Don't like the snow? You can make a bookmark with the following text instead of a url: javascript:snowStorm.toggleSnow(). Clicking it will toggle the snow on and off.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The Ethics of political association

japanjapan Registered User regular
edited November 2008 in Debate and/or Discourse
As anyone in the UK is probably aware, the membership list of the far-right British National Party has been published online.

A bit of context from wiki:
the BNP is "committed to stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration and to restoring, by legal changes, negotiation and consent the overwhelmingly white makeup of the British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948." The BNP also proposes "firm but voluntary incentives for immigrants and their descendants to return home."

It advocates the repeal of all anti-discrimination legislation, and restricts party membership to "indigenous British ethnic groups deriving from the class of ‘Indigenous Caucasian’". The BNP also accepts white immigrants that are assimilated into one of those ethnicities.

Now, as reprehensible as I consider the BNP to be, I'm not sure I can support the publication of this kind of information. Instinctively, I think that people should be free to form whatever associations they like. What I'm not certain of is whether I think people necessarily have the right to conceal such associations, or deserve to have the fact of such an assocation protected from this kind of revelation.

I've looked at the list. Nobody I know, thankfully, but a number of people who live near me, and a number of people who own, or work at, businesses that I could potentially come into contact with (mostly given away by people who used their work email addresses when they registered). Suffice to say that I would probably avoid using those businesses and coming into contact with those people. Again, I don't think I could claim the moral high ground by doing so.

A further possible consequence of the leak is the possibility of people losing their jobs. It's worth pointing out that, while the BNP are a legal political party, it's also considered an extremist group, to the extent that Police Officers, and Prison Service Officers are prohibited from being BNP members. It's also worth pointing out that the right of employers to refuse to hire, or dismiss employees and trade unions to expel members on the basis of BNP membership has previously been upheld as legal in the UK and European courts. Interestingly, this seems to happen mostly on the basis that members of the BNP must inherently be racist and/or anti-homosexual, thus hiring them necessarily conflicts with any anti-discrimination policy that the organisation implements, rather than on the basis that they are a member of a particular political party.

So, to what extent are those belonging to extremist political parties entitled to protection from the consequences of those views?

japan on
«1345

Posts

  • arod_77arod_77 __BANNED USERS
    edited November 2008
    If it doesn't interfere with their work and there is no evidence of poor judgment when it comes to dealing with people of other races/gays whatever, then they shouldn't be fired.

    glitteratsigcopy.jpg
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Interestingly, this seems to happen mostly on the basis that members of the BNP must inherently be racist and/or anti-homosexual, thus hiring them necessarily conflicts with any anti-discrimination policy that the organisation implements[...]
    Not really, no. Thoughtcrime's awesome, though!

    sig.png
  • arod_77arod_77 __BANNED USERS
    edited November 2008
    This is one of those things about the UK that bothers me a little though. Membership in a political party shouldn't be grounds for anything but criticism and a negative public outlook.

    glitteratsigcopy.jpg
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    For what it's worth, a B&Q (DIY store, think Home Depot) fired a BNP member on the grounds that it was affecting staff morale, since the other staff members at the store refused to work with him. His unfair dismissal tribunal was settled out of court, which probably means B&Q weren't convinced they could win it.

  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray the swamp, always the swampRegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    arod_77 wrote: »
    If it doesn't interfere with their work and there is no evidence of poor judgment when it comes to dealing with people of other races/gays whatever, then they shouldn't be fired.
    But if someone joins a club that made it their goal to bully all gays and "non-white"* people out of the UK then it isn't that hard to assume that they subscribe to the BNP's view and would act on it given the opportunity. I - for one - wouldn't hire someone who I knew hated** a substantial part of the population on the basis of race and sexuality.

    *Apparently Polish workers are kosher. :P
    **And I realise that this shows my bias. I consider racism worse than discrimination against someone's believe that all "non white" people are Untermenschen.

