Comments on: Liberalism and discrimination

By: Misha Ketchell

Misha Ketchell — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 06:22:51 +0000

Andrew — I think you’ve got this one right.
Anyone with an interest in individual freedom can see that in this case the anti-discimination laws circumscribe a sort of freedom (the right of a group to decide its membership) at the same time as they extend one (the right of an individual to be free from discimination — or, in this case, to choose to enter a gay bar). In getting the balance right the real question is: what course of action will create the greatest overall freedom? To answer that I think you’ve got to have one eye on the social reality of the community in which the decision will apply.
In the past anti-discimination laws have been very useful in extending access to disenfranchised minorities in homogenous cultures. But where they are applied to the rights of gays to chooose with whom they associate they don’t give anywhere near as much bang for your buck in terms of improving access and the downside — the limitation on the rights of gay men to congregate in a place they feel is safe and welcoming — is considerable.
To stop the Peel from discriminating would have taken away more freedom than it created.
BTW, I’m also instinctively agin that notion of liberealism which sees the way the State behaves as model for all institutions in society. It’s a receipe for excessive State interference and ultimately a homogenous and intolerant society. Surely the whole point is to create a sphere of human life in which the greatest possible difference can thrive, not one in which every citizen and organization is obliged to behave as a mini-me clone of the State.

By: Andrew Norton

Andrew Norton — Thu, 31 May 2007 13:51:15 +0000

Greg – I should have known better than to mention you, even not by name:) I think I eventually accepted the logic of your point, while still being less offended than you at the Catholic attitude, just as a I seem less offended than other bloggers by The Peel’s preference for lesbian and hens’ night free socialising.

By: parkos

parkos — Thu, 31 May 2007 10:17:10 +0000

More sort of tradition and necessity JC.
The Hellenic colonists on the cold hillsides of Macedonia awaiting the attack of Persians, Normans, Gauls, Saxons, Romans, Macedonians etc used to keep each other warm that way. Back at home, probably only their overweight sister awaited them as they were still living with their parents (and still do) so it became a tradition. Hence Greek style to this day. Not to mention the Greek border with Bulgaria (root of the word bugger).

In the same mountains, shepherds and farmers of other animals were and indeed are another story and on a different rights march. I saw a movie from Greece on SBS once that would make even a Kiwi blush.

By: Greg Roebuck

Greg Roebuck — Thu, 31 May 2007 08:31:38 +0000

“I had a debate with a blog reader last year who was complaining that a Catholic institution he was associated had declined to invite someone to it because that person was gay.”

Andrew,

I never asserted that this Catholic institution should not have been permitted to discriminate against the gay man in question, merely that it should not in fact have done so.

There is an important difference between these two propositions. For example, I believe that in general people should not commit adultery, though I believe that they should be permitted to do so.

Similarly, I believe that in general people should not make statements that are likely to offend large sections of the community, though I believe they should be permitted to make such statements.

For a purported proponent of liberalism, I found your apparent inability to recognise this distinction in our ‘debate’ very surprising.

By: JC

JC — Thu, 31 May 2007 07:09:27 +0000

I’m sorry Andrew if I digress but one of Parkos’ enlightening comments about the gay scene across Euro land had me very puzzled to say the least.

Parkos, you say:

” Further south in Greece many people are gay out of necessity and further north towards the Atlantic in lapsed protestant Holland/London there is even more tolerance/open prevelance.”

Why are Greeks gay out of necessity?

Short answer please as I don’t want to clog Andrew’s thread with more useless junk. Thanks?

By: parkos

parkos — Wed, 30 May 2007 15:05:32 +0000

“I think the general argument is that white males are politically and economically the most dominant subgroup”
There are BDSM mistresses in Collingwood who would say they are the most submissive of the subgroups.
When it comes to life expectancy, trench warfare or prison sentences white males do not do so well when compared to females politically or economically.

By: parkos

parkos — Wed, 30 May 2007 14:54:30 +0000

Update on my previous statement (just to set the record straight so to speak):

There is a gay and lesbian cajovnicka (teashop) in the town I am in Slovakia after all. It looks low key and quite druggy with UV lights and hookahs. Not letting straight people into the Peel will dampen the pink mafia’s control of the drug trade and parts of the entertainment industry. So the selectiveness wont last or be implemented fully. Ask Adam Smith.

Perhaps the slavic people should not be blamed for homophobia as I said earlier. It is actually the speakers of Baltic languages who banned Gay Pride march altogether in Riga:

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2006/07/19/rigaban.shtml

Ironically, the catholic church and nazis who threatened the Riga march are probably responsible for just as much gay sexual activity within their own ranks as the gay community is. In London, nazi skinheads joined and protected the gay pride march (not to mention the recent German book on Hitler’s homosexuality):

http://www.uncarved.org/blog/?p=102

McFeely is a made up name.

By: conrad

conrad — Wed, 30 May 2007 00:53:19 +0000

“It seems to me that it is probably more socially acceptable to allow discrimination to some groups – but not to others.”

I think the general argument is that white males are politically and economically the most dominant subgroup in Australia, and hence don’t deserve the special protection that some other minority groups deserve. White males and arguably white females also get protection via the democratic process (which they control), for which some people arge acts against minority groups in some circumstances. (Superficial examples abound — I can’t eat dog because white people tell me not too, for instance, but there are more serious examples too — I can’t have 6 wives, for instance, because Christian influenced man says I can’t). Hence if you happen to believe in anti-discrimination laws, there are reasons some groups might deserve it when others don’t.

Perhaps more interesting arguments also occur when you have two minority groups that get discriminated against in the same way. In case you happen to be Asian, for instance, you won’t get all the special benefits that some other groups get, even though the level of discimination you are likely to face is going to be as high as any other commonly discrimated against group. The main reason for this appears to be that some groups of Asians are successful in Australia, and this appears to discount some forms of anti-discrimination laws versus non-successful groups. Thus, simply because you would have been more successful had you not been discriminated against is not taken into account once your subpopulation happens to get close to the level of the average population.

By: Sacha

Sacha — Tue, 29 May 2007 23:49:32 +0000

Andrew, in writing “discrimination” I meant “making a choice” – I was a a bit unclear there late last night!

By: Rafe

Rafe — Tue, 29 May 2007 23:37:49 +0000

So what is the situation with men-only clubs these days? Years ago progressive people were resigning from some ancient and exclusive Sydney clubs that were men only (or men only for full membership). I wonder what kind of exemption those clubs had from the Anti Discrim laws?