So I have been sacked for racial abuse...

Lokolo

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

Really? You really - honestly and truly - don't get why calling a female 'black Dave' might make them feel inferior because of their race?

No not at all and I have no idea why it would :huh:

Calling someone Dave if they're female then yeh (I've never know a female Dave!) that would annoy me, but the black part no. I really don't see why it would be insulting.

Surely we call people using Mr and Mrs, thats basically sexism in your view because you have their gender when calling them that. Mr Jones - oh no I'm a sexist. Oh wait, no I'm not.

bryanb

TopQuark wrote: »

who the f*** is anyone else to say that a person shouldn't be offended by something?)

I am offended by your language in this sentence even though you use ***

Sambucus_Nigra

Lokolo wrote: »

No not at all and I have no idea why it would :huh:

Calling someone Dave if they're female then yeh (I've never know a female Dave!) that would annoy me, but the black part no. I really don't see why it would be insulting.

Surely we call people using Mr and Mrs, thats basically sexism in your view because you have their gender when calling them that. Mr Jones - oh no I'm a sexist. Oh wait, no I'm not.

I challenge you to go up to a group of black guys and call one of them 'Black Betty*'. Then tell us what happens.

p.s...it's not my view. It's the law.

* You could substitute any traditional British names for Betty.

phill99

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

Yes I think calling someone 'black x' instead of calling her by the name she gave him was racist. That's what they used to do to the slaves - I can't be doing with calling you by your actual name, so I'm going to make one of my own up - in this instance how about Black Dave?

Saying 'Sorry love, I don't take orders from women,' - how can this be anything other than sexist?

Racism is even defined by wiki as 'Racism is usually defined as views, practices and actions reflecting the belief that humanity is divided into distinct biological groups called races and that members of a certain race share certain attributes which make that group as a whole less desirable, more desirable, inferior or superior.'

By ignoring the name she gave and making up his own name based on her race, and not even getting the gender correct doesn't make it wry humour or banter.

We don't know if the lady in question didn't feel offended, or whether they were crushed inside and just facing it out. The whole point of stopping this sort of behaviour is that we don't know - so refraining from it is the only option.

The OP might be just a !!!!!!, or might be a racist sexist !!!!!!. We just don't know. But the employer is well within their rights to get rid of them if this is the sort of behaviour that they are demonstrating.

I can imagine you ate the type if person that wants to rename Christmas as 'winter festival' just in case 1 or 2 people might be offended.

Lokolo

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

I challenge you to go up to a group of black guys and call one of them 'Black Betty*'. Then tell us what happens.

p.s...it's not my view. It's the law.

* You could substitute any traditional British names for Betty.

I won't go and do that because others may be offended by it. By MY view is that it isn't offensive and I don't see why it would ever be.

Just because I don't think that it's racist it doesn't mean I don't accept others might.

As I said

Black Dave
Mr Dave

Why is one racist and the other not sexist?

Sambucus_Nigra

phill99 wrote: »

I can imagine you ate the type if person that wants to rename Christmas as 'winter festival' just in case 1 or 2 people might be offended.

As I said - I don't actually make the law. I am just commenting on my take on it.

Feel free to insult me all you like...if it makes you feel like a big man. :T:T;)

zzzLazyDaisy

Lokolo wrote: »

I won't go and do that because others may be offended by it. By MY view is that it isn't offensive and I don't see why it would ever be.

And that is the point.

The law says that discrimination is in the perception of the recipient.

So you make a 'jokey comment' (or even a comment that is not jokey), that refers to a protected characteristic - race, colour, sex, pregnancy, disability, disfigurement etc - it doesn't matter if you didn't intend to be offensive, it doesn't matter that you can't see why it would be offensive... what matters is that the person who the remark is directed, or even others present when the remark was made at does find it offensive.

That's the law.

People don't have to like the law, they don't have to agree with it, but in a situation like this, if they wish to keep their jobs, they do have to observe it.

Take a different, true, example. Manager makes 'jokey' derogatory remarks about someone who is autistic (not an employee). Another member of staff is offended by the comments, because she also has an autistic son, and complains (the manager is aware that she has an autistic son, although the remarks were no directed at her, or her son). The manager is given a formal disciplinary warning. Correctly, because the staff member suffered unlawful discrimination by association, on the grounds of her son's disability. That is the law.

People should learn to keep their discriminatory comments to themselves, or accept the consequences.

Uncertain

phill99 wrote: »

I can imagine you ate the type if person that wants to rename Christmas as 'winter festival' just in case 1 or 2 people might be offended.

Those type of attempted put downs tend to lose their effect when they are riddled with typos!

Dasa

I'm almost certain a remarkably similar situation was posted some time ago and got people going just the same as this.;)

zzzLazyDaisy

Dasa wrote: »

I'm almost certain a remarkably similar situation was posted some time ago and got people going just the same as this.;)

You are probably right, employment law is a bit like working in infant school.... the person doing whatever it is, often thinks that they are the first person ever to think up such a clever story...

But it is almost always worth responding because there will be people reading this thread who will learn something about what it is like out there, in the big bad world of employment, and about how much power employers have over them. Especially now the minimum service requirement for legal employment protection has been increased to two years.