Posted by Helen on: 09.05.2006 /
I appreciate JG e-mailing me this BBC news story.
Here are excerpts from Gay march snub crew’s mistake:
[Nine] firefighters, based at Cowcaddens, refused to distribute community safety advice to people attending the Pride Scotia festival in George Square on 24 June.
A senior officer was demoted and the others received warning letters.
All are to attend a course in diversity training.
Mr Sweeney said: “This is a strong disciplinary action that is very serious, that’s placed on their personal record file that puts them in a very difficult employment position, so this is not a mild slap on the wrists.
“I think the important feature is that all nine firefighters have now said that given the same circumstances they would go out and would have done that work – a concession on their part that they should have done that job.”
The BBC also reports, in Church supports gay-snub firemen
A Roman Catholic archbishop has given his support to nine firefighters disciplined for refusing to hand out leaflets during a gay rights march.
They will go on “diversity training” courses after refusing to hand out leaflets at the Pride Scotia event which took place in June.
Glasgow Archbishop Mario Conti said they “had legitimate concerns about being the subject of taunts and jokes”.
He said in some cases their religious sensibilities would have been offended.
Archbishop Conti said: “We have followed this case with concern. “There was no question of these officers’ competency or commitment being called into question, nor was there any suggestion that they were refusing to come to the assistance of people in danger.
They were asked, while in uniform, to hand out leaflets during a demonstration where they had legitimate concerns about being the subject of taunts and jokes, and in which in some cases, their religious sensibilities would have been grossly offended by people dressed as priests and nuns lampooning the Church.”
Comment by: Paul
1If it was a requirement of their job to hand out leaflets then yes it was wrong not too, call in sick if you object :)
Comment by: JG
2Thanks Helen for posting this. I have now found a copy of the Archbishop’s actual comments here:
http://www.sundayherald.com/57717
What has interested me in particular with this news story is how people have reacted in predictable ways on both sides without (it appears to me) actually finding out the actual facts. I don’t know enough about the story to form a view on the rights and wrongs of the situation and my response is to ask questions rather than issue condemnations of the action taken by either side.
Questions which immediately occurred to me were:
1 Were these 9 men the only ones chosen for this task? If so, why only men and not women and how come all 9 refused? Were they chosen because they were known to be Christians?
2 Were other firefighters sent in their place?
3 Is it routine pratice for firefighters to give out leaflets at events? If it is then it is obviously harder for firefighters to refuse to carry out such activities at certain events.
4 Would it be appropriate for female firefighters to be asked to give out leaflets at a rugby match?
5 Would it be appropriate for say muslim firefighters to be asked to give out leaflets at a Hare Krisna march?
Comment by: Helen
3Thanks JG. I think it’s great that you ask questions so you can get enough information to make an informed judgment about a situation.
Comment by: Helen
4Paul, I find your values fascinating ;-)
Comment by: Julie Marie
5I do not agree with the archbishop, although I understand not wanting to have your religious sensibilities offended. None of us have an inalienable right to protection from being offended, however, as we on this blog well know.
I guess I don’t have enough information to determine if the discipline was appropriate or reactionary. What kind of public safety leaflets were they to hand out? Were the leaflets themselves the problem?
If it was truly an aversion to the event then diversity training was appropriate. Diversity training, though, I have found, doesn’t help much. It seems like a good way for companies to say they are doing something and feel good about themselves…but in my experience, people with hard hearts and rigid minds going in don’t change much.
Comment by: Mike O
6At face value, it sounds like they were disciplined appropriately and the archbishop shouldn’t have supported them. But like JG, I would ask more questions before making a judgement.
Something doesn’t smell right, though. The idea of “conscientious objector” seems like it should be in there somehow. I personally wouldn’t mind, in fact I’d be honored, to pass out public service leaflets at a gay march. But don’t ask me to do it at a nude beach … I won’t do it. Not because I think it’s wrong necessarily, but because it would offend my personal sensibilities.
JG raised a good question … surely there were other firefighters that wouldn’t have minded … why was this such an explosive issue?
Smells political. But again, at face value it seems like they were reprimanded appropriately. I just question whether face value is accurate in this case. It sort of assumes the 9 were behaving in an anti-gay fashion. If they were, fine. But if not, they should be allowed to object.
Comment by: JG
7Thanks for your comments.
Julie Marie, on the basis of his article of 3 Sept, I don’t see the Archbishop’s concerns being based on offence. See below.
Is a march the best opportunity for giving out fire safety advice?
The archbishop says:
I have to say I have never received a fire safety leaflet while out on the streets nor have I ever seen any being given out. If I had been on a march, I would have been somewhat irritated at being given such a leaflet. I would feel the march was being gatecrashed and I would find it patronising.
I don’t know enough to pass judgment but like Mike O, it does come across as political.
Comment by: Rachel
8Well said, Julie Marie!
Comment by: JG
9Rachel, I fully agree but as mentioned above, I don’t see this being the issue here. I don’t see it mentioned at all in the Archbishop’s article of 3 Sept where he sets out his position.
But this raises an interesting point. Just as an example try a google search on this site for the word “offensive”
offensive site:http://conversationattheedge.com
Reality is that people do take offence and I feel we have to be consistent.
