2 Canadian Forces members stabbed at Yonge/Sheppard Recruitment centre

roadburn81 · 2時間前

Lol, I love when people who co-opt tragedy to score cheap political points, assume anyone who points out their oportunism is as partisan as themselves.

roadburn81 · 2時間前

Lol, well if we're looking to turn this into a cheap political jab, based in ignorance and political opportunism:

The fact that we have moderaly liberal access to immigrant Muslim extremists (compared to our crazy cousins to the south) perhaps allowed this to happen in the first place.

Okay Liberals, hit the down vote.

roadburn81 · 2時間前

does he know exactly what happened, but can't say?

Or is it like he doesn't know the whole picture, and there's some question as to what happened?

roadburn81 · 2時間前

What were the "certain comments" that the attacker uttered, that the news isn't reporting?

TML_SUCK · 1日前

Not interested, troll.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder

TML_SUCK · 1日前

lol, Trudeau will probably find a way to make it legal. It's 2016 after all.

DiversityOurStrength · 1日前

'open minded' leftist thugs are much more reasonable.

slj1 · 5日前

Presumably in places with uniforms, you can't wear whatever you want. You have to wear the uniform provided.

And it sounds like going by this law, the company can't provide gendered outfits, even as options, unless they can "prove all sex-based dress code differences are legitimately necessary for the job".

So, effectively, at companies that require and provide uniforms, it sounds pretty clear cut.

At companies where dress code is required, but they don't provide the uniform, but just say "wear something black" instead, then it sounds like there's room for slutty options.

slj1 · 5日前

OHRC’s code of conduct states employers must be able to prove all sex-based dress code differences are legitimately necessary for the job. Where this cannot be shown, differences will be deemed discriminatory.

This goes beyond just highly sexulized outfits, such as hooters.

It sounds like any gendered outfit is now illegal.

Does this mean it is illegal for female life guards to be issued swimsuits that cover their breasts? Will they be issued swim trunks like men?

Or will men be issued womens swuimsuits? Or is everyone going to be wearing body suits?

Actually it sounds like the OHRC wants to enforce the non-gendered outfits from Star-Trek TNG.

rtorontotroll · 8日前

What a joke. In multicultural Toronto, for people to try to assert that some fraudulent douche from Rosedale is somehow bringing the city together, for the first time ever, no less.

This entire article is just about as asinine as you'd expect from someone who would try to peddle that idea.

Toronto is a city becoming.

At some point, the uncertainty around the nickname gave way to pride and to a confidence in ourselves that matches up with the praise that we receive from others.

This would be easily dismissable as some teenager projecting their own insecurity on everyone around them, but then you have actual adults, politicians, co-signing this non-sense to secure their relevance (and their $100,000 cushy jobs).

thegreathall · 9日前

I'm basing this on the reality that avoidable deaths keep happening at the hands of police, and they haven't done much to prevent the same modes of failure from happening. The videos of cops shooting people tell the story. There's no hiding it.

In Canada? In the US? Just in general?

The statistics I'm referring to are the much lower rates at which cops get charged and convicted compared to the general population.

For what, murder? I don't see how police, in the course of dealing with criminals, wouldn't have a statistically different rate of conviction than the general public.

They're dealing with criminals all day, every day.

Unless you think the police are as likely to instigate violence as the sub-section of the population that they deal with every day, then of course the conviction rates would be different.

thegreathall · 9日前

Your excuses just don't hold any water.

What excuse? Who am I excusing? What incident did I refer to that you think I gave a cop an out for killing someone?

Sure in the case of self defence there is a graduated reasonable response up to and including deadly force, and I don't begrudge them that, but the job they were hired to do still didn't happen. The cop who guns down a knife wielding crackhead piece of shit is not a hero, he's a fuckup.

There are obviously cases where deadly force is not justified.

But there are also cases when it is definitely justified, and there was no reasonable grounds to do anything else, and in that case, without a doubt they did what they were hired to do.

They were hired to protect the civilian population, and in doing so they are afforded the right to protect themselves from being murdered, which serves their ultimate duty of protecting the population from would-be murderers.

That is part of their job, and without a doubt is part of what they are hired to do.

thegreathall · 9日前

It's clear that the police interpret one's "intent to cause harm" in an extremely loose and cavalier way.

Nothing appears to have been published about this incident that seems to indicate that.

So I have no idea what you're basing that statement on.

It's also clear that the police are unwilling to fix their standards. It's also clear that police enjoy somewhat of a carte blanche approval in the courts - the statistics bear this out.

What statistics are you referring to?

So you have a failure of process. A failure of leadership. A failure of government. And the result of this are needless deaths.

Again, we have no idea if that's the case in this situation, but what is clear is that you're using this situation as a platform to launch an attack on cops.

thegreathall · 9日前

It is their duty to not allow themselves to be killed.

If they die the criminal has a chance to kill others.

It is their duty in a kill-or-be-killed situation, to kill.

thegreathall · 9日前

This is a rationalization of bad design

That assumes that every time a cop shoots someone, it's unavoidable.

There is zero evidence presented one way or the other about the circumstances of this killing, yet you already have people calling this a "failure" on the cops part, or in your case, an apparent assumption about the possibility of this situation being avoidable.

I'm not defending a broken design, that's another topic, I'm pointing out the obvious undercurrent of bigotry towards cops that hides amongst those who proclaim to simply be pushing for reform of policing policy.

thegreathall · 9日前

More like they have the right to self defend in kill-or-be-killed situations.

In a kill-or-be-killed situation, presumably there are only two options, and their only defence is to kill.

thegreathall · 9日前

There are people who straight out chant "what do we want? Dead cops!", like they did in new york

And then you have people who clearly don't care if cops die, but try to present their bigotry packaged in less obvious language.

But it's all the same. Cops face kill-or-be-killed situations, and their duty is to be on the front line and face those situations, armed appropriately. Not to be bullet catchers.

They aren't there to die, so that some piece of human garbage might some day in the future turn their lives around. They're there to protect the public from these people.

And it is their duty to kill these people when criminals put the rest of us, cops includer, in kill-or-be-killed situations.

dataz · 13日前

Get ready to be shocked..

https://twitter.com/CBCNews/status/704788336435662848

skinnypup · 13日前

And if someone were to do so, to petition the government for a new law, it would have no bearing on union member's contract.

Because they aren't crabs pulling others down to build themselves up.

As opposed to the unions threatening to bring the entire city down to get perks that can't be got in the private sector, or in any situation where you aren't dealing with a too-big-to-fail organization such as the government.

skinnypup · 13日前

If you want what they have, rise up and demand it for yourself. Pulling them back down to the same level as everyone else is just playing right into the 0.01%'s hands.

I fail to see how taking money from the cash strapped government, and not from private enterprise, in any way sticks it to the 1%.

And secondly, the only reason these people can "demand" it for themselves is because they have the ability to hold the city hostage through a strike action that affects the public at large. Most everyone else can't do that, because their job would get outsourced.

So the unions fuck over the public by extracting an exorbitant amount of money from the public purse (a shared resource that doesn't affect the 1%), by threatening to further fuck over the public by striking and disrupting the rest of the city.

It's very hard to see how the union isn't the one pulling everyone else down, just to benefit themselves.

skinnypup · 13日前

Who exactly is trying to hold down whom in this situation?

The union trying to fleece the public of money, to elevate itself at everyone else's expense?

Or the public trying to pull the union members back down to the same reality everyone else has to deal with?

slicecom · 14日前

That's quite a sweeping statement.

I would think immigrants and refugees have always been in Regent Park, so what you're suggesting is that back in the 80's and 90's things improved greatly crime wise?

tinifer21 · 15日前

Lol, Gott mit uns...

sid32 · 18日前

Lol, you know you're arguing with a teenage boy when they "happen" to segue to the topic of their penis length.

sid32 · 18日前

TIL disagreeing with courts run by authoritarian leftist politicians is tantamount to denying climate change.

lol, you know you're dealing with an intellectual powerhouse when they go right to comments about penis size.

DiversityOurStrength

トロフィーケース

本日のreddit gold目標額達成率