Yeah the price drop has been great for those of us that drive cars that need Premium.
Honestly, back when I used to drive to work, I found little difference between filling my car with Regular or Super, at least cost-wise. Regardless of my fuel type, my weekly fill-up cost amounted to the same, I presume because I was getting more mileage out of less higher-octane gas. Might depend on your vehicle and how you drive though....
In a nutshell, a Jewish man born and raised in Québec in an ultra-conservative Hasidic community was sent to a clandestine Hasidic school where he learned Torah and exclusively Torah. He only learned to read and write after he became an adult. He has now severed ties with said community to prevent the children he has from an arranged marriage from going to that school as well, but he found that he has no employable skills as a result of having never gone to a real school. He is suing the Québec Ministry of Education for $1.2M on account of the fact they knew of that clandestine school and of the kids not getting an education, but did nothing to stop it.
The school he went to and others like it still operate illegally but quite openly in Québec. The new Couillard government promised to take action on them, but six months into their mandate the only action has been a "deal" with one school asking them to please maybe think about giving the kids a really education. The education minister blames the lack of a legal framework for his inaction, even though Québec laws make it very illegal to deprive a child of education and even to be aware of a child being deprived of an education and not reporting it. And even if the laws were the problem, one can't help but wonder if there's any way the Minister of Education in a majority government might take action to change education laws...
So yeah, the Québec government has to shoulder some of the blame here.
On the other hand, I'm a bit upset the Jewish man is excluding from this lawsuit his parents, who chose to send him to this school, the school and teachers who harmed him, and the Hasidic community that created and support this school and this environment of extreme religious ignorance and isolation in the heart of one of the most liberal and secular provinces in North America.
In a nutshell, a Jewish man born and raised in Québec in an ultra-conservative Hasidic community was sent to a clandestine Hasidic school where he learned Torah and exclusively Torah. He only learned to read and write after he became an adult. He has now severed ties with said community to prevent the children he has from an arranged marriage from going to that school as well, but he found that he has no employable skills as a result of having never gone to a real school. He is suing the Québec Ministry of Education for $1.2M on account of the fact they knew of that clandestine school and of the kids not getting an education, but did nothing to stop it.
The school he went to and others like it still operate illegally but quite openly in Québec. The new Couillard government promised to take action on them, but six months into their mandate the only action has been a "deal" with one school asking them to please maybe think about giving the kids a really education. The education minister blames the lack of a legal framework for his inaction, even though Québec laws make it very illegal to deprive a child of education and even to be aware of a child being deprived of an education and not reporting it. And even if the laws were the problem, one can't help but wonder if there's any way the Minister of Education in a majority government might take action to change education laws...
So yeah, the Québec government has to shoulder some of the blame here.
On the other hand, I'm a bit upset the Jewish man is excluding from this lawsuit his parents, who chose to send him to this school, the school and teachers who harmed him, and the Hasidic community that created and support this school and this environment of extreme religious ignorance and isolation in the heart of one of the most liberal and secular provinces in North America.
It comes off as nothing but bullcrap because of that. He's suing the Quebec government cause he thinks he can get some sweet money to live off of.
I vaguely recall something about parents not being sue-able by their children, but I dunno what jurisdiction that was, or just something I saw on the teevee.
In a nutshell, a Jewish man born and raised in Québec in an ultra-conservative Hasidic community was sent to a clandestine Hasidic school where he learned Torah and exclusively Torah. He only learned to read and write after he became an adult. He has now severed ties with said community to prevent the children he has from an arranged marriage from going to that school as well, but he found that he has no employable skills as a result of having never gone to a real school. He is suing the Québec Ministry of Education for $1.2M on account of the fact they knew of that clandestine school and of the kids not getting an education, but did nothing to stop it.
The school he went to and others like it still operate illegally but quite openly in Québec. The new Couillard government promised to take action on them, but six months into their mandate the only action has been a "deal" with one school asking them to please maybe think about giving the kids a really education. The education minister blames the lack of a legal framework for his inaction, even though Québec laws make it very illegal to deprive a child of education and even to be aware of a child being deprived of an education and not reporting it. And even if the laws were the problem, one can't help but wonder if there's any way the Minister of Education in a majority government might take action to change education laws...
