h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I agree with you that sport is possibly the best place for mixing and making friendships. It really is colour blind and sorted out purely on ability grounds. I'm not sure that the Asian amateur football leagues in Scotland quite go with the spirit of this though

I take issue with banning BNP members from jobs though.

To my mind, if anyone exhibits racism in the workplace it is a disciplinary matter. What Phillips is calling for is totally different. He is asking that people be discriminated against for their personal opinions. As long as it doesn't interfere or impact upon their work, personal opinions are nobody's darn business.

How is this going to be policed? Will the BNP be forced to give up membership lists for cross-checking against employment records? This will obviously have the desired effect of slashing BNP membership, effectively allowing the censorship of a political party. But it won't stop people voting the way they choose. Or is that the next step? Will anyone voting BNP get a P45?

I dont think sport is the best. I think its the best available method as things stand...but it has its unwelcome side effects too in that it can be hijacked by people willing to use something to attach old feuds to.

I dont think sport is colour blind because despite offeing an arena where there is more transparency in some respects Im still left asking the question: Why given that asians are bigger ethnic minority than blacks do we see way more black professional footballers than asian ones? Although it is n many ways more accessable than some other areas of social activity.



I can see your point that peoples own beleifs shouldnt necessarily bar them from involvement in work nut I think its necessary to put those beleifs amd their effects on others into context. You more than anyone given the way you speak about Mulsims to hold moderate beliefs that fit wih the mainstream can see how someone being part of an openly racist group can fit in with the ethos of certain organisations in a way that that follows their job description. Being a police officer is an obvious example, but as a black person though I feel no qualms being treated by a white doctor I dont like the idea of being treated by one who automatically thinks of me as a lesser human or even a different class of creature all together.

So while I cant see that selling lottery ticketsor fixing street lighting requires someone to act in a way that shows respect to other ethnic groups (other than showing respect to all other co-workers equally) I can see merit in weeding out people from jobs where equalityof treatment is desired when they are quite open about wanting to treat people differntly for something that people have no ontrol over.

one love

No Blicky, I think discriminating between people because of what they believe is possibly the worst kind of discrimination possible. Like it or lump it, the BNP are a legitimate political party. Adopting extreme methods to attack an extreme group who are utilising moderate methods is a little bizarre. The anti-racists have done a sterling job attempting to eradicate the outward signs of racism and there can be no coherent argument against the work done in the last 30 years. But when you hit the law of diminishing returns, you cannot then legislate against the way people think.

It will only take a small swing in voting patterns to change the whole picture. Would you feel comfortable with all Muslims being banned from the Public Sector? Muslims have killed more people than the BNP and stirred up racial hatred far more effectively than the BNP after all.

When I've got a Doctor with his hand up my ass looking for an enlarged prostate, I really don't care if he's a secret wife swapper, a Trotskyist or a philatelist in his spare time. I just want him to do the job he's paid to do as quickly and as efficiently as possible. If he's a racist, it's *his* problem, not mine. If he allows it to manifest itself in his work, he'll be sacked. End of story.

Incidentally, I don't argue that the BNP aren't a basically racist organisation, but they happen to be espousing immigration issues in the same terms as a lot of ordinary people and can expect to pick up votes because of it. Rather than blindly victimise them, wouldn't it be wiser to try and confront the issues they raise?

>>
When I've got a Doctor with his hand up my ass looking for an enlarged prostate, I really don't care if he's a secret wife swapper, a Trotskyist or a philatelist in his spare time. I just want him to do the job he's paid to do as quickly and as efficiently as possible. If he's a racist, it's *his* problem, not mine. If he allows it to manifest itself in his work, he'll be sacked. End of story.
<<

The comparison is wrong SWL. It would be more like if your doctor belonged to a political party that hated Scottish, white men and had an agenda for actively excluding them from the human and legal rights that everyone else gets.

It's obvious from your example that you can't actually come up with a group that could potentially discriminate against you in a way that the BNP discriminates against non-whites, which is perhaps why you don't get the point (the best way to understand discrimination is to initially look at one's own oppression).

