yeah, but he's including all of the cases from the agricultural workers in the windsor-essex area, when the reality is that the spike in cases is localized in a population that is fairly isolated, generally.
these kinds of things are going to continue to come up, and the reality is that we're a bad data point, and should probably be removed from pretty much everything as an outlier.
you'd really want to split the county into two parts, which should have the dual effect of cutting the rate down for the city of windsor, and putting it through the roof for the outlying areas.
as it is, these kinds of stats are going to be an annoyance in trying to reopen the venues here until that area gets under control.
https://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/windsor-essex-ranks-worst-in-province-on-covid-19-exposure-metrics-says-biostatistician
Wednesday, July 22, 2020
yeah.
i don't think the judge expected this ruling to hold.
[70] The Applicants say that the FCA in CCR 2008, did not consider whether section 102(3) created a condition precedent to the validity of the ongoing designation. They argue that the FCA did not make any finding on whether ongoing review is actually required. They argue that the FCA did not find subsequent factors are irrelevant, and that, as such, the FCA has not decided the vires issue they raise now. The Applicants further note that, unlike in CCR 2008, they are seeking a remedy for the alleged failure to review (see: CCR 2008 at para 83).
Analysis – Ultra Vires
[71] I begin the analysis of this issue by reference to the following statement from the FCA in CCR 2008, at para 57:
[72] Further, at paragraph 89, the FCA states:
There is one key date that the Applications judge had to be mindful of: December 29, 2004 when the Regulations came into force, the last relevant date for the assessment of the vires issue. Regardless of the conditions precedent which one wishes to apply, the vires of the Regulations could not be assessed on the basis of facts, events or developments that are subsequent to the date of the promulgation…
[73] On the decision to designate the US, the FCA found that “[o]nce …the GIC has given due consideration to these four factors, and formed the opinion that the candidate country is compliant with the relevant Articles of the Conventions, there is nothing left to be reviewed judicially” (CCR 2008 at para 78).
[74] Considering the clear statements from the FCA in CCR 2008, and notwithstanding the able arguments of counsel for the Applicants, I am bound by CCR 2008. While the Applicants have somewhat reframed the vires arguments on these judicial review applications, in my view, the FCA decision is a full answer to the vires argument even as the Applicants now present them.
[75] I have considered the cases relied upon by the Applicants (Katz, Thorne’s, Wildlands League v Ontario (Natural Resources and Forestry), 2016 ONCA 741), however I do not read these cases as opening the door for this Court to take post-promulgation facts into consideration to determine the vires of the regulation. These cases specify that judicial review of regulations is “usually restricted to the grounds that they are inconsistent with the purpose of the statute or that some condition precedent in the statute has not been observed” (Katz at para 27). This issue was addressed in CCR 2008.
[76] In CCR 2008, the FCA notes in paragraphs 74, 75, 76 and 78 that s. 101 of the IRPA does not require “actual compliance” or compliance in absolute terms. Further, the wording of s. 102(3) does not reference actual compliance with the Refugee Convention or the Convention against Torture, rather, it is compliance with the factors set out in s. 102(2) of the IRPA that is assessed.
[77] The Applicants’ arguments regarding the sufficiency of the ongoing review were also addressed by the FCA in CCR 2008 at paragraphs 92-97. For the timeframe post CCR 2008, in his Affidavit, Mr. Baril confirms that reporting on the STCA continued. Mr. Baril states that the IRCC prepared reports in December 2016, March 2017, and February 2018, although he acknowledges that these reports were not submitted to the Governor in Council (GIC).
[78] Redacted versions of the reports to the Minister were marked as exhibits to Mr. Baril’s cross-examination. Although the content of these reports was not in evidence, they do provide evidence that reporting continued after the 2015 OIC. Therefore, I am satisfied that the obligation to review and to report “when circumstances warrant” as noted in the 2015 OIC continued. Furthermore, the Applicants’ arguments regarding the 2015 OIC are an attempt to challenge the OIC itself, which is beyond the mandate of this judicial review.
[79] Overall, in my view, the Applicants have not convinced me that the threshold to revisit the binding nature of the FCA decision on the vires issue is met here. Notwithstanding that the factual circumstances of the Applicants here may differ from the circumstances before the FCA in 2008, what does not differ are the legal arguments aimed at the same legislative provisions as determined by the FCA in 2008.
[80] I therefore find that the issue of whether s.159.3 of the IRPR is ultra vires of the IRPA was determined by in CCR 2008 and I see no grounds to depart from binding authority.
------
she admits she doesn't have jurisdiction, then essentially ignores herself. so, what she's done instead is try to frame the issue for the next court up.
that happens frequently, when a judge knows she's out of jurisdiction, but wishes she wasn't.
i don't think the judge expected this ruling to hold.
[70] The Applicants say that the FCA in CCR 2008, did not consider whether section 102(3) created a condition precedent to the validity of the ongoing designation. They argue that the FCA did not make any finding on whether ongoing review is actually required. They argue that the FCA did not find subsequent factors are irrelevant, and that, as such, the FCA has not decided the vires issue they raise now. The Applicants further note that, unlike in CCR 2008, they are seeking a remedy for the alleged failure to review (see: CCR 2008 at para 83).
Analysis – Ultra Vires
[71] I begin the analysis of this issue by reference to the following statement from the FCA in CCR 2008, at para 57:
An attack aimed at the vires of a regulation involves the narrow question of whether the conditions precedent set out by Parliament for the exercise of the delegated authority are present at the time of the promulgation…
[72] Further, at paragraph 89, the FCA states:
There is one key date that the Applications judge had to be mindful of: December 29, 2004 when the Regulations came into force, the last relevant date for the assessment of the vires issue. Regardless of the conditions precedent which one wishes to apply, the vires of the Regulations could not be assessed on the basis of facts, events or developments that are subsequent to the date of the promulgation…
[73] On the decision to designate the US, the FCA found that “[o]nce …the GIC has given due consideration to these four factors, and formed the opinion that the candidate country is compliant with the relevant Articles of the Conventions, there is nothing left to be reviewed judicially” (CCR 2008 at para 78).
[74] Considering the clear statements from the FCA in CCR 2008, and notwithstanding the able arguments of counsel for the Applicants, I am bound by CCR 2008. While the Applicants have somewhat reframed the vires arguments on these judicial review applications, in my view, the FCA decision is a full answer to the vires argument even as the Applicants now present them.
[75] I have considered the cases relied upon by the Applicants (Katz, Thorne’s, Wildlands League v Ontario (Natural Resources and Forestry), 2016 ONCA 741), however I do not read these cases as opening the door for this Court to take post-promulgation facts into consideration to determine the vires of the regulation. These cases specify that judicial review of regulations is “usually restricted to the grounds that they are inconsistent with the purpose of the statute or that some condition precedent in the statute has not been observed” (Katz at para 27). This issue was addressed in CCR 2008.
[76] In CCR 2008, the FCA notes in paragraphs 74, 75, 76 and 78 that s. 101 of the IRPA does not require “actual compliance” or compliance in absolute terms. Further, the wording of s. 102(3) does not reference actual compliance with the Refugee Convention or the Convention against Torture, rather, it is compliance with the factors set out in s. 102(2) of the IRPA that is assessed.
[77] The Applicants’ arguments regarding the sufficiency of the ongoing review were also addressed by the FCA in CCR 2008 at paragraphs 92-97. For the timeframe post CCR 2008, in his Affidavit, Mr. Baril confirms that reporting on the STCA continued. Mr. Baril states that the IRCC prepared reports in December 2016, March 2017, and February 2018, although he acknowledges that these reports were not submitted to the Governor in Council (GIC).
[78] Redacted versions of the reports to the Minister were marked as exhibits to Mr. Baril’s cross-examination. Although the content of these reports was not in evidence, they do provide evidence that reporting continued after the 2015 OIC. Therefore, I am satisfied that the obligation to review and to report “when circumstances warrant” as noted in the 2015 OIC continued. Furthermore, the Applicants’ arguments regarding the 2015 OIC are an attempt to challenge the OIC itself, which is beyond the mandate of this judicial review.
[79] Overall, in my view, the Applicants have not convinced me that the threshold to revisit the binding nature of the FCA decision on the vires issue is met here. Notwithstanding that the factual circumstances of the Applicants here may differ from the circumstances before the FCA in 2008, what does not differ are the legal arguments aimed at the same legislative provisions as determined by the FCA in 2008.
[80] I therefore find that the issue of whether s.159.3 of the IRPR is ultra vires of the IRPA was determined by in CCR 2008 and I see no grounds to depart from binding authority.
------
she admits she doesn't have jurisdiction, then essentially ignores herself. so, what she's done instead is try to frame the issue for the next court up.
that happens frequently, when a judge knows she's out of jurisdiction, but wishes she wasn't.
at
22:36
if we ignore the second part and just look at the first part, what does that mean?
it just means that people would be able to arrive here from the united states and make claims. it doesn't alter the structure of the law at all, it just allows for due process.
and, i'm in favour of due process.
that's a minor tweak. it's not an overhaul. that's fine.
but, if we're going to legislate that the united states is not adhering to international human rights law anymore (which is what the ruling effectively does), we're going to need something a little bit more robust than a 10 page ruling based on judicial precedent, at the federal court.
it just means that people would be able to arrive here from the united states and make claims. it doesn't alter the structure of the law at all, it just allows for due process.
and, i'm in favour of due process.
that's a minor tweak. it's not an overhaul. that's fine.
but, if we're going to legislate that the united states is not adhering to international human rights law anymore (which is what the ruling effectively does), we're going to need something a little bit more robust than a 10 page ruling based on judicial precedent, at the federal court.
at
22:18
i mean, what the court is trying to do is...
the legislation explicitly states this is an executive level decision. rather than try and discuss the executive precedents, the ruling relies on judicial precedents. that's just wrong.
the executive decision may, in the end, defer to the judicial precedents, but the judiciary can't assume the role of executive government and just do it.
it can order that the executive do it, yes.
it can't do itself, though.
the legislation explicitly states this is an executive level decision. rather than try and discuss the executive precedents, the ruling relies on judicial precedents. that's just wrong.
the executive decision may, in the end, defer to the judicial precedents, but the judiciary can't assume the role of executive government and just do it.
it can order that the executive do it, yes.
it can't do itself, though.
at
22:07
ok, looking into this is...
no. this needs to be appealed. this isn't a judicial question, and the court is overstepping it's bounds; i would appeal it on grounds of parliamentary supremacy, and argue it's not specific enough in scope to react to it. i do agree that vavilov is irrelevant.
so there's an objective criteria that allows the united states to be seen as a "safe country". this is from a government of canada website as a summary:
the legislation requires that the review of a designated country be based on the following four factors:
(1) whether it is party to the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1984 Convention Against Torture;
(2) its policies and practices with respect to claims under the 1951 Refugee Convention, and its obligations under the 1984 Convention Against Torture;
(3) its human rights record; and
(4) whether it is party to an agreement with the Government of Canada for the purpose of sharing responsibility with respect to claims for refugee protection.
In addition, the Governor in Council may issue directives to provide greater clarity on the review process. The current directives came into effect in June 2015. Under these directives:
For the United States:
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration will monitor, on a continual basis, the four factors described above and report to the Governor in Council should circumstances warrant.
For any other countries that may be designated as safe third countries in the future:
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration will review on a continual basis the four factors described above and will report to the Governor in Council regularly.
