- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 13,680
- Post Likes
- 1,760
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
I agree with most, but not all of what he says.
I still don't think that anyone should be entitled to hide behind ANY kind of belief system, be it religious belief, or personal belief, or political belief, and use it as a shield to vilify or attack protected minorities with impunity.
Individuals with strongly held beliefs might have rights to express their beliefs, but they are not the only ones with rights. Protected minorities have a right to go about their lives without being in the firing line, companies have a right to protect their good names, and brands have a right to protect their interests.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06...free-speech-simon-longstaff-analysis/11245082
In order to broaden the debate, let's consider the case of a Christian who believes that the Pope is the Antichrist and that Roman Catholics are all destined for Hell. Such views are not "hypothetical". They were openly held by the Northern Ireland religious and political leader, the Reverend Ian Paisley.
In 1958, he condemned Princess Margaret and the Queen Mother for "committing spiritual fornication and adultery with the Antichrist" after they met with Pope John XXIII. Thirty years later, Paisley denounced Pope John Paul II as the Antichrist — to his face — while the latter addressed the European Union Parliament.
Now suppose an employee is of a mind similar to Paisley — so publishes a tweet attacking the head of the Catholic Church and all of its adherents in equivalent terms. Suppose the employee does so on the basis of what he considers to be a well-founded and sincere religious belief. However, in this case, it's not just a vulnerable minority group who's affected — but more than a billion Roman Catholics and their immensely wealthy and powerful church.
Let's suppose that the "Paisleyite" employee is a prominent brand ambassador working for a major bank. After the tweet, all hell breaks loose. Upset employees threaten to resign, customers threaten to close their accounts, investors begin to dump the stock, etc.
Would an employer be justified in calling such a person to account? Or should the bank respect the expression of sincere, religious belief and defend the right of the brand ambassador to express such views — no matter what damage is done?
It seems reasonable that employers be free to take steps to protect themselves from the kind of strategic risk caused by well-intentioned, loose cannons like the hypothetical brand ambassador sketched above. This should allow employers to put in place measures designed to protect their interests — and then ask their employees to act accordingly.
Last edited:
epper:
