Does Disagreement Necessitate Discrimination?

wolfsbane · 02-06-2007 4:40pm #1

Ian Paisley, Jnr. has caused some debate up here over his comments on homosexuality:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6705637.stm

I happen to agree with his sentiments, but the real issue is - Can one strongly disagree with another's lifestyle/beliefs without feeling obliged to harm them.

The answer seems obvious to me - Yes. There are certainly some lifestyles that should be restrained by punishment, but many that ought to remain the concern only of the individual maintaining them.

I'm concerned that political correctness is demanding everyone accept the current consensus on acceptable lifestyles/beliefs, and marking out those who do not as troublers of the peace. I think that is a very dangerous way to go.

Any thoughts?

2Scoops · 02-06-2007 4:59pm

He is entitled to his opinion - that's why he hasn't been arrested or incurred any legal penalty.

But it goes deeper than just that - some of the things he said are borne of complete ignorance, and as a politician and public representative it was better left unsaid. Knowing how the prevailing political correctness operates and the belief that 'all men were created equal' compound the stupidity of his comments, whether he believes them or not.

Political correctness gets a bad rap and it's all too easy to say it's gone overboard. Then you can defend even the most ridiculous comments. I happen to think that political correctness is a good thing that should be encouraged. Although, I like to call it by a different name: manners. At the very least, it might help people think before they say something they might regret.

Fallen Seraph · 02-06-2007 5:08pm

I think the thing that most people are afraid of when they are pushing the PC agenda is inability of certain people to distinguish between the right to free speech and dictating how others should live their lives.

wolfsbane · 02-06-2007 5:20pm

2Scoops said:

He is entitled to his opinion - that why he hasn't been arrested or incurred any legal penalty.

Some people want him to apologise or else be removed from his job. In Britain, pensioners who objected to their local council funding gay rights groups were visited by the police, as was a member of Parliament.

But it goes deeper than just that - some of the things he said are borne of complete ignorance, and as a politician and public representative it was better left unsaid.

What exactly? I thought he was expressing how he felt about same sex relationships.

Best left unsaid? Should a politician say only what the majority of his constituents agree with? Or, as here, should he not say what some of them disagree with? Seems to me honesty is to be welcomed, no matter who likes it.

Knowing how the prevailing political correctness operates and the belief that 'all men were created equal' compound the stupidity of his comments, whether he believes them or not.

Hmm, so you think it best we keep our opinions to ourselves, unless they agree with the current consensus?

Political correctness gets a bad rap and it's all too easy to say it's gone overboard. Then you can defend even the most ridiculous comments.

I would defend the right of any to express their beliefs, no matter how weird. The place to draw the line would be at incitement to harm, or obscenity.

I happen to think that political correctness is a good thing that should be encouraged. Although, I like to call it by a different name: manners. At the very least, it might help people think before they something they might regret.

I'm all for manners. And its wise to know that if you continually fart at the dinner table you will be unlikely to get invited out often. But thinking drunkenness is a sin, or that religion is for weaklings, whilst offensive to drunkards and believers, should not be the occasion of losing one's job.

wolfsbane · 02-06-2007 5:32pm

Fallen Seraph said:

I think the thing that most people are afraid of when they are pushing the PC agenda is inability of certain people to distinguish between the right to free speech and dictating how others should live their lives.

I can sympathise with the fear of coercion, which is the only form of dictation that counts. I don't fear anyone saying my lifestyle makes them feel queasy. That's their problem. But the dictation that currently threatens is where I must not only tolerate lifestyles I disagree with, but must also not say I disagree with them!

2Scoops · 02-06-2007 6:42pm

wolfsbane wrote:

2Scoops said:

Some people want him to apologise or else be removed from his job. In Britain, pensioners who objected to their local council funding gay rights groups were visited by the police, as was a member of Parliament.

He is a democratically elected representative and cannot lose his job. They are 'calling for his resignation,' which is different. Should he apologize anyway? I think he probably should for the offense he has caused. Furthermore, from a purely pragmatic standpoint, it would make his life a whole lot easier and help this pointless dispute resolve more quickly.

What exactly? I thought he was expressing how he felt about same sex relationships.

He also mentioned that gay people harm society and are contributing to the decline in moral standards in NI society. Is there any objective evidence that that is the case, or is it just an ignorant opinion? He also mentioned that gay people should simply 'free themselves' of being gay - which is about as likely as he himself freeing himself from being straight.

Did you actually read his full interview or are you just giving a knee-jerk reaction to perceived political correctness gone mad?

