Hacksaw

That's not true. These types of investigations basically hand over tons of political power to your opponent. Anything discovered can be implied to be the government's fault, and if little is found then it's the government wasting money.

We don't have the required refinement in the media and the political engagement of the average citizen to effectively use these kinds of investigations.

Leveraging this type of investigation is part of how Stephen Harper best Paul Martin.

Ranking free speech above tolerance is what causes this. He didn't tolerate others, he actively argued that people, including children, should die for various terrible reasons. He broke the social contract. He was no longer entitled to tolerance or protection from being killed. You lose that protection the second you say someone else should be killed because of who they were born as.

This free speech supremacy nonsense is garbage. White supremacists should not be tolerated in civil society. People who advocate for others to die (based on who they were born) deserve people advocating for and pursuing their death in return as self defense. You don't get to get away with stochastic terrorism then pretend you didn't do anything wrong.

Hmmm creating rhetoric against an identifiable underclass, then requiring the class to carry identification that labels them as a member of the undesirable underclass..... Where have I seen that before?!?

At home both of those are invalid. You close the lid before you flush so you don't spread particles everywhere (among many other benefits)

Everyone opens the lid/seat to the desired level. Everyone does their business. Everyone closes the lid. Everyone flushes and washes their hands.

True gender equality!

The key is in give and take. You do something that's a bit more intimate than the last thing you did. Then you wait for her to match it or increase intimacy. If she never does then you go back to the last thing she did match.

She has to KNOW that things don't escalate without her participation.

The alternative is that you're the only one escalating and she's the "gatekeeper of intimacy" which is a dynamic where no one wins.

If you try this and it's clear her interest in intimacy is vastly different than yours over the long term, then you should assess whether this relationship fulfills other needs such that the lack of intimacy and sexual fulfillment is acceptable to you or if there are other ways of meeting that need that's acceptable to both of you.

It's easy to criticize, hard to contribute.

If you don't post shit, don't complain about other people's posts not meeting your lofty standards.

I think that free speech laws are what stopped us from being proactive against these intolerant fascist views.

They turn tolerance from a social contract into a "paradox" where we have to tolerate the intolerant until they take over.

If we didn't have such strict free speech laws, we could have deplatformed and jailed these people back when they were at the "protest with confederate and Nazi flags" stage and not had to deal with the neo-fascist government stage.

To put it another way punching Nazis should be legal. A Nazi is a direct existential threat to Jewish people and other minorities. Parading with Nazi paraphernalia in public is violence towards others and punching Nazis is valid self defense. American free speech and self defense laws were written to exclude "inducement" of violence, but that's been whittled away by the supreme Court, including a ruling that walking around with Nazi flags in a Jewish neighborhood wasn't bad enough to permit the residents to retaliate in any way because of "free speech".

That isn't what they're saying.

Families are being forced into expensive low density urban housing or into the suburbs. This is being done by condo developers who make more money per square foot selling smaller apartments to single professionals and who don't want to build family apartments.

Regulations on minimum family apartments and minimum affordable units is how you solve that.

Yeah, because like all good money it's backed by a state with a judicial system and a military.

but would prefer to be coddled when I need it rather than when I don’t.

I think this line is your problem. I suspect your family has been very caring and attentive your whole life. They figured out what you need to be at your best, to not be overwhelmed, and to have a chance to go somewhere you can recharge when you're out of energy. And they made it their job to provide you that set of needs so you can always be at your best.

Reading your post, I can't honestly think your life would have been better in shared res accommodations. It sounds like you need your own personal space.

I don't think they have any hope of knowing "when you need to be coddled" unless you communicate that clearly on a case by case basis. But I would take some time to think about each case seriously because it sounds like you don't think you need a private room when your post makes it pretty clear you'd rather have your own space and choose to socialise with people you like when you want. In a shared room with bunks you are forced into social situations 24/7 with strangers or people you don't like with no escape.

So yeah, take some time to think about the pros and cons, then once you make a choice communicate it clearly to your family. "I am an adult now. In restaurants I'm confident I can handle every aspect of the interaction from ordering to eating etc... Please don't help me, even if you think I'm having a hard time in a restaurant setting. It's important to me that I be independent in this setting. I know you're doing it because you love me and want to help me, and I appreciate that. I'm asking for this because when I'm treated like that in public it makes me feel like a small child and it's very disempowering. I still appreciate that you help me in other ways, I would still like that help if you're still willing to offer it. As I feel I'm able to take more things on myself, I will continue letting you know like this"

As for your aunt, we all have that aunt. You just have to say no as many times as it takes lol and she won't like it.

I wish I shared your optimistic view of this theoretical exemption. "Lawful protest" is already a trap word thanks to the last 30 years of anti protest laws. Police can declare any protest unlawful based on vague laws, then suddenly you're guilty of the new hate crime. Many municipalities require protest paths in order to qualify as lawful. This law can be used as an excuse for the municipality to reject the plan and move you to a place where protesting is pointless. Here is a straightforward guide to your rights and the limitations commonly used to regulate, restrict, and extinguish lawful protest: https://lawshun.com/article/what-is-a-lawful-protest-in-canada

We already have hate crime laws. They're effective. The only thing that's ineffective is that police never want to investigate to find the people committing hate crimes, calling in bomb threats, vandalizing with hateful messages. This is 90% of the hate crime problem. This law does NOTHING to help identify and indict people who commit hate crimes.

So the only question left is what existing group of people who weren't targetable by existing hate crime laws can be targeted with these laws. And the answer is pretty straightforward: people who protest the genocide in Gaza. And I'm sure other groups will be targeted.