Teacher Imprisoned As Result Of Wrong Pronouns

[Scott777]

The court has made no judgement on the reason for his suspension 

Just curious to know, if the school suspended a teacher because he is black, would a court make a court order?  I suspect there must be some sort of judgement.

[Barry]

No he wasn't,you make the same mistake as him.

I made no mistake, Cromwell.

In what place do you confuse an injunction for refusing to obey a request not to attend because you  are suspended with the reason for being suspended. 
The court has made no judgement on the reason for his suspension but failure to obey a request not to attend his place of work,two different aspects......how hard is it to understand and

Obviously I didn't explain clearly enough for you. Perhaps a picture may help? 

what's it go to do with Yaxley Lennon?

Nothing. Where did I mention him?

[Scott777]

That you cannot separate his suspension and the court enforcing the decision to bar his return pending a disciplinary hearing as completely different issues means any further discussion with you is a waste of time.

You have decided n your own distorted thought process that this somehow is also connected to Yaxley Lennon.

Clearly Yaxley Lennon is not relevant, given many people seem to have no principles, so you are welcome to put that aside.

How can you separate the court order from the school decision?  One is literally used to enforce the other.  It's your thought process that is distorted.  At the end of the day, the result is very simple: a man was prohibited from using basic English words in the correct manner, at a school.  If those are your principles, then I don't think much of them.

[T00ts]

The problem here is that where does accepting people for who they are cross over into active promotion of their lifestyles? The former is frequently mistaken for the latter by people who just do not approve regardless.

Let he who is without sin and all that....

I agree totally which is why I feel great care should be taken before medical intervention is used. That should be covered by maturity of the individual involved so that they can understand all the ramifications of what current medical interventions will mean for them. The trouble is that certainly at the moment too much is purely experimental and as such it is creating a lifetime irreversible sentence for some, and even one person who regrets is too many for it to be justifiable.

[srb7677]

The additional danger is that some would actively promote it as a normal way of living thus endangering some lives.

The problem here is that where does accepting people for who they are cross over into active promotion of their lifestyles? The former is frequently mistaken for the latter by people who just do not approve regardless.

Let he who is without sin and all that....

[cromwell]

You are right in that the court order did not happen in a vacuum. It happened because of refusal by a person to betray the truth by using incorrect pronouns.
As the topic suggests, he was imprisoned AS A RESULT of using "wrong" pronouns.
In whose opinion were those pronouns "wrong"?

No he wasn't,you make the same mistake as him.

In what place do you confuse an injunction for refusing to obey a request not to attend because you  are suspended with the reason for being suspended.

The court has made no judgement on the reason for his suspension but failure to obey a request not to attend his place of work,two different aspects......how hard is it to understand and what's it go to do with Yaxley Lennon?

[T00ts]

You are right in that the court order did not happen in a vacuum. It happened because of refusal by a person to betray the truth by using incorrect pronouns.
As the topic suggests, he was imprisoned AS A RESULT of using "wrong" pronouns.
In whose opinion were those pronouns "wrong"?

In the opinion of the person who has asked for them to change. Whether this is a strike against Christianity is I think very debateable. We do not know or understand what drives the need by some to be seen differently so, even as a Christian, surely our role is to love others as ourselves. I do not believe that God makes mistakes but who is to say if in fact it is not driven by manmade substances? We already know that certain things commonly used in foods etc cause cancer, diminished fertility etc perhaps these people are particularly susceptible and are manifesting unusual reactions. My original reaction was horror and I still have very strong reservations about how medical interventions should be used but I feel that we as yet have little knowledge or understanding of why this is happening and as I have said many times judgement is not in our pay rate. To say it is actually against Christianity might be a misleading argument. Some are born with extra trials and it is how they rise to those challenges within God's rules that is important. The additional danger is that some would actively promote it as a normal way of living thus endangering some lives.

[Barry]

There are 2 parts in this process.  The school tells him not to attend.  The law enforces that decision.  The combination of the 2 mean he has been coerced to not use certain basic English words correctly.  The law does not need the judge - but they are still enforcing a judgement.

You are right in that the court order did not happen in a vacuum. It happened because of refusal by a person to betray the truth by using incorrect pronouns.
As the topic suggests, he was imprisoned AS A RESULT of using "wrong" pronouns.
In whose opinion were those pronouns "wrong"?

[cromwell]

There are 2 parts in this process.  The school tells him not to attend.  The law enforces that decision.  The combination of the 2 mean he has been coerced to not use certain basic English words correctly.  The law does not need the judge - but they are still enforcing a judgement.