Best left unsaid? Should a politician say only what the majority of his constituents agree with? Or, as here, should he not say what some of them disagree with? Seems to me honesty is to be welcomed, no matter who likes it.
...
Hmm, so you think it best we keep our opinions to ourselves, unless they agree with the current consensus?

On the contrary, I support free speech even in its ugliest forms. Honesty is to be welcomed when it has a constructive agenda. What is to be gained from spreading these ignorant opinions? Nothing. His conviction that they are true has no bearing on the truth. Although he believes what he says, they are uninformed opinions. It, in no way, helps society to articulate these comments - it will only cause offense and resentment. It's not illegal, just a stupid waste of time and energy. Consequently, it will have no legal implications, only personal ones. He must have known the consequences beforehand so it would have been in his best interests not to share these private opinions.

What I'm trying to say is, I don't mind if he says these things but he insists on voicing unpopular opinions, he has to expect a backlash, as long as it is legal.

As a public representative it is his job to voice the opinions of his electorate. If they agree with him, fine, he shouldn't have any problems. If they don't, they are entitled to the opportunity to not elect him next time, or call for his resignation if they feel that strongly about it.

These views may also affect his decisions during the governance of the state. I'm not saying it definitely will, just that it's more likely than not. So, for a politician to hold, and voice, these views is more noteworthy than, say, a cab driver whose ability to drive shouldn't be affected by his personal opinions. If people now find that he no longer represents their views, they are entitled to do something about it.

I would defend the right of any to express their beliefs, no matter how weird. The place to draw the line would be at incitement to harm, or obscenity.

A ridiculous double standard on your part. You either support free speech or you don't. I think the difference between you and I on this matter is further complicated by the fact that I do not see political correctness as conflicting with free speech - rather, it's a moderating influence that will help us be more judicious with that freedom.

I'm all for manners. And its wise to know that if you continually fart at the dinner table you will be unlikely to get invited out often. But thinking drunkenness is a sin, or that religion is for weaklings, whilst offensive to drunkards and believers, should not be the occasion of losing one's job.

The likelihood of losing his job is remote. He cannot be legally forced out by gay interest groups. His party will not force him out just to avoid some bad publicity. At worst it will be up to the electorate and that is democracy.

This "OMG! political correctness gone mad is going to make him lose his job!!!" is just mindless hysteria.

wolfsbane · 03-06-2007 1:56pm

2Scoops said:

He is a democratically elected representative and cannot lose his job. They are 'calling for his resignation,' which is different.

The suggestion is not just that he should volunteer his resignation, but that he should be put out as being in breech of his office.

But anyway, I'm sorry to have to bow out here, for I hoped to develop the issue. Something has come up that means I won't be posting for a while. Thank you all for your thoughtful input.

Michael G · 04-06-2007 10:53pm

The references to the office Paisley holds are a red herring. It is now unacceptable for anyone to say anything critical of any kind of homosexual activity whatsoever.

Fallen Seraph · 05-06-2007 3:19pm

Michael G wrote:

The references to the office Paisley holds are a red herring. It is now unacceptable for anyone to say anything critical of any kind of homosexual activity whatsoever.

No, they aren't. He is the junior equality minister. Not the minister for agriculture. In this case his personal beliefs are likely to interfere with the day to day running of his job.

I agree that the idea of a gay-pride march isn't necessarily the best idea (in northern ireland of all places), but how can the gay community trust him to arbiter fairly over any issue regarding such a march? They can't. Therefore his position is severely compromised.

BrianCalgary · 05-06-2007 3:30pm

Fallen Seraph wrote:

No, they aren't. He is the junior equality minister. Not the minister for agriculture. In this case his personal beliefs are likely to interfere with the day to day running of his job.

I agree that the idea of a gay-pride march isn't necessarily the best idea (in northern ireland of all places), but how can the gay community trust him to arbiter fairly over any issue regarding such a march? They can't. Therefore his position is severely compromised.

Well Seraph let me try and understand you.

You are for free speech for anyone, unless you are an elected official.

You are also fro free sepeech unless it disiagrees or possibly hurts the feelings of an identifiable group?

Explain?

Also this phrase is confusing:
In this case his personal beliefs are likely to interfere with the day to day running of his job.

Don't you see that EVERY elected official, Every person brings their personal beliefs and point of view to the table in any job or relationship?

You sound like you believe that it is only Christians that do it, and you don't want them to.

Can you clarify your position here as well?

Zombrex · 05-06-2007 3:41pm

wolfsbane wrote:

I'm concerned that political correctness is demanding everyone accept the current consensus on acceptable lifestyles/beliefs, and marking out those who do not as troublers of the peace. I think that is a very dangerous way to go.

