quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
Persecution of people because of words they use, jokes they tell, or how they think violates ones personal freedom.

---

quote:

---

Especially when the persecution only applies to one race. If several off duty black officers were heard making racial slurs or telling racial jokes about white people, this would not be an issue.

---

quote:

---

In my mind, the prosecution of someone for "racial" crimes should involve some type of action or attempted action that infringes upon one's right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

---

quote:

---

For example, if the officers in question had spent the evening beating a black man because of his skin color, or generally harrassing a group of racially different people, I would say there is something that needs to be done legally.

---

quote:

---

However, simply telling a joke or making a questionable comment in the privacy of one's home or amongst friends is hardly call for a full investigation. People do it all the time, everyone does. They may not tell sambo jokes, but every group of individuals has another group they persistantly make fun of.

---

quote:

---

Should we investigate everyone?

---

quote:

---

Granted the officers in question were not extremely wise in saying whatever they said where someone could overhear them, but their actions are hardly criminal. My personal belief is that launching an "inquiry" is going a bit far.

NP

---

quote:

---

Persecution of people because of words they use, jokes they tell, or how they think violates ones personal freedom.

---

quote:

---

If several off duty black officers were heard making racial slurs or telling racial jokes about white people, this would not be an issue.

---

quote:

---

For example, if the officers in question had spent the evening beating a black man because of his skin color, or generally harrassing a group of racially different people, I would say there is something that needs to be done legally. However, simply telling a joke or making a questionable comment in the privacy of one's home or amongst friends is hardly call for a full investigation.

---

quote:

---

People do it all the time, everyone does.

---

quote:

---

They may not tell sambo jokes, but every group of individuals has another group they persistantly make fun of.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
It must be lovely there, full of pink fluffy unicorns and enchanted teapots.

---

Erin

Unicorns are white and golden - not pink and fluffy - come on, get a grip!
 

---

Posted by Lux Mundi (# 1981) on :
 
I am with Karl and IntellectByProxy on this one. And you have to admit that IntellectByProxy did provide a good precis of Karl's argument, very eloquent indeed, almost an example of nice cop - nasty - cop .

Lux
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Miller:
Unicorns are white and golden - not pink and fluffy - come on, get a grip!

---

These are the special unicorns who exist in a world where outlawing something makes all inclinations go away.
 

---

Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :
 
Either that, or there really is something enchanting in those teapots.
 

---

Posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Erin, love, we're not talking about outlawing racist slurs. We're talking about whether people who make them should be police officers.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
Don't try to confuse me with your commie facts, you fiendish pinko!

But if they told a joke while they were off-duty? Geez, the employer now has control over the jokes you tell when you're not at work? That's frickin' frightening. I do wonder, though, what it the reactions would be if the employer were the evil Nestle. I think you guys would implode trying to figure out who was the bad guy.
 

---

Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
Oh look, another thread which basically splits down UK/USA lines. Do the Australians not give a damn about these kind of issues? Or are they just too quiet to be heard?

Anyway, it might be a good idea to remember this, before getting really annoyed because all these shipmates, who happen to be from the other side of the pond to you, disagree with you.

Sarkycow, thoughtful hellhost
 

---

Posted by Cranmer's baggage (# 4937) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarkycow:
Oh look, another thread which basically splits down UK/USA lines. Do the Australians not give a damn about these kind of issues? Or are they just too quiet to be heard?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
Erin, love, we're not talking about outlawing racist slurs. We're talking about whether people who make them should be police officers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ce:
Incidentally, someone asked about educational standards for police recruits - there are none: recruiting standards

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Don't try to confuse me with your commie facts, you fiendish pinko!

---

quote:

---

But if they told a joke while they were off-duty? Geez, the employer now has control over the jokes you tell when you're not at work? That's frickin' frightening. I do wonder, though, what it the reactions would be if the employer were the evil Nestle. I think you guys would implode trying to figure out who was the bad guy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:

But if they told a joke while they were off-duty? Geez, the employer now has control over the jokes you tell when you're not at work? That's frickin' frightening.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ce:
I thought that it was US companies which started inserting lines into employment contracts which make "bringing the organisation into public disrepute" a potential diciplinary offence?
I may be wrong but it is certainly used by multinationals over here.

---

They only do it to you furriners, who are entirely too gullible and actually fall for that shit. It may be a practice in the US, but I haven't heard of it and I work for a large employer whose name is synonymous with medical ethics and integrity. I have a feeling that it may have been tried in the US, but Americans just snorted and gave them the finger.

And I KNEW the pinko brigade would eventually arrive at the conclusion that Nestle was the bad guy!! It just goes to show that anti-capitalism is stronger than anti-racism.
 

---

Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on :
 
Erin, tangent alert:
You guys do it over drugs. I have a very trustworthy source (ok it's Bill Bryson, I admit it) who documents a guy being approached in a bar by a woman who asked him if he had any drugs to sell.

He said that he hadn't, due to the very reasonable fact that he had never done drugs.

Anyway, she was very persistent and eventually he said he knew a guy who sometimes smoked a joint who might be able to tell her where to get some dope.

She was a company stooge and monday morning his cards were on the table under the zero-tolerance policy.
 

---

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
[edit: ironically crossposted with IBP. this is about Erin's post]

That was a cross-post, right?

And while Nestle probably does do that across Europe, I'd have thought it was against the law in the US. Isn't it?

[ 04. November 2003, 13:16: Message edited by: Wood ]
 

---

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
I'm just curious, but do you guys have special shutters on your windows that you close when you are sitting quietly in the dark drinking vodka and thinking Forbidden Thoughts? If not, you might want to consider it.
 

---

Posted by Moth (# 2589) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:

One should, howver, be aware that had there not been a recent scandal involving police recruits and racist attitudes (and hey, let's not forget the Stephen Lawrence enquiry), the police probably wouldn't have clamped down nearly so hard.

IMHO they made examples of these men so they can say "Look! We're not institutionally racist really! We're doing something about it!"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
Erin, tangent alert:
You guys do it over drugs. I have a very trustworthy source (ok it's Bill Bryson, I admit it)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
I'm just curious, but do you guys have special shutters on your windows that you close when you are sitting quietly in the dark drinking vodka and thinking Forbidden Thoughts? If not, you might want to consider it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
I'm just curious, but do you guys have special shutters on your windows that you close when you are sitting quietly in the dark drinking vodka and thinking Forbidden Thoughts? If not, you might want to consider it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Space Monkey:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
Erin, tangent alert:
You guys do it over drugs. I have a very trustworthy source (ok it's Bill Bryson, I admit it)

---

US companies in this country certainly do it over drugs, and I have a first-hand source. I have a friend who worked for Budweiser, where they practise random drug tests.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kenwritez:
For those people who want to crucify the off-duty police for telling a racist joke: What's it like to be such a paragon of moral purity?

How many of you would survive a similar Inquisition for telling an "inappropriate" joke or holding an "inappropriate" belief?

Perhaps these men deserve a reprimand from their superiors; that is one thing. Saying these men aren't fit to be police is another and betrays a raging intolerance for anything short of a shallow and unreal standard of perfection.

---

Well said, Kenwritez. Though I say this as someone who has held racist opinions (see below), so maybe the people posting here will see fit to ignore what I say in support of your post.

Racism, as Erin said, cannot be controlled by the State or anyone else, or removed by acting to dismiss people or make illegal things like telling jokes. All that is increasingly being done is to curb its expression. This does not stop it from going on in people's heads, or from it entering convesations where all involved are almost certain to find it acceptable, and 'know' that much about each other . And that clampdown on its expression can be seen (by the racists, and by 'radical' defenders of freedom of speech) as taking away basic rights to think and speak 'freely'. You cannot (unless you go down the 1984 'Big Brother' road) force people to think how you want them to.

I have sometimes sought to address the racist attitudes I held, and have 'moved forward'. I know very few people who share them and those I have talked to/prayed with about them have seen them as being things I really ought not to continue to have. But they have proved at times very resistant to change. Sometimes it has been 'two steps forward and one back'. It has to be me wanting to change, however, not someone 'telling me what I'm allowed to think'. That, as often as not, makes me want to go 'the other way'.

I take a great risk, I feel, in posting this here. I realise that many of you feel that racism is one of the worst things anyone can think/utter, especially if they are a Christian. Even now I do not entirely want to stop thinking the way I did/do. I find it all too easy to do so. Please, if you want to 'help' me with this, don't simply call me a 'racist bastard' or words to that effect. If that is what you think, keep it to yourself if you can. I am hesitant to click the 'add reply' button (I already deleted an earlier post that said much the same thing). Here goes.
 

---

Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on :
 
Holding innate racism can be a product of your upbringing, your environment, anything. That doesn't make it right, but it does make it understandable.

What is not acceptable is racist behaviour. I assume you do not exhibit racist behaviour.

I probably harbour racism, in that subconciously I probably judge people on their race, but as far as I know I don't do anything which would manifest racism and that is the important thing.

It would be lovely if nobody in the world felt any different to one of a different race, but people do, and that is racism.

What is wholely unacceptable is if these innate feelings change how one reacts to a person of a different race. If it does this is racist.

Racist is diferent from racism. Both are bad but racist is worse.

In my opinion.
 

---

Posted by Genie (# 3282) on :
 
Alaric
 

---

Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:

Bollocks

Bollocks

Bollocks

Bollocks

Don't make excuses for racism because 'everyone does it'. I don't. My <<yadayadayada>> anyone. Maybe I am lucky in the company I keep, but to say 'everyone does it' is a gross and offensive generalisation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
Says you. On the basis of no evidence whatsoever.

When those people are entrusted with the safety of others, it is prudent to ensure they do not in fact harbour attitudes that will hinder their ability to do the job properly. If racist attitudes underlie the racist joking, then we need to know about it.

Because of course their right to harbour racist attitudes is more important than the right of the public - all members of it - to have a police force that actually has their best interests at heart? Doesn't the police force, as an employer, have the right to ensure its members have the appropriate aptitude for the job? Racism is prima facie evidence one cannot effectively police a multi-cultural country.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kenwritez:
For those people who want to crucify the off-duty police for telling a racist joke: What's it like to be such a paragon of moral purity?

---

quote:

---

How many of you would survive a similar Inquisition for telling an "inappropriate" joke or holding an "inappropriate" belief?

---

quote:

---

Perhaps these men deserve a reprimand from their superiors; that is one thing. Saying these men aren't fit to be police is another and betrays a raging intolerance for anything short of a shallow and unreal standard of perfection.

---

quote:

---

Bullshitted by Non-Propheteer:

Growing up in America, I learned a very important truth at an early age, and apply it in my life daily. Wish other people would.

Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.


