This is an interesting debate, not least, because there isn't a wrong and a right answer, just opinions
For my opinion, I approach this from a different angle; What is the problem that Strasser was attempting to solve?
Was it that case that there were significant numbers of deaths caused by people failing to divert into the most appropriate airports when the weather turned? The accident statistics don't seem to bear that out.
An unscientific look at the CAA's Published GA accident stats suggest that most weather related deaths in the UK relate to pilots pressing on into inappropriate weather with no obvious intention of diverting. I have not (yet) found a case of somebody crashing having attempted to divert to an inappropriate airport - and having also rejected a more expensive better alternative.
So the amendment seems public-spirited but is perhaps solving a non-existent problem. Pilots in deep doo doo seem to do the right thing and divert, regardless of cost. So why go the extra mile and deprive airfields of their landing fee.
The argument against Strasser's fine initiative seems to be that making diversions free, discourages pilots from engaging in proper flight planning. That is surely an argument that you can have some sympathy with. I am still not sure that Strasser has solved a real problem...