Americans: If the UK had a supreme court..

[Solly]

Originally posted by MikeH
Right. I forgot. In Park Avenue's 'fair' world our racial minorities should be expected to allow themselves to be taunted with racial abuse by BNP marches through their streets, be beaten, have their windows broken, faeces put through their letter boxes etc. etc. and do nothing about it other than report the crimes to the Police. And the fact that the policeman they are reporting to is a paid up BNP member shouldn't affect their confidence that their complaint will be taken seriously at all.

I'm glad I don't live in your world.

The BNP are a legitimate political party and their politics does not involve racism.

What their members do is their business.

Or are we to hold the Lib Dem party guilty for all Lib Dem members/activists misdeameanours?
...to hold the Labour party guilty for all Labour members/activists misdeameanours?
...to hold the Tory party guilty for all Tory members/activists misdeameanours?

[MikeH]

I think the same thing goes for the police.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Park Avenue


The BNP are a legitimate political party and their politics does not involve racism.

Yet theit site patiently explains that non-whites aren't welcome in their party, and their policies include the following....

"...the immediate deportation of criminal and illegal immigrants".

A division between "criminal" and "illegal" immigrants? A dangerously loose line.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Having a Chief Constable announce that he's a BNP member would be catastrophic for the police. From their point of view, it's a pragmatic step.

[Whaleboy]

I am ambivalent towards this measure. I do not think that it is reasonable to ban someone from a job on the basis of opinion where there is no direct evidence that that view prevents them from doing said job. Having said that, I do not consider the BNP a legitimate political party nor their aired opinions to be socially constructive, reasonable, sensible, well thought out or particularly intelligent, and don't even get me started on either their policies or membership! . If there ever was due cause for censorship or acts of this nature, the BNP are top of the list. However one weighs up pragmatics vs liberty here.

The solution to that in my view can be found in the nature of employer/employee relations. It is fundamentally a market. An employer (like the police force) will choose an employee on the basis of their ability to do the job. The employee has no automatic right to the job, just as a banana has no automatic right to be bought in tescos. I will choose a fruit that fits my taste.

If the police consider that a particular group of characteristics, for example, a certain view, runs contrary to what they are trying to do in the police, then they are perfectly entitled to kick out that person. That is why I do not like positive or negative discrimination in the purely economic sense. This does not amount to censorship, because people are still legally allowed to echo the BNP's views. In society, in life, every action has consequences. I cannot possibly expect my life to become any easier if I start wearing a t-shirt saying "God hates fags" or "Yay 9-11", and the same thing goes for the BNP. There is nothing undemocratic or authoritarian about the measures undertaken, but I would like them to be more specific about the BNP's policies. The police are in no danger of an own-goal there.

[Kuciwalker]

The solution to that in my view can be found in the nature of employer/employee relations. It is fundamentally a market. An employer (like the police force) will choose an employee on the basis of their ability to do the job. The employee has no automatic right to the job, just as a banana has no automatic right to be bought in tescos. I will choose a fruit that fits my taste.

The difference being that the employer is the State, not a private individual - is it really OK for the State to discriminate based on ideology? (Unless, of course, simply holding the ideology itself is an impediment to performance of the job.)

[Whaleboy]

I don't think theres a difference where the state requires someone to do the job. Provided the state does not outlaw people's support of the BNP they can employ as they wish like a normal employer. If we say that the civil right of free speech is not an active position by the state, rather it simply withdraws legistlature from people's opinions, which is effectively what it is. Are we to say that to enter in any civil service job requires nothing more than one to be law-abiding? That wouldn't work in my opinion, each job requires certain characteristics and that does not change if the employer is the state.

Furthermore, if that were not the case, where would it stop? The lowliest council job? The top civil servant or police officer?

[Whaleboy]

Oops didnt read the rest..

(Unless, of course, simply holding the ideology itself is an impediment to performance of the job.)

Precisely!!

The police need to show that is the case with the BNP, but I think they can make a very strong argument to that effect in my opinion.

[Kuciwalker]

No - simply holding an ideology does not compromise your abilities as a police officer.

In something like intelligence, where ideology has a very real effect on loyalty, it does (one of the abilities being trustworthiness).

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Park Avenue


The BNP are a legitimate political party and their politics does not involve racism.

What their members do is their business.

Ladies and gentlemen, please fasten your seatbelts, we are entering Wonderland, your trip up denial will begin shortly.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
No - simply holding an ideology does not compromise your abilities as a police officer.

One of the key abilities of a policeman is to retain the confidence and trust of as much of the general public as is reasonably possible. That becomes tricky if you're a member of a party run by criminals/terrorists, don't you think?

[Whaleboy]

No - simply holding an ideology does not compromise your abilities as a police officer.

Hypothetically you are a senior officer looking at recruits. You have a large Jewish community under your juristiction. You have someone of liberal politic, and a Nazi. Which is most appropriate for dealing with that community?

Your argument would be absolutely fine and I would be the first to concur if we looked at human nature and saw that ideology remains solely in the mind and intellect. The trouble is that such concepts are not a matter of high-level intellectual masturbation, people actually believe them and allow them to affect their actions, especially when they are in a position of power to impliment them. It's not solely a question of ideology, it becomes a question of personality and behaviour too, which as far as the police are concerned, is a question of common sense, on which they are perfectly free to recruit on the basis of whose influence.

[Whaleboy]

@ MB

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Hypothetically you are a senior officer looking at recruits. You have a large Jewish community under your juristiction. You have someone of liberal politic, and a Nazi. Which is most appropriate for dealing with that community?

Depends on how they act.

[Whaleboy]

So it's a question of risk. I, as a hypothetical senior police officer, would not let a Nazi working for me anywhere near a Jewish community.

In a country where hundreds of thousands are Muslim, I think that excluding BNP members was a sensible decision.