Hippie, aren't you an atheist? You're aware many people consider that a "destructive belief", right? Same with gay people?
You know what the difference is? Trying to get rid of all the mud races and the fudge packers is necessarily destructive and hateful, and that's a fucking fact. I don't care what a person believes, they're 100% incorrect if they believe that the qualifier "atheist" is destructive on the measure that these BNP people are.
It doesn't fucking matter if they're right. They believe that. If they're your boss and they fire you for being atheist on the grounds that your beliefs are destructive and contrary to the beliefs of their company, its on YOUR head to prove them wrong.
And I'll put it in front of a judge.
Also, I'm probably not going to be working at a bible factory in the first place. With these people, however, literally any business aside from self-employment would be a conflict of interests. There is a difference and you're failing to grasp it in a most astonishing way.
To the people I'm talking about, YOU would be unsuited to any business aside from self employment. I don't think you grasp the point. There is a difference. They don't believe in it, and as such the difference doesn't affect their actions.
WH, you keep using the word disenfranchise. What do you mean by it?
Socially disenfranchise. The most effective way to shut off racists and other bigots and hatemongers is to force them into some dark corner of society. "This belief is not acceptable. Either keep it to yourself, cede to modern society, or get out of our way."
The individual members are keeping it to themselves. The list was published, most likely without their permission.
Or do you believe that every single member is waving signs at their place of employment saying "kick out the queers?"
They joined the hate club. They're not keeping it to themselves. Quite the opposite; they're sharing it.
WH, you keep using the word disenfranchise. What do you mean by it?
Socially disenfranchise. The most effective way to shut off racists and other bigots and hatemongers is to force them into some dark corner of society. "This belief is not acceptable. Either keep it to yourself, cede to modern society, or get out of our way."
The individual members are keeping it to themselves. The list was published, most likely without their permission.
Or do you believe that every single member is waving signs at their place of employment saying "kick out the queers?"
They joined the hate club. They're not keeping it to themselves. Quite the opposite; they're sharing it.
and now we're back to the beginning. Do you really want to set the precedent that membership in a legal political party is grounds for dismissal?
Hippie, aren't you an atheist? You're aware many people consider that a "destructive belief", right? Same with gay people?
You know what the difference is? Trying to get rid of all the mud races and the fudge packers is necessarily destructive and hateful, and that's a fucking fact. I don't care what a person believes, they're 100% incorrect if they believe that the qualifier "atheist" is destructive on the measure that these BNP people are.
It doesn't fucking matter if they're right. They believe that. If they're your boss and they fire you for being atheist on the grounds that your beliefs are destructive and contrary to the beliefs of their company, its on YOUR head to prove them wrong.
I'm not entirely sure, but I thought that fell under religion, which stops it from being a ground to fire someone on.
Hippie, aren't you an atheist? You're aware many people consider that a "destructive belief", right? Same with gay people?
You know what the difference is? Trying to get rid of all the mud races and the fudge packers is necessarily destructive and hateful, and that's a fucking fact. I don't care what a person believes, they're 100% incorrect if they believe that the qualifier "atheist" is destructive on the measure that these BNP people are.
It doesn't fucking matter if they're right. They believe that. If they're your boss and they fire you for being atheist on the grounds that your beliefs are destructive and contrary to the beliefs of their company, its on YOUR head to prove them wrong.
And I'll put it in front of a judge.
Also, I'm probably not going to be working at a bible factory in the first place. With these people, however, literally any business aside from self-employment would be a conflict of interests. There is a difference and you're failing to grasp it in a most astonishing way.
No, my friend, you consistently fail to grasp the disconnect between your cries for personal freedom--forgetting that your freedom does not end with the enfranchisement of people we like--and your hatred of hard-right groups.
Both are protected. Maybe not always legally--but morally I believe in the right to say whatever you damn well please. Don't give me this "fire in a crowded theater" bullshit. If there was a legitimate threat from the BNP or Fred Phelps and the like--we would deal with it legally. You are predicating a response based upon personal thoughts and ideology and that is a mistake.
I'm fine with systematically disenfranchising a whole group of people that are a threat to civil society.
You always do this, WH - say something extreme, then get shown why it's too extreme, and then pretend you didn't mean it really.
Systematically disenfranchising means what now?
Not laws?
Not actually disenfranchising?[/QUOTE]
I already said I mis-wrote when I said "systematic," but I 1) haven't suggested anything terribly extreme (society should be allowed to judge people based on their beliefs) and 2) haven't backpedaled from that. Do you care to put in an effort and actually read my post, or am I going to have to contintue restating my position over and over again?
