From the things that "irritate the hell out of you" department comes this little tidbit. It is an op-ed from Britain's Guardian newspaper and it starts off like this:
There are two housing crises in Britain. One of them is obvious and familiar: the walloping shortfall in supply. Households are forming at roughly twice the rate at which new homes are being built. In England alone, 650,000 homes are classed as overcrowded. Many other people are desperate to move into their own places, but find themselves stuck. Yet the new homes the government says we need – 5.8m by 2033 – threaten to mash our landscapes and overload the environment.
The other crisis is scarcely mentioned. I stumbled across it while researching last week's column, buried on page 33 of a government document about another issue. It's growing even faster than the first crisis – at a rate that's hard to comprehend. Yet you'll seldom hear a squeak about it in the press, in parliament, in government departments or even in the voluntary sector. Given its political sensitivity, perhaps that's not surprising.
The issue is surplus housing – the remarkable growth of space that people don't need. Between 2003 and 2008 (the latest available figures), there was a 45% increase in the number of under-occupied homes in England. The definition of under-occupied varies, but it usually means that households have at least two bedrooms more than they require. This category now accounts for over half the homes in which single people live, and almost a quarter of those used by larger households. Nearly 8m homes – 37% of the total housing stock – are officially under-occupied.
At this point, we have to know where this one is leading.
And it does.
Here, we have a leftist op-ed journalist who is well-known for his radical stances on Global Warming, making a suggestion that is not unlike others who view the rich as evil, greedy, and worthy of having their wealth redistributed. George Monbiot has written some pretty hard left stuff in the past, but this teeters on the edge of insanity for many reasons.
Monbiot (maybe this is where the term moonbat came from) is suggesting that owners of houses with spare bedrooms not being used, be forced to rent out those rooms to people they may or may not know, because Britain is having a housing crisis. One reason this is so ridiculous is because it does not take into account why there is a crisis to begin with.
Muslims are procreating ten times greater than non-Muslims, which is doing much to create a higher demand for housing. One question we must ask in this scenario, who decides who gets to rent?
Let's say a law is passed and an empty nested owner of a house with two extra bedrooms is forced to rent them out. Will he be subject to anti-discrimination laws that will prevent him from renting to someone who does not share his overall belief system? What if a radical Muslim and his hijab wearing wife wants to rent one of his rooms to live in? If the owner balks, will he be subject to a lawsuit?
If he does decide to rent to them, will he be subjected to respecting the Muslims' belief systems so that they are not offended? Can he cook pork in his own house, or must he refrain? What if the call to prayer is during his favorite TV show? Must he refrain from watching so as not to offend the Muslims?
What about his religious symbols in his own house? Will he be forced to hide Bibles, crosses, or anything else associated with his own beliefs?
I am sure this sounds good to a select few people, who basically have no concept of what it means to think things out before they offer up stupid solutions like this. But when you start to play it out with some critical thinking, it becomes a whole new ballpark. More than anything else, it becomes an issue of whether or not government has a right to dictate to its citizenry how they must manage their own property.