You can say that if your doctor is institutionally prejudiced against you it's their problem, but that's only because you don't understand how such prejudice can affect individuals. I think I posted some research in the Veil/Cross thread that shows that Maori in NZ get worse healthcare simply because they are Maori. And that's just from the general population of (white culture) healthcare workers, not even the avowedly racist ones.

I'm not sure that you would even have to make a law banning the BNP from such jobs. What you could do is have the public sector at least make a certain level of commitment to human rights part of any job application. In NZ public sector jobs applicants have to signify a commitment to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (the treaty between the Crown and Maori). It's meant to ensure that people are aware of the specific nature of the first peoples here. Obviously it's not an ideal process but I can't imagine anyone from a group like the BNP getting a public sector job without jumping through that hoop and it gives employers an 'out' if they don't want to hire such overt racists.

OK, I see your point. I don't agree with it because if anyone exhibited racist tendencies, they would be sacked. But I see the point being made.

But if you ostracise people for supporting the BNP today, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from ostracising the Tory party tomorrow.

People are free to think whatever they like. They are not free to do as they like, for good reason.

I may be walking down the street with my wife and see a pretty girl. I'm allowed to think she's a pretty girl but if I wolf whistle Mrs SWL will give me a sore face. If I sleep with the pretty girl, Mrs SWL can divorce me for adultery.

I can walk down the same street and see a Muslim frothing at the mouth about Islam. I can think what I want, but I can't heckle him and if I physically do anything, I'll be arrested.

So long as someone is doing their job, what they think privately is irrelevant. By saying a BNP member is incapable of doing a job you are pre-judging him.

There are committed pacifists serving onboard RN Trident Subs who would rather we got rid of Trident and oppose their use, but they still do their jobs. The RN does not ask someone's opinions when they write out the draft chit. They are expected to do the job first and put their opinions to one side.

You're not allowed to heckle street preachers? Are you sure?

Yes, I agree with some of what you are saying SWL in terms of the difficulty of regulating people's thoughts, hence my point that it doesn't have to be done so directly. I haven't actually read the BNP's manifesto, but had assumed membership did equate to racism (even if they don't self identify). So if someone can be sacked for being racist why can't they be sacked for belonging to the BNP?

But as I said, I don't think it needs to go that far. If there are rules that say that people in public service jobs such as police, doctors etc have to have a commitment to human rights, then being part of the BNP probably rules them out. It comes back to that thing of what one thinks racism is. If you think it's only obvious acts that are visible to everyone then you are missing the reasons why Maori get worse healthcare, or why more blacks get arrested in the UK than whites.

It's not like there's a line between racist thoughts and racist actions and that one can have the thoughts without the actions. If one has the thoughts it's unlikely that when one has a choice to consistently act in an anti-racist way that one will choose to do so.

kea: >It's not like there's a line between racist thoughts and racist actions and that one can have the thoughts without the actions. If one has the thoughts it's unlikely that when one has a choice to consistently act in an anti-racist way that one will choose to do so.<

Well said.

This dichotomy between thoughts and actions can get a bit murky, however, because many people (probably most, I'd guess) have *some* racist ways of thinking, at least some of which may be totally unconscious. And while many people work diligently to identify and correct their prejudices, others, at the other end of the spectrum, appear to exult in racist thought, actions, thetoric, etc. I'd guess the majority of people are somewhere in the middle of the spectrum and basically well meaning ... perhaps simply striving toward fairer, more balanced ways of seeing the world and moving it forward. Actions resulting from thoughts in this middle ground need to be carefully weighed for hidden, perhaps unintended biases.

"But if you ostracise people for supporting the BNP today, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from ostracising the Tory party tomorrow.

Who's talking about ostracising anyone, even the BNP? Eddy talks about a half-ender in the teeth but no one here is advocating either of those things.

What we can say is, as Kea and others have pointed out: there is a point where membership of such an organisation does lead you to be in conflict with the requirments of your job description. So yes there are jobs where being a member of one party or another might lead you to not be selected for certain jobs.