So yeah, the Québec government has to shoulder some of the blame here.
On the other hand, I'm a bit upset the Jewish man is excluding from this lawsuit his parents, who chose to send him to this school, the school and teachers who harmed him, and the Hasidic community that created and support this school and this environment of extreme religious ignorance and isolation in the heart of one of the most liberal and secular provinces in North America.
Well, I guess the question is, should victims of crimes be able to sue the government for not preventing said crime from taking place?
Does violating the education law qualify as child abuse? Could his parents face charges? What about the school's faculty? How does this law work, anyway?
+1
Options
Sir FabulousMalevolent Squid GodRegistered Userregular
In a nutshell, a Jewish man born and raised in Québec in an ultra-conservative Hasidic community was sent to a clandestine Hasidic school where he learned Torah and exclusively Torah. He only learned to read and write after he became an adult. He has now severed ties with said community to prevent the children he has from an arranged marriage from going to that school as well, but he found that he has no employable skills as a result of having never gone to a real school. He is suing the Québec Ministry of Education for $1.2M on account of the fact they knew of that clandestine school and of the kids not getting an education, but did nothing to stop it.
The school he went to and others like it still operate illegally but quite openly in Québec. The new Couillard government promised to take action on them, but six months into their mandate the only action has been a "deal" with one school asking them to please maybe think about giving the kids a really education. The education minister blames the lack of a legal framework for his inaction, even though Québec laws make it very illegal to deprive a child of education and even to be aware of a child being deprived of an education and not reporting it. And even if the laws were the problem, one can't help but wonder if there's any way the Minister of Education in a majority government might take action to change education laws...
So yeah, the Québec government has to shoulder some of the blame here.
On the other hand, I'm a bit upset the Jewish man is excluding from this lawsuit his parents, who chose to send him to this school, the school and teachers who harmed him, and the Hasidic community that created and support this school and this environment of extreme religious ignorance and isolation in the heart of one of the most liberal and secular provinces in North America.
Well, I guess the question is, should victims of crimes be able to sue the government for not preventing said crime from taking place?
Does violating the education law qualify as child abuse? Could his parents face charges? What about the school's faculty? How does this law work, anyway?
I am not a lawyer, so take all of this with a grain of salt, but I know several lawyers and have a passing interest in law, so I looked up some of the legislation.
Section 14 of the Quebec Education Act states that a child must attend school until either reaching 16 years of age or receiving a diploma.
The four exceptions to this are:
1) If the child requires medical attention that prevents the child from going to school (Must be excused by the school board)
2) If the child has a physical or mental handicap that prevents the chid from attending school (Must be excused by the school board)
3) If the child is expelled from the school board
4) If the child is being homeschooled (The child must be evaluated by the school board to be receiving education equivalent to that being provided at school)
Section 36 of the same act defines a school as "an educational institution whose object is to provide [students] the educational services provided by this Act and prescribed by the basic school regulation established by the Government [. . .] and to contribute to the social and cultural development of the community"
Alright, so let's look at Basic school regulation for preschool, elementary and secondary education, Section 447 of the Quebec Education Act.
In that document, there are clear laws dictating the amount of time that must be dedicated to education in each subject. This is all found under DIVISION VI: SUBJECT-TIME ALLOCATIONS, which clearly states that subjects such as Mathematics and Science are compulsory.
If the "school" that this man attended did not provide education in these subjects, they are not (as far as my understanding goes) legally allowed to operate as a school.
Section 17 of the Quebec Education Act states that "Parents must take the necessary measures to ensure that their child attends school as required."
In addition, Section 2.2 of the Quebec Youth Protection Act states "The primary responsibility for the care, maintenance and education of a child and for ensuring his supervision rests with his parents."
Under Section 38 of the Quebec Youth Protection Act, the parents participated in abandonment and/or neglect of their child.
In this case, clearly the parents are breaking the law, although I don't know specifically what the consequences would be.
As for what happens to the faculty of the school, I'm too tired to try to figure that out. Maybe later. Or maybe someone else will say something.
