Nine French police injured as student protests intensify (AFP)

[Zrow]

Bob has just come to this country looking for work, he is here perfectly legally and at present is in a one room apartment and is living off teh little money he brough with him. He now needs a job, but he can hardly speak English and his number skills are that of a yr2 pupil.

The only job on offer to him is digging holes. He goes to the 'job interview' and several others in Bob's financial position are also applying, but these guys have yr 4 numeracy skills. Because there are no laws on minimum wage Bob has to try and out bid the other apllicants but he knows that if he goes below £2 an hour, he'll only be able to keep his flat and have lunch and breakfast but no dinner, but sadly he's forced to accept this wage as if he doesn't take this job there's little chance he'll get another. Well, atleast another that doesn't threaten to mutilate or kill him.

How is this not good for Bob? He comes into a new country with no money, skills, or command of the English language and he still is able to get a job over others?

What are you even suggesting here? Don't you realize that, with minimum wage, he wouldn't have even gotten the job with his less competitive skill set?

 

[niky]

Just one word: Some of you guys are obviously middle class white capitalists. ... just kidding... really.

The issue is a serious one for young workers trying to get a leg up. Simply, job security isn't a given for anyone on probationary status, and that's no problem... if the new guy doesn't work out, fire his ass.

But according to this law, you can fire anyone at anytime for no reason at all, as long as they're under 26.

This would presume that people under 26 are obviously incompetent and firing one is a no-brainer?

We've had a lot of problematic employees. We never state a reason for firing them publicly, because it usually hurts their chances at finding employment elsewhere. If it's a major problem, we often give them the chance to tender a "courtesy" resignation, to save face.

But we always have a file on them, enumerating the reasons why they were let go... job performance, personality problems, customer complaints, dishonest or illegal activity. If we're brought to court, out comes the file.

That's why no one goes to court. But if there's a case of discrimination, you can. This law would prevent you from doing that, effectively removing all of the worker's rights merely due to his or her age.

But you can QUIT for no reason. How is that fair in ANY way? I'm still waiting for an answer.

You can quit for no stated reason, but you can't abandon your post all of the sudden. Two weeks' notice, at least, please. For teachers, it's even longer. You have to sign off months ahead so someone else can take your load.

It's fair because the company doesn't own the person. If they're leaving to get a better job, more power to them. If they're leaving for personal reasons, they're only hurting themselves.

And if your company is really dependent on a racist asshole who leaves because he 'don't like workin with no coloreds' (or contrawise, 'I can't stand them whiteys!'), then there's something wrong with your company...

Given the unemployment rates here there and everywhere, how hard would it be to replace the guy, anyway? Don't complain about that to me... I KNOW how hard it is to replace quality people. A lot of them emigrate to your side of the pond for higher wages. In the long run, what's good for business is that you hire people who aren't likely to leave.

If they want to leave, then they aren't good for the company anyway (or won't be when their work productivity drops because they hate the job). And that's. a. fact.

 

[Duke]

But according to this law, you can fire anyone at anytime for no reason at all, as long as they're under 26.

This would presume that people under 26 are obviously incompetent and firing one is a no-brainer?

I'm arguing the opposite side of that coin - I'm saying you should be allowed to fire anyone, at any time, no matter what age they are. There shouldn't be anything magic about being OVER 26, either.

You can quit for no stated reason, but you can't abandon your post all of the sudden. Two weeks' notice, at least, please.

This isn't what I'm talking about - I agree, notice length should be a contract term, and should be equal for both parties.

It's fair because the company doesn't own the person. If they're leaving to get a better job, more power to them. If they're leaving for personal reasons, they're only hurting themselves.

But what the people above are saying is that the employee does own the company - because the person is allowed to quit any time for any reason they desire, but the company can only fire the employee for a defined set of "politically correct" reasons. That's NOT fair.

 

[niky]

The reasons you can fire an employee for, as far as I know, are not based on "politically correct" reasoning, but should at least be legally valid and evenly applied. Job performance is one. If the guy doesn't meet the quota, he's out... period. If it's a subjective measure (and with teachers, complaints and problems against them are always at least partially subjective), then it should be applied evenly. Do the routine end of term evaluation of the employees. If the guy doesn't pass muster, he or she is out.

