Independent MLA Deborah Drever on Monday earned the rare distinction of becoming one of the few Independent Alberta politicians to have a proposed bill pass the legislature.
The Calgary-Bow MLA’s Bill 204, also known as the Safer Spaces for Victims of Domestic Violence Amendment Act, will allow abuse victims to break a lease early without penalty if the home is unsafe.
A victim would require a statement from a signed professional — such as a doctor, nurse, social worker or police officer — verifying that the home is unsafe because of domestic violence.
The bill received the support of the New Democrat government and passed third reading 62-0 in the legislature with all-party support.
“I commend Ms. Drever for her commitment to survivors of domestic violence,” Status of Women Minister Shannon Phillips said in a written statement. “Bill 204 will help ensure that survivors of domestic violence are safe and have the supports they need to maintain their independence.”
The law won’t come into force until the province organizes consultations with those affected by the bill, including landlords, tenants and women’s organizations, the government said in a news release.
Consultations will begin in January. The province says it expects the bill’s accompanying regulations will be drafted within six to eight months.
The Wildrose party had proposed its own amendment to the bill that would have also required victims provide a sworn statutory declaration, but withdrew it Monday, paving the way for the unanimous vote in favour of the legislation.
What makes me happiest is the gender neutrality of this bill. I ready it and never ones does it gender abuse victims. That’s what the media is doing. Kudos Ms. Drever
Suppose you placed a baby in a room with a snake and a spider. Would they play with these creatures or leave them well alone?
This is not a hypothetical question. Researchers in the study of fear are actively looking into it.
It is already well-known that babies find live animals much more interesting than stuffed ones. Research has found that this interest persists even if those animals are snakes and spiders.
Studies like this are giving new insights into the nature of fear itself, and just how and when it is acquired.
[Fear of snakes is common (Credit: Alamy)]
A fear of snakes is one of the most common and intense fears in the world, according to fear researcher Judy DeLoache of the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, US, who was not involved in the new study.
The team set out to startle the babies to see how they would react
The simplest view, and one that many people would assume is true, is that we are innately scared of them. The idea is that, because some snakes are deadly, we have evolved to react to them all with fear.
Seemingly in line with that, 11-month-old infants were shown images of a snake paired with either a fearful or happy voice. The babies looked at snakes for longer when a fearful voice was presented than when a happy voice was heard.
Another study found similar results when using fearful versus happy faces, suggesting that young infants associate fear with snakes.
[We have good reason to be scared of some deadly snakes (Credit: Carlos Díaz/CC by 2.0)]
However those studies were not hard proof, and we can’t ask babies if they are actually scared of snakes.
A new study re-assesses how babies react to snakes. Its authors are seeking to overturn the idea that babies – and therefore us – are innately scared of them.
The team measured babies’ physiological responses as they watched videos of snakes and elephants, paired with both fearful and happy voices.
They then set out to startle the babies to see how they would react. They presented them with a “startle probe”, which in this case was an unexpected bright flash of light as they watched a video.
[Not all snakes are venemous (Josh henderson/CC by 2.0)]
A startle like this would be more intense if the babies were already scared: just like when we watch scary films, and jump more if we are already tense.
“What we found is that their startle responses were not bigger when watching a video of a snake, even when paired with a fearful voice,” says co-author Vanessa LoBue at Rutgers University in New Jersey, US.
The babies’ startle response was actually lower. Their heart response was also lower, which also indicates that babies were not scared.
In other words, though the babies paid more attention to the snakes, this did not invoke fear.
[This pit viper is certainly very deadly (Credit: Ephotocorp/Alamy)]
LoBue expected this result. Both human babies and monkeys are known to be more interested in snakes than other animals, suggesting that snakes are somehow special.
It is this heightened interest in snakes that can more easily be turned into fear in certain circumstances.
Children do not have an innate fear of snakes, agrees DeLoache. “Rather, they have a predisposition to detect and respond rapidly to snakes.” For example, studies have shown that young children will quickly detect the presence of a snake in a photo among many other non-snake photos.
[Some snakes are quite cute (Credit: Tambako The Jaguar/CC by 2.0)]
Far from this fear being hard-wired, for LoBue it is now clear that fear of snakes and spiders is culturally conditioned.
“While we find differential responses to snakes early on, meaning they are special, it doesn’t seem to be related to fear early in development,” she says. “It’s possible that paying more attention to something might make fear learning easier later on. It facilitates fear learning.”
LoBue says it is a good thing that we have not evolved an inborn fear of certain things. “It’s not adaptive to have any hard-wired fear,” she says, because it would limit a young infant’s desire to explore new things.
Instead, we have evolved to quickly learn to be afraid of something if it turns out to be dangerous.
Scientists throw toddlers into pit of vipers and are surprised with the results.
Samus Aran amiibos can open the ticket barriers of Moscow Vyacheslav train station, without needing a ticket.
This is due to an oddly specific RFID in the amiibo that just syncs up correctly enough to the train station’s own reader. But what I like to say the real reason for this is
Samus don’t need no fucking authorisation so FUCK YOU ADAM
FUCK YOU AND YOUR DEAD MILITARY ASS BITCH I DON’T NEED NO AUTHORISATION
These people will go down in history as bigots of the highest order.
I’d think the Japanese of all people would be above this, but, on the other hand, I guess that they do have a pretty bad population problem there as it is.
It can go all the way down to the county level, which is kinda crazy.
31,493 people have my surname.
And I will fight them all*
so im not at all surprised that Yi is the 118th most common last name and there are more than 4 million people that share it…. tbh its really nice and i feel very connected right now
Only 1,245 have my surname. That’s still a lot more than I thought there would be…
Approximately 60 people share my surname and all but one live in Australia. The one lives in the US.
less than 10,000 and like all of them are in austria???
94,799 have my surname and I intend to destroy them THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE
20,000 🙁
882,531
…does this mean I win?
1,149,034…..when ya last name ends in “ez” you know it’s gonna be bad lmao
