Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Tamas]

Are you saying if a bunch of Arabs were waving Hamas flags and telling their tens of thousands of followers to kill their local MPs you'd be all like "well freedom of speech, innit"

[Gups]

For the record, I don't think Kneecap should be prosecuted or cancelled but people are entitled to call them out for their actions.

For the record, I don't think Kneecap should be prosecuted or cancelled but people are entitled to call them out for their actions.

Explain the difference between canceling somebody and calling them out for their actions.

Trying to stop someone from being allowed to speak/get them sacked/get their book banned etc vs criticizing them for what they have said or done

[Sheilbh]

Explain the difference between canceling somebody and calling them out for their actions.

Criticising someone v calling for them to get fired/lose their job/deplatformed. (Edit: Gups got their first.)

Yeah I'm slightly with Gups on Kneecap.

On the one hand I think the PM shouldn't be commenting on it - but this will be a tabloid lobby reporter asking a question. Like when Tony Blair got behind the Sun or Mirror's campaign to free Deirdre on Coronation Street. But on the other if you call your band "kneecap" and at concerts shout "the only good Tory is a dead Tory. Kill your local MP", "up Hamas, up Hezbollah" and wave a Hezbollah flag then I don't know that you get to complain about people responding to that If you want to epater les bourgeois (to the applause and multiple profiles by the Guardian and a BAFTA) then I'm not sure you get to be annoyed when they're scandalised - or get to half walk it back/kind of apologise as they have.

Also I don't think there'd be anywhere the degree of sympathy for a band named after Loyalist violence telling people to kill their Labour MP or shouting in support of proscribed far-right groups.

I don't even really have an issue with Kemi Badenoch as Business Secretary trying to block them from getting funding from the state. It might have been incorrect in law as the court found but I do kind of feel like that could be a reasonable degree of discretion built into the law: if their public image is edgily pro-terrorism, you don't have to give them government financing

On the Brize Norton thing - I could be wrong but I feel like that sort of thing used to be a resigning matter for a minister in the MoD. It's an extraordinary breach of security given that Brize Norton is used as the hub for visiting dignitaries/government flights coming into London.

But I'm not sure about proscribing them. On the other hand I think there's a vibes element here where there's been lots of focus on the UK clamping down on the types of protest that groups like Just Stop Oil have been doing, while in a lot of Europe there have been dawn raids shutting them down for terrorism adjacent offences like "forming a criminal organisation".

[Valmy]

Criticising someone v calling for them to get fired/lose their job/deplatformed. (Edit: Gups got their first.)

Fair enough but wow do those get conflated a lot. I think most of the fired and lose their job shit was mostly just an impact of the way twitter was designed. Notice it has died out almost immediately once twitter stopped being popular. That kind of mob action I think was almost perfectly social engineered by the features of twitter.

Back in my day kicking somebody off a website for being disruptive was just moderation though, not canceling. But that was before there were like four social media platforms everything happened on I guess. Still kind of weird to equate that with losing your real life job.

[Sheilbh]

In fairness the getting fired thing was not a big deal here - there were the odd Twitter storm for it but we don't have at will employment so someone needs to be in breach of their contract to be fired. I've always said I think the whole cancelling thing in the US is more a function of American employment laws than "woke" or anything else.

[HVC]

In fairness the getting fired thing was not a big deal here - there were the odd Twitter storm for it but we don't have at will employment so someone needs to be in breach of their contract to be fired. I've always said I think the whole cancelling thing in the US is more a function of American employment laws than "woke" or anything else.

You guys don't have clauses about bringing bad attention/reputation to your company?

[Sheilbh]

You guys don't have clauses about bringing bad attention/reputation to your company?

Ish - I should say I'm not an employment lawyer but I think the employment tribunals tend to interpret them narrowly and there's quite a high bar.

And employment law still needs to be complied with. So the employer needs to do a fair investigation, they need to consider all other avenues (for example, other disciplinary measures) and they need to record an objectively rational basis for the dismissal. And the burden of proof for that is on the employer.

