I must admit I'm struggling to see the problem. If someone is hostile or prejudiced against people of a certain race, sexual orientation or disability then they should be excluded from jobs working with those people.
No, you see I can be hateful and not suffer consequences or else 1984. Also I should be allowed to vote and promote ideas that will actively harm people, gleefully admit it, and celebrating their suffering but it is not ok to stop me. As the famous poem goes first they came for the neo nazis and i did nothing, then they came from the online racists and i did nothing and now they are coming for me the lowly bigot and there is no one left to defend me.
Or something like that, I barely read anything that isnt a tweet length and preferably full of slurs.
(Trying to write a modern "modest proposal" is hard when reality is so blatantly stupid)
The problem here is that I could go to the police, report Tony Edgecombe as he told me at the coffee machine that devs who use 4 spaces instead of tabs are pure human scum who should be deported, and it will be written in your file. You then have no way to erase it.
The problem with thinking that such practice is totally ok, is that one day it will turn against you. Pro-Palestine liberals discovered this at their expense after the Trump election and the recent crackdown on their movement.
>The problem here is that I could go to the police, report Tony Edgecombe as he told me at the coffee machine that devs who use 4 spaces instead of tabs are pure human scum who should be deported, and it will be written in your file. You then have no way to erase it.
The police would laugh at you before they sent you on your way.
Dig a little deeper on any of the examples you see posted here and you will find people inciting violence or racial hatred. We have had laws against this stuff for fifty years.
>Pro-Palestine liberals discovered this at their expense after the Trump election and the recent crackdown on their movement.
Yes, it was a joke. That said, you don't get the point - it's arbitrary and there is no way to prove that it's true. Yet, it will still be recorded. And yeah, saying once something wrong shouldn't follow you all your life. This is classic legal harassment and intimidation, similar to what was practiced in the USSR against ethnic minorities.
Regarding pro-Palestine protests, it was an example about how being fine with freedom of speech restrictions can come back and bite you in the ass. It always does.
Well:
- Criticizing a Islam and muslims is considered a NCHI. It's already amazing that criticizing religion is forbidden in democracy. And it's kinda funny given that said religion contains a lot non-avoidable rules that would make any liberal blush very hard (38). Saying "muslims should be stopped, by force if necessary, from practicing genital mutilation on young boys" leads to an NCHI.
- NCHI can be without victim! Just like blasphemy, in the old times (38).
- "Freedom of speech" reserves are vague, and unlike other cases, do not include examples.
- Not using the right invented pronouns can lead to the record of a NCHI (42).
- It doesn't have to be a recurrence, a single occurrence is enough (14).
- It is evaluated on the basis of if it "disturbs someone" (14), which is totally subjective and as such can lead to unfair consideration.
- It can be reported by someone who isn't the victim, but who witnessed it. Hearsay is mentioned as being ok (15, example G, J).
- "Antagonism" is enough to record a NCHI (15). Amazing, really.
- They admit that all of this bullshit is highly subjective, so Police "should use judgement". I really wonder how an Indian police officer will "use judgement" when evaluating an affair involving Pakistanis, for instance. This opens the doors of so many arbitrary procedures.
- If an offense can't be a crime, a NCHI can still be reported! (J)
- Overall, nothing requires the police officers to confirm that what is being recorded really happened.
Living in an ex-soviet country, this is typical of the stories you can hear about how the KGB operated in the population.
And regarding the famous "UK policing". They sent a man to prison for 20 months because he...shouted at a dog. Even a Russian prosecutor would be embarrassed to read such a ridiculous affair. I have a hard time understanding how the UK isn't considered as an authoritarian regime.
>And regarding the famous "UK policing". They sent a man to prison for 20 months because he...shouted at a dog. Even a Russian prosecutor would be embarrassed to read such a ridiculous affair. I have a hard time understanding how the UK isn't considered as an authoritarian regime.
Every time I read a link from you people it involves some racist thug either engaging in violence or encouraging someone else to do so. I remain unconvinced by your arguments.
>They sent a man to prison for 20 months because he...shouted at a dog.
The police don't send people to prison, the CPS and courts do that.