Society should be allowed to judged people based on their beliefs. Beliefs predicate actions. These people (efficacy aside, not discussing the ethics of releasing a list that may or may not be accurate) took action on their beliefs by joining a destructive and radical political party. Yes, I absolutely believe that people should have no legal protection from societal judgment based on that fact.
Also, from a sociological perspective, you don't defeat ignorance through exclusionary tactics.
Enfranchisement is the ONLY way to keep people in the fold. Anomie creates hatred and division between people and legitimizes the fear that feeds hate groups. It creates the publicity that hate groups desperately crave.
You cannot fight ignorance with willful ignorance.
I'm fine with systematically disenfranchising a whole group of people that are a threat to civil society.
You always do this, WH - say something extreme, then get shown why it's too extreme, and then pretend you didn't mean it really.
Systematically disenfranchising means what now?
Not laws?
Not actually disenfranchising?
I already said I mis-wrote when I said "systematic," but I 1) haven't suggested anything terribly extreme (society should be allowed to judge people based on their beliefs) and 2) haven't backpedaled from that. Do you care to put in an effort and actually read my post, or am I going to have to contintue restating my position over and over again?
Society should be allowed to judged people based on their beliefs. Beliefs predicate actions. These people (efficacy aside, not discussing the ethics of releasing a list that may or may not be accurate) took action on their beliefs by joining a destructive and radical political party. Yes, I absolutely believe that people should have no legal protection from societal judgment based on that fact.[/QUOTE]
I keep trying to get you to be specific.
Stop talking about 'society judging people'
This means everything from me disliking racists to them being arrested and imprisoned.
and now we're back to the beginning. Do you really want to set the precedent that membership in a legal political party is grounds for dismissal?
Just for the record, that isn't what any of the case law says. In every instance I can find where BNP members have been fired and the decision has been upheld, the organisation doing the firing has had to produce some justification that it would be inappropriate for the employee to hold that position.
Generally, that's been things like:
A conflict between the organisation's policies (especially equal opportunity policies) and the views that the employee is inferred to hold as evidenced by their BNP membership, the implication being that it's impossible to trust someone who is openly racist to act in accordance with those policies.
The risk of racially motivated violence, since the BNP has long directed violence at groups that oppose it, retaliatory violence is directed at the BNP, and any member is potentially a target.
Employing BNP members necessarily damages the ability of the organisation to properly function, for example, the police cannot hold the public trust if it employs openly racist officers.
and now we're back to the beginning. Do you really want to set the precedent that membership in a legal political party is grounds for dismissal?
Just for the record, that isn't what any of the case law says. In every instance I can find where BNP members have been fired and the decision has been upheld, the organisation doing the firing has had to produce some justification that it would be inappropriate for the employee to hold that position.
Generally, that's been things like:
A conflict between the organisation's policies (especially equal opportunity policies) and the views that the employee is inferred to hold as evidenced by their BNP membership, the implication being that it's impossible to trust someone who is openly racist to act in accordance with those policies.
The risk of racially motivated violence, since the BNP has long directed violence at groups that oppose it, retaliatory violence is, directed at the BNP, and any member is potentially a target.
Employing BNP members necessarily damages the ability of the organisation to properly function, for example, the police cannot hold the public trust if it employs openly racist officers.
And that is predicting action based upon ideology. It is a mistake. Fire them when something goes wrong and not a moment before.
No, my friend, you consistently fail to grasp the disconnect between your cries for personal freedom--forgetting that your freedom does not end with the enfranchisement of people we like--and your hatred of hard-right groups.
Both are protected. Maybe not always legally--but morally I believe in the right to say whatever you damn well please. Don't give me this "fire in a crowded theater" bullshit. If there was a legitimate threat from the BNP or Fred Phelps and the like--we would deal with it legally. You are predicating a response based upon personal thoughts and ideology and that is a mistake.
Personally--I find you reprehensible.
Read it: I am not advocating legal persecution. I am not advocating legal persecution. This has but fuck-all to do with a person's right to say what they believe. That is still protected. They can say it all damned day and night, I'm not suggesting that the government step in. I'm suggesting that people - individuals acting within a society - have a right to, in turn, judge people.
That is fucking it. Stop putting words in my mouth. I'm not espousing anything radical. It's something people do every fucking day anyway.
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
and now we're back to the beginning. Do you really want to set the precedent that membership in a legal political party is grounds for dismissal?
