i meant to go in yesterday, but i became very tired in the afternoon and have been sleeping for most of the last 20 hours. and, i'm about to go back to sleep....

i called in today trying to find the local administrative justice of the peace, and the person on the phone told me things that i don't think are true. what do you do when people insist on lying to your face because they think they can get away with it?

there's this culture that exists at the court house that treats self-represented parties as second-class applicants that don't know what they're doing. and, i'm learning that this is systemic - they'll just keep spinning me around in circles, because they think they can.

so, i'm expecting that they're just going to tell me it was denied without any kind of paper trail and think they can get away with that. but, if i don't get a court order, i'm just going to file the appeal without one - and they'll have to answer for their behaviour in appeals court, or to the rcmp.

they said she's away this week. so, that means she'll be in next week, and i'll present myself to the court if i have to - if merely to get the documents required for an appeal.

this is a slush fund and the opposition should be focusing on auditing it, as there's a good opportunity here to catch some conservative ministers with their hands in the cookie jar.

the question as to whether it will be effective or not does not dignify a response.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/doug-ford-climate-change-plan-ontario-1.4922475

Statement of Disagreement For GO# WI 2014-45185

    I must once again state that this file ought to be destroyed, as this should not have happened. I am more confident that I will be able to destroy this file, but I realize that it might take some time, so I would like to amend this rebuttal to the file until I can succeed in having it removed from my record.

    As with the other files on my record, everything about this is ridiculous. In order to get to a proper understanding of how this file was created, one first needs to have a discussion about my mother, and it is difficult to know where to start on that one...

    I do not have a meaningful relationship with my mother, and I never have. When I was a young child, my mother was generally either in and out of treatment centres for alcohol and heroin abuse or actively abusing alcohol and heroin and would frequently disappear without notice for months at a time, often leaving my grandmother to scramble to take care of me. My grandmother is in fact the primary maternal figure in my life, not my mother. Through grade school, I was lucky enough to have an active father that would take custody of me for up to five days a week in order to get me out of a frequently abusive situation at home, as my mother would become very violent when under the influence of alcohol. When I was home, her schedule often seemed designed to avoid me - she would sleep in until I had left for school, leave in the afternoon when I was gone and come home late at night when i was asleep, often under the influence of something or other. I was 13 years old when I moved in with my father, and have barely spoken to her since; I could count the number of times I spoke with my mother between 1994 and 2014 on one hand. She has continued to struggle with addiction throughout this period.

    My mother also has a myriad of mental health issues, including depression or schizophrenia, and I do not know whether they are the cause or a consequence of her drug use.

    Facebook is a strange thing, as it connects distant family members together, as well as strangers that barely knew each other at some point in the distant past. I would hardly suggest that I reconnected with my mother over facebook, but I was not so cold as to deny her friend request, either. I can’t know how she reacted with the pictures and writings on the screen in front of her, almost all of which were not directed at her, but, at the time of this report, my relationship with my mother could at best be described by referring to her as a “facebook friend” - and little else. This woman is essentially a stranger to me.

    While I acknowledge that I have rationally approached the question of suicide at many points in my life, I deny that I was suffering from depression as a result of my father’s death, which occurred almost a year previously. I was definitely over it; it wasn’t even on my mind. The period in question was in fact one of the happiest and most productive periods of my life, as moving away to windsor allowed me the space to be able to work through a great deal of the art that I had been sitting on for many years previously. As I do not have a relationship with my mother, she is completely incapable of expressing an informed opinion on whether or not I have had suicidal thoughts in the past, and could not have known whether my posts were characteristic of a pattern of behaviour or not. The fact is that I actually have a deep interest in existentialist philosophy, and am generally going to approach issues of life and death within the context of a rational understanding of the futility of existence. Death is not something to fear or prolong, but an inevitability that must be embraced. As we will all die, accepting agency in the right to decide when is the highest form of freedom imaginable. Had my mother known anything about me at all, she would not have been agitated by seeing me discuss death in open, rational terms, as I have done so frequently for all of my life.

    The exact reason that my mother called the windsor police from her home in ottawa and sent officers to my house to speak to me is that i posted the following link to facebook:

    www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/julian-baggini-suicide-can-be-a-rational-choice-1912358.html

Any sane person can see that this is a fairly tame op-ed in a leading uk newspaper, and that it is discussing an important then contemporary political concern. And I will answer the question - yes, suicide can be a rational choice. Since that time, assisted suicide has even been legalized in this country.

So, what happened here, then? Well, I can tell you what happened - my mother was drunk and, in a shitfaced haze, went into a paranoid episode and freaked out over a perfectly rational post that somebody that she does not know well made on their facebook profile. The person having a mental health episode at the time was not myself but my mother. Unfortunately, the cops ended up at my place rather than hers and I’m the one that ended up affected by it.

How can this happen? If somebody calls in on a crime, the officers do not go directly to that person’s house, but conduct an investigation to determine if it is warranted, and then present that information to a justice of the peace. Who gives this unit the authority to just act on information without any sort of investigation? The most cursory investigation into my mother’s mental health would have exposed an individual that can barely tie her own shoes, should be place under a legal guardianship and should not be able to file a police report without it being signed off upon by that guardian. Now, as a consequence of her own mental health problems, I have a difficult file in my records that I need to react to, and waste a lot of time getting destroyed. This should not have happened - the COAST team should have been required to obtain a warrant before coming to speak to me.

So, the premise underlying the call was false. While I had been posting about suicide, I was not actively suicidal in any way, nor was I depressed, nor was I at all thinking about my father. I was actually very happy at the time, if somewhat worried about the possibility that the very happy situation I was in might be in jeopardy due to an upcoming odsp renewal process.

Now, regarding the officers...

I’m just going to be blunt: it was clear to me at the time that the officers i spoke to did not have the intellectual capacity or raw intelligence to follow any discussion i was initiating about existential philosophy, or the freedom of defining existence within any kind of self-defined purpose. The officers appeared to be lost in the doldrums of a christian worldview, fully attached to the sacramental concept of existence and the sanctity of the protestant work ethic. They were simply incapable of comprehending any concept of meaning that transcended the boring old school-work-marriage-kids-retirement cycle. So, we were not talking with each other but past each other. Reading it from a distance in 2018, this part of the report does not surprise me; the officer displayed a very religious and childlike concept of existence when I spoke with her, and this is fully reflected in the report.

What I do find surprising is the presence of several aspects of the report that are simply invented out of nothing.

It is stated in the report that I was seeking some kind of medication and would commit suicide if I did not receive it. That is not something that I stated to the officer, nor is it something that has any basis in reality. I am not able to even contemplate what kind of medication it is that she might have been referring to. It is true that I take a combination of anti-androgens, progesterones and estrogens for the purposes of gender transition, but I do not take any other medication, never have taken any other medication and frankly would not want to take any other medication, either. Given the history I had with my mother growing up, I am actually a very strong advocate of sober living and live a largely straight-edge lifestyle; not only was I not seeking medication at that time, but I would have forcefully rejected any prescriptions forced upon me by mental health professionals. So, again - where does such an absurd statement come from?

I’m left with little option but to deduce that the officer simply didn’t understand the arguments that I was making to her, which were about making a rational choice to cease to exist in the case that my odsp was denied. It is absolutely true that I was undergoing some anxiety around the question of the renewal, and had resolved to exercise my right to kill myself should i not have my odsp renewed, but i insist that my reaction was entirely rational, relative to my own set of personal axiomatic beliefs. This is a statement from my notes at the time, where I generate the logic of suicide as a rational reaction if my odsp gets denied:

1) it does not appear as though i am going to have my disability renewed.
2) therefore, i will be unable to pay rent.
3) therefore, i will lose my studio. again.
4) i have nowhere else to store my studio.
5) therefore, i will have no way to save my studio if i am unable to pay rent to house it.
6) humans need a purpose to continue to exist and whither away without one. i have categorically rejected most accepted purposes for existence as not interesting (children, "career", partner, family, etc.). the one purpose i have is recording.
7) therefore, losing my studio would also be losing my purpose to exist.
8) therefore, i would no longer have a will to exist.
9) therefore, suicide will become desirable.

