We could also make less work for firefighters by collectively performing society-wide mass suicide, but I don't see what that has to do with reasonable restrictions during a time of crisis.
My definition of crisis is when there are multiple out of control forest fires active in my province. I think restricting activity in high-risk areas makes sense, especially when firefighting resources are already used up fighting existing fires elsewhere in the province.
I'm honestly a bit disappointed in the takes I'm seeing here in the comments. People literally repeating stuff reported by Alex Jones as if that's in any way a trustworthy source.
I love the woods, that's why I'm more than happy to avoid them during an ongoing crisis. Let the firefighters save the forests and not accidentally give them more work, y'know?
As highlighted in Gilmore's video, it's 100% the same energy as the reaction the right had to masking mandates.
People who are the problem and starting fires will ignore the ban while responsible people who want to enjoy nature or walk home through the park are the ones punished.
With this logic, we might as well stop having laws. Criminals always ignore them anyway.
Seriously, half the fucking country lives in the Québec City - Windsor corridor and we don't even have a high speed train there?? It's a political issue, not a geographical one.
This reminds me of my local "$CITY's Worst Drivers" Facebook group, where every single post has a bunch of racist comments saying that every bad driver is an immigrant.
As someone who almost gets killed by drivers on a weekly basis (yay commuting by bicycle in North America!) I confirm everyone sucks at driving. All genders, races, ages. It's almost as if cars are an inherently dangerous and shitty means of transportation.
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.
We could also make less work for firefighters by collectively performing society-wide mass suicide, but I don't see what that has to do with reasonable restrictions during a time of crisis.