Reviews incorporate information obtained from a number of sources, including United Nations organizations, international human rights organizations, government agency reports, statistical records and policy announcements, relevant academic research, and media reports.
so, that's what actual domestic canadian law says about what it means to be a safe country.
i don't know how a court can walk in and undo that without even addressing it. if we put a country on the list and it hadn't signed that convention, the court could undo it. but, the court can't substitute itself for parliament and decide whether that is true or not, it can only interpret whether the laws are being followed or not.
that is, applying a correctness standard doesn't mean adjudicating whether the question is true or not, it means determining whether the law was applied correctly or not. giving deference to the proper branch, in context, is not about vavilov, it's about a separation of powers.
rather, the ruling did two things. first, it scratched out section e from the following law, which is what the above summarizes
101 (1) A claim is ineligible to be referred to the Refugee Protection Division if
(a) refugee protection has been conferred on the claimant under this Act;
(b) a claim for refugee protection by the claimant has been rejected by the Board;
(c) a prior claim by the claimant was determined to be ineligible to be referred to the Refugee Protection Division, or to have been withdrawn or abandoned;
(c.1) the claimant has, before making a claim for refugee protection in Canada, made a claim for refugee protection to a country other than Canada, and the fact of its having been made has been confirmed in accordance with an agreement or arrangement entered into by Canada and that country for the purpose of facilitating information sharing to assist in the administration and enforcement of their immigration and citizenship laws;
(d) the claimant has been recognized as a Convention refugee by a country other than Canada and can be sent or returned to that country;
(e) the claimant came directly or indirectly to Canada from a country designated by the regulations, other than a country of their nationality or their former habitual residence; or
(f) the claimant has been determined to be inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human or international rights, serious criminality or organized criminality, except for persons who are inadmissible solely on the grounds of paragraph 35(1)(c).
i posted the whole thing for context, because that's much more limited than i thought it would be. i thought they scratched the whole thing out....
the court is in it's jurisdiction here - it can cross that out. and, i don't really disagree. it's overly broad. but, by doing so, it's not taking the united states off the list - it's abolishing a specific clause in the criteria. further, my understanding is that these specific cases would have likely been denied under section c, anyways.
the other thing it scratched out is this:
Designation — United States
159.3 The United States is designated under paragraph 102(1)(a) of the Act as a country that complies with Article 33 of the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture, and is a designated country for the purpose of the application of paragraph 101(1)(e) of the Act.
what has the court done here? it has carried out an executive task, and that is beyond it's jurisdiction. it's not up to the court to decide whether or not this is true. that's not about deference, it's about separation.
what the court can do is order a review of the question, and people can then even challenge that review. but the court can't make an executive choice like that that determines the outcome of the review for them; that's not the correct branch of government.
so, what should they do?
i initially suggested they rewrite the law to more specifically address the things they were initially concerned about (like draft dodging after the iraq war), but i thought i was dealing with the actual agreement as something that got struck down. that is, i thought they struck down the stca itself, and they did not - those clauses are from the irpa. that's bad reporting from global, that's why you have to read things yourself, and i apologize for posting over bad coverage without debunking the msm article, first.
now that i realize that that's not the case, there really isn't anything to rewrite.
had the court only scratched out the first part, i'd accept the ruling.
but, they can't accept the judge going in there and doing the job of government in scratching out the second part. they need to appeal the second part on the grounds that the court is overreaching it's jurisdiction, and it can't reasonably make a decision like that in a court room.
that said, it may be time to launch a review and present a report around the topic. is the united states abiding by the cited international law? if it is, let us see the evidence for it, and a paper supporting it; if it is not, the law should be adjusted accordingly.
the point is that the question is being addressed by the wrong branch of government, and the executive has to push back for that reason. they may, in the end, agree with the court. but, they have to actually do that review first - which is, of course, subject to review, and even on a correctness basis, although vavilov would appear to suggest deference to the minister in situations where the decision is explicitly legislated.
so, they should appeal.
but, they should get the point and launch a review, too.
the ruling is here:
https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/482757/index.do
no. this needs to be appealed. this isn't a judicial question, and the court is overstepping it's bounds; i would appeal it on grounds of parliamentary supremacy, and argue it's not specific enough in scope to react to it. i do agree that vavilov is irrelevant.
so there's an objective criteria that allows the united states to be seen as a "safe country". this is from a government of canada website as a summary:
the legislation requires that the review of a designated country be based on the following four factors:
(1) whether it is party to the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1984 Convention Against Torture;
(2) its policies and practices with respect to claims under the 1951 Refugee Convention, and its obligations under the 1984 Convention Against Torture;
(3) its human rights record; and
(4) whether it is party to an agreement with the Government of Canada for the purpose of sharing responsibility with respect to claims for refugee protection.
In addition, the Governor in Council may issue directives to provide greater clarity on the review process. The current directives came into effect in June 2015. Under these directives:
For the United States:
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration will monitor, on a continual basis, the four factors described above and report to the Governor in Council should circumstances warrant.
For any other countries that may be designated as safe third countries in the future:
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration will review on a continual basis the four factors described above and will report to the Governor in Council regularly.
