You would imagine that somebody like John Waters who makes such a racket about the infinite love and care his particular god has for his subjects would be sympathetic to those who have fallen on hard times.
You would, however, be wrong to imagine any such thing.
Writing in today’s Mail on Sunday Waters displays a disturbing attitude towards his fellow citizens who are struggling to exist on social welfare.
There should be no question, in a free and fair society, of the forced redistribution of earned income to assist those who are, for whatever reason, negative contributors to the common good.
And Waters is not just talking about the tiny minority of social welfare recipients who abuse the system, he’s talking about everybody including the vulnerable who, he suggests, should be strangled.
It’s worth reproducing the final paragraphs of his article
Imagine how you would feel if, instead of having to subsidise your work-free neighbour, you had to accept direct responsibility for his existence by taking him into your home and catering to all his needs.
How long would you tolerate him lounging around your sitting room, eating your cornflakes and flicking around your Sky package?
In a short time, you would strangle him and bury him under the patio.
And those who prate about our ‘duty’ to support without question anyone our dysfunctional State deems to be ‘vulnerable’ would do the same.
A friend offers a solution.
He proposes that each working person might be obliged adopt an unemployed person or family and become responsible for them.
The upside is, you would have the right to kick the idle individual’s backside and force him out to work or, if you prefer, to mentor and encourage him to stop being a burden on his fellow citizens.
In the end, if you managed to return your man to a useful existence, you would be free of any obligation to be ‘compassionate’ for the rest of your life.
Now that’s what I call a ‘social welfare’ system.
Hitler would be proud.