To report this person to their employer for hate speech?

[NickMyLipple]

I've attached a screenshot - I am not friends with this person. She does however display her work on social media and she is in her uniform with her lanyard on display in her profile picture and in other photos which are accessible to the public.

It's NHS Values Week and I feel very strongly that if you're going to publically display your workplace you need to be responsible in not making such racist and hateful comments.

I called her out on it and the post has now been deleted.

AIBU to call the HR department and complain, or should I leave it and hope that she thinks carefully before she posts in future?

But if every racist must be rooted out and reported to their employer, then you are going to have a very large number of unemployed racists. That will not only fuel racist thoughts, it risks creating a violent revolution. Economic security provides social stability.

It's extremely unlikely, to the point of fantasy, it would come to that but if it did we would have to deal with it, and we would. There are various ways to combat unsavoury or hateful attitudes and change society for the better. You can educate and some will respond to that. For others you may well need sanctions and consequences which may come from various sources including the state, employers and the general public. One technique that never works is to simply ignore and hope it will go away.

What I find interesting about these discussions around speech and freedom of thought, is that when you look at breakdowns of who believes what, it's almost always an age issue.

I think it's mainly because younger people tend to be pretty naive about how regimes that restrict speech and political expression operate, not having seen them or experienced them, and they don't remember how things like civil rights and abortion rights came to exist.

I mean, someone up-thread asked if we should see people opposing anti-abortion laws restricted from posting where it was illegal to have abortions, and the answer was no, of course not, because opposing laws isn't immoral. I guess it's been long enough that manycpeople forget that questions around legality of abortion were more than anything about public views on morality and a deep-seated understanding by many - by the majority in many places - that it was killing innocent human beings. If we were restricting speech that was morally repugnant and led to actions that people felt were deeply wrong, that would have to have been top of the list.

Similarly "keep your abhorrent views privately in a free way, but saw them in public there will be consequences like job loss" and policing of viewpoints by others in the community encouraged, and saying that these viewpoints caused actual harm to the Cause - these have always been the main vehicles for regimes to control dissent and maintain power.

@Duvetdoggy

Its not an opinion. Its racism. She is in a public role where BAME people suffer due to racism.It is against NHS policies.

You realise any viewpoint could be understood this way?

It's not women's rights, i's murder.

It's not environmental advocacy, it's destroying the economy.

It's not sex based protections, it's transphobia.

It's not scientific discourse, it's anti-religion.

An expressed idea is just that ,an expressed idea. That is what freedom of conscience and thought means. It doesn't have to be a moral idea, or a smart idea, or a rational idea, or an idea that at least 10% of people approve of.

The idea that people who break the law who are not citizens should be deported - eve if its vindictive or a completely inadequate understanding of what is going on in a situation - is an idea, an opinion. It's not an act, she can't actually make that happen.

@ClareBlue

Ok, let's say this as it is. What we have here is somebody who says in a public forum that based on the look of the ethnic heritage of a person they are not British. To resolve a possible breach of legislation the poster states publically that they should be subject to repartiation to an unspecified Country which must be other than Britain because they look Asian. The poster then states that the issues that Britain faces are because of Asian looking people and excludes Asian people from any status in what she calls 'our' Country. Who is included in 'our' is not clear. But hopefully I'm not in her collective. Now people of Asian heritage have to go and receive a service from this person when they are vulnerable and sick. So you are vulnerable and sick and the person providing the service to you send your skin colour and believes you are the reason for all the problems in the Country, you have no right to the treatment and should be sent back to somewhere that is not here. Not only do they believe that they are happy to tell everyone publically.

See why her employer might have an issue and why this is not a freedom of speech issue. Thanks.

So, because someone might agree with her, and that someone might decide to take some action like breaking the law, which might affect someone, she can't say what she thinks?

So if I say, for example, meat is murder, and some guy decides, you know what, pig farmers are murderers, and decides to vandalise the farm down the road - that chain leads back to me?

