The right to Free Speech and Peaceably Assemble by FellowTraveler

From over here as a public servant he should only be allowed to operate in that capacity if he can offer impartial treatment to any situation.

Being a member of a white supremicist group proves he can not.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 4:04 AM

CHRISISALL

Watck the movie Clerks to get an idea how one can serve the public, while hating them imensily.
At least this trooper only hates a part of the public!

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 4:07 AM

It's easy to treat situations even handedly if one hates everybody.

It's impossible if you only hate a certain group.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 4:08 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

I have to agree with Citizen. How would this man uphold the public trust? Civil Servants need to be held to a higher standard. How can this man swear to serve and protect and then be a card carrying member of an organization that kills babies while bombing churches.

Even if he hasn't been involved - his organization has.

When I was a Fed Government worker, there were some part time jobs and some organizations I was prohibited from. I didn't have a problem with it.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 4:11 AM

Yeah, I get that. I guess my concern is where they draw the line.

While racism is (almost) universally condemned, what's to stop the state for using the same excuse to fire anybody that holds views outside of the mainstream.

On both sides of the idealogical spectrum, don't we all have some extreme views about one thing or the other?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 4:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Watck the movie Clerks to get an idea how one can serve the public, while hating them imensily.
At least this trooper only hates a part of the public!

Chrisisall

Yeah, "this job would be great if it wasn't for the f*cking customers."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 4:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
Yeah, I get that. I guess my concern is where they draw the line.

While racism is (almost) universally condemned, what's to stop the state for using the same excuse to fire anybody that holds views outside of the mainstream.

On both sides of the idealogical spectrum, don't we all have some extreme views about one thing or the other?

You draw the line at a point where someone can actually treat people impartially.

A conservative can treat a liberal and vice versa impartially, a member of the KKK can not treat a black man impartially. A member of a Nazi group would be unable to treat a Jew impartially.

I doubt a member of the Westboro Baptist Church could treat anyone who is not a member of the Westboro Baptist Church (so bascially anyone they're not related too) impartially.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 4:21 AM

I gnawed over this story for a while. I see Citizen's argument, which is valid. But ultimately, if everyone gets fired for joining groups of which the govt. disapproves there's no end to is.

Obviously, we have to look at the immediate effect on society. The Klan and all organizations like it will take this as a cue to go much more underground.

Next, look at where this ends. Has a cop ever been fired for being a member of the Black Panthers? How about a civil servant? No one ever fired WV Sen. Robert Byrd.

What about Nation of Islam? Should we ban members of the NoI from public office? If we do that, why not go with banning muslims in general?

Okay, I have to side with fellow traveler on this one. I see your point Citizen, but I think it would have to be proven. If this guy can demonstrate that he can be objective in his job, how he feels personally is not a matter for the govt's concern. If he participated in actual acts of violence against minorities, it would be another matter, but I think this enters into the realm of thought police, ie it goes too far.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 4:29 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Isn't the Klan a criminal organization? Didn't Harry Truman infiltrate them in the 50's with the FBI? Wasn't it a crime back then , just to be a member? ( all of which I seem to remember, more or less, from when I studied history.) If so, aren't they probably still at least an outlaw organization?
So, should a government employee be allowed to be a member of an illegal organization?

And a second point, " the right to peaceably assemble." Maybe they don't riot or kill folk at meetings nowadays, but don't they burn crosses, which has a history as an act of violence and intimidation? And don't they advocate violence at those meetings?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 4:34 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

another thought-- maybe they oughtta partner this dude with a black trooper who has seniority on him,
stick 'em both in a black-n-white eight hours a day, six days a week, for like a year, in a high risk situation, and find out what he really believes, by how he reacts to that situation.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 4:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Isn't the Klan a criminal organization? Didn't Harry Truman infiltrate them in the 50's with the FBI? Wasn't it a crime back then , just to be a member? ( all of which I seem to remember, more or less, from when I studied history.) If so, aren't they probably still at least an outlaw organization?
So, should a government employee be allowed to be a member of an illegal organization?

And a second point, " the right to peaceably assemble." Maybe they don't riot or kill folk at meetings nowadays, but don't they burn crosses, which has a history as an act of violence and intimidation? And don't they advocate violence at those meetings?

