the reason i support a gai is not because i think it's ideal. ideally, you tear down the wage system altogether. ideally, you abolish currency.
the reason i support a gai is because it's the fastest way to approximate what life would be like in a post-market society, with the full understanding that i'll never experience that, in my lifetime.
i'm never going to experience communism in my lifetime. but, i might get to a gai, if the situation aligns. so, pragmatically, it makes sense for me to support it, out of self-interest.
but, i'd rather that we didn't have money at all than that they send me a little every month, absolutely.
Saturday, December 21, 2019
it may be the only thing reagan ever said that was actually true, but for all the wrong reasons.
i live on disability; i "need the government", and i know it. but, the reason i need the government is because it's passed all of these laws regarding property rights. reagan was, of course, an advocate of property rights; anarchists consider property to be an impossible abstraction within the confines of an actually free society.
so, i need the government, but i only need the government because the government forces me to need the government, because i don't want to get a pointless job. so long as the government continues to exist and force free-market capitalism on everybody at the end of a gun, i will remain absolutely dependent on it, by design; if it were to cease to exist, i wouldn't need it at all.
what i would need is the support of a free commune that prioritizes the kind of freedom that i value, and allows me to live the kind of lifestyle that i want. and, i'd be happy to help grow some food and clean the toilets, despite refusing to be a wage slave.
anarchism is hard for capitalists to understand, because it really does pull the rug out in just about every way imaginable. but, the basic problem - and it's what anarchists have been saying for centuries - is rooted in the government's enforcement of property with the use of force. if they'd stop policing property, we could live freely without them; so long as they uphold their system of violence with force, we're all enslaved, one way or another.
https://www.vox.com/2018/8/17/17675100/suzanne-mettler-government-citizen-disconnect-welfare
i live on disability; i "need the government", and i know it. but, the reason i need the government is because it's passed all of these laws regarding property rights. reagan was, of course, an advocate of property rights; anarchists consider property to be an impossible abstraction within the confines of an actually free society.
so, i need the government, but i only need the government because the government forces me to need the government, because i don't want to get a pointless job. so long as the government continues to exist and force free-market capitalism on everybody at the end of a gun, i will remain absolutely dependent on it, by design; if it were to cease to exist, i wouldn't need it at all.
what i would need is the support of a free commune that prioritizes the kind of freedom that i value, and allows me to live the kind of lifestyle that i want. and, i'd be happy to help grow some food and clean the toilets, despite refusing to be a wage slave.
anarchism is hard for capitalists to understand, because it really does pull the rug out in just about every way imaginable. but, the basic problem - and it's what anarchists have been saying for centuries - is rooted in the government's enforcement of property with the use of force. if they'd stop policing property, we could live freely without them; so long as they uphold their system of violence with force, we're all enslaved, one way or another.
https://www.vox.com/2018/8/17/17675100/suzanne-mettler-government-citizen-disconnect-welfare
at
23:45
do i really think the cops are trying to break my computer and keep me off the internet?
maybe it's more likely that they're trying to install some kind of logging software, and keep breaking it by accident, because my image is so broken, already.
i'm speculating. you'd have to ask them. all i know is that my computer is frequently working when i leave and frequently broken when i get home....
maybe it's more likely that they're trying to install some kind of logging software, and keep breaking it by accident, because my image is so broken, already.
i'm speculating. you'd have to ask them. all i know is that my computer is frequently working when i leave and frequently broken when i get home....
at
22:44
so, where am i? what happened?
as noted, i went grocery shopping yesterday afternoon. i left a little before 12:00 and was back around 21:00. so, my computer was off around 10:00. i did a lot of walking yesterday on an empty stomach (i hadn't eaten since tuesday night) and it took a toll on my legs. so, i got something to eat, took a shower and sat down to type, hoping to implement some of the ideas i had thought through regarding the html frontend for the liner notes.
i stated previously that i haven't done any scripting, but that wasn't entirely true; i have taken courses in functional programming, and i was actually unusually good at it. i actually found functional programming to be conceptually easier to understand and work with than object-oriented programming, which is unusual and says something about how i think, in comparison to how others think. it's a sort of a proof that i really am an anarchist to my core being, rather than it being a decision i made as something to identify with, as an adult. i'm more of a concrete thinker and less of an abstract one; i think in terms of very specific and precise details and dwell on those precise details, rather than in terms of lofty principles or generalized concepts, which, in most contexts, i would broadly reject as non-existent. in almost every application and context in reality, generalized concepts and lofty principles have no empirical basis but rather only exist in our minds, and can consequently only lead to confusion and poor outcomes when applied usefully in any conceivable way at all. there is no forest, there are only trees. for that reason, i will almost always reject the application of any sort of generalized knowledge, and will instead look at each situation entirely uniquely, in order to understand the situation as a unique situation, isolated from the situations around it. when i was in school, this tendency would frequently upset my math professors, as i used to prove everything from first principles rather than apply the theorems because i found it easier to work through the specific logic on a case-by-case basis in each precise scenario than apply broad ideas abstractly, which led them to question if i even understood what they were doing, even as i was clearly demonstrating that i did. they were frequently confused as to how a student could make it as clear that they understood the material as i routinely did, yet make it equally clear that they didn't understand how to apply the results of it, which i also did. was i not able to generalize? i ultimately didn't trust the theorems - i felt the need to show everything on a case-by-case basis, instead, to be sure it was actually true. merely citing a theorem struck me as an insufficient way to demonstrate a claim, and i think that is a broader truth to hold to that is more useful in every day life. was it that i couldn't generalize, or was it that i realized that, in truth, generalization is an intellectually invalid process, contrary to the general opinion of historical scholarship? citing theorems is in truth not a good epistemology; your theorem is almost certainly wrong, and attempting to apply it to reality will almost certainly lead to poor outcomes. i did not initially realize any of this, but, at the end of my time studying math, i became cognizant of my identification with a school of mathematics called constructivism, which is an obscure view that rejects much of the platonism underlying the field of mathematics in favour of the requirement of explicit demonstration, every time. i actually prefer the linearity of functional programming and find it easier to follow than the often opaque abstraction of oop, which i'm less adept at understanding. it's just how my brain is wired, but our brains are plastic, and it's consequently a result of experience, and not genes. i've trained myself to think like this. most people would find it difficult to follow the complexity of functional programming and instead prefer the relative simplicity of oop because they've trained themselves (or been trained by the school system) to think in simplified generalizations. we used scheme instead of lisp, but scheme is very similar to lisp and most people would take lisp as their reference point rather than scheme.
