Guy who finished a law degree for some reason. I didn’t mean to, it just kinda happened

  • 1 Post
  • 43 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 14th, 2023

help-circle
  • G’day, sorry for the long wait.

    To preface: I have studied constitutional law (was a lockdown subject for me). I’m not going to claim to have the understanding of either the High Court or the Constitutional Lawyers I’ve encountered, and bear in mind IANAL, and nothing I say here constitutes a true legal interpretation.

    Based on both other legislation where the term “powers” has been used, as well as the context in which it is used in the proposed wording, I read it as referring to any abilities it may rely on in order to make its representations. I couldn’t tell you what these may be, as that would depend on the Government of the day, but my expectation would be they’d be related to information gathering, decision-making (including whether a chair would exist and veto power), whistleblowing, and those kinds of things.

    The wording is purposefully very vague of course - which serves a few purposes. The big one is about making it hard for oppositional forces to take it to the High Court to claim whatever controversial action its taking is unconstitutional; there’ve been a few cases like that that just end up wasting the court’s time, along with tax payer money. Similarly, keeping it vague gives plenty of room to legislation to define its limitations, and allows for evolution as the needs of the community change.

    Sorry for the essay mate, tl;dr: did study Constitutional law, had a great teacher! Powers is kept vague, but I would argue it refers to abilities. Vaguery is a good thing in a constitution because it gives room for the law to adapt and evolve.


  • this is inequitable

    Not what equity means. Equity refers to equal access to the same opportunities. Put simply, due to their post-genocide, White Australia Policy and “Breeding out the Black” (real campaign) numbers, Indigenous Australians completely lack representation in Parliament. Therefore they lack access to the opportunities your average Australian (regardless of race) has. An Indigenous Voice to Parliament will make things more equitable, not less, as it will provide access to the same opportunities of representation that the rest of us have already.



  • A summary of my viewpoint:

    I am enormously sick of the no campaign brigading every discussion with terrible arguments in bad faith.

    I have yet to encounter a legal expert, or for that matter, an Indigenous Australian who is accepted by their community, who is opposed. Similarly, the law is my degree. I’ve spent five years of my life studying it, and although I’m not a graduate yet (two units to go), I’d think I’d know more about this shit than Joe from bumfuck nowhere on Facebook.

    There is no case for a no vote. None whatsoever. The change would not grant special rights to Indigenous Australians. It has been repeatedly explained by both lawyers and politicians. You can read the change yourself. It has to be a constitutional change, because that protects it from being outright removed by successive governments, which is the very thing that happened to the previous body that performed this role. By definition, it is not racist, as racism refers to negative treatment on the basis of race or ethnic background, and not differing treatment. This is one of three steps proposed by Indigenous Australians towards reconciliation, and isn’t the endpoint. If it fails, it will be the endpoint.

    When the colonisers arrived, Indigenous Australians outnumbered colonisers. Now, they make up just 2.5% of the population. We are driving them to extinction. If this fails, by the time we get around to trying again, it is likely the genocide will have all but been completed.

    Ethically and morally, a yes vote is the only choice. Legally, it is the best choice for change.





  • Graduating at the end of November, Gods willing. I really, really hope my budget lasts that long, but I’m penny pinching in a big way and have been a while now (income is only about $800 a fortnight, post rent I’m left with less than half of that).

    You and the other commenters are probably right honestly, it’s shitful as I love the job itself, but deeply hate my boss. I honestly cannot wait until I can just get the hell out of here, although it’s going to get ugly before it gets better (I’m a tutor and a lot of my income comes from VCE students, most of whom have their last class towards the end of October)




  • It’s been a month since my boss put me under “observation” to determine whether I’d get the (from $30 to $33 an hour) raise I requested. They tried to claim they don’t take inflation into account, and dismissed every piece of evidence, making claims that because a coworker of mine uses their phone on the job I might be, and that’s reason why I shouldn’t get a raise.

    Also, they claimed that they should be lowering my pay.

    How on Earth do I handle this? I’m a Uni student and don’t have time to go on a job search, not to mention for equivalent pay. I just want to be able to earn enough to pay rent and food comfortably, not struggle every damn week to make ends meet









  • There is definitely a small (and loud) group of people who are very angry this game exists. I assume, based on history, that they’re nazis very angry about the presence of same-sex relationships and non-white (as well as gasp! Female characters) in this game. Be great if Valve actually policed its community, becauee this kind of bullshit really shouldn’t be okay.