Charles Robertson has said, upon his return:It is, apparently, a problem that we don't have anti-discrimination legislation. But why?
I'm with him to this point. Then he adds:
It is certainly appropriate that such rules should be applied to public bodies. That goes without question - the government is paid for by all of us, and exists to serve our collective interests. Bigotry has no place there.
I must respectfully disagree. However, Charles qualifies his own remarks:
If the owner of Prejudiced Ltd has an irrational hatred of a given group of individuals, and doesn't want to employ them or trade with them - why force him or her to?
Charles then adds:
Please note: I'm not defending discrimination of any kind.
To which I reply, in his comments section:
I am. Very much so. People can say what they darned well like, as far as I'm concerned. The moment we make rules about what a person can or cannot say, it's the road to tyranny.
Having strongly asserted the Voltaire maxim, [mentioned here]I also assert the Free Jersey maxim - that if they want to shoot themselves in both feet by denying themselves access to a wider (and potentially more talented) pool of labour, and prefer to artificially constrict their own available market, isn't that a good thing as it will be harder for their business to survive?
Precisely. The only arbiter here is market forces. As for the public sector, he should have every right to bad-mouth, say, dirty Trinitarians - he just won't be promoted or given any position of note. He'll just be shunned. That's prejudice against him.
So yes - I defend discrimination because it's impossible to stop and because to try to legislate it out of existence is worse than the original offence.
And there is a self-actualizing tendency against the bigot anyway, without any legislation being required.
As I've replied in my own comments, I was declining to defend the views of those who would discriminate, not their right to hold such views.
ReplyDeleteAs for public bodies: I could probably tolerate a public servant with prejudices (afterall, we must admit that everyone has them to one degree or another) so long as it doesn't affect the service any citizen of the state receives.
But how could you make sure of that? Your average citizen can't take their tax money elsewhere.
I think CR's point here in the comments is important. You can hold what views you like, but putting them into practice is another thing. At the extreme, we get a society like Nazi Germany. I am old enough to remember "no coloureds" notices in lodgings and elsewhere in Britain and both the sentiment and the vocabulary are appalling and hurtful. If someone calls you "fat" that is hurtful but you could do something about it. But if you are called names or discriminated against because of your colour or sex then you can't change that [well, you could, but it would be extreme.] Your right to freedom and my right to freedom can exist only in as much as neither impinges on someone else's freedom - and that must include freedom from discrimination.
ReplyDelete