This is why employer's have things like an acceptable use of social media policy tied to a disciplinary policies to try and bolster their position in that process. But (again - not an expert) I think generally the firings that have been found to be justifiable are ones that are fairly connected to the company - so bullying or harassment online, posting about how shit their products are etc.

Edit: I'd add that "philosophical beliefs" are also explicitly protected under equalities legislation - along with religion. There's a fair amount of case law from the European courts interpreted in the UK over what's a "philosophical belief" but the key point is that to be outside of the scope of that protection it needs to be "not worthy of respect in a democratic society" - which, again, is a high bar.

[mongers]

... snip...
Also I don't think there'd be anywhere the degree of sympathy for a band named after Loyalist violence telling people to kill their Labour MP or shouting in support of proscribed far-right groups.

....snip....

IIRC this was an equal opportunities initiative, run foul of the Provos and you could also get kneecapped.       

[Josquius]

People losing their job for being revealed to be a massive racist, homophobe, or whatever, really seems fair enough to me.
You don't want to be losing the custom of a pretty decent chunk of the population.
This is of course several steps before saying something with criminal consequences.

[Valmy]

People losing their job for being revealed to be a massive racist, homophobe, or whatever, really seems fair enough to me.

I am not a fan. Now if you bring that shit to work that seems like a good reason to lose your job. That's not professional.

But expressing controversial ideas in your personal life? That bugs me. Especially as it isn't like the only views you might have that your employer might not like are bad ones.

Of course it is bad for public order if, say, police officers are posting stuff like that. But cops are probably not going to be fired for something like that as they have a powerful national union backing them up.

[garbon]

People losing their job for being revealed to be a massive racist, homophobe, or whatever, really seems fair enough to me.

I am not a fan. Now if you bring that shit to work that seems like a good reason to lose your job. That's not professional.

But expressing controversial ideas in your personal life? That bugs me. Especially as it isn't like the only views you might have that your employer might not like are bad ones.

Of course it is bad for public order if, say, police officers are posting stuff like that. But cops are probably not going to be fired for something like that as they have a powerful national union backing them up.

How many of these closet racists or homophobes exist? How many set that aside when say in a management position and deciding who gets opportunities, who gets promoted?

[Valmy]

How many of these closet racists or homophobes exist? How many set that aside when say in a management position and deciding who gets opportunities, who gets promoted?

Well that is a problem. But we can't be going through people's social media to make sure they are unbiased. Our government is doing this kind of thing to people trying to enter the US now and it isn't to make sure those people aren't racist or homophobic.

Besides plenty of shit could be misinterpreted out of context.

[garbon]

How many of these closet racists or homophobes exist? How many set that aside when say in a management position and deciding who gets opportunities, who gets promoted?

Well that is a problem. But we can't be going through people's social media to make sure they are unbiased. Our government is doing this kind of thing to people trying to enter the US now and it isn't to make sure those people aren't racist or homophobic.

Besides plenty of shit could be misinterpreted out of context.

I thought some do that as part of hiring process. Hence cautionary tales of people who got offered jobs and then had the offers rescinded.

[crazy canuck]

How many of these closet racists or homophobes exist? How many set that aside when say in a management position and deciding who gets opportunities, who gets promoted?

Well that is a problem. But we can't be going through people's social media to make sure they are unbiased. Our government is doing this kind of thing to people trying to enter the US now and it isn't to make sure those people aren't racist or homophobic.

Besides plenty of shit could be misinterpreted out of context.

Actually it is a pretty standard risk management practice to vet applicants before making job offers. That vetting process often involves a scan of their social media.

And for positions which require a person to not have a particular bias, candidates are often eliminated because of the content of what they have chosen to share with the world. Same holds true for positions that require good judgment.

[Sheilbh]

It's not standard in Europe, given data protection laws. Especially given the risk that their social media is likely to include special category information such as information on their sexuality or sex life, possibly health, political opinions etc. The fact that they have made information publicly available doesn't stop it being their personal data or considered particularly worthy of protection.

There may be reasons to do it but you'd need to document those very carefully - in practice it would normally have to be pretty directly related to a risk in that job. Same goes for criminal background checks.