Obviously, we don't do things like that that quickly. Often, we give them another chance... then another... three strikes and you're out.

If they feel they're being discriminated against because of color or gender, then they'll take you to court. Then you bring out the files that show why you fired their asses. In a just world, case closed. In an unjust world, sometimes, a wrongfully fired person still doesn't get the judgement... and sometimes the corporation gets jacked by the asshole who thinks he can get away with anything.

It's not that hard to get rid of someone who's bad for the company. But if you try to get rid of them for trivial reasons... well... it's silly, why did you hire them in the first place? Equal opportunity means you still have to interview people you don't like if they're qualified, but if they won't fit into your workplace (and they won't if you don't like them...), you don't have to hire them.

And again, the same reason with employees who wish to leave "just because"... if they're that petty, opportunistic or disloyal, who needs them? They're bad for the company.

Hell, it's a great way to deal with unions... let them strike a month or so... they exceed the allowable absences on their contracts, then you hire new guys.

One great trick is to make the workplace or job position uncomfortable enough or difficult enough that the guy will just pack up and leave. I've seen a lot of that in other companies. And it's easier than firing, because by resigning, you rescind all rights to severance pay.

Now who says the employees own the company?

-----

Just re-read the article... apparently this was a measure to encourage businesses to consider hiring the same young people who are rioting on the streets... holy heck. That backfired pretty quickly.

And... this is the interesting part... the only term wherein you can get fired without explanation is the first two years. That's quite a long stretch to be probationary... here, it's legally six months... though some employers still reserve the rights to a one year probation... which can be fought in court... or merely renew the contract every six months instead, keeping the person as a "permanent" probationary/contractual worker (which can also be contested in court, but no one's done it so far).

What's it like in the US, BTW?

One year would be okay, I guess, but two years is pushing it. After two years, you're entitled to some explanation or severance pay.

And, I agree with most of you on the other side of the employer-employee argument, it's an extremely stupid thing to be rioting about.

 

[Dave A]

The three strikes are the law, you can't fire someone for certain things the first time they do them. Legally, unless it's gross misconduct you have to give someone out of any agree'd probationary period, two verbal warnings and a written one before you can legaly fire that person. Like I said, gorss misconduct is dfferent, but even then the employer can't fire somone on suspicion of gross misconduct, they can know the person did it but they still have to legally provide proof. If I hire a group of people and one of them treats my mates like crap out of work, I can't fire that person for it, I think I should have that right. The bottom line is, either the employee's get too many rights or the employer's get too few. It's not fair or equal at the moment.

 

[Sphinx]

How is my employer - coincidentally HM Government - changing an agreed contract without dialogue in any way related to the concept of tendering?

It doesn’t, but by highlighting your concerns when it was your employments rights (topic of discussion) under threat you paint a different picture. Here you imply that you believe that an employer can do as they please, even to the point of pitting any potential employees against each other over salary in order to secure employment. Thank goodness for the minimum wage, it was a long time coming.

Now if my employer replaced me with someone AS qualified as me but for less money the question would be why I'm pricing myself out of the job market with my higher tender... If I can be undercut and the employer sees no drop in quality then my wage demands are too high. As it is, under the Agenda For Change, anyone doing my job with my experience must be paid my salary - but this applies to public sector workers only.

So any UK average worker outside this Agenda for Change has to compete against other potential employees to determine who is prepared to be paid the least to secure employment?
Every employer I have ever worked for has always had a set pay structure in place and therefore I have never had the misfortune to haggle for a job, in fact, I wouldn’t be that desperate or lower myself to do so. Perhaps if I were living in Victorian times or some third world country I may not have that choice.

(and I'm discussing, rather than arguing. "Arguing" has such hostile overtones. I'm really a very friendly bod... )

My ‘arguing’ was used in the best possible taste

 

[Famine]

It doesn’t, but by highlighting your concerns when it was your employments rights (topic of discussion) under threat you paint a different picture. Here you imply that you believe that an employer can do as they please, even to the point of pitting any potential employees against each other over salary in order to secure employment. Thank goodness for the minimum wage, it was a long time coming.

