Here we go again with UKIP

Here is the Pink News article to which I am responding

Donna Edmunds, a UKIP councillor in East Sussex seems to think that it is the right of every business to refuse service to anyone, be they male, female, gay, straight, black, white, asian, muslim, christian, whatever.

Seriously? It seems like a week cannot go by without some member of the party saying or doing something absolutely fucking moronic. In every instance Nigel Farage states that the views of the individual do not represent the views of UKIP… well, sorry Nige but it actually kinda looks like they do.

I just don’t understand the logic here. It would ensure whole areas of the country would become de facto ‘no-go’ areas for certain minority groups. Is that really a world that UKIP want to live in? …what the hell am I saying, of course it is! Everyone would be able to hide in their little boxes, with with their little prejudices, growing and fermenting.

“Dear Post Office. I refuse to be served by a black Postman. Please send a white one and make sure no nigs, nogs, darkies and spear chuckers have touched my letters.”

“Sorry ma’am, the customer looks a little too homosexual for my tastes so I will refuse to serve him.”

“A Woman??? In a PUB?????”

“Well yes, I am a fully trained paramedic, I just don’t don’t ‘do’ Muzzos”

All that would happen is that resentment and bigotry would reproduce itself over and over until we are all one nation of little fortresses with ‘No girls’ or ‘No Armenians’ or whatever scrawled on the doors.

If you want to do business in this country, you make an agreement with the government to not discriminate against anyone, be they a minority, or a majority. It is not like the laws are only in place for small groups as White people, Christians, Men, Heterosexuals are all protected by equality laws from this same discrimination. What seems to be coming out of UKIP, one loose lipped lunatic at a time, is that the individual has no responsibility to society as a whole. Am I the only person who thinks that’s fucking dangerous?




Filed under Uncategorized

5 responses to “Here we go again with UKIP

  1. Luci

    Seemed like she was saying business owners should have the right to refuse/not to do business with anyone for any reason.

    Which isn’t necessarily the same as prejudice (the standpoint is more the state should have less legislative powers over people – even if the people then go and make fucking awful decisions).

    Though I do take your point how this specific example could include and lead to prejudice and discrimination – and also how it could be used as a defence of prejudice and discrimination (which no, I don’t think should be a right).

    As an aside, I think it’s completely unacceptable to say, not let homosexuals stay at your B&B because it’s a sin against god. It might be your personal religious views, but you’re discriminating against them as a group by treating them differently. The problem is not necessarily your personal views (which anyone is entitled to) but that you’re privileging one group above the other.

    A blanket ban on customers having sex in your establishment, gay or straight, due to your religious beliefs would work, though. No sex before marriage wouldn’t (as you’d be discriminating against unmarried people).

    That said, oddly enough, I’d be a lot more understanding of a proprietor discriminating on an individual level “that person is giving off a creepy serial killer-ish vibe, I don’t want them staying in my house for the night lest they kill us in our sleep. tell them we’re full.”

    (I’m pretty sure I’ve been turned away from a hotel once because my clothes were muddy)

    • Thank you for your comment Luci

      The point Donna Edmunds was making, is that prejudice should be allowed to dictate one’s actions with no consequences in law. I grew up in a time when Section 28 was in effect, where the law basically said this. There were no specific protections in schools for LGBT kids, and for the staff to show support was against the law. However, verbal bullying from both staff and students on the matter had virtual free reign, and blind eyes were turned to the cause of physical attacks, of which there were many. Contrast that with the fact that any verbal abuse or physical assault of a racial nature in the same institution and the punishment was instant and much harsher, and the reason for government intervention is clear.

      Human beings are still weighed down by prejudice, and if given free reign to act upon them, the violent crime rate would rise, certain groups of people would be utterly displaced from areas of the country and the message would be clear that the government doesn’t believe you have to respect anybody. Let us look at Russia, where a nationwide version of Section 28 has sent a very clear message. The lifting of protections against prejudice from one group of people means that now that group are subject to harassment, abuse and assault on a very large scale. Give weight to ANY prejudice, let alone ALL of them, and the value of human life becomes less.

      It must be a bugger being turned away from a hotel because of muddy clothing, but a strict dress code is different to ‘No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish’ or whatever its modern equivalent would be. Donna Edmunds either did not think her opinion through correctly before stating it publicly, or has no idea about the additional challenges one faces outside of a majority group. The fact that she is already (for now at least) an elected official, chosen to best represent the people she serves and yet believes this, depresses me.

      It isn’t the fact that she is from UKIP that I have an issue with. All parties have their trouble spots when it comes to matters of fairness and equality. UKIP just seem to have more, Its isolationist and pro ‘traditional values’ policies are a magnet to people with old fashioned views, such as homophobia, xenophobia, racism and misogyny. Whilst I do not doubt that there are some in UKIP who have quite modern and liberal attitudes, they aren’t the ones shouting off about them.


  2. Question: Did she say that you can refuse to serve someone BECAUSE of their sexuality, race etc, or you can refuse to serve someone REGARDLESS OF their sexuality, race etc?

Want to comment or reply? Go right ahead :)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s