    Elendil wrote: »
    said Aldo hazily, before clop-clop-clopping out of the room
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Except you're not hiring them now, you're making a decision on whether or not to fire them. If they keep their politics out of the workplace who cares?

    sig.png
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    When you aprove of discrimination of other people, you can't really complain if other people discriminate against you.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • ShadowfireShadowfire Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Aldo wrote: »
    arod_77 wrote: »
    If it doesn't interfere with their work and there is no evidence of poor judgment when it comes to dealing with people of other races/gays whatever, then they shouldn't be fired.
    But if someone joins a club that made it their goal to bully all gays and "non-white"* people out of the UK then it isn't that hard to assume that they subscribe to the BNP's view and would act on it given the opportunity. I - for one - wouldn't hire someone who I knew hated** a substantial part of the population on the basis of race and sexuality.

    *Apparently Polish workers are kosher. :P
    **And I realise that this shows my bias. I consider racism worse than discrimination against someone's believe that all "non white" people are Untermenschen.

    Or maybe they'll keep their shit in check while at work. Most of the people I work with do, even though I know a couple are incredible racists. They shut their mouths and do their jobs, though. If they were ever vocal in their racism at work, I would fire them.

    To not hire someone because of their views is just as discriminatory.

    steam_sig.png
    WiiU: Windrunner ; Guild Wars 2: Shadowfire.3940 ; PSN: Bradcopter
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    I hate the BNP but you can't censure people based on their ideas, only their actions.

    Anyway, this list may not be accurate.

    If an employee shouts racist abuse at someone, you don't need any other information or laws in order to discipline or fire him.

    This list shouldn't really matter.

    I figure I could take a bear.
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    arod_77 wrote: »
    This is one of those things about the UK that bothers me a little though. Membership in a political party shouldn't be grounds for anything but criticism and a negative public outlook.

    It's not really the fact that they belong to the BNP, it's the fact that they're racist, or at least that it can be reasonably concluded from their BNP membership that they are a racist. It's been ruled in the UK that racist beliefs are not protected philosophical or religious beliefs for the purposes of employment law, so it is legal to refuse to hire or to fire someone on the grounds that they hold such beliefs.

  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray the swamp, always the swampRegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Except you're not hiring them now, you're making a decision on whether or not to fire them. If they keep their politics out of the workplace who cares?
    I wouldn't let them work for me for long at any rate. There's two risks I don't see any entrepreneur take: [1] one of the co-workers or customers find out and causes a stink or [2] the racist employee acts on his/her believes and discriminates against other people during work hours.

    But you are right, on the off-chance that someone is part of the BNP and never caused any problems or raised suspicions I wouldn't have any ground to fire them. I'd still urge them to unsubscribe from the BNP.

    Elendil wrote: »
    said Aldo hazily, before clop-clop-clopping out of the room
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    poshniallo wrote: »
    Anyway, this list may not be accurate.

    Actually this is worth some consideration.

    It's been noted that the BNP offers "family membership", so some of the people on the list are legally minors, and some may not even be aware that they're on a list of BNP members.

  • SpeakerSpeaker Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    When you aprove of discrimination of other people, you can't really complain if other people discriminate against you.

    What the hell? That is like the opposite of Voltaire's famous dictum.

    Being walkers with the dawn and morning,
    Walkers with the sun and morning, we are not afraid of night,
    Nor days of gloom, nor darkness -
    Being walkers with the sun and morning.
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited November 2008
    japan wrote: »
    arod_77 wrote: »
    This is one of those things about the UK that bothers me a little though. Membership in a political party shouldn't be grounds for anything but criticism and a negative public outlook.

    It's not really the fact that they belong to the BNP, it's the fact that they're racist, or at least that it can be reasonably concluded from their BNP membership that they are a racist. It's been ruled in the UK that racist beliefs are not protected philosophical or religious beliefs for the purposes of employment law, so it is legal to refuse to hire or to fire someone on the grounds that they hold such beliefs.

    I'm going to say I have absolutely no problem with this. It's discrimination against an actively chosen belief or behavior.

    Spoiler:
  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray the swamp, always the swampRegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Speaker wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    When you aprove of discrimination of other people, you can't really complain if other people discriminate against you.

    What the hell? That is like the opposite of Voltaire's famous dictum.

    So?

    --

    huh, how can minors even be part of a political party? Or do they have a BNP-Jugend going?

    Elendil wrote: »
    said Aldo hazily, before clop-clop-clopping out of the room
  • SpeakerSpeaker Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Aldo wrote: »
    Speaker wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    When you aprove of discrimination of other people, you can't really complain if other people discriminate against you.

    What the hell? That is like the opposite of Voltaire's famous dictum.

