Woman Loses Job for Holding Gender Critical Opinions.

biko

Hate speech = other people's opinions.

klaaaz

Zorya wrote: »

Say I have an opinion that is unacceptable (Never! I hear you roar...) and my employer sacks me, so I go self employed but no village hall will rent me rooms to teach pole dancing because of my dirty opinions, so I am going to the dole for subsistence but the govt has passed legislation compelling speech and making certain opinions illegal and making people who hold them barred from state services. Mad, you might say, and yet this is how totalitarian systems roll out eventually.

No-one is denied state services based on their opinion. You're making it up.

Zorya wrote: »

Just let people make their opinions in public as long as they do not directly incite violence and less of this weird crap please.

Thing is some opinions do incite violence. When you finally get a job, you will have to abide by that employers non-discriminatory practices which is in the contract of employment.

p1akuw47h5r3it

klaaaz wrote: »

No-one is denied state services based on their opinion. You're making it up.



Thing is some opinions do incite violence. When you finally get a job, you will have to abide by that employers non-discriminatory practices which is in the contract of employment.

So if you get involved in the pro-choice campaign in Northern Ireland and your employer fires you because of this, you'd find that perfectly ok?

Candamir

KikiLaRue wrote: »

My god you’re a silly sausage.

We are talking about a situation where someone’s job and their activism came into conflict. Since Boylan was speaking in his capacity as a doctor there was no such conflict. So it’s not the same thing. Understand?

There’s some amount of people out there who think freedom of speech means being able to say anything, anywhere, any time with zero consequences. That’s not how it works. Read up on it.

Much of Peter Boylan’s views were opinion. Informed by his medical expertise, but opinion none the less. Peter Boyan works at the National Maternity Hospital. This is a hospital with a Catholic ethos. The Patron is the Catholic Church. The arch bishop of Dublin is chairman of the board. You couldn’t make up a more direct conflict between two sides.

Peter Boylan didn’t get sacked for expressing his views. Nor was he sanctioned or disciplined.

Can you imagine the outrage if he was?

But here we have a women who expresses an opinion, that is not derogatory or hateful, or anywhere near that, yet she is fired.

And you think this is acceptable?
Frightening new world order.

Candamir

klaaaz wrote: »

No-one is denied state services based on their opinion. You're making it up.



Thing is some opinions do incite violence. When you finally get a job, you will have to abide by that employers non-discriminatory practices which is in the contract of employment.

Point out the part in that article that is discriminatory.

klaaaz

DanDan6592 wrote: »

So if you get involved in the pro-choice campaign in Northern Ireland and your employer fires you because of this, you'd find that perfectly ok?

I've never seen anything in a contract of employment about the issue of abortion, have you?

Augme

Candamir wrote: »

Much of Peter Boylan’s views were opinion. Informed by his medical expertise, but opinion none the less. Peter Boyan works at the National Maternity Hospital. This is a hospital with a Catholic ethos. The Patron is the Catholic Church. The arch bishop of Dublin is chairman of the board. You couldn’t make up a more direct conflict between two sides.

Peter Boylan didn’t get sacked for expressing his views. Nor was he sanctioned or disciplined.

Can you imagine the outrage if he was?

But here we have a women who expresses an opinion, that is not derogatory or hateful, or anywhere near that, yet she is fired.

And you think this is acceptable?
Frightening new world order.

He's not employed by the national Materinty hospital and or by the Catholic Church.

p1akuw47h5r3it

klaaaz wrote: »

I've never seen anything in a contract of employment about the issue of abortion, have you?

No but you could be bringing the company into disrepute by showing your potential to show unconcious bias towards pro-life people.

Unlikely in todays political climate, but not true for those who are pro-life in the reverse situation.

Candamir

Augme wrote: »

He's not employed by the national Materinty hospital and or by the Catholic Church.

He is in direct conflict with the ethos of his hospital. Yet the church took no sanction.

When I was employed at a catholic ethos hospital I was required to confirm to their ethos. I presume Dr Boylans contract is similar.

