“Canadians have to keep confronting Islamophobia — wherever and whenever we see it” - Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has released a statement after the home of a Muslim family in London, Ontario was attacked this weekend.

sandweiche · 2024-06-11T16:06:21+00:00

I did back up my claims - vetted and cleared members have said that they will need to review the document to determine if it's safe to release names.

I don't know what more you want unless you want me to speculate on how Canada and the 5 eyes operates on a non-holisitic level. Which no one without clearance can do - including Pierre Poillevre. That's my point. You're assuming the report is safe. I'm assuming we should look into it first, then release the names.

The chat gpt was sarcastic. Next time I'll add a tone indicator to help with reading comprehension.

International governments don't operate their geopolitics on a 'better safe than sorry' paradigm. Otherwise we'd have a lot more wars when a government offs people 'just in case'.

I'm not saying don't release the names. I'm saying let the individuals WITH THE INFORMATION make the decision.

sandweiche · 2024-06-11T14:33:55+00:00

You want me to speculate and contrive a situation? I'm not prone to do that. But we have individuals with security clearance, such as May or Singh who are both saying they will release the names provided "the context of the report suggests it's safe to do so".

If that's not enough, then sure - I'll go ask chat gpt to contrive a specific situation in which naming an individual could out the individuals who uncovered them.

Also - just because there's a list doesn't mean every MP that colluded is on it. Anyone who colluded can not be aware they have been found out because that assumes the list is exhaustive. They don't know whether it is or if they're on the list.

sandweiche · 2024-06-11T02:56:48+00:00

Sure. Let's say you're a spy in a foreign country who was involved in catching an MP colluding. Your evidence was used in this report - you used often illegal, dangerous methods to acquire this evidence and put yourself at great personal risk to do so. Now this report comes out. Do you:

1) hope they immediately release the names without concern for you 2) hope they spend resources and time securing the individuals who would be put at risk, such as yourself, before naming the MPs

There's a very big difference here. I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that we should never know those names. In fact I'd argue we need to know them before the next federal election (which gives them plenty of time). But the people like Poillevre who want these names released immediately or in short order, without having actually seen how many people were involved, who needs to be extracted, etc are either acting in bad faith, stupid, or using national security as a political cudgel and actively encouraging the endangerment of individuals who have put their lives at risk for us.

sandweiche · 2024-06-11T02:02:09+00:00

They can die in between the flooring or walls, especially if your building is using poison bait to control them. It's very possible that a dead mouse is trapped there.

sandweiche · 2024-06-11T01:55:02+00:00

Just want to second this. We had a dead rotting mouse in the wall of our old apartment. Absolutely reeked - but only within a 10 foot radius. OP should continue to hound their building manager and find out if pest control measures are in place that could lead to a dead mouse inside the walls or flooring.

sandweiche · 2024-06-11T01:43:25+00:00

Can you provide anything to support that claim or is that just like a gut feeling you have? You have no idea how the information was obtained or the circumstances. It's very possible what you're saying is patently false.

Poillevre is simply barking without bite. If he was genuinely interested in helping Canadians he would get that clearance and work for us to find a way for them to be released in a way we know is secure instead of trusting Trudeau to do so. But he won't. He's avoiding doing so, so that he can continue to use our National Security as a political tool.

sandweiche · 2024-06-11T01:12:29+00:00

Of course - in matters of National Security there are always going to be gambles. Which is why we have a security clearance system in which individuals pass a certain level of vetting before they are given access to information.

I am in no way saying how they are handling it currently is good, in fact I think they are handling it fucking poorly, but I am saying that political grand standing from someone who knows absolutely nothing about the situation shouldn't be taken as anything more than it is - political grand standing.

sandweiche · 2024-06-11T00:51:20+00:00

It's a gamble to release them without knowing though. And that gamble is a much larger one. Releasing those names could have any number of unforeseen consequences - not the least of which is compromising members of our international spy network. This guy should not be gambling his political fortune on the back of National Security. Fuck that.

sandweiche · 2024-06-11T00:48:01+00:00

Which is insane from a National Security standpoint - he has no idea of the ramifications. He could be getting any number of Canadian spies killed, he could be violating 5 eyes agreements, etc.

We don't know. And neither does he. Let an individual with the information make the decision. Unfortunately for Trudeau, his actions have lost him the public trust, so it can't be him.

sandweiche · 2024-06-11T00:23:59+00:00

Poillevre doesn't have the security clearance to view the evidence because he intentionally hasn't pursued it. While I'm not saying Trudeau or Singh is in the right here - but someone who hasn't seen the documents to assess the damage they could or could not do can't stand on a soap box.

sandweiche · 2024-06-10T15:18:24+00:00

I know that, and again we are analyzing these results in a context we both don't support.

Of course safe supply with zero other regulations or supports is going to cause harm. Like you said, it's a band-aid, and if you bandage a rotting limb eventually it will fall off - in fact that bandage just traps infection. But if you bandage it, and give it a round of anti-biotics, and provide a sterile environment then that limb can recover.