NP

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moth:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
I'm just curious, but do you guys have special shutters on your windows that you close when you are sitting quietly in the dark drinking vodka and thinking Forbidden Thoughts? If not, you might want to consider it.

---

No, my thoughts are my own. But if you mean 'Do I think very carefully before uttering controversial views on certain matters', then yes, I do. There is very little legal control of free speech here (though admittedly more than in the US) but public sector employment policies (and those of many companies) make certain views unacceptable at higher levels of employment.

---

quote:

---

republicans, women, old people, druids, Macedonians, dog catchers, nuns, baptists, lawyers, blondes, people who wear FCUK shirts, etc. Everyone has a group whom they consider inferior in some way

---

quote:

---

Everyone has a group whom they consider inferior in some way

---

quote:

---

Perhaps these men deserve a reprimand from their superiors; that is one thing. Saying these men aren't fit to be police is another and betrays a raging intolerance for anything short of a shallow and unreal standard of perfection.

---

quote:

---

Chief Superintendent Robert Chidley said an allegation that a racist joke had been told on the coach had been found not to involve a police officer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
That has nothing to do with bringing the company into disrepute and everything to do with the fact that they don't want to have the living shit sued out of them. If you're ever injured by some company's employee while they were doing their job, and it turns out that they had drugs in their system at the time of the injury, you and your great-grandchildren will never have to work another day ever again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Bullshitted by Non-Propheteer:

Growing up in America, I learned a very important truth at an early age, and apply it in my life daily. Wish other people would.

Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.


NP

---

Growing up with Aspergers and glasses, I can assue you that's the biggest piece of bullshit anyone ever said to a kid. Words do hurt, they hurt a great deal, and 25 years later I'm still recovering from the wounds. If you think it's just a case of "applying it in everyday life", you can fuck off and die, because you [ARE] an ignorant twat. Repeating this bullshit mantra just reopens the wounds and retwists the knife.

---

I hope you can hear me over this solo violin.

I was a chubby encyclopedia-reading Dungeons and Dragons geek. Some claim I still am. I much preferred the taunts over the bullies. And I know for a fact that it is as simple as applying it daily in my life.

Ignorant twat?

How could I possibly top that insult?

NP
 

---

Posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
You don't have a fucking clue, do you? I had both, and both hurt.

Your problem is you assume that because you could shrug it off, anyone can, and if they couldn't, that's somehow their fault.

I know the damage the words did. Having you talk about it as if it's just oversensitive whining is particularly nasty. But hey, it's my fault somehow, isn't it? Should have just shrugged it off.

Arsehole.

[ 04. November 2003, 16:14: Message edited by: Karl - Liberal Backslider ]
 

---

Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :
 
Many races have endured slavery. Blacks are not alone in that distinction.

It may be worth noting that all humor involving race and/or Nationality isn't necessarily evil. In some cases, those very races may even champion those jokes. I have experienced this first-hand in the Jewish community where I live. There are some really hilarious Jewish Mother jokes that have been told to me by Jews during the High Holy Days! C'mon, now. Consistent truths about a particular group -- let's call them by their nasty little name -- stereotypes -- are played upon for their comic content because in some way they often contain a grain of appreciable truth. In some ways, to me, it's even a kind of celebration of some aspects of a group. When those stereotypes are twisted to the detrement of a race or group, sure, call foul and loudly. But, for pity's sake, you've got to concede a place for the humorous enjoyment of the very things that define the diversity to which we all contribute and that we all need and enjoy.
 

---

Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
Growing up in America, I learned a very important truth at an early age, and apply it in my life daily. Wish other people would.

Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
nonpropheteer:
Most of the groups you mention in your diatribe:
are not races so making a joke about them is not racist. In fact the only possible race there are the Macedonians, and I can't think of anything funny about them.

Making jokes about a nun is very different from making jokes about a black person, because the nun has never, as far as I know, been the recipient of enforced slavery, inferiority and societal exemption.
<<snip>>
That would make me a snob and a wanker.

---

I'm fairly certain you are a wanker anyway, but I could be wrong.

I dont see the difference between telling a joke that a nun would find offensive and telling one an arab would find offensive. Or one a woman would find offensive. Or one a white man would find offensive.
You see how upset Karl got just being reminded of the hazing he took. You think those comments, while probably not racist, failed to effect him? No race, sex, creed or color has any more or any less right than any other to be offended.
Take off your PC glasses and enjoy the view. There are a whole bunch of people out there that think differently and that you might not agree with, but that are perfectly capable of doing their jobs in a responsible and fair manner.

NP
 

---

Posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Just noticed the inserted by NP. He's an even nastier vindictive individual than I thought.

Seems like you learnt well from those who gave you verbal hassle. You've turned into one of them. A nasty little bully. Start with verbally destroying someone, then get at them for being upset by it. Shame you had to invent the waterworks.

You really are an unpleasant individual, aren't you?
 

---

Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
Just noticed the inserted by NP. He's an even nastier vindictive individual than I thought.

Seems like you learnt well from those who gave you verbal hassle. You've turned into one of them. A nasty little bully. Start with verbally destroying someone, then get at them for being upset by it. Shame you had to invent the waterworks.

You really are an unpleasant individual, aren't you?

---

quote:

---

Quoth the nonpropheteer:
I'm fairly certain you are a wanker anyway...

---

quote:

---

I dont see the difference between telling a joke that a nun would find offensive and telling one an arab would find offensive. Or one a woman would find offensive. Or one a white man would find offensive.

---

quote:

---

You see how upset Karl got just being reminded of the hazing he took. You think those comments, while probably not racist, failed to effect him? No race, sex, creed or color has any more or any less right than any other to be offended.

---

quote:

---

Take off your PC glasses and enjoy the view. There are a whole bunch of people out there that think differently and that you might not agree with, but that are perfectly capable of doing their jobs in a responsible and fair manner.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Riv:
Many races have endured slavery. Blacks are not alone in that distinction.

It may be worth noting that all humor involving race and/or Nationality isn't necessarily evil. In some cases, those very races may even champion those jokes. I have experienced this first-hand in the Jewish community where I live. There are some really hilarious Jewish Mother jokes that have been told to me by Jews during the High Holy Days! C'mon, now. Consistent truths about a particular group -- let's call them by their nasty little name -- stereotypes -- are played upon for their comic content because in some way they often contain a grain of appreciable truth. In some ways, to me, it's even a kind of celebration of some aspects of a group. When those stereotypes are twisted to the detrement of a race or group, sure, call foul and loudly. But, for pity's sake, you've got to concede a place for the humorous enjoyment of the very things that define the diversity to which we all contribute and that we all need and enjoy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
One thing I am not, nor will I ever be, is a victim. If someone does something to me, or says something about me; that reveals something of their character, not mine. It only gives them power over me if I allow it.
NP

---

Well good for you then


We are studying Anti Semetism in History at the moment, comparing it throught a century ending in 1938. Whilst studying we talk about stuff that is happening now.

Last week we chatted about an undercurrent of Anti Semetism in France post the revolution and were asked if we thought that if you scratch the surface on our society today then would you find Anti-Semetism, or Racism? The whole class thought yes. And we have a mixed class, ranging from left wing to right wing and a couple of americans thrown in, we could all identify rascism bubbling under the surface.

If that is the case, surely it is even more important to stop the expression of it? Especially if the problem comes from something that is meant to represent and respect our society.
 

---

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
I, and my family and friends, have experienced so much racism from the police that it does not surprise me when some of them display their innate racism. Any police who have not dealt with the racism that is in them so that they throw it around the way this lot did should be out ASAP, instantly. Other police officers have been working hard to act respectfully to all of us, no matter what racial or ethnic background or colour we are from. They are the ones who should be kept in.

If police are racist when out boozing, or relaxing, it just shows how they would probably act surrepticiously or openly when they deal with us.

And I have relations in the Met, so I do know some of their difficulties, and I do respect some of them.

Bill MacPherson is also someone who is due respect - his family were never disrespectful or racist to anyone. So what he says is very worth listening to.
 

---

Posted by Justus (# 2424) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:

I was a chubby encyclopedia-reading Dungeons and Dragons geek. Some claim I still am. I much preferred the taunts over the bullies.
NP

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justus:


Geek you may be but the difference is that you chose to be a geek. You got to choose to play D&D and read encyclopaedia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justus:


Geek you may be but the difference is that you chose to be a geek. You got to choose to play D&D and read encyclopaedia.

---

So If I could chose, right now, to be black - it would be less offensive for someone to call me a nigger?

NP

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:
The BNP are not just idiots, they are promoting wickedness - ethnic discrimination. So no policeman should be allowed to belong to that "party".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:
So no policeman should be allowed to belong to that "party".

---

Yeah, right. England, cradle of democracy.

Ya know, I hate Republicans. I think Libertarians don't live in the real world (Yeah, I'm talking to you, Etheredge.)

But, by God, they've a right to their opinions, regardless of what their jobs are.

"Allowed"! "Allowed"! Do you hear what you're saying, daisymay?
 

---

Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on :
 
Call me an asshole if you like, but the fact remains that none of you know who really is or isn't racist. Some people take every precaution to make sure they are not thought of as racist, when they actually are. Some people take the play the role of racist because of the environment they live in, though they are not in fact racist.
Racist jokes might be an indication of racist philosophy, but it probably just means the person has a inappropriate sense of humor. If you persecute people for telling jokes that are offensive, then you MUST persecute EVERYONE who tells a joke that some group finds offensive. Note the choice of the word persecute over prosecute; to my mind this is nothing short of a witch hunt.

I'll drop the premise that "words will never hurt me", and admit that they can hurt emotionally. Though I would still rather be beaten with words than sticks.
If you admit that words can hurt and hurting people is bad, then it logically follows that any words that hurt someone are bad. Jokes at someone else's expense are hurtful and therefore wrong, regardless of color of skin, sex, cultural heritage, states of physical and mental health, and political affiliation. That includes Chris Rock and Richard Pryor when they make fun of white people, Baptists when they make fun of Catholics, Democrats when they make fun of Republicans. And all of you who say you don't have some group that you taunt are lying. Whether you do it in front of members of that group is beside the point.

FYI: Race is defined as:
1 : a breeding stock of animals
2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock
2 b : a class or kind of people unified by community of interests, habits, or characteristics <the English race>

Ethnicity is defined as:
1 : HEATHEN
2 a : of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background <ethnic minorities> <ethnic enclaves>
2 b : being a member of an ethnic group
2 c : of, relating to, or characteristic of ethnics <ethnic neighborhoods> <ethnic foods>

So making fun of Americans is racist. Making fun of sheep is racist. Making a law that protects only one particular race or group from percieved offense is dangerous, and backwards.

