Sorry – I mean Chris Grayling

The names of these Tory MPs are unmemorable, and I can never tell their faces. However, it seems that The Observer recorded the Shadow Home Secretary making the perfectly reasonable point that bed and breakfast owners should not have to accommodate homosexual couples if that was their wish.

The idea that the great British public will be vomiting over their toast because some Tory politician hasn’t signed up to the full PC agenda is laughable. Unless the country really has gone mad, I don’t think there are more than a few thousand people in England who regard this sort of discrimination as evil.

I’d go further. Property owners should once again have the right to discriminate in any way they please – and without explanation. For details, see below….

13 responses to “Sorry – I mean Chris Grayling

  1. This is another of those “free market” canards.

    To see the real point, suppose that a road company bans non-Moslem people from its roads. You can have a free market society or you can have an intolerant society. You can’t have both.

    “First, they came for the homosexuals…” etc.

  2. It isn’t a matter of free-for-all. It’s a matter of free-for-some at the expense of other people. Suppose that you sat down in a restaurant and ordered, and the maitre-d came along and told you to get out because you didn’t speak French. You would feel (and be) very unfree if this behaviour was widespread.


  3. Then I’ll choose the intolerant one.

  4. Tony, I’ve been reading back copies of Free Life and I now realise that you’ve been consistently stupdi, wrong and ignorant across decades.

  5. Davidncl:

    “There may be two libertarians somewhere who agree about everything; but I am not one of them.

    If my opinions and knowledge remained the same across decades, it would mean that I’m not learning as I progress. “Stupdi” I don’t recognize. Perhaps you meant “Stupid.” My IQ was 156 the last time I took an IQ test. I freely admit that — as is true for everyone — my ignorance is sobering and boundless. I don’t claim to be right all the time; but I’d be interested in your criticism if it was more specific.

    Thank you for taking the trouble to read the back issues of “Free Life.” Chris Tame was my co-editor for a while; so I he gets tarred with your brush. Smiles


  6. Davidncl:

    Perhaps you could set out the points where you disagree with me most clearly. Have we ever met?


  7. Corvus Corax

    Who is this nonentity Tony Hollick who thinks that a hotel owner musn’t be allowed to state who he will not have in his hotel. It’s HIS HOTEL for heaven’s sake, and the state has no right to tell him what to do with it. (Provided of course that the hotel’s terms and conditions are clearly stated when you book in to it). Anything else is profoundly illiberal.


  8. Once upon a time, around 50 years ago, America had restaurants and buses and colleges stating “No Blacks.”

    See what I mean about libertarian ideas cloaking some really unpleasant policies…

    Are you seriously going to try to convince me that if the family business of Saudi Arabia decides to buy roads in the US or here, that it’s ok for tham to operate a “Moslems Only” policy to those wanting or having to use their roads? Seriously?

    Human Rights trump property rights any day.


  9. Property rights are complex social constructs which form a subset of Human Rights. That’s all.


  10. Chris Grayling states that hotels should not be allowed to discriminate. His concern was where people are taking guests into their homes. I grant that this creates a different kind of problem.

    Don’t ask, Don’t tell is one answer to this.


  11. The only human right that is really interesting is liberty.
    If I own an hotel I should be free to allow in who I will.
    If I introduce silly policies that annoy people they will no longer come to my hotel and my hotel will fail.
    The delights of the free market.

  12. It’s when someone manages to get coercive power in a situation that it gets bad.

  13. It’s not impossible to foresee “Liberty”-only societies which would be very unhappy places.