An employer can do as they please, so long as they stick to their end of the agreed contract. This is why we have contracts - a recognised agreement between employer and employee which neither party may break.

But of course not all employment is contracted - such as temporary work. When temping, the employer can do anything they want - as can the employee, though in many cases the employer also has an agreed contract with the temping agency, preventing them from refusing you, or reducing your, salary in most cases.

The minimum wage may seem like a good idea on the face of it, but it's really not as clear cut as it looks, as Zrow points out.

So any UK average worker outside this Agenda for Change has to compete against other potential employees to determine who is prepared to be paid the least to secure employment?
Every employer I have ever worked for has always had a set pay structure in place and therefore I have never had the misfortune to haggle for a job, in fact, I wouldn’t be that desperate or lower myself to do so. Perhaps if I were living in Victorian times or some third world country I may not have that choice.

And that's the employer's choice. They recognise that if they don't pay someone working in "x" position "y" salary, they may lose that employee to another employer who WILL pay that person "y" salary. So they pay "y" salary in order to remain competitive.

My ‘arguing’ was used in the best possible taste

It's all in the best possible taste...

 

[Zrow]

Understand that it would be a competitive market on both ends - not just on the employee's side.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Aaaand..?

Bob places a tender which outcompetes the other applicants. He wins.

Yeah he won, yippee...

But....

if he goes below £2 an hour, he'll only be able to keep his flat and have lunch and breakfast but no dinner

Now because he went so low he is now well below the poverty line. Which, hopefully, would have been averted if there had been a minimum wage.

How is this not good for Bob? He comes into a new country with no money, skills, or command of the English language and he still is able to get a job over others?

Read above. Just because he doesn't speak English doesn't mean he doesn't speak several others. This job is simply a quick fix, but one he desperatly needs.

So many people in this forum have a stigma towards immigrants it's amazing. I won't deny that I have some aswell, but it seems most members in this forum would probably be happy if all international travel was banned.

What are you even suggesting here? Don't you realize that, with minimum wage, he wouldn't have even gotten the job with his less competitive skill set?

Why not? He's apllied for a dead beat job. Skills have nothing to do with it. It's all about how hard you'll work and for how little money.

You can't put a cap on how hard someone works, how long yes, but not how hard. That is why I believe that a minimum wage is essential in order to prevent wage being abused.

 

[Danoff]

You can't put a cap on how hard someone works, how long yes, but not how hard. That is why I believe that a minimum wage is essential in order to prevent wage being abused.

Let's say you need 5 grocery sackers... and let's say grocery sackers are willing to work for $2/hour. Now let's say that you have $10/hour to spend on grocery sackers.

If there is no minimum wage, you hire 5. If they cost $5 minimum/hour you hire 2 and hope you can work their asses off (meaning 3 people don't get jobs because 2 people are over paid).

 

[Zrow]

If I was interviewing applicants to dig holes and a minimum wage was established, I would pick the best possible candidate. Any employer would. If he can't beat his competition through his resume, he's out of luck.

And wait - I have something against immigration? I'm the one who wants the guy to get the job! You're the one arguing for minimum wage, which would only hurt his chances. If immigrants can't outbid their competition and they don't have the qualifications, they're screwed.

And the employers aren't forcing him to work there anyway - if he doesn't like the wages, he could go somewhere else.

I was going to add that it causes unemployment, but Danoff has covered it.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Let's say you need 5 grocery sackers... and let's say grocery sackers are willing to work for $2/hour. Now let's say that you have $10/hour to spend on grocery sackers.

If there is no minimum wage, you hire 5. If they cost $5 minimum/hour you hire 2 and hope you can work their asses off (meaning 3 people don't get jobs because 2 people are over paid).

If it means that 2 people get decent wage then I would go with it.

Yes the other 3 are unemployed, but there's always the prospect of them getting a job. I personally believe that a system where 2 people get immediate work and a good wage is better than 5 people who get immediate work for an inadequate pay.

[edit]

f I was interviewing applicants to dig holes and a minimum wage was established, I would pick the best possible candidate. Any employer would. If he can't beat his competition through his resume, he's out of luck.

