#Political and legal system

[victusinveritas]

[gleditsia-triacanthos]

life has gone so crazy lately, forgot my sense of humor, so here’s information and advice for my u.s. citizens:

an executive order is not a law. you will see lists circulating of a thousand executive orders trump has made in the past week, but be aware that the constitutionality of those orders are (knowing him) limited, and people and groups are already fighting them through the courts.

immigrants, here both legally and not, are at the most imminent risk. ice raids have begun. regardless of immigration status, i highly recommend checking out immigrantjustice.org and propagating it as a resource. know your rights and the rights of your community members.

things to do:

- chose one issue you care deeply about and organize around it. i’m usually a believer in intersectionality, and it’s important not to overlook how social issues are connected, but trying to mitigate all of the abuses happening in the country right now as an individual is not possible.

- don’t tune out, but control your stream of information. limit your time online, especially if your feed is highly political. vet your news sources. you should not expect to feel normal when reading about the current administration, but avoiding all-out panic and despair is important. believing things are hopeless is self-fulfilling.

- easier said than done, but try to avoid in-fighting. trump-supporting american conservatives (more appropriately, regressives) present a far more united front than those who oppose them. this isn’t to say we should abandon controversial issues, but to focus our efforts on the greatest existing threat and not each other.

peace, love + all of the above. stay safe!

[gryffindor-macklemore]

hey psstt if you're a government worker, know a government worker, etc in the US- make sure you know when to NOT comply.

if the Tyrant in Chief is already threatening to slash your office staff in half AND wants you to commit acts of transphobia. Just...don't.

Process that application, approve that loan. these tiny acts of rebellion are going to be what keeps us alive in these times.

don't make it easy for them. don't comply.

[thismoleculeisacomedian]

Both the NIJC and the HIAS are matching all donations right now (the NIJC for their emergency fund specifically), so this is an *extra* good time to donate whatever you can to them. Both help immigrants, refugees/asylum seekers, undocumented persons, and detainees in the US immigration system. (HIAS also does assorted other things worldwide, and is suing the Trump administration right now.)

[travelingtwentysomething]

You know what's funny? The minute people start aiming higher and taking out the powerful and wealthy and "elite", they're going to change the gun laws. Because their goal has always been for us to stay fighting each other instead of looking towards them as the real threat to our life, liberty, and freedom.

[surviving-the-next-4-years]

Legal Eagle is joining 500 legal firms to fight Trump and the Republican Party.

[cha0switch-returning]

REMINDER: luigi mangione has been accused of killing the CEO, not convicted, and the evidence presented is extremely questionable. luigi mangione is NOT the claims adjuster until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law, and the widespread presumption of his guilt makes it much more likely he will be falsely convicted.

[alwaysbewoke]

the fix is in!!

[kazthesillypuppy]

yeah I'm conservative

"oh so you want everything to be like the 1950's?"

I said I'm conservative, that's to modern

obviously I mean we should live as the neanderthals once did

[reasonsforhope]

"Tuesday’s [April 9, 2024] definition-shifting court ruling means nearly 50 governments must now contend with a new era of climate litigation.

Governments be warned: You must protect your citizens from climate change — it’s their human right.

The prescient message was laced throughout a dense ruling Tuesday from Europe’s top human rights court. The court’s conclusion? Humans have a right to safety from climate catastrophes that is rooted in their right to life, privacy and family.

The definition-shifting decision from the European Court of Human Rights means nearly 50 governments representing almost 700 million people will now have to contend with a new era of litigation from climate-stricken communities alleging inaction. 

While the judgment itself doesn’t include any penalties — the case featured several women accusing Switzerland of failing to shield them from climate dangers — it does establish a potent precedent that people can use to sue governments in national courts.

The verdict will serve “as a blueprint for how to successfully sue your own government over climate failures,” said Ruth Delbaere, a legal specialist at Avaaz, a U.S.-based nonprofit that promotes climate activism...

Courting the courts on climate

The European Court of Human Rights was established in the decade following World War II but has grown in importance over the last generation. As the judicial arm of the Council of Europe, an international human rights organization, the court’s rulings are binding on the council’s 46 members, spanning all of Europe and numerous countries on its borders.

As a result, Tuesday’s [April 9, 2024] ruling will help elevate climate litigation from a country-by-country battle to one that stretches across continents.

Previously, climate activists had mostly found success in suing individual countries to force climate action. 

A 2019 Dutch Supreme Court verdict forced the Netherlands to slash its greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent, while in 2021 a French court ruled the government was responsible for environmental damage after it failed to meet greenhouse gas reduction goals. That same year, Germany’s Constitutional Court issued a sweeping judgment that the country’s 2019 climate law was partly “unconstitutional” because it put too much of the emissions-cutting burden on future generations.

Even in the U.S., young environmental activists won a local case last year against state agencies after arguing that the continued use of fossil fuels violated their right to a "clean and healthful environment."

But 2024 is shaping up to be a turning point for climate litigation, redefining who has a right to sue over climate issues, what arguments they can use, and whom they can target. 

To start, experts overwhelmingly expect that Tuesday’s ruling will reverberate across future lawsuits — both in Europe and globally. The judgment even includes specifics about what steps governments must take to comply with their new climate-related human rights obligations. The list includes things like a concrete deadline to reach climate neutrality, a pathway to getting there, and evidence the country is actually on that path...

