Maybe if the mandatory service were installing fiber to rural areas the way we managed to get copper out there or dealing with infrastructure (especially water and schools) in Indigenous and remote communities. Maybe health care or emergency response.

But guns and bombs? No thanks.

Also, I'm old enough to be exempt by any rational measure. If it came to a vote, my vote shouldn't be counted.

An interesting contrast here. Air Canada is forced to honour an erroneous committment made by its service department. Government of Canada is not forced to honour a committment made by its service department.

I could understand it if the error was discovered and acted upon in a reasonable time, but over 30 years? That's just not acceptable.

Which economy? The lived economy of the general public or the artificial economy of finance?

Sure, let's ban everything we don't understand and every tool that can be used to break into something. Next we'll be banning rocks because they break windows and crowbars because they can be used to jimmy locks.

This cannot work safely in the current legal and regulatory environment.

In principle, there seem to be ways to securely, anonymously, and privately handle age verification. To the best of my knowledge, no such system has been deployed or mandated.

Thus, we are left with only the requirement to hand over critical documents to those who have no "standards of care" that make it safe to do so.

Have none of these people ever heard of any company or government agency losing control of personal information? How about they put some effort into fixing that first.

My biggest problem with this whole thing is the legal framing of his actions.

If the bus had instead been a car with a single, middle-aged occupant, I think everything would have gone quite a bit differently.

If that single occupant had not been killed, but made a full recovery, it definitely would have gone a lot differently.

If it had been merely a cop observing the infraction, he would have escaped with just a ticket. At worst, I suppose he might have got a temporary license suspension.

I have difficulty accepting that the identical behaviour should have such radically different punishments just because pure chance leads to radically different outcomes.

Note that I'm not saying that someone who kills someone else should be getting off scott free, regardless of the behaviour that led to the death. But maybe there is room to increase the penalties when dangerous behaviours have little or no consequence as well as room to move on how we handle behaviours that rarely have devastating consequences. Let's face it, the vast majority of those who even deliberately blow through rural stop signs will never even get a ticket, let alone kill someone.

Personally, I don't see this person as a threat to our society, so I see no reason to deport him.

How about instead of being "not trained to do" neck kneelings, they be trained not to do neck kneelings.

The rest of us have to perform our jobs with competence, why not the police?

The rest of us have to follow the law, why not the police?

Let each ~~person~~ business rise and fall according the merits of their work and quality of their duties. No ~~person~~ business is entitled to anything. Even respect has to be earned.

So now that police have a clear connection between the original threats and the people who made those threats via the presumably real identity of the person who made the freedom of information request. This means that the investigation into the original complaint can move forward quite easily, right? Right?

Also, since when is it reasonable to keep secret the identity of those making successful freedom of information requests.

I can't speak to the general problem, but I can tell you why I left construction and manual labour more generally.

A lot of the work is still as damaging to the body as it was in 1930.

Toxic coworkers enabled and even encouraged by psychopathic supervisors.

Safety is not only not built in to procedures, but actively mocked and even deliberately worked around, even when doing so slows things down.

And all that for less than double minimum wage for experienced workers when it used to be easily triple minimum wage to start.

What about my parental right to have compulsory schooling actually teach about the real world as it exists and help me prepare my child for life in that world?

What about my parental right to expect that the institutions and employees charged with providing that compulsory schooling ensure that my child is treated with respect for who they are and protected from those who would do otherwise?

If we're going to talk about parental rights as though children have none, then let's put it all on the table.