Are the Officer’s Words Credible?

When a witness makes a demonstrably false claim, their credibility is generally called into question. I have clearly demonstrated that the officer lied about the time of the call, positioning it at 6:08 PM, when the timestamp on the audio file is 3:56 AM. I was also able to pull out an incorrect address in the report on the neighbour. If the officer is going to lie about the time of the call, why would you believe anything else that he says? Further, if the department is going to uphold a lie in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, in an apparent attempt at a cover-up, why would you believe anything else that the department says?

I can resend the file, if it’s been lost. For now, here is a screenshot of the voicemail, indicating the time of reception.

Regarding the Question of Intimidation and Harassment By The Officer

I documented three occurrences of harassing behaviour by the officer, leading up to a series of legally incoherent threats and an eventual illegal arrest and arbitrary detention. However, the report did not make any attempt to put the situation into context. Given the clear illegality of the arrest, and apparent cluelessness of the department in general, I must insist that these accusations be properly investigated.

Regarding the Question of Transphobic Bias

A key part of my complaint was a feeling that the officer was behaving out of a transphobic bias. By referring to me using masculine pronouns, despite my clear indication that I have a female identity, the report perpetuates the bias that I requested be examined, leaving me more concerned about a bias than I was to begin with. While an explanation for this does appear in the report, it hardly seems credible; it is rather quite readily apparent that the insistence on masculine pronouns is intended to insult and degrade me. There is really no other way to explain it.

For the record, I have been on high potency hormones for nearly ten years. I am not at the start of a transition, but functionally through it. My appearance is unambiguously female, and the continued claims to the contrary are not grounded in empirical reasoning but simply in a continued insistence on prejudicial bias. I’m a girl, and it is clear to all who have eyes.

The report really just confirms my suspicion, so I must insist that this question be more thoroughly examined.

Regarding the Question of The Foot in The Door

My recollection of the situation is clearly rather different than the officer’s, but the officer nonetheless clearly acknowledges placing a foot in the door; rather than deny the encounter, he has made up an excuse to justify it, one that doesn’t even contradict the accusation. I will deny that I yelled through the door and rather insist upon my recollection of events, which was that I asked him to move his foot multiple times (reminding him that he did not have a warrant) and was unable to close the door until he left. Why, exactly, would I file a false complaint, in context? Given that the officer’s credibility is in question, his recollection of events should be taken with a grain of salt. I must insist that these claims have been substantiated by the officer’s own statements - that he acknowledges preventing me from closing the door, whatever his excuse, and should be held accountable for it.

Regarding the Question Of The Badge Number

The reasoning utilized in the report that I must have been provided with a badge number because I heard part of it is facile to say the least. Again - what would the purpose of filing a false report of this nature be? If I had the badge number, would I not have provided it? To suggest this is unsubstantiated is disingenuous; the fact that i got a few of the numbers correct actually substantiates the claim pretty strongly. I must insist this be rethought.

About The Phone

I initially responded to the voice message on the morning of Sept 12 (when i woke up), and received the following response at 9:48, and fairly quickly iirc. If the phone was a loaner, that would mean that it was returned to the office and lent back out again between the hours of 4:00 AM and 9:48 AM - a stretch, if you ask me. I must insist that this question be revisited.

and, you will note my clock is military - 09:48 is 9:48 am.

About The Officer’s Understanding Of The Law

My statements were clear - I asked the officer to define what harassment is, under a clear concern that he hadn’t the slightest actual clue, and he specifically referred to the idea of being “annoying”, which is simply objectively false. This was a few weeks after he tried to tell me that nuisance does not exist under the criminal code. While I understand that the officer is neither a lawyer nor an encyclopedia, one would expect that he would at least look up a law before he tries to make an arrest, or get a warrant if he’s not sure, and at least take it to heart when somebody tries to explain something to him, which I did rather clearly. The cliché is that there is a difference between ignorance and stupidity; we are all ignorant of many things, it is a natural condition of existence, but we are only stupid when we refuse to acknowledge our ignorance. This would not have happened had he simply listened to me, and made an attempt to understand me. The report attempts to frame the issue around the officer’s obligations to explain the law to a civilian, which is just a red herring - the issue at hand is not whether I understand the law, but whether the officer does; this is an officer that aggressively pursued a completely ridiculous interpretation of the statute, with no interest in the truth of the matter. Such an officer is a clear and present danger to civilians, as he operates on ideology rather than on evidence or reason. I think I explained this point clearly enough at the top of the page, and would insist that the issue be revisited - does this officer understand the law well enough to continue being an officer? Is he capable of learning it? This is the important question here, not whether he tried his best to explain a statute to somebody with a math degree and three years worth of law credits, and that understands it better than he does.

The Emails

I will attach the emails that I have in a separate file. Nobody ever asked me for them.

Conclusion

While the report is unreasonable, it is also incorrect and it is the correctness basis of review that I wish to draw a stricter attention to.

1) The main issue at hand, in hindsight, is the question of whether the arrest was legal, and this was not dealt with correctly.

2) There was no attempt to determine whether the officer’s behaviour constituted intimidation or harassment.

