Re: [BDSM-LegalIssues] Re: New book -- good but disturbing
Thank you, Malcolm.
Domina
Malcolm Weir wrote:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cadenas_sd
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 12:29 PM
>
> > --- In BDSM-LegalIssues@
> <mailto:BDSM-
> > <malc@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: cadenas_sd
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2008 10:19 PM
> > >
> > > > What is left is you *defending* these policies. And that may have
> > > > happened in the heat of the discussion.
> > >
> > > I'd point out that NO-ONE, not you, and not Wiseman, has
> > offered much
> > > of an alternative.
> >
> > How about just simply saying "my job is to enforce these
> > policies even though I disagree with them" rather than
> > emphatically stating that she advocates these policies.
>
> The snag is that you, and Wiseman, seem to be operating on the assumption
> that the only scenarios are the extreme ones, and further that the
> firing/not hiring decisions are formulaic -- Wiseman's "get arrested, lose
> your job, someone else gets arrested" all the course of a day or so.
>
> You are not giving the humans in the loop any credit at all, despite what
> Leigha actually wrote, in which she makes it clear that the decisions are
> based on circumstances.
>
> > > > Leigha, can you state unequivocally "I believe it is
> > inappropriate
> > > > for employers to use any arrest for an allegation of a sexual
> > > > offense to make personnel decisions before a trial has been
> > > > completed?"
> > >
> > > Cadenas, can _you_ state unequivocally "I believe that
> > empoyers should
> > > be required to retain an employee charged with the most
> > opprobrius of
> > > crimes for as long as it takes to fully adjudicate such charges no
> > > matter what publicity may occur"?
> >
> > You are building a straw man here. I asked "use any arrest to
> > make a decision". How did you arrive here at "required to
> > retain" is a mystery to me. Nobody asked for that! The point
> > is simply that an arrest is not evidence of wrongdoing and
> > should not be a factor in the decision.
>
> Sorry, but there's no straw man: what I described is the inevitable
> consequence of what you asked for.
>
> You are explicitly asking for the fact of an arrest for (say) paedophile
> assault to be excluded from personnel decisions before the trial is
> completed.
>
> So the big "mystery to you" is blindingly obvious: because you can't use the
> fact of the arrest for personnel decisions until the trial, you can't use
> the fact of the arrest as grounds to fire the individual until the trial is
> complete, and assuming that in all other respects the individual is an
> adequate employee, you are requiring the company to retain the individual.
>
> There's NO quibble room here, Cadenas. You just don't seem to have thought
> through the boundary conditions of what you're asking for.
>
> > > > Can you state unequivocally that you will work towards
> > law changes
> > > > that will outlaw using any arrest record for sexual offenses for
> > > > personnel decisions?
> > >
> > > That's just offensive, Cadenas. Why should _anyone_ agree to "work
> > > towards" anything just because you want them to?
> >
> > How about, because that's why the NCSF exists?
> >
> > From the NCSF Mission statement:
> >
> > >>
> > The National Coalition for Sexual Freedom is a national
> > organization committed to creating a political, legal, and
> > social environment in the United States that advances equal
> > rights of consenting adults who practice forms of alternative
> > sexual expression.
> > <<
>
> Is the word "equal" perhaps confusing you?
>
> I suspect there's an assumption that BDSM practitioners and other sexual
> minorities are somehow significantly more prone to arrest than others. If
> so, I'd _love_ to see some evidence in support of that!
>
> Beyond that, you're making assumptions that "arrest = firing" and "arrest =
> not hiring", for all values of "arrest" in all circumstances and that in no
> scenario could an employee or candidate mitigate the situation by (e.g.)
> attaching a note to form consenting to the investigation that discloses the
> details of the arrest and the disposition, etc.
>
> > > > Can you state unequivocally, regardless of your employer's actual
> > > > policies, that the NCSF, and you personally, believe that
> > the arrest
> > > > records for the following people should not be used for any
> > > > personnel
> > > > decisions:
> > > >
> > > > - The San Diego Six
> > > > - Genarlow Wilson
> > > > - Lawrence and Garner (of Lawrence v Texas)
> > >
> > > If you'd pause your rush to (mis-)judgment, maybe you'd notice that
> > > perhaps hiring (say) one of the SD Six as a child care
> > specialist in a
> > > conservative community may not make good commercial sense,
> > never mind
> > > the social justice issue?
> >
> > Your viewpoint is certainly legitimate, and I don't have a
> > problem with it since you are, as far as I know, not
> > affiliated with the NCSF.
> >
> > But in the case of Leigha, that's exactly the whole point of
> > the matter! The NCSF claims to work towards eliminating
> > exactly that kind of "commercial-
> > At least I thought so until I read her comments here.
>
> Again, ONLY if the cause of the arrest is "alternative sexuality"-related.
> Otherwise, the NCSF mission statement is silent.
>
> Look, Leigha KNOWS the situations and specifics under which people were not
> hired and fired. Obviously, it would be inappropriate for her to detail
> them, but don't you think it might be courteous to, say, ASK how she feels /
> what she'd do if the not-hiring/firing was for a sexuality-related arrest?
>
> We know (I hope) that a number of states have mandatory arrest laws for
> domestic violence calls (if the police show up, someone gets arrested). I
> do rather suspect that an arret of that sort would be considered differently
> than (say) the arrest of Kenneth Leay or Ted Kaczinsky!
>
> > Again, from the NCSF Mission statement:
> >
> > >>
> > The National Coalition for Sexual Freedom is a national
> > organization committed to creating a political, legal, and
> > social environment in the United States that advances equal
> > rights of consenting adults who practice forms of alternative
> > sexual expression.
> > <<
>
> Again, EQUAL RIGHTS does not mean SPECIAL RIGHTS.
>
> Malc.
>
>
Post message: BDSM-LegalIssues@onelist.com
Subscribe: BDSM-LegalIssues-subscribe@onelist.com
Unsubscribe: BDSM-LegalIssues-unsubscribe@onelist.com
List owner: BDSM-LegalIssues-owner@onelist.com
Shortcut URL to this page:
http://www.onelist.com/community/BDSM-LegalIssues
Earn your degree in as few as 2 years - Advance your career with an AS, BS, MS degree - College-Finder.net.
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
posted by Annja Sue at
9:45 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home