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

From the Mail article, its a CitizenGo petition (see screenshot)

Appropriate professional boundaries include social media use guidance.

It doesn’t matter whether any of us agree with this woman’s views or not- she should be entitled to peacefully express them.
It’s apparently fine for transgender activists to express their view that gender critical feminists should die in a fire, or issue rape threats against us on social media - why is this woman not given the same freedom for her non violent views?
Tolerance seems to be all one way.
There is no suggestion that the woman has been unprofessional at work, or offended any of the pupils or parents. Her employer should not be able to police her private life.

Appropriate professional boundaries include social media use guidance.

Which of course applies to kind-hearted Christians but not to vicious NHS doctors

It doesn’t matter whether any of us agree with this woman’s views or not- she should be entitled to peacefully express them.

Would you say the same if she had posted 'interracial marriages are not normal' instead of saying gay marriage is not normal? I don't think it's very peaceful to spread your opinion that a whole group of people are unnatural across social media. I don't view homophobia as particularly peaceful at all.

Personally I would not want someone who believes same sex marriage is unnatural teaching my children. It is the same as how I would not want a racist or a member of the EDL teaching my children.

The PP saying that her comments could bring the school into disrepute are correct.

I'm getting more than a little uneasy about how people's beliefs are being heavily policed. It doesn't sit well with me that someone can be sacked on the basis of one complaint when they are expressing views about the education of their own children. It must be their right in a democracy to voice their views.
It's the same with discussions about immigration being denounced as rascist. It's counterproductive and just hardens peoples' positions and fosters deep seated resentments. Never confuse silence with agreement, the backlash will be inevitable. Gay and lesbian people demanding unequivocal acceptance (rather than tolerance) while denouncing religious people as bigots etc could backfire.

Gay and lesbian people demanding unequivocal acceptance (rather than tolerance) while denouncing religious people as bigots etc could backfire.

Oh golly yes, why on earth would they think they should be accepted like normal people!?

If religious people are preaching that being gay is not normal then they are bigots.

She deserves what she gets, male or female you need to be careful and respectful in what one posts.

She has pastoral care responsibilities and is espousing that homosexuality is outwith the bounds of 'normal' on social media.
Of course she was sacked.

Which of course applies to kind-hearted Christians but not to vicious NHS doctors

Social media guidelines will be specific to the profession.
Teaching staff may have different guidelines to doctors (I dont know) & also the disciplinary processes are substantially different.

Complaints have been submitted to GMC re Dr Adrian Harrop's use of social media. GMC seems to take a very long time to deal with complaints against doctors (cf Dr Helen Webberley)

November 2018 thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a3412316-Dr-Adrian-Harrop-thread-the-fourth-GMC-do-care-have-taken-it-to-the-next-level

I think value judgements of a person's perceived kindness or visciousness risk being a distraction or may encourage confirmation bias.

There is a need for careful unpicking of these conflicts which affect children in schools

It’s apparently fine for transgender activists to express their view She didn't pass comment on transgenderim though. She was more focussed on gay people not being 'normal' and that saying they are is brainwashing children.

There is no suggestion that the woman has been unprofessional at work, or offended any of the pupils or parents. That is not the bar educational workers are held to by their contract of employment. All teachers, TAs etc know very well, are reminded regularly, to closely police their social media and not to post outside the general ethos of the school, Ofsted expectations etc. That's why many have very closed down accounts, use fake names etc.

• and someone who read her post was offended. That they were anonymous could mean they know her.

It's the same with discussions about immigration being denounced as rascist.

How can a discussion about illegal immigration be on the same level as describing gay people as unnatural? That cannot be anything but homophobia.

There's a difference between voicing your views and spreading the idea of gay people being unnatural across social media.

People love to yell 'free speech!'. Free speech does not mean u cannot suffer consequences for what you choose to say. People can also be free to decide that they don't want you working for them any more.

I hope similar actions against people expressing transphobic (also known as gender-critical) views are also viewed as entirely proportional and correct.

There is the question of whether a person has transgressed their employment contract but there is also the question of whether the views are considered unpopular and outdated, which is usually what leads to the examination of whether there has been a breach of the employment contract. Who decides, and if you fall on the wrong side of that decision, l hope you will accept that your offensive views are not considered acceptable in our society.

So do we introduce a religious test for anyone working in the public sector. If we demand people can only voice authorised opinions, can we still call ourselves a tolerant democracy? I really don't see what she wrote as coming anywhere near 'hate speech' - it's an issue about how deeply held but opposing views are balanced in a democracy.

If we demand people can only voice authorised opinions, can we still call ourselves a tolerant democracy? She can voice what she likes. But she has to be ultra conservative with social media. Just as no teacher is safe if seen out on a Friday night having fun, being a tad tipsy, no sensible teacher would engage with such a topic on facebook!

ALL teachers are stifled in the same way - because parents make a HUGE fuss if we don't watch our every public word or action! Root cause ... uberPC parenting, Ofsted, The Goviots etc etc

I really can’t decide what I think about this, and I’m not sure I can be impartial given I so strongly disagree with her opinion. But I am very nervous at the way social media behaviour is being used by employers to control what employees can say and do online. If their employer isn’t mentioned, I do not understand why the law allows an employer to sack someone based on their opinions shared outside of work. I know there will be limits, but is this really the line?

