I'll also say (having now read the article) that the case of the Muslim police officer is unclear. Police officers should not be excused from potentially lifesaving positions for moral reasons, but if a person is subject to harrassment that prevents them from doing their duties and it's known that swapping jobs with someone else would help the problem -- then, yes, of course, they should be swapped out. More for the sake of the job they need to have done than for the sake of the person doing it.
I, of course, wasn't there, so cannot say whether this criterion applies to the guard, but it sounds like it might well.
In the example of the homophobic firemen, it doesn't sound as if they'd be any more interfered with than any other firemen who might be sent: just that they'd be more annoyed by it. Again with the lifesaving jobs and can't be choosers.
Re the firemen, leafletting is hardly a life-saving job, and it hardly needs to be done by firemen in uniform, I don't think. I wonder why we're using highly trained and in-demand firemen to distribute leaflets anyway. Hire a student, for God's sake ;o)
Ahh, this story's not linked from here. I thought the firemen were there for safety checks, etc. :-)
I'm still waffly on it regardless. At that point, you have two questions:
1 - Should we give firemen non-crucial duties like distributing leaflets?
2 - Should firemen be able to beg off any of their duties because they don't like the circumstance?
I still want to give a resounding NO on question #2. Question #1 is "perhaps not", but it doesn't cancel out my idea of the obligation of honor for anyone in such a position, regardless of what they're doing on behalf of their organization.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
I'll also say (having now read the article) that the case of the Muslim police officer is unclear. Police officers should not be excused from potentially lifesaving positions for moral reasons, but if a person is subject to harrassment that prevents them from doing their duties and it's known that swapping jobs with someone else would help the problem -- then, yes, of course, they should be swapped out. More for the sake of the job they need to have done than for the sake of the person doing it.
I, of course, wasn't there, so cannot say whether this criterion applies to the guard, but it sounds like it might well.
In the example of the homophobic firemen, it doesn't sound as if they'd be any more interfered with than any other firemen who might be sent: just that they'd be more annoyed by it. Again with the lifesaving jobs and can't be choosers.
no subject
Re the firemen, leafletting is hardly a life-saving job, and it hardly needs to be done by firemen in uniform, I don't think. I wonder why we're using highly trained and in-demand firemen to distribute leaflets anyway. Hire a student, for God's sake ;o)
no subject
I'm still waffly on it regardless. At that point, you have two questions:
1 - Should we give firemen non-crucial duties like distributing leaflets?
2 - Should firemen be able to beg off any of their duties because they don't like the circumstance?
I still want to give a resounding NO on question #2. Question #1 is "perhaps not", but it doesn't cancel out my idea of the obligation of honor for anyone in such a position, regardless of what they're doing on behalf of their organization.
no subject
no subject
In which case how about an intermediate case - UN/NATO peacekeeping missions to places like Sudan, Bosnia, Lebanon, etc?