How much should society change to accommodate the self-proclaimed sensibilities of so

Great Debates
1

I read this article the other day and initially thought “Why not? If the person is offended then perhaps something should be done about it.”

Then I thought, WTF, if the person concerned is so offended, then he (I assume he, I doubt as fanatical a Muslim woman would even be let out of the house) shouldn’t even have been a traffic warden. Basically, he is bloody minded little tosser, deliberately seeking confrontation and offence. The badge was on the uniform the day he put it on. If he didn’t like it then, then he shouldn’t have joined. No doubt he’ll be claiming constructive dismissal next because the Met didn’t change the badge soon enough.

Instead of changing the badge, the response should be to explain that the badge is the badge of the Metropolitan Police. The force has officers of many different beliefs – Sikhs, Jews, Christians, Muslims, atheists – and nobody else has complained. If he doesn’t like it, then tough shit, go find a job where your pathetic view will be listened to.

So the topic of debate is: How much should society change to accommodate the self-proclaimed sensibilities of some section of society?

2

Well, as Eric Hoffer pointed out, what some minorities really want is the power to persecute the majority.

3

In this case I could see a potential problem with people not believing this man is an actual cop. Isn’t the point of the whole badge thing that it is recognizable to people?

As to the OP: I think minority viewpoints should be tolerated and encouraged. Dissent is an important part of any active society, and often today’s dissenters may be tomorrow’s norm. At the same time, rules of general aplicability should continue to be enforced even if some minority groups object. Beliefs are one thing, actions are another.

4

Minor point, he is a traffic warden, not a police officer. In London, some traffic wardens are employed directly by the Met and wear uniforms. But Rhum Rinner’s same logic applies.

Minority viewpoints and tolernace are one thing, but here we have an individual being intolerant and is trying to impose his view on the majority (pace LonesomePolecat’s point. His behaviour suggests that he is not the type of person to deal with strangers in a tense, law enforcement situation.

And on a more trivial note - would he have difficulty issuing a ticket to a car parked outside a church? Churches have lots of crosses over them. Or a synagogue? Would he have difficulty trying to cross the road? Or dealing with a cross motorist? Does he want the word “cross” banned from the English language?

All pathetic examples but no worse than the original objection.

5

This doesn’t seem to be “society” accomodating anything, it seems to be the Metropolitan police force adapting to societal changes that have already occurred.

I’ll agree with “pathetic examples”. Can you see that a Muslim might not want to be required to display a Christian symbol, but would have no problem dealing with actual Christians/Christianity?

6

The badge is a symbol, based on the King Edward VII (I think) state crown. On top of the crown is a cross. In the context of a badge signifying derived authority from the Crown (i.e. the Queen, from whom all authority, temporal and spiritual, in the UK is ultimately derived), there is little or no religious significance in the cross. Not wishing to wear the badge could be regarded as showing disrespect for Crown and the Metropolitan Police. Minorities are expected to show respect as well as have respect shown to them; it’s not a one way street as too many seem to think.

Unfortunately for the Met, it is unable to act rationally in the context of a potential racial issue (I assume the Muslim concerned is of Pakistani origin or other non-white). The Macpherson report into the murder of Steven Lawrence branded the Met as institutionally racist; meaning that the Met’s culture, its operating procedures, its attitudes and by implication its officers, have racism ingrained into them, and, even more alarmingly, the Met is supposed to be unaware of this.

In the light of such an all encompassing and damning indictment, the Met cannot act in what, IMHO, is a rational manner. That is, to tell the traffic warden – You saw the badge when you joined. No other non-Christian is bothered by it. If you don’t like it then goodbye.

Incidentally, “goodbye” is a Christian prayer, “God be with ye”. I wonder if the traffic warden objects to that?

7

So you can see why sensitivity to this issue might not be an irrational act?

8

Xenophon, I can see your point. And it is probably the same case the Met would argue. My point is that they are over-reacting. The Macpherson report was so overwhelmingly damning of the police that it made them unable to think rationally on any issue even remotely connected to race. So the Met’s reaction is logical from a narrow, single issue (we must not appear racist) point of view rather than a wider position (why is this twit stirring up trouble?).

9

Go alien: I understand your objection, and agree that the badge is a representation of the Crown, and is therefore not a religious emblem, so the traffic warden’s objection is rather fine. However, I don’t agree that the wider position to be considered by the Met is the trouble-stirring complainant and his motivations. Rather, I think the trouble that has already been stirred within the community served by the Met is of preeminent importance to them, and their reaction must take into account the misperceptions and fears within the community as well as the more dispassionate analyses.

(Have British media covered any of the race issues faced by the Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Atlanta or Cleveland police departments, and their various political responses? Similar situations over the years, with disparate police reactions; quite useful for comparison.)

10

Xenophon, there’s been very little coverage of the police departments’ race issues you’ve noted. I know nothing about them and cannot comment.

I have been careless in over emphasising the “one individual is stirring up trouble” point. I think the real issue is the hyper-sensitivity and blinkered response to any potential race issue - the Met doesn’t treat the case on its merits but from an assumed “we are racist and must strive for redemption” basis.