I don't know if it is a criminal organization. Although, I know Mike Moore claimed so in "Bowling for Columbine". Was looking through Wikipedia entry on the KKK and (so far) I don't see anything saying it's illegal.

As for the FBI infiltrating the KKK, they did same the thing to the Peace and Civil Rights movements, so I'm not sure that matters.

And I've never been to a Klan meeting, so I don't know if they still advocate violence. But I think it is probably safe to assume so.

Edit- The peace and civil rights movements were considered extreme. Was it okay for Spelman College to fire Howard Zinn for being a member of those groups?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 4:52 AM

By night a lyncher of the 'black' by day mild mannered impartially civil servant.

You should talk to DC Comics mate, seems like you've got a really twisted version of Superman going there.

Quote:
"This trooper can join the KKK, but he can't remain a trooper while he is a member."

Operative words I think.

You can't be a member of a violent racist organisation and be expected to be put in a position of authority over people of a different race to yourself. The indication of incapabillity to impartiality is in the membership of a violent organisation, if he was capable of doing his job he would give up his KKK membership.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 5:09 AM

ANTIMASON

id have to agree, there seems to be an obvious conflict of interests here. maybe if the nature of the KKK werent overtly discriminatory, but as it is... although i realize the question then becomes where do you draw the line? only there is no denying the KKK as a hate group; obiously an obstacle for inbiased justice and impartiality. maybe the doctrines of the KKK should be methodically scrutinized to see if a member can even coexist peacefully with all varieties of people

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 5:52 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
Now, I know I have the right to free speech and to peaceably assemble, but do state workers?

State worker have the same rights as you do. They choose to limit their rights because of their voluntary affiliation with the government as an employee.

As an employee they must adhere to a code of conduct. Like any such code, it can be challenged in court on its own merits. Is mere membership and off duty participation enough to warrent being fired. Probably not. The State's action likely violates the code of conduct and union agreements, which is why he was rehired with back pay. They could make this a restriction, but they probably have not done so. I suspect that as long as his offensive conduct is
off duty, he should be ok.

H

Edited to add: The KKK may have a special distinction because of their history of violence and such. I'd have to look it up, but I seem to recall some cases along the lines of government/KKK affiliation.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 6:06 AM

KANEMAN

Many human beings live their lives with bigotry, prejudice, and hatred in there hearts and minds for one group or another. It could be religious, political, sexual orientation, or for the opposite sex. We are probably talking about 60% or more world wide. These people are Doctors, Lawyers, Politicians, and even police officers. They all have to take some sort of an oath. As long as they uphold that oath I couldn't care what their personal beliefs are, nor should you. Only when they put those beliefs before their duties should they have to answer to anyone about them.....Well, it's true

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 6:39 AM

STORYMARK

State workers may have the same rights as everyone else, but I do think there should be a higher standard. Not everyone gets to carry a gun and badge, nor do they have the authority to arrest.

As a teacher, I am held to higher moral standards than average citizens, though we hold the same rights. There are things I could do 2 years ago, in my prior occupation, which I could get fired for now. A teacher was forced to resign last week because perfectly legal, artistic nude photos of her surfaced. She didn't do anything illeagal or wrong by the standards general citizens are held to, yet because of her occupation, she was forced to resign against her wishes.

I don't think it's unreasonable to hold police to higher standards as well.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 8:31 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

It really is amazing at how some KKK types try to spin their own racist views. They say they don't HATE the black ( or the Jew, chink, etc.. ) just as long as all those minorities stay with their own kind. Using that " logic ", I can see how a lawyer could make the case that a State Trooper could uphold his duties with no conflict of interest. Just as long as he doesn't have to deal w/ any inter-racial marriages.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 8:38 AM

STORYMARK

Yeah, I can just imagine how impartial he'd be when he pulled over a car with a mix-ed race couple.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 9:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
It really is amazing at how some KKK types try to spin their own racist views. They say they don't HATE the black ( or the Jew, chink, etc.. ) just as long as all those minorities stay with their own kind. Using that " logic ", I can see how a lawyer could make the case that a State Trooper could uphold his duties with no conflict of interest. Just as long as he doesn't have to deal w/ any inter-racial marriages.

