this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2024
1567 points (98.6% liked)
Work Reform
10026 readers
142 users here now
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What you think this is a gotcha? This is normal process for when a law that has never been enacted before gets used for the first time and gets challenged. This is part of how the system works. Laws are drafted and passed but basically inert until they are used. A law that is never used never has victims or damages. Only once laws are used can their use be challenged if they do not fit their internal rules exactly (because real life is messy and law drafts inexact) then they go under review. If one Justice kicks up a stink it goes to the Supreme court. The Supreme court decides if the laws were correctly followed. News anchors love the red flag stage because it's prime drama and people gobble up any implications of "government overreach" like it's proven fact which feeds their suspicions about how they are living under tyranny.
If the Supreme Court does find the government DID overreach then there will be rulings to appease damages. One justice is not the Supreme court. Even if they rule it was an improper use this continues to be a normal exercise of democracy BECAUSE the government will pay and face consequences. It is a ultimately GOOD thing that this is going under review.
The Justice system in Canada is fairly impartial because they are not an elected body but "what is the law" is at heart a philosophy question so not every judge rules the same. That's why they have a big panel of them for these courts. To ensure that a majority of senior executors of the law conclude fairly.
To be frank this is the normal check to the Government. Those rights you were claiming we don't have are being defended by this system of internal review with potential consequences FOR THE GOVERNMENT. These are your rights being defended, BUT they have not yet been proven to be violated, basically an alarm has been raised as it should in cases lile this and they have to go figure out if it was a burglar or a cat.
What you people don't seem to fucking get is that the system has safeguards. They are being used effectivly but all this requires a bunch of people with full time jobs to prepare, debate, deliberate and fine tooth comb everything. It takes time because legal challenges at this level take years to resolve but that doesn't keep pace with the 24 hour news cycle that wants you stupid, mad and plugged in RIGHT NOW and the Opposition party will use any dirty trick to use your conditioned suspicions to their advantage. You are falling for the grift. You can stay mad and clutch your guns to your chest like a security blanket and wave your flag all day but the system is functioning. This act was in effect only ACTIVE for 10 days of the 90 made possible by the passing of the original permissions. The Government applied the law to their understanding of the draft and accepted the risk of all of this with full knowledge of the legal consequences to the government. Now the courts figure out if the force used was excessive and that will make precedent to limit any future uses of the act.
That's the system.
It's not really new legislation. It's a mildly updated war measures act. Anyways, an actual legal scholar just disagreed with you and the kangaroo commission.
"Mildly"... Uh no. The War measures act conflicted with the Human Rights act and was amended to reflect the civil rights protections. The two do not look even remotely alike.
While I agree the Emergencies Act isn't "new" legislation because it was drafted 30 years ago I take umbrage with your idea that that is the relevant issue. It sat on the books in mint condition never used for a very long time. It may not be new but the seal is freshly popped.
So.
The government can technically draft any law they want (provided it doesn't explicitly violate constitutional protections at time of draft) but that it doesn't mean that the exercise of those laws protect the government from the consequences of using them if the enactment is incorrect or if it violated constitutional rights in the enactment beyond the original scope... A law never used is just legal theory. You can debate it but it was passed and it's a pain to remove from the books and you usually need to put something in it's place to do a similar job if it's there for a "potential" use to defend against something that may or may not happen.
The Emergencies act is in effect brand new in the system because it has only recently effected actual humans and the law can now be applied to evaluate the effect in it's actual real world use and actual people can be the recipients of compensation for damages.
That "kangaroo Court" is no fucking joke. The government could stand to lose millions of dollars in damages if the door is opened to removing civil case protections... Which is why the Supreme Court is an independent body thay concerns itself with the charge of defending the law. Governments come and go but that's the oath they take is binding for life or until they retire from the court at age 75.
Elected representatives are not generally experts in law, they are just provided guidance by system appointes experts to protect themselves from potential liability... but those experts are not the Supreme court panel. The justice system is a bunch of people whose life work is the protection and binding law to protect the welfare of the citizens of Canada and the democratic process because they have legitimate enforcement power and perform the duties of being a check to the temporary power of individual administrations.
You aren't even arguing against the statements made, just blowing irrelevant bullshit.
I see your brain shorted out but your ego is still chugging along. If you can't see the relevance maybe you should spread some dust bane around that empty head of yours, close up shop and give it a real college try on another day sport.
You don't even seem to know what in particular I was referring to as being "Kangaroo".
Enlighten me then.