Why would you choose someone with skills that aren't applicable? If you do that you're just asking for that person to find a better job, and leave you to start over again. If you choose someone with little chance of a better job you have more chance of retaining them.

 

[Dave A]

You know what, Bob wouldn't have gotten a job unless he was the only person that applied for it. Dead beat or not, do you think the employer will choose someone who doesn't speak good English over someone who does? Regardless of what skills are applicable if you turn up for an interview and the interviewer asks about you what skills you have, if you say none but that doesn't matter for this job, they won't hire you over somone who say's I can do this, this and this. Having skills regardless of how usefull for the job thjey are, shows that your willing to learn and that your competent. Having no skills doesn't tell the employer anythhng. If Bob get's a job for £2 per hour he's not done to bad for himself, we have shelters for people to go where they can get free food if they can't afford their own. What's to stop Bob going there? At £1.80 an hour or whatever, at least he's got a job.

 

[Danoff]

If it means that 2 people get decent wage then I would go with it.

Yes the other 3 are unemployed, but there's always the prospect of them getting a job. I personally believe that a system where 2 people get immediate work and a good wage is better than 5 people who get immediate work for an inadequate pay.

Yea, sorry I don't see that as moral. To force those people out of an agreement with an employer that they were willing to sign up to just so that a few people can be overpaid for their job is wrong. It sacrifices the job quality of the people who do get hired because they have to try to make up for the fact that they're overpaid, it hurts the employer who now can't hire as many people as he needs, and it hurts the folks who have to live in the street because minimum wage took jobs off the market.

You're advocating that we take away the freedom of employers and employees alike for the sake of creating homeless. I see that as lose lose.

 

[Famine]

Now because he went so low he is now well below the poverty line.

He's $2 an hour nearer to it than when he was unemployed...

Let's say you need 5 grocery sackers... and let's say grocery sackers are willing to work for $2/hour. Now let's say that you have $10/hour to spend on grocery sackers.

If there is no minimum wage, you hire 5. If they cost $5 minimum/hour you hire 2 and hope you can work their asses off (meaning 3 people don't get jobs because 2 people are over paid).

If it means that 2 people get decent wage then I would go with it.

Yes the other 3 are unemployed, but there's always the prospect of them getting a job. I personally believe that a system where 2 people get immediate work and a good wage is better than 5 people who get immediate work for an inadequate pay.

But...

The situation would be repeated everywhere else. Everywhere could only hire 2 people instead of 5, so at the next place there's eight people competing for 2 jobs. And at the next place there's eleven. And so on, and so forth.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Yea, sorry I don't see that as moral. To force those people out of an agreement with an employer that they were willing to sign up to just so that a few people can be overpaid for their job is wrong. It sacrifices the job quality of the people who do get hired because they have to try to make up for the fact that they're overpaid, it hurts the employer who now can't hire as many people as he needs, and it hurts the folks who have to live in the street because minimum wage took jobs off the market.

You're advocating that we take away the freedom of employers and employees alike for the sake of creating homeless. I see that as lose lose.

Well I see atleast 2 people living in some comfort better than 5 living in crap, thats a victory IMO.

The situation would be repeated everywhere else. Everywhere could only hire 2 people instead of 5, so at the next place there's eight people competing for 2 jobs. And at the next place there's eleven. And so on, and so forth.

danoff's said that the grocery needed 5 grocery sackers (Stackers?). Now, your point could be countered by the stores that actually needed 5 grocery sackers sacrificing their profit margin and increasing their workforce. Of course not all stores can and will do it, but many are capable.

 

[Danoff]

Well I see atleast 2 people living in some comfort better than 5 living in crap, thats a victory IMO.

Yea, sure. Who cares about fairness or justice. Who cares about morality. At least two people are being overpaid. Sure it means that money was effectively stolen from 3 other homeless people. That doesn't matter, it's ok to steal money from poor people to make yourself more comfortable.

Got it. 👍

danoff's said that the grocery needed 5 grocery sackers (Stackers?). Now, your point could be countered by the stores that actually needed 5 grocery sackers sacrificing their profit margin and increasing their workforce. Of course not all stores can and will do it, but many are capable.

