Secondary school assistant sacked after posting petition against transgender issues being taught at her son's CofE primary

[TimeLady]

Devoutly Christian secondary school assistant, 43, is sacked after posting petition against transgender issues being taught at her son's CofE primary

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6925837/School-assistant-43-sacked-posting-petition-against-transgender-teaching-sons-school.html

I suspect it's classed as gross misconduct.

I'd expect the same for teachers. We have a code of conduct we sign and have to adhere to.

Social media is a minefield for school staff. I have mine locked down. I removed any possible drunken looking pics.

We have to uphold the British values, and code of conduct. Deliberately and publicly stating views against this would be gross misconduct.

Imagine "teacher declares minority ethnic communities shouldn't have same rights as whites"

"Teacher states that mixed race marriages aren't normal"

It's the same thing.

FlightPack there would have been training as part of her job if she had been there for 6 years. She has broken the code of conduct. I wouldn’t want someone homophobic working with my children.

Yes I agree. On reflection, it's totally unacceptable.

ImTheRealHFella that’s a good way of looking it and I absolutely agree.

Whether you agree with her or not (and I have to admit that I wouldn’t have put a post up like this) it’s nonetheless appalling.

These posts were not even public and did not concern the school.

The nine protected characteristics under the 2010 Equality Act are are age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.

Given that she's been dismissed for her religious views (whether or not you agree with them - I personally don't), I'd say she has a very strong case against her employers.

Whether or not employers have the right to police employees' personal social media use and then take action against them if they post something they disagree with is a separate issue. Again, given these circumstances, I'd say the employers are on very dodgy ground, given that she wasn't talking about her own place of work - taken to its logical extreme, it would mean that you couldn't post anything about anything in case someone decided that it was bringing your employer into disrepute.

She will have signed a social media policy and a code of conduct.
I wouldn't want to work alongside a pastoral assistant who expressed those views.
It's gross misconduct in my view and certainly would have resulted in dismissal in my last place of work.

Some really good points here. That's why it's such a problem this whole conflation of issues. There is a significant strand of homophobia running through the objections to No Outsiders. There are legitimate concerns about the legal accuracy of some sections of it and some of it (IMHO) is not appropriate for young children.
BUT raising this is almost impossible as too many of the opponents are voicing straightforward homophobic views about the legitimacy of being gay.
None of this helps to nurture a mutually respectful society where the needs and rights of different groups are all protected.

If you have views which are not in line with the law and your schools code of conduct but keep them quiet, you are not going to get sacked. If you post them on social media (it is public despite arguments about locked accounts etc- it’s the internet) after signing a document which very clearly states you should not, then you are going to get sacked.

yellowsun but then you will end up discriminating against those of Abrahamic faiths (Jews, Muslims, Christians) as these are all, to one extent or another, homophobic faiths.

It's a clash of rights. We can have our own view of who is more right but the law needs to sort this out as it's going to keep happening.

But I would personally say that if those of faith wish children to be educated about those faiths (which I don't disagree with) then they need to accept that children should also be educated about different sexualities, in an age-appropriate manner. Otherwise, we will end up with children not being educated about religions or sexualities which I don't think is a good idea. And it's also worth noting that children are taught a lot more about faith (DD had a whole term devoted to each of the major faiths) than sexuality.

Obviously, it goes without saying that children should not be taught any nonsense about being able to change sex, or gender being anything other than a social construct.

I really don’t understand how people can be in support of her. If your child’s head teacher poster on their personal Facebook page that they thought that being gay wasn’t normal, would you be happy about your child attending the school knowing that the head has these views?

As a pastoral leader, she is in a position to be working with some really vulnerable children. They do not need someone with such prejudiced views ‘supporting’ them.

WeepingWillowWeepingWino I’d be saying the same thing about any member of school staff of any religion if they were posting such comments in a public forum. I work with staff of different faiths who manage to be inclusive and supportive to all. Education is not the place for people who can’t.

“Views not in line with the law.” Views can be illegal?

I am sure there are many people who disagree with laws on many things. That doesn’t make their views illegal.

Most likely a teaching assistant is not going to be responsible for delivering PSHE content. I would imagine that someone with her views wouldn’t even be mentioning her views on gay relationships to children.

However what the school is saying is that anyone expressing an orthodox religious view on sex and sexuality is not welcome as a member of their staff. That’s rather chilling. She’s not calling for violence, she’s not calling for the criminalisation of homosexuality, she’s just expressing her view about primary schools. Albeit horribly clumsily in a way that some may find offensive.

Sorry, didn't mean to press post.

