Mixed Feelings

[andrewducker]

So, the Civil Service is thinking of banning BNP members from working for it. (For non UKians that's the British National Party - who basically want to get rid of non-whites).

On the one hand I intensely dislike the BNP. On the other hand, I really, really don't like the idea of banning members of _any_ political party from holding a job. Sure, if the job is intimately bound up with the person's beliefs then I can see it, but unless the job is "liason with local Pakistani representatives" then I don't see why the political affiliations of the employee is any business of the employer.

Which isn't to say that if the employee was caught doing _anything_ racist that I wouldn't want them suspended/sacked over it - but most people are capable of keeping their beliefs and their work fairly separate. And in most cases there's never any conflict at all.

Hmmmph. Just feels wrong to me.

Comments

[original-aj.livejournal.com]

I hadn't seen that - where did you get the info from?

The exisiting conditions of service mean that allowing your political opinions to influence your work is a disciplinary offence, and you can be sacked for it if it's serious. Singling out any otherwise legal group, however unpleasant, sounds like a slippery slope to me. I've worked with some bigots in my time, but the existing rules are enough in my opinion.

[andrewducker]

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3669836.stm

Apparently Chief Police Officers can't be in the BNP either - but in that case they generally _are_ liaising with the locals an awful lot, so I can vaguely understand it.

Although, in fact, beeing forced to liaise with the local Indian population would probably do most BNP members the world of good...

[xquiq.livejournal.com]

Ultimately I disagree with this sort of thing. Driving membership of right wing groups underground is never a good idea IMO. Aside from that there are plenty of racists / assholes who are not affiliated with the BNP - to penalise only those who are is not really dealing with the problem.

In any case, if someone can keep their beliefs away from their work and can perform the function for which they are employed without bias, I see no reason to sack them. Like yourself, however, I agree that if an employee is doing anything racist, action should be taken.

[lilitufire.livejournal.com]

Yes - I've worked with plenty of bigots in my time. The line is crossed when they bring that shit to work with them.

[wolflady26.livejournal.com]

I agree with you. I think individual behavior should be what's important, and not group affiliation.

Actually, it's similar to how I feel about drug testing in employment. I believe that if a person comes to work stoned (or drunk) or does anything illegal to fund a habit (drug related or otherwise), he should be fired. But proactively testing to see if a potential employee has done anything illegal in his free time is beyond the scope of the employer, in my opinion.

[neferet.livejournal.com]

I can understand to an extent why the Civil Service wants to use the ban, but it is still, in terms of the human aspect, totally wrong. Every one has a right to work in a job of their preference. I have to work with folk who are totally prejudiced, who aren't involved in the BNP in any way but bring the attitude to their work every day, but I also work with at lest 1 BNP supporter who is totally professional and keeps his feeling as much out of the workplace as possible - I only really learned about it when he filed a request for an officer in my team to do one of his visits for him as it was to a Pakistani family, and he didn't feel it would be appropriate for him to do the visit.
However I feel that the disciplinar codes that exist for inappropriate behaviour, and working regulations/conflict of interest rules would be enough to manage the social issues that could arise from a BNPO oriented employee, without having to go to the extent of a ban.
I don't understand how Charles Cochrane can say that '"There isn't any fundamental legal obstacle to this."' Although they may be able to find a loophole in England and Wales, The Scotland Act 1998 would make the decision to bring in a ban totally untenable in Scotland, at the very least because it extends the law relating to equal opportunities to cover 'other personal attributes, including beliefs or opinions, such as religious beliefs or political opinions'. And then there is the Human Rights Act....
If they get away with banning BNP members through creating new legislation, who are they going to decide to ban next? Not something I want to consider.

[cx650.livejournal.com]

I was just reading about this on teletext news, then I sign in to LJ formulating some kind of rant and find that you have beaten me to it.

I agree that if a person allows their personal beliefs to adversely affect their work then that should be a disciplinary matter for their management. However, much as I disagree with the BNP and it's policies I would stand against any regulation which sought to deny a person freedom of speech and thought. Supposedly we live in a nation where freedom and equality are qualities to which we aspire. I forget who said it but this quote springs to mind. "I might not like what you say, but I'll fight for your right to say it."

[akicif.livejournal.com]

This is new? Back when I was an EO (Casual) in the Department of Health/NHS Executive, and being encouraged to go for the fast track thang, it was taken as read that you couldn't be an active member of any political party while a Civil Servant.

Still, if Blair can call for the urgent passage of legislation that has been in existence for some years, then I guess the CS can do likewise.

[octopoid-horror.livejournal.com]

In my current job, and my last job, I would say about 80% of the people that I have worked with closely have been racist to an alarming degree, in an entirely casual way. While they all (I would imagine) strongly disapprove of the BNP, they are entirely capable of saying things about ethnic minorities/different religions/people whose family has not lived in the same country as them for five generations that are -exactly- the kind of things that were shown as examples in that big Scotland against Racism campaign. (it appears to have ended now... probably gone the way of the shockingly failed Scotland Against Drugs campaign)

I don't know whether this is just my luck in who I work with, or whether it's a demonstration of a rather larger problem.

[laserboy.livejournal.com]

A ban certainly feels wrong, as much as I dislike racists. I see a lot more racists (of varying degrees) in the workplace than people who are politically active. I suppose the logic is that a member of the BNP is some kind of uber racist. (Probably true).

Still a ban on personal opinion, however unpleasant the opinion may be, is still something we should be avoiding.

[douglasbryant.livejournal.com]

Life isn't fair.
Jungle law isn't fair.
Face it nothings fair.
We make life what it is, we can make it better for our selves and those around us.
Some people can make their life and those around them worse.
The moment you realise that life isn't fair then you can start doing your bit to make the life that you know and the life going on around you better. Remember there is no "fair play".
The other side isn't playing fair, because they know this, is our job to defend that which we want to have.
So banish those who threaten that which you want to have.
It's a war of ideals and actions.
By not taking part and by letting that which threatens your way of life become strong because you allow them to play by your rules when they also play by there rules is senseless.
An example in Ireland there is an unfortunate situation where people are being killed and there murderers are being protected from prosecution by our beliefs of fair play, but since when was murder a part of our fair play, by accepting such behaviour we make part of our system.
Just because we have some sort of balance in what we call civilised countries it doesn't mean that by sitting on a sofa that we can maintain it, just looking at big fat old currupt America.
It is necessary to stand for what we believe in, and say it is not acceptable for me that others show such disregard for my/our belief/rights for all.

This is just my personal opinion, feel free to critisise me especially when you think I am wrong, perhaps you might improve my understanding of things.

[andrewducker]

So banish those who threaten that which you want to have.

I'd like to. The threat, in this case, being to anyone with a divergent opinion.

I may disagree with the BNP, but I will fight (metaphorically, anyway) for their right to express their opinions freely.

[douglasbryant.livejournal.com]

We should allways go the middle road.
Any extreme just like too hot too cold can be dangerous.
Expressing of opinions is very important, our only real feedom is the freedom of choice.
Those who wish to remove this freedom for others, like the BNP need to be held in check.
When ever I refer to fighting, what I mean is standing up/defending for your beliefs, not violence.
I think that if the BNP want to express a view using our system.
They need too promote the system in which we live in order too take part in it.
If they dont then they forfit this right.
Anyway at the end of the day, we both believe in the same thing and are both on the same side.