I have never owned slaves, would never own slaves, and don't know anybody who has owned or has been a slave. Therefore I refused to be punished or censored or participate in the punishment or censorship of another human being solely because the butt of their joke is related to someone who might have been a slave 100 years ago. Also, careful review of crime statistics shows that interracial violence is not as big a problem (in the US) as the media and "liberal" thinkers would have you believe, though in 1998 there was a significantly greater % of blacks killing whites than whites killing blacks.

How do you control racism? You certainly can't do it by empowering the racist. Laws that offer more protection to minorities only lend a sense of rightness to a racist thinker. All laws and prosecutions should take into account only the deeds of the individuals, not the thoughts. Its called "Freedom of Speech", and is one of the things that has made america great.

NP
 

---

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kenwritez:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:
The BNP are not just idiots, they are promoting wickedness - ethnic discrimination. So no policeman should be allowed to belong to that "party".

---

Who made you God? Who gave you the right to judge what political affiliations a policeman can have?

---

Sometimes you have to weigh up the "freedom of the individual" against the "interests of the many", and if someone who is a member of the BNP joins the police then you have someone who is actively committed to wanting to "clean up" Britain and get it across to non-white people that they are an inferior species who are not welcome here. This is in direct opposition to the principles of the organization he works for. This person is now in a position of some responsibility. He will not believe in treating everyone equally or fairly, which makes him unsuitable for that job, and brings the police force into disrepute. It will alienate, even further, some sections of the community who are already antagonistic to the police, and create further racial disharmony. Would it, therefore, be a responsible act to permit such a person to join the police, or to permit them to stay if it was subseqently discovered that they were a paid-up member of the party?
 

---

Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
OK - as Sarkycow predicted we are back to a trans-Atlantic split on this issue. No prizes for guessing which side I'm on, in that case , but I am working very hard to understand the "typical American" view on this (and I hope that that isn't seen as an offensive over-generalisation).

If I've understood this, and other threads correctly, the "typical American" view is that freedom of speech should not be limited. X has the right to say whatever X likes; if Y is offended that is Y's problem and they should grow a thicker skin, or find some way of verbally overcoming X. You cannot pass laws to protect Y's feelings, as this is an impossible task which could only be achieved if the Thought Police weer brought in. (First pause. Is that an accurate summary? If I have mis-represented this line of thought please let me know, as I am trying to get my mind round a concept that does not come naturally to me.)

Part of my problem with that can be best explained by using an analogy. If X and Y are both at school and X is bullying Y, what should the school do? The implication of the position outlined above seems to me to mean that the school should do nothing. Y should toughen up, or take self defence lessons so that they can beat up X in return; however the school should take no action to restict X's freedom of action. (Second pause. If that analogy is inaccurate - as I'm sure it is - what have I missed? If freedom of speech should not be limited, should freedom of action be treated differently?)

All of which may be too Purgatorial for this thread, but I am genuinely interested in trying to understand this very deep divide between our cultures. Having said that, I will shortly be wandering for a few days, so I may not be able to get back for a while. Apologies for asking and running (it is frightfully bad form, I know) but this thread has raised an issue I've been mulling over for quite a while now, and this seemed like a good time to air my confusion.
 

---

Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
OK - as Sarkycow predicted we are back to a trans-Atlantic split on this issue.
<<SNIP>>
If I've understood this, and other threads correctly, the "typical American" view is that freedom of speech should not be limited.

---

quote:

---

X has the right to say whatever X likes; if Y is offended that is Y's problem and they should grow a thicker skin, or find some way of verbally overcoming X. You cannot pass laws to protect Y's feelings, as this is an impossible task which could only be achieved if the Thought Police weer brought in.
If X and Y are both at school and X is bullying Y, what should the school do? The implication of the position outlined above seems to me to mean that the school should do nothing.

---

quote:

---

If freedom of speech should not be limited, should freedom of action be treated differently?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
So If I could chose, right now, to be black - it would be less offensive for someone to call me a nigger?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
You have the incomparable ability to produce both a non sequiteur (look it up, you might be able to use it later in conversation) and recipreverse exclusion (you'll have to read the Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy to get that one) in the same grammatic flow. That takes skill.

---

quote:

---

Nonprofiteer, it may well be that you are coming across badly in this thread, and that in real life you are a charming and debonaire individual, but at the moment you are sounding like a weasley little shit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
It is always better to blast someone for their grammer when you spell things correctly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
In an ideal world there would be even handed treatment of people; it used to piss me off that there was a free 'womens safe bus' into town from university when I had to pay for my transport, but the fact of the matter is that women feel less safe on public transport than do men.

In an ideal world a racist oppression of a white man would be just as unacceptable as racist oppression of a black woman, but the fact of the matter is that after centuries of disparity positive discrimination is here until the balance is redressed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
Nonpropheteer:
I was wondering when you would start to pick up on random spelling errors. People always seem to do that in on-line arguments when the tide is against them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kenwritez:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:
The BNP are not just idiots, they are promoting wickedness - ethnic discrimination. So no policeman should be allowed to belong to that "party".

---

Who made you God? Who gave you the right to judge what political affiliations a policeman can have?

I guess on your planet every single member of every single organization wholly believes in every single plank in the organization's agenda. No reserved or conditional members, no siree.

---

On my planet it's not God who makes the rules about political parties or which public employees are allowed to join them. Do you have a God who does that? Here it's the human beings who make laws - and work at getting them put into practice. Because they are imperfect, (being human beings - that's part of their definition) they know that they have to work sensibly and hard to counteract racism.

I wonder what a BNP God would be like? A shape-shifter who appeared very neat, suited and booted, then a tattooed skin-head, then a drunken cop?

 

---

Posted by Mr Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Kenwritez:

quote:

---

Who made you God? Who gave you the right to judge what political affiliations a policeman can have?

I guess on your planet every single member of every single organization wholly believes in every single plank in the organization's agenda. No reserved or conditional members, no siree.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
For example, Hate crime legislation in America punishes white offenders more harshly for killing a black person than if they had killed a white person. There have been many opportunities to apply this legislation when the offender has been black and the victim white, but to my knowledge it has never occurred. If white people are not allowed to offend black people, then blacks people should not be allowed to offend white people either.
NP

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:
Matt,
The BNP are not just idiots, they are promoting wickedness - ethnic discrimination. So no policeman should be allowed to belong to that "party".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kenwritez:
Who made you God? Who gave you the right to judge what political affiliations a policeman can have?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justus:
A few statistics for you to ponder:

A Home Office research study of 1981 estimated that people of Afro-Caribbean origin were 36 times more likely, and people of Asian origin 50 times more likely to be the victims of racially motivated attacks than white people.

<<SNIP>>

... in 1999 only 40 percent of the racist incidents against minority ethnic victims, and 61 per cent of the incidents against white victims, were reported to the police.
Note the different reporting rates for white and minority ethnic victims.
The research papaer form which these statistics are taken can be found here .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:
I think you'll find that God actually commands people to act justly, to exercise a certain degree of judgment. But even at a basic humanist level, it is right that a society should be able to say that the enforcers of its laws should hold to certain patterns of behaviour, and that affiliation with racist political parties who advocate deportation and the subversion of democratic processes should be one of the things law enforcers should not be doing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
Hmmm... teachers and politicians shouldn't belong to such parties either. After all, do you want someone who is anti-catholic teaching your catholic child?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sine Nomine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:
So no policeman should be allowed to belong to that "party".

---

Yeah, right. England, cradle of democracy.

Ya know, I hate Republicans. I think Libertarians don't live in the real world (Yeah, I'm talking to you, Etheredge.)

But, by God, they've a right to their opinions, regardless of what their jobs are.

"Allowed"! "Allowed"! Do you hear what you're saying, daisymay?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rosemary:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Riv:


It may be worth noting that all humor involving race and/or Nationality isn't necessarily evil. <SNIP> ...for pity's sake, you've got to concede a place for the humorous enjoyment of the very things that define the diversity to which we all contribute and that we all need and enjoy.

---

But this example is completely different from the issue in question. The Riv's example is of people making a joke about themselves and inviting others to laugh with them. The original issue is of one group making fun of another group with malicious intent.
rosemary

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:
Of course, NP, the Gestapo were actually full of racists and a fine example why you shouldn't allow them to have any role whatsoever in the administration of the law.

A person who advocates racism is not an appropriate person to deal with law enforcement. Period.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alaric the Goth:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:
Matt,
The BNP are not just idiots, they are promoting wickedness - ethnic discrimination. So no policeman should be allowed to belong to that "party".

---

Labour Party policy is (arguably) promoting immorality, and destruction of 'the family' : that is wickedness.

Conservative policy is (arguably) promoting love of money (which 'is the root of all evil') and of material wealth: wickedness again.

Green Party policy is (arguably) promoting economic stagnation leading to joblessness: what wickedness!

Better not let any of the police belong to THOSE wicked parties!

The problem is that 'racism' is seen as 'the greatest evil' by many of our politicians and media people. It's not: it's just one sort of evil. I think abortion, for example, is an evil, but that is one which most politicians of most parties have no intention of outlawing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:
Of course, NP, the Gestapo were actually full of racists and a fine example why you shouldn't allow them to have any role whatsoever in the administration of the law.

A person who advocates racism is not an appropriate person to deal with law enforcement. Period.

---

A person who tells offensive jokes is not necessarily a person who advocates racism and it is inappropriate to treat them as if they are advocating hatred.

NP

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
A person who tells [racist] jokes is not necessarily a person who advocates racism and it is inappropriate to treat them as if they are advocating hatred

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
The depths of random shite in your arguments have begun to amaze me.

Do I want a racist teaching my kids? No. And someone with a racist attitude should not be allowed to teach.

Teachers are chosen for their non-partisan attitudes.

---

quote:

---

So should a BNP member be in a position of public influence (police, teaching)? No.

---

quote:

---

Isn't it past your bedtime?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by that Wikkid Person:
So you're carefully separating racism from hatred, then IBP?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by that Wikkid Person:
So you're carefully separating racism from hatred, then IBP?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by that Wikkid Person:
Any racial jokes or terms I've heard in the last 10 years have come from rural, rusticly ignorant people who've mostly only seen non-white people on TV.

---

quote:

---

rural, rusticly ignorant people who've mostly only seen non-white people on TV.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat:
Using anti-catholicism as an ad absurdum example seems a bit dim when you are talking to people from a country which has been partially torn apart by sectarianism for many years. Evidence of sectarian prejudice among the police or the judiciary in NI (and to a lesser extent Scotland) would fall exactly within the definition of unacceptable behaviour that people are talking about.

Rat

---

quote:

---

we, the native British people, will be an ethnic minority in our own country within sixty years.

---

quote:

---

We will free the police and courts from the politically correct straitjacket that is stopping them from doing their job properly.

