• gedhrel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 months ago

    Not fired; the woman in question was on a fixed contract which wasn’t renewed when it came to an end, because she was bullying and acting like an unpleasant arse.

    The judgement was careful and thoughtful, but was glossed as “you can’t even say you’re a woman without going to prison these days”. When you read about a judgement that sounds so bizarre as to be unbelievable, there is a good chance (in the UK at the least) that it didn’t say what is reported. (Cf. “We can’t deport terrorists because it’s against their pet cat’s human rights”.) Social media is a machine for making people insane. The rest is history.

    • gedhrel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      The ruling makes for excellent reading. Anyone has a right to their beliefs, but professing those beliefs is not protected if they are not “worthy of respect in a democratic society, being not incompatible with human dignity and not conflicting with the fundamental rights of others”. In terms of the paradox of tolerance, it’s a remarkable bit of good sense.

      Maya Forstater was the name IIRC; that doesn’t spring readily to mind but that line really stuck.