At best, they're making it sound more ominous than it really is. If you are looking for contractors to build quarantine facilities for international travellers, you could reasonably argue that the "for international travellers" part is not mentioned because it's not relevant to the terms of the contract. But you should be able to make that argument if a member of parliament raises concerns about it.
It's like the pronoun-law where they were asked if that wouldn't be abused and if there shouldn't be a clause that this can't be used to coerce someone to use pronouns. They said that wouldn't happen and the clause isn't needed. Of course it fucking happened and there was no recourse.
There's a reason why laws should be as exact and precise as possible. Because every loophole or ambiguity can and will be abused as hard as a gay boy in Teheran
Yeah, I'm willing to concede that maybe the guy posing the question is overreacting. So maybe it is just more ominous than it sounds.
The fact that the followup though gets cut off mid-question with no answer, though, makes me really wonder if something more sinister is going on. If for no other reason than:
If it is just for quarantine (even though that's still massive govt overreach), just do what he says and reassure everyone its only for quarantine
Recent history shows that ever time the "establishment" for lack of a better word says "shut up and stop asking questions" they are just trying to hide the thing you're asking about.
At best, they're making it sound more ominous than it really is. If you are looking for contractors to build quarantine facilities for international travellers, you could reasonably argue that the "for international travellers" part is not mentioned because it's not relevant to the terms of the contract. But you should be able to make that argument if a member of parliament raises concerns about it.
It's like the pronoun-law where they were asked if that wouldn't be abused and if there shouldn't be a clause that this can't be used to coerce someone to use pronouns. They said that wouldn't happen and the clause isn't needed. Of course it fucking happened and there was no recourse.
There's a reason why laws should be as exact and precise as possible. Because every loophole or ambiguity can and will be abused as hard as a gay boy in Teheran
Yeah, I'm willing to concede that maybe the guy posing the question is overreacting. So maybe it is just more ominous than it sounds.
The fact that the followup though gets cut off mid-question with no answer, though, makes me really wonder if something more sinister is going on. If for no other reason than:
If it is just for quarantine (even though that's still massive govt overreach), just do what he says and reassure everyone its only for quarantine
Recent history shows that ever time the "establishment" for lack of a better word says "shut up and stop asking questions" they are just trying to hide the thing you're asking about.