    So?

    I happen to like that old saw.

    Being walkers with the dawn and morning,
    Walkers with the sun and morning, we are not afraid of night,
    Nor days of gloom, nor darkness -
    Being walkers with the sun and morning.
  • arod_77arod_77 __BANNED USERS
    edited November 2008
    Thoughtcrime allupins

    glitteratsigcopy.jpg
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    japan wrote: »
    arod_77 wrote: »
    This is one of those things about the UK that bothers me a little though. Membership in a political party shouldn't be grounds for anything but criticism and a negative public outlook.

    It's not really the fact that they belong to the BNP, it's the fact that they're racist, or at least that it can be reasonably concluded from their BNP membership that they are a racist. It's been ruled in the UK that racist beliefs are not protected philosophical or religious beliefs for the purposes of employment law, so it is legal to refuse to hire or to fire someone on the grounds that they hold such beliefs.

    You don't have proof that they're racist. You just have circumstantial evidence.

    Lots and lots and lots of British people are racist. And homophobic.

    I don't like them at all, but how does that justify them being unable to find employment? How does that help anyone but your sense of moral purity?

    I figure I could take a bear.
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited November 2008
    arod_77 wrote: »
    Thoughtcrime allupins

    Come the fuck on. "Thoughtcrime," as used in 1984, were thoughts against an all-powerful state. These are harmful fucking beliefs. Get your head out of your ass.

    Spoiler:
  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray the swamp, always the swampRegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    poshniallo wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    arod_77 wrote: »
    This is one of those things about the UK that bothers me a little though. Membership in a political party shouldn't be grounds for anything but criticism and a negative public outlook.

    It's not really the fact that they belong to the BNP, it's the fact that they're racist, or at least that it can be reasonably concluded from their BNP membership that they are a racist. It's been ruled in the UK that racist beliefs are not protected philosophical or religious beliefs for the purposes of employment law, so it is legal to refuse to hire or to fire someone on the grounds that they hold such beliefs.

    You don't have proof that they're racist. You just have circumstantial evidence.

    Lots and lots and lots of British people are racist. And homophobic.

    I don't like them at all, but how does that justify them being unable to find employment? How does that help anyone but your sense of moral purity?

    They subscribe to the views of the BNP, so they are judging others based on sexuality and ethnicity. There's really not a whole lot of middle ground here, only the bit about daddy signing up his whole family without them having a say in it.

    If I noticed a co-worker throw rotten tomatoes at black people I would talk to my boss about it, even though he would be acting under the assumption he was absolutely anonymous.

    Elendil wrote: »
    said Aldo hazily, before clop-clop-clopping out of the room
  • arod_77arod_77 __BANNED USERS
    edited November 2008
    arod_77 wrote: »
    Thoughtcrime allupins

    Come the fuck on. "Thoughtcrime," as used in 1984, were thoughts against an all-powerful state. These are harmful fucking beliefs. Get your head out of your ass.

    Relax max.

    We are talking about a minority party within a fairly liberal parliamentary society. They aren't a bell-weather.
    Rights of the minority remember?

    We shouldn't judge people purely by political associations--especially when there are legal and economic consequences at stake.

    glitteratsigcopy.jpg
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Once again, membership of a group doesn't prove that someone is a racist.

    Judge someone by their acts.

    This document proves nothing that should be acted on in the workplace.

    I figure I could take a bear.
  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray the swamp, always the swampRegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    poshniallo wrote: »
    Once again, membership of a group doesn't prove that someone is a racist.

    Judge someone by their acts.

    This document proves nothing that should be acted on in the workplace.
    It isn't considered 'acting' to sign up to be part of a racist and homophobic group?

    Elendil wrote: »
    said Aldo hazily, before clop-clop-clopping out of the room
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    I wouldn't hire anyone who was a member of a group that was this explicit about their bigotry. I also wouldn't patronize businesses owned by such folks if I had any other option. Generally, I just wouldn't associate with them at all.

    And before someone jumps in here with a "that's discrimination/bigotry too;" No, it's not. There's a difference between being born with a certain skin color or sexual preference and actively associating yourself with what is basically a hate group. People who choose the latter can and should be subject to the opinions of their fellow citizens. Bad choices shouldn't be tolerated or encouraged, particularly when those choices are made in an effort to oppress or disenfranchise others.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. On Hiatus!

    Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    poshniallo wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    arod_77 wrote: »
    This is one of those things about the UK that bothers me a little though. Membership in a political party shouldn't be grounds for anything but criticism and a negative public outlook.

    It's not really the fact that they belong to the BNP, it's the fact that they're racist, or at least that it can be reasonably concluded from their BNP membership that they are a racist. It's been ruled in the UK that racist beliefs are not protected philosophical or religious beliefs for the purposes of employment law, so it is legal to refuse to hire or to fire someone on the grounds that they hold such beliefs.

    You don't have proof that they're racist. You just have circumstantial evidence.

    Lots and lots and lots of British people are racist. And homophobic.

    I don't like them at all, but how does that justify them being unable to find employment? How does that help anyone but your sense of moral purity?

    I haven't decided how I feel about this yet.

    While I do accept that membership of the BNP is somewhat circumstantial, I do think that if you're going to deliberately associate yourself a group with a group that publicly espouses such beliefs (and has a long history of violence besides) that it probably shouldn't come as a surprise when you're lumped in with them. I do think that it would necessarily be impossible to trust someone with strong racist views if they're going to be in a position of authority (the police, for example).

  • arod_77arod_77 __BANNED USERS
    edited November 2008
    Allow me construct a poor analogy.

    I am a registered democrat because socially I more or less subscribe to liberal philosophy.

    When it comes to Gun-rights--I am hard-right pro second-amendment.

    If I wanted to work at Browning or Springfield or at a gun-shop even--and my registered Democrat status was discovered--would the overriding philosophy of the party line automatically discount any deviance from orthodoxy on my part? Would it be grounds for dismissal?

    People aren't robots--even racist people.

    glitteratsigcopy.jpg
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited November 2008
    arod_77 wrote: »
    arod_77 wrote: »
    Thoughtcrime allupins

    Come the fuck on. "Thoughtcrime," as used in 1984, were thoughts against an all-powerful state. These are harmful fucking beliefs. Get your head out of your ass.

    Relax max.

    We are talking about a minority party within a fairly liberal parliamentary society. They aren't a bell-weather.
    Rights of the minority remember?

    We shouldn't judge people purely by political associations--especially when there are legal and economic consequences at state.

    It's nowhere near thoughtcrime, and it's simply fearmongering to accuse it to be such. Rights of a minority have absolutely nothing to do with acting on harmful beliefs. The BNP sounds pretty fucking radical. This is not the state acting as a thought police. The only ethical problems we have here are whether or not publishing the names was appropriate.

    The government has upheld the right of individuals to hire or fire based on radicalistic, destructive beliefs. Not a thoughtcrime situation.

    Spoiler:
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    I'm not saying I wouldn't dislike someone who turned out to be on that list.

    I'm just saying that it's not grounds for dismissal.

    This isn't a new idea - the debate as to whether one's opinions and thoughts can be illegal or immoral, and the debate on what kinds of immorality should be punished is a very old one.

    So let's start with a simple question - what do you think would be the consequences of BNP members no longer being able to work for a living?

    I figure I could take a bear.
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited November 2008
    poshniallo wrote: »
    So let's start with a simple question - what do you think would be the consequences of BNP members no longer being able to work for a living?

    I'm fine with systematically disenfranchising a whole group of people that are a threat to civil society.

    Spoiler:
  • arod_77arod_77 __BANNED USERS
    edited November 2008
    arod_77 wrote: »
    arod_77 wrote: »
    Thoughtcrime allupins

    Come the fuck on. "Thoughtcrime," as used in 1984, were thoughts against an all-powerful state. These are harmful fucking beliefs. Get your head out of your ass.

    Relax max.

    We are talking about a minority party within a fairly liberal parliamentary society. They aren't a bell-weather.
    Rights of the minority remember?

    We shouldn't judge people purely by political associations--especially when there are legal and economic consequences at state.

    It's nowhere near thoughtcrime, and it's simply fearmongering to accuse it to be such. Rights of a minority have absolutely nothing to do with acting on harmful beliefs. The BNP sounds pretty fucking radical. This is not the state acting as a thought police. The only ethical problems we have here are whether or not publishing the names was appropriate.

    The government has upheld the right of individuals to hire or fire based on radicalistic, destructive beliefs. Not a thoughtcrime situation.

