Corporations don't have a share. Corporations have shares. Shareholders own those shares.
That being said, the single biggest drain on most advanced countries lately has been real estate. The value of which has been increasing far more rapidly than corporate profits.
It's land owners who've been taking too much for the last few decades, as was predicted would eventually happen in the late 1700s and early 1800s by early economists. It happened in Japan 30 years ago, and look where they are today. Tiny homes, overworked, declining population...
Dude tried to get help four times, failed, killed his mom, was found not criminally responsible and "The judge ordered that Raefe be sent to a psychiatric hospital. Such a setting will be his reality for the foreseeable future"
A lot of the time, they just suffer without the aid they need.
I varies a lot though, depending on where and what your disability is.
Wheelchairs do exist in prisons. Wheelchair users often use the ground floor cells.
People with guide dogs generally don't need them in the restricted environment of a prison because they can simply memorize the layout like they would their home. Guide dogs are for more dynamic situations usually.
Serious mental disabilities often end up in mental institutions instead of prisons, they're often found not criminally responsible for their actions.
If writing fictional stories about teenagers having sex should result in being a sex offender, why is George R. R. Martin allowed in Canada?
Game of Thrones (the books) have multiple graphic passages about the rape of minors, Sansa was 12 years old in the books. Even in the show, which aired in Canada, she was still underage.
Your logic is flawed, writing fictional stories shouldn't be a criminal offense, and even with it being illegal in Canada it isn't applied equally.
Rape is sexual assault, sexual assault is not always rape.
Just like an apple is a fruit, but not all fruits are apples.
Words matter, and yours aren't correct. They don't align with legal definitions in countries that define rape, with the common dictionary definitions, or with the common public understanding of the word.
He attempted to have an affair. The fact that he stopped when she protested and drove her home instead indicates he didn't attempt or intend to rape her. He still absolutely committed sexual assault though which is why he was found guilty. Consent for any sort of sexual encounter needs to come first, not during or after, and removing someone's shirt and bra definitely requires consent.
When dealing with situations like this, it's important to be very clear and precise. There's unfortunately a lot of actual rapes that occur, and they shouldn't be muddied by situations where someone calls rape when it isn't leading to people downplaying real rapes.
It's the same reason I don't like seeing people put on the sex offender list for public urination just because it happened near a school (even if there were no youth there at the time) or like the case of a man that got put on the list just a couple years ago for writing a short sexual story (completely fictional) simply because it contained teenagers who weren't 18 yet.
I'm not making excuses, I'm being specific and correct. Rape (which isn't defined in the Canadian criminal code) has a very clear definition understood by the public (and defined in law elsewhere) as requiring penetration of some sort.
You're actually defaming him (and therefore guilty of libel under Canadian Criminal law) for accusing him of something which is not true and could harm his reputation further.
In your opinion, how many years of jail should be given to someone who kisses another person without their consent? Or does that part of this situation not warrant jail time? Should there be a mandatory minimum for any form of sexual assault? How many years then for the more serious offence of removing someone's shirt and bra without their consent?
He removed her shirt and bra and kissed her without consent. No intercourse (including the standard variants thereof) occurred. She protested, and he drove her home.
That's basic sexual assault based on the legal definitions (there are two higher definitions for using weapons or causing bodily harm) and there is no legal minimum for basic sexual assault (of an adult)
It's not arrogant, people absolutely cast off social norms all the time. That's how we drive change in our world already.
Remember segregation? We started out of that with people ignoring the rules (on both sides) despite the significant cost.
It's dead simple to stop eating meat from a social perspective, vegetarians are extremely common these days. To add to that, there's no social cost at all for simply reducing meat consumption. None of your friends are going to complain about you serving carbonara instead of steak when they come over.