A GUEST house owner was unrepentant last night despite being dropped by VisitScotland for refusing a gay couple a room and branding them "sexual deviants".Mr Forrest has every right to decide who can stay in his property and on what terms. A privately owned tourist information service equally is perfectly free to remove Mr Forrest from its listings for whatever reason (subject to contractual arrangements). I'm not at all sure that a taxpayer-funded organisation like VisitScotland should be barring Mr Forrest in this instance. What next? Will guest house owners be removed from the public listings if they are politically incorrect in other ways? All the more reason why governments shouldn't be involved in promoting any businesses at all.The tourism body took action against Tom Forrest, the proprietor of the Cromasaig guest house in Wester Ross, who told Stephen Nock and his partner they could not stay in a double room.
VisitScotland has withdrawn the premises from its quality assurance scheme and its website for his "appalling treatment" of the couple.
A libertarian returns to Scotland
"Freedom and Whisky gang thegither"
- Robert Burns
Thursday, 1 July 2004
The state's attack on property rights
This story has been attracting considerable attention over the last few days:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Comments made on previous template:
Stuart Dickson (217.211.160.56)
Is it "objectivist" to desire the total extermination of the native Americans, as advocated by Robert Speirs. There is a better word for such people: fascist.
14 August 2004, 09:44:39 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply – Edit – Moderate
Robert Speirs (204.89.69.14)
The term "objectivist" would seem to be what you gentlemen are seeking.
13 August 2004, 15:16:30 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply – Edit – Moderate
john b (194.81.20.74)
Fair enough, I guess we're working off different definitions. I'm broadly pro-market and pro-individual-freedom, but would describe myself as centre-left rather than centre-right.
5 August 2004, 13:41:23 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply – Edit – Moderate
WASP (81.86.173.243)
John,
No....
The far right try to control the economy in a 'socialist' way. Agreed?
But...right-wing could just mean you support a free economy and social structure. Low or no taxes, freedom of religion etc...with low taxes, we could not afford an army - that doesn't sound very 'far right,' does it?
Are you saying that all people on the right are authoritarian? Not me. I would have to jail myself - and that would be extremely inconvenient.
The Left can be just as authoritarian as the Right....
You can find both left and right wing libertarians.
Do you see what I mean?
Regards
4 August 2004, 22:01:36 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply – Edit – Moderate
john b (80.177.155.23)
How? Surely right-wing *means* socially authoritarian...
4 August 2004, 21:28:28 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply – Edit – Moderate
WASP (81.86.173.243)
Steve
You are mistaking "Right-Wing" for "Far-Right".
I understand that the current leftwing educational doctrine deliberately confuses many people.
It just would not do to have young people realise you can be both right-wing and libertarian.
4 August 2004, 17:54:34 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply – Edit – Moderate
steve shackleton (212.117.228.125)
Right wing twits
I think you will find that usually twits in this context is spelt with an A
However as both left and right wing socialists are basically the same, statist and anti individualists the term left or right doesn't apply. Try using the terms statist/collectivist and individualists.
You will find that both left and right will fall into the first catagory, wanting us all to work for the benefit of their ideals.
4 August 2004, 12:59:07 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply – Edit – Moderate
Young Fogey (212.137.57.25)
we have had numerous communications with members of the homosexual community, their comments, Martinon and Nock are a disgrace and an embarressment
Uncle Toms everywhere.
why did they not just accept the twin room offered?.
I think for the same reason that Rosa Parks didn't give up her seat on the bus.
4 August 2004, 11:47:52 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply – Edit – Moderate
WASP (81.86.173.243)
Mr Forrest,
Does that mean you have kissed and made up?
4 August 2004, 11:08:55 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply – Edit – Moderate
Tom Forrest (62.172.24.160)
Perhaps you should all avail yourselves of the "correct facts" before jumping to conclusions. Since the alleged infringement of Stephen Nock (VSO) and Dr Jean-Paul Martinon's (Goldsmiths College)rights, we have had numerous communications with members of the homosexual community, their comments, Martinon and Nock are a disgrace and an embarressment,why did they not just accept the twin room offered?. We have also had a number of homosexuals stay in our twin room since this debacle started. Visitscotland only listened to one side of the story before acting to remove us, they still as yet have not listened to ours.
