If I had served in the military and this was how I was treated on the way out, I'd probably use my training to do my best to inflict harm on the decision-makers.
Normally, laws have to respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
However, section 33 of said Charter is known as the notwithstanding clause. This lets government pass laws that ignore section 2 (containing such fundamental rights as freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, freedom of association and freedom of assembly) and sections 7 to 15 (containing the right to life, liberty and security of the person, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention, a number of other legal rights and the right to equality).
I've literally never seen it proposed for any legislation which would improve society. It exists because comservatives at the time the Charter was introduced were uncomfortable with the idea they couldn't pass legislation which restricts people's rights.
When invoked, it expires after 5 years but this can be renewed perpetually, as far as I understand.
The equivalent would be downvoting a SA survivor for telling other women to be more aware and not to put themselves in a vulnerable position.
Yeah, that's victim-blaming. I'm not saying caution is a bad thing, of course it isn't. But what this kind of rhetoric does is frame things like the responsibility of the victims. That's why the other commenter got downvoted.
They're getting downvoted because what they're saying is like the vehicular equivalent of asking a victim of sexual assault what they were wearing.
Cyclists (and pedestrians) are vulnerable road users around cars. Of course they should exercise caution! No one's saying they shouldn't! But going around and telling people biking or walking they ought to be careful isn't the solution to the actual issue; that being the dangers of cars.
We need public transit, safe cycling/pedestrian infrastructure, car-free areas, and streets that aren't designed like highways going through our cities. No amount of vigilance by vulnerable road users can surmount the utter state of our car-centric infrastructure and a single moment of distraction from someone driving.
I'm a very experienced urban cyclist. I've used a bicycle as means of transportation ever since I was 8 years old and cycling 5 km to school. I haven't driven a car regularly since I last lived with my parents at 19.
I am super careful and defensive when I ride my bike. I respect the laws that make me safer, and bend those which don't. My head is on a swivel. I generally feel comfortable even riding on busy roads with high speed traffic.
Despite all that, I still get a close call or two every single day I ride my bike. No matter how vigilant you are as a cyclist, it only takes a moment of inattentiveness from a motorist for us to get injured or killed.
I really don't understand calling people one dislikes "cocksuckers". I personally love anyone who sucks cock. They're doing good in this world, unlike Cory Booker.
Some people are definitely 100% gay, and some and definitely 100% straight, but I agree in that I think the majority of people could potentially be attracted to people of all genders.
People who suck cock are much more beneficial to society than fascists and Zionists. The comparison is frankly insulting to all of us who perform fellatio.
I yearn for people to let me just read the goddamn instructions. Give me 5 minutes with the booklet and I'll be good, or you can ramble for 15 minutes trying to explain it and I still won't understand until like 3/4 of the way through the game.
Agreed! Most bike lanes end up being nothing more than a painted bicycle gutter.
What we truly need is dedicated cycle paths adjacent to busy roads, and low-traffic, low-speed streets in commercial or residential areas where cyclists and pedestrians are prioritized over car traffic (see the Dutch city-planning concept of autoluw)
You'd think they'd, I don't know, google the artist before granting the permit? Even outside of fascists, there are plenty of performances I'd feel are probably inappropriate for a public park, even some I'd personally enjoy.
It's wild to me that they'd grant a permit without doing any research into the people performing/organizing.
I read their comment as proposing to aim for potential self-sufficiency. That doesn't necessarily imply isolationism. Developing homegrown options isn't mutually exclusive with global trade.
It can just mean having domestic alternatives to assert our sovereignty in case, say, a fascist movement takes over the government of our largest trading partner with who we share the world's longest border, or something like that. Purely a hypothetical, of course.
If I had served in the military and this was how I was treated on the way out, I'd probably use my training to do my best to inflict harm on the decision-makers.