Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

What does redshirt mean?

I think it's based on the American college sports term where a student-athlete can be given more time to mature before entering competitive sports without affecting the limit on how many seasons they can play in college. For academics, it would be allowing children born late in the year to wait and enter school with children born early the following year so they would be around other children of comparable development.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

What does redshirt mean?

A term from college football where you hold the student out to preserve a year of eligibility.

In the context of schooling it’s starting your kids a year later to improve performance in school. It started for late birthdays at the cut off but in US especially moved further and further back in the calendar year.

[chemgear]

[timun]

I "get it", but I think it's ####ing weird. Some kids might benefit from being held back a year, I suppose, but my own personal experience is the opposite. I started kindergarten when I was four and didn't turn five until the next calendar year, and generally I tended to get some of the best grades in my class. I graduated high school when I was 17 and didn't turn 18 until about three quarters of the way through my first year at university; the only thing that I felt was detrimental was not being able to legally buy a beer.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by chemgear

You leave Ensign Haskell out of this!

[Ashartus]

Originally Posted by timun

I "get it", but I think it's ####ing weird. Some kids might benefit from being held back a year, I suppose, but my own personal experience is the opposite. I started kindergarten when I was four and didn't turn five until the next calendar year, and generally I tended to get some of the best grades in my class. I graduated high school when I was 17 and didn't turn 18 until about three quarters of the way through my first year at university; the only thing that I felt was detrimental was not being able to legally buy a beer.

It is quite common here, I think in part because our cut-off is February 28 (vs December 31 in most provinces). Most people I know with kids born in January/February hold them back.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by Ashartus

It is quite common here, I think in part because our cut-off is February 28 (vs December 31 in most provinces). Most people I know with kids born in January/February hold them back.

I find it a bit strange. My kid has a birthday in that range and we put him in school in his designated year. There is a kid who is a full year older than him who is actually in the grade below him (wasn’t held back in school, his parents put him in school at that time). He doesn’t hang out with kids in his grade or anything because they are all younger than him. But I guess his parents thought that was best for him at that time.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by timun

I "get it", but I think it's ####ing weird. Some kids might benefit from being held back a year, I suppose, but my own personal experience is the opposite. I started kindergarten when I was four and didn't turn five until the next calendar year, and generally I tended to get some of the best grades in my class. I graduated high school when I was 17 and didn't turn 18 until about three quarters of the way through my first year at university; the only thing that I felt was detrimental was not being able to legally buy a beer.

Nobody is saying all girls are better at learning than all boys at their age. We’re talking about average boys vs girls at the population level. Of course there will be lots of kids who defy those norms.

[Leondros]

Interesting development from the federal courts:

The federal government’s decision to invoke the Emergencies Act in 2022 was ‘unreasonable’, Federal Court rules

The federal government was not justified when it invoked the Emergencies Act and issued a public order emergency proclamation in response to convoy protests that gridlocked the capital and some border crossings two years ago, the Federal Court ruled Tuesday in a decision that will test Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government.
The emergency proclamation “was not justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that were required to be taken into consideration,” Justice Richard Mosley wrote in his decision.

Does this open the door for more protests?

[Dogbert]

Originally Posted by Leondros

Interesting development from the federal courts:

Does this open the door for more protests?

Seems as though this means that the cops have free reign to decide which protests can happen, what the protesters can do while there, and how long it can last. Ultimately, a group can perform a hostile takeover of the capital’s downtown area, refuse to leave, and do whatever they want while there - if the cops agree with what they’re doing, nobody can stop them moving forward.

[Ozy_Flame]

What does the SCC say?

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

What does the SCC say?

Ring-ding-ding-ding-dingeringeding!
Gering-ding-ding-ding-dingeringeding!
Gering-ding-ding-ding-dingeringeding!

[chemgear]

Lawsuits probably coming.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/eme...ourt-1.7091891

A federal judge says the Liberal government's use of the Emergencies Act in early 2022 to clear convoy protesters was unreasonable.

"I conclude that there was no national emergency justifying the invocation of the Emergencies Act and the decision to do so was therefore unreasonable and ultra vires," Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley wrote in a Tuesday decision. "Ultra vires" is a Latin term used by courts to refer to actions beyond the scope of the law.

The Federal Court case was brought by two national groups, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Constitution Foundation, and two people whose bank accounts were frozen who argued Ottawa did not meet the legal threshold when it invoked the legislation, which had never been used before.

[CaptainCrunch]

I would say that this will probably be appealed and head up to the Supremes. But it is a blow to the government, I expect that there will be lawsuits filed.

[Azure]

Won't it go to the appeals court and then to the Supreme Court before lawsuits can be made?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Azure

Won't it go to the appeals court and then to the Supreme Court before lawsuits can be made?

Yeah any lawsuits will probably be put in abeyance until the appeal is done.

[cral12]

fascinating thread on emerg act ruling

https://twitter.com/user/status/1749870692370112787

"...this ruling isn’t the vindication convoy supporters are going to claim it is."

[KootenayFlamesFan]

It's pretty simple for me. If you want to protest, awesome, go for it. Even if it's something I wholeheartedly disagree with. You want to protest, protest. Glad we can do that in this country.

Just get off the street. Protest on the sidewalks for months for all I care.

[Ozy_Flame]

Emergencies Act is the result of a complete breakdown in responsibility from the Ottawa Police and the OPP, including Doug Ford IMO. The Feds had to step in because those two levels were completely dropping the ball to get the damn thing removed and sorted.

Remember DoFo during the Klown Konvoy? Me neither - he completed disappeared. On purpose. By design.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

It's pretty simple for me. If you want to protest, awesome, go for it. Even if it's something I wholeheartedly disagree with. You want to protest, protest. Glad we can do that in this country.

Just get off the street. Protest on the sidewalks for months for all I care.

That isn't even good enough. There needs to be a plan in place to take large scale protests and direct them to largely empty areas.

You shouldn't be allowed to disrupt entire areas for days or even weeks.

Once that is figured out, have fun protesting.