I am -- I admit -- ignorant regarding the general discussion (I haven't bothered to read it all), and, I think, support your view that 'discrimination is discrimination, and ought to be illegal, regardless of who is doing the discriminating'.
But, I must take objection with your criticisms of Mr Peter Hitchens. I disagree with about half of what he says. His views on punishment -- his heavy emphasis on using force & long-sentences as a deterrent -- strike me as objectionable. His views on drugs are also, I think, perhaps overstated, but, that being said, I am glad that he gives them.
I agree with his views on politics. He does not vote, and hasn't for the past thirty years. He does not respect the Conservative Party. He does not like the Labour Party. He classifies himself as a Conservative, and yet supports the Nationalisation of the Railways.
He is a very unusual man, with unusual political opinions. It would be unfair to categorise him as "just like every other right-winger". I read his column weekly, and, whilst it sometimes annoys me, generally enjoy hearing his voice & opinions.
He strikes me as a pretty good man, who tries to be fair and honest.
I would be very surprised if he took money to espouse certain views.
If you would like sources, I can provide them:
Peter Hitchens on not-voting:
https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co...-go-away-.html
Peter Hitchens Nationalisation:
https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co...be-better.html
Peter Hitchens on the Labour & Conservative parties:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...ervatives.html
Peter Hitchens on punishment and drugs:
https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co...-are-back.html
As I have said. I don't agree with everything he says, but is -- as far as I know -- a genuine man of integrity, and a respectable conservative.
I like him, and will insofar as I am able, defend him from attack.
-V