---

quote:

---

We will ensure that our manufactured goods are, wherever possible, produced in British factories, employing British workers. When this is done, unemployment in this country will be brought to an end, and secure, well-paid employment will flourish, at last getting our people back to work

---

quote:

---

We are wholly committed to a free, fully funded National Health Service for all British citizens.

---

quote:

---

This is done by pinning the label of NAZI clearly on the likes of the BNP and NF. They have the same aim as Hitler's Nazis. Far from believing the Holocaust never took place, they wish to repeat it.

---

quote:

---

Papio wondered:
I am not sure whether or not it would be against the 10C's to link to the BNP's website here but here are some quotes from it....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat:

So no, I don't have the right to poke into the deepest recesses of any policeman's mind to find out if he harbours any racist thoughts. But I damn well do have a right to demand an acceptable standard of public behaviour - and displaying overt racism is not it.

Rat

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:
And at school, children here are supposed to be taught in "Personal and Social Education" how not to be prejudiced and racist. They are taught how to be conscious of their own prejudices and deal with them. So police who are openly racist and prejudiced have made the decision to act on it.

---

Perhaps this is where the problem lies. The secondary school i went to was white dominated, i can only think of one mixed race student that i met there, but there must have been more in other years. we didn't get taught about predjudice or racism in our Tutor Periods (or PSE), that could have been because it wasn't a major problem but still...
We did talk about bullying, but even then the bullying we talked never included racial...

The schools do a crap job in bullying control (IMHO), and, from what i can tell, getting people to respect others in school and through out college and uni might help root out the fuckwits who think being racist is clever, or enjoy getting a cheap laugh out of other people.
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
Sophs - excellent point. I can't remember my school ever going into the many and varied reasons why racism and far-right nationalism will never be clever or why the idea that "they have taken our jobs" etc is such utter bullshit. I can't think of any reason why this should not be on the ciriculum - but maybe some schools do go into these issues. I am not sure.

However, there will always be those who insist on being total fuckwits no matter how much information you give them as to why they have got it wrong.
 

---

Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by that Wikkid Person:
Any racial jokes or terms I've heard in the last 10 years have come from rural, rusticly ignorant people who've mostly only seen non-white people on TV.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
nonpropheteer:
People are welcome to espouse any political belief they like. In the words of someone much more famous than me "I may not agree with what you say but I will fight for your right to say it".

---

quote:

---

However (I dare you to pick this apart because I started a sentence with 'however'. Go on, try me) I do not want people who openly support the victimisation of black people to be in a position where they are responsible for the protection of black people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
nonpropheteer:
People are welcome to espouse any political belief they like. In the words of someone much more famous than me "I may not agree with what you say but I will fight for your right to say it".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
in what sense is that an "ethnic" stereotype? A cultural one maybe. However, isn't his point that the racist jokes you so love are a teensy weensy bit ignorant?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
God in heaven help me, I'm going to look like I'm agreeing with NP here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
Papio, I find the mode of your attack on the BNP very interesting (and more than a little disturbing). You posted quotes from their website which ranged from innocuous to factually debatable. You then placed a spin on those quotes by redefining the words which were used in the quotes. You justified this by claiming that's what these nasty people really think. In other words, you condemn them and propose their banishment from public service on the basis of what you claim they think, as opposed to what they actually said or did. That is exactly the sort of totalitarian thinking I have in mind when I talk about the Thought Police.

The idea that someone should be banned from public office on the sole basis of their membership in a legal organization is anathema to a free society. Some of you should be ashamed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
Perhaps I should have said that, in my view they are referring to whites, but that is my view.

---

quote:

---

You posted quotes from their website which ranged from innocuous to factually debatable. You then placed a spin on those quotes by redefining the words which were used in the quotes. You justified this by claiming that's what these nasty people really think.

---

quote:

---

The idea that someone should be banned from public office on the sole basis of their membership in a legal organization is anathema to a free society. Some of you should be ashamed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:
It's perfectly reasonable for a free society to ask whether its public employees actively profess racist views.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
are you honestlt claining that the BNP are not racist?

---

quote:

---

Papio should not have assumed that you (and other non-Britons) would be famliar with the BNP's history and noteriety.

---

quote:

---

"The British people" is BNP code for white people. Twas always thus, and always will be.

---

quote:

---

it is my understanding that the government cannot go out and subpoena its roster for the purpose of dismissing government employees who are also Klansmen.

---

• Off-duty policeman tells joke about black paki bastards
• Off-duty policeman calls Asians in pub black paki bastards to their face
• On duty policeman calls passing Asians in the street black paki bastards to their face
• Judge while passing sentence refers to defendant as black paki bastard

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
Of course I realise that whites are an ethnic majority in Britian and America. What I don't except is that rednecks or hillbillies have an ethnicity all to themselves.

<<SNIP>>

I realise that it is impossible to prevent any police whatsoever from ever making any tasteless joke whatsoever, but that is not what is under discussion is it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:
<<SNIP>>
Frankly, why the hell should we tolerate police officers or Benefits Agency staff or doctors who think it proper to abuse black people?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
KKK is a legal organization. It is not, however, a political organization registered with the state, and while I know the DOJ has smarmed its way around this, it is my understanding that the government cannot go out and subpoena its roster for the purpose of dismissing government employees who are also Klansmen.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat:
At what point does this speech cross the line into behaviour which makes the person unsuitable for their job? Or does it never, unless the judge adds "and therefore I'm sentencing him to an extra 10 years"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bongo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
KKK is a legal organization. It is not, however, a political organization registered with the state, and while I know the DOJ has smarmed its way around this, it is my understanding that the government cannot go out and subpoena its roster for the purpose of dismissing government employees who are also Klansmen.

---

I suppose the question is, should it be able to?

Hmmmm. I wonder what would happen if the KKK put up candidates to stand in elections. I assume they couldn't be prevented. Have they ever branched off into politics? What's been stopping them? They might even win a few.

(Incidentally, the BNP has been winning an alarming number of elections recently.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bongo:
Hmmmm. I wonder what would happen if the KKK put up candidates to stand in elections. I assume they couldn't be prevented. Have they ever branched off into politics? What's been stopping them? They might even win a few.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moth:
How did the McCarthy investigations square with freedom of speech?

---

quote:

---

Bongo wrote: I suppose the question is, should [the government be able to subpoena the KKK's roster for the purpose of dismissing government employees who are also Klansmen?]

---

quote:

---

I wonder what would happen if the KKK put up candidates to stand in elections. I assume they couldn't be prevented.

---

quote:

---

Have they ever branched off into politics?

---

quote:

---

What's been stopping them?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
IMO, the line is located at the point where the policeman or judge goes on duty. At that point they are acting on behalf of the state, rather than of themselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:
Do you believe a person who has joined an avowedly racist group is capable or even desirous of acting in a non-racist manner in their job?

---

If not, then they certainly should be fired at once. But to find out you are going to have to either read their minds or judge their performance.
 

---

Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
Um, if they've gone an joined a racist organisation then telepathy isn't really necessary.
 

---

Posted by Bongo (# 778) on :
 
Okay, hang on a minute.

It can reasonably be assumed that police officers who are members or supporters of the BNP are racist. (I defy anyone to prove otherwise.)

When prospective British police officers go through the selection process, they're tested for "diversity skills" (or something) in an attempt to weed out racist applicants.

If it was discovered that an applicant was a BNP supporter, should they be turned away from the force purely on that basis?

(Yuh huh!!)
 

---

Posted by Moth (# 2589) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:
Do you believe a person who has joined an avowedly racist group is capable or even desirous of acting in a non-racist manner in their job?

---

If not, then they certainly should be fired at once. But to find out you are going to have to either read their minds or judge their performance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat:
I am genuinely curious as to when free speech does become unacceptable in this context?

• Off-duty policeman tells joke about black paki bastards
• Off-duty policeman calls Asians in pub black paki bastards to their face
• On duty policeman calls passing Asians in the street black paki bastards to their face
• Judge while passing sentence refers to defendant as black paki bastard

<<SNIP>>

Rat

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:
Um, if they've gone an joined a racist organisation then telepathy isn't really necessary.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
Its also natural that the Brits would have such a hard time comprehending American "free speech" standards. It was because of them, after all, that we were forced to put it as first priority in our Bill of Rights.


NP

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moth:
But why can I not use evidence of their off-duty behaviour as indicative of their on-duty behaviour?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moth:
What happened in the US in the days when communism was so feared? Would a public employee be sacked for becoming a member of the communist party? Or was it a banned organisation anyway? How did the McCarthy investigations square with freedom of speech? (I'm not trolling here - just woefully ignorant and confused).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Riv:
Moth, the Private morals/Public service question will be answered most eloquently by die-hard Clinton supporters who remain absolutely convinced that the former has no effect whatsoever on the latter.

Re KKK affiliation, let's not forget about Senator Robert Byrd's (Dem. -- West Virginia) little-remembered Recruitor status.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat:
At what point does this speech cross the line into behaviour which makes the person unsuitable for their job? Or does it never, unless the judge adds "and therefore I'm sentencing him to an extra 10 years"?

---

IMO, the line is located at the point where the policeman or judge goes on duty. At that point they are acting on behalf of the state, rather than of themselves.

---

I'll repeat myself for the hard of reading (Scot ).

Policemen in the UK are meant to carry their warrant card at all times, even when off-duty. If they see a crime being committed, even when off-duty, they are required to call it in, and arrest/warn/whatever the penalty is, if it is safe for them to do so (so don't try and arrest armed/violent criminals without back up and truncheon, handcuffs, etc.).

So, define when they are off duty, and therefore can do whatever the hell they want?

Answer: In practice, not a lot of the time.

Should policemen be purer than pure? Right now, yes. It's kinda important, in light of all the recent publicity and headlines, that police are not seen to be racist. If they are, then they need to be seen to be doing something about it - investigating and then disciplining if so necessary.

Sarkycow

[ 05. November 2003, 16:19: Message edited by: Sarkycow ]
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
So Scot - to summerise you pov - you think it legitmate to sack employees if they display openly racist behaviour at work but believe that I and others on this thread are morally wrong and ignorant to suggest that membership of a racist party is evidence that someone will display overty racist behavious while at work

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
IMO, the line is located at the point where the policeman or judge goes on duty. At that point they are acting on behalf of the state, rather than of themselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
Don't punish people for what they might do wrong, punish them justly for the wrongs they do commit.

NP

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarkycow:
Policemen in the UK are meant to carry their warrant card at all times, even when off-duty. If they see a crime being committed, even when off-duty, they are required to call it in, and arrest/warn/whatever the penalty is, if it is safe for them to do so (so don't try and arrest armed/violent criminals without back up and truncheon, handcuffs, etc.).

