Reform UK candidate sues City law firm for belief discrimination

I agree with you broadly but as a senior HR person, you have to keep your views quiet. The appearance of bias, in a business HR setting, is just as damaging as being actually biased.

The business would be vulnerable to claims every time they needed to fire someone who happened to be Muslim, or promote someone else instead, etc.

It's a business decision, not a moral one. If your HR guy is openly anti-anything, he's no longer a useful HR guy.

Edit - I'm not HR myself! Phrased badly. But I've had need of HR support before

Do you think it's ok to say that trans ideology is a lot of nonsense? Would that generate a genuine impresson that you would discriminate against trans identifying people?

Do you think it's ok to say that Gender Critical beliefs are wrong and transphobic? If you say so in public does that mean you cannot take fair employment decisions where gender critical people are concerned?

I think many people need to be more tolerant of other's differing opinions.

I'm talking about him saying he "loathes Islam". That's going to just make everything potentially harder for the business each time a Muslim employee is disappointed about anything.

I wasn't talking about the gender critical stuff. But since you mention it, yes, even though the vast majority (myself included) agree with you, I think an HR person needs to shut up about it.

It's a unique job, HR. The whole point of the job is to insulate the company from legal challenge. This man is evidently unsuited.

And the grift carries on.
It’s the new grift that pays extremely well, be a racist transphobe (Sandie Peggie anyone) deliberately get fired or claim you got discriminated against and suddenly you’re very rich indeed. Just add a critical after whoever you hate and suddenly apparently it’s okay.

As part of their statement, CMS Cameron McKenna said "At CMS we are committed to creating an inclusive environment for all our colleagues and we will be supporting all the individuals affected by this"

I don't get the impression that the firm is worried about it's future liability at a tribunal for his HR decisions. I get the idea that the firm doesn't want to be known to have anyone with Cooper's views associated with them. That seems a really good example of belief discrimination.

They could have said - and didn't - something like "despite Mr. Cooper's entitlement to his own views, their strength and the way he expressed them makes him unsuitable for the fine judgement needed in an HR professional".

It's probably likely deliberate on Cooper's part, but the firm's statement really suggests that they've sacked him for his views, and not for what his views might suggest about his judgement.

Do you not think?

No I think their response exactly matched my theory.

They're just doing and saying whatever they have to, to reduce the probability of legal issues down the line.

Yes, of course they've sacked him for his expression of his views, because they are such that might make the company vulnerable to being sued. It's a fairly unremarkable business decision; it is patently not useful to have a senior HR guy shouting about "loathing Islam".

You are inferring that whoever fired him, disagrees with his views. That doesn't logically follow at all. If I were his employer I'd be firing him too, even if I also "loathed Islam".

I think DEI is a bit of a scourge tbh (and I say this as a mixed race female immigrant etc) and businesses should have more freedom to make business-friendly decisions about hiring and firing.

This is one of those times. This man is clearly unsuited to HR, bye bye

I clearly have a difference of opinion with Mumsnet's moderation policy, as you can see from my prior deleted post.

I think it's vital that we can say we dislike, disapprove of, or "hate" any religion we like. If we can't say that then it's forced approval.

You can hate a religion without hating its adherents. It's not discriminatory to have opinions - negative opinions - about other people's practices or beliefs. And there's no reason you should not be allowed to say so.

You can hate a religion without hating its adherents.

Whilst semantically true, in practice a religion that has no adherents isn't a religion, just someones point of view.

I don't think I understand this. There are many many organized religions with millions of adherents against whose faiths one can genuinely level the criticism that they subjugate women. The difference between "criticise in level, round terms" and "state a loathing of and hate for" is a distinction without a difference. One is still able to treat adherents of those religions respectfully, lawfully, equitably and properly at the same time as recognizing the defects in their beliefs or practices in the strongest possible terms.

While I personally don't want to burn copies of the Koran (or the US or Israeli flag) it's vital that we are allowed to express our disapproval of philosophies, ideologies, religions and beliefs of others. I cannot accept that other people's sacred cows must be mine, and I don't expect others to hold back from saying how they feel about things I hold dear if they wish to. I still expect equitable treatment, and expect to give it.

Jesus wept. He is taking his former employer to tribunal because they didn't give him the freedom - as a senior HR business partner - to express his negative beliefs about people with a particular protected characteristic?

You couldn't make it up.