No Comment

[Gottalife]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-54448646

Well quite.

The woman had issues that she posted (what exactly?) about on social media around the content of school sex ed.

Now I've seen some bizarre stuff on here recently around sex ed but it's a bit of a leap to assume that she was worried about having to teach her students that paedophilic relationships were 'valid'.

And waaay more likely that when she references 'normal' relationships, as a Christian, she's talking about gay people.

I mean both are guesses and we don't know exactly what she said. But on the balance of probability, I'd go with homophobia.

This thread is veeeery interesting....

On being sacked for what you say on social media. That's a tough one. My line is different to someone else's. The UK line is different to China etc etc.

It's a thorny one. In the old days a teacher could espouse dodgy opinions to like minded friends, never mention them at work, and be an excellent teacher or whatever.

Now. It's all there for anyone to see. It's a new thing we as a society and globally need to get to grips with.

On the one hand you have NSPCC rubber man being defended by employer. On the other hand you have this woman being sacked.

Who is pure of thought? And who decides what is pure?

OTOH if an excellent teacher is bang into Nazi stuff on their social media, I mean I wouldn't be comfy, who would?

I'm keen to hear from the op.

What's your take OP?

Posted without comment. There's been a bit of conversation, what do you make of it all?

Did you get what you hoped from the thread?

@Quaagars

"I am aware that same-sex marriages are now recognised under UK law, but I believe that is contrary to God's law - which only recognises marriages between one man and one woman," she said in her statement

Yep, seems pretty clear was referring to gay and lesbian relationships if said that.
Not paedophile relationships, or abusive ones.
Hope you just missed that post

Whilst it’s obvious from other comments quoted that this is a homophobic statement I’d just like to add that there does need to be more clarification on “all relationships are valid” to discuss what is and isn’t appropriate in a relationship.

I say this (and sorry to derail) because in a previous job I worked with girls who were at risk of CSA (which in reality meant girls who had been groomed into CSA by much older men) and telling them all relationships are valid would go against what we were teaching them about their own boundaries as they believed themselves to be in genuine relationships rather than be caught up with predators. And whilst we were a specialist service all these girls came to us from mainstream settings.

So whilst I think schools should be teaching that same sex relationships are fine and normal, a blanket “all relationships” would actually be quite harmful to those girls.

Ok.

I think it's unlikely that schools are teaching that literally all relationships are valid. And the indications seem to be that she was talking about gay people.

I think if you can find anything to suggest she was literally having to promote incest etc as aok in school then let's talk about it.

But, that's a very odd stretch.

No excuse for homophobia. Unfortunately this woman is what people think GC Feminists are. Could have done without her hogging any media space to be honest.
Yes you can be GC and religious or spiritual.
There are many Gay, Lesbian and Trans GC people.
I was on a JK fan group on FB at one point and a lovely TM I know was getting harassed by a nut job saying to him that trans people were (insert all insults here) - admin eventually threw him out after I reported him a bunch of times...but this isn’t what GC sane people do. I don’t know what this woman had written but when I first saw this story it seemed that she was being blanket homophobic. I wouldn’t want to be associated with her. One report I saw on Humanists UK says that she said that she was telling students they would go to hell for being gay or bad Christians.
So yeah... no thanks,

@NiceGerbil

Ok.

I think it's unlikely that schools are teaching that literally all relationships are valid. And the indications seem to be that she was talking about gay people.

I think if you can find anything to suggest she was literally having to promote incest etc as aok in school then let's talk about it.

But, that's a very odd stretch.

Exactly, it's pretty clear it was about gay people, massive stretch and deflect to say that it could be otherwise!

Yeah, I’m incredibly queasy about any suggestion that this woman has been hard done by. There’s a whole ocean of difference between carefully considered, evidence based, arguments against massive social change that has serious knock-on effects for a large section of society, based around a nebulous and constantly shifting ideology which is prone to active homophobia, misogyny, and playing fast and loose with child safeguarding, and ‘Mah God dun lik it’.
People’s religious beliefs aren’t due any more respect than people political beliefs.
This woman is NOT on our side, and I really don’t like any suggestion that she might be, her motives are completely different.

This woman is NOT on our side, and I really don’t like any suggestion that she might be, her motives are completely different.

I can't see anything remotely 'on our side' about what she's said.

Unfortunately she gives ammunition to people who wish to imply that GC feminists may be 'aligned' with people of her ilk. We're not.

I don’t like the woman’s views, but I absolutely defend her right to hold them, discuss them with her friends on social media, and to raise petitions about them online.

Her employer does not own anything except the right to her paid labour. What she does or says in her free time is up to her.
It would be different if she was trying to indoctrinate children in the classroom during her working hours, but I don’t think she has been accused of that.

@ErrolTheDragon

Exactly. The post doesn’t really belong here, imo.

BabDoc - of course she has a right to free speech and thought. But, that doesn't mean you can say anything outside of work without the possibility of consequences. We could try the standard thought experiment of, what if this had been racist rather than homophobic? (There have been biblical justifications for banning 'miscegenation' in the past, which seems analogous.)

I’m not sure where the official GC feminism manifesto is located and I’m not aware that people had to sign up as agreeing to it to be able to call themselves a GC feminist. In any case people who don’t call themselves feminists (in some cases because they are aware their views wouldn’t be considered good enough) are gender-critical. There’s no gate-keeping on who can call themselves gender-critical, as infuriating as some may find that. It’s not your pet issue.

