my prints have now been officially destroyed.

so, i'm caught up to the end of february and i need a short nap...

the review of the act, dated to april 2011, states that:

Through my consultations with the parties listed in Appendix 2, I heard that while we are not in a time of war, as in 1939 when the PWPA was enacted, we live in an age of international  and  local terrorism  threats.  Our  democratic society  must  be  vigilant in maintaining a proper level  of security while  recognizing  that  democratic  values and security issues can conflict where public order is at issue.  It is important to highlight that provincial legislation exists dealing with both terrorism threats and emergency situations.  I  have  been  informed that  federal and  provincial couunter-terrorism  plans  exist  that address preventing and responding to acts of terrorism.

(http://www.mcscs.jus.gov.on.ca/sites/default/files/content/mcscs/docs/ec088595.pdf)

it then cites the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, which i suppose i need to flip through next.

so, we learn here that the act had certainly been contemplated in the context of anti-terrorist legislation, and that it was enacted in 1939, when canada went to war against the nazis as a part of the british empire (and in response to the german invasion of poland, rather than the bombing of pearl harbour). it's intent does appear to be directed at combating terrorism, in the context of the second world war.

i mentioned earlier that i thought the bill was written during the bill davis era, and i do have a very specific recollection of that. the bill that i read in early 2013 was dated to the late 70s - it was davis era, and, notably, pre-charter. i am certain of that.

so, is there a variant of the bill from the 70s that specifically mentions charges of terrorism?

or am i reflecting on some commentary that i read?

i am deciding that this does not matter - the act was repealed, i admit as much, and i do consequently acknowledge that my analysis was out of date, whether i can find this or not....

reading through the pwpa, it's easy enough to figure out what the thing that i read at the time, whatever it was, said: it must have argued that tampering with or trespassing on to what was defined as a "public work" could lead to terrorism charges.

but, given that i'm dealing with what may have been a commentary on legislation that was repealed five years ago, this may be quite hard to find. the author may have even taken the page down.

i am acknowledging that the law i was thinking of was repealed, and it might be best to leave it at that.

iirc, i found a case that cited the act, and i went and looked it up.

and, i was right to point out that it was of questionable constitutional value - it was indeed repealed a few years later.

but, it was the law at the time, nonetheless.

i was mostly concerned about my friends getting searched for marijuana, or magic mushrooms, and having no defense because they were at city hall - and not understanding what the law actually said.

but, let me find that case.

this is the repealed law:
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p55/latest/rso-1990-c-p55.html

and, according to canlii, my hunch was correct - it was indeed replaced with this one, as i suspected:
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/so-2014-c-15-sch-3/latest/so-2014-c-15-sch-3.html

the new law would not include railways in it's scope. so, what i was citing has been repealed, and i should stop citing it.

but, i still need to find the connection between the public works protection act and the charge of terrorism, which i must have read in a case...

i'm notorious for not keeping track of sources, at this point, aren't i? i'm bad at this, i admit it. but, i'll argue it's more important to remember the content of what you're reading than it's title or author...

on third thought, it must have been the public works protection act that i'm thinking of, or some case that cited it.

in the public works protection act (which was in force over the winter of 2012-2013, but has since been repealed),

1) there is a reference to

any railway, canal, highway, bridge, power works including all property used for the generation, transformation, transmission, distribution or supply of hydraulic or electrical power, gas works, water works, public utility or other work, owned, operated or carried on by the Government of Ontario or by any board or commission thereof, or by any municipal corporation, public utility commission or by private enterprises,

....as being a public work, which is the collection of things i remember.

2) "any provincial and any municipal public building" is covered as a public work, which would include city hall.

3) a guard or peace officer (not even a cop!):

may search, without warrant, any person entering or attempting to enter a public work or a vehicle in the charge or under the control of any such person or which has recently been or is suspected of having been in the charge or under the control of any such person or in which any such person is a passenger;

...which is what i was trying to get across.

4) A guard or peace officer may arrest, without warrant, any person who neglects or refuses to comply with a request or direction of a guard or peace officer, or who is found upon or attempting to enter a public work without lawful authority

============

so, this is the law i cited to the food not bombs kids to try to make them understand the danger they were in serving at city hall, which they naively thought they had special rights at because it was "public property", i'm certain of it.

but there is no reference to terrorism. that must have been case law. let me find that....

so, what's going to happen today?

even the last minute polls appear to have had buttigieg in them. we have no idea. all i can give you is my gut.

- i think that sanders will be competitive everywhere, except alabama.
- i think that both buttigieg and klobuchar will see their voters mostly move to warren, and sanders will get a bigger bump than biden, mostly in rural counties. this could be a 10+ point bump for warren in some places.
- steyer, on the other hand, will see almost all of his voters go back to biden, and this will be a 10 point bump in some places.
- however, i do not expect warren to win any states; that 10+ point bump will be lucky to get her to 20%, in her best states.
- i do not expect bloomberg to win any states, either. however, i do expect him to cut deeply into biden's totals.
- i do not expect biden to be competitive in the west or the north. he will be competitive in the south, and he will win some states, but his delegate total will be severely hampered by bloomberg, and sanders may come up the middle in a few places.

anybody trying to be more specific than this is full of shit.

and, it's a problem because we can't independently verify the results. they could cheat very badly, and we wouldn't know.

but i still need to stress the importance of not trying too hard to push her out.

it was a mistake to push these other candidates out, and now the party needs her in to appeal to the demographics that they need to win.

a better strategy is just ignoring her.

so, what happens when a player repeatedly defects, as warren has done?

the other players take note, and learn to defect against her, too.

which is what should happen, now.

so, warren may win the game against klobuchar by defecting, and, likewise, she may win the game against buttigeg by defecting, but these victories should be pyrrhic, because it should broadcast to the other players that she's a defector.

or, as she put - a capitalist to her bones.

i know that warren doesn't think this is a game, but that's really an unfortunate comment from somebody that should, and i'm sure does, know better.

the subgame between buttigieg and biden was one thing. even with the endorsement, i suspect it works out to a D,D because there's not enough time to really meaningfully co-operate. i may be abusing the notation, a little.

but, there wasn't really a game being played between biden and klobuchar - the subgame was between between klobuchar and warren.

i stated a little earlier this evening that the system would award warren's bad behaviour. another way to state this is to point out that this is the situation where klobuchar cooperates, and warren defects. in that situation, warren gets a big pot and klobuchar gets nothing.

you can call klobuchar stupid, if you'd like.

but, warren's the one that keeps arguing this is about character.