it would be ridiculous to make a prediction.

but, what i'd like to see is a liberal minority, with the greens holding the balance of power.

so, what are the tactics?

as always, the conservatives have to split the vote, somehow. they'll probably get less than 35%.

the liberals need to find a way to prevent vote splitting on the left, while holding enough moderates to keep the conservatives down. but, the primary fight is always to their left, not their right.

the ndp may want to give up altogether - and, in fact, a large number of incumbents are not running. the ndp are not even seeking the balance of power, right now - they're in a fight for party status, this election.

and, the greens need to be finding a way to build a broader tent on the left, to take advantage of the ndp's decline. if the liberals can be reduced to a minority, however small, they have some chance at gaining the balance, this election. five or six seats in bc could be all they need, if there's enough of a bloc surge in quebec.

has much changed? i don't think so.

the conservatives are still at 33% - the same place they were at in 2013. they have a base, and that base is immoveable, but they're demonstrating zero to negative growth.

so, where did all the support for trudeau go? the truth is that it was never really there in the first place.

if you looked at polling in august or even september of 2015, it would have said essentially the same thing - that the conservatives have a solid base in the low 30s, that the liberals have a base around 25%, that the ndp & greens have a smaller base, and that everybody else is vaguely left, but non-committal.

that huge undecided vote isn't completely undecided, and undecided isn't even the best way to describe it. that swing is not positioned in the centre, or unsure of whether it wants to support the liberals or conservatives. that swing is actually to the left of the liberal party, and both finding itself unhappy with the liberals and disappointed with the ndp.

in the end, it could go back to the liberals - if scheer is scary enough and the ndp is hopeless enough. but, i pointed out near the end of 2015 that the greens seemed poised to displace the ndp as the default option on the left, and that may actually be playing itself out.

the liberals are not really in an election against the conservatives, or even against the ndp, who may be decimated, but increasingly against the greens.

and, they should keep an eye on the bloc, too. those numbers in quebec are rather awful.

i keep pointing to mulroney, who lost the west to reform and quebec to the bloc. trudeau may be losing the west to the greens and quebec to the bloc.

and, the ndp might seriously be done.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/12/19/trudeau-approval-rating-poll_a_23622710/

narrative of events for investigation of the officer

so, what i'm going to do is tell you the entire story, as i remember it, from the start, as i have not yet had the opportunity to do so. i believe that the criminality of the officer's behaviour should become apparent as the story unfolds. i'm ccing the opird as a witness, as i indicated i would. any and all documents that i feel are appropriate have been attached. i apologize to the opird for the presence of any duplicate documentation.

i moved into the building at 851 tuscarora on dec 1, 2017 and almost immediately noticed that i was sleeping a lot more, but did not tie this to the effects of my downstairs neighbour's marijuana addiction until the beginning of the new year. near the end of february, i realized that i could not continue to live in a situation where i was breathing in so much second-hand marijuana smoke as it was affecting my mental and physical health, and would need to figure something out - i would either need to have this tenant evicted for smoking too much, or have the building renovated so it didn't affect me or find a way to move. after the other approaches resulted in dead-ends, i eventually had to sue my landlord for negligence to get out of the lease, as she refused to address or really even acknowledge the seriousness of the problem; canlii documentation of the relevant order, swt-16361-18, is attached. the issue around the marijuana smoke is important both because it defines the initial contact i had with the officer and because it explains why i was trying to move out of the building. i initially had some difficulty finding a low-income drug-free living situation in this city, but i did eventually succeed in moving out of the building at 851 tuscarora; i do not live at this location any longer.

so, my first contact with the officer was related to this conflict over second-hand marijuana smoke with the tenant below me. i initially called the police to investigate the situation at 22:33:05 on mar 23, 2018; they did not arrive until very early in the morning, and informed me that the tenant below me had not answered the door, see CP WI 2018-225525 (not attached). so, i called a second time at 20:05:34 on mar 24, 2018 (in fact, i had called several times in the afternoon and was refused service by the dispatcher), and had two officers arrive at 20:22, officer muntino being one of them - see CP WI 2018-22757 (not attached). as i do not have a cell phone, and the building does not have a ringer, i had to go downstairs to meet the officers and let them into the building.

