To be fair, this can be a good part of the legislative process.
Create a law that serves as a framework. Perhaps it’s overly broad or has loopholes, but it can’t really be challenged in court. Once you have legal precedent, you can create follow up laws to fine tune it and protect people in more specific ways.
This assumes you have the political and legislative will to continue to enact laws.
I don’t disagree and I don’t know how conservative the courts are in Canada, but generally the most important consideration is that laws can survive legal challenge.
If you go all in and the courts overturn it, you get nothing.
There’s a balancing act that’s an unfortunate reality for progressive legislators
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
To be fair, this can be a good part of the legislative process.
Create a law that serves as a framework. Perhaps it’s overly broad or has loopholes, but it can’t really be challenged in court. Once you have legal precedent, you can create follow up laws to fine tune it and protect people in more specific ways.
This assumes you have the political and legislative will to continue to enact laws.
There is no place for scabs in any legislation except outright banning them.
Because we already have essential worker legislation that ensures public health and safety.
I don’t disagree and I don’t know how conservative the courts are in Canada, but generally the most important consideration is that laws can survive legal challenge.
If you go all in and the courts overturn it, you get nothing.
There’s a balancing act that’s an unfortunate reality for progressive legislators