3 August 2004, 17:39:59 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply – Edit – Moderate
Stuart Dickson (217.211.160.56)
WASP
I appear to be the only contributor to Freedom & Whisky who is not a right-wing twit.
7 July 2004, 20:48:43 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply – Edit – Moderate
WASP (81.86.173.243)
Roland
"Homophobia? is that some mental condition akin to agrophobia or claustrophobia?"
You better ask Mr Forrest.
"Mr. Forrest was under no obligation to take in these people. Neither should he be forced to by the State."
You are right, no obligation at all....but he was NOT forced to by the state.
"His only mistake was expressing his opinions in a rather belligerent manner."
To say the least...."Pervert"...."Deviant"...and by doing so, he is robbing others of business by giving the area a bad reputation. Why defend an idiot?
Stuart
Sorry, I AM a "right-wing twit," although I prefer "right-wing nut."
7 July 2004, 02:52:44 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply – Edit – Moderate
Roland Watson (194.217.109.13)
Homophobia? is that some mental condition akin to agrophobia or claustrophobia?
Mr. Forrest was under no obligation to take in these people. Neither should he be forced to by the State.
His only mistake was expressing his opinions in a rather belligerent manner. Not very wise in this new era of PC heresy hunting.
Roland.
6 July 2004, 08:23:01 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply – Edit – Moderate
Stuart Dickson (217.211.160.56)
WASP
I think that you'll find that these right-wing twits are way off on most things.
Bigotry & predjudice and mis-use of the good name of Adam Smith gang thegither.
Andrev Duffoon
Non comprendo non-grammatical question.
2 July 2004, 18:35:45 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply – Edit – Moderate
WASP (81.86.173.243)
Neil
“There also appears to be reason to believe he was set up by a pair of gays wanting to enforce political correctness.”
No, I think you are wrong. It’s about a pair of gays who were sent extremely abusive emails by an obvious idiot, Mr Forrest.
Geoff
“However, the B&B in question, I believe, is privately held. Unless there are other shareholders involved, no one really should have a say in the matter. The man is free to turn away paying customers and hurt his own bottom line. It is his property, and he is free to rent it out to whom he pleases.”
No shareholders, but what about the other business owners in the area? Hasn’t he chased business away from them too?
And remember he offered them a twin room – it’s not about turning them away - it’s about calling them ‘perverts,’ ‘sexual deviants’ etc….
Andrew
“VisitScotland being a state body is just being politically correct . Shame on them.”
If he is going to chase away trade from the area, in such an obviously nasty manner, then I as a Scot do not want him on VisitScotland’s web-site. Shame on you for supporting such a twisted individual.
Steve
“If the guy wants to risk losing trade that is his choice, he should have the right to stop people acting against his beliefs on his own property.”
True, although he is also losing other people’s trade (If I was gay, I wouldn’t be stopping in that village.) Does this also give him the right to tell them, in an email, that he thinks they are ‘sexual deviants’ and ‘perverts?’ Instead, how about ‘I’m sorry, we are fully booked?’
This man has brought shame on Scottish hospitality, and therefore, Scotland. Does anyone here seriously consider this twisted, hate filled homophobe, Mr Forrest, to be ‘defending his rights?’ If that is the case, then why did he call them names? ‘sexual deviants’ etc.
Of course this idiot should have been taken off VisitScotland’s website (This may be the most intelligent thing VisitScotland’s ever done.) To suggest otherwise is ridiculous. Considering that this man wrote this hate-filled garbage in an e-mail – IN AN E-MAIL – I have to wonder at his mental competence. People like this hurt the economy of Scotland.
I like this website, BTW. But you guys are way off on this one.
2 July 2004, 16:44:54 GMT+01:00
Post a Comment