The Cellar
Page 2 of 13 1 2 345678912 Last »
Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Philosophy (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   Difficult Civil Rights Question (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=11576)

DanaC 08-26-2006 01:18 PM
Quote:
I'm being bitchy, I know, but I have been wondering what the feelings are for the rights of neo-Nazi's and Klanners since we're all so OK with militant Muslim's calling for blood and beheadings.
I really would think that any policeman who avocated beheadings would be in a very tenuous position vis a vis his job:P

Spexxvet 08-26-2006 01:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaggieL
Erm...the poll is worded a bit oddly. "No matter what he does off-duty" is a bit extreme, donchathink? That would include baby raping. But exactly how do we justify firing a cop for his political beliefs? This "he can join the Klan but he can't stay a cop if he does" begs the question of exactly what the justification for firing him actually is. It really means "He can do anything he wants but we can fire him if we don't like his beliefs".

For example, try "He can be gay if he wants, but he can't be a cop if he is."

Where's the ACLU? They will defend the rights of Nazis to march in Skokie, but not the rights of a Klan member to be a cop?

Just for the record, the Klan is anathema to me, and so are the Nazis. But somebody needs to explain to me why this guy can't be a cop, The instant he violates somebody's civil rights he should be out on his ass, and prosecuted to boot, but I didn't know we had a thoughtcrime statute on the books. This man's job is enforcing the law, not enforcing political correctness. That's also the job of his superiors, but they seem to have forgotten that.

I really, really, really, hate to say this, but I agree with Maggie. Ssshhhhh. And I don't feel the need to add anything or qualify anything she wrote. :eek:

MaggieL 08-26-2006 01:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaC
Actually, I just realised....Judges are elected over there are they?
Some judgeships are elective office here.

I just don't think you can summarily fire someone from a government job because of what they beleive. Again...would you make a list of forbidden parties? Or just forbidden beliefs? Or let the supervising official make individual judgements? Because that sounds like what you're saying.

I guess I really shouldn't be surprised given how you expected speech you considered racist to be policed here on the Cellar. But I am.

rkzenrage 08-26-2006 01:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothmoniker
What if it was a black officer who had joined the Nation of Islam. Same answer?
Absolutely.
An officer has no place in those kinds of organizations.
The reason, they take an oath to the organization above all governments... that is why.
If it was just a racist ideal, I would not like it, but would support their right to free speech and to keep their job.
Just because someone is racist does not mean they will act on it. Objectivity is the soul of the law.

DanaC 08-26-2006 01:35 PM
Quote:
I guess I really shouldn't be surprised given how you expected speech you considered racist to be policed here on the Cellar. But I am.
I never considered it should be policed. I just expressed surprise and disgust when I found racism amongst people I respect. That then led to a debate on language and racism. At no point did I think some moderator should have policed that debate or the original word that sparked it. There's a difference between my expressing surprise and arguing vehemently against the use of a particular word ....and my thinking you don't have the right to use that word or that the cellar shold be in someway policing that.
It was a debate. That's the whole point about free speech isn't it?

DanaC 08-26-2006 01:37 PM
I agree with rkzenrage. Having been off and googled some information on Nation of Islam. I'd be very uncomfortable about an Officer being a member of that group.

rkzenrage 08-26-2006 01:42 PM
Everyone has the right to use any word they like. That is the whole point of free speech.

DanaC 08-26-2006 01:44 PM
Yes they do. And everyone has the right to object to a word if they find it offensive. I guarantee if I started a thread about 'niggers' someone would object to my using that word.

rkzenrage 08-26-2006 01:47 PM
I would say that it is objectionable, but would have no issue with the fact that you used it.
I have an issue with the fact that the Cellar is so wimpy about this issue.

DanaC 08-26-2006 01:52 PM
I saw a word which is used as a racist taunt in England and launched straight into a debate on racism. I was surprised to find a racist slur used by someone who had never struck me as racist and posted that. Does that mean i don't think she had the right to use that word? No. I found it objectionable and posted as such. As it turned out, that word does not carry the same connotations over there as it does here. But I think most brits who saw it did a doubletake. I had as much right to express my disgust at seeing that term used as the person who used it did in posting it.

DanaC 08-26-2006 01:55 PM
Words have power. Freedom of speech does not negate that. There is a difference between legislating against words....and objecting on a personal level to particular usages.

MaggieL 08-26-2006 01:58 PM
"Sorry, Constable, you'll have to turn in your badge. We've discovered you're a belever in Islam, and we're afraid you'll start doing your job according to Sharia law. "

DanaC 08-26-2006 01:59 PM
LoL

Good point. But
"Sorry officer, you'll have to turn in your badge, we've discovered you are a signed up member of a group advocating the overthrow of the elected government" might wash.

MaggieL 08-26-2006 02:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaC
I'd be very uncomfortable about an Officer being a member of that group.
It's a good thing public jobs here aren't awarded or kept on the basis of the "comfort" of individuals. Criteria have to be objective.

DanaC 08-26-2006 02:02 PM
True enough. But aren't there laws ( or contractual rules)in place about this sort of thing? If there aren't then they had no right to deprive him of his job. If there are then he made a decision in full knowledge that he was putting himself into an untenable position.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:57 PM.
Page 2 of 13 1 2 345678912 Last »
Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.