Last week, Dr Evan Harris, the darling of middle class liberals everywhere, was on Newsnight in a slot about the Coalition announcement that they did "do God", whatever that might mean.  Harris's basic argument was that it was prima facie a bad idea to allow the church into the provision of services because they tend to hold all sorts of discriminatory views about such things as gay people.

I didn't find his argument coherent and tweeted as much, leading to a brief discussion on Twitter between the two of us, inasmuch as that's possible in 140 characters a time:

And, indeed, the more I think about it, the less I agree with his position.

Charity is about helping people.  Clearly in many situations, the state will substitute for things that would otherwise be done by charities.  And in those situations, it's right for the state to set itself certain standards.  I think it entirely appropriate for the state to say that it will not discriminate in the services it offers to people.

Yet I don't agree with Harris's point of view that the state should be able to demand how charitable and voluntary services are undertaken.  They're not an exchange transaction, so the state has no right to dictate how they are done; if the state wants them done another way, then it can do them itself.

Where resources are scarce, anything that boosts the overall capacity of services offered should be encouraged.  If there were a whites-only soup kitchen I wouldn't want to donate to it or work in it.  But its very existence would free up places in the other soup kitchens that don't discriminate.

And people do discriminate anyway, whether we like it or not.  If I want to give money away to people, the state is unable to intervene in my decision, even if my motives and methods are discriminatory.  Similarly, if I decide to give food away to the poor, it should be none of the state's business how I choose to do that.

Harris's final point - that people who are turned away might be humiliated - is pathetic.  People are humiliated all the time.  We have selected some arbitrary lines in law and decided to outlaw discrimination on those grounds.  But other divisions are not prohibited; indeed some are encouraged by the state.  How else can different entitlement ages for men and women for the state pension be supported (even if they are being eliminated... slowly)?  We allow night clubs to let 'beautiful' people in but to keep the fuglies out. 

I suppose, being fair, that politically you get more credit for banning something 'bad' even if it ultimately causes more overall harm than you do for tolerating those bad things continuing.  It's a pity that a thinker such as Harris has allowed himself to be sucked into the line of thinking that the state must be allowed to interfere in virtually all walks of life.  And that's why I found - and continue to find - his argument on Newsnight thoroughly unconvincing.

People who read this post also read:

• How long is yours?
• Ungrateful twat of the day
• Hating the rich
• The inscrutability of charities
• Quote of the day: Budget 2012, the Ritchiebollocks edition

Filed under: Current issues, Ethics, Politics with tags discrimination, dr evan harris, liberal democrats, newsnight, twitter