Advertisement - Click to support our sponsors.
Editorials
Friday, January 14, 2000Sierra Club’s bid
to wreck tourismGIVE the Sierra Club credit for creative thinking. In their never-ending war against economic development, Sierra Club leaders have come up with an ingenious twist. They have filed a lawsuit seeking to force the state to assess the environmental impact of publicly funded campaigns marketing Hawaii as a visitor destination.The issue: The Sierra Club has filed a lawsuit seeking to force the Hawaii Tourism Authority to conduct an environmental impact assessment before awarding a contract to market Hawaii tourism.
The suit, filed in state court against the Hawaii Tourism Authority, contends that the authority ignored state law by failing to conduct an environmental impact assessment before awarding a contract to market Hawaii tourism.
It is not our place to predict how the courts will rule, but we have to agree with the reaction of the Tourism Authority's executive director, Robert Fishman, that the suit is "a patently ridiculous and inappropriate interpretation" of the law.
There is also the obvious impracticality of making such an assessment. "Where do you start and where do you stop?" Fishman asked. "Would every aspect of the economy that touches tourism be included?"
If the Sierra Club's argument was taken to its logical conclusion, public spending on everything from high-technology development to the hiring of schoolteachers would be subject to environmental review, Fishman argued. Indeed, it is hard to see any limits. Environmental assessment could become Hawaii's biggest industry.
Despite its ludicrous aspects, this suit could have serious effects if it were successful. Marketing is vital to the visitor industry, which is the mainstay of the state economy. Competition among visitor destinations is keen. A court-ordered delay of months or even years could hurt a lot.
Such damage wouldn't bother the Sierra Club, which views tourism as a menace to the environment. The director of the Hawaii chapter, Jeffrey Mikulina, said, "Growth in industrial tourism, financed by the public, is not a long-term solution to Hawaii's economic and environmental problems." Actually, the state tourism promotion campaign is financed by the hotel room tax -- paid by the tourism industry, not "financed by the public."
The Sierra Club's aim is to stop the growth of tourism dead in its tracks. If that is what the people of Hawaii want, they can elect officials who favor such a policy. So far they haven't.
The Legislature almost certainly did not intend the law to be applied in this manner. If it is, there is no telling where it may end. The economy could grind to a halt at the whim of the Sierra Club.
Hawaii residents have been complaining for years about the weak economy. This suit could make it worse.
Britain ends ban
on gays in militaryBritain's adherence to a European court's ruling that homosexuals have a right to serve openly in the military has the effect of isolating the United States among Western nations as an abuser of human rights. The court ruling left Britain with no choice, but the U.S. -- outside the court's jurisdiction -- has only to withstand world shame in clinging to its unworkable "don't ask, don't tell" policy. That policy's days should be numbered.
Last September, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France, unanimously ruled in favor of four men and women who were discharged from the British armed services in the mid-1990s because of their homosexuality. The court found that Britain's ban on homosexuals serving in the military violated the fundamental right to privacy as set out in the European Convention on Human Rights.
Britain, along with 40 other countries, is a signatory to the European convention so is obliged to abide by the court's rulings. The British government says it will join almost all other NATO nations, including France, Canada and Germany, in allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the armed forces.
Under the British guidelines, disciplinary action may be taken against service members because of "unacceptable social conduct," including sexual harassment, displays of affection that may offend others and taking sexual advantage of subordinates. The code does not differentiate between homosexual and heterosexual conduct.
The code also says military commanders have the right to intervene in their subordinates' personal lives. It declares that the need to sustain cohesion and maintain trust and loyalty "imposes a need for standards of social behavior which are more demanding than those required by society at large."
The United States is lagging behind the trend in retaining its requirement that homosexuals keep their sexual orientation secret or be discharged from the military. President Clinton has objected to the results of the policy, and Democratic presidential candidates Al Gore and Bill Bradley both have vowed to work to change the policy. Leading Republicans stand by the current policy.
The United States prides itself as being a champion of human rights. However, its policy of closeting homosexuals in the military runs counter to that principle. The U.S. should join other NATO countries in allowing homosexuals to serve in the military without harassment or threat of discharge.
Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited PartnershipRupert E. Phillips, CEO
John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher
David Shapiro, Managing Editor
Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor
Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors
A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor
