Em Adespoton

Canada is Trump’s backup plan for when Florida and Texas are swept away.

Loads of free land that could easily be claimed in a three day special military operation.

It wasn’t just the indigenous people who were robbed, either.

The main issue is that Europeans had a very different concept of land ownership and land management; in the European view, land was a thing to be conquered, subdued, and divided up for exploitation by those who successfully did so.

The indigenous perspective, for the most part (different peoples had varying views on this), was that the land was something of which people were a part, and needed to be kept in balance.

When Europeans hear “unceeded”, they hear “land they never intentionally sold”. When indigenous people hear “unceeded”, they hear “land we never collectively agreed would be used in this way.”

Seems to me that if the Federal government told them where they must live, that government has a responsibility to provide safe drinking water. For nations that are self governed and are able to move around on their traditional lands, I’d argue that it’s up to them to find safe drinking water.

Treaty status and details should also be taken into consideration.

Hon Chan, B.C. Conservative MLA for Richmond Centre, expressed concerns about the broad definition of reckless driving.

According to the bill, reckless driving could include late left turns in some cases, driving too closely behind another driver on the highway and driving behaviour that intentionally prevents another driver from passing.

I see the concern. Unsafe driving of those types is extremely common in Richmond. Those are driving decisions fully under the driver’s control, and illegal. If someone is intentionally doing something illegal under a government issued license, a temporary suspension while being investigated sounds entirely reasonable to me.

However, I can also see how easily it could be weaponized by an officer. Seems to me the suspension should be handled just like a speeding ticket — still disputable in court.

Depends; are they bilingual?

The reason politicians are afraid of crown corps is that the final responsibility for them lies with politicians, and they aren’t designed to be profitable.

Which means every crown corp is leverage against the in-power politicians.

If that could be fixed, they probably wouldn’t hate them so much.

They got quoted by the NY Times Time Magazine this week….

Which parks exactly are being flooded with people on prayer mats?

If you tried that in Mundy, you’d likely get hit in the head with a frisbee.

Most of the other parks I know of in Coquitlam don’t have enough flat space to do such a thing, being filled as they are with trees and trails.

Tri Cities? Sure… there are also people doing yoga, going for prayer walks, sword dancing, and many other things from many cultures. But none are really flooding anywhere.

He probably did. What he’s saving us for now… that’s another thing.

Otherwise we go the American route and end up fighting amongst ourselves.

If it’s between the parents and the victim, then our government has failed us.

I’d argue that parents should be liable to the state, not the victim or their family. This is a societal issue, and civil liability won’t fix it.

This will probably blow some people’s minds: approximately 9,000 people live in The City of London. The average daily population however is 500,000. And of course, 9.8 million people live in Greater London.