Morality Issue

I'd like to remind a few people here about the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" which some time ago replaced "trial by mob".

Setting aside the O/P's questionable taste in music (that's an attempt to lighten the mood) which my G/F shares, I'd do the trip, enjoy the music and wait for a verdict... 

The good news, is that I've found when I've realised that a particular activity that I found rewarding was morally bankrupt, there's always an alternative appears..

 And kudos for caring about your cats to the extent you feel they anchor you, as well as having actual moral concerns.

Indeed. Let's leave it there because I realise we've very much strayed from the topic of the post by this point and I'm sure everyone is probably fed up of the notifications popping up from our updates.

On that match we are agreed I look forward to reading the case summary.

It is and I will strongly support anyone's beliefs, if they do not bring harm, mental or physical, to anyone else. I have friends from many different races, genders, sexualities, religions and abilities, we all hold different opinions but get on because we don't see anyone as less than because of their differences.

However, the acceptance and normalisation of non-inclusive and discriminatory views leads to more extreme views and actions. As the saying goes, it's a slippery slope, no-one starts out with committing violent hate crimes, there's a process that leads up to that, and that starts with something as simple as an opinion.

It's also worth noting that Higgs v. Farmor's School is going back to employment tribunal because the original tribunal hadn't undertaken a proportionality assessment to determine whether the school’s actions in disciplining and dismissing Higgs were because of, or related to, the manifestation of her protected beliefs, or were instead due to a justified objection to the manner of that manifestation. The new tribunal will undertake the proportionality assessment and make a new ruling after that, so at the moment the case is still awaiting a final ruling as to whether she was dismissed lawfully or not. It will be interesting to see what the outcome is once it's been reassessed.

There’s a big difference between saying people should be allowed to  Express  opinions that are negative towards particular people groups (or their beliefs) and that people should be allowed to discriminate against particular people groups.

in this case the courts are not on your side. Take for example Higgs v. Farmor's School where Higgs ,a teaching assistant, made online post describing the LGBT content of the school’s sex and education curriculum as brainwashing. The court held that in a free and democratic society she is entitled to hold and express that view and it was discrimination to sack her for it.

she sued them under the equality act for discriminating against her beliefs. religion and strong belief is a protected characteristic just like sexual orientation. employers cannot sack people for expressing controversial beliefs just because some people find them offensive that is the law.

And in my view it’s very necessary law

Absolutely not. As I've said before, people are absolutely entitled to their own opinions, that is as you say part of their personal freedoms, but they should also have to accept the consequences of having those opinions if they're abhorrent. Denying someone's right to exist as they wish, in a way that is not harmful to anyone else, and has no impact on you, is a view that is rightly held in contempt, and under the Equality Act amongst others including hate speech, if voiced and acted on is punishable under law. No-one should have to live with having their very existence denied. Communication attacking or discriminating against groups and individuals (because of characteristics like race or religion) is hate speech, not free speech.

The United Nations are quite clear on it. Their Secretary General has said “Addressing hate speech does not mean limiting or prohibiting freedom of speech. It means keeping hate speech from escalating into something more dangerous, particularly incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence, which is prohibited under international law.”

Saying trans folk aren't their stated gender, using incorrect pronouns, dead naming, using derogatory terms for them, refusing their use of the appropriate facilities for their stated gender, refusing gender affirming care and all the other hateful actions are exactly the same as what we as a society have already been through for different sexualities, different races, different religions, different genders, and most importantly for us as autistics, different abilities. If you're ok with people being openly anti-trans, then you're ok with homophobia, racism, sexism, religious persecution and ableism.

I don’t think laws should be a bare minimum of  anything. Yes laws change but the basic moral principle of law should be to protect one’s fellow human from harm Either through malice or neglect. Beyond that law should really not impinge on personal freedom any more than necessary. Including personal freedoms other people may find distasteful.

The law should not impose a morality code where the harm done is ambiguous or debatable. And to be frank if individuals in cooperation wish to try and force a morality code that goes beyond the law; to the point where it effectively disenfranchises or excludes individuals from society; that in its self probably something that should be illegal; because there is a very obvious harm from people being excluded from society.

That said the EAT did agree with you that gender critical beliefs as they call them were not grounds to discriminate against fellow employees. But they did amount for a protected characteristic when expressed as an opinion in the general sense.

What is legally acceptable is a bare minimum of what should be expected. But that encompasses age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation under the Equality Act. So whilst the court might have ruled that you can't sack someone for holding that view, they can absolutely protect the trans person if it becomes an issue for them in the work place.

Laws always follow at a slower rate than societal changes, it takes a while for them to catch up due to the process for changing them and implementing them. Hence why they should be the bare minimum of what is required. Companies, and individuals, can and do go above and beyond what is legally required of them, and that is a good thing that eventually drives legal change.

There is a huge difference between what is socially acceptable and what is legally acceptable. The law should absolutely never be used to enforce social norms. The law is there to protect people from clear and tangible harm. Not offence or vague discomfort.

that said I guess you’re probably not a big fan of the Forstater v CGD Europe case ruling. Where a court held that the belief that a trans woman is not a woman is a protected ideological belief in the same way that religions are protected and that you can’t sack people for that reason alone.