I feel we need to allow people space to hold and express views even if they are views we personally dislike. We should have space to disagree with them and to express our disagreement.
I separate views and beliefs from the person. You can embrace and appreciate a person without necessarily agreeing with everything they do and say. We can greatly appreciate and respect friends who have different beliefs eg Muslims, theists, whatever without needing to agree on our beliefs. We should allow each other to express our beliefs without getting hot under the collar and complaining about offence.
So far as I am aware (might be wrong), traditional Catholics don’t believe non Catholics will go to heaven. That doesn’t bother me. I wouldn’t get upset if I heard a Catholic expressing that view. I wouldn’t complain if I went to a Catholic church and heard that view expressed. I’m not a Catholic.
I think we all need to learn to become much less critical!
But where there is real cause for concern is where disagreements become personal. I can disagree with aspects of the Catholic faith but still warmly accept Catholics and appreciate all they contribute. They probably are just as justfied in disagreeing with some aspects of my beliefs. But if I start attacking Catholics personally as people, that is what I regard as unacceptable. All sectors of the church have been guilty of it and there will be plenty of examples of such comments made by evangelicals about non believers. These things are wrong and it is right to challenge them
Comment by: Paul
10What is it about them that fascinates you Helen?
Comment by: Helen
11That calling in sick is an ethical response if you object to the work assigment on a particular day – you were kidding, right? :-)
Comment by: Julie Marie
12I would agree with this opinion of the Archbishop, and it underscores why I said I didn’t have enough information to really have an opinion. Were the firefighters mandated to march in this parade? Are they mandated to march in other parades?
Too much is unknown. It does smack of all kinds of politics though.
Comment by: Helen
13Surely handing out safety literature to participants in a march or the supporters watching it, is not the same as participating in the march or being there as a supporter?
Comment by: Julie Marie
14Right. The way the Archbishop states it, they were mandated to take part in the parade. I would read that as told to march. If merely being present and handing out leaflets is how he defines participation—well….then I’d be more inclined to say he was looking for a soapbox. Maybe both sides are looking for a soapbox.
Comment by: Helen
15Julie Marie wrote:
That seems possible – aren’t we all looking for one? ;)
Comment by: Julie Marie
16yeah – I guess that why there is so much noise in the world.
Comment by: Paul
17No I was serious… did i mention that I am flawed? ;)
Comment by: Paul
18always a soap box never a soap :)
Comment by: Mike O
19Now that’s funny!
Comment by: Doreen
20I’ve been to some Gay Pride events that were so disgusting, I wouldn’t want anyone to be forced to attend. That being said, police are “forced” to attend things like Pride parades as part of doing their job. They are not considered to be “marching” in the parade or supporting it. If firefighters hand this literature out at all events, they should not be excused from handing them out at this one. As for them being offended by taunts and jokes, PLEASE. We’ve all heard those firefighter/hose jokes, haven’t we? :)
This issue reminds me of the debate about pharmacists being able to refuse to dispense Rx’s for items they disagree with.
It also reminds me of how years ago DC police started wearing gloves at all Gay events but did not wear them at other events (sending the message that they could only get HIV or other diseases at Gay events). Now they wear them most of the time.
Comment by: Helen
21Doreen, thanks for your comments. Could you elaborate on what you mean by, some of the Gay Pride events you’ve attended were disgusting?
I know you don’t mean that it’s disgusting to support the rights of gay people.
Comment by: Doreen
22Sure, I’ll elaborate. :)
I don’t think bare-breasted women and men with various body parts hanging out parading down Main St. does G/L/B/T people much good. A pride event can have 99% activities that are not unusual, but that 1% is what gets shown on the local TV station and put in brochures from “Focus on the Family” to raise “I’m scared of them there gays” money.
I also don’t agree with the public displays of affection that are used as some sort of political statement at these events. (Then again, I really don’t like seeing straight people doing tonsilectomies on one another either!)
Activists will argue with me and say the point is to show the entire range of the G/L/B/T family. My counter is, when you see a predominantly straight parade, you don’t see the entire range of the straight family!
Those who have to be flamboyant only reinforce the stereotype that being G/L/B/T is only about sex.
I really don’t see anything to be proud about being a lesbian, maybe that’s my core issue with “pride” events.
Comment by: Helen
23Thanks Doreen – that was very helpful!
I see what you mean about how a few extremists in a march could attract disproportionate attention, resulting in a misleading impression about the march as a whole.
Maybe what many people in the march mean is “I’m not ashamed” rather than “I’m proud”, per se.
Comment by: Doreen
24In my mind I’m drawing some interesting comparisons between “out & proud” G/L/B/T and some who called themselves Christians. Shouting “we’re out, we’re proud, get used to it” is about as effective as “if you don’t believe what we believe you’re going to hell.” I guess I see OAs useful for more than just Christianity. Studies have shown that people who actually know a gay person are more accepting so I guess I think change will come more on a 1-1 basis than by any parades….
Comment by: Helen
25Doreen, I agree – I do think 1-1 has more effect than marches or yelling at people.