So, what i was saying was that if my odsp gets denied then i would decide to kill myself; you will note that this is equivalent to stating that i have no plans to kill myself, so long as my odsp gets renewed. What right would anyone - my mother, the windsor coast team or anybody else - have to interfere in such a rational decision making process?

So, i don’t know where the claim that my suicidal thoughts were based around getting a prescription were coming from, other than the officer’s inability to follow the argument - which is really no surprise, as it was obvious at the time that she really wasn’t following the argument.

Likewise, I was not awaiting the results of a meeting with Dr. Bordoff; while I had spoken to him recently, I did not schedule a follow-up and have not spoken to him since. Rather, I needed to renew my odsp documents by september, and had resolved to move to the rational end of ceasing to exist should i fail in accomplishing the task. The officer simply didn’t understand what was said to her.

The officer states in the report that I am fully capable of working. That is an original diagnosis based on her intuition; several doctors have told me otherwise. Thankfully, her diagnosis is not particularly relevant,; her credentials to diagnose are somewhat lacking.

I made the following posts to facebook after the officers left:

==

lol.

some cops showed up today to talk about my suicidal facebook messages. but, the context in the messages is very clear - i'm not currently suicidal. such an autonomous decision is dependent upon the outcome of the odsp evaluation in september. i was posting to prepare others for the eventuality. further, while i'm fairly certain of the outcome, i'm actually holding out hope that it will be extended. how can i be suicidal if i'm mutedly optimistic about the future, and merely planning for the worst case should it actualize?

i've already posted my logic.

it's always interesting explaining my coldly rational, detached perspective to people that seem to think they have the ability to magically project their desires onto reality.

but, you're giving up too soon! you're young!

it's not a question of giving up. that's a subjective perspective. i'm about analyzing data and coming to objective conclusions. my attitude doesn't affect the data, which clearly demonstrates that my chances of finding employment are exceedingly low. it has nothing to do with how i feel, it's just what the data states.

but, you haven't tried.

sure i have. that's how i built up my data set. why try further when the data projects a high probability of failure? it would be *this* behaviour that would be insane.

but that was in ottawa.

the conditions here are worse than in ottawa. that's why i moved here. it follows that i should spend even less time trying here.

you're just focusing on numbers and statistics, you just need to think positively and...

no. i need to focus on data. your arguments are not convincing, because you're not challenging the data, you're merely asking me to ignore it in favour of magical thinking.

*frown*

i tried to explain it, but they didn't get it. they did, however, convince me to allow a nurse to come later today to talk to me.

btw: the correct mathematical argument against my data-driven deductions is to question whether employment data is dependent. if each process is independent of the next, my conclusions collapse.

i think there is some argument for this. in fact, it even follows that if each process is independent then the probability of eventually finding a job approaches one (because any non-zero probability implies at least one success in infinitely many trials).

however, i'm convinced that the challenges are related to personal character traits, which makes each trial dependent on the last.

==

    A second report exists, GO# WI 2015-19702. I would just like to point out in this space that I am and always have been an entirely independent artist, and that I am not and never have been interested in getting a record contract from anybody in Toronto. I operate with a very strongly DIY ethic. Everything I do is done from the ground up, entirely by myself - and I feel the art would suffer if it were any other way. I do not know who made the suggestion that I wanted a record contract from somebody in Toronto, but it is both wholly inaccurate and entirely contradictory to my goals and purposes as an artist; it is completely ridiculous, and has no basis in fact, whatsoever.

yeah, if the justice wasn't there, they should have sent me to a bureaucrat called the "local administrative justice of the peace".

i'll call ahead before i go, and see if i can actually get this person on the phone.

the civil case against the cops is fairly straight forward, so long as i can get an accurate timeline. it doesn't even matter if they lie in their reports, i just need the information in the right order, and they've already given me enough that they can't fake it. see, the action against the cops follows given that they didn't have any evidence, which is what i need to show. the question is whether i can convince a judge that it's worth a payout or not.

the discrimination suit is far more subtle and requires a specific reading of the charges. i need to actually gather evidence for this one....and they can slow me down quite a bit if they choose to...and, i could lose in the end, as well.

it might not be very smart on their behalf, though - they may end up successfully protecting somebody that really should be liable for what she did, at the cost of a very large payout through the force. this isn't a frivolous suit: this woman put me in jail to stop me from suing her by filing a questionable report, and should be liable for it. do the cops exist to protect wealthy landowners? don't answer that. but, if they slow me down enough that i'm liable for costs when i do sue her, it may no longer be worth my effort.

the more lucrative prize is of course suing the cops.

so, rather than fight this pyrrhic struggle, they really ought to throw her under the bus.

but, we'll see what happens.

i wish i didn't pass out yesterday afternoon, because i didn't get to test my new light bulbs last night.

the j-type bulbs are exactly what i wanted, and the spotlights haven't arrived yet. but, it turns out the big bulb i wanted to replace is a par38 rather than a par20, so the spotlight is a little smaller than i expected. that said, i think it's actually more what i want - it's 9 watts and runs at 7000K. the par 38s tend to run at higher wattages and lower temperatures, and cost twice as much. this also has a 60 degree beam angle, which the led par 38s don't often have. if i'm still here the next time this comes up, maybe i'll make a different choice, but, for now, the par 20 seems like the more efficient choice.

the thing is that it's in a kind of a recess, so i just wish it was an inch longer to let the beam out all of the way. i should be able to get an extender for a few dollars, and that's probably the better option. they say the 9w replaces a 50w and i'd need upwards of 30 w to replace the 175 w, but i actually don't see much of a difference when compared. so, why would i want to pay 3x as much for a bulb that uses 3x as much energy if i can't tell the difference, anyways? the fact that the thing i got is a spotlight seems to be more important than the total wattage on the heat lamp.

what happened yesterday? well, i'm not sure yet.

i amended the file i posted on yesterday morning, and gave the cops the fingerprint destruction request directly. then, i went to get the cd and go home, but they told me that they can't release the audio without a court order, and i essentially fell over when i got home, as i hadn't slept in too long. it's a little odd that they'd take my money and give me a blank audio and then tell me at the end "oh, sorry, you needed a court order, so we shouldn't have done that. and, the judge is gone this week."

and, do i need a court order? well, i got some mixed signals on it. i was aware that it appeared as though i did, and initially intended to leave an application at the counter with an essay request that would go to a judge and then come back, but nobody said anything about it, so i just went with it. i wasn't technically in a criminal trial. does that matter? i'll have to look at the statute a little more carefully.

but, i actually was expecting them to send it to a judge, and was actually surprised when they didn't.

i will need to go back in today, one way or another. so, i'm going to add a second and maybe third statement of disagreement, once i have a better understanding of what i can and can't do regarding the audio.

i'm at a bottleneck with the audio; i need it in order to file the discrimination lawsuit. if i need to go to superior court to get it, so be it. but, note that i don't need the transcript for the civil suit, so if i get stuck waiting for it, that's going to force me to pivot towards suing the cops, first.

the things i need to sue the cops are going to be available through a long list of foias, and i'm far more comfortable launching the case and then getting the judge to release the information after.

what a fucking retard.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/doug-ford-news-conference-1.4924199

but, i mean, if we want to be fair, we could also build a new russian school too, right?