*She is perfectly entitled to hold her fundamental religious views. She just isn't entitled to spill them across social media without consequence if, in doing so, she causes a bit of a kerfuffle, Which this did!

Homophobia isn't tolersate and all schools have policies that make it perfectly clear that this could be considered gross misconduct!*

I predict that we will see ever more of this as the "T' becomes conflated with the 'LGB'. Gay men are now feeling that they have to wage a whole new war against homophobia - thanks to the unquestioned acceptance of the "T' into the stable. I wouldn't be happy about my granddaughter being subject to 'trans' teaching in her school, either.

Mind you - we now know that many gay men are not the slightest bit interested, really, in misogyny and hatred towards women. Didn't see Peter Tatchell storming the hotel recently shouting about women being stoned for 'adultery' ( which we know often is a cover for rape), only about gay rights.

people support her because they agree about the trans stuff (another example of why the T should not be added to the LBG) and the trans issue has highlighted that there are clashing protected characteristics and has also highlighted the issue of freedom of expression.

I agree with all that without agreeing with her view on same-sex relationships.

yellow are you aware of the recent Christian bakery case?

Yes I am. I am sure the bakers didn’t sign social media and code of conduct policies.

Many on the left are loathe to criticise muslims, or to be seen to offend the Muslim community - even in the face of misogynistic and other prejudiced views and practices - and yet it is perfectly fine to shout down Christians.

This is not to excuse intolerance in whatever guise, but it does reveal the cracks that are now starting to be exposed in the hierarchies of oppression model so beloved of the left. Owen jones recently pleading that Muslim opposition to LGBT teaching not be allowed to split 'the movement'.Cracks appearing all over the place now as old alignments shatter.

It appears that the Equality Act has put us all outside the law as it covers so many competing characteristics. Sex vs Gender Reassignment, Religion vs Sexual Orientation, etc etc. This only serves those in power, and will no doubt prove a useful tool to shut up those whose opinions are not valuable to them.

Mainstream culture is currently anti-religion and relishes in being openly anti-Christian.

As a GC feminist on the wrong side of mainstream culture and government policy regarding the inculcation of very young children to transgenderism, I do support this women’s right to free speech whatever her school’s policy on social media use.

Sex V Gender Reassignment is a question of Legal Fact V Legal Fiction. We all know that no-one can change sex, it is an innate and immutable characteristic, as is age and race.

Disability is both an innate characteristic in many circumstances and acquired [ie: not innate] in others.

Gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, religion or belief, and sexual orientation are all acquired characteristics and are mutable.

In this particular case it is education that is the issue and the fact that it is becoming compulsory to educate about RSE. So, maybe the solution here is to remove the compulsory aspect. I am unaware that Religion / belief is a compulsory educational requirement in schools so why should education about sexual orientation be compulsory?

And if the answer to that question relates to the "anti-bullying" agenda, why is the faith community being bullied into compulsory RSE when they object so strongly?

Facebook has been around for over a decade. That's long enough for most people to realise that posting about your political opinions on Facebook is a bad move, unless you can afford to say what you want as you don't rely on employment (a la Posie Parker).
I don't agree with her views re gay relationships at all and I can see why she was sacked, but it gets somewhat confusing re the balance of two protected characteristics: faith and sexuality. Is it ok for religious groups to openly express their faith based views on homosexuality or not? Personally (as an atheist) I think all schools should be secular and anyone who mentions religion in a school setting should be given a warning.

UK Human Rights Act 1998

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1

Article 9
Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
1 Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2 Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Article 10
Freedom of expression
1 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2 The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Article 14
Prohibition of discrimination
The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

This is about professonal standards for teaching staff, just as with social care, good practice requires that those with power/responsibility are mindful of the need for appropriate boundaries when working with children & vulnerable adults.

This should be the context rather than free speech/human rights
Likewise the issues with Andrew Moffat's, 'No Outsiders' scheme of work

The central issue should be the needs of the children, not adults' insistance on promoting their agenda/ideologies/rights etc

I haven't been able to find the petition in question but it seems likely this is not one based on a gender critical position/feminist but one based on conservative religious ideology.

Ooh! I want to take back my first post!

Different woman! My apologies! I shall report myself, in the meantime!

" ... mindful of the need for appropriate boundaries when working with children & vulnerable adults. "

Exactly so ... this woman had worked with those children / young people for 6 years while having the beliefs she has and there had never been an issue. This suggests she had kept her beliefs to herself until expressing concern about the compulsory aspect of RSE via social media and encouraging participation in that petition.

I think this is the petition:

www.change.org/p/department-of-education-re-rse-should-not-been-compulsory-for-primary-school-children-in-uk