3 ms·
Yes, "thing" is effectively the word they're using to mean "task", "activity", "modification", etc etc. What word would you use instead? A judge would interpre
by rswail 8y ago
Yes, "thing" is effectively the word they're using to mean "task", "activity", "modification", etc etc. What word would you use instead?
A judge would interpret the word according to standard English usage. The judge would also interpret the words "reasonably incidental" in a... reasonable way.
Law is not code, it gets interpreted by lawyers and judges.
- zmmmmm 8y agoYes, when it comes to the law, if they mean things they should say them. It seems like they have used these generic terms in order to ensure there is zero weight on individual rights and maximum weight on the side of those exercising the power. That is, they really can't be bothered thinking through what powers they actually need and under what circumestances those are warranted, so let's just write "the government can do anything to accomplish the things" and put a story about a child rapist on the front of the legislation. It's lazy, imprecise and offensive to the idea of civil liberties.
- rswail 8y agoOf course... this is the government led by an ex-merchant banker that said "Well, the laws of Australia prevail in Australia, I can assure you of that. The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia."
- manicdee 8y agoLaw is code, and the words used in legislation or case law do not mean the same thing as the same words used in everyday scenarios. Entire cases are won or lost based on interpretation of “and” versus “or”, and even whether the presence or absence of an Oxford Comma changes the meaning of a law. PS: code as in secret message, not code as in logical and prescriptive language for specifying tasks to a computer.