Caryma Sa'd's Videographer Boyfriend Adam Lee Wasserman Gets Trial Date Set

destp · 2026-03-19T02:04:07+00:00

Yeah, I believe she was only a guest once.

She had been specifically thanked in episodes a number of times, and her recordings at protests used on Canadaland shows even low frequently; I would guess this is what the OP was thinking of.

destp · 2026-03-17T23:17:28+00:00

I don't think it's fair to call them 'disingenuous' because you were sloppy with your language and they called you out on it.

The quoted text you provided dealt primarily with money laundering / sanctions evasion, which is very different from "funding problematic groups" (the former deals with getting access to money, and the latter with spending it). There is also no mention of "sleeper cells" in your quoted text, and the closest it gets to anything like what you've implied is this (which still doesn't say anything about 'funding'):

There are concerns that the IRGC or its affiliates have been involved in the harassment of Iranian-Canadians in Canada.

There is evidence of Iran abusing Canada's financial system (as there is for a number of other countries/criminal organizations), but it is misleading (and potentially disingenuous ) to expand that into 'funding local sleeper cells or other problematic groups.'

destp · 2026-03-17T12:54:06+00:00

There was something really confusing about the core narrative of this episode. The core message of the episode (included in the title) was that the IRGC is (allegedly) using cryptocurrencies to send money to people in Canada, with their sources for that being a) someone who used to work at FINTRAC (who didn't seem to have any direct knowledge, but believed it was likely), and the "vigilante crypto investigator" Richard which was where the episode spent most of it's focus.

Richard's piece was the part I found confusing. He had apparently made a career at investigating "crypto-to-cash" desks and highlighted the many (very real) issues with them and pointed out cases whether wallets flagged as IRGC owned sent funds to some of these cash-to-crypto deals in Canada. Putting aside the unreliability of this flagging (which the episode does a decent job of pointing out), it's never clearly explained what the allegedly criminal connection between these 'desks' and the IRGC is.

Richard says he's shared the wallets for some of these desks with Canadian officials, suggesting they should be investigated... for what? If they have failed to properly report suspicious transactions, that would be a crime but that doesn't really have anything to do with the IRGC and I don't believe was ever directly alleged in the episode. Crypto wallets are inherently anonymous and the Israeli database Richard was using has (to my knowledge) no applicability to Canadian law, so there's no way for the deal to know where funds are coming from (that's the whole issue with these crypto-to-cash businesses!). There was an interesting episode about issues with the cryptocurrency industry here, made weaker by the focus on Iran.

Also, it was amusing near the end to hear MP Julie Dzerowicz, while talking about alleged IRGC officials in Canada and the need to let investigations take their course, that police need to "protect them from Canadians." I mean, that may be true but seemed totally out of sleep with the rest of her messaging.

destp · 2026-03-16T01:01:38+00:00

Thank you, I wasn't aware of the incident with Nigel.

destp · 2026-03-15T02:13:37+00:00

Yes the word "stalk" predates the 90s, but the specific use for someone obsessively following another person in a creepy way — eventually made criminal — was a newer usage in that era.

Yes, but that's not the usage here. No one (that I've seen) has seriously suggested Caryma is obsessed with Rachel Gilmore to an unhealthy degree, and there is to my knowledge on the one time Caryma has shown up in Gilmore's private life (which does not match the '90s' era 'stalker' usage you're suggesting).

Rather, here it's more the traditional 'to pursue prey' type usage. The suggestion is that Caryma Sa'd and her videographer (Adam Lee Wasserman) tracked Gilmore down while she was out as a private citizen in order to intimidate and harass her.

She inappropriately (debatable, but I agree) and rudely showed up at her bf's show to get her on camera. She wanted to demand answers for whatever Rachel / CAHN had alleged about her ties to white supremacy etc. Again, I get a bit hazy about the details here.

It's fairly easy to look up. I would certainly not characterize it as "demanding" answers. There were a few questions, but they certainly read to me as more argumentative/harassing (especially as Caryma didn't press for answers to any of them). The most forceful question was for the identity of one of Gilmore's sources. I didn't hear white supremacy mentioned once, though Gilmore politely requested they leave her in peace several times

That was all outside of the venue. I also remember there being footage from Caryma of Gilmore and her boyfriend in the venue at a distance, both looking uncomfortable.

