we need to turn the latin american refugees into an army of inigo montoyas.

and, tell these gangs to prepare to die.

so, what do we do with all of these people?

broadly speaking, i don't think that most of them have valid claims. this is a fundamentally different issue than what the united states is seeing on it's own border. what the americans need is a good neighbour policy, to get to the root causes of all of the migration out of the area. in the short term, i'd like to see them convert the migrants into a peasant army and send them back to fight the gangs.

well, i mean, that's what the british did when people started escaping the continent - they armed them and sent them back. i understand that the ameicans are at the root of the problem, but if the migrants don't fight the gangs in central america, who will? and, why do we seem to think it's ok that nobody is fighting them?

the issues we're dealing with on our border are nothing like this, they're a mixture of desperation and hysteria. and, you need to kind of look at the issue, one by one.

regarding the haitian immigrants, i find it disturbing that trump is ordering them out - these are people that fled a catastrophe and have built new lives in a different country. but, the argument that they should be allowed to stay in america doesn't generalize to being allowed to stay in canada. they were brought to america as guests, and deporting them is inhumane and unjust, true; however, fleeing to canada doesn't fundamentally change the injustice of deporting them. the argument is that they have jobs and families in america. do they have jobs and families in canada? most of them don't. and, while i acknowledge that they have a right to trial, i do think that the end result in almost all cases should be to send them back to haiti. i may not like the administration's decision, but it is not canada's responsibility to step in and offer a consolation prize; the immediate danger to them has passed, so they should go home and help their country rebuild. in the mean time, they should be housed on the border in as humane conditions as are possible.

i don't know how accurate the anecdotes about migrants from nigeria or pakistan are, but these are more traditional claims, and need to be treated as such. i do understand that some of these people are fleeing actual violence, but the vast majority of them are economic migrants and should be sent back, at their own cost. under normal circumstances, i may be less inclined to insist on housing at the border, but the situation right now is extreme, and extreme measures need to be taken to address it.

and, insofar as whatever latin american refugees that appear on our border are concerned, i do believe that they should be sent back from here as well - with whatever help we can give them to fight the scourge that has driven them out. i want to be in solidarity with these migrants. it's just not sustainable to absorb them; it makes more sense to help them fight back. or, to put it another way: viva la revolucion.

i'm a leftist, not a liberal. i can only explain this plank by plank, i guess. maybe, i might even convince you...

i would actually like to hear the ndp sound a little more like jeremy corbyn on the topic.

well, i'm actually going to argue that my position on immigration is not right-wing, but unabashedly marxist - and that this is a good example of where liberals and leftists disagree. it's also just about the only thing that trudeau is really even a liberal on; he's a moderate conservative on everything else.

so, i'm once again arguing on the left of the liberals....but, that's ok - it's the ndp that are weird here, spectrum-wise.

regardless, nobody is 100% this or that, and you'll find plenty of liberals that lean to the right on immigration - as well as plenty of conservatives that lean to the centre. that's not where my head is, but that's the reality. and, so maybe the more important thing i'm pushing back on regarding spectrum politics is the idea of this as a ballot issue.

so, i'm not a liberal that's leaning right on immigration - i'm a leftist that is taking a pretty textbook marxist position on it, even if that's rare amongst leftists nowadays (who tend to be liberal on immigration,). i'm weird because i'm not mixing spectra - i'm weird because i'm ideologically pure on the point. but, if i was a liberal leaning right on immigration, i wouldn't see it as a ballot question.

if i disagree with doug ford on a hundred things, and agree with him on one (even though that's not actually even true, here - our positions are not at all the same.), i'm not going to ignore the hundred things and vote for the one. that would be rather foolish.

and, it would be just as foolish for you to define me that way, if it were even true in the first place.

the value that the canadian immigration system is built around is that you should not be discriminated against while demonstrating your worth to the country.

so, you should be judged based on your abilities and talents, not by your nationality or race.

who is better upholding that idea, here?

sadly, it seems to be the tories.

what is uncanadian is a wide-open immigration policy.

and, it is uncanadian precisely because it is so intrinsically american.

canada is twice the size of the united states and has a tenth of the population.

it's understood that the weather has a little bit to do with this - it's cold here. that's true.

