Is it dismissal offence?

hyubh

baza52 said:

yes, i also speak American, Australian and Canadian.
You cannot honestly say that the word refugee is not known to the OP and its current meaning. Op even gives a definition of it so i cannot see how it was used in the wrong context or that it was a lack of understanding of English.
Ignorance is not a defence and if the roles were reversed you would be sticking up for the person it was said to claiming racism.
It has been suggested that the 2 people complaining are being racist themselves by bringing it up.

It pretty obvious the word was used in jest but not everyone gets the same jokes and can take offence.
This is going to be about how the other people felt and if inappropriate language or words were used. 

No offence intended if you are a native speaker, but your poor written English (much worse than the original poster's) doesn't give the greatest support to your claim that 'refugee' is now an offensive swearword irrespective of context in common parlance.

baza52 said:

it does not matter what definitions of the word it only matters how the 2 employees took it meaning and if anything was implied by the OP when saying it.

The understanding of the subject of a remark is logically independent from the understanding of the remarker. If the latter matters, then the authority of the former is not supreme.

For example i could say to a colleague "go home" it could be taken as go back to where you live or it could taken as go back to where you came from. Its not what you say its how you say it that makes a difference.

So the social situation of the subject of a remark matters in respect of that remark's 'racist' nature after all. Well I never.

baza52

hyubh said:

baza52 said:

yes, i also speak American, Australian and Canadian.
You cannot honestly say that the word refugee is not known to the OP and its current meaning. Op even gives a definition of it so i cannot see how it was used in the wrong context or that it was a lack of understanding of English.
Ignorance is not a defence and if the roles were reversed you would be sticking up for the person it was said to claiming racism.
It has been suggested that the 2 people complaining are being racist themselves by bringing it up.

It pretty obvious the word was used in jest but not everyone gets the same jokes and can take offence.
This is going to be about how the other people felt and if inappropriate language or words were used. 

No offence intended if you are a native speaker, but your poor written English (much worse than the original poster's) doesn't give the greatest support to your claim that 'refugee' is now an offensive swearword irrespective of context in common parlance.

baza52 said:

it does not matter what definitions of the word it only matters how the 2 employees took it meaning and if anything was implied by the OP when saying it.

The understanding of the subject of a remark is logically independent from the understanding of the remarker. If the latter matters, then the authority of the former is not supreme.

For example i could say to a colleague "go home" it could be taken as go back to where you live or it could taken as go back to where you came from. Its not what you say its how you say it that makes a difference.

So the social situation of the subject of a remark matters in respect of that remark's 'racist' nature after all. Well I never.

how very eloquently put.
Your grasp of the English language is outstanding.

In my broken English i will remind you that it matters not what i think about the use of the word but what the colleagues think or feel and even more importantly what HR decide. 

Mangetout.

Mickey666

baza52 said:

JamoLew said:

Micky666 In Page 3 expanded on that definition and perfectly explained how it could be applied in this particular case.

I am genuinely and truly staggered that:

a) the 2 employees in question were/are genuinely offended by that word/comment in the context and scenario it was made

b) it has been allowed to go as far as it has

it does not matter what definitions of the word it only matters how the 2 employees took it meaning and if anything was implied by the OP when saying it.

For example i could say to a colleague "go home" it could be taken as go back to where you live or it could taken as go back to where you came from. Its not what you say its how you say it that makes a difference.

That's precisely the point of this whole issue.

YOU could say 'go home', which is not inherently offensive by any reasonable standard, without meaning any offence whatsoever.

THEY could decide to take offence, or not.

Why should THEIR decision about whether to be offended by something not meant to be offensive have implications for YOU?  It's THEIR decision and should be something for THEM to live with and deal with.

If we're moving towards a society where anyone who takes offence about something said can take punitive action against the person saying it then not only will our personal freedom of speech be severely undermined - and think about the consequences of that - but people will increasingly refrain from communicating anything to anyone for fear of them choosing to be offended and launching legal or other punitive action against them.

And make no mistake - being offended by something is a choice.  No one can FORCE you to be offended, it's entirely up to you.

baza52

Mickey666 said:

baza52 said:

JamoLew said:

Micky666 In Page 3 expanded on that definition and perfectly explained how it could be applied in this particular case.

I am genuinely and truly staggered that:

a) the 2 employees in question were/are genuinely offended by that word/comment in the context and scenario it was made

b) it has been allowed to go as far as it has

it does not matter what definitions of the word it only matters how the 2 employees took it meaning and if anything was implied by the OP when saying it.

For example i could say to a colleague "go home" it could be taken as go back to where you live or it could taken as go back to where you came from. Its not what you say its how you say it that makes a difference.

That's precisely the point of this whole issue.

YOU could say 'go home', which is not inherently offensive by any reasonable standard, without meaning any offence whatsoever.

THEY could decide to take offence, or not.

Why should THEIR decision about whether to be offended by something not meant to be offensive have implications for YOU?  It's THEIR decision and should be something for THEM to live with and deal with.

If we're moving towards a society where anyone who takes offence about something said can take punitive action against the person saying it then not only will our personal freedom of speech be severely undermined - and think about the consequences of that - but people will increasingly refrain from communicating anything to anyone for fear of them choosing to be offended and launching legal or other punitive action against them.

And make no mistake - being offended by something is a choice.  No one can FORCE you to be offended, it's entirely up to you.

i agree that being offended is a matter of choice.
For the record i would not of been offended and would of taken the comment at face value.
Sadly we see more and more people reading into things far too much and the dreaded "R" card is waved about far too much.
If the people want to go down this route (and its 100% their choice) then thats what the HR department will have to base the complaint on.
Racism can and does happen to white people yet some people think it only works one way round.
The fact the OP has mentioned he likes to joke about and that 90% get the jokes may not go in their favour.

Should the OPs job be safe? probably
Will it be safe? who knows.