Augme

Candamir wrote: »

He is in direct conflict with the ethos of his hospital. Yet the church took no sanction.

When I was employed at a catholic ethos hospital I was required to confirm to their ethos. I presume Dr Boylans contract is similar.

Because the church can't take any sanction on him. He is employed by the HSE. The HSE are in charge of his employment contract. I would be amazed if the HSE have a Catholic ethos line in their contracts.

Which hospital did you work at?

BattleCorp

KikiLaRue wrote: »

I don’t think you could get fired for simply attending a lawful protest. There have been loads of marches and protests here over the last few years and I’ve never heard of anything like that.

It could be different if you are a speaker at the protest and active on social media publicly on the topic, because you personally *may* be bringing your organisation into disrepute.

Right. No problem attending a lawful protest but not allowed to speak at it.

Censorship much?

klaaaz

Candamir wrote: »

Point out the part in that article that is discriminatory.

The article is behind a paywall as usual, typical of those types.

I was talking about Irish employment in general. As to the article in the UK, have we seen the contract between the employer and the employee(or the contractor as some say)?

Thaddeus Slow Silver wrote:

No but you could be bringing the company into disrepute by showing your potential to show unconcious bias towards pro-life people.

Unlikely in todays political climate, but not true for those who are pro-life in the reverse situation.

I don't think i've heard of anyone being sacked for being a rabid and lawful pro-life supporter. The issue of abortion has not appeared in employment contracts so there is no dispute.

Zorya

BattleCorp wrote: »

Right. No problem attending a lawful protest but not allowed to speak at it.

Censorship much?

There will come a time when you will have to appear at any unsanctioned thought-crime protest wearing a fake moustache. :pac:

p1akuw47h5r3it

klaaaz wrote: »

The article is behind a paywall as usual, typical of those types.

I was talking about Irish employment in general. As to the article in the UK, have we seen the contract between the employer and the employee(or the contractor as some say)?



I don't think i've heard of anyone being sacked for being a rabid and lawful pro-life supporter. The issue of abortion has not appeared in employment contracts so there is no dispute.

Good. And it should be illegal so it can never happen.

Zorya

Martina Navratilova (also recently removed from a position for holding an unacceptable opinion - see the pattern emerging) has weighed in on Maya's team,
and the money is pouring in, not from the ''deep pockets of conservatives'' but rather from hundreds of ordinary people - most of the donations are in the 10 to 25 pound range. Some people saying while they may not support her opinions they support her rights to have and express them. Like civilised human beings. Imagine!

Candamir

Augme wrote: »

Because the church can't take any sanction on him. He is employed by the HSE. The HSE are in charge of his employment contract. I would be amazed if the HSE have a Catholic ethos line in their contracts.

Which hospital did you work at?

Of course they can! Like they took sanction in the past on pregnant single teachers, and gay teachers had to live a lie. But even the church has come on from that stance now.

Imagine the church being in a more modern liberal place than the rest of ye!

Gimme A Pound

Zorya wrote: »

Lily Madigan, 21 year old transwoman, is the Women's Officer for the Labour Party in the UK.
The role -



Lily Madigan's response to Maya Forstater


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D53rdu9XsAABh-P.jpg

The aggression is extraordinary. Maya is infinitely more civilised.

Candamir

klaaaz wrote: »

The article is behind a paywall as usual, typical of those types.

It’s not behind a pay wall. What in it is discriminatory?

KikiLaRue

BattleCorp wrote: »

Right. No problem attending a lawful protest but not allowed to speak at it.

Censorship much?

It’s not f**king censorship. What you want is freedom of speech AND protection from consequences. You are only entitled to the former.

KikiLaRue

Candamir wrote: »

Of course they can! Like they took sanction in the past on pregnant single teachers, and gay teachers had to live a lie. But even the church has come on from that stance now.

Imagine the church being in a more modern liberal place than the rest of ye!

The church has come on my hairy arsehole.