Isn't that not rather ironic considering what you were saying in the first place about how people should be allowed express opinions?

What is the difference between Paisley saying gay people harm society (which you think he should be allowed do) and people saying that people like Paisley who make these comments harm society (which you think is the PC police gone mad or something)?

If Paisley should be allowed say something stupid should people not equally be allowed say "That was stupid"?

Sapien · 05-06-2007 3:50pm

Wolfsbane - do you believe that there are any opinions the expression of which would constitute sufficient cause to sack a person from a position like Paisley's?

Should elected officials be allowed to say anything they like without any fear of reprecussions?

Zombrex · 05-06-2007 3:54pm

BrianCalgary wrote:

You are for free speech for anyone, unless you are an elected official.

Since when did freedom of speech mean that a person is entitled to hold a public position that they have strong personal conflict with?

Paisley is a junior minister for equality. Homosexuals have long had problems with equal rights and equality and. Paisley thinks homosexuality is "wrong" and is repulsed by it.

Do you think therefore that Paisley is the best person for the job?

Fallen Seraph · 05-06-2007 4:07pm

Well Seraph let me try and understand you.

You are for free speech for anyone, unless you are an elected official.

You are also fro free sepeech unless it disiagrees or possibly hurts the feelings of an identifiable group?

Explain?

I didn't quite say that, I may not have phrased it clearly, but I intended to say something to the effect that his comments would not warrant the loss of his job were he the minister for agriculture. I'm all for free speech, and I don't believe I've suggested anywhere that anyone's emotions should come into play.

Also this phrase is confusing:
In this case his personal beliefs are likely to interfere with the day to day running of his job.

Don't you see that EVERY elected official, Every person brings their personal beliefs and point of view to the table in any job or relationship?

You sound like you believe that it is only Christians that do it, and you don't want them to.

Can you clarify your position here as well?

The only thing that I've said regarding Christians was in my original post in this topic, and I've made no implication that I think they're the only ones who do it.

Of course everyone brings their beliefs to any job, but when your beliefs are in confict with the aims of the job with which you are employed to do, then, in my opinion, there is a problem.

Again I must apologise for not being legally concise in my post, I understand why you think I'm arguing this; but my main objection was in fact slightly different:

If a gay-rights/gay-pride organisation bring an issue affecting them to him, and he comes to the conclusion that they are, in fact, making a mountain out of a molehill this conclusion is automatically suspect; regardless of whether he kept his personal opinion out of the decision making process. Is not the ability for a governed people to trust those who govern them absolutely necessary?

Scofflaw · 05-06-2007 5:10pm

Fallen Seraph wrote:

I didn't quite say that, I may not have phrased it clearly, but I intended to say something to the effect that his comments would not warrant the loss of his job were he the minister for agriculture. I'm all for free speech, and I don't believe I've suggested anywhere that anyone's emotions should come into play.

I'm with Seraph on this one. It would merely be bad manners for him to make his statements if he were Junior Minister for Agriculture, but they are evidence of incompetence for the position of Junior Minister for Equality. Society has determined that homosexuals are not to be treated differently from any other group in society, and part of the job of Junior Minister for Equality is to ensure that this is so. Can one do such a job while holding prejudices against homosexuals that you consider important enough to air publicly, knowing full well the likely reaction? Could I be Archbishop of Canterbury as an atheist? Yes, but only if I no-one knew I was an atheist.

If he were Junior Minister for Agriculture, and said that farmers harmed society and that they were contributing to a decline in morals in NI, how long would he last? Would farmers' groups calling for his resignation be 'political correctness'?

cordially,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary · 05-06-2007 7:58pm

Seraph: Thanks for the explanation, now I understand where you are coming from.

Michael G · 11-06-2007 6:16pm

Scofflaw wrote:

It would merely be bad manners for him to make his statements if he were Junior Minister for Agriculture, but they are evidence of incompetence for the position of Junior Minister for Equality.

Did Paisley say anywhere that he believed that homosexuals should not get equal treatment under the law? If so, I didn't see it. That, in my view, would clearly disqualify him from his position. But if he is prepared to do his job, even when he might sometimes have to do something that he considers uncongenial, where's the problem? I'm not an elected office-holder but I am a reasonably senior public servant. I often have to defend interests or points of view that I don't agree with. It's part of my job. If I were asked to do something that I believed was morally wrong, like facilitating abortion or judicial execution, then I would ask to be relieved of the decision; but I don't think Paisley was saying that he would have that problem with defending homosexuals' rights under the law.