@justanotherneighinparadise

I would send her s message suggesting she take the post down in case she is reported for being racist and then block her. I wouldn’t make her unemployed.

Why the hell not???

@ArnoJambonsBike 😆😆😆The font

Not good.
She doesn't know the status and made an assumption on a ethnic look
She blamed all the Country's problem on an ethnic look
She excluded an ethnic look from the definition of British
She provided a service to vulnerable and sick people whilst seeking validation in public on a view that people should be viewed differently on their ethnic heritage. Expressing this in a foul and abusive manner.
It is right and correct that there are consequences for normalising and publishing this view. This is not thought control. This is not about differing points of view. This isn't a point of view. It a prejudicial outburst on a forum that makes it clear what service she provided in the community. It is not about SM policy, or anyone having a moral high ground. It is about the people being able to get health treatments from a person who does not say in the public Domaine that the problems of Britain are due to a certain ethnic sector and a solution is to send them back.
To tell you the truth I cannot even comprehend the apologists on here. That's it from me on this thread.

So, because someone might agree with her, and that someone might decide to take some action like breaking the law, which might affect someone, she can't say what she thinks?

Yikes. White privilege in action.

If you were an immigrant, or non-white, would you be happy receiving care from someone who’s so comfortable with their racism that they’re willing to declare it openly?

If you were their employer, would you feel confident they would treat BAME service users properly?

I work for the NHS and I would be fired if I posted something like this. I have colleagues who’ve been disciplined for less, even without their employer being linked to their profile.

@Goosefoot

What I find interesting about these discussions around speech and freedom of thought, is that when you look at breakdowns of who believes what, it's almost always an age issue.

I think it's mainly because younger people tend to be pretty naive about how regimes that restrict speech and political expression operate, not having seen them or experienced them, and they don't remember how things like civil rights and abortion rights came to exist.

I mean, someone up-thread asked if we should see people opposing anti-abortion laws restricted from posting where it was illegal to have abortions, and the answer was no, of course not, because opposing laws isn't immoral. I guess it's been long enough that manycpeople forget that questions around legality of abortion were more than anything about public views on morality and a deep-seated understanding by many - by the majority in many places - that it was killing innocent human beings. If we were restricting speech that was morally repugnant and led to actions that people felt were deeply wrong, that would have to have been top of the list.

Similarly "keep your abhorrent views privately in a free way, but saw them in public there will be consequences like job loss" and policing of viewpoints by others in the community encouraged, and saying that these viewpoints caused actual harm to the Cause - these have always been the main vehicles for regimes to control dissent and maintain power.

I agree with all this. I’ve been called all sorts on here. I hate racism. I challenge it when ever I see it.

But I will also challenge the right to be able to speak freely for everyone including my daughters ( even if that allows ignorant racists to expose themselves)

People are just focusing on stopping freedom of speech on racism but what happens when we allow that - the knock on effect ripples in to every other discussion that some people may find unpalatable.

When you ban words or speech you stop discussion which is a very bad thing for society

They obviousrealise this was inappropriate After being called out and have removed the post. It should be left at that.

Or she realised she was in danger of being reported, remembered her job info is in her profile picture and crapped herself.

Depends what her job is tbh. Personally if she was a teacher/nurse/police officer then yeah I would.

@StillCoughingandLaughing

They obviousrealise this was inappropriate After being called out and have removed the post. It should be left at that.

Or she realised she was in danger of being reported, remembered her job info is in her profile picture and crapped herself.

Most likely.

Goosefoot has summarized this well.

I do suspect we are seeing an age difference in posters. I am middle aged. In my youth I was leading a local amnesty international chapter. I worked for a women’s organization that was regularly targeted by religious extremists with hateful mail, faxes, and picket lines. The difference in my generation and the current, is that I supported the right of that hateful organization to protest, even as my heart sunk every time I opened a vile message from them. We understood that if we didn’t support people with the wrong beliefs, we could easily become the next group told to be quiet, even though our views were clearly the “correct” ones.