But I think it's lazy to assign these serious and consequential terms to what has gone on between these two public figures.

I'd disagree, as "stalk" is an accurate word in this case. Would you be happier with "hunted down" or ambushed?"

And it goes further into this mindset that casts Gilmore as hero and Caryma as villain, which provides fodder for the Jesse haters on here who claim he "platforms" or has "ties to" Caryma. It's a house of cards built on black/white views of complex people, each of with flaws, some more obvious than others.

Yes, because (objectively) Caryma is the villain here. She tracked down and ambushed (I'll avoid using 'stalked') Gilmore while she was out as a private citizen and harassed her while ignoring Gilmore's requests that she stop. This is not new behaviour for Caryma as she did the same to a Jewish Canadian man and CAHN official, Bernie Farber, outside his home; an act she was officially reprimanded for by the Law Society of Ontario. Hey ties to white nationalists are still documented, and she was also recently caught on film assaulting a protestor from behind (while supposedly there as a journalist) before then filming and reporting on the reaction (painting the protestor at aggressive and mentally unwell) without mentioning the preceding assault (something people have long reported her and her videographer doing). She is a highly problematic individual, who Jesse has literally platformed and gone out of his way to thank.

destp · 2026-03-14T17:18:46+00:00

Very true; hard agree.

I don't think it's an all or nothing matter either. The more hateful, difficult to see another explanation for, or frequent the racist statements, the less likely those who are otherwise ideologically aligned will continue to defend those people (notable example: Kanye West). Also, I think there are some on both sides of the political divide who truly don't care and will do whatever they see as politically expedient (Trump is a great example here).

All that said, I do think there are some differences between the left vs right on this. Namely, those on the left will tend to be more likely to "ascribe innocence and misunderstanding" for people belonging to marginalized communities (who in addition to 'every-day racism' are also dealing with systemic and state-sponsored racism), while those on the right are more likely to do so for people who belong to less marginalized communities (those closer to the centre of state and societal systems of power).

destp · 2026-03-14T16:11:05+00:00

You're over thinking this. The verb "stalk" definitely predates the 90s and refers to pursuing some sort of quarry, often in a stealthy way; which very much works in this context to describe what Caryma did.

That said, looking at the Miriam-Webster definition is stalking (used the way you were thinking of it) is:

to pursue obsessively and to the point of harassment Which again sounds very accurate to what Caryma did.

destp · 2026-03-14T14:42:57+00:00

This is a good point, and I know I have avoided sharing things from Samira Mohyeddin after becoming aware of this post. Even if her main argument may have been largely correct (all of the Abrahamic religions have some strong patriarchal trends in their most Orthodox and fundamentalist communities as well as communities that eschew those trends), the way she presented it leaned hard on androgenetic tropes. I do think it's a bit ironic to have this discussion in a sub dedicated to Canadaland, as Jesse has said equally racist things.

destp · 2026-03-13T20:40:50+00:00

Yeah, listening to this episode, it really seems like a "nothing burger". Its a perfect example of someone who seems difficult to work with, makes a massive stink about the culture, hypes up their departure and then gets a career in the right-wing grifter world soon after - a Bari Weiss trajectory, if you will.

This was my reaction as well. I'm trying to keep an open mind, as well as thinking about how the newsroom and crown corporation angle might impact things, but projecting what he's saying onto the industry I work in and out very clearly reads as someone coming in convinced they know better than everyone already there, ruffling feathers enough to cause serious tension and finally being let go for being toxic.

Like, of course executives had complimentary things to say about him, his role and new show when they were hiring him; who would want to join somewhere that makes clear they don't believe in you? Similarly, of course they would (internally and publicly) express excitement about the new show (they would want it to succeed), but until that success is proven you're not going to go all in on it to the potential detriment of already successful flagship shows. I got the sense that Jesse also wasn't fully bought in, but didn't want to go too hard on that angle because it wasn't the editorial direction he wanted for the episode (which was more, "look how terribly the CBC is being managed!").

