The official warning followed a complaint by a single person that posts by the social worker on her private Facebook page were ‘offensive’ and ‘disgusting’ because they criticised the concept of gender identity. SWE’s decision followed receipt of submissions on the case.
A single, solitary person.
And this single solitary person who, remarkably, was not and is not subject to any form of disciplinary procedures or actions against them despite:
The motivations of the complainant
57. The case examiners have offered no consideration whatsoever of the motivations and actions of the complainant, allowing the risk of a ‘heckler’s veto’ to operate and thus a disproportionate breach of RM’s Article 10 rights.
58. The case examiners raise the following concerns about RM’s publications:
Case examiners are of the opinion that not only those from the transgender community, but others, would have concerns about the social worker’s ability to act in an anti-oppressive manner which values the diverse lived experience of others.
59. If this is held to apply to RM, then it must apply with equal force to the public pronouncements of the complainant who frequently uses his public Twitter account to make or endorse comments which are accusatory and rude towards others who do not share his views. It is submitted there is a risk this would lead members of the public to believe that he would not be fair or polite to service users who disagreed with him.
60. The case examiners repeatedly refer to the complainant as a ‘member of the public’. However, even a cursory examination of his public Twitter account would demonstrate that he was not complaining simply as a disinterested‘ member of the public’ but as a registered social worker with an explicitly public stated interest in promoting and asserting the primacy of gender identity over the material reality of sex.
61. RM is criticised for her lack of ‘balance’ in her posts; there is no attempt by the complainant to ‘balance’ his support for gender ideology against any recognition that others may have different views. This goes entirely unremarked by the case examiners.
62. The suggestion of the case examiners that RM should have ‘engaged’ with the complainant is naïve and inappropriate given his views and the way he expresses them and underscores that they have failed to give any proper consideration to the complainant’s own obvious bias and prejudice towards RM’s protected belief. This risks a perception that the case examiners endorse discrimination against someone with a protected belief.
63. RM accepts that the complainant has a right to express his views as an identifiable social worker, provided that his publications do not cross the threshold of serious offence. However, she poses the question why XX’s continuing behaviour is of apparently no interest to his regulator, given its public and offensive nature, while hers has been subject to intense scrutiny and public criticism.
64. It is submitted that there is a clear risk here of bias and discrimination on the part of the case examiners towards those with ‘gender critical views’. The question then inevitably follows; to what extent have SWE provided its case examiners with accurate and fair advice about the law in this area?
One rule for one and one rule for another, eh? Even more Interesting is that the rules appear to apply differently regarding the sex of each individual, isn't it?