the first thing that officer muntino did was notice that the entire building smelled like marijuana (which is true.) and insinuate that i was uncool for not using the drug like everybody else in the building was, completely ignoring the concerns i was having about exposure, regarding my mental and physical health. he didn’t seem to think that chronic, unwanted exposure to second-hand marijuana smoke was any kind of a serious issue, or that i had any rights to complain about the situation. after explaining to him that i was seeking to document the situation for civil reasons, and that what i was looking for was simply a report of some sort to use in court, he agreed to speak to the tenant, and came back to my apartment a few minutes later, where he told me that the tenant agreed to smoke outside in the future (she didn’t.), and then continued to insult me for being a loser because i don’t do drugs, and for being openly queer; the messaging was crystal clear - my concerns were not valid, because i’m not a cool drug user, like the tenant downstairs, and nobody likes queer people, anyways. he then left, and i hoped i would not need to see him again.

i made the following posts to my blog on the afternoon of mar 25, 2018:

Sunday, March 25, 2018

the reason i was thinking about sarah last night was that i had to call the cops, not once but twice. i was supposed to write this up a little, but the smoke has been so thick in here that i've been having trouble staying awake since i finally crashed on saturday morning...

i think i'm awake, now.

the cops think i'm wasting their time, but i don't remotely agree. libertarians might present arguments about legalization leading to less policing, but this is a guess - and i'm not sure an evidence-based analysis would uphold it. regardless, that has nothing to do with the reasons marijuana is being legalized, here. the government has been clear that the purpose of legalization is to reduce use - especially amongst youth - and not to promote wider use.

the government of canada recognizes that recreational marijuana use is a substantive health problem and is adjusting it's approach to the drug in order to reduce use. nothing in the changes to the laws sanctions or promotes consensual drug use, or ignores the damages created by second-hand smoke - especially to those that do not consent to be influenced by it.

if you think otherwise, you need to educate yourself on what is actually happening.

and, i don't expect it to be legalized, anyways.

if somebody put drugs in my drink that would be a reason to call the cops, right? so, why is it different if somebody put drugs in my air supply?

if somebody was burning paint thinner in the apartment downstairs, that would be a reason to call the cops, right? so, why is it different if somebody is burning marijuana?

we have these irrational ideas attached to consumption. but, if somebody makes a choice to burn any other carcinogenic chemical inside, we reference their choice in the matter as a legal concept called mens rea. that's all i'm getting out of this - that they're making the choice to pollute the air and make me sick, i.e. they're not doing it by accident and are consequently liable for the consequences.

but, drug addicts see themselves at the centre of the universe. they think everything is about them. no; this is about me, this is about my air, this is about my rights.

i was able to get the cops out here late on friday night and early on saturday night, so there will be two reports for me to reference to the landlord. the tenants eventually promised to smoke outside; we'll see if they do or not. evidence right now is sketchy. i'll make the foia request for data tomorrow.

i'll also be getting the hospital records from the times i went in for observation.

the cops kept telling me to call the landlord, but they appear to have gotten the process backwards. the cops are right that there's little they can do, and i understand that, but a warning from the cops is actually less of an escalation than a formal complaint. so, if i'm going to be doing this proportionately and fairly, i need to call the cops in to talk to them before i agitate for eviction. and, if they change their habits to smoking outside, then that request will have worked - they will have saved themselves from eviction, even if what that means is giving them more time to find a different place.

if they don't change their habits, i'll be able to present evidence to the landlord that the police officer identified the smell of marijuana, that the tenant admitted to smoking inside the unit (!) and that there is consequently grounds for eviction, due to illegal behaviour on the premises of the property.
at 17:22

the language the cop used was "nice".

it was,

i talked to the tenant downstairs, and she seems really nice.

the cop then underhandedly implied i was a fag for trying to throw her out, rather than trying to get to know her. and, he was absolutely right, although i'd reject the implication that there's something wrong with that.

a lot of people of either gender are going to interpret a 30-something curvy pothead as "hot", and i don't doubt this. but, everything about what's happening is utterly revolting to me.

this is not my type, and never was.

i'm not likely to date anybody of either gender again, but i'd be more likely to go for an underweight straight-edge vegan than a pothead that looks like a stripper. insofar as i am attracted to women, or ever was, i definitely have always preferred the modern yoga body to the traditional hour-glass...

i'm actually just likely to interpret curvy women as overweight. that whole culture around large asses is just gross, to me, and i've always felt the same way about large breasts.

but, regardless, i wouldn't date a pothead. it would have been easier to stomach when i was a smoker, but now that i'm not, it's really a non-starter. it's just not a quality i'd want out of somebody i'm spending a lot of time with...
at 18:41

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
ADDICTION IS AGENCY
at 20:18

=======

so, this was my first experience with officer muntino. while i got the report out of him that i wanted to get, he made it clear that he thought there was something wrong with me for trying to evict this woman rather than trying to have sex with her - that he thought i was a loser because i don’t do drugs or have sex with women, and my concerns were consequently entirely invalid. the interaction really exuded toxic masculinity on every possible level. but, this was not the first time i’d been insulted for being openly queer, and i got what i wanted, so i didn’t really think twice about it.

