i'm actually kind of aghast at the hypocrisy i'm hearing from defenders of aziz ansari.

but, maybe the hypocrisy is exposing what #metoo is really about, which is a violent enforcement of a diversity strategy rather than a vigilante lynch mob. it seems like it was never about what these men did or didn't do, and more about perceived injustices in how they obtained their positions of power given the intersection of their gender and skin colours.

here is the reality of #metoo: if azis ansari were a white man, he'd be torn down as fast as the next one. but, he's getting a pass on this because he's not white, because the oppressor in the narrative is supposed to be a white male. it's a weird twist: he's being rejected for the role of villain due to his race. whites only.

....because that's what this is really about, and why it doesn't matter if the accusations are true or not, so long as the people falling are white men from positions of perceived privilege. 

jagmeet singh must cut his beard

it's a rather entitled view from john robson, who seems to think that taxpayers have some obligation to fund groups that are promoting visions that are antithetical to existing society. this is the construction of some kind of positive right to religion, and the fabrication of a duty of the crown to nurture it.

certainly, these groups have every right to continue to flounder into irrelevance, as they promote a message that nobody wants to hear. they can yell at the trees all they want. but, just not with public money.

it's true that the charter doesn't explicitly protect for abortion, but the argument that struck down abortion was fundamentally about access at demand, actually, yes. it was found that a ministerial system of approval was resulting in delays that were affecting women's choices, and that the system needed to be altered to provide for greater access. this was fundamentally about striking down the idea that government ought to be making choices for women and asserting the idea that women ought to be able to make those choices for themselves. so, any system that would restrict access at any level of effectiveness would indeed be a charter breach, based on case law around the right to security of the person. while it's not a direct right in the charter, trudeau is actually correct that the existing precedent would clearly be to treat abortion as though it is, as a construction of s. 7.

but, you see the same error in these concepts of freedom of expression across the right of the spectrum, don't you? they don't have any grasp of a reality where they're actually being suppressed, so they attach this entitlement to being heard. but, freedom of expression is not the right to be heard, it is only the right to speak. trudeau has done nothing here to infringe on this. he's merely updated the policy to reflect the existing social norms.

i hope he remains consistent in his policies around this.

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/john-robson-trudeau-defies-the-truth-with-nonsense-as-effortlessly-as-trump

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

ok, so i've got the facebook pages updated. i'm going to ultimately convert that timeline into something hardcoded, so i'm actually really using it for data redundancy. but, if you want, you can scroll all the way back to 1996 and see a detailed time-based presentation of my first two periods.

https://www.facebook.com/pg/jessicaambermurray/

there's a condensed version mirrored at my personal facebook site, as well.

i need to close the last bunch of releases for the vlog before i can get back to the alter-reality, but first i need to eat...

i've decided that i need to approach the master list a bit more cumulatively to start. so, i should just get right to reading what was written over 1996, and writing 1997 and planning out 1998. i can get to filling the rest in once that's been taken care of.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.