I can certainly agree with that.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 9:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
It really is amazing at how some KKK types try to spin their own racist views. They say they don't HATE the black ( or the Jew, chink, etc.. ) just as long as all those minorities stay with their own kind. Using that " logic ", I can see how a lawyer could make the case that a State Trooper could uphold his duties with no conflict of interest. Just as long as he doesn't have to deal w/ any inter-racial marriages.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

For the record, I'm not a KKK type nor am I defending this individual, but:

State Patrol commander, Col. Bryan Tuma

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.

Didn't almost everyone who participated in the poll last week say that freedom is more important than security? Does that freedom only extend to those that we agree with?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 9:33 AM

NOBC

Harry Truman was probably a charter member. The Klan is the key architect of the new democratic party. They created Woodrow Wilson out of whole cloth. I suppose if one wanted, one could call the Klan a terrorist organization, and get no argument from me.

But that doesn't mean a member of a monoethnic cult should not be allowed to participate in public life, because that's absurd. There are countless members of cults devoted to the creation of a monoethnic society at high positions in public life, including all of zionism.

In order to be a successful member of a black political establishment or even blackodemic, it helps to be a member of one of the pro-black groups. There is absolutely no difference between one and the other. The notion that there is is really a racist one.

What matters is: "is he going to act on that."

I read a similar story about nation of islam, which is why I brought it up. I'm sure, btw, that louis farrahkhan is filling the ranks of urban police departments.

But there's another issue, which I think was the one put here. Who gives who that power, and what precedent does it say.

Any case, Nazis, kiddieporn, etc., is always an ugly precedent for something else. Set X measure in place to give govt. power to block Y activity, which the govt. really doesn't care about, but people do, and then the govt. will use that precedent to block Z activity, thus restricting everyone else. It's a pretty old trick. If anyone bothered to read the Clinton era child pornography act, it never mentioned child pornography once, but instead just gave the govt. permission to block any website it didn't want running. Since then it's been repealed, but I think this is a classic model.

So, ban klan cop may be a precedent for something else. If the guy is a racist in his line of work, there will be an incident for which you can not only ban him, but arrest him. That's not the issue. The issue is what kind of case is this, and why would people have such a case.

I'm sure you'll see nation of islam come up in cases similar to this, and my suspicion is that there may be an agenda item afoot.

"It is a threat to the very fabric of our society," U.S. Attorney Rod J. Rosenstein said.

Both groups groups, nation of islam and the klan, are anti-semitic.

BTW, I don't know if this impacts on the argument, but I don't believe Robert Henderson is white. He's remarkably non-white in the picture. I would be pretty sure he's a native american.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 9:38 AM

I think auraptor's accusations can be ignored. The "Everyone who disagrees with me is a racist" is an old rhetorical trick, and is frequently used to silence debate on civil liberties. I think it's pretty much that anyone posting here is not a Klan type. We're a fan group of a show with two black characters, an interracial marriage and a latina, in which everyone speaks chinese. It's not exactly happy klan land.

See if this guy look indian to anyone else

BTW, this thread was not posted in support of the Klan, it was posted to look at the 1st amendment angle of the case, which is the spirit in which I took it. If you turn it into a debate on racism, than obviously the anti-klan side wins. But the anti-klan side is also the anti-1st amendment side. What this means is here are a bunch of fans of a show about a new libertarian ideal, attacking core values of the ideology essentially because, IMHO, they are being played.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 10:05 AM

Maybe we should ignore your "Everyone who disagrees with me is a freedom of speech hating facist accusation"?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 10:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
From over here as a public servant he should only be allowed to operate in that capacity if he can offer impartial treatment to any situation.

Being a member of a white supremicist group proves he can not.[\b]

Doesn't this make the same kinda' assumption that the Klan does?

Because somebody is a member of a certain group (black, Jewish, Catholic) they will behave a certain way.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 10:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
Doesn't this make the same kinda' assumption that the Klan does?

Because somebody is a member of a certain group (black, Jewish, Catholic) they will behave a certain way.