Reviews incorporate information obtained from a number of sources, including United Nations organizations, international human rights organizations, government agency reports, statistical records and policy announcements, relevant academic research, and media reports.
so, that's what actual domestic canadian law says about what it means to be a safe country.
i don't know how a court can walk in and undo that without even addressing it. if we put a country on the list and it hadn't signed that convention, the court could undo it. but, the court can't substitute itself for parliament and decide whether that is true or not, it can only interpret whether the laws are being followed or not.
that is, applying a correctness standard doesn't mean adjudicating whether the question is true or not, it means determining whether the law was applied correctly or not. giving deference to the proper branch, in context, is not about vavilov, it's about a separation of powers.
rather, the ruling did two things. first, it scratched out section e from the following law, which is what the above summarizes
101 (1) A claim is ineligible to be referred to the Refugee Protection Division if
(a) refugee protection has been conferred on the claimant under this Act;
(b) a claim for refugee protection by the claimant has been rejected by the Board;
(c) a prior claim by the claimant was determined to be ineligible to be referred to the Refugee Protection Division, or to have been withdrawn or abandoned;
(c.1) the claimant has, before making a claim for refugee protection in Canada, made a claim for refugee protection to a country other than Canada, and the fact of its having been made has been confirmed in accordance with an agreement or arrangement entered into by Canada and that country for the purpose of facilitating information sharing to assist in the administration and enforcement of their immigration and citizenship laws;
(d) the claimant has been recognized as a Convention refugee by a country other than Canada and can be sent or returned to that country;
(f) the claimant has been determined to be inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human or international rights, serious criminality or organized criminality, except for persons who are inadmissible solely on the grounds of paragraph 35(1)(c).
i posted the whole thing for context, because that's much more limited than i thought it would be. i thought they scratched the whole thing out....
the court is in it's jurisdiction here - it can cross that out. and, i don't really disagree. it's overly broad. but, by doing so, it's not taking the united states off the list - it's abolishing a specific clause in the criteria. further, my understanding is that these specific cases would have likely been denied under section c, anyways.
the other thing it scratched out is this:
what has the court done here? it has carried out an executive task, and that is beyond it's jurisdiction. it's not up to the court to decide whether or not this is true. that's not about deference, it's about separation.
what the court can do is order a review of the question, and people can then even challenge that review. but the court can't make an executive choice like that that determines the outcome of the review for them; that's not the correct branch of government.
so, what should they do?
i initially suggested they rewrite the law to more specifically address the things they were initially concerned about (like draft dodging after the iraq war), but i thought i was dealing with the actual agreement as something that got struck down. that is, i thought they struck down the stca itself, and they did not - those clauses are from the irpa. that's bad reporting from global, that's why you have to read things yourself, and i apologize for posting over bad coverage without debunking the msm article, first.
now that i realize that that's not the case, there really isn't anything to rewrite.
had the court only scratched out the first part, i'd accept the ruling.
but, they can't accept the judge going in there and doing the job of government in scratching out the second part. they need to appeal the second part on the grounds that the court is overreaching it's jurisdiction, and it can't reasonably make a decision like that in a court room.
that said, it may be time to launch a review and present a report around the topic. is the united states abiding by the cited international law? if it is, let us see the evidence for it, and a paper supporting it; if it is not, the law should be adjusted accordingly.
the point is that the question is being addressed by the wrong branch of government, and the executive has to push back for that reason. they may, in the end, agree with the court. but, they have to actually do that review first - which is, of course, subject to review, and even on a correctness basis, although vavilov would appear to suggest deference to the minister in situations where the decision is explicitly legislated.
so, they should appeal.
but, they should get the point and launch a review, too.
the ruling is here:
https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/482757/index.do
at
21:56
"these guys don't tell me anything" - ronald reagan
as absurd as it is, he actually has plausible deniability.
and, don't be surprised if he uses it.
at
20:42
it's an interesting ruling, and clear demonstration that you don't need to be a citizen in this country to have rights.
generally speaking, a candidate will be able to successfully claim refugee status here if they can convincingly argue that they are risk of inhumane treatment when returned to their home country. the basis of the agreement is that this isn't of serious concern when speaking of the united states, so that can be discarded a priori; instead, we will just return applicants when they appear.
opening up refugee status to americans like this presents a potential "floodgate of litigation" type scenario. we might grant people refugee status for a wide array of concerns, from escaping conscription to concerns about capital punishment to even avoiding prosecution for drug-related convictions. i believe that the actual purpose of the agreement had more to do with claims of this sort than with the types of claims that people may be imagining, right now.
but, that is because the types of thing people are imagining are legitimately novel. it saddens me to think that our court system is being forced to consider the ramifications of returning people to the united states because they may be tortured in prison. that's a very sad day for the united states of america.
but, insofar as that is true, we certainly should not be treating the united states differently; if people really are getting tortured in domestic prisons in the united states, we need to weigh sending people into their system the same way we view sending people to oppressive regimes, like iran.
if the government wants to keep the actual purpose of the legislation in place, it may help to rewrite it to be more specific. i'm actually on the side of people fleeing conscription, but i'm less excited about being a safe haven for drug traffickers. so, i would respond to the ruling by clarifying the legislation, rather than abolishing it, or appealing the ruling. and, i'm not entirely sure how i'd clarify it - i might have to think that through very carefully, and spend some time explicitly studying it, first.
https://globalnews.ca/news/7205230/federal-court-rules-canada-u-s-safe-third-country-agreement-unconstitutional/
generally speaking, a candidate will be able to successfully claim refugee status here if they can convincingly argue that they are risk of inhumane treatment when returned to their home country. the basis of the agreement is that this isn't of serious concern when speaking of the united states, so that can be discarded a priori; instead, we will just return applicants when they appear.
opening up refugee status to americans like this presents a potential "floodgate of litigation" type scenario. we might grant people refugee status for a wide array of concerns, from escaping conscription to concerns about capital punishment to even avoiding prosecution for drug-related convictions. i believe that the actual purpose of the agreement had more to do with claims of this sort than with the types of claims that people may be imagining, right now.
but, that is because the types of thing people are imagining are legitimately novel. it saddens me to think that our court system is being forced to consider the ramifications of returning people to the united states because they may be tortured in prison. that's a very sad day for the united states of america.
but, insofar as that is true, we certainly should not be treating the united states differently; if people really are getting tortured in domestic prisons in the united states, we need to weigh sending people into their system the same way we view sending people to oppressive regimes, like iran.