but, this is largely a reflection of the historical differences in immigration policy.

the united states let anybody and everybody in. we did things differently.

we have both provincial and municipal levels of government indicating that we do not have the resources available to handle what is happening at the moment.

this is not a debate about values, it's an empirical question.

what tory should do is broadcast media images of refugees sleeping on the street, while canadians are turned away from the shelters due to crowding, and let the federal government deal with the fallout - both internationally and, increasingly, domestically.

historically, canada has been a very hard country to cross into.

we didn't accept huddled masses yearning to be free - we subjected them to rigorous screening. this rigorous screening is what defines canadian values on the topic, not wide open borders.

perhaps hussen has his history confused, and is thinking of the united states when he imagines canada as an asylum for refugees - and perhaps what he meant to say was that mcleod is being unamerican.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/07/13/lisa-macleod-ahmed-hussen-ontario-asylum-seekers_a_23481772/

islam is a hetereopatriarchal, pro-capitalist, propertarian system of thought that keeps people in line through an elaborate hierarchy and a ruthless system of enforcement.

it is christianity on steroids; it is everything the left opposes.

it is the status quo. and, these people will align with the status quo.

that is the premise of the neo-liberal doctrine.

so, i mean, you can sit there and be a pro-muslim liberal if you want - you're just a status quo bourgeoisie. fine.

but, you can't do this, from the left - you're just stuck in a mess of contradictions.

maybe what's about to happen in the campaign to bring back sex ed will get some people to wake up...

meanwhile, i'm looking for a sufficiently sized smoke-free apartment that i can afford and would request that people understand what i'm typing in this space if they're going to react to it.

and, all those apartments available for august 1st better not still be available on august 2nd, lest some human rights complaints appear with a zealous vengeance.

the conservative party will trot a white face out to announce it's policies, and pretend that it's catering to a christian base that is, in actual truth, dwindling to the point of near extinction.

and, our tepid media will parrot the point, cowering in fear of being labelled critical of islam.

but, anybody paying the slightest bit of attention to the issue knows the reality: in getting the sex ed curriculum reversed, muslims in ontario just scored their first major victory under the new government.

and i can only continue to plead my case until it is acknowledged as correct.

do you realize that something like 70% of the homeless people in our society are queer?

it is 2018, and activists in ontario now have to re-win a debate over whether sexual identity and gender identity are appropriate topics to teach to children.

that's absurd.

all of the progress we had on this topic is now gone.

and, the reason we are faced with this absurdity, the reason we have to fight battles we've already won, is that we let in too many refugees with right-wing attitudes, and they've overwhelmed us in terms of voting numbers.

this is going to keep happening if we don't take steps to address the imbalance we're continuing to create.

and, it is the most vulnerable people in our society that are going to suffer the consequences of this.

we need to face the facts and adjust to them.

if you introduce hundreds of thousands or even millions of religious conservatives into a secular liberal democracy., it's not going to be a liberal democracy much longer - because those religious conservatives will use the democratic (and non-democratic) institutions to enforce their religious beliefs, thereby overwhelming the secular institutions.

this is not an argument about race.

this is an argument about religion.

and, all you're doing is proving my point for me.

i warned people that this would happen.

i stood up against it...

you told me i was being alarmist.

and now it's happening.

and you don't even realize it.

so, is the right-wing's latest excuse to attack queer people that they refuse to be erased by the religious views of conservative immigrants?

my argument against immigration from socially conservative societies is that it will/would strengthen the socially conservative movements that exist in this country, and lead to me being attacked, demeaned and discriminated against. i'm in an exceedingly vulnerable group that is only beginning to win rights in this society, so i need to be exceedingly pro-active about being attacked, and very pre-emptive about identifying threats to my well-being.

and, what exactly is happening to me, right now?

huh?

some of you are evil, and i can't get anywhere with you.

but, i reiterate the claim that a lot of you are beyond fucking naive about this, and repeat the claim to look at the actual evidence in front of you and pull your heads out of your asses.

i'm still just embarrassed.

ontario just literally set the clock back 20 years on sex-ed, and is now trying to stamp out renewable energy.

i'm not mad yet. i'm not upset. i'm really just embarrassed.

and, i think that this is going to carry on for quite a while, still.

the ignorance is just astounding.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/ontario-government-cancels-758-renewable-energy-contracts-says-it-will-save-millions-1.4012450

california.

new york.

british columbia.

you paying attention?

