Should Police Officers Be Able To Join Racist Organisations?
In the UK there has been controversy recently over the publication of the membership of the British Nationalist Party (a semi-neo nazi, racist group with quite a large representation in local government).
Due to the publication of the member-list policy officers all over the country who's name was found on the list have been suspended pending review as it is currently illegal to be both a police officer and a member of the BNP...the logic being that it is impossible for someone to belong to a group with views incompatible to the duties of a police officer.
However, is it right- especially considering freedom of political choice etc- for this restriction to exist? (If it is right should it be extended to all public offices, like teachers?)
It is important this is put in context, before people blame intefering governments etc.
The ban on police officers being in the BNP was not declared or enforced by the Government, it was decided by ACPO, the police force's own policy unit comprised of senior officers. They put the ban in place because a decision had been made for all police to fully comply with the Race Relations Act. BNP membership is incompatible with that Act, so therefore it was impossible to be a police officer and a a member of the BNP without breaking the policy which has to apply to all officers- following the RRA is actually a legal duty for the police.
You may not agree with ACPO's decision but I do think that context is important. It seems entirely rational to me.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
"You've never had any TINY bit of sex, have you?"
BtVS
Last edited by Ushgarak on Nov 21st, 2008 at 12:28 PM
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
I'd have to think about it for a bit, but, not considering what Ush said, and rather replying to the hypothetical question, I'd say that in a system where you already are stripped of certain freedoms by means of force, the enforcers of such rules may very well be held to higher or different standards by their employer. You'd have to decide on a balance, as, on the one hand you might value the freedom of expression and rights to a private life, while you also have to consider that the people are in charge of something, very, very important, in theory the only allowed force over its citizens, as such you might hold them to higher standards to ensure your precise values are enforced, rather than personal opinions. Or, lets say, if a private company didn't want to hire a person which known to it actually hates what the company produces, I think they should have the right to fire them, though, rules for private companies, imo, should be different than those for the government.
I think from an employers perspective. You want to hire people that you feel are gonna do the job you want them to do. If you think there is someone better or that the person you are thinking of hiring is not up to snuff then they shouldn't be hired.
From a personal standpoint. I think people in official positions such as a police officer, should be held to higher standards in who let in. I think this is basically relevant to the power or responsibility that position entails. The more power an organization or person has over other people then they need to adhere to a higher set of rules then what the average citizen should be put through.
the problem is only arising in the UK of this happening because this is no real moderately right of centre party...the conservatives occupy the exact same middle ground as labour...then next party to the right is the BNP (UKIP not with-standing)...
there is no party that is highlighting the real issues regarding race relations in this country...noone is saying how dangerous the serperate ghetto-isation of asian and white estates in many British cities really is.
noone highlighting the fact that a 5% increase in the UK population in 3 years from immigrant workers who then export alot of the money generated back out of the country is doing damage to the economy
noone trying to really find solution to these problems
instead what we have is a government and opposition who do nothing and say nothing about these issues for fear they will be called racist
and then we have extreme right wingers who say that all immigrants are evil and all muslims are terrorists
the truth of the matter is that there is alot of working and middle class white UK citizens (the majority class of this country) who do fall in between...and they are being driven further to the right by the inactions of a fearful government.
it's leading to a dangerous polarization of the UK...
i know i've gone a bit off-topic but these are possibly the reasons why a respectable police officer (or someone from any proffesion) may feel compelled to vote BNP...not because they whole-heartedly support their racist ideals...but because the UK government needs shocked into realising just what it's policies are doing...and what the lack of other alternative, less extreme options there are
Being an American, I am not so up on British parliamentary parties.
What makes the BNP racist? Gav said "Neo-Nazi"? Nazi was National Socialist workers party, and they Were against the Communist who where taking advantage of the terrible economy Germany was going through to further the Bolshevik expansion. So I'm curious as to what the BNP stands for. Are they Anti Muslim?
__________________
"To the last, I will grapple with thee... from Hell's heart, I stab at thee! For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee!" - Khan (reciting Melville)
The BNP wants to end immigration to the UK under any circumstances...all current immigrants from basically any time after the British empire will be offered financial packages to move back to their countries of origin...despite the fact that many of these families are now 3rd and 4th generation British born...they simply want rid of them because of the colour of their skin
I don't want to get into a big debate about the political spectrum and what-not.
But just on this particular area as pertaining to what sparked this thread off, I think everyone should appreciate the very real and significant difference between voting for a party and being a member of it.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
If you have time, could you go into details as to what you were alluding? What are those significant differences and why are they significant, or something like that.
No, I'm not asking to start an argument. I don't have time for that. I'm just curious from an intellectual perspective.
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
You'd expect the convictions of a member of a party to be much stronger and probably more in line with the party on the whole than that of a casual voter. A voter might have a few issues they think that the party would support or just see them as less harmful, while a member, usually, due to having to put money and time down to support the party would be assumed to be a real supporter of close to all causes of the party. That's anyways what I'd expect, I am sure there are exceptions, but membership is either way a step up from voting.
Absolutely. A voter might vote for a party because he liks the candiate, or thinks certain policies are useful on a local level, or simply because he/she thinks all the other parties are worse. In fact, almost never does a person vote for a candidate and back all of their party's policies- or, quite often, even a majority of them.
Whereas actively joining a party is a far greater statement of support for that parties' beliefs and policies. It's a much more significant process. The separation between "I once voted for the Conservatives." and "I am a member of the Conservative party" is actually rather big.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
i would disagree...although i'm a bit of an exception given that i actively worked for a trade union that supports a party i have never and will never support or vote for personally
i disagree that being an active member is hugely different from voting...given that all you need to do is pay a very small membership fee...and not have to actually promote the party
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
Hmm, I don't know how it is in the UK, but in Germany if you state "I voted for ..." it is a much weaker statement then "I'm a meber of ..."
You'd associate a stronger conviction with a person who calls themselves a member, especially since members of a political party is a very small part of all voters.
KMC Community Forums
Nov 21st, 2008 07:12 AM
