Frightening what bureaucracy can do in the name of standardization:
News link:
'If you don't take a job as a prostitute, we can stop your benefits' Edit:
Snopes response clarifying can versus will, indicating that the above article merely illuminates a loop hole in the laws which has never been acted on -- thanks to
arewar for the link.
You make a good point. If I was agruing against (to play devil's advocate), I'd stress that this is about unemployment benefits, not human rights. Considering these are a privelege, and not guarenteed even within the country in question, losing them doesn't qualify as persecution or torture. The government is not threaten a jail sentence - that I'm sure would qualify for asylum.
Bancruptcy, unemployment, etc are not considered persecution or torture. That she would be denied government employment services might count. If she could be placed on a 'black list' available to employers that would certainly count.
It would be a fancinating trial.
----------------------
I think the Canadian clause requires *both* cruel and unusual. Weird doesn't cut it. I agree this counts as unusual. I don't know if a Canadian judge would consider it cruel. Given the level of social support in Canadian, it seems like a good shot though.
------------------------
The whole situation stinks.
Fine, I'll nominate you for understatement of the year.
Reply
Leave a comment