as noted, i went grocery shopping yesterday afternoon. i left a little before 12:00 and was back around 21:00. so, my computer was off around 10:00. i did a lot of walking yesterday on an empty stomach (i hadn't eaten since tuesday night) and it took a toll on my legs. so, i got something to eat, took a shower and sat down to type, hoping to implement some of the ideas i had thought through regarding the html frontend for the liner notes.
i stated previously that i haven't done any scripting, but that wasn't entirely true; i have taken courses in functional programming, and i was actually unusually good at it. i actually found functional programming to be conceptually easier to understand and work with than object-oriented programming, which is unusual and says something about how i think, in comparison to how others think. it's a sort of a proof that i really am an anarchist to my core being, rather than it being a decision i made as something to identify with, as an adult. i'm more of a concrete thinker and less of an abstract one; i think in terms of very specific and precise details and dwell on those precise details, rather than in terms of lofty principles or generalized concepts, which, in most contexts, i would broadly reject as non-existent. in almost every application and context in reality, generalized concepts and lofty principles have no empirical basis but rather only exist in our minds, and can consequently only lead to confusion and poor outcomes when applied usefully in any conceivable way at all. there is no forest, there are only trees. for that reason, i will almost always reject the application of any sort of generalized knowledge, and will instead look at each situation entirely uniquely, in order to understand the situation as a unique situation, isolated from the situations around it. when i was in school, this tendency would frequently upset my math professors, as i used to prove everything from first principles rather than apply the theorems because i found it easier to work through the specific logic on a case-by-case basis in each precise scenario than apply broad ideas abstractly, which led them to question if i even understood what they were doing, even as i was clearly demonstrating that i did. they were frequently confused as to how a student could make it as clear that they understood the material as i routinely did, yet make it equally clear that they didn't understand how to apply the results of it, which i also did. was i not able to generalize? i ultimately didn't trust the theorems - i felt the need to show everything on a case-by-case basis, instead, to be sure it was actually true. merely citing a theorem struck me as an insufficient way to demonstrate a claim, and i think that is a broader truth to hold to that is more useful in every day life. was it that i couldn't generalize, or was it that i realized that, in truth, generalization is an intellectually invalid process, contrary to the general opinion of historical scholarship? citing theorems is in truth not a good epistemology; your theorem is almost certainly wrong, and attempting to apply it to reality will almost certainly lead to poor outcomes. i did not initially realize any of this, but, at the end of my time studying math, i became cognizant of my identification with a school of mathematics called constructivism, which is an obscure view that rejects much of the platonism underlying the field of mathematics in favour of the requirement of explicit demonstration, every time. i actually prefer the linearity of functional programming and find it easier to follow than the often opaque abstraction of oop, which i'm less adept at understanding. it's just how my brain is wired, but our brains are plastic, and it's consequently a result of experience, and not genes. i've trained myself to think like this. most people would find it difficult to follow the complexity of functional programming and instead prefer the relative simplicity of oop because they've trained themselves (or been trained by the school system) to think in simplified generalizations. we used scheme instead of lisp, but scheme is very similar to lisp and most people would take lisp as their reference point rather than scheme.
i had an epiphany walking out to get some salami today when i realized i should be approaching this problem less like it's oop and more like it's functional programming, as i worked the logic through during the walk. java is inherently oop, so you wouldn't think to do functional java programming, but the solution became apparent immediately once i did make that shift in mindset.
as mentioned, this is a tricky issue. i'm fighting against the api; i'm asking it to do something it was designed to prevent. in a sense, i'm breaking it. it looks like an easy task, and it would be in any other context, but javascript isn't supposed to be aware of what's happening locally, and it isn't supposed to run without user input. it's supposed to compile remotely. but, as stated, i don't want any of that.
and, no, i don't want to tell people to install some other language, like python. everybody has java; it's baked into the browser. i might have some fun with a lisp-centric browser, though. there was a time when lisp was all over the internet.
if i approach this from a functional programming perspective instead, i should be able to get the right listener to launch on a play error. i was trying to get it to react to the canplay(), which is a haphazard error testing, but it just wouldn't load. i was emulating what the standard pushed down; if you look at the source code in the html5 repository, it must essentially be running a try...catch block in just throwing out the different file types. however, i can't even get it to do that without prompting for a click. it's just the api. it needs some kind of user input.
if i can set the variable to the mp3 array by default and then listen for an error when it tries to play a different file type, i should be able to introduce some adhoc error handling when the error triggers (it will look like an expanded recursion, but i can't recurse because the array is hardcoded, and that's actually the point - it's more like an expanded lisp routine) that checks all of the options and exits when it finds the right one. what i'm imagining doing is really just expanding the built-in error handling by inserting a block of code that handles the error how i want it to, which relies on the ability to write that code functionally, as it exists at run-time, which is not how javascript is supposed to behave (it is how lisp is supposed to behave).
i'm not 100% sure that javascript will do this the same way that lisp or scheme would, but so long as it does, i think it should work.
if not, i'm going to have to ask for the click. so be it.
anyways.
i got out of the shower around midnight and sat down to type, when i went to turn the machine back on to find that same rpcrtremote.dll error. ugh.
we have a pattern here, don't we? it seems to break when i go out. why is that?
why was my chromebook parallel to my bed? it's always perpendicular. always.
as mentioned, this is a tricky issue. i'm fighting against the api; i'm asking it to do something it was designed to prevent. in a sense, i'm breaking it. it looks like an easy task, and it would be in any other context, but javascript isn't supposed to be aware of what's happening locally, and it isn't supposed to run without user input. it's supposed to compile remotely. but, as stated, i don't want any of that.
and, no, i don't want to tell people to install some other language, like python. everybody has java; it's baked into the browser. i might have some fun with a lisp-centric browser, though. there was a time when lisp was all over the internet.
if i approach this from a functional programming perspective instead, i should be able to get the right listener to launch on a play error. i was trying to get it to react to the canplay(), which is a haphazard error testing, but it just wouldn't load. i was emulating what the standard pushed down; if you look at the source code in the html5 repository, it must essentially be running a try...catch block in just throwing out the different file types. however, i can't even get it to do that without prompting for a click. it's just the api. it needs some kind of user input.
