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.

It highly likely would have been in my employment when the trans inclusion policy arrived, provided there were clear links to the organisation with the person posting.
I imagine context may have come into play, if it was part of a conversation and the comment was posted as part of a wider 'respectful' discussion maybe not. But just to post that sentence apropos of nothing would probably have been seen as deliberately provocative and against the service aim to appear welcoming to trans people.
Much hinges on policies. We all knew what was expected in terms of the inclusivity policy and we all knew that we shouldn't link ourselves to our employer on SM if we intended on expressing political views.
If we breeched the policies that would have been on us, regardless of the rights or wrongs of our views.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences of exercising the right to free speech.

I expect the context would be a man declaring himself to be a woman and expecting everyone else to play along.

So presumably the man declaring that falsehood would have been fine.

But a woman calling it out may not have been?

What a time to be alive, hmm?

Same. I would avoid pronouns or use “they”. This should be legally fine, you may not be permitted to “misgender” as it could amount to harassment, but equally forcing you to use language which is in conflict with your own legally held protected belief could also amount to harassment

The policy was indeed if a man declared himself to be a woman everyone else had to play along. Which was of course hugely conflicting and created a great deal of problems to navigate for women using the service.
The dilemma then was whether to walk away from the service altogether, abandoning the women it was aimed at, or go along with it and find work arounds that protected them and made sure they didn't lose out.
Yup. Good Times.

Yes and I’d make sure I had all my ducks in a row if I got called into HR.

Horrific

Legally you can absolutely call a man 'he' and refuse to buy into gender ideology completely, and declare yourself gender critical. The law would be on your side. However, as we see, your employer could sack you and you would then have to go through the courts. You would win, but who on earth wants that faff in their lives? All the social workers I know had to crowdfund and yes they won but it took a year or two and they couldn't work in that time. And the reality is they now have a black mark over them. I wouldn't want to live that way. So I would take the middle line and avoid all pronouns and talk of GC, but I would absolutely not indulge the nonsense. To me, the pronoun thing is the thin edge of the wedge.

I know those far right groups exist and I know their history. I am talking about today in 2026 - 3 years since an infamous event in October 2023. That's not the far right who have been out on the streets. It wasn't the far specifically shouting put zios in the ground was it?

Unless it’s directly impacting you or others, why do you care?

Thanks for the reminder 🙄

IIt doesn’t prove your point, so I can only assume you’re using it as an opportunity to say offensive things to me.

Ridiculous assumption, given that I am a strong advocate for safety of Jews. My point has been maintained from the start - that this thread is biased.

You didnt ask me but I will answer. Well it does directly impact women - all women. It started at the pronouns (which 10 years ago I was a bit like 'does it really matter that much - isnt it a bit like calling someone Kat, when their name is Kathrine?). But it was and still is the thin edge of the wedge. What seemed a bit silly but harmless, really really wasnt. Very quickly it turned into 'well if im a she then I must be an actual woman, so now I need access to ALL your spaces, and words and erase 'woman' .' So yeh that directly affects me and all women. So I very much care a great deal.

I've only read summaries of CRT, and I disagree with some significant elements of it, eg I don't think it fails to acknowledge how class and economic distribution interact and impact social and economic relations.

I agree with it in so far as I believe that Christianity and colonialism* were responsible for a lot of bad shit though, but I think most religions have the potential for oppressing those who aren't in the same "club".

*I don't for a minute lay this all at Britain's door, either, most of Western Europe was at it for a few centuries, and Russia wouldn't be half as big as it is if the Czars hadn't been up for a bit of oppression and expansionism.

Because it’s not comfortable for people to be forced to lie.

Yet you’ve only cited left wing sources of that threat, despite evidence that antisemitism doesn’t neatly fit into your preferred framework of Left=bad. I find your refusal to
acknowkedge that highly suspect.

Yes, I'm finding something suspicious as well. I don't need to justify my stance. I've nothing to hide or feel guilty of. You've been quite rude throughout the thread. That's your lot from me.

People like all the time to spare someone’s feelings - ‘how does this dress look’ ‘have I put on weight’. And at work ‘your performance has been acceptable’ ‘you’re a valued colleague’. If you refuse to use preferred pronouns, do you also refuse to call someone by the name they are called if iIt doesn’t suit you? And how about trans people who are not immediately identified by their sex? Nobody should be forced to lie but anyone who thinks they’re doing a service to women by refusing someone’s pronouns is mistaken.

Islam has a reasonable amount of diversity within it, and I think the use of examples like the practice of FGM and treating schizophrenia as demonic possession are extreme.

Christian communities in parts of West Africa practice FGM too, but I have no idea what their attitude to mental illness is.

A friend once pointed out that Islam is around 600 years "younger" than Christianity, and that if we compared the more unpalatable Islamic practices to what Christians were up to 600 years ago, it probably wouldn't seem so bad. I'm sure there are flaws in his position, but he has a first in theology, so I wasn't really inclined to debate the point!

I think I’d rather be rude than repeat anti-Semitic rallying cries. But that’s just me.

That fortunately wasn’t the case in my service, though I know it happened a lot. I think maybe we were fortunate enough to have sufficient funding to be able to provide mixed and sex-specific services, and I know that wasn’t always possible. It’s surprising how many women’s services were so quick to buy into the idea that self-declared sex is enough, and how many women accepted without question. But I have to say the trans women I’ve known in my lifetime have never claimed to have changed sex, even though all have been through surgery so my views are shaped more by those interactions. I wouldn’t presume to call them he or a male name because it wouldn’t make sense. But neither do they pretend to have periods.

Can you provide a link to where CRT says that? I’ve read a lot of it - a long time ago - and my understanding is it’s not about individuals at all, but about how structures perpetuate racial hierarchies and benefit some groups and disadvantage others.

I think two things led to self ID being enough in my service. First the decision to be trans inclusive. Second the principle of allowing women to disclose and share as they felt safe to do so, which meant avoiding questioning and screening for entry to the service. If a woman presented needing support, she was taken at face value.
So when an obvious male presented as a woman, there was no process to exclude him. To introduce one for a 'trans woman' would be treating the trans person differently.
In truth, we didn't know how to deal with it. As on one hand the high ups insisted anyone who presents here as a woman is a woman. While on the other we had staff members who had to answer a learning disabled woman asking "Why is that lady a man?" Plus numerous other examples of women survivors of MVAWG made uncomfortable, intimidated in a supposedly women only safe space.

I think the operative words you appear to have missed are “in the last 3 years”. Both far left and far right have serious antisemitism issues - in the last 3 years. Holocaust denial is sadly a very real issue amongst some pro-Palestinian people. The operative words you being “some”. Not all.

If you identify yourself as an employee or owner at X business or school.or public office, then you need to refrain from any inflammatory or political or sectarian opinions. The idea is to avoid implicating your place of employment in your views.

As a private individual, you are allowed in most developed states to express any opinion you hold. However, if you're well known in your professional capacity in any given community, or if your role brings you into contact woth people you are criticising, and have an inkling that your opinions might be offensive, you should post anonymously or reconsider posting altogether. This is especially true of public service employees, who should be even handed and seen to be even handed in the commission of their duties.

I live in the US, and during a referendum on workers' rights a few years ago a local tradesman / owner of his own business appeared in ads opposing the proposition. He had every right to have the opinion he held, but his surprise when he lost customers was quite funny to see. I have personally dropped one particular plumber from my list of trades to call because his van is festooned with trump stickers.