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

I think this is very dangerous - it allows people with the 'wrong' views to be hounded out of their jobs by those who believe they have the 'right' views

This is what worries me too, and while truly extreme cases are often trotted out to justify it these things have a way of speading

Personally I dislike extremism of any type, but it's also interesting that so many such suggestions involve right wing views, and I wonder if those who make them would feel the same if the left were targeted instead

Im confused. So to you it was racist that she was respectful about the differing culture and put the child's timidity down to that. And of course she was wrong to do that because of the outcome. But the fact that in practice I dont do that (which is what you are advocating for), and if a child is timid, looks scared of the parents, even in a muslim home where that is commonplace, I judge the behaviour and assess accordingly. I have supervisors who don't like that, and worry that I haven't taken culture into account enough.

So why am I a terrible social worker when it seems like you are agreeing that I should treat the child abuse as child abuse and ignore whatever culture they are from and not 'respect the culture/religion'. Is that right?

You talk about facts, but it is a FACT that muslim girls are more at risk of violence in the home, gypsy girls are more at risk of educational neglect, autistic girls are more vulnerable and underdiagnosed and more influenced by GI - these are facts.

As for the terf stuff, I keep it to myself but I should be allowed to say I am - its a protected belief its not a prejudice.

You are very opinionated on this, and I will ask again what field you are in?

'Unjustified inequalities' is virtue-narcissist speak for 'we can't based on the facts directly say attribution to discrimination' so we'll just say they're unjust, which in fact implies discrimination'.

I work in the third sector supporting vulnerable women with complex needs, often survivors of male violence and abuse. Why?

So we have LA, a social worker, admitting her prejudices could have influenced her actions. And yet it’s ok for social workers to believe Muslims are dangerous and openly describe themselves as a ‘TERF’ and you think that’s, what, more professional?

NOBODY should be bringing their prejudices to work if they are in a state sponsored role with power over people. They should work on facts, and evidence and if they are unable to do that, they should stand aside. Clearly this is a hard ask, and current conditions mean unsuitable people remain in post and are overworked and under supervised/supported. But surely you want open minds in the profession, not Lisa Arthurworreys and not self declared Islamophobes?

I work in the third sector supporting vulnerable women with complex needs, often survivors of male violence and abuse. Why?

No. I'm not getting dragged into trans stuff. There is a board for that. If you all want to discuss it on here, go for it. But I am not.

The whole point of MN having a sex and gender board is for that.

How does this come up in a work context though? A social worker is going to know if their client is trans but not necessarily their client's views on gender identity unless they bring it up. And why would they?

Do you work in social work?

'Unjustified inequalities' is virtue-narcissist speak for 'we can't based on the facts directly say attribution to discrimination' so we'll just say they're unjust, which in fact implies discrimination'.

Unjustified inequalities is discrimination. The CQC, Wessely and various other reports have provided evidence of discrimination that not just over representation.

There are disparities that are justified of course, and you’re right that these are not all being addressed. But to pretend there isn’t also discrimination is just silly.

How does this come up in a work context though? A social worker is going to know if their client is trans but not necessarily their client's views on gender identity unless they bring it up. And why would they?

Read a couple of accounts this week of racist, public supporters of the far-right being sacked for spouting race / immigrant / trans hate on their personal social media accounts.

One was a doctors receptionist.
The other a school learning support assistant.

Both roles where they are likely to work with people in the groups they're publicly trashing online. One was recorded at a far-right rally, speaking about the amount of immigrants she was forced to support in her line of work.

What is your opinion on this?

YABU - People should be able to express their opinion without fear of losing their job. Freedom of speech.

YANBU - Anyone with any kind of public facing role/a role where their employer is likely disapprove of this should not publicly post this way and needs to understand that being sacked is their own fault.

Put it this way. You own a company or CIC that supports immigrants. A frontline member of your team tells a right wing rally that you force her to support these immigrants. This brings your organisation into disrepute and upsets your clients who see rally footage on the TV. Funders withdraw.

You then find you can't sack the member of staff.

It seems reasonable to think that most employers would be furious.

Freedom of speech is brilliant but it does bring responsibility.

New thread. Discuss it there.

How does this come up in a work context though? A social worker is going to know if their client is trans but not necessarily their client's views on gender identity unless they bring it up. And why would they?

How about prejudices from trans ally's who believe all people who do not believe in gender identity are TERF’s and bigots?

How about prejudices from trans ally's who believe all people who do not believe in gender identity are TERF’s and bigots?

It's not factually correct that black men are discriminated against in MH services.

It's factually correct that they are overrepresented in secure MH services but disparate outcomes don't equal discrimination.

Until we address the widespread factors that mean more black men are admitted to secure MH services, instead of saying 'well that must be discrimination' then we won't get anywhere.

But what the 'system' does is instead of saying well, there are different cultural, religious and psycho-social factors at play here, it reduces it down to 'well it must be discrimination' and aims to simply REDUCE the number of black, dangerous mentally ill men admitted to those services at point of contact so services fear being racist so are less likely to respond appropriately.

And that's why it won't work and why we end up with dangerous individuals who are a risk to the public being treated differently than their white counterparts.

All the well-intentioned phrases of public services come up again, and again in every single inquiry into horrific acts of violence on society.

Child first, adultification, not wanting to criminalise, not wanting to discriminate against global majority/asylum seekers/ND. Being trauma-informed. Not wanting to profile.

All being weaponised to stop professionals and the 'system' from acting to protect the public.

It needs to stop.