we could get name it the dmitri medvedev school of perpetual shiny happiness, and get chrystia freeland to do the groundbreaking.

i guess everybody forgot about laurentian.

i'm just saying.

there's lots of schools in toronto as it is, and i'm not sure french is the most obvious choice in terms of funding a linguistically focused university. this is from wikipedia:

English	1,375,900	50.9
Cantonese	114,670	4.2
Mandarin	111,405	4.1
Tagalog (Filipino)	83,230	3.1
Spanish	72,850	2.7
Italian	62,640	2.3
Portuguese	59,355	2.2
Tamil	57,535	2.1
Farsi	49,185	1.8
Urdu	37,420	1.4
Russian	36,145	1.3
French	35,440	1.3

while the province's initial colonial heritage is indeed largely french, it isn't exactly a widely spoken language in the english city of york. new york? no, i guess that one was taken, right? but, then, literally by the americans, so the british no longer had a new york, let alone an old new amsterdam. new new york is...you know, if they had typewriters back then, it could have worked.

new new york. new (new york). well, we have all of this punctuation, why not use it?

montreal, detroit, sudbury, cornwall...these were french settlements. toronto, ottawa, kingston were not.

i know that doug ford is not making a market argument, he's trying to rev up his base. but, it is actually probably true that a french university in downtown toronto would be poorly attended and lose a lot of money.

it's maybe a better idea to point out that laurentian could maybe use a bit of help in climbing a little up the rankings.

this is a little longer than i expected, but is going in as a response under the mippa, which allows people involved in police occurrences to add a rebuttal to the occurrence itself.

i gotta get this out, and get my cd-r replaced.

===

Statement of Disagreement In regards to GO# WI 2018-56622

To begin with, let me state clearly that I would prefer to have this record completely destroyed. I am aware that the complainant in this matter had made repeated calls to the police, and had been told repeatedly that I was not in breach of any law. She had in fact threatened me with arrest on multiple occasions, all of them completely absurd. Eventually, her persistence in calling me in produced this (absurd) report, but the world does not operate on the fox news axiom that a lie, when repeated, becomes true. She was wrong the first thirty times that she called in, and she was wrong on this day, as well. Ironically, it is this persistence in trying to get me charged that better qualifies as harassment than anything described in the report - and it is a matter of your own records to verify that repeated calls on the topic were made, after she was told that nothing would be done.

However, I understand that my legal rights regarding amending the report relate primarily to my own privacy, and that it is only my right to reply that i have any real ability to exercise. That said, there is a point where the facts are overwhelming enough to justify the destruction of a report of this nature on moral grounds - that is, there is a point where the force must admit it is wrong and do the right thing in destroying a report that should have never been written. I have no legal argument in forcing the police to destroy the file, but I hope that drawing attention to how wrong it is produces the obvious, correct and logical conclusion: this report should not have been written, and because it shouldn’t have been written, it should be destroyed.

There are some factual errors in the report. The officers were not dispatched to “843 marentte av”, which appears to be a typo on top of an error, but rather to 843 tuscarora - the structure directly below the one i lived in at the time, 851 tuscarora. The nature of the report makes it clear that the call was coming from my neighbour, and the presumed error of “843 Marentette” is too far away for the person to be my neighbour. Further, I distinctly recall having a conversation with an officer that i later learned is PC Montino-Yong - a name that suspiciously does not appear on the report I received, some time after filing an OPIRD complaint against him (E-201809161252432765). The second officer on the call was a white male, whose name I am not aware of.

    I dispute that any photographs of this woman were taken while she was planting flowers, nor does this woman have a gardening habit, nor is there a flowerbed in the yard she was sitting in, which is not hers but a common area in an apartment complex - something that could be verified rather easily, if the address on file were correct. Is that why the address was corrupted? While I do have some footage of her watering what appear to be illegal marijuana plants in potted containers near the beginning of July, 2018, any statements that claim that she was being filmed while “planting flowers” are absolutely false. In fact, this woman was not gardening in her backyard at all, but rather sitting in the common area of an apartment complex and drinking large amounts of alcohol, while chain smoking both cigarettes and marijuana. And, I have the photographic and video evidence required to demonstrate this, if required.

As any photographs or videos that were taken were in the common area of an apartment complex, this individual has no right to privacy in the matter. There is absolutely nothing illegal whatsoever about filming a person in a public place, whether they consent to it or not.

This is a sample of the footage that was taken, and it doesn’t seem much like “gardening” to me - it’s rather some people sitting in the common area of an apartment complex, while drinking alcohol and chain smoking.

(removed.jpg)

And, what is the reason I was filming her?

    Well, as I retain these records, we could consult them - and we may still. My stay at 851 Tuscarora has since ended, but it was extremely unpleasant due to the presence of a habitual marijuana addict directly below me. Due to the fact that the flooring was substandard, the second hand smoke in the apartment made the apartment uninhabitable. I even tested positive for thc from it, which is quite difficult to do from second-hand exposure. I ended up suing my landlord over this, and won an escape from the lease. The court reference is SWT-16361-18.

    As I was stuck living in a perpetual hotbox, I had no option but to leave my windows open more or less 24/7 to attempt to get some air flowing into the unit. Unfortunately,  a chain-smoking, alcoholic neighbour then moved in next door, around the beginning of may, and decided to enforce her habit directly into my air supply.

    I asked this woman to move repeatedly, and all she did was swear at me. I have this documented quite thoroughly. So, what does a person do in this situation? If I were to close the window, I’d be dealing with the effects of unwanted inebriation from one neighbour’s drug habit, and if I were to keep the windows open I’d have to deal with the consequences of a chain smoking alcoholic setting up directly in the air supply. The only option I had was to get this woman out of my air supply.

    One will note that every human rights document ever written has a right to fresh air, while the supreme court has stated on numerous occasions that a right to smoke does not exist.  I should have had a legal mechanism to get this woman out of my air supply beyond simply getting up and moving. It is my own rights that were being infringed upon.

    As a non-smoker in windsor, I had some previous experience with pushing back against smokers. I knew that bylaw couldn’t do anything because it’s not a public building. I knew that the anti-smoking unit upholds an unfortunately restrictive concept of ‘common area’ that doesn’t include a common backyard. In situations like this, judicial remedies must be sought, and a situation must consequently be created in order to put the issue before a judge. If a specific law would force a person to endure the catastrophic health effects of second-hand smoke then that law ought to be struck down as unconstitutional. Further, a great deal of rather nasty behaviour could no doubt be justified under grounds of free speech, if it is intended to protect a person’s health from the consequences of smoke inhalation. And, I decided that this was a fight worth having, for the benefit of the greater society - that there ought to be something I could do about this.

    A project like this needs to begin simply and then escalate. To begin with, what I wanted was for an officer to come to the scene and ask the woman to smoke somewhere else, and hoped that would be enough. Yet, as the existing statute is insufficient to protect me from the effects of second-hand smoke, I had no grounds to call the officer. Rather, I had to push back in the hopes that she would call the officers, and we could then have some kind of mediation service that would end in her agreeing to not smoke in my window, as any sane person can see is quite reasonable.

    So, I decided that if this woman was going to sit beside my window and blow smoke into it then she would have to listen to very loud noises while she did it, and hoped that this would act as a disincentive towards smoking in this area. If she got up and moved, the problem would be solved. And, surely, any sane person can understand that loud music is less damaging, disruptive, harassing and harmful than second-hand smoke! This is not even a comparison - it was weak, as far as retaliation is concerned. Yet, I was ultimately acting not out of retaliation but with an intent to get an officer on the scene to mediate. If that did not work, the next step would be to continue to agitate until the situation could be put before a judge, with the hope that a legal battle would end in a judicial ruling that would stand up for my right to fresh air and force this woman to smoke somewhere else - via a restraining order or something else.
   