3) I believe that Count #1 remains unclear and requires further investigation, although the tone of the report further substantiates it.

4) I believe that the report substantiates count #2.

5) I believe that the report substantiates count #3.

On the Question of The Arrest

So, let us begin with the basics, and I am not sorry for being matronizing, as none of this should have happened at all.

There are three types of offences in the Canadian Criminal Code:

1) Summary Offences

2) Hybrid Offences

3) Indictable Offences.

The nature of the charge in R v. Storrey, namely aggravated assault, is very important, as it is purely an indictable offence. The nature of the offence is, indeed, what the case is actually about. We can quote directly, just a little bit:

At trial it was contended that the arrest and detention of the appellant contravened the right guaranteed to him by s. 9 of the Charter.  That section provides that: "Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned".  The trial judge then conducted a voir dire to determine whether there had been a breach of s. 9 of the Charter.  Unfortunately, the reasons he gave at the conclusion of the proceeding indicate some confusion on his part.  The appellant was arrested without a warrant on a charge of aggravated assault.  Therefore, the basis for his arrest is to be found within s. 450(1) (now s. 495(1)) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34.  That section provides that a peace officer may arrest without a warrant a person who has committed an indictable offence or who, on reasonable and probable grounds, he believes has committed or is about to commit an indictable offence.  Nevertheless, the trial judge stated that the arrest was unlawful because it did not comply with the requirements of s. 450(2) of the Criminal Code.  That section was inapplicable in this case.  It only applies to an offence which is either a summary conviction offence, a hybrid offence or an indictable offence listed in s. 483 (now s. 553) of the Code, which list does not include aggravated assault. 

Well, if we’re to make a simple deduction from this case, it would be that the Supreme Court would agree that the arrest would have been unlawful (and the accused would have had his s. 9 rights infringed upon) if the charge was a hybrid offence, like criminal harassment. Oops?

Let us revise the language so that it is applicable to the situation at hand:

On review it was concluded that the arrest and detention of the appellant did not contravene the right guaranteed to her by s. 9 of the Charter.  That section provides that: "Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned".  Unfortunately, the reasons he gave at the conclusion of the review indicate some confusion on his part.  The appellant was arrested without a warrant on a charge of criminal harassment.  Therefore, the basis for her arrest is to be found within s. 450(2) (now s. 495(2)) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34.  That section provides that a peace officer may not arrest without a warrant a person who has committed a hybrid offence, in any case where he believes on reasonable grounds that the public interest, having regard to all the circumstances may be satisfied without so arresting the person, and he has no reasonable grounds to believe that, if he does not so arrest the person, the person will fail to attend court in order to be dealt with according to law. Nevertheless, the investigator stated that the arrest was lawful because it complied with the requirements of s. 450(1) of the Criminal Code.  That section was inapplicable in this case.  It only applies to an offence which is an indictable offence, which does not include criminal harassment. 

What does this actually mean, though? Well, this is the entirety of 495(2), which is clearly meant to restrict the arresting authority of police, and which has my emphasis added:

Limitation
(2) A peace officer shall not arrest a person without warrant for

(a) an indictable offence mentioned in section 553,

(b) an offence for which the person may be prosecuted by indictment or for which he is punishable on summary conviction, or

(c) an offence punishable on summary conviction,

in any case where

(d) he believes on reasonable grounds that the public interest, having regard to all the circumstances including the need to

(i) establish the identity of the person,

(ii) secure or preserve evidence of or relating to the offence, or

(iii) prevent the continuation or repetition of the offence or the commission of another offence,

may be satisfied without so arresting the person, and

(e) he has no reasonable grounds to believe that, if he does not so arrest the person, the person will fail to attend court in order to be dealt with according to law.

One will note the importance of the logic operator, and. I have some academic background in law, but my actual degree is in mathematics, so I can be pretty oppressive in my enforcement of logic. Any statement in the form (A and B) is true if and only if both A is true and B is true. What that means is that the statute reduces to the necessity of the officer to prove I was a flight risk, which means producing positive evidence to suggest as much, and which was never even contemplated - the discussion is merely of “reasonable grounds”, which is never coherently defined, but clearly assumed to be in the inapplicable context of an indictable offence.

If this discussion comes as a shock to you then I am sorry, but it simply demonstrates your incompetence - and perhaps demonstrates the lawlessness defining standard arrest procedures both in windsor and throughout the country. The reality is that this is what the law actually says about the matter, whatever day-to-day policing actually is.

What that means is that the officer had two lawful choices in how to approach the situation:

1) he could have issued a summons for me to appear in court or

2) if he insisted on arresting me on a hybrid offence, and could not demonstrate a flight risk, he’d need to get a warrant first.

Simply claiming “reasonable grounds” to make an arrest on a hybrid offence is in fact unlawful in this country, whether it happens frequently or not.

Now, I have attempted to find some actual relevant jurisprudence around s. 495(2) and have not found much at canlii; it seems to be that the issue doesn’t come up much, hopefully because canada is a free society, so people don’t get arrested on bullshit charges or arbitrarily detained very often. My faith in the system is shaken, but not broken; I am going to hope that the lack of precedence around 495(2) is a positive signal that Canada is indeed still a free country, after all.

