LGBT in schools vs religious parents

[chilango]

Nobody working in a school should lose their job for expressing an opinion (however repugnant) away from work.

However, if there is reason to believe that those opinions are brought into work and may manifest in harmful actions (and especially concerns around safeguarding) then actions does need to be taken.

 

[smokedout]

Nobody working in a school should lose their job for expressing an opinion (however repugnant) away from work.

However, if there is reason to believe that those opinions are brought into work and may manifest in harmful actions (and especially concerns around safeguarding) then actions does need to be taken.

I don't think it's that simple anymore. If social media had been around when I was a kid I'd have been all over my teacher's social media profiles, especially if I didn't like them. And there's all kinds of ways this could be used to harm both teachers themselves and pupils - Sir thinks people like you are perverts don't you Sir, you said so on facebook. It may be that there are some jobs where having an openly political social media profile is a problem especially when someone is in a position of responsibility over kids and controversial opinions could be used against both them or the children they are responsible for.

That's pretty shit. It feels less than ideal. But it's not just teachers and education workers bound by this and the principle is not unacceptable to the person who brought this case - who as we've seen demanded that a tribunal panel member be prevented from doing their job due to opinions expressed on social media.

(the link to Stonewall btw is that they went on a one day training course to be a Stonewall Role Model to learn about supporting LGBTQ people in the workplace)

 

[likesfish]

Lots of jobs your social media profile could be used against you it may be inappropriate to hold political viewpoints. Police prison service military social services etc even my job being a traffic warden we can mention work.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Yeah, but surely (re)training should be on the table rather than moving directly to dismissal. I think it’s always preferable to have someone learn from their mistakes rather than losing their livelihood over making one.

 

[Jennaonthebeach]

When i was being hauled over the coals by my company after an anonymous and untrue accusation from a transphobic member of the public I noticed that the person in HR who was leading the "investigation" followed an extremist African evangelist, on Twitter, who was all about ranting against trans people. didn't do me any good though, but I did survive.


Oh and when I Left 3 years later they made me sign a NDA - which is why I'm being vague.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The anonymous reporting to the school is the bit that sticks a bit for me. That she posted under her maiden name suggests that she was at least trying to create some distance between her conversations on Facebook and her professional life. If this person hadn't reported them, it appears the posts would quickly have washed away with little or no real-world effect, as most social media posts do.

I know that teachers and other professionals do now have to be very careful about their online presence. I don't think that's a wholly positive thing, though. IMO the bar for bringing your employer into disrepute should be rather higher than it currently appears to be. Many of us express opinions about how we think the world should be while, of necessity, acting at work in a way that aligns with how the world actually is.

 

[Spymaster]

However, if there is reason to believe that those opinions are brought into work and may manifest in harmful actions (and especially concerns around safeguarding) then actions does need to be taken.

A key word in there is "are". There needs to be evidence that it's happening. Not just a suspicion that it might at some point.

 

[likesfish]

Depends how big the failure er.
Heard of one squaddie who got told not to take photos in the warehouse of secret stuff said photos turned up on Facebook no security clearance no job.

Although it sounds like the person decided to die on that hill top as “it’s her beliefs”

Trouble is people will complain about anything teachers do e.g. photo down the pub rampant alcoholism, being in the army reserves pro militarism and islamphobic, attending a barbecue promoting a carnivorecentic lifestyle and veganphobia. Worked for an outwards bound charity after one parent was incensed that we wouldn’t garuntee her child would not be exposed to meat eating. Not force fed a meat diet ,but that other children’s and staff packed lunches weren’t a 100% vegan. She raised no end of problems Health and safety inspections social services food hygiene etc etc etc.
Most were fine Health and safety was an expensive nightmare as the first person who turned up in play grounds and the obstacle wasn’t a playground.

So if somebody wants to make it an issue they will.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

I’ve got ddraig doing his childish laugh emoji carpet bombing of my posts now. I always know it’s a job well done when that occurs.

 

[ddraig]

I’ve got ddraig doing his childish laugh emoji carpet bombing of my posts now. I always know it’s a job well done when that occurs.

