Deaf MP

Forums › Off topic › Deaf MP

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#582623 16-Feb-2012 23:38

John2010:
KiwiNZ:
It is illegal and immoral to discriminate on account of disability.

It is in fact not illegal nor immoral to discriminate on account of a disability. It is only so if the discrimination is unjust.

If the disability means they cannot perform the job to normal expectations then they do not have to be given it and it may be immoral (which has a subjective test) to give it to them.

The examples are endless to come up with even for a lazy mind. But simply a one armed paperhanger may get the job but a no armed one won't.

In the case of a totally deaf person I would be most surprised if a business would be accused of unjust discrimination if they decided to not employ a person where it was essential for the job that they could hear and it would be considered by many immoral for them to do so if hearing was essential for the worker's safety. And the employer would not be expected to employ another person nor to buy special technology assistance just to assist such a person to do the job that another otherwise could.

So I have some unease as to how she got the job she now has. That said I have in the past wondered who pays for Stephen Hawking's voice synthsiser and technician?

I love watching you work :)

Ragnor

8219 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#582624 16-Feb-2012 23:39

Surely the greens have a spare staffer who can transcribe speech to shorthand in real time for her.

This whole things seems overblown.

deepred

494 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#582625 16-Feb-2012 23:42

John2010:
KiwiNZ:
It is illegal and immoral to discriminate on account of disability.

So I have some unease as to how she got the job she now has. That said I have in the past wondered who pays for Stephen Hawking's voice synthsiser and technician?

Partly from the royalties from his books, but before he became famous, it probably would have been Cambridge University, where he taught at for some years.

"I regret to say that we of the F.B.I. are powerless to act in cases of oral-genital intimacy, unless it has in some way obstructed interstate commerce." — J. Edgar Hoover

"Create a society that values material things above all else. Strip it of industry. Raise taxes for the poor and reduce them for the rich and for corporations. Prop up failed financial institutions with public money. Ask for more tax, while vastly reducing public services. Put adverts everywhere, regardless of people's ability to afford the things they advertise. Allow the cost of food and housing to eclipse people's ability to pay for them. Light blue touch paper." — Andrew Maxwell

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#582638 17-Feb-2012 07:09

John2010:
KiwiNZ:
It is illegal and immoral to discriminate on account of disability.

It is in fact not illegal nor immoral to discriminate on account of a disability. It is only so if the discrimination is unjust.

If the disability means they cannot perform the job to normal expectations then they do not have to be given it and it may be immoral (which has a subjective test) to give it to them.

The examples are endless to come up with even for a lazy mind. But simply a one armed paperhanger may get the job but a no armed one won't.

In the case of a totally deaf person I would be most surprised if a business would be accused of unjust discrimination if they decided to not employ a person where it was essential for the job that they could hear and it would be considered by many immoral for them to do so if hearing was essential for the worker's safety. And the employer would not be expected to employ another person nor to buy special technology assistance just to assist such a person to do the job that another otherwise could.

So I have some unease as to how she got the job she now has. That said I have in the past wondered who pays for Stephen Hawking's voice synthsiser and technician?

http://www.hrc.co.nz/enquiries-and-complaints-guide/what-can-i-complain-about/disability

"It is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of disability in any of the areas of public life covered by the Act. The Act covers disabilities, which people have presently, have had in the past, or which they are believed to have. It is also unlawful to discriminate against relatives or associates of people with a disability, because of that disability. This can mean, for example, a spouse, carer or business partner."

scuwp

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#582659 17-Feb-2012 08:14

KiwiNZ:
John2010:
KiwiNZ:
It is illegal and immoral to discriminate on account of disability.

It is in fact not illegal nor immoral to discriminate on account of a disability. It is only so if the discrimination is unjust.

If the disability means they cannot perform the job to normal expectations then they do not have to be given it and it may be immoral (which has a subjective test) to give it to them.

The examples are endless to come up with even for a lazy mind. But simply a one armed paperhanger may get the job but a no armed one won't.