if the government wants to keep the actual purpose of the legislation in place, it may help to rewrite it to be more specific. i'm actually on the side of people fleeing conscription, but i'm less excited about being a safe haven for drug traffickers. so, i would respond to the ruling by clarifying the legislation, rather than abolishing it, or appealing the ruling. and, i'm not entirely sure how i'd clarify it - i might have to think that through very carefully, and spend some time explicitly studying it, first.
https://globalnews.ca/news/7205230/federal-court-rules-canada-u-s-safe-third-country-agreement-unconstitutional/
at
20:30
the gyms are essentially renting the equipment, like blockbuster used to rent movies. but, technology changes and if the price of buying the equipment is less than the price of renting it in the medium term then there's no really future in renting it. the virus is just a catalyst, here.
https://globalnews.ca/news/7206604/canadians-cancelling-gym-memberships-coronavirus/
https://globalnews.ca/news/7206604/canadians-cancelling-gym-memberships-coronavirus/
at
18:13
so, they don't have any actual leads and have made up what is really a ridiculous story.
a loving father just randomly crashed his car, left without his phone, and smuggled his perhaps injured kids into a cabin, where he killed them days later and then killed himself.
?
more likely, i think, is that somebody smashed up that car, and then took the three of them into that cabin where they were held hostage. that third party ultimately carried out the murders, and managed to succeed in making carpentier's death look like a suicide.
the cops have nothing, so they're just closing it up.
but, did anybody at least print the cabin?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/sq-update-martin-carpentier-daughters-1.5658615
a loving father just randomly crashed his car, left without his phone, and smuggled his perhaps injured kids into a cabin, where he killed them days later and then killed himself.
?
more likely, i think, is that somebody smashed up that car, and then took the three of them into that cabin where they were held hostage. that third party ultimately carried out the murders, and managed to succeed in making carpentier's death look like a suicide.
the cops have nothing, so they're just closing it up.
but, did anybody at least print the cabin?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/sq-update-martin-carpentier-daughters-1.5658615
at
18:09
if you want an american comparison, ford is really more like that utter dipshit chris christie than a trump or anything like that.
at
10:26
and, i spoke too soon; the temperature in here just started falling.
it could have been the laundry that was effective, in the end.
hrmmn.
it could have been the laundry that was effective, in the end.
hrmmn.
at
10:23
and, he'd probably tell you he's not lazy.
no.
he's "efficient".
he wishes he could say that about his metabolism too, right?
no.
he's "efficient".
he wishes he could say that about his metabolism too, right?
at
10:15
"i gotta pass it every month. fuck. whoever wrote these rules was such a hardass. i don't even walk around the block every month, you know?"
doug ford isn't scary, in that sense - he's a lazy, incompetent idiot. he's not some scary dictator.
i'm more afraid of chrystia freeland than i am of doug ford, even if i have a greater level of contempt for doug ford.
doug ford isn't scary, in that sense - he's a lazy, incompetent idiot. he's not some scary dictator.
i'm more afraid of chrystia freeland than i am of doug ford, even if i have a greater level of contempt for doug ford.
at
10:11
i said my bit about this.
i would rather that they continue to pass emergency legislation than do what they're doing, but i'm not interpreting this as a power grab. rather, this is the consequence of electing a fat, lazy piece of shit.
no, really - the reason this is happening is just simply because doug ford is too lazy to do it the right way. and, we should be grateful that he's so fucking lazy, too.
so, i would have voted against this as well, but i'm not particularly freaked out about it - so long as we all make sure to hold him to his sunset clause, when it comes up. that's key.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/belinda-karahalios-cambridge-progressive-conservative-1.5658084
this is just a reminder that i supported the mcguinty government for years, and was broadly supportive of the wynne government, although i don't think i actually voted for them directly.
when i was in ottawa, i voted for yasir naqvi (who i interpreted as an atheist) on several occasions. i didn't vote in 2014 because i had just moved here but i voted for the green party in 2018, due to concerns about some of the messaging around marijuana from the wynne campaign, which i interpreted as a desperate embrace of racist messaging.
so, i voted green to give the liberals a time-out.
...despite being very aware that the riding was not seriously in play.
i would rather that they continue to pass emergency legislation than do what they're doing, but i'm not interpreting this as a power grab. rather, this is the consequence of electing a fat, lazy piece of shit.
no, really - the reason this is happening is just simply because doug ford is too lazy to do it the right way. and, we should be grateful that he's so fucking lazy, too.
so, i would have voted against this as well, but i'm not particularly freaked out about it - so long as we all make sure to hold him to his sunset clause, when it comes up. that's key.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/belinda-karahalios-cambridge-progressive-conservative-1.5658084
this is just a reminder that i supported the mcguinty government for years, and was broadly supportive of the wynne government, although i don't think i actually voted for them directly.
when i was in ottawa, i voted for yasir naqvi (who i interpreted as an atheist) on several occasions. i didn't vote in 2014 because i had just moved here but i voted for the green party in 2018, due to concerns about some of the messaging around marijuana from the wynne campaign, which i interpreted as a desperate embrace of racist messaging.
so, i voted green to give the liberals a time-out.