As intended, several noise complaints were then filed over june and july, and the police appeared at my door several times, as can be checked in the record. I was transparent with the officers that appeared - this woman refused to smoke somewhere else, and if she insisted on blowing smoke in my window then i would need to create a situation out of it, because there is no existing statute to apply to stand up for my rights. And, she was asked to smoke somewhere else by the first several officers that appeared at the door, who seemed to understand that there was a delicate rights balance at play, she was infringing in my space and there was a relatively simple solution at hand - she could move a few feet away from the window. It was not until this Montino-Yong character appeared on the scene that this completely extra-legal idea that she has some kind of right to smoke in my window entered into the discourse.

Despite repeated requests by several officers, she simply refused to smoke somewhere else - and kept calling me in on noise complaints. How long can that go on for before somebody can be charged with harassment? Is continually positioning yourself beside somebody’s window and blowing smoke into it despite being asked to move repeatedly and chased off with harsh noise not the most textbook example of harassment possible? Is the second-hand smoke not a reason for me to fear for my safety? The issue seemed as though it had to go before a judge...

So, I initially started taking footage of this woman smoking - in a public space, beside my window - for the purposes of producing evidence for a court battle that would hopefully force her out of the space. I intended to document when, where and how much smoke she was producing, and the effect it was having on me. This is completely legal in every way; if she did not want to be filmed while smoking in public near my window, she had the choice to smoke somewhere else, or not at all.

After a while, I gave up on the noise as a tactic. While it initially worked in chasing her off, she eventually refused to move. It was apparently very important to her to continue to smoke in my window, even with the noise, and even after I made it abundantly clear that this was making me sick. Further, the noise was bothering some of the other tenants. On top of that, the officers seemed unwilling to send the issue to a judge because they apparently couldn’t generate any evidence. So, I moved to plan B, which was to try and have her charged with creating a common nuisance.

Common nuisance
•    180 (1) Every one who commits a common nuisance and thereby
o    (a) endangers the lives, safety or health of the public, or
o    (b) causes physical injury to any person,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
•    Definition
(2) For the purposes of this section, every one commits a common nuisance who does an unlawful act or fails to discharge a legal duty and thereby
o    (a) endangers the lives, safety, health, property or comfort of the public; or
o    (b) obstructs the public in the exercise or enjoyment of any right that is common to all the subjects of Her Majesty in Canada.
•    R.S., c. C-34, s. 176.

While charging smokers with causing a nuisance would be admittedly novel, it is difficult at this stage in history to understand how anybody could deny that blowing smoke into somebody’s window is endangering their health, and I was getting to the end of my patience. She had at this point been asked to move repeatedly by several officers. She actually was causing a nuisance. And, I frankly think it would have been a positive precedent, should it have succeeded.

So, I decided that I would continue to film her smoking near my window and refusing to move on request in order to build a case against her for causing a common nuisance.

It was under these circumstances that the officers arrived at my door on July 8th. I feel it is worthwhile to point out that I actually have footage on this day of myself informing the neighbour that she had no right to privacy in a common area, and that she called the police anyways. When the police arrived at my door, I was indeed quite hostile - as I was the one being harassed - and demanded that she be immediately charged with harassment, for repeatedly smoking beside my window, despite repeated requests by myself and by other officers to move.  The officers refused to press charges. When questioned as to why I was filming, I informed the officer that I was seeking to gather evidence for a nuisance charge to bring before a justice of the peace, as they would not file charges themselves. Officer Montino-Yong responded to this request by telling me that there was no such thing as criminal nuisance. I informed him that he was wrong, and it was s. 180 of the criminal code. He responded by telling me that he’s a police officer and he knows better; I told him I have a legal background, and I know better than to trust an officer’s understanding of the law. The second officer agreed with Montino-Yong, but it appeared to be disingenuous, in order to avoid the perception of a misinformed officer - he wanted to uphold the authority of the officer, even though he was wrong. Everything about this situation was disturbing and pathetic to me, from the officer’s misunderstanding of the law to the premise of being charged for harassing a nuisance smoker that was making me sick, so I told the officers point blank: it is not illegal to film in a public space, and I will be continuing to collect evidence to bring before the justice, if you won’t press charges, yourselves. I then firmly closed the door and told them to get lost, which was my right, as I was not under arrest, and clearly explained that my actions were not against the law.

I was arrested several weeks later on an unrelated charge of harassment in no less of a ridiculous scenario, and believe that these issues together actually constitute a pattern of police harassment. As of Nov, 2018, there is an ongoing OPIRD report into the behaviour of officer Montino-Yong.

As I had been threatened with arrest for harassment, I then made several calls to the windsor police, to attempt to press charges for a common nuisance. The officer on the phone confirmed that a common nuisance is in the code, thankfully, but I was told that it would be difficult to press charges without establishing intent. So, I resolved to continue documenting the smoking, to generate a pattern that demonstrated intent.

I then posted the following three posts to my blog:

===

i just had some cops show up and try to tell me there's no such thing as nuisance under the law.

the reality is that cops generally have no idea what the law says.
at 12:40

i don't have time to prosecute a nuisance charge. but, i'm collecting evidence in case i have to.

i will defend myself on free speech grounds, if attacked.

and, i will retaliate with a criminal nuisance charge, arguing that somebody that is wilfully blowing smoke into my air supply - despite being asked not to repeatedly - is negligently endangering m health.

i will not act first. i don't have time. i'm leaving as soon as possible.  but, i will retaliate accordingly.
at 13:23

i am absolutely willing to prosecute a smoker under nuisance laws.

are you going to argue that she's not endangering my health?

what year is it?

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-180.html
at 13:26


===

That said, I still did not want to send this woman to jail, I simply wanted her to smoke somewhere else. So, I attempted to contact 311 as a last resort before trying to have her charged.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: jessica murray <death.to.koalas@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2018 17:20:49 -0400
Subject: nuisance complaint
To: 311@citywindsor.ca

i'm having a really hard time with a neighbour that's just intent on
creating air pollution and simply doesn't care - even thinks she has
some kind of right to pollution, and is just flatly hostile to anybody
suggesting otherwise. so, if i can gain some kind of victory in
getting her to smoke away from the window, she turns the barbeque on,
just to piss me off. as i believe that her behaviour is malicious, i'm
ultimately looking to have her criminally charged with nuisance, but i
need some help in getting there.

the basic crux of the problem is that she's an alcoholic, and when
somebody is constantly drunk, they just don't care. so, when she moved
in, she started chain smoking outside my window; when i asked her to
smoke somewhere else, she just drunkenly swore at me, tolf me she'll
smoke where she wants and accused me of "using big words". i've had
officers (which she called on noise complaints related to creating
disincentives to smoke a foot from my window) ask her to move, and she
still doesn't listen. there's basically no way to reason with her -
she's going to smoke where she wants, when she wants and no matter
what anybody says to her. so, the only solution is to charge her with
nuisance and drag her away.

today, after i got a second officer to get her to move after she
called in on me a second time, she retaliated by using an open
charcoal bbq in her yard. this is creating large plumes of very dirty
smoke that is a clear health hazard to anybody around. now, i'll note
that she has a clean-burning bbq, which she has used up until this
point. so, it's clear that she's using this dirty charcoal bbq with
the clear purpose of pissing me off - behaviour clearly indicative of
somebody intent on creating a nuisance. i called the fire department,
and they said the bbq is legal (i'm not so sure - it seems like an
open flame to me, and this is more of an issue of non-enforcement.).
but, my issue is less about the fire code and more about the smoke.

is there something i can do about this?

no amount of debate or discussion is going to have any effect. i need
something harsh & swift.

my next step is going to the justice of the peace and getting her
criminally charged.

j

====

i received the following reply:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: 311 <311@citywindsor.ca>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 14:54:27 +0000
Subject: RE: nuisance complaint
To: jessica murray <death.to.koalas@gmail.com>

Good morning,

The City does not have any involvement with what is considered a "nuisance" neighbour.  You have addressed all the issues with the appropriate contacts (Police for criminal activity, Fire for open air burning) but if nothing is found to be illegal in nature, than it may be something you have to pursue on your own through a lawyer or small claims court for any damages.