if i can set the variable to the mp3 array by default and then listen for an error when it tries to play a different file type, i should be able to introduce some adhoc error handling when the error triggers (it will look like an expanded recursion, but i can't recurse because the array is hardcoded, and that's actually the point - it's more like an expanded lisp routine) that checks all of the options and exits when it finds the right one. what i'm imagining doing is really just expanding the built-in error handling by inserting a block of code that handles the error how i want it to, which relies on the ability to write that code functionally, as it exists at run-time, which is not how javascript is supposed to behave (it is how lisp is supposed to behave).
i'm not 100% sure that javascript will do this the same way that lisp or scheme would, but so long as it does, i think it should work.
if not, i'm going to have to ask for the click. so be it.
anyways.
i got out of the shower around midnight and sat down to type, when i went to turn the machine back on to find that same rpcrtremote.dll error. ugh.
we have a pattern here, don't we? it seems to break when i go out. why is that?
why was my chromebook parallel to my bed? it's always perpendicular. always.
why was my universal power adapter, which i use for my laptop, pulled out of it's socket?
why was my (admittedly dilapidated) converted desk all disheveled, as though somebody had tried to move it?
i have checked the power usage, and there's no obvious spike when i was gone. however, it seems like somebody was down here, probably around the same time that the cops were circling around me at the store. the thought crossed my mind, even then.
what, exactly, can i do besides turn the router off and reimage? i got a start on it before i passed out, and got to finishing it this morning. it took a few tries this time, which is making me wonder what they did. i know that what worked was a three-pass format of the drive, indicating that they may have inserted something in there pretty deeply.
when i got back up, i checked my email and found a response from the oiprd, who were supposed to provide an application record by thursday but are instead offering to redo the review around the question of the arrest. i rejected their request outright. they are continuing to insist on this reductionist perspective, and they're still refusing to consider the pattern of harassment by the officer, which is the actual crux of the complaint. i fully expect that if i were to allow them to conduct a second review, they'd miss every deadline, and i'd either be back in divisional court for delay or in divisional court for review. that strikes me as a pointless waste of time, and i don't want to go through with it - i want the issue dealt with by an actual judge, and i think i should have had the right to get the thing in court from the fucking getgo.
why was my (admittedly dilapidated) converted desk all disheveled, as though somebody had tried to move it?
i have checked the power usage, and there's no obvious spike when i was gone. however, it seems like somebody was down here, probably around the same time that the cops were circling around me at the store. the thought crossed my mind, even then.
what, exactly, can i do besides turn the router off and reimage? i got a start on it before i passed out, and got to finishing it this morning. it took a few tries this time, which is making me wonder what they did. i know that what worked was a three-pass format of the drive, indicating that they may have inserted something in there pretty deeply.
when i got back up, i checked my email and found a response from the oiprd, who were supposed to provide an application record by thursday but are instead offering to redo the review around the question of the arrest. i rejected their request outright. they are continuing to insist on this reductionist perspective, and they're still refusing to consider the pattern of harassment by the officer, which is the actual crux of the complaint. i fully expect that if i were to allow them to conduct a second review, they'd miss every deadline, and i'd either be back in divisional court for delay or in divisional court for review. that strikes me as a pointless waste of time, and i don't want to go through with it - i want the issue dealt with by an actual judge, and i think i should have had the right to get the thing in court from the fucking getgo.
they pointed out that a case was released yesterday that updates dunsmuir, so i had to take a look at it. as mentioned, i don't think the new rules really affect this particular case, but i hope that the outcome isn't a lessening of judicial oversight. the oiprd is a good example of the kind of tribunal that needs serious judicial oversight. it may have statutory powers, but it has no relevant expertise, whatsoever. i poked around a little, and some for-profit style lawyers are claiming they love it, but i'm not sure the reasons they're providing are very well thought through. if their optimism pans out, the result could be an americanizing of the law, which would be deeply catastrophic, for canada. i don't want to be an american. i'm afraid of americans.
so, for example, the language about not needing to check the expertise of the panel is very worrying on the surface (i would strongly support the use of judicial review in scenarios where the tribunal does not have the expertise to rule correctly, and who could argue otherwise?), but so long as the judiciary continues to pull these cases on the basis that the rulings are unreasonable, it might be less of a problem than i'm imagining that it could be. i think the previous precedent is more thorough, but i do acknowledge that there is sometimes a redundancy in worrying about whether the panel did do it right or whether the panel can do it right; if the panel can't do it right, they almost certainly didn't do it right, so this scenario where they don't have the expertise and somehow get the right answer is going to be exceedingly rare. but, the law should be thorough, and if this is a taste of the direction that the court is moving in, there should be some critical essays written about it to try and pull them back from it. there's no purpose in hardcoding logical shortcuts into the law, like that.
frankly, the truth is that it's lazy, and that's maybe the easy way to state what's wrong with the changes they made. there may not be serious, substantive differences, but it's far less rigorous, and it just comes off as lazy and haphazard.
the thing those lawyers wanted to see was a precedent that didn't bother assessing the abilities of the panel, and you can imagine scary outcomes resulting from the judiciary mindlessly deferring to these unqualified juntas "because legislation". the worst case scenario is a perfect algorithm for third-world backwardsness. it's potentially devastating, but only if they actually defer this way (and, my case is actually an example of this, as the judiciary should not be deferring to "members of the community" on issues of law, that would be retarded), and, so long as they continue to defer properly to the reasonableness standard, they really shouldn't.
likewise, abolishing the correctness standard is at first glance a pretty frightening proposition. certiorari is one of the oldest rules that we have. the supreme court should hardly be gutting 2500 year old roman precedent; this is the heart of our legal system, arguably the most important legal precedent that we have, anywhere, ever. certiorari does exist in ontario statute, but this is a part of the "unwritten rules and conventions" in the preamble of the constitution, really. a western legal system would no longer be a western legal system, without it.
however, taking a closer look at it pulls out that they aren't actually doing that. rather, they're just fucking with the language and, in the end, they might even be giving themselves more power, if they no longer have to rely on anything besides a broad and purposefully undefined concept of "reasonableness".
