Sack this revolting specimen

[visualnickmos]

....For the record, I find her views pretty revolting but she has the freedom to express them and the rest of us have the freedom to ignore them.

And if she was saying the same in reference to black people, what would you say? Still the freedom to express them?

[Beef Oven!]

Can people be sacked for their opinions, even if they're appalling?

I'd hope the answer to that is no.

If she's to be sacked, it should be for 'some other substantial reason' or 'gross misconduct', rather than a ''thought crime''. Or whatever variation of those two reasons is in operation in the country, given.

[Nick Armstrong]

That's no excuse - so was Jane Austen!

:laugh: that had me choking on the Crunchy Nuts! :biggrin:

Looks like a VERY easy production to boycott... http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/...620-zsgrj.html

Perhaps worth pointing out that the specimen in question now charmingly blames her husband http://www.limelightmagazine.com.au/...obic-rant.aspx

[visualnickmos]

Perhaps worth pointing out that the specimen in question now charmingly blames her husband

I know, I read it! Her Facebook excuse is as, or if not more, hilarious!!!!! Poor b*** :laugh:

[amateur51]

I'd hope the answer to that is no.

If she's to be sacked, it should be for 'some other substantial reason' or 'gross misconduct', rather than a ''thought crime''. Or whatever variation of those two reasons is in operation in the country, given.

This is not a "thought crime", it is a publicly expressed opinion that has clearly caused offence.

If the Box Office suffers and there are public protests, then her sacking will be due to behaviour that has brought her employer into disrepute.

[Mary Chambers]

Would you have written that if it was racism that was the issue concerned here, and not homophobia?

I don't know. Believe me, I'm not supporting her. It was just a question. I'm not sure of the answer, but I think it's worth asking.

Apparently she's been dropped from a production next year in Brussels.

[Petrushka]

And if she was saying the same in reference to black people, what would you say? Still the freedom to express them?

She has the freedom to express those as well if she so wishes as do you and I. Who is interested in the views of a Georgian opera singer? The world will keep on turning and civilisation won't collapse.

I'd repeat again, I find her views pretty revolting but I don't have to take any notice of them if I don't want to.

[visualnickmos]

She has the freedom to express those as well if she so wishes as do you and I. Who is interested in the views of a Georgian opera singer? The world will keep on turning and civilisation won't collapse.

I'd repeat again, I find her views pretty revolting but I don't have to take any notice of them if I don't want to.

Silence condones?

[Beef Oven!]

Would you have written that if it was racism that was the issue concerned here, and not homophobia?

That's not what the question asks. It asks if people can be sacked for their opinions. The answer is no. That would be tantamount to dismissing people for "thought crimes".

But, to take the UK and the example of racism that you give, such a statement could be deemed as a fundamental breach of contract for reasons of misconduct (breach of the employer's diversity policy) or some other substantial reason (e.g. making a statement that incites racial hatred bringing the company into disrepute, making it infeasible, from a business point of view to continue with the engagement due to reputational issues, intolerable burden in dealing with the protests, loss of business through ticket returns etc etc etc). It's so simple, you need not have an LLM in Employment law to deal with it.

[french frank]

Can people be sacked for their opinions, even if they're appalling?

Mr Rumpole is the expert here, but it would seem clearly to be an offence of 'hate crime' in the UK in inciting "hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to sexual orientation (whether towards persons of the same sex, the opposite sex or both)".

And as far as freedom of speech is concerned (ref Wikipedia!): "for the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred."

[Barbirollians]

Mr Rumpole is the expert here, but it would seem clearly to be an offence of 'hate crime' in the UK in inciting "hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to sexual orientation (whether towards persons of the same sex, the opposite sex or both)".

And as far as freedom of speech is concerned (ref Wikipedia!): "for the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred."

I think the point is being missed . She is not at risk of dismissal for thought crimes but for what she stated in the press.

The question will a, depend on the terms of her contract and b,in the alternative if the employer can show a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence .

More likely they could pay her off if her continued presence damages the box office .

[Nick Armstrong]

Mr Rumpole is the expert here

:blush:

I think Barbs is right, the sacking part depends on the whole contractual set-up, and the 'bringing into disrepute' etc etc stuff (he said, expertly). In general law, she's entitled to express her thinking - just as those here are entitled to be nauseated by her and/or her husband, and say so...

[Flosshilde]

She wasn't just saying that she didn't like LGBT people & that I am scum, shit, etc., but that it is perectly legitimate to physically assault me, injure me and, quite possibly, kill me. That's not 'expressing an opinion', that's inciting people to violenrt assault.

[LeMartinPecheur]

Perhaps we should be more charitable. She could well have been severely traumatised by the mask/ costume she had to wear in the Ballo production illustrated above:winkeye:

[french frank]

She wasn't just saying that she didn't like LGBT people & that I am scum, shit, etc., but that it is perectly legitimate to physically assault me, injure me and, quite possibly, kill me. That's not 'expressing an opinion', that's inciting people to violenrt assault.

Yes, I wasn't concerned solely with the legitimacy of 'sacking' her (which would depend on the terms of her contract), but on a distinction - in UK legislation at least - between inciting hatred and 'freedom of speech'.