Siding with the Nazis
I never thought it would come to this... but for once I'm siding with the Nazis.
I just read an article in The Times (London) about discrimination cases being brought under the Employment Equality (Religion & Belief) Regulations (2003) by the British National Party. Whilst I haven't read the case in its entirety the case as summed up by The Times disturbs me.
A British National Party doctor was turned down for a job at a local GP's office. It was undisputed that the sole reason he was turned down was because the owner of the office found out he was BNP member. The BNP then took the GP to court claiming that the employer was discriminating on the basis of belief. The tribunal found in favour of the GP.
Another case (Walker v TGWU) saw a Trade Union ejecting a member because he was a BNP member validated as legal by the court. This is even though Trade Unions are only allowed to expel members in exceptional circumstances and are not allowed to expel people because of their political beliefs.
Both these cases are clear discrimination cases. They discriminate against Nazis. And whilst this would seem like a good thing, tolerating it is not good at all.
I support the intent of such legislation. It aims to stop private parties from putting pressure on people to change their beliefs and marginalise them. However, in this case marginalisation is quite clearly happening.
Sure the BNP are White Supremacists, but they are also entitled to their opinion. The BNP isn't threatening to overthrow the state. They are a legitimate political party with some idiotic views. Finding that the beliefs of the BNP are not 'beliefs' seems bizarre and contrary to the whole purpose of the act.
Are we seriously saying that an employer should be able to fire a Muslim employee who attends a rally in support of Osama Bin Laden? Would this satisfy the act? Is the Muslim employee's right to political opposition not a 'belief'? And if employers are able to snub this employee at every turn then why isn't that considered a form of private pressure to change one's deeply held beliefs?? And if political beliefs aren't a belief, then why are religious beliefs considered a 'belief'?
Even more bizarre is the ejection of the BNP union member. These 'inclusive' 'working class' unions now don't have to represent working class white people who hate immigrants (who, let's face it are a pretty large percentage of the working class population in England).
In the case of the doctor it is slightly understandable why you might not find in the BNP's favour. A clinic is looking for a doctor who will abide by National Health Service (NHS) policy and treat patients equally. The owner of the GP's office could have had serious and reasonable doubts of a BNP members ability to fulfil such a role. However, the reason the judge gave for the decision was that political affiliations such as the doctor's weren't a 'belief' for the purposes of the act.
You might say that the act should be restricted to protecting religious beliefs. Yet the act also protects philosophical beliefs. Why? It does this because it realises the two are intertwined. If Islam really does call for a holy war against the infidels, and that is my religion, I also hold a political belief as a result of the religion. In order to protect someone from discriminating against me on the basis of my religion an employer must not able to discriminate against me under religious OR political OR philosophical grounds. Except in exceptional circumstances where the two might be incompatible (e.g. if I applied for a job as a security guard at the Israeli embassy).
Now not all persons in all situations should be protected. In some cases, discriminating on the basis of religious belief makes sense. In the case of the union, and even to some extent the GP's office, no such sense can be found. No matter how much you hate the Nazis.
I just read an article in The Times (London) about discrimination cases being brought under the Employment Equality (Religion & Belief) Regulations (2003) by the British National Party. Whilst I haven't read the case in its entirety the case as summed up by The Times disturbs me.
A British National Party doctor was turned down for a job at a local GP's office. It was undisputed that the sole reason he was turned down was because the owner of the office found out he was BNP member. The BNP then took the GP to court claiming that the employer was discriminating on the basis of belief. The tribunal found in favour of the GP.
Another case (Walker v TGWU) saw a Trade Union ejecting a member because he was a BNP member validated as legal by the court. This is even though Trade Unions are only allowed to expel members in exceptional circumstances and are not allowed to expel people because of their political beliefs.
Both these cases are clear discrimination cases. They discriminate against Nazis. And whilst this would seem like a good thing, tolerating it is not good at all.
I support the intent of such legislation. It aims to stop private parties from putting pressure on people to change their beliefs and marginalise them. However, in this case marginalisation is quite clearly happening.
Sure the BNP are White Supremacists, but they are also entitled to their opinion. The BNP isn't threatening to overthrow the state. They are a legitimate political party with some idiotic views. Finding that the beliefs of the BNP are not 'beliefs' seems bizarre and contrary to the whole purpose of the act.
Are we seriously saying that an employer should be able to fire a Muslim employee who attends a rally in support of Osama Bin Laden? Would this satisfy the act? Is the Muslim employee's right to political opposition not a 'belief'? And if employers are able to snub this employee at every turn then why isn't that considered a form of private pressure to change one's deeply held beliefs?? And if political beliefs aren't a belief, then why are religious beliefs considered a 'belief'?
Even more bizarre is the ejection of the BNP union member. These 'inclusive' 'working class' unions now don't have to represent working class white people who hate immigrants (who, let's face it are a pretty large percentage of the working class population in England).
In the case of the doctor it is slightly understandable why you might not find in the BNP's favour. A clinic is looking for a doctor who will abide by National Health Service (NHS) policy and treat patients equally. The owner of the GP's office could have had serious and reasonable doubts of a BNP members ability to fulfil such a role. However, the reason the judge gave for the decision was that political affiliations such as the doctor's weren't a 'belief' for the purposes of the act.
You might say that the act should be restricted to protecting religious beliefs. Yet the act also protects philosophical beliefs. Why? It does this because it realises the two are intertwined. If Islam really does call for a holy war against the infidels, and that is my religion, I also hold a political belief as a result of the religion. In order to protect someone from discriminating against me on the basis of my religion an employer must not able to discriminate against me under religious OR political OR philosophical grounds. Except in exceptional circumstances where the two might be incompatible (e.g. if I applied for a job as a security guard at the Israeli embassy).
Now not all persons in all situations should be protected. In some cases, discriminating on the basis of religious belief makes sense. In the case of the union, and even to some extent the GP's office, no such sense can be found. No matter how much you hate the Nazis.
posted by Dileepa at 8:28 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home