Lexicon posted:

Sorry, I didn't mean to make it sound like it was my belief all existing money would be invalidated - merely that I hoped that the events "old lady dying halfway around the world => Canada must issue new money" would trigger some sort of introspection about the whole thing.

Gus Hobbleton posted:

I'm still waiting for a coal power plant to explode and shower the surrounding areas with radioactive fallout and for everyone to just wave it off with "oh it's just coal it never hurt anybody."

Paper Jam Dipper posted:

I pointed this out earlier. Dude doesn't have to be the spokesman for the Conservative Party and explain why he hasn't licked the dead taint of Jack Layton before placing stamps on NDP donation letters.

JoelJoel posted:

I'm a big fan of this quote form the NP (the head of some Canadian Monarchist association):

JoelJoel posted:

Is there any reasonable argument, beyond "some guy killed a cop once", for regular patrol officer to carry guns in Canada? I understand the need to use force in certain circumstances, but I feel that available deadly force is almost exclusively unnecessary in a city with a murder rate of ~3 per 100,000. What percentage of police officers in Canada have ever been in a situation in which a gun has done anything more than give comfort, embolden the officer, or lead to unnecessary violence? Bringing a gun to a knife fight makes it a gun fight.

Sure, cops should have guns, but are they necessary for daily patrol, especially when they have tasers, mace, and backup? Could the threat not have been eliminated without using deadly force? It's like a car chase. Why run through city streets and endanger many people when you can take down the plate number and pick the guy up at home a few hours later?

e: Never mind. The SUI is on the case. Cops always do the best job investigating other cops.

Duck Rodgers posted:

In other news it seems that First Nations people were more than just the subjects of nutritional experiments. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/07/31/medical-testing-on-aboriginals-murray-sinclair-trc.html


This certainly adds to calls for Canada's treatment of aboriginals to be labelled genocide (as if there needs to be any more evidence).

Tochiazuma posted:

Coal contains trace amounts of radioactive material, and you're burning a lot of it in one of those plants.

edit: here ya go http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

"McBride and his co-authors estimated that individuals living near coal-fired installations are exposed to a maximum of 1.9 millirems of fly ash radiation yearly. To put these numbers in perspective, the average person encounters 360 millirems of annual "background radiation" from natural and man-made sources, including substances in Earth's crust, cosmic rays, residue from nuclear tests and smoke detectors.

Dana Christensen, associate lab director for energy and engineering at ORNL, says that health risks from radiation in coal by-products are low. "Other risks like being hit by lightning," he adds, "are three or four times greater than radiation-induced health effects from coal plants." And McBride and his co-authors emphasize that other products of coal power, like emissions of acid rain–producing sulfur dioxide and smog-forming nitrous oxide, pose greater health risks than radiation."

In other words, radiation from nuclear power plant < radiation from coal waste <<<< level you need to care about

infernal machines posted:

What was the logic behind this statement?

Sovy Kurosei posted:

There is a picture of it where the article came from. It is adjacent to his property. Hyperboles from the homeowner aside I don't know if he should be responsible for that section though.

He has a terrible looking house.

Excelsiortothemax posted:

I love how most of them outside are wearing masks. Real pride there

PittTheElder posted:

Banning these coverings outright is a bad idea. I do feel like we need to be doing something to discourage the practice though, though I'm not sure what.

PittTheElder posted:

I'm not entirely sure, but it just strikes me as an affront to human dignity to have to hide your face. Especially because it's my understanding that the whole reason for it is for hiding a woman's face/figure to preserve her modesty and protect her from the wild urges of men somehow. Which has always reminded me of the sort of slut-shaming argument about how girls deserve what they got because they were wearing skirts. If you think the sight of an attractive woman is going to whip a man into some mad frenzy, then the correct course of action is not to veil the women, but to teach the loving men how to respect women and generally not be assholes.

If a woman (regardless of her faith) really wants to veil her face, then all the more power to her I suppose. But I would strongly prefer to live in a culture where nobody thought that was necessary.

a primate posted:

As an aside, I got into a drunk argument with a friend who maintained that if you think Canada is superior to the US in any way, you aren't working to improve it. Perhaps both can occur simultaneously...

Excelsiortothemax posted:

I'm hoping that the police services start wearing the personal cameras that I read about. Cop cams that can only be shut off by the cop(so you better have a good reason why). I feel it would be a great addition.

THC posted:

"Why did you leave your camera in the car?" "Because <any reason the cop feels like>" "Oh, okay."

Whiteycar posted:

Have the recording system be like a black box that can only be accessed when an incident report is filed. Data offloads to a server that can only be used by certain parties and only if there is an incident. If the officer is not wearing it or refuses to put it on then it is considered a disciplinary offense.

