Difficult Civil Rights Question - Page 7

MaggieL · 08-30-2006, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliantha

When it all comes down to it, how does any person define racist behaviour anyway?

This is why we have laws that define "discrimination"....so it's not up to the whims of "any person". I'm no more interested in "promoting racism", than I am in "promoting homophobia". But trying to create laws to punish people for their thoughts or beliefs isn't a smart way fight either racism or homophobia. And it opens the door to an incredible range of abuses that won't be good for anybody.

Aliantha · 09-01-2006, 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaggieL

This is why we have laws that define "discrimination"....so it's not up to the whims of "any person". I'm no more interested in "promoting racism", than I am in "promoting homophobia". But trying to create laws to punish people for their thoughts or beliefs isn't a smart way fight either racism or homophobia. And it opens the door to an incredible range of abuses that won't be good for anybody.

OK...for one thing, unless the process of becomming a police officer is much different in the US than it is here, there's a huge number of people involved in employing each new recruit, so it would certainly be far from the 'whims of any person' to exclude or include any one person during the process.

One further comment. I don't know what you really feel about this situation because you've not shared with us why you think the way you do, but even if your view is 'constitutional', I would never agree that it's ok for a police officer to be an active officer and be a member of a hate group at the same time. It takes something very special to be a cop, and someone who can believe that it's ok to feel superior to another whole race doesn't have that special thing that you need to have to be a cop.

To add to that, the state has a responsibility to act in the best interests of all citizens. How can the state be acting in the best interests of all citizens if it allows some of its citizens to be put in a position where they are open to victimization?

MaggieL · 09-01-2006, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliantha

OK...for one thing...
One further comment...To add to that...

So much for "the last word". :-)

MaggieL · 09-01-2006, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliantha

I don't know what you really feel about this situation because you've not shared with us why you think the way you do,

Actuially I have. You're just not freaking listening. You've worked yourself into such a lather screaming "RACISM!" that you're willing to completely overlook the issues I've raised.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliantha

...I would never agree that it's ok for a police officer to be an active officer and be a member of a hate group at the same time...

I think we've got that now. I don't expect you to agree. You're so wrapped up in special-interest identity politics that the principle I'm saying is at stake here escapes you completely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliantha

It takes something very special to be a cop, and someone who can believe that it's ok to feel superior to another whole race doesn't have that special thing that you need to have to be a cop.

That sounds noble and high-minded, but you can't just fire a cop for "not having a special thing", any more than he can arrest you and charge you with "looking suspicious".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliantha

To add to that, the state has a responsibility to act in the best interests of all citizens. How can the state be acting in the best interests of all citizens if it allows some of its citizens to be put in a position where they are open to victimization?

That's "begging the question". Obviously the state can't "act in the best interests of all its citizens" all the time, because those inteterest are so frequently in conflict. That is why we have laws...to try to settle those conflicts equitably, and using objective standards that most people can understand.

Stormieweather · 09-01-2006, 10:16 AM

Here's the bottom line. You can't tell people what to think or believe in.

If laws are passed telling Joe Blow and Susy Sweet that they can't believe in X, then laws can be passed telling you that you can't believe in Y. Once you start regulating what beliefs are allowable, you deny people their humanity. You will lose the basis for all of our other freedoms which renders them useless. As distasteful as it may be, if Joe Blow wants to believe that certain races are sub-human, that IS his right...just as you have the right to believe they are equal.

From the international human rights law, the UDHR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univers...f_Human_Rights, article 18:

Quote:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

The laws we have are anti-discrimination. These give all men the right to equal treatment, regardless of race, sex, religion, age, etc. Joe Blow can still 'think' certain citizens are sub-human but legally, he cannot treat them any differently than anyone else.

So this policeman does have the right to belong to a hate group, such as the KKK (because it is NOT an illegal ie: subversive group), but should he put those 'beliefs' into practice, he can get fired for discrimination.

Stormie

wolf · 09-01-2006, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliantha

It takes something very special to be a cop, and someone who can believe that it's ok to feel superior to another whole race doesn't have that special thing that you need to have to be a cop.

In the United States only Black, Brown, Red, and sometimes Yellow people are allowed to feel superior about themselves.

What you fail to understand that for cops there are two colors. Blue and everybody else (perhaps three, Blue, Citizens, and Perps). That's where the lines are really drawn.

xoxoxoBruce · 09-02-2006, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolf

What you fail to understand that for cops there are two colors. Blue and everybody else (perhaps three, Blue, Citizens, and Perps). That's where the lines are really drawn.

