So I think you are saying that in your view yes this is a protected belief under the EqA (i.e. it meets the 5 Grainger criteria)? And like all protected beliefs the question of whether an employer can restrain expression of the belief is one of proportionate means/legitimate aim?
-
-
Replying to @MForstater
It is not just about my views. There already is the Mackereth decision, which named he view incompatible with criterion 5. The question is whether this incompatibility is conditional on the view being applied at work, or absolute. I'd prefer "conditional".
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ramendik @MForstater
The Mackereth decision did not just say that the employer had a legitimate aim to restrict expression of the view, it named *the view itself* incompatible with human dignity. And this is the precedent you work with. The Christian Legal Centre poisoned the well for you.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ramendik @MForstater
This would be more clean-cut if you did not attempt to submit an anti-trans work about development, in my view. The work was rightly rejected as incompatible with the values of the company. They could perhaps claim that you intended to keep submitting such incompatible works?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ramendik @MForstater
My preferred outcome would be an ironclad work-personal border. As in, your views were rightly NOT protected when you attempted to express them at work, but expressing them off work under a disclaimer should not have figured in work decisions.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ramendik
So if Kristina Harrison expressed her belief (which I share) at work, that she is a male person who lives as a woman via a legal fiction and a degree of social acceptance, but does not have a right to access all female spaces -- that an employer should be able to fire her?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MForstater
Not a "first offence" thing generally. The employer is however able to gag this expression at work - which is important for support of other trans employees and for any trans customers or service users, if applicable. This is not even a "should", the Mackereth decision exists.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ramendik @MForstater
Certain expressions are already not allowed at work. For example, one can very well believe that one has to accept Christ as a personal saviour, or else will go to hell. But telling this to your colleagues is NOT advised in most places.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ramendik @MForstater
Of the famous "gendercrit trans" this would have an immediate effect on Debbie Hayton as she is a teacher. The school should be able to use the No Outsiders programme and not allow Debbie to tell pupils at school she disagrees with the programme. But not control her Twitter.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ramendik @MForstater
I checked, Kristina works at the NHS, but I've no idea what she does there. If she, say, were to disallow a trans woman access to a female ward in contravention to hospital policy, her actions will not be protected because of her views - Mackereth decision.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
No I'm asking about expressing a belief about herself. That should be banned, if it goes against an organisation's policy that you must not disagree with "transwomen are women"?
-
-
Replying to @MForstater
The employer would be within their rights to ban it, ref Mackereth. In what cases such a ban would be *prudent* is an HR matter. I'd handle it like religion is factually handled - ban if reasonable complaints arise or if said to a customer.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.