Reinstated
A man who was sacked by the supermarket chain Asda for sharing a video clip of the comedian Billy Connolly mocking religion on social media has been reinstated.
Brian Leach was dismissed last month after a colleague complained that a sketch he shared, in which Connolly said “religion is over” and called suicide bombers “wankers”, was anti-Islamic.
He shared the sketch on Facebook, I think in a friends-only post. He didn’t slap it up in the break room at work, so I fail to see how it’s any of his colleague’s business at all, let alone their employer’s.
The National Secular Society has been in touch with Mr Leach throughout an internal appeals process and has now learned that he has been given his job back.
NSS chief executive Stephen Evans said the decision was “a victory for common sense”.
“We welcome Asda’s decision to reinstate Brian Leach, although this case raises broader concerns about the extent to which employers can legitimately restrict their employees’ freedom of expression on social media.”
It certainly does.
H/t Helen Dale
I think this is a pretty complicated issue. For example, I’m broadly in favor of firing members of ICE who posted racist jokes and images in that disgusting Facebook group. Maybe the difference is that they have power over immigrants and refugees? If I were Muslim, I’d probably feel unsafe and unsupported at work if my manager (for example) posted something Islamophobic on Facebook.
Red Tide, I would probably agree if it were threatening or attempting to intimidate, but posting something critical of religion is, and should be, allowed. To call religions names, to insult the idea of religion, should be allowed. It may not be perceived as “nice”, but we must be allowed to criticize popular ideas – especially since it is almost certain that most places are allowed to insult those of us who do not believe.
The big issue is, I think, at what point does it move from being protected speech to being threatening or intimidating? For many religious believers, that starts the minute you say “I don’t actually believe in any gods”, even if you say it nicely and calmly, and they have been shouting in your face demanding to know what church you go to. The moment you say that, you are seen as a threat.
So who decides? That’s the big problem with limitations on speech. I agree that racism, xenophobia, religious bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, are problems. I’m just not sure how to determine a point where unpopular speech becomes disallowed. If you use community standards, then in my community the racism, xenophobia, religious bigotry, misogyny, and homophobia might be the ONLY allowed speech. If you use the perception of one, or even many, of the people in the group being discussed, it might be that we can no longer talk about anything.
That is one of the hardest lines in the world to draw. Dangerous speech should not be allowed. But how do we know what is dangerous? There was a time when Eugene Debs was jailed for dangerous speech; he spoke out against going to WWI. D. M. Bennett was jailed for sending out pamphlets on birth control. This could easily happen again if we aren’t vigilant about free speech, but we do still need to make the world a reasonably safe place for people to walk around in, do their daily lives in.
And when you say Islamophobia, that term has been broadened to mean anyone who makes even the mildest criticism of any tenet of Islam, so again, I find it difficult to support the idea that no one can engage in “Islamophobia” without having their speech restricted. If that were the case, everyone on this site would have to STFU – about most things we talk about, many of which are branded “hate speech” by one or another faction in this sorely divided world.
Red, I think you have missed the obvious difference.
Leach posted on his own facebook page, not on a group page. ICE agents, OTOH, post on a group page where their posts reinforce ingroup/outgroup attitudes that transfer into the workplace.
Then there is also the slight hypocrisy in ASDA sacking Leach while still selling the same video.
If I were Muslim, I’d probably feel unsafe and unsupported at work if my manager (for example) posted something Islamophobic on Facebook.
Why do you get to decide what a Muslim should feel? They are humans who can make their own decisions. No need for you to become enraged about something that does not affect you.
Once again, you seem to have missed the point that Leach is a lowly employee, not a manager.
Furthermore, the video in question (have you seen it?) pokes fun at religion, something I believe we are still permitted to do, we do not live in an Ecclesiarchy.
It does not attack, condemn, or provoke violence against the followers of religion, nor does it suggest people should be sacked for what they do or do not believe.
