In 1834 a new Poor Law was introduced. Some people(^(Young Turkeys)) welcomed it because they believed it would:
- reduce the cost of looking after the poor
- take beggars off the streets
- encourage poor people to work hard to support themselves
The new Poor Law ensured that the poor were housed in workhouses(private prisons), clothed and fed. Children who entered the workhouse would receive some schooling. In return for this care, all workhouse paupers would have to work for several hours each day.
However, not all Victorians shared this point of view. Some people, such as Richard Oastler, spoke out against the new Poor Law, calling the workhouses ‘Prisons for the Poor’. The poor themselves hated and feared the threat of the workhouse so much that there were riots in northern towns.
- $1000 fine for being poor!
Background
Before 1834, the cost of looking after the poor was growing more expensive every year. This cost was paid for by the middle and upper classes in each town through their local taxes. There was a real suspicion amongst the middle and upper classes that they were paying the poor to be lazy and avoid work.
After years of complaint, a new Poor Law was introduced in 1834. The new Poor Law was meant to reduce the cost of looking after the poor and impose a system which would be the same all over the country.
Under the new Poor Law, parishes were grouped into unions and each union had to build a workhouse if they did not already have one. Except in special circumstances, poor people could now only get help if they were prepared to leave their homes and go into a workhouse.
Conditions inside the workhouse were deliberately harsh, so that only those who desperately needed help would ask for it. Families were split up and housed in different parts of the workhouse. The poor were made to wear a uniform and the diet was monotonous. There were also strict rules and regulations to follow. Inmates, male and female, young and old were made to work hard, often doing unpleasant jobs such as picking oakum or breaking stones. Children could also find themselves hired out to work in factories or mines.
Shortly after the new Poor Law was introduced, a number of scandals hit the headlines. The most famous was Andover Workhouse, where it was reported that half-starved inmates were found eating the rotting flesh from bones. In response to these scandals the government introduced stricter rules for those who ran the workhouses and they also set u
... keep reading on reddit ➡I had a thought while sitting around. With the passing of The STOP FGM ACT of 2020 which has been included into 18 U.S. Code § 116 - Female genital mutilation and with the existence of Equal Rights Amendments in various states, can someone who has gone through MGM as an infant without consent potentially challenge that their state constitutional rights for equal protection of the laws based on sex have been violated?
For example In New Mexico, that "...nor shall any person be denied equal protection of the laws. Equality of rights under law shall not be denied on account of the sex of any person." or in Montana where "The dignity of the human being is inviolable. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws..."
Basically can someone who underwent MGM as an infant without their consent challenge that they are having their state constitutional rights being violated? That if FGM is to be criminalized under Code § 116 Federally, then the States Equal Rights Amendment is being violated?
Example:
-
I'm born Montana where there is equal protection of the law regardless of sex in the State Constitution.
-
I went through MGM at birth
-
The stop FGM Act federally criminalizes those who give consent to or practice it on a female under 18
-
Because of Montana's ERA and the Federal Anti-FGM law enacted, is Montana's ERA violated in regards to the STOP FGM ACT? Does the The State's Constitution come into conflict with the Federal law? Federal Law is supreme to State Law. Then what is the relation regarding the State's ERA and Nationwide Laws that are only for one sex?
Unfortunately I believe the main issue in this is that the government recognized Female Genital Mutilation as "Mutilation" as it should be of course, but sees MGM as "Circumcision". Because there is no mention of the word "Circumcision" in the actual statue, except for the laws summary, I believe that there is no basis unfortunately.
There is also the idea that, with states that have passed their own Anti-FGM laws, as well as Equal Right's Ammendments, this same argument can be made. In [Wyoming which has an extensive Equal Right's Ammendment in their Constitution, Articl
... keep reading on reddit ➡
B1251 - International Law Compliance Act
Change bill title to:
British Overseas Territory (Cession Conditions) (Restoration of Royal Prerogative) Bill 2021
and relevant change in s 2(1).
the original bill title is meaningless and doesn't describe the changes
This amendment is brought forward by the Countess of Loppington OM CT CB CVO MBE MP PC
Voting on this amendment closes at 10pm on 9 September, 2021
Legislation establishing a Second Amendment Preservation Act (SAPA) will be signed into law Saturday afternoon by Missouri’s governor, in the Kansas City suburb of Lee’s Summit. Governor Mike Parson (R) will sign SAPA Saturday at 2 at Frontier Justice.