Thank you for contacting 311.

Regards,


Rose | 311 Call Centre Team


Call Centre
400 City Hall Square | Suite 410 | Windsor, ON | N9A 7K6
(519)-255-CITY (2489) | 1-877-RING-311 (746-4311)
www.citywindsor.ca

IMPORTANT NOTICE:
This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed.  The message may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law.  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by email at 311@citywindsor.ca .
Thank you.

===

and, i replied with this

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: jessica murray <death.to.koalas@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 11:10:08 -0400
Subject: Re: nuisance complaint
To: 311 <311@citywindsor.ca>

nuisance itself is a crime under the criminal code, s 180 (1).

and, there is no use in suing a belligerent drunk on welfare for chain
smoking a foot from your window, and refusing to move. she has nothing to
take away from her.

i feel that this is an issue that the city *should* deal with: this is
fundamentally an air quality complaint, which should be dealt with through
bylaws. the right thing to do here is to fine this woman and keep doing it
until she stops behaving in such an anti-social fashion.

but, if i have to go in front of the justice of the peace and file charges
myself due to inaction by the city and by the police, then so be it.

the courts, at least, understand the severity of smoke issues. it's just a
shame that it takes somebody with a doctorate to get a basic handle on
simple science.

so, let it be stated here that my desperation is a consequence of your
inaction - and if this woman ends up going to jail for smoking on her
porch, or having to spend the next months or years fighting to stay out of
jail on nuisance charges related to smoking on her porch, it is because the
city would not step in and provide for a more appropriate remedy and more
reasonable means of conflict resolution.

let that sit on your conscience.

j

===

After this occurrence, I made a very clear attempt to communicate to this woman that if she did not stop blowing smoke into my window then I would try very hard to ensure she was charged with a common nuisance, once I moved away. She eventually relented and decided to smoke on the other side of the building. I was happy with this compromise, if baffled that it took so much effort to produce it, and decided against pursuing charges.

I will leave the wisdom of that decision in the hands of law enforcement, however skeptical i am of their abilities.

i got the audio this afternoon.

it's blank.

a blank cd...

and, you can tell it's blank because there's no difference in colouration on the back. if you've dealt with homemade media, you understand what i mean.

so, i'll need to take it back and get it corrected - and i'm willing to cause a scene if i have to. i paid for it. i signed for it. they gave me empty media..

is this incompetence or obstruction? i don't know, but they may be digging themselves deeper and deeper into a hole, here. if i get access to the audio and there's evidence that it has been doctored, the obstruction is just going to make them look more guilty of it.

the plan was to get everything done this afternoon and then lock the doors for the next 10-15 days as i wait for various responses from various agencies. i got my privacy act request for my cpic records in, left a message with the office investigating the officer about who it is that is in charge of the investigation, got some information to the mental health unit about a file destruction, did a compost run, bought some caulk for the windows and did a grocery run - i was set to hibernate. but, i'll need to get out early in the morning to pick up the audio.

i suspect that the guy upstairs got fired or something because he hasn't gone to work in weeks. that's a potential problem, but who knows. he hasn't said anything yet. i'll have to pay the rent on friday or saturday...

for the night, then, i'm on hold and will have to put everything off for another day. but, hopefully the issue gets dealt with early in the morning.

retarded, but completely predictable.

https://globalnews.ca/video/4699924/conservatives-link-carbon-tax-to-job-losses-during-question-period

listen.

these projections have been being made for decades - the fossil fuel era is coming to a close. supplies are dwindling, making continued extraction using expensive methods uneconomical in the face of cheaper next-gen technology. consumer demand is shifting to more ecological choices in the face of impending climate disaster. and, increasing levels of inequality are shattering the middle class and making automobiles a luxury, rather than a norm.

the government in alberta has known this for decades, and ignored it. they have only themselves to blame for the situation they are in.

the government in ontario tried to adjust, but ended up with their hands tied by a combination of restrictive global trade policies, a lack of investment by the federal government and a population turned hostile by the ramifications of the former. we should have been a market leader, here. we still can be. but, if we don't adjust to the changing economy, and the existing government is unlikely to do so, then we will have nobody to blame but ourselves. for all their stale rhetoric about market theory, they're more likely to stand up and blame the job losses on "eco-terrorists" then they are to adjust to the market. they may even deflect by blaming the carbon tax.

and, it's time for the trudeau government to put some of it's rhetoric into action. if it continues to maintain the status quo in order to support the rise of canada as a petrostate, in the face of all evidence suggesting that this is delusional, as it has done, then it will only have itself to blame for it's collapse. their own policy wonks saw this coming. they presented solutions in their platform. they can't pretend they've been blindsided; they need to accept they were right the first time, and do what they said they were going to do, in the first place.

they should bring stephane dion back and put him in charge of a special task force on transitioning the economy.

and, if all of these people do nothing, or insist in turning back the clocks at the behest of the rest of the planet, they are going to preside over a collapse they were warned of, and did nothing to prevent - and be correctly held responsible by history for it.

the reality is that gm makes dirty gas guzzlers that should be regulated out of the market. so, stop holding on to yesterday's economy and start focusing on retraining for the econmy of the future, instead.

this is an opportunity to nationalize a large factory and retool it for less destructive purposes, like solar panels or even electric cars.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/gm-oshawa-trudeau-ford-1.4921331

i was supposed to do things today, but the weather was really impossible. i'll have to get out tomorrow, instead. i had a lengthy sleep and feel refreshed.

i got one of the many calls i needed to make done, out to sport chek. did i mention this here? the red airwalks came in looking used - i'm going to guess they were the floor model. but, i wanted to wait for the grey ones to come in before i made a claim, to see, and they were brand new. they didn't have another pair in stock, so i couldn't replace them. well, they're just worn a little - they'd look like that in a few weeks anyways. which means they'll lose a few weeks on the longevity, too, but that's a proportionality issue. so, i got a 15% discount on the shoes, which is $6.00, and i think actually fair. but, i also got a 15% discount on my next purchase at the store.

so, remind me to spend $800 on my next purchase at sport check. muahahahahahaha.

no - seriously. i'm going to put that to good use. i'm thinking i might need a new winter jacket, soon; the one i have is around 13 or 14 years old, now. it's still a good, warm jacket, but there's a few rips in the pockets.

i've also been thinking about the lost firefox history. i cleared out the existing history rather substantively by removing all of the youtube, google, facebook & blogspot sites - which i don't need to remember. that was well over 100,000 pages. so, i shouldn't have to worry about that again for a while.

but, it's not like i'm going to have a lot of these stranded lost comments on random sites, and i think i remember realizing that on the last run through this, in mid-2017, as well. almost all of my posts are going to be made through facebook, google or disqus. if i posted somewhere via some other method, i almost certainly made an account, and i'll have a listing of that somewhere, too. so, the only things lost are anonymous comments - and how many of those are there? there might not be any at all.

i'll take a look through the other machine when i get through this process, but i shouldn't be that concerned about it.

i must get the audio tomorrow, and i'm going to need to do some write-ups as well. first, i eat. i may not get any work done until tomorrow.