@StillCoughingandLaughing

They obviousrealise this was inappropriate After being called out and have removed the post. It should be left at that.

Or she realised she was in danger of being reported, remembered her job info is in her profile picture and crapped herself.

Of course.

I’ve been in this situation recently. I did report.
This person was working in a team with/treating patients that are BAME.
I don’t regret it and would do it again.

I think it's mainly because younger people tend to be pretty naive about how regimes that restrict speech and political expression operate, not having seen them or experienced them, and they don't remember how things like civil rights and abortion rights came to exist.

@goosefoot I think you're absolutely spot on with this observation. There's a good chance I am up to twenty to thirty years older than some of the posters on here. My grandparents fought and lived in WW2 and they talked to us about it, not in great detail but I remember family members saying my grandad was never the same when he came back and him trying to describe why he felt he had to join up. It was accepted what we were fighting for and that the sacrifices must be made to protect our freedoms and the immediate subsequent generations absorbed this. Important to remember some of us were born in the sixties and seventies, that's only 20-30 years after the war ended. It was still very real and present. There were still areas where I lived, which had been bomb sites and not yet rebuilt over. We remember things like the Cold War, the fear of Russia and their authoritarian regime - the Stasi were operating up till 1990 - and the Berlin Wall coming down. The world was a very different place as we grew up. I think it's simplistic and dismissive to decree that any opposition and fear of a "reporting" culture in instances such as this is purely down to racism.

@Goosefoot brilliant posts. The trouble with defining what is acceptable to say under freedom of speech Firstly suggests that morals, values and view points are absolute.

What is “acceptable“ to say today probably Wasn’t yesterday and almost certainly won’t be tomorrow.

Shaping society’s morals comes from open discussion from both sides where society as a Whole decides what is the acceptable view. It does not come from one side stating that theirs should be the only view in print. How dangerous is that?

A Brave New World indeed!

Sorry about coming back but partner was reading the thread and said something worth sharing.
Those saying it is a freedom of speech issue should think of this. If I formed an opinion you were an abusive child abuser and posted it online and told all your family and friends and work colleagues, would you say OK, it's wrong but it's their opinion and we have a right to freedom of speech. No you wouldn't. Why? because it has consequences for you that are extremely negative. This is the same when posts like this one are posted. It has very real and serious consequences for certain people. So nobody has an absolute freedom of speech and never has. Libel, slander, equality laws all curtail us from saying absolutely anything we want and rightly so. The issue is that if you have white privilege you see how calling someone a child abuser has negative consequences but don't see the real day to day consequences of posts like this. Defending someone's right to post this shit under freedom of speech reinforced the negative consequences to certain sections of society. We make boundaries on what is acceptable to say or publish all the time and for good reasons.
If you posted that you think the best way to sort out child care is to lock your child in the toilet all day and I said you were abusive and MN said they were taking my opinion down,. That is preventing freedom of speech. If you said, no this is my opinion, then fine. That is where debate is. If you were actually abusive, is another matter from your opinion. If you post something to the public that has significant consequences for people and it is not true but just based on your inherent prejudice, then no, you do not have a right to freedom of speech.

Why are people talking about what is and isn't acceptable 'nowadays' ffs. Why are people so worried about reporting hate speech and thought? If you put that up on social media, a public forum, you get what you deserve. And stop talking about 'cancel culture' as that's something to rail against as some new fad.

@YgritteSnow

I think it's mainly because younger people tend to be pretty naive about how regimes that restrict speech and political expression operate, not having seen them or experienced them, and they don't remember how things like civil rights and abortion rights came to exist.

