This ban is like an American school saying you're allowed to wear cowboy hats but not sombreros because sombreros are associated with catholicism, in that they are mostly associated with the culture of a predominately catholic country.
This is like banning kids from wearing rainbows because it signifies their values.
When I was 13 walking home from school the day after a snow day I was berated by a driver that accused me of throwing a snowball at his car. I had done no such thing (that day). I mean message received, I don't think I've thrown a snowball at a car since, but it wasn't me. A few years later I realized it was probably nick.
To me it's the fact that he abused his position of trust to initiate a private relationship that makes me feel that a crime may have been committed. (Due to compromised consent).
Also there may be an argument to be made that a highschool teacher remains in a position of authority while a former student completes post secondary education. As the former student is likely to perceive that a former teacher has potential influence over scholarships/bursaries or want to use them as a positive reference for a summer internship after their first year or something.
There's a reasonable chance of conviction so charges are appropriate.
To me it's the fact that he abused his position of trust to initiate a private relationship that makes me feel that a crime may have been committed. (Due to compromised consent).
Also there may be an argument to be made that a highschool teacher remains in a position of authority while a former student completes post secondary education. As the former student is likely to perceive that a former teacher has potential influence over scholarships/bursaries or want to use them as a positive reference for a summer internship after their first year or something.
I agree that the tax was designed to funnel money into the media oligopoly to which our politicians are beholden.
But like the headline, you are conflating the tax with the ban. They aren't two sides of the same coin, the ban (or maybe more accurately boycott) is a reaction to the tax.
I think the headline mischaracterizes the intent of the ban. It didn't fail to dent Facebook usage. The ban succeeded, showing no reduction in Facebook traffic despite reducing access to content.
I recall watching a video about this a few months ago. Their explanation of how this doesn't violate the law of increasing entropy was not satisfactory:
They ran a computer simulation of their model that showed 0 entropy at the beginning then a huge spike and then an asymptotic approach to a steady state value. Since the steady state value wasn't zero they said "look entropy increased (from zero to some value) we don't violate the law of entropy".
The initial entropy value of zero was because of fixed starting conditions ie at fixed starting conditions entropy is zero because you've defined the state everything is in. Once I figured out this have waving I lost interest.
I seem to recall a certain conservative academic being adamant that a school administration instructing him which pronouns to use was an unconscionable violation of his rights.
An Abaya is just a flowing robe.
This ban is like an American school saying you're allowed to wear cowboy hats but not sombreros because sombreros are associated with catholicism, in that they are mostly associated with the culture of a predominately catholic country.
This is like banning kids from wearing rainbows because it signifies their values.