When deciding how many people they want to employ, they decide how much they can afford to spend and then figure out how many people they can afford. Minimum wage impacts how many they can afford, not how much they're willing to spend.

 

[Dave A]

Like I said, we have plenty of provisions for people that genuinely can't afford to live, you can get free food, sheleter ect. It'd be a hell of a lot fairer to have 5 people working on £2 per hour stacking shelves all day, than 2 people doing the same job for over £4 per hour and having 3 people earning nothing.

 

[Carl.]

Ah but you are. When you say that an employer cannot discontinue employment for any reason, you're forcing them to employ someone they wouldn't be.

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying specifically that the reason shouldn't be racial discrimination. I believe though that in reality it's fairly easy for employers to hide this when hiring or firing employees, so unless it's done blatantly, there's practically not much we can do about it.

It is much more obvious when you look at business providing goods or services to the general public, though.

Of course not. That would make racial discrimination illegal altogether, which is not the case (and cannot be). You may not think so, but race is arbitrary. It's like saying you have a right not to suffer discrimination because of your hair color, or because of your eye color, or because of your intelligence, or appearance.

I mean if we couldn't discriminate based on looks, hooters, strip clubs, and victoria's secret would all go out of business. What if a company was not allowed to discriminate based on intelligence?

These kind of discriminations all have a rationale behind them other than "we don't employ people of your race here". That specific discrimination is based on no other reason than racial prejudice, something we've decided is unacceptable.

I'd like you to point out one, just one single useful purpose of allowing racial discrimination, anyways. Please note that I'm referring specifically to racism here, not any other "freedom" or "right".

But let's forget about companies for a second, because your statement isn't limited to hiring practices. You say no-one has a right to suffer discrimination because of their race. But that means that the rest of us don't have a right to discriminate. Kindof invalidates the first ammendment don't you think?

No, I don't think so. Have a look here.

Group Libel, Hate Speech .--In Beauharnais v. Illinois, 104 relying on dicta in past cases, 105 the Court upheld a state group libel law which made it unlawful to defame a race or class of people. The defendant had been convicted under this statute after he had distributed a leaflet, a part of which was in the form of a petition to his city government, taking a hard-line white supremacy position and calling for action to keep African Americans out of white neighborhoods. Justice Frankfurter for the Court sustained the statute along the following reasoning. Libel of an individual, he established, was a common-law crime and was now made criminal by statute in every State in the Union. These laws raise no constitutional difficulty because libel is within that class of speech which is not protected by the First Amendment. If an utterance directed at an individual may be the object of criminal sanctions, no good reason appears to deny a State the power to punish the same utterances when they are directed at a defined group, ''unless we can say that this is a willful and purposeless restriction unrelated to the peace and well-being of the State.'' 106 The Justice then reviewed the history of racial strife in Illinois to conclude that the legislature could reasonably fear substantial evils from unrestrained racial utterances. Neither did the Constitution require the State to accept a defense of truth, inasmuch as historically a defendant had to show not only truth but publication with good motives and for justifiable ends. 107 ''Libelous utterances not being within the area of constitutionally protected speech, it is unnecessary . . . to consider the issues behind the phrase 'clear and present danger.''' 108
Beauharnais has little continuing vitality as precedent. Its holding, premised in part on the categorical exclusion of defamatory statements from First Amendment protection, has been substantially undercut by subsequent developments, not the least of which are the Court's subjection of defamation law to First Amendment challenge and its ringing endorsement of ''uninhibited, robust, and wide-open'' debate on public issues in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. 109 In R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul, the Court, in an opinion by Justice Scalia, explained and qualified the categorical exclusions for defamation, obscenity, and fighting words. These categories of speech are not ''entirely invisible to the Constitution,'' but instead ''can, consistently with the First Amendment, be regulated because of their constitutionally proscribable content.'' 110 Content discrimination unrelated to that ''distinctively proscribable content'' runs afoul of the First Amendment. Therefore, the city's bias-motivated crime ordinance, interpreted as banning the use of fighting words known to offend on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, or gender, but not on such other possible bases as political affiliation, union membership, or homosexuality, was invalidated for its content discrimination. ''The First Amendment does not permit [the city] to impose special prohibitions on those speakers who express views on disfavored subjects.'' 111

The first amendment does have its restrictions when it comes to racial discrimination. I know that this particular case is not against a private entity, but I've never read anywhere that the first amendment has to be applied in different ways to public and private entities.