Nonetheless, I did find the following statement produced in passing within R. v. Boudreault 2018 SCC 58, in an entirely unrelated context, which upholds the logic operator; this emphasis is the court’s:

Assuming (without deciding) that warrantless arrest can properly be used as a means to compel attendance in these circumstances, I note that this can occur only if the peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe that it is in the public interest to arrest the person and that the person will fail to attend court (in accordance with s. 495(2)).  In determining whether arrest is in the public interest, the peace officer must consider whether arrest is necessary to establish the identity of the person, to secure or preserve evidence, or to prevent the continuation of the offence or the commission of future offences. 

There is simply absolutely no indication that anybody involved in the arrest had any understanding of any of this; all evidence suggests that they were relying on a completely inapplicable precedent intended for strictly indictable offences, and perhaps do so on a day-to-day basis. This is actually quite startling.

But, what of these “reasonable grounds”, anyways?

I am rather baffled by what appears in the report. The investigator made the argument that the arrest was based on reasonable grounds that I was communicating with the property owner - which is clear enough, and really not in dispute. The emails exist, and I’ve never denied sending them. So, there are clearly reasonable grounds to conclude that I sent a bunch of emails to the complainant. Ok.

However, that's a gross misinterpretation of the statute. Reasonable grounds, in context, if they were relevant, would not be related to the fact of communication, but to the question as to whether there was any basis for fear. So, the officer would need to demonstrate that he thought there was a convincing reason I might harm this woman, and there clearly was no such thing.

Again, let me point you to the statute:

264 (1) No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.

So, the thing that's against the law is to scare somebody - not to communicate with them. As we live in a free society, there's no law in canada against repeatedly communicating with people when they've asked you not to, nor is the request to ask you to stop in any way meaningful or relevant, if the communication does not reasonably invoke fear. That is essentially the definition of free speech.

Subsection (2) is a list of ways you can scare somebody, but these behaviours are not criminalized, themselves, outside of the context of being scary.

So, repeatedly communicating with somebody with the intent of scaring them is indeed harassment, under the law; repeatedly communicating with somebody with the intent to sue them, or the intent to annoy them, or the intent to rent property from them is not, and hopefully never will be.

Reasonable grounds consequently consists of evidence that i'm scary, not evidence of communication. It is blatantly clear that no such evidence existed; at no point did i communicate any sort of threat of harm, and i have no criminal record. It is rather clear that no such reasonable grounds existed at all. Worse, to suggest that the arrest was justified on reasonable grounds due solely to evidence of unwanted communication is both disingenuous and grossly incompetent; this is exactly why warrants exist, and exactly why the statute demands them before making an arrest of this nature.

So much for “reasonable grounds”. Pfft.

"but he was trying to prevent me from the continuation of the offence".

what offence?

communication?

the part of the code that should have been explored is as follows:

Limitation
(2) A peace officer shall not arrest a person without warrant for

(a) an indictable offence mentioned in section 553,

(b) an offence for which the person may be prosecuted by indictment or for which he is punishable on summary conviction, or

(c) an offence punishable on summary conviction,

in any case where

(d) he believes on reasonable grounds that the public interest, having regard to all the circumstances including the need to

(i) establish the identity of the person,

(ii) secure or preserve evidence of or relating to the offence, or

(iii) prevent the continuation or repetition of the offence or the commission of another offence,

may be satisfied without so arresting the person, and

(e) he has no reasonable grounds to believe that, if he does not so arrest the person, the person will fail to attend court in order to be dealt with according to law.

=====

what that says in english is that an officer should not arrest somebody under a hybrid offence unless they think the person is a threat to re-offend or poses a flight risk, neither of which were true in this case.

the officer had two options available to him:

1) seek an arrest warrant,
2) give me a summons.

arresting me and holding me was neither appropriate nor legal, by statutory clarity; we should not be talking about "reasonable cause" here at all.

the investigator made the argument that there was reasonable grounds to conclude i was communicating with the property owner - which is clear enough, and really not in dispute.

but, that's a gross misinterpretation of the statute. reasonable grounds, in context, is not related to the fact of communication, but to the question as to whether there was any basis for fear. so, the officer would need to demonstrate that he thought there was a convincing reason i might harm this woman, and there clearly was no such thing.

the law states the following:

264 (1) No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.

so, the thing that's against the law is to scare somebody - not to communicate with them. as we live in a free society, there's no law in canada against repeatedly communicating with people when they've asked you not to.

subsection (2) is a list of ways you can scare somebody, but these behaviours are not criminalized, themselves, outside of the context of being scary.

so, repeatedly communicating with somebody with the intent of scaring them is indeed harassment, under the law; repeatedly communicating with somebody with the intent to sue them, or the intent to annoy them, or the intent to rent property from them is not.

reasonable grounds consequently consists of evidence that i'm scary, not evidence of communication. but, i posted the emails. there is no threat of harm, and i have no criminal record; it is clear that no reasonable grounds existed at all. worse, to suggest that the arrest was justified on reasonable grounds due solely to evidence of communication is both disingenuous and grossly incompetent.

