4 ms·

Never heard of it before, but just googled it and it looks like it introduced a new exemption for children to work for their families: https://thediplomat.com/2

Never heard of it before, but just googled it and it looks like it introduced a new exemption for children to work for their families: https://thediplomat.com/2016/08/indias-new-child-labor-law-billed-to-fail/ https://thediplomat.com/2016/08/indias-new-child-labor-law-b...

alex_smart 5y ago
Yes, I just told you that everybody was lying about the bill.
- random314 5y ago
  No. The article goes against what you have been claiming. How did your programmer brain not see the flaws satyarthi is pointing out? Why such shoddy/research or comments on your part?
  - alex_smart 5y ago
    >The article goes against what you have been claiming. Not really, that article is an example of people spreading the lies. Perhaps it was not clear to you, but my claim in the previous comment was that a, pretty much all liberal voices were saying that bill would weaken the existing child labour laws and b, that all of them were lying. So the fact that you can find many such articles saying those things is not really inconsistent with my claim. >How did your programmer brain not see the flaws satyarthi is pointing out? Because they did not exist. Like I said, I read the bill and the law that the bill seeked to amend and found that there was not a single instance or way in which the bill would weaken the child labour law. In fact, in was very significantly strengthening the child labour law. Look, I know for you it is just one random person speaking on the internet vs hundreds of sources and people that you inherently trust. So, I can understand if your instinct is to not believe what I say and in that case you are welcome to just ignore me and move on. But if you actually want to get to the bottom of this, then please do read the bill (now act) and the original law, and you will find that I am right. All you would need to prove me wrong will be a single example, however hypothetical or far-fetched, of a situation in which it was earlier forbidden for a child to work that would have been allowed under the new bill.
    - random314 5y ago
      You are simply placing an absurd requirement on the reader. The article is pretty clear. New exemptions are being added to the law. Is this true or false?
      - alex_smart 5y ago
        False. Also, I figured out why your username seemed familiar and I do not want to discuss anything with you. Not this. Not anything else. Ever. I hope you will respect my choice. Have a good day. There is already another person who I am discussing this with, and we are already much along into the discussion that we ever got here. So you can follow that thread to understand more. >You are simply placing an absurd requirement on the reader I admitted so much in the previous comment, no? Ignore and move on.
      - native_samples 5y ago
        He is not imposing any requirements on the reader, just reporting his own experience and indicating how his claims can be double checked, should you so wish. A claim of "lots of liberal media are lying about an Indian law" cannot be refuted by citing that same media, and making him say it repeatedly doesn't seem likely to yield any further insight.
        random314 5y ago
        He could just quote or reference the particular part of the bill/law in question instead of asking the reader to read the entire thing. He also does not respond to simple yes/no questions. Does the law relax the restrictions on child labour for family businesses- yes/no? Several paragraphs about programmer brain, but no answer to simple yes/no questions. How absurd is it that several dozen media articles cant be trusted, but an hn comment about programmer brain debugging the law, with no citations, must be trusted.
- kevinwang 5y ago
  I see. I did some additional googling and I think you're basically right: the family exemption was already in the original bill, and it was merely kept, not introduced, in the amendment. Row 5 in this quite thorough article [0] shows the similarity/difference. So I'd wager the reason there was backlash against the bill was that it did not close the exemption, not (as mentioned in the article I posted originally) that it introduced the exemption. [0]: https://www.right-to-education.org/es/node/850 https://www.right-to-education.org/es/node/850
  - alex_smart 5y ago
    >and it was merely kept It was not merely kept, the scope of the sort of work allowed under that exemption was also reduced to non-hazardous work and that too was only allowed after school hours or during vacations. >So I'd wager the reason there was backlash against the bill was that it did not close the exemption I pretty much said the same thing in my original comment. >>The only explanation I could think of is that perhaps the law didn't go as far enough or didn't include certain amendments as they wanted and this was their way of pressurizing the government to listen to them. But that still left a bad taste in my mouth. Perhaps this is something my brain, trained to value truth above everything else, isn't quite mature enough to understand. >this quite thorough article [0] shows the similarity/difference This article is definitely more thorough than most others I have read, and at least quotes you relevant passages from the laws and points out all the different ways in which the bill was an improvement. But in the end, even this article ultimately concludes by calling the bill "one step forward and two steps back", which is a lie. The introduction teases you with "Thirdly, the legislation actually reduces the scope and applicability of some of the earlier provisions on prohibition of child labour" but that claim is never substantiated within the article.
  - thaumasiotes 5y ago
    > this quite thorough article [0] Tangential, but I'm fascinated by the name of the mentioned "Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act" of 2009. You don't often hear about your right to be compelled to do something.

