Thread: Hell: Control of racism, how far is too far? Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000323

Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on :
 
News article

8 Police men, off duty and away from work were involved in an undisclosed way with the telling of a racist joke. Their constabulary is now under investigation by an independent enquiry.

Now I detest racism and don't seek to defend it, but isn't calling an enquiry going just way too far? After all, the guys were off duty at the time.

My company has a policy against sexism. Sometimes I tell my wife a sexist joke because it is funny. Should my company be litigated against?

Seems a bit mad to me, but then I am a white man, maybe I can't understand.

[ 27. January 2004, 14:28: Message edited by: Nightlamp ]
 
Posted by Justus (# 2424) on :
 
I think this inquiry has to be seen in the context of the extreme scrutiny under which the police have been placed since the BBC investigation into racism in the Greater Manchester Police force - click here for further details.

In the past two days news has also emerged regarding individuals in the West Midlands Police who are also members of the British National Party (BNP) here for further details.

Both of the recent stories referred to follow the labeling of the Metropolitan Police as "institutionally racist" following the Lawrence Inquiry.

I think the investigation in Kent is taking things too far, however the historic attitudes of many police officers combined with the context of recent events naturally leads people to ask: how racist are the police ?

When I get stopped by a police officer I want to know its becuase I've done something wrong not becuase I'm not white. When an officer refuses to exercise their discretion for me but does so for someone who is white (an example cited by one of the racist officers in the BBC film) I want to know if the reason for that choice is down to the colour of my skin.

Part of the problem is that like the BNP, those who want to promote a racist agenda are smart enough to figure you don't do it by calling someone a nigger of a paki to their face. Rather the racism is exercised in a more subtle fashion through the exercise of powers and duties in a manner which hits non-white people hardest (or 'black added tax' as one of the officers in the BBC film called it).

Given this difficulty the question becomes how do you tackle the racist who is subtle enough to practice their racism in a manner which is not immediately apparent without embarking on a McCarthyite witch-hunt ?

I think Kent has got this one wrong, but if the purpose was to demonstrate that racism won't be tolerated then they've got the right idea.
 
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on :
 
Persecution of people because of words they use, jokes they tell, or how they think violates ones personal freedom. 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.

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. 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. 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. Should we investigate everyone?

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
 
Posted by Lurker McLurker, of the clan Lurker (# 1384) on :
 
The article says a member of the public reported the men to their superiors. How did this person know they were police? If they were wearing their uniforms at the time, then their behaviour is a disciplinary matter.
 
Posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
Persecution of people because of words they use, jokes they tell, or how they think violates ones personal freedom.

So we shouldn't discriminate against racists when recruiting police officers?

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.
Says you. On the basis of no evidence whatsoever.

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.
Racism in the police force undermines the confidence of ethnic minorities in the policing of the country. This can only have negative effects on "life, liberty and the 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.
But if they just have a complete disregard for the human dignity of a group who depends upon them for security, that is absolutely fine? Would it not be better to weed out the officers whose attitudes make them likely to end up abusing people racially, especially given that such attitudes must inhibit their ability to properly do their job even if not manifested in such actions?

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.
Speak for yourself.

quote:
Should we investigate everyone?
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.

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

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.
 
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on :
 
I know Karl has already taken this apart, but I though I could do it more eloquently:

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

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.
Bollocks

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.
Bollocks

quote:
People do it all the time, everyone does.
Bollocks

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

Bollocks

Don't make excuses for racism because 'everyone does it'. I don't. My friends don't. My family members don't. Nobody I know is openly racist, not against black people, white people, Irish people...not against anyone. Maybe I am lucky in the company I keep, but to say 'everyone does it' is a gross and offensive generalisation.
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
How can anyone control racism? You may be able to control the expression thereof, but if you think that by making the use of racial slurs illegal you're actually controlling racism, I want to live in your world. It must be lovely there, full of pink fluffy unicorns and enchanted teapots.
 
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on :
 
Absolutely. You can't control racism, but you can control the expression of racism which is better than nothing.

And keep your hands of our enchanted teapots. The unicorns you can have.
 
Posted by Robert Miller (# 1459) on :
 
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 [Biased] .

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. [Big Grin]
 
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? [Biased]

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? [Biased]

This Australian has discovered (My, some of us are bright, aren't we!!!!) that once people start hurling stones across the pond there's no point trying to get a word in. And this is Hell, isn't it? So what's the point in trying to make a sensible comment anyway?

That said, I don't think there's a place for racist, sexist or other discriminatory jokes anywhere, for off-duty police or anyone else. We may want to pretend otherwise, but the stuff we joke about still shapes our thinking.

Before Erin starts snapping at me: I know we're not going to create a fluffy-bunny utopia. But I also believe that we can reduce the amount of mental pollution we each have to wade through, and that doing so will be good for us and for other people.

However, holding an enquiry into seems to be a case of using a steam-roller to crack a nut. There may be more out-and-out stupid ways to waste taxpayers money, but I can't think of them right now.
 
Posted by ce (# 1957) on :
 
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.

Or more precisely whether:
1. Police officers who are stupid enough to make racist remarks in public a couple of weeks after the North West police training thing made all the national headlines BBC URL might not be fit to be public servants in positions of authority.

2. Again, in the light of what emerged in Manchester, to enquire whether somene who is prepared/stupid enough to act in such a manner in public might just be importing those attitudes into their work in a manner which constitutes a gross disciplinary offence.

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

ce
 
Posted by Cranmer's baggage (# 4937) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ce:
Incidentally, someone asked about educational standards for police recruits - there are none: recruiting standards

In days of old, when I used to teach in what might kindly be called the arse-end of the education system, we reckoned that most of our students went into law-related occupations: the smart ones became crims, and the really thick ones joined the police force! I know some highly educated police, but every now and then I meet one who makes me think that the old days aren't so long ago....
 
Posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Don't try to confuse me with your commie facts, you fiendish pinko!

Ack! Quick, comrades, the secret plan's been rumbled!

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. [Big Grin]
You mean like telling Daily Mail readers that asylum seekers are natural predators of paedophiles?

[ 04. November 2003, 12:39: Message edited by: Karl - Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by ce (# 1957) on :
 
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.

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.

ce
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
The Nestle thing is a rubbish analogy. In that case, Nestle would be the clear villain, because, unlike the police, employees of Nestle don't as a matter of course have to deal with people in situations where these attitudes could affect decisions which could alter or destroy a life.

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!"

[ 04. November 2003, 12:55: Message edited by: Wood ]
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
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. [Smile]
 
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!"


I think this is unnecessarily cynical. Any complaint by a member of the public is investigated at an appropriate level, and where that complaint involves racism, it is very thoroughly investigated. The Police Authority (in effect its governing body) has a duty to monitor such complaints.

Police are never 'off-duty' in the sense that they can behave exactly as they like. Complaints are not infrequently made about 'off-duty' behaviour.

It should also be noted that the Kent Police Authority recently became the first in the UK to appoint a black Chief Constable.

I think most of us who work in the public sector are well aware that racism or any lack of political correctness on or off duty could lead to a complaint being made which threatens our jobs.
 
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on :
 
I think that wood is right. And not just for home furnishings.

The police appear to have made examples of these guys to prove they are tackling racism. Should the police force be allowed a special case for this type of action or could this ethos permeate all our companies so that, in 5 years time, I could be sacked for telling MrsByProxy a very humerous sexist joke.

Is it going too far? Granted, these guys could be arseholes who aren't fit to be the defenders of liberty and legality, but can they be punished for telling a racist joke?

I assume racist comments can be punished under some law in the UK, and police officers should conduct themselves in a legalistic manner outside of work - you wouldn't expect a copper to keep his job if he robbed a bank.

maybe they are a special case.
 
Posted by Space Monkey (# 4961) on :
 
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. Interestingly, the people picked for these tests are very often the ones who've just been on an expenses-paid working trip to Glastonbury Festival or similar. Given that Budweiser is one of the biggest peddlers of recreational drugs in the world, this seems just a tad hypocritical.

They also appear to do it over politics, although perhaps not officially. The same friend was warned not to let on that she'd attended a Stop the War march, as it would make her sound 'a bit lefty'.
 
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on :
 
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.

Actually there's a litle alcove in my front room that I can squeeze into where the big video screen can't see me then and I can write dark thoughts in my double plus ungood diary.
 
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
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.
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.
 
Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
[tangent]
Whoever was saying about them being off-duty, and so it should be none of the Police Commission's business...

Policemen are rarely 'off duty' in UK. They are supposed to carry their warrant cards with them at all times, and should they see someone doing a criminal act, they have a duty to warn/arrest them (depending on penalty for said act) then call it in.
[/tangent]

I tend to think this is at least in part motivated by the recent headlines about racism in the police. If the Kent top bods had done nothing, then they would be seen as condoning racist behaviour by the police.

And how did the woman know that they were policemen? If she hadn't known this, they would have been seen as racist bastards. The fact she knew makes them racist police bastards - a rather different matter.

Sarkycow
 
Posted by Kenwritez (# 3238) on :
 
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.

[ 04. November 2003, 14:28: Message edited by: Kenwritez ]
 
Posted by Justus (# 2424) on :
 
A significant part of the problem here is the 'canteen culture' in the police, identified by Lord McPherson in the Lawrence enquiry.

A further piece of news to come out of the recent story on the BNP having members in the police force was this enlightening interview with a recently retired Police Inspector John Phazey:

'The ex-copper, who helped police the Handsworth riots in the early 80s, added: "Of course you heard words like 'paki' and 'nigger' but it didn't mean any more than someone saying Paddy for an Irishman or Jerry for a German.

"It was just the language of working class blokes. There was a fair bit of leg-pulling but it was never malicious. "I remember there was one officer who, whenever an Asian officer came into the room, would go 'Coon, coon' like he was making the noise of a pigeon.

"It's like saying Paddies are as thick as two short planks or Jocks are tight-fisted. It was just jokes in the canteen. You'll get that anywhere when you have men in their 20s and 30s together." '

The full story can be read here .

If those in the Kent Police share Inspector Phazey's view that this is all a bit of joshing, leg pulling and no harm done then the inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence was in vain.
 
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on :
 
Racism may well be a special case because it is so emotive at the moment.

If the police were caught making mother-in-law gags it wouldn't be a problem, but racism is high on the police agenda at the moment.

I'm not saying the action is right, the jury is still out for me on that one, but racism is a big issue at the moment.

Maybe it's wrong, but I think racist comments are far worse than sexist comments, or mother-in-law-ist comments. I don't ever tell racist jokes (I don't know any anyway) but I do occasionally tell sexist jokes (but only to people who I know intimately)
 
Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on :
 
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 :
 
[Votive] 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.

Bollocks.

I didn't say everyone is racist. I said everyone has some group of people they make the butt of poor humor; whether that group is 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. Simple truth, my boy. Anyone who tells you different and believes it is lying to two people.

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.

Well, gee Karl - shouldn't we know that about everybody then? Trash collectors, firemen, teachers, doctors, lawyers, anybody that owns a business? The general public has a right to be treated fairly by all of these people. Perhaps a racist trash collector would have nul effect, but its far more dangerous for the community to have a teacher that harbors racism than a cop that does.
Telling a racist jokes does not make one racist. Just as telling a joke about christians does not make me a satanist. If someone is accused of performing an action, such as denying employment, physical assault, or whatever - then by all means an investigation should be done, and the "ethnic" public would have every right to question the fairness of (in this example) the police department.

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
 
Posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
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?

Hmmm - I'm not sure anyone's said they want to. The question is whether the jokes are symptomatic of an underlying attitude which will make it very difficult for them to carry out their duties in a manner which serves their entire community. This is what any enquiry should be about. Not "crucifying" anyone for racist humour per se.

quote:
How many of you would survive a similar Inquisition for telling an "inappropriate" joke or holding an "inappropriate" belief?
Indeed not. Hence what I just said.

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.
Which is why an enquiry is required to establish whether they are fit to be police or not. In the present climate, merely ignoring the incident will seriously damage public confidence in the police.
 
Posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
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 an ignorant twat. Repeating this bullshit mantra just reopens the wounds and retwists the knife.

[ 04. November 2003, 15:41: Message edited by: Karl - Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on :
 
Absent a clause in a union contract or individual employment agreement to the contrary, the default setting in the US is that employees can be fired for good reason, bad reason, or no reason at all. That's why it's not unusual to see a person involved in a messy public situation wholly unrelated to their employment get "coincidentally" laid off at just the moment that their employer's name starts appearing in embarrassing newspaper articles.

So although there are thousands of American companies that routinely insert "We can fire you for what you do on your off-time" clauses in employment contracts, the smarter -- and better counseled -- ones don't say anything and just exercise the employee-at-will doctrine to fire workers who become public liabilities.

Of course, as public employees, cops have some additional procedural protections, but generally speaking the only reason a fired employee would have a casue of action would be if he or she could bear the heavy of burden of proving that the firing was motivated by race, sex, religion, or ethnicity.

And Karl, I don't at all disagree that words can and do hurt more than the sticks and stones. I just don't think bruised feelings should be legally actionable.

[ 04. November 2003, 15:47: Message edited by: Presleyterian ]
 
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on :
 
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.
Actually, I think he is referring to the possibility that in the future you will have to hide from the Thought police. Hence the shutters.

NP
 
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on :
 
nonpropheteer:
Most of the groups you mention in your diatribe:

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
...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.

The bit where you say:

quote:
Everyone has a group whom they consider inferior in some way
...is very telling about you. I can think of no group I consider inferior. That would make me a snob and a wanker.
 
Posted by Mr Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Kenwritez:

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.

I think that's about it. Official reprimand followed by a note on their file for a couple of years would be my verdict. The amazing thing is how the hell were they rumbled as coppers? Drinking in uniform? Someone complaining followed by a drunken officer saying "Piss off or we'll nick you". If either of those were the case then they deserve everything they get.

A few years ago, I regularly had dealings with the people who work in the rather heavy end of law enforcement. They tended to be young (i.e. 20s-30s) men with more testosterone than brains (which is not the same as saying they are stupid). Whether one likes it or not, they are not going to be Guardian readers with interests in Buddhism, the philosophy of Wittgenstein and the music of the Kronos quartet.

I think that the tax payer has a right to expect standards of professionalism which includes not getting oneself splashed across the pages of the popular press making jokes of an unsavoury nature. The tax payer also has a right to a police force which is percieved to be fair to all the citizens of the UK, including those from ethnic minorities. If those sort of boundaries are crossed then I think that some form of disciplinary action is clearly appropriate. But the police do an extremely difficult job, often at great personal cost to themselves. I think it not unreasonable that they be cut some slack when, in an instance such as this one, a serious reprimand would probably prevent a recurrence.
 
Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :
 
From the article in the OP:
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.
Institutional Police racism may be of relevant concern, but the eight officers mentioned don't appear to remain in question.
 
Posted by Space Monkey (# 4961) on :
 
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.

Errmm.. she, and everyone she knew, worked in marketing. No heavy machinery, in fact no contact with customers or the public whatsoever. And in any case, suing people at the drop of a hat isn't standard practice in this country yet.

So I think it's reasonable to assume the motivation is to protect the public image (of a drug selling company, ridiculously enough) and control their employees. I wish I lived in a world where corporations had such innocent motivations as you imagine, but I really don't see it.
 
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on :
 
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, [Waterworks] 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, [Waterworks] 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? [Overused]

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.

What a bullshit phrase. Better would be:

Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will break my heart.

Tis great for you if you can shrug off (or work through, or whatever) things that have been said about/to you. Those who are screwed over by them know their pain and their power.

And comparing the two, physical or mental pain, is redundant. People prefer the one they haven't experienced, or aren't currently experiencing.

Sarkycow
 
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on :
 
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 [Waterworks] 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 [Waterworks] 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?

Perhaps I am. Some people find me quite charming, while others despise me. Most people fall somewhere inbetween. 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.
Those people that hurt you were cruel, but those people don't exist anymore - they've grown and changed. Have you? Or do those people from back then still have power over you? It takes a whole lot more will power to hold on to something than to let it go.
Maybe I can do it easier than some people...I don't know, I'm just a guy living his life(hopefully) to the best of his ability.


NP
 
Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
(ok, to continue the tangent)

Look, NP, my brother has severe Aspergers and I know that it caused (and causes) him to find it very difficult to fit in. He was often beaten-up at school and certainly didn't have many friends at all. He has always found face to face interation with others to be highly problematic because he cannot "read" people the way you and I can. This does not mean he found it easy to be the butt of everyone's oh so hilarious "jokes". To say that Aspergers syndrome causes no more social difficulties then being chubby and into D and D is complete and utter bollocks.

I should also point out that I am not attempting to speak for Karl. I have no idea how severe Karl's AS is or whether he experienced the same stuff my brother did. I am purely speaking for me when I say that I think you are coming across as a puerile little turd who knows shit all.


(end tangent)

Kenwritez - I think you are almost correct in what you say. I certainly can't claim to be devoid of all prejudice and it seems unrealistic to demand that no police officer has the slightest racial prejudice. However, I don't think BNP members or those who are openly and overtly racist should have a place in the ranks of the police for the reasons that Karl has already given.
 
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on :
 
quote:
Quoth the nonpropheteer:
I'm fairly certain you are a wanker anyway...

Well, yes, but I am trying and by the grace of God, and with the constant help of people like you, I will achieve nirvana.

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.

No difference whatsoever, but the question is 'would the nun in question find the joke offensive?' if she would then you don't play the joke.

Given that black people (for example) have been oppressed for generations and derided with nigger (for example) jokes I take it as given that such jokes would cause offence and would therefore not use them.

If I had a black friend who enjoyed the word 'nigger' I might us it with him, and only him. It's a case basis.

Call that PC if you want, I call it cultural respect.

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.

followed by:

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.

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.

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.
 
Posted by rosemary (# 100) on :
 
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.

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
 
Posted by sophs (# 2296) on :
 
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
[Mad]

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

NP

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. People don't get the choice over aspergers, colour or gender. That’s why ridiculing someone for their disability, their ethnicity or their sex is so demeaning – it’s not what you chose to be it's who you are.

The reason racist jokes are an issue is what they beget. In order to commit genocide against a race the first step is to dehumanise them, to remove the characteristics of an individual and to replace it with a generalisation – they all stink, they’re all stupid, they’re all scroungers etc. etc. Remove the humanity and replace it with a stereotype. Once that’s done the real nasty stuff can begin

This isn’t about the thought police. It’s about those slights, slurs, jokes and countless small petty vindictive acts, which seen in isloation may be capable of justification, but when seen as a cumulative whole turn into the breeding ground of fascism.

It might be a long journey from telling an anti-Semitic joke in Berlin to the jackboots marching down the Champs Elysee, but join the dots and you’ll get there in the end.

I’m not saying everyone who tells a racist joke is a Nazi, but I believe acts of racist abuse have their roots in the joke once told and once appreciated that made the abuse seem justifiable enough to carry out.
 
Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 
The current suggestion is that the Police should be banned from being members of the BNP.

Personally, I don't think this should happen unless the BNP is banned first.

From a legal standpoint (though not a moral one) the BNP is a legitimate political party.

We tread on very dangerous ground when the government (a group of people of one political party) start deciding what political persuasions it's police force are allowed to have.

The pressure to do this is coming from the Anti-Nazi League. Their name might imply that this group are "good guys", but in fact they are in many ways an extreme left wing organisation and not exactly whiter than white themselves.

The idea of political parties trying to ban each other or ban individual's membership is a deeply uncomfortable one for me.

It means putting up with some obnoxious twits like the BNP, but this is surely the smaller price to pay.

matt
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
Matt,
The BNP are not just idiots, they are promoting wickedness - ethnic discrimination. So no policeman should be allowed to belong to that "party".

Police should be encouraging respect and law-abidingness.

sophs: excellent post!
 
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Chris (# 111) on :
 
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

If you could choose, right now, not to be such a bastard, would it be less offensive for me to think you are still an arsehole?
 
Posted by Kenwritez (# 3238) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
So no policeman should be allowed to belong to that "party".

Yeah, right. England, cradle of democracy. [Snore]

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 [Biased] , 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.

Its not a "typical" American view anymore. The PC police have been doing a bang up job protecting the minority groups from their big bad white male oppressors. There are common sense limits on Freedom of speech, such as yelling "Fire" in a crowded movie theater. Its okay if there is a fire, very bad if there is not one. Also, a call to criminal action is forbidden under various statutes, and verbal threats are legally actionable. Especially if its a white male making the threat against a minority. I am not against these types of legal actions or laws. What I am against, and believe any reasonable human being should be against, is having a racial or any other kind of joke, phrase or word considered legally actionable. It puzzles me that Lenny Bruce and George Carlin fans can be so willing to allow society to censor words.

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.

I would expect any authority figure to put a stop to the hazing of someone should they witness it. Any punishments doled out should be even handed regardless of the victims socio-cultural status. If you would give a white kid ten days suspension for calling a black kid "nigger", then the black kid should get ten days for calling the white kid "trailor trash" or "cracker". Similarly, if a black kid calls another an "uncle tom", he should be punished by the same rule. You should not pass a law to protect Y's feelings - the law should be applied equally and protect EVERYONE's feelings.
The policemen in question were not hazing anyone - they were telling jokes to each other, one of which has been labled racist in nature. This does not make them racists. If they were hazing someone, anyone, regardless of the reason, they should be reprimanded, perhaps fired. But simply telling a joke? Get over it.

quote:

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

Thinking that its ok to steal is fine. Actually stealing, however, is bad. Would you want people in jail for thinking its ok to steal? Should we gather them up and put them in "re-education" camps?
Freedom of speech is one of the founding causes of America. We haven't always believed that the government has the right to throw us in prison or otherwise punish us for speaking our opinions. That attitude seems to be going the way of slow death though.

And who defines what is racist anyway? I have heard from educated people that African Americans cannot be racist. Just boggles the mind.

NP
 
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on :
 
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?

But you can't choose to be black so that's a great big cul de sac of an argument.

But for the sake of the analogy let us assume for a minute that you have chosen to be black, does that change anything...hmm.

Nope, you're still a pillock.

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.

Any joke is fine as long as the subject isn't offended by it. The chances are that a black person, a disabled person, a person with Aspergers syndrome, will be offended by your joke, so out of respect and deference you do not tell the joke.

If the subject is unlikely to be offended; nuns, sheep, Anne Widdecombe, then the joke is fine. You can't tar everyone with the same brush.

In theory I would tell a racist joke to my black friend if he wasn't going to be offended by it. In theory I would tell a disabled-ist joke to my disabled friend if he wasn't going to be offended by it. But would I do it in public?

No. Because someone might get the wrong idea, be offended by it, etc.

Respect is where it's at.
 
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on :
 
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.

Does that put me in the same catagory as Warren Harding?

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.

It is always better to blast someone for their grammer when you spell things correctly.

Non Sequitur
Nonpropheteer

The internet isn't real life?

Ok, maybe I was too harsh with Karl - but my point is that the words used against him hurt just as bad as the word "nigger" thrown at a black person. Why shouldn't we search out the people that hazed him, get them fired, destroy their reputations, and lable them "elitist snobs"?
As far as nuns go, don't you think they would be offended by all the nun=slut jokes that are out there? Don't they have as much right to be just as angry as Karl, black people, republicans, etc? Shouldn't we call an investigation if a police officer starts a conversation by saying "So these three nuns died and went to heaven...."? Perhaps he has anti-catholic leanings and will not protect catholic churches and communities as well as he would protestant communities.

I'm sorry, but that is an awful flimsy reason to spend tens of thousands of dollars conducting an investigation.

NP
 
Posted by Godfather Avatar (# 4513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
It is always better to blast someone for their grammer when you spell things correctly.

X X X IRONY OVERLOAD ERROR X X X
 
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on :
 
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. I assume it makes them feel intellectually superior when in fact all it means is that they have nothing better to do.

I apologise unreservedly for spelling your name wrongly.

No, the internet is not 'real life' insofar as in a text medium it is very easy to come across badly when in real life, with context, you may actually be a nice guy.

You come across badly in some of your posts, that was my point.

Nuns may well be offended by nun-slut jokes. I wasn't aware that there were any nun-slut jokes. However there are lots of non-offensive nun jokes as well. I don't imagine there are many non-offensive racist jokes.

And yes, Karl has every reason to be angry, and if someone now was making fun of him for his Aspergers syndrome I would expect there to be repercussions. But you can't retrospectively apply that to kids at school 10 years ago (much as I would like to hunt down everyone who bullied me)

Racism in the police is an emotive issue. Far more so than nun mocking. A police officer must must be even handed and if they harbour racist attitudes they can't be trusted to excercise their duty with probity.
 
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on :
 
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.

You admit we don't live in an ideal world adn think "reverse discrimination" is going to make it all better? As long as you make these laws that protect minorities more than they protect the majority, you foster hatred and racism. Since we don't live in an ideal world, we should make every effort to either create less laws or ensure those we do make apply regardless of race, sex, and political affiliation. 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.

With your philosophy, a black man could taunt me three ways till sunday, calling me every slur his oppressed brain could possibly think up - but if I say anything back to him, I'm the one that is in the wrong. He shouldn't persecuted for assailing me with racial jokes either, because one of his relatives might have been a slave, so he has a right to be angry and disrespectful to me.
That is grade A, jumbo size, dyed in the wool bullshit.

NP
 
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on :
 
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.

Don't feel the tide is against me, don't care about spelling or grammer. You brought the subject up, so perhaps you felt the tide was against you?
 
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on :
 
Welcome, everyone, to the Nonpropheteer school of arguing.

Todays lesson, Advanced Arguing 101.

I know you are but what am I

This is a very powerful argument technique. If you are ever insulted, for example an apponent might call you 'stupid', you simply say "I know you are, but what am I?"

There is no effective comeback from such an advanced reposte.

The technique is flexible, too. Try it for yourself and see how many situations you can apply it to!
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) 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?

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?
[Two face]
 
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.

On this occasion I disagree with the excellent Kenwritez. I hardly think that one can uphold the rule of law by day and be a member of a political organisation, whose members have been involved in racist violence and which advocates an end to parliamentary democracy and the establishment of a facist regime, by night. It's about as consistent as hiring a paid up member of the vegetarian society at MacDonalds. You kind of know that their deeply held beliefs clash rather violently with the ethos and objectives of the organisation.
 
Posted by Justus (# 2424) on :
 
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

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.

In 1990 the police in England and Wales recorded 6,459 racist incidents. This figure doubled to 13,878 in 1997/8, and doubled again to 23,040 in 1998/9 and 47,814 in 1999/2000. However, the British Crime Survey estimated that there were 390,000 racially motivated incidents in England and Wales in 1995, which fell to 280,000 in 1999

We know that ethnic minorities are the most likely to experience a racist incident. In fact the 2000 British Crime Survey found that the risk of victimisation for white people was 0.4 per cent, compared with 2.2 per cent for black people, 3.6 per cent for Indians and 4.2 per cent for Pakistanis and Bangladeshis.

The most recent (2000) British Crime Survey estimated that 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. Note also that the law applies equally.

The research papaer form which these statistics are taken can be found here .
 
Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kenwritez:
Who made you God? Who gave you the right to judge what political affiliations a policeman can have?


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.
 
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on :
 
Alaric, that's a bit of a facile argument.

None of the parties you mention have a manifesto which purports to ethnically cleanse the UK. The BNP, however well it dresses it up in pompous verbal diarrhoea, does.

I would not be happy if a person entrusted with the safety and well being of my black neighbour was a paid-up member of the BNP. You can scream 'suppression of political liberty' if you like, but the way I see it ethos politic comes first.

Some jobs are unsuited to people with a particular political persuasion. If I was a member of the Green party I would be unlikely to work for Esso, and Esso would be unlikely to employ me. Likewise I don't expect a member of the BNP to work for the police, or for the police to employ a member of the BNP.
 
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on :
 
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 .

So then Brits are more racist than Americans?

How do they differentiate which crimes were racially motivated and which were crimes of opportunity? If a white man tells a joke with racist connotations, then later robs a black man, was his motivation cash or hate? How do you know?
One thing I've learned about statistics is that unless you know how the data was collected, they really tell you nothing at all. Statistics also do not prove facts, they only give indications of trends based on known variables.
From the 1998 Uniform Crime Report (DOJ) I can use statistics that "prove" that 1 in 400 black Americans are murderers, while only 1 in 7000 white Americans are murderers. Is that a legitimate use of statistics? Does it have the ring of truth to it? Of course not, but if I were so inclined, I could easily twist things around to prove whatever I want. I've even heard the same murder statistics used to "prove" that we are not a segregated society - because primarly, whites kill whites and blacks kill blacks. The argument was that if we were truly segregated, then there would be MORE interracial violence. I found this to be as full of shit as as my own use of the data.
Given society's reluctance to call a black offender a racist, and it's willingness to lable a white offender a racist, I have to believe these stats are skewed -probably for political reasons. Also, if 60% of racist incidents were not reported, how do they know? Its at best guesswork, at worst an outright lie.

NP
 
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on :
 
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.

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? Now we have three groups for the gestapo to keep an eye on. And what about those radical, free-thinking intellectuals? That is definately a dangerous bunch.

NP
 
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on :
 
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?

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. A Christian RE teacher will teach about all faiths with equal verve.

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

Should an anti-catholic be employed to serve in a catholic school? No.

Should an anti-blackpeople be employed to serve in an area with black people? No.

Isn't it past your bedtime?
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
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. [Snore]

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?

I think I do.... if a police officer belongs to the BNP then they are allied to an openly racist agenda. Police are supposed to be upholding the law. The law in UK does not "allow" racism. So BNP police would be going against the law.

We want police who are able to deal with the whole community fairly, not pick on some groups or individuals. That's why police training colleges are training the cadets against racism.
 
Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :
 
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

But rosemary, the 'original issue' was shown to be a non-starter. The allegation (of racism via humor) was found not to involve a police officer (according to the OP's article). Granted, we've moved into deeper waters since then. Now, I'm already on record re: ethnic jokes and 'malicious intent.' Your comment begs the question, however, why one group would open themselves up to that kind of scrutiny by sharing stereotypical humor about themselves to those outside of that group(?). Because hidden within is some modicum of universality that all might appreciate, even if it's distinctive to just one group. It's okay. I've never been told a joke in the way you described with the caviat that it was off limits to me b/c I'm not a member of the group in question. I have repeated those Jewish Mother jokes from time to time w/out one Jew in the crowd and that hardly makes me a racist, b/c there was no malicious intent -- nothing disparaging. Is it pointing out an idiosyncracy? Sure, but I think most often for the mutual understanding, acknowledgement and appreciation of everyone. And with ALL humor, timing is everything, including issues of appropriateness, familiarity, context, etcetera.

Aside: Not sure yet why this popped into mi sleepy mind, but here's an admittedly provocative take on how refusing Egalitarianism does not necessarily make one guilty of what I might call Negative Discrimination. In Defense of Elitism.
 
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on :
 
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
 
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
I am dealing with the general point.
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
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.

That's a bit weak: the "arguably" is the weak bit. The BNP are definitely and openly racist. They have links with official neoNazis, even if they don't call themselves such because then the silly people who get conned by them would see them for who they are.

If cops are stupid enough to join them they are either very thick or distinctly racist. And racist does not just mean being prejudiced against someone of a different colour. The BNP is against many europeans too. BNP are bullshit.
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
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

Why not? They are hiding their vicious agenda behind the "jokes".
 
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on :
 
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

A person who is not racist will not tell racist jokes.

By its very definition, singling out a person based on the colour of their skin is racist whether it is positive, negative or joking. A joke which depends on the colour of the subject's skin is a racist joke and is innapropriate in anything but the most stringent of circumstances (by which I mean that I might tell a joke about a disabled person to my disabled friend if I knew they would find it funny and non-offensive. I would not tell such a joke to any one else)
 
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on :
 
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.

In America, teachers are chosen based on their education and their willingness to be underpaid. They are not given psychological exams to see if they have any prejudices, and their joke telling at home is not monitored.

quote:

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



I have no idea what the BNP is - but I have gathered its some type of white supremacist movement. So what about the democratic process? Not only do you want to keep people from telling offensive jokes when amongst their friends, but now you want to deny them a political platform too? I do not advocate racism and would think it horrid if such a group came to power (though to hear some tell it, a version of that group is in power in every anglo controlled country anyway); but I will not deny them their political ideologies and agendas. It is actions that should damn people, not words or thoughts.
Let me ask you this: If the officers in question quit the BNP and ceased telling racial jokes, would that mean that they are no longer racist? Would the world be a much safer place for colored people and fluffy little bunnies? If you believe that, you know nothing of human nature. I would much rather have the people that don't like me admit it as publicly as possible. Its those secret enemies that shake your hand and smile at you that you have to be careful of.

quote:

Isn't it past your bedtime?

No. My bedtime is 11 am, EST. Thanks for the concern

NP

[ 05. November 2003, 11:43: Message edited by: nonpropheteer ]
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
Have to say that I'm with Daisymay here.

The Police have to deal with racism as part of their job. Notwithstanding what nonpropheteer (appropriate name, hmm?) says, telling racist jokes is a symptom of racism. Sure, racism is not about behaviour, it's an attitude*.

But if the symptoms of that racism are apparent in those who are part of the force which has to be employed to deal with it, then it is a VERY BAD THING. And that includes being Borderline Nazis.**

Lives are in their hands. Anything which compromises that has to be taken seriously.

Yes, I still think the police made an example of them, and that it wouldn't normally have done so. But on balance, I now think that they were right to do what they did.

_____________
*What, you think being nice to black people is enough? Think again.

Oh and for all you Young Republicans out there: that's satire, kids.