In the case of a totally deaf person I would be most surprised if a business would be accused of unjust discrimination if they decided to not employ a person where it was essential for the job that they could hear and it would be considered by many immoral for them to do so if hearing was essential for the worker's safety. And the employer would not be expected to employ another person nor to buy special technology assistance just to assist such a person to do the job that another otherwise could.

So I have some unease as to how she got the job she now has. That said I have in the past wondered who pays for Stephen Hawking's voice synthsiser and technician?

http://www.hrc.co.nz/enquiries-and-complaints-guide/what-can-i-complain-about/disability

"It is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of disability in any of the areas of public life covered by the Act. The Act covers disabilities, which people have presently, have had in the past, or which they are believed to have. It is also unlawful to discriminate against relatives or associates of people with a disability, because of that disability. This can mean, for example, a spouse, carer or business partner."

So your telling me I MUST employ the no-armed paper hanger? Yeah right! I am afraid down here in the "real world" people need to appreciate and accept their limitations. I wanted to be an All Black (who didn't!) but a stuffed knee stopped that idea in its tracks. Maybe I should try out now, after all they can't discriminate against me because I can't run can they...maybe they need to employ an assistant for me who does the running?

No employer in their right mind is going to hire a deaf person for a call centre (or do they have to employ a second person as an assistant for them?) or a person in a wheelchair to be a DOC mountain guide. Should these employers be accused of discrimination? Definitely not. Time to get real people.

Lazy is such an ugly word, I prefer to call it selective participation

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#582688 17-Feb-2012 09:27

scuwp:
KiwiNZ:
John2010:
KiwiNZ:
It is illegal and immoral to discriminate on account of disability.

It is in fact not illegal nor immoral to discriminate on account of a disability. It is only so if the discrimination is unjust.

If the disability means they cannot perform the job to normal expectations then they do not have to be given it and it may be immoral (which has a subjective test) to give it to them.

The examples are endless to come up with even for a lazy mind. But simply a one armed paperhanger may get the job but a no armed one won't.

In the case of a totally deaf person I would be most surprised if a business would be accused of unjust discrimination if they decided to not employ a person where it was essential for the job that they could hear and it would be considered by many immoral for them to do so if hearing was essential for the worker's safety. And the employer would not be expected to employ another person nor to buy special technology assistance just to assist such a person to do the job that another otherwise could.

So I have some unease as to how she got the job she now has. That said I have in the past wondered who pays for Stephen Hawking's voice synthsiser and technician?

http://www.hrc.co.nz/enquiries-and-complaints-guide/what-can-i-complain-about/disability

"It is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of disability in any of the areas of public life covered by the Act. The Act covers disabilities, which people have presently, have had in the past, or which they are believed to have. It is also unlawful to discriminate against relatives or associates of people with a disability, because of that disability. This can mean, for example, a spouse, carer or business partner."

So your telling me I MUST employ the no-armed paper hanger? Yeah right! I am afraid down here in the "real world" people need to appreciate and accept their limitations. I wanted to be an All Black (who didn't!) but a stuffed knee stopped that idea in its tracks. Maybe I should try out now, after all they can't discriminate against me because I can't run can they...maybe they need to employ an assistant for me who does the running?

No employer in their right mind is going to hire a deaf person for a call centre (or do they have to employ a second person as an assistant for them?) or a person in a wheelchair to be a DOC mountain guide. Should these employers be accused of discrimination? Definitely not. Time to get real people.

Reductio ad absurdum.

It is these attitudes that cultivate discrimination and bigotry. Maybe you sure try the other side for a bit.

vinnieg

2260 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#582700 17-Feb-2012 09:43

scuwp:
So your telling me I MUST employ the no-armed paper hanger? Yeah right! I am afraid down here in the "real world" people need to appreciate and accept their limitations. I wanted to be an All Black (who didn't!) but a stuffed knee stopped that idea in its tracks. Maybe I should try out now, after all they can't discriminate against me because I can't run can they...maybe they need to employ an assistant for me who does the running?

