Its been years (decades) since my grade 10 social studies, but I clearly remember doing exams like this back then too, where we read an article about a social issue (it was typically multiculturalism back then, but we also did articles about the impact of hydro development in northern Manitoba, both pros and cons -- which is the Manitoba equivalent of oil&gas) and then answered questions both about the factual assertions made and any potential editorial biases. I'm pretty sure that's part of what "Social Studies" is meant to teach kids, that politics exist and here's some tools to help you navigate through it to form your own opinions.
Yes, those are ok questions for reading comprehension. Maybe a bit too easy. I'm just somewhat amused that the distractors are themselves pushing a clear pro-oil agenda.
Given those snippets, the test, as a whole, is biased in favour of the oil industry...
When he arrived in British Columbia, Lee says he disclosed the circumstances of his detention, and the examination of his B.C. government Blackberry, to his B.C. Liberal caucus. Lee says he does not know whether B.C. Liberal leaders ever informed the RCMP about his Shanghai detention, and the possibility that the Chinese government obtained confidential B.C. government information by examining Lee’s Blackberry. The party has not answered questions from Global News on Lee’s allegations.
Why should it be getting more attention? It's an event that happened 4 years ago with a nation we have no shortage of questionable interactions lately.
To carry out their mission of maintaining peace, order and public security, police officers are required to limit citizens’ rights and freedoms using the coercive power of the state. Because the risk of abuse is undeniable, it is important that there always be a legal basis for the actions taken by police officers; in the absence of such justification, their conduct is unlawful and cannot be tolerated. In exercising their powers, police officers are therefore bound by strict rules of conduct that are meant to prevent arbitrariness and unjustified restrictions on rights and freedoms. Police officers who deviate from these rules have no public law immunity. Under Quebec law, a police officer, like any other person, is held civilly liable for the injury caused to another by his or her fault, in accordance with art. 1457 C.C.Q., which imposes on every person “a duty to abide by the rules of conduct incumbent on him, according to the circumstances, usage or law, so as not to cause injury to another”. A police officer commits a civil fault where he or she acts in a manner that departs from the conduct of a reasonable officer in the same circumstances. Police conduct must be assessed according to the test of the normally prudent, diligent and competent police officer in the same circumstances; this test recognizes the largely discretionary nature of police work.
Step outside the law and the officer loses their immunity.
+12
Options
El SkidThe frozen white northRegistered Userregular
The Quebec court and court of appeal that found against this woman are... disturbing.
“Just cooperate with the police officer no matter what he says” is not what I want from my society
The Quebec court and court of appeal that found against this woman are... disturbing.
“Just cooperate with the police officer no matter what he says” is not what I want from my society
I don't have their judgements handy, but I doubt that's what they said.
According to the cbc article above:
Her suit was rejected by Quebec court in 2015 and by the Quebec Court of Appeal in 2017, which said Kosoian was the "author of her own misfortune."
I read that as “you should have just cooperated with the police officer”... do you read it differently?
According to the CBC, Lynn Beyak's comments are only seen as racist by some people, Maxime Bernier has a serious shot at becoming PM, Wexit is an unprecedented Canadian exitential crisis, and no one has ever gone out to protest climate justice in our country.
According to the SCC ruling's section on judicial history of the case, the principle that was applied by the lower courts is "would a reasonable police officer, in that context and knowing the things known at that point, behave that way?" The trial judge ruled that the pictogram constituted a clear directive and in that context the actions of the officer were justified. The majority of appeal judges agreed that, even though the application of the by-law in question was later found to be flawed, at the time it was assumed to be an obligation to respect pictograms and thus the police officer had civil immunity when enforcing it. And in that context yes, if you oppose a reasonable police officer enforcing a legitimate law, you are the author of your misfortune.
The SCC decision found the other way, that the pictogram could not reasonably be interpreted as an obligation but merely a warning, and that no reasonable interpretation of the by-law a trained police officer could make would make disobeying a warning a crime, and thus he has acted unreasonably and does not have civil immunity. They also find the STM responsible for explicitly training their offficers to believe these pictogram warnings were laws to enforce, but that does not exonerate a police officer who, in their eyes, should have known better, since obeying an order from your superiors that you know to be wrong is not excusable. And in that context, the plaintiff was reasonable in refusing to comply with the officer's orders.