**Oh, sorry. "Members of the BNP". Same difference.
 
Posted by that Wikkid Person (# 4446) on :
 
So you're carefully separating racism from hatred, then IBP?
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by that Wikkid Person:
So you're carefully separating racism from hatred, then IBP?

there are lots of different kinds of hatred, and while racism overlaps, not all racism is founded on hate. Sometimes it's founded on ignorance, stupidity, anti-Christian beliefs and bad science as well.
 
Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :
 
daisymay, he said "not necessarily."

Good grief, people, the article says the allegations against cops in question were found to be false. Some of you are banging your heads against the wall over those poor guys.
 
Posted by that Wikkid Person (# 4446) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by that Wikkid Person:
So you're carefully separating racism from hatred, then IBP?

Not as such, sorry if it came over that way.

Racism and hatred can both be bred from ignorance or from stupidity. I think racism and hatred are different things, one can harbour racism without being hateful (I know people who have innate racism which they desperately try to find release from), or hateful without being racist. But the people I have encountered who are openly racist have also been hateful. They are probably both symptoms of the same underlying problem.

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".

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.

If they want to hold such beliefs then it is up to them and their pathetic little microcosm of rational thought, but they should not be in a position of power. Not ever.

['cos I wrote 'is' instead of 'in' and I didn't want to provide any more grammatical ammunition than I already have]

[ 05. November 2003, 12:08: Message edited by: IntellectByProxy ]
 
Posted by Rat (# 3373) on :
 
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
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) 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.

Well, in UK, we have just seen a Panorama programme showing a police cadet dressing up in a klu klux klan hood (pillowcase) to make racial jokes. And others being racially abusive to fellow cadets. They were all sacked.

Were these police cadets
quote:
rural, rusticly ignorant people who've mostly only seen non-white people on TV.
? Possibly, probably not. 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.
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
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

Agree absolutely. I used to get stones thrown at me when I passed a primary school of different theological persuasion. But by the time we were together in secondary school we had been taught not to go in for that sort of thing. And got punished if we did.
 
Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
NP - you are a stupid little shit. Grow up and stop talking out of your arse.

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 qoutes from it.

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
(please note that "British" and "Our People" means white people in this context)

quote:
We are wholly committed to a free, fully funded National Health Service for all British citizens.
(again "British citizens" primarily means british whites)

The BNP have dropped a lot of their overtly racist language and are trying to hide that fact that they are almost all virulent racists and that despite thier supposed love of law and order, many of their candidates have criminal records (many for violence against ethinic minorities). In other words, they are trying to present a "respectable" face despite the fact that their policies haven't actually changed at all.

All the evidence suggests that the ANL are only being mildy hyperbolic when they claim that

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.


And, in case you wondered, the BNP do deny the holocaust ever took place and it has been alleged that they have links with Combat 18 (a neo-nazi terrorist organistaion) and other far-right groups in Europe, America and elsewhere.

The point is not simply that BNP should not be allowed to be police officers becuase I find their views sickeningly offensive but that such views actuall impare a persons ability to do a good job as a police officer. If I believed that coerced sex with children was acceptable ( which I don't btw) , would you still argue that my belief was irrelavent and shouldn't be taken into account when deciding whether to make me a youth worker or a scholl teacher?
 
Posted by Rat (# 3373) on :
 
Look, it is quite simple - the police have power. And with that power goes responsibility. They have the power to decide whether to treat a complaint seriously or not. They have the power to arrest and charge little Jimmy for making a noise in the street at night, or to give him a talking to and let him go on his way. They have the power to enforce the law, and the responsibility to do so in an unprejudiced manner. They also have the responsibility NOT to bring the service, or the law, into disrepute. Like caesar's wife, they need to appear above reproach.

When the local boys where I used to live daubed swastikas and racist graffiti over the shop below my flat, Mr Singh who owned the shop phoned the police. They laughed and advised him to buy a bucket and brush. When I phoned - a white neighbor - they took my complaint seriously and sent someone out to talk to the boys. Could have been sheer luck - maybe there was nothing much else happening when I phoned. Or maybe the person on the other end of the phone made a decision to treat my call differently because I didn't have an accent and a funny name. We'll never know. But if I do know that down the pub I'll find the local policeman telling Paki jokes, then neither myself or Mr Singh are likely to give him the benefit of the doubt. If the community (white, black, asian, whoever) can't trust the police to administer their power fairly then the system doesn't work.

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
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
Rat and Papio,

Ye-e-ess!
 
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on :
 
Nicely put Rat.
 
Posted by tomb (# 174) on :
 
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....

Actually, it is far better to link to a site than to quote extensively because the latter can easily become plagariasm. How you used quotations above does not constitute plagarism, however.

You were, of course, referring to the conetent as oppposed to the length. This is not a violation of the 10Cs--at least how they are interpreted in Hell.

tomb
hellhost
 
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on :
 
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

Exactly, Rat. Well put. And in my opinion the same goes for teachers, judges, university lecturers, social workers and anyone else employed by publicly funded institutions to provide a service to the community.

It looks like this specific incident might well turn out to be not so much racism as stupid, loutish behaviour. That is also a matter of concern, as policemen are required to show maturity and judgement. That should include deciding not to get so drunk on a coach tour that they attract the attention of the rest of the passengers by their antics.

Clearly, no-one can be sure that they do not harbour prejudices. Some of us try hard to identify our own prejudices and overcome them. It is not acceptable for any public servant to act in a way that gives rise to any suspicion that he holds prejudicial views about any section of the community. Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.
 
Posted by sophs (# 2296) on :
 
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. [Frown] [Mad]
 
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.

Its nice to know that we can still apply ethnic stereotypes to white people at least. For a while there, I thought you guys were trying to say ALL people should be treated with respect, dignity, and sensitivity.

NP
 
Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on :
 
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".

Yet they are not allowed to espouse their political and social beliefs without reprisal. You are saying "I don't care if you do your job faithfully, legally, and without bias. You told a joke that has been labled racist, therefore you are not acceptable as an employee."
As for fighting for my rights - I don't believe for one minute that you would defend David Duke if the government decided to jail him for speaking his personal political views to people that wanted to hear it. You know you wouldn't, everybody here knows it, and if my dog could read compound sentences, he'd know it to.

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.

And (grammar alert thank God Avatar for the spelling lesson) I don't want people in power who think everyone that is not white and male is a victim. I don't want people in power who will take it upon themselves to apologize to a minority for my sins against them, when I haven't committed any. I don't want people in power who are going to force me to pay restitution for a crime committed by people I've never met against a group of people whoom the recipients of the restitution have never met. (hows that for a sentence?)

You are the grammar troll, dude - I often start sentences with 'however' and many other errors. But then, I think rules are meant to be of the thumb variety, not in stone. I only brought up spelling because you had already brought up grammar. I thought it funny that you were misspelling while critiquing me, just as God Av thought it funny that I misspelled "grammar"

NP

[I think your pitiful attempts at coding are less than laughable however. Go practise on the Styx thread. Now.]

[ 05. November 2003, 14:11: Message edited by: Sarkycow ]
 
Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
NP - you really are an ignorant little tosser aren't you?
 
Posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
NP - isn't that strawman getting a little threadbare.

If we were saying "I don't care if you do your job faithfully, legally, and without bias. You told a joke that has been labled racist, therefore you are not acceptable as an employee." then the policemen in question would have been fired, not investigated.

The question is not "did X tell a racist joke?" The question is "Does X have an underlying racism which is hindering his ability to act as a police officer in a way that can have the respect of the entire population?". And that is what needs to be investigated.

If you want to suggest that the police shouldn't ensure their officers are actually able to do their job in this manner, please feel free to attempt to defend it. Reminds me of Sir Humphrey "Firing people for incompetence could be the thin end of the wedge! We could lose hundreds of our chaps, maybe thousands!"
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
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".

God in heaven help me, I'm going to look like I'm agreeing with NP here. But from what I've read here, neither you (nor a majority of Brits) are willing to countenance racial speech -- you all seem quite content with the restrictions placed on free speech.

So I'm sorry, IBP, I like you a lot, but I have to say that I do not believe you mean this.

[ 05. November 2003, 14:19: Message edited by: Erin ]
 
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on :
 
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?

Who said I love them? I am simply defending the right to say tell them amongst friends without fear of fear of retribution from the government or employers.
Since you missed it the first time, this from merriam-webster:

Main Entry: eth·nic
Pronunciation: 'eth-nik
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin ethnicus, from Greek ethnikos national, gentile, from ethnos nation, people; akin to Greek Ethos custom
Date: 15th century
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> b : being a member of an ethnic group c : of, relating to, or characteristic of ethnics <ethnic neighborhoods> <ethnic foods>

Why is it so hard for you to consider that a white, ignorant, backwoods hillbilly can have an ethnicity? Aren't white people as a whole the ethnic majority in America and Great Britain?
I don't know where you are getting this idea that I am pro-racism, nothing could be further from the truth. What I am is pro-freedom of speech, freedom of thought. Unlike some of you, I really am willing to fight for someone else's right to say what they want, and think what they want. Even as wrong as I think some of the people here are, I would fight against legislation or retribution aimed at them for voicing their thought or opinions.
Deeds are a different story. Disliking Macedonians is one thing; not hiring them or passing them over for promotion because they are Macedonian is interfering with their right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.


NP
 
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
God in heaven help me, I'm going to look like I'm agreeing with NP here.

Ouch. That had to hurt.


NP
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
You have no idea.
 
Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
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.

My point is not that candidates for the police force should have to prove that they are as sinless as God's own Son, but that overt racism hinders a person ability to be a fair and effective policeman or policewoman.

I do understand the concern that censoring people's personal views is dangerous since A)where will it stop? and B) doesn't that give others the right to censor me if I say something they find offensive? and C) it doesn't make the underlying attitude go away.

But surely there has to be some limits to this. Supposing someone was on a street corner loudly proclaiming that your friends and family should be killed. Would you support the persons right to do this just so long as none of your loved ones were actually murdered?

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?
 
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
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.

My "spin" on the BNP quotes is simply what I genuinely think they mean. Esp given that they spoke of "we, the native British people". (emphasis added). No-one familair with the BNP, it seems to me, could deny they have an overtly racist past. The alternative proposal that they have genuinely changed thier views seems to be to be a little far-fetched. Perhaps they have, but I don't buy it. It seems infinitely more likely to me that they have become more media savey and have changed thier langauge but not their ideas. In case you think I have made the quotes up the BNP's website can be found by clicking here

Perhaps I should have said that, in my view they are referring to whites, but that is my view.

I do however apologise if I was unfair to the BNP although I am not convinced I was.
 
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
It's perfectly reasonable for a free society to ask whether its public employees actively profess racist views. Given that public employees have judicial or administrative power and are required to use that power for the benefit of all, it is naive in the extreme to think that such people could or even would carry out their functions without their racism playing a part. Frankly, why the hell should we tolerate police officers or Benefits Agency staff or doctors who think it proper to abuse black people?
 
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
Perhaps I should have said that, in my view they are referring to whites, but that is my view.

So members of a certain party are to be barred from public office on the basis of your view of what they think? Who gets to decide what party you can be a member of?
 
Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
The anti-nazi league website can be found here

Apart from that, what Dyfrig said.

Some facts about the BNP.

1) Racist attacks go up in areas in which they have recently won elections

2) They have referred to Asians as "the rubbish on out streets"

3) A large percentage of them have criminal records for attacks on ethnic minorities.

4) They have called for repatriation of ethnic minorities and oppose any further acceptance of refugees into the country.

5) They believe that almost all crime is committed by ethnic minorities

are you honestly saying you don't think they are racist?