That you cannot separate his suspension and the court enforcing the decision to bar his return pending a disciplinary hearing as completely different issues means any further discussion with you is a waste of time.

You have decided n your own distorted thought process that this somehow is also connected to Yaxley Lennon.

[Scott777]

Now, let us examine the second case. A clearly religious school has quite unwisely in my personal view chosen to concede to the demands of the heathen woke and somehow the court has chosen to come down on the side of the genital mutilators.

This is as issue where the law has been seen to be an ass. However this Tw** is playing right into their hands. He should find employment elsewhere. Not least because if he referred to them by name he's never need the pronoun. Prize Tw** but for another reason

Here's the problem, John.  What principle are we to accept?  If we accept than one employer can make this decision, and that the law can enforce it, then we must accept than any or all employers can do the same.  Therefore, your principle must accept that a person could be prevented from working, based on a "heathen woke" ideology.

Regarding the possibly of using a name, instead of pronoun, again, what is your principle?  If it's that a pronoun can be prohibited, (one which has a biological meaning), then your principle must be that any word with a biological meaning could be prohibited, for no particular reason.

[Scott777]

You are continually conflating the workplace policy, with the violation of the interlocutory injunction. I can't do much more than repeatedly point that out.

Not conflating at all.  They are connected.  The interlocutory injunction is enforcing the decision based on the policy.

[Scott777]

The law has only compelled the person to stay away from his place of employment it has made no judgement on his actions for which he was suspended.

You are hard of thinking.

He needs to see it through a disciplinary hearing and if necessary an employment tribunal.

There are 2 parts in this process.  The school tells him not to attend.  The law enforces that decision.  The combination of the 2 mean he has been coerced to not use certain basic English words correctly.  The law does not need the judge - but they are still enforcing a judgement.

[Nalaar]

 somehow the court has chosen to come down on the side of the genital mutilators.

The court has come down on the side of the school, which informed a staff member to stay off the premises, and he refused, and he then went on to refuse that court order also.

The policy that lead to the man being denied access to the school, is not a matter for the court to consider.

[johnofgwent]

So, let's test the principles of people who think Tommy Robinson was justifiably imprisoned for contempt of court.  An Irish teacher has been imprisoned for contempt of court, after he was ordered to not attend the school, as he refused to use the requested pronouns.  Are we all in favour of this ruling?  Or does context mean something?  Does it matter what the contempt of court was for, or whether it was justifiable to have such a court order due to the wrong pronouns?  Or shall we apply a blanket principle, as court orders are always right, and must be obeyed?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11188359/Teacher-jailed-refusing-use-students-gender-neutral-pronoun-returns-court-today.html

Well, I think we have to consider the offence committed.

Mr Yaxley-Lennon, as I have pointed out more than once on here, was jailed for refusing to comply with a judge's direction, issued to all present in the court, that they refrain from publishing or discussing any aspect of a case in which a man was convicted of an offence by that court, on the grounds they were at that time also charged with a separate offence committed with others in another place at another time, proceedings that had not yet started, and that in the opinion of the judge who had just heard the guilty verdict arising from proceedings in his court, knowledge of the verdict would prejudice a jury in the second proceeding and interfere with the centuries old directive that a case stands or falls on evidence admissible under judges rules as presented, and not on any prior opinion of the accused.

As I have said before, I have seen a copy of the judge's actual directive. Having a wife who works in the ministry of justice and has access to these instructions is handy. The demand for silence was explicit in its statement that as soon as the second case was resolved and the verdict given, all matters in the first trial could freely be reported

Yaxley-Lennon is a prize prick who tried to pretend this was censorship when it was nothing of the sort, it was a measure to ensure a trial did not collapse and he almost collapsed it, letting a bunch of less than white child sex perverts go free.


Now, let us examine the second case. A clearly religious school has quite unwisely in my personal view chosen to concede to the demands of the heathen woke and somehow the court has chosen to come down on the side of the genital mutilators.

This is as issue where the law has been seen to be an ass. However this T@@@ is playing right into their hands. He should find employment elsewhere. Not least because if he referred to them by name he's never need the pronoun. Prize T@@@ but for another reason

[Nalaar]

There doesn't need to be a law about compelled speech.  To be precise, it's about prohibited speech.  The "interlocutory injunction" was the consequence of using normal English words to refer to biological sex.  Therefore the law has compelled the teacher to stop using normal speech.

You are continually conflating the workplace policy, with the violation of the interlocutory injunction. I can't do much more than repeatedly point that out.