No employer in their right mind is going to hire a deaf person for a call centre (or do they have to employ a second person as an assistant for them?) or a person in a wheelchair to be a DOC mountain guide. Should these employers be accused of discrimination? Definitely not. Time to get real people.

I think you are taking his reply completely out of context, and making yourself look pretty bad.

I would employ a no-armed paper hanger, if he was the most suitable, and fastest for the job.

Employers should hire the best person, based on their best ability.

I have moved across the ditch. Now residing in Melbourne as a VOIP/Video Technical Trainer/Engineer.

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#582708 17-Feb-2012 10:06

Where I work, we employ a blind person in a voice call centre. He has a dog that goes onsite that sits next to him and he uses software (JAWS) I think to do his job on the computer systems. Wonderful employee. We are a big company so we are better placed to cater for this situation, smaller companies may be not so well placed.

The point is that if we can, as individuals or companies, help the disadvantaged, thats a great thing.

scuwp

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#582721 17-Feb-2012 10:40

vinnieg:
scuwp:
So your telling me I MUST employ the no-armed paper hanger? Yeah right! I am afraid down here in the "real world" people need to appreciate and accept their limitations. I wanted to be an All Black (who didn't!) but a stuffed knee stopped that idea in its tracks. Maybe I should try out now, after all they can't discriminate against me because I can't run can they...maybe they need to employ an assistant for me who does the running?

No employer in their right mind is going to hire a deaf person for a call centre (or do they have to employ a second person as an assistant for them?) or a person in a wheelchair to be a DOC mountain guide. Should these employers be accused of discrimination? Definitely not. Time to get real people.

I would employ a no-armed paper hanger, if he was the most suitable, and fastest for the job.

Employers should hire the best person, based on their best ability.

I couldn't agree more, was just making a point (btw it was intended to be ridiculous) that people need to accept their limitations, and ludicrous demands on employers all in the name of appearing indiscriminate is patently wrong.

I hope Mojo does well in her new job, and I know she will get all the equipment and support she requires to do so.

..and that all I have to say about that

Lazy is such an ugly word, I prefer to call it selective participation

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#582723 17-Feb-2012 10:42

scuwp:
vinnieg:
scuwp:
So your telling me I MUST employ the no-armed paper hanger? Yeah right! I am afraid down here in the "real world" people need to appreciate and accept their limitations. I wanted to be an All Black (who didn't!) but a stuffed knee stopped that idea in its tracks. Maybe I should try out now, after all they can't discriminate against me because I can't run can they...maybe they need to employ an assistant for me who does the running?

No employer in their right mind is going to hire a deaf person for a call centre (or do they have to employ a second person as an assistant for them?) or a person in a wheelchair to be a DOC mountain guide. Should these employers be accused of discrimination? Definitely not. Time to get real people.

I would employ a no-armed paper hanger, if he was the most suitable, and fastest for the job.

Employers should hire the best person, based on their best ability.

I couldn't agree more, was just making a point (btw it was intended to be ridiculous) that people need to accept their limitations, and ludicrous demands on employers all in the name of appearing indiscriminate is patently wrong.

I hope Mojo does well in her new job, and I know she will get all the equipment and support she requires to do so.

..and that all I have to say about that

Using your logic of "people need to accept their limitations" would mean that I would still be in the wheelchair. I am sorry but I will not be a good little cripple and go sit in the corner and accept my limitations.

jaymz

1133 posts

Uber Geek

#582742 17-Feb-2012 12:22

KiwiNZ, scuwp, vinnieg,

You all need to take a chill pill and calm down.

John2010 said:
"It is in fact not illegal nor immoral to discriminate on account of a disability. It is only so if the discrimination is unjust."

Make special not of the second part of his sentence.

KiwiNZ, i agree with what you are saying about discrimination, but there are limits. It would be illegal to deny someone a job (lets say a desk job) because they were in a wheelchair simply because the employer couldn't be bothered with some simple ramps.