Your posts ARE laughable as also mentioned by others, you and a "couple of other posters" love stirring this shit
What's childish about laughing at ridiculous posts?

I'm a few pages behind if that's ok with you

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Your posts ARE laughable as also mentioned by others, you and a "couple of other posters" love stirring this shit
What's childish about laughing at ridiculous posts?

I'm a few pages behind if that's ok with you

I’m not at all sure what’s so funny about this:


And you’re the only imbecile laughing, despite claiming the contrary.

 

[lazythursday]

A key word in there is "are". There needs to be evidence that it's happening. Not just a suspicion that it might at some point.

What about, say, someone who posts far right blood libel stuff about Jewish people, denies holocaust, argues for full throated Nazism etc. Celebrates bombing of synagogues. Do you still need evidence that those beliefs influence actual actions in order to remove that person from a school in a Jewish community?

 

[Spymaster]

What about, say, someone who posts far right blood libel stuff about Jewish people, denies holocaust, argues for full throated Nazism etc. Celebrates bombing of synagogues. Do you still need evidence that those beliefs influence actual actions in order to remove that person from a school in a Jewish community?

Well a couple of those are criminal offences so clearly would be grounds for dismissal. But if someone was otherwise critical of the Jewish community on their private Facebook account, no, I don't think they should lose their job over it unless harm relating to those views was shown to have been caused.

 

[smokedout]

A key word in there is "are". There needs to be evidence that it's happening. Not just a suspicion that it might at some point.

Unless it's someone with vague links to Stonewall in which case you appear to support them being removed from being able to fully carry out their jobs on the assumption they might be biased.

 

[Aladdin]

As for the little 'unlike you' dig at the end, fuck off with that. Of course people should be able to live as they chose. For centuries this biggest obstacle to that in this country at least has been your lot, so I'd knock the high-horsery on the head if I were yoyou.

My " lot "were starved to death by the British fucking Empire
They were brutalised and murdered because they wouldn't convert. They had a simple faith practiced at Mass rocks until the British Government decided to build Maynooth in order to stop all Irish priests travelling to France in case they would be radicalised there to revolution.
So fuck off with the whole "my lot"!! Your Empire controlled all religious practice worldwide under its despicably cruel rule. There's a huge picture that you fail to see...or even.acknowledge..

The biggest obstacle to people living their lives as they choose over the centuries have been Empires built on slavery and greed....just like the British Empire....which would be .not "my lot".

You are very close to being a hate spreading little twat. I hope you are bright enough to actually teach the children you work with in such a way that they dont detest anyone at all including those who have a belief in God and a faith practice.

Honestly...just stop with the aggression. No matter what your personal beliefs are you should be able to teach a child who has religious beliefs without trashing their faith.

And yes. I will repeat this for you. I am 100% pro LGBTQ+ I believe wholeheartedly in people living their lives as they wish and with as much support in that as possible.

 

[Spymaster]

Unless it's someone with vague links to Stonewall in which case you appear to support them being removed from being able to fully carry out their jobs on the assumption they might be biased.

Lol. I get that you don't like me but you're allowing that to cloud your judgement still further.

Listen to yourself. You're arguing that a "trans activist", who you yourself quoted as having links to Stonewall to 'support LGBTQ in the workplace', would be a reasonable choice to impartially judge whether a trans-critical person should keep her job.

Fortunately your views weren't shared more widely and that person was recused.

 

[Spymaster]

You are very close to being a hate spreading little twat

Far too generous!

 

[JimW]

Lol. I get that you don't like me but you're allowing that to cloud your judgement still further.

Listen to yourself. You're arguing that a "trans activist", who you yourself quoted as having links to Stonewall to 'support LGBTQ in the workplace', would be a reasonable choice to impartially judge whether a trans-critical person should keep her job.

Fortunately your views weren't shared and that person was recused.

It's the other way round, as I tried to point out about the other excluded panellist. Her brief's position is that views or associations of a degree probably less pronounced than her own will impact performance of a role. Which is conceding that it was reasonable to sack her.

