Dear Phanto,

EXACTLY. It LOOKS like I have another agenda, but actually I don't and unfortunately just as I cannot prove it to you, I couldn't prove it to the judge/jury either.

Perhaps I'm even mistaken in my judgement that the combination of the two signs would do the job: "No Muslim Males" and "No smoking", so what? to err is human and I'm still not motivated by religious discrimination!

Which points out that your partial reform is insufficient.

The practice I described, of placing such sign, is referred to as "profiling" and there is controversy regarding its morality or otherwise (google "morality of profiling"). HOWEVER, while the morality of profiling is dubious, and while I probably wouldn't place such a sign in real-life, I do not believe that the state is entitled to be a guardian of morality.

---

Dear Tony,

I could point out some infringements on religious freedom in Canada from Raycom's list, but that's not the point (and I've got only few words left).

I think we can agree that freedoms were infringed in Canada. Whether these were religious freedoms of otherwise is so individual that probably only a sage could tell who is able to look into someone else's heart-of-hearts. In any case, there's no chance in a million that a secular government with no clue about religion could tell the difference, hence freedom (including the freedom to discriminate) should be universal and unconditional.

Non-action (such as not providing services or goods) could indeed under certain circumstances be inconsiderate, even ugly, but it cannot be harmful in itself and one should be able to do or avoid doing whatever they want so long as they do not harm others. As I previously noted, forcing others to act/give against their will amounts to slavery/robbery.

Yuyutsu:

Why would you put up a sign saying you do not want Muslims when what you want is to stop people smoking on your premises? What other conclusion do you expect anyone to come to except that you are discriminating? That is the logical conclusion and the state has laws to protect people from that kind of discrimination. You cannot blame the state if it acts according to logic. The onus is then upon you to show how your behaviour was not discriminatory. You expect them to accept that your real intention was to stop smoking when you have not acted in the logical way that one would expect if their aim was to stop patrons from smoking.

If you want to be taken seriously in your restaurant endeavours then you must act seriously. You cannot act irrationally and expect the state to be able to interpret your behaviour as anything but what it logically appears to be. How many other reasons might you have for putting up a sign that says ‘no Muslims’? Should the state also have to presume these as well without being inside your head?

The state has a right to enforce laws against discrimination. This is not enforcing morality but enforcing what most citizens have agreed is justice. In a democracy we have to accept what the democratically framed laws decree. We do not have to agree with them but we are bound to comply or suffer the consequences.

I don’t think what I am proposing has relevance for your problem. Your problem seems quite different.

Dear Phanto,

Good, then we agree that we are discussing different problems.

I am not asking the state to presume anything or to know what's in my head, I only state the obvious, which is that people have no moral right to order others around against their will to perform a certain task, to sell something of theirs or to allow people on their private premises. The fact that a group of people call themselves "state", "government" or "democracy" doesn't change this obvious moral principle.

And if such a group of people claims to do the above on my behalf (on the pretext of democracy), claiming that I am a partner to their immorality, then it is my duty to protest and make it clearly known that they don't.

Lets now revisit your problem:

"The problem is that such anti-discrimination laws exist without any burden of proof upon those who claim discrimination."

So long as there still are anti-discrimination laws, judges must assume that the legislator assumed that discrimination is provable beyond reasonable doubt, so what could be a more obvious evidence than a sign saying "No Muslim Males"? Except that in the case I presented no discrimination actually took place. Ordinary people such as restaurateurs are not necessarily great philosophers, paragons of logic or fully informed: they could well and truly believe that placing such a sign and not disclosing why they did so is the best practical solution to their legitimate problem. Could anyone who is not clairvoyant prove otherwise?

Craig and phanto "R0bert, I'm not comfortable with an argument that goes along the lines of "because that happened then, this is justified now", except to the extent that it is designed to prevent "that" happening now and is carefully examined as to its consequences in other ways." and "The fact that some people were treated badly in the past or are being treated badly in other countries in the present is no excuse for destroying someone else’s property in the present."

I thought I was pretty clear here and elsewhere where I've made a similar point that I don't condone the vandalism (or other acts of people taking the law into their own hands).

My point is that those who scream the loudest when this is happening to those opposed to equal treatment for homosexual people don't seem to be outraged at far worse treatment dished out to homosexuals. Often they have been complicit in creating or actively supporting those who spread the hatred that leads to that harm. Generally very much do as I say not as I do on their part in my view. That does not justify the later actions but it does create a legitimate question mark over their actual concern for the issues they raise.

R0bert

Yuyutsu:

I think you are saying that you should have the right to refuse service in your restaurant for any reason you like but then you go on to tell us what that reason is. Why bother telling us the reason if all reasons are valid. You do not need to justify yourself because you go by the principle that any reason is good enough. The problem is that the government and other members of society do not agree with your principle and in a free society they have a right to challenge you. It is not about forcing their morality onto you it is about trying to solve a problem of two opposing opinions. This is done by logic and reason.

If the government believes there should be exceptions then it has every right to challenge you. Citizens also have a right to challenge you via the government and its anti-discrimination laws. You would have to present an argument as to why such exceptions should not be allowed. In this case you would have to show that you were not trying to discriminate against Muslims but were trying to stop them from smoking in your restaurant. In order to prevent Muslims from smoking you have banned them altogether whereas for everyone else a simple ’no-smoking’ sign seems enough for you. If anyone ignores your sign then the law is right behind you in having them removed.

The point is that your argument and your behaviour are not logical. What does seem logical is that you are discriminating against Muslims and without evidence to the contrary it is reasonable to charge you with discrimination. If you want people to believe you are not bigoted then you should not act in a bigoted way. Putting up a sign which says ‘No Muslims’ and expecting people to interpret that as ‘no smoking’ is illogical and these problems should be solved according to the rules of logic and reason

Dear Phanto,

<<I think you are saying that you should have the right to refuse service in your restaurant for any reason you like>>

Just a small correction: one should have the FREEDOM to refuse service... rather than "right".
Freedoms are natural while rights are artificial. Nobody, including the state, has granted us this unasked-for freedom and nobody has a right to take it away.

<<The problem is that the government and other members of society do not agree with your principle and in a free society they have a right to challenge you.>>

Indeed, they have every right to boycott my restaurant, they could even erect a fence around it if they want (on their own property).
What they have no right, is to drag me to court and punish me for exercising my free choice whom to serve and whom not, whom to allow on my piece-of-heaven and whom not.

<<If anyone ignores your sign then the law is right behind you in having them removed.>>

So what if I don't want/need the law behind me, perhaps because it cannot redress my problem and removing the offenders from my property is too late to help and ever repair the damage, especially the emotional damage which cannot be compensated for? What if I truly believed (rightly or wrongly) that my indirect strategy, including the part of not-disclosing it, is the best, the most effective?

<<If you want people to believe you are not bigoted>>

This would be very nice - a bonus, but perhaps I'm either unable or simply don't know how, to achieve both - to preserve the sanctity of my restaurant AND have the people understand me. Perhaps I had to give up on the latter, considering it a luxury...