[ 05. November 2003, 15:03: Message edited by: Papio ]
 
Posted by Bongo (# 778) on :
 
Scot said:

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.
Papio should not have assumed that you (and other non-Britons) would be famliar with the BNP's history and noteriety. The BNP have form as long as your arm when it comes to racism. (I'd have done a bit of research to find evidence, but I'm reluctant to visit the BNP website from my work computer as the tech guys might get the wroooong idea.)

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

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.
Two questions.
1. Is the KKK a legal organisation?
2. If so, shouldn't KKK members be prevented from becoming police officers?
 
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
It's perfectly reasonable for a free society to ask whether its public employees actively profess racist views.

That's a completely different kettle of fish than barring them on the basis of membership in a legal, if unpopular, political party.
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
are you honestlt claining that the BNP are not racist?

I'm not making any statement about the BNP. I'm making a statement about your arguement being both weak and suggestive of totalitarian leanings.
 
Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
quote:
Papio should not have assumed that you (and other non-Britons) would be famliar with the BNP's history and noteriety.
True, Mea Culpa.

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


Also true.

and from Erin:

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.

This may very well be the case. I don't know but I fully expect that you do. However, I fail to see why this fact means that openly and overtly racist police(wo)men should be seen as anything other than a reason for ethnic minorities not to trust the police. Why impinges on the polices ability to do a good job as does certain attitudes within their ranks.
 
Posted by Rat (# 3373) on :
 
I am genuinely curious as to when free speech does become unacceptable in this context?


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
 
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on :
 
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?

Actually, police men coming under fire over a joke told off duty is exactly what started this debate.
Hillbillies would definately fall under one of the catagories defining ethnic ("...religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background ..."). Some of them are just as sensitive to and emotionally hurt by the ribbing as any other ethnic identity.
I think anyone should be allowed to pursue what makes them happy, even if I don't agree with it - provided that the actions (not thoughts or words) associated with the pursuit do not interfere with someone else's pursuit of happiness. The duty of the government should be to ensure that one group does not tip the scales in their favor. Everyone should have the same rights, responsibilities, protections, and be subject to the same laws as any other citizen.

NP
 
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on :
 
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?

I would probably come closer to agree with you if your sentence read:

Frankly, why the hell should we tolerate police officers or Benefits Agency staff or doctors who think it proper to abuse ANY people?

BTW - Actual abuse is a far cry from telling a racial joke off duty.

NP
 
Posted by Bongo (# 778) on :
 
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.)

[ 05. November 2003, 15:17: Message edited by: Bongo ]
 
Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
NP - Yes, the telling of racist jokes by off-duty police was what started the thread but I had though the thread had since moved into a discussion of whether or not stronly racist views prevented those who held them within the police force from doing their jobs.
 
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
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.

[ 05. November 2003, 15:20: Message edited by: Scot ]
 
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on :
 
I think the question of BNP membership is a difficult one. I can absolutely see Scot's point that to bar a person from public service because of his political affiliations raises some real problems as we start along the slippery slope towards the thought police.

A while back there was consternation at the university where I lecture because a leading light in the BNP wanted to register as a student. There were demonstrations on campus, and all the unions were dead against 'admitting a known racist'. I was on the side of those who defended his right to study at the university whatever his views. I took a lot of stick for that viewpoint from my 'liberal' friends.

I am undecided whether I would act in the same way if a policeman were to be sacked for joining the BNP. The party has such a reputation here that his membership must give rise to a serious doubt in the minds of non-whites whether he would be prejudiced against them. I would take a lot of convincing that he could separate his off-duty views from his on-duty behaviour.

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).
 
Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
Yes, the comparison between the position I (and others here) have taken and McCarthyism is uncomfortable to say the least.

I do not, however, say the BNP ought to be banned or that it's members shouldn't be allowed to attend university. Apart from anything else, that would allow them to be martyrs. I simply am extremely reluctant to say it's fine for them to be police officers for the reasons already given.
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
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.)

To answer the first question: ABSOLUTELY NOT.

To answer the second question -- although I think he was officially out of it, David Duke held public office in either Mississippi or Louisiana, and he was a Grand Dragon of the KKK.
 
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
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.

There's nothing stopping a KKK member from running for office. There's nothing stopping the KKK from endorsing a candidate. It happens from time to time. Openly racist candidates are usually, but not always, soundly defeated at the polls.

The greatest danger here is not that a racist might get into office. The real danger is in excluding unpopular groups or views from the public process.
 
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
How did the McCarthy investigations square with freedom of speech?

They didn't. I would condemn McCarthy in the same terms and for the same reasons I have used above.

[ 05. November 2003, 15:30: Message edited by: Scot ]
 
Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on :
 
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?]
No.

quote:
I wonder what would happen if the KKK put up candidates to stand in elections. I assume they couldn't be prevented.
No, they couldn't.

quote:
Have they ever branched off into politics?
Yes. Grand Wizard (or Exalted Cyclops or Omnipotent Kleagle of whatever he calls himself) David Duke lost when he ran for governor of Louisiana as a Republican, but was later elected to the Louisiana state house. He's currently serving a 15-month prison sentence for gambling away campaign contributions.

quote:
What's been stopping them?

The moral bankruptcy of their political beliefs when forced to compete in the marketplace of ideas. I lived in New Orlenas when Duke ran against notorious hand-in-the-cookie-jar Governor Edwin Edwards (also now doing time, by the way) and proudly displayed on my car a bumper sticker that read:

VOTE FOR THE CROOK. IT'S IMPORTANT.

<cross-posted with Erin and Scot>

[ 05. November 2003, 15:36: Message edited by: Presleyterian ]
 
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
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.

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? Surely the whole point of joining the group in the first place is to say "I don't like black / Asian / Chinese / whatever people". How can that person possibly be regarded and trusted as a proper administrator of justice?
 
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
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. [Big Grin]
 
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.
But why can I not use evidence of their off-duty behaviour as indicative of their on-duty behaviour?


In any case, how is the confidence of ethnic minority citizens in the police to be maintained if we do not condemn off-duty racism? How can they possibly trust the same man they heard telling Paki jokes in the pub yesterday to treat them fairly when he pulls them over for speeding today?

[cross-posted]

[ 05. November 2003, 15:45: Message edited by: Moth ]
 
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rat:
I am genuinely curious as to when free speech does become unacceptable in this context?


<<SNIP>>

Rat

The last two definately cross the line. When a police man or judge are on duty, they are no longer citizens, but representatives of the system. As far as I'm concerned they can run around all day in their little white hoods as long as when they are on duty they operate with in the law and without prejudice. A judge speaking out like that in court, or an on-duty police officer, are implying that thier personal prejudices are interfereing with the just application of their duties. For that they should be investigated/reprimanded/whatever.
I firmly believe that this happens every day. In social work, we are taught to identify our own prejudices and leave them at home when we go to work. Police officers adn teachers also recieve this training. The problem is, you never hear of someone who has racist views but doesn't let them effect their work. You only hear about the ones who do.
Given that, its only natural that you would think all "white pride" organizations would be actively hateful. 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
 
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
Um, if they've gone an joined a racist organisation then telepathy isn't really necessary. [Big Grin]

But your question was whether they "capable or even desirous of acting in a non-racist manner in their job." I don't think you can answer that question on the basis of political party membership. Telepathy is necessary after all. Since it isn't readily available, we'll just have to rely on assessing the person's actual job performance.
 
Posted by Bongo (# 778) on :
 
How about if it wasn't a racist political party? How about if it was a racist lobby group or a racist society?
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
When I took calls at an answering service, there was a doctor, "Dr. Fish" I will call him who was a complete JERK ALL THE TIME. This guy also liked to let loose one racial slur per week about the operators who were not white. He rained his wrath all over us and had me close to tears sometimes since he bullied all the operators (and I was fresh out of highschool and very tender meat).


Turns out a friend of mine's sister was treated by Dr. Fish from highschool. She called in when Dr. Fish was out and left a heartfelt message..."Dr. Fish, I think this treatment may work...there is HOPE FOR ME!" I was praying Dr. Fish would not call in...I did not know at the time how he would react to hearing this strange message (he would literally tear into me with abuse at times when I read him his messages). Well, he called in...and I gave him the message. After I read it, he was silent...then he said "WHEN DID SHE CALL IN?" I told him..."Ok...THANKS. I will call her." He acted human...like he was touched or something. I never did tell the friend I knew her sister saw Dr. Fish...however I heard she was doing pretty good years later through the grapevine.

I went home and bitched to my mother. My mother (a doctor) KNEW Dr. Fish and told me he was a "wonderful doctor to his patients"! She would have NEVER knew he acted like this! I asked what kind of doctor was he? And she answered basically a SHRINK! I asked was he prejudice? To her knowledge, he was fair and nice to all his patients.

BIZARRE! But I saw this type of crap at the answering servic a lot! Doctors could be absolutely cruel to their wives (we had one who got mad if we passed on messages to him from his wife...she would page us all day to call him)...and yes, racist crap behavior to the operators.

I abhor racist remarks since my best friend is proud to be Koren & Black, my sister in law is half Hispanic and her nephew is black...plus one of my brother's is married to a Chinese gal. I do know though from experience as an answering service operator that people can be Jekyll & Hyde in their lives.

[edited to save host's eyes]

[ 05. November 2003, 15:56: Message edited by: duchess ]
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
And just out of interest, the BNP would be against "Macedonians" or "Serbians" because they would be asylum seekers or refugees.

And in the UK, official ethnic information when filled in on forms goes down to about 14 different categories.
 
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on :
 
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

Actually, I think I do comprehend it. I just don't agree. And in the McCarthy era, nor did quite a number of US citizens - they clearly thought that the defence of the US from communism was more important than free speech. I think that the right of all citizens of the UK to have confidence in their public services is more important than the right of individual public servants to express racist views. If they want to that, they must find other employment.
 
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on :
 
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).

Not defending what McCarthyism came to be, but it started as an investigation into what was percieved as a legitimate threat. McCarthy was later proven correct - there were a growing number of people joining the communist party which was illegal at the time (if I remember my history correctly). The thing that screwed him up was the illegal and unjust tactics he used. The same tactics some of you would like to apply to this situation. Don't punish people for what they might do wrong, punish them justly for the wrongs they do commit.

NP
 
Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
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
 
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on :
 
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.

I wouldn't say "little remembered". They still call him "Sheets" in the senate. Some WVians still have pics of him on their walls - wearing his pointy hat and robe.
Wasn't it Byrd who said "I'll be senator so long as I'm not caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy"?

Please don't bring up Clinton. This thread will totally degrade into a fire fight if you suggest he was less than perfect. Good point though.


NP
 
Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
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 [Razz] ).

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

I don't know if this is Scot's pov, but setting aside your inflammatory rhetoric, I think it's a fair assessment.
 
Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
Am sorry if my post read as though I was attempting to flame Scot. I wasn't.
 
Posted by Rat (# 3373) on :
 
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.

I see your point, but I still stand by my belief that an off-duty policeman still has a duty to uphold a certain standard of behaviour. I'm not suggesting he or she should be summarily dismissed, by the way, just that there is a disciplinary issue here, much as there would be if, say, he got hammered and threw up on the mayor's lawn at lunchtime while the Women's Guild outing looked on. Only worse, because in the racist-joke case his behaviour has undermined the confidence of a whole sector of society in the integrity of the police force.