I believe there is a fourth....people with pull, politically connected.

DanaC · 08-30-2006, 04:35 PM

As far as being a member of an organisation which openly espouses racist views.....that I think is incompatible with being a policeman. That said, I do find myself agreeing with some of what Maggie is saying here. There is a danger in legislating against certain ways of thinking.

In the UK we have a law against incitement to racial hatred. Calling someone a 'paki' is not illegal. Standing up in a public meeting and saying Pakis are a cancer on society which should be cut out is.

08-31-2006, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanaC

As far as being a member of an organisation which openly espouses racist views.....that I think is incompatible with being a policeman. That said, I do find myself agreeing with some of what Maggie is saying here. There is a danger in legislating against certain ways of thinking.

In the UK we have a law against incitement to racial hatred. Calling someone a 'paki' is not illegal. Standing up in a public meeting and saying Pakis are a cancer on society which should be cut out is.

But you can say that racists are a cancer on society, right?

Trilby · 08-31-2006, 06:31 AM

Dana, just for the sake of argument--it's illegal to stand up in a public meeting and say Paki's are a cancer on society but it IS legal to have a public demonstration in which beheadings are prescribed for the 'cancer' that is 'europe'-? Do I have that right?

DanaC · 08-31-2006, 08:59 AM

Yup. If they'd referred to a specific race it would be different.

MaggieL · 08-31-2006, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanaC

Yup. If they'd referred to a specific race it would be different.

When did "Pakistani" become a race?

DanaC · 08-31-2006, 10:19 AM

yep. People choose to be racist or not. People have no choice as to their ethnicity.

08-31-2006, 11:19 AM

Not the point... the point is that you feel it is ok to single-out and ostracize one type of person publicly and not another. That makes you the same as them.
That kind of law makes the people exactly what they are trying to avoid. They become what they are trying to fight.
It is impossible to legislate morality.

Part of freedom of speech is hearing unpleasant speech.

wolf · 08-31-2006, 07:32 PM

Since "ethnism" isn't as easy to pronouce as "racism."

View Poll Results: Should a police officer be fired for joining the Klan
Kick him out no matter what	17	65.38%
Reinstate him if he stays out of the Klan	2	7.69%
Reinstate him no matter what he does off duty	7	26.92%
Voters: 26. You may not vote on this poll

08-31-2006, 06:31 AM	#10
Trilby Slattern of the Swail Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 15,654	Dana, just for the sake of argument--it's illegal to stand up in a public meeting and say Paki's are a cancer on society but it IS legal to have a public demonstration in which beheadings are prescribed for the 'cancer' that is 'europe'-? Do I have that right? __________________ In Barrie's play and novel, the roles of fairies are brief: they are allies to the Lost Boys, the source of fairy dust and ...They are portrayed as dangerous, whimsical and extremely clever but quite hedonistic. "Shall I give you a kiss?" Peter asked and, jerking an acorn button off his coat, solemnly presented it to her. —James Barrie Wimminfolk they be tricksy. - ZenGum

08-31-2006, 07:32 PM	#15
wolf lobber of scimitars Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Phila Burbs Posts: 20,774	Since "ethnism" isn't as easy to pronouce as "racism." __________________ wolf eht htiw og "Conspiracies are the norm, not the exception." --G. Edward Griffin The Creature from Jekyll Island High Priestess of the Church of the Whale Penis

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

08-30-2006, 04:35 PM	#8
DanaC We have to go back, Kate! Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 25,964	As far as being a member of an organisation which openly espouses racist views.....that I think is incompatible with being a policeman. That said, I do find myself agreeing with some of what Maggie is saying here. There is a danger in legislating against certain ways of thinking. In the UK we have a law against incitement to racial hatred. Calling someone a 'paki' is not illegal. Standing up in a public meeting and saying Pakis are a cancer on society which should be cut out is.

08-31-2006, 08:59 AM	#11
DanaC We have to go back, Kate! Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 25,964	Yup. If they'd referred to a specific race it would be different.

08-31-2006, 10:19 AM	#13
DanaC We have to go back, Kate! Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 25,964	yep. People choose to be racist or not. People have no choice as to their ethnicity.

08-31-2006, 11:19 AM	#14
rkzenrage Guest Posts: n/a	Not the point... the point is that you feel it is ok to single-out and ostracize one type of person publicly and not another. That makes you the same as them. That kind of law makes the people exactly what they are trying to avoid. They become what they are trying to fight. It is impossible to legislate morality. Part of freedom of speech is hearing unpleasant speech.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)