 |
| |
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
Hypothetically you are a senior officer looking at recruits. You have a large Jewish community under your juristiction. You have someone of liberal politic, and a Nazi. Which is most appropriate for dealing with that community? |
Depends on how they act. |
A hospital is going to employ a child care worker for its creche, or a paediatrician, say.
They have candidates, some are known to have been paedophiles in the past, some not.
Who do they choose to deal with the kiddies, the kiddy fiddlers, or the non-kiddy fiddlers?
It would be insane to employ someone who agrees with shoving dog sh!t through people's letterboxes because they're of black or Asian origin or scrawling Nazi graffiti on synagogues in a police force whose jurisdiction included, say, Brixton, or Golders Green.
The idea is that the community has at least a shred of confidence in the impartiality of their police force.
Had you seen a documentary on new recruits into the constabulary (as many British people did not too long ago) you would understand why this is a very real concern, and not simply a high school hypothetical.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DanS
For instance, the Army kicks out gays if they make a big deal about it, |
That's a very charitable interpretation of military policy not borne out by the experience of a great many ex-servicewomen and men.
http://www.tampabaycoalition.com/fi...nguistsOpEd.htm
'The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), a group representing gay military personnel, documented 563 violations of the policy (Don't Ask, Don't Tell) in 1997.
What kinds of investigations are improper?
In one instance reported by SLDN and major newspapers, a member's private discussion with a therapist was used to begin an investigation as to whether he was gay. In September 1993, Marine Cpl. Kevin Blaesing discussed his sexuality with a psychologist at a naval hospital in Charleston, S.C. The psychologist reported Blaesing's visit to his commander. Soon after, Blaesing's commanders asked him whether he was gay and sought to discharge him. Blaesing claims that he never stated that he was gay, but the mere fact that he sought to discuss the issue touched off an investigation. Blaesing's next request was to re-enlist was denied and he was effectively discharged.
Retired Army Col. David Hackworth :
"The military simply must not and need not adhere to the same rules as civilian employment. Although the military defends the principles of democratic society, it cannot fully embody them. Its end is victory, not equity; its virtue is courage, not justice; its structure is authoritarian, not pluralistic." '
http://www.facts.com/icof/i00062.htm
"It appears the Army finally realized that the "Don't Ask,
Don't Tell" policy should not be stretched beyond its intended scope, especially in the case of an officer described by the Army's own command as:
'one of the best and brightest'
and revered by his troops," Wolf said.
"We have argued all along that the Army mindlessly went on a 'search and destroy' mission against one of its own, essentially playing a game of 'gotcha' in order to oust a gay officer.
That is not what Congress intended when it passed 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' " Wolf added.
http://www.logcabincolumbus.org/Army%20Dismissal.htm
Now I'm not sure, but do you think a private discussion with a psychologist qualifies as 'making a fuss' about one's possible sexual orientation?
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-07-2004 01:04
|