Call or write to your MP. Let them know how unpopular this is. Make reference to the disaster that similar laws have been in places like the UK.

No, we can’t start throwing out burden of proof when it suits us.

I’ve argued elsewhere in this thread that the solution is to obligate parents to provide vaccinations, just like they’re obligated to provide food, water, clothing, shelter, etc. This is the basic legal duty of care that all parents have towards their children, and it should extend to vaccines. This is both a logical application of existing law - rather than requiring new law - and incredibly simple to prove in court. If parents are obligated to vaccinate their kids, all a cop or social worker has to do is ask for the proof of vaccination. There’s no balance of proof to consider, and no knotty problems of untangling exactly how someone else’s kid got sick.

Completely agree. I said more in my own comment, but if you’re interested, here’s the relevant criminal code that backs up what you’re saying; https://www.criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Failing_to_Provide_the_Necessaries_of_Life_(Offence)

To put it simply, pathogens are like roach infestations. You can do everything in your power to keep your apartment clean and tidy and bug free, but if your neighbour’s apartment is a spawning ground for the little shits, sooner or later they’re going to make their way in no matter what you do.

It takes everyone, working together, to make us all safe from deadly diseases. That’s how herd immunity works.

deleted by creator

I’m personally of the opinion that refusing to vaccinate your kids should not be a choice parents get to make. Just like how you can’t choose to starve your children, no matter how deeply and truly you believe that we can draw all our necessary sustenance from the air.

In Canada we have a legal concept called the “Duty of persons to provide necessaries.”

Here’s the relevant legal code:

215 (1) Every one is under a legal duty (a) as a parent, foster parent, guardian or head of a family, to provide necessaries of life for a child under the age of sixteen years;

https://www.criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Failing_to_Provide_the_Necessaries_of_Life_(Offence)

I firmly believe that vaccinations should be deemed one of the “necessaries of life” under this article of the criminal code. Like food, water, clothing, shelter, etc. You shouldn’t have a choice in this matter. We shouldn’t even be talking about whether or not that choice harms someone else’s kid, because that’s actually beside the point. At a basic level, we as a society have already agreed that children’s right to be properly sheltered and cared for outweighs their parents rights to decide how they live. The idea that there should be an exception for vaccines - something that can mean the difference between life and death - is absolutely ridiculous.

This is the claim I responded to:

It is fully 100% confirmed that every single time you turn the plane on, your plane talks with Lockheed Martin in order to obtain permission to turn on.

That claim is, according to every source I have seen, entirely false. Humanspiral offered an article as a source to back up the claim, and I pulled out several quotes from the article that, rather than supporting the claim, directly refuted it. That’s what we’re discussing in this particular comment chain. Not whatever you’re bringing up.

Yikes. Definitely another good argument for switching to the Gripen, for sure.

You’re entirely misunderstanding what I’m saying. The F-35 is an air-to-air plane. In the same way the Gripen, The Eurofighter Typhoon, the F-16 and the F/A-18 are. They are all capable of filling both ground attack and air-to-air roles. And the F-35 fills an air-to-air role incredibly well - better than almost any other plane on Earth - because it has an almost unbeatable advantage over any other air-to-air platform; stealth.

Think of modern air-to-air combat as a sniper duel in the sky. The goal is to remain unobserved by your target while you line up a shot on them. By the time they detect the incoming missile, it’s already too late. And even if they defeat that missile with countermeasures, you haven’t given away your own position and can quickly relocate and fire again while remaining undetected. Eventually, you’ll get the kill. The person who fires first, wins.

You’re mistaking my correcting one common misunderstanding that gets spread about the F-35 for me somehow being a stalwart defender of the entire program. You can check my comment history and see that I’ve repeatedly expressed my feeling that we should kill the deal and get the Gripen instead.

But, as I’ve already laid out in replies to your other comments repeating the same claim, as well as several other comments I’ve made here, there is absolutely zero credible evidence that a “kill switch” exists, and a mountain of evidence for why it would be almost impossible to achieve such a thing without discovery, and for why no one would ever bother in the first place.

From your source:

DND spokesperson Kened Sadiku said no such switch existEd on the aircraft, but he did acknowledge that the U.S. was in charge of both software and hardware upgrades for the planes.

Emphasis mine. Countries can produce their own hardware replacements for the F-35; even without domestic manufacturing, we can source parts from any other country that has the F-35. The issue isn’t maintenance in the sense of keeping planes flying, it’s maintenance in the sense of keeping them relevant. And that’s a very real issue, and very real reason to consider shutting down the deal. But to call that a “kill switch” is to stretch the English language to absurdity.

