Eton

123578

Comments

  • @Leorning Cniht unfortunately explaining in detail why your description of the TERF issue doesn't quite work would probably breach the aforementioned warning; let it just be said that I see the TERF telling a transwoman they are not a woman is more analogous to a BNP spokesman telling a black Brit whose parents and grandparents were all born here that they can't be British.
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    Actually I think free speech is about the right to avoid certain kinds of consequences. It's certainly not about your ability to disseminate your views: unless you happen to own or work for or win a contract with a media platform you had until the internet a rather limited ability to air your views to a wider audience. It does not mean anyone is under any obligation to help you air your views, so whatever the rights and wrongs of no platform policies they don't violate anyone's rights to free speech.
    Free speech means you have impunity from retaliation from the state (and I think also criminal or paramilitary organisations). It doesn't mean you have impunity from criticism of your views. Whether it means you have impunity from boycotts, summary dismissal by your employers, or so on, is a different and more complex matter.

    Very good. I have been arguing for years with friends that deplatforming has nothing to do with free speech, but for some reason, people seem to get hypnotized by the equation of free speech with a platform. Presumably, Eton are not saying that Knowland cannot publish videos.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Actually I think free speech is about the right to avoid certain kinds of consequences. It's certainly not about your ability to disseminate your views: unless you happen to own or work for or win a contract with a media platform you had until the internet a rather limited ability to air your views to a wider audience. It does not mean anyone is under any obligation to help you air your views, so whatever the rights and wrongs of no platform policies they don't violate anyone's rights to free speech.
    Free speech means you have impunity from retaliation from the state (and I think also criminal or paramilitary organisations). It doesn't mean you have impunity from criticism of your views. Whether it means you have impunity from boycotts, summary dismissal by your employers, or so on, is a different and more complex matter.

    I strongly disagree with Knowland, and I think Eaton was right to fire him.

    However, I have to acknowledge that if Eton fired him primarily because of the Equality Act - they do presumably fear the retaliation of the state in the form of penalties for breaching the Equality Act.
  • Leorning CnihtLeorning Cniht Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    KarlLB wrote: »
    let it just be said that I see the TERF telling a transwoman they are not a woman is more analogous to a BNP spokesman telling a black Brit whose parents and grandparents were all born here that they can't be British.

    I'll agree that the arguments have the same structure, and I'll also agree that discussion of the extent to which one or other is true is going to stray across the line.

    The fundamental question seems to be "who gets to define group X" - whether X is "British", "women", "men", "Londoners", or whatever other group. The consensus opinion of all people? The consensus opinion of all members of the group? The individual who claims to be a member? A written definition followed by legal-style argument?

    It's also the same as the "Are XXX group Christian?" discussion.
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    Free speech means you have impunity from retaliation from the state (and I think also criminal or paramilitary organisations). It doesn't mean you have impunity from criticism of your views. Whether it means you have impunity from boycotts, summary dismissal by your employers, or so on, is a different and more complex matter.
    I strongly disagree with Knowland, and I think Eaton was right to fire him.

    However, I have to acknowledge that if Eton fired him primarily because of the Equality Act - they do presumably fear the retaliation of the state in the form of penalties for breaching the Equality Act.

    It should be noted that not all forms of speech are protected under the rubric of freedom of speech. Threats aren't protected speech. Fraudulent commercial offers aren't protected speech. Perjury definitely isn't the kind of speech the state can't penalize you for. There are limits.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    let it just be said that I see the TERF telling a transwoman they are not a woman is more analogous to a BNP spokesman telling a black Brit whose parents and grandparents were all born here that they can't be British.

    I'll agree that the arguments have the same structure, and I'll also agree that discussion of the extent to which one or other is true is going to stray across the line.

    The fundamental question seems to be "who gets to define group X" - whether X is "British", "women", "men", "Londoners", or whatever other group. The consensus opinion of all people? The consensus opinion of all members of the group? The individual who claims to be a member? A written definition followed by legal-style argument?

    It's also the same as the "Are XXX group Christian?" discussion.

