Teacher Imprisoned As Result Of Wrong Pronouns

[cromwell]

Quite.

AND, if a person is required to speak of a person who is clearly a man as she it is compelled speech, which could go against the beliefs of that person. That case is covered by the Maya Forstater case where personal belief was held to be important in the UK.
Asking to refer to someone as "they" is also problematic, as although it is neutral it is also plural and invites confusion.

Well the whole thing quoted here is in the ROI so how exactly their laws operate is their business is it not?
Ofcourse we can still comment.

[patman post]

Quite.

AND, if a person is required to speak of a person who is clearly a man as she it is compelled speech, which could go against the beliefs of that person. That case is covered by the Maya Forstater case where personal belief was held to be important in the UK.
Asking to refer to someone as "they" is also problematic, as although it is neutral it is also plural and invites confusion.

Only in the minds of the easily (or terminally) confused.

I'm with a friend this afternoon, who is presently devouring the media coverage on the ceremony surrounding HM's passing. They called me earlier, and I arranged to meet them in The Masqued Haunt.

What more would anyone need to know? They might, perhaps, like to know more, but it's not imperative...

PS: In case Mrs picks this up, the friend is male and I am neither bi nor, as she should know by now, homo...

[patman post]

There are many reasons why "those who are not personally affected" by your eyes consider themselves personally affected. For example they live in a society, and they want that society to resemble their values.

Society?

There is a living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate.

And, I might add, how much we concern ourselves with what really matters, rather than affecting the freedoms of others by getting worked up about the inconsequential...

[Barry]

There are many reasons why "those who are not personally affected" by your eyes consider themselves personally affected. For example they live in a society, and they want that society to resemble their values.

Quite.

AND, if a person is required to speak of a person who is clearly a man as she it is compelled speech, which could go against the beliefs of that person. That case is covered by the Maya Forstater case where personal belief was held to be important in the UK.
Asking to refer to someone as "they" is also problematic, as although it is neutral it is also plural and invites confusion.

[Nalaar]

That I can understand.

But what I don't understand is why something so trivial to those who are not personally affected by the particular gender/non-gender personal pronouns some other people choose/prefer to use and be known by, should result in so much wasted time, effort and expense — to themselves and, ultimately, to the public purse...

There are many reasons why "those who are not personally affected" by your eyes consider themselves personally affected. For example they live in a society, and they want that society to resemble their values. 

[patman post]

Because what matters so little to you matters more to others.

That I can understand.

But what I don't understand is why something so trivial to those who are not personally affected by the particular gender/non-gender personal pronouns some other people choose/prefer to use and be known by, should result in so much wasted time, effort and expense — to themselves and, ultimately, to the public purse...

[Nalaar]

I don't disagree — but (as I posted), I don't understand why people choose to inconvenience themselves by simply being bloody minded over something that matters so little...

Because what matters so little to you matters more to others.

[patman post]

Most people have interests/concerns that requires them to inconvenience themselves to some degree that other people don't understand, though perhaps you do not.

I don't disagree — but (as I posted), I don't understand why people choose to inconvenience themselves by simply being bloody minded over something that matters so little...

[patman post]

What is the truth — is there only one...?

[Barry]

Axioms and the truth actually matter a great deal to lovers of the truth. 

[Nalaar]

Some countries are already issuing gender-neutral/non-binary passports — some others are about to. I doubt it'll be too long before the UK does likewise.

Personally, I don't understand why people choose to inconvenience themselves by simply being bloody minded over something that matters so little...

Most people have interests/concerns that requires them to inconvenience themselves to some degree that other people don't understand, though perhaps you do not.

[srb7677]

Just curious to know, if the school suspended a teacher because he is black, would a court make a court order?  I suspect there must be some sort of judgement.

So you are trying to equate being black - something innate and not susceptible to personal choice - with a decision to choose not to conform with a set policy behaviourally laid down by your employer? Talk about comparing apples with chicken carcasses, .

Silly argument as ever from you.

[patman post]

If the passport office change their stance on 'neutral speech' does that have any impact on what's 'good enough for you'?

Some countries are already issuing gender-neutral/non-binary passports — some others are about to. I doubt it'll be too long before the UK does likewise.

Personally, I don't understand why people choose to inconvenience themselves by simply being bloody minded over something that matters so little...

[cromwell]

I made no mistake, Cromwell.
Obviously I didn't explain clearly enough for you. Perhaps a picture may help?
Nothing. Where did I mention him?

No you didn't because you can't,an example if by some coincidence Diane Abbott accuses you of shouting racist abuse at her and you are arrested pending a court appearance and you then confront her to protest your innocence you'd probably be arrested again perhaps an injunction to tell you to keep away pending the court appearance.

you then confront her again you might well be gaoled but not for the original offence,is that a clear enough picture for you? 

[johnofgwent]

The court has come down on the side of the school, which informed a staff member to stay off the premises, and he refused, and he then went on to refuse that court order also.

The policy that lead to the man being denied access to the school, is not a matter for the court to consider.

I don't quite see why a court has become involved in an employment dispute.

if the school does not like the attitude of their employee they should sack them and reap the whirlwind that follows at the employment tribunal.
Using the court system in this way is a complete cop-out. The school should have the courage of their woke convictions and be convicted of illegal employment discrimination for it

its bad enough that you can't get a fucking job as a teacher if you aren't an arse kisser of the Marxist left. Why the F@@@ should one be an adherent to wokery too.

To repeat my point. Yaxley Lennon was rightly convicted of contempt of court for his utter contempt of the due process of law and the right of everyone to a fair trial

In my view this second case should have been thrown out as an inappropriate use of the courts time. There are trespass laws (which are a civil matter unless firearms are carried or damage is done) and there are many ways this might have been handled as a breach of the peace.

you've tried to stir it by comparing chalk and cheese and in my opinion lost badly. I'd give up before I find a way to pin contempt of court charges on the court that did this