i didn’t get around to filing the foia request until june; the attached documents were released to me on june 20th. the attached civil case was heard on july 5th. a second issue involving officer muntino occurred on july 8th, regarding a situation that started in may and began to escalate over the month of june.

while i suspect that these concerns are not unrelated to each other, i have no direct evidence to present to demonstrate that they are, but would rather request that the department look into the matter to see what kind of communication existed between officer montino, the landlord at 851 tuscarora (ina sanford / lakewind enterprises) and the complainant on july 8th (hilda currie). the period to look for communication between these parties would be from may 1st to july 31st. i am asking the department to look into this because i would not expect to be successful in a foia request of this nature, but i may need to try one if i have to appeal to get charges laid. based on what i could see happening outside of my window, it seemed as though some co-ordination was occurring, but actionable evidence in the case would need to be in the form of a record of communication between the conspirators. my belief is that the landlord was aware that she had lost the case on july 5th, and may have colluded with the neighbour to try and have me arrested as retaliation.

regardless of any co-ordination that did or did not exist, officer muntino did appear at my door a second time on the afternoon of july 8th.  what follows is the statement of disagreement that i attached to the occurrence (go # wi 2018-56622, not attached, as i received it via disclosure) on nov 28th, via a mfippa request, and may or may not be updated in the system as of dec 19th. this statement of disagreement goes over the context of the call and narrates the officer’s first (dubious) attempt to arrest me for harassment, in hypothesized retaliation for the civil action.

=======

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.

(deleted.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.

=========

so, that was my second interaction with the officer. you will notice that there is a commonality, here, of the officer standing up for smokers, to the point of badly misinterpreting the law to do so. once again, the officer broadcast the perspective that my concerns were invalid because i’m uncool. two occurrences, however, is not yet a pattern - a pattern needs three examples.

the court order around the marijuana smoke came down on aug 1st, giving me two months to plan a move. i learned in this process that it is very difficult to find low-income, drug-free housing in windsor, and i consequently found myself increasingly desperate to find a way out of the absolutely terrible situation that i was in.

the third issue with officer muntino began on sept 12th, and is previously documented by me in the opird complaint:

Summary of complaint
Please note formatting has been stripped for preview purposes - original intact
this officer has threatened me with arrest for a non-crime on two occasions. the first occurrence occurred by phone, and i have a recording of it. the officer called me at 3:56 am - that is almost 4:00 in the morning - on sept 12, and threatened to arrest me for repeatedly responding to an online ad. the number that the officer called me from was (removed). i txted a response to this number, and was told it is not an officer's number. it must have been a friend or partner's number, i suppose. i do have the recording of the officer identifying himself and can email it somewhere. i explained that my behaviour - repeatedly responding to an online ad for an apartment - is not harassment under the criminal code, and not only would i not stop, but i am preparing a human rights case against the landlord, for discriminating against me on enumerated grounds. the second occurrence happened at roughly 12:00 pm on sept 16th. two officers showed up at my door (the other was a white male officer and said nothing during the encounter), and this "constable mancino" threatened me with arrest a second time if i did not stop responding to the ad. i asked the officer to explain what harassment under the law is, and he failed to do so in a correct manner. he seemed to believe that harassment is merely annoying somebody, rather than threatening to harm them. of course, if that were true, then telemarketing would be against the law, and the jails would be full of call centre agents. it's just wrong. after determining that the officer did not understand the law, i told him i didn't have time for this, encouraged him to launch a report if he wanted to and went to close the door. he then put his foot in the door, preventing me from doing so. i informed him that he does not have a warrant, and yet he still refused to move his foot. he did eventually move his foot after i asked him to several times. he then threatened to arrest me if i reply to the ad again - not if i conduct in threatening or harassing behaviour, but if i merely reply to the ad. on his way out, i asked him for his badge number and he refused to give it to me. he started with "184" and then said he already gave it to me, which he did not. even if he had already given it to me, that would not be a reason to not give it to me again. when a citizen asks for a badge number, an officer should state it slowly and repeatedly if necessary. this officer may have been acting out of bias regarding my gender identity, as i am openly transgendered, but i cannot state that for certain. regardless, he should not have called me at 4:00 am from an unofficial police number that may or may not have belonged to his friend or partner, he should not have threatened me with arrest without understanding the nature of the law, he should not have prevented me from closing the door without a warrant and he should have given me his badge number when i asked. i would suggest that this particular officer has a superiority complex, is unreformable and should probably look for a different line of work.