 

[chilango]

I don't think it's that simple anymore. If social media had been around when I was a kid I'd have been all over my teacher's social media profiles, especially if I didn't like them. And there's all kinds of ways this could be used to harm both teachers themselves and pupils - Sir thinks people like you are perverts don't you Sir, you said so on facebook. It may be that there are some jobs where having an openly political social media profile is a problem especially when someone is in a position of responsibility over kids and controversial opinions could be used against both them or the children they are responsible for.

That's pretty shit. It feels less than ideal. But it's not just teachers and education workers bound by this and the principle is not unacceptable to the person who brought this case - who as we've seen demanded that a tribunal panel member be prevented from doing their job due to opinions expressed on social media.

(the link to Stonewall btw is that they went on a one day training course to be a Stonewall Role Model to learn about supporting LGBTQ people in the workplace)

Certainly, as a teacher, I know that my social media (at least that which is under my own name) is both readable, and read, by my bosses, my peers and students.

It makes me more considered in how express opinions. I don't say anything I wouldn't in person to those people. Nor do I express opinions that could reasonably cause harm to the pupils (or anyone).

But then why would I? I don't hold those kind of views.

 

[lazythursday]

Well a couple of those are criminal offences so clearly would be grounds for dismissal. But if someone was otherwise critical of the Jewish community on their private Facebook account, no, I don't think they should lose their job over it unless harm relating to those views was shown to have been caused.

So you must be of the opinion that those Metropolitan Police WhatsApp groups where policemen spewed racist and misogynistic stuff really have no importance then?

 

[smokedout]

Lol. I get that you don't like me but you're allowing that to cloud your judgement still further.

Listen to yourself. You're arguing that a "trans activist", who you yourself quoted as having links to Stonewall to 'support LGBTQ in the workplace', would be a reasonable choice to impartially judge whether a trans-critical person should keep her job.

Fortunately your views weren't shared more widely and that person was recused.

If you think judges, who are officially the most objective and unbiased people in the country (ha ha), can't be trusted to do their jobs with integrity if they once went on a one day training course with an LGBTQ charity then how can we trust that someone with viciously homophobic opinions will not to allow those opinions to influence their work when they have to deal with LGBTQ kids or colleagues?

 

[ddraig]

I’m not at all sure what’s so funny about this:

View attachment 410539
And you’re the only imbecile laughing, despite claiming the contrary.

You actually typed out and posted "I always knew loads of anarchists couldn't really care less about workers, and this pretty much confirms it"
That is your usual "the left, the left, oh the horror" bullshit which IS laughable. Then you go on to call me childish

 

[JimW]

Testament to Stonewall's trainers though, couple of role plays and a PowerPoint on a wet Tuesday afternoon and they've washed your brain forever.

 

[SpookyFrank]

And yes. I will repeat this for you. I am 100% pro LGBTQ+ I believe wholeheartedly in people living their lives as they wish and with as much support in that as possible.

Didn't suggest that you weren't. How you square that with membership of a faith which has historically treated LGBTQ+ people like shit is up to you, we all have our compromises and rationalisations because that's what living in a society with other people requires.

My issue with the woman in the court case is not with her religion, or even her opinions really, but her actions. She chose to spread conspiracy theories and lies, lies which have a real consequence for real innocent people, including but not limited to young children. The damage done to the moral and factual education of young people by people claiming to act in service of christianity but actually serving bigotry and cruelty fills me with rage. If I were a decent, moral Christian like yourself it would enrage me even more I think, because of the association; unwilling and unwanted though it may be. Even as an educator, that association bothers me. Faith obviously runs much deeper than that.

 

[Sweet FA]

My " lot "were starved to death by the British fucking Empire
They were brutalised and murdered because they wouldn't convert. They had a simple faith practiced at Mass rocks until the British Government decided to build Maynooth in order to stop all Irish priests travelling to France in case they would be radicalised there to revolution.
So fuck off with the whole "my lot"!! Your Empire controlled all religious practice worldwide under its despicably cruel rule. There's a huge picture that you fail to see...or even.acknowledge..

The biggest obstacle to people living their lives as they choose over the centuries have been Empires built on slavery and greed....just like the British Empire....which would be .not "my lot".

