Skip Navigation

Posts
3224
Comments
3158
Joined
3 yr. ago

Mastodon

Have you ever considered that the Prime Directive is not only not ethical, but also illogical, and perhaps morally indefensible?

  • Yeah, I guess there's some provision somewhere that doesn't require them to amend the entire criminal code every time there's a change in the monarchy?

  • This is not an article about amending the criminal code, nor is it an article about having the RCMP investigate people for future crimes (at least, I hope not).

  • I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that we shouldn't change laws to retroactively target individuals.

  • I mean sure, investigate away - but they're not likely to find anything, because the legal definition of "treason" is quite narrow. Mere "foreign interference and influence" ain't gonna cut it.


    High treason

    46 (1) Every one commits high treason who, in Canada,

    a) kills or attempts to kill Her Majesty, or does her any bodily harm tending to death or destruction, maims or wounds her, or imprisons or restrains her;

    b) levies war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto; or

    c) assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are.

    Treason

    (2) Every one commits treason who, in Canada,

    a) uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province;

    b) without lawful authority, communicates or makes available to an agent of a state other than Canada, military or scientific information or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific character that he knows or ought to know may be used by that state for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or defence of Canada;

    c) conspires with any person to commit high treason or to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a);

    d) forms an intention to do anything that is high treason or that is mentioned in paragraph (a) and manifests that intention by an overt act; or

    e) conspires with any person to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) or forms an intention to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) and manifests that intention by an overt act.

  • They had contact with multiple federal agencies, including Transport Canada, Parks Canada, and Fisheries and Oceans. DFO in particular flagged concerns, and failed to pass them on to Transport Canada.

    Oceangate was a terrible company run by a terrible person, but we shouldn't be dismissing this story.

  • That was my first reaction, but the regulatory gaps highlighted are actually pretty important.

  • I think you hit it on the head in the post - funding an expensive sci-fi series (and no matter how much they slash the budget, it would still be "expensive") is a non-starter.

  • Not my country, but the Beeb seems to be having a bit of an existential crisis at best...entering a death spiral, at worst.

  • I strongly disagree with the first three points (not yours, I know) - especially in the TOS era - but I do agree it doesn't quite feel the way I want it to.

  • That Sybock thing demands follow-up, for sure.

    They just have to make sure none of the eventual TOS cast meet him...

  • I think it's Celia Gooding in unusual makeup, but how fun would it be to give Spock some Burnham closure?

  • Yeah...Panjabi is downright magnetic, and it's wild that she was killed off.

    And they didn't even really let her be a mad scientist!

  • I was about to crack wise about how this fan theory doesn't involve the Rani... but I guess there needs to be a new fan theory punching bag.

    So with that in mind...I'll take it!

  • It's an interesting batch of games in development right now - a survival(?) psychological horror entry, a city-builder, and this.

  • First Paul Maurice, now Nik Ehlers...

    Getting out of Winnipeg and immediately winning the Cup is the thing to do.

  • And AFAICT his understanding of modern viewing habits is as poor as the BBC leadership’s.

    Honestly, I don't think he cares much. And to the extent that he does care, I think it's pretty solidly on the side of "Doctor Who is for kids," and so he's unafraid to get very silly with it.

    I would have much preferred if he’d stuck to the 60th anniversary specials and then taken a step back to coach his replacement from an executive or advisory position.

    Yeah...I had extremely mixed feelings about him coming back, and the outcome was really worse than I imagined. But he still managed to produce a few top-tier episodes in all that mess.

    Onward and upward. I hope.

  • Yup. The tv landscape has changed in ways that no one can really understand.

    I say it a lot, but from my perspective, RTD came back and made pretty much the same show he did the first time around, and got a vastly different outcome.

    It’s more worrying that the BBC still, 20+ years into the streaming era, don’t seem to have understood that “linear TV”, as well as the ritual of communal watching, are pretty much in the past.

    I wonder how much of that is wishful thinking on their part, and how much of it is structural, leaving them no choice. Any time I see a story about the state of the Beeb, it sounds pretty dire.

  • the visual effects were absolutely top notch for a BBC produced show.

    No disagreement here - I'd be quite happy to return to that.

  • The government is expected to table legislation on Friday that Carney said would enhance its enforcement to keep goods made with forced labour out of the Canadian supply chain.

    I guess we'll see...