Civitas Blog

At my local pub, there is a sign at the bar explaining that staff will do everything in their power to accommodate people with disabilities. The landlord explained to me that it was an attempt to protect them if they get inspected and their toilet facilities are deemed inadequate.

‘Why not just put in new toilets?’ I asked.
‘Sure. Why don’t you give me the ten thousand or more pounds it will cost?’ he replied.

The reason this is an issue at my neighbourhood watering hole is that 1 October sees the Disability Discrimination Act come into effect. Applying to a wide range of businesses and services, the act states that reasonable efforts must be made to accommodate disabled patrons through ramp access, adequate toilets, and so on.

Most people’s first instinct would be to consider this a great step towards equality, or at the very least, a good intention. After all, it is hard to imagine that a bar, nightclub, restaurant, etc. could shun potential paying customers or worse, humiliate them by ignoring them or being openly hostile. Yet, many disabled people are pointing out that it happens—therefore, they reason, this law is necessary.

However, laws such as this are based more on statism than a sense of fair play. It gives the state the power to tell an owner of private property how he has to conduct his business. While I would enjoy seeing prejudiced business owners be made to suffer for their ignorance or laziness, I cannot condone the state using the law to give me that pleasure. If business owners want to alienate a potential client base, let them—and watch them lose business as competitors eagerly pounce on the opportunity to snag customers.

Activists ignore the risk of punishing, or even closing, businesses such as my local that would do everything in their power to be helpful but may not be able to meet the letter of the law’s new standard. How, exactly, is that emancipating anyone, let alone the disabled?