No. People join the Klan because it's a violent racist organisation.

Maybe this trooper thought they were chicken fanciers or something the "Coo Cluck Clan"?

Attempting to draw a parallel between someone who is a member of a violent racist organisation and someone who was born with black skin is beyond ridiculous.

Is barring a known member of the KGB in from being put in charge of national security indicative of the same assumptions as made by the klan?

I'm not allowed to run for president of the United States, I guess you guys are discriminating against the British.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 10:38 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:

dreamtrove wrote:
Monday, August 28, 2006 09:38
I think auraptor's accusations can be ignored. The "Everyone who disagrees with me is a racist" is an old rhetorical trick, and is frequently used to silence debate on civil liberties.

I gotta ask, where did I accuse anyone of anything here ? Show me, please!

Seems to me you're just asking for my comments to be ignored simply because. I'm at a loss here as to what you find at issue.

Quote:
I think it's pretty much that anyone posting here is not a Klan type. We're a fan group of a show with two black characters, an interracial marriage and a latina, in which everyone speaks chinese. It's not exactly happy klan land.

Folk are folk. I think we all agree on that, right ? We all got on this boat for different reasons....

I don't know if the guy 'looks' Indian or not.

But there is a legitimate question as to whether a Klan member can serve the public's interest, as in the role of State Trooper. Where does this question get resolved ? Is it with this one individual? His record, according to State Patrol commander Tuma, suggests he's (Henderson) suitable for the job. So, is there a need to pry through every state trooper's records to see if they had dealings w/ the Klan, or similar groups? Don't think that stuff isn't taken into account, because it is. And thankfully so.

This might be one of those situations where it just doesn't 'feel' right, but for the freedoms we have in this country, we have to accept it.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 10:41 AM

Here's how I see it. Any person who is overtly racist cannot effectivly police a mixed population. Whether or not his affiliation with the Klan spills over into his job or not, the fact remains that he has joined an overtly racist group (which is against more than just one minority), and it undermines his ability to do his job.

So what are the problems with a KKK member being a cop? Easy, first off there is the obvious things, if he can't look past his prejudice then he will probably end up harrasing, falsely charging, etc. minorities.

Second, even if he manages to keep his personal feeling seperate from his job think about this: he arrests a black man for something, the charge goes to court, the black mans lawyer finds out that the cop is a KKK member, the black man walks free, regardless of innocence or guilt, not a good outcome. *cough*O.J.*cough*

Third, if he is known to be a KKK member, then in all likelyhood people around him will react quite negatively, this can cause serious issues for a cop. Consider: if he is investigating a crime in a predominantly black area (or even an area with just a few blacks) and he has to get information from black people, what will the result be if they know of his affiliation? Probably not nearly as good as if he wasn't a KKK member. So what has to be done? Should the police have to send someone else whenever a black person is being interviewed?

What it really comes down to is this. His membership in the KKK negatively affects his ability to do his job, since he is no longer as capable of doing his job he should be released.

But that's just me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 10:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I'm not allowed to run for president of the United States, I guess you guys are discriminating against the British.

Damn straight!!!

Limey's trying to run for President, feh! What's the world coming to?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 10:45 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
Didn't almost everyone who participated in the poll last week say that freedom is more important than security? Does that freedom only extend to those that we agree with?

Good point. Enough to make me re-consider my position.

Not nessesarily changing it.

Just applying further though.

And it hurts.

Damn these moral quandaries.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 10:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Damn straight!!!

Limey's trying to run for President, feh! What's the world coming to?

Ahh c'mon, you know I'd do a better job than Texan's

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 10:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
Doesn't this make the same kinda' assumption that the Klan does?

Because somebody is a member of a certain group (black, Jewish, Catholic) they will behave a certain way.
No. People join the Klan because it's a violent racist organisation.

Attempting to draw a parallel between someone who is a member of a violent racist organisation and someone who was born with black skin is beyond ridiculous.

Is barring a known member of the KGB in from being put in charge of national security indicative of the same assumptions as made by the klan?

I'm not allowed to run for president of the United States, I guess you guys are discriminating against the British.