...despite being very aware that the riding was not seriously in play.
at
10:03
the temperature in here seems to have flipped over around 6:00-7:00 or so, and i do suspect he turned something off.
so, thank you, pigs.
i'm sure this is surreal for everybody. i seem to have been placed in a temporary surveillance cell, then granted a nexus card while living in it, have threatened to sue over air quality (that is better, at least) and am apparently causing workplace violation hazards, as i complain that it's too cold, while the cops sweat. i mean, if he really is a cop (he is.), that temperature may be being regulated by provincial legislation.
it'd be a lot of easier if the city just paid me out now so i can move on, rather than make me go through ten years worth of legal fights.
so, thank you, pigs.
i'm sure this is surreal for everybody. i seem to have been placed in a temporary surveillance cell, then granted a nexus card while living in it, have threatened to sue over air quality (that is better, at least) and am apparently causing workplace violation hazards, as i complain that it's too cold, while the cops sweat. i mean, if he really is a cop (he is.), that temperature may be being regulated by provincial legislation.
it'd be a lot of easier if the city just paid me out now so i can move on, rather than make me go through ten years worth of legal fights.
at
09:57
you want evidence?
doug ford.
rob ford.
john tory...
i'm not talking about rural ridings.
i'm talking about toronto.
doug ford.
rob ford.
john tory...
i'm not talking about rural ridings.
i'm talking about toronto.
at
08:47
i mean, could you imagine the fallout if chrystia freeland decides she's going to walk through the front door of a mosque?
as the prime minister of the country, you'd think she could walk through the front door, right?
but, the party actually forces it's female mps and staff to walk through the back door for these events.
and, if she does sink to the level of walking through the back door, how likely are they to take her seriously?
this is a key concept through this blog, this developing contradiction between the strategies these fake left political movements are taking to win voters, and what that implies for the kind of policies they end up legislating. eventually, when you find yourself reliant on the votes of specific groups, you're going to end up legislating in ways that appeal to them - and you're going to need to float candidates that appeal to them in order to win.
so, what next?
i don't know. what i know is that the demographics to elect a female liberal prime minister do not exist in this country at this time; in order for the liberals to swing the demographics they need to swing, they can't run women, and they can't run gays.
as the prime minister of the country, you'd think she could walk through the front door, right?
but, the party actually forces it's female mps and staff to walk through the back door for these events.
and, if she does sink to the level of walking through the back door, how likely are they to take her seriously?
this is a key concept through this blog, this developing contradiction between the strategies these fake left political movements are taking to win voters, and what that implies for the kind of policies they end up legislating. eventually, when you find yourself reliant on the votes of specific groups, you're going to end up legislating in ways that appeal to them - and you're going to need to float candidates that appeal to them in order to win.
so, what next?
i don't know. what i know is that the demographics to elect a female liberal prime minister do not exist in this country at this time; in order for the liberals to swing the demographics they need to swing, they can't run women, and they can't run gays.
at
08:45
the thing about the liberals running female candidates is that they've run themselves into a contradiction around it because so much of their vote relies on winning over religious minorities via identity politics.
it's actually far worse here because the demographics swing that much more towards what the apparatchiks call "diversity". but, when your aphorism of "diversity" is actually 70% in key ridings, you're just blurring the facts by using that kind of language.
the liberals are trying to build a political base on a coalition between mostly white feminists and mostly brown religious groups. it's a total contradiction. and, while the white feminist groups may help strengthen wins in areas they would have already won (a triviality in the system.), the actual swing ridings are mostly focused around these mostly brown religious voters.
it's kind of similar to the kind of coalition that the republicans tried to build between moderates and evangelicals, and we see how that turned out.
the reality is that their electoral strategy means that they can't win with a female leader, and it's not clear that they understand that; if you want to build a coalition largely around religious groups, you're going to need to run a male leader to keep their interest.
so, what's left? leftists are going to hate chrystia freeland. the religious groups won't vote for a woman. so, you're left with this milquetoast suburban white female vote that is perhaps very excited about freeland, but should realize they live in a bubble around it.
freeland may end up as this generation's kim campbell, in the end - she may become pm for a few weeks or months on her way to massive defeat.
but, there's a reason that the uk has seen seen female conservative pms and has not seen female labour pms.
and, i suspect that the first serious female pm in canada will be a conservative.
it's actually far worse here because the demographics swing that much more towards what the apparatchiks call "diversity". but, when your aphorism of "diversity" is actually 70% in key ridings, you're just blurring the facts by using that kind of language.
the liberals are trying to build a political base on a coalition between mostly white feminists and mostly brown religious groups. it's a total contradiction. and, while the white feminist groups may help strengthen wins in areas they would have already won (a triviality in the system.), the actual swing ridings are mostly focused around these mostly brown religious voters.
it's kind of similar to the kind of coalition that the republicans tried to build between moderates and evangelicals, and we see how that turned out.
the reality is that their electoral strategy means that they can't win with a female leader, and it's not clear that they understand that; if you want to build a coalition largely around religious groups, you're going to need to run a male leader to keep their interest.
so, what's left? leftists are going to hate chrystia freeland. the religious groups won't vote for a woman. so, you're left with this milquetoast suburban white female vote that is perhaps very excited about freeland, but should realize they live in a bubble around it.
freeland may end up as this generation's kim campbell, in the end - she may become pm for a few weeks or months on her way to massive defeat.
but, there's a reason that the uk has seen seen female conservative pms and has not seen female labour pms.
and, i suspect that the first serious female pm in canada will be a conservative.
at
08:36
speaking of which, i wanted to say something about what appears to be a developing movement to replace trudeau with freeland...
...which is likely to end in disaster. freeland is basically a fascist who ended up in the liberal party because it's the natural governing party, the canadian equivalent of an american neo-con that ended up in the republican party as a vehicle for power. she's very blatantly very far to the right of centre, and has a history of pretty vicious language against popular left-wing movements. any delusions that people continue to drag around about trudeau are going to evaporate on contact with freeland. freeland clearly doesn't respect trudeau very much. so, the major winner of a freeland coup is likely to be the ndp.
and, she lives on a different planet, so she's likely to argue the opposite - that canada is a culturally conservative country, and i'm out of the spectrum. we've seen this over and over - we saw it with ignatieff (who nearly allowed the ndp to actually win.), and we saw it with paul martin (who wasn't able to prevent an ndp surge from putting the conservatives in power). the ndp will shoot up ten points overnight...
but, what's going on? there used to be a kind of chretien faction on one side and a trudeau-freeland faction on the other. now, it seems like the entire machinery is aligning around freeland, and what's left of a chretien faction is fading fast.
these corruption scandals aren't helping, and i'm sure that the deep state upper management in the liberal party (the chretien/desmarais camp) is getting antsy about it.
but, what seems to have actually happened is that trudeau got stuck isolating, and found out people liked it better when he wasn't there.
i don't know if they try to do this to avoid losing the next election (which is stupid. trudeau will outpoll freeland on his worst day and her best.) or if they're planning on what to do when he inevitably does lose the next election.
but, unless some kind of movement develops to stop it, it seems like that's where we're heading.