obviously, the judiciary needs a check on it, too - the principle of judicial independence is paramount, but they can't have absolute power. however, i think the balance of power should lie in the courts, and not in these panels and tribunals. i'm in favour of activist judges; what i'm worried about is giving these "independent bodies" too much power. so, i would appear to be directly ideologically opposed to the new chief justice on this matter. and, again this is frustrating, because the guy was put in power by the liberals, and he's carrying through with a reform party style harperist agenda.
so, for example, the language about not needing to check the expertise of the panel is very worrying on the surface (i would strongly support the use of judicial review in scenarios where the tribunal does not have the expertise to rule correctly, and who could argue otherwise?), but so long as the judiciary continues to pull these cases on the basis that the rulings are unreasonable, it might be less of a problem than i'm imagining that it could be. i think the previous precedent is more thorough, but i do acknowledge that there is sometimes a redundancy in worrying about whether the panel did do it right or whether the panel can do it right; if the panel can't do it right, they almost certainly didn't do it right, so this scenario where they don't have the expertise and somehow get the right answer is going to be exceedingly rare. but, the law should be thorough, and if this is a taste of the direction that the court is moving in, there should be some critical essays written about it to try and pull them back from it. there's no purpose in hardcoding logical shortcuts into the law, like that.
frankly, the truth is that it's lazy, and that's maybe the easy way to state what's wrong with the changes they made. there may not be serious, substantive differences, but it's far less rigorous, and it just comes off as lazy and haphazard.
the thing those lawyers wanted to see was a precedent that didn't bother assessing the abilities of the panel, and you can imagine scary outcomes resulting from the judiciary mindlessly deferring to these unqualified juntas "because legislation". the worst case scenario is a perfect algorithm for third-world backwardsness. it's potentially devastating, but only if they actually defer this way (and, my case is actually an example of this, as the judiciary should not be deferring to "members of the community" on issues of law, that would be retarded), and, so long as they continue to defer properly to the reasonableness standard, they really shouldn't.
likewise, abolishing the correctness standard is at first glance a pretty frightening proposition. certiorari is one of the oldest rules that we have. the supreme court should hardly be gutting 2500 year old roman precedent; this is the heart of our legal system, arguably the most important legal precedent that we have, anywhere, ever. certiorari does exist in ontario statute, but this is a part of the "unwritten rules and conventions" in the preamble of the constitution, really. a western legal system would no longer be a western legal system, without it.
however, taking a closer look at it pulls out that they aren't actually doing that. rather, they're just fucking with the language and, in the end, they might even be giving themselves more power, if they no longer have to rely on anything besides a broad and purposefully undefined concept of "reasonableness".
obviously, the judiciary needs a check on it, too - the principle of judicial independence is paramount, but they can't have absolute power. however, i think the balance of power should lie in the courts, and not in these panels and tribunals. i'm in favour of activist judges; what i'm worried about is giving these "independent bodies" too much power. so, i would appear to be directly ideologically opposed to the new chief justice on this matter. and, again this is frustrating, because the guy was put in power by the liberals, and he's carrying through with a reform party style harperist agenda.
it's not as bad as it looks at first; i honestly don't think it will be nearly as substantive as some commenters are suggesting.
i've been at that all afternoon.
now i need to get back to the html frontend; let's hope this new approach works,
what to do about this thing? i've kept the image unmodified from the backup, to see what happens. will it stay stable for a while? a strict reimage doesn't take that long, but how long can i avoid it for?
now i need to get back to the html frontend; let's hope this new approach works,
what to do about this thing? i've kept the image unmodified from the backup, to see what happens. will it stay stable for a while? a strict reimage doesn't take that long, but how long can i avoid it for?
at
22:26
It has been brought to my attention that there has been a new precedent that affects the way that judicial review is interpreted by the divisional court, which is available here: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/18078/index.do
While it may appear on first glance that this ruling has implications for my case, I do not believe that it does. I am not going to be withdrawing or altering my existing arguments, but I can add the following addendum to clarify my interpretation of the new ruling.
First of all, let us question where the expertise in the matter is. The premise underlying the new basis of review is that the legislature invested decision making authority in the hands of specialized councils, and the judiciary ought not interfere with that. However, the author of the report in question is a police officer that likely has minimal training, and the review was carried out by a civilian oversight panel of “members of the community”. Meanwhile, the divisional court consists of three learned judges with decades of experience, no doubt, between them. The issue at hand is an interpretation of the criminal code. It would be patently unreasonable for the court to defer to the expertise of the civilian oversight body, in this matter.
Second, let us be clear in understanding that the issue at hand is, in fact, a question of upholding the rule of law. The new ruling is not very specific regarding the question of what is of “central importance to the legal system”, but i think that the premise that the police should uphold the law is of pretty central importance to society, in general. I would propose that this is a situation where the correctness exception ought to apply, and that while the recent ruling does not explicitly list issues of the sort, it does implicitly do so, and this is ultimately an oversight. I would hope that the supreme court would interpret the situation as meeting the grounds for exception that are outlined in the case.
However, my interpretation of the ruling is that it is actually mostly merely a shift in semantics. While the ruling does make it clear that the correctness basis is to be utilized carefully, it also presents a long list of examples where the reasonableness basis is to be used that kind of look a lot like correctness reviews, to me. If the difference is procedural, this strikes me merely as an exercise in political correctness. With all due respect to everybody involved, I did not file this review to get into a semantic debate over whether misapplying Storrey to a hybrid offence would be considered to be incorrect, or merely unreasonable. In all honesty, I am not sure that I entirely understand why something would not be considered to be incorrect if it doesn’t fall into a range of possible outcomes, when that range of possible outcomes has one possibility. Nonetheless, this is the strange Carrolian path that the court has set out for us, as it takes us all down the rabbit hole of political correctness.