Yeah, in order for this guy to win his case against the province of Quebec, he will have to prove that they knowingly allowed the school to operate in violation of the law. Otherwise any liability should fall on the school itself.
MWO: Adamski
0
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
Yeah, in order for this guy to win his case against the province of Quebec, he will have to prove that they knowingly allowed the school to operate in violation of the law. Otherwise any liability should fall on the school itself.
Might not be that hard.
How good are you Canadians at keeping paper hardcopies of everything?
So apparently former Ontario cabinet minister Laurel Broten was contracted by the Nova Scotia government to do a financial analysis.
She released a tax revision plan that is raising a few eyebrows.
Among other things, she suggested eliminating the highest income tax bracket (which starts at $150,000) and reducing corporate taxes. This will apparently be balanced by raising small business taxes, and removing the HST exemption on things like, and I quote, "books, children's clothing, shoes, diapers, feminine hygiene products, residential energy". The report also suggests getting rid of certain tax credits, such as the volunteer credit (regarding volunteer firefighters and search & rescue workers), the healthy living tax credit, and credits for seniors.
Basically, we're apparently going to solve our financial issues by shifting a chunk of our tax burden to low income earners. Even the leader of the Progressive Conservatives here has voiced disapproval of the plan (even if he's just politically motivated, a Conservative leader panning a tax cut for the well-off is refreshing). I actually know a few people who would be effected by the high income tax cut, and they all think it's a terrible idea.
Nova Scotia certainly needs to do something, but this plan just seems like it would make things worse.
Laurel Broten... Laurel Broten... OH, the lady who flubbed the labour dispute with Ontario teachers so much that she had to quit! When I think of people to ask for advice, surely she's at the top of the list. :-p
Want to find me on a gaming service? I'm SwashbucklerXX everywhere.
The Harper government passed up conducting its own internal analysis on the job-creation potential of its $550-million small-business job credit, relying instead on numbers produced by an interest group, the finance minister revealed Wednesday.
Joe Oliver told the parliamentary finance committee that Ottawa's decision to introduce the measure was based on the research of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.
"The department does not analyze every measure that we introduce," Oliver told the hearing as he responded to a question.
the bolding is mine.
So basically he just admitted that his department isn't doing his job. Like it's totally okay to take an interest groups word for it, they don't have anything to gain by fudging numbers. Let's just give business a $550 million tax cut and it will magically will create 25,000 jobs. To be fair it might, but the PBO says it will create about 800 jobs and I'll take their word over a lobby group any day of the week.
In this case, clearly the parents are breaking the law, although I don't know specifically what the consequences would be.
As for what happens to the faculty of the school, I'm too tired to try to figure that out. Maybe later. Or maybe someone else will say something.
It's worth noting that a general rule of litigation is you bring your action where the money is. It's probably not going to be financially worth it to bring an action against his parents. If the school's illegal, it's also unlikely to be insured. Really the only defendant he could bring a claim against that might be able to pay out a judgement is the province. It's worth noting that I'm an Ontario Lawyer and the Quebec rule of law is significantly different (civil vs common law) and so it's pretty foreign to me. So take anything I say on it with a grain of salt.
Last february, a police officer in Quebec was travelling 122km/h in a 50km/h zone, went through an intersection and slammed into a car which a father was driving his kids to school in.
The family was told that the officer was not responding to an emergency.
The family was told that the officer would be facing no legal charges for the incident because he was "involved in a police surveillance operation aimed at Robert Parent, the former director of the Quebec Liberal Party.", and "the police officers reportedly accelerated to catch up with the car that was tailing Parent’s Mercedes". Which you know, makes vehicular manslaughter a-okay.
Why do police (and justice system at large) have such a hard time gaining public support? No-one will ever know..
So Laurel Broten wrote a big editorial in the Halifax Chronicle Herald today, basically strawmanning every person who disagreed with her tax assessment. Apparently everyone is just 'afraid of change', and she's not afraid to suggest making the hard choices blah blah blah. You know, it couldn't possibly be that people think her specific suggestions are terrible (which, they are).
She keeps going on about 'tax relief for Nova Scotian tax payers', leaving out that her income tax reduction is just for the highest tax bracket. Also, apparently removing a bunch of tax credits and HST exemptions on things like diapers, children's clothing, and womens' health items will somehow give tax relief to low income earners. I just... what?
At one point, she literally suggests that shifting more tax burden to sales tax from income tax is okay because higher earners spend more, so they'll pay more. Which kind of ignores that low income earners typically spend a higher percentage of their income, which is one of the main reasons we have sales tax exemptions on certain items in the first place.
Most Nova Scotians are well aware that some big changes need to happen, and it's honestly a bit insulting for her to come in and suggest otherwise just because her ideas happen to be terrible. Her logic at this point almost seems to be "Sure, this all sounds terrible, but that's how you know it's the right thing to do".
The most frustrating thing is that our empty suit of a premier is almost definitely going to go along with most of these suggestions.
Last february, a police officer in Quebec was travelling 122km/h in a 50km/h zone, went through an intersection and slammed into a car which a father was driving his kids to school in.
The family was told that the officer was not responding to an emergency.
The family was told that the officer would be facing no legal charges for the incident because he was "involved in a police surveillance operation aimed at Robert Parent, the former director of the Quebec Liberal Party.", and "the police officers reportedly accelerated to catch up with the car that was tailing Parent’s Mercedes". Which you know, makes vehicular manslaughter a-okay.
Why do police (and justice system at large) have such a hard time gaining public support? No-one will ever know..
So, good news! The investigation into this crime has been reopened. Hopefully this time they will actually take it seriously and investigate what happened, instead of trying to shut it down quietly and hoping no one notices.
Sona got 9 months jail time, plus 12 months probation for his role in the Guelph robocalls incident.
Young person volunteering on a political campaign follows the instructions of the campaign manager and ends up in jail while the campaign manager doesn't even face charges.
Meanwhile, a former federal Liberal MP (Joe Fontana) steals money from the government to fund his son's wedding and gets sentenced to 4 months of house arrest.
Good to know that as long as you're in high places the law will be kind.
It says that he withdrew the lawsuit, but the CBC rep said that it was dismissed.
If it was dismissed, then it's unlikely that he's getting anything.
But if he withdrew it, then I'm guessing that he was granted something to do so.
It says that he withdrew the lawsuit, but the CBC rep said that it was dismissed.
If it was dismissed, then it's unlikely that he's getting anything.
But if he withdrew it, then I'm guessing that he was granted something to do so.
Wonder what happened.
What I'm reading is that it is being withdrawn after a deal was reached, and that as part of this deal Gomeshi has to pay CBC's legal fees of 18000$. So I'm getting the feeling he won't get much in this deal.
A sexual assault is any form of unwanted sexual contact. It includes, but is not limited to, kissing, grabbing, oral sex and penetration.
Oh awesome, can we start arresting all those youtube PUAs who sexually grab women on the street and think it's funny and post it online to get praise from the MRA community? Their youtube accounts can be evidence in their trials.
I'm curious, because i have no idea how it actually works, but how do you prove things in a "he said, she said "scenario? Some of these accusations are pretty old and have no witnesses.
PSN: Canadian_llama
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
I'm curious, because i have no idea how it actually works, but how do you prove things in a "he said, she said "scenario? Some of these accusations are pretty old and have no witnesses.
That's why so many rapes aren't reported, and why many of the ones that are end up going no where. It is incredibly hard to prosecute.
Posts
I never finish anyth
Man, and I thought $1.15 here in Toronto was good... but I'm pretty sure you guys pay a lot less gas tax than we do.
That's cause it's made of people. And the supply of that is constant.
Honestly, back when I used to drive to work, I found little difference between filling my car with Regular or Super, at least cost-wise. Regardless of my fuel type, my weekly fill-up cost amounted to the same, I presume because I was getting more mileage out of less higher-octane gas. Might depend on your vehicle and how you drive though....
I never finish anyth
Having owned a similar car.... It's not optional.
i think actually for cars with lower compression ratios it is bad to use premium.
I don't think it's ever bad for your car to use premium, but for cars with engines built for regular, there is no benefit, so it's a waste of money.