alex_smart 5y ago

Yes, I just told you that everybody was lying about the bill.

random314 5y ago
No. The article goes against what you have been claiming. How did your programmer brain not see the flaws satyarthi is pointing out? Why such shoddy/research or comments on your part?
- alex_smart 5y ago
  >The article goes against what you have been claiming. Not really, that article is an example of people spreading the lies. Perhaps it was not clear to you, but my claim in the previous comment was that a, pretty much all liberal voices were saying that bill would weaken the existing child labour laws and b, that all of them were lying. So the fact that you can find many such articles saying those things is not really inconsistent with my claim. >How did your programmer brain not see the flaws satyarthi is pointing out? Because they did not exist. Like I said, I read the bill and the law that the bill seeked to amend and found that there was not a single instance or way in which the bill would weaken the child labour law. In fact, in was very significantly strengthening the child labour law. Look, I know for you it is just one random person speaking on the internet vs hundreds of sources and people that you inherently trust. So, I can understand if your instinct is to not believe what I say and in that case you are welcome to just ignore me and move on. But if you actually want to get to the bottom of this, then please do read the bill (now act) and the original law, and you will find that I am right. All you would need to prove me wrong will be a single example, however hypothetical or far-fetched, of a situation in which it was earlier forbidden for a child to work that would have been allowed under the new bill.
  - random314 5y ago
    You are simply placing an absurd requirement on the reader. The article is pretty clear. New exemptions are being added to the law. Is this true or false?
    - alex_smart 5y ago
      False. Also, I figured out why your username seemed familiar and I do not want to discuss anything with you. Not this. Not anything else. Ever. I hope you will respect my choice. Have a good day. There is already another person who I am discussing this with, and we are already much along into the discussion that we ever got here. So you can follow that thread to understand more. >You are simply placing an absurd requirement on the reader I admitted so much in the previous comment, no? Ignore and move on.
    - native_samples 5y ago
      He is not imposing any requirements on the reader, just reporting his own experience and indicating how his claims can be double checked, should you so wish. A claim of "lots of liberal media are lying about an Indian law" cannot be refuted by citing that same media, and making him say it repeatedly doesn't seem likely to yield any further insight.
      - random314 5y ago
        He could just quote or reference the particular part of the bill/law in question instead of asking the reader to read the entire thing. He also does not respond to simple yes/no questions. Does the law relax the restrictions on child labour for family businesses- yes/no? Several paragraphs about programmer brain, but no answer to simple yes/no questions. How absurd is it that several dozen media articles cant be trusted, but an hn comment about programmer brain debugging the law, with no citations, must be trusted.
kevinwang 5y ago
I see. I did some additional googling and I think you're basically right: the family exemption was already in the original bill, and it was merely kept, not introduced, in the amendment. Row 5 in this quite thorough article [0] shows the similarity/difference. So I'd wager the reason there was backlash against the bill was that it did not close the exemption, not (as mentioned in the article I posted originally) that it introduced the exemption. [0]: https://www.right-to-education.org/es/node/850 https://www.right-to-education.org/es/node/850
- alex_smart 5y ago
  >and it was merely kept It was not merely kept, the scope of the sort of work allowed under that exemption was also reduced to non-hazardous work and that too was only allowed after school hours or during vacations. >So I'd wager the reason there was backlash against the bill was that it did not close the exemption I pretty much said the same thing in my original comment. >>The only explanation I could think of is that perhaps the law didn't go as far enough or didn't include certain amendments as they wanted and this was their way of pressurizing the government to listen to them. But that still left a bad taste in my mouth. Perhaps this is something my brain, trained to value truth above everything else, isn't quite mature enough to understand. >this quite thorough article [0] shows the similarity/difference This article is definitely more thorough than most others I have read, and at least quotes you relevant passages from the laws and points out all the different ways in which the bill was an improvement. But in the end, even this article ultimately concludes by calling the bill "one step forward and two steps back", which is a lie. The introduction teases you with "Thirdly, the legislation actually reduces the scope and applicability of some of the earlier provisions on prohibition of child labour" but that claim is never substantiated within the article.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  > this quite thorough article [0] Tangential, but I'm fascinated by the name of the mentioned "Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act" of 2009. You don't often hear about your right to be compelled to do something.