Just for the record, that isn't what any of the case law says. In every instance I can find where BNP members have been fired and the decision has been upheld, the organisation doing the firing has had to produce some justification that it would be inappropriate for the employee to hold that position.
Generally, that's been things like:
A conflict between the organisation's policies (especially equal opportunity policies) and the views that the employee is inferred to hold as evidenced by their BNP membership, the implication being that it's impossible to trust someone who is openly racist to act in accordance with those policies.
The risk of racially motivated violence, since the BNP has long directed violence at groups that oppose it, retaliatory violence is directed at the BNP, and any member is potentially a target.
Employing BNP members necessarily damages the ability of the organisation to properly function, for example, the police cannot hold the public trust if it employs openly racist officers.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. In front of a judge, the vast majority of employers could not substantiate claims of conflict of interests from atheists or Good Charlotte fans or whatever retarded god damned comparison you want to make, but when you have a dangerously extremist party, the conflict is clear, and the firing is justified.
And that is predicting action based upon ideology. It is a mistake. Fire them when something goes wrong and not a moment before.
This seems like it would be a liability nightmare. It seems to me that when/if something went wrong, the employer would be held responsible for employing someone openly racist.
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
Society is already judging these people. What is your point? We are judging people by how they look all the time, a sociologist like yourself should know that.
Whatever. It's the same shit in a different bucket. Legalizing employment discrimination based on political affliation is fucking abhorrent for a first-world country.
Also, from a sociological perspective, you don't defeat ignorance through exclusionary tactics.
Enfranchisement is the ONLY way to keep people in the fold. Anomie creates hatred and division between people and legitimizes the fear that feeds hate groups. It creates the publicity that hate groups desperately crave.
You cannot fight ignorance with willful ignorance.
You drastically reduce a person's willingness to cop to their beliefs if it's made clear that they're not socially acceptable. The reasonable, mislead ones will adapt to modern society.
Whatever. It's the same shit in a different bucket. Legalizing employment discrimination based on political affliation is fucking abhorrent for a first-world country.
Whatever. It's the same shit in a different bucket. Legalizing employment discrimination based on political affliation is fucking abhorrent for a first-world country.
It's as much a political affiliation as the KKK.
The BNP is a legally registered political party. The KKK is not.
Discriminating based on political affiliationis an extremely dangerous precedent to set and is ripe with potential for abuse later.
Whatever. It's the same shit in a different bucket. Legalizing employment discrimination based on political affliation is fucking abhorrent for a first-world country.
It's as much a political affiliation as the KKK.
The BNP is a legally registered political party. The KKK is not.
Discriminating based on political affiliationis an extremely dangerous precedent to set and is ripe with potential for abuse later.
The slippery slope isn't valid here. These people aren't being discriminated against because they're Catholics under a Protestant or Republicans under Democratic majority. They're being discriminated against because of their mission statement, not the fact that they're an opposition party.
Whatever. It's the same shit in a different bucket. Legalizing employment discrimination based on political affliation is fucking abhorrent for a first-world country.
It's as much a political affiliation as the KKK.
The BNP is a legally registered political party. The KKK is not.
Discriminating based on political affiliation is an extremely dangerous precedent to set and is ripe with potential for abuse later.
This is a poor basis for judging the worth of an organisation. I could register a political party tomorrow if I wanted. All it takes is a £150.00 fee, a form, a constitution, and a planned financial scheme (though you can download a template one and use that if you want).
People have sold UK Political Parties on eBay before.
I'm surprised at how some people in this thread can come straight out and label members of the BNP as "bad people." Are members of the Republicans "bad people" because it was their party that supported and continues to support the torture of foreign nationals? Well, there certainly may be bad people who happen to be Republicans, but it's insane to make a moral judgment of their character based on their party affiliation. It's intellectually lazy and leads to all sorts of problems down the road.
Does the BNP engage in terrorist acts? Do they have an armed wing? No? Then they should be allowed to exist, just the same as any other party. It seems to me that their biggest sin is holding the same or similar opinions on ethnicity that Winston Churchill had, and certainly most every politician in the UK before the 1920s. We can call them outdated, sure, and we can call them wrong, and even misguided. But I find it very difficult to categorically judge someone's moral standing based on something as flexible as their opinions or preferences.
Whatever. It's the same shit in a different bucket. Legalizing employment discrimination based on political affliation is fucking abhorrent for a first-world country.
It's as much a political affiliation as the KKK.
The BNP is a legally registered political party. The KKK is not.
Discriminating based on political affiliationis an extremely dangerous precedent to set and is ripe with potential for abuse later.
