Should your spouse be compelled to testify against you in court?

[Ed Anger]

Did my mentioning of you wacking it to the ladies at Curves help your thinking Ide?

[garbon]

Leave the traditional rule as it is. Garbon notwithstanding. 

[MadImmortalMan]

...disease status,...

If anyone could access health records, I would need to turn to crime in order to feed myself and have a roof over my head. Nobody is going to employ someone with a chronic disease when a simple query can filter them out. It would also discourage people from using DNA analysis to find potential risks.

This is a real problem already. I've been too close to the hiring procedures and HR in my life to not realize they are definitely discriminating against people based on stuff like that. It's also a factor for having things like property information online. Give your address, and they know how much your house is worth, who holds liens, etc. If you get convicted of a crime, the knock-on effect of even a very minor sentence could actually be a sentence to lifetime unemployment and poverty.

Some things really do need to be secret because now that we have the HR disease and the internet telling us everything about everyone, we can't go back to the way things were.

[Iormlund]

Iorm: did I show some kind of intent to make employment discrimination lawful?

It doesn't really matter. How are you going to prove discrimination?

...disease status,...

If anyone could access health records, I would need to turn to crime in order to feed myself and have a roof over my head. Nobody is going to employ someone with a chronic disease when a simple query can filter them out. It would also discourage people from using DNA analysis to find potential risks.

This is a real problem already. I've been too close to the hiring procedures and HR in my life to not realize they are definitely discriminating against people based on stuff like that. It's also a factor for having things like property information online. Give your address, and they know how much your house is worth, who holds liens, etc. If you get convicted of a crime, the knock-on effect of even a very minor sentence could actually be a sentence to lifetime unemployment and poverty.

Some things really do need to be secret because now that we have the HR disease and the internet telling us everything about everyone, we can't go back to the way things were.

Yeah I know. The crime thing is obviously less common here, but given my situation I know quite a few cases of people being fired shortly after their first serious flare up (in fact most are). Disability benefits help there but you need to be really fucked up for it to kick in even to a lesser degree.

[The Brain]

Is there an exception to the spouse rule for the power of Christ?

[grumbler]

Some things really do need to be secret because now that we have the HR disease and the internet telling us everything about everyone, we can't go back to the way things were.

What you are describing is called "human nature."  I dunno why Ide would be so trusting of his fellow-humans that he would require them to allow other humans to freely spy them (but not on him, except as a price he would pay to allow them to spy freely on one another).  Privacy isn't a matter of hiding crimes (well, not for most of us, anyway), it is a matter of feeling free to do and say as we wish, without harming anyone else, while at the same time avoiding the judgement of people who have no idea of the context of our words or actions.  If everyone were allowed to spy on everyone (aka "the open society") we would be in a constant state of self-censorship in word and action, lest we say or do something that could be misinterpreted to our detriment.

[Ideologue]

It's already like that.  It's just called "society."

I wonder how long I'd keep myself in my skin if I publicly brought up unionizing my workplace.  My bet is, literally, about one hour.

P.S. I'd remain ok with voting records being kept secret.

[Ideologue]

Iorm: did I show some kind of intent to make employment discrimination lawful?

It doesn't really matter. How are you going to prove discrimination?

The usual means.  Though it could be easier when everyone's conversations are recorded.

I'm sort of surprised they would consider Crohn's.  I mean, you've got a pretty severe case afaik and you seem perfectly capable of doing your job.   (Then again, who knows what evil lurks in the heart of HR?)

This is a real problem already. I've been too close to the hiring procedures and HR in my life to not realize they are definitely discriminating against people based on stuff like that. It's also a factor for having things like property information online. Give your address, and they know how much your house is worth, who holds liens, etc. If you get convicted of a crime, the knock-on effect of even a very minor sentence could actually be a sentence to lifetime unemployment and poverty.

Indeed.  Most of the truly damaging shit is already public record.

Yeah I know. The crime thing is obviously less common here,

Can you elaborate on this?

but given my situation I know quite a few cases of people being fired shortly after their first serious flare up (in fact most are).

How would one go about proving a discrimination lawsuit, indeed?

[garbon]

Do we have laws to prevent mothers from being compelled to testify against their children? Seems like that might be a bigger case for unreliable testimony than a spouse.

[Barrister]

Do we have laws to prevent mothers from being compelled to testify against their children? Seems like that might be a bigger case for unreliable testimony than a spouse.

I shamelessly stole this from another prosecutor:

When defence calls their client's mother to say whatever BS story about how their precious child could never have been the one who did this horrible crime, I ask precisely one question in cross-examination.

Q. Ma'am, you love your son very much, don't you?

[grumbler]

Do we have laws to prevent mothers from being compelled to testify against their children? Seems like that might be a bigger case for unreliable testimony than a spouse.

I shamelessly stole this from another prosecutor:

When defence calls their client's mother to say whatever BS story about how their precious child could never have been the one who did this horrible crime, I ask precisely one question in cross-examination.

Q. Ma'am, you love your son very much, don't you?

That's leading the witness!

[Iormlund]

Iorm: did I show some kind of intent to make employment discrimination lawful?

It doesn't really matter. How are you going to prove discrimination?

The usual means.  Though it could be easier when everyone's conversations are recorded.

All it takes is an automated filter and nobody in HR will ever see those CVs, much less talk about them.

I'm sort of surprised they would consider Crohn's.  I mean, you've got a pretty severe case afaik and you seem perfectly capable of doing your job.   (Then again, who knows what evil lurks in the heart of HR?)

I am. Statistically, however, I have a 50% chance* of having to go under the knife again. That could imply missing up to 4-5 months of work, not to mention the devastating disruption to any project I was involved in. That could cost quite a bit since it's not easy to find qualified replacements for the kind of job I do at the drop of a hat.

* Those numbers have probably been compiled over a few decades, while the treatment options have increased in the last few years thanks to biologics, so actual chance might be significantly lower these days. Regardless, that's what someone at HR would see.

Yeah I know. The crime thing is obviously less common here,

Can you elaborate on this?

We don't have such a big offender population.

But also, in Spain criminal records are not public. The only way to legally obtain someone else's record is to have said person sign a form before a notary public. Moreover, entries are purged after some time dependent on the type of crime.
In addition you can only be required to provide said records for certain openings, mostly dealing with banks, security or regulated professions (law, medicine, ...).

but given my situation I know quite a few cases of people being fired shortly after their first serious flare up (in fact most are).

How would one go about proving a discrimination lawsuit, indeed?

Our legislation (and precedents including SC) says you can fire someone for being sick if it negatively impacts his or her job. Depending on situation it could count as with or without cause. Chronic cases are admittedly a murky area.

[Ideologue]

Do we have laws to prevent mothers from being compelled to testify against their children? Seems like that might be a bigger case for unreliable testimony than a spouse.

I shamelessly stole this from another prosecutor:

When defence calls their client's mother to say whatever BS story about how their precious child could never have been the one who did this horrible crime, I ask precisely one question in cross-examination.

Q. Ma'am, you love your son very much, don't you?

That's leading the witness!

Leading questions are permitted on cross.

[dps]

Our legislation (and precedents including SC) says you can fire someone for being sick if it negatively impacts his or her job. Depending on situation it could count as with or without cause. Chronic cases are admittedly a murky area.

Basically the same here.  Firing someone for being sick or having a particular illness isn't good cause (and may be illegal discrimination if the illness in question is considered a disability), but firing someone because they can't show up and do their job is considered good cause.

[mongers]

More importantly, should someone here testify in the trial of a fellow Languishite ?