Scofflaw · 11-06-2007 7:19pm

Michael G wrote:

Did Paisley say anywhere that he believed that homosexuals should not get equal treatment under the law? If so, I didn't see it. That, in my view, would clearly disqualify him from his position. But if he is prepared to do his job, even when he might sometimes have to do something that he considers uncongenial, where's the problem? I'm not an elected office-holder but I am a reasonably senior public servant. I often have to defend interests or points of view that I don't agree with. It's part of my job. If I were asked to do something that I believed was morally wrong, like facilitating abortion or judicial execution, then I would ask to be relieved of the decision; but I don't think Paisley was saying that he would have that problem with defending homosexuals' rights under the law.

Have you ever chosen to make a public statement saying that you disagree with something you have to defend in the course of your job?

Would you expect to keep your job if you did?

cordially,
Scofflaw

bonkey · 11-06-2007 7:36pm

Michael G wrote:

If I were asked to do something that I believed was morally wrong, like facilitating abortion or judicial execution, then I would ask to be relieved of the decision; but I don't think Paisley was saying that he would have that problem with defending homosexuals' rights under the law.

Its interesting you put it like that.

Paisley is saying that he believes its morally wrong. He also believes gays are harming society (and not just themselves).

Unlike you, he's not interested in being relieved from his position, but rather suggesting that he has no problem whatsoever defending what he feels is morally wrong.

Michael G · 11-06-2007 10:54pm

Scofflaw wrote:

Have you ever chosen to make a public statement saying that you disagree with something you have to defend in the course of your job?

Would you expect to keep your job if you did?

cordially,
Scofflaw

As a public servant I can't make public statements, but if I had an objection in conscience to something I was asked to do then certainly I would expect to keep my job. Officials in the Department of Health have been allowed to step back from working on things they had a moral problem with.

The last King of Belgium abdicated temporarily, because he could not in conscience approve an Act of his Parliament permitting abortion.

Why should Paisley, who is clearly a very able man with his electors' support, stand back from Government because he finds one small part of his job unpleasant (and not even something that he has to deal with immediately; just something that might, if the news media decided to give it enough attention in a quiet week, get a little bit of attention).

If the Moderators hadn't given me an ASBO already, I would be tempted to use a rude word.

Michael G · 11-06-2007 10:57pm

bonkey wrote:

Paisley is saying that he believes its morally wrong. He also believes gays are harming society (and not just themselves).

Yes but where does he say the state must stop them?

Scofflaw · 11-06-2007 11:02pm

Michael G wrote:

As a public servant I can't make public statements, but if I had an objection in conscience to something I was asked to do then certainly I would expect to keep my job. Officials in the Department of Health have been allowed to step back from working on things they had a moral problem with.

Indeed - and there you and Paisley have already parted company. He has made a public statement, and has not suggested he will step back from working on homosexuality.

He is supposed to be Junior Minister for equality, and already he has contributed to inequality, by publicly saying that he considers homosexuality immoral and a danger to society - that's incompetence in my book, even if it isn't in yours.

Michael G wrote:

Why should Paisley, who is clearly a very able man with his electors' support, stand back from Government because he finds one small part of his job unpleasant (and not even something that he has to deal with immediately; just something that might, if the news media decided to give it enough attention in a quiet week, get a little bit of attention).

Because he need not be in that job. He could be shuffled into something else. I'm not calling for his resignation from anything but the job of Junior Minister for Equality, for which he is rather clearly unfitted.

Michael G wrote:

If the Moderators hadn't given me an ASBO already, I would be tempted to use a rude word.

And I'm sure if you did, I would find myself utterly devastated.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw · 11-06-2007 11:06pm

Michael G wrote:

bonkey wrote:

Paisley is saying that he believes its morally wrong. He also believes gays are harming society (and not just themselves).

Yes but where does he say the state must stop them?

Isn't it rather the duty of a Minister of State to stop things that harm society?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Michael G · 11-06-2007 11:18pm

Scofflaw wrote:

Isn't it rather the duty of a Minister of State to stop things that harm society?

No, unless his or her parliament has given the Minister the power to stop it. Otherwise the parliament must decide. Paisley may and must do only what the Parliament in Westminster or the Assembly in Stormont have written into his powers as a minister.

By the way, in Ireland, Northern Ireland or England junior ministers have no power at all. They sweep up after real ministers, and do the boring jobs that won't get any media coverage unless they say something exciting — which seems to bring us all back to where we started this thread.

2Scoops · 12-06-2007 1:03am

Please feel free to continue the righteous indignation, political-correctness-gone-mad claptrap after Paisley Jnr. is sacked or somehow punished. As of now, you don't have much to be upset about really.

