Well, you can laugh if you like, but the analogy is on point. And it's not a joke.

I agree that advocating the overthrow of the goverment is over the line; it would be illegal to do so. and that was the reasoning behind forbidding Communists in government jobs.

What about advocating the execution of homosexuals?

If there were, I would have thought they'd have been cited.

That's why I prodded you about thoughtcrime laws. How would you write such a law? As a councillor, don't you have a legislative role? Here, the governing body of a municipality or county can pass ordinances.

Unless the person in queston is not going to have either power over or a duty to homosexual members of society then I would say that also makes it an untenable position. That's my own view. That wouldnt cover all members of Islam, because not all of them believe that in the same way that not all Christians believe homosexuality to be a mortal sin. However, if the person in question signed up to a political group whose express purpose was to eradicate homosexuals from the country then I would say they had no place in the policing of them.

I wold think it to be more of a matter for the Police themselves rather than legislation at a state level. For instance, our police force have ruled that it is not acceptable for a member of the force to also be a member of the far right party BNP. This ban was decided in consultation with Civil service unions and the Home Office, but ultimately taken by the Association of Chief Constables. It was thouht that this may need legislation to back it up, but the basic ruling was that being a member of BNP breached the existing rules on diversity.

I think it all boils down to one question.

Is the employee doing the job as required?

If not, fire them. If so, don't fire them. Doesn't matter what they do in their private time.

It gets sticky when you consider what a police officer's job is. Clodfobble has a good point that the cop endangers all fellow cops by being in KKK. On that point alone, he isn't doing his job. Fire him.

Glatt you make a good point. There are aspects of membership of that particular group which by definition affect the ability of that cop to do his job.

So it is ok (in the name of civil rights) to allow the same person whose duty it is to protect and serve every citizen, to investigate crimes and to keep the peace, to ALSO be a member of a group advocating violence and whose primary goal is to oppress an entire race (or races) through terrorism, intimidation and hatred? How can one not see a conflict so great as to totally impede the proper fulfillment of one's duty to their badge? The two masters are diametrically opposed and irreconcilable.

Stormie

Beautifully put!

That's a pretty sweeping pronouncement. I don't expect to see it stand up in court here.

It may give you a warm fuzzy to feel like you're striking a blow against racism, but your method is on extremely shaky ground.

I think you'll find modern Klan organizations have been extremely careful not to get caught openly advocating violence.

They may be racists, but they're not completely stupid.

I thought that post was a joke. Wasn't it?

The police can't simply do anything they feel like. They are ruled by the law and by their own regulations. If you want to fire a cop, it has to be based on a law or a regulation.

How would you write such a law or regulation? Bear in mind that here it must pass scrutiny for constitutionality. Also bear in mind that racism is not illegal. Racial discrimination, however, is.

The truth is that this is a very difficult and thorny issue. There is the question of the policeman's right to hold a particular view. There is the issue of the citizen's right to be defended/policed fairly regardless of their colour or race.

We recently had to deal with that issue here, when an undercover reporter joined up as a trainee in the police and secretly filmed police officers openly espousing racist views and advocating to the trainees the use of violence when dealing with blacks and asians. It was discovered during the investigation which followed that several police officers were active members of the BNP. Some of the officers in question were caught on film laughing about the fact that they had kicked the crap out of an asian man in their custody and telling the young 'trainee' the best ways to get away with such violence.

The problem with the BNP is that like the KKK they also try to be careful now about openly advocating violence. In the privacy of their meetings and ralllies however that is not the case.

And that is the reason there's a bright line between beliefs and behavior. You can't fire a cop for what he believes. And that's the crux of the case in question.

Becoming a member of the KKK was a shift from belief to behaviour. What he feels in his heart is his own affair. By signing up to such a group he takes on the collective responsibility for what they are and do.