so, i wanted to stay up all day so i could sleep tonight, but that didn't actually happen: the headache came back in this morning, and i ended up sleeping all day.
it's not friday. but, there's a stench in here. i'm going to have to get some activated charcoal right after i win the case. i've been waiting, as i didn't want to buy it if i have to leave, but it's clear at this point that it will be necessary.
i'm going to eat. i may go back to sleep.
it's not likely that i'll get anything at all done before i get back from court.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
Wednesday, October 18, 2017
i've said enough about this: i don't like religion, but i don't support the fashion police.
i'm less concerned about "religious freedom", which i think is an oxymoron, and more concerned about the question as to whether something like this is actually effective. this bill ignores history, and the fact that attempts to suppress religion always lead to religion coming back stronger. if we wish to stamp out religion once and for all, we need to take more enlightened tactics than this. we're better off finding ways to increase integration through gentle coercion. that's what actually works.
what i want to see is muslim women coming together at feminist rallies and burning their niqabs in a show of defiance against muslim patriarchy. i want to see sikh men feel like it's time to move forwards and let go of the past, and cut their beards off and leave their daggers at home. we need gentler tactics in order to accomplish this.
these laws will have them double down, and grow more insular at a time when it is more important than ever to open their social groupings and religious meetings up to outside ideas and secular influences.
i would be more likely to argue in favour of individual expression than religious freedom. but, as it is, individual expression is the more correct argument anyway, because the religion doesn't actually mandate this. this isn't a ban on religious symbols, it's a ban on a fashion decision that is ubiquitous in a specific religion. that's a very different thing, and that much more contemptible: there are excuses for cracking down on religion because it is inherently oppressive, but there are no excuses for restricting individual expression.
i've pointed out before that, despite questionable polling, quebeckers have proven at the ballot box that they don't actually support these laws. the pq has completely exited the left, at this point. let's hope that quebec solidaire takes advantage of this and cleans up.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-niqab-burka-bill-62-1.4360121
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
i'm less concerned about "religious freedom", which i think is an oxymoron, and more concerned about the question as to whether something like this is actually effective. this bill ignores history, and the fact that attempts to suppress religion always lead to religion coming back stronger. if we wish to stamp out religion once and for all, we need to take more enlightened tactics than this. we're better off finding ways to increase integration through gentle coercion. that's what actually works.
what i want to see is muslim women coming together at feminist rallies and burning their niqabs in a show of defiance against muslim patriarchy. i want to see sikh men feel like it's time to move forwards and let go of the past, and cut their beards off and leave their daggers at home. we need gentler tactics in order to accomplish this.
these laws will have them double down, and grow more insular at a time when it is more important than ever to open their social groupings and religious meetings up to outside ideas and secular influences.
i would be more likely to argue in favour of individual expression than religious freedom. but, as it is, individual expression is the more correct argument anyway, because the religion doesn't actually mandate this. this isn't a ban on religious symbols, it's a ban on a fashion decision that is ubiquitous in a specific religion. that's a very different thing, and that much more contemptible: there are excuses for cracking down on religion because it is inherently oppressive, but there are no excuses for restricting individual expression.
i've pointed out before that, despite questionable polling, quebeckers have proven at the ballot box that they don't actually support these laws. the pq has completely exited the left, at this point. let's hope that quebec solidaire takes advantage of this and cleans up.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-niqab-burka-bill-62-1.4360121
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
at
21:52
i was not a fan of the tragically hip - i found them to be excessively pretentious and excruciatingly boring - and i'm not going to pretend that i was.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
at
20:25
Since this is the Landlord’s
application, the Landlord bears the burden of proving, on a balance of
probabilities that her son genuinely intends to move into the premises. The
Landlord failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that it is more likely
than not that her son does genuinely intend to move into the premises. Since
the Landlord failed to meet the burden of proof, the Landlord’s application
must be dismissed.
this is very reassuring to read from the most likely adjudicator on the case.