That's why I included Jews and Catholics. People do choose to join those faiths.

And yes, you not being able to be President is discrimination.

But to discriminate isn't necessarily bad. As you have said, it was okay to for the state to discriminate against this racist cop.

But as DT asked, would it be okay to discriminate against one who is a member of the Nation of Islam (with their white and Jewish devils)?

Evangelical Christians often look down on others who don't share their faith. Should we not allow those people to hold any position of authority?

Doesn't nearly everyone hold some prejudice or another? Not necessarily race based, but in the literal, dictionary definition kinda' way.

Finally, would it be acceptable to forbid you from being a cop because you might not treat a white supremacist fairly? Aren't we supposed to be judged on our actions, not our thoughts?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 10:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Damn straight!!!

Limey's trying to run for President, feh! What's the world coming to? [
Ahh c'mon, you know I'd do a better job than Texan's

Hmmmmmmm.....Citizen...or...Cheney/Rice...decisions, decisions.....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 10:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Second, even if he manages to keep his personal feeling seperate from his job think about this: he arrests a black man for something, the charge goes to court, the black mans lawyer finds out that the cop is a KKK member, the black man walks free, regardless of innocence or guilt, not a good outcome. *cough*O.J.*cough*

Third, if he is known to be a KKK member, then in all likelyhood people around him will react quite negatively, this can cause serious issues for a cop. Consider: if he is investigating a crime in a predominantly black area (or even an area with just a few blacks) and he has to get information from black people, what will the result be if they know of his affiliation? Probably not nearly as good as if he wasn't a KKK member. So what has to be done? Should the police have to send someone else whenever a black person is being interviewed?

These are excellent points that I (hangs head in shame) didn't consider.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 11:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
These are excellent points that I (hangs head in shame) didn't consider.

Thank you, and no reason to hang your head, after all we can't all be super-geniuses (why no that isn't a blimp, it's my head!).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 11:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by FellowTraveller:
That's why I included Jews and Catholics. People do choose to join those faiths.

And drawing a parallel between an organisation whose only reason for existence is too perpetuate racist violence and Christianity or Judaism is just as ridiculous.

Quote:
But to discriminate isn't necessarily bad. As you have said, it was okay to for the state to discriminate against this racist cop.

That was basically my point yes.

Quote:
But as DT asked, would it be okay to discriminate against one who is a member of the Nation of Islam (with their white and Jewish devils)?

I wasn't aware that the purpose of the Nation of Islam's existence was to burn churches and kill minorities. If that isn't the NoI's reason for existence there is no parallel between them and the Klan.

Quote:
Evangelical Christians often look down on others who don't share their faith. Should we not allow those people to hold any position of authority?

Ditto. Though I already said I wouldn't let a member of Westbro Church or similar hold a police position.

Quote:
Doesn't nearly everyone hold some prejudice or another? Not necessarily race based, but in the literal, dictionary definition kinda' way.

Last I checked not everyone was a member of violent organisations whose only reason for existence was to attack people who they were prejudice against. Maybe I'm wrong and I'm in a minority here?

Quote:
Finally, would it be acceptable to forbid you from being a cop because you might not treat a white supremacist fairly? Aren't we supposed to be judged on our actions, not our thoughts?

Last I checked I wasn't advocating killing all white supremacists, nor silencing them. I merely said that such a person should not be put in a position of authority over other people.

You don't join a group by accident; you join a group because you agree with its ideals and purpose. The Ku Klux Klan's ideals and purpose are to terrorise and kill anyone not Christian and white, such a person can not be trusted in a position of authority over anyone not white and Christian.

Further more nothing in your posts refutes that this trooper should be removed from his position, it is merely asking where you draw the line, a question I think I answered already.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 11:46 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
It's easy to treat situations even handedly if one hates everybody.

Yeah it does make it easy, and if you ever need to learn how, take up cab driving.

Quote:
another thought-- maybe they oughtta partner this dude with a black trooper who has seniority on him,
stick 'em both in a black-n-white eight hours a day, six days a week, for like a year, in a high risk situation, and find out what he really believes, by how he reacts to that situation.

Works for me, and if there are no problems, then there are no problems, right ?