Edit: Please go to the human rights thread in the opinions forum and prove that human beings have a right not to be discriminated against due to race.

Fine. I'll ask you one thing in that thread before we move further on that topic.

 

[Danoff]

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying specifically that the reason shouldn't be racial discrimination. I believe though that in reality it's fairly easy for employers to hide this when hiring or firing employees, so unless it's done blatantly, there's practically not much we can do about it.

So why are you fighting so hard to make them jump through hoops?

These kind of discriminations all have a rationale behind them other than "we don't employ people of your race here". That specific discrimination is based on no other reason than racial prejudice, something we've decided is unacceptable.

"We", meaning society, don't get to decide that.

I'd like you to point out one, just one single useful purpose of allowing racial discrimination, anyways. Please note that I'm referring specifically to racism here, not any other "freedom" or "right".

I'd like for you to point out to me one single useful purpose of allowing french fries to be legal.

No, I don't think so. Have a look here.

Yes yes, we've already defacted all over the first ammendment. What's a little more right?

The first amendment does have its restrictions when it comes to racial discrimination.

I understand that you think it should. The big question is how you justify that.

 

[Carl.]

So why are you fighting so hard to make them jump through hoops?

The goal isn't trying to make them jump through hoops, but to avoid it. At the very least avoiding blatant cases is a step forward. It's fairly easy to break rules while driving without getting caught. That doesn't invalidate those rules.

"We", meaning society, don't get to decide that.

Why so?

I'd like for you to point out to me one single useful purpose of allowing french fries to be legal.

A purpose? It's tasty. A more relvant question in that case would be: why is it not illegal? Because it doesn't harm anyone.

Now, could you answer mine?

Yes yes, we've already defacted all over the first ammendment. What's a little more right?

Are you saying people should have a right to hate speech? That would be a very popular decision in Rwanda.

I understand that you think it should. The big question is how you justify that.

There has been plenty of evidence why tolerating such behavior is harmful in history. (slippery slopes, where are yoUuu? ) Again, I'd like to see one, just one possible single positive outcome of (specifically) tolerating racial discrimination.

 

[Danoff]

The goal isn't trying to make them jump through hoops, but to avoid it. At the very least avoiding blatant cases is a step forward. It's fairly easy to break rules while driving without getting caught. That doesn't invalidate those rules.

Something has to validate them though.

Why so?

Because we have a constitution and bill of rights.

A purpose? It's tasty. A more relvant question in that case would be: why is it not illegal? Because it doesn't harm anyone.

It harms the person consuming it. As for tasty being a purpose... it allows me to answer your question

Now, could you answer mine?

The purpose is that they enjoy being racist. It shouldn't be illegal because it doesn't harm anyone. But things don't need purpose, or any merit to be legal. They need to violate people's rights to be made illegal.

Are you saying people should have a right to hate speech?

Yes.

There has been plenty of evidence why tolerating such behavior is harmful in history. (slippery slopes, where are yoUuu? ) Again, I'd like to see one, just one possible single positive outcome of (specifically) tolerating racial discrimination.

Freedom.

Because being intolerant has been shown to be harmful in human history (just kidding, I use arguments with a philosophical backing).

Tolerance is what freedom is all about. That means tolerating racists right along with everything else. Without freedom of speech, the dream of a free nation has failed.

 

[FoolKiller]

Are you saying people should have a right to hate speech?

We do. Why do you think the KKK, skinheads, and other racist groups can have marches and rallies and protests and whatnot? That is obviously hate speech but flying a confederate flag, wearing a swastika armband, wearing a white hood, or calling someone the N word is not illegal, at least not in America.

That would be a very popular decision in Rwanda.

I believe you are confusing genocide and hate speech, two very different things. You also can't encourage violence, which is what happened in Rwanda to get things started. Leading a charge to kill someone is also illegal. Calling a certain race a name and accusing him of stealing your job or being sub-human or whatever is not.