...which is likely to end in disaster. freeland is basically a fascist who ended up in the liberal party because it's the natural governing party, the canadian equivalent of an american neo-con that ended up in the republican party as a vehicle for power. she's very blatantly very far to the right of centre, and has a history of pretty vicious language against popular left-wing movements. any delusions that people continue to drag around about trudeau are going to evaporate on contact with freeland. freeland clearly doesn't respect trudeau very much. so, the major winner of a freeland coup is likely to be the ndp.
and, she lives on a different planet, so she's likely to argue the opposite - that canada is a culturally conservative country, and i'm out of the spectrum. we've seen this over and over - we saw it with ignatieff (who nearly allowed the ndp to actually win.), and we saw it with paul martin (who wasn't able to prevent an ndp surge from putting the conservatives in power). the ndp will shoot up ten points overnight...
but, what's going on? there used to be a kind of chretien faction on one side and a trudeau-freeland faction on the other. now, it seems like the entire machinery is aligning around freeland, and what's left of a chretien faction is fading fast.
these corruption scandals aren't helping, and i'm sure that the deep state upper management in the liberal party (the chretien/desmarais camp) is getting antsy about it.
but, what seems to have actually happened is that trudeau got stuck isolating, and found out people liked it better when he wasn't there.
i don't know if they try to do this to avoid losing the next election (which is stupid. trudeau will outpoll freeland on his worst day and her best.) or if they're planning on what to do when he inevitably does lose the next election.
but, unless some kind of movement develops to stop it, it seems like that's where we're heading.
at
07:55
and, hey.
if the liberals really need the governor-general to be black, they can always send trudeau out in costume.
if the liberals really need the governor-general to be black, they can always send trudeau out in costume.
at
07:42
if we have to have one (and we might. we have a constitution. i don't remember, but i think getting rid of the office is probably a difficult task. but do we have enough difficult tasks at this point to open the damn thing up?), do you know who would be a good fit for the next governor-general?
justin trudeau.
it's perhaps a better reflection of his talents and abilities, as well as his background. it's a role for an aristocrat...
he wouldn't even have to move.
justin trudeau.
it's perhaps a better reflection of his talents and abilities, as well as his background. it's a role for an aristocrat...
he wouldn't even have to move.
at
07:37
science is so last decade.
the cool thing now is blackness.
it's hardly what anybody on the street wants. but, when you organize around race, this is what you get.
the cool thing now is blackness.
it's hardly what anybody on the street wants. but, when you organize around race, this is what you get.
at
07:13
i'm surprised that the governor-general has staffers, and i'm curious as to what kind of "work" it is that was declared to be "shit". i didn't think the governor-general did any actual work at all...
this is a ceremonial post. she has to sign things sometimes, but she's not expected to actually think about it. it's just that somebody has to sign certain things as a formality, due to the nature of the state as a constitutional monarchy. and, that is what canada is - our head of state remains the queen of england. the queen is not supposed to think about what she signs either, and all the governor-general is supposed to do is sign things on her behalf.
i understand that she was chosen for this ceremonial role to demonstrate the role science will play in the sitting government, which it turns out has also been ceremonial (because this government has really been no less anti-science and no less willing to co-opt the science than the last). so, if she ends up shuffled out, it'll be interesting to see what kind of symbolic messaging gets attached to the process. i suspect the liberals may want to use this as some kind of hare-brained excuse to bring in a black governor-general, although we already went through that once.
but, beyond whatever symbolic messaging the government sends around this, the only time i like to talk about the governor-general is in the context of abolishing it, altogether. i would rather grasp upon the opportunity to minimize or otherwise discard the role, in the future.
whatever fleeting "work" it is that they're talking about, the job really shouldn't exist.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/julie-payette-governor-general-harassment-allegations-1.5657397
this is a ceremonial post. she has to sign things sometimes, but she's not expected to actually think about it. it's just that somebody has to sign certain things as a formality, due to the nature of the state as a constitutional monarchy. and, that is what canada is - our head of state remains the queen of england. the queen is not supposed to think about what she signs either, and all the governor-general is supposed to do is sign things on her behalf.
i understand that she was chosen for this ceremonial role to demonstrate the role science will play in the sitting government, which it turns out has also been ceremonial (because this government has really been no less anti-science and no less willing to co-opt the science than the last). so, if she ends up shuffled out, it'll be interesting to see what kind of symbolic messaging gets attached to the process. i suspect the liberals may want to use this as some kind of hare-brained excuse to bring in a black governor-general, although we already went through that once.
but, beyond whatever symbolic messaging the government sends around this, the only time i like to talk about the governor-general is in the context of abolishing it, altogether. i would rather grasp upon the opportunity to minimize or otherwise discard the role, in the future.
whatever fleeting "work" it is that they're talking about, the job really shouldn't exist.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/julie-payette-governor-general-harassment-allegations-1.5657397
at
07:10
it helps that nobody wants to go to new brunswick, ever.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/covid-19-economic-recovery-new-brunswick-1.5658211
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/covid-19-economic-recovery-new-brunswick-1.5658211
at
06:03
there's an interesting java applet on the page here. you can rewind it....
https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/07/21/dr-ghaley-it-could-be-4-5-weeks-before-coronavirus-cases-decline/
https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/07/21/dr-ghaley-it-could-be-4-5-weeks-before-coronavirus-cases-decline/
at
05:46
california just passed new york in total cases, fwiw.