However, denying that same person a job as an arborist (for example) is a different story.
That person wouldn't even apply for the job in the first place.

Common sense is to apply for jobs that you beleive you can do.

Everyone has limits as to what they can physically and mentally do. Myself, if i lost my leg for example, wouldn't bother applying for a job as an arborist in the first place. It would be unreasonable to expect to get the job, and even more unreasonable to expect the employer to pay for tools/equipment to enable me to do the job.

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek

#582796 17-Feb-2012 14:04

deepred:
John2010:
KiwiNZ:
It is illegal and immoral to discriminate on account of disability.

So I have some unease as to how she got the job she now has. That said I have in the past wondered who pays for Stephen Hawking's voice synthsiser and technician?

Partly from the royalties from his books, but before he became famous, it probably would have been Cambridge University, where he taught at for some years.

Hi deepred - just for information, he is still at Cambridge but now a Director in their Department of Mathematics and Theoretical Physics.

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#582806 17-Feb-2012 14:12

I'm surprised no-one's seen this from a wider perspective - hiring a real-time transcriptionist as she is asking for would also give us the opportunity to do something else she's been pushing for, captioning Parliament TV, making parliamentary proceedings more accessible to deaf and hard of hearing people. I personally cannot see how making the country's governance more transparent to a group of people who would otherwise have difficulty due to the medium which our government uses to use in order to provide that transparency is a completely worthy goal - and for only $30K/yr it's a steal.

To those people who claim that because she's deaf she shouldn't have even run for parliament, you people offend me. To say that as a disabled person she should be barred from participating in the democratic process is frankly insulting to anyone who has a disability, and I would hope people around you are disgusted at your opinions, because I sure am.

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek

#582832 17-Feb-2012 14:46

Kyanar: I'm surprised no-one's seen this from a wider perspective - hiring a real-time transcriptionist as she is asking for would also give us the opportunity to do something else she's been pushing for, captioning Parliament TV, making parliamentary proceedings more accessible to deaf and hard of hearing people. I personally cannot see how making the country's governance more transparent to a group of people who would otherwise have difficulty due to the medium which our government uses to use in order to provide that transparency is a completely worthy goal - and for only $30K/yr it's a steal....

Then she shouldn't be angling for her own assistant for herself but for the provision of a service tailored and managed by Parliamentary Services for the wider population should such a real need be shown to exist and is possible to be met (and which she may or may not find useful for her own purposes).

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek

#582862 17-Feb-2012 15:32

KiwiNZ:
John2010:
KiwiNZ:
It is illegal and immoral to discriminate on account of disability.

It is in fact not illegal nor immoral to discriminate on account of a disability. It is only so if the discrimination is unjust.

If the disability means they cannot perform the job to normal expectations then they do not have to be given it and it may be immoral (which has a subjective test) to give it to them.

The examples are endless to come up with even for a lazy mind. But simply a one armed paperhanger may get the job but a no armed one won't....

etc

http://www.hrc.co.nz/enquiries-and-complaints-guide/what-can-i-complain-about/disability

"It is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of disability in any of the areas of public life covered by the Act. The Act covers disabilities, which people have presently, have had in the past, or which they are believed to have. It is also unlawful to discriminate against relatives or associates of people with a disability, because of that disability. This can mean, for example, a spouse, carer or business partner."

Instead of just reading selective snips that appear to you to suit your own purposes you need to read the legislation. For your assistance I have gone to the trouble of providing the following for you from the Human Rights Act and which part is probably most relevant to the discussion. You may care to read the whole Act which can be found at www.legislation.govt.nz.

In respect of employment the Act says -

" 29 Further exceptions in relation to disability(1)Nothing in section 22 shall prevent different treatment based on disability where—
(a) the position is such that the person could perform the duties of the position satisfactorily only with the aid of special services or facilities and it is not reasonable to expect the employer to provide those services or facilities"

You may not like that but that is what the law is and under those circumstances the Act does not prevent different treatment of the disabled.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8