    Now you throw "fearmongering" at me?

    Its funny how the far left and the far right meet when it comes to suppression?

    I couldn't disagree more with this party--but it is a party that only captured 0.7 % of the vote for a reason. I personally believe in the rights of all minority political groups to peaceably exist and campaign. This is fuzzy logic, if we were equating the BNP with the IRA we wouldn't allow them to participate in elections--and yet you talk about them as if all members are proven radical terrorists.

    glitteratsigcopy.jpg
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    arod_77 wrote: »
    arod_77 wrote: »
    Thoughtcrime allupins

    Come the fuck on. "Thoughtcrime," as used in 1984, were thoughts against an all-powerful state. These are harmful fucking beliefs. Get your head out of your ass.

    Relax max.

    We are talking about a minority party within a fairly liberal parliamentary society. They aren't a bell-weather.
    Rights of the minority remember?

    We shouldn't judge people purely by political associations--especially when there are legal and economic consequences at state.

    It's nowhere near thoughtcrime, and it's simply fearmongering to accuse it to be such. Rights of a minority have absolutely nothing to do with acting on harmful beliefs. The BNP sounds pretty fucking radical. This is not the state acting as a thought police. The only ethical problems we have here are whether or not publishing the names was appropriate.

    The government has upheld the right of individuals to hire or fire based on radicalistic, destructive beliefs. Not a thoughtcrime situation.

    Do you honestly believe that the government gets to legislate morality?

    That if the government says 'It's OK to discriminate against this group' that is in any way relevant to morality?

    I'm not going to start on the harmful beliefs idea, because you are clearly intractable on this very shaky concept.

    I figure I could take a bear.
  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray the swamp, always the swampRegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    arod_77 wrote: »
    Allow me construct a poor analogy.

    I am a registered democrat because socially I more or less subscribe to liberal philosophy.

    When it comes to Gun-rights--I am hard-right pro second-amendment.

    If I wanted to work at Browning or Springfield or at a gun-shop even--and my registered Democrat status was discovered--would the overriding philosophy of the party line automatically discount any deviance from orthodoxy on my part? Would it be grounds for dismissal?

    People aren't robots--even racist people.
    That is a really poor analogy for the simple reason the American political parties both nearly identical and neither party wants to outlaw guns.

    Now if there somehow was a club you are member of that has made it their goal to destruct all fire arms in the US and you'd apply for a job at a gun factory then yes it isn't that weird that the company would not hire you if they found out. Or fire you if/once they find out.

    The thing with the BNP is is that they hate people everyone will deal with during their work day. Unless you work at an all-white, all-straight company that has no contacts what so ever with people not part of the company.

    Elendil wrote: »
    said Aldo hazily, before clop-clop-clopping out of the room
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    poshniallo wrote: »
    So let's start with a simple question - what do you think would be the consequences of BNP members no longer being able to work for a living?

    I'm fine with systematically disenfranchising a whole group of people that are a threat to civil society.

    Do you understand why we allow bad people to vote and participate in civil society?

    I figure I could take a bear.
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited November 2008
    Screaming "o noes thoughtcrime!" is most certainly fearmongering.

    Spoiler:
  • arod_77arod_77 __BANNED USERS
    edited November 2008
    Aldo wrote: »
    arod_77 wrote: »
    Allow me construct a poor analogy.

    I am a registered democrat because socially I more or less subscribe to liberal philosophy.

    When it comes to Gun-rights--I am hard-right pro second-amendment.

    If I wanted to work at Browning or Springfield or at a gun-shop even--and my registered Democrat status was discovered--would the overriding philosophy of the party line automatically discount any deviance from orthodoxy on my part? Would it be grounds for dismissal?

    People aren't robots--even racist people.
    That is a really poor analogy for the simple reason the American political parties both nearly identical and neither party wants to outlaw guns.

    Now if there somehow was a club you are member of that has made it their goal to destruct all fire arms in the US and you'd apply for a job at a gun factory then yes it isn't that weird that the company would not hire you if they found out. Or fire you if/once they find out.

    The thing with the BNP is is that they hate people everyone will deal with during their work day. Unless you work at an all-white, all-straight company that has no contacts what so ever with people not part of the company.