Richy on
+1
Options
ShadowenSnores in the morningLoserdomRegistered Userregular
In "Jason Kenney truly is a bag of douche" news, he's trying to spin "we're cutting about 500 nursing positions and expecting the rest of you to pick up the slack" as "the budget hasn't actually changed so we haven't made any cuts to health care".
The Quebec court and court of appeal that found against this woman are... disturbing.
“Just cooperate with the police officer no matter what he says” is not what I want from my society
I don't have their judgements handy, but I doubt that's what they said.
According to the cbc article above:
Her suit was rejected by Quebec court in 2015 and by the Quebec Court of Appeal in 2017, which said Kosoian was the "author of her own misfortune."
I read that as “you should have just cooperated with the police officer”... do you read it differently?
According to the CBC, Lynn Beyak's comments are only seen as racist by some people, Maxime Bernier has a serious shot at becoming PM, Wexit is an unprecedented Canadian exitential crisis, and no one has ever gone out to protest climate justice in our country.
According to the SCC ruling's section on judicial history of the case, the principle that was applied by the lower courts is "would a reasonable police officer, in that context and knowing the things known at that point, behave that way?" The trial judge ruled that the pictogram constituted a clear directive and in that context the actions of the officer were justified. The majority of appeal judges agreed that, even though the application of the by-law in question was later found to be flawed, at the time it was assumed to be an obligation to respect pictograms and thus the police officer had civil immunity when enforcing it. And in that context yes, if you oppose a reasonable police officer enforcing a legitimate law, you are the author of your misfortune.
The SCC decision found the other way, that the pictogram could not reasonably be interpreted as an obligation but merely a warning, and that no reasonable interpretation of the by-law a trained police officer could make would make disobeying a warning a crime, and thus he has acted unreasonably and does not have civil immunity. They also find the STM responsible for explicitly training their offficers to believe these pictogram warnings were laws to enforce, but that does not exonerate a police officer who, in their eyes, should have known better, since obeying an order from your superiors that you know to be wrong is not excusable. And in that context, the plaintiff was reasonable in refusing to comply with the officer's orders.
Yeah, Canadian courts are generally, like, pretty good? It's where all the supreme court justices come out of after all, and the Canadian supreme court is quite good from what I ever see in the news. It's not like they spring from the ether or the like. So actually reading about the Quebec court's decision it's not like bug-eyed crazy or anything like some of y'all are implying.
I think the leap is that the appeals court ruled that not only was the officers actions reasonable but they went so far to say that the lady was the author of her own misfortune (as opposed to something like, it was a muddled mess).
And then the Supreme Court came in and said no, not only was the officers actions not reasonable, they were so unreasonable that even if he had training to the contrary he bloody well should have known better so much so that they aren't even jointly liable. Which, going by the facts as presented, seems pretty clear. So, I think going "What the hell, appeals court" is fairly reasonable.
In "Jason Kenney truly is a bag of douche" news, he's trying to spin "we're cutting about 500 nursing positions and expecting the rest of you to pick up the slack" as "the budget hasn't actually changed so we haven't made any cuts to health care".
In "Jason Kenney truly is a bag of douche" news, he's trying to spin "we're cutting about 500 nursing positions and expecting the rest of you to pick up the slack" as "the budget hasn't actually changed so we haven't made any cuts to health care".
So was listening to CBC this morning and they were talking about the energy cap being removed. I wasn't aware of a cap cause I am largely clueless. The dude they had on who I cant remember who he represented said the NDP had introduced a cap of 6.8 cents per kilowatt hour on energy back in 2017? Energy companies still got reimbursed for the cost if the rate exceeded 6.8 but that cost wasn't passed onto the consumer. Dude talking was saying it was unsustainable to leave it capped and that the NDP didn't think that the prices would rise again. He completely failed to mention the whole reason for the cap in the first place was to assist with moving the Alberta grid off coal fired energy and onto more green solutions, and having the cap would protect the consumer from the spikes that would happen as coal plants slowly were taken offline (with a plan to get off coal completely by 2030)
I'm raging slightly. I'm so astounded that these buffoons keep bumbling their way into positions of power. We've had like a decade or more of pure buffoonery, displayed broadly for all to see. Rob Ford, Donald Trump, Brexit and Boris Johnson, and still people voted for Doug Ford. Like did people not remember him covering (ie, obstructing and lying and bullying) for Rob's crack addiction? Why did they think this time would be different?