new york has half the population, so they're going to need to get to 820,000 before you're looking at a comparable infection rate. so, that's another 410,000 cases. at 10-15,000 cases/day, we're looking at at least another month.
don't be surprised if it's not much more than a month, though.
i think what it really demonstrates is that the virus must have been circulating in new york quite early on. that's the most probable cause of the time lag.
new york has half the population, so they're going to need to get to 820,000 before you're looking at a comparable infection rate. so, that's another 410,000 cases. at 10-15,000 cases/day, we're looking at at least another month.
don't be surprised if it's not much more than a month, though.
i think what it really demonstrates is that the virus must have been circulating in new york quite early on. that's the most probable cause of the time lag.
at
05:42
so, i started the migration to moving to the step for the night, and i decided to take a walk to get a grasp of the temperature. i came back in and realized that all of the things i'd been doing for the day to get the heat up in the unit had worked better than i thought, despite still getting that bone chilling reaction to the refrigerants. i've pointed out before that the "air conditioning effect" is very much like a windchill effect; it may say 25 on the thermostat, but it's going to feel more like 15 with the air conditioning. i ended up breaking out into another cold sweat within minutes. so, what next?
i took a shit, picked at my face a bit (at least all of the sweating is helping flush out my pores.) and noticed myself warming up a little. i suspect he turned the a/c off or down not long after i posted last, but i've also noticed something else: the fact that i was wearing shoes, meant my feet were off the cold floors. that appears to have made more of a difference than anything else i did, making me realize the extent of the problem being caused by the cold flooring.
the easy answer may be to put something over these tiles.
as the chills started coming down, i found myself mostly interested in what i've been trying to do, but can't due to the a.c: sleep. so, i napped for a few hours, and was up after midnight.
it was raining....i closed the window and knew i was in until the morning....
....and what i realized is that the other side of the apartment is much more pleasant, that this frustrating refrigeration is only happening on the side of the apartment i spend most of my time in; the air temperature on the side with the kitchen & bathroom was not being distorted by the refrigeration. it was actually almost comfortable in there.
so, i tried to force myself to finish the pasta and couldn't. i got some laundry done. and, i'm just waiting for it to warm up outside.
am i just sick? is that really what's happening?
i have no other symptoms, and a history of getting cold very easily. i'll admit that it feels a little like some kind of food poisoning, so maybe i ate something bad twice, but i don't feel i need to bring in the idea that i'm sick to explain this. i've been through violently adverse reactions to even minimal amounts of air conditioning far too many times for this. so, this seems more like the 76479th time i've been cold from air conditioning (it's admittedly extreme, but not by much) rather than the first time i caught this particular coronavirus.
it doesn't matter, really. i don't want to self-isolate, so i'm not getting tested. if i happened to pick it up at some store somewhere, i don't imagine that it'll take too long for me to clear it. but, i mean, is it possible that i picked up a virus, and that virus is exaggerating my natural aversion to indoor refrigeration? sure. but, it's just as likely that there was some bacteria in my bottle of caesar dressing, and it got me twice. or that i'm just an underweight transwoman with a bmi around 20 and i don't have the insulation required to adjust to large drops in temperature - especially not in the summer, when my diet cuts roughly in half, and especially not after long bike rides where i probably burned off upwards of 10 kg.
so, what now?
it doesn't seem like i'm going to get much done. i'm typing from my bedroom, but i can't sit in here, it's too cold. i might try to force myself to finish that pasta while watching physics lectures, until the heat comes up enough that i can get some sleep.
i took a shit, picked at my face a bit (at least all of the sweating is helping flush out my pores.) and noticed myself warming up a little. i suspect he turned the a/c off or down not long after i posted last, but i've also noticed something else: the fact that i was wearing shoes, meant my feet were off the cold floors. that appears to have made more of a difference than anything else i did, making me realize the extent of the problem being caused by the cold flooring.
the easy answer may be to put something over these tiles.
as the chills started coming down, i found myself mostly interested in what i've been trying to do, but can't due to the a.c: sleep. so, i napped for a few hours, and was up after midnight.
it was raining....i closed the window and knew i was in until the morning....
....and what i realized is that the other side of the apartment is much more pleasant, that this frustrating refrigeration is only happening on the side of the apartment i spend most of my time in; the air temperature on the side with the kitchen & bathroom was not being distorted by the refrigeration. it was actually almost comfortable in there.
so, i tried to force myself to finish the pasta and couldn't. i got some laundry done. and, i'm just waiting for it to warm up outside.
am i just sick? is that really what's happening?
i have no other symptoms, and a history of getting cold very easily. i'll admit that it feels a little like some kind of food poisoning, so maybe i ate something bad twice, but i don't feel i need to bring in the idea that i'm sick to explain this. i've been through violently adverse reactions to even minimal amounts of air conditioning far too many times for this. so, this seems more like the 76479th time i've been cold from air conditioning (it's admittedly extreme, but not by much) rather than the first time i caught this particular coronavirus.
it doesn't matter, really. i don't want to self-isolate, so i'm not getting tested. if i happened to pick it up at some store somewhere, i don't imagine that it'll take too long for me to clear it. but, i mean, is it possible that i picked up a virus, and that virus is exaggerating my natural aversion to indoor refrigeration? sure. but, it's just as likely that there was some bacteria in my bottle of caesar dressing, and it got me twice. or that i'm just an underweight transwoman with a bmi around 20 and i don't have the insulation required to adjust to large drops in temperature - especially not in the summer, when my diet cuts roughly in half, and especially not after long bike rides where i probably burned off upwards of 10 kg.
so, what now?
it doesn't seem like i'm going to get much done. i'm typing from my bedroom, but i can't sit in here, it's too cold. i might try to force myself to finish that pasta while watching physics lectures, until the heat comes up enough that i can get some sleep.
at
04:15
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)