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/ford-repealing-sex-ed-curriculum-to-please-social-conservatives-horwath-1.4012116

if i lose my studio, i will have nothing left to lose - and nothing left to gain.

so, how do you "fix" me?

you don't.

you fix society - and, realize i don't seem so nuts anymore.

...or you just let me live in my head.

i'm not a willing participant.

i'm a very different person than i was fifteen years ago.

at the time, i was still looking to experiment. i thought i had a good understanding of myself, but i wasn't sure. and, i learned a lot of things about who i am and what i want.

today, i know what i want, and i know that what i want is a solitary existence. i know that i'm not interested in exploring my sexuality any further, and i know that i'm going to respond violently to anybody that pushes the point.

you can listen to me and help me find a nice, isolated place where i don't have to socialize with people....or we can do this the hard way and leave a trail of frustration, tears and carnage on the way to me getting what i want - or dying trying.

i need privacy. space. alone time. isolation.

if i end up in a rooming house, i'm not going to make friends, i'm going to make enemies.

i repeat: i have absolutely no intention of living in a rooming house.

i'm not a well adjusted young person looking to leave a cool, hipster lifestyle with lots of friends.

i'm a middle-aged hermit with extreme psychological conditions that make socializing almost impossible.

so, i'm not calling people in rooming houses and i'm not considering the possibility.

worst case scenario, i would prefer to sleep in a storage bin and spend my days in the library until something comes up.

as with working, trying to coerce me into that kind of situation is a waste of everybody's time.

i'm not going to eat during normal hours. in fact, forcing me to live with other people would quickly lead me into a schedule where i sleep during the day so i can avoid people during normal hours. i would tend to eat at 3:30 am..

...and not leave my room during normal hours.

if the other tenants are socializing or having a party, i'm going to sit in my room with the doors closed.

if people try and hit on me, i'm going to yell at them.

i just simply don't want to be around other people in my living arrangements.

i am more likely to kill myself than consent to moving into a rooming house with strangers.

it's simply not a realistic option.

a pardon for latimer is tricky, as there are certain aspects of the case that indicate foresight. the problem here is clear intent, and the law doesn't tend to forgive that when the consequences are so severe. the pardoner may be less interested in these details.

but, for these reasons, a retrial is not worthwhile; whatever the merits (or lack thereof) of his actions, he admitted to a first degree murder, and there just isn't room for free speech, there.

i'd like to see arguments. it's one of those things where the reasons are more important than the outcome.

i don't want the kind of landlord that's going to interpret litigation as something to be afraid of.

i want the kind of landlord that's going to look at the order, understand i was right to make the claim and help me out of a bad situation.

i'm really hoping the order comes in soon, because i'm going to need to show it to people when they ask for references.

i mean, generally, one uses their existing landlord as a reference, with the premise being that the existing landlord has good judgement. i'm going to understand why they're going to not want to give me a good reference, that's fine, i'm not going to argue the point. but, the argument i'm going to have to make is that the court found them negligent.

so, they can claim i'm the tenant from hell if they want, but the fact is that the court ruled in my favour, so clearly their perception is flawed - it is rather the case that this is the landlord from hell, and that the property is terribly managed.

and, this is what the court does - it gets in between these matters.

i'm sure i'll run into people that are likely to take the landlord at face value and ignore the court, or even interpret the court ruling with disdain; i should interpret that as a red flag, and these kinds of managers as people i don't want to rent from...

i have time.

i can wait.

i need to be aggressive when i see an end point, though.

assad was in the process of stepping down when the saudis invaded by stealth, with the attempt to prevent the transfer of power to a constitutional republic.

the propaganda around syria is really absurd; you have been fed a fantasy reality, and most of what you believe is probably false.

while the saudis ended up losing this war, largely because the turks pushed them back, the chaos in syria prevented assad from stepping down.

if the war is coming to an end, it is reasonable to assume that assad will quite quickly put in place the transfer of power that the war was intended to prevent - this time with russian protection.

so, if your primary consideration was the removal of assad, the russian victory will facilitate this, rather than prevent it.