Concretely, the verdict could also affect the outcomes of six other high-profile climate lawsuits pending before the human rights court, including a Greenpeace-backed suit questioning whether Norway's decision to grant new oil and gas licenses complies with its carbon-cutting strategy.

An emerging legal strategy

In the coming months, other international bodies are also expected to issue their own rulings on the same thorny legal issues, which could further solidify the evolving trend. 

The International Court of Justice, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights all have similar cases working through the system.

"All these cases together will clarify the legal obligations of states to protect rights in the context of climate change — and will set the stage for decades to come," said Chowdhury, from the environmental law center."

-via Politico, April 9, 2024

[stabosins4]

My hospital has stopped supplying hormones to transgender people underneath 19. They're a children's hospital, they are FOR people under 19.

This doesn't affect me very severely. They sent out one last 6-month supply. I will be 19 in a little over 6 months.

Still, they're kneeling for him. And I am so. fucking. scared.

[changetheprophecy81]

Does anyone else watch LegalEagle too? I started watching years ago, but now his coverage of all the fucked up shit trump is doing is soo good

[junewongapologia]

The fact is tho that no matter how you look at it, no matter how insufferable she is, no matter how Out Of Touch, regardless of whether she’s doing herself no favours: Eloise is right about society and just about everyone else in the show is wrong.

Like, she’s not got the full picture, she’s blinkered and her political philosophy is not very in depth or well thought out. But she’s right, and I think that’s why a lot of people watching really don’t like her because she’s breaking the illusion. All in all, the 1810s were a shit time to be alive for most people, and you can “well actually” it all you like, but the Luddite movement existed for a reason, the Chartists existed for a reason, Porto-feminist writers like Wollstonecraft and de Gouges wrote what they did for a reason.

So when you keep being reminded that it was a terrible social order for women - in a show targeted mainly towards women for escapist purposes then that character is going to come across as irritating, because she’s ruining the immersion.

Really, her attitude isn’t more anachronistic than the dresses, or the hairdos, or the diamond necklaces (men and women had been advocating women’s right to vote since before Eloise was born, lads), but it’s a problem because people are watching the show for the sweeping romances and the general regency vibe, they don’t want to think about how the regency was for most people. Which inevitably leads to some incredible projection, when watchers of a show with the central conceit of only being interested in the love lives of the top one percent of the one percent of the British aristocracy acting as though Eloise is the only privileged person on the show.

And yeah, she is better off than most of the people who exist in all of Regency Britain (though if you were to take the show as read, Britain is made up of about 70% aristocracy, 1% gentry, 5% urban bourgeoisie and 24% urban workers), but she’s the only one whose privilege is harped on out of her whole family and social circle. 99% of the speaking characters in the show come from a posher background than Beau fucking Brummell.

And! Eloise is literally just about the only main character who ever has to question her privilege! And when she is in season 2 she doesn’t throw a shitfit, she’s willing to learn! She goes out of her way to hear perspectives that she wouldn’t have heard in her social circle! But the narrative punishes her for that, and that’s because for all the criticism she gets about needing her privilege checked, they don’t actually want her to learn, they just want her to shut up and enjoy the trappings of regency decadence as much as they do.

Also - I know it’s really fashionable to rag on “pick-mes” and “Not Like Other Girls” - but actually, no, “traditional femininity” has never been socially unacceptable for women the way being GNC is, and it is in fact ruthlessly socially enforced against GNC women, even more so in the 1810s. Eloise is a teenaged girl in a society that stigmatises her for her wish for more legal autonomy, the idea that she’s somehow the villain for not being able to enjoy “feminine” hobbies without seeing them as just another element of the way women’s education is trivialised as ornamental, is farcical. “Sewing is a valuable and useful skill” so is cooking, but there’s a reason my mam, and not my dad, had home economics lessons, and that reason is still misogyny, despite the fact that it set her up better for being able to operate independently as an adult.

Idk I’m just kind of uncomfortable that in a world of rising reactionary political sentiment towards women, and this seemingly increasingly re-normalised view that women need to be wives and homemakers, people feel that the person on the show who needs to do the most introspection regarding their politics is an eighteen-year-old who is vocal about the fact that she has limited legal rights, and not any of the adult men in the show (a lot of whom probably have seats in the Upper House!!!) who never mention politics at all.

And frankly, given the shower who were Having Political Opinions in the long eighteenth century, Eloise’s brand of semi-anachronistic protofeminism is infinitely preferable to Hannah “I refuse to teach the poor how to write in my schools” More, or Edmund “don’t read my big thesis on revolutions too closely it’s definitely not all lies and junk history” Burke, or even a load of prominent members of the Bluestocking Society.

[allthecanadianpolitics]

A British Columbia lawyer alleged to have submitted bogus case law “hallucinated” by an AI chatbot is now facing both an investigation from the Law Society of B.C. and potential financial consequences.

Earlier this month, it was revealed that lawyer Chong Ke allegedly used ChatGPT to prepare legal briefs in a family law case at B.C. Supreme Court.

In reviewing the submissions, lawyers for the opposing side discovered that some of the cases cited in the briefs did not, in fact, exist.

Those lawyers are now suing Ke for special costs in the case.

Full article

Tagging: @politicsofcanada

[onlytiktoks]