7 ms·
Does anyone really think bills to ban something, even if temporary, are motivated by an honest desire for more time to "consider the effects" of something? Who
by jessriedel 3y ago
Does anyone really think bills to ban something, even if temporary, are motivated by an honest desire for more time to "consider the effects" of something? Who is sitting around and doing this pondering? Does anyone's mind ever change?
It seems to me people have made a decision, and then if they can't gather the majority for a permanent ban they compromise on a temporary one.
- ska 3y agoSometimes, definitely. Other times it’s obstructionist.
- icegreentea2 3y agoI can't speak to the general case, but in this specific case, the city has decided to basically punt and wait for the province's plan. Is the province being slow? Maybe. https://www.ontariocanada.com/registry/view.do?postingId=39087&language=en https://www.ontariocanada.com/registry/view.do?postingId=390...
- jessriedel 3y agoNot sure I understand. You’re raising a case in ON, distinct from the OP article discussing BC, right? Regardless, there are surely cases where one governing body delays a decision until action is taken by another governing body, or until a study is finished, or whatever. I’m talking about the claim that the delay is to give time for the issue to be “considered”.
- icegreentea2 3y agoSorry, sircastor's message that you replied to was about Toronto/ON.
- jessriedel 3y agoOh gotcha, my mistake.
- Terr_ 3y ago> Does anyone really think [there is an] honest desire for more time to "consider the effects" of something? Sometimes it might translate to: "We don't want to be the experimental guinea-pig, let someone else try first..." "... So we honestly desire more time to consider the effects that will have happened to them."
- jessriedel 3y agoThen they should say so :)