The Key Question When Government Enlists Stylists as Informers

justin-katz-avatar-smiling

On the sagacity of Illinois’ forcing beauticians to be trained in discerning signs that their clients are in damaging relationships (and, presumably, to do something with that knowledge), Mark Steyn offers his usual insightfulness:

Just as the Stasi turned neighbors and relatives into spies, the State of Illinois is making your stylist one. Will the “spirit of camaraderie” survive this new legislation? Or will such stock inquiries about coming vacations and plans for the weekend suddenly seem far more loaded and alert the customer that she’s now in the blow-dried equivalent of a Bulgarian hotel lobby circa 1978? …

… like so much government makework paper-shuffling schemes, it won’t do anything to reduce the problem it’s meant to be addressing, but it will be just one more tedious time-consuming obstacle to making a modest living.

There is likely one of two processes behind this legislation.  One is that activists with some ulterior motive (whether reducing competition in the beauty industry or padding the budgets of abuse and assault activists) pressured legislators.  The other is that some Illinois lawmaker observed that stylists fill somewhat of the same role that bartenders used to be considered as filling for men and thought it would be a great way for government to “do something” if the law went straight from social truism to professional mandate.

Either way, the most important question is:  Who keeps electing these people?



Quantcast