@pigeonburger's banner p

pigeonburger


				

				

				
2 followers   follows 1 user  
joined 2023 March 03 15:09:03 UTC

				

User ID: 2233

pigeonburger


				
				
				

				
2 followers   follows 1 user   joined 2023 March 03 15:09:03 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 2233

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-718.04.html

718.04 When a court imposes a sentence for an offence that involved the abuse of a person who is vulnerable because of personal circumstances — including because the person is Aboriginal and female — the court shall give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence of the conduct that forms the basis of the offence.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-718.201.html

718.201 A court that imposes a sentence in respect of an offence that involved the abuse of an intimate partner shall consider the increased vulnerability of female persons who are victims, giving particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal female victims.

It's clownish to me that specific additions were made to the criminal code to protect Indigenous women, but that since the overwhelming amount of violence done to them is domestic violence from Indigenous men, these protections are essentially cancelled out by provisions to protect Indigenous offenders.

The unstoppable force meets the unmovable object

https://ici.radio-canada.ca/espaces-autochtones/2213574/affaire-cope-cour-supreme-gladue-vulnerabilite-droit

A man in Nova Scotia was condemned to 5 years for battery on his wife. The appeal court reduced the sentence to 3 years because the original judge did not properly take into account the systemic difficulties that first nations offenders have faced through their lives (a precedent set by the Supreme Court in 1999 requires taking the circumstances of the accused into consideration for sentencing). The crown prosecution is appealing this to the Supreme Court now on the basis that the appeal court has not taken into account recent additions to the criminal code that require taking into account the particular vulnerability and frequent victimisation of first nations women.

He might be right, but if you dig deeper; why does the military incentivise marriage?

I would hazard a guess that it's because the military values married men more; it considers them more reliable, more trustworthy, more stable than unmarried men.

If society were to value marriage, its different actors will reward it in the immediate too... You'd see newlywed discounts everywhere, family discounts, we'd be back to (depending whether your jurisdiction did away with them) tax benefits for marriage over living with a partner, etc...

Barring a large upheaval due to AI that I'm not seeing happening right now (though I'll admit it's not impossible), my profession is going to be in demand even if I lose my job. Even if I were to be unable to find a company to hire me directly, I'm confident I could sell my services as a consultant, there's a lot of companies that are too small to have a full time sysadmin on staff but would like to have one consulting. If I suddenly became unemployable in polite society, some of the skills I've developped around cyber-security would probably still make me employable in less polite society.

I'm currently in an apartment, but I'm looking into moving in a house soon, on a minimal mortgage (or no mortgage if I can swing it). That's going to go a long way towards securing my life from shocks. I'm also eyeing (small scale) homesteading; planting, canning, preserving, having chickens. Maybe hydroponics. In the meantime, I try to keep myself in a position where I could reasonably live in and work from my car if for some reason that became necessary. (As to why someone who's almost at the point of buying a house mortgage free is also preparing for the eventuality he might have to live in his car, it's a mix of timing and my pathological need to prepare and have backup plans, even if I have friends and family that would definitely take me in as Plan B to E).

I recently had an epiphany with regards to what I really want to do as a hobby, I want to go canoe camping and fishing. Equipment for these, to a high amateur level, has a relatively low price ceiling (ie, these are not really money pit hobbies after the initial investment). Once I have a paid off / almost paid off house, my paid off car, my hobby equipment, my food expenses reduced through homesteading, I think I'll be quite secure. My planning puts me at that point within the next year or two, without accounting for my wife starting to work within a year or so.

That's definitely a possibility too!

Indians specifically seem to have a particular penchant for online drama.

This is wild speculation on my part, but I would hasard a guess that it might be because Indians on average don't particularly look big or imposing compared to others, and thus feel like they are often disrespected in person. But online, theoretically, no one knows what you look like, so they inflate their online egos to compensate.

Does it count as "abnormal working conditions" for a police officer in a very peaceful municipality to shoot a suspect to death as part of an intense physical struggle?

I'll be honest that's a tough one I don't really have a clear answer to. On one side, that's unlikely to be what they ever had in mind would happen that that day, even with decades of experience. Then, I think how silly it would sound for infantrymen to make the same claim, that having to shoot at people in a warzone is abnormal for a soldier, even if they're from a country that hasn't had a combat deployment in decades. I think on balance I would err on the side of the dissent, no matter how unlikely it is to happen, using deadly force is something police officers train and prepare for as it is a possible outcome of an intervention. If it was so unlikely and abnormal, then they wouldn't be armed at all times in the exercise of their functions, they'd have guns at the station or in their cars for "abnormal" emergencies.

That said it seems a quite a bit shitty to refuse compensation because it would not be "abnormal working conditions" and I'll echo the sigh of relief that that law has been amended, even if I can imagine situations where people abuse those claims or get into jobs they should be gently discouraged to be in due to being a poor emotional fit for it. Hopefully there's other criteria that would stop an EMT from claiming PTSD compensation from simply seeing blood.