Posted                       

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

---

Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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

Typical fuckin' Canuckistani.

---

--------------------
"I don't know whether I like it, but it's what I meant." Ralph Vaughan Williams

"Riv, you've done a much better job communicating your passion than your point. I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about." Tom Clune

Posted                      

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

---

Posted                         

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.

---

Posted                          

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"

---

Posted                          

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.

---

Posted                       

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?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Is that really a right?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Is that really a right?

---

Posted                       

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

---

Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                         

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.

---

Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                         

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.

---

Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                          

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?

---

Posted                       

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

---

Posted                          

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.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                         

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?

--------------------
Narcissism.

Posted                      

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                      

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.

---

Posted                      

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                      

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.

---

Posted                      

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.

---