I think it is a loophole but in the original sense. A hole in a castle wall used to help protect the castle (by being able to shoot out of it). It's a hole in the legislation that helps defend it from attack. Ie it can't be opposed for safety reasons, it can't be suspended either for safety reasons.
Anyone wishing to send a similar note could more explicitly ask about reconciling his SOGI education policy with his commitment to small government (he expresses a commitment to small government on his website), and whether he develops policy based on common sense (hunches) or scientific data (he alludes to preferring both on his website).
I'm concerned about the safety of school children.
I'm concerned because I've been told that having SOGI-specific anti-bullying policies improves the school climate for LGBTQ and heterosexual students, reducing discrimination, suicidal ideation and suicide attempts for all students. Is that true?
I've been told LGB youth are still seven times more likely to attempt suicide than non-lgb youth. Is that true?
How does the number of regretted irreversible child sexual reassignments compare to the number SOGI minority suicides? I'm sure you hope to reduce the number of people harmed by regretted transition, but are you worried that federal meddling in SOGI education will increase suicide rates?
Aside from SOGI education, what impact do you anticipate "outing" kids to their parents will have on their mental health and risk of suicide?
I'm concerned that federal government overreaching to meddle with school curriculums and policies will result increasing numbers of dead kids. What's the best way to protect kids? In this case I think the best way to avoid having dead kids on your conscience is to remind your constituents that education is a provincial responsibility and steadfastly refuse to engage on the topic.
To me heroism means doing something that requires bravery, for the benefit of someone else. It's an especially apt term for describing acts which jeopardize personal safety for the safety of others.
Would the outcome have been less tragic if they'd been more strategic, probably yes. Don't insult them by saying that they probably didn't know that is dangerous to walk on treacherous ice. They could see the kids floating away and bravely put themselves in danger to try to rescue them.
I've seen my dad and my dog fall through the ice on separate occasions.
Luckily they were both close to the shore and were able to self rescue.
My dad already had some experience falling through the ice from skating on the St. Lawrence River in the 1970s. He was by himself and had skated most of the way from Kingston to the border. His first attempt to pull himself back up failed because there was nothing to grab. He forced himself to stop wasting his energy with reflexive scrabbling and strategically let his soaked woolen mittens freeze to the ice and put all his remaining energy into a single big attempt which worked.
For the events that I witnessed:
Watching my dog struggle was really hard. He kept breaking through trying to climb directly back to shore. The water was mostly open though and we were able to get him to swim laterally to the dock 10m away where the ice had already cleared. Lots of snuggles.
For my dad:
We had checked the thickness of the ice ~200 meters from where it gave way. We didn't like the look of the ice ahead and planned to make landfall at 'Picnic Point'. It's called that because it's a beautiful rocky peninsula with southern exposure, a great place for a picnic in the summer. Maybe that rocky southern exposure contributed to thinning the ice.
My dad was tied/looped onto a sled he was towing, and wearing cross country skis. I'm not sure how much the weight of the sled contributed to the ice giving way. Skis should have helped prevent the breakthrough but they sure didn't help him get out.
He was able to get himself onto the shore and ultimately to the cabin under his own power and warm up with an electric heater. I kept him company while mum, sister, and baby brother took a longer route in. We lost 2 bottles of wine, and some snow mobile parts off the back of the sled, and those skis will never be the same but we counted ourselves lucky.
Games need a 'this is the last match for me' switch. The number of times I've reflexively requeued (or been auto requeued) when I meant to do something else is a large number.
I agree that China's claims in the region are incorrect, and it's bullying its neighbors. But it's a little silly to say that Canada is erring on the side of caution, when we're the one with a military helicopter 10 000 km from home.
It's a little like getting in someone's face, saying "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you" and then complaining that they spat on you when they blow a raspberry.
If one of my coworkers was accused of raping one of my other coworkers, I'd expect my boss not to send the accused to the field with others until everything was sorted out. Also make sure the complainant isn't pressured to return to the field before ready.
I think it is a loophole but in the original sense. A hole in a castle wall used to help protect the castle (by being able to shoot out of it). It's a hole in the legislation that helps defend it from attack. Ie it can't be opposed for safety reasons, it can't be suspended either for safety reasons.