AIBU to think public racist / anti immigrant / anti trans posts can justify dismissal?

I think there’s a difference between having a different opinion (I.e., believing that immigration in this country is mismanaged and we need to deal with that), and being a racist (i.e. spreading lies and inciting violence)

Surely you deal with the behaviours? You can be alert to signs without assuming every black or brown person is going to mistreat their child - and by extension that white people will have the same cultural beliefs as you. Maybe that’s why we have so many cases where white children die in their family’s care, because SW overlook behaviours they’d be alert to in black or brown families.

I said I dont look at a persons skin colour and make assumptions. When I find out the persons background and culture then it will impact how I deal with the case. But almost all muslim people are people of colour. Once I know the culture of a service user that must help inform my practice as it should. Its important. Just as it would if I was working with the gypsy community. Culture matters.

If I am working with a gypsy family me knowing about their culture helps me to support and assess them better.

Ok I will give some real life examples. And these are very common. Any SW working in childrens will attest to this. You have a non-white muslim family you are assessing and you can see clear signs that the girls are being treated differently to the boys - less freedoms, doing housework, not allowed to play as much, signs of physical punishment (regular smacking no bruises, and threats of it - mental abuse such as the boogie man (there can be a lot of that), regular verbal chastisement, no body autonomy, no choice over clothing, lack of toys. Just obvious the girls are more subdued, more compliant, more fearful than the boys and often are looking after the boys - even when they are younger than them.

We would talk to the family about how these things aren't acceptable here but you are also expected to balance that with 'respecting the culture'. The same in a white working class family and we'd be far more on it I think. I think its reverse racism. Children are children and deserve protection.

In more extreme cases, we, teachers, doctors can sometimes get a whiff an FGM might be about to happen - the signs are young girl becomes subdued and there are talks of a imminent holiday alone with a female relative overseas. To step in and stop that without being called racist is incredibly hard.

Yes. Why would assume that someone’s skin colour tells you about their culture and background? Notable also that you only do this for people of colour, so you assume that all white people are the same - safe? Like you? - and all black and brown people must be treated with suspicion.

By the way plenty of atheists are also dangerous to women and children. Don’t think Wayne Couzens or Peter Sutcliffe or Jamie Varley were motivated by their religion were they?

‘Trans hate’ is not the same as racism etc. I personally don’t think not wanting men in women’s spaces is the same as, for example, carrying a placard violent thoughts towards non-trans people (as we have seen many times at demos etc).

GC is now a protected belief. Of course there will be people who call it ‘hate’.

And people are allowed to be concerned about things like the effect of immigration.

Of course it’s a balancing act.

Can you say a little more about when the line is grey, and you and your colleagues might be accused of racism for flagging up worrying behaviour? Because, red flags are red flags. How does the ethnicity of the family come into it?

Criticising religions or objecting to cultural practices is not racist.

I have no time for any religion, whether it is Christianity, judaism or the Muslim faith.

I think religious extremist is very dangerous and it is not limited to Islam. I think religions are nonsense and I agree with that most religions are oppressive to women and girls.

But that does not mean I would treat someone who choose to peacefully follow a religion any differently in a work setting or discriminate against them or consider them inferior to me.

I think that's the difference.

I don't think so, but the lazy attitude would say you were.

People should differentiate between culture and ethnicity but they don't.

We're also told that ethnicity is a construct nowadays...how does that work? It seems some people want to have it both ways: on the one hand we're told that race is a construct, and on the other the accusation of racism has never been more freely made.

On the whole I think this country (UK) does pretty well, especially compared to France or some Eastern European countries. Of course there are some genuinely racist people here but frankly, calling out every perceived micro-aggression as seems to be the way now, doesn't help.

Not true. I know lots of social workers (myself included) who are worried about being accused of being racist when we flag up certain worrying behaviours within certain families. The line between what constitutes child abuse and what constitutes respecting another parenting culture is grey. I feel the threshold is lowered for a family when they are from a certain culture compared with a white family. I dont think thats right.

I saw the doctors receptionists initial facebook post about her being sacked and instantly thought there must be more to the story. Lo and behold I took a look at her fb feed and the stuff she was sharing was absolutely vile!

As usual, it's social media which has given rise to this issue and so many similar ones.

Once, people just blathered on in the staff canteen - now they put it out there and that's a bigger issue.

People are allowed to have different views and to disagree with prevailing attitudes but once social media is involved, you're moving into quite different territory.

I don't think the law has caught up with the implications of social media (actually, I don't think it's caught up with the motor car, but hey).

And if that horrible person, Heather Herbert, had expressed their opinions about Ann W to friends or work colleagues of similar persuasion and no-one else had known about it, you might say it was their right to an opinion (vile though it was ). But once they'd put it out there for us all to read - that's very different and needs dealing with very firmly.