I think it's a major conflict of interest, but even in a case like this I will not go levelling judgements without some evidence of misconduct while in uniform, or misuse of police data outside the job.

That last I would have internal affairs quietly investigate, as it's been a common practice for a great many years in the south to put a guy like this on the force, and have him behave himself, but pass on 'useful' information garnered by his job, to the Klan... so in essence the officer himself doesn't get his hands dirty, but in the end it amounts to the same thing.

I'd be real close on information security with this guy around.

Quote:
Is barring a known member of the KGB in from being put in charge of national security indicative of the same assumptions as made by the klan?

Umm, sort of off-topic, but we kinda did the exact opposite of that...
You see, that punk Chertoff went around and hired most of his little inner circle from ex-KGB and ex-STASI sleazeballs.
So, being that we specifically hired, rather than blocked, these guys, the assumption falls flat, alas.

Fred made some good points, but I have a hard time comprehending them because I see the police themselves as an adversarial thing, much like any other street gang, just that this one is officially sponsored and recognized....

Still, whether we like what he believes, whether we agree with what he believes, that's not our business so much as how he ACTS, and besides, Law Enforcement officers take an Oath (most of which ignore it..) and logically, in a person of character that Oath would supecede any responsibility to what is primarily a social organisation, even one with such a bent.

Just some thoughts,

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 11:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
in a person of character that Oath would supecede any responsibility to what is primarily a social organisation, even one with such a bent.

The further question would be can a person of character join an organisation like the Klan?

I think not.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 11:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by FellowTraveller:
That's why I included Jews and Catholics. People do choose to join those faiths.
And drawing a parallel between an organisation whose only reason for existence is too perpetuate racist violence and Christianity or Judaism is just as ridiculous.
Quote:

But to discriminate isn't necessarily bad. As you have said, it was okay to for the state to discriminate against this racist cop.
That was basically my point yes.
Quote:
But as DT asked, would it be okay to discriminate against one who is a member of the Nation of Islam (with their white and Jewish devils)?
I wasn't aware that the purpose of the Nation of Islam's existence was to burn churches and kill minorities. If that isn't the NoI's reason for existence there is no parallel between them and the Klan.
Quote:
Evangelical Christians often look down on others who don't share their faith. Should we not allow those people to hold any position of authority?
Ditto. Though I already said I wouldn't let a member of Westbro Church or similar hold a police position.
Quote:
Doesn't nearly everyone hold some prejudice or another? Not necessarily race based, but in the literal, dictionary definition kinda' way.
Last I checked not everyone was a member of violent organisations whose only reason for existence was to attack people who they were prejudice against. Maybe I'm wrong and I'm in a minority here?
Quote:
Finally, would it be acceptable to forbid you from being a cop because you might not treat a white supremacist fairly? Aren't we supposed to be judged on our actions, not our thoughts?
Last I checked I wasn't advocating killing all white supremacists, nor silencing them. I merely said that such a person should not be put in a position of authority over other people.

You don't join a group by accident; you join a group because you agree with its ideals and purpose. The Ku Klux Klan's ideals and purpose are to terrorise and kill anyone not Christian and white, such a person can not be trusted in a position of authority over anyone not white and Christian.

Further more nothing in your posts refutes that this trooper should be removed from his position, it is merely asking where you draw the line, a question I think I answered already.

Your first point: Nice bait and switch, brother/sister, but that's not what I said.

I said that both you and the Klan are making assumptions based on membership of a certain group. In no way did I compare the Klan to the Jewish or Catholic faith (although, I did to Evangelical Christians). Not meant as a personal attack on you, but you assume that this guy can't do his job because he's a member of a specific group. The Klan assumes many things about people because they are members of a specific group. Both assumptions are not based on any facts, but on prejudice.

Second point: We agree

Third point: It may not be, but hatred is hatred.

Fourth point: We (appear) to agree.

Fifth point: I think I understand. It's not that the guy is a racist f*ck that is the problem? It is his membership in that particular organization?

Sixth point: I would agree if his boss didn't explicitly say there are no issues with his treatment of minorities.

