Certainly not initially, DCF backed them up. Maybe eventually? I'd ask but the friend passed away a number of years ago. This happened just pre-internet enough that it's not well documented online.
> The main point is, if everyone just rolls over, these abuses and terrible bureaucrats will not be uncovered.
That's true but it doesn't mean that standing up works out for the betterment of you and your family.
Not everyone has the freedom to make a martyr of themselves. I'm grateful for those who do.
> Also, there's a big difference in how you invoke those rights. If you get aggressive, that can be a problem.
More precisely, if you're perceived as being aggressive it's a problem. The distinction is important because we have less control over how we're perceived than how we act-- particularly because an important characteristic (perhaps even defining) of abusive bureaucrats is perceiving anything short of complete submission as an attack.
"Not everyone has the freedom to make a martyr of themselves."
True, but without knowledge that saying no is an option, those people effectively don't have a choice, and you end up with few people volunteering to stand up.
"More precisely, if you're perceived as being aggressive it's a problem."
Also true, but with today's technology it's fairly easy to document the interaction. If the official's account is a lie, then you've got them. If it's not an outright lie, you have a record for an object 3rd party to rule on (although there are plenty of bad judges too).
Certainly not initially, DCF backed them up. Maybe eventually? I'd ask but the friend passed away a number of years ago. This happened just pre-internet enough that it's not well documented online.
> The main point is, if everyone just rolls over, these abuses and terrible bureaucrats will not be uncovered.
That's true but it doesn't mean that standing up works out for the betterment of you and your family.
Not everyone has the freedom to make a martyr of themselves. I'm grateful for those who do.
> Also, there's a big difference in how you invoke those rights. If you get aggressive, that can be a problem.
More precisely, if you're perceived as being aggressive it's a problem. The distinction is important because we have less control over how we're perceived than how we act-- particularly because an important characteristic (perhaps even defining) of abusive bureaucrats is perceiving anything short of complete submission as an attack.