A future-of-work expert said Gen Zers didn’t have the “promise of stability” at work, so they’re putting their personal lives and well-being first.

  • Sagifurius@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 个月前

    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.

    • Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 个月前

      “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.

      • Sagifurius@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 个月前

        You aren’t even arguing against the statements made, just blowing irrelevant bullshit.

        • Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 个月前

          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.