If an atheist had objected to the cross, it would have, quite rightly, been laughed out of court. Because the individual is a Muslim and (as I have speculated) possibly not white, the reaction is to give in immediately.

11

I don’t think it’s correct to say that the cross on the crown has no religious signficance. It signifies that the monarch’s power comes from God. In fact the Brisish crown jewels, and the coronation ceremony, are replete with explicit religious symbolism and ritual.

The Christian religion is, of course, an integral part of the British constitution, and someone who is not prepared to uphold that constitution should think twice about becoming a police officer, or even a traffic warden. At the same time it is fair to ask whether the police force needs to adopt symbols which include explicit Christian elements if this is going to cause a difficulty for non-Christian members. All the institutions of the state, but particularly the police force, should strive to be inclusive, and if the badge works against that then it is in the interests of the police force, and of society as a whole, to change the badge. Otherwise the British are effectively adopting a rule which says that those who have a sincere conscientious objection to wearing Christian symbols are not welcome as members of the police force.

12

Exactly. A pragmatic response, and necessary realpolitik, considering the background. The traditionalists within Britain’s police services may very well be in the right. But IMO being “right” is far less important to a police force than being effective, which arguably requires the widest possible community support. It seems to me the Met leadership is recognizing a need for extraordinary measures to regain lost support.

13

Dammit, Xenophon, you’re slowly persuading me to your point of view against my prejudices.

14

I knew there was something about you I liked, Go alien. :wink:

15

Thanks, Xenophon, but I still have reservations. Although you have persuaded me of the Met’s reasoning, it is the thin end of a very dangerous wedge. Once a case is not decided on its merits but on meeting some short-term political agenda, the way is opened for all sorts of ludicrous claims. For example, what happens if a Muslim objects to the smell of frying bacon in the canteen? Does the canteen stop cooking bacon. What happens if a Hindu objects to leather hand-cuff holders? Does the Met change its supplier of hand-cuffs to accommodate him?

The examples are trivial, but I think you get my drift. There is a real danger that the failure to treat cases on merit instead of how they fit into politically correct dogma will extend from internal organisational issues to dealing with the public. Will we be seeing in a few years accusations that the Met is institutionally PC and incapable of treating cases according to facts?

16

With regards to the original OP:

I think that there’s a big difference between society changing, and between passing laws or making official changes in procedure. For example, in the past 150 years, the opinion in the US towards black people has changed dramatically. They are now almost universally seen as equal human beings deserving of equal rights, when they used to be viewed as sub-human. This was a societal change, and had little to do with any laws that were passed. In that sense, society changed to accomodate the notion that blacks were the equals of whites.

This is different than what is mentioned in the OP, where the police altered an official regulation in order to make accomodations towards someone who was offended by something. Society hasn’t changed, only a law has. Big difference.

My opinion on the OP, in general:

I think that laws should only be made to protect against invasions of people’s rights, and I don’t think the “right to not be offended” counts. Correct me if I’m mistaken, but doesn’t London have laws against making racial slurs? As in, if you’re overheard by a policeman making a derogatory remark, you can be fined? (I know I read an article about this several months ago, and it was somewhere in the UK, but I don’t recall the specifics.) I think this is ludicrous. It borders on crimethink.
My opinion on the OP, in specifics:

First of all, the cross on the badge seems pretty secular to me. It’s comparable to “In God We Trust” being on US currency. It may have grown out of relgious origins, but now it’s basically just an official symbol, and has no real religious connotations. I’m sure that when the average person sees a police badge, they’re not thinking of Christianity. Second, wearing a badge is something the Muslim in question can easily avoid: don’t become a cop. If he really wants to avoid the cross, don’t be a cop. If he really wants to be a cop, live with the badge. Those should be his two options. If England were coming up with some official symbol today, I can see every reason to avoid sticking religious symbols in it. However, the fact of the matter is that the symbol has been around for a long time (I assume), and changing it now is just silly - it’s too minor a thing to worry about.
Jeff

17

Maybe if this fool is so offended, he should join the New Orleans Police Department:
their symbol looks a lot like the Islam ‘Star & Crescent’.

18

One of my main ideological obsessions is the need for people to learn to ignore symbolism in favor of substance. A case like this is symbol vs symbol, and I’m happy to sit back with popcorn and watch the crybabies on both sides go round and round.

OTOH, perhaps a little Solomon-like wisdom is in order: Since the Metropolitan Police have shown themselves to be reasonable and accomodating in allowing for a diffferent symbol, they should be allowed to keep their symbol while the unreasonable, unaccomodating Muslim should take a hike.

19

Looks like the Met saw sense in the end.

msmith537, New Orleans is definitely the police force for Muslims. :slight_smile:

20

Kudoes to the Met for following a process of open dialogue; it would’ve been quite easy (and politically stupid) to ignore the issue as ‘ludicrous’. A thoughtful and considerate ‘No’ is much more palatable than a reflexive denial. (Let’s hope the London Muslim communities think so.)