regardless, that's not the right question, because reasonable grounds refers to a crime in process, or a crime that has occurred. it's hard to actually even define reasonable grounds in this context, but one would think it would need to be in the form of a clear and persistent threat - i would have had to state clearly that i intended to harm this woman.

as i've stated repeatedly, this is a crystal clear example of why cops need to get warrants. the cop had no idea what he was talking about; he simply didn't understand what the law said.

and, i'm not surprised by the content of the report...

so, what does this mean?

well, if i get the report in on monday, the director has a time frame to make a decision. and, i'll have to decide if i want to file the discrimination lawsuit before or after the report, given the existing time frames.

despite the finding of "unsubstantiated", there may be enough information in the report to move forward on some further actions.

so, i got my report - and it's bullshit, as expected.

i won't post this here, as i don't know the legality of doing so. but, i'll have the formal review ready by monday morning.

this is my short response.

------

this is exactly the waste of time from the windsor police department
that i expected it to be, and late at that.

to begin with, let us note the absurdity underlying the persistent
misgendering. i am making a complaint about transphobic bias in the
force, and in response the force appears to be purposefully
misgendering me as male throughout the report in an act of purposeful
disrespect. i have presented myself as female-identifying at every
opportunity. i can only hope that the judicial review takes note of
this, if the director does not. and, one will further note the
incompetence underlying this, as it provides me with a clear basis to
request a review - and was entirely unnecessary. the attempt to state
otherwise notwithstanding, this is simply disrespectful, and sets the
tone for the report.

further note that the officer freely admits all three claims of
misconduct in the text of the report, but then tries to make bullshit
excuses about it. while the windsor police department unsurprisingly
accepts his bullshit excuses, i adamantly and categorically do not.

i consequently reject that the investigation has found the allegations
unsubstantiated, and rather insist that the investigation has clearly
substantiated them, and insist that charges be laid against the
officer based on the strength of his own words.

further, a voicemail dated to sept 12th at 3:56 am was presented as
evidence. this is not heresay, but clear and direct evidence that
contradicts the officer's statement that the call was made at 6:08 pm
- that is, it is clear proof that the officer lied in his report.
despite this clear evidence of lying, the officer's statements are
taken at face value throughout the report, and the report itself
upholds the time of the call as 6:08 pm. this is strongly indicative
of a cover-up on behalf of the department, and an unwillingness to
actually look at the evidence.

there is no attempt to explore the fact that i had previous contacts
with this officer, or to take my allegations of intimidation and
harassment at all seriously. my complaints are neither upheld nor
dismissed but simply ignored.

while i agree that an officer is not and need not be legally trained,
that is in fact the crux of my complaint, in the broader context -
that before an arrest of this sort is to be made, an officer needs to
seek a warrant, which was not done. the officer's ignorance of the law
cannot be an excuse because the system has a process to correct for
it, which was not followed. nor is it appropriate for an investigative
officer to offer an opinion about the existence of reasonable cause,
as that is strictly a judicial role. i made this point repeatedly in
the documents that i filed. reasonable cause (whether it is even
present or not) is not the right concept to employ here, as the
officer was not witness to any sort of crime. this decision must be
made by a judge, not an officer; the substantive part of the complaint
here is in the officer's vigilantism, and no attempt was made to
censure or correct this, or even discuss it. in the end, the case was
dropped due to a poverty of evidence upholding the claim; this is why
officers are required to seek a warrant, to prevent arrests such as
this where no evidence of a crime actually exists, and to protect
innocent people from the consequences of unjustified arrest and
arbitrary detention. as such, i feel the report sidestepped the entire
issue at hand (the officer's refusal to get a warrant) in favour of an
irrelevant discussion about the investigator's irrelevant opinion
about the existence of reasonable cause.

a formal request for review - on the basis of correctness - will be
sent on or before monday morning.

j

bernie sanders is giving the american left and the left in general an opportunity that it has not had in many decades.

and, he will be mercilessly ripped apart from every direction. friends will turn on him; he will be betrayed by those he loves.

and, it could get scary to stand with his ideas.

but, remember the following words:

the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

nobody knows how this turns out. but, we can't resort to cowardice - we have to take advantage of this.

i also favour public ownership of utilities, banks and most major industries, and would encourage stimulating a broader discussion along those lines, to generate broader support for these ideas.

this is not the time to shy away from a discourse about what socialism is, it's a time to seize upon and advance it.

and, likewise, i'm going to ignore the framing around this recent polling and just look at the data, however scant it may be. here's our trend line from campaign research, which is conducting "online research" around voting intentions in the next election:

the immediate response would be "not much movement outside the margin". however, as this "online research" does not utilize random sampling, there is no margin of error to consult.

how have the conservatives changed? well, they're down a point since february, but really pretty much flat since december - and no doubt for months before that. i'm not even sure that the second coming of christ would move the conservative numbers, at this point. their base is rock solid, entirely unreachable, but they're continuing to fail at generating interest outside of it. the data really perfectly represents the stereotype of the conservative supporter as an ideologue that you simply can't argue with it, and the party as having little appeal to much of anybody else in the 21st century.