Best of both worlds.

Black Bones posted:

I love it when people who clearly care about their country (posters ITT) recoil at expressions of "patriotism". Do you vote? Do you pay attention to what goes on in society? Do you argue about how things are and how things should be?

Then you got the care real bad, my patriot friend.

Guy DeBorgore posted:

If the Brazilian mining industry('s wing of government) is the biggest victim of our foreign spying operations then that's a pretty big relief. Their enormous multinational oil conglomerates are no more sympathetic than ours.

Paper Jam Dipper posted:

Who needs a Census when you can just spy on your people?

Helsing posted:

You would actually throw your vote away because of an irrational stance on nuclear power?

Tochiazuma posted:

" In addition, radioactive emissions that routinely leak from current facilities in Ontario have a half-life of over 5000 years. The spent fuel has over 200 cancer-causing elements. Plutonium, for example, has a half-life of 24,400 years, while other harmful substances persist millions of years in our environment with no known safety treatment nor storage place."

Quoting long half-lives as evidence of how scary an isotope is has to be my favourite 'getting it rear end-backwards' anti-nuclear scare tactic

edit:"As well, depleted uranium waste is increasingly and routinely used to coat armor-piercing bullets and missiles in “conventional” warfare, leaving a legacy of toxic metal and radioactive contamination as an on-going health and environmental threat to civilians post-conflict."

That's an interesting point how much depleted uranium do Canadian reactors create I wonder no wait I don't

Ensign Expendable posted:

I am trying to envision an "armour-piercing missile" design that would be aided by the addition of depleted uranium.

THC posted:

PK loving SUBBAN posted:

The cops literally ALWAYS say that, so I don't believe poo poo. I hope no cops get trigger happy and kill another unarmed native demonstrator. Or shoot another cop in back like in Oka.

THC posted:

The dozens of heavily armed policemen were completely helpless to stop this, I am certain.

ACanofPepsi posted:

Any time the RCMP is involved and nobody gets raped it's a "good day".

Helsing posted:

This seems relevant given we were talking about outfitting cops with cameras the other day:



I think the general objection is that the more the police dress like the military, the more they seem to take on a military mindset which isn't really appropriate for law enforcement. It also seems like there are more and more situations where the police want to take an extremely aggressive default posture to delivering warrants or detaining people.

Maybe some of these changes are genuine improvements to public safety but there does seem to be a general trend toward the police acting more and more like a pseudo-military organization and that makes a lot of people uncomfortable.

swagger like us posted:

I don't understand so many people's weird distinctions they make with LEOs wearing, gasp, camouflauge (in a rural area?!). From the pictures and videos, it seems that the majority of the officers were lightly armed, wearing the standard uniform, and they had a few officers nearby to provide immediate emergency support if their intelligence about firearms in the crowd turned out to be correct. I think thats the right thing to be done, and in fact it should be supported. Instead of arming every single officer with an assault rifle, they had the ERT members, in prone positions or off to the side simply providing long range security. It doesn't take a "sniper" with a scope and accurized rifle to plink someone off, there are plenty of .303s and other rifles that can reach out and touch somebody. For officers only armed with pistols, this puts them immediately at a disadvantage and puts them in danger.

Also, they were allowed to take photographs because it isn't illegal to take photos of an officer? So you're complaining that this protester took a photo, yet if he was detained or arrested you would scream bloody murder about his legal right to take photos. Having a couple officers, with the proper gear, off to the side conducting covert recce, or in this picture's case, overwatch on a potentially dangerous situation is fine.

I dont understand people's obsession with looking at pictures of cops in MOLLE gear and body armour and screaming POLICE STATE. Was it so much better when cops in the 60s wore aviators, blue shirts, shiny badges and clubbed people with batons? Who cares what they are wearing? Hearing reports about what the RCMP did in this case don't lead me to believe much of anything happened outside of a usual court injunction lead warrant.

ocrumsprug posted:

They are well compensated for the risk they put themselves in, and if they cannot stomach that risk I hear Canada is desperately short of carpenters. Perfectly safe occupation I understand.

senae posted:

(to answer your question btw, I think a pretty easy first step is to not have cops show up at a previously peaceful protest with sniper rifles and camouflage.)

ocrumsprug posted:

Is lying in Parliament an actual crime, just contempt of Parliament or nothing at all? (What a poo poo question to have to ask.)

I have a hard time seeing how he can survive that accusation, and am not looking forward to weeks of "that just is not true!"

Paper Jam Dipper posted:

Wait. I'm confused. What was he supposed to say? Was he supposed to say no? Was he supposed to immediately state he hasn't been there since he was 10? gently caress he even knew a place, Dhaka. How many Canadians would know that?

I don't get Justin moments...