    I think the problem comes in when the would-be exclusionary group insists that they and society around them must use their exclusionary definition to the detriment of the excluded party.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    let it just be said that I see the TERF telling a transwoman they are not a woman is more analogous to a BNP spokesman telling a black Brit whose parents and grandparents were all born here that they can't be British.

    I'll agree that the arguments have the same structure, and I'll also agree that discussion of the extent to which one or other is true is going to stray across the line.

    The fundamental question seems to be "who gets to define group X" - whether X is "British", "women", "men", "Londoners", or whatever other group. The consensus opinion of all people? The consensus opinion of all members of the group? The individual who claims to be a member? A written definition followed by legal-style argument?

    It's also the same as the "Are XXX group Christian?" discussion.

    I think the problem comes in when the would-be exclusionary group insists that they and society around them must use their exclusionary definition to the detriment of the excluded party.

    And quite often they obscure what is going on, or suggest that only their definition works. In relation to sex/gender, obfuscation is rife, e.g., gender is conflated with gender identity.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    I think the problem comes in when the would-be exclusionary group insists that they and society around them must use their exclusionary definition to the detriment of the excluded party.

    Individual exclusionists using their exclusionary definitions also cause problems, even if they don't try to insist that other people adopt their preferences.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Enoch, I thought the Eton case wasn't about free speech, but the teacher refusing to take down his video, and second, fears at Eton that it infringes Equality law. I don't really know if his appeal will be based on free speech.
    I agree, but was commenting on a possible rationale that would explain why Steven Pinker said one thing before he'd seen the video and changed his mind after.

  • Kwesi wrote: »
    The problem, IMO, is that as with most principles the right to freedom of speech is not, and never has been, absolute. What disturbs me, however, is that abridgement of that right, especially platform denial of reasonable views, has become increasingly popular on the left. It is all very well to criticise the right for defending free speech, but if the left is becoming less open-minded where else are its guardians to be found?

    Eh, I can't remember the last time trenchant criticism of capitalism was published in the Telegraph. Perhaps you could enlighten me.
  • Featuring in the Times and Daily Telegraph tomorrow will be the story that Will Knowland is seeking an Act of Parliament to get reinstated - link to Twitter taster as both are behind paywalls. As someone commented, most people go to employment tribunals rather than demand an Act of Parliament.
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    It does not mean anyone is under any obligation to help you air your views, so whatever the rights and wrongs of no platform policies they don't violate anyone's rights to free speech.

    If "no platform" were performed by the government, it would do so.

    In the case of a Student Union, its funding structure and legal obligations would seem to make it closer to a governmental organization and less close to a private club or business, which makes "no platform" by a student union a bit different from a particular newspaper declining to publish your views. It probably doesn't actually violate someone's free speech rights, but it nudges up against it.

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    If "no platform" were performed by the government, it would do so.

    In the case of a Student Union, its funding structure and legal obligations would seem to make it closer to a governmental organization and less close to a private club or business, which makes "no platform" by a student union a bit different from a particular newspaper declining to publish your views.

    How close to a state is a student union? Does it have the authority to arrest or imprison people? Does it have a monopoly on legitimate violence?
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    It does not mean anyone is under any obligation to help you air your views, so whatever the rights and wrongs of no platform policies they don't violate anyone's rights to free speech.

    If "no platform" were performed by the government, it would do so.

    In the case of a Student Union, its funding structure and legal obligations would seem to make it closer to a governmental organization and less close to a private club or business, which makes "no platform" by a student union a bit different from a particular newspaper declining to publish your views. It probably doesn't actually violate someone's free speech rights, but it nudges up against it.

    Student unions are legall
    Crœsos wrote: »
    If "no platform" were performed by the government, it would do so.

    In the case of a Student Union, its funding structure and legal obligations would seem to make it closer to a governmental organization and less close to a private club or business, which makes "no platform" by a student union a bit different from a particular newspaper declining to publish your views.

    How close to a state is a student union? Does it have the authority to arrest or imprison people? Does it have a monopoly on legitimate violence?

