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

is this not discriminatory?

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? It would only be so if the answer had a direct influence on
the process of consideration. Simply asking the question does not imply that
such will be the case.

"bryan" wrote in message
news
to apply to become a magistrate, you have to declare whether or not you
are a freemason.

is this not discriminatory?

You also have to declare whether you have any criminal convictions, whether
you have been bankrupt, whether you have any family members in the police,
and whether there is anything in your background that might affect public
confidence in the magistracy (or some such wording). There may be some that
I have forgotten.

Is that discriminatory?

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.

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.

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 17:00:10 +0100, Bystander wrote:


"bryan" wrote in message
news
to apply to become a magistrate, you have to declare whether or not you
are a freemason.

is this not discriminatory?

You also have to declare whether you have any criminal convictions,

this may have some bearing on the person's impartiality.

whether you have been bankrupt

incorrect... an undischarged bankrupt is ineligible. the applicant is not
asked if they were a bankrupt.

whether you have any family members in the police

this only makes the applicant ineligible if the close relative works in
the petty sessions area to which they may be appointed.

and whether there is anything in your background that might affect
public confidence in the magistracy (or some such wording).

that's reasonable.

There may be some that I have forgotten.

Is that discriminatory?

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

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.

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

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 15:40:05 +0100, bryan put finger to keyboard and
typed:

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

is this not discriminatory?

Yes, of course. What's the problem with that? All selection procedures
are discriminatory in some way.

Mark
--
-- http://www.FridayFun.net - jokes, games and ringtones! --
"Let's see colours that have never been seen"

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.


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.



Like the ethnic background questions asked, I would hope
that it is purely for statistical purposes, monitoring the
backgrounds of applicants. It could be that they are worried
that freemasons are an under-represented minority of
applicants and that they are gathering statistics to prove
the case for positive discrimination in favour of them..

"Never put down to enemy action that which can be explained
by stupidity and ineptitude"

--

Sue

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 20:00:11 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 15:40:05 +0100, bryan put finger to keyboard and
typed:

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

is this not discriminatory?

Yes, of course. What's the problem with that? All selection procedures
are discriminatory in some way.

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

why don't they ask about membership in the catholic catenians, opus
dei, knights of columbus, the protestant loyal orange order or any other
"secretive" organisation?

In message , Bystander
writes

"bryan" wrote in message
news
to apply to become a magistrate, you have to declare whether or not you
are a freemason.

is this not discriminatory?

You also have to declare whether you have any criminal convictions, whether
you have been bankrupt, whether you have any family members in the police,
and whether there is anything in your background that might affect public
confidence in the magistracy (or some such wording). There may be some that
I have forgotten.

IMO most of the above are relevant to the post. I'm not too happy about
the last one as it's too vague. Membership of a legal "club" is another
mater. Why pick on Freemasons? Do prospective magistrates also have to
declare membership of the WI or the local Bridge Club?

Is that discriminatory?



--
Mike