[edited to add]

God knows what you do about the BNP. They now pretend not to be racist or neo-fascist (voluntary repatriation!), but everybody knows they still are. You can't stop people being a member of a legal organisation, but heaven knows where banning them would lead. I do know I wouldn't be happy if I thought my local police were members, but I'm buggered if I know what's best to do about it.

Rat

[ 05. November 2003, 16:27: Message edited by: Rat ]
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
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?

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.
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
Am sorry if my post read as though I was attempting to flame Scot. I wasn't.

Actually, I was referring to the "morally wrong and ignorant" part.
 
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on :
 
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.

Good point about the proselytizing. Mind you, I think posting on Ship of Fools, especially in Hell might be indicative of either insanity or masochism rather than prozelytizing. And regular attendance in the Church of England proves nothing about what one believes!

I absolutely agree with you about politicians - let the electorate decide. I still think that employees paid by the state should not be seen to be discriminatory at any time. And as Sarky correctly says, policemen are never really 'off-duty'.
 
Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
I thought you might be. I also apologise if I have read anything into Scot's position that wasn't there. It sincerely wasn't my intention to do so.
 
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) 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

Morally wrong, perhaps. I wouldn't use the word ignorant to describe anyone on the ship. While party affiliation can indicate how a person might behave at work, it does not divine what the person will do at work. Many people who joined Saddam's Baath party did so in search for political power, not necessarily because they agreed with Saddam's policies. Likewise, 75 years ago in America, many people who were not racist joined the Klan because it was such a powerful political force.

NP
 
Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
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 [Biased]

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.
[P.S. I'm not ignoring you; I've gone to work.]

[ 05. November 2003, 16:39: Message edited by: Scot ]
 
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on :
 
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?
Actually, I think it is now established that the officers in question did not tell the joke. They did laugh at it and behave in other loutish and immature ways. The matter is still under investigation, and will be considered by the force, the police complaints authority and Kent Police Authority (the board of governors, consisting of local councillors, JPs and independent appointed members - the voice of the public, as it were). The officers can be disciplined only if they broke police regulations.
 
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on :
 
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. I think it perfectly illustrates my point. This doctor is not allowed any occassion to express his own feelings, anger, and hatred. He can't say anything to his co-workers and can't say anything publicly without reprisal from the hospital/office/patients. He is probably terrified of reprimanding a minority co-worker/employee because of fear of being labled a racist or sexist by free thinking liberals such as yourself.
He does his job well and doesn't let his prejudices interfere with his work or his relationship with his patients. So he vents when he calls his answering service. I think he would be a more balanced individual if he felt secure enough to voice his views and tell his jokes when not on duty. He might even find a way to work through his unreasoning prejudice. As long as he is not allowed to admit his racist views, he can never fully correct them.

NP

NP
 
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on :
 
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? [Biased] )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.


One of the most common outcomes to a police disiplinary case is that the officer 'receives advice'.
 
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on :
 
Don't know if this is to off-topic, but I'm curious. In a free and equal society, if an X number of people hate potholders, don't they have a right to try to get an anti-potholder politician elected? Do they still have the right to work as cooks?


NP (being a bit silly - it definately is past my bedtime now)
 
Posted by Archimandrite (# 3997) on :
 
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.

Duty to the state is different from duty to a private company, in that the state represents the whole population. People like policemen, who are servants of the state, thus have to maintain a higher standard of personal behaviour than the average employee.

Thus, because they are public servants, they must serve the public, and if the state, as the representation of the people, considers it in the public interest that policemen ought not to be affiliated with a party whose views are a danger to members of the public.

Serving the state is, or ought to be, more of a vocation. Teachers, for instance, may work out of hours to help their pupils in the interests of pastoral care. That, in Britain, is part of their job. Whether they discharge that job well depends on their attitude.

Policemen ought to be neutral. The same goes for all civil servants (who, in this country, remain in position regardless of the hue of the government).

There is an intriguing parallel in Germany. There, teachers are officially classed as civil servants. They have got to reflect the views of the people as laid down in the Constitution. Germany is officially a secular state - thus, ought teachers in state schools to wear religious symbols, conflicting with the neutrality they are supposed to represent? (Bavaria is a special case, and Land law is different in this respect from national law.) So if, as in the case of the moment, a teacher is a practising Muslim, ought she to be allowed to wear the hijab while teaching, while representing an officially neutral, colour-blind, non-discriminative body? She isn't in a faith school, where one can do as one pleases, it's a state school. The law guarantees freedom of religious expression, but the state is officially neutral. If she weren't a state employee, her rights would be unaffected. But, the argument goes, she has in a sense sacrificed that by knowingly working for a body which demands neutrality.

Ah, sure and it's tricky, and no mistake.

[UBB code is a tricky thing; pity about your stupid mistake.]

[ 05. November 2003, 18:02: Message edited by: Sarkycow ]
 
Posted by Kenwritez (# 3238) on :
 
Firstly, I'm not familiar with the BNP. I quickly scanned their website some months ago, and they seemed a sort of KKK-lite. I have no experience with them, so I can go by only what I read from them.

Secondly, IMNSVHO free speech and freedom of association are absolutes with very few exceptions: Shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater or publically calling for the assassination of a politician or the armed overthrow of the US government, for example. These are crimes in the US.

Publically calling for the abolishment of income taxes or 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.

Here's an extreme: Would I support a US policeman belonging to the Klan? It's not a casual or easy decision; I am revulsed by the Klan and organizations like it, their agendas and activities.

As long as the Klan were not advocating criminal activities, yes, I would allow it if it were in my power, and I would so regretfully and with great reservation, encouraging the policeman to sever his ties with it, but I would not and could not dictate this policeman's conscience to him. However, I make my decision with the proviso that the policeman's affiliation must not adversely affect his performance of his duties (with special attention paid to his interaction with minorities) and that he not affiliate with organizations that are criminal nor with those that publically call for criminal actions.

Thus, in my view, a policeman may belong to a tax protest organization but not to the Mafia, Posse Comitatus (which advocates armed overthrow of the US government) or to the IRA.

Because freedom of speech and freedom of association are bedrock in the American structure of civil liberty, I absolutely refuse to compromise them for myself or for anyone else. I don't want ANYONE telling me what I may or may not say, or to what organizations I may or may not join, as long as I am within the bounds of law.

For example, I enjoy telling the only Irish joke I know: "What's green and sits out in the rain? Paddy O'Furniture." Does that make me a racist and anti-Irish? The hell it does. I think it's a funny joke, and I tell it purely for that reason, because it's funny to me. I have no bias against the Irish and in fact admire their accomplishments, their culture, their country, and their accents. For anyone to say that I'm anti-Irish based on that joke is not just wrong-headed, but nastily so. Anyone who says telling a racially-based joke automatically makes one a racist has their head up their butt.

Why? For anyone to say, "You may not tell racially-based jokes on your own time" is officious, dictatorial, petty, and small-minded. If you hear such a joke and are offended by it, then I suggest your offense and any resolution is between you and the joke teller. Government has neither right nor duty to insinuate itself between you two nor does it have a legitimate involvement in insulating you from that which you don't want to hear. It especially does not have the right or duty to police a person's thoughts. Simply put, no one has the right not to be offended.

If you want to know what government's charter is, I quote the Preamble to the US Constitution as a simple example:


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."

Nowhere in there is the duty of government to approve or allow the thoughts or jokes of its citizens. Forming a more perfect Union, establishing Justice, insuring domestic Tranquility and promoting the general Welfare do not involve the government micromanaging the thoughts and actions of its citizens.

Should others hold these rights as less vital than I do, well, that's their choice and I wish them well in it. But I fear they'll see their eagerness to reduce other people's liberties rebound upon their own heads sooner or later, to their regret.
 
Posted by Rat (# 3373) on :
 
Out of curiousity, does the Orange Order count as a legal-but-bigotted organisation and is it OK for policemen to be Orangemen? I might be completely misrepresenting the Orange Order just by asking this question, and if so I apologise. My view is coloured by the fact that the only Orangeman I knew was a complete and utter bigot (and somewhat involved with paramilitary types).

I know it is (or was) legal to be both, as the bigot in question was. (The family rumour is that he got turfed out of the police when it emerged that during his short tenure he had only arrested Catholics, but I doubt this can be true...how could he tell?).

Rat
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rat:
I am genuinely curious as to when free speech does become unacceptable in this context?


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

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.
 
Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :
 
Part of Kenwritez's gorgeous post:
quote:
Simply put, no one has the right not to be offended.
Well, for that matter, no one explicitly has most of the Rights many would like to claim. And, try as we might, we simply can't legislate morality.
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
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.
[Razz]
 
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 [Snore]

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.
If such is true, and the majority of British citizens support this law, then knock yourselves out. Enjoy. It's not a law I would ever support nor could I be comfortable living under it. Too close to the Thought Police, too open to abuse and expansion.

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"?
 
Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :
 
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?
Do Americans reading this know and understand that even in the US there are valid resatrictions on Free Speech? Do Americans reading this know and understand that attempting to incorporate anything and everything utterable under the umbrella of Free Speech has the result (IMO) of undermining the very fabric of the society that makes Free Speech both possible and so highly valuable? Do Americans reading this (and Brits too, for that matter) know and understand that to some, the notion of holding one particular sector of a society to some, ambiguous, etherial 'higher standard' seems woefully myopic? Why not hold all of society to a higher standard?

Because we'd have to tell some that what they were doing was Wrong, and that just isn't done outside of a Court, is it.
 
Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
I think I am correct in saying that, until very recently, the BNP and some other parties have not been allowed to air party polictical broadcasts in the UK?
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
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.

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.

[ 05. November 2003, 19:03: Message edited by: Erin ]
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on :
 
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.
Precisely. But is it "breaking the law" to hold a political viewpoint that daisymay finds personally odious? And if it is, how do I get in on the action to make sure that all people who take home a government paycheck conform to my personal viewpoints on all things I decide are important?

The millisecond that a public servant behaves in an untoward way to a person based on the person's race or ethnicity, said public servant should have his ass canned. But remember that as soon as you disqualify BNP supporters from the civil service solely for what they believe, you open the door for the possibility that if -- God forbid -- the BNP ever gets into power, BNP detractors can be disqualified from the civil service solely for what they believe.

[ 05. November 2003, 19:17: Message edited by: Presleyterian ]
 
Posted by Kenwritez (# 3238) on :
 
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.

Well, aside from the fact you've not answered my points, your posts say that you expect a great deal more from your police than obeying and carrying out the law. You expect them to be free of all prejudice. You expect them to hold to a higher standard of behavior than anyone else, vis-a-vis the telling of a racially-based joke.

You're free to expect all this, and more, but given human nature, you won't get it until someone invents incorruptible, perfect police robots with telepathic abilities. Then God help you and all of us when they do.
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
Presleyterian:

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? [Disappointed] I'm not bothering. [Snigger] 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.
Well, that's where I'm confused, daisymay. To my knowledge, membership in the BNP is not a crime. And intellectually agreeing with the political positions of the BNP can't be a crime -- or at least I certainly hope it isn't. So what "law of the UK" is being violated here?
 
Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
It's not a legal crime in the UK to belong to the BNP or other far-right/racist organisations.

It is a crime to "incite racial hatred or violence".
 
Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :
 
Hey, have you heard the one about the... No really, uncover your ears, this is really great... Wait! Hey why are you running?!

Heyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!
 
