Oh, I’d love to be 10 years younger on my passport (as soon as I can afford decent hairline restoration that is).
That case raises a variety of interesting questions, both legal and political though.
To start with the legal:
From the article:
“But amending his date of birth would cause 20 years of records to vanish from the register of births, deaths, marriages and registered partnerships. This would have a variety of undesirable legal and societal implications.”
I think I discussed it before with @P_Tigras in one of the older threads discussing gay marriage, but moreso then in America due to centuries of influence from (nominally) Christian political parties a lot of records and tax code stuff are far too entangled with things like marriage. Now, I agree with the big Tiger that it is ultimately best to get the government out of the marriage business entirely but that is going to take a lot of legal reforms, again much more so than in the US of A and it is not something that a single court verdict can suddenly decide for us.
Then there is the second legal point the court mentioned, some ages have legal significance, such as determining whether you are eligible to retire or have to attend school. Now, again, most of this could theoretically be solved by something like basic income, that would make in particular “retirement” as we currently know it obsolete. And while I am a very big proponent of basic income, implementing it is highly likely to require some very tough legislative battles that cannot be circumvented with one verdict by a lower court at that.
I do think the court dismissed the age discrimination arguments a bit too quickly as age discrimination is both very real and becoming an increasing problem where being old(er) is becoming less and less desirable. Again, I think things like basic income would help here too, if only by defusing the divisive right wing arguments that the older and younger generations are somehow stealing each other’s wealth when the current increasingly unequal distribution of wealth is more of a problem with the vagaries of globalism then it is about a generation gap.
What I do hope is that just like in the 1990’s cases such like this lead to a broader dialogue in society, not just about who we are right now or where we’ve been in the past, but where we want to go in the future, as a society. As we have not had that sort of societal discussion since we passed gay marriage and euthanasia back in 2002.
So, in summary, the one positive thing that could result from cases such as this, about age discrimination to start with, but also more generally about where we want to go as a society.
I commend mr. Ratelband for his audacity in starting this case, but from a legal point of view it was always baseless on its legal merits and this was always more of a case for the court of public opinion than the actual courts, who ruled almost exactly as both predicted and expected. Again, I would have liked to have seen them go a bit deeper into the age discrimination aspects, but that is all.