Seventh point: Fair enough. I have not taken a position because I find the entire affair troubling. I understand the concern one would have with this man being charged to uphold the law, but I am not comfortable with the government limiting speech of any kind.

While "slippery slope" is a fallacy, I've seen that you give these guys an inch, they take a mile (thinking patriot act, then NSA in cahoots with the telecoms, then warrentless surveillance, God knows what's next).

I don't know what the answer is. I'm not sure there is an answer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 1:34 PM

MISBEHAVEN

To me, the answer to this seems obvious. Anyone involved with an organization such as the KKK, which preaches hatred and employs violence, has ablsolutely no business working in a position of authority. Can you honestly expect that a white supremacist will treat people of color in the same manner that he would treat other whites? I don't think so. The man's a racist, and he shouldn't be wearing a badge. After all, the police are supposed to be there to protect and serve. Something tells me that this guy would have a problem protecting and serving the very races he apparently despises.

"The only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation."
-Bertrand Russell

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 1:54 PM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

This certainly is an interesting situation. And, as much as this goes against my instincts... he should be allowed to keep his job. Until such a time as it can be demonstrated that he treats those he works with in different ways based on their heritage/ethnicity, or is charged with a crime (related to the KKK or not), there should be no reason to treat him differently. It rubs me the wrong way to come to this conclusion, but... it doesn't seem as if he's had any problems, so he shouldn't be discriminated against because of an organization he's affiliated with (even such a blatenly violent one).

---

I'm a trouble-maker; Kaneman said so!

::points to 'I'm a trouble-maker' sticker on shirt and makes a platypus noise::

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 2:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
Your first point: Nice bait and switch, brother/sister, but that's not what I said.

It was nothing of the sort, and my conclusion of what you were saying seems quite logical.

Quote:
I said that both you and the Klan are making assumptions based on membership of a certain group. In no way did I compare the Klan to the Jewish or Catholic faith (although, I did to Evangelical Christians). Not meant as a personal attack on you, but you assume that this guy can't do his job because he's a member of a specific group. The Klan assumes many things about people because they are members of a specific group. Both assumptions are not based on any facts, but on prejudice.

It's nothing of the sort. The klan is a violent racist organisation, that's not my prejudice, that's unbiased fact. I think even Klan members would agree with that.

I don't assume someone’s a racist because they happen to be a member of the Klan, I assume they're a racist and a violent one because they choose to join a violent racist organisation. The same way as I assume someone who converts to Christianity is a Christian or someone who joins this site is a fan of Firefly. The assumptions are nothing alike.

Why would someone who is not a violent racist want to join a violent racist organisation?

Quote:
Third point: It may not be, but hatred is hatred.

We're talking about the difference between a group who happen to hold some prejudices and a group that IS a group to perpetuate prejudices and attack their target. The two are worlds apart.

Quote:
Fifth point: I think I understand. It's not that the guy is a racist f*ck that is the problem? It is his membership in that particular organization?

Yes. For him to be impartial he'd have to put his job above his membership in the Klan. If he's not willing to leave the Klan then that would be an indication that he holds his Klan membership as more important than his job, in which case his racist beliefs would be more important to him than the need to be impartial.

Quote:
Seventh point: Fair enough. I have not taken a position because I find the entire affair troubling. I understand the concern one would have with this man being charged to uphold the law, but I am not comfortable with the government limiting speech of any kind.

When did the government infringe his freedom of speech? He's not been forced to leave the Klan, no one has duct taped his mouth shut. His freedom of speech is not being infringed in anyway.

If you were a member of a group that sells information to technology companies you'd probably find you'd lose a job in the technology sector, even if you've never sold any of your company’s secrets. Your employer isn't infringing your freedom of speech, they haven't prevented you from doing or saying anything you want, nor have they prevented you from remaining a member of the group. But your membership of the group goes counter to the trust they have put in you and so the two (your employment and continued participation in Technology Secrets 'R' Us) are mutually exclusive. In other words you can't have your cake and eat it.

I work for the British government. China is on the black list of destinations, I can travel to China if I want, no ones going to stop me, the Gov. isn't infringing my rights to travel where ever I wish, but I'd lose my job. And I should, travel to China, especially without permission, would make me a security risk which mean's I shouldn't be put in a trusted position.