    Most are considered to have charitable status under the aegis of their associated institution. They generally have some control over who can book meeting rooms in university buildings. Given that campuses are home to many students SU's rightly consider the impact of allowing bigots to spread hate, given the evidence that (to choose a related example) BNP activity in an area led to a sharp rise in hate crime. If you give these people a platform and treat their views as "reasonable" and just one point of view among many then you legitimise them and give licence to their abusive fellow travellers.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Threats aren't protected speech. Fraudulent commercial offers aren't protected speech. Perjury definitely isn't the kind of speech the state can't penalize you for.

    Indeed. All of these are morally wrong acts involving communication. Shouting anything in a crowded theatre when other people want to concentrate on the play is similarly wrong.

    (All these are of course offences of which people are innocent until proven guilty).

    Seems to me that when we talk about denying freedom of speech we're not talking about those who openly prosecute wrongful acts that happen to involve speech.

    And we're not talking about private citizens who choose not to befriend someone because they don't like what they have to say.

    And we're not talking about those who choose to publish material of a certain type, and decline to include submissions that don't fit with that mission.

    We're talking about those who abuse the power of their position by making their exercise of that power conditional on whether or not they agree with the content of your discourse.

    Whether that's officers of the state who treat people as criminals or not based on their expression of certain views, or who deny the services of the state (such as welfare benefits) to those who express certain views. Or businesses who offer goods or services to the public at large but decline to transact with those who express certain views. Or employers who decline to hire people whose political opinions they don't like.

    McCarthyism is not something to be admired and emulated.
  • Russ wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    McCarthyism is not something to be admired and emulated.

    Nor is it something to be overdiagnosed or mis-identified.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Russ wrote: »
    We're talking about those who abuse the power of their position by making their exercise of that power conditional on whether or not they agree with the content of your discourse.

    Or businesses who offer goods or services to the public at large but decline to transact with those who express certain views. Or employers who decline to hire people whose political opinions they don't like.
    You have in the past expressed the opinion that a business can decline to transact with anybody on the suspicion, based on ethnicity, that they may cause trouble. That if a Hispanic walks into a bar and the bartender believes on statistical grounds that Hispanics are more likely to cause trouble than members of other ethnicities than members of other races the bartender is entitled to refuse the customer entry, and doesn't have to worry about the principle of innocent until proven guilty. One would assume that the same reasoning applies to people who have views that might lead to trouble.
    Likewise, you have expressed the opinion that there should be no limits of this kind upon whom an employer chooses to hire. Also, that there should be no limits upon the terms and conditions that an employer can put in their contract. Consent you say justifies all, so that if an employment contract stipulates that the employee shall not engage in any public discourse displeasing to the employer even outside work hours then by your previously professed principles the employee by signing such a contract has justified the stipulation.

    So, presumably you are now abandoning the principle that any conditions in a contract of employment are morally permissible if the employee by accepting consents.

    Now on the assumption that in general there are limits upon what an employer can reasonably use as grounds for dismissal, regardless of what the employer puts in the employment contract, are there views that the employer can reasonably use as grounds for dismissal? Presumably, we are agreed that if an employee argues for the legitimacy of embezzlement the employer might decide that they will not be a good fit. A potential employee who argues that the employer's activities are morally illegitimate might also not be a good fit: a fur farm who discovers that an applicant has regularly spoken in support of PETA is perhaps allowed to take that into account when deciding whether to hire them. Likewise, we may consider that if an employee's views are such that the employer has reasonable lack of confidence that they will interact constructively with their coworkers, or with the customers or clients, or that they may abuse their authority, then the employer may be justified in dismissing the employee.
    As noted, the employer ought not to have an unrestricted right to dismiss on these grounds. The employer needs to meet some standard of evidence. But the accepted standard is balance of probability, rather than innocent until guilty. (The innocent until guilty standard is a contradiction of practical reason: if the employer dismisses the employee then presumably the employer should equally be considered innocent of unjust dismissal until proven guilty.)
  • Russ wrote: »
    And we're not talking about those who choose to publish material of a certain type, and decline to include submissions that don't fit with that mission.