Well by that definition Im racist. I think the muslim religion is extremely dangerous. To women, to children. I think it is 'inferior' to athiesm for sure, and to most other religions. Im an athiest and dont really like any religion but I really have a problem with the muslim religion. Any religion that treats women like that is inferior is my book. I guess thats not race, but race is involved isnt it? Maybe culture is a better word. I think cultures that supports FGM, breast ironing, and consider mental illnesses like schizoprenia and post partum psychosis as signs of possession are inferior.

My definition of racism is you see a person of colour and you make assumptions about them purely on the colour of their skin without even getting to know them. I dont do that. But I do consider how their culture and background may influence the way they behave. Which is part of my job and training. Does that make me racist?

Being concerned about grooming gangs and any oppression of women, cultural or otherwise sits comfortably within social work values. It only becomes problematic when the focus shifts from support for victims to a means to stigmatise certain ethnicities and communities based on the perpetrators profile.
Generally it's not an issue, as we can all agree that grooming and FGM are wrong and unlawful, so there is no problem in condemning the behaviour.
Gi is different and more tricky as it is not unlawful for a man to 'live as a woman' and there hasn't been consensus about the boundaries around that. So you have a range of views, from, these men ARE women, so access all areas, to these men are men, and should never be treated otherwise. The first group includes them in women's protections, the second believes they are a threat to women's protections, and there's been much push and pull, with the first group holding sway.
Fortunately the SCJ has given clarity and hopefully services will come into line and find a way to provide their services to men who wish to be women that doesn't remove rights and protections from women.

But heres the problem. What about trans ideology? Does being GC fit in with 'social work values'? I think it very much does because we care about womens and girls rights. Some would vehemently disagree. What about being concerned about grooming gangs - is that racist or does it follow social work values about worrying about oppression etc. What about expressing concern about FGM, breast ironing, etc - racist or 'social work values'? Its not clear what they actually mean (social worker by the way).

Opinions does not matter if they are not acted upon. I was helping to translate for an Ukrainian friend at the A&E and the nurse who seen them was clearly russian and very anti-Ukrainian - it was awful, she was rude, condescending and made horrible comments - but worse of all, dismissed my friend's health issue outright (she had to go to the different hospital next day and got treated). Mt friend complained to the trust but nothing came out of it.

Imagine being vulnerable and encountering someone who hates you.

How did it go when you had a chat with Tommy Robinson and other right wing lunatics and misogynists who are giving sex realist people a bad name?
Oh, hang on...I know this one. Isn't it that women can't be held responsible for the behaviour of others? That it's perfectly possible to agree on somehing without agreeing on everything? That linking sex realist people with the far right is a slur to discredit us..? Or have I misunderstood?

I don't. I didn't read it sufficiently carefully and thought the doxed employee had been dismissed.

And you can clearly and confidently identify all situations that are racist to an extent that you would advise an employer they have grounds to dismiss a member of staff?

It’s much more complex than you think as employers have already found.

As a related example I have reported national newspapers to the regulator due to some of their comments about immigrants, in one case they had focused on DH’s country of origin in part of the article so I could show direct impact to our family and even though I considered what they had written was racist they were not sanctioned.

If there is a plausible explanation/ justification for the comment that may not be racist then it’s difficult for employers to prove.

To expand a bit more on the prayers in the park example. In the London Assembly there was one group that used to question on this point about the bylaws and that was UKIP. You and I may draw conclusions about their motives but proving them would be far more challenging. On the face of it it is a legitimate question to ask but I don’t believe they really cared about the bylaws but you couldn’t prove otherwise.

I think pp is thinking it’s the GC man who brought the case, not Tempest. Crossed wires.

This is just a lot of waffle.

What is meant when someone is described as a racist is really rather straightforward: that person believes that one racial or ethnic group is superior to another and thinks it is OK to treat people badly or differently because of their race, skin colour, or background.

There is no 'grey area' or need to overcomplicate matters.

Posting on social media is not 'private behaviour' either. Public posts are there for everyone to see.

There is usually in an employment contract a reference to not bringing the company into disrepute. It is naive to think that you can post whatever you want on your own social media accounts and that your employer will not see this as a risk to their reputation if the content is dodgy...

If your GC why do you want DEFA to lose as it would mean that all GC employee networks would have to close

Its not just TRAs and their sympathisers who are doing this though its large swathes of the left.
If you say anything pro Israel or in defence of the Jewish people you will be targeted for cancellation by the pro Palestinian mob, state Christian beliefs and the whole gambit of anti uk, anti white and christaphobic mob come for you.
All of these groups behave in a similar fashion and they along with the TRAs that you singled out are on the left and they are the problem not just the TRAs and their sympathisers so yes its a left-wing problem that the moderate left need to deal with.
There's a saying where I live "fly with the crows get shot with the crows". If you object to the left being characterised by the behaviour of large swathes of the left then maybe you should speak to those on the left who are giving you all a bad name

Less time compared to if convicted after trial yes. But, if innocent, would you plead guilty to a hate crime to get a shorter sentence? I wouldn’t.

I find it quite frightening that she would have been responsible for triage and patient confidentiality.