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on :
 
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.
OK, we maybe cannot say out and out "I will defend to the death your right to say it". Unless we add the caveat "But if you are a public employee, you cannot say things that indicate that you are prejudiced against some of the people you are paid to serve". I know this always get Americans fit to be tied, but, honestly, we don't live under an oppressive regime. You will hear people espousing all kinds of views in public over here, some of them very nasty and racist indeed. We feel completely free to criticise our government and our political satire is some of the most cutting in the world. We do believe in freedom of speech, we just don't think it's the most important freedom. Freedom of everyone to have confidence in, and be treated at all times with respect by, public servants ranks higher at this time. This is a judgement made by Parliament because of certain recent events, not least the treatment of the Lawrence family. I suppose I would say that I regard all freedoms as competing, not absolute.

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.
The police were identifiable as police for reasons which I cannot go into because they might not be in the public domain. Although not on duty, they were very much representing the police in a wider sense. That explains why the complaint was made by a member of the public. However, our police are expected to maintain a higher standard than the average citizen. It goes with the job.
 
Posted by Rat (# 3373) on :
 
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 by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
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.

The investigation into the Metropolitan Police after the Stephen Lawrence business spoke of ‘unwitting’ racism, and ‘institutional’ racism. These are real things that make a difference to black and Asian people’s experience of the police force, but they may not be the result of culpable prejudice on the part of even a single officer.

I remember a parallel situation about women training to be doctors (this is a few years out of date). More girls than boys apply for medical school each year. At every stage in the process – predicted A-level grades, A-level grades, end of year university exams, clinical exams, etc – females outperform males, but more women than men are weeded out at each stage, and by the end of the process there are more male doctors than female. I don’t think anyone in the system wants this to happen. All judgements on trainees are undoubtedly as objective and fair as possible, but nevertheless, discrimination gets in there somehow. What is to be done?

In relation to racism and the police there is a long way to go in recruiting officers from ethnic minority groups, in seeing them promoted, in changing the culture of the force, and altering the expectations and attitudes of the various groups in society which tend to reinforce the police culture. Weeding out officers who casually express strongly racist attitudes seems a reasonable part of this process. Dismissing an officer for a inappropriate joke seems a step too far, but in the present climate, hard to avoid.
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
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

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 by Kenwritez (# 3238) on :
 
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.

I will believe Sarkycow
I will believe Sarkycow
I will believe Sarkycow
I will believe Sarkycow
I will believe Sarkycow

and so on....

FWIW, I don't believe freedom of speech takes precedence over all other freedoms; I hold it on par with many others. Here's an example:


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.

Click here for a list of other freedoms I think on par as freedom of speech: Articles 2, 4 - 10, 13 - 15, 19, 24 - 26.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
Whoa. Polarize much?
Five pages of rabid oversimplification and overreaction. Bravo.
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
Hey! Some of us were reasonable and neither polarized, oversimplified nor overreacted.

Typical fuckin' Canuckistani.
 
Posted by Grits (# 4169) on :
 
I'm getting the sense that those who are doing the hardest slamming against freedom of speech are essentially the same ones who were loud and proud with their FCUK t-shirts in my face.

Someone got some 'planing to do, Lucy.
 
Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Hey! Some of us were reasonable and neither polarized, oversimplified nor overreacted.

Typical fuckin' Canuckistani.

[Killing me]
 
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

Actually, Sarky - I think we are building a better understanding of the differences between Brit and American views, barring a bit of smoke from hurt feelings and such. As I mentioned before, we do have some common sense restrictions to free speech which are legally actionable - such as making or encouraging violent action. We also think that police officers should be held to a higher standard in the performance of their duties. Our society is starting to adopt a more British outlook as to their thoughts, much to my chagrin.

NP
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
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.

Very true. Passive racism is quite difficult to spot.

Racism is also not limited to white v black. It can be any ethnic group against any other ethnic group, including sub-groups. Racism doesn't have to be about colour; just any group that is different. European foreign language students get a rough time in some places simply because they're foreign.
 
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on :
 
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"

Both NonPropheteer and Erin pulled me up on this and on further reflection you are quite right. I apologise sincerely to you both.

I don't think I appreciate the differences in our definitions of free speech. What I said wasn't a bare-faced lie, but I see where you are coming from.

I think the BNP (or KKK) should have the right to hold political office. If people want to vote for them the people should be free to vote for them, however disgusting and odious I think they and their voters are.

However, and here is where I think the difference lies, if a BNP member was in the street preaching about the repatriation of anyone who didn't look 'normal' (to quote a KKK member I saw on Ricki Lake), about the horrifying dilution of our British (read "Aryan") society by these bloody immigrants, then I would be the first to punch him in the face.

Is that me suppressing free speech? Probably.

So back to an earlier point:

Is it appropriate for an off-duty policeman to say 'paki bastard'?

No it is not. Off-duty police officers today have to be on-duty police officers tomorrow and if policeman X arrives tomorrow at the scene of a crime where the victim is the 'paki bastard' he humerously victimised the night before there is no possible way he can excercise his duty in a suitable manner.

Is the 'paki bastard' in question likely to respect the police officer?

If that is suppression of freedom of speech I am happy to be suppressed.
 
Posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
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 by Rat (# 3373) on :
 
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?
Exactly.
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
Is that really a right?
 
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on :
 
Whilst I agree with the two posts before Erin's, I also think we're less polarised than some suggest.

No-one is saying freedom of speech isn't important. It is absolutely vital. No-one is saying that there aren't some restrictions on it, even in America, land of the free.

We're just arguing about exactly where we'd draw the line, which is bound to vary from time to time and from place to place. I'm not denying that any move away from free speech should be viewed with the utmost suspicion. And if someone tries to stop the BNP meeting or espousing their obnoxious views, I'll be out there defending their rights, despite my contempt for them. But I won't defend the right of a serving police officer to act or speak in public in a racist way. That's where I draw the line at the moment. I'm not saying he can't be a racist. I'm saying he can't be a racist in public and expect to be paid by taxpayers to serve all of them.

And yes, Erin, I do think that's a right.

[edited for cross post]

[ 06. November 2003, 09:31: Message edited by: Moth ]
 
Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
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 by Rat (# 3373) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Is that really a right?

Well...yes.

Or what is the point? Of having a police force, of trying to administer a fair judicial system, of trying to build an equable society?

Nobody makes policemen be policemen. They sign up for it, and in the process they take on a certain responsibility for their actions and their appearance. They are representing the system and serving us - all of us. So they give up their right to indulge in certain kinds of public bad behaviour.

And in pragmatic terms, as many people have said, if large sectors of society don't trust or believe in the police, then the system stops working. People don't report crimes, don't give evidence, don't come forward with information.

Rat
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Is that really a right?

Hell, yes.
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
Really. That is interesting -- I've never heard of the right to feel warm and fuzzy about the cops. Round here, we only give a shit that they actually do their job. We don't much care what they think about when they're doing it.
 
Posted by Rat (# 3373) on :
 
quote:
The right of ethnic minority members of society to know they are afforded the same standard of policing as everyone else


has nothing to do with feeling warm and fuzzy, it has to do with having a basic confidence in the integrity of the force - with believing they are going to

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 [Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!]

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. [Razz]
 
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.

This might look like someone sucking up but I am to nice to suggest that.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
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 [Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!]

I am stunned.

It's not about the right to feel anything. It's about the right to KNOW that one is afforded the same standard of policing, and the right to be afforded that standard.
 
Posted by Rat (# 3373) on :
 
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 [Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!]

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: [Eek!] 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: [Eek!] The cultural divide is unbelievable.

No. We have a right to EXPECT them to believe in a certain way.

Wrds are deeds. The act of saying is an action.
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
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 [Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!]

I am stunned.

It is the guidlines issued to many public bodies after the Macpherson inquiry that has led to this state of affairs (see here) .
For instance in a School if something happens and if anyone 'feels' it is racist it is.
 
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on :
 
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 by Robert Miller (# 1459) on :
 
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 by Rat (# 3373) on :
 
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

I don't think this happens in the UK outside certain areas of Northern Ireland (or at least not in exactly the same way - there have been reputed 'no-go' areas). But yes, that's exactly the sort of thing I meant when I said that, without a basic level of confidence in the police, the system breaks down.

Rat
 
Posted by Archimandrite (# 3997) on :
 
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.

Hear Hear.
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
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.

[ 06. November 2003, 11:39: Message edited by: Erin ]
 
Posted by Mr Callan (# 525) on :
 
When police officers are commissioned they take an oath to uphold the law "without fear or favour".

The subjects of HM the Queen, whose servants the police are, have a right to know that the police intend to uphold that oath. Membership of a political organisation whose aims are directly contrary to that oath or opinions that the oath is only applicable to certain sectors of the population are, therefore, highly problematic.

Feeling warm and fuzzy about the whole thing is neither hither nor thither.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
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? [Hot and Hormonal]
 
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 [Smile] , 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.

Well, without wishing to create a tangent, I think that employers' dress codes are going to be increasingly challenged, and rightly so, IMHO. I have a tight collar-and-tie to wear each day: the women don't. I have slightly longer hair than usual (for a man), but I don't think I'd be allowed hair the length of some of the women, or, for that matter, of the Sikh bloke (unless I became a Sikh!).

If your last sentence had read 'meet this standard while at work, or in a capacity where their status as a police employee was obvious then I could agree with it. When not at work (and I don't accept that they're 'always at work'), so long as they do not break the law, or turn a 'blind eye' to criminality, then they should be no more expected to be 'perfect' in what they say as any other employee, public or otherwise.
 
Posted by The Coot (Icarus) (# 220) on :
 
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?

Well, we do. Our laws regarding racism, racial villification (what is excused in the US as 'freedom of speech'), are at least as strong as the UK (we have them for villification, harassment, or discrimination based on sex, disability, sexual preference (possibly not all states as far as villification goes), political or religious affiliation. And we like it like that.

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 [Tear] ).
 
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.
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.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
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.

With a police force that's free of racism?
 
Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
Personally I think it is a pretty good thing that one can be arrested (in the U.K) for incitement to racial hatred and/or violence.

I suspect most Brits agree with me.
 
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
I suspect that many of you would be horrified if you learned what members of many high-intensity professions think of the general public. I mean police, firefighters, emergency room personnel, military, and so on.

In my experience members of these groups often form strong us-and-them mentalities because of the nature of their jobs. Attitudes toward the public often range from paternalism to simple toleration to outright disdain. Nonetheless, the vast majority of emergency responders, etc. perform their duties with a high degree of professionalism regardless of who they are serving or what they might think of the person.

If society tried to judge emergency personnel on what they think instead of what they do, we would have to get rid of most of them.

But maybe I'm being oppressed and didn't know it. Maybe I have a right to know that the emergency room doctor really, truly thinks I'm a swell guy.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
Oh for the love of -

It's not about that, Scot. I don't care whether the police actually like anyone.

They can think we're all assholes for all I care - but we have a right to expect the Police to think we're all assholes because we are in fact assholes and not for any other reason, and for the police to be even-handed and equal-opportunities with their opinion, rather than to be biased against any one group.

I fail to see why this is so difficult to grasp.
 
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
The point, Wood, is that they generally do treat us all the same regardless of their personal opinions. They do it every day.

When I suggested that police be judged on their actions, as opposed to their thoughts, there was a whole chorus of people claiming that it was impossible for them to seperate the two.

Like you, I'm not sure why it is so hard to understand.
 
Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :
 
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?


 
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
Well, we do appear to enjoying propping up this straw man again and again, don't we?