    No, that's exactly what we're talking about.

    If you want a platform for bigoted views, build it yourself. Don't belly ache that you have the right to co-opt someone else's.
  • These are the arguments over Twitter and YouTube, aren't they? Someone is banned, and there is a hue and cry about censorship. But presumably as private companies, they can choose who to allow. Nothing to do with free speech.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    Dafyd wrote: »
    <snip>The employer needs to meet some standard of evidence. But the accepted standard is balance of probability, rather than innocent until guilty. (The innocent until guilty standard is a contradiction of practical reason: if the employer dismisses the employee then presumably the employer should equally be considered innocent of unjust dismissal until proven guilty.)
    Two slightly different things are getting conflated here. There’s ‘burden of proof’ - who has to prove what, and ‘standard of proof’ - how compelling the evidence must be to establish the case.

    Innocent until proven guilty is about the first of those. It is a criminal standard, in civil trials the equivalent is that it’s up to the plaintiff to make out a case against the defendant.

    The second question is how strong must the evidence be. In England in criminal cases the standard is "beyond reasonable doubt" (though the Judicial Studies Board guidance is that juries might be assisted by being told that they must be persuaded "so that you are sure"). In other cases (and often in employment disciplinary cases) the case is decided on the basis of 'the balance of probabilities', often referred to in judgments as "more likely than not".

    I think in England an employer is expected to operate in the basis of innocent until proven guilty, but it is sufficient that someone is found to be guilty on the balance of probabilities, the employer doesn’t have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.
  • I think your final paragraph contradicts your second. If as in your second paragraph IUPG is a Criminal trial concept, it's irrelevant to a civil matter.
  • These are the arguments over Twitter and YouTube, aren't they? Someone is banned, and there is a hue and cry about censorship. But presumably as private companies, they can choose who to allow. Nothing to do with free speech.

    This is the rub isn't it; the same political tendency were very happy to legislate for the untrammelled right of corporations to do what they will and to fire whom they will until it impinged upon someone expressing views that were adjacent to their own.
  • You end up with a situation where you can be fired for joining a union or being gay but not for joining the KKK or being a nazi.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I think your final paragraph contradicts your second. If as in your second paragraph IUPG is a Criminal trial concept, it's irrelevant to a civil matter.

    Indeed, the whole notion of 'guilty' as a legal concept is a criminal law concept. Innocent until proven guilty might be one of the few legal ideas that people know, but that's partly because almost all of our legal entertainment on TV and in films is of criminal cases.

    It's got absolutely zero to do with an employer deciding when to fire an employee. I mean, the general starting point is there's no obligation to keep an employee. Overlaying that are some laws that have been passed saying there are certain reasons you're not allowed to fire someone (moreso in some countries than others, eg parts of the USA have very limited protections).
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    chrisstiles:. This is the rub isn't it; the same political tendency were very happy to legislate for the untrammelled right of corporations to do what they will and to fire whom they will until it impinged upon someone expressing views that were adjacent to their own.

    This is simply tub-thumping. The question of employment rights and the appropriate level of flexibility in labour markets is continually being discussed from a variety of perspectives by politicians, journalists, economists, employers, employees and consumers. I am not aware that employer interests have sought to suppress views contrary to their own on this topic.

  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I think your final paragraph contradicts your second. If as in your second paragraph IUPG is a Criminal trial concept, it's irrelevant to a civil matter.
    That’s the trouble with me trying to cut corners. In the non-criminal setting of an employment disciplinary issue, an employer in England can’t simply allege a disciplinary offence and require the employee to disprove it. In that sense the employee is entitled to be regarded as innocent of the offence until the employer brings evidence that on the balance of probabilities shows that the employee has committed the disciplinary offence.
  • Kwesi wrote: »
    chrisstiles:. This is the rub isn't it; the same political tendency were very happy to legislate for the untrammelled right of corporations to do what they will and to fire whom they will until it impinged upon someone expressing views that were adjacent to their own.

    This is simply tub-thumping.

