4 ms·

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 in

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

>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.