In message , bryan
writes

those questions discriminate against criminals and people who may not
be impartial and rightly so.

in which case how is this justice judged by peers?

--
dave @ stejonda
Bring culture back to NTL.
http://www.performance-channel.com/

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 19:30:07 +0100, Bob wrote:

to apply to become a magistrate, you have to declare whether or not
you are a freemason.

is this not discriminatory?

In what way is a declaration (or the invitation to make a
declaration) discriminatory?

you are not invited to make the declaration... you _have_ to answer the
question yes or no.

Point taken (I've not seen one of these application forms), and I was
making a wider comment.

o.k.

f.y.i., the actual wording is:

being a freemason is neither a qualification nor a disqualification for
appointment. it is, however, a requirement that all candidates declare on
the application form whether they are a freemason or not.

it's different from the ethnic origin section, however, which is:

your ethnic origin is neither a qualification nor a disqualification for
appointment. This information is required only to allow us to monitor how
well the bench reflects the diversity of the community.

It would only be so if the answer had a direct influence on the
process of consideration.

then why ask it if it doesn't?

Simply asking the question does not imply that such will be the case.

the very fact they ask the question implies it may.

I disagree. An analogy (I hate analogies - they're never as good as
arguing the original subject) might be a request for a date of birth -
does that question imply that the organisation might exercise
age-related discrimination?

they do "discriminate" against age. i expect they don't want anyone too
young and inexperienced or too old and senile _and_ you have to retire at
70. this, in my opinion, is a good reason to "discriminate" and a good
reason too ask an age related question.

To me the question implies a necessity for openness, rather than an
implication that I might be discriminated against if I answer either
positively or negatively.

i'd like to think so but there is no reason given for asking the freemason
question... "you will answer this question but we're not going to tell you
why". at least you're told why you are asked the ethnic origin question.

I think, however, that we're heading into the realms of philosophy, so
we might find ourselves ambling off-topic.

and we wouldn't want to do that! :-)

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 22:55:06 +0100, dave @ stejonda wrote:

In message , bryan
writes

those questions discriminate against criminals and people who may not
be impartial and rightly so.

in which case how is this justice judged by peers?

what do you mean?

there should be criminal magistrates? they should not be impartial?

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 18:25:04 +0100, bryan wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 16:40:06 +0100, Bob wrote:

to apply to become a magistrate, you have to declare whether or not you
are a freemason.

is this not discriminatory?

In what way is a declaration (or the invitation to make a declaration)
discriminatory?

you are not invited to make the declaration... you _have_ to answer the
question yes or no.
You don't have to make the declaration - you can forgo the position.

It would only be so if the answer had a direct influence on
the process of consideration.

then why ask it if it doesn't?

Simply asking the question does not imply that
such will be the case.

the very fact they ask the question implies it may.
You do have the freedom to make your own decision as to answer the
question or not.

Like most things it depends a lot on semantics.

--
neil
delete delete to reply

On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 00:35:05 +0100, Steve Firth wrote:

bryan wrote:

it's the only job i know of where it has to be declared.

I believe that policemen also have to declare membership of the
freemasons.

i have just checked the on-line application form and the question does not
appear... perhaps they are asked at the interview(s).