Programs like OAS are given to the rich, because they're old. Questioning the legitimacy of 'old' and/or 'married' as being qualifiers for targeted aid, and instead implying that benefits should be given to 'poor people' no matter their age or marital status as per the charter's tenants, fits with your rebuttal. A rebuttal which didn't address the questions.
wampus
joined 3 months ago
Silly question, but can someone explain how things like OAS and other 'age' defined benefits fit with the Charter's protection against discrimination due to age? Likewise tax benefits given to married folks, as the charter supposedly protects against discrimination there?
I mean, it's listed as a protected characteristic just like race. So wouldn't something like saying "Let's give old retired people a bunch of money" be similar in terms of violated charter rights, as saying "Let's give white people a bunch of money"? ie.... wrong and against supposedly 'protected' charter rights? Even how CPP tiers the amounts you get depending on if you take it at 60, 65, or 70 seems like it'd run counter to charter rights... ?
*just an edit to clarify protection against discrimination based on marital status is seemingly in the human rights act, not charter, but still a protected area...
Yeah, it all seems really wobbly. Like one of their notes related to using public lands for building initiatives, though it wasn't clear if that just means .... like selling off the parks in Vancouver to developers, or government-subsidized planned neighbourhoods around smaller towns to try and spread our population out (praying that jobs would somehow follow), or what.
I admit, if I could find a way to move to a more remote location, that still had necessities like medical services, and I'd get a functional, easy to maintain, eco friendly / eco resilient type of detached property, I'd be interested.... the costs on that sort of thing are really quite high though. And shaving like $50k off the top of that cost isn't really gonna do much to help with affordability, when you're talking about housing costing millions.
Well, the liberal plan is already including a chunk of red tape removal -- the criticism is more about having a large public institution overtly shifting market trends, especially as the intention appears to have it be both lender, and builder. They're right to note that there's potential conflicts, and that govt programs typically aren't about 'efficiency' in terms of service delivery.
My napkin math is terrible, and the different amounts noted for different programs is a bit unclear to me in terms of what amounts the govt intends to invest directly by building housing vs how much its just going to try and subsidize builders.
Canada's already got a Trump-negotiated trade agreement. CUSMA / Nafta v2. So we know how reliable a Trump trade agreement is.
The Ontario auto sector folks are milking this a ton, and our Govt seems to not be registering what they're explicitly saying -- and are eating it up. The govt is busy putting tariffs on the viable EVs of today because the Auto industry floated a piece of total vapourware, that they openly admit even in this article is not a prototype for production, but rather a "platform" to show off the sub-component manufacturers and what they can do.
You can't put any weight in the $35k 2029 type claims, as there's no intention to make this car from any manufacturer / business / the project leads. They aren't even trying to sell the whole car, but just the individual bits that go into it, in business to business interactions -- not business to consumer. If there were an actual business case that showed you could mass produce these cars in Canada at a profit, it'd get picked up and done. But it's not.
This project being used to get our govt to block things like BYD, is looking more and more like how Musk used a vapour project like Hyperloop to derail high speed mass transit options in the USA, which would've competed with Tesla for eco friendly transport options. Using the Arrow, the niche auto manufacturer companies in Ontario, who are all intimately tied to US company interests, is able to block non-US companies from competing fairly in Canada's market.
Albertans should use the lowered threshold to get referendums to get a referendum on exiling Danielle Smith.
When the Nazi's came to power in Germany, they had less support amongst the public than the republicans do today.
If you think it fair to hold all of Nazi germany accountable for the atrocities that went on, there's no reason to pretend America is some "special" exception. Germans take responsibility for their past, with things like banning AFD -- even if a German can legit say "It wasn't me gassing those jews", they still recognise they were responsible for what occurred as a result of their inaction and apathy. In the US, like 30% of them didn't even bother to show up and vote. Apathy is no excuse, and not worthy of absolution. They literally elected a felon and a rapist.
Regardless, I still stick by the reduction in visits and the on going boycotts aren't about making them "realise our value" or whatever. It's a visceral recoil experienced on an aggregate scale, to the vitriolic bile being spewed by the people they elected, targeted quite literally at all of us here in Canada. If someone vomits on you constantly, you move the fuck away -- and it isn't about "wanting to make them miss you". It's about the vomit.