=====

i have little to add to this, but i can re-articulate the point about what the officer said. when the officer appeared at my door, i had already received the voice message, and had already been dubiously threatened with arrest by him in july, so it was already clear to me that the officer had a poor understanding of harassment. i consequently asked him point blank to define harassment. i am forced to paraphrase, but if it were a play it might be something like this:

officer: if you don’t stop replying to the ad, i’m going to charge you with harassment.
me: can you define harassment for me?
officer: harassment is when you repeatedly behave in a manner that annoys somebody, after being told not to.
me: ok. right. i don’t have time for this...file a report if you want....

as mentioned, i then went to close the door, and the officer physically prevented me from doing so, repeating again that he’ll arrest me if i continue to reply, and refusing to give me his badge number when asked.

and, after that, i felt i had no choice but to disobey the officer, regardless of anything else, as i refuse to live in a society where people with guns can bang on your door and tell you to stop being annoying. if that were reality, it would be a policed state, and a policed state is something that’s worth fighting against. generating evidence for the human rights complaint - which is ongoing - became secondary to standing up to police intimidation. freedom is not something you can put on a shelf and forget about; rights need to be exercised, or they are lost. so, there’s a point where you have to disobey the officer simply for the sake of it, and hold him accountable if the intimidation persists, and that is where i was at with this, and where we are with this today.

and, i was in fact arrested for criminal harassment, without further warning, and by other officers, on sept 24th and then released on sept 25th. basic disclosure was not provided until oct 22nd. a request for detailed disclosure was made on oct 24th. the charges were dropped on nov 14th, under the admission that no evidence was ever collected by officer muntino, and the arrest was entirely unwarranted.

again: i cannot attach disclosure documents, but i would encourage you to look up the file:

1) case: regina v parent, jason
2) information no 18-2187
3) occurrence no 18-77979

i would reiterate that the premise that applying for an ad in good faith could ever be harassing behaviour is completely preposterous, and that the idea that any officer could have me arrested for such a thing is so outlandish that occam’s razor demands a simpler explanation. given my history with this officer - now documented in some detail - i believe it is far more likely that he was behaving out of malice, and simply taking advantage of the situation to finally throw me in jail, as he had already threatened to do, and to satisfy some kind of ego trip or something.

i have not filed a disagreement for this occurrence because i’ve applied for a file destruction, instead.

but, when i told the officer to go ahead and file a report, it was with the assumption that he would seek a warrant, as he is required to do under the law. criminal harassment is an indictable offence, so he would need probable cause before he could make an arrest without a warrant, which is outlandish to even define, in context. in the police report, the justification presented is that i was “unpredictable”, which is both unsupported by any evidence (my behaviour was actually entirely predictable - i replied to the ad in exactly the same way every time it was reposted), and the literal negation of probable cause - rather than present an argument that i posed a defined, credible threat to this person, which is necessary to make an arrest, the officer argued that there wasn’t a defined, credible threat at all, by claiming i was “unpredictable”, and then in a feat of incredible orwellian logic, presented that as probable cause.

in fact, i have no criminal record, and there was no reason to suspect any sort of threat at all. so, there was no probable cause, whatsoever.

in the absence of any probable cause, and without a warrant, the arrest was completely illegal. at most, i should have been provided with a summons to appear. thankfully, the justice realized that and had me released on recognizance.

so, to recap, what we have here is a pattern of harassing behaviour that included insulting me for not doing drugs, insulting me for my gender expression and sexuality, insulting me for not smoking cigarettes, threatening me with arrest on dubious or frivolous charges related to standing up for my own rights, filing false reports, clear intimidation on the behalf of a powerful landlord and finally illegally arresting me on an indictable offence without a warrant and without probable cause - all in an apparent attempt to enforce some kind of vigilante justice on me for daring to stand up for my rights, as a non-smoker.

with cops like this, why do we have jails at all?

charges should be filed, and the officer should be removed from the force.

https://www.google.com/search?q=mbs+is+the+new+saddam+hussein%2C&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

rather than kneejerk against the facts, the sikh community ought to be engaging in a moment of self-reflection about it's history of violence, and realizing that it needs to be constantly engaging in a process of harm reduction that includes working with authorities to identify potential threats for violence.

denial isn't a river in india, it's a river in egypt.

