Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Whining to the Nanny State

The West seems to be tripping all over itself in an effort to surrender to whomever we can find. Its an odd civilizational suicide that may be unprecedented in human history. Islam is ascendant, let's just concede now and hope for favorable terms. Thus we come to a story in today's Globe and Mail about Britain's effort to be first among slaves. Sarah Desrosiers, a seemingly progressive owner of an "alternative" hair salon in London has been ordered to pay an aggrieved muslim "£4,000 compensation by way of 'injury to feelings'." How did she injure this poor woman's feelings? She didn't hire her because she said she wouldn't remove her hair covering during work.

"Sarah felt that a job requirement of any hairdresser was that the stylist's hair would provide clients with a showcase of different looks. Especially one working in a salon such as hers, which specialises in alternative cuts and colours."

Sarah has made the mistake of believing that the purpose of a business is to provide a product or service in return for compensation. This is no longer necessarily true in a socialistic welfare state. The purpose of a business is now more properly seen as providing employment. While we have rightly lamented the traditional rights being discarded in Canada right now, we all too often fail to see to potential tyranny in new rights being invented by progressives. The "right to work" has been a mantra of progressives, socialists, and communists alike, and is gaining more and more acceptance in the west. People have a right to employment and a "living wage". The case of
Sarah's salon is the natural progression of this invented "right". British, Canadian, and even American muslims are twisting this well meaning concept to force western societies to bend to their demands, and the western judiciaries seem only too eager to acquiesce.

And really, can you blame mulsims for exploiting the system as every other supposedly aggrieved minority group has? If it was ok for Jews, homosexuals, blacks, or spanish speaking immigrants to cry foul when they came up against societal norms, customs, traditions or prejudices, why is it wrong for muslims? Progressives didn't see (and still don't) how these laws against discrimination and protecting "feelings" could be used against the welfare state and liberal democracy in general. Banning blacks from a shop is wrong but outlawing it strips a business owner of sovereignty over his business and sets the stage for future tyrannies. Hanging a swastika in your doorway or denying the Holocaust is repulsive, but banning them is merely the first step in complete government regulation of speech.

Western society needs to come back to its senses and reembrace the principles that made it free and prosperous. Just look at a statement by Bushra Noah, the recipient of the £4,000 payout:

"I felt so down and got so depressed. I thought: 'If I am not going to defend myself, who is?' Hairdressing has been what I've wanted to do ever since I was at high school. This has ruined my ambitions. Wearing a headscarf is essential to my beliefs."

Tough cookies lady! Do you know what the relationship between employer and employee actually is? You give the employer something of value with your services in return for agreed upon compensation. If the employer believes someone else's services are of greater value, they are (supposedly) free to hire them, regardless of your "feelings". Maybe if you stopped whining long enough you could realize that you are free to start your own salon and do whatever you want with it. It seems that there is an opportunity in this neighborhood to open a salon that caters to muslim women who would be more comfortable with a hairdresser in a hair covering or burka. There were obviously none for you to apply to. This is what successful people in the west do, they create their own opportunities instead of bitching about what's been denied them.

No comments: