Gender Pronouns v God, lawsuit on religious freedom - Admin Warning in the OP

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I wouldn’t say there isn’t a word about him. More that there is nothing to report currently, pending employment tribunal.

Not going to split hairs with you over it, of course there’s plenty being said about his sacking among people who advocate for freedom of speech, and he’s been doing the rounds of the Spectator, Triggernometry etc, but there’s been nothing like the coverage of other cases regarding freedom of speech that have been covered in mainstream media. Hell even Count Dankula got more coverage for his efforts than the teacher in question -


Man guilty of hate crime for filming pug's 'Nazi salutes'

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Not going to split hairs with you over it, of course there’s plenty being said about his sacking among people who advocate for freedom of speech, and he’s been doing the rounds of the Spectator, Triggernometry etc, but there’s been nothing like the coverage of other cases regarding freedom of speech that have been covered in mainstream media. Hell even Count Dankula got more coverage for his efforts than the teacher in question -


Man guilty of hate crime for filming pug's 'Nazi salutes'

I think that's more to do with the gravity of the case than anything though. Meecham was criminally prosecuted for a joke—albeit and offensive one—which is more "serious" than being sacked from a school. Plus "Nazi pug" is an inherently sensational term that would appeal to media types looking for clicks!

I do agree with you though, that he was sacked for his behaviour rather than for his views. The behaviour in question was posting a video that he had not used in the classroom to his private YouTube channel. I suppose the tribunal's job is to decide whether the school should have control over how the employees protected beliefs are expressed if the expression does not constitute harassment, discrimination or intimidation. One to watch.

It's not like the case of Gregor Murray (tangentially related to the Forstater case since she was attacked as transphobic for referring to Gregor Murray as "he" rather than the "they" that Gregor Murray prefers), who was suspended from Gregor Murray's position as a councillor after tweeting to call a group of lesbians at pride "utter c**ts". In that case, the party Gregor Murray was suspended from had a clear code of conduct, which Gregor Murray breached. I imagine that will be the way forward for many companies, who will write conduct expectations into employment contracts as vaguely as possible so that they have some control over how their employees' out-of-work conduct impacts on them, in this age where broken people can form Twitter mobs and take off on offense archaeology expeditions in their abundant spare time.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I imagine that will be the way forward for many companies, who will write conduct expectations into employment contracts as vaguely as possible so that they have some control over how their employees' out-of-work conduct impacts on them, in this age where broken people can form Twitter mobs and take off on offense archaeology expeditions in their abundant spare time.

This is the bit I’m genuinely struggling to wrap my head around - the idea that anyone could be unaware that these kinds of morality clauses or conduct clauses have been standard practice in employment contracts for donkeys years? They’re not a new thing. Essentially if their employees engage in any sort of behaviour inside or outside of the workplace while under their employers employment, the employees may be subject to disciplinary actions up to and including dismissal.

The idea of people who have been dismissed, or in Maya Forstaters case, her application for a new contract not being acknowledged (and that’s the basis upon which she claims she was the victim of unlawful discrimination), or in Gregor Murray’s case portraying themselves as a victim of a ”miscarriage of justice” or Will Knowland’s portrayal of himself as a martyr for the cause, it’s frankly ludicrous that they imagined they could behave the way they did, and their employer could do nothing about it, which is what people who are arguing for free speech and complaining about the latest “victim” of “cancel culture” appear to think is an appropriate or reasonable outcome, because they too claim they don’t see anything wrong with the person’s behaviour.

They can see it perfectly fine though when it’s someone like Aimee Channelor being fired from one of the largest platforms for free speech on the planet -


BREAKING: Aimee Challenor fired from Reddit following widespread user protest


Does a Reddit “mob” count in the same way as a Twitter “mob”, or is it just reality that the same platforms which make it easy for people to make themselves a liability for their employer, are the same platforms which allow for people who disagree with their views to make a complaint to their employer that one of their employees is posting material which reflects badly upon them, especially if your employer is a progressive think tank!

In all of the above cases, nobody had to go on an offence taking archaeology expedition in their abundant spare time. Murray, Forstater and Knowland put it all out there in public for everyone to see, and some people viewed it positively, and some people took issue with it and made a complaint to their employers. Their employers then took action on foot of complaints received about the behaviour of their employees. It’s not a new thing, nor is their victim complex when they’re expecting praise and validation for their behaviour, as if they imagine they should be immune from any negative consequences of their behaviour. They’re in a poor position to lecture anyone about reality.

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

BREAKING: Aimee Challenor fired from Reddit following widespread user protest


Does a Reddit “mob” count in the same way as a Twitter “mob”, or is it just reality that the same platforms which make it easy for people to make themselves a liability for their employer,

So let get this right ,the objection to someone who nominated their father who's a convicted pedophile as an election officer and is dating a pedophile who fantasies about having sex with children and publicly stated it ,
And your trying to claim it's the same as not agreeing with someone on twitter for getting the sack ,
Maya Forstaters wasn't sacked because of any work related issues ,but was because of an outside complaint from someone who she disagreed with on twitter ,

Just shows how low people will stoop in this discussion( as in going to employers because they disagree on social media)

archfi

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This is the bit I’m genuinely struggling to wrap my head around - the idea that anyone could be unaware that these kinds of morality clauses or conduct clauses have been standard practice in employment contracts for donkeys years? They’re not a new thing. Essentially if their employees engage in any sort of behaviour inside or outside of the workplace while under their employers employment, the employees may be subject to disciplinary actions up to and including dismissal.

