Do McIlveen and Simpson want to establish a general principle?

Free P tub-thumper David McIlveen and DUPe gospel singer and occasional MP, David Simpson, have called on Translink to ‘respect the feeling of Christian bus drivers’ by allowing them not to drive buses with humanist adverts on the side. I wonder do they wish to establish a new principle whereby employees can vet all the advertising carried on the side of public transport?

Perhaps conscientious objectors should have been exempt from driving buses with those noxiously disingenuous ‘that’s why we need a Bill of Rights’ adverts resplendent on the side. Maybe temperance advocates should be allowed to opt out from promoting Harp lager by means of 12 feet high pints on the back of double-deckers. There’s no reason Christians should get special treatment after all!

My feeling is that whilst drivers are entitled to their convictions equally the company is entitled to carry legal advertising without consulting each employee. If the rigours of someone’s conscience are incompatible with free speech on the side of a bus, naturally they have a decision to make. If they feel they can’t do their job then the company must look for another employee.

Comments

Anonymous said…
The principle/concept of offence, even if it is a questionable and often impractical principle, is not new.

Offence was one of reasons given for opposing a SF event at Stormont and welcomed its blocking:

"Good sense has prevailed and the Assembly Commission have ensured that an event to celebrate the life of IRA bomber Mairead Farrell cannot be held in Stormont’s Long Gallery. All parties other than Sinn Fein objected to the premises being used. An outcome Jennifer McCann MLA must have known was ineivitable even as she initiated her attempt to organise this deliberately offensive and provocative commemoration at the seat of Northern Ireland’s government."

http://threethousandversts.blogspot.com/2008/03/because-principle-of-consent-has.html

There is simply no valid reason why this agenda should be indulged and it would be manifestly wrong to allow it to take place on public property.

http://threethousandversts.blogspot.com/2008/02/offensive-event-hidden-behind-sf.html

"If the rigours of someone’s conscience are incompatible with free speech on the side of a bus, naturally they have a decision to make. If they feel they can’t do their job then the company must look for another employee."

Now imagine if the SF event hadn't been stopped, would it have been legitimate for the Stormont caterers Mount Charles to sack a staff member who refused to work at an event?
19 January 2009 at 15:35
Owen Polley said…
Clearly making an argument is not the same as glorifying murder.
19 January 2009 at 16:51
Anonymous said…
Chekov

"Clearly making an argument is not the same as glorifying murder."

Which means you are drawing a distinction about the manner of the offence. Some will consider questioning the existence of God as insulting as the glorification of terror. It is the problem with using offence as the rationale.

I ask again "Now imagine if the SF event hadn't been stopped, would it have been legitimate for the Stormont caterers Mount Charles to sack a staff member who refused to work at" the event? (Sorry used 'an' instead of 'the' in first post)
20 January 2009 at 10:18
Owen Polley said…
I'm not answering the question because it isn't a valid comparison.
20 January 2009 at 10:35
Anonymous said…
"I'm not answering the question because it isn't a valid comparison."

Worth a Paxmanesque yes ;) An employee is objecting to something they find offensive in their workplace.
20 January 2009 at 11:35
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Football fever in Russia

Russia Blog is getting excited about Euro 2008. Indeed it is drawing parallels between Guus Hiddink and Peter the Great in terms of successful Russo-Dutch exchanges of expertise. Meanwhile, in Moscow, fans have been taking to the streets in order to celebrate the national team’s achievements.
Read more

Stormont might not collapse but paramilitaries continue to disfigure Northern Ireland

Image
The devolved institutions in Northern Ireland are supposedly ‘teetering on the brink’ of collapse yet again.  After repeated failures to agree a balanced budget or implement welfare reform created months of uncertainty, the Executive’s future is now in doubt because the PSNI believes members of the IRA were involved in murdering a republican hit man.  Despite its apparent seriousness, this particular predicament is unlikely to bring the shaky edifice at Stormont crashing down. The IRA was supposed to have disbanded its military ‘structures’ and decommissioned its entire arsenal of weapons back in 2005.  It was on the basis of this understanding that power-sharing resumed in 2007 and the DUP entered government with Sinn Féin.  From the outset it was a fairly flimsy pretext.   Less than a year after John de Chastelain, the retired Canadian general, oversaw decommissioning, the Independent Monitoring Commission reported that the IRA retaine...
Read more

Walker loada rubbish

Former BBC employee Brian Walker has overrun Slugger O’Toole lately with countless poorly structured, poorly written posts. It is possible quickly to recognize and avoid these by subjecting each Slugger piece to a cursory inspection and identifying those which feature characteristic lack of paragraphing and a tenuous grasp on the technicalities of linking source articles. Although I generally evade Walker’s posts by this method, occasionally (and unfortunately) I have persevered and found that their content is as unrewarding as the style in which they are written. Today, for instance, I inflicted upon myself Brian’s thoughts on a mooted Fianna Fail / SDLP merger . In actual fact, he is right to welcome news that the Southern Irish party has dropped this proposal from its agenda; however, the logic by which he arrives at this conclusion is parochial nonsense. To summarise, Walker believes that pursuing realignment with larger parties, whether they are from the rest of the UK or fro...
Read more