotels who cater for an "exclusively gay" market, odd that this wasn't reflected in the stories about the Scots hotelier who wouldn't give a gay "couple" a double bed. These gay hotels (and let me be quite clear I have no objection to them at all, and fully support the stance they're taking) are concerned over likely loss of business: "... a ban on "gay only" advertising could put them out of business" also: "... some heterosexual couples might be unhappy if they unwittingly booked into a gay hotel...". Best quote comes from a John Bellamy who runs a Hamilton Hall in Bournemouth: "... This so-called anti-discrimination law is actually discriminatory as it discriminates against gays."
Another hotelier points out: "When we had a mixed environment, with gay, bi and heterosexual customers, people didn't behave as naturally as they would." I might on another occasion take issue with his wording, but with the concept I'm sure he's right.
Another quote, which could have come from the Franco handbook on property: "At the end of the day this is our home and as a landlord we have the right to refuse entry to anyone without giving a reason." Well mate it might come as a surprise to you and the rest of the country, but not any more you don't!
Stonewall the "gay rights group" is quick to disassociate itself from (by side-stepping and ignoring) these nasty views: "What gay people gain through having an equality law is much more than whether we can just run gay hotels." Yes well the point is you won't be able to run "gay only" hotels anymore.
Personally, I don't think you'll find you gain anything, but I'll leave you happy with your law. As regards Catholic adoption agencies, well there's 21 months in which anything can happen. In the worst-case scenario if they transfer abroad they might be able to circumvent the law anyway.
Yesterday in The Times page 14 (not apparently online oddly enough) we have a report that "Gay tourist hotels fear equality law". Contrast this approach with a story on the 10th of January "Church group challenges new law banning discrimination of gays" online here. The two stories are virtually identical, the only difference being who is complaining. So The Times are happy to report about objections to a "liberal" law when they come from the usual suspects, but downgrade a story if a "favoured group" is objecting. Clearly they're employing too many ex-BBC types.
Anyway the story tells us there are hotels who cater for an "exclusively gay" market, odd that this wasn't reflected in the stories about the Scots hotelier who wouldn't give a gay "couple" a double bed. These gay hotels (and let me be quite clear I have no objection to them at all, and fully support the stance they're taking) are concerned over likely loss of business: "... a ban on "gay only" advertising could put them out of business" also: "... some heterosexual couples might be unhappy if they unwittingly booked into a gay hotel...". Best quote comes from a John Bellamy who runs a Hamilton Hall in Bournemouth: "... This so-called anti-discrimination law is actually discriminatory as it discriminates against gays."
Another hotelier points out: "When we had a mixed environment, with gay, bi and heterosexual customers, people didn't behave as naturally as they would." I might on another occasion take issue with his wording, but with the concept I'm sure he's right.
Another quote, which could have come from the Franco handbook on property: "At the end of the day this is our home and as a landlord we have the right to refuse entry to anyone without giving a reason." Well mate it might come as a surprise to you and the rest of the country, but not any more you don't!
Stonewall the "gay rights group" is quick to disassociate itself from (by side-stepping and ignoring) these nasty views: "What gay people gain through having an equality law is much more than whether we can just run gay hotels." Yes well the point is you won't be able to run "gay only" hotels anymore.
Personally, I don't think you'll find you gain anything, but I'll leave you happy with your law. As regards Catholic adoption agencies, well there's 21 months in which anything can happen. In the worst-case scenario if they transfer abroad they might be able to circumvent the law anyway.
Tags: liberty, rights, freedom
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Do as we say!
The Times reports on some North British council leader flouting his country's smoking ban. He was smoking in his own office, but the law is the law. When it was pointed out to him that he was breaking the law: "he shrugged and carried on".
Now when it comes to banning smoking, like most bans it is ridiculous, of course there shouldn't be any law against smoking in an office and the person concerned has the smallest modicum of my sympathy. Why so little? Well they are a Labour leader, and they are in charge of implementing the smoking ban in their area; I've never heard of any resignations over the issue, or of any council showing some guts and refusing to enforce this stupid law. If this had happened in a pub or private club, they'd have sent the apparatchiks round faster than you could say it, with fines and fixed penalty notices all round. I don't expect any enforcement action here.
The "leader" has apologised, but is that really good enough? I know the law is rubbish as much as the next person, but I wouldn't enforce it at all, but he can't not enforce it, he has no choice, unless he intends to go head to head with the North British executive. So his only honourable choice is to resign, he has to say: "I can't enforce this stupid law or be part of a structure that does; so I must resign".
The chances of this happening are remote, he'll give up smoking first, but it shows us the mindset of our "leaders" - they know the laws are a load of rubbish, they know it's all stupid unwarranted interference, but instead of fighting against those laws and ensuring they never happen, they kow-tow before the legislation and then expect it not to apply to them. In this case he'll probably be right, there'll be no enforcement, no nothing, but what of others who are denied their right to smoke? What of a private club of smokers and people who don't mind smoking? Or an office staffed by smokers?
Some people oppress believing it to be for a greater good or higher purpose, some know that the professed greater good or higher purpose is a load of rubbish, but "go with the flow" anyway. Which is the greater evil?
Now when it comes to banning smoking, like most bans it is ridiculous, of course there shouldn't be any law against smoking in an office and the person concerned has the smallest modicum of my sympathy. Why so little? Well they are a Labour leader, and they are in charge of implementing the smoking ban in their area; I've never heard of any resignations over the issue, or of any council showing some guts and refusing to enforce this stupid law. If this had happened in a pub or private club, they'd have sent the apparatchiks round faster than you could say it, with fines and fixed penalty notices all round. I don't expect any enforcement action here.
The "leader" has apologised, but is that really good enough? I know the law is rubbish as much as the next person, but I wouldn't enforce it at all, but he can't not enforce it, he has no choice, unless he intends to go head to head with the North British executive. So his only honourable choice is to resign, he has to say: "I can't enforce this stupid law or be part of a structure that does; so I must resign".
The chances of this happening are remote, he'll give up smoking first, but it shows us the mindset of our "leaders" - they know the laws are a load of rubbish, they know it's all stupid unwarranted interference, but instead of fighting against those laws and ensuring they never happen, they kow-tow before the legislation and then expect it not to apply to them. In this case he'll probably be right, there'll be no enforcement, no nothing, but what of others who are denied their right to smoke? What of a private club of smokers and people who don't mind smoking? Or an office staffed by smokers?
Some people oppress believing it to be for a greater good or higher purpose, some know that the professed greater good or higher purpose is a load of rubbish, but "go with the flow" anyway. Which is the greater evil?
Tags: liberty, rights, freedom
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