The idea of people who have been dismissed, or in Maya Forstaters case, her application for a new contract not being acknowledged (and that’s the basis upon which she claims she was the victim of unlawful discrimination), or in Gregor Murray’s case portraying themselves as a victim of a ”miscarriage of justice” or Will Knowland’s portrayal of himself as a martyr for the cause, it’s frankly ludicrous that they imagined they could behave the way they did, and their employer could do nothing about it, which is what people who are arguing for free speech and complaining about the latest “victim” of “cancel culture” appear to think is an appropriate or reasonable outcome, because they too claim they don’t see anything wrong with the person’s behaviour.

They can see it perfectly fine though when it’s someone like Aimee Channelor being fired from one of the largest platforms for free speech on the planet -


BREAKING: Aimee Challenor fired from Reddit following widespread user protest


Does a Reddit “mob” count in the same way as a Twitter “mob”, or is it just reality that the same platforms which make it easy for people to make themselves a liability for their employer, are the same platforms which allow for people who disagree with their views to make a complaint to their employer that one of their employees is posting material which reflects badly upon them, especially if your employer is a progressive think tank!

In all of the above cases, nobody had to go on an offence taking archaeology expedition in their abundant spare time. Murray, Forstater and Knowland put it all out there in public for everyone to see, and some people viewed it positively, and some people took issue with it and made a complaint to their employers. Their employers then took action on foot of complaints received about the behaviour of their employees. It’s not a new thing, nor is their victim complex when they’re expecting praise and validation for their behaviour, as if they imagine they should be immune from any negative consequences of their behaviour. They’re in a poor position to lecture anyone about reality.

In what way did Forstater behave that was so reprehensible that she was discarded like a snot rag.
An then to have such a ridiculuous statement made by the original adjudicator/judge!
We now offically know her expression of her beliefs are protected as are those who believe men can be women and women can be men.
That is the victory which is quite something to believe can happen in 2019-2021.
I'm not particularly interested in her employment though it would be sweet if she goes after her ex-employers

Aimee Challenor is a massively different kettle of fish. Massively.

Overheal

The teacher has his job back by court order. The school is very unlikely to appeal I would say.

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

So let get this right ,the objection to someone who nominated their father who's a convicted pedophile as an election officer and is dating a pedophile who fantasies about having sex with children and publicly stated it ,
And your trying to claim it's the same as not agreeing with someone on twitter for getting the sack ,

It’s exactly the same, if the principle being used to defend the view is freedom of speech.

Gatling wrote: »

Maya Forstaters wasn't sacked because of any work related issues ,but was because of an outside complaint from someone who she disagreed with on twitter ,

Maya Forstater wasn’t sacked. Her application for employment was not considered by CGD, which formed the basis of her belief that she had been the victim of unlawful discrimination on the basis of her beliefs regarding sex. The complaint came from other employees. Read the judgement for yourself -


In early October 2018 some staff of the Respondent raised concerns about some of the Claimant’s tweets, alleging that they were “transphobic”. This was put to the Claimant who denied the allegation. There was lengthy correspondence and investigation of the complaints, the details of which are not relevant to theses preliminary issues.

…

The Claimant’s last contract with the Respondent ended on 31 December 2018. She contend that thereafter she was an applicant for employment with the Respondent.

The Claimant submitted her Claim Form to the Employment Tribunal on 5 March 2019.


https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5e15e7f8e5274a06b555b8b0/Maya_Forstater__vs_CGD_Europe__Centre_for_Global_Development_and_Masood_Ahmed_-_Judgment.pdf

Ravendale

I'm more and more confused and very wary by how all of these issues are used as bait to get people fighting and dividing.

I really don't understand what the arguing is about. If someone wants to a man, woman, asexual, metrosexual, bisexual, cat, dog or saucepan then leave them be, but I have a right to like it or not like it they have a right to identify with whatever they wish, however (kinda going in circles here) I have as much right not to like their life choices as they have not to like my dislike of their choices.

Heel of the hunt. There is always someone's rights infringed. The whole world is gone mad, everyone is entitled. Entitled to this entitled to that, that all I bloody hear these days, I'm entitled to....

See, told you i was confused 🀔😅

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Maya Forstater wasn’t sacked. Her application for employment was not considered by CGD,

A long winded explanation of being sacked and discriminated against ...

Were heading to three in a row of court cases involving push backs

archfi

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s exactly the same, if the principle being used to defend the view is freedom of speech.





Maya Forstater wasn’t sacked. Her application for employment was not considered by CGD, which formed the basis of her belief that she had been the victim of unlawful discrimination on the basis of her beliefs regarding sex. The complaint came from other employees. Read the judgement for yourself -


In early October 2018 some staff of the Respondent raised concerns about some of the Claimant’s tweets, alleging that they were “transphobic”. This was put to the Claimant who denied the allegation. There was lengthy correspondence and investigation of the complaints, the details of which are not relevant to theses preliminary issues.

…

The Claimant’s last contract with the Respondent ended on 31 December 2018. She contend that thereafter she was an applicant for employment with the Respondent.

The Claimant submitted her Claim Form to the Employment Tribunal on 5 March 2019.


https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5e15e7f8e5274a06b555b8b0/Maya_Forstater__vs_CGD_Europe__Centre_for_Global_Development_and_Masood_Ahmed_-_Judgment.pdf

She was 100% on the road to a fulltime contract (As much as you can be)
Then suddenly that status was changed, the 100% became 0% and the contract offers became more ludicrous and lower level.
The compalinants were I believe, two people working in their US HQ.
Her beliefs have been vindicated (what a world we live in that this has to happen) and were not transphobic which is flung about by extremely untrustworthy extreme edge personalities like they are holding the lightsabre of power.
And authorities and institutions and govts have been allowing this.

archfi

Uk Employment law barrister explainer of judgment
https://twitter.com/JasonBraier/status/1403083205448716294

24 tweets long