It's not audacity to want people to abide by societal norms for acceptable behaviour. I'm not suggesting that it be my standards as I know some of the things I believe are important aren't as important to other people.

Research repeatedly shows that those who go through rehabilitation rather than straight up punishment have a much lower rate of repeated offenses, or new offenses, so me suggesting that education and correction are a better option is grounded in established research. You even say rehabilitation is preferable.

That being said, there are definitely certain careers where I believe that a history of criminal behaviour should preclude a person from persuing them. One of which is being a doctor, another would be teachers. When there is that level of responsibility for others, people who show a lack of judgement shouldn't be doing that job. Your doctor example would fall under that, they showed a massive lapse in judgement in a fit of emotion, they've shown they aren't clear-headed in fraught situations so I wouldn't want them anywhere near an operating room for example.

As for controversial opinions, people can say what they like, that's their right, but there's no guarantee that there won't be repercussions for voicing those opinions. If for example someone is openly transphobic but works for a company that has equality clauses written into their contracts, then if that person voices their opinions about it they should absolutely lose their job.

Somewhat audacious to think that you can ‘correct people into your line of thinking.’

placing that aside, it’s not a binary choice between giving talented people immunity from poor actions and wasting their talents.

why should we try to take someone’s career away because they are a thief or a murderer or some other awful thing. If it’s about taking their prosperity away as a punishment we can just take away the money they earn. But punishments have to end some day and when people re-integrate into society having a functional career is very important.

if a doctor walks in to find someone abusing his daughter and then kills this person in an angry fit. Goes away for a few years for manslaughter. Would you mind him practising on you when he gets out of prison?

of course it would be different if he’d killed a patient. But under the circumstances his criminal history is not going to make him a risk for treating patients. So why should taking his career away from him be part of the punishment? If anything you’re punishing society as much as him by taking away the valuable talents he has to offer from society.

to my mind there is no crime so heinous thaT a rehabilitation approach should not be taken. And rehabilitated people need to re-integrate into society eventually and have careers.

as ffor things that are not even crimes, expressing controversial opinions for example, these things shouldn’t even fall in the ambit of the employers consideration.

We disagree there then, if we accept that there will be some horrible people and nothing should be done about them because they have also done something great, I'd argue that society isn't progressing. In fact I'd say it's regressing. Repugnant views and actions should be, and for the most part are now, picked up earlier and corrected, so it should never get to the extent that someone's brilliance is dismissed because of their issues.

You may be right but if so society suffers for it. By and large horrible people have produced wonderful things that have helped humanity. If only those who are (or are good at pretending to be) virtuous are given the chance to excel and make use of their talents it is humanity that will suffer for it. I don't consider that progress.

I would hope that society has progressed to the point where people can't succeed if they're that horrible.

Some times some ones talent and accomplishments are so great that no matter how awful they are as people, people see past it. Fritz Haber is my favourite example. He developed and deployed chemical weapons in the 1st world war. He also won the Nobel prise for chemistry for inventing the process used to make fertiliser. It's estimated with out his technology half the people alive today would starve.

Or a more recent example wernher von braun. Nazi rocket scientist. Member of the SS (honoury rank). Was accused of having some slaves used to make the v2 rocket flogged. Warmly embraced by the Americans when their own scientists couldn't make the Apollo rockets fly.

So I looked this up. The GMC has guidelines about when doctors should be referred to an interim tribunal (that might suspend them temporarily) in responce to police investigations. 

I'm not sure, I would have assumed that any investigation would preclude them from operating anywhere, they are after all the same person whether they are working for the NHS or privately. I'd ask my husband's cardiologist next time we see him but I think he'd take it wrong!

I’m not sure if technically that’s correct. Consultants often work for multiple hospitals both privately and the NHS. Provided the GMC hasn’t revoked their license to practice i’m not sure if the hospital that employs them can complain about them working elsewhere. If one consultant asked another consultant to cone over and help on a case i’m not sure if they would need any of their employers permission.

At home he doesn't let it get in his way but school are more restrictive on what work he is given as they don't want him to start next year's work now as it then has a knock on effect. If he didn't have such issue on the social and emotional side they would have considered advancing him, however it was agreed that he needed to stay in an age appropriate class to help him deal with those issues.

And yes, the hospital would absolutely suspend the doctor during the investigation, during which time they wouldn't be able to assist with cases.

BeckyThump said:

Not quite the same but it's a situation involving my son. He's very bright, reading at the top of the assessment criteria, i.e. at age 16, when he's 9, is advanced across most academic subjects at school and if they allowed him, would be doing work several years above his age.

If he was allowed? lol I never allowed that to get in my way. I remember watching OU lectures at 4-5 y/o.

BeckyThump said:

I also believe that whilst any allegations were being investigated by the police and the employer, particularly ones of such a serious nature, that the accused is usually placed on suspension for the duration of the investigation.

Often investigations just fizzle out but the accusations remain. Police declare no further action. Nothing is clearly resolved. Being a TERF of nazi isn't even a police matter usually. I don't believe the GMC is in the practice of suspending medical licences temporarily so while a particular hospital might put him on leave another specialist might well call him in to help on a case on which he was the world expert.