Totally Hypothetical (No, really!)

[crazylegs]

I've been mulling this situation over for a while, a random musing if you will to keep my brain occupied, it however will require a little background info for those who aren't fully clued up on British politics.

The British National Party (wiki link here) is a far right lawful political party, with a 'whites only' membership policy. It has extreme views and is considered by many to be overtly racist.

I work in a Policing role, the majority of my work is community reassurance and community engagement.

Here's the situation. (as I said, absolutely and completely hypothetical)

I get called to an offensive poster on my day to day job, upon arrival I find the poster is one that the British National Party (BNP) has posted, the poster is not overtly racist but is morally questionable. The caller wishes for me to remove the poster from it's prominently displayed location where all and sundry can see.

Do I remove it?

Although I find their policies abhorrent they are (unfortunately) a lawful political party, and as an organ of the state I could be seen to be interefering with the democratic process of the country.

I do however have to reassure the community I work within that I take their concerns seriously and I also have to demonstrate (to my Sgt and other management) my commitment to be open to all strands of Race and Diversity (it is the single most important part of all police officers and staff yearly objectives, to demonstrate that they undertake their duties effectivly and dilligently).

I also have to treat all parties equally, would I remove it (the poster) if it were from a more mainstream political party? Probably not, so do I leave it there and lose the confidence of the community (but act impartially) or do I remove it and face the prospect of a political party stating the I (or the job in question) am acting in a political manner?

Answers please.

[lordlundar]

It boils down to the sign itself. Does the sign itself have anything on it that is offensive?

I would say if there is justification of offensiveness on the poster itself, then, regardless of the party stance, can be removed.

[Sylvia727]

Where is this poster? Is it in a location that the caller has jurisdiction over or would appear to have jurisdiction over? For example, a strip mall with a covered walkway, and the poster hanging on the post in front of a store. Even though the store doesn't own the post, it would certainly appear that they had jurisdiction. Anyway, then I would say that your caller could remove the poster himself.

If your caller is just a concerned citizen, I would say to judge the poster strictly on its own merits. Pretend that the poster was hung by the BNP's biggest rival or your own political party. Would you still remove it? I also don't know the obscenity laws of your area, as that would have quite an effect.

[Boozy]

I don't know how hypothetical this is, given that I'm certain there are laws in your area that cover this sort of situation. In Canada, if the poster is on private property, or posted in a place where everyone is allowed to do so with the proper permission stamp (ie certain street corner lamp posts), then the poster stays - unless it violates obscenity or hate speech laws, if applicable.

This isn't really the judgment call of a police officer. I am certain there are laws you'd be required to follow. If one found himself in such a situation and didn't know what to do, I'd call the local Crown attorney's office for guidance.

[Slytovhand]

I agree with LordLundar - if it's not offensive, it stays (though you would need to define 'morally questionable').

And then, reassure the community by pointing out that the poster stays because you are in a democracy that allows freedom of speech and expression - no matter how much you or they disagree with what is being said or expressed. And, therefore, they are just as much at liberty to do a similar poster with opposing viewpoints and putting them in a similar public place.

[Flyndaran]

I agree with LordLundar - if it's not offensive, it stays (though you would need to define 'morally questionable').

And then, reassure the community by pointing out that the poster stays because you are in a democracy that allows freedom of speech and expression - no matter how much you or they disagree with what is being said or expressed. And, therefore, they are just as much at liberty to do a similar poster with opposing viewpoints and putting them in a similar public place.

Even if it were overtly racist?
The question isn't whether there should be limits on freedom of expression. It's a question of where the line should be drawn.
Without seeing the poster in question, I can't say if it oversteps the boundry between extra subtle racism and weasely words where we all know what racism they meant while they play the, "I didn't mean that. You misunderstood me." game oh so common in the U.S. That's my preferred line.

[Slytovhand]

Ah well, Flyn... overtly racist would be offensive! Over here, we have racial vilification laws.

So, at best, it must only be subtley racist.

[Flyndaran]

Ah well, Flyn... overtly racist would be offensive! Over here, we have racial vilification laws.

So, at best, it must only be subtley racist.

Ah, nice. I sometimes wish our, read american's, free speech had that kind of limitation. But sadly we would take it too far, so I must console myself with a half-good. We are a nation of extremes and we should never forget it.