I will quote the case, only briefly:
” It is evident that both statutory and common law will impose constraints on how and what an administrative decision maker can lawfully decide: see Dunsmuir, at paras. 47 and 74. For example, an administrative decision maker interpreting the scope of its regulation-making authority in order to exercise that authority cannot adopt an interpretation that is inconsistent with applicable common law principles regarding the nature of statutory powers: see Katz Group Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Health and Long Term Care), 2013 SCC 64, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 810, at paras. 45-48. Neither can a body instructed by legislation to determine what tax rate is applicable in accordance with an existing tax system ignore that system and base its determination on a “fictitious” system it has arbitrarily created: Montréal (City), at para. 40. Where a relationship is governed by private law, it would be unreasonable for a decision maker to ignore that law in adjudicating parties’ rights within that relationship: Dunsmuir, at para. 74. Similarly, where the governing statute specifies a standard that is well known in law and in the jurisprudence, a reasonable decision will generally be one that is consistent with the established understanding of that standard: see, e.g., the discussion of “reasonable grounds to suspect” in Canada (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities) v. Farwaha, 2014 FCA 56, [2015] 2 F.C.R. 1006, at paras. 93-98.” [@ p. 111]
Again - procedural questions aside, it would seem to be that this is a correctness basis by any other name, but if the court insists on calling it a reasonableness basis instead, then we can do that. It really changes nothing in any meaningful, substantive way - it’s just an issue of semantics, of language.
So, I am still requesting a general certiorari on a correctness basis due to the obvious incompetence of the reviewing body, and claim the court has the expertise, not the panel. But, we can cite the rule of law to get to a correctness basis instead, if insisted upon, and we can run ctrl+H and replace “correctness” with “reasonableness”, in light of para 111, if you insist, too.
I will leave it to the court to sort out my arguments in light of the new precedent.
While it may appear on first glance that this ruling has implications for my case, I do not believe that it does. I am not going to be withdrawing or altering my existing arguments, but I can add the following addendum to clarify my interpretation of the new ruling.
First of all, let us question where the expertise in the matter is. The premise underlying the new basis of review is that the legislature invested decision making authority in the hands of specialized councils, and the judiciary ought not interfere with that. However, the author of the report in question is a police officer that likely has minimal training, and the review was carried out by a civilian oversight panel of “members of the community”. Meanwhile, the divisional court consists of three learned judges with decades of experience, no doubt, between them. The issue at hand is an interpretation of the criminal code. It would be patently unreasonable for the court to defer to the expertise of the civilian oversight body, in this matter.
Second, let us be clear in understanding that the issue at hand is, in fact, a question of upholding the rule of law. The new ruling is not very specific regarding the question of what is of “central importance to the legal system”, but i think that the premise that the police should uphold the law is of pretty central importance to society, in general. I would propose that this is a situation where the correctness exception ought to apply, and that while the recent ruling does not explicitly list issues of the sort, it does implicitly do so, and this is ultimately an oversight. I would hope that the supreme court would interpret the situation as meeting the grounds for exception that are outlined in the case.
However, my interpretation of the ruling is that it is actually mostly merely a shift in semantics. While the ruling does make it clear that the correctness basis is to be utilized carefully, it also presents a long list of examples where the reasonableness basis is to be used that kind of look a lot like correctness reviews, to me. If the difference is procedural, this strikes me merely as an exercise in political correctness. With all due respect to everybody involved, I did not file this review to get into a semantic debate over whether misapplying Storrey to a hybrid offence would be considered to be incorrect, or merely unreasonable. In all honesty, I am not sure that I entirely understand why something would not be considered to be incorrect if it doesn’t fall into a range of possible outcomes, when that range of possible outcomes has one possibility. Nonetheless, this is the strange Carrolian path that the court has set out for us, as it takes us all down the rabbit hole of political correctness.
I will quote the case, only briefly:
” It is evident that both statutory and common law will impose constraints on how and what an administrative decision maker can lawfully decide: see Dunsmuir, at paras. 47 and 74. For example, an administrative decision maker interpreting the scope of its regulation-making authority in order to exercise that authority cannot adopt an interpretation that is inconsistent with applicable common law principles regarding the nature of statutory powers: see Katz Group Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Health and Long Term Care), 2013 SCC 64, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 810, at paras. 45-48. Neither can a body instructed by legislation to determine what tax rate is applicable in accordance with an existing tax system ignore that system and base its determination on a “fictitious” system it has arbitrarily created: Montréal (City), at para. 40. Where a relationship is governed by private law, it would be unreasonable for a decision maker to ignore that law in adjudicating parties’ rights within that relationship: Dunsmuir, at para. 74. Similarly, where the governing statute specifies a standard that is well known in law and in the jurisprudence, a reasonable decision will generally be one that is consistent with the established understanding of that standard: see, e.g., the discussion of “reasonable grounds to suspect” in Canada (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities) v. Farwaha, 2014 FCA 56, [2015] 2 F.C.R. 1006, at paras. 93-98.” [@ p. 111]
Again - procedural questions aside, it would seem to be that this is a correctness basis by any other name, but if the court insists on calling it a reasonableness basis instead, then we can do that. It really changes nothing in any meaningful, substantive way - it’s just an issue of semantics, of language.
So, I am still requesting a general certiorari on a correctness basis due to the obvious incompetence of the reviewing body, and claim the court has the expertise, not the panel. But, we can cite the rule of law to get to a correctness basis instead, if insisted upon, and we can run ctrl+H and replace “correctness” with “reasonableness”, in light of para 111, if you insist, too.
I will leave it to the court to sort out my arguments in light of the new precedent.
at
18:19
on second thought, i'm going to write an addendum and email it to the interested parties. i'll then mail that to toronto.
the reason i'm doing this is because the ruling actually clarifies my argument.
the reason i'm doing this is because the ruling actually clarifies my argument.
at
17:39
so, yeah.
i'm going to show up in court and yell for twenty minutes that they're FUCKING WRONG.
and, if the judge wants to politely suggest that they're merely "unreasonable", then whatever.
i'm going to show up in court and yell for twenty minutes that they're FUCKING WRONG.
and, if the judge wants to politely suggest that they're merely "unreasonable", then whatever.
at
17:17
and, if the question is "expertise", let's look at the situation, in context.
the report was written by a police officer that probably has no legal training. the review was done by a civilian oversight body.
i'm asking for a ruling on an interpretation of the criminal code. so, where is the expertise, here? in the oiprd or in the judiciary?
i don't like this ruling, and i don't think it'll last very long. the exceptions for correctness are far too limited. and, if this is the case that opens it back up, so be it.
i will appeal this if i lose.
the report was written by a police officer that probably has no legal training. the review was done by a civilian oversight body.