the ndp are similarly flat. but, the liberals are trending mildly downwards.

so, if the ndp and conservatives are flat and the liberals are trending down, where are the votes going?

to their discredit, campaign did not post a trend line for the other parties, but you can at least find a snapshot of the recent "online research".

looking at this, we don't know if the undecided or the greens or the bloc went up, but the greens are performing fairly well in this poll, and the undecideds are actually fairly low compared to where they were at this point last time around.

it's easy to make a conclusion then - if this "online research" is uncovering anything, it is that people are a little bit cynical about the liberals right now, but don't like the other options. you really didn't need to conduct online research to figure that out....

comparing this to the ridiculous media framing is instructive, as it demonstrates the purpose of what the firm is doing. the headline is that the liberals are in trouble; the data suggests no such thing. but, who reads the data? people read the headline. this "online research" is not meant to measure public opinion, but to create it. so, there is a gramscian caveat to my analysis: while the issue doesn't appear to have harmed the liberals at this point, if the media continues to push the point that it has then it very well may in the end.

the liberals should be more concerned about the companies doing the research than they are in the results of the research.

the substantive point that policy makers should take away from my posts on this topic is that global governing institutions are necessarily going to have a different analysis than local governments, on this topic - which isn't to suggest that self-interest should be dominant, but to necessitate that the issue has to be framed in both contexts to understand it properly, and weigh it out.

so, the ipcc might say something like "the effects of a solar minimum will not alter the trend towards increasing average temperatures, because the effects will be localized in the northern hemisphere". and, if you live in india or something, you might have little reason to think that's important.

but, if you live in the regions that are to be most affected - namely canada and northern europe - then that caveat about the northern hemisphere is not just an unimportant addendum to the global trend, but the actual primary point of concern. in canada, we might say "the continuing trend towards global warming will not overpower the localized effect of solar minima".

but, northerners should neither get disinterested or complacent, because there's no certainty here. a strong cycle 25 or 26 would completely turn the issue on it's head, and lead us to a discussion about how the two factors are all of a sudden amplifying each other. we could easily get fed up by the cold winters and decide this doesn't matter, only to wake up to an irreversible tipping point, and all kinds of feedbacks, within a year or two.

i seek only to balance the narrative. empiricism can never be overruled by ideology, and we must fight teleology and fantasy at every turn. science must remain science; we must always seek the truth, as best we can, however convenient or inconvenient it may be.

but, listen: i don't really care if you understand what i'm saying or not. and, chances are, you probably never will, because you don't have the education to do so - you just want to buy into political narratives around science that are pushed by the fake liberal press, to push an agenda, to fight the bad guys. whatever.

but, at some point you have to look at the actual data, and my analysis - as though it's my analysis, rather than a careful survey of the existing literature - has been accurate up to this point.

to begin with, don't believe people that are trying to predict the upcoming cycle. there is currently absolutely no predictive science around the strength of sunspot cycles whatsoever. the "experts", in context, are little more than clairvoyants, trying to crudely extrapolate a pattern and move it forwards on a whim. and, you can make arguments either way.

so, some people will look at it and say "the cycle has been getting weaker for decades, so we should expect it to continue to get weaker". i've challenged this by pointing out that we have no reason to assume linear dependence, and if the output is actually random (as good a guess as any other at this point), the fact that we have a long streak of decreasing outputs means we're due for a shift - a probabilistically tricky argument that many will reject when articulated that way, but which is correct nonetheless, given that we can't actually count to infinity. it would be more correct to state that the output will eventually reverse, given infinitely many experiments. i'm impatient; sorry. and, while you can't quantify randomness, we're due nonetheless.

which argument is better? that there's a trend, or that the streak is due to break? absent a mechanism, they're both shit shots. the truth is that we have no fucking idea, and don't believe anybody that tells you we do.

so, given that we don't know what the upcoming cycle is going to be like, it would be foolish to try and make a prediction around it's effects on the climate.

what we can say is that we're exiting a local minima, so we should expect some kind of local warming trend - in the northern hemisphere - within a couple of years.

this article is responding to the strawman argument that the clear historical correlation between solar output and temperature - which is extremely robust, and has nothing to do with the maunder minimum - is a consequence of tsi, which is something that no solar scientist has ever suggested. and, in fact, the science around climate change takes this as a given; the purpose of the ipcc reports is to separate anthropogenic signals from the sun, and the ultimate argument in the end is that the warming can't be caused by the sun because it is dimming.

rather, it is well understood - and i've posted dozens of articles to this site - that the mechanism underlying the correlation has to do with ultraviolet radiation, not with tsi. it is essentially a magnetic phenomenon that alters the jet stream by messing with the atmosphere.

so, you don't want to think about it like you're turning the heat down or something. rather, you want to think about it like you're moving magnets around on a sphere, with iron filings inside of it. as you change the way the magnets are oriented, you change the way the filings are arranged, and this is what we're seeing with the jet steam in the northern latitudes. but, this is something that you need a basic understanding in physics to understand - it is not intuitive and not easily explained to scientific illiterates.

