18 2 mins 15 yrs

Britain is now an authoritarian state. It’s official.

The British government can now force a married couple to sleep in separate rooms so they can not have "relations" with one another. They can now impose restrictions on business owvers on how they run their business to such a degree that a photographer can be forced to do portrait photography only or a chauffeur forced to accept only corporate contracts. The government says so.

Meg Munn, a junior minister, has emphasised that it is illegal to allow married couples to share a room at a guest house or hotel while not allowing homosexuals the same right.

Miss Munn said a wedding photographer who refused a gay wedding booking should take up portrait photography instead, while a chauffeur who declined to work with homosexuals must specialise in corporate travel.

When a state has the authority to interfere in our lives and business to such a degree it is no longer a liberal democracy – it is authoritarian. Next step is totalitarianism.

Hayek, warned us of this in "The Road To Serfdom". Looks like the we’re nearing the end of that road.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

18 thoughts on “The end of the road

  1. What a hateful venomous lefty she sounds. Isn’t it also ironic that liberty is taken away in the name of "equality"? This country needs a revolution – we need to sweep away the totalitarian scum in charge.

  2. Afraid,

    You wish? This is hardcore socialism at work. Wherever it emanates from, and wherever it raises its ugly head, it always wants just one thing, – total control…

    Socialism is a mental disorder, – similar to the ‘control freak syndrome’. and appealing to the same types.

    Their collective motto – ‘We own you! and we know best’

  3. No I dont think this is anything particularly to do with the EU – just as Ernest says, pure control freakery. Its the usual despicable double standard – one rule for homosexuals, another for members of ‘undesirable’ political parties like the BNP, who can be freely discriminated against in any profession which chooses to do so.

  4. It is clear, if it weren’t already so, that PC and ‘equality’ have to be enforced by a huge state apparatus, which means that such systems are unnatural.

  5. "The British government can now force a married couple to sleep in separate rooms so they can not have "relations" with one another."

    No, it cannot. The government cannot force homophobes to rise up en masse and enter the hotel trade, and neither can it force married couples to use their hotels.

  6. The government will stand by while a prosecution takes place under the new laws. Why can’t they just let people do as they like? No. there is a vital national need to prosecute anyone who challenges the favoured state religion of homosexuality.

  7. Mahons,

    Salami slicing liberty may feel less a threat but it still remains a threat. Equality is the trojan horse for authoritarianism.

  8. David: Whatever Freud might say to your salami slicing metaphor regarding homosexuals I will leave to the field of psychology.

    Equality is the trojan horse for authoritarianism? Seriously? I didn’t notice anyone goosestepping during the civil rights movement here in the U.S. Wouldn’t it be fairer to say that that equality is something we have been striving for, but like all good ideas some poeple might take it too far? One crazed legislator, even when preaching a far left psotion, does not a police state make.

  9. Mahons,

    Erm ,maybe the salami slicign metaphor wasn’t ideal!

    On the topic of "equality", I think the term has become debased and twisted out of all shape in recent years. I think of Orwell’s language in 1984, and even of the language used by Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland.

  10. Frank,

    Suppose a hetrosexual couple want to spend the night at a particular hotel. They hotelier also wants them to spend the night there so long as they pay. They do so and everyone is happy for them to sleep in the same room. The hotelier also stipulates that homosexual couples may not sleep together in the same room. The government may now come in and force him to force the hetrosexual couple to sleep apart in that if he does not comply he will be fined. If he refuses to pay the fine he will be arrested etc etc.

    You might say that the couple could go elsewhere but that is irrelevent. The state has threatened them (indirectly, through threatening the hotelier) with force in order to impose upon them its arbitrary will that they either sleep apart or in a hotel that does not discriminate against homosexuals regardless of their wishes or that of the hotelier.

  11. CL,

    Your example is true only in some mythical land where the govt not only introduces the laws surreptiously in the middle of the night, but also bursts into bedrooms to enforce them like the monty python version of the spanish inquisition.

    And even in that land it would be true for one night only!

  12. meanwhile real authoritarianism is given the thumbs up by the same people who think hotel rooms are more important than long term captivity without trial.

  13. If it weren’t homosexuals do we see the same level of opposition? If it were blacks, or Jews or others you’d likely see the opposition drop of (but not entirely). I think the minister Munn may have been inartful in her comments, but why should a business be allowed to discriminate illegally?

  14. Frank,

    My example assumed the law was already in force and common knowledge. The law’s known existance does not change the will of the non-governmental persons involved. Indeed, it only adds a further, preemptive, threat.

    It also assumes that police would begin with the most benign methods available to them and move to harsher ones as their initial attempts fail e.g. a letter informing the hotelier of a fine, visiting him when he refuses to pay, sending baliffs when he still dosen’t pay, breaking down his door when he dosen’t let them in, arresting him when he won’t let them in and so on and so forth.

  15. This turning into a Brian Rix farce.

    One way round it is for the hotelier to tell a hetero couple to dress up as gays, and insist that they occupy the SAME room, so that when two real gays turn up he can insist they have SEPARATE rooms on the grounds that it’s not discrimmination because he has already insisted that two other previous (pretend) gays occupy the SAME room.

    Err…I think that’s it.

Comments are closed.