Speaking of, there's a great podcast (I might already have mentioned it in the thread, I forget), called the Gravy Train that chronicles the rise and fall of Rob Ford. And the episode on his campaign, and the lead up to running for mayor is incredible in the most frustrating way. The parallels between his campaign and what followed with Trump and Brexit are pretty clear in hindsight.
I'm raging slightly. I'm so astounded that these buffoons keep bumbling their way into positions of power. We've had like a decade or more of pure buffoonery, displayed broadly for all to see. Rob Ford, Donald Trump, Brexit and Boris Johnson, and still people voted for Doug Ford. Like did people not remember him covering (ie, obstructing and lying and bullying) for Rob's crack addiction? Why did they think this time would be different?
Speaking of, there's a great podcast (I might already have mentioned it in the thread, I forget), called the Gravy Train that chronicles the rise and fall of Rob Ford. And the episode on his campaign, and the lead up to running for mayor is incredible in the most frustrating way. The parallels between his campaign and what followed with Trump and Brexit are pretty clear in hindsight.
Because the Liberals had been in power for 15 years and people were mad at them for various scandals and high electricity costs and such. So they "voted the bums out", as electorates are wont to do. Whoever won the leadership race for the Ontario PCs was basically guaranteed to be premier.
I was mostly being rhetorical. Sometimes it feels like, if you're someone who pays attention, you can see all this coming a mile away, but that doesn't make me any less frustrated when it happens.
So, last week Ford and two other alt-right premieres have agreed on a plan to generate electricity for their provinces with small nuclear plants. And I'm confused because... that's not a bad plan on the face of it? Nuclear energy is expensive, sure, but it's clean, and doesn't require pipelines. The Boomers who support the Cons are against nuclear because of 50s stuff and of being too dumb to realize the technology has changed in the past 70 years, so they're not doing it for their base, if anything they're doing it against it. There is no strong nuclear lobby in Canada that I'm aware of, so they're not doing it for bribes. There's nothing in their press release about building the reactors in the middle of First Nations orphanage hospitals or anything like that that I've come to expect from Conservatives. So what's the angle here? There must be one, Conservatives are incapable of taking good and positive decisions that benefit the Canadian people, but I'm just not seeing it.
I was mostly being rhetorical. Sometimes it feels like, if you're someone who pays attention, you can see all this coming a mile away, but that doesn't make me any less frustrated when it happens.
They are times where I think it would be great to make people pass a test before being allowed to vote...
Then I think that one of the questions should be why making people pass a test before being allowed to vote is a terrible idea, and I feel bad and stupid, but it's still occasionally tempting...
So, last week Ford and two other alt-right premieres have agreed on a plan to generate electricity for their provinces with small nuclear plants. And I'm confused because... that's not a bad plan on the face of it? ... So what's the angle here? There must be one, Conservatives are incapable of taking good and positive decisions that benefit the Canadian people, but I'm just not seeing it.
My guess is that they are not planning to actually do it and will just use it as an excuse to prevent the development of renewable energy sources.
+2
Options
ShadowenSnores in the morningLoserdomRegistered Userregular
They're gonna go with the lowest bidder, make a shoddy old-style plant instead of one of the newer ones, loot it for every scrap of profit they can, and create Three Mile Island, Ontario.
Either that or they just want to troll the hippies who think nuclear = bad, not realizing that actual environmental activists think that nuclear is at least better than fossil fuels and might be more viable in many regions than solar or hydro.
They're gonna go with the lowest bidder, make a shoddy old-style plant instead of one of the newer ones, loot it for every scrap of profit they can, and create Three Mile Island, Ontario.
Either that or they just want to troll the hippies who think nuclear = bad, not realizing that actual environmental activists think that nuclear is at least better than fossil fuels and might be more viable in many regions than solar or hydro.
So, last week Ford and two other alt-right premieres have agreed on a plan to generate electricity for their provinces with small nuclear plants. And I'm confused because... that's not a bad plan on the face of it? Nuclear energy is expensive, sure, but it's clean, and doesn't require pipelines. The Boomers who support the Cons are against nuclear because of 50s stuff and of being too dumb to realize the technology has changed in the past 70 years, so they're not doing it for their base, if anything they're doing it against it. There is no strong nuclear lobby in Canada that I'm aware of, so they're not doing it for bribes. There's nothing in their press release about building the reactors in the middle of First Nations orphanage hospitals or anything like that that I've come to expect from Conservatives. So what's the angle here? There must be one, Conservatives are incapable of taking good and positive decisions that benefit the Canadian people, but I'm just not seeing it.