Why is it a problem that this woman espouses views in line with the official religion of this country, which cannot therefore be considered extreme, even if they are unfashionable? This is the faith headed by Her Majesty the Queen herself. She wasn’t speaking in an official capacity, she wasn’t speaking in a school or advocating any kind of unfair or unpleasant treatment towards gay people. She expressed the view that same-sex marriages are contrary to God’s law and therefore she didn’t think young children should be taught that they are as equally valid as marriage between a man and woman. She likely doesn’t want same-sex marriages mentioned to young children at all, rather than wanting them to be categorised as lesser in any way.

Her views are not niche. They are shared by hundreds of thousands of members of the Christian church, maybe more, not to mention Muslims and Orthodox Jews. The list probably doesn’t stop there.

Why are her private views (admittedly not completely private as they were shared online, but not in an official capacity) an issue that necessitates sacking? Because they hurt people’s feelings? Like gender-critical beliefs that a transwoman isn’t a woman and should be excluded from spaces that were traditionally single-sex hurt the feelings of many transwomen? So it was justifiable that Maya Forstater’s contract wasn’t renewed due to her gender-critical beliefs expressed online?

If you live by the sword, be prepared to die by the sword, because one day your beliefs may be the verboten ones. And following the way some of you think, everyone should be fighting for their views to be the supreme views, including transgender ideologists, and those who hold contrary views should be punished harshly.

The church of England doesn't say that same sex relationships are wrong and that gay marriage is wrong ?!

They officiate for same sex marriages.

I have no idea what you're on about.

If they are saying that then I'm happy to stand up and say they're being total arseholes.

I'm surprised though. I'm RC by background and thought the CofE was a bit better than that.

We still don't really know what this woman said, do we.

Charleston

I for one have said the free speech issue is a thorny one and probably for a different thread.

In addition. No one has ever said that TRAs aren't allowed their views. It's not women who said 'no debate' and have had people sacked.

And the TRA aims have led to the equality act being misquoted and applied incorrectly in many orgs up and down the country.

I'm not sure what your point is at all tbh.

We can't just eradicate everyone from society who has views we don't like

This.

Free speech means nothing at all if it means people cannot freely express their views.

@Wildswim

We can't just eradicate everyone from society who has views we don't like

This.

Free speech means nothing at all if it means people cannot freely express their views.

Free speech doesn't mean free from consequences though. I mean, I have free speech to go shout racist or homophobic slurs in the middle of the street (not that I ever would, but you get my point) - that doesn't mean I'm free from any consequences of doing that though.

Well that's s nice idea but I for one wouldn't be comfortable with eg someone who thought Hitler had great ideas teaching my kids at school.

Or a man who was a proud incel /MRA of the more extreme woman hating type.

The thing about the internet is that private thoughts are now much less private.

Like I said it's thorny and probably a topic for another thread.

So should someone lose their job for expressing their religious views (shared by many religions including the world's two largest, Christianity and Islam) on a private Facebook post?

If you post opinions which are antithetical to the ethos of the organisation you work for, would you expect that it might not have consequences?

I for one wouldn't be comfortable with eg someone who thought Hitler had great ideas teaching my kids at school. Or a man who was a proud incel /MRA of the more extreme woman hating type

Same

It would be different if she was trying to indoctrinate children in the classroom during her working hours, but I don’t think she has been accused of that

Maybe not accused of that, but if someone held such strong views about gay people, how would anyone know they wouldn't be treated any differently if they were by them?
Same if it was about the colour of your skin.
Not a case of "hurt feelings" like someone said upthread - just treating people equally.
How could you know they would if they were in a position of power like teacher/ whatever with those views?

“Free speech doesn’t mean free from consequences”

Well yes, but those consequences should a cogent (and respectful) argument as to how your views are wrong. Not some trouble-making snooper reporting you to your employer.

I don’t share her views on same-sex relationships or same-marriage but I’m not offended by them at all. But I am in agreement with her about having very young children in primary schools being acquainted with the notion. I think that’s for much older children having it discussed at home with their parents. Other people are entitled to a different view.

This poor woman has been very shabbily and unreasonably treated by her employer

@ErrolTheDragon

If you post opinions which are antithetical to the ethos of the organisation you work for, would you expect that it might not have consequences?

Interesting question. Remember that female officer who didn't get a job because she said biological sex was important? Or the woman who worked for a publishing firm who held GC views?

I think we have to assume that this TA spoke spoke on a personal level but we would expect her to be professional. Like I hope all of us would when in our official roles.

I think it’s a real stretch to say that the view that same-sex marriages are contrary to God’s law and young children shouldn’t be taught about them is antithetical to the ethos of any school, especially any primary school. Why are schools getting involved in this sort of moral education when parents have different moral positions? Have parents been consulted and have the majority agreed to this? Or is this a case of a lobby group seeking to change views by bypassing parents, going straight to the children and getting them while they’re young?

In any case, my issue isn’t that an employer imposes a sanction if it believes private statements made by an employee have brought the school into disrepute. The consequences should fit the ‘crime’. Formal or informal warnings, extra training, a sanction short of sacking in the first instance all seem much more appropriate to me. She didn’t denigrate gay people or same-sex relationships. Her language (as reported) was polite though her views unfortunately caused hurt.

So no, I don’t believe freedom of speech should be absolute (it isn’t in this country) and I don’t believe it should mean there are no consequences but I do think any consequences should be proportionate. I also believe that sometimes an appropriate approach for an employer is to say those are private views which don’t reflect our position and unless there is evidence that the views affect the staff member’s ability to do their job properly, they will be spoken to but no further action will be taken.

The fact that some people are homosexual/ bisexual is something primary children should not be told?

What do you do if a kid at the school has two mums?!