Difficult Civil Rights Question

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

When I ran a business I made hiring decisions. I would not have hired anyone involved with the Klan unless it was in their past and they had decided it was a mistake and maybe made amends.

I don't think it should be any different in hiring someone to be a police officer. As a citizen and taxpayer I want the best hiring decisions to be made on my behalf. Everything in a person's past is fair game.

You running a business is a quite different situation...there's little dispute possible about what are "the best hiring decisions" in that case. A private employer has considerably more leeway in hiring decisions.

But besides that, this isn't a hiring decision, it's a firing one. Would you have fired a twenty year employee for becoming a Klansman? Do you think the unemployment compensation people have backed you up as to it being "for cause" if you did? Certainly the arbitrator didn't think so in this case, and the court has ordered the arbitrator's decision be enforced. We'll see if the Nebraska AG is able to come up with a theory that the courts will buy, here.

I recall some cases during the last presidential election where people were fired for having the wrong party's sticker on their car in the company parking lot. That doesn't sound too much different from this, unless the issue is actually which parties you think are "legitimate" because you find their platforms acceptable.

[Aliantha]

Racism in any form is disgusting and should be punished. Members of the KKK advocate racism. Any person with those types of view and who thinks they have a right to hold a position of authority in any community either needs punishment or psychological help.

As a mother of mixed race children, I shudder to think how they will be treated if and when they ever are involved in conflict where a racist police officer is required to act.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Racism in any form is disgusting and should be punished. Members of the KKK advocate racism. Any person with those types of view and who thinks they have a right to hold a position of authority in any community either needs punishment or psychological help.

You'll need to get some laws passed, then. Because as I said, racisim isn't illegal; although many forms of discrimination are.

And if you establish that kind of precident for thoughtcrime here, you'd better hope you stay in political control of the country...because I think there will be some outcomes you really, really, really don't like otherwise.

The only thing that might possibly be worse is blurring the distinction between criminal behavior and mental illness any more than it already is.

"You have been convicted of having criminal thoughts, and have been sentenced to drug and behavioral therapy until such time as your thoughts are completely legal once again."

Road to hell, good intentions, etc. Don't you see how dangerous this line of reasoning is?

[Stormieweather]

I've been thinking about this and doing some research into the history of the KKK. Actually, I think MaggieL is correct. Legally, you cannot fire a police officer simply based on his membership in a questionable group, ala the KKK. They could have refused to hire him if he admitted to it on his initial application as most police employment applications ask if the applicant is a member of any racist group (in addition to any subversive group). However, firing based simply on his membership isn't really legal. In all actuality, there are probably quite a few police officers in the KKK (based on information I ran across detailing firings as a result of harrassment and racist mistreatment of fellow employees and/or citizens).

That said, I know of very few people who don't act on their strongly held beliefs. Someone who believes that Catholics, Asians, Jews, blacks and women are sub-human will be unable to hide that fact for long. Once an officer's superiors are aware of his affiliation with a racist hate group, they can monitor his activities closely and doubtless gather adequate grounds with which to fire him.

I do believe that any officer who is sworn to serve and protect (each and every citizen of our country) and who has also sworn allegiance to a group historically dedicated to denigrating non-white citizens will find himself in a conflict he will be unable to resolve. The KKK is not known for being all talk and no action.

Unfortunately, knowing he won't hold this position of power indefinately doesn't help the victims of his racism in the meantime.

Oh!! Shouldn't wife beaters be barred from re-marrying too? /nod

Stormie

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

Once an officer's superiors are aware of his affiliation with a racist hate group, they can monitor his activities closely and doubtless gather adequate grounds with which to fire him.

Interestingly enough, that was part of what decided the case. The state police didn't follow their disciplinary procedures within the timeframes provided in the procedures. This was taken as evidence that they didn't really believe that there was a serious risk of public harm from having this guy continue to be a cop.

It's more like some politican is covering his ass.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

... Actually, I think MaggieL is correct...

Hey! Apologise when you say that!