religion places humanity at the centre of the universe, initially with the heavens revolving around the earth, and as the sole agent of manipulation, be it in a destructive or protective capacity. whether the myth is that god placed us in command of the garden and gave us the free will to eat the apple, or the aristotlian hierarchy underlying linnaeus, or the eastern karmic wheel, we are always placed at a summit, as the highest form of creation, and ultimately put in charge.

this is our world.

but, that is bullshit.

the shamanists had a more scientific understanding: we are but one component of a system that must be understood holistically. the other living entities on this planet have agency, and are capable of undoing our damage. together, they are much more powerful than we are. life is not fixed in creation, but constantly changing - adapting, evolving...and ceasing to exist, too.

you think you can destroy the planet? think again: it is the planet that will destroy you. and, that just makes the necessity of interdependence in a greater ecology that much more apparent.

don't misunderstand me - i clearly try very hard to keep my waste down, and support any programs intended to increase recycling rates.

but, one of the reasons i'm alienated from a broader activist movement is that it instinctively takes inherently religious worldviews - even when it thinks it is taking a scientific one. the right does this, too. it's a reflection of the underlying - and very wrong - axiom system that our society erects itself on. these are stories we hear as children and never entirely discard.

we think that the chemistry of life has changed on our planet several times. we think that the oxygen in our atmosphere is largely the result of biological waste processes, and that it actually led to a mass extinction, before life evolved a way to turn the thing that was poisoning it into the thing that sustained it.

this was created in a lab, but we know this already exists in the wild. there are already plastic-eating microbes on the loose, breaking down the environmental plastic. if we continue to convert the world's carbon into plastic, life will evolve to find a way to utilize it. and, that's not a fantastic projection - that's science.

https://www.popsci.com/bacteria-enzyme-plastic-waste

woahwoahwoahwoah.

let's not pretend as though cutting me a large check is going to change the thrust of my purpose to exist. i'm still not going to want to raise children. i'm still not going to want to date, or find a partner. and, i'm still not going to want to go to major rock concerts or festivals, either.

i could maybe travel further to small or medium venues.

i was thinking the other day of the time that my step-mother gave me a sponsorship package for some kids in africa. the kind of thing where you send them like $1.00/day and they write back to you and what not. i don't really know what she was thinking; maybe she thought it might spark some interest in me. but, i never even read the letters.

and, they kept sending them - to my recycle bin. i never even opened them. no interest; no feeling of responsibility.

this actually produced somewhat of an angry response in this woman, who seemed to think i had some kind of obligation to interact with the kids that she bought for me.

but, i didn't buy them. so, don't look at me. all i could tell her was that she bought them, and it's her responsibility to deal with it. i didn't consent to this. you can't just dump that kind of responsibility on somebody that didn't ask for it - i have rights and stuff.

at the time, i hadn't fully formed the opinions i have today, and i wouldn't have been able to articulate the kind of political disagreement with such a program that i would articulate today. i don't think sending money to africa accomplishes anything besides fostering dependency. i'd rather send that money to a local communist party than send it to starving kids that will probably end up as child soldiers, and then cannon fodder.

i just didn't have any interest in kids. at all.

and, i still don't.

i'm interested in my work, and that is all.

i have not had any plastic surgery at all, and i don't want any.

all of these fake, plastic people walking around...

i would hate you - and you'd know it, and you wouldn't like me, either.

california is not in the list of places i would consider moving to. forget about the earthquakes and fires, i actually don't think i'd like it there very much at all.

i'd prefer seattle or portland - but would no doubt actually end up in victoria or vancouver.

actually, i think that blow dried hair looks fake and slutty.

sorry.

the postal strike.

well, my light bulbs should be here by now, but probably aren't going to be for a while. can't i just go down to the warehouse and pick them up?

see, and this is the irony of it - the legislation is about how it's an "essential service". but, the reality is that it's anything but. the truckers are essential, but the people delivering the mail are truly obsolete.

socialism isn't reducible to supporting wage workers as an article of faith, it is an algorithm to arrive at a more free society, where people aren't stuck languishing in unnecessary work. we can talk over the internet. we can pick up our own parcels. and, we don't need the flyers.

the condition they should be demanding is retraining.

i'd just like to get my lightbulbs, thanks.

see, here's the thing - if i get the entry through a foia, it doesn't tell me what the border cops see.

i wonder if i can just ask the rcmp to show me what the border cops will see, in the foia.

also: i'm becoming more and more sure that it's that kid that's smoking up there. and, there's signals that he knows, too. hopefully, he deals with it.

why isn't google finding this for me?

i really don't think the border cops should have access to this information at all.

UPDATED MOC WITH THE FBI

98. While the RCMP did not accept to make further changes to CPIC or its guiding policies, it did update its MOC with the FBI, which was signed by both parties on October 27, 2015. The MOC now makes specific reference to respecting Constitutional and legal frameworks that protect privacy in both Canada and the US. It also now includes the following definitions, which are particularly relevant to our analysis:
    

    “Criminal Justice Purposes” means performance of any of the following activities: Detection, apprehension, detention, pretrial release, post-trial release, prosecution, adjudication, correctional supervision, or rehabilitation of accused persons or criminal offenders. The administration of criminal justice shall include criminal identification activities and the collection, storage, and dissemination of criminal history record information.

    “Criminal Justice Agency” means: A governmental institution or any subunit thereof that performs the administration of criminal justice pursuant to a statute, the common law, or executive order, and that allocates a substantial part of its annual budget to the administration of criminal justice.

99. The updated MOC also contains new language with respect to the disclosure and use of information under the arrangement:
    

    Pursuant to CPIC and NCIC/III policy, the use of the information contained in the CPIC and the NCIC/III systems is for criminal justice agencies for criminal justice purposes or for a consistent use thereof. Further to the definition of criminal justice purposes, the use of CPIC and NCIC/III data is intended specifically by law enforcement and criminal justice agencies in the performance of law enforcement and criminal justice matters, including counterterrorism/intelligence investigations.

100. The concept of “consistent use” is defined in the revised MOC to mean “a use that has a reasonable and direct connection to the original purpose(s) for which the information was obtained or complied.”
101. In our view, the reference to a consistent use would not support the disclosure of attempted suicide information to US border officials in the absence of a risk to officer or public safety. Pursuant to the revised MOC, in order for a use to be consistent, there must still be a reasonable and direct connection with the original purpose for which the information was obtained or compiled. The Supreme Court of Canada has held that a use may be a consistent use, for the purposes of the Act, when an individual would “reasonably expect” the information to be used in such a manner.^{Footnote 18}
102. As noted in our analysis under paragraph 8(2)(a), we do not believe that an individual would reasonably expect that information about an attempted suicide – which is highly sensitive information collected by Canadian police services during the course of policing activities – would then be used by US border officials to deny them entry into the US. Where the information does not demonstrate an ongoing risk to public safety, its use by US border officials for immigration assessment considerations is not directly and reasonably connected to the original purposes for which the information was compiled.

if this is true - and it's a good source - then the new law should apply to the border cops.