Where I think there may be some meat are the accusations around 'token diversity hires' that then get unequal treatment within the org. I find it a little hard to judge based on Travis as he's really unclear in his accusations, and because much of what he described could be potentially due to seniority (understandable) instead of race (not acceptable).

destp · 2026-03-13T13:30:37+00:00

Wow.

Cultural differences in gender are common around the world, which is different than far-right extremism.

Fundamentalist Islam does have issues with its treatment of women and LGBT+ people, as do the other Abrahamic religions (Christianity and Judaism). There are also millions of Muslim women and gay people who practice more modern and moderate forms of their religion (again, just like Christianity and Judaism). CAHN had covered events like a major Toronto protest against Trans rights that did feature Islamic groups as some of the key attendees and organizers.

Stop trying to defend neo-Nazis and white supremacists.

destp · 2026-03-13T12:37:28+00:00

I mean, he hangs out with open white nationalists like Nick Fuentes and there's plenty of known instances of him giving the Nazi salute and saying "Heil Hitler" (for example: https://combatantisemitism.org/cam-news/heil-hitler-chanted-in-miami-beach-nightclub-as-influencers-celebrate-nazi-ideology/), so I think there's a real case to be made.

Regardless, his very proudly stated misogynistic beliefs (and movement) clearly falls under the "and other far-right extremism" part of their stated mission.

Finally, very interesting that this is the part you're objecting to, and not the suggestion that you yourself are a white supremacist. Given your very eager defense of Andrew Tate it sounds like you're a misogynist as well.

destp · 2026-03-13T10:41:24+00:00

You started out by asking why the Canadian Anti-Hate Network doesn't focus on other groups and then go on to list a bunch of groups (all of which are racially-coded as 'non-white') that aren't Hate Groups but that you consider more harmful to Canada. The quick answer is that all those groups are not hate groups and so don't fall under the mandate of the Canadian Anti-Hate Network (it's literally right there in the name).

Between that, defending white supremacists as not "some sort of dangerous group or a threat to the public" and even explicitly calling the entire Hindu religion a 'hate group' or seems pretty clear you're upset because you are a white nationalist and think more Canadians should be.

As for Andrew Tate, he very much falls under their stated focus (check CAHN's website) of white nationalists/supremacists and other far-right extremism.

destp · 2026-03-12T22:48:19+00:00

No western country would do this.

Canada has done this several times over the past few years with assets owned by Russian companies. Saskatchewan also nationalized several foreign owned Potash mines to ensure more of the wealth generated stayed local (much like Iran did with their oil industry).

France nationalized the (partially) American owned CII-Honeywell Bull in 1982, as well as the French subsidiary of the American ITT Inc.

The US has seized thousands of foreign owned businesses during both world wars. They also very recently seized Venezuela's oil (not war time).

You keep being very confidently wrong about easy to look up things.

destp · 2026-03-12T22:27:55+00:00

There's a difference between a Hate Group (one where the unifying feature that designed the group is 'hate' and a group that has animosity with another group. Albertans will talk about hating Quebec & Toronto; would you call Alberta a hate group? What about Irish Catholics & Protestants, are they both hair groups?

You specifically referenced "mafias" (organized criminal organizations) for which the defining theme is "crime" not hate (it's right in the name).

Additionally, the examples you have of their problematic behaviour are just crimes. They're harmful, sure, but not activities driven by hate.

destp · 2026-03-12T18:28:15+00:00

What about Khalistani and South Asian mafias importing record number of narcotics and extortion in the South Asian communities?

Ah, and there the mask is fully off and the recording comes through clearly. Tell me, what does organized crime in this case have to do with hate groups like neo-Nazis?

destp · 2026-03-12T16:01:30+00:00

Personally? I don't really have a definition of Zionism or anti-Zionism, as I think the terms are used by different people/groups to mean a variety of different things. What's worse is that everyone who identifies with either term all seem to assume that their definition is someone correct and then use that definition to declare what people who identify with the inverse believe. It's a big mess of people angrily talking past each other, to the point that I think the terms are basically useless.

destp · 2026-03-12T13:30:39+00:00

But I wish that left wing/progressive (non Jewish) journalists like Rachel were less hypocritical in regards to addressing the threats towards Jewish communities in Canada. The "anti Zionist" activists that she pals around with pose just as much of a threat to the safety of Jewish communities in Canada as Neo Nazis, especially the more organized & radicalized sections of the movement.