Some individuals in Canada continue to support Sikh (Khalistani) extremist ideologies and movements. This political movement aims to create an independent homeland for Sikhs called Khalistan, in India. Violent activities in support of an independent Sikh homeland have fallen since their height during the 1982-1993 period when individuals and groups conducted numerous terrorist attacks. The 1985 Air India bombing by Khalistani terrorists, which killed 331 people, remains the deadliest terrorist plot ever launched in Canada. While attacks around the world in support of this movement have declined, support for the extreme ideologies of such groups remains. For example, in Canada, two key Sikh organizations, Babbar Khalsa International and the International Sikh Youth Federation, have been identified as being associated with terrorism and remain listed terrorist entities under the Criminal Code.

there are no factual errors in this report, that i can see. some people might not like these facts, but that's just too bad.

sikhism, like any other religion, is intrinsically subject to the whims of an extremist fringe of "true believers". it consequently doesn't matter what passage of time exists between attacks - the threat of violence is perpetual, and of infinite length. and, there's not anything that sikhs, as a community, can do to completely eradicate the threat, other than to practice a form of harm reduction and/or denounce their belief system, altogether.

it doesn't matter how well you tame your pet lion, it's still a lion - so long as you have a pet lion, you are under constant threat of being mauled.

as an aside, this idea that sikhs aren't muslims is disingenuous. i understand that most people don't know a lot about sikhism, and i mostly don't, either. frankly, i'm not sure it really even qualifies as a religion - it seems to be more of an ethnic nationalism and doesn't seem to have a very developed sense of theology. but, insofar as sikhism is a religion, it is in fact largely a branch of islam. and, i'm sure you'd actually get a diversity of opinions about that, like you get a diversity of opinions about whether mormons are christians or not.

but, whether it's really a religion, or really a branch of islam, it is certainly an ideology, and all ideologies are inherently dangerous at the fringes, and there's nothing that can be done about that besides abolishing it.

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/pblc-rprt-trrrsm-thrt-cnd-2018/index-en.aspx#s113

"it was thirty years ago.

get over it."

it's the kind of thing that happens in a third world country.

...which we appear to be on our way towards becoming.

there is essentially no way to justify modifying an intelligence report due to a public backlash, however powerful the special interest group involved may happen to be. once you allow for this kind of interference, you're putting the question of policy in the hands of the highest bidder, and reducing the internal workings of government to a bidding process.

this is the kind of corruption that western democracies have historically generally avoided - it's what makes our form of government inherently better, and more attractive for people fleeing oppression and violence.

the takeaway should really be a reflection on how powerful the sikh community is in canada right now, and whether that's something that should be resisted or not. i don't have an opinion on an independent khalistan, but i'm certain that i don't want to live in the punjab, or be subject to the kind of governing traditions that exist there.

well, the lack of any recent evidence of concrete attacks doesn't erase the existence of these separatist militant groups - that's a grade school logical fallacy. it's like arguing that jaguars aren't dangerous to canadians just because we don't have any records of them attacking us. these remain militant groups that need to be monitored, whether they're bombing us this month, or not.

the air india attack was the worst terrorist attack in canadian history. is that not enough?

have we forgotten the flq?

the intelligence community cannot be folding to this kind of specious political correctness - they must be allowed to do what they do, independent of political interference.

and, if people find the facts offensive, that's too bad.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4765136/sikh-extremism-ralph-goodale-canada/

the left should be campaigning hard against trudeau in 2019, but with the understanding that we are better off reducing him to a minority than we are in defeating him outright.

it would be useful for the liberals to hang on to some seats in alberta.

if you want to win a provincial election in alberta, you need to focus on the rural areas - you can't just win edmonton.

but, the federal liberals are not trying to win an election in the oil patch, they are trying to hold on to seats in the downtown cores, where people actually have diverse employment options, just like they do in all the other urban and suburban centres in this country.

and, the irony is that this is what we all should have learned from the ndp's surprise win in 2015 - that edmontonians and calgarians actually have other things on their mind besides the oil industry, that they care about health care and education and the environment, just like canadians everywhere else.

notley is a sellout, and she's going to be destroyed. trudeau should be essentially taking everything she says and negating it, at this point, if he wants to hold on to some of the urban support that is going to abandon her as conservative-lite.

self-interest suggests that the liberals should focus less on the oil sector and more on health care, if they want to win in calgary or edmonton.

i have absolutely no idea, whatsoever, why trudeau is pretending he has any chance of winning an election in alberta, at all.

he seems to have difficulties with reality, this guy.

the small handful of ridings that the liberals may be competitive in are just traditional urban seats that, if they are going to vote liberal, are going to do so on social policy.

so, these columnists are correct - and the correct reaction is to focus on ontario.

https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/corbella-buying-us-with-our-own-money-doesnt-work-in-alberta-mr-trudeau