FHRITP comments gets person fired in Toronto

Post Reply New Topic

First off. Not sure if I should post this here, or in Current news. I will ask a mod to sort that out.
Secondly- FHRITP is short for "f*** her right in the p***y"

Here is the video in on youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKkAL1AEam8

Here is the article:

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com%2F%2Fsports%2Fsoccer%2Fcitynews-reporter-shauna-hunt-confronts-toronto-fc-fans-over-vulgar-fhritp-phrase

The man identified was working for a government crown asset called Hydro One (soon to be kind of privatized with up to 60% to be sold to other companies). He was already making over $100 000 per year at his job. Our government here in Ontario has recently launched ads on TV to make people aware of sexual harassment and obviously wants to clamp down on it. The employee of Hydro One was obviously fired as a result of the situation he put himself in. Hydro One cited their own code of conduct for employees in their reasoning for his being fired.

Now drunk or not, these men should not have been speaking the words anyway. Not going to argue that point. However, I would like to think that forcing companies to fire their employees is kind of harsh. The company did have their code of conduct and I am not sure what is in that policy, so I can't even argue that. But would it be right to ensure that these guys never find employment again? I don't think that is right, but something tells me that could very well happen if knowledge of any future employment becomes public. There is a chance of criminal charges being laid as well and that does seem like a bad idea in this scenario.

Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment (MLSE) clearly wants nothing to do with these guys and wants them banned from their buildings for at least a year. Regardless of whether these guys have season tickets or not, chances are they won't be getting refunded. Does anyone think that is fair? Even if MLSE sells their tickets to others anyway?

Typical Canadian censorious thuggery, sadly normal these days.

If he was drunk, then he clearly wasn't capable of deciding whether or not to speak those words, and thus should not be held accuntable for what he said.

Right?

Companies are allowed to fire employees for a variety of reasons, but if an employee feels they were fired unfairly, they can appeal to the Labour Board for a hearing. The system attempts to be balanced and prevent undue firing for invalid reasons.

However, yelling profanity in public and being drunk in public would get anyone fired.

On their own time while not representing the company in any way?

Being drunk is not really a good excuse for anything. If anything alcohol is a root cause of what happened, but not going to go over as an excuse for what happened. Use "I was drunk" otherwise in other scenarios ie, driving, domestic abuse, sexual or extra marital affairs and see how the world views it.

idk law is very clear that women are not responsible for their actions while drunk. ie women can't consent while drunk but men can. but suppose thats better left to a double standard broken law discussion.

as for this I think its rude ,but fail to see how its illegal. though I live in the usa with freedom of speech.

everyone is getting so politically correct these days. use be you'd only be held accountable by your company if in thier uniform or on the job. now you can't do anything at any time even in your own house without being held accountable by some company code. really f that. I won't work so some company that thinks me working for them gives them the right to control my personal life.

So women are allowed to drink and drive? highly unlikely. However, I remember dating one girl who said this to me in an argument "You can't hold anything I say or do against me when I was drunk." but would also throw anything in my face when I hurt her feelings when I was drinking. Obviously, me and her didn't work out.



It was a rude thing to say indeed. Yet the idiot that actually shouts the phrase at her gets away scot free and noone says a damn thing about it. These other guys (when singled out by the reporter) were stupid enough to take the bait and look where it got them. The reporter wasn't at her most professional, but people are allowed to make mistakes. Unfortunately for the mistake these guys made, the people of the internet and the media have pretty much made these guys out to be scum of the earth. I actually had an argument with someone who actually compared this to murderers and said "Murderers deserve to get away with crime?" I couldn't believe that someone would actually make that comparison. The world seems too black and white when it comes to comparing apples to oranges.



Remember Donald Sterling from last year. Nobody is condoning his racism or what he said, however there is one thing that bugs me about how it played out. You nailed it on the head with anything and everything you say in your own home can be used against you when it comes to employment (or owning a basketball team in this case). Sad, isn't it? Nobody could have cared if the microphone his girl friend was using was turned off. But since it was turned on, we got to hear one of the most strangest examples of racism I have heard in recent history. Bill Burr even commented in his recent stand up comedy special that it was amazing that he didn't even use any derogatory words.

The saying goes: People are only peaceful for as long as you agree with them. It seems people suddenly turn so bloodthirsty after you have said something they don't like, yet they claim they are the peaceful ones and you are more wrong than they are somehow.

legally no, but they more likely to get away with, it notice all examples of drinking and driving and mug shots are usually men. well atleast in my state.
its a horrible double standard for sure and needs legally changed. but the the majority still think men can't be raped. or only women can be victims in a relationship.

never even heard of the phrase no do I get what it means. it doesn't seem criminal. yeah people tend to compare everything to murder or rape. though scarier ones are those who think if you murder someone and don't' get caught while doing it you should just go free. like if you good enough to get away with it then you're shouldn't' be punished
but remember this is the same world where owning a gun makes you a child killer by default and being a man automatically makes you rapist.

nope. I don't keep up on celebrities though.

yeah i've noticed that a lot when being involved on the gun matter. lots of antis say they peace loving people but then attack others including physically like putting them in the ER, and threatening to kill gun owners.
I try to remain respectful. especially here. I disagree with people here time to time, but last thing I want to do is hurt anyone. its hard though to try to defend myself and morals while worrying about upsetting them.
idealy people would just let others be how they want like I do.

A word of warning about similar cases in the US:

The argument for firing an employee for this sort of behavior is that it 'creates an abusive environment' - presumably that it establishes a pattern of bad behavior toward the opposite sex that might make it hard for people of that sex to trust the offender enough to work with them. That apparently trumps the offender's right to engage in legal speech on their own time. Consider the precedent, and how it might apply in the following situation:

You divorce your husband in a way that's completely legal, but exploitive (like pressuring him to buy a house with his savings, then promptly serving him with papers and claiming half-ownership because it's part of the marital estate). Your boss finds out and promptly fires you, using the same argument that I paraphrased above.

Given that the goal of maintaining a cohesive work environment trumps the right to say offensive things - which is guaranteed by the constitution - then how can it not trump the right to measurably harm someone close to you - which is not constitutionally protected, and shows even more clearly that the offender can't be trusted enough to work with them?

I'd fire such a person in a heartbeat.

I don't think that is accurate. People must not be so drunk that they cannot give enthusiastic consent, regardless of their sex. If one of you is drunkenly pursuing sex and the other one is barely conscious, that's not consent.

And on topic, I think this breaches the man's employment rights. I think he's been an idiot, but the punishment should be a written warning and an apology, at most.

The guy in the Arsenal shirt was the one in question in the link. He issued a written apology to the reporter on Friday and it appears she appreciated and accepted it. Details of what is written has been kept between the two as it was considered a personal letter. To me, that shows some character between the two.