is nothing unusual about this decision. What is unusual is the vitriol from other branches of government, and it's dangerous. They don't have to agree. They can be critical. But what happened after this decision is something new in the last ~15 years, and that is worth talking about.

didn't just speak aggressively, he endorsed executions. Poilievre &others contributed to active miseducation about the ruling, its meaning, and the Court. There are reasonable people on both sides of the convo about reasonable hypotheticals but that's a different thing than attacking a court. There

I mean not quite enough to get the charge right but it’s the sentiment that really matters

Took care of that cigarette butt tho!

Yeah, since 15 months ago at the end of 2020.

history of negative interactions with law enforcement and are disproportionately affected by police practices and criminalization [...] For such individuals, courts must appreciate how previous experiences and marginalization colour their perception and responses to interactions with the police."