again: this is simply embarassing.

more pollution! more profit!

fucking idiots...

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/08/01/trudeau-carbon-tax_a_23493952/?utm_source=spotim&utm_medium=spotim_recirculation&spotim_referrer=recirculation

i'm not fucking around.

i'd no doubt have a hard time getting the state to pursue it, but, if i was the prosecutor, i'm sure i'd win that argument.

sorry, if you didn't get that - note that assault is considered a type of trespass, namely trespass into bodily autonomy.

if drifting smoke is trespassing on property, and it is well established that it is, then why isn't involuntary exposure to second-hand smoke trespassing on bodily autonomy, and therefore assault?

logically, it ought to be - with little ambiguity.

hrmnn.

if these were houses side-by-side, and we were both property owners, what i'd be suing her over is trespass. that is established, settled law.

if smoke entering my property would be trespassing, then why isn't smoke entering my lungs assault, in addition to nuisance?

on that note, could i just go ahead and have her charged with assault?

you might not see it that way, but the judge will, trust me.

and, where did you get your law degree from, anyways?

if this goes full kafka, note this fact: the court tends to usually accept some concept of self-defence as a valid defence.

so, a woman can defend herself against getting raped - and a non-smoker can take some action to prevent smoke from entering their space.

the reality is that charging me with harassment for yelling at a smoker blowing smoke into my apartment, the existence of a reasonable invocation of fear or not, would be legally equivalent to charging a rape victim with assault for defending herself. it's a waste of everybody's time, and almost certain to get the cop fired.

the fact is that she's creating trouble, and needs to be charged with one thing or another.

i'm half expecting a knock on the door.

if that happens, and i don't get charges filed against this woman, i'm going to be writing up reports on the officers.

i mean, in the abstract sense, at least, she's the one coming over here and smoking on me - i'm just yelling at her to fuck off. she's the aggressor, beyond any semblance of doubt; i'm just trying to defend myself, as best i can.

so, the neighbours are trying to charge me with harassment for yelling at them to not smoke beside my window.

in canada, the legal test for harassment revolves around the question of fear; they're simply wrong in their understanding of the law.

but, it's got me wondering if i might have a case against them for harassment. i've been focusing on nuisance. but, let's think this through.

this person has repeatedly come to my dwelling place and emitted noxious, carcinogenic chemicals into my living space. is it not the case that my reaction is rooted in fear - fear of annoying levels of sickness in the short term, and more dangerous ones in the long run?

see, and the difference is this: i'm in my dwelling place. i can't go live somewhere else (at least not yet). but, she could go smoke somewhere else. so, i am not going to her dwelling place, but she is in a very real way coming to mine.

well, if i file charges for nuisance, i'd might as well file them for harassment as well, right?

i mean, they can say what they want, but the bottom line is that i'm going to show up in court and prove that they actually owe me money.

nobody should ever have to pay a dime of rent if their unit has so much as a whiff of second hand smoke in it.

at least i'm not missing any showings, today.

they're now claiming i'm two months behind, which is false.

july's rent was paid with my last month's deposit. this was required due to the nature of the existing market and the fact that they would have stolen the deposit had i not taken it. i simply needed the deposit back in order to produce a deposit elsewhere, but i likewise did not want to forfeit it, and fully understand that i would have.

i admittedly currently owe them a total of $700 for august's rent. but, i expect the ruling to be closer to $7000 than $700. once i see the ruling, we can deduct $700 from the total owing - and they will actually owe me money. quite a bit of it....

if the ruling is somehow for less than $700, i will pay the balance immediately.

if i'm the tenant from hell, it's because i do know my rights.

and, they're the landlords from hell, because they don't have the slightest understanding of their obligations.

so, i've called them twice this morning.

the first agent claimed that there was no order, despite me being able to read that there is one, on my screen. the second agent suggested that the adjudicator may have indicated in the software that a order was issued, without actually ordering one.

this is all completely absurd. do i think the adjudicator opened the record in the database, but didn't upload the file? not really, no. i trust the tool more than i trust the agents. but, three people have refused to read the information to me over the phone, so i'm just going to have to sit tight until i get a response.

i sent an email to the landlord's paralegal last night indicating that i will be withholding rent until i see the order, but intend to pay the balance in full. this is under the expectation that they owe me well over $700, and that paying rent would be pointless - but also indicates that i do intend to pay it, if i'm wrong.

so, i mean, they can file what they'd like to file, but the reality is that they're the ones that owe me money, and quite a bit of it.

it would be very useful if i could get a copy of the order in the next hour, but it's not going to change how i act.

there is a court date set for the 6th of september, and there's little question that i'm going to demonstrate that they owe me money, rather than the other way around.

my goal in life is not to get out of poverty. i don't care.

whether i am above or below the poverty line is of no concern to me.

i don't want a house.

i don't want a car.

i don't want a family.

what i have is art to complete. that is my goal. that is all i care about. and, the more frustrated the situation is around it, the longer it takes to finish it - with no other consequence or corollary.

it's about quality of life.

i have things i want to do.

working is not one of them.

and, i'm going to fight as hard as i can to do the things i want, and not do the things i don't want.

i'm not hopeless.

i have very clearly defined goals and aspirations in life.

but, working isn't only not one of them, it makes accomplishing them nearly impossible.

and, here's the thing: i think you're hopeless for getting up and going to work every day.

workfare just sounds like a great excuse to get drunk, if you ask me.

the last provincial conservative government wanted to bring in a concept of workfare, but basically gave up on it when they realized that disabled people and welfare recipients actually aren't very good workers after all.

whodda thunk it. huh?

that's no doubt what they're getting at, and what we can expect.

they didn't campaign on this, or even mention it. fuck, who wanted to give them ideas, right? but, it's no doubt what they're going to do.

and, i'll tell you - i will piss on each and every cash register you put me in front of. yessir!

i have better things to do than sell shit on a market.

the thing about a market society is that it relies on a voluntary participation.

if people don't want to live in a market society, you can't force them to.

that's what friedman was actually getting at when he proposed a negative income tax - that any market society is going to have to deal with people like me that just don't want a fucking thing to do with it, and it's easier and cheaper to cut us a check and tell us to fuck off than it is to send us to boot camp or to jail.

2022, you can't come soon enough.

i mean, that's where the philosophers go when the barbarians start burning books, right?

we camp out in the library.

tried and tested.

hey, listen.

if the shit hits the fan, i really am going to bunker at the university, instead of getting a job...

i have a fucking discography to complete, dammit.

fuck.

maybe i'll even study theology.

that'll be fun.

actually, you know what, lisa?

i'll go back to school, if you really want.

just so long as the check is big enough - you can just add it to the bill i'm never going to pay, anyways.

and, you'll be gone in four years, right?

i mean, really, lisa.

what did you want to do?

send me back to school?

send me to a mosque?

what's your brilliant plan, lisa?

build me an apartment complex and enforce a non-smoking policy in it - that's what i need and what i want.

disabled should mean disabled.

and, these politicians should stop pretending they can cure the incurable with absurd appeals to producerist bullshit.