Refusing services to Tommy Robinson. Morally right?

A member of staff at Selfridges refused to serve the EDL leader, they were suspended from the store. But declining to interact with someone who propagates hatred on a daily basis is a perfectly rational thing to do. 

It is factual to say that Mr Robinson and a friend were refused service at a Selfridges store. He protested and filmed the encounter. Selfridges have issued a statement expressing their disappointment at the incident. They said they pride themselves on making everyone welcome. After this incident, the staff involved was suspended and, amusingly, Tommy Robinson was treated to a three course meal by the shop owner. 

Was this a heroic act of courage by a brave man who is standing up to a racial bully  or an unbelievable, stubborn performance of unprofessionalism? Everyone would recognise that a member of staff has the right to refuse to interact with a customer under particular circumstances. People work for their employers; they do not belong to them. Security staff in bars and clubs routinely eject and ban patrons who are obnoxious, inappropriate or threatening, so why should the staff not have the right to do the same? 

It is important to note that the members of staff filmed by Mr Robinson appeared to be of ethnic minority origin. Mr Robinson is the head of an organisation which goes around in balaclavas, threatening violence. He is the leader of an organisation which speaks to “every single Muslim” and warns them that they will feel “the full force of the EDL”. He is the head of an organisation which advocates“all Muslims rounded up and deported back to the Hell Holes they came from.”

So, I think it is exceedingly justifiable that a member of staff that is from an ethnic minority to not serve the leader, that is practical hero worshiped by his "followers",  of an organisation which promotes segregation and goes against national community cohesion to not be served by a member of an ethnic minority, whose life could be affected by Tommy Robinson's views, completely and utterly legitimate. 

Military Intervention in Syria

Syria is a confused mass of many issues. It is blindingly obvious that there is not just one war going on in Syria. The military strikes that the United States government could be planning could fuel escalation of all FIVE wars that are underway in Syria: (the obvious one) the civil war, the regional power between Saudi Arabia and Iran, the global war of word between the United States and Russia, the sectarian war between Shi'a and extremist Sunni Muslims and the war over nuclear policy between the United States/ Israel and Iran- all now could be being fought to the last Syrian.

When I first heard about the ridiculous idea of military intervention in Syria, a quote popped into my head (one that originated in the American Civil War);

"Rich man's war, poor man's blood"

Unfortunately, you can relate this to any war that has happened in modern times; even if the war was instigated by a rich man (i.e a leader of a country), the poor man (i.e the civilian) will always have more to lose, whether that is from losing their houses due to airstrikes or raining bombs, to making the ultimate fatality. This is a massive reason why many think we should not go to war and intervene, some politicians get completely wrapped up in the idea that they want to bring "democracy" to the Middle Eastern region that they forget about the innocent human beings that will be tragically affected by this military action of some clueless men who are out of touch with the world which surrounds them.

Secondly, we should not go into Syria due to the fact that it is illegal.  The United Nations Charter of International Law clearly states that it allows military action in only two cases; the immediate use of self-defence or approval by the Security Council. Syria has not attacked or threatened the United States, so a claim to self-defence is completely and utterly invalid and the Security Council has not authorized force, and likely won’t. United States law distinctly says that only Congress can declare war – President Obama has asked Congress for approval, but claims he has the right to go ahead even if they vote no. That would violate the Constitution – and with or without Congressional approval, a military strike would still violate international law. So, for a county that believes in liberty, diplomacy and democracy it is breaking many International Laws and it's very own constitution.

Lastly, if the United States go into Syria, their military action will increase levels of violence and instability inside Syria, within the Middle Eastern region and potentially even globally. This would, instead of sorting out the problem, make it considerably worst. The people that many forget about are the Syrian civilians. They could face even greater repression by the government in retaliation for the United States military strike, as it happened in Kosovo in 1999 when too many innocent civilians were thrown out of their homes after the United States and NATO started to bomb the region.

This military intervention would do collateral damage. It would definitely not help the honest and guiltless Syrian civilians, the country and the region at all. It would be a replay of Iraq. And we most certainly do not want another Iraq.