"I may be walking down the street with my wife and see a pretty girl. I'm allowed to think she's a pretty girl but if I wolf whistle Mrs SWL will give me a sore face. If I sleep with the pretty girl, Mrs SWL can divorce me for adultery.

You miss out one vitally important position between flagrant adultery and silently thinking "ding-dong!" (ala Leslie Philips). What if Mrs SWL found out you were a paying member of an internet group who's main aim was to locate and and introduce available women to married men?

It would not be proof of adultery, but doesnt it suggest a certain mindset and announce that you arent reallyinto the whole fidelity within marriage thing.

Like Ive said I dont really care what political persausion the finacial director of Galxo Smith Klein Beecham or the head of the mail room at Norwhich Union HQ holds. However where face to face contact with the public is concerned I think it is almost vitally important that they can think and therefore act in ways that uphold (chance would be a fine thing) and (where we are at right now) promote equality through the way they dispense their duties.

Lets say you are head of a company. Your company becomes successful because you have a flair for striking good deals with suppliers and customers and an eye for recruiting talented staff. You become so successful that you can no longer handle the companies other operations and HR. Would you employ someone to hire *and fire* your staff who was a member of an overtly racist group?

one love




PS. Are you sure you are not a racist?

I dont know and more iportanlty dont care if you are. Contrary to what you say its not the biggest deal or biggest insult going.

But I honestly think you should ask yourself why you feel the need to have so many digs at Islam. This one is one of your more obviously biased ones.

"I can walk down the same street and see a Muslim frothing at the mouth about Islam.

I live in an area with a relatively high density of Muslims and yet Ive never, ever seen this happen. Ive seen "race riots", Ive seen huge crowds of football hooligans, Ive seen someone stabbed to death in a brawl outside a pub...in short I end up in some scary places but even when I do I dont cover up my eyes. Yes, Ive seen religious zealots of most cloths having a good rant in the high streets and other public areas but frothing at the mouth...please go easy on the poetic licence.

See your just once depressingly and consistenly, obviously showing anti Islamic prjudice here because the worst excesses Ive seen are not from Muslims its from Chritians outside "abortion clinics" and Ive only ever seen that on the news, likewise Ive only seen the London cartoon demos and Abu Hamza on the news and I dont take my whole view from such tiny examples. That is the way racists like to demonize others they take the worst example they can find and think of it and talk of it like all of *them* do it (cf. Hitler). So next time you get called a racist remember that in a discussion where religion hasnt really been a central issue you chose to pick on a minority religion which is practised mostly by people from a different ethnic group to you.

"I can think what I want, but I can't heckle him"

Well you can so please feel free to do so and dont play the poor littel victim card next time either I dont buy it.
Just remember not to make your heckling too loud or demonstrative you might get in trouble for that!

"and if I physically do anything, I'll be arrested."

Well duh...why are you telling us this? I wonder why you need to talk about doing something physical to someone you disagree with?

Is it because you begrudge not being allowed to?

Is it because you are pointing out that within the law we do have ways to terminate employment for racists who physically attack people?

Well we know that but I from personal experience also know that physical attacks make up a tiny proportion of the discrimnatory behaviour Ive been subjected to throughout my life. So to effectively fight discrimnation assault laws are a mostly redundant tool.

Your analogy between the BNP and an infidelity website did give me pause Blicky, possibly the first thing you've ever said that did.

But, having pondered it, I'll reject it as too simplistic. It fits into the image of the BNP being knuckle-dragging thugs which is just a handy stereotype to allow the hard-of-thinking to dismiss anything they say.

One of the arguments about excessive, barely controlled immigration is an economic one. It is noticeable that immigrants already here are quick to say that there is too much immigration. Yet, there are only two parties that have anything like an anti-immigration policy, the BNP & UKIP. It doesn't really matter *why* they're anti immigration. It's enough for many people that they are the only ones saying a policy is needed.