I am pretty sure the nuclear plant idea is an example of Doug Ford doing a probably correct thing for almost certainly the worst reason possible. At the very least, it will probably be done in one of the worst ways possible.
Introduce the nimby people to district heating and hell yeah I'd be near a nuclear plant if the excess steam could heat my house for therotically dirt cheap
It's also their only option since they hate green energy we haven't had a coal plant in Ontario in years and even if they wanted to it is the most expensive energy option now so they cant even pretend it's cheaper
Saskatchewan wants in because they have vast uranium stockpiles and will make money from it. Ontario wants in because they actually use nuclear power and have multiple companies that can get in on action of building the reactors. New Brunswick wants in because it is also a nuclear province.
The bottom line is these SMR's as they are called are being developed regardless of who the reigning political power is.
I'm raging slightly. I'm so astounded that these buffoons keep bumbling their way into positions of power. We've had like a decade or more of pure buffoonery, displayed broadly for all to see. Rob Ford, Donald Trump, Brexit and Boris Johnson, and still people voted for Doug Ford. Like did people not remember him covering (ie, obstructing and lying and bullying) for Rob's crack addiction? Why did they think this time would be different?
Speaking of, there's a great podcast (I might already have mentioned it in the thread, I forget), called the Gravy Train that chronicles the rise and fall of Rob Ford. And the episode on his campaign, and the lead up to running for mayor is incredible in the most frustrating way. The parallels between his campaign and what followed with Trump and Brexit are pretty clear in hindsight.
The majority of Ontario did not vote for him. They had 40% of the vote share, but were elected to 59% of the seats. The other 60% of Ontario are bearing the burden of his corrupt and inept government as well.
One day strike for many Public school teachers in Ontario tomorrow I believe.
Pretty much a guarantee, as far as I can see. The OSSTF maintains they've been at the bargaining table since 9am today, whilst the government insists it tabled a 'Framework' conducive to negotiation. I'm more inclined to believe the union, and sentiment seems to be siding mostly with the teachers in this case. I know I am.
One day strike for many Public school teachers in Ontario tomorrow I believe.
Pretty much a guarantee, as far as I can see. The OSSTF maintains they've been at the bargaining table since 9am today, whilst the government insists it tabled a 'Framework' conducive to negotiation. I'm more inclined to believe the union, and sentiment seems to be siding mostly with the teachers in this case. I know I am.
There's literally no reason to ever believe the Ford government is telling the truth.
Posts
I missed that the second question was about the editorial above. I thought the editorial WAS the question.
Okay, then it's fine.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/bela-kosoian-supreme-court-handrail-1.5377772
You've identified the problem.
Given those snippets, the test, as a whole, is biased in favour of the oil industry...
https://globalnews.ca/news/6228973/b-c-politician-richard-lee-china-detained-interfering-democracy/
I love our Supreme Court.
The judgment has some good stuff in it:
https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/18050/index.do
Step outside the law and the officer loses their immunity.
“Just cooperate with the police officer no matter what he says” is not what I want from my society
I don't have their judgements handy, but I doubt that's what they said.
According to the cbc article above:
I read that as “you should have just cooperated with the police officer”... do you read it differently?
According to the CBC, Lynn Beyak's comments are only seen as racist by some people, Maxime Bernier has a serious shot at becoming PM, Wexit is an unprecedented Canadian exitential crisis, and no one has ever gone out to protest climate justice in our country.
According to the SCC ruling's section on judicial history of the case, the principle that was applied by the lower courts is "would a reasonable police officer, in that context and knowing the things known at that point, behave that way?" The trial judge ruled that the pictogram constituted a clear directive and in that context the actions of the officer were justified. The majority of appeal judges agreed that, even though the application of the by-law in question was later found to be flawed, at the time it was assumed to be an obligation to respect pictograms and thus the police officer had civil immunity when enforcing it. And in that context yes, if you oppose a reasonable police officer enforcing a legitimate law, you are the author of your misfortune.
The SCC decision found the other way, that the pictogram could not reasonably be interpreted as an obligation but merely a warning, and that no reasonable interpretation of the by-law a trained police officer could make would make disobeying a warning a crime, and thus he has acted unreasonably and does not have civil immunity. They also find the STM responsible for explicitly training their offficers to believe these pictogram warnings were laws to enforce, but that does not exonerate a police officer who, in their eyes, should have known better, since obeying an order from your superiors that you know to be wrong is not excusable. And in that context, the plaintiff was reasonable in refusing to comply with the officer's orders.