The slippery slope isn't valid here. These people aren't being discriminated against because they're Catholics under a Protestant or Republicans under Democratic majority. They're being discriminated against because of their mission statement, not the fact that they're an opposition party.
Yes, they're being legally discriminated against because of unpopular political beliefs. That's not really any better a precedent! It's identical, legally, to refusing to employ someone because they (for example) support identical rights for gays. It's just the other side of the coin.
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.
Yes, if that was the decision of the company they'd have every right to fire you.
It would be a stupid decision, because it would be alienating many of their customers and disqualifying workers for a trivial reason, but it would be within their rights.
Now if you were a registered democrat and applied to work for the RNC, or worked for the RNC and changed your registration, I don't think anyone would say that it was out of line to fire you.
The first amendment (which doesn't even really apply in this case but is philosophically what much of the law and policy of western nations in relation to this is based on) means that the government can't prohibit you from organizing or voting based on beliefs, that's it. That doesn't extend to corporations, private citizens, places of business, etc.
Discrimination against minorities, women, gays, etc is a different category (and gays aren't quite completely in that category yet, see prop 8) which is covered under equal protection under the law. These categories typically are not voluntary, and thus deserve special protections.
Does the BNP engage in terrorist acts? Do they have an armed wing?
In answer to the first: Possibly. Members have been arrested for possession of explosives before, and David Copeland detonated nailbombs in Brixton and Brck Lane, though the BNP insist that he was no longer a member of the party at the time of the attacks.
In answer to the second, there is a group called "Combat 18" which is allegedly a splinter group, and the BNP officially denies any connection to them. However they have acted as stewards at BNP rallies before. They've conducted campaigns of violence against those perceived to be "enemies" of the far-right cause, and routinely publish the names and addresses of the same, with the intention of making them targets for violence.
EDIT: I strongly get the impression that some people may not be fully understanding the nature of the BNP. They're not merely a party that says unpopular things, they're generally regarded as being one of the public faces of the British Fascist movement, in a similar way to Sinn Fein being the public face of Irish Republicanism.
Does the BNP engage in terrorist acts? Do they have an armed wing?
In answer to the first: Possibly. Members have been arrested for possession of explosives before, and David Copeland detonated nailbombs in Brixton and Brck Lane, though the BNP insist that he was no longer a member of the party at the time of the attacks.
In answer to the second, there is a group called "Combat 18" which is allegedly a splinter group, and the BNP officially denies any connection to them. However they have acted as stewards at BNP rallies before. They've conducted campaigns of violence against those perceived to be "enemies" of the far-right cause, and routinely publish the names and addresses of the same, with the intention of making them targets for violence.
EDIT: I strongly get the impression that some people may not be fully understanding the nature of the BNP. They're not merely a party that says unpopular things, they're generally regarded as being one of the public faces of the British Fascist movement, in a similar way to Sinn Fein being the public face of Irish Republicanism.
Alright, so let us adapt this one to a situation in the U.S. the best way I can think of.
PETA has members who are violent, but not acting on PETA's behalf. There are a couple of groups (ALF, ELF) that are allegedly splinter groups, and PETA officially denies any connection to them. However, they have acted as stewards at PETA rallies before. They have conducted campaigns of violence against those perceived to be "enemies" of PETA's cause, and routinely publish the names and addresses of the same, with the intention of making them targets for violence.
So that said, should I be allowed to fire a member of my staff who is a member of PETA? Keep in mind Iam a manager in a grocery store, and we sell meat and other animal products.
Whatever. It's the same shit in a different bucket. Legalizing employment discrimination based on political affliation is fucking abhorrent for a first-world country.
It's as much a political affiliation as the KKK.
The BNP is a legally registered political party. The KKK is not.
Discriminating based on political affiliationis an extremely dangerous precedent to set and is ripe with potential for abuse later.
The slippery slope isn't valid here. These people aren't being discriminated against because they're Catholics under a Protestant or Republicans under Democratic majority. They're being discriminated against because of their mission statement, not the fact that they're an opposition party.
You know, some people - and I think you're one of them - consider some of the central tenets of the Republican party's mission statement disgusting. Things like prohibiting all abortion and keeping gays from marrying. So what's the difference?