i'm asking for a ruling on an interpretation of the criminal code. so, where is the expertise, here? in the oiprd or in the judiciary?
i don't like this ruling, and i don't think it'll last very long. the exceptions for correctness are far too limited. and, if this is the case that opens it back up, so be it.
i will appeal this if i lose.
at
17:01
note, dated to sept 26, 2022.
i am taking posts down due to concerns about back-end editing by governments. one of the posts that made me aware of what was happening was edits to the vavilov sequence of posts from dec, 2019.
this was a real-time/contemporary analysis of a landmark ruling in canada, and that it might be edited to advance the interests of a sitting government is of extreme concern to freedom of thought in this country. this would be an extreme abuse of power, an extreme abuse of technology and severe infringement of several of my basic constitutional and even natural rights as a human being. i'm left with no paper trail, but suspect google could clarify the point on subpoena.
i want to collect the versions of the post i have here for insertion into three (i suppose four) separate archives. i do not want to write this now, as i'm typing into the backend and there's no point. i will need to wait until this is on a more stable system before i attempt to rewrite it again.
---
on aug 11, 2022 i posted the following:
(a) as recovered from email sent to my google account from the blogger ui on aug 11, and collected on sept 26:
see, i'm baffled by this.
i remember re-writing my dec, 2019 analysis of vavilov when i reposted it in jan, 2022. so, my records of the post for 2019, from 2019, should be different than the post as it exists today, and that should be different than the repost in 2022.
bafflingly, they're all the same, and i don't think any of them were the original post.
that would suggest that:
1) somebody altered the version in my email from 2019, which is dated to 2019
2) somebody then put that edited version in the blog
3) somebody then edited the version in two of my email boxes, which are dated to 2022
4) that version ended up in the 2022 post.
the really baffling thing is that the version dated to 2019 at the blog is the same is in the email. that should not be true - they should be substantively different.
so, i'm going to have to rewrite it, and there's not going to be any note, and i'm not going to concern myself with that. i think i have an absolute right to alter my own writing, that the time stamps are not important and that a footnote that indicates altering the writing is not required.
but, this is exceedingly sophisticated - or i'm just tricking myself, but i'm not just tricking myself. this editor is able to manipulate existing messages in my gmail folder, which means they're hacking it at the server level.
my only tactic is resiliency - i need to keep rewriting these posts, and hope the author gives up.
8:27
this memory of rewriting an old post is specific.
i'm not trying to guess what i wrote in 2019. i'm explicitly remember opening the document in 2022, altering it and reposting it in 2022. yet, it actually seems like the stored version from 2019 was updated to reflect an alteration in 2022, at some point after i reposted it in jan. that is, it seems like the editor took the post from the repost, altered it and then re-inserted it into my email from 2019.
that's crazy. that's somebody with total control over the google servers, or i'm imagining. but, i'm not imagining it - and i have no way to demonstrate it.
ugh.
8:30
what would you do when faced with this?
8:32
the idea that is being eradicated from the post is that what vavilov is really about is political correctness.
what vavilov says isn't that the correctness precedent is to be eliminated, so much as that it's rude to question whether somebody is correct or not. a more polite way to question authority is to question their reasonableness. so, if something is factually wrong, the review is to argue that it's unreasonable because it's wrong.
that analysis seems to be threatening to the editors, so it therefore must be absolutely correct.
i'm not going to pretend that i remember exactly what i wrote in december 2019 about the new judicial review precedent, but the edits are always incomplete; they may give me enough of my thoughts to realize there's a conclusion without a premise, and i need to reconstruct the premise. they don't tend to remove entire posts, so much as they take out specific paragraphs, probably thinking i've forgotten, which is of course mostly true.
is this serious? am i crazy?
if i find myself unable to follow my own argument, i have to rewrite it, regardless. i can't prove anything. but, the result is the same either way: i have a conclusion without a premise and need to insert a premise.
keep this in mind, though: this idea that vavilov is really about questioning authority appears to be threatening enough that it must be true.
9:20
(b) as recovered from the blogger draft post on sept 26:
aug 11
see, i'm baffled by this.
i remember re-writing my dec, 2019 analysis of vavilov when i reposted it in jan, 2022. so, my records of the post for 2019, from 2019, should be different than the post as it exists today, and that should be different than the repost in 2022.
bafflingly, they're all the same, and i don't think any of them were the original post.
that would suggest that:
1) somebody altered the version in my email from 2019, which is dated to 2019
2) somebody then put that edited version in the blog
3) somebody then edited the version in two of my email boxes, which are dated to 2022
4) that version ended up in the 2022 post.
the really baffling thing is that the version dated to 2019 at the blog is the same is in the email. that should not be true - they should be substantively different.
so, i'm going to have to rewrite it, and there's not going to be any note, and i'm not going to concern myself with that. i think i have an absolute right to alter my own writing, that the time stamps are not important and that a footnote that indicates altering the writing is not required.
but, this is exceedingly sophisticated - or i'm just tricking myself, but i'm not just tricking myself. this editor is able to manipulate existing messages in my gmail folder, which means they're hacking it at the server level.
my only tactic is resiliency - i need to keep rewriting these posts, and hope the author gives up.
8:27
this memory of rewriting an old post is specific.
i'm not trying to guess what i wrote in 2019. i explicitly remember opening the document in 2022, altering it and reposting it in 2022. yet, it actually seems like the stored version from 2019 was updated to reflect an alteration in 2022, at some point after i reposted it in jan. that is, it seems like the editor took the post from the repost, altered it and then re-inserted it into my email from 2019.
that's crazy. that's somebody with total control over the google servers, or i'm imagining it. but, i'm not imagining it - and i have no way to demonstrate it.
ugh.
8:30
what would you do when faced with this?
8:32
the idea that is being eradicated from the post is that what vavilov is really about is political correctness.
what vavilov says isn't that the correctness precedent is to be eliminated, so much as that it's rude to question whether somebody is correct or not. a more polite way to question authority is to question their reasonableness. so, if something is factually wrong, the review is to argue that it's unreasonable because it's wrong.
that analysis seems to be threatening to the editors, so it therefore must be absolutely correct.
i'm not going to pretend that i remember exactly what i wrote in december 2019 about the new judicial review precedent, but the edits are always incomplete; they may give me enough of my thoughts to realize there's a conclusion without a premise, and i need to reconstruct the premise. they don't tend to remove entire posts, so much as they take out specific paragraphs, probably thinking i've forgotten, which is of course mostly true.
is this serious? am i crazy?
if i find myself unable to follow my own argument, i have to rewrite it, regardless. i can't prove anything. but, the result is the same either way: i have a conclusion without a premise and need to insert a premise.
keep this in mind, though: this idea that vavilov is really about questioning authority appears to be threatening enough that it must be true.
