I’ll try to remember to watch that later. Thanks for the link.
In other news, I saw a nice picture on Twitter the other day. It’s a picture of Mayor Nenshi holding a baby born during the flood. Adorable! The baby is cute too. 
Some people are returning to their homes in Lac-Mégantic, it looks like, and businesses are reopening - the ones that are left, that is.
No, that’s not necessarily true. BIG companies have PR departments. Small and medium sized companies don’t, or their “PR” department is a young person in their first job whose “PR” duties involve social media and press releases. The PR savvy to handle a major public screwup is something only a very large company has.
If I recall correctly, Rail World has fewer than 200 employees. A company of that size would almost certainly have no PR department, or a PR department of one inexperienced person. Of all the dozens of customers I’ve worked with that had about that many employees, not a single one had a PR department, and a colossal, fatal catastrophe would have them utterly stunned.
In all likelihood, Rail World’s president pretty much IS the PR department.
Rail World’s PR department needs to be fired. 
[QUOTE=Malthus]
Legally, under the law of vicarious liability, if the company employees were at fault, the company would be on the hook for damages (I assume that the Civil Law is like the Common Law in this), but I understand criminal liability works differently.
[/QUOTE]
Civil law approaches the issues somewhat different, as a theoretical matter: “fault” rather than “negligence”, and direct liability of an employer for an employee, rather than vicarious liability, but the net result is usually the same. (The analogy I sometimes use is that the engine parts for a Honda won’t fit the engine of a Ford, but both cars will get you to the same place.)
See articles 1457 and 1463 of the Civil Code of Québec:
What a weird story:
Now, I can understand not LIKING the monarchy. I don’t like the monarchy, and I was born here. But how on earth can this constitute a violation of someone’s rights?
And, not to sound like a jerk, but you moved to Canada and didn’t notice it was a constitutional monarchy? Like, you didn’t see the lady’s face on the coins?
Not to put too fine a point on it, but those people all sound like idiots to me. Canadian citizenship is a package deal, not a buffet where you pick and choose the parts you like.
What a frivolous lawsuit.
I can’t believe that I actually agree with the readers’ comments on a Globe and Mail article. I didn’t read all 1865 of them, but the general consensus is: “Canada is a constitutional monarchy. If you don’t like it, go back to your own country.”
Pretty much sums up my feelings, although I do like the monarchy. Liz rocks.
I treat it the same as I do the organized atheists getting huffy over religious references in O Canada. It’s a vestigial symbol of Canada’s history, that has no actual significance or meaning. NONE.
No one thinks you support imperialism and enslavement of the Global South, because you have a passport or citizenship. Who are you trying to impress?
Three divisions of Parliament: Commons, Senate, and . . .
I could almost kind of see it if they were challenging the idea of a oath at all. I think oaths are kind of silly and superstitious, although not really a civil liberties issue either. But they just seem to want the oath to be changed to something they personally agree with, which would seem to go against the whole point of an oath.
The monarchy is the most embarrassing part of our system of government. It makes us look like 40 year olds who still live with our parents; at best, unusual like principal Skinner from ‘The Simpsons’, at worst like Norman Bates from ‘Psycho’.
And the strange thing about this oath is - I’ve never had to swear an oath; I’m a citizen because I was born here. From the Wiki page -
So, yes, I can see why an Irish republican doesn’t want to say that. Hell, I wouldn’t want to say that. Her Heirs and Successors? Prince Charles is living proof that inbreeding leads to mental deficiency!
You know, we can have reasonable discussions about the role of the monarchy in Canada, but in a place dedicated to fighting ignorance, the common statement that Prince Charles is the product of inbreeding grates on me.
Here’s Charles’ ancestry, going back to his great-great-grandparents (i.e. 16 great-great-grandparents).
There is no common ancestor in Phillip’s lineage and Elizabeth’s lineage going back that far. To get to a common ancestor, you have to go back to the great-great-great-grandparents: Victoria is one of those 32 individuals that then shows in the lineage twice, as does Christian IX of Denmark.
By what definition does a family tree with no common individuals until you go back five generations amount to inbreeding?