Beyond that, say you suddenly discover the guy you hired 5 years ago has been a member of a racist party all this time. Now, presumably, he hasn't been racism-ing up the place, since if he was you already would've fired him. What this says is that his retarded beliefs genuinely don't impact his ability to perform his job or work with his coworkers, even though he may find some of their beliefs horrible or want some of them to get the fuck out of the country. If he can keep his beliefs from interfering, I think you and his coworkers can manage the same.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Basically, the only time one's thoughts should even arguably be the basis of governmental consideration is when one is guilty of a crime, so as to choose a suitable sentence. Beyond that, the only thing the government should concern itself with is action. If you think it would be awesome to kill every last person on the planet right after raping them in every orifice with a corn cob, the government should not do a damned thing about it. And this includes the prospect revoking the protections granted by anti-discrimination laws.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
You know, some people - and I think you're one of them - consider some of the central tenets of the Republican party's mission statement disgusting. Things like prohibiting all abortion and keeping gays from marrying. So what's the difference?
Beyond that, say you suddenly discover the guy you hired 5 years ago has been a member of a racist party all this time. Now, presumably, he hasn't been racism-ing up the place, since if he was you already would've fired him. What this says is that his retarded beliefs genuinely don't impact his ability to perform his job or work with his coworkers, even though he may find some of their beliefs horrible or want some of them to get the fuck out of the country. If he can keep his beliefs from interfering, I think you and his coworkers can manage the same.
Republican party is not similar to the BNP, it is absolutely impossible to compare them on any grounds.
It would already amaze me if one of my co-workers were a member of an extreme-right racist party without me noticing. On the off-chance that that was the case I would not want to work with that person even though his hateful opinion hasn't resulted in any run-ins, it might happen soon or it might make my gay or non-white co-workers feel so uncomfortable that they would start looking for a different job.
You know, some people - and I think you're one of them - consider some of the central tenets of the Republican party's mission statement disgusting. Things like prohibiting all abortion and keeping gays from marrying. So what's the difference?
Beyond that, say you suddenly discover the guy you hired 5 years ago has been a member of a racist party all this time. Now, presumably, he hasn't been racism-ing up the place, since if he was you already would've fired him. What this says is that his retarded beliefs genuinely don't impact his ability to perform his job or work with his coworkers, even though he may find some of their beliefs horrible or want some of them to get the fuck out of the country. If he can keep his beliefs from interfering, I think you and his coworkers can manage the same.
Republican party is not similar to the BNP, it is absolutely impossible to compare them on any grounds.
It would already amaze me if one of my co-workers were a member of an extreme-right racist party without me noticing. On the off-chance that that was the case I would not want to work with that person even though his hateful opinion hasn't resulted in any run-ins, it might happen soon or it might make my gay or non-white co-workers feel so uncomfortable that they would start looking for a different job.
Even if he didn't make any overtures about his politics?
Basically, the only time one's thoughts should even arguably be the basis of governmental consideration is when one is guilty of a crime, so as to choose a suitable sentence. Beyond that, the only thing the government should concern itself with is action. If you think it would be awesome to kill every last person on the planet right after raping them in every orifice with a corn cob, the government should not do a damned thing about it. And this includes the prospect revoking the protections granted by anti-discrimination laws.
Wait, I wasn't talking about the government, I'm talking about individuals making judgements.
You know, some people - and I think you're one of them - consider some of the central tenets of the Republican party's mission statement disgusting. Things like prohibiting all abortion and keeping gays from marrying. So what's the difference?
Beyond that, say you suddenly discover the guy you hired 5 years ago has been a member of a racist party all this time. Now, presumably, he hasn't been racism-ing up the place, since if he was you already would've fired him. What this says is that his retarded beliefs genuinely don't impact his ability to perform his job or work with his coworkers, even though he may find some of their beliefs horrible or want some of them to get the fuck out of the country. If he can keep his beliefs from interfering, I think you and his coworkers can manage the same.
Republican party is not similar to the BNP, it is absolutely impossible to compare them on any grounds.
It would already amaze me if one of my co-workers were a member of an extreme-right racist party without me noticing. On the off-chance that that was the case I would not want to work with that person even though his hateful opinion hasn't resulted in any run-ins, it might happen soon or it might make my gay or non-white co-workers feel so uncomfortable that they would start looking for a different job.
Even if he didn't make any overtures about his politics?
Grow a dick, homie.
Yes, even then. That's what I just wrote.
I have no idea what you're getting at with that second line, I can assure you my dick is big and strong.
Does the BNP engage in terrorist acts? Do they have an armed wing?
In answer to the first: Possibly. Members have been arrested for possession of explosives before, and David Copeland detonated nailbombs in Brixton and Brck Lane, though the BNP insist that he was no longer a member of the party at the time of the attacks.