Countries can make their own parts for the F-35. It’s firmware the US controls, not hardware.

You’ve hit the nail on the head here.

I don’t know what the right answer is on this one. On balance, I lean towards getting the Gripen as a stopgap and prioritizing access to those European sixth gen projects. Select the one that looks the best suited for our needs and go in hard on collaborating on it.

This is part of why I think the Gripen makes sense; we can build it here, which opens up the possibility of being able to build a sixth gen later, instead of having to wait in line for our order to ship. The F-35 gives us better capabilities now, but doesn’t solve the underlying problems down the road.

There is, I think, a version of events where we sign a deal with Saab to build Gripens in Canada to export to buyers like Ukraine, and then go ahead and take the F-35 order anyway. Most likely, we use this to extract concessions in other areas from the Americans, pointing at our new domestic fighter plane industry as a very credible threat to walk away from the F-35 deal. Then, if we’re smart about this, we continue to build up our ability to domestically produce fighter craft, with an eye on that sixth gen project. This would make a lot of sense in the context of Carney’s stated goal of making Canada a defence supplier to the EU, while still leaving us with an interim platform that can handle anything the Russians throw at us.

It’s not “stealthy” in the same way that am F-35 is, but it’s got a few tricks to minimize its overall emissions profile, mess with enemy detection systems, and generally be harder to pick up than, say, an F-16. I’m not suggesting that this is anything close to the level of stealth that an F-35 or F-22 offer, but it is an advantage over other 4th gen craft.

We already have 12. The question is whether we take shipment of the rest.

That does further complicate things, because the RCAF won’t want to operate two different platforms. If we don’t bother taking the rest of the order then those twelve jets, fully paid for, basically sit in a junkyard somewhere. Or, as you say, get dissected or used for training. Not a total waste, but definitely something the Conservatives will gleefully point to as an example of mismanagement.

You’re right. It shouldn’t be hard. I shouldn’t be having to repeat myself. But here we are. There’s no point in my saying anything more on this, because I’ve already pulled quotes from the article you cited, as your only source, that directly disprove every single claim you’ve made.

the advanced electronics systems ((ALIS) requires permission every time they are turned on

No. It doesn’t. The article that you cited directly disproves that claim. I pulled several relevant quotes, in the comment you literally just replied to, which you apparently either didn’t read, or lacked the capacity to understand.

I’m happy to have someone disagree with me and show their arguments for why they think I’m wrong, but if you’re going to throw out sources you haven’t read, then refuse to read the relevant parts of those sources when I spoonfeed them to you, we’re past the point of “discussion” or “argument” and well into “I could literally have a more enlightening conversation with my dog.”

From your cited source;

Losing connectivity to ALIS would be a pain, but hardly fatal, the JPO contends. If jets are unable to use ALIS — a ground-based system that provides sustainment and support, but not combat capabilities for the jet — the F-35 is still a usable plane. In fact, the worst case scenario would be that operators would have to track maintenance and manage daily squadron operations manually, just as older jets do.

…

Yes, the F-35 can take off and land without connecting to ALIS; yes, operators can make repairs without the logistics system, Pawlikowski said. But at some point users need to feed that information up to the central ALIS hub, she stressed.

“I don’t need ALIS to put fuel in the plane and fly it, [I can] take a part and replace it if I have the spares there,” Pawlikowski said. “But somewhere along the line I’ve got to tell ALIS that I did it so that the supply chain will now know that that part has got to be replaced.”

(emphasis mine)

In short, the article you’re citing directly refutes your claim.

Every version of this claim that I have ever seen has been flatly refuted or denied by every credible source.

If you’d like to offer a source for this, I’d love to see it.

The F35 is primarily a air to ground strike aircraft. Gen 5 is mainly semi stealth benefits. It is disadvantaged relative to air to air specialized planes who are faster (lighter) and more maneuverable.

This is something you’ll hear a lot, often from seemingly respectable sources, but it represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how modern air combat works.

Manueverability is meaningless. Dog fighting is a thing of the past. Stealth is not a disadvantage in air-to-air combat, it’s the only thing that matters in air-to-air combat. The model has fundamentally changed; it’s submarine / tank combat now. The winner is the person who sees their opponent first.

The people who describe the F-35 as unsuited to air combat are speaking from an entirely outdated understanding of how air combat works. Some of those people are even experts in that model of air combat, but that’s like being an expert on vacuum tubes in a world of microchips.