frostbiker

Shit, they have a fuckload more parking than they need because it is mandated by law. Remove car parking minimums and set up bike parking minimums instead.

Governments should not be allowed to burn books.

Private citizens should be allowed to burn any books they own.

Neither governments nor private citizens should be allowed to harm or threaten people who burn their own damn books.

Example: you can purchase a dozen copies of “On The Origin of Species”, burn them, and I will very happily not threaten to behead you. Easy.

“The bill will make it punishable, for example, for people of the same sex to kiss in public. It will only aim at actions in a public place or with the intention of spreading in a wider circle,” Hummelgaard said

I agree with Hummelgaard. Those “protests” are used to create hatred. Even though it is also for me not comprehensible how people can be so sensitive about this, we all know the reaction it provokes. And even though we don’t agree and comprehend those feelings, we can still respect those feelings and just not senselessly create disruption. And hey… You can still kiss as many people of the same sex in private as you want.

This isn’t an exaggeration: a few weeks ago in Ottawa we had anti-LGBT protests where rainbow flags were burned down – guess who was there? And while many of us were offended and appalled, nobody was threatened or beheaded in response, and we didn’t have politicians trying to pass a new law forbidding the burning of rainbow flags either.

The whole point of this is that in Europe we have fought for centuries in order to establish liberal democracies where freedom of speech and the separation of church and state are enshrined. We must not appease extremists who achieve change with threats of violence. There is a name for that.

In a democracy the act of burning a book, or a flag, is a canary in the coal mine: you know there is trouble when it dies.

The message is simple: we don’t threaten people who have different ideas.

Look at the real-world consequences of mocking Islam, of drawing prophet Muhamed, or burning the Qur’an.

Compare them with the real-world consequences of mocking any other religion (or atheism), or burning their “sacred” books.

Are they comparable? Who is then the oppressor, and who is the oppressed?

Or look at footbal fans hostile to each other, where symbols of the enemy team are burnt vice versa until it escalates to violence.

Indeed, football fans are famously known for their acts of violence, such as flying airliners into skyscrapers, countless suicide bombings, etc. All in the name of football.

I have no interest in Muslims being harmed in any way. They are literally my neighbors. At the same time, one must recognize that among them there are people with a a willingness to support and commit atrocities that is unparalleled today.

People who deny this are blind to reality. All sides are not equal.

I’m all for letting people wear whatever they want. What is the harm?

Here in Canada I’ve seen police officers wearing turbans. Works for me. Nude beaches? Sure thing. I’ve seen people in my neighborhood wearing Saudi-style niqabs and Afghan-style burqas.

Who am I to tell people what they should or shouldn’t wear? How could it be my business?

I’m also for people burning the Qur’an if they so please. Or the bible, or the rainbow flag, or the national flag if that’s how they want to protest. Ideas are there to be challenged.

I draw the line at threatening or harming people.

I understand that’s how things are, but I don’t think that is how they should be. And while I’m an atheist, I also understand many people aren’t. Why force my irreligiosity on them?

So while students should not be indoctrinated on any particular religion in school, I don’t see the harm in letting both teachers and students wear whatever they like, including religious symbols.

In fact, it would be great if we taught all students the basics of multiple world religions in school and let people of different faiths talk to each other about what is important to them.

There is plenty of precedent of non-religious informal rules around clothing. E.g. men wearing skirts, dresses, or soft “feminine” colors. Do those informal rules bother you as well? Should we change the law accordingly, or are we okay with informal norms of conduct in that case?

We should disincentivize antisocial behavior rather than ban specific technologies. If rental e-scooters left in the middle of the sidewalk are a problem, require rental companies to provide parking where the e-scooter must be docked at the end of the journey, for example.

As long as e-scooters are primarily replacing car trips, they are a net benefit to society. Let’s iron out the wrinkles instead of an outright ban.

A carbon tax does a better job at incentivizing low-carbon alternatives at all scales, from trains and more efficient airplanes down to e-bikes.