It would be like condemning anyone who joined Labour in the 80s because of their pro-CND stance. People joined because they seemed to promise disarmament. They weren't interested in any of the socialism guff.

And having people dismissed or barred because of their membership of a political party is ostracisation.

I've related the story elsewhere so I won't bore you again, but a friend was almost arrested for revving a motorbike during a hateful speech by Abu Hamza's son. Remember the tv pictures of white van man being hustled away for shouting at the cartoon protestors?

BTW, wasn't it the Nazis that started the ostracising of people by denying jobs to those that thought differently?

No it goes way back beyond that Engalnd did it when Parliament outlawed catholic Monarchs though I cant imagine it wopuld be hard to find older examples.



You may dismiss My analogy about the BNP for those reasons if you want to dodge my point by using a straw man argument.

I have never accused any BNP memeber of being knuckle dragging thugs and Im willing to conceed that many supports and members might not be but that does not detract from the fact that the BNP *is* unashamedly funadmentally racist. To support it is to support racists even if you are not going round beating up brown people yourself you are saying that you agree with the central argument of such people.

Likewise if someone were a member of a grouop that encouraged infidelty you might not be considered as such a good husband by a wife who cherished such ideals regardless of your own actions.

The central point is that you want people ostracised because of their thoughts. You seem entirely unable to conceive that millions of people keep their personal opinions to themselves in the work situation.

Overall, it would also appear that you are in favour of a totalitarian state which interferes in everything that every citizen does, right down to what they think.

Being a member of the BNP is not illegal. It may be offensive to many, but it's not illegal. Going down the route you support will just lead to the BNP becoming more extreme. This govt has banned numerous political and religious organisations, with absolutely no effect. What you propose will only decrease BNP membership but in all likelihood increase their vote.

You can't fight an idea by banning it. It doesn't go away when you hide your head in the sand.

Instead of decrying people who join the BNP, would it not be better to ask why they're joining the BNP. In various threads around here I think we've all agreed that racism is not as rife as it once was. So why is BNP membership soaring?

It might have something to do with the Tories moving to the centre ground. Weren't the NF strong during the 70s Heath period and crumbled later during the Thatcher era, when the Tories moved to the right?

Could be.

<>

Highly debatable research! Is this a case Kea, of you seeing what you *want* to see, so you can indignate? My son and (Maori) daughter-in-law work in the health care area, and my son especially, says that his lecturers at University say that research you quoted is flawed.

(He's working and not here, or I would ask him for a detailed analysis..)

Actually I'd be interested to read/hear a critique of that research Let me know what you can find out.

I'll see what I can find out - Leon is on night shift the next few days (and very unhappy about it during his vacation!)

Vicky

I think the question of banning BNP members from certain jobs is genuinely a very difficult issue, and I haven't made up my mind what I think about what I think about this yet.

One point to make is that we're only talking about public sector jobs. All public sector organisations in the UK have a duty to promote good race relations - that's a positive duty, not merely a negative duty not to discriminate. Taken seriously, this could mean that the public sector should not employ known racists.

However, it's also possible for people to separate their personal views from their professional duties. It might therefore be possible for someone to be a racist in their own time, but to take their duty as (say) a job centre officer seriously and assist all clients in finding work without favour or prejudice.

But having said that, I think there might be some professions where employing a known racist is unacceptable. Professions which involve dealing with the public and/or making decisions which have a serious impact on people's lives. For example, the police force, the judiciary, teachers etc. But there are other public service jobs that aren't customer facing and don't have the same impact - I'm not sure a racist accountant or web designer or data entry clerk or street sweeper could do as much damage as long as they were professional and followed the law and the terms of their employment.

It's true, of course, that the Nazis did prevent Jews from having certain jobs. But that in itself is not an argument for saying that it's wrong to prevent people with certain attitudes from having certain jobs in one sector. There's no reason to think that a fairly modest proposal to ban BNP members from a few sensitive public sector professions will start some sort of 'slippery slope' to banning any racist from having any job, or indeed any other kind of wholesale interference in the job market.