No Comment

Remember that female officer who didn't get a job because she said biological sex was important? Or the woman who worked for a publishing firm who held GC views?

Yes, I do. Unfortunately the ethos of some organisations has become antithetical to many feminists. So, some women speak out and may have their day(s) in court too.

If we consider the religious aspect in reverse - if a teacher got a job in a faith school, and then went on SM saying religion was all a load of crap, do you think there would be no consequence?

For NiceGerbil

www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/23/sex-married-heterosexual-couples-church-of-england-christians

Oh lord fucking jesus

I have a problem with the language around all relationships being equally valid, no matter what type of relationships people are referring to specifically, the principle is simply wrong. I also think "valid" is a weird word to use in that context and it's widely overused as a kind of signal for right-think.

But more generally, I have a problem with people's private views getting them fired from their job. I would place the bar for that sort of thing very very high and a private FB page wouldn't cut it. The relevance on FWR I suppose is that some of us are at risk of losing our jobs for other things we might want to be free to say on FB.

Well yes, but those consequences should a cogent (and respectful) argument as to how your views are wrong

That's all well and good if the person is still open to a respectful argument as you say, or having their opinion disagreed with.
Not so easy as that though if they're "too far gone" for want of a better phrase.

The fact that some people are homosexual/ bisexual is something primary children should not be told?

What do you do if a kid at the school has two mums?!

I think it’s a real stretch to say that the view that same-sex marriages are contrary to God’s law and young children shouldn’t be taught about them is antithetical to the ethos of any school, especially any primary school. Why are schools getting involved in this sort of moral education when parents have different moral positions? Have parents been consulted and have the majority agreed to this? Or is this a case of a lobby group seeking to change views by bypassing parents, going straight to the children and getting them while they’re young?

In any case, my issue isn’t that an employer imposes a sanction if it believes private statements made by an employee have brought the school into disrepute. The consequences should fit the ‘crime’. Formal or informal warnings, extra training, a sanction short of sacking in the first instance all seem much more appropriate to me. She didn’t denigrate gay people or same-sex relationships. Her language (as reported) was polite though her views unfortunately caused hurt.

So no, I don’t believe freedom of speech should be absolute (it isn’t in this country) and I don’t believe it should mean there are no consequences but I do think any consequences should be proportionate. I also believe that sometimes an appropriate approach for an employer is to say those are private views which don’t reflect our position and unless there is evidence that the views affect the staff member’s ability to do their job properly, they will be spoken to but no further action will be taken.

Interesting question. Remember that female officer who didn't get a job because she said biological sex was important? Or the woman who worked for a publishing firm who held GC views?

I think we have to assume that this TA spoke spoke on a personal level but we would expect her to be professional. Like I hope all of us would when in our official roles.

“Free speech doesn’t mean free from consequences”

Well yes, but those consequences should a cogent (and respectful) argument as to how your views are wrong. Not some trouble-making snooper reporting you to your employer.

I don’t share her views on same-sex relationships or same-marriage but I’m not offended by them at all. But I am in agreement with her about having very young children in primary schools being acquainted with the notion. I think that’s for much older children having it discussed at home with their parents. Other people are entitled to a different view.

This poor woman has been very shabbily and unreasonably treated by her employer

I for one wouldn't be comfortable with eg someone who thought Hitler had great ideas teaching my kids at school. Or a man who was a proud incel /MRA of the more extreme woman hating type

Same

It would be different if she was trying to indoctrinate children in the classroom during her working hours, but I don’t think she has been accused of that

Maybe not accused of that, but if someone held such strong views about gay people, how would anyone know they wouldn't be treated any differently if they were by them?
Same if it was about the colour of your skin.
Not a case of "hurt feelings" like someone said upthread - just treating people equally.
How could you know they would if they were in a position of power like teacher/ whatever with those views?

If you post opinions which are antithetical to the ethos of the organisation you work for, would you expect that it might not have consequences?

So should someone lose their job for expressing their religious views (shared by many religions including the world's two largest, Christianity and Islam) on a private Facebook post?

Well that's s nice idea but I for one wouldn't be comfortable with eg someone who thought Hitler had great ideas teaching my kids at school.