So, define when they are off duty, and therefore can do whatever the hell they want?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
Am sorry if my post read as though I was attempting to flame Scot. I wasn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moth:
But why can I not use evidence of their off-duty behaviour as indicative of their on-duty behaviour?

---

Can your churchgoing and SoF posting be used as evidence of your on-the-job proselytizing? No, of course not. Most of us are held to different standards of behavior at work.

We are getting away from my real point here. I'm not arguing that racism is good, or that police should be allowed to discriminate. I'm saying that it is wrong to limit access to public office (political or otherwise) on the sole basis of membership in a legal organization. Employees should to be judged on their performance, not their ideas. Politicians should be judged on both their opinions and ideas, but the judgment should be made by the electorate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
So Scot - to summerise you pov - you think it legitmate to sack employees if they display openly racist behaviour at work but believe that I and others on this thread are morally wrong and ignorant to suggest that membership of a racist party is evidence that someone will display overty racist behavious while at work

---

quote:

---

I wouldn't use the word ignorant to describe anyone on the ship

---

Oh dear. Unlike me.

Look NP, some of the things you said riled me and I made some childish remarks aimed at you. I am sure some of what I have said on this thread has got on your nerves also. So, sorry for the insults. They weren't called for.
 

---

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
Papio, that's it more or less, yes. I'm sure if you were trying to flame me, you would do better than that

Sarky, AFAIK policemen in the US generally do the same (but they also carry a gun so as to be able to issue more than a stern warning). I'm going to take a wild guess and say that an off-duty policeman is off-duty until they begin to excercise their authority as a policeman. Much like you are just another nutcase in Hell until you whip out that Hellhost title.

Rat, I agree if by "disciplinary issue" you mean something deserving of some "counselling" by their supervisor.

Presleyterian, before I forget to mention it, I thought that this was brilliant:

quote:

---

quote:

---

What's been stopping them?

---

The moral bankruptcy of their political beliefs when forced to compete in the marketplace of ideas.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
Don't punish people for what they might do wrong, punish them justly for the wrongs they do commit.

NP

---

So, in the light of Sarkycow's salutary synopsis of the facts, you don't consider telling a racist joke to be doing anything wrong?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
So, in the light of Sarkycow's salutary synopsis of the facts, you don't consider telling a racist joke to be doing anything wrong?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:

quote:

---

I wouldn't use the word ignorant to describe anyone on the ship

---

Oh dear. Unlike me.

Look NP, some of the things you said riled me and I made some childish remarks aimed at you. I am sure some of what I have said on this thread has got on your nerves also. So, sorry for the insults. They weren't called for.

---

Thanks for the apology, but it really wasn't necessary but is accepted. You are a gentleman (-woman/person?)and a scholar. I totally understand how easy it is to get riled up in these forums,(Can I get an 'amen' Erin? )especially with a thread this provocative.

NP
 

---

Posted by Moth (# 2589) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:

Rat, I agree if by "disciplinary issue" you mean something deserving of some "counselling" by their supervisor.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
On duty is defined in the US as your scheduled time to work and earn money doing so. By this argument, you seem to be implying that police officers should be compensated for every hour of every day. You also seem to be saying that they are not allowed to drink alcohol (as I cannot imagine that being toasted while driving around in a patrol car is an allowable state). Clearly the lines are already drawn somewhere -- they are not compensated for every hour of every day, neither are they forbidden from drinking. So I think that the argument that states that cops are "always on duty because they have to carry their warrant cards" is extremely weak.

---

quote:

---

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat:
I am genuinely curious as to when free speech does become unacceptable in this context?

• Off-duty policeman tells joke about black paki bastards
• Off-duty policeman calls Asians in pub black paki bastards to their face
• On duty policeman calls passing Asians in the street black paki bastards to their face
• Judge while passing sentence refers to defendant as black paki bastard

At what point does this speech cross the line into behaviour which makes the person unsuitable for their job? Or does it never, unless the judge adds "and therefore I'm sentencing him to an extra 10 years"?

Rat

---

quote:

---

Simply put, no one has the right not to be offended.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
So, in the light of Sarkycow's salutary synopsis of the facts, you don't consider telling a racist joke to be doing anything wrong?

---

Off duty or when not engaged in affairs of the state: No.

I think it was Daisy that told the story of the doctor.

NP

---

Nope - read more carefully. It was maybe duchess? Check and find out. I'm not going to tell you.

 

---

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
Kenwritez:

quote:

---

Publically calling for the social advancement of white people over other races is not a crime (although odious) but purely political/social speech and must be allowed if other opinions (such as yours) are to receive an equal airing.

---

I think that it might be illegal, a crime, in certain circumstances in the UK. Plans to do so would be against the law. And if it were a civil servant, it would definitely be against their contract.
 

---

Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
Brit 1: Hey, you Americans have stupid laws.
American 1: Oh yeah? Well your British laws are dumb.
American 2: Yeah, dumb and immoral.
Brit 2: Well yours are stupid and racist. And you're talking about stuff you don't know about.
American 3:...

And so it continues.

Yes, I know and understand that Americans don't think free speech should ever be restricted. Yes, I know and understand that their policemen are only considered on duty when they are actually being paid. (To pick two examples.)

And do the Americans reading this know and understand that Brits think there are valid restrictions on free speech? Do they know and understand that we believe state employees and/or those dealing with the public should be held to higher standards?

The situation we originally started talking about involved the British police. And now that story has gone, and we are left discussing the great divide between Brits and Americans. It's kinda boring to rehash it once more

But go ahead, knock yourselves out. But be aware that you will never agree, nor even convince those on the other side of the pond of your way of thinking.

Sarkycow
 

---

Posted by Kenwritez (# 3238) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:
Kenwritez:

quote:

---

Publically calling for the social advancement of white people over other races is not a crime (although odious) but purely political/social speech and must be allowed if other opinions (such as yours) are to receive an equal airing.

---

I think that it might be illegal, a crime, in certain circumstances in the UK. Plans to do so would be against the law. And if it were a civil servant, it would definitely be against their contract.

---

quote:

---

And do the Americans reading this know and understand that Brits think there are valid restrictions on free speech? Do they know and understand that we believe state employees and/or those dealing with the public should be held to higher standards?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarkycow:
And do the Americans reading this know and understand that Brits think there are valid restrictions on free speech? Do they know and understand that we believe state employees and/or those dealing with the public should be held to higher standards?

---

quote:

---

Here's a thought: How you would fare if your political party or your organization was as disliked as the BNP? What would happen if Christianity was deemed "socially inappropriate"?

---

quote:

---

daisymay wrote: If it were illegal to discuss prejudice, that would be different. Here we are talking about upholders of the law breaking the law. . . . We expect police to obey and carry out the law.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:
Kenwritez:

quote:

---

Here's a thought: How you would fare if your political party or your organization was as disliked as the BNP? What would happen if Christianity was deemed "socially inappropriate"?

---

Racism is not merely "socially inappropriate" - it's wicked.

If it were illegal to discuss prejudice, that would be different. Here we are talking about upholders of the law breaking the law.

And, to go back to the OP, we are not talking about total refusal of the law to admit discussion. Tito's government refused to allow that and then when he died, there was an upsurge of violent racism and ethnic cleansing. That's not what we're wanting.

We expect police to obey and carry out the law.

---

quote:

---

Precisely. But is it "breaking the law" to hold a political viewpoint that daisymay finds personally odious?

---

Not just me - the laws of the UK. There are plenty of people whose political viewpoints I don't agree with, and find idiotic - but they are not against the law.

Kenwritez,
do you have authority that says I have to answer everything you post? I'm not bothering. We're not in purgatory after all.
 

---

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
First they came for the racial jokes
and I did not speak out
because I am not a racist.
Then they came for the dirty jokes
and I did not speak out
because I am not a misogynist.
Then they came for the satire
and I did not speak out
because Christians don't make fun of people.
Then they came for puns
and all I had left was
some lame knock-knock jokes.


with apologies to Martin Niemöller
 

---

Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on :
 

quote:

---

daisymay wrote: Not just me - the laws of the UK.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarkycow:
And do the Americans reading this know and understand that Brits think there are valid restrictions on free speech? Do they know and understand that we believe state employees and/or those dealing with the public should be held to higher standards?

---

I understand that completely, and if that's the kind of society you guys want, you're welcome to it. I do believe that it is impossible to hold this view while simultaneously proclaiming to all the world that "I may not like what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it". One or the other is a bold-faced lie.

---

quote:

---

I also think that some of the arguments used to support the police enquiry are weak and undermine your point of view. If you think that certain types of speech should be outlawed, just say so, without resorting to arguments like "they are kinda sorta always on duty", which is, as I've pointed out, not exactly true. Or at least, if I've erred in my assumptions regarding police compensation and other behaviors they should be prevented from engaging in, no one has seen fit to correct me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat:
I am genuinely curious as to when free speech does become unacceptable in this context?

---

Any of these would get out into general public knowledge and would remove any confidence the "black paki bastards" had in the police force. They would not want to report any incidents to the police because they would expect to get dissed or ignored or blamed and arrested.

The police are supposed to help take care of us all. They need to act in a way that we can trust them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat:
I am genuinely curious as to when free speech does become unacceptable in this context?

---

Any of these would get out into general public knowledge and would remove any confidence the "black paki bastards" had in the police force. They would not want to report any incidents to the police because they would expect to get dissed or ignored or blamed and arrested.

The police are supposed to help take care of us all. They need to act in a way that we can trust them.

---

I agree. I was wondering where the line was drawn for people who believe free speech takes precedence over all other freedoms.

Rat

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarkycow:
But be aware that you will never agree, nor even convince those on the other side of the pond of your way of thinking.

---

quote:

---

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Hey! Some of us were reasonable and neither polarized, oversimplified nor overreacted.

Typical fuckin' Canuckistani.

---

 

---

Posted by Kenwritez (# 3238) on :
 
"Overreaction: Not just for breakfast anymore."
 

---

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
OK, for the record, I'll admit that some of you were less polarized and reactionary than your usual screaming-and-yelling rabid selves.

By "some" I mean "Erin", and only because she's such a vindictive bitch that the mere act of not swearing makes her seem light-hearted in comparison.
 

---

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 
While we're on the subject of the Community Editor, let me just drop this in here...

Believe it, Etheredge. I've got Bible verses to prove it.
 

---

Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarkycow:
Brit 1: Hey, you Americans have stupid laws.
American 1: Oh yeah? Well your British laws are dumb.
American 2: Yeah, dumb and immoral.
Brit 2: Well yours are stupid and racist. And you're talking about stuff you don't know about.
American 3:...

And so it continues.

Yes, I know and understand that Americans don't think free speech should ever be restricted. Yes, I know and understand that their policemen are only considered on duty when they are actually being paid. (To pick two examples.)