    Okay but my point here is that we shouldn't judge people's personal beliefs based on the orthodox line of their party. Yes, even the radical groups.

    glitteratsigcopy.jpg
  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray the swamp, always the swampRegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    poshniallo wrote: »
    I'm not saying I wouldn't dislike someone who turned out to be on that list.

    I'm just saying that it's not grounds for dismissal.

    This isn't a new idea - the debate as to whether one's opinions and thoughts can be illegal or immoral, and the debate on what kinds of immorality should be punished is a very old one.

    So let's start with a simple question - what do you think would be the consequences of BNP members no longer being able to work for a living?
    Oh, I know!

    Them having to adapt their behaviour to what is morally accepted in the UK or for them to move to a country where they are okay with people being racist and anti-gay.

    Elendil wrote: »
    said Aldo hazily, before clop-clop-clopping out of the room
  • arod_77arod_77 __BANNED USERS
    edited November 2008
    Screaming "o noes thoughtcrime!" is most certainly fearmongering.

    Yes, the person making the argument against stripping a minority group of their right to work is the one engaging in fear-tactics :|

    glitteratsigcopy.jpg
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    arod_77 wrote: »
    Aldo wrote: »
    arod_77 wrote: »
    Allow me construct a poor analogy.

    I am a registered democrat because socially I more or less subscribe to liberal philosophy.

    When it comes to Gun-rights--I am hard-right pro second-amendment.

    If I wanted to work at Browning or Springfield or at a gun-shop even--and my registered Democrat status was discovered--would the overriding philosophy of the party line automatically discount any deviance from orthodoxy on my part? Would it be grounds for dismissal?

    People aren't robots--even racist people.
    That is a really poor analogy for the simple reason the American political parties both nearly identical and neither party wants to outlaw guns.

    Now if there somehow was a club you are member of that has made it their goal to destruct all fire arms in the US and you'd apply for a job at a gun factory then yes it isn't that weird that the company would not hire you if they found out. Or fire you if/once they find out.

    The thing with the BNP is is that they hate people everyone will deal with during their work day. Unless you work at an all-white, all-straight company that has no contacts what so ever with people not part of the company.

    Okay but my point here is that we shouldn't judge people's personal beliefs based on the orthodox line of their party. Yes, even the radical groups.

    Exactly. Being on this list does not give you 100% proof that they are going to abuse other workers in your company.

    I figure I could take a bear.
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited November 2008
    poshniallo wrote: »
    poshniallo wrote: »
    So let's start with a simple question - what do you think would be the consequences of BNP members no longer being able to work for a living?

    I'm fine with systematically disenfranchising a whole group of people that are a threat to civil society.

    Do you understand why we allow bad people to vote and participate in civil society?

    I advocate for prisoner voting, personally. So yes, I do. What I'm saying is that society should absolutely be allowed to judge people based on these kinds of beliefs.

    Spoiler:
  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray the swamp, always the swampRegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    arod_77 wrote: »
    Aldo wrote: »
    arod_77 wrote: »
    Allow me construct a poor analogy.

    I am a registered democrat because socially I more or less subscribe to liberal philosophy.

    When it comes to Gun-rights--I am hard-right pro second-amendment.

    If I wanted to work at Browning or Springfield or at a gun-shop even--and my registered Democrat status was discovered--would the overriding philosophy of the party line automatically discount any deviance from orthodoxy on my part? Would it be grounds for dismissal?

    People aren't robots--even racist people.
    That is a really poor analogy for the simple reason the American political parties both nearly identical and neither party wants to outlaw guns.

    Now if there somehow was a club you are member of that has made it their goal to destruct all fire arms in the US and you'd apply for a job at a gun factory then yes it isn't that weird that the company would not hire you if they found out. Or fire you if/once they find out.

    The thing with the BNP is is that they hate people everyone will deal with during their work day. Unless you work at an all-white, all-straight company that has no contacts what so ever with people not part of the company.

    Okay but my point here is that we shouldn't judge people's personal beliefs based on the orthodox line of their party. Yes, even the radical groups.

    To go on with your analogy*: you are saying there are people part of this anti-gun club that do not agree with the club's viewpoint of guns. Then why did they join? For the lulz or something?

    *I loves me some analogies :winky:

    Elendil wrote: »
    said Aldo hazily, before clop-clop-clopping out of the room
«1345
Sign In or Register to comment.