Difficult Civil Rights Question

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

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

Civil Rights is also a moral and social issue. If I choose to post on the moral or social issue rather than the legal issue, that is MY right and you have NO right to tell me that I don't have this right because you have no authority over me.

If one is to only consider the legality of any issue, then one would be in a very tenuous position, particularly if the issue affects different people in different ways. Laws are created, ammended and rewritten entirely on the basis that society is constantly evolving and viewpoints changing. If people in said society do not express their personal views on social issues, the law remains the same and it is likely that some sectors of that society will be discriminated against.

So, pardon me for not arguing the law as it stands now. Perhaps I should simply have said that the law is wrong and I believe that no person who is a member of a group which advocates discrimination against another [group] should be entitled to hold a position of authority in any capacity for a government office.

You can argue the legality of the issue all you like as it stands now. It would probably be more beneficial if you decided to have the courage to simply state that racism is wrong in any form and that people need to be taught that there are better ways of living.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

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.

Again you're confusing beliefs with actions. And within consecutive sentences, too.

Originally Posted by 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.

The US is not a Democracy and never has been and I sure hope we never are.
Sure, stay out of the business is no problem, while they are at it don't buy our goods, don't use our tech (pharmaceutical, medical, agricultural, textile, military, etc, etc, etc...) don't come running to us every time someone bigger than them starts to kick their assess, don't send their kids here for school, don't come here when they get sick, don't, don't don't... that blade cuts both ways.
I'm sick of how bad we are to everyone while they use and use and use... don't like the US, fine, fuck-ya', stay the hell away from every aspect of the US. They bitch when they say we are the world police, then bitch when we don't get involved in everything... personally, I think we should just pull-up all roots, come home and take care of our own from now on.

If one discriminates against fascists they are EXACTLY like them... they ARE one. It is so simple.
The laws of the UK, Italy, Germany and the others are facism... the hilarious thing is that it empowers the hate groups. They thrive on adversity and being the "underdog". Being given that kind of attention is validation for them. The "outlaw" status it gives them adds attraction to them for the kinds of youth that they seek and attract... so incredibly stupid, so predictable. They might as well have put them in office.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Aren't sworn peace officers, like sworn military members, sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States (no exceptions for Amendments 13-15) against all enemies foreign and domestic? This seems to me to mandate no association with the Klan or any group pushing for violent overthrow of the Constitution. Empowering oppressors and oppressor-wannabes like the Nation of Islam runs counter to the 14th Amendment.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

This seems to me to mandate no association with the Klan or any group pushing for violent overthrow of the Constitution.

As I said before, the Klan (mostly) isn't dumb enough to get caught doing that, because it would serve as an excuse to shut them down.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

This seems to me to mandate no association with the Klan or any group pushing for violent overthrow of the Constitution.

I think you're thinking of the old Klan. The new Klan does want political power, but they want to get it the old fashioned way ... by getting elected.

[Stormieweather]

What Wolf says above is partly why I backpedaled a bit on my stance. Although I despise bigots and racists, they aren't technically illegal. I Do believe that a police officer or other person of public power will eventually trip over the discrimination laws if they hold racist beliefs.

A big part of the issue here is that the KKK cannot be classified as a 'subversive' group which is defined as a group whose intent is to violently overthrow the goverment. In fact, the KKK proports to be strongly 'pro' constitution/government/god and their actions are intended to eliminate the less-than-aryan elements in their country because that is what is best for it (in their distorted view). So it would be impossible to fire someone based on their membership because belonging to the KKK isn't illegal (since the KKK isn't illegal). But watch them closely. They WILL slip up and treat someone with discrimination, THEN you can fire them.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Aliantha, your thinking is hopelessly mired in "moral equivalency," and if you've ever spent a significant amount of time living inside a totalitarian system, as I have, you've never mentioned it. I've tasted liberty and I've tasted totalitarianism, and totalitarianism, while not without its uses in constructing damage-tolerant organizations, is NOT a way to model an entire society. There is no moral equivalency. Totalitarianism must not merely go, not merely die, but it must go utterly and forever extinct. Democracy is the only worthwhile way, and the more libertarian it is, the more I'm likely to like it. Every stable society, though, is a blend or perhaps an array of counterpoises. Extremely anything -- that doesn't last.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

... if you've ever spent a significant amount of time living inside a totalitarian system, as I have,...

The repubican party?

[Aliantha]

UG...perhaps my views are 'mired in moral equivalency' but I have seen my children suffer at the hands of racist people and the children of such people. I have no sympathy for any misfortune suffered by a person because of their racist beliefs, thoughts or actions.

[Aliantha]

Your argument is that it's wrong for me to think that people who act or could act in a discriminatory manner should not be eligible for public positions of authority.

Seems like a contradiction to me that this officer can be protected because he only thinks that white races are superior to black.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Your argument is that it's wrong for me to think that people who act or could act in a discriminatory manner should not be eligible for public positions of authority.

You're working really hard here to erase the line between thought and action, and it's not working.

If you want to punish cops who "could act in a discriminatory manner" instead of just those who "do act in a discriminatory manner"...you're advocating punishment before a crime has been comitted.

I can think of whole bunches of people who *could* commit a crime. Shall we lock them all up, just to make sure it doesn't happen?

[Aliantha]

rksenrage...I see your point and agree totally. I wish the same were true here in Australia. I see many problems that should be attended to here and wonder often why our country is involved in conflicts simply because someone said, come and help us out. Why not help our own citizens instead?

I believe it's because we're part of the global community and in short, what happens in other countries affects us if not directly then indirectly; whether we're involved or not.

My point previously to you was that there are different schools of thought on everything, and for every positive there's a negative. There has to be balance. Without evil there cannot be good. Without positives there can be no negatives.

I don't claim to have a broad knowledge of politics. The only thing I do claim to be is thoughtful about the effects political actions can have on individuals. In my view, it's the individuals that matter most, but it's the individuals that get lost in the crowd.

I also agree that the 'political correctness' evident in some policies of some countries is crazy.

The thing with me is that I don't believe in evil.
I don't see racists/fascists/anti-Semites as evil. Just flawed, misguided, humans in need of compassion.
I have, personally, seen that is the way to show them the different path, more than once.

[Aliantha]

MaggieL...I'm not working hard to do anything here except express my point of view on an issue which is highly controversial to begin with. When it all comes down to it, how does any person define racist behaviour anyway? Everyone has different places to draw the line on different issues. In this particular one, I took the risk of sharing my personal viewpoint and even shared the reasons for doing so with you and the other members of this site. If you want to continue on this path then go ahead. I'm not going to proceed any further with you. If you need the last word, go ahead and have it.

Ultimately, no matter what you say to me, I'll have no time for racism because I've seen my children suffer at the hands of racist people. That is my reason and the only reason you'll get from me for my views. I don't care if you think my views are unreasonable. Ultimately what you or anyone else thinks has little or no bearing on my life or how I live it.

Pardon me for taking the risk of sharing something personal with you and the other members here about what I really think without trying to promote my higher intellect.