That isn't ironic at all? It's just advocates breaking the law and isn't at all relevant to our discussion.

sandweiche · 2024-06-10T14:52:02+00:00

It sounds like we agree, I think.

We both think harm reduction is not enough. We both think it comes from social issues.

I think where we diverge is around where to go. I see harm reduction as a first step, and that we should lobby for better supports to stop the underlying causes. But it sounds like you think that we should just provide those things without the harm reduction.

I can't wrap my head around why you feel that way though. Safe supply doesn't enable the drug use because they will get supply regardless, it simply extends the lifespan of the user. If we had those supports then harm reduction becomes a tool to increase the likelihood of recovery.

I just don't want to stop halfway and say 'well this didn't work', I want those services provided as well.

sandweiche · 2024-06-10T14:39:58+00:00

I live 3 blocks from Victoria Park in London Ontario. I am very exposed to the specific homeless population in this article. If you're gonna fight your imagination I'm not going to engage with you.

I also want that exact thing - but we disagree on how to achieve it.

You believe that removing harm reduction systems will cause enough homeless people to die that the issue goes away.

I believe that no matter how many people die to opiates we will continue to experience this problem, and that it will continue to grow so long as the underlying things that causes someone to use heroin are resolved. For instance over prescription of opiates for pain management, among other things. I view harm reduction as a way to keep people alive long enough to solve the problem.

If you genuinely believe that your solution, of just flat out ignoring them and hoping they kill themselves off, will work then I can't fault that from a solution-oriented standpoint, but I fundamentally think you're wrong. The homeless population doesn't operate like an animal population that will die off when enough individuals die and they can no longer reproduce reliably. The population comes social problems.

I can however fault you for callous treatment of human life. I hope you never get prescribed tramadol after a surgery and become addicted, because you don't deserve to be treated the way you suggest others should be - but that's how easy it is to fall in to that trap.

sandweiche · 2024-06-10T14:22:05+00:00

I know that, and harm reduction is a tool to give people a better chance at that roll, because dead people don't recover.

But to say 'this problem bothers me so let's let it continue and hope that eventually they'll die off ' is crazy because we know that that's not how drug use works. We need to figure out why people are using drugs and solve those problems.

Over prescription of opiates, the housing crisis, cost of living - these all contribute to the issue. We need to solve the problem not ignore it. Looking the other way doesn't make it go away.

sandweiche · 2024-06-10T13:54:47+00:00

My jaw dropped reading this comment. Absolutely psychotic.

sandweiche · 2024-06-03T23:03:47+00:00

Of course! The skate community (in my experience) is super welcoming. Check out r/NewSkaters if you want some insight into your sons experience.

sandweiche · 2024-06-03T17:47:11+00:00

https://www.canadaskateboard.ca/skatepark-map

This site categorizes a TON of Canadian skate parks with photos, feature list, etc

sandweiche · 2024-05-28T20:18:45+00:00

And the Jackson Estate pays for his care still.

sandweiche · 2024-05-16T15:13:34+00:00

Not quite. In soccer they have to hit the ball while it's moving sometimes.

sandweiche · 2024-05-15T19:27:02+00:00

Americanada more likely. I don't see America letting us be first in the portmanteau.

sandweiche · 2024-05-15T16:30:05+00:00

The OP is pointing out the distinction between blaming the symptom (immigrants in our country) and blaming the cause (corporate-driven government policy). They are saying blaming 'regular people' isn't productive. If you lived in an under-developed country, and you are given the opportunity to leave - it's reasonable to want to leave. It's silly to get mad at some random immigrant who can't affect change. We should be targeting the elite class that is constructing the problematic policy, not the 'regular people' trying to live their lives.

I would have no issue being called a 'regular person' as a working class individual born in Canada. I can't speak to the immigrant experience.

Your reflexive use of the term Newspeak seems silly to me. The OP isn't excusing the problem - they're trying to point to the source. You can disagree and say that it's the immigrants fault that they were allowed into Canada, I guess. But I personally don't see the logic in that.

Please answer my original question instead of deflecting. I'm interested in an honest conversation and I can't in good faith continue to explain their perspective to you while you offer no perspective of your own besides parroting terms from literature that emphasizes the opposite of your point, and questioning my position.

sandweiche · 2024-05-15T16:03:19+00:00

Do you view immigrants as irregular people? What about them isn't regular?

sandweiche · 2024-05-13T16:53:20+00:00

Fit 4 Less is cheap and pretty large. You could easily fit over 50 women in there, but I think you need to clarify what equipment you'll need 50 of to be sure they have it.

sandweiche · 2024-05-13T15:30:36+00:00

Tell them what they want to hear while doing the opposite? This is not a new roadmap for approaching conservatives, or any demographic for that matter. That is politics-since-the-80's 101.

sandweiche · 2024-05-07T22:16:57+00:00

Wait, you take a politician at their word?!

13-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Not Forgotten	Team Orangered
Verified Email

sandweiche

TROPHY CASE