Restricted To Party/fun

[Senior]

Originally posted by pbreak:


when exactly did i make this claim? Freedom to assembly doesn't mean freedom for me to drink in public either (although that would be nice) - my comment is based on the no music/party thing, not the alcohol part. Unless of course by definition a "bush party" includes alcohol.

Well actually...

Main Entry: 1bush par·ty
Pronunciation: 'bush pär-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural bush parties
Etymology: Middle Englishakin to Old High German busc forest
Date: 14th century, partie part, party, from Old French, from partir to divide -- more at PART
Date: 14th century
1 : a person or group taking one side of a keg of beer
2 : a group of persons organized for the purpose of directing the use of beer bongs without any being wasted
3 : a person or group participating in an action or affair <mountain-climbing party> <a party to the transaction>
4 : a particular individual : PERSON <a really drunk girl>
5 : a detail of drunken ravers
6 : a social gathering; also : the entertainment provided for it
- party adjective

[soma]

Originally posted by c.tard

they aren't just trying to stop people from having fun. prevention of forest fires is what they are after, and the simplest way to achieve that is to keep people out. any fires that come up after are most likely due to natural causes and are out of their control.

and they need to do there job. Respcect to the city an VPD for that cuz enough of this province is burning right now. If we wanted to be in control with 100% of our judgement we wouldn't be parting. so yeah party + Potential fire hazard not a good combo.

[cinist]

werd to tha c.tard

[pbreak]

Originally posted by Hot Karl
pbreak: so you'd be able to guarantee to the police that there wouldn't be a single drop of alochol there?

or since it's rave-styles no drugs?

cuz if that's what your trying...well naive comes to mind.

this "ban" has nothing to do with drugs/alcohol and so neither does my point... bush parties that involve open alcohol, etc., are illegal anyway. As c-tard mentioned the entire point of this is to keep people out of the forest - period, for the sake of preventing any forest fires within close proximity to a rather large population. I have no problem with WHY they want to do what they are doing. But at the same time they are taking away guaranteed freedoms put forth in the charter of rights even though there is no immediate threat from the responsible use of the parks and forests. The end simply doesn't justify the means to me.

[AGROculture]

^^So what

300 forest fires are burning right now that are human caused. Thats from hikers and campers and are all accidents

300!!! and there's still another month or so in the fire season
We just don't have the resources to put up with another 100 fires

They are banning us from the forest from a few weeks because of safety concerns. If I lived near a forest and my home was at risk I wouldn't want anyone back there either

keep in mind I'm an avid hiker and mountain climber and this is keeping me out of the forest to! It sucks! but I'm willing to comply and do my duty to minimize the risk of fires

AGROout

[pbreak]

Originally posted by AGROculture
^^So what

300 forest fires are burning right now that are human caused. Thats from hikers and campers and are all accidents

300!!! and there's still another month or so in the fire season
We just don't have the resources to put up with another 100 fires

They are banning us from the forest from a few weeks because of safety concerns. If I lived near a forest and my home was at risk I wouldn't want anyone back there either

keep in mind I'm an avid hiker and mountain climber and this is keeping me out of the forest to! It sucks! but I'm willing to comply and do my duty to minimize the risk of fires

AGROout

fair enough

[c.tard]

Originally posted by pbreak
But at the same time they are taking away guaranteed freedoms put forth in the charter of rights even though there is no immediate threat from the responsible use of the parks and forests. The end simply doesn't justify the means to me.

if people actually were responsible, there would be no need to keep everyone out of these areas. and everyone could go on there merry way and do as they please, like we can the majority of the year.

but people are not responsible, they don't care, they don't listen, and that's a fact. therefore, the only way to prevent anymore fires from happening - not including natural causes - is to keep people away. if there's no people there, there's no one to start fires. that is the whole point.

totally justified if you ask me.