Court of Appeal ruling for Kristie Higgs

[FarriersGirl]

Landmark ruling from he Court of Appeal concerning a pastoral administrator sacked from a Gloucestershire school. This case has dragged on for 7 years but she has won. The way she has been treated for expressing her view that the diversity materials being provided at her children's primary school [not the one she worked at] were not appropriate is truly appalling.
Sorry I could not get a share token but maybe someone can oblige.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/society/article/kristie-higgs-christian-farmor-school-gloucestershire-mbr55pm7m

No, you didn't understand it, because you misrepresented it.

Anyway, not indulging this any longer. The point here is that the law doesn't agree with you that you should be able to persecute religious people for legally permissible speech that they posted on their private social media. Religion is a protected characteristic, rightly, like sexual orientation is, also rightly.

There is no actual discrimination suggested, she just has the belief that marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman, it's not one I share but it's one probably billions of people hold.

So you believe in forced beliefs then? Once you start to dictate what people are allowed to believe, you stifle your own beliefs.

Fortunately there was nothing in her posts that were homophobic.

So what aspect of LGBT was she concerned about?

Same sex marriage isn't a belief.

I think what @Zusammengebrochen is saying is 'I believe X and anyone who doesn't needs to be 'held to account, as I know better'?
What does being 'held to account look like'?

Bank account frozen?
Children removed?
Fired from jobs?

So you believe in forced beliefs then? Once you start to dictate what people are allowed to believe, you stifle your own beliefs.

Yes, this poster clearly does, but thankfully the law disagrees.

YY @CaptainFuture

Same sex marriage isn't a belief, nor is it a view.

Nope, nice try though.

It's not obligatory to believe same sex marriage is a good thing, just like we won't be persecuted for saying it is any more. And you can have whatever opinion about that that you like.

You just can't hound people out of their jobs for posting about it on their own personal Facebook page. HTH.

Aren't we lucky to live in a relatively free country!

Ah fab!! You agree you don't know better? Good stuff!! 🥳🥳

This woman was subjected to several hours of the woke thought-police and was sacked. She had her day in a proper court so good for her.

But what about all the many, many perturbed staff and governors in schools who don’t like the affirmative rhetoric but are too scared to say anything?

This McCarthyism in schools and universities needs to be stopped.

School cannot take sacked teacher to Supreme Court

In a decision on Thursday, which was published on Monday, Lord Reed, Lord Hamblen and Lady Simler said the school had asked for the go-ahead to appeal against the ruling on four grounds.
But they said the Supreme Court "does not have jurisdiction" to hear three of the grounds, and the fourth "does not raise an arguable question of law".

In response to the decision, Mrs Higgs said: "I am relieved and grateful to the Supreme Court for this common-sense decision.

"Christians have the right to express their beliefs on social media and at other non-work-related settings without fear of being punished by their employer."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn7zn077nd4o

I too would be worried if in the course of her work she expressed disapproval of same sex marriage, especially as her role is described as 'pastoral'.

But I'm sure she had enough integrity and professionalism to leave her opinions at the school gate, and not impose her objections to equality for lesbians and gays on the schoolchildren in her care.

But I think you are missing the point, Zusammengebrochen - she shared her opposition to same sex marriage privately on social media, and her employer overreacted, as the court of appeal has ruled.

My understanding is that she was concerned about books that were going to be made mandatory reading by secondary school pupils about children who are confused about their identity and think that they are transgender. She was concerned that these were inappropriate and pushing trans ideology on young children. She posted on her own social media that had no connection with the school. The Court of Appeal judges were unequivocal that the school had acted appallingly.

Sorry it was primary school not secondary.

This is copied from the court judgment, in a meeting she said:

"I am not against gay, lesbian or transgender People. It's about
making sure people
are aware of what`s going
on in the primary
school. It's not about the schools, they are, just following government
policy, it's about the government."

The primary school referred to was a school attended by her younger child. She also
said:

"I don' t regret making the posts, it's about the children in the primary
school. I don't have any 1sSues with gay, lesbian or transgender people,
I
I love all people."

At a meeting on 8 November the Claimant again told Ms Dorey that the posts were
concerned with what was happening at her son's primary school,
as a
result of
Government policy, and that she had wanted them to be seen by other parents there.She
acknowledged that her term brainwashing was not the best language to use", and
that as regards the re-posts she should have used her own words or included a link. She
was again asked whether she thought other people might consider the posts offensive
or prejudiced. She replied:

"I know that there are transgenders and gays who do have the same
beliefs as me.
1 am not against gay people, it doesn't say that."'
:
She was asked whether she considered her posts might compromise her position of trust
in working with children, some of whom might be LGBT. She answered:

"No I don't. Students know me and I know gay students, I wouldn't
treat any of them any different.
I wouldn`t bring this into school."
:

As for the risk of reputational damage to the School, she said:

*People should know my belief ... as people on [Facebook] ... are my
friends. They would know
me as a person and know
& wouldn't
discriminate. If anything I am being discriminated against as I have
shared what the government is doing, this is what I stand for"

It is important to record that in her report Ms Dorey referred to no evidence that the
Claimant had ever expressed her views about gender fluidity or same-sex marriage to
pupils or staff in the School or treated gay, lesbian or transgender pupils or staff
differently.

Just can't help thinking it shouldn't be about her Christian beliefs at all. Even though, as the Christian legal group said, it could apply to any religious person, so a Muslim woman could well have made the same points. Sure, but really, isn't it just wrong to police people's private SM posts, and try to get them thrown out of their job, when there is no suggestion that she was ever behaving improperly at her workplace? The court certainly seemed to take the view that was disproportionate.

Seems she was objecting to the No Outsiders programme which IIRC is pretty problematic

Yep. Presumably it’s fine to trawl fb looking for unacceptable posts, see if you can find out where they live/work and then get them fired/ burn their house down. Nothing after all is unacceptable once someone has been homophobic. (Was she even homophobic??)

Nope.

(Was she even homophobic??)

Well in her post she including in 'brainwashing'
.' that children will be taught that all relationships are equally valid and 'normal', so that same sex marriage is exactly the same as traditional marriage'.

I certainly wouldn't like children being exposed to the idea that same sex marriage is in some way problematic or invalid, but as long as she left it at the school gate, she can say whatever she want to say privately on SM.

Of course it's a belief! Marriage is not something that simply exists, in nature. It's an idea invented by human beings; and thinking that it is desirable, permissible or necessary, for anyone at all, is a belief.

Fair enough. I’d call that homophobic, and I’d like my children taught that lots of different kinds of relationships are all ok, (without sexually explicit details). But I don’t think she should have been fired for saying her thoughts.