31. The RCMP advised that CBP has access to CPIC pursuant to a Memorandum of Cooperation (MOC) between the RCMP and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), providing for the electronic exchange of information contained in CPIC and the equivalent system in the US, the National Crime Identification Centre/Interstate Identification Index (NCIC/III).^{Footnote 8} The MOC originally took effect on May 6, 1999, and was renewed on July 25, 2008.^{Footnote 9} Unless otherwise noted, all references herein are to the 2008 version, which was in effect at the time of the incident in question.
32. The FBI is the part of the Department of Justice of the United States of America that enforces the laws of the US and facilitates the exchange of information with law enforcement agencies within the US. Pursuant to the MOC, the FBI authorized the DHS, and by extension, CBP, to access CPIC. The RCMP advised that the FBI was provided “read only” access to CPIC, meaning that the CPIC databases were accessible by the FBI and its partner agencies, but they were not able to contribute information directly to CPIC.
33. The CPI Centre also set limitations on the information in CPIC’s databases that could be viewed by the FBI and its partner agencies under the MOC. They were not able to access information relating to young offenders, persons wanted on province-wide warrants, non-conviction criminal records (i.e., not-guilty verdicts, acquittals, withdrawals, stays of proceeding, or peace bonds), or suspended (pardoned) criminal records. We confirmed, however, that the FBI and its partner agencies, including CBP, did have access to Caution flags and SIP entries.
34. According to the MOC, information obtained from either CPIC or NCIC/III could only be used for “criminal justice purposes.” The MOC provided the following definition: “criminal justice purposes is defined to mean that the use of CPIC and NCIC/III data is intended specifically by law enforcement and criminal justice agencies in the performance of law enforcement and criminal justice matters to include national security issues as mandated by the legislation of the respective countries.” The MOC did not define “law enforcement” or “criminal justice.”
35. The MOC specified that Canadian privacy laws and the CPIC Policy Manual required that users of CPIC data establish the accuracy and validity of a CPIC record prior to it being used. As such, all information collected from CPIC by US law enforcement agencies should have been confirmed by contacting the contributing CPIC agency to determine its accuracy and relevancy before the information could be used for any purpose.

https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/opc-actions-and-decisions/investigations/investigations-into-federal-institutions/2016-17/pa_20170419_rcmp/ 

ok.

i'm actually getting mixed information - the privacy commissioner's report is telling me they *don't* have access to withdrawn charges, but i can't find the actual memorandum.

i don't even know what's in there. i should be able to get access to it using some kind of foia, right?

it's the cpic database that they have access to. but, i should be able to find the memorandum, too, right? not yet.

i should finish my meal from yesterday.

i want to know what's in there either way, and that's probably the best next step. i want those coast files destroyed, too.

no, this is seen as "information sharing" rather than screening - but i think there's a good argument that this is wrong.

i'll have to see exactly what happens, but it could help the argument, at least.

it seems to depend on whether the border cops are seen as screening me for entry - in which case the new law should apply to them) or whether they're seen as law enforcement, in which case they should have deeper access.

i would argue they're screening me for entry. showing up at the border and requesting entry doesn't imply you're under suspicion for anything, right?

===

hi.

i know you're not an mp any more, but i'm trying to keep my queries about this away from the border patrol, and you did write the act. as the act just came into force, most of the information on the internet is outdated.

i was recently arrested without a warrant, charged with a hybrid offence, printed, released and then had my charges withdrawn due to no chance of conviction. it is my position that had the officer sought a warrant the arrest would not have happened and the entire situation was ridiculous. nonetheless, my prints are now on file.

the government's focus in it's press releases was on domestic applications in the new law, specifically for screening. my understanding is that this information could only be found on exceptional release through a vulnerable sector check, if conducted domestically. that's relieving, in some sense.

however, i'm more concerned about the border than i am about domestic applications. i have requested a file destruction, but it could take months, and i'm kind of upset about that. as i don't think any of this should have happened, i'm considering a serious constitutional rights challenge under s. 6. but, if these new rules also apply to the border cops, that would be entirely unnecessary, because you have beaten me to it.

so, considering that my charges are now dropped, what level of access do the us border cops now have to the cpic database? it doesn't explicitly state as much in the legislation. if the us border cops are considered to be screening me for entry into the united states - which is certainly true - then they should have the same access as anybody else that is screening. but, if they are seen as law enforcement, then they should have deeper access.

if you don't know the answer, i would appreciate any suggestions regarding somebody to contact that does. i don't want to call them directly, because the whole point is to prevent them from downloading information that i expect to be destroyed.

ok.

there was a recent change to the law in ontario, and i may be operating on information that is now out of date.

there are now three types of criminal record checks in ontario, and only the vulnerable record check allows for information on withdrawn charges. i actually don't believe that the border guards have access to a vulnerable record check. that means that this information may actually be hidden from the border cops.

i guess the best thing to do is ask.

hi.

i'm not a member of the bar, but i took three years of a law program at carleton (after having already graduated with a four year math degree) and feel comfortable representing myself in a constitutional rights challenge. so, i'm not looking for advice or resources. i'm just curious as to the level of interest that the ccla might have in the following case, as i believe it is somewhat of a novel argument, and may have some broad consequences for people faced with records as a consequence of frivolous charges.

i was recently arrested without a warrant and held overnight without cause on charges of criminal harassment related to repeatedly applying for housing. now, i'm not even comfortable claiming i'm innocent. for me to claim that i'm innocent would suggest that i didn't do the thing that i'm being accused of - and i make no such claim. i readily admit that i applied for housing in this complex over and over again, even after i had been asked not to. but, to suggest that this is in any way harassment under canadian law is preposterous. so, this isn't a case where i've been falsely accused so much as it's a case where i've been frivolously accused, and where the error lies not in somebody making false allegations but in incompetent police work. frankly, the officer seemed to have a poor understanding of the law; i was charged with doing something that is not against the law, in this country. while the charges were dropped (no chance of conviction) on a request for detailed disclosure, i was (i believe illegally) printed while i was in custody.

let us put aside the details of the case and accept the premise at face value: i was frivolously charged with criminal harassment and printed while in custody, only to have the charges dropped, leaving me with prints on charges that shouldn't have happened.

while i have applied for a file destruction, and think this ought to be a no-brainer due to the absurdity of the charges, the fact is that harassment is a secondary charge, and i may be denied on those grounds. this is where the rights challenge comes in, as i believe that rule is overly broad - as evidenced by my situation. and, i want to draw special attention to the fact that i'm not even accusing the complainant of making false statements, although i believe that she did. this isn't a denial of the circumstances, it's a misapplication of the law.

the novelty i'm bringing in is bringing the case forward on a breach of s. 6. i live in windsor, and frequently cross into detroit. if a border agent were to look up my record, it would simply see that i had charges of harassment withdrawn - and, without context, that could lead to me being denied entry. i am consequently not able to travel until the file has been destroyed. any refusal to destroy the file would consequently infringe on my mobility rights.

while the charges against me were uniquely frivolous, and this challenge is consequently worthy of filing, it is the broader context that i think may be of some interest to the ccla. you can't justify my situation under s. (1). you just can't. it's too absurd. and, whether the prints are destroyed or not, i have *already* suffered from a loss of mobility rights. if it takes a year to have them destroyed, then that is a year of mobility rights that have been lost. if it is going to take that long to have the prints destroyed in this context, then the law shouldn't have allowed for them to have been taken in the first place. a ruling at a high enough court could strike down the identification of criminals act by following a precedent in morgantaler, if the rcmp refuses to provide for destructions on a timely basis. and, i do think that speeding up the process of a full file destruction for the wrongfully or frivolously accused is something that the ccla would find some interest in aligning itself with.

i am currently awaiting a response on my request and will not know how to proceed until it arrives. judicial review is the most direct route to superior court. but, even if they approve the request, i could still challenge the law on the basis of the length of time required to wait for the destruction - using morgantaler as a template.

if the ccla would like to involve itself, it would probably be best to get involved from the start.

i didn't post an update for friday.

i have mailed the print & file destruction request, without the transcript.

i will need to get the audio recording of the hearing on monday.

i will be making some calls this morning and following up on monday afternoon.

?jan 12, 2012?

you can add my vote for this being amongst the most emotionally powerful pieces of music ever recorded.

?apr 1, 2012?

this really hits a new low for gen y music, just when i thought it couldn't get any worse.

???

?may 10, 2012?

 noise rock.

???

