Tuesday, 16 December 2003


In the United States, the 1964 Civil Rights Act outlaws most discrimination by business in reference to race or ethnicity. In the UK, we have several acts of Parliament which are designed for the same purpose. However, are these pieces of legilsation really necessary?

I am not a racist and I dislike racism, nonetheless in the interest of freedom of expression I would permit others to hold and express racist beliefs. In addition to the concepts of freedom of association and property rights, why CAN'T a business owner discriminate against potential customers?

Doesn't he own his property? Doesn't he possess a rightt to associate with whom he chooses, even if he decides NOT to mix with members of a certain race? Of course he does, and should.

Ultimately people should not be prosecuted for what they think or believe. It should only be acts of force or fraud committed against another which SHOULD be prosecuted against.

Sunday, 7 December 2003


The government wish to reclassify cannabis as a class C narcotic. Anyone caught dealing or in possession of this drug would receive a more lenient punishment. In my mind, this isn't far enough.

I believe that ALL narcotics should be legal, be they 'soft' or 'hard' drugs. Whose business is it if a person decides to put narcotics into their body? Such an act is a victimless crime and the police should not waste their time addressing it.

The war on drugs also is costly and shows no evident sign of ever being won. In addition, it has been observed to penalise members of ethnic minorities and deprive property owners of their rightful property.

Ultimately, no one should be prosecuted for what they ingest, provided that whilst doing so they violate NO ONE's right to person or property.