Like I said the guy can do and say what he likes as long as it's not illegal, but if any of those come into conflict with his work, whether it's in or out of work time, he should lose his job.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 5:57 PM

Auraptor,

My apologies, misread your post.

My suspcion after reading this thread is that people are far less insightful here than I thought. If you frame any question the right way, they'd all fall right in line.

Maybe Bush should have painted Saddam Hussein as a child rapist, then everyone would be up for war with Iraq. The question on the thread was about the first amendment.

Quote:
This might be one of those situations where it just doesn't 'feel' right, but for the freedoms we have in this country, we have to accept it.

I'm not sure which way this was intended. I don't think which groups people are associated should be part of the profile, I think every population in america has groups which forward agendas, and if anyone is doing this sort of profiling, it will be someone who is a member of one of those groups, and what they will be doing is knocking out competing groups.

Fred,

I don't think a cop has any power. He can accuse black people all he wants, and they can be proven innocent, and then he can get fired. In fact, he's probably already behaved in a biased manner for which you can fire him without any objection to me. Traveler's issue was that if he is fired for his association, it's an attack on the first amendment, about which he is absolutely right.

Quote:
FT: Didn't almost everyone who participated in the poll last week say that freedom is more important than security? Does that freedom only extend to those that we agree with?

Well said.

FT,

Many police depts. around the country have actually used public money to fund Nation of Islam, by hiring their members for "Sensitivity Training." It's not something that gets me all upset. I don't go "oooh, Nation of Islam, scary." I don't have that reaction to the Klan either, but then, I don't have that reaction to Al Qaeda.

But someone does. Undoubtedly out there is someone who's saying "Hey, these guys are antisemitic," and maybe someone's listening, or even "Hey, these are anti-white," and no one is listening. But in response to either, there's probably people out these who would say "Racist" but then support the ousting of this klan schmuck.

The thing is, people are more or less responding to what they are programmed to respond to. Say Nazi to anyone, they'll probably give you a healthy negative reaction. Come back in five or ten years, you'll get that by saying arab or moslem. In some left wing circles you can say "fundie" and get it. It's a pavlovian dog reponse. If people actually cared, they'd have gotten up in arms about the NoI. I didn't, because I didn't care, and still don't. But I don't want to see some guys racist group ties used as a benchmark to repeal my first amendment rights to be a member of some random anti-war group because of it. People here don't see that happening, but I think we're laying the groundwork for it right here.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 6:07 PM

Misbehaven,

So you support the idea that Sen. Robert Byrd should resign?

I'd just like to add that the LAPD is a much worse offender to blacks all by itself than the KKK in nationally, on a year to year basis. The same could probably be said of at least a dozen police depts. I don't get that this is an infection by an insurgent racist element into a pure institution. It's the expelling of one asshole from a thoroughly racist institution, the police. The issue is not about race, it's about the first amendment, and setting a precendent which can be used against other groups.

Quote:
YinYang:

This certainly is an interesting situation. And, as much as this goes against my instincts... he should be allowed to keep his job. Until such a time as it can be demonstrated that he treats those he works with in different ways based on their heritage/ethnicity, or is charged with a crime (related to the KKK or not), there should be no reason to treat him differently. It rubs me the wrong way to come to this conclusion, but... it doesn't seem as if he's had any problems, so he shouldn't be discriminated against because of an organization he's affiliated with (even such a blatenly violent one).

I don't know if it helps, but well said. The key is the specifics of how he gets fired for being a racist. The sad thing is that many many police officers are actively and brutally racist daily in assaults on blacks and never get in trouble for it. Does anyone remember Mark Furman?

I don't want to see a test case for a first amendment repeal. Has anyone seen/read the handmaid's tale? There's a brilliant seen where the liberal feminist elite lynch their own leader because they are misled by their opponents.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 6:28 PM

MISBEHAVEN

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Misbehaven,

So you support the idea that Sen. Robert Byrd should resign?

Yes. Byrd is a racist hole just like Sen. Allen, and neither of them have any business serving in Congress.

"The only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation."
-Bertrand Russell

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 6:45 PM