Write to your MPs and tell them that you stand with the government on constraining the use of the not-withstanding clause. This is one of those of times when the Liberals are doing the right thing, and we need to let them know we endorse it.
Are they trying to make me actually like Carney?
The biggest problem with military manpower isn’t a lack of applicants, it’s the inability to get those applicants processed quickly enough. It can literally take years to complete your application to the military. Most people have found other jobs and often gotten settled in their lives by then.
Speed up the recruitment process and keep up the pay increases and the CAF won’t have any manpower issues.
You’re missing my point. What I’m saying is that even those of us who would prefer an alternative system to PR (I’d opt for Single Transferable Vote if I was the only person being consulted) will still gladly accept other options, such as Prop Rep, if it means getting away from FPTP.
To be clear, I was taking shots at the mealie-mouthed excuses the Liberals used not to move forward with electoral reform.
The fact that proponents of reform have their own preferred systems doesn’t change the fact that vast majority of us will be happy with pretty much anything that gets away from first-past-the-post. The Liberals manufactured a “stalemate” where there was none, because they wanted an excuse to do nothing and say it wasn’t their fault.
“Unfortunately we couldn’t come to an agreement on the best system to replace first past the post, soi guess we’re at an impasse and will just have to do nothing” - The final committee report, probably
Yeah, they could just as easily pivot to “Well, sure, autism was around before that, but it didn’t happen nearly as often.” Kind of like cancer and modern carcinogens. It’s just a foolish line of argument that makes us look stupid.
And it’s completely unnecessary. The evidence that autism is genetic is overwhelming. Anyone who is going to listen to facts already has the facts right there, and anyone else isn’t worth trying to convince.
Also, milk just tastes different depending on the cows, and how they’re raised and fed. Most likely what you’re noticing there is the difference between grass-fed and corn-fed. Cows aren’t naturally adapted to eat corn; they grow better and healthier on grass, which is how they’re raised in the UK. Corn-feeding is a primarily North American practice because corn can be sold at below the cost of production in the US thanks to government subsidies in place since the Great Depression.
Tylenol is a brand name for paracetomol (AKA acetominophen). It was first created in either 1878 or 1852 depending on which claims you believe about its discovery.
The claim that autism was differentiated from schizophrenia in 1911 is unsourced, and seems suspect given that Leo Kanner first described autism in 1943, but even if we accept it as true, it still puts the discovery of autism after the discovery of paracetomol.
RFK Jr is full of crap, and it doesn’t matter when autism was discovered, because it’s genetic and has probably been around as long as humans have, but trying to pull a gotcha like this is just going to make you look stupid.
Copy and pasting from my other reply to this claim:
Please don’t continue to share this “fact.” I know it sounds like a really good gotcha, but it’s not. Tylenol is just a brand name producer of the drug acetominophen, known in most of the rest of the world as paracetomol. It’s been around since at least 1878, and possibly earlier (there are claims it was produced in 1852). Autism was first described by Leo Kanner in 1943. Obviously, anyone sane knows that it’s been around a lot longer than that, probably as long as humans have been humans, but the people you’re trying to reach with this claim are obviously going to assert that it first appeared around the same time that it was first identified, or, at the very least, that it’s appearance likely aligns with the invention of paracetomol.
Please don’t continue to share this “fact.” I know it sounds like a really good gotcha, but it’s not. Tylenol is just a brand name producer of the drug acetominophen, known in most of the rest of the world as paracetomol. It’s been around since at least 1878, and possibly earlier (there are claims it was produced in 1852). Autism was first described by Leo Kanner in 1943. Obviously, anyone sane knows that it’s been around a lot longer than that, probably as long as humans have been humans, but the people you’re trying to reach with this claim are obviously going to assert that it first appeared around the same time that it was first identified, or, at the very least, that it’s appearance likely aligns with the invention of paracetomol.
This is fucking embarrassing.
It’s weird that they keep calling out the Leopard 2A4 (or, correctly, the Leopard 2A4M CAN, but the article doesn’t call it that) when talking about outdated equipment.
Like, yeah, the Leopard 2 is a design from the eighties. So is every modern main battle tank in widespread usage. The Abrams, the Leopard, the Challenger, the LeClerc; they’re all from the eighties and nineties, because the basic frame still works as long as you continually update the equipment. And those updates have been made; the reason why the correct designation is 2A4M CAN is because that denotes the multiple equipment upgrade packages those vehicles have received.
In fact, every Leopard in Canadian service would be designated as a 2A6M CAN (functionally, a 2A7, the differences are very minor) if not for the fact that the 2A4s fail to meet exactly one criteria; they have the wrong gun. This is because the 2A6 Leopard mounts an L55 gun, while the 2A4 mounts the shorter L44. Why do we still have the shorter gun? Because the crews preferred it that. The shorter gun was better for maneuvering in Afghanistan. So they kept the shorter guns knowing they can upgrade to the L55 any time they like. Swapping it out basically takes a day. It’s a very small change.
Does Canada have serious problems with outdated or lacking equipment? Yes, absolutely. But our tanks aren’t exactly a prime example of that. The Leopard 2 continues to be the best battle tank in the world and we have a very well equipped version of one. They could use active protection systems, but those aren’t exactly widespread in any military (at least, not if you want a version that doesn’t vaporize any friendly infantry near the tank) and I’m sure there’s a wishlist of other things tankers would love to have, but all in all what we’ve got is very good.
What really needs attention is our lack of air defense, our outdated helicopters, our lack of attack helicopters, rocket artillery and mobile artillery, the fact that our night vision is on loan from the US, the fact that we’re still using the M72 LAW, the fact that our only ATGM is the TOW, the fact that way too many of our LAVs are in poor repair, or the fact that two thirds of our armour divisions don’t actually have tanks at all and are instead riding around in TAPVs.
I just wish journalists would take the time to talk to people in the military and find out what the real logistics issues are, instead of just going “Hurr durr tank from eighties.” Do you know what the number piece of equipment I hear soldiers complain about is? Wrenches. They literally can’t keep their AFVs running, because they don’t have the budget to replace basic tools that go missing. That’s where the money needs to be spent.
“Match the force” is extremely broad. If someone tries to beat the shit out of you with their bare hands, and you defend yourself with a baseball bat, that’s almost certainly going to be kosher. It doesn’t have to be exact.
Failing to use proportional force has to be really egregious to meet the standard. Something like shooting someone who was twenty paces away from you and armed only with a tire iron (even then you might still have a case). That’s a situation where any reasonable person could have defused the situation by just telling the other guy to fuck off, or get down on their knees with their hands behind their head. And even then, you’d probably still be OK to shoot if, say, they lunged at you (check with a lawyer before putting this advice into practice, obviously).
Basically, if you can make the case that what you did was necessary for your own safety, you’re in the clear.
The other stuff that gets people jacked up is continuing to “fight back” after the threat is over. You hit a guy with a baseball bat, he goes down… Yeah, that’s probably kosher. If you were afraid for your life, well, you did what you had to. But if you then proceed to beat the guy until his skull shatters… Well, what part of that was necessary?
No one has to think through the tests described in the law, because those tests simply exist to define what everyone can already intuitively understand as being reasonable behaviours. You defended yourself? OK. You hunted the guy down and tortured him? Not OK. This isn’t complicated, and it’s not difficult. You just have to exercise a modicum of self-restraint. And the cops look very, very favourably on people who were defending themselves, unless there was clear evidence that they either majorly crossed a line, or they were actively looking for trouble (ie, walking around armed for a fight).
That’s fine. The law allows for that. If someone tries to beat the shit out of you and you defend yourself, you’re in the clear.
Examples where people get charged are things like the guy who saw someone going through his truck and shot him, or the guy who chased after a fleeing burglar, dragged him back into the house and beat him unconscious. Those are both real examples, and in both cases they clearly went beyond self defense.
We don’t know the facts in this particular case, but it’s very likely going to turn out to be some similar set of circumstances.
Unless they can come up with a truly spectacular defence, they will be. There’s very little tolerance for this sort of thing among the forces leadership. I know it’s hard to believe that, but I know a lot of people in the CAF and this kind of shit really is the exception, not the norm. For the most part, the CAF really fucking Hates Nazis.
The company wouldn’t have been relying on government intervention if the Liberals didn’t have such a track record of working against labour rights. If you want fewer strikes and shorter strikes, the government needs to categorically take back to work legislation off the table.
Yes, they do. They’re touting those alternatives because if they offer you a refund or credit and you accept, they no longer have that legal obligation.
The changes would remove the right of farmers to save and reuse seeds and cuttings from protected “fruits, vegetables, ornamental varieties, other plants reproduced through vegetative propagation and hybrids.” For most plants recognized under the law, the protections last for 20 years.
This is an absolutely fucking terrible idea that will severely impact our food security, and increase food prices.
I’m not remotely a fan, but he has done some good things. Recognizing the state of Palestine might not be a game changer, but it’s a good start. The across the board military pay rise was absolutely needed and has done a lot to improve morale and retention in the CAF. The CRA will have automatic tax filing for low-income Canadians from next year onward. We finalised a trade and defence deal with Indonesia, the fifth (I think) most populous country in the world. Most recently, the government has put in a challenge to the supreme court to try to limit the powers of the notwithstanding clause, which if successful could really help to constrain the ways its being abused by people like Ford and Smith (they’re already bitching about this at the top of their lungs, which is all the proof you need that it’s a good thing). Still gonna vote NDP, but I always like to give credit when it’s due.