Classic right-wing tactic: undermine a public service, use it as an excuse to privatize the service.
Cameron Westhead is a former Alberta MLA and currently VP of the Alberta nurses' union.
Yeah, Canadian courts are generally, like, pretty good? It's where all the supreme court justices come out of after all, and the Canadian supreme court is quite good from what I ever see in the news. It's not like they spring from the ether or the like. So actually reading about the Quebec court's decision it's not like bug-eyed crazy or anything like some of y'all are implying.
And then the Supreme Court came in and said no, not only was the officers actions not reasonable, they were so unreasonable that even if he had training to the contrary he bloody well should have known better so much so that they aren't even jointly liable. Which, going by the facts as presented, seems pretty clear. So, I think going "What the hell, appeals court" is fairly reasonable.
Add that to his plan to privatize our lab services ....
Hope you enjoy your hospital visits boomers. You brought this on yourselves.
Hey man, I think Theranos needs work these days. Kenney should give them a call.
https://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/ucp-scraps-electricity-price-cap-some-will-see-7-bill-increase-this-month-1.4711822
This one was back in July when the UCP said they were going to scrap the overhaul
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-electricity-market-1.5224131
Here is an article when the cap came into play by the NDP government.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-changing-electricity-system-2021-1.3864609
Matt Elliott writes for the Toronto Star
Last ones I really looked at in the spring had him hated by even the people who voted for him.
I'm raging slightly. I'm so astounded that these buffoons keep bumbling their way into positions of power. We've had like a decade or more of pure buffoonery, displayed broadly for all to see. Rob Ford, Donald Trump, Brexit and Boris Johnson, and still people voted for Doug Ford. Like did people not remember him covering (ie, obstructing and lying and bullying) for Rob's crack addiction? Why did they think this time would be different?
Speaking of, there's a great podcast (I might already have mentioned it in the thread, I forget), called the Gravy Train that chronicles the rise and fall of Rob Ford. And the episode on his campaign, and the lead up to running for mayor is incredible in the most frustrating way. The parallels between his campaign and what followed with Trump and Brexit are pretty clear in hindsight.
Because the Liberals had been in power for 15 years and people were mad at them for various scandals and high electricity costs and such. So they "voted the bums out", as electorates are wont to do. Whoever won the leadership race for the Ontario PCs was basically guaranteed to be premier.
They are times where I think it would be great to make people pass a test before being allowed to vote...
Then I think that one of the questions should be why making people pass a test before being allowed to vote is a terrible idea, and I feel bad and stupid, but it's still occasionally tempting...
Either that or they just want to troll the hippies who think nuclear = bad, not realizing that actual environmental activists think that nuclear is at least better than fossil fuels and might be more viable in many regions than solar or hydro.
Or it's the broken clock effect.
They can't be wrong all the time, can they?
I am pretty sure the nuclear plant idea is an example of Doug Ford doing a probably correct thing for almost certainly the worst reason possible. At the very least, it will probably be done in one of the worst ways possible.
I have 549 Rock Band Drum and 305 Pro Drum FC's
REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/group-of-premiers-band-together-to-develop-nuclear-reactor-technology-1.5380316
It's also their only option since they hate green energy we haven't had a coal plant in Ontario in years and even if they wanted to it is the most expensive energy option now so they cant even pretend it's cheaper
https://www.paypal.me/hobnailtaylor
The bottom line is these SMR's as they are called are being developed regardless of who the reigning political power is.
I mean he can make a bong out of an apple, how hard could a nuclear plant possibly be?
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
The majority of Ontario did not vote for him. They had 40% of the vote share, but were elected to 59% of the seats. The other 60% of Ontario are bearing the burden of his corrupt and inept government as well.
https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/onvotes/results/
Just another example in the long history of Canadian examples of how misrepresentative First Past The Post is.
I have 549 Rock Band Drum and 305 Pro Drum FC's
REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS
Pretty much a guarantee, as far as I can see. The OSSTF maintains they've been at the bargaining table since 9am today, whilst the government insists it tabled a 'Framework' conducive to negotiation. I'm more inclined to believe the union, and sentiment seems to be siding mostly with the teachers in this case. I know I am.
There's literally no reason to ever believe the Ford government is telling the truth.