Israel Folau, Australian rugby player, has also lost his job this week for his social media use, specifically two posts, one which quoted the Bible and listed liars, atheists and homosexuals amongst others who will go to hell if they don’t ask for forgiveness , and one that responded to the new Tasmanian law that for the first time will allow people to not choose a sex on a birth certificate. He has been sacked while others can freely air their views on any manner of things fundamentalist Christians and Muslims cannot. I am atheist myself but I would really object to an employer of mine telling me I can’t talk about atheism on my own social media. I also get really angry about the fact rugby players with a history of violence towards women are accepted but people like Israel are fired. That’s a bit of a separate issue though.

I am just so uncomfortable with society saying to certain groups, you cannot share opinions on social media that the rest of us don’t like, and if you do you’ll lose your jobs. I really really am not onboard with religion personally, but even if I strongly disagree with people, I still want them to be able to earn a living and live their life according to their own values, that includes freedom on social media that others with different views enjoy.

it's an issue about how deeply held but opposing views are balanced in a democracy.

Yes ^

No contract of employment that I have ever seen prohibits the holding or expression of “unpopular” views, Charleston. It’s a pretty imprecise concept. Nor do I think there is authority for the proposition that such expression would constitute gross misconduct.
I’d guess this lady will challenge her dismissal and I will watch for the outcome with interest.
Sorry to disrupt your totalitarian utopia.

I also agree with those who say standards should apply to certain members of the medical profession whose social media conduct is outrageous.

Whatever you think of her views or how she expressed them, they are still the official views of the Catholic Church and the C of E.

As a linguistic term, I find it fascinating how the word ‘normal’ is now a synonym for acceptable. Same sex relationships are not statistically ‘normal’, although they are becoming more common.

The thing is that a social media post is never nuanced. Genuinely most Christians I know do not want to be teaching negative things about LGBT stuff to children but neither do they want to be teaching children to say hey, we should uncritically celebrate every single non-nuclear permutation. Because as I think was said in another thread, sometimes life is messy. Some of these situations are less than ideal, but it’s never the fault of a child.

What primary schools should be doing however is teaching children that a family is a place of safety, of love and of trust and that children shouldn’t feel ashamed of whatever their individual set up is and neither should anyone bully anyone who is different.

This can be done without saying yay- go the Rainbow everything about it is wonderful, or on the other hand, going full Westboro. You don’t need a specific LGBT Stonewall-tailored curriculum to teach about respect and acceptance.

As I have been monstered for saying, I don’t automatically think two men having a baby is a wonderful thing. It’s a question of treading a fine line of supporting vulnerable individuals in schools, ensuring they aren’t stigmatised whilst at the same time not giving out the message that “hey mums, who needs them, women are irrelevant to the whole process of parenting”.

Retreats and awaits further monstering.

You don’t need a specific LGBT Stonewall-tailored curriculum to teach about respect and acceptance.

I agree with this. As mentioned Caroline, I’m atheist, so while I don’t agree with your beliefs, I think you’ve tried to be respectful in your post and have highlighted what I think are the main things: respect and not bullying anyone who is different. Not bullying does not have to equal, applauding and celebrating everything.

Also re the Israel Folau thing - again I wouldn’t put something like that up there, but he was quoting Scripture!

Are we saying that sports players are not allowed to express religious beliefs? Since when was a rugby player expected to post theologically nuanced posts? Or are the public too stupid to realise that they are his personal views only and not representative of the entire country or their rugby team?

Carowiththegoodhair that sounds lovely, and I'm sure you would not be openly hostile to a child who lived with, for example, two gay parents. However, I went through the Catholic school system at a time when divorce was becoming more commonplace. Although I was never actually told that the fact my parents were divorced was wrong, or that there was anything wrong with being the child of divorced parents, I pretty quickly picked up on a certain tone that was used about my home life that made it clear these nice people thought it was in some way lesser than that of the children whose parents were still married to each other. In my case, that eventually made me really angry, and turned me against the church, but I can see how a less confident, more sensitive child might be quite damaged by it. It wouldn't be intentional, but it would be happening. Schools are now far more aware of that kind of subtle undermining and, rightly, don't allow their staff to do it.

That whole 'love the sinner, hate the sin' thing is hugely patronising at best.

We cannot protect everyone from hurt feelings though, that’s not realistic. Shouldn’t we be trying to instil confidence and resilience, not to bullying or course, but to people with different views about our lives?

I haven't seen what she's written and don't agree with racism or homophobia. I do believe in freedom of speech but that went so long ago
Given we can't say anything these days teachers who want to keep their jobs are mad for being on sm.

Are we saying that sports players are not allowed to express religious beliefs? They are not, specifically about sexuality, that exact wording is part of most rugby unions contracts now, because a lot of players are in fact deeply religious people- especially Polynesian players who prop up most of the worlds teams. Sports bodies are reactionary and these clauses are based on the fact public opinion and sponsors expect a strongly pro LGBT message. I’ve seen some incredibly enraging opinion pieces this week that refer to the Pacific islands as ‘backwards ’ but that it’s not their fault as they were colonised with western Christianity and are just not caught up to the western worlds evolved culture! Ffs. It is enraging to read that crap