    To cite an example (as Dafyd has done above); Russ has previously expressed the opinion that there should be no limits on the terms and conditions within a contract of employment (and disrepute clauses are ubiquitous across employers).
    I am not aware that employer interests have sought to suppress views contrary to their own on this topic.

    Ignoring the long (and still running) practice of employers singling out union organisers for punishment ? A single proven example would show this argument to be wrong, wouldn't it?
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    Kwesi:I am not aware that employer interests have sought to suppress views contrary to their own on this topic.

    chrisstiles: Ignoring the long (and still running) practice of employers singling out union organisers for punishment ? A single proven example would show this argument to be wrong, wouldn't it?

    Remember that we are discussing the expression of opinion(s) not their content. Clearly, there are attitudes expressed towards contracts of employment that might be considered by some of us as reactionary and antediluvian, including those held by Russ. I am not aware, however, that Russ is arguing that opinions contrary to his do not deserve an airing, nor, more importantly, do organisations like the CBI advocate the suppression of views backing employee interests. Your statement that "the same political tendency were very happy to legislate for the untrammelled right of corporations to do what they will and to fire whom they will until it impinged upon someone expressing views that were adjacent to their own," is simply not the case in most, if not all, western democracies, which is why China is proving such an attractive place for corporate interests.
  • Yes, but. Are you going to acknowledge that your statement
    I am not aware that employer interests have sought to suppress views contrary to their own on this topic.
    is demonstrably false, given that that's exactly what they have done? And continue to do, in such western democracies as the USA and the UK...
  • Most are considered to have charitable status under the aegis of their associated institution. They generally have some control over who can book meeting rooms in university buildings. Given that campuses are home to many students SU's rightly consider the impact of allowing bigots to spread hate, given the evidence that (to choose a related example) BNP activity in an area led to a sharp rise in hate crime. If you give these people a platform and treat their views as "reasonable" and just one point of view among many then you legitimise them and give licence to their abusive fellow travellers.

    Students automatically join student unions. Although there is now an opt-out, it's a basically meaningless opt-out that only a handful of people with spiky principles actually use.

    Universities, including the meeting rooms over which student unions have control, are largely publicly funded.

    Universities produce a pile of bylaws governing the behaviour of their students.

    Why shouldn't I consider a university and its student union as similar to something like a parish council?
  • Well, one of the main distinguishing features of a university is its autonomy. David Willetts in "A University Education" points out emphatically that universities are not part of the public sector, unlike schools (or indeed polytechnics)
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Doc, are you not confusing the expression of different views as to how labour markets might or ought to be constructed with the ways in which actual labour markets are organised?
  • Kwesi wrote: »
    Doc, are you not confusing the expression of different views as to how labour markets might or ought to be constructed with the ways in which actual labour markets are organised?

    Well, I'm not - but I think you are. The US has, in many states, incredibly loose labour laws which permit firing on zero pretext. The UK, on paper, doesn't, but in practical terms it has been proved that if (for example) you're a union organiser in the construction industry, then you'll be fired and blacklisted.

    Now, you might reasonably argue that 'freedom of association' applies to both the Associated Union of Widget Makers, and the KKK (and I'm not suggesting that Knowland is equivalent to a member of the KKK) - however, in order to reach the point where an employer sees membership of the violently racist and insurrectionist terror group as being on a par with membership of a trades union, they're going to have to jump through an awful lot of semantic hoops. It's simply not a case of "if you allow union members, you have to allow seditious racists".
  • Kwesi wrote: »
    I am not aware, however, that Russ is arguing that opinions contrary to his do not deserve an airing, nor, more importantly,

    Except that what we are discussing here (in large part) are the consequences someone faces from their employer as a result of expressing their opinions (and Russ' views on employment contracts are known from elsewhere - with disrepute clauses being fairly standard already).
    do organisations like the CBI advocate the suppression of views backing employee interests.