In a nutshell, a Jewish man born and raised in Québec in an ultra-conservative Hasidic community was sent to a clandestine Hasidic school where he learned Torah and exclusively Torah. He only learned to read and write after he became an adult. He has now severed ties with said community to prevent the children he has from an arranged marriage from going to that school as well, but he found that he has no employable skills as a result of having never gone to a real school. He is suing the Québec Ministry of Education for $1.2M on account of the fact they knew of that clandestine school and of the kids not getting an education, but did nothing to stop it.
The school he went to and others like it still operate illegally but quite openly in Québec. The new Couillard government promised to take action on them, but six months into their mandate the only action has been a "deal" with one school asking them to please maybe think about giving the kids a really education. The education minister blames the lack of a legal framework for his inaction, even though Québec laws make it very illegal to deprive a child of education and even to be aware of a child being deprived of an education and not reporting it. And even if the laws were the problem, one can't help but wonder if there's any way the Minister of Education in a majority government might take action to change education laws...
So yeah, the Québec government has to shoulder some of the blame here.
On the other hand, I'm a bit upset the Jewish man is excluding from this lawsuit his parents, who chose to send him to this school, the school and teachers who harmed him, and the Hasidic community that created and support this school and this environment of extreme religious ignorance and isolation in the heart of one of the most liberal and secular provinces in North America.
It comes off as nothing but bullcrap because of that. He's suing the Quebec government cause he thinks he can get some sweet money to live off of.
In other Conservative election fraud issues, DDM's sentencing was delayed.
Well, I guess the question is, should victims of crimes be able to sue the government for not preventing said crime from taking place?
Does violating the education law qualify as child abuse? Could his parents face charges? What about the school's faculty? How does this law work, anyway?
I am not a lawyer, so take all of this with a grain of salt, but I know several lawyers and have a passing interest in law, so I looked up some of the legislation.
Section 14 of the Quebec Education Act states that a child must attend school until either reaching 16 years of age or receiving a diploma.
The four exceptions to this are:
1) If the child requires medical attention that prevents the child from going to school (Must be excused by the school board)
2) If the child has a physical or mental handicap that prevents the chid from attending school (Must be excused by the school board)
3) If the child is expelled from the school board
4) If the child is being homeschooled (The child must be evaluated by the school board to be receiving education equivalent to that being provided at school)
Section 36 of the same act defines a school as "an educational institution whose object is to provide [students] the educational services provided by this Act and prescribed by the basic school regulation established by the Government [. . .] and to contribute to the social and cultural development of the community"
Alright, so let's look at Basic school regulation for preschool, elementary and secondary education, Section 447 of the Quebec Education Act.
In that document, there are clear laws dictating the amount of time that must be dedicated to education in each subject. This is all found under DIVISION VI: SUBJECT-TIME ALLOCATIONS, which clearly states that subjects such as Mathematics and Science are compulsory.
If the "school" that this man attended did not provide education in these subjects, they are not (as far as my understanding goes) legally allowed to operate as a school.
Section 17 of the Quebec Education Act states that "Parents must take the necessary measures to ensure that their child attends school as required."
In addition, Section 2.2 of the Quebec Youth Protection Act states "The primary responsibility for the care, maintenance and education of a child and for ensuring his supervision rests with his parents."
Under Section 38 of the Quebec Youth Protection Act, the parents participated in abandonment and/or neglect of their child.
In this case, clearly the parents are breaking the law, although I don't know specifically what the consequences would be.
As for what happens to the faculty of the school, I'm too tired to try to figure that out. Maybe later. Or maybe someone else will say something.
Switch Friend Code: SW-1406-1275-7906
MWO: Adamski
Might not be that hard.
How good are you Canadians at keeping paper hardcopies of everything?
She released a tax revision plan that is raising a few eyebrows.
Among other things, she suggested eliminating the highest income tax bracket (which starts at $150,000) and reducing corporate taxes. This will apparently be balanced by raising small business taxes, and removing the HST exemption on things like, and I quote, "books, children's clothing, shoes, diapers, feminine hygiene products, residential energy". The report also suggests getting rid of certain tax credits, such as the volunteer credit (regarding volunteer firefighters and search & rescue workers), the healthy living tax credit, and credits for seniors.