In answer to the second, there is a group called "Combat 18" which is allegedly a splinter group, and the BNP officially denies any connection to them. However they have acted as stewards at BNP rallies before. They've conducted campaigns of violence against those perceived to be "enemies" of the far-right cause, and routinely publish the names and addresses of the same, with the intention of making them targets for violence.
EDIT: I strongly get the impression that some people may not be fully understanding the nature of the BNP. They're not merely a party that says unpopular things, they're generally regarded as being one of the public faces of the British Fascist movement, in a similar way to Sinn Fein being the public face of Irish Republicanism.
Alright, so let us adapt this one to a situation in the U.S. the best way I can think of.
PETA has members who are violent, but not acting on PETA's behalf. There are a couple of groups (ALF, ELF) that are allegedly splinter groups, and PETA officially denies any connection to them. However, they have acted as stewards at PETA rallies before. They have conducted campaigns of violence against those perceived to be "enemies" of PETA's cause, and routinely publish the names and addresses of the same, with the intention of making them targets for violence.
So that said, should I be allowed to fire a member of my staff who is a member of PETA? Keep in mind Iam a manager in a grocery store, and we sell meat and other animal products.
Jeffe, I don't buy this hypothetical. If he's a card-carrying member of the BNP, which would very clearly indicate his beliefs, but it's not coloring his interactions with, say, a Muslim coworker, then is he really a member of the BNP or is he just one of the people inappropriately associated with them because of their loose membership standards?
I just don't do hypotheticals like this because I see no reasons to believe that they exist in any substantial number. This person would have taken the action to associate themselves with the BNP, and on that standard alone I wouldn't want them acting as a representative under my employ because of what would likely happen.
And, again, the comparison between the GOP and the BNP is not appropriate because there are many members of the GOP that eschew social conservativism. I doubt many of the willing members of the BNP are not white nationalists.
You know, some people - and I think you're one of them - consider some of the central tenets of the Republican party's mission statement disgusting. Things like prohibiting all abortion and keeping gays from marrying. So what's the difference?
Beyond that, say you suddenly discover the guy you hired 5 years ago has been a member of a racist party all this time. Now, presumably, he hasn't been racism-ing up the place, since if he was you already would've fired him. What this says is that his retarded beliefs genuinely don't impact his ability to perform his job or work with his coworkers, even though he may find some of their beliefs horrible or want some of them to get the fuck out of the country. If he can keep his beliefs from interfering, I think you and his coworkers can manage the same.
Republican party is not similar to the BNP, it is absolutely impossible to compare them on any grounds.
Bullshit. The differences are quantitative, not qualitative. The Pubs are hardliners against illegal immigration, and have strong undercurrents of general anti-immigrant sentiment. I don't think the Pubs are anywhere near as bad, but that's not because of some fundamental, objective difference between the two. ANd, like I said, there are people who find the Pubs genuinely disgusting. What makes them wrong and us right? Hating women and gays (as some believe they do) is okay, but hating minorities isn't?
You need to stand back and look at this from others' perspectives. The BNP is retarded and offensive, but not in a legally distinguishable fashion.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Posts
To the people I'm talking about, YOU would be unsuited to any business aside from self employment. I don't think you grasp the point. There is a difference. They don't believe in it, and as such the difference doesn't affect their actions.
They joined the hate club. They're not keeping it to themselves. Quite the opposite; they're sharing it.
and now we're back to the beginning. Do you really want to set the precedent that membership in a legal political party is grounds for dismissal?
I'm not entirely sure, but I thought that fell under religion, which stops it from being a ground to fire someone on.
No, my friend, you consistently fail to grasp the disconnect between your cries for personal freedom--forgetting that your freedom does not end with the enfranchisement of people we like--and your hatred of hard-right groups.
Both are protected. Maybe not always legally--but morally I believe in the right to say whatever you damn well please. Don't give me this "fire in a crowded theater" bullshit. If there was a legitimate threat from the BNP or Fred Phelps and the like--we would deal with it legally. You are predicating a response based upon personal thoughts and ideology and that is a mistake.
Personally--I find you reprehensible.
You always do this, WH - say something extreme, then get shown why it's too extreme, and then pretend you didn't mean it really.
Systematically disenfranchising means what now?
Not laws?
Not actually disenfranchising?[/QUOTE]
I already said I mis-wrote when I said "systematic," but I 1) haven't suggested anything terribly extreme (society should be allowed to judge people based on their beliefs) and 2) haven't backpedaled from that. Do you care to put in an effort and actually read my post, or am I going to have to contintue restating my position over and over again?