Sarkycow

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
One of the reasons for the attention given to jokes and attitudes is that racism infects society so deeply. It isn’t just a matter of deliberate acts of injustice. Racism is not only likely to be surreptitious, it is often unconscious, and even seems to express itself through systems despite the people involved doing their best to be fair.

---

quote:

---

Originally quoted by an ignorant Brit:
"I do not agree with what you say but I will fight for your right to say it"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
What freedom is at risk when a police officer laughs at a racial joke? As far as I can tell, not a single freedom or right is at risk.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
What freedom is at risk when a police officer laughs at a racial joke? As far as I can tell, not a single freedom or right is at risk.

---

The right of ethnic minority members of society to know they are afforded the same standard of policing as everyone else?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Is that really a right?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Is that really a right?

---

quote:

---

The right of ethnic minority members of society to know they are afforded the same standard of policing as everyone else

---

quote:

---

actually do their job

---

Moth is right. Despite the hyperbole on both sides we are not talking about no free speech versus complete free speech. Both societies choose to draw a line somewhere and we are disagreeing about exactly where that line should be.

Rat
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
OK, I have to admit that I am having a hard time getting my mind around this. I have understood that there are significant cultural differences between the UK and the US and that how the UK does things (and likes it!) is radically different from us.

But.

I have never, in my wildest imaginings, ever thought that the British actually believe that they have a right to a particular feeling. NEVER. I knew the cultural gulf was huge, but OHMYFUCKINGGOD

I am stunned.
 

---

Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
Well, it's you guys who have the right to pursue feeling warm and fuzzy as an inalienable right.
 

---

Posted by Robert Miller (# 1459) on :
 
OK - In Northern Ireland we have a little well known gorup that was formerly called the RUC now NIPS.

As such there is alot of disrespect for the police from certain quarters.

From one side they are seen as being sectarian, bigoted and a respectable/lawful wing of loyalist paramilitaries.

From the other they are seen as denying and enforcing the rights of those people who are seen as supporters of Queen, crown and country and are denying them their civil and religious liberties by a pro-natinalist world.

Now the police force is predominantly Protestant (I hate equating Protestantism with loyalism/unionism - but for some reason it happens) can they serve the Catholic/nationalist community effectively?

What's more by being viewed as institutionally sectarian and then say one or more of those officers within the force proved his sectarian nature whilst off duty by refering to nationalist/republicans/catholics as dirty filthy horrible people who are nothing better than dogs (in a jocular manner of course) that only serves to fuel tensions.

Is it the police that need to reform or is it the people or community that is affected by it?

Just some random thoughts there.....

[ 06. November 2003, 10:02: Message edited by: Robert Miller ]
 

---

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
OK, for the record, I'll admit that some of you were less polarized and reactionary than your usual screaming-and-yelling rabid selves.

By "some" I mean "Erin", and only because she's such a vindictive bitch that the mere act of not swearing makes her seem light-hearted in comparison.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
But.

I have never, in my wildest imaginings, ever thought that the British actually believe that they have a right to a particular feeling. NEVER. I knew the cultural gulf was huge, but OHMYFUCKINGGOD

I am stunned.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:

I have never, in my wildest imaginings, ever thought that the British actually believe that they have a right to a particular feeling. NEVER. I knew the cultural gulf was huge, but OHMYFUCKINGGOD

I am stunned.

---

I am really not getting what you are getting at here. It has nothing to do with a feeling, it has to do with expecting a certain standard of public behaviour from certain people in positions of responsibility.

Many Americans apparently expect their public officials to adhere to standards of behaviour which do not include having sex with interns on their office desk. And that was private behaviour. I am struggling to see how the public behaviour of police officers doesn't fall into a similar category?

Rat
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
The only way you will ever know if a police officer will or will not do their job is in the actual carrying out of it. Despite the protests to the contrary, you can NEVER know ahead of time. You can't. If you firmly believe that you can, I want to know what this week's Lotto numbers are, because you clearly have some way of divining the future.

So what we've been talking about this whole thread -- and pardon my denseness for it not dawning on me until just now -- is that you believe that you have a right to "feel" like they will behave in a certain way.

Again: The cultural divide is unbelievable.
 

---

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
The only way you will ever know if a police officer will or will not do their job is in the actual carrying out of it. Despite the protests to the contrary, you can NEVER know ahead of time. You can't. If you firmly believe that you can, I want to know what this week's Lotto numbers are, because you clearly have some way of divining the future.

So what we've been talking about this whole thread -- and pardon my denseness for it not dawning on me until just now -- is that you believe that you have a right to "feel" like they will behave in a certain way.

Again: The cultural divide is unbelievable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:

I have never, in my wildest imaginings, ever thought that the British actually believe that they have a right to a particular feeling. NEVER. I knew the cultural gulf was huge, but OHMYFUCKINGGOD

I am stunned.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Janine:
So if I am a member of a minority group I am guaranteed that the policeman answering my call will blindly and automatically issue me the same exact attention everyone else gets, if only please-it-God the man has never sniggered at a stupid ethnic joke?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Miller:
Another thing though I don't know if it happens in UK or not - but who would I prefer policing my community.

Guys in balaclavas with guns and baseball bats dishing out summary justice or a fair imparitial police force. Hmmmm...... I wonder.

However when people's respect and trust for the police declines, people will take to policing communities in ways that they see fit. Now if that is generated by perceived racism or sectarianism then maybe that is the fault of the community, but the police force does have to question why it is being perceived like that.

Telling racist and sectarian jokes doesn't help a situation in any way

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Janine:
So if I am a member of a minority group I am guaranteed that the policeman answering my call will blindly and automatically issue me the same exact attention everyone else gets, if only please-it-God the man has never sniggered at a stupid ethnic joke?

---

Yes. Why do you find this both funny and unbelievable?

Well, actually, I may have once sniggered at a stupid ethnic joke, I honestly don't know. What is on trial here, so to speak, is not the act of sniggering at a stupid ethnic joke, but the underlying racism this may reveal.

may reveal.

That's what the investigation is going (I presume) to find out. These guys may well not be racists, in which case Huzzah! But then they may be, in which case they have no business serving a community in which people they hate may call upon their assistance.

It is the inalienable right of all citizens to gain protection from a police force which does not treat a member of that society with contempt simply because their skin is a different shade.

If a racist police office did his job with absolute probity and served black members of the community with equal care then I doubt I would have much of a problem with him. I do not believe, however, that racial resentment can be hidden all that well.

In the BBC documentary to which reference has been made police officers talked about the Black Added Tax - i.e. levying larger punishments for black men's motoring offences than for a white woman's. That is a symptom of their racism and is utterly unnaceptable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
We have a right to EXPECT them to believe in a certain way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
We have a right to EXPECT them to believe in a certain way.

---

And the cultural divide widens with every post and here is where I start posting absolutes. You don't have a right to expect me or anyone else to believe in any particular way -- I can believe whatthefuckever I want to believe and you have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to expect me to believe any differently.

---

Shit. Freudian slip. Not "believe". I meant "behave".

How big do I feel?
 

---

Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on :
 
Posted by Erin:

quote:

---

And the cultural divide widens with every post and here is where I start posting absolutes. You don't have a right to expect me or anyone else to believe in any particular way -- I can believe whatthefuckever I want to believe and you have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to expect me to believe any differently.

---

Be assured, Erin, that although this post was triggered by Wood using the wrong word , the 'cultural divide' you refer to isn't as much a reality as you thought: I as a lifelong 'Brit' have much more agreement as to the importance of maintaining freedom of speech (and thought) with yourself, Kenwritez and othe US shipmates than with what has come across as the 'UK' position.

I fear that we in the UK and probably Europe as well are heading for totalitarianism if we keep on down this road of saying 'You can't say this' or 'You can't belong to this organisation'. The Blair Government is fond of over-legislating, and of holding an inquiry about EVERYTHING. It does not reassure me about the future of freedom.
 

---

Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on :
 
Alaric,
I agree with what you say but there are circumstances...

I enjoy wearing jeans and T-Shirts.

Occasionally I wear flourescent studs in my tongue piercing.

Sometimes I die my hair.

My employer has a dress code. They require me to wear a suit, to have no visible piercings and to have hair colour which more or less approximates a natural colour.

Is my employer suppressing my freedom of speech by requiring these of me?

Or are they simply setting standards to which I must conform if I require a job?

Now clearly my employer doesn't care what I do outside of work, but since my job is designing equipment for the oil industry I am hardly likely to adversely affect the image of my industry when casually dressed on a night out. If I were in an industry where my image when out of my work time was important, then my employer would have a right to require certain standards of me outside of work.

The police require certain standards; one of these standards is a lack of racist behaviour. If an officer cannot meet this standard then they are in the wrong job.
 

---

Posted by Space Monkey (# 4961) on :
 
How about this:

Freedom of speech is just one of a number of basic human rights, as enshrined in international law and by the UN. (I hope the US posters here don't share their government's attitude to international law on these matters.)

I would support the right of an individual or organisation to say whatever it pleases, UNTIL they start calling for any group or individual to be denied any of these basic rights. Those rights are absolutes and non-negotiable - they're not a matter of opinion or political persuasion. We can't allow them to be diminished in any way for anyone.

This means that I don't believe the BNP should be a legal political party, and public servants shouldn't belong to it. And I also think the absolutist freedom of speech argument is hopelessly idealistic, because it assumes that all opinions and individuals have an equal ability to make themselves heard. They simply don't - the media in the UK and the US are dominated by particular - often racist - viewpoints, while minority voices are ignored. Until you address that issue, insisting on absolute freedom for wankers to express offensive opinions in public is doing more harm than good.
 

---

Posted by Godfather Avatar (# 4513) on :
 
I think we're getting bogged down here in all this talk about rights. Rights are a nebulous concept, and can mean anything from an entitlement enshrined in law to something someone vaguely feels they ought to deserve, with a variety of more rigorous ethical definitions in between.

I see the issue more in terms of duties: police officers (each of whom chose to become a police officer) have a duty to uphold the law in the country, and that isn't served by the (currently very widespread) public perception that they're a bunch of racist, arrogant shits. While that perception persists, members of ethnic minorities will refuse to call the police when they are needed because they fear getting into trouble themselves; they will not trust the police to heed their concerns; and when they are (as clearly they sometimes are) legitimately arrested, there will always be room for unhelpful additional doubt in the matter.

Thus it is incumbent on police officers to do their best to combat this perception. That's part of their job, and if they didn't want to do it they didn't have to take the job -- it's like an abbatoir worker complaining that her vegetarian principles prohibit her from slaughtering animals.

Aiding the BNP by allowing them to claim that their members include police officers is incompatible with that job. Telling, or even appreciating, racist jokes in a situation where they might -- now or later -- be identified as police officers (which is pretty much any situation, to be honest) is incompatible with that job. Dressing up in a Ku Klux Klan outfit and boasting about imposing more serious punishments on black men... well, that doesn't help either.

Maintain that these pressing practical considerations, constrained on men and women who entered a profession with their eyes wide open, must take second place to some perceived "right" which holds under all circumstances and in all places, is what smacks of absolutism to me.

(Has there been a thread on Freedom of Speech in Purgatory, incidentally? There doesn't appear to be a Dead Horse, and while these recent Hell discussions have been very interesting, they keep being derailed by people taking the piss instead of arguing. Which is of course what Hell is for, but can get somewhat frustrating...)
 

---

Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
Alaric,
I agree with what you say but there are circumstances...

I enjoy wearing jeans and T-Shirts.

Occasionally I wear flourescent studs in my tongue piercing.

Sometimes I die my hair.

My employer has a dress code. They require me to wear a suit, to have no visible piercings and to have hair colour which more or less approximates a natural colour.

Is my employer suppressing my freedom of speech by requiring these of me?

Or are they simply setting standards to which I must conform if I require a job?

Now clearly my employer doesn't care what I do outside of work, but since my job is designing equipment for the oil industry I am hardly likely to adversely affect the image of my industry when casually dressed on a night out. If I were in an industry where my image when out of my work time was important, then my employer would have a right to require certain standards of me outside of work.

The police require certain standards; one of these standards is a lack of racist behaviour. If an officer cannot meet this standard then they are in the wrong job.

---

quote:

---

Sarkycow:
Oh look, another thread which basically splits down UK/USA lines. Do the Australians not give a damn about these kind of issues? Or are they just too quiet to be heard?

---

quote:

---

Scot:
The idea that someone should be banned from public office on the sole basis of their membership in a legal organization is anathema to a free society. Some of you should be ashamed.

---

Actually, even given protection from discrimination, when I did casual work for the State and Commonwealth Electoral Commission here; vote counters were not allowed to be members of a political party. (Some occupations also have restrictions based on criminal record).

There is a racist organisation here called the Australian Nationalists Movement, they are quiet and have their nasty little meetings but you can be sure the moment they make any public statement inciting racial hate or posting racist literature they will be charged. KKK type public hate rallies wouldn't stand a chance. In the past we have been very firm with not allowing entry into the country of people who incite racial hatred like the guy who writes the Holocaust as myth publications.

I know someone mentioned that the allegations regarding the police were false; but if they happened here, I'd expect the police to be stood down while the complaint was investigated and disciplined if it were proven; maybe even moved to different duties.

Considering the hypothetical situation of police telling a racial joke in their spare time at a pub: Anyone can make a complaint about anyone who makes a public racial joke or behaves in a discrimatory or villifying way or causes harassment. ie. those police would have had to answer for their conduct as members of the public, and then their employer would be investigating their fitness to be in the job.

It's about being a fit and proper person to do the job. Public servants, teachers (and members of the armed forces I believe) also are held to this standard. Basically if you commit actions that are going to bring the Public Service (for example) into disrepute your employment can be terminated.

Of course it doesn't mean that these things don't happen here - they did and do (and there is quite a bit of racism - usually against whatever immigrant group is fashionable), that's why we have laws to protect people against them. They're not perfect, don't always work, but I'd rather have them than not. The laws act to deter people, protect us from the ones that break them, and demonstrate the standard of behaviour that is acceptable in society. They are part of the reason I think I live (and I think the other aussies on board prolly think the same) in a place where everyone has 'a fair go'. That's a very important part of Australian culture (well it used to be ).
 

---

Posted by The Coot (Icarus) (# 220) on :
 
(I should've added 'age' to that list)
 

---

Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on :
 
Posted by Space Monkey:

quote:

---

This means that I don't believe the BNP should be a legal political party, and public servants shouldn't belong to it. And I also think the absolutist freedom of speech argument is hopelessly idealistic, because it assumes that all opinions and individuals have an equal ability to make themselves heard. They simply don't - the media in the UK and the US are dominated by particular - often racist - viewpoints, while minority voices are ignored. Until you address that issue, insisting on absolute freedom for wankers to express offensive opinions in public is doing more harm than good.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alaric the Goth:
Oh come on, (large parts of) the 'media' in the UK at least are obsessed with allowing 'minority voices' to be heard. Television, in particular the BBC, is full of programming aimed at giving minorities the chance to air thier grievances, or just be entertained. Was the BBC inquiry into racism amongst police recruits not a good example? You may consider the results this got to be ample justification for planting the BBC|'mole' amongst the trainees: now the Government is considering having planted 'informers' as a regular part of the training of police officers. I find this frightening and wonder where it will all end.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Riv:
Are Brit defense attorneys required to think only that their clients are the best quality of all possible people? No different from the rest of society in any regard? How does that one work?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Riv:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Riv:
Are Brit defense attorneys required to think only that their clients are the best quality of all possible people? No different from the rest of society in any regard? How does that one work?

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
The point, Wood, is that they generally do treat us all the same regardless of their personal opinions. They do it every day.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
The point, Wood, is that they generally do treat us all the same regardless of their personal opinions. They do it every day.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alaric the Goth:
Oh come on, (large parts of) the 'media' in the UK at least are obsessed with allowing 'minority voices' to be heard. Television, in particular the BBC, is full of programming aimed at giving minorities the chance to air thier grievances, or just be entertained.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:
A person who is known to hold racist views, be that from actual words or by actions or by membership of an avowedly racist organisation, is not appropriate as a public appointee in the administration of justice, for the very fact that they are expressly committed to treating persons differently according to their race.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
You can't judge people on what you think they might do, only on what they have done.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
You make an unsupported leap from "A person who is known to hold racist views" to "they are expressly committed to treating persons differently according to their race." This the very heart of much of what I have been objecting to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
The point, Wood, is that they generally do treat us all the same regardless of their personal opinions. They do it every day.

---

Stephen Lawrence.

No they, don't. It's been proven in court.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:
That's not an unsupported leap.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
Of course there are exceptions. They should be dealt with immediately and firmly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
You can't judge people on what you think they might do, only on what they have done.

---

Like, for, example, expressing racist views.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:
By holding a racist view a person is, by definition, going to treat people of different races less favourably. That's part of what being "racist" means, dimwit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Miller:
Having a member of the KKK who is in the police force and is patrolling south central LA is surely not a wise idea?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Miller:
Having a member of the KKK who is in the police force and is patrolling south central LA is surely not a wise idea?

---

Having a person who practiced racial discrimination patrolling South Central would be a very bad idea indeed. Period. No need to delve into political or social affiliations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
We have a right to EXPECT them to believe in a certain way.

---

<<SNIP>>
I can believe whatthefuckever I want to believe and you have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to expect me to believe any differently.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Miller:
Having a member of the KKK who is in the police force and is patrolling south central LA is surely not a wise idea?

---

Having a person who practiced racial discrimination patrolling South Central would be a very bad idea indeed. Period. No need to delve into political or social affiliations.

---

I think it would be worse for him than the good citizens of South Central.

NP
 

---

Posted by Robert Miller (# 1459) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Miller:
Having a member of the KKK who is in the police force and is patrolling south central LA is surely not a wise idea?

---

Having a person who practiced racial discrimination patrolling South Central would be a very bad idea indeed. Period. No need to delve into political or social affiliations.

---

However if the community were to find out that a klansman who was a member of the police was patrolling their neighbourhood surely then there is an issue?

The perception the black community has of a policeman with klan membership patrolling within their community may be the same perception that a Catholic community in Northern Ireland has of a policeman who happens to be a member of the orange order patrolling their neighbourhood.

It may be an unjustified prejudice because they can in fact do their job without prejudice and impartially, but it is still real. What are we going to do - have open days within these organizations to try and patch up community differences and show how tolerant they really are and that you can be confident in their ability?
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
Wood has already pointed out that he meant Behaviour and not belief.................


So, an extreme racist who thinks Blacks and Asains are scum, that they have no right to be in the country in the first place, who thinks they are probably criminals because they are black, who thinks black people "smell funny" and depreciates both their human dignity and human worth, who thinks blacks are less evolved than whites and less intelligent than whites and less civilised than whites may still be ideal police material?

Good Grief.
 

---

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
I can't ignore the buzzing from my Going Around In Circles Sensor any more, so I'm just going to state my position clearly one more time and then let it lie.

First point - Racism is a bad thing. A government that interferes with the people's freedoms of association, speech, or thought is a far worse thing. As Presleyterian eloquently pointed out, racism is limited by "the moral bankruptcy of their political beliefs when forced to compete in the marketplace of ideas." Since though policing suppresses the marketplace of ideas, it is not similarly constrained.

Second point - It is wrong to discipline employees on the sole basis of their beliefs, associations, or the actions of their peers. People should be judged on their actions, not what we think their future actions might be.

That's all. If it bothers you, just be glad you have a different system where you live.
 

---

Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :
 
Sorry about that redundant mess I left above. Not sure at what I was getting.

So, if through the haze I can try to get this straight, actions don't speak louder than words. Words predispose our actions? Or, is it that words expose what our actions mean, regardless of when they're words opposite of what we do? This is, of course, in the context of someone being known to have claimed certain beliefs. What about those who are privately hiding them, or lie about holding such views? If they consistently act 'rightly', against their privately held, unsavory views, are they not fit to serve? What you don't know can hurt you, sure, but not if those who DO know don't act on their knowledge (of themselves).
 

---

Posted by Space Monkey (# 4961) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
First point - Racism is a bad thing. A government that interferes with the people's freedoms of association, speech, or thought is a far worse thing. As Presleyterian eloquently pointed out, racism is limited by "the moral bankruptcy of their political beliefs when forced to compete in the marketplace of ideas."

---

quote:

---

First point - Racism is a bad thing. A government that interferes with the people's freedoms of association, speech, or thought is a far worse thing.

---

You're white aren't you?

I'm being facetious. A little bit. On what grounds do you make that assumption?

Is it preferable to have a government that's really quite racist but otherwise libertarian to a government which, say, doesn't allow Neo-nazis to serve as police officers but which has flawless race relations?

Using, for the sake of argument, Uncle Jeremy Bentham's Felicific Calculator (aka the case of the greatest good for the greatest number) I think that it would be difficult, in terms of outcomes, to conclusively demonstrate that a police force which allows its members to be members of the KKK/BNP is always better for society than a police force which doesn't.

The basis of this pond war, so it appears to this Brit, is that US shipmates (and Alaric) generally see liberty as an absolute good which must never ever be interfered with. British shipmates see liberty as a good which has to co-exist with a range of other goods such as equality, social cohesion, justice et. al.