9:20
aug 12, 2022
this is a rewritten vavilov write-up, dated to today.
am i playing tricks on myself? i have to acknowledge that i might be playing tricks on myself via rationalizing it, too.
========
(this was never posted but left as a draft until it was reposted in the august archive. this post has now been posted to the space this post is in, as a reminder to rewrite the initial post)
8:04
==============
the jan 15, 2022 posts, at 9:27, as i can recover them, are as follows:
(a) from blogger, as recovered on sept 26, 2022 and edited after aug 11, 2022:
i want to repost my analysis of vavilov from late 2020.
===
(edit: this was removed on aug 11, 2022 and should be replaced with the updated version)
---
and, if the question is "expertise", let's look at the situation, in context.
the report was written by a police officer that probably has no legal training. the review was done by a civilian oversight body.
i'm asking for a ruling on an interpretation of the criminal code. so, where is the expertise, here? in the oiprd or in the judiciary?
i don't like this ruling, and i don't think it'll last very long. the exceptions for correctness are far too limited. and, if this is the case that opens it back up, so be it.
i will appeal this if i lose.
--
so, yeah.
i'm going to show up in court and yell for twenty minutes that they're FUCKING WRONG.
and, if the judge wants to politely suggest that they're merely "unreasonable", then whatever.
--
it's the ruling i want, not this semantic debate about language.
(b) from email, resent from the blogger ui on jan 17th at 1:42. the email was resent with spaces in the hyperlink, suggesting that i may have reposted it because the initial post wasn't sent due to the existence of the link.
i want to repost my analysis of vavilov from late 2020.
===
we'll talk soon.
for now...
this is relevant to me right now:
h t t p s :/ / sc c -c s c . l e x u m .c o m / sc c - c s c / s c c -c s c / e n / i t e m / 1 8 0 7 8 / i n d e x. d o
a naive flip through this might suggest that they've more or less dismantled the correctness basis of review, but what they're really doing is redefining correctness issues as reasonableness issues. there is a slightly different procedural approach, but it should more or less come out in the wash.
so, where i may have argued last month that the report fucked up it's use of r. v. storrey, and the result was consequently incorrect, i may now need to argue that fucking up a precedent the way the report did lead to an unreasonable outcome. the ruling is really quite bizarre, in that sense - the supreme court seems to have gone down a sort of a rabbit hole in the absence of beverly mclaughlin, who is responsible for a great deal of what has made canada what it is. but, it shouldn't lead to different outcomes.
with a reasonableness review, the court can't ask what the right answer is, but can only ask what a range of correct answers is. that means you can't tell a panel that they fucked up and they're wrong - you can only tell them that the outcome does not follow from the precedent, and is not in an acceptable range of possibilities. it's really exactly the same fucking thing, it's just a whole lot more polite in this bullshit politically correct sort of manner.
more specifically, in my precise example, the new precedent would render a review that relies on a statement such as "the report was reasonable because it cited case law" to be an unreasonable report, but it won't let the judge explicitly question the correctness of the outcome, because that would be rude. as such, i may want to modify my argument a little bit in terms of the language i'm using.
i'm not going to, though.
see, the thing about a judicial review is that the judge doesn't look at the precise arguments. i could make an argument about x, y and z and the judge could rule on a, b, c and d instead. most of this is just empty procedural pomp, at this point - the only thing that's really important is the application record, because that's where the actual facts are.
so long as i can get the thing to a fucking judge, she should rule the error of law as unreasonable, even if i'm arguing that the outcome of the report is incorrect.
yeah.
well, welcome to canada. next exit - dark ages, ontario. 50 km.
if i'm going to alter my argument, i'd actually rather argue for an expansion of the rule of law section of the exceptions. this isn't a constitutional question, or at least it isn't one yet. but, the fundamental issue here is whether the rule of law is being upheld or not. i don't want to play these language games. really. i want the court to uphold the rule of law, declare the report wrong and confirm that the arrest was illegal. but, like i say, the judges will more or less ignore what everybody says and do their own analysis from scratch.
so, it looks like a really backwards ruling, but it's just rooted in some weird, pc language and it shouldn't really actually change much
---
and, if the question is "expertise", let's look at the situation, in context.
the report was written by a police officer that probably has no legal training. the review was done by a civilian oversight body.
i'm asking for a ruling on an interpretation of the criminal code. so, where is the expertise, here? in the oiprd or in the judiciary?
i don't like this ruling, and i don't think it'll last very long. the exceptions for correctness are far too limited. and, if this is the case that opens it back up, so be it.
i will appeal this if i lose.
--
so, yeah.
i'm going to show up in court and yell for twenty minutes that they're FUCKING WRONG.
and, if the judge wants to politely suggest that they're merely "unreasonable", then whatever.
--
it's the ruling i want, not this semantic debate about language.
======
this is the version of this original post from my email, which was dated to dec 21 @ 4:22 but was actually sent on dec 22 at 10:02. i do not believe that i was having difficulty archiving posts at this time, so this is actually a little bit alarming. that post should have been sent from the google ui and dated correctly.
[dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja] 12/21/2019 4:22:00 PM
we'll talk soon,
for now...
this is relevant to me right now:
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/18078/index.do
a naive flip through this might suggest that they've more or less
dismantled the correctness basis of review, but what they're really
doing is redefining correctness issues as reasonableness issues. there
is a slightly different procedural approach, but it should more or
less come out in the wash.
so, where i may have argued last month that the report fucked up it's
use of r. v. storrey, and the result was consequently incorrect, i may
now need to argue that fucking up a precedent the way the report did
lead to an unreasonable outcome. the ruling is really quite bizarre,
in that sense - the supreme court seems to have gone down a sort of a
rabbit hole in the absence of beverly mclaughlin, who is responsible
for a great deal of what has made canada what it is. but, it shouldn't
lead to different outcomes.
with a reasonableness review, the court can't ask what the right
answer is, but can only ask what a range of correct answers is. that
means you can't tell a panel that they fucked up and they're wrong -
you can only tell them that the outcome does not follow from the
precedent, and is not in an acceptable range of possibilities. it's
really exactly the same fucking thing, it's just a whole lot more
polite in this bullshit politically correct sort of manner.
more specifically, in my precise example, the new precedent would
render a review that relies on a statement such as "the report was
reasonable because it cited case law" to be an unreasonable report,
but it won't let the judge explicitly question the correctness of the
outcome, because that would be rude. as such, i may want to modify my
argument a little bit in terms of the language i'm using.
i'm not going to, though.
see, the thing about a judicial review is that the judge doesn't look
at the precise arguments. i could make an argument about x, y and z
and the judge could rule on a, b, c and d instead. most of this is
just empty procedural pomp, at this point - the only thing that's
really important is the application record, because that's where the
actual facts are.
so long as i can get the thing to a fucking judge, she should rule the
error of law as unreasonable, even if i'm arguing that the outcome of
the report is incorrect.
yeah.
well, welcome to canada. next exit - dark ages, ontario. 50 km.
if i'm going to alter my argument, i'd actually rather argue for an
expansion of the rule of law section of the exceptions. this isn't a
constitutional question, or at least it isn't one yet. but, the
fundamental issue here is whether the rule of law is being upheld or
not. i don't want to play these language games. really. i want the
court to uphold the rule of law, declare the report wrong and confirm
that the arrest was illegal. but, like i say, the judges will more or
less ignore what everybody says and do their own analysis from
scratch.
so, it looks like a really backwards ruling, but it's just rooted in
some weird, pc language and it shouldn't really actually change much
===========
finally, this is the version was left stranded in aug, 2022:
====
this is relevant to me right now:
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/18078/index.do
a naive analysis of the ruling would suggest that they're dismantling the correctness basis of review, but what they're really doing is redefining correctness reviews as reasonableness reviews. there is a slightly different procedural approach attached to this, but it should more or less come out in the wash.
in a correctness review, the reviewing judge is expected to determine whether the lower body of law (often a panel of non-judges) committed an error of law or not; the issue at law is whether or not the decision is correct. in a reasonableness review, the court can not ask what the correct answer is, it can only ask what a "range" of correct "outcomes" is, whatever that even means. the idea was supposed to be deference to an expert, but the concept has become corrupted via the application of irrational precedents, and has now lost any coherency in application. unfortunately, the legal system in canada has adopted the frightening and backwards idea that facts do not exist, so
so, in a reasonableness review, you can't tell the judge that the panel done fucked up and is fucking wrong like i want to - you can only argue that the outcome is not in an acceptable "range of possibilities". outcomes that are legally, factually or logically wrong may be upheld by the court if the court decides that being wrong is "reasonable". this essentially undoes any concept of law, and instead converts the court into an authoritarian body that is dictating random, arbitrary proclamations, which it gets to self-regulate as "reasonable" or not. it's a complete absence of law, elevated to judicial precedent.
what the new ruling really seems to be saying is that telling somebody they're wrong is impolite, so you have to suggest that they're merely being unreasonable, instead, even if what you're really saying is that they're wrong; being wrong is only meaningful if they're also being unreasonable, so the issue at law becomes whether they're reasonable or not rather than whether they're correct or not.
so, where i may have argued last month that the report was incorrect in it's application of r. v. storrey, i will now need to argue that incorrectly applying a precedent the way the report did led to an unreasonable outcome, instead. it's really exactly the same fucking thing, it's just a whole lot more polite in this bullshit politically correct sort of manner. the ruling is really quite bizarre, in that sense; the supreme court seems to have fallen down a rabbit hole of political correctness in the absence of beverly mclaughlin, who is responsible for a great deal of what has made canada what it is. but, it shouldn't lead to substantively different outcomes.
what the new precedent decides is that being incorrect might be unreasonable.
in my precise example, the new precedent would allow a review that relies on a statement such as "the report was reasonable because it cited case law" to potentially be an unreasonable report, but it won't let the judge explicitly question the correctness of the outcome, because that would be rude. as such, i may want to modify my argument a little bit in terms of the language i'm using.
i'm not going to, though.
in a judicial review, the judge doesn't actually look at the precise arguments. i could make an argument about x, y and z and the judge could rule on a, b, c and d instead. most of this is just empty procedural pomp, at this point - the only thing that's really important is the application record, because that's where the actual facts are.
so long as i can get the thing to a fucking judge, she should rule the error of law as unreasonable, even if i'm arguing that the outcome of the report is incorrect.
yeah.
well, welcome to canada. next exit - dark ages, ontario. 50 km.
if i'm going to alter my argument, i'd actually rather argue for an expansion of the rule of law section of the exceptions. this isn't a constitutional question, or at least it isn't one yet. but, the fundamental issue here is whether the rule of law is being upheld or not. i don't want to play these language games. really. i want the court to uphold the rule of law, declare the report wrong and confirm that the arrest was illegal. but, like i say, the judges will more or less ignore what everybody says and do their own analysis from scratch.
so, it looks like a really backwards ruling, but it's just rooted in some weird, pc language and it shouldn't really actually change much
in a judicial review, the judge doesn't actually look at the precise arguments. i could make an argument about x, y and z and the judge could rule on a, b, c and d instead. most of this is just empty procedural pomp, at this point - the only thing that's really important is the application record, because that's where the actual facts are.
so long as i can get the thing to a fucking judge, she should rule the error of law as unreasonable, even if i'm arguing that the outcome of the report is incorrect.
yeah.
well, welcome to canada. next exit - dark ages, ontario. 50 km.
if i'm going to alter my argument, i'd actually rather argue for an expansion of the rule of law section of the exceptions. this isn't a constitutional question, or at least it isn't one yet. but, the fundamental issue here is whether the rule of law is being upheld or not. i don't want to play these language games. really. i want the court to uphold the rule of law, declare the report wrong and confirm that the arrest was illegal. but, like i say, the judges will more or less ignore what everybody says and do their own analysis from scratch.
so, it looks like a really backwards ruling, but it's just rooted in some weird, pc language and it shouldn't really actually change much
at
16:22
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)