Society should be allowed to judged people based on their beliefs. Beliefs predicate actions. These people (efficacy aside, not discussing the ethics of releasing a list that may or may not be accurate) took action on their beliefs by joining a destructive and radical political party. Yes, I absolutely believe that people should have no legal protection from societal judgment based on that fact.
Enfranchisement is the ONLY way to keep people in the fold. Anomie creates hatred and division between people and legitimizes the fear that feeds hate groups. It creates the publicity that hate groups desperately crave.
You cannot fight ignorance with willful ignorance.
I already said I mis-wrote when I said "systematic," but I 1) haven't suggested anything terribly extreme (society should be allowed to judge people based on their beliefs) and 2) haven't backpedaled from that. Do you care to put in an effort and actually read my post, or am I going to have to contintue restating my position over and over again?
Society should be allowed to judged people based on their beliefs. Beliefs predicate actions. These people (efficacy aside, not discussing the ethics of releasing a list that may or may not be accurate) took action on their beliefs by joining a destructive and radical political party. Yes, I absolutely believe that people should have no legal protection from societal judgment based on that fact.[/QUOTE]
I keep trying to get you to be specific.
Stop talking about 'society judging people'
This means everything from me disliking racists to them being arrested and imprisoned.
Just for the record, that isn't what any of the case law says. In every instance I can find where BNP members have been fired and the decision has been upheld, the organisation doing the firing has had to produce some justification that it would be inappropriate for the employee to hold that position.
Generally, that's been things like:
A conflict between the organisation's policies (especially equal opportunity policies) and the views that the employee is inferred to hold as evidenced by their BNP membership, the implication being that it's impossible to trust someone who is openly racist to act in accordance with those policies.
The risk of racially motivated violence, since the BNP has long directed violence at groups that oppose it, retaliatory violence is directed at the BNP, and any member is potentially a target.
Employing BNP members necessarily damages the ability of the organisation to properly function, for example, the police cannot hold the public trust if it employs openly racist officers.
And that is predicting action based upon ideology. It is a mistake. Fire them when something goes wrong and not a moment before.
Read it: I am not advocating legal persecution. I am not advocating legal persecution. This has but fuck-all to do with a person's right to say what they believe. That is still protected. They can say it all damned day and night, I'm not suggesting that the government step in. I'm suggesting that people - individuals acting within a society - have a right to, in turn, judge people.
That is fucking it. Stop putting words in my mouth. I'm not espousing anything radical. It's something people do every fucking day anyway.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. In front of a judge, the vast majority of employers could not substantiate claims of conflict of interests from atheists or Good Charlotte fans or whatever retarded god damned comparison you want to make, but when you have a dangerously extremist party, the conflict is clear, and the firing is justified.
This seems like it would be a liability nightmare. It seems to me that when/if something went wrong, the employer would be held responsible for employing someone openly racist.
Society is already judging these people. What is your point? We are judging people by how they look all the time, a sociologist like yourself should know that.
You drastically reduce a person's willingness to cop to their beliefs if it's made clear that they're not socially acceptable. The reasonable, mislead ones will adapt to modern society.
It's as much a political affiliation as the KKK.
The BNP is a legally registered political party. The KKK is not.
Discriminating based on political affiliationis an extremely dangerous precedent to set and is ripe with potential for abuse later.
The slippery slope isn't valid here. These people aren't being discriminated against because they're Catholics under a Protestant or Republicans under Democratic majority. They're being discriminated against because of their mission statement, not the fact that they're an opposition party.
This is a poor basis for judging the worth of an organisation. I could register a political party tomorrow if I wanted. All it takes is a £150.00 fee, a form, a constitution, and a planned financial scheme (though you can download a template one and use that if you want).
People have sold UK Political Parties on eBay before.
Does the BNP engage in terrorist acts? Do they have an armed wing? No? Then they should be allowed to exist, just the same as any other party. It seems to me that their biggest sin is holding the same or similar opinions on ethnicity that Winston Churchill had, and certainly most every politician in the UK before the 1920s. We can call them outdated, sure, and we can call them wrong, and even misguided. But I find it very difficult to categorically judge someone's moral standing based on something as flexible as their opinions or preferences.
Yes, they're being legally discriminated against because of unpopular political beliefs. That's not really any better a precedent! It's identical, legally, to refusing to employ someone because they (for example) support identical rights for gays. It's just the other side of the coin.
These beliefs are unpopular because they are harmful.
Yes, if that was the decision of the company they'd have every right to fire you.
