94
submitted 1 day ago by theacharnian@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca
top 3 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] 9488fcea02a9@sh.itjust.works 3 points 8 hours ago

"urges"

Carney after getting a majority:

[-] wraekscadu@vargar.org 27 points 23 hours ago

A good way to present surveillance pricing as illegal is to give it the discrimination angle (based on race, sexuality, religion, practically everything).

Individuals belonging to these different classifications tend to share certain similarities in their purchasing habits. My guess is that this would result in measurable pricing patterns for folks depending upon their race/sexuality/religion, etc. Which would be discrimination.

Hence, my guess is that this doesn't even need to be legislated by Parliament. A lawsuit by someone motivated enough could bring this down. Any legal folks here who can validate this?

[-] Cnkcv@lemmy.ca 2 points 8 hours ago

Given that thought, I'm actually surprised someone hasn't sued already over the pink razor blue razor pricing.

this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2026
94 points (99.0% liked)

Canada

11876 readers
544 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 Sports

Baseball

Basketball

Curling

Hockey

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS