Die Menschen, die sich gegen das Verbot von Nova Scotias, auf den Wald zuzugreifen, verstehen unsere Kultur nicht verstehen
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-nova-scotia-wood-forest-ban-wildfire/
Die Menschen, die sich gegen das Verbot von Nova Scotias, auf den Wald zuzugreifen, verstehen unsere Kultur nicht verstehen
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-nova-scotia-wood-forest-ban-wildfire/
10 Kommentare
Yup, the amount of western conservatives complaining about what’s going on in Nova Scotia, and simultaneously cheering on things like Smith’s moratorium on renewables in Alberta, is just annoying.
Selfish people who care more about their own personal, and perpetual, victimhood than solidarity with their neighbours.
Brian Lilley, from his boujie condo in Toronto, ranting about what Nova Scotia does, is laughable.
You should have to prove that you’ve hiked 500 m of a trail in Atlantic Canada in the last five years before you chime in on these restrictions.
The people insisting on their right to burn the province down are more anti-social, in the sense of being a destructive force on society, than the vast majority of petty criminals.
It’s a great irony that modern conservatism basically boils down to „the government exists to facilitate my lifestyle,“ something conservatives always accuse socialism of doing through handouts.
But instead, we have demands from conservatives to:
– Massively increase government forest management
– Use sweeping government powers to force local communities to construct roads for cars only
– Burden our health care system with preventable illnesses
This isn’t a movement about personal responsibility and personal liberty. It’s a movement about subjugating everyone around you to your will.
> It’s hard to imagine judges deciding that a woods travel ban isn’t a reasonable limit „as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society,“ as is allowed in Section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is what they found when the group challenged pandemic travel bans here.
To be a reasonable limit under section 1, the Oakes test requires (among other things) minimal Impairment: the limit on the Charter right that the government seeks to assert must impair the right no more than is reasonably necessary to accomplish the pressing and substantial objective. The onus lies on the government (not the citizen challenging it) to prove with evidence that the restriction is as minimal as possible and that no less restrictive approach would accomplish the objective.
Could the government reasonably accomplish its goal of fire safety without banning hiking at all locations? Why is a fire ban insufficient? Why would a night time hiking ban not be enough (presumably people use fire more often at night and burning is readily visible in daylight)? Why can’t they carve out wooded areas proximal to parks officials who can enforce the fire ban? And so fourth.
Suffice it to say, there is a debate to be had in court and it isn“t „hard to imagine“ a judge finding a province-wide ban exceeding minimal impairment and therefore an unjustified breach of section 7. The reverse is true too. It’s a determination to be made based on evidence and the evidende has not yet been submitted, so it would be foolish for anyone to draw such strong conclusions as to whether it will pass a section 1 analysis.
The author asserts his unsubstantiated and unqualified legal opinion as fact in what was once one of our more reputable news publications. Sure it’s an opinion piece and this tidbit was not the main focus of the article, but it should stick out like a sore thumb just how intellectually dishonest (or ignorant) the aside comment was.
More generally, anytime some tries to tell you what our culture is, you should be skeptical. It’s our culture, don’t think you think we can recognize who does or doesn’t understand it? Unless, of course, you are trying to forcibly redefine our culture for us.
Despite what more libertarian minded or American style conservatives seem to think Canada as a country was founded on the ideas of Peace, Order and Good Government as well as placing the needs of the greater community over the individual.
This is a textbook example of placing the needs of the community first. Yes it sucks that you (temporarily) won’t be able to go in the forests and spend time in nature but eliminating the risk of human caused forest fires is infinitely more important. Yes it hurts you individually but on the grand scheme it’s a small temporary sacrifice for the greater good of protecting Nova Scotia and Nova Scotians.
People causing a fuss about this is pretty disappointing but unsurprising at this point.
It’s the same TYPE of person that you see in those old videos of news reporters talking to people when seatbelt laws came into effect. Or when open liquor laws and drinking/driving laws came into effect.
„ThIs iS tYrAnNyyyY!!1!“
It’s the exact same type of human. There’s just more of them now, and because of social media, they can congregate now instead of being limited to being the only selfish moron in their town.
[https://youtu.be/2xcQIoh3FQQ?si=hZ5bidWUnH0JirTw](https://youtu.be/2xcQIoh3FQQ?si=hZ5bidWUnH0JirTw)
If I was Nova Scotian and I had a private forest I would still walk it everyday even with this ban. National/provincial I can understand. Good luck enforcing this ban if you dont even have enough money to run your own province with taxes locally generated.
(1) Canadians can accept that sometimes it is okay to make personal sacrifices for the greater good and (2) some government restrictions may be an absurd overrreach. Both statements can be true.
There are pathways that people use as active transit corridors that I think shouldn’t be closed.
that’s extent of my criticism on this ban. It is a blunt instrument. But I get it.
The idiocratic opposition from the far right think tanks and their agents has been insulting.
as someone whos never been east of Alberta is there something about Nova Scotian culture which doesn’t let them go into the woods without starting a fire?