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
japan
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
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:
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?
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
Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What the hell? That is like the opposite of Voltaire's famous dictum.
I'm going to say I have absolutely no problem with this. It's discrimination against an actively chosen belief or behavior.
So?
--
huh, how can minors even be part of a political party? Or do they have a BNP-Jugend going?
I happen to like that old saw.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Judge someone by their acts.
This document proves nothing that should be acted on in the workplace.
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.
Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
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).
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.
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.
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'm fine with systematically disenfranchising a whole group of people that are a threat to civil society.
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.
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.
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.
Do you understand why we allow bad people to vote and participate in civil society?
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.
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.
Yes, the person making the argument against stripping a minority group of their right to work is the one engaging in fear-tactics
Exactly. Being on this list does not give you 100% proof that they are going to abuse other workers in your company.
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.
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:
No.
They would go on benefit. And find justification for their twisted beliefs, since they are actually treated worse than immigrants (as opposed to now, when they merely imagine that to be the case). And perhaps turn to violence.
You can't beat the evil out of humanity. That kind of logic is why Thatcher wouldn't deal with the IRA. Major and Blair did, and Northern Ireland is an infinitely better place because of their willingness to enfranchise evil people.
Striving to achieve a moral clarity in society is just as disgusting as trying to achieve racial clarity.
You are suppressing dissent.
Acknowledge that.
Can you show me where I said that? I've advocated no state actions, just the freedom of individuals. Yes, somebody should be able to fire their employee simply because they're racist. That's what I'm saying. That's what I mean by disenfrachisement, though "systematic" wasn't a good word to use.
This is the same logic that skyrocketed Al-Qaeda recruitments.
Awesome, I'm not hiring atheists or socialists or communists or goths or vegetarians or PETA members or green freaks or people who don't like Rancid or people who do like Good Charolette or or or
Ugh, yes, that is always a possibility. Can't fire anyone without risking them blowing up your car.
They are already finding justification for their beliefs and they are already turning to violence. I'm having a hard time imagining how much worse these people might behave if they lose their job.