@iknclast
I pretty much agree with you – I should have added some clarifications to make it clear that I believe that
1. Religious people try to cast criticism of religion as bigotry, and “Islamophobic” is one of the terms that gets thrown around far too often; I probably shouldn’t have used such a loaded term without clarification.
2. I don’t think that Brian Leach should be fired unless this comedy special is a lot nastier than I think it is (I haven’t seen it)
I was more addressing this quote from the article:
“We welcome Asda’s decision to reinstate Brian Leach, although this case raises broader concerns about the extent to which employers can legitimately restrict their employees’ freedom of expression on social media.”
I was basically saying that in some circumstances, I think it IS appropriate for employers to take action based even on non-illegal speech on social media (and I didn’t mean to imply that the example of this that I gave, the ICE employess, was equivalent to Brian Leach).
@Roj Blake
“Leach posted on his own facebook page, not on a group page. ICE agents, OTOH, post on a group page where their posts reinforce ingroup/outgroup attitudes that transfer into the workplace.”
Again, I may not have communicated clearly. I don’t think Brian Leach should have been fired. But although Brian Leach vs ICE may be black and white, there are shades of gray in between, so I don’t think the broader issue is as simple as you’re making it seem.
“Why do you get to decide what a Muslim should feel? They are humans who can make their own decisions. No need for you to become enraged about something that does not affect you.”
And now your comment gets unnecessarily rude and combative. I don’t think I was deciding how anyone should feel but me – I was talking about how I imagine *I* would feel under different circumstances. I’m not sure what makes you think that someone who starts a post with “I think this is a pretty complicated issue” is “enraged” about anything. And please don’t tell me whether or not I should care about an issue – the world would be a much worse place if (for example) no white people cared about racism, no men cared about women’s rights, etc.
“Once again, you seem to have missed the point that Leach is a lowly employee, not a manager.”
I’m not sure where “once again” comes from, but I didn’t miss this point – I even addressed it in my comment (“Maybe the difference is that they have power…”)
How are you defining “Islamophobic” though? Hatred of Islam? Hatred of Muslims? Criticism of Islam? Satire of Islam?
If you were a Catholic, would you probably feel unsafe and unsupported at work if a junior colleague posted a satire about the pope on Facebook? Or would you see it as your junior colleague’s right to have an opinion about the pope?
You loaded the dice by making it a manager who posted on Facebook; in the real story it was a manager who complained about Leach, who is a very junior colleague indeed – he assists at checkout, which is at least one level below operating the till.
In general, do you really expect to feel “safe and supported” at work? Aren’t our expectations of work a little more neutral than that? Not to feel bullied or persecuted, yes, but expecting active support? Work isn’t there to give us psychological support, and it seems a little needy and unrealistic to expect it.
Also, do we even necessarily know what religion our co-workers are, or whether or not they’re any religion at all? Is that kind of thing expected to be common knowledge in a workplace? That hasn’t been my experience. I never asked and I sure as hell never wanted to be told. I remember one guy who did sometimes harangue people about his religion, and he was eventually disciplined for doing so. Mind you, that was because he included a threat, but anyway his behavior was not popular even before that.
In my area of the country, yes. It is almost a given that a person will at some point early in their employment reveal their church affiliation or whatever. I knew my former Associate Dean was a Jew within 20 minutes of his arrival. Our Econ teacher noted he was a Muslim within hours of my meeting him. My friend who is a Buddhist mentioned this right away upon my arrival (she was there first) by noting that she could not eat the lunch provided because she is Buddhist. The Christians all sport crosses, and most of them have some sort of trinkets/spiritual sayings on their desk and say Bless you and Thoughtsandprayers.
There are some of us who don’t do that. We are suspicious (justifiably so, for many of us, because we are agnostics or atheists). If they do not now what religion you are, they will be suspicious and hostile. If they do know what religion you are, they know why they are being suspicious and hostile.
Ah yes, the “what church do you go to” conversation with a new coworker. I remember those. Heinrich Böll wrote a bitter fictional parody of that in one of his novels, which remains in my mind to this day (years after reading the novel).