as i've stated here repeatedly, this will probably not change the overall average warming trend. we can't really state for sure, but it's a question of rates - we don't think the sun is slowing down fast enough to overturn the accelerating rates of global warming. it could, though. science operates in a realm of probability and uncertainty, not in a realm of absolute knowledge or dominant fact.

but, if the sun maintains it's current trajectory, and you live in the northern hemisphere, what is being called "global warming" could turn out to be rather disappointing, as we enter a period of extended minima that frequently pushes the jet stream to the south.

https://www.theweathernetwork.com/ca/news/article/the-sun-is-quieter-than-normal-but-dont-panic

that's absolutely outrageous.

she should at least be refunded for the cost of the flight.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2019/03/13/she-wore-crop-top-her-flight-islands-airline-told-her-cover-up-or-get-off/

so, i've carefully filed this properly, backwards, to may, 2003, which is the point where things get messy, as everything for the two-three years previously dates to those burns from before i left. i will need to go through the may folder - which includes thousands of genealogical records - and pull out as much stuff from before it as possible.

i stopped to run a scandisk on the drive, just in case. it's a 2 tb drive; that's going to take the rest of the night.

i've also decided that i'm going to create that music blog after all. i think i really don't have another option at this point, as i'm going to need to cross-reference too much data, and it's the only remaining piece.

in terms of how to do this, i'm also going to move in terms of semesters, anchored by the alter-reality. if i try to do this day-by-day or even week-by-week, it will get impossible. so, i'll start with the second half of 2013, then go back and do the second half of 1993. that just extends the journal launch date that much more, but not by much - this is already done, i'm really just double-checking it. with the music blog - reviews, comments - it should become comprehensive. and, i know that's what people actually want...

my robot book should be here in the morning.

still 403s on the tripod site :(

and, i'm otherwise going to nap.

sending trudeau home from spring break is suggestive of something pretty intense.

even an announcement could have waited; a resignation, an early election....all of it could have waited until monday...

the one thing i can think of it that would require immediate attention is a revolt.

i've been clear that i think the issue driving this is trivial. i've also been clear that i'd like to see him hit the slopes, and fade in with the locals. so, i'm neither going to go along, nor push back.

and, i'm a little concerned that the medicine might be worse than the disease.

i guess that if he storms in with the grenadiers then we'll never know what happened. but, if he's too late, an announcement is likely in short order.

and, again: i am neither a jew nor a catholic. the only time in my life that i've attended services on a regular basis was in early grade school - grades 4-5 - and it was actually as a methodist, with my step-father, who was raised as a lebanese maronite. i have been strictly atheist since about the age of 10.

my mother was raised as an anglican, but never expressed any sort of religious conviction to me, and i don't think she ever had any. in the years i knew her - and i'll point out that we've barely spoke in 25 years - i don't think she attended a church service on her own initiative even once.

my father had near eastern ancestry, and i've been told it was hebrew in origin. however, both he and his father were raised as francophone roman catholics. my father would sometimes make vague references to a kind of vague deism, but i think the actual truth is that he never really thought about religion much. religion is an abstract thing; he was very concrete, very practical. i remember his third marriage, which was a civil ceremony in a community centre...so i was going to say he only went to church for weddings and funerals, but even that much isn't true. i was much closer to my father, and i never saw him go to church even once in the thirty odd years that i knew him.

i have never been to a synagogue or been through any jewish rituals. i was not even aware of any jewish ancestry until my 30s; the first story about the family's tanned skin was that we were part native american.

i was not baptized as an infant. so, i was not christened. my mom's side is very anti-catholic, and she vetoed it. however, i was baptized as a toddler, when i was 3.5. i was baptized solely in order to send me to a catholic school, not out of any actual religious conviction, and in fact only due to the differences in the catholic and public school systems. the catholic school system started kids off at the age of 4, whereas the public school system started kids off at the age of 5. by baptizing me, i was able to go to kindergarten a year earlier. i actually vaguely remember it still; i remember being afraid of the priest, and i remember my mom's cynicism around it.

i attended a catholic school until the end of grade 13, but i did not participate in the other rituals. i did not receive the second or third sacraments. as such, the catholic church would not recognize me as one of their own; the disinterest would be mutual.

atheism is a perfectly satisfying world view; it is the way of the future, and i would recommend it to all.

hey, muslims and catholics have a lot in common.

hating the jews is just the tip of it...

airhead, bernie. get rid of her.

https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/sanders-2020-aide-apologizes-for-suggesting-u-s-jews-have-dual-allegiance-1.7019052

american jews are something like 90% secular, and 75% left-of-centre.

as i stated before, the problem with this isn't that it's offensive, it's that it's bluntly stupid. and, what i'm getting from this isn't "this woman is a dangerous nazi" so much as that it is "this woman is clearly incompetent, and shouldn't be involved in a national campaign".

and, do i believe in property rights?

nope.

property is theft.

and, they're largely not an actual thing here in canada, either. we have no constitutional protection for property, and our courts often rule against it.