I agree with a chunk of this, but your note about 'reminding them at large of our value' is off. Most people I talk to here in Canada look at the issues in the states as basically untenable in terms of stability / trade / geopolitical unity. Supporting Russia, attacking their allies/threatening to militarily annex peaceful democratic areas like greenland, putting up BS reasons for trade tariffs (fent). The USA is a schizo trade partner at best, where for 4 years with the dems it may be 'normal', but when it flips repub its suddenly xenophobic dictator land, with less stability in its agreements than a third world military dictatorship -- at least those deals tend to last until the next coup, whereas Trumps agreements change based on his dementia; his administration has become comfortable with making up totally fake numbers even, which can change based on how they want to present the fake narrative about why they're doing whatever stupid crap they're doing. And there's no assurance it'll go back to a 'stable' dem setup for four years next time around -- the way it's trending, the dems will be locked up, with all their funding methods declared unamerican by EO, similar to the shakedown of the law firms that's happened recently as reported by 60 minutes.
If you live next to a family in a mansion, and they suddenly start flying a Nazi flag, beating/deporting their own maintenance staff (sometimes their own family too, by mistake), and screaming about how they're gonna take your house, you don't pull back on visiting as a way to 'remind them' of your value. You pull back because WTF, no. And if you can't move, and they were your main contact locally, you start lookin for other friends / buying guns and protection. Again, not to remind them of your value, but because fuck no.
As a non US person seeing this clip, all I can think is.... this isn't a surprise at all, the tariff stuff is basically blatant violation of existing trade agreements, being done based on Trumps whims without real justification. Him doing the same 'locally' is just more of the same.
heh, your edits are kinda hilarious when you note that the position you've 'agreed' with has just ~15 upvotes, while the two noting its a 'dangerous by default' thing each have like 50 or 100 upvotes. Men gave you their perspective, and you choose to ignore it. Most guys agree on what that sort of behaviour typically is -- and even if it is the left over covid habit, that's still a "this person is wearing a mask and likely wants to stay distant from others, I should walk in the mud because they'll think I'm a threat if I get too close".... is still in the ball park of walkin in the mud cause he wants to show he's not a threat.
A large number of men have internalised all the negativity expressed in the media about our gender over the last few decades. Lots of the ones who've resisted / refused to do so, have gone the extreme right / alpha male BS route, trying to aggressively push back against it in a rather sad way. I reckon its partially because progressive / left leaning approaches don't typically allow for any dissenting voices on things like gender, and are heavily influenced by feminist ideology: masculine sexuality and traits are the enemy. Caucasian males in specific, is one demographic that's always pretty safe to dunk on in pretty well any scenario.
I'd phrase it a bit differently though, I think, in that its more risk avoidance than threat internalization -- even if one follows the other. Like I know guys who get anxiety if they're asked to work a shift with just one other coworker (female) on site - I've had the same concerns personally. It's not because we think we'll slip up and accidentally assault the woman or something. It's that we're worried we'll say something / do something that the woman will take offense to, there'll be no witnesses to support our side, and the standard of today is "believe the victim (if its not a male victim)". Avoiding being in that situation/getting anxiety over it, isn't an internalization of being a threat, so much as it's wanting to avoid the potential risk of something that's shown in many media circles constantly.
Nodding hello and saying good morning / afternoon is something I reserve typically for older men, usually white or asian. Any other demographic tends to net a negative response more often than naught. Like imagine if every other person you said "hello" to quickened their pace to get away from you or shot you nasty looks -- you'd prolly stop doin it too. I've even had X's who said they thought that behaviour was an attempt to 'pick them up', which I definitely don't want to mis-convey. I still say it back if someone says it to me, but I can't initiate without it re-enforcing a negative male stereotype. That pleasantry was killed off like a decade or more ago, in part because the onus to maintain it shifted away from men.... and women didn't really want to take the step to keep it goin. I mean, you didn't exactly say "g'mornin" to the mud walker guy to let him know it's all good, did you? ;p
I admit, I view the over the top Nazi / "politically incorrect" actions as essentially showing off that regular 'rules' and norms don't apply to a certain 'class' of people, namely the rich. Once you're rich enough, you can openly accept gold-clad jets as bribes, and no one in the USA, or other countries, will stop you.
Commoners can't even make a slightly inappropriate comment on sites like Reddit without getting banned. Left leaning government officials are losing careers over the mere accusation that they may've done something inappropriate towards a minority / women. Places like Canada and the UK, have online hate speech laws that make certain discussions / opinions, expressed online, potential criminal acts punishable by jail time.
Then you have people like Ye, overtly praising hitler. You have Elon Musk, doing Nazi salutes and supporting fascist right-wing movements. And they do these things with general immunity from legal / govt repercussions. Because they're so rich, they don't have to worry about things like going to jail for being fans of hitler / fascist movements -- that's a poor person problem.