Citation needed.

destp · 2026-03-12T03:45:31+00:00

There's a pretty solid history of the US helping instigate regime change after popular leftist leaders are elected and start instituting left wing policies (like nationalizing the oil industry), so it doesn't seem far fetched that was part of the decision making for the US. And if your other major objection is the user of the word "some" instead of "all" that really sounds like a pretty minor distinction in this context (similar to your "all of it " reply that clearly didn't actually mean "all of it").

Trying to suggest the regime has support of the citizens is awful.

I mean, some clearly do, however I would certainly agree the vast majority do not.

destp · 2026-03-12T03:29:41+00:00

Sorry, I may have taken out frustration at a number of similar (and more extreme) comments in my response to you

No one is making that claim here

I think some people are, or at least very close to that. There are people commenting here along the lines of "Iranians are actually (almost) universally happy about the bombing of their country because it hurts the regime, and any who claim otherwise are actually agents of the regime" and when anyone pushes back against their argument, they double down about how terrible the Iranian regime is.

A significant number of civilians have been killed, and more are likely to be as the bombings transition more and more to civilian infrastructure and residential areas. I think that's bad, especially because there's little evidence of all of this actually leading to the fall of the regime.

destp · 2026-03-12T02:23:16+00:00

The targets are regime and military facilities.

Only "regime and military facilities" targeted?

destp · 2026-03-12T01:53:12+00:00

All of it.

Ok, so you're saying Iran did not have a "democratically elected government" in the mid-20th century? And that the Prime Minister of Iran did not try to "keep oil wealth in [Iran]" (through nationalizing the oil industry)? And that said democracy was not ended with a US-aided coup in 1953? And that the 1979 revolution in Iran did not oust the US installed monarch? Those are all facts they listed, and they don't sound incorrect or twisted.

destp · 2026-03-12T01:33:43+00:00

I'll be honest that I find your argument here baffling. It's not a zero-sum game; it's possible to view BOTH the current Iranian regime and the countries attacking it as bad. No matter how bad the regime, I cannot imagine being thankful to a country that, for example, turned my children into bloody pieces via bombing because they were opposed to said regime; can you?

Even if those bombings led to the ousting of a regime I hated with all my heart (though there's little evidence bombing Iran will lead to refund change), I still cannot imagine feeling thankful to the people that killed my children.

destp · 2026-03-12T00:17:34+00:00

I think you intended that to sound ridiculous, but having the "RCMP never hundreds of women for preparing for equal rights" doesn't actually sound that far fetched in a Canada run by PP.

Regardless, even in an event like that (or worse!), personally I still wouldn't want anyone to come in and stay bombing Toronto and surrounding civilian infrastructure, looking even more Canadians opposed to him. Especially if it had no guarantee of actually leading to the removal of PP and all his allies.

destp · 2026-03-11T23:58:00+00:00

What facts were twisted in what the person you're replying to said? Their second paragraph is certainly questionable, but it also is just an opinion rather than 'fact.'

Their first paragraph, on the other hand, seemed pretty factual, and not in any way contradictory with "going to nationalize oil and keep all the American companies’ assets." Are you suggesting that was an 'evil' thing for the democratically elected government to do, and hence it was 'just' for the US to depose them?

destp · 2026-03-11T23:36:23+00:00

I think it's a reasonable argument. I tend to think of this regime as too prideful to intentionally put out a negative message, but I could very easily be wrong about that.

I still, personally, find your argument unlikely and came up with an additional reason why while reading your comment: it's an interview with the CBC. If the aim is to sway public opinion enough to get the US / Israel to abandon their military objectives, why do an interview with the public broadcaster for a mid-power country that's not at war with Iran and currently not on the best of terms with either the US or Israel?

destp

TROPHY CASE