So the problem with this thread and the Phelps thread and all the other threads which have US and British shipmates shouting "Facist" and "Anarchist at each other (not that I would ever do such a thing of course )is that like Sydney Smith's fishwives, we are arguing from different premises.

The question we need to be asking is "should freedom have the absolute status is has in US society? Is it always wrong to restrict freedom? and if so why?"
 

---

Posted by Mr Callan (# 525) on :
 
Of course the question could equally be phrased "Do Brits pay too high a price for social cohesion" or whatever. I'm not suggesting that the US have a monopoly on unexamined assumptions.
 

---

Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on :
 
Hold on to your hat. What follows is an earth-shattering declaration: I don't much like kids.

There. I've said it. I go out of my way to live in an apartment that is de facto adults only. If I have a choice in a restaurant, I sit as far away as possible from table with kids. I don't usually invite my friends' children to my house. I generally decline invitations to "bring the whole family" social events. I vocally oppose tax policies that favor breeders and vote against politicians who pander to "children's interests." And those who have been on the boards for a while will remember some of my screamin'-babies-in-church diatribes.

And yet....

I've never physically harmed a child. I've never even spoken harshly to a child -- which is more than most of you kid lovers can claim. In emergency situations when I've had to tend to friends' children for extended periods of time, I've fed them, protected them, and cared for them. And if you ask the average seven-year-old what they think of their acquaintance Presleyterian, I daresay you'll get a glowing report of a slightly madcap Auntie Mame type who: 1) lets them drink apple juice out of highball glasses with an orange slice and maraschino cherry; 2) improves their math skills by teaching them to double down the house when playing Texas Hold 'Em; and 3) gives them feather boas and leather flasks on their eighth birthday. Which is why I agree with Scot that the sole emphasis should be on conduct, not belief.

As others have raised on this thread, there are a good number of Christians who belong to denominations that teach a rigid view of male headship that I find deplorable. Does it concern me that a police officer who is, say, a Southern Baptist might allow those views to enter into how he handles a domestic violence call? Sure. But am I willing to say that out of sensitivity to women, a Southern Baptist shouldn't be allowed to be a cop? Of course not. If it turns out that his response to a beaten wife is to say "You need to learn to submit to your husband as leader of the household," fire his ass. But base it on his actions, not his thoughts or affiliations.

[ 06. November 2003, 16:14: Message edited by: Presleyterian ]
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
But I still think that joining the BNP is a matter of conduct and not merely of belief.

And with that, I bow out also. This circular pond war is boring even me.
 

---

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Presleyterian:
I don't much like kids.

---

quote:

---

I've never physically harmed a child. I've never even spoken harshly to a child -- which is more than most of you kid lovers can claim. In emergency situations when I've had to tend to friends' children for extended periods of time, I've fed them, protected them, and cared for them. And if you ask the average seven-year-old what they think of their acquaintance Presleyterian, I daresay you'll get a glowing report of a slightly madcap Auntie Mame type who: 1) lets them drink apple juice out of highball glasses with an orange slice and maraschino cherry; 2) improves their math skills by teaching them to double down the house when playing Texas Hold 'Em; and 3) gives them feather boas and leather flasks on their eighth birthday. Which is why I agree with Scot that the sole emphasis should be on conduct, not belief.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
You can't judge people on what you think they might do, only on what they have done.

---

Like, for, example, expressing racist views.

---

Yep, from that action we might reasonably judge that the speaker has racist views. However, we could not reasonably say that that person will necessarily be prone to racial discrimation in the course of their professional duties.

You are still trying to defend the idea that we should demand a standard of belief, as opposed to a standard of behavior, from our public officials. That's a appallingly totalitarian position.

---

quote:

---

Except, my dear Professor, that you've commented upon the gravy of Presleyterian's post -- not the meat -- which was the other analogy about the cop who may be a devout Southern Baptist.

---

I wouldn't compare Southern Baptists to Nazis either.

Seriously, if I were a battered woman who had phoned the police I might feel quite comfortable if my rescuer turned out to be an old fashioned Southern Baptist who insisted on addressing me as Ma'am and whose sense of chivalry was outraged by the fact that I was sporting a black eye caused by spousal abuse. The fact that I might differ from him over the merits of, say, J.S. Mill's views on the emancipation of women would, I imagine, matter little in comparison. If, on the other hand, I were a member of an ethnic minority who had just suffered a racial assault and my rescuer was wearing a ring with a swastika on it, I doubt that I would feel quite so happy about the beliefs of my rescuer.

I think that there is a reasonable correlation between membership of far-right organisations and violence. That is, as it were, the point of facism. There's a strong correlation at the very least, I would imagine. I would be very surprised indeed if any such correlation existed relating Southern Baptists to domestic violence.

So I don't think that the analogy holds there either. But I plead guilty on picking on the weakest part of Presleyterian's argument for rhetorical effect.
 

---

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
There would seem to be sufficient hot air to drive a windmill generator on this subject. It would have to be spittle-proof, though.

RooK
Hellhost
 

---

Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on :
 

quote:

---

Mr. Callan wrote: This is a somewhat less than compelling analogy. Unless you think that Nazis are really loveable, madcap curmudgeons who, given half a chance, will ply black people with apple juice and play cards with them. In which case it's no wonder you people were two years late for the Second World War.

---

quote:

---

Oh, and as for why "you people were two years late for the Second World War," my people were in Theresienstadt at the time. Sorry they didn't have the opportunity to RSVP their regrets to you and the plucky Mrs. Miniver, but the appropriate social stationery was hard to come by at the time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat:
Telling a racist joke IS an action.

Joining a racist political party IS an action.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:

quote:

---

We have a right to EXPECT them to believe in a certain way.

---

Shit. Freudian slip. Not "believe". I meant "behave".

How big do I feel?

---

quote:

---

Main Entry: Freudian slip
Function: noun
Date: 1953
: a slip of the tongue that is motivated by and reveals some unconscious aspect of the mind

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
And Wood, dearie, you need to reacquaint yourself with your own words:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:

quote:

---

We have a right to EXPECT them to believe in a certain way.

---

Shit. Freudian slip. Not "believe". I meant "behave".

How big do I feel?

---

And, just for you, I hopped on over to m-w.com to find the definition of a Freudian slip:

quote:

---

Main Entry: Freudian slip
Function: noun
Date: 1953
: a slip of the tongue that is motivated by and reveals some unconscious aspect of the mind

---

So yeah, you DID mean believe. If you need further help with your English you just let me know.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
YOU are the one who's all yelling about how words are actions and blah blah blah -- YOU SAID that "believe" was a -- and I QUOTE YOU -- "Freudian slip". Freudian slip, for your information, has a specific definition. It does NOT mean "I didn't mean that". It DOES mean "this is what I ACTUALLY think deep down in my heart of hearts".

Deal with it. And grow the fuck up while you're at it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
RooK, you old sweet talker, you. But you and Sarky can breathe a sigh of relief that we managed to scare everyone away from the thread and it can die now. And we won't even charge you for it.

---

And here was me waiting for tomb to post, as this thread appears to be the current Hellhost party thread

So, to sum up:
Americans (and Alaric) believe one thing.
Brits and Aussies believe something else.
Sharkshooter has made two idiotic posts in Hell today.
Everyone* is bored of going round in circles.

Does anyone have anything new and on topic to contribute before a hellhost kills this sorry excuse for a thread?

Sarkycow, hellhost

*For the purpose of this summary, I'm going to tell you all what to believe: You're all bored of going round in circles.
 

---

Posted by Grits (# 4169) on :
 
The Canadians were unable to get involved in this discussion because they're apparently all stoned.
 

---

Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :
 
Well, some were stoned. The rest were just stuck in American rush hour traffic. They just popped down to say hello, you see. Nothing pressing. Neighborly.
 

---

Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr Callan:
This is a somewhat less than compelling analogy. Unless you think that Nazis are really loveable, madcap curmudgeons who, given half a chance, will ply black people with apple juice and play cards with them. In which case it's no wonder you people were two years late for the Second World War.

---

quote:

---

The majority of German citizens were at one time members of the Nazi party. Yet some card carrying members of the Nazi party actually helped jews and others escape capture. Likewise there are many different people that belong to many different groups for many different reasons.
I find it interesting that the only hate groups mentioned here and railed against are those that "white" people would belong to. Out of curiosity, should we probe as deeply into minority groups and individuals?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
It is wrong to discipline employees on the sole basis of their beliefs, associations, or the actions of their peers. People should be judged on their actions, not what we think their future actions might be.

That's all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
There would seem to be room to start a thread on this subject in purgatory.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
If you need further help with your English you just let me know.

---

Red.rag.bull.can.open.worms.everywhere.

I think this thread has pretty much proven that Americans and Brits* (apart from Alaric, the ratbastard traitor) are very different.

In the red corner we have absolute freedom of speech, no holds barred kick-em-in-the-bollocks freestyle brawling, and in the blue corner we have freedom of speech as long as it doesn't offend me or talk too loudly in libraries, Marquis of Queensbury rules fisticuffs.

So while you guys might win the fight, you play dirty and we'd rather have cleanly restricted fighting, and lose, than hell-for-leather brawling and win.

It has been most enjoyable, thankyou.


[ * and Eire. Edited because I forgot that there were some Southern Irish people here too, sorry]

[ 07. November 2003, 09:22: Message edited by: IntellectByProxy ]
 

---

Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on :
 
Oooh! Never been called a 'ratbastard traitor before. And the strange thing is, I'm not offended! (on the assumption that it was said tongue-in-cheek! )

Very ironic to call me that, given the 'dodgy nationalist' tag that ken once used of me. (Where has said ken been on this thread, btw? I would expect to see him here given what he has posted elsewhere. Has he not posted because it would be liable to cause him to explode? )
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
Did IBP just call me a red?
 

---

Posted by Robert Miller (# 1459) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:

[ * and Eire. Edited because I forgot that there were some Southern Irish people here too, sorry]

---

You've just been oppressing us for so long that we have had to learn to fight by your rules
 

---

Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Did IBP just call me a red?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by some bloody colonial:
Oh, great. I bet Erin deliberately transmogrified into the razor-fanged possumivore just to prove my previous statement naive. I also bet Wood was in on it. Both your self-righteous banshee acts don't fool me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bongo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
Of course there are exceptions. They should be dealt with immediately and firmly.

---

Er, the Lawrence Inquiry found that the entire Metropolitan (Greater London) police force is "institutionally racist."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
Oh, go pleasure a moose.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
Oh, go pleasure a moose.

---

Ah... the rabid intellectual strikes again. Bloody Colonial must be absolutely seething at this point, probably so much so he cannot respond. Well done, Wood, well done indeed.


NP

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0