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.

That said I think a company is fine to fire somebody who brings the firm’s name into disrepute and costs them money.

You’ve obviously missed all the court cases where women have been threatened, silenced and sacked for stating that biology is real.

'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'.

Another one who prefers their own opinion over evidence. No wonder public services are so fucked. 🤷‍♀️

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

How would they know they are trans?

You brought up trans in your opening post.

~And YABU for not postiung links to your examples.

It will be a clause in their employment contract. Something about not bringing the name of the organisation into disrepute. If you don’t like it don’t sign the contract. Anyone, who teaches (for example) needs to take care what they post and what they say in public. Don’t get caught drunk, driving, don’t take drugs, don’t do anything silly. Don’t like it don’t teach.

Was just a question to understand your background. I’ve worked in both the third and public sectors too.

@Switchnow views are exactly why people like me worry about being called racist. Because her definition of racist, hateful views to the point I should be out of a job are the ones where I express I worry deeply about women and girls in some muslim households. I find it interesting you jumped on the Victoria Climbie example as one to prove your point about failing social workers - when what that shows me is that social worker was concerned that she would be deemed racist for saying she had concerns about Victorias quietness and worried it might just be cultural. Ive been there myself.

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?

Thank you for everything that you do. I have been in that field myself and it is tough going.

I am sure that’s incorrect. It just means that there is a disparity that cannot be explained by the usual factors that could explain a difference.

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

Is there a link to this?

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

I don’t know about “left vs. right” but I do know that many so called free speech advocates were fine with people losing their jobs for not being suitably grief stricken over Charlie Kirk’s death.

I also think it’s the nature of the view. I can see why people would be more supportive of overtly racially bigoted police officers losing their jobs compared to police officers who support Net Zero for example.

I think you can look at it both ways, and it’s why this sort of tribalism isn’t helpful (not you personally, tribalism as described in general). The way many people on the right saw it is that people who would have been baying for them to lose their jobs for a range of spicy comments, got a taste of their own medicine. And in many cases it was disproportionate, like Forstater, Meade, Higgs were. I admit to a wry smile at the schadenfreude of the cancellers getting cancelled myself at the time.

The them and us mentality isn’t helpful, and I’m certainly not immune to it, but I try to refrain.

The way many people on the right saw it is that people who would have been baying for them to lose their jobs for a range of spicy comments,

But that’s nonsense and we all know it. What it showed is despite their claims to the contrary what free speech advocates actually mean speech the agree with should be free. And this has always been the case. They have never been fierce proponents of free speech.

It isn’t nonsense, you just can’t see it from their perspective. I’m not saying they were right, but it’s why they thought turnabout was fair play.

The left were the ones who said there was no such thing as cancel culture. And I can tell you that phrase was bandied about on Twitter with great glee when people were sanctioned by their employers for comments about CK.

I know you obviously think you’re right and everyone else you disagree with is wrong, but so do they 🤷‍♀️ everyone does.

Which bit? If its the latter, I wrote my thesis on it, based my independent SW business on it, and wrote a book on it. So I have a LOT of references on it. I also base my practice on the fact that autistic girls are heavily and negatively influenced by GI and so I avoid servicing those service users. I advocate for them in others ways, through my activism, not my SW business practice.

It is nonsense - because there are numerous examples of it (like people lamenting the UK punishing people for social media posts while applauding Trump preventing entry to the USA for people who may have spoken negatively about him online.)

There is a way to remain steadfast to free speech principles while also say that people should use the Charlie Kirk firing lessons as to why free speech important for all.

But that’s not what happened. Many people were defending CK sackings, not due to schadenfraude but simply because it was a way of people demonstrating freedom of expression in a way they were not comfortable with.

All of it.

Haha.. Yeah you can look that up yourself. Im not a library or uni course lecturer!