You are very close to being a hate spreading little twat. I hope you are bright enough to actually teach the children you work with in such a way that they dont detest anyone at all including those who have a belief in God and a faith practice.

Honestly...just stop with the aggression. No matter what your personal beliefs are you should be able to teach a child who has religious beliefs without trashing their faith.

And yes. I will repeat this for you. I am 100% pro LGBTQ+ I believe wholeheartedly in people living their lives as they wish and with as much support in that as possible.

He's right though - "for centuries this biggest obstacle to that in this country at least has been (the church)". The brutalisation and murder of Catholics by the BfE doesn't change that. The whole thing's fucked.

He probably teaches children who believe in God the same way you taught those who didn't.

 

[Spymaster]

If you think judges, who are officially the most objective and unbiased people in the country (ha ha), can't be trusted to do their jobs with integrity if they once went on a one day training course with an LGBTQ charity then how can we trust that someone with viciously homophobic opinions will not to allow those opinions to influence their work when they have to deal with LGBTQ kids or colleagues?

The whole point is that she's being judged on whether or not her stated views are viciously homophobic to the point that they'd cause harm, or whether her firing breaches her own protected characteristic and freedom of speech.

A "trans activist" (note the quotes) is not likely to be unbiased, which is why they were, quite correctly, binned.

 

[smokedout]

The whole point is that she's being judged on whether or not her stated views are viciously homophobic to the point that they'd cause harm, or whether her firing breaches her own protected characteristic and freedom of speech.

A "trans activist" (note the quotes) is not likely to be unbiased, which is why they were, quite correctly, binned.

So your argument is that a homophobe just have a presumption of innocence but an LGBTQ supportive person should have a presumption of guilt?

I think you're just prejudiced against LGBTQ people and have spent too long immersing yourself in gender critical conspiracy theories.

 

[Sweet FA]

The whole point is that she's being judged on whether or not her stated views are viciously homophobic to the point that they'd cause harm, or whether her firing breaches her own protected characteristic and freedom of speech.

A "trans activist" (note the quotes) is not likely to be unbiased, which is why they were, quite correctly, binned.

I wasn't 100% sure why though tbh. Is it only in connection with trans issues?

“If the case related to an accusation of racist conduct leading to dismissal and one of the lay members was a black Trades Union official with a history of anti-racist campaigning, would we expect them to recuse themself?

“If the conduct leading to dismissal was misogyny and one of the lay members was a woman HR director who was an active member of, say, the Fawcett Society campaigning for women’s equality, would she need to recuse herself?

“If the answer to either or both of those questions is no, then is it right that I as a bi/queer non-binary person who has from time to time spoken up, in a personal capacity, in favour of the rights of LGBT people should recuse myself in this case?”

 

[Aladdin]

Didn't suggest that you weren't. How you square that with membership of a faith which has historically treated LGBTQ+ people like shit is up to you, we all have our compromises and rationalisations because that's what living in a society with other people requires.

My issue with the woman in the court case is not with her religion, or even her opinions really, but her actions. She chose to spread conspiracy theories and lies, lies which have a real consequence for real innocent people, including but not limited to young children. The damage done to the moral and factual education of young people by people claiming to act in service of christianity but actually serving bigotry and cruelty fills me with rage. If I were a decent, moral Christian like yourself it would enrage me even more I think, because of the association; unwilling and unwanted though it may be. Even as an educator, that association bothers me. Faith obviously runs much deeper than that.

Have you ever seen a very bad production of Hamlet? Or have you ever heard someone butcher a piece of music by Mozart?
Do you blame Mozart or Shakespeare?

 

[Spymaster]

So your argument is that a homophobe just have a presumption of innocence but an LGBTQ supportive person should have a presumption of guilt?

No. I'm arguing that an LBGTQ "activist" is not a suitable person to impartially judge the guilt or innocence of someone who has expressed LBGTQ critical opinions ON THE TOPIC OF THOSE OPINIONS, to the extent that it affects their job; in the same way that I'd argue that a tub-thumping born again Christian shouldn't sit on a panel judging an LBGTQ person regarding anti-religious views.

The fact that you're arguing otherwise outlines the reality gap that's going on here.