“Everything we’ve done (bugger all) hasn’t worked, so we’ll allow these companies to merge and reduce competition further with ‘enforceable’ conditions attached that everyone recognizes won’t do a thing.” Have they thought of nationalization? Competition with a crown company? A giant surtax on their ludicrous profits? Heavy regulation? A license/board scheme where their plans and prices need approval before making offers?

We have systems for that. We can join the various ‘teams’ of people doing the punching and we can, as a group, demand that they change their practices - next convention the group votes on replacing ball punches with a hearty ‘punchbuggy’ to the shoulder. Several leaders run and make promises on how hearty to make that shoulder-punch, and we select someone for the next election between face, neck and shoulder. You don’t get to complain about where the 3 parties are punching if you aren’t in there telling them to change their target - otherwise you got party die-hards saying things like “we’ve always punched to the neck, and that’s what Canadians want.”

Sorry buddy, but being dragged up and offered where to be punched, I’m absolutely exercising my right to choose (and to be honest, I’m kind of thinking neck at the moment). I refuse to be a sad sack that gets punched in the balls and laments that there was no other option.

Small cells and industrial plants are different. Charging some cells produces an off-gas of hydrogen, which requires you to change the air in the room with the cells, which means fans. You also have to ensure that the temperature of the room stays within certain bounds, which could mean bigger fans.

In terms of cells, batteries don’t really smell like anything I find. However, you need to top up the water levels which requires distilled or deionized water. Will they be doing water treatment on site?

All that being said, there’s more than enough room for a discussion about concerns. These yokels jumped right to death threats instead of progress. I wish nothing but rolling blackouts and a lack of jobs for them in the future.

I’ll take the party that is marginally better than the rest. Why wouldn’t you select the best option?

I think that’s what they meant.

Screw them. Let this be a lesson to any new business that thinks of investing in moving to the area. Kill any chance at a job in the area and let the community rot away.

What about cigars?

As a former card-carrying Conservative, I’m already deciding to vote ABC.

Oh no! Anyways…

I despise that there’s “legitimacy” given to a lot of woo out there. I mean, there’s medicine, there’s things that sometimes works that we can’t figure out, and then there’s people just trying to see what shit works (pun intended). Maybe we should label some things as “experimental” or not call it something that sounds “official.”

Yup.

Anyone can get a lawyer to write a Cease and Desist for any reason the client pays for. The proof is if anything happens if Ford doesn’t follow up with the demands.

STLA, though what will happen is that the government though the Lt-Gov will probably increase appointments to the LSS to start, and push for harder enforcement. If STLA and judges become too political over time, the answer just might be to remove self-governance through the LSS.

This doesn’t bode well for the law profession in Saskatchewan. Moe is a terrible dirtbag, but this isn’t the USA where there’s an equal legal branch to the government and lawyers can spout off whatever they want; the supremacy of parliament will get exercised and the lawyers will find themselves in a tough spot.

If New York is the City that never sleeps, Toronto is the city that has a 11pm bedtime.

Well, depends. It certainly can be used in a variety of situations. The basis of the notwithstanding clause doesn’t require that rights be set aside, it can be used to identify that an interpretation of rights is incorrect. For instance, where rights have been determined in the outcome of a case that isn’t deliberately mentioned in the relevant act, it would be perfectly acceptable for parliament to use the notwithstanding clause to say “no, that’s not what is written in the law we wrote.” The ‘threat’ of using the notwithstanding cause in Ontario recently in the Ford government is a good example of that. They ended up not needing it because the courts determined that the original ruling was probably ‘wrong’ before it was needed…

In this case, gender expression is a right that has been established repeatedly despite it not being explicitly mentioned in Section 15. (1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom (the basis is that gender expression is related to the sex of the individual). So, it ‘technically’ could be used correctly in this situation, but they are certainly assholes for fighting people for expressing their gender when it has been firmly set outside of the language.

Technically, what it’s the parliament saying “this is the law, no matter what anyone else thinks of it.” It’s not suspension of law - an equal legal branch forming government is a feature of the United States. Here, like a lot of Westminster Parliamentary style governments, democracy is supreme to any rise of a kritarchy.

Actually, withholding Assent is the circuit breaker. The NWC is a mechanism to ensure that parliament makes the law, not judges. A judge may have a perfectly reason for making their verdict, and it totally makes sense to do so by a good number of the populous, but parliament is in charge and they’re allowed to set the rules.

Drug Ford passed a law shrinking city council after the whole ‘election thing’ kinda started. People got a judge to say that’s unconstitutional (and reading the reasons to the verdict - it was all sorts of crazy talk about how it was unconstitutional. Drug Ford said he would use the NWC to pass a replacement law doing the same thing, but that wasn’t necessary as the next level of courts looked at the original ruling, went “yeah, the Government is TOTALLY going to win on appealing this - let’s just say they’re allowed to resize the council and call it a day.”