The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Sacked nurses a step too far in terms of free speech and comment

Sacked nurses a step too far in terms of free speech and comment

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 28
  7. 29
  8. 30
  9. Page 31
  10. 32
  11. 33
  12. All
Muslim Vote convener warned by his education department employer over comments made on Sydney nurses
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-02-24/sydney-sheikh-wesam-charkawi-to-work-from-home-nurses-comments/104974798

This article adds a new dimension to the arguments.
And it also follows on from where I went a little off track.

It's ok to criticise me for my comments and for people to have a personal preference or feelings about Muslims and/or Muslim immigration (or immigration in general), but the question is do his arguments hold merit?

Yes or No?
And more importantly should he be punished for his opinions on social media?

If this guy has no right to say what he said as a government employee, then I'm willing to put my hand up and say it myself, and ask whether or not it would be reasonable for me to be warned for saying the same things?
Posted by Armchair Critic, Monday, 24 February 2025 9:27:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi AC,

in your link I found another story.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-02-13/health-workers-condemn-nsw-health-nurse-video/104927954

"The union representing nurses and midwives said the nurses' conduct was "deplorable, unacceptable and cannot be tolerated".

"Health practitioners are bound by codes of conduct to care for all people, regardless of their circumstances," NSWNMA acting general secretary Michael Whaites said.

"Our membership embraces many cultures and we are all shocked by [Wednesday's] events. Members of trade unions stand together, united in opposing racism, bigotry and hatred," he said."
Posted by Fester, Monday, 24 February 2025 10:15:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Critic,

First just let me get the "security clearance" story out of the way - I agree with ASIO that this officer should lose it.

«It's not about what the staff eat at home or elsewhere, it's about what they serve the restaurants customers.»

Contracts are about whatever the parties agree on.

«The employer is merely buying their time...»

Well here you already judged the contract to be an employment contract, pointing at one party as "employer" and at the other as "employee", possibly without their consent.

What if they never intended their relationship to be employer/employee?
What makes it right for you to impose your own interpretation?

«a tyrannical employer that sets a contract mposing 10 lashes for every 1 minute late,»

Well it is you who deems their relation to be of employer/employee - what if they rather see themselves as a BDSM couple?

When a decent welfare system is in place, nobody is forced to sign such stupid contracts and while a tyrant might remain a tyrant, they could only tyranise the vegetables in their restaurant.

«that doesn't mean the contract is fair, legal or ethical, my contract would be illegal because it includes a right to assault the staff member»

It would be illegal because some politicians declared it illegal - big deal, this reminds me of the riddle:
"What is green, hangs on the wall and whistles?"
Answer: A herring!

Why green? because it was painted green.
Why hangs on the wall? because someone hanged it there.
Why whistling? so you cannot find the answer too easily...

Now if a contract seems to you unfair or unethical, then don't help any party to enforce that contract on the other, end of story but this should not prevent the parties from arranging that contract to begin with.

«and your contract would discriminate against meat eaters.»

So what? The restaurant belongs to the owner, that is his castle and he may do there whatever he likes. If you don't like it, don't visit his restaurant and even ask your friends not to visit it either.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 24 February 2025 10:48:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So what you're essentially saying Yuyutsu is you support the right to discriminate?
Posted by Armchair Critic, Tuesday, 25 February 2025 8:13:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Critic,

«So what you're essentially saying Yuyutsu is you support the right to discriminate?»

Not the right - but the freedom.

Discrimination is a very valuable mental tool.
We should be able to discriminate between good and evil, right and wrong, and between truth and untruth.

Yet I also support the boycott and censor of those who abuse that freedom.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 25 February 2025 8:36:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Im not saying the 'right to discriminate' is necessarily a bad thing either, under the right circumstances.
After all if say for example a child sex offender applied for a job in a child care centre, then I'm fairly certain we'd all agree it's perfectly fine to discriminate against them.

Food for thought.
Posted by Armchair Critic, Tuesday, 25 February 2025 10:12:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 28
  7. 29
  8. 30
  9. Page 31
  10. 32
  11. 33
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy