Police Officer convicted of being a member of Neo Nazi group.

[Mr Kobayashi]

As rumour goes

Its a fair point and not one i have a cogent argument against. Are NAMBLA and PIE proscribed organisations? They certainly are not what i would describe as political organisations although i accept they do probably have a fair amount of political lobbying power.

They want, or wanted (PIE is no longer active) to change the law by the removal of the age of consent and change public opinion. Of course they are political. Although they were partially a front to carry out criminal acts such as the distribution of child pornography.

I don't think they are proscribed, but that wasn't the main point I was trying to make. They have views that undermine the whole ethos of childcare and safeguarding.

It's a question of trust isn't it? Somebody with those views presents an obvious risk, the safety of others compels us to not take that risk.

Why should people with those views have access to police databases containing sensitive information?

 

[Rascal]

They want, or wanted (PIE is no longer active) to change the law by the removal of the age of consent and change public opinion. Of course they are political. Although they were partially a front to carry out criminal acts such as the distribution of child pornography.

I don't think they are proscribed, but that wasn't the main point I was trying to make. They have views that undermine the whole ethos of childcare and safeguarding.

It's a question of trust isn't it? Somebody with those views presents an obvious risk, the safety of others compels us to not take that risk.

Why should people with those views have access to police databases containing sensitive information?

Again fair points, there is of course the possibility of Liberal centrists using said police database for nefarious ends, just as there are potentially people from all political persuasions doing the same. So do we deny liberal centrists from being policemen, do we in fact insist all policemen are totally void of political belief. Do we want to be that censorious that we have a body overseeing prospective policemen's thoughts. Then we come back to the question who decides which thoughts are acceptable and which thoughts are not. The societal risk factor is a great point, which is governed by Law and as a democracy we have to accept the will of the majority.

We on the left are often accused of wanting to control people's thought processes and of cancelling those we do not agree with, yet here is a leftie sort of arguing the opposite.

It is a really interesting Philosophical question though and one that I think requires far more thought and intelligence than I personally possess.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Again fair points, there is of course the possibility of Liberal centrists using said police database for nefarious ends, just as there are potentially people from all political persuasions doing the same. So do we deny liberal centrists from being policemen, do we in fact insist all policemen are totally void of political belief. Do we want to be that censorious that we have a body overseeing prospective policemen's thoughts. Then we come back to the question who decides which thoughts are acceptable and which thoughts are not. The societal risk factor is a great point, which is governed by Law and as a democracy we have to accept the will of the majority.

We on the left are often accused of wanting to control people's thought processes and of cancelling those we do not agree with, yet here is a leftie sort of arguing the opposite.

It is a really interesting Philosophical question though and one that I think requires far more thought and intelligence than I personally possess.

We can't go through a process of vetting people's thoughts no, I'm not in favour of creating thought crimes. How could we possibly know unless they have already shared them in the public sphere?

It would require us to run an inquisitorial instution, that's something we should not do.

If the policeman hasn't expressed those views anywhere they can't be used against him. But if he has, he ought to be subject to a full risk assessment. If he can't give a proper explanation and satisfy the interviewer that he no longer has extreme views and understands why they were wrong then he shouldn't be employed.


Why should a proud racist have powers of stop and search?

 

[Summerbuzz]

It is a really interesting Philosophical question though and one that I think requires far more thought and intelligence than I personally possess.

It really isn't. It was done decades ago over and over again. You were taught it, but time moves on, and people forget. Which was part of the argument. People's beliefs drift according to the social environmental cues and how that shapes their self interest.

Look, at heart, extremists nearly all explicitly argue that the law is part of a failed, illegitimate state. That nothing else matters until that state is brought into being. And the law, the institutions, democracy, and everything else, should be undermined, devalued, and used to punish and hurt enemies of the future, ideal state.

Whereas, Liberal thought says the law and powers and institutions and systems exist to protect all citizens.

 

[stonerblue]

Why was he not convicted as a terrorist?