Or a man who was a proud incel /MRA of the more extreme woman hating type.

The thing about the internet is that private thoughts are now much less private.

Like I said it's thorny and probably a topic for another thread.

We can't just eradicate everyone from society who has views we don't like

This.

Free speech means nothing at all if it means people cannot freely express their views.

Charleston

I for one have said the free speech issue is a thorny one and probably for a different thread.

In addition. No one has ever said that TRAs aren't allowed their views. It's not women who said 'no debate' and have had people sacked.

And the TRA aims have led to the equality act being misquoted and applied incorrectly in many orgs up and down the country.

I'm not sure what your point is at all tbh.

If they are saying that then I'm happy to stand up and say they're being total arseholes.

I'm surprised though. I'm RC by background and thought the CofE was a bit better than that.

We still don't really know what this woman said, do we.

The church of England doesn't say that same sex relationships are wrong and that gay marriage is wrong ?!

They officiate for same sex marriages.

I have no idea what you're on about.

I’m not sure where the official GC feminism manifesto is located and I’m not aware that people had to sign up as agreeing to it to be able to call themselves a GC feminist. In any case people who don’t call themselves feminists (in some cases because they are aware their views wouldn’t be considered good enough) are gender-critical. There’s no gate-keeping on who can call themselves gender-critical, as infuriating as some may find that. It’s not your pet issue.

Why is it a problem that this woman espouses views in line with the official religion of this country, which cannot therefore be considered extreme, even if they are unfashionable? This is the faith headed by Her Majesty the Queen herself. She wasn’t speaking in an official capacity, she wasn’t speaking in a school or advocating any kind of unfair or unpleasant treatment towards gay people. She expressed the view that same-sex marriages are contrary to God’s law and therefore she didn’t think young children should be taught that they are as equally valid as marriage between a man and woman. She likely doesn’t want same-sex marriages mentioned to young children at all, rather than wanting them to be categorised as lesser in any way.

Her views are not niche. They are shared by hundreds of thousands of members of the Christian church, maybe more, not to mention Muslims and Orthodox Jews. The list probably doesn’t stop there.

Why are her private views (admittedly not completely private as they were shared online, but not in an official capacity) an issue that necessitates sacking? Because they hurt people’s feelings? Like gender-critical beliefs that a transwoman isn’t a woman and should be excluded from spaces that were traditionally single-sex hurt the feelings of many transwomen? So it was justifiable that Maya Forstater’s contract wasn’t renewed due to her gender-critical beliefs expressed online?

If you live by the sword, be prepared to die by the sword, because one day your beliefs may be the verboten ones. And following the way some of you think, everyone should be fighting for their views to be the supreme views, including transgender ideologists, and those who hold contrary views should be punished harshly.

BabDoc - of course she has a right to free speech and thought. But, that doesn't mean you can say anything outside of work without the possibility of consequences. We could try the standard thought experiment of, what if this had been racist rather than homophobic? (There have been biblical justifications for banning 'miscegenation' in the past, which seems analogous.)

@ErrolTheDragon

Exactly. The post doesn’t really belong here, imo.

I don’t like the woman’s views, but I absolutely defend her right to hold them, discuss them with her friends on social media, and to raise petitions about them online.

Her employer does not own anything except the right to her paid labour. What she does or says in her free time is up to her.
It would be different if she was trying to indoctrinate children in the classroom during her working hours, but I don’t think she has been accused of that.

This woman is NOT on our side, and I really don’t like any suggestion that she might be, her motives are completely different.

I can't see anything remotely 'on our side' about what she's said.

Unfortunately she gives ammunition to people who wish to imply that GC feminists may be 'aligned' with people of her ilk. We're not.

Yeah, I’m incredibly queasy about any suggestion that this woman has been hard done by. There’s a whole ocean of difference between carefully considered, evidence based, arguments against massive social change that has serious knock-on effects for a large section of society, based around a nebulous and constantly shifting ideology which is prone to active homophobia, misogyny, and playing fast and loose with child safeguarding, and ‘Mah God dun lik it’.
People’s religious beliefs aren’t due any more respect than people political beliefs.
This woman is NOT on our side, and I really don’t like any suggestion that she might be, her motives are completely different.