I can express my opinion any way I choose as long as I do not violate another person's rights.

 

[Carl.]

Something has to validate them though.

Sure.

Because we have a constitution and bill of rights.

...that has been decide by?

Perhaps you mean that people back in 1787 own the one and only truth, that shall never be changed?

It harms the person consuming it. As for tasty being a purpose... it allows me to answer your question

No, it doesn't. It's quite weird, especially for you, to say so. The person abusing it is the one being harmful, and he's doing it to himself.

The purpose is that they enjoy being racist. It shouldn't be illegal because it doesn't harm anyone.

You really believe that?

But things don't need purpose, or any merit to be legal. They need to violate people's rights to be made illegal.

I'm not saying things should have a merit to be legal, just trying to see why you're fighting so hard to allow them to enjoy being racist. It does violate people rights, if I look at the (now defecated on) constitution.

Yes.

So what happened in Rwanda, for example, was all fine and dandy? (ok, I get you: up until people start slaughtering each other... the radio, being the main media there never had anything to do with it - or the racial segregation going on for decades in the country). There are absolutely no obvious negative consequences to the use of hate speech whatsoever.

Freedom.

Because being intolerant has been shown to be harmful in human history (just kidding, I use arguments with a philosophical backing).

Tolerance is what freedom is all about. That means tolerating racists right along with everything else. Without freedom of speech, the dream of a free nation has failed.

Well, I knew you'd say that. We're in the same boat here. I'll never feel free unless I can use my driving skills to drive at any speed I want, where I want. But since that freedom isn't allowed, I guess I'll never know what a free nation really is.

 

[Famine]

Guess what?

On private property (a private road, airstrip or race track), you can. On public property (the public road) you cannot. Just like on public property (a school) you cannot be racist, but on private property (a strip joint) you... can't either, apparently.

 

[Sphinx]

If a company in the first world can't pay thier workers enough to keep them above the poverty line then perhaps they shouldn't be trading

 

[Sphinx]

An employer can do as they please, so long as they stick to their end of the agreed contract. This is why we have contracts - a recognised agreement between employer and employee which neither party may break.

Well you would think so, but for an employee in this country the contract isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. The employer has every right to alter the contract whenever they please, and it’s up to the employee to accept the changes or leave.

It's all in the best possible taste...

Kenny would be proud of you

 

[FoolKiller]

So what happened in Rwanda, for example, was all fine and dandy? (ok, I get you: up until people start slaughtering each other... the radio, being the main media there never had anything to do with it - or the racial segregation going on for decades in the country). There are absolutely no obvious negative consequences to the use of hate speech whatsoever.

Do you know the difference between speech and actions?

As I said before, calling people names and whatnot is not illegal, trying to get others to attack them and harm them is. It is a huge difference.


And driving whatever speed you want in a school zone is gross negligence and knowing endangering someone's life. That is not the same as calling someone a racial slur by any stretch of the imagination. One can kill someone while the other just hurts their feelings, at the most.

 

[Zrow]

Again, I'd like to see one, just one possible single positive outcome of (specifically) tolerating racial discrimination.

Who friggen' cares about specific positive outcomes? Things aren't made legal for the positives; they're legal by default and then made illegal if it violates another's rights.

Here's a benefit: skinheads enjoy being racist. How's that?

 

[Carl.]

I believe you are confusing genocide and hate speech, two very different things. You also can't encourage violence, which is what happened in Rwanda to get things started. Leading a charge to kill someone is also illegal.

I'm not confusing the two, the omnipresent racial segregation is what led to the genocide, and hate speech has been used as a catalyst. I still can't possibly think of any positive outcome of allowing hate speech and racism, or considering them a requiered freedom. By definition, living in society means giving up on some freedom we'd have in an uncivilized world.

The parallel I made is that while we are free to drive anywhere we want, we don't have the freedom of doing it any way we want, which I assume all of us agree is a necessary thing. These rules solely exist in order to help avoiding serious negative consequences or excessive risks. That doesn't mean these consequences would happen if the rules didn't exists, but overall the benefits gained from these rules outweight the benefits of allowing a complete freedom of action behind the wheel, so we decided a compromise was the best solution.