    They haven't come out and said that they are against employers organising if that is what you mean, but clearly this is going to be a case where we have to look at their actions and the practical consequences of the legislation they have supported.
    Your statement that "the same political tendency were very happy to legislate for the untrammelled right of corporations to do what they will and to fire whom they will until it impinged upon someone expressing views that were adjacent to their own," is simply not the case in most, if not all, western democracies

    Under at-will employment this is effectively the case in much of the US (with clauses intended to ameliorate against discrimination being written in a way that puts the burden of proof on the employee), and the direction of travel in much of the west whenever labour market liberalisation has been mentioned has been towards making it increasingly difficult for the employee to fight unfair dismissal.
    which is why China is proving such an attractive place for corporate interests.

    Those same corporate interests are - of course - represented by the CBI, so perhaps you have argued against your own position here.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    Now, you might reasonably argue that 'freedom of association' applies to both the Associated Union of Widget Makers, and the KKK (and I'm not suggesting that Knowland is equivalent to a member of the KKK) - however, in order to reach the point where an employer sees membership of the violently racist and insurrectionist terror group as being on a par with membership of a trades union, they're going to have to jump through an awful lot of semantic hoops.

    Imagine that you are an amoral capitalist employer. As such, your natural behaviour is to exploit your employees as much as possible, and a trade union will tend to oppose that behaviour.

    Employing KKK members, on the other hand, may or may not oppose your interest. If you have a load of customers, or high-status high-value employees who are black, then employing an overt anti-black racist is likely not to work out in your favour. If the only black people your company interacts with are low-status menial employees and/or low-status customers with little scope to choose alternative companies to deal with, you won't suffer a financial penalty by employing overt racists.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    These are the arguments over Twitter and YouTube, aren't they? Someone is banned, and there is a hue and cry about censorship. But presumably as private companies, they can choose who to allow. Nothing to do with free speech.

    These are the arguments, yes. Are these companies akin to publishers who may disseminate or not whatever content they choose in order to attract people to their advertising platform ? Or are they akin to mail delivery firms ("common carriers") who offer a service to the general public ?

  • Russ wrote: »
    Are these companies akin to publishers who may disseminate or not whatever content they choose in order to attract people to their advertising platform ? Or are they akin to mail delivery firms ("common carriers") who offer a service to the general public ?

    Or are they somewhere in between? Does it have to be the case that your only choice is to either take editorial responsibility for everything on your platform, or allow anything and everything? Is there a third way?
  • Russ wrote: »
    These are the arguments over Twitter and YouTube, aren't they? Someone is banned, and there is a hue and cry about censorship. But presumably as private companies, they can choose who to allow. Nothing to do with free speech.

    These are the arguments, yes. Are these companies akin to publishers who may disseminate or not whatever content they choose in order to attract people to their advertising platform ? Or are they akin to mail delivery firms ("common carriers") who offer a service to the general public ?

    Even postal services have items they refuse to carry.
  • Even postal services have items they refuse to carry.

    Some of these are explosives and similar items that need special precautions to be transported safely.

    Some are "obscenity" which is where the content filter starts to enter. Although in practice I don't think postal services tend to inspect the content of whatever is mailed inside a brown envelope.

  • BroJames wrote: »
    In the non-criminal setting of an employment disciplinary issue, an employer in England can’t simply allege a disciplinary offence and require the employee to disprove it. In that sense the employee is entitled to be regarded as innocent of the offence until the employer brings evidence that on the balance of probabilities shows that the employee has committed the disciplinary offence.

    I'd have to say that in my experience of local authority employment, an employee was usually regarded as guilty until proven innocent in a disciplinary case. By contrast, in a grievance case, the manager was invariably regarded as innocent until proven guilty.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    Dafyd wrote: »
    You have in the past expressed the opinion that a business can decline to transact with anybody on the suspicion, based on ethnicity, that they may cause trouble.
    We have indeed discussed these issues previously. You tend to express your views in terms of striking a reasonable balance between the interests of the parties involved.

    That doesn't satisfy me. I believe that such a judgment is too corruptible. That you will tend to find in favour of those you sympathise with. I look instead for clear principles that are applicable to everybody.

    I see nothing wrong with the principle that everybody who advertises a service to the public takes on thereby an obligation to transact with any member of the public who wishes to take up that offer. Under that principle, a bartender cannot refuse to serve anybody.