@goosefoot I think you're absolutely spot on with this observation. There's a good chance I am up to twenty to thirty years older than some of the posters on here. My grandparents fought and lived in WW2 and they talked to us about it, not in great detail but I remember family members saying my grandad was never the same when he came back and him trying to describe why he felt he had to join up. It was accepted what we were fighting for and that the sacrifices must be made to protect our freedoms and the immediate subsequent generations absorbed this. Important to remember some of us were born in the sixties and seventies, that's only 20-30 years after the war ended. It was still very real and present. There were still areas where I lived, which had been bomb sites and not yet rebuilt over. We remember things like the Cold War, the fear of Russia and their authoritarian regime - the Stasi were operating up till 1990 - and the Berlin Wall coming down. The world was a very different place as we grew up. I think it's simplistic and dismissive to decree that any opposition and fear of a "reporting" culture in instances such as this is purely down to racism.

Don't drag me down with your worldview.

My grandfather was in WWI and an ARP in WWII - had the job of digging my grandmother and kids out of their house, including finding my mother's cot underneath a door that had blown out and covered it just as the roof came down.

He had no truck with racism or the 'it's all free speech' excuse for expressing racist views.

@Deathgrip

So, because someone might agree with her, and that someone might decide to take some action like breaking the law, which might affect someone, she can't say what she thinks?

Yikes. White privilege in action.

If you were an immigrant, or non-white, would you be happy receiving care from someone who’s so comfortable with their racism that they’re willing to declare it openly?

If you were their employer, would you feel confident they would treat BAME service users properly?

I work for the NHS and I would be fired if I posted something like this. I have colleagues who’ve been disciplined for less, even without their employer being linked to their profile.

You didn't actually answer the question.

Are we restricting people from saying things that someone else might decide they agree with, and further decide to tae some sort of illegal action over?

It's quite a straightforward question and the legal precedent is pretty clear about it to.

As for as medical staff that have an opinion about my race, sex, sexuality, political views, or whatever, I am not interested what such people think. I am quite sure I have had doctors and nurses treat me who had views about me in one way or another, which they are entitled to. I have on occasion had someone give me poor care due to some sort of prejudice on their part, including my patient rights, and you can bet I wanted them disciplined.

You realise that there are lots of people without "white privilege" who also are quite comfortable with the fact that health care staff have all kinds of personal opinions? You don't have to be white to think that way? Many people who are not white have pretty strong feelings about freedom of conscience. Surely you haven't assumed that opinions on this are divided according to people's skin colour?

@ClareBlue

Sorry about coming back but partner was reading the thread and said something worth sharing. Those saying it is a freedom of speech issue should think of this. If I formed an opinion you were an abusive child abuser and posted it online and told all your family and friends and work colleagues, would you say OK, it's wrong but it's their opinion and we have a right to freedom of speech. No you wouldn't. Why? because it has consequences for you that are extremely negative. This is the same when posts like this one are posted. It has very real and serious consequences for certain people. So nobody has an absolute freedom of speech and never has. Libel, slander, equality laws all curtail us from saying absolutely anything we want and rightly so. The issue is that if you have white privilege you see how calling someone a child abuser has negative consequences but don't see the real day to day consequences of posts like this. Defending someone's right to post this shit under freedom of speech reinforced the negative consequences to certain sections of society. We make boundaries on what is acceptable to say or publish all the time and for good reasons. If you posted that you think the best way to sort out child care is to lock your child in the toilet all day and I said you were abusive and MN said they were taking my opinion down,. That is preventing freedom of speech. If you said, no this is my opinion, then fine. That is where debate is. If you were actually abusive, is another matter from your opinion. If you post something to the public that has significant consequences for people and it is not true but just based on your inherent prejudice, then no, you do not have a right to freedom of speech.

Well actually the law disagrees with you and your partner...

Don't drag me down with your worldview.

Tbh I think you drag yourself down as you seem to be incapable of having a discussion with any kind of nuance, are intent on asserting that anyone who offers an alternative view of why people might fear the shutting down of free speech is simply racist and seem to be playing oneupmanship with whose grandparents had the worst war experience .

**

Goosefoot there was a non white poster on this thread who said she didn’t want a totalitarian society. She was shut down immediately. She obviously didn’t have the right non white views ...

Standard.

"Amplify Black Voices!"

"No not those ones..."