so, i've decided that i'm going to publish the emails that got me arrested, or at least the ones i have. i'm doing this under the realization that this page is being read by the cops that are currently spying on me, who may not be aware of just how absurd the charges were. i mean, i sat down and thought about it and realized that an officer or investigator picking the case up from scratch would have little concrete to draw upon - there is a vague accusation, no evidence and no plea from the accused. the cops never collected the emails, and i've never denied i sent them, so how can anybody investigating the situation come to a reasoned conclusion about it?

i don't have a complete record of the conversation, for the reason that kijiji only keeps 30 days worth of records and email only kicks in once an exchange is initiated. the situation is that the property owner routinely reposted ads for two apartments to the site. as i was aggressively seeking housing at this point, i would reply to the ads every time they were reposted; after all, the act of reposting the ad broadcasts "this apartment is still available", and there was really no reason besides prejudice that i should have been declined for an apartment being reposted on a daily basis, without even having an interview face-to-face. so, yes: i was being aggressive about this, as is necessary in a saturated market.

these particular units were what i was most interested in, as well, in that they made it clear that they were seeking tenants that were quiet and responsible. after weeks of consistent disappointment in the state of the market - it was essentially impossible to find a smoke-free building, or even a marijuana-free building - these two ads that seemed to be exactly what i needed seemed like the only way out of the mess i was in.

the ad did what ads do: it stated what the apartment was, and what the owners were looking for, and asked that applicants introduce themselves and state what they want. so, i introduced myself as a non-smoking artist with a stress disorder that is looking for a stable, smoke-free environment. i tried this several times,and received no response.

now, you might tell me that if i received no response, i should stop responding - and i would agree, if the ad wasn't being constantly reposted, indicating that the unit is still available. repeatedly reposting the unit is an invitation to repeatedly apply. and, that is a situation specific to housing, where normal rules of civic engagement are not applicable, but a strict regulatory regime is rather in place.

the other scenario - for her to tell me that the unit remains available, and i am not allowed to apply - is prohibited by law in ontario.

that said, one can only type up a lengthy response so many times before they realize that no response is coming. so, at some point, i stopped doing that and simply replied with my vm number. from that point forward, a routine kicked in whenever i found a reposting of the ad - i would quickly type in my phone number on the hope i'd get a response this time, and just move on to the next one.

the documentation that i have begins with the property owner's first response to the ad:

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

Re: Reply to your "U OF W 2 MINUTE WALK 1 BD ALL-INCLUSIVE ON RANDOLPH @ RIVERSIDE" Ad on Kijiji   Inbox
Add star  ryanmyon<s-hm2k83m2rt0jm@rts.kijiji.ca>    15 August 2018 at 16:49
To: death.to.koalas@gmail.com
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original
Are you a full-time student or do you work full time? If you are working, what do you do and how long have you worked there? How many people would be living with you? Do you smoke? Do you have any pets?

-----

as we can see, the person i was communicating with introduced themselves as "ryan", which is mildly gender neutral but mostly a man's name. i was told at the hearing that the complainant claimed this was her. i strongly doubt that this is actually true, and believe that a person named ryan is ultimately going to need to testify at the human rights hearing. this person should expect a subpoena.

my response was as follows:

jessica murray<death.to.koalas@gmail.com>    15 August 2018 at 17:20
To: ryanmyon <s-hm2k83m2rt0jm@rts.kijiji.ca>
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original
i work full time as an artist.

it would be just me.

i don't smoke.

i don't have pets.

j

------

i did not receive a further response. yet, the ad continued to be reposted, indicating the unit was still available, so i kept responding to it.

a few days later, i received the following email:

Re: Reply to your \U OF W 2 MINUTE WALK ALL-INCLUSIVE ON RANDOLPH NEXT TO RIVERSIDE\ Ad on Kijiji   Inbox
Add star  Canadian Property<s-gssp7zl8fxqrs@rts.kijiji.ca>    23 August 2018 at 05:12
To: death.to.koalas@gmail.com
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original
We are not interested in renting to you. Stop emailing us.

----

again, there is no information about the property owner's gender in this email.

but, what do these people know about me at this point in time? they know i'm a disabled artist that is desperately seeking a low-rent drug-free environment, and learning this is an almost impossible combination to find. are they not interested in renting to me because i don't smoke? not likely. more likely is that they don't want to rent to me because i'm an artist and because i'm disabled, in some hierarchy of prejudice.

i have never met this person, at this point. i have not seen the property. i haven't filled out an application. they haven't examined my credit history, or done anything else - they've rejected my interest flat on it's face, after knowing nothing more about me than that i'm on odsp.

am i a little frustrated? pissed off? stressed out? yeah. it's the last week of august, and i need to be out by oct 1st. in that context, i see that a door is being closed for what seems to be superficial and prejudicial reasons. anybody would be upset by that. so, i respond to this email several times, in quick succession.

Add star  jessica murray<death.to.koalas@gmail.com>    23 August 2018 at 10:32
To: Canadian Property <s-gssp7zl8fxqrs@rts.kijiji.ca>
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original
how about we go to the human rights commission, instead?

