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

[Slightyamusedandsilly]

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.

Whats your job @Switchnow ?

I disagree. I see my role as protecting vulnerable people. I wont let fear of being accused of racism/transphobia/islamophobia etc be a barrier to that. I think Im pretty brave actually and hold my head above the paraphet a lot. Its not easy in social work to do that.

It entirely depends on what was posted. Facts are facts can be perceived by others as racist/transphobic/homophobic/sexist.

Well yes it is, but that doesn’t stop it being an issue, it just means people can hide behind it.

I appreciate you.

What does 'balancing that with respect for culture' actually translate to though? Are you suggesting you would be expected to overlook the abuse of Muslim girls in a way you wouldn't with white girls (completely unacceptable if so)? Or are you saying that you're encouraged to avoid criticising religion and keep your focus on behavioural changes? Because showing respect to parents, meeting them where they are and focusing on positive change rather than judgement and criticism underpins the SW approach regardless of ethnicity and culture.

Racism is clear and unacceptable in all circumstances. There is literally no reason to judge or treat someone badly because of skin tone or country of birth.

Anti-immigration - if being anti immigration is based upon racism, see above. If it’s genuine concern for negative local/country impact of mass immigration, it’s worth a discussion to find solutions.

Anti-trans - please could you give an example.

Could we also add anti-terf to
this debate, such as placards paraded and photographed in newspapers saying “decapitate TERFs” or “JK is a witch”
Should people carrying these banners lose their jobs due to inciting hatred?

On the last bit - yes, probably, but being part of a protest is less likely to link back to your place of employment than an open social media page where you openly state your place of work amongst the bile. Unless of course you do a smiley selfie with said placard...

Does it? It didn’t when I worked closely with social workers. Seems quite a romanticised view of how it often works in practice, and is ignoring the culture of SWE that multiple people have talked about. My experiences are nearer to the pp, and you can advance search my posts, I’ve talked about elsewhere. Not going into it now, just suffice to say I recognise what she is talking about regards social work.

But these people aren't social workers. They're in low level jobs and should not be considered official representatives of their school/GP.

People who do this are just so so stupid. Whether it’s an MP, teaching assistant, lecturer, receptionist etc, if you put this stuff up, your job may be at risk. For that idiocy alone, they should lose their jobs, even if I agree with their opinion (which I probably won’t).

Every employee in an organisation represents their employer. The policies around this will be standard at all levels.

Her expressed
views aren't extreme.
There are legitimate concerns about the way women are treated and considered by Islam, you just have to look at the treatment of women in Afghanistan to see how harmful and dangerous for women and girls the religion can become, then theres the way homosexualality is treated by both the religion and most Islamic states in which being gay can get you the death penalty.
Thats not islamaphobia or racism thats the cold hard and for some uncomfortable truth about the religion.
It shouldn't be considered hate or extreme to call any ideology that actively calls for women to be beaten or killed for disobedience, for gays and those born into the religion/ideology who convert or just dont belive it to be killed and an ideology or religion that says 9 year olds are of marriagable age as dangerous. Its legitimate criticism.

Holding gender critical or sex realists beliefs is protected in UK law so is simply not believing in gender ideology and are beliefs held by most of the country and align with science and the equality act so again not extreme.

"But the muslim religion is far more dangerous to women and girls than Christianity or Catholicism."

Catholicism is part of Christianity.
And surely, with all those religions it depends on the interpretation. The Christianity found in Gilead is very dangerous to women and girls, for example and that's based on an extreme and perverted form of fundamentalist Protestantism.

In any case, no culture or religion should be used as an excuse to disobey the law of the country you live in.

true.

can you give me an example of anti trans though.

I'm not denying anyone's experiences. The failings of the SW system and children's services are a matter of public record. What I'm trying to understand is what this actually looks like for social workers. Are they being encouraged to ignore the abuse of Muslim girls? Or are they being encouraged to approach addressing it in a different way in order to not alienate the families? They're two very different things.
And, no, it's not remotely 'romanticised' to believe there are operational models used to reach and connect with different demographics which typically involve taking into account people's different cultural norms. Its a very basic concept that's been around for decades.
My interest is in learning how and why this has become a barrier to SW safeguarding some groups of children. Are they being encouraged to ignore abuse they believe is based in religious beliefs, or not?

They really should NOT be. We should be allowed to express political opinions, for example, unless in some kind of restricted role. The Head Teacher of the school represents the school in a way a learning assistant does not.

Do you work in social work?

There is, in my view, a big difference between seeing the harm that a religious state like Afghanistan can do, and seeing an entire religion and all its participants as ‘dangerous‘, without any nuance whatsoever. I wonder how she thinks she’s any safer for Muslim women or children if she writes them all off as dangerous.

There’s also a wide range of understanding of what ‘GC’ means and how that is applied. The law protects her beliefs, as it protects the beliefs of people who are trans.

Of course anyone can have any extreme views they like, provided they act within the law and any regulatory or contractual arrangements they are subject to - for example employment.

I personally find it dangerous when agents of the state, who have enormous power, hold strong views (negative or positive) about some groups of people. And again, I don’t think it aligns with the regulatory position of social work to single out a religion as ‘dangerous’. If you can’t be neutral, get a different job.

Of course a LSA represents the school! Particularly when she publicly states that she hates a % of the children that she directly works with because of the colour of their skin, their religion or where they come from.

What did happen to the msps and their support of this violence? Did they pull a “whoopsie gosh we didn’t know” or
double down?

What did she say? We’ve only had a description of the receptionist.

I agree with your first point. But a learning assistant is in a trusted position with children. If I had children (of any ethnicity, but especially of a minority) in the school Brenda Rose Heal was in, I’d pull them out rather than have them exposed to her hatred. Wouldn’t you?

‘“I work in a school, 1,100 kids. Up until 18 months ago we only had between three and four in every 1,000 kids (who were) Black or Asian children. We have now anywhere between 75 and 80 of them. In 18 months. So it’s on its way.”
She went on to urge demonstrators not to use Turkish barbers, accusing the businesses of crimes, provoking some pushback from those assembled.’

https://somersetleveller.co.uk/news/school-worker-brenda-heal-will-not-return-for-new-term-after-immigration-protest-remarks/

Thank you, appreciate the link.