The law now prevents discrimination on those grounds, it’s not a principled step forward the church took.

KikiLaRue

Candamir wrote: »

Much of Peter Boylan’s views were opinion. Informed by his medical expertise, but opinion none the less. Peter Boyan works at the National Maternity Hospital. This is a hospital with a Catholic ethos. The Patron is the Catholic Church. The arch bishop of Dublin is chairman of the board. You couldn’t make up a more direct conflict between two sides.

Peter Boylan didn’t get sacked for expressing his views. Nor was he sanctioned or disciplined.

Can you imagine the outrage if he was?

But here we have a women who expresses an opinion, that is not derogatory or hateful, or anywhere near that, yet she is fired.

And you think this is acceptable?
Frightening new world order.

In your *opinion* it’s not derogatory. Many would disagree. I haven’t made up my mind, but you don’t get to just decide what other people’s opinions should or should not be.

Augme

Candamir wrote: »

Of course they can! Like they took sanction in the past on pregnant single teachers, and gay teachers had to live a lie. But even the church has come on from that stance now.

Imagine the church being in a more modern liberal place than the rest of ye!

Lol, eh no. Employment laws have come on. Not the church. Your delluded if you think the church would hire a gay teacher or a single mother if they had the choice.

p1akuw47h5r3it

KikiLaRue wrote: »

In your *opinion* it’s not derogatory. Many would disagree. I haven’t made up my mind, but you don’t get to just decide what other people’s opinions should or should not be.

But you can just decide to fire someone for airing said opinion

p1akuw47h5r3it

KikiLaRue wrote: »

It’s not f**king censorship. What you want is freedom of speech AND protection from consequences. You are only entitled to the former.

No. I already stated protection from one such consequence, that of losing your job. You Silly Sausage you.

klaaaz

Breanna Slimy Variable wrote: »

The aggression is extraordinary. Maya is infinitely more civilised.

The writer of the article is actually the provoking one, throwing insults.

Candamir wrote:

It’s not behind a pay wall. What in it is discriminatory?

The Times article, why can't the people who constantly post gender threads state their links to sites without a wall?

Candamir

KikiLaRue wrote: »

In your *opinion* it’s not derogatory. Many would disagree. I haven’t made up my mind, but you don’t get to just decide what other people’s opinions should or should not be.

I’m still waiting for someone to point out the part that they feel is derogatory.

I do realise that we all have different opinions. My point is that the piece doesn’t cross the line, and if it hovers somewhere close, the sanction of being fired for it is heavy handed to say the least.

But nobody has pointed out a potential derogatory part.

Candamir

klaaaz wrote: »

The writer of the article is actually the provoking one, throwing insults.



The Times article, why can't the people who constantly post gender threads state their links to sites without a wall?

Hang on, the writer of the article, that you haven’t read, is provoking and throwing insults?

And the Labour party’s women’s officer - who is responding to an article where she raises the issue of women’s rights - tells her to go fuçk herself, and that’s ok??


I remember from before you seem to have issues with links!

The article the woman wrote is linked in the OP and it’s not behind a pay wall.

KikiLaRue

Candamir wrote: »

I’m still waiting for someone to point out the part that they feel is derogatory.

I do realise that we all have different opinions. My point is that the piece doesn’t cross the line, and if it hovers somewhere close, the sanction of being fired for it is heavy handed to say the least.

But nobody has pointed out a potential derogatory part.

No one was fired. A contract wasn’t renewed. They are different things and require different levels of justification.

Zorya

klaaaz wrote: »

The writer of the article is actually the provoking one, throwing insults.



The Times article, why can't the people who constantly post gender threads state their links to sites without a wall?

2 threads? At most. Can't remember the other one :rolleyes: Constantly? Hyperbole much? Burn the place to the ground!

No pay wall. You might have to sign in with an email address. Believe me in my embarrassed financial state, I don't pay to read any shagging newspaper :pac:

KikiLaRue

KikiLaRue wrote:

The church has come on my hairy arsehole.

What a quote