?may 30, 2012?

if you're going to talk influences, i hear a lot of peter gabriel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ayy73aUSq14

???

june 1, 2012

i always thought weird al understood this song better than he realized.

???

jun 15, 2012

i think what this sounds like is fuck buttons remixing chariots of fire.

???

sept 1, 2012

it sounds a lot like the smashing pumpkins c. 2000.

???

?nov 15, 2012?

there's a very prominent mike oldfield sample in this track. really, he should get writing credits.

???

dec 3, 2012

lol. i think you'd have to figure out the tuning, first. btw, the lack of tuning is why it sounds so "scary". what this particular track sounds like, really, is very early sonic youth.

???

dec 13, 2012

it may seem weird, but you have to properly compare earthling to the other "electronica" records that came out in 1997 - by acts like daft punk, chemical brothers, prodigy, etc. when you do that, it comes out very strong on a couple of levels. one is the more interesting subject matter. another is the more interesting musicianship. nor is it all that weird when you think it through for a second. what larger influence was there on "breathe" than bowie?

???

?dec 27, 2012?

for those that would rather read through the transcript in half the times, it is available here:

http://democracynowDOTorg/2012/10/16/chilean_student_movement_awarded_for_organizing

???

?dec 29, 2012?

i'd actually call it retro. it's what ministry should have started doing c. 1995; one of the best industrial records released in the post-downward spiral (or post dwayne goettel) period.

???

?may 11, 2011?

while it's not the worst thing i've ever heard, i'm personally not a fan of dcfc because it's not, well, *interesting* to me on a musical, lyrical or emotional level. folks, strokes. yet, i find the rush comparison interesting. comparisons to rush are not generally well-received in the indie rock world, but i *do* hear a likely unconscious objectivist strain in the lyrics.

???

?june 15, 2011?

i don't think the battles comparisons are fair for this disc, although they are for the next disc. this is really more in the tradition of late tortoise, taken to the next level.

???

?july 4, 2011?

it's not the song that hasn't aged, it's our culture that's stagnant.

???

?oct 18, 2011?
@pilates68 i agree with you. there are some great musical pieces post-gabriel. it's hard to imagine genesis without entangled, blood on the rooftops or even the duke suite. but, they lost the plot. they lost the cinematics, the edge....

@pilates68 but you shouldn't ignore the fact that gabriel lost a lot of the same things when he left, too. it took him until his third disc to become relevant again, and it really wasn't until he turned to soundtracks that he started producing some really serious music again.

???

?dec 1, 2011?

it seems to be that the issue the dog was grappling with wasn't whether it could open the door or not but whether it was "allowed" to open the door or not.

???

?jan 2, 2010?

this is the cia's first attempt to claim that those who would compare the war to vietnam are taliban sympathizers. obama's had a hard-right streak in him since day one. he tossed his bread crumbs at the masses with the health care bill - now get ready for a rough ride through the badlands of mccarthyism, destination: iran.

???

?jan 5, 2010?

woah. pythagoras was right....whodda thunk _that_ one?

???

??jan 7, 2010??

you ms vs. apple guys make me laugh. gates saved apple from bankruptcy (look it up) for one reason and one reason only: to escape the possibility of antitrust action over desktop operating systems. there was a period in the 90s when it looked like gates was going to become the supreme ruler of the universe and that all pcs in the world would be running his operating system. today, a viable competitor exists: apple. gates needs a strong apple to get the feds off his back.....

???

?feb 15, 2010?
america is a continent? kind of like africa is a country? there are two americas (i'm not quoting john edwards) and they are both continents. it's correct to say that canadians, americans and people from "central america" are north americans, and some canadians do think of themselves in this way, but to claim that "america is a continent" and conclude that canadians are americans is something that canadians would find deeply offensive, much as the irish and scots resent being called british.

???

?feb 15, 2010?

i hope it didn't hurt itself jumping through the window, which it probably didn't understand even was a window.

???

?aug 1, 2010?

i agree that these guys are the best straight up, in your face rock act that i've heard in years and years and years and years.

???

?sept 19, 2010?

yeah, i'd say this is pretty intense.

?dec 27, 2010?

it's public knowledge that corgan was using a mutron biphaser during the time period, the same model that sonic youth used

good luck finding one...

???

?mar 1, 2009?

abstractly, you're right on, but with elephants it's more than a sign of extreme boredom. it's a sign of extreme hopelessness, a response to trauma and sometimes even a warning sign of aggression. humans do it too when we go into the "fetal position" and rock back and forth as a response to something terrible or a precursor to irrational behaviour.

that elephant has been driven insane by the hopelessness of being held in captivity; elephants understand freedom in remarkably human terms.

????

?nov 20, 2009?

this guy....he's brutal. the premise of him taking the spin out of everything is comical precisely because he doesn't understand anything.

the idea of the photo was simple: they were casting sarah as the ditsy cheerleader stereotype. this is what the article is about, so it was chosen precisely because it is IN context. it wasn't sexist; it had nothing to do with her gender. it was an underhanded attack on her intelligence.

the comparison would be to bush cast as the terminator.

???
it's all so amazingly ironic. the right has been complaining for years about political correctness.

attacking palin's intelligence or criticizing her for being an airhead is not sexist because the criticism is completely accurate. accepting equality means accepting that *some* women are morons, just as *some* men are morons. palin is one of the female morons.

if the media cannot tear down those who are mentally unfit to hold office due to political correctness then we're entering a scary era.

by comparison, if the cover cast clinton, rice or livni in such a pose then it WOULD be sexist because the stereotype doesn't hold. clinton has a post-doctoral degree and a resume the length of palin's vocabulary. i believe rice was the youngest person ever to graduate from her college and she had a lengthy stay through several administrations. livni was also more than qualified.

palin really IS completely clueless about everything and this WAS the context!

....but the article in the magazine was partially about how she's gotten this far partially through her looks, in spite of her weak intellect! this *is* the context!

i can't post these yet. but.

oct 1? 2008

hrmmn. it looks to me more like he's ferrying a kid out of incoming fire. when are people going to begin to understand that you can not believe ANYTHING that is presented to you in the form of video? this media has no value as a form of communication.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OefgMtXOc1M

???

oct 2?, 2008

moral relativists would not claim that evil does not exist, they would claim that evil is relative to the society one exists within. as an example, there are people alive today that think that soldiers are all evil because they are murderers and there are others that think they are heroes. consider the abortion debate. a moral relativist would argue that when you brand your opponent as evil what you are really doing is stifling debate. clearly, THEIR viewpoints are invalid - they are evil.

so, in order to maintain a civil discourse in the face of controversial topics the concept of morality needs to be accepted as subjective as a very first axiom. opposing viewpoints need to be presented as viewpoints and not as moral truths, no matter how obvious and truthful these viewpoints may seem to you or i. i would brand hitler as evil without a second thought, but i would append a clause: hitler was evil relative to the set of morals that most existing societies consider fundamental.

???

oct 4?, 2008
so, what's the hold up on decriminalization, then?

???

?oct 31, 2008?

unfortunately, most people won't "get it". throughout the 70s, phil collins was one of the most talented drummers on the planet. check out his work with brand x, mike olfield, brian eno and, of course, genesis (up to about '77) for more info.

they used to say he was an "animal on the kit".

???

?oct 31, 2008?

random viewers should be informed that the track starts halfway through.

???

?nov 15, 2008?

they were asking him the wrong question, as they have been conditioned to by NWO-stooges like alex jones. the question to ask paul martin is:

"sir, do you think that you are more qualified to determine the cause of the collapse than a council of engineers and architects?"

once he said "no" and it was agreed that the experts have concluded that there were explosives, the questioner should have drawn on his background as a lawyer to help him construct the obvious chain of logic.

???