Mark Carney says he’s protecting Canadian workers. It’s Orwellian doublespeak

8 comments

• group_hug1

  Criticizing Carney about anything is akin to dissing most Canadian's god.

  You are always often met with. "Better than the alternative" I have criticized every prime minister when they have misteps and applauded them when they have done good.

• Rat_in_a_hat11

  What's sad with the amount of downvotes is that the the authors of the article are labour lawyers and are literally counsel to the Canadian Labour Congress.

  Like, I get it, people want to pearl clutch anything negative about Carney, but JFC, it's actual specialists who defend these laws that are saying the whatever bullshit statement about protecting workers is literally propaganda.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Labour_Congress

• radiofreebc-4

  By the lack of comments, it'a obvious that actual people think this story is bullshit.

  • SaveTheTuaHawk5

    The comments at The Star, The Globe, the National Post and CBC are all a handful of the same right wing boomers with lots of time on their hands. The same 12 people.

• Radical_Socialist_t00t5via onguardforthee@lemmy.ca

  Carney's main strength is his double-speak. Fuck capitalism.

• Canajan2via onguardforthee@lemmy.ca

  We need to buy the plant and other key infrastructure companies, letting Americans own them ends up with situations like this.

• melsaskca2via onguardforthee@lemmy.ca

  When shit hits the fan all laws are pushed aside and survival mode is the base action. Ever since factories were invented worker exploitation exponentially flourished. This is a human development, not a national one. Carney is reacting as he should, allowing for the possibilities of change while dealing with the realities of dinosaur capitalism and a crumbling superpower that wants to hurt Canada.

  • Rat_in_a_hat3

    It was used before "survival mode", so the rights are being eroded further. If rights can erode, then they are privileges, not rights.

    in 2024, the government decided to use it for what had always previously required an Act of Parliament: order rail workers, port workers, postal workers and flight attendants back to their jobs and hand their contracts to an arbitrator.

    Your comment also seems to justify the action - but then why does the government disguise it as supporting the right to strike when it clearly doesn't?