Thread: the political correctness and do gooders have gone too far

Originally Posted by DT-P38

I can have it whichever way I like. Just as you can. Because neither if us actually gets the say. Some knobs in wigs and robes will continue to sit around ****ing money against the wall for minorities and individuals that think they are special and should be treated differently. And for what value? Sweet FA.

If someone doesn't wish to be make or female, then IT is a pretty good word to use. Especially if your trying hard not to go along with the whole "they are special" mentality.

They don't want to be treated special, they want to be treated as they are so they can get on with their lives. Just like you are free to get on with your bigotted life too.

Originally Posted by akelly

Perhaps you can share with us how you propose that the High Court would clear detention centre 'backlogs'? Perhaps by first explaining what those 'backlogs' are, then moving on to explain how a body with the remit to 'to interpret and apply the law of Australia; to decide cases of special federal significance including challenges to the constitutional validity of laws and to hear appeals, by special leave, from Federal, State and Territory courts.' Would go about clearing them? Before you tackle this monumental task, perhaps consider that the high court was asked to rule on this matter by the state because the law was not clear. THAT IS THE JOB OF THE HIGH COURT AND THEY HAVE NOTHING ELSE 'TO BE GETTING ON WITH'. I hope you'll excuse my shouting, but I'm deaf in one ear and the noise in this place makes it hard for me to know that you've understood my point. Adam

Maybe if any of our courts weren't dealing with nonsensical drivel like this they could focus on a lot more value adding work. I know I am not technically correct with saying the exact same court should deal with that example, so bloody what?

They could get on with something else either way. And if they can't, then it's one less day of their "sitting" to be paid for by the rest of us.

And more people would think that way in this country than would believe that money is well spent on entertaining and legitimizing one persons need for being "special".

Originally Posted by DT-P38

Maybe if any of our courts weren't dealing with nonsensical drivel like this they could focus on a lot more value adding work. I know I am not technically correct with saying the exact same court should deal with that example, so bloody what?

They could get on with something else either way. And if they can't, then it's one less day of their "sitting" to be paid for by the rest of us.

And more people would think that way in this country than would believe that money is well spent on entertaining and legitimizing one persons need for being "special".

Do some homework.

The High Court only deals with points of law. They don't do anything to do with civil matters unless it is to clarify a point of law or validate/invalidate a law because it is in conflict with another higher law.

They don't do anything in relation to value adding or job creation or any of the drivel you are suggesting that they should be doing instead of what they have done.

The High Court Judges get paid whether they are sitting on the bench or not.

Originally Posted by Ferret

Knew a guy about 35-40 years ago who had a similar sort of problem to someone like Norrie. It wasn't his sex that was the issue it was his name. Through a legal process he changed his name to 'Simon'. No second name, no name family - just Simon. The law enabled the name change process to take place and recognised his name was just Simon. However, what he found was he could not execute some ordinary legal documents (tax submission / claims forms, insurance forms etc.) because it was mandatory to supply a full name, ie a first and a last name in the required fields on the forms before they could be accepted for processing. The law had allowed one thing to occur in one place but had not allowed it to be used in another place. I don't know how he resolved things in the end but it is not dissimilar to Norrie's problem in that it is a legal anomaly and nothing to do with some people wanting to feel 'special' nor is it about 'bleeding hearts with their snouts in the trough'. The gender 'X' is an accepted alternative in some documents (passports) but in others only 'M' or 'F' are accepted alternatives. That is the crux of the matter. As pointed out previously in post No. 21, the person named Norrie was not responsible for taking it to court in the first place. It was a govt. department that needed a ruling for their own purposes, most likely to bring things in line with other govt. departments. It was not about an individual deciding they need 'special' treatment at taxpayer expense.

Just another "special" ****ing on our backs and telling us it's raining.

They should have told him his name could be changed to simple simon.

What a joke and a disgusting waste of money. All to make government departments happy?!? Definitely time for a progressive witch hunt in the public service. Scumbags wasting money keeping themselves in jobs.

Originally Posted by Ferret

No idea really but if I had to guess it was about keeping the things in his life as simple as possible, even down to his name.

Wonderful reason for a waste of someone else's money

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Another example of the name thing is that Burmese don't have a surname as such, just several names, often given by the grandparents or Buddhist priest. This causes all sorts of problems when they come to Australia because the forms require both surname and other names. Officials often mess this up. For example, according to her residency permit, one of my students has FOUR surnames and NO first name! Another student has the identical surname and first name - the official just repeated it. That becomes a problem when they apply for citizenship, passport, driver's licence, bank accounts etc. So, I can understand why this Norrie thing is a bureaucratic nightmare that needed clearing up. As for Norrie, if Norrie doesn't want to be identified as either male or female, then good luck to s/him - what business is it of anyone else? None, I say. Sent from my GT-P5210 using AULRO mobile app

So let IT work out how IT can fit in based on IT not wanting to be classified. Maybe both boxes should just be checked. M AND F. Not put the resources of our entire system to work to help make it feel special. Or bugger off to Thailand a find the right street to live on... Boy-Girl, Boy-Boy, Lady-Boy?

Originally Posted by ugu80

He said he was a maths teacher when I met him. Really nice bloke, if it be the same Simon. Said Simon was his given name and he dropped the family name as Simon was who he was and he didn't see his ancestry as relevant.

.
But he was obviously too "special" to just drop it himself and get on with things. Had to waste everyone else's time and effort in the process. And a heap if bleeding hearts had to jump on board and legitimize it. What nonsense.

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

Ah Ha! But which one is the "family name" and which the "given name/s"? The? artist? currently? known? as? Prince?

Another wannabe "Special".