This is not about thinking someone good, this is not about generating nice feelings or showing that someone is "affirmed" (blech) but about pure and simple common sense. 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.
 
Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :
 
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?


This isn't coming out right... hold on
 
Posted by Godfather Avatar (# 4513) on :
 
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.

I think it's considered pretty well established in Britain in recent years that racist police officers very often don't.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on :
 
Let's try another tack.

There is a rule in this country that no-one can be judge in his own cause. So if a judge has a financial interest in the outcome of a case, or knows any of the parties, he must stand down and not try the case.

Now, the judge might in fact be a man of perfect probity who would never allow a personal interest to colour his judgement. But the rule is absolute because justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. It is not what he does, but what he might be percieved to do which matters. There must be no suspicion of bias.

A police officer is invested with wide-ranging powers. He can arrest people, issue fixed penalties etc. He is supposed to do this fairly, without picking on a group of people for an irrelevant reason. If he is known to hold racist views (and this will be known only if he chooses to express them publicly) justice will not be seen to be done. There will always be a doubt as to whether a black person will receive justice at his hands. He may be a man of great probity, but we cannot know that. There must be no suspicion of bias.

And I'm afraid I find it hard to believe that a known racist will actually treat people the same regardless of his views. That has not been the experience here. Do African-Americans share your optimism?
 
Posted by Space Monkey (# 4961) on :
 
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.

The occasional piece of investigative journalism or 'special interest' programming doesn't change the fact that the dominant tone of reporting in this country - on, for example, the refugee issue - is often biased and xenophobic. The language used and the stories they choose to cover contribute to a climate of distrust and hatred for those who are different. This applies even to the Guardian and the BBC, not just the rabid Daily Mail end of the spectrum.

Until we get some balance in the views that are publicly communicated, the media are contributing to a culture where the BNP and their friends can gain in power. Which brings me back to my point - that absolutist ideals about freedom of speech fail to take account of which voices get reported widely in the mass media, and the impact of what they say on the world as a whole.

[Today's top story: Space Monkey sucks ass at UBB.]

[ 06. November 2003, 16:57: Message edited by: RooK ]
 
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
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.

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.

I am absolutely convinced that people who hold certain political views are hopeless fuckwits. Am I therefore committed to limiting access to the polls? Not hardly. I'm as big a proponent of equal access to the political process as you are likely to find.

I believe that certain practices of some denominations are fundamentally unchristian. Do I refuse to share communion with them? No a chance. I'm adamantly in favor of an open table.

A negative attitude does not necessarily lead to discriminatory actions. You can't judge people on what you think they might do, only on what they have done.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
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.

That's not an unsupported leap.
 
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
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.

Missed the word "generally," did you?

Of course there are exceptions. They should be dealt with immediately and firmly. However, you can't prejudge an entire group of people by the actions of one member of the group. Not even if the group in question is "people with racist attitudes."
 
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
That's not an unsupported leap.

You want to expand on that, or shall I just start making fun of you?
 
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
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. So some fuckwit who says "I hate Pakis" is not really the sort of person you want responsible for providing policing particularly in a country with a significant Pakistani population.
 
Posted by Bongo (# 778) on :
 
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."
 
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
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.

Bullshit. That's just another unsupported, unargued prima facie claim. I already provided a couple of personal examples of prejudices which don't govern actions.
 
Posted by Robert Miller (# 1459) on :
 
Surely there are minority groups within the USA - as Moth alluded to that do not feel the police force is unbiased / non-racial / non-sectarian.

The Rodney King affair must surely have had some detrimental effect on the public perceptions of racial prejudice within the police force. At least within LA if nowhere else.

Admittedly you are innocent until proven guilty, but what checks can you use to ensure that the police force is above reproach - as it should be (very utopian / unicorn / teapot attitude I know).

Having a member of the KKK who is in the police force and is patrolling south central LA is surely not a wise idea?
 
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Rat (# 3373) 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.
Having a person who presented themselves publically as racist - for instance by telling racist jokes or calling people racist names - patrolling South Central would also be a very bad idea indeed, I imagine. In practical terms even if not ethical. Even if that person was not actually racist at all.

None of us are claiming to be able to see inside people's minds. We are saying what we have said from the beginning, that someone who chooses to present themselves as racist should be treated as such - not a fit person to police a multicultural society.

Rat
 
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on :
 
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.

Worst Case Scenario

...unless, of course, you want to be a police officer, teacher, politician. hmmm... come to think of it, maybe you shouldn't be a farmer either.
As a farmer you would be free to tamper with food at the source, and could easily inject DNA specific viruses into your live stock and produce, injury and killing many of the minority races. Of course, to get a DNA specific virus, you would need a racist scientists. So we better monitor them too.
As we can see, there will be few jobs available for you if you are going to hold a view or opinion that differs from what the government and all the good citizens believe. So you will probably end up homeless.

We can't have a bunch of homeless radicals running around loose, now can we?

Or, best case scenario: It takes a very long time to get to that point.


NP

[If you're going to try to be fancy by using UBB, at least check it you stupid cattlefucker.]

[ 06. November 2003, 17:04: Message edited by: RooK ]
 
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) 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.
I think it would be worse for him than the good citizens of South Central. [Biased]

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. [Hot and Hormonal]

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."

At the risk of continuing the circle... Bullshit. We currently have a police force which has been found to be institutionally racist, and evidence that black and Asian people are routinely treated differently from white people by some police officers. A culture where racist language and jokes are tolerated makes it easier for this to continue. Racism is NOT limited by its moral bankruptcy when people with repellent attitudes are allowed to hold positions of power over those they hate.

People are being wrongly imprisoned, victimised in their daily lives, and even killed because we live in a culture where racist language and ideas are allowed air and even propagated in the mass media. This isn't just a philosophical argument - this is a real problem that has to be addressed. Looking very carefully at the attitudes and culture which dominate in our legal system would seem to me to be a very good start.
 
Posted by Rat (# 3373) on :
 
Telling a racist joke IS an action.

Joining a racist political party IS an action.

We have a right to demand that public employees, who are employed to administer the law 'without fear or favour', to refrain from these actions because they are destructive to the public peace and to the reputation of the police force.

That's it, I'm out of this too - if I say the same thing over again once more my head will turn all the way round and explode.

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

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 [Biased] )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.


A paedophobe in our midst! Repent of your intolerance, or you will be thrown into the pit of fire until you see the error of your evil ways. You should not be allowed to spew such hatred of kids on this web-site, you heathen!
 
Posted by Mr Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Presleyterian:

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.
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.
 
Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
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.

Oh, for fuck's sake. NO I AM NOT.

I'M NOT.

I.

AM.

NOT.

It was a typo. I meant "behave"! It's about a standard of behaviour! The "believe" thing was a fucking mistake! A mistake! LIKE I FUCKING SAID!

Can you people not read? Is there something about making a mistake and apologising for it that doesn't apply to me?
 
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
Pour some ice in your panties. I wasn't referring to your typo. I was referring to your (and others') arguments throughout the thread. It's not my fault if your slip was freudian.
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
There would seem to be room to start a thread on this subject in purgatory.

Nightlamp
Hellhost
 
Posted by Mr Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by The Riv:

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. [Biased]

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. [Biased]
 
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.
I think the analogy holds, Mr. Callan, although you're correct that I was only slightly serious. That said, beliefs do not inevitably correlate into actions. One can have strong political beliefs that America's borders should be tighter than a burped Tupperware container when it comes to immigration and yet still be perfectly pleasant to ones Brazilian and Vietnamese and British neighbors. (OK, well maybe not them.) One can support a repeal of drug laws and yet not toke up. (Are the teens still using that phrase, by the way?) My point is that the minute "those people" can be excluded because of what they believe -- as opposed to how they behave -- you can be excluded because of what you believe. How would you (using the word generically) like to lose your job because of your membership in that blatantly hateful and homophobic group, the Anglican Community?

On the related topic of "social cohesion" in the UK, I've always found that a pretty laughable concept from a society that grants political power, perks, and prestige to people based on who their great-great-yadda-yadda-grandparents shtupped back in William of Orange's day.

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

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.
In which case I apologise unreservedly for being unnecessarily offensive.
 
Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on :
 
Thank you, Mr. Callan, although as you might imagine under the circumstances, I agree with you wholeheartedly that the United States was shamefully slow in joining the war.
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rat:
Telling a racist joke IS an action.

Joining a racist political party IS an action.

Insofar as "tell" and "join" are verbs. But the US (quite rightly, IMFAO) differentiates between words and actions quite clearly.

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? [Hot and Hormonal]

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.

[ 06. November 2003, 17:35: Message edited by: Erin ]
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
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? [Hot and Hormonal]

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.

Erin, I love you dearly, but don't ever patronise me this way again.

And don't you DARE ever tell me what I'm thinking and what I mean. I mean what I mean. No more, no less.

I meant behaviour. You want to pretend I'm some sort of evil totalitarian bastard, fine. Just don't expect me to be pleased about it.
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
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.

So I made another mistake. So I'm sorry about that.
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
Fine. But don't get all mortally offended when people take your words according to their accepted meaning.

[ 06. November 2003, 18:31: Message edited by: Erin ]
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
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 [Biased]

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.

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?

NP
 
Posted by Mr Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Non-propheteer:

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?

NP - my own view is that it is not possible for a member of Her Majesty's Constabulary to do his or her job properly if he or she is a member of a far right organisation. Broadly speaking British shipmates are prepared to work on this assumption, US shipmates (and Alaric) argue that it is unjust to make such an assumption unless we have got hard evidence from the persons behaviour. We say the act of joining the BNP is such an action. You beg to differ. You pays yer money and you takes yer choice. I don't think that either of us are going to find irrefutable knock down arguments that demonstrate conclusively that the other is wrong.

Black racism isn't, at present, a live issue. But I would object equally strongly to commissioning as a police officer a man or woman who held similar views about white people as the BNP do about blacks.
 
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
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.

This is what I believe also. I happen to belive that saying "I hate Pakis" is an action upon which someone can be judged.
 
Posted by Godfather Avatar (# 4513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
There would seem to be room to start a thread on this subject in purgatory.

If this is in response to my earlier question, then thank you. It would be interesting to get some Purgatorial perspectives on all this.

Given how fed up everyone seems to be with this thread, though, I might wait a few days before starting such a thread myself. If someone else wants to in the meantime, then fair enough.
 
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on :
 
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! [Eek!] 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! [Razz] )

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? [Snigger] )
 
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 [Razz]
 
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Did IBP just call me a red?

No, I said you were in the red corner. That's a whole different kettle of fish.

Just because you exhibit red behaviour doesn't mean you are red.

Or something like that.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
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.

Oh, go pleasure a moose.
 
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on :
 
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."
...and the McCarthy inquiry found Hollywood to be filled with communist pinkos intent on the destruction of the American system. Perhaps we should go less by what other people tell us and ust insist that our civil rights be recognized?

Governments always use fear tactics to talk you into forgoing your privacy and other rights. How, exactly, did they prove the racism?


NP
 
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
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

Nurse? NURSE!

Quick! this man's sense of humour has gone into spasm...

No, it's gone.

What's that, you say? Dead for months? Really. Gosh. Shame.

PS. Bloody Colonial - you can have Sven if you like. Although I'm sure you have plenty of choice.
 
Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
Punctures thread with hostly toasting fork

Well, we've all had our fun. Apart from NP, who's just shown us all how stupid he can be.

Time for this gee-gee to be put down I think.

Sarkycow, the humane hellhost
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0