    Conversely, it seems to me quite workable and principled to say that a bartender or shopkeeper may refuse to serve anybody provided that he does so on one of a list of grounds that is open and knowable by anyone. If the sign says "no shirt, no service" or "over 21s only" then everybody knows that the offer (to sell drinks) is conditional.

    We can discuss further on another thread if you wish; not convinced it's entirely relevant to the current case.
    Likewise, you have expressed the opinion that there should be no limits of this kind upon whom an employer chooses to hire.
    Again, I look for a clear principle. The least-unsatisfactory one I've found so far is that criteria should be relevant to the job. Hiring or not hiring for irrelevant reasons is a breach of the implied promise on the job advert.
    Consent you say justifies all, so that if an employment contract stipulates that the employee shall not engage in any public discourse displeasing to the employer even outside work hours then by your previously professed principles the employee by signing such a contract has justified the stipulation.
    Seems only fair that anyone accepting such a clause should get paid extra for doing so. If someone wishes to waive their right to a private life in exchange for more money and status, then why not ? Doesn't prevent anyone from asserting the existence of such a right.

    There may be some jobs (?judge?) where being known to have opinions of one's own and a life outside the job is detrimental to performance in the job. Teacher isn't one of them.

    If they're not being paid more for accepting such a clause, well you know I count abuse of monopoly power as a wrong...
    A potential employee who argues that the employer's activities are morally illegitimate might also not be a good fit: a fur farm who discovers that an applicant has regularly spoken in support of PETA is perhaps allowed to take that into account when deciding whether to hire them.
    When deciding whether to hire someone, I've suggested that any question or criterion relevant to performance in the job is legitimate. If an employer discovers from an employee's publicly-stated views that they lied through their teeth at interview, then reconsidering that hiring decision may be in order.
    Likewise, we may consider that if an employee's views are such that the employer has reasonable lack of confidence that they will interact constructively with their coworkers, or with the customers or clients, or that they may abuse their authority, then the employer may be justified in dismissing the employee.
    As noted, the employer ought not to have an unrestricted right to dismiss on these grounds. The employer needs to meet some standard of evidence. But the accepted standard is balance of probability, rather than innocent until guilty.
    Agree that evidence is needed. But evidence means something more than prejudiced speculation about how people with certain political views will behave.

    Do you think it right that someone who is a member of the communist party should be able to be dismissed from any job solely on the grounds of such membership ? If the employer has a lack of confidence that people with those views can be trusted ?

    And no, "balance of probabilities" is an alternative to "beyond reasonable doubt" as a standard of proof; it is not a denial that proof is needed.
    (The innocent until guilty standard is a contradiction of practical reason: if the employer dismisses the employee then presumably the employer should equally be considered innocent of unjust dismissal until proven guilty.)
    No contradiction. To condemn the employer for an act of unfair dismissal you have to demonstrate rather than merely speculate that they have acted on the basis of a merely speculated rather than demonstrated failure on the part of the employee to carry out the job to the standards expected.

    [Long reply to long post]
  • Russ wrote: »
    I see nothing wrong with the principle that everybody who advertises a service to the public takes on thereby an obligation to transact with any member of the public who wishes to take up that offer. Under that principle, a bartender cannot refuse to serve anybody.

    Conversely, it seems to me quite workable and principled to say that a bartender or shopkeeper may refuse to serve anybody provided that he does so on one of a list of grounds that is open and knowable by anyone. If the sign says "no shirt, no service" or "over 21s only" then everybody knows that the offer (to sell drinks) is conditional.

    These two things are nonsensical put together because they are mutually exclusive. It's either one (a legal obligation to serve everyone) or the other (conditional on who the bartender decides to serve).

    Neither 'principles' are practised in almost any jurisdiction. Firstly, because there are restrictions placed by the state (an age bar as a minimum), and secondly, because it collides with existing discrimination legislation.
    There may be some jobs (?judge?) where being known to have opinions of one's own and a life outside the job is detrimental to performance in the job. Teacher isn't one of them.

