Wear it their way?

Every now and then an issue presents itself which is totally, completely, monumentally insignificant in the context of world history, but where the parties concerned are so enthusiastic about the principles of the thing they are fighting for that it appeals to my ornery and embittered heart. So this blog post is not, as I first intended it would be, a comment on the EIGHT HUNDRED AND NINETEEN BILLION DOLLAR stimulus package that Barack Obama and friends are trying to get passed in the US Congress. Therefore, it's not possessed with the title 'That Boehner sure don't stimulate MY package', which made me giggle for at my own peurile humour for a full thirty seconds. Instead, this post is gifted with easily the lamest title of my short blogging career, and is about two schoolkids that wouldn't get served at Burger King.

You can find the story by clicking on this link. Trust me, it's worth doing just for the sheer stupidity of the reader comments. But, if you can't be arsed or live in Somalia, Myanmar or South Epsom (and therefore have dial-up internets), then basically the story is about two 14 year-old kids who turned up to a Burger King in Christchurch after school. They were turned away because of a policy that banned people in school uniform (on the grounds that some children had been abusive, and thrown Coke at the store's employees). Denied their sacred inalienable right to Whoppery goodness, they complained to their mummies. Who then complained to the Human Rights Commission. Who then said it was discrimination.

While at first glance, this looks like a case of two fat housewives needing a break from their EastEnders marathon who decided to make life hell for a poor business that was just trying to protect its staff from racial abuse. But these women deserve to be applauded. A store, or any other place should not be able to deny service to a certain group of people, simply because members of that group have shown themselves to be more likely to engage in disruptive behaviour than others. Just because all coke-throwing racists in that Burger King have, so far, worn school uniform, it does not follow that all people wearing school uniform will throw coke and be racist in that Burger King. Essentially what a blanket ban does, is automatically presume that all members of that group are guilty, and denies them a service thats wrong.

Of course, the obvious argument against this is 'yeah, but if one group is more likely than others to commit crime, surely the business owner is just being pragmatic, and preventing damage, by excluding that group.' Pragmatic maybe, but woefully wrong-headed regardless. Imagine, if you will, the 'pragmatic' domestic airline in America that denies Muslims the right to fly on their airline on the grounds that 'All terrorists on domestic airlines this decade have been Muslims. Therefore, Muslims are more likely to engage in terrorist takeovers of domestic aircraft, so by excluding all Muslims from flying our airline will be safer.' I appreciate that I've made a bit of a leap in scale, from sticky little retards in Burger King being denied the right to childhood obesity, to a religion being placed on a no-fly zone. But I think its a logical 'next step', and it does show the ability for the reasoning exhibited by Burger King to have severe impacts on the freedoms innocent, morally forthright members of the community.

Burger King could have hauled the kid to a police station and charged him with the appropriate offence, be it property damage, disruption of a public place or whatever. Maybe the sight of one kid being punished will act as deterrant to other kids thinking of committing similar actions, while kids who would never consider pouring their drink over a racial minority can continue eating their shoestring fries in peace. Alternatively the Burger King could speak to the school, and demand that action is taken to educate children about appropriate behaviour in a Burger King. (They could for instance, use the Wurtilizer, or marvel at the James Dean memorabilia). This would obviously place a greater onus on the Burger King than simply enforcing a blanket ban on school uniforms. But while its hard, and we can sympathise with the poor business for having to go out of his way to discipline some punk kids, this is what liberty, and the principle of the presumption of innocence in a free, democratic society demands. It may seem trivial, but hey, its principled.

One final point. It's easy to defend the right of ordinary school-uniformed kids to go to Burger King, or the right of Muslims to fly. But the most interesting expression of this argument (and the one most difficult to defend) isn't in the field of burgers, or Muslims or planes (oh my) - its located on the gang patches of the Mongrel Mob and Black Power. It is true that many murder, rape, child abuse etc cases have had their roots in gang culture and gang rivalries. Does that, therefore justify a ban on the wearing of gang patches in public? I would argue, no. While I'm obviously disgusted by cases of murder, rape and child abuse, and share in the general public sentiment that the people that commit these animalistic acts should be bought to justice. But I dont think it follows that banning the signs and symbols surrounding gangs will make a difference. Laws exist to deal with the criminal offending, while a surge in the popularity of gangs could be combated with a wide-spread strategy to deal with the systemic poverty that exists in areas where gangs are most popular. Targeting the dress code of a group, rather than the behaviour of some of its members is backward-looking and doomed to failure.

As I said earlier, the women that brought this case to the Human Rights Commission deserve to be applauded for highlighting the fact that membership of a group, and dress code within that group, cannot be grounds for discrimination - even if that group has shown a propensity for anti-social behaviour. I just wonder if those women would have fought the case with the same fervour if it had have been someone elses kid, decked out in full gang regalia.

Alex