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Racism in any form is disgusting and should be punished. Members of the KKK advocate racism. Any person with those types of view and who thinks they have a right to hold a position of authority in any community either needs punishment or psychological help.

As a mother of mixed race children, I shudder to think how they will be treated if and when they ever are involved in conflict where a racist police officer is required to act.

I hope you mean punished if you are a police officer... legislating anti-racism just makes you what they are. Hating a hater is the same... it IS moral equivalence.
The European nations that have done so have become what they sought to avoid, fascists.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

As a mother of mixed race children, I shudder to think how they will be treated if and when they ever are involved in conflict where a racist police officer is required to act.

No one has actually established that the officer is racist, or at least to the extent that it would impact his job performance. You can make a lot of assumptions about what he believes or how he might treat people, but we don't actually know.

Edit to add quote from article: Tuma said a review of Henderson's record showed no pattern of bias or misconduct against minorities.

"There were no concerns whatsoever that he was engaged in any profiling or any biased treatment of any minority," he said.

Sure... he joined the Klan for the life insurance plan.

[Aliantha]

Well, as far as the legality of it is concerned, I'm not overly interested. I'm simply stating my opinion as to how I feel about the subject.

rz...I don't agree with US views on what should be tolerated and what shouldn't as far as what rights a person has to join an evil organization. In my opinion, someone who discriminates against another person on the basis of their race - something someone has no control over - shouldn't have the same rights. Full stop. People can't change the colour of their skin, but they can change the way they think.

To add to that, if one supports the US school of thought on this one, what in the hell are you trying to democratise the whole planet for? Surely people from for example, communist countries have the 'right' to choose how to live??? Surely it's not up to someone else to impose their 'way of life' on the people. Surely if the situation is that bad, it's up to the people to revolt. How do you know the people want your particular brand of democracy? Keep in mind that for every 'we love america' statement you can come up with, there are an equal number of 'we wish america would stay our of our business' statements.

The argument just doesn't work.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Well, as far as the legality of it is concerned, I'm not overly interested.

Then maybe you should be commenting in some thread that isn't about a legal case, where you can get stroked for having your heart in the right place without being troubled by fiddly little details like "the law".

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Then maybe you should be commenting in some thread that isn't about a legal case, where you can get stroked for having your heart in the right place without being troubled by fiddly little details like "the law".

Maybe you should take your head out of your arse and put it somewhere useful?

This thread is philosophical. My thoughts are as valid as anyone elses and your condescending attitude is quite frankly, pretty boring. You have no right to tell me where I should and shouldn't post. If you don't like my comments then comment on them. I'm pretty sure I'm not the first person to tell you to talk about the post and not the poster.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

My thoughts are as valid as anyone elses.

That kind of mindless relativism is what makes liberal politics such a joke these days. Your thoughts are as valid as the logic behind them, no more and no less. Simply having them does not embue them with some kind of birthright of validity.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

That kind of mindless relativism is what makes liberal politics such a joke these days. Your thoughts are as valid as the logic behind them, no more and no less. Simply having them does not embue them with some kind of birthright of validity.

Main Entry: val·id
Pronunciation: 'va-l&d
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French or Medieval Latin; Middle French valide, from Medieval Latin validus, from Latin, strong, potent, from valEre
1 : having legal efficacy or force; especially : executed with the proper legal authority and formalities <a valid contract>
2 a : well-grounded or justifiable : being at once relevant and meaningful <a valid theory> b : logically correct <a valid argument> <valid inference>
3 : appropriate to the end in view : EFFECTIVE <every craft has its own valid methods>
4 of a taxon : conforming to accepted principles of sound biological classification

2b is the only part of the definition that's in your favor. That's 1/2 of 25% of the definition, making you 87.5% wrong.

Her thoughts may be inaccurate or incorrect, yet valid. They were executed with proper authority and formalities, are relevant and meaningful, and are appropriate to the end in view. That's 2 1/2 parts of the definition in her favor, making her 62.5% right. :p

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

I'm pretty sure I'm not the first person to tell you to talk about the post and not the poster.

I did. Your post isn't about the legal issue that the thread is about. Civil rights is a legal issue.