Basically, we're apparently going to solve our financial issues by shifting a chunk of our tax burden to low income earners. Even the leader of the Progressive Conservatives here has voiced disapproval of the plan (even if he's just politically motivated, a Conservative leader panning a tax cut for the well-off is refreshing). I actually know a few people who would be effected by the high income tax cut, and they all think it's a terrible idea.
Nova Scotia certainly needs to do something, but this plan just seems like it would make things worse.
Coincidence?
Harper Government Skipped Internal Study On $550M Job Credit, Relied On Interest Group the bolding is mine.
So basically he just admitted that his department isn't doing his job. Like it's totally okay to take an interest groups word for it, they don't have anything to gain by fudging numbers. Let's just give business a $550 million tax cut and it will magically will create 25,000 jobs. To be fair it might, but the PBO says it will create about 800 jobs and I'll take their word over a lobby group any day of the week.
That'd be a lot of thinking!
It's worth noting that a general rule of litigation is you bring your action where the money is. It's probably not going to be financially worth it to bring an action against his parents. If the school's illegal, it's also unlikely to be insured. Really the only defendant he could bring a claim against that might be able to pay out a judgement is the province. It's worth noting that I'm an Ontario Lawyer and the Quebec rule of law is significantly different (civil vs common law) and so it's pretty foreign to me. So take anything I say on it with a grain of salt.
The family was told that the officer was not responding to an emergency.
The family was told that the officer would be facing no legal charges for the incident because he was "involved in a police surveillance operation aimed at Robert Parent, the former director of the Quebec Liberal Party.", and "the police officers reportedly accelerated to catch up with the car that was tailing Parent’s Mercedes". Which you know, makes vehicular manslaughter a-okay.
Why do police (and justice system at large) have such a hard time gaining public support? No-one will ever know..
It also doesn't help that it's the same police force under investigation is doing the investigating.
1 guess what party he was.
She keeps going on about 'tax relief for Nova Scotian tax payers', leaving out that her income tax reduction is just for the highest tax bracket. Also, apparently removing a bunch of tax credits and HST exemptions on things like diapers, children's clothing, and womens' health items will somehow give tax relief to low income earners. I just... what?
At one point, she literally suggests that shifting more tax burden to sales tax from income tax is okay because higher earners spend more, so they'll pay more. Which kind of ignores that low income earners typically spend a higher percentage of their income, which is one of the main reasons we have sales tax exemptions on certain items in the first place.
Most Nova Scotians are well aware that some big changes need to happen, and it's honestly a bit insulting for her to come in and suggest otherwise just because her ideas happen to be terrible. Her logic at this point almost seems to be "Sure, this all sounds terrible, but that's how you know it's the right thing to do".
The most frustrating thing is that our empty suit of a premier is almost definitely going to go along with most of these suggestions.
So, good news! The investigation into this crime has been reopened. Hopefully this time they will actually take it seriously and investigate what happened, instead of trying to shut it down quietly and hoping no one notices.
Young person volunteering on a political campaign follows the instructions of the campaign manager and ends up in jail while the campaign manager doesn't even face charges.
Meanwhile, a former federal Liberal MP (Joe Fontana) steals money from the government to fund his son's wedding and gets sentenced to 4 months of house arrest.
Good to know that as long as you're in high places the law will be kind.
It says that he withdrew the lawsuit, but the CBC rep said that it was dismissed.
If it was dismissed, then it's unlikely that he's getting anything.
But if he withdrew it, then I'm guessing that he was granted something to do so.
Wonder what happened.
What I'm reading is that it is being withdrawn after a deal was reached, and that as part of this deal Gomeshi has to pay CBC's legal fees of 18000$. So I'm getting the feeling he won't get much in this deal.
http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/newsreleases/30572
Oh awesome, can we start arresting all those youtube PUAs who sexually grab women on the street and think it's funny and post it online to get praise from the MRA community? Their youtube accounts can be evidence in their trials.
I'm curious, because i have no idea how it actually works, but how do you prove things in a "he said, she said "scenario? Some of these accusations are pretty old and have no witnesses.
That's why so many rapes aren't reported, and why many of the ones that are end up going no where. It is incredibly hard to prosecute.
But that doesn't mean the police shouldn't try.