Report comment

The freedom of speech argument is invoked by the extreme right and their fellow travellers in these type of situations and it is tempting for those of us of a liberal disposition to accept/adopt that argument. There have to be red lines though - unless we want to go back to the 1930s - and this particular person does appear to have crossed those red lines.

As an ex-Catholic myself, I am not too troubled about her apparent remarks on the Catholic Church but some of the rest of the stuff is clearly racist. Her remarks in the context appear to have been anti-Semitic. Context is everything though. If, purely as a hypothetical example, she had expressed the opinion that Israel as a state was racially discriminatory in its laws and practice towards Palestinians, that would not be anti-Semitic/racist (those who argue it would be, need to think through the consequences of their argument in relation to criticising any state which is accused of discriminating on grounds of race or religion).

As regards penalties, if this was her 1st disciplinary offence in a long and honourable career, I do wonder if, given her age, a fulsome and unconditional apology with an undertaking not to repeat this would have sufficed. People are not born racist/xenophobic and they can change.

Hope I am not still working when I am 71!