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onltb/doc/2017/2017canlii60235/2017canlii60235.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQANbjEyIGFmZmlkYXZpdAAAAAAB&resultIndex=5
...considering that there's still no affidavit. i'll call one more time tonight, i guess before i crash. it looks like i'm going to get to cross-examine, as they're going to do it in real-time. i'm hoping it's the mom as that's going to be fun to rip apart. "you're going to pay your ex-husband rent?". but, something i didn't think was viable was the idea that it could be the guy upstairs - the father. that struck me as absurd on it's face, but there are cases where parents take over basement units for themselves, albeit not separate ones like this. see, here's the thing: he has threatened me with eviction repeatedly. hey, he ran his mouth off and has to deal with it - but it's his attitude that's the problem in the first place.
i'm confident, but i can't get cocky. and, if it goes to trial, which i am not convinced it will, then this is far from over, one way or the other. i think this guy is going to get overwhelmed by the stack of paper i give him, freak out and fold.
and, that would be smart.
if he's smart, he'll know when to fold.
i was up early in the evening, did the shopping i needed to do for the rest of the month (minus peppers, which were bad, and eggs, which i forgot), dotted the rest of the is i needed for the case (mostly burning the disc, and making sure i have extra emails on usb if i need to print on the spot) and then got distracted at canlii.
i read dozens of cases through and there's a common theme: n12s are hard to beat, unless the landlord fucks up in leaving behind evidence, and this one has done quite a bit of that. i have eight documented threats of eviction - that is the kind of thing that helps. something else that helps is evidence demonstrating that the landlord is irritated or angry about being forced to do repairs, which is actually what one of my n5s was: she cluelessly filed an n5 requesting i be evicted for asking her to landlord, which is exactly what i need to prove to the court. the large amount of conflict is the other thing i need to demonstrate. i also have examples of her behaving in bad faith. i even have evidence suggesting she wants to sell (two fire inspections and an appraisal in the same week). nobody wants this, but i couldn't ask for a better situation, if i have to have it. the few cases that i was able to find that seem similar led to a dismissal.
even so, if i somehow lose, the outcome is usually an extension. i can also claim hardship, given that i live on odsp. that's usually good for a few months, and by then the building might be sold, which should give me time to appeal.
i need to push myself to stay awake until late in the afternoon so i'm up fresh on thursday morning. i think i've got together everything i can get together. so, i should get some work done over the next few hours.
i'm not going to ship before thursday. it will be soon, though. 48 will be printed tonight, at least.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
this is very reassuring to read from the most likely adjudicator on the case.
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onltb/doc/2017/2017canlii60235/2017canlii60235.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQANbjEyIGFmZmlkYXZpdAAAAAAB&resultIndex=5
...considering that there's still no affidavit. i'll call one more time tonight, i guess before i crash. it looks like i'm going to get to cross-examine, as they're going to do it in real-time. i'm hoping it's the mom as that's going to be fun to rip apart. "you're going to pay your ex-husband rent?". but, something i didn't think was viable was the idea that it could be the guy upstairs - the father. that struck me as absurd on it's face, but there are cases where parents take over basement units for themselves, albeit not separate ones like this. see, here's the thing: he has threatened me with eviction repeatedly. hey, he ran his mouth off and has to deal with it - but it's his attitude that's the problem in the first place.
i'm confident, but i can't get cocky. and, if it goes to trial, which i am not convinced it will, then this is far from over, one way or the other. i think this guy is going to get overwhelmed by the stack of paper i give him, freak out and fold.
and, that would be smart.
if he's smart, he'll know when to fold.
i was up early in the evening, did the shopping i needed to do for the rest of the month (minus peppers, which were bad, and eggs, which i forgot), dotted the rest of the is i needed for the case (mostly burning the disc, and making sure i have extra emails on usb if i need to print on the spot) and then got distracted at canlii.
i read dozens of cases through and there's a common theme: n12s are hard to beat, unless the landlord fucks up in leaving behind evidence, and this one has done quite a bit of that. i have eight documented threats of eviction - that is the kind of thing that helps. something else that helps is evidence demonstrating that the landlord is irritated or angry about being forced to do repairs, which is actually what one of my n5s was: she cluelessly filed an n5 requesting i be evicted for asking her to landlord, which is exactly what i need to prove to the court. the large amount of conflict is the other thing i need to demonstrate. i also have examples of her behaving in bad faith. i even have evidence suggesting she wants to sell (two fire inspections and an appraisal in the same week). nobody wants this, but i couldn't ask for a better situation, if i have to have it. the few cases that i was able to find that seem similar led to a dismissal.
even so, if i somehow lose, the outcome is usually an extension. i can also claim hardship, given that i live on odsp. that's usually good for a few months, and by then the building might be sold, which should give me time to appeal.
i need to push myself to stay awake until late in the afternoon so i'm up fresh on thursday morning. i think i've got together everything i can get together. so, i should get some work done over the next few hours.
i'm not going to ship before thursday. it will be soon, though. 48 will be printed tonight, at least.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
at
03:46
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)