It would be a stupid decision, because it would be alienating many of their customers and disqualifying workers for a trivial reason, but it would be within their rights.
Now if you were a registered democrat and applied to work for the RNC, or worked for the RNC and changed your registration, I don't think anyone would say that it was out of line to fire you.
The first amendment (which doesn't even really apply in this case but is philosophically what much of the law and policy of western nations in relation to this is based on) means that the government can't prohibit you from organizing or voting based on beliefs, that's it. That doesn't extend to corporations, private citizens, places of business, etc.
Discrimination against minorities, women, gays, etc is a different category (and gays aren't quite completely in that category yet, see prop 8) which is covered under equal protection under the law. These categories typically are not voluntary, and thus deserve special protections.
In answer to the first: Possibly. Members have been arrested for possession of explosives before, and David Copeland detonated nailbombs in Brixton and Brck Lane, though the BNP insist that he was no longer a member of the party at the time of the attacks.
In answer to the second, there is a group called "Combat 18" which is allegedly a splinter group, and the BNP officially denies any connection to them. However they have acted as stewards at BNP rallies before. They've conducted campaigns of violence against those perceived to be "enemies" of the far-right cause, and routinely publish the names and addresses of the same, with the intention of making them targets for violence.
EDIT: I strongly get the impression that some people may not be fully understanding the nature of the BNP. They're not merely a party that says unpopular things, they're generally regarded as being one of the public faces of the British Fascist movement, in a similar way to Sinn Fein being the public face of Irish Republicanism.
Social Mores change--there is no set of moral absolutes for every society.
The best way to maintain progressive ideas in the mainstream is to allow everyone their fair bit, in my opinion.
I just realised Holland has a pedo-party. One of the founding members held a position in which he worked with children.
Social mores and freedom of speech became a whole lot less important all of a sudden.
Alright, so let us adapt this one to a situation in the U.S. the best way I can think of.
PETA has members who are violent, but not acting on PETA's behalf. There are a couple of groups (ALF, ELF) that are allegedly splinter groups, and PETA officially denies any connection to them. However, they have acted as stewards at PETA rallies before. They have conducted campaigns of violence against those perceived to be "enemies" of PETA's cause, and routinely publish the names and addresses of the same, with the intention of making them targets for violence.
So that said, should I be allowed to fire a member of my staff who is a member of PETA? Keep in mind Iam a manager in a grocery store, and we sell meat and other animal products.
Again. Distasteful but doesn't change a goddamn thing.
You know, some people - and I think you're one of them - consider some of the central tenets of the Republican party's mission statement disgusting. Things like prohibiting all abortion and keeping gays from marrying. So what's the difference?
Beyond that, say you suddenly discover the guy you hired 5 years ago has been a member of a racist party all this time. Now, presumably, he hasn't been racism-ing up the place, since if he was you already would've fired him. What this says is that his retarded beliefs genuinely don't impact his ability to perform his job or work with his coworkers, even though he may find some of their beliefs horrible or want some of them to get the fuck out of the country. If he can keep his beliefs from interfering, I think you and his coworkers can manage the same.
It would already amaze me if one of my co-workers were a member of an extreme-right racist party without me noticing. On the off-chance that that was the case I would not want to work with that person even though his hateful opinion hasn't resulted in any run-ins, it might happen soon or it might make my gay or non-white co-workers feel so uncomfortable that they would start looking for a different job.
Even if he didn't make any overtures about his politics?
Grow a dick, homie.
I hope I made that clear.
Yes, even then. That's what I just wrote.
I have no idea what you're getting at with that second line, I can assure you my dick is big and strong.
Of course you should.
See doctrine of Employment at Will.
I just don't do hypotheticals like this because I see no reasons to believe that they exist in any substantial number. This person would have taken the action to associate themselves with the BNP, and on that standard alone I wouldn't want them acting as a representative under my employ because of what would likely happen.
And, again, the comparison between the GOP and the BNP is not appropriate because there are many members of the GOP that eschew social conservativism. I doubt many of the willing members of the BNP are not white nationalists.
Bullshit. The differences are quantitative, not qualitative. The Pubs are hardliners against illegal immigration, and have strong undercurrents of general anti-immigrant sentiment. I don't think the Pubs are anywhere near as bad, but that's not because of some fundamental, objective difference between the two. ANd, like I said, there are people who find the Pubs genuinely disgusting. What makes them wrong and us right? Hating women and gays (as some believe they do) is okay, but hating minorities isn't?
You need to stand back and look at this from others' perspectives. The BNP is retarded and offensive, but not in a legally distinguishable fashion.