In fact, Elizabeth II’s ancestry is slightly more closely bred than her son, Charles. Victoria, one of Elizabeth’s great-great-grandmothers, was the niece of one of her great-great-grandfathers, Adolphus, Duke of Cambridge. So if you think Charles is the result of inbreeding, you have to assume that the Queen is even more so.
But, I don’t recall people criticizing the Queen as being inbred, probably because most people seem to like her as a person. The “inbred” tag is just something that gets slung at Charles, because people don’t seem to like him as a person.
You want to talk about inbreeding, go look at another Charles: Charles II of Spain. His father was uncle to his mother, amongst other peculiarities. As the wiki article states, “The inbreeding was so widespread in his case that all of his eight great-grandparents were descendants of Joanna and Philip I of Castile.”
I beg your pardon - Prince Charles is mentally deficient entirely on his own lack of merit, and not due to his genetic heritage.
I’m not sure that would make me feel any better about taking an oath to bear him true allegiance.
Okay, so what evidence is there that Charles is mentally deficient? He holds a degree from Cambridge (2:2, respectable), and was a serving officer in the RAF and Royal Navy for five years in the 1970’s, including flying airplanes (both props and jets) and helicopters, and commanding a coastal minehunter. That doesn’t sound like someone with mental deficiencies.
I don’t mind the monarchy; at worst it seems like a harmless vestige of the past. On the other hand, I wouldn’t fight very hard to keep it either. My feelings might me more pronounced if the royals were, you know, here most of the time.
One thing I do think is important is that a constitutional monarchy separates the symbolic role of “head of state” from the practical executive role of “head of government”.
This prevents excessive reverence being paid to the head of government; such reverence impedes the proper oversight of the government by the people. This is a problem with the US system, where the “office” of the President, as symbol of the nation, is conflated with the person of the President, as executive officer of the government. This makes it more difficult psychologically for people to stand in the way of presidential privilege and insist on their rights.
I wouldn’t mind a Canadianization of the monarchy: either a truly separate Canadian-based royal family, or its replacement by some other symbolic political organ.
It would need to be clearly symbolic, though. I wouldn’t support calling the head of state a “President”, simply because it could be confused with the US executive office. Perhaps keep the office of Governor General, but have the members of the Order of Canada select the GG (as was one suggestion)? Maybe we could come up with something truly unique and Canadian, like our heraldic symbolism.
Finally, a post-hockey career for Wayne Gretzky!
Quick and dirty - what I have against Prince Charles is his acceptance and promotion of medical quackery, particularly Naturopathy, and the revelations of his communications during the messy divorce proceedings with Lady Di.
As an environmentalist, I suppose I should be grateful for his support, but considering I have no respect for him or his opinions on other topics, I’m much happier looking to scientists as a support for my green leanings.
And with that, I have to go play a concert.
[QUOTE=Sunspace]
Perhaps keep the office of Governor General, but have the members of the Order of Canada select the GG (as was one suggestion)?
[/QUOTE]
The Globe and Mail trots that out as their pet proposal every so often, but I think there are problems with it.
For one thing, what is the distribution of the members of the Order of Canada by province of residence? Are they proportionate to the provincial populations generally? If not, why should some provinces be over-represented in the selection of the head of state, and other provinces under-represented? Would admission to the Order of Canada start to be conditioned on maintaining a suitable proportion of members from each province and territory, to ensure that each province and territory has a proportionate say in the selection?
Second, what do the members of the Order in Canada bring to the selection process, any more than any other group of Canadians. They’re talented in their own fields. Does that mean that they’re better at making a political judgment than other Canadians?
Third, what about Gretzky? As far as I know, he’s lived outside of Canada for about 20 years. Why should someone who’s not lived in Canada for two decades have a right to participate in selecting the head of state? We don’t let ex-pats vote in federal elections, so why for the head of state?
Just some thoughts.
Those are fair criticisms, more consistent with the ethos of the SDMB: attack the posts, not the poster! I’m with you on the medical quackery issue.
As for the comments during the divorce, well, no-one’s comments made during a divorce look good. :eek:
Northern Piper I think that may be the truest thing I have ever read on the subject of divorce. A good friend is just starting down that road, and less than a month in, things are getting UGLY!
I am in Kingston on an Exercise. Such a pretty base :). We are working out of Fort Frontenac, moving later this week, for those familiar with the area.