2Scoops wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
2Scoops said:

Some people want him to apologise or else be removed from his job. In Britain, pensioners who objected to their local council funding gay rights groups were visited by the police, as was a member of Parliament.

He is a democratically elected representative and cannot lose his job. They are 'calling for his resignation,' which is different. Should he apologize anyway? I think he probably should for the offense he has caused. Furthermore, from a purely pragmatic standpoint, it would make his life a whole lot easier and help this pointless dispute resolve more quickly.

Quote:
What exactly? I thought he was expressing how he felt about same sex relationships.

He also mentioned that gay people harm society and are contributing to the decline in moral standards in NI society. Is there any objective evidence that that is the case, or is it just an ignorant opinion? He also mentioned that gay people should simply 'free themselves' of being gay - which is about as likely as he himself freeing himself from being straight.

Did you actually read his full interview or are you just giving a knee-jerk reaction to perceived political correctness gone mad?

Quote:
Best left unsaid? Should a politician say only what the majority of his constituents agree with? Or, as here, should he not say what some of them disagree with? Seems to me honesty is to be welcomed, no matter who likes it.
...
Hmm, so you think it best we keep our opinions to ourselves, unless they agree with the current consensus?

On the contrary, I support free speech even in its ugliest forms. Honesty is to be welcomed when it has a constructive agenda. What is to be gained from spreading these ignorant opinions? Nothing. His conviction that they are true has no bearing on the truth. Although he believes what he says, they are uninformed opinions. It, in no way, helps society to articulate these comments - it will only cause offense and resentment. It's not illegal, just a stupid waste of time and energy. Consequently, it will have no legal implications, only personal ones. He must have known the consequences beforehand so it would have been in his best interests not to share these private opinions.

What I'm trying to say is, I don't mind if he says these things but he insists on voicing unpopular opinions, he has to expect a backlash, as long as it is legal.

As a public representative it is his job to voice the opinions of his electorate. If they agree with him, fine, he shouldn't have any problems. If they don't, they are entitled to the opportunity to not elect him next time, or call for his resignation if they feel that strongly about it.

These views may also affect his decisions during the governance of the state. I'm not saying it definitely will, just that it's more likely than not. So, for a politician to hold, and voice, these views is more noteworthy than, say, a cab driver whose ability to drive shouldn't be affected by his personal opinions. If people now find that he no longer represents their views, they are entitled to do something about it.

Quote:
I would defend the right of any to express their beliefs, no matter how weird. The place to draw the line would be at incitement to harm, or obscenity.

A ridiculous double standard on your part. You either support free speech or you don't. I think the difference between you and I on this matter is further complicated by the fact that I do not see political correctness as conflicting with free speech - rather, it's a moderating influence that will help us be more judicious with that freedom.

Quote:
I'm all for manners. And its wise to know that if you continually fart at the dinner table you will be unlikely to get invited out often. But thinking drunkenness is a sin, or that religion is for weaklings, whilst offensive to drunkards and believers, should not be the occasion of losing one's job.

The likelihood of losing his job is remote. He cannot be legally forced out by gay interest groups. His party will not force him out just to avoid some bad publicity. At worst it will be up to the electorate and that is democracy.

This "OMG! political correctness gone mad is going to make him lose his job!!!" is just mindless hysteria.

Scofflaw · 12-06-2007 2:46am

Michael G wrote:

No, unless his or her parliament has given the Minister the power to stop it. Otherwise the parliament must decide. Paisley may and must do only what the Parliament in Westminster or the Assembly in Stormont have written into his powers as a minister.

Yes, indeed, such as promoting equality, rather than publicly running down one or other section of society.

cordially,
Scofflaw

2Scoops · 24-02-2008 12:22pm

2Scoops wrote: »

Please feel free to continue the righteous indignation, political-correctness-gone-mad claptrap after Paisley Jnr. is sacked or somehow punished. As of now, you don't have much to be upset about really.

Sorry to drag up an old thread, but this exchange came back to my mind this week following Paisley junior's resignation over questionable financial issues.

wolfsbane · 09-03-2008 5:39pm

2Scoops wrote: »

Sorry to drag up an old thread, but this exchange came back to my mind this week following Paisley junior's resignation over questionable financial issues.

Was he grooming himself for high office in FF, or what?

:D:D

Seriously, the rose-tinted specs have come off quite a few DUP idealists this past year. They expected righteous behaviour from their chosen politicians, and they got the same old political trickery.

I pray this will lead them to re-examine all the politics they have swallowed over the past 50 years.

Does Disagreement Necessitate Discrimination?

Comments