    This is simply wrong. Teaching (in the UK, and highly probably across large parts of the world) requires an enhanced clearance from the police that includes past criminal convictions but also complaints and notes on the applicant's file. Teaching is absolutely one of the them, in a way that a machine tool operator isn't. Literally anything involving access to children or vulnerable adults is very heavily vetted.

    If Knowland had taught in a state school, they would have been suspended immediately. He wouldn't have been given the repeated opportunity to take down the video - that's simply private school privilege.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    BroJames wrote: »
    Two slightly different things are getting conflated here. There’s ‘burden of proof’ - who has to prove what, and ‘standard of proof’ - how compelling the evidence must be to establish the case.

    Innocent until proven guilty is about the first of those. It is a criminal standard, in civil trials the equivalent is that it’s up to the plaintiff to make out a case against the defendant.

    The second question is how strong must the evidence be. In England in criminal cases the standard is "beyond reasonable doubt" (though the Judicial Studies Board guidance is that juries might be assisted by being told that they must be persuaded "so that you are sure"). In other cases (and often in employment disciplinary cases) the case is decided on the basis of 'the balance of probabilities', often referred to in judgments as "more likely than not".

    There has been a marked difference in the development of UK and Aust law in this area. In Smith v DPP, the House of Lords (the Law Lords of which then formed the senior UK court) said that a man is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his acts (ignore the inherent sexism). In Parker v R, Chief Justice Dixon of our High Court, with the approval of all other members, said that this was wrong, and that dictum has been followed since. That comment "so that you are sure" could not be used by a judge in directions to a jury. The phrase "beyond reasonable doubt" are simple and straightforward words requiring no explanation or further elaboration.
  • Russ wrote: »
    There may be some jobs (?judge?) where being known to have opinions of one's own and a life outside the job is detrimental to performance in the job. Teacher isn't one of them.

    So if you were to ask the average black parent whether they were confident that a prominent BNP supporter would treat their child fairly, would you expect them to say "yes"? Would you think that such a person would treat them fairly?

    I don't think you've ever met any actual people - or at least, your posts show no signs of understanding how actual people behave.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    Am I confident that a teacher who reads Marxism Today will leave his politics at the school gate and teach the children of the bourgeoisie with proper professionalism ? No I'm not.

    Do I think that such a person should be given the benefit of the doubt and not condemned without evidence ? Absolutely.
  • Russ wrote: »
    Am I confident that a teacher who reads Marxism Today will leave his politics at the school gate and teach the children of the bourgeoisie with proper professionalism ? No I'm not.

    Do I think that such a person should be given the benefit of the doubt and not condemned without evidence ? Absolutely.

    Given that I was taught metalwork by a card-carrying communist, I'm absolutely certain that for most, if not all, subjects, the Marxism Today reader (it's an organisation more than a paper, and which is, inevitably, slagged off by Proper Socialists) will do as good, if not better, than the Daily Mail reader.

    No, to answer your question, he didn't leave his politics at the school gate as he was also the NUT convenor, and used to tell us (well, me at least) about his holidays in the USSR.

    But you slip in 'not condemned without evidence'. We have evidence that Knowland is a rape apologist and sexist. It's not like Eton suddenly woke up one morning and decided to fire him on a whim - they gave him chances, which the state sector would absolutely have not done.
  • Knowland ‘s video is best watched with strong coffee to hand.

    Whatever the rights and wrongs Legally......the overall tone is one of privilege and misogyny.

    Just out of interest, are there any women here who find his video ok?
  • Ethne Alba wrote: »
    Just out of interest, are there any women here who find his video ok?

    I don't think there are any people here of whatever sex who find his video ok, are there?

    We've had a couple of posters arguing that he should be allowed to be a foul misogynist on his own time as long as he leaves it behind when he comes to work, and others of us who don't think people actually compartmentalize their character like that.

    But I haven't seen anyone speak in defense of his opinions.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    Not anyone who actually knew what those opinions were, anyway.
  • Though I would point out that Voltaire's position has long been used by holders of awful views to propagate them without having to own them.
Sign In or Register to comment.