Add star  jessica murray<death.to.koalas@gmail.com>    23 August 2018 at 10:34
To: Canadian Property <s-gssp7zl8fxqrs@rts.kijiji.ca>
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original
i'm keeping track.

there will be a large action within a few months.

this city is full of discrimination towards disabled people, and
towards queer people.

j

Add star  jessica murray<death.to.koalas@gmail.com>    23 August 2018 at 10:37
To: Canadian Property <s-gssp7zl8fxqrs@rts.kijiji.ca>
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original
you've lost thousands of dollars refusing to rent to a candidate that
needs access to the kind of housing you're providing. and, as far as i
can tell, you are denying that housing to me for no other reason that
that i have a disability.

that is illegal in this province.

you must treat housing applications on a first come, first serve basis
here. you cannot screen for identifiable characteristics, for job
titles, for income amounts, for gender, for orientation, for ethnicity
or for family status.

and, i will hold you accountable in time.

Add star  jessica murray<death.to.koalas@gmail.com>    23 August 2018 at 10:58
To: Canadian Property <s-gssp7zl8fxqrs@rts.kijiji.ca>
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original
i'm a non-smoker with a stress disorder.

i need out of welfare-style low income housing - and away from the
type of people that live in it - for the benefit of my mental health.
you are providing what is a rare escape in a city full of smokers.

your position is both discriminatory and irrational.

but, you have the opportunity to reverse it

or you can keep losing money to uphold your discriminatory views.
because, here's the actual truth: students don't want to live in your
building.

----------

these responses are confrontational, but they are also constructive. i am laying down the law, here - denying housing on the basis of a disability is discrimination, and i won't stand for it, but i need housing more than i need a human rights complaint, so i'll give them the opportunity to reverse themselves.

am i bluffing? out of necessity, yes. that is to say that the situation is such that they ought to face a human rights challenge, but i don't know enough about them at this point to file a substantive claim, do not have an argument for actual damages and would no doubt decide, in the end, that it isn't worth my time. it's not an idle observation, but it's primarily a negotiation tactic from somebody that is admittedly desperate to find a smoke-free environment.

there was no further response; yet, the ads continued to be reposted, so i kept responding to them.

i didn't get another response for almost two weeks.

Re: Reply to your "U OF W 2 MINUTE WALK 1 BD ALL-INCLUSIVE ON RANDOLPH @ RIVERSIDE" Ad on Kijiji   Inbox
Add star  ryanmyon<s-gflwl06rg0n73@rts.kijiji.ca>    8 September 2018 at 15:20
To: death.to.koalas@gmail.com
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original
We will NOT rent to you. Do not contact us again.

--------

but, there was still no non-prejudicial reason to not rent to me. and, the ads kept being posted, indicating the unit was still available. so, i kept responding to them.

things began to get ridiculous a few days later:

Re: Reply to your "U OF W 2 MINUTE WALK 1 BD ALL-INCLUSIVE ON RANDOLPH @ RIVERSIDE" Ad on Kijiji   Inbox
Add star  ryanmyon<s-mndzx0w19q0jh@rts.kijiji.ca>    10 September 2018 at 20:33
To: death.to.koalas@gmail.com
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original
We have advised you that we will not rent to you and to not contact us again. Despite this, you continue to email us. If you contact us again, we will contact the police and have you charged with harassment.

---

you can imagine that i found this rather comical. the idea that repeatedly applying for housing could be harassment under canadian law would have to be probably the most ignorant thing i've ever heard. i responded as follows:

jessica murray<death.to.koalas@gmail.com>    10 September 2018 at 20:51
To: ryanmyon <s-mndzx0w19q0jh@rts.kijiji.ca>
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original
will you explain to them that you are discriminating against the tenant?

you're an idiot.

and you're wrong.

j

jessica murray<death.to.koalas@gmail.com>    10 September 2018 at 20:59
To: ryanmyon <s-77knvwsn5xr0b@rts.kijiji.ca>
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original
so long as you have the ad up, i'm free to reply to it. & what the law
actually says, in context, is that you cannot discriminate against
people on the basis of having a disability.

so, it is not illegal for me to continue to reply to your ad, even if
i'm just trying to piss you off. but it *is* illegal to dismiss my
application because i don't have a job,

do you understand, or should i get one of your tenants to explain it to you?

did you graduate high school, ryan? or, like so many of the people in
this city, did you drop out of school in grade ten and inherit your
wealth?

if you want to live in a fascist state where people are charged with a
crime for replying to an ad because of an enumerated ground, i'd
advise moving to iran.

j

Add star  jessica murray<death.to.koalas@gmail.com>    10 September 2018 at 21:00
To: ryanmyon <s-77knvwsn5xr0b@rts.kijiji.ca>
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original
property, in canada, is not something that you hold at your disposal,
but a service that you offer, and are bound to follow a set of rules
around.

j

---------------

at this point, i'm clearly trolling, but i'm also making a point about free expression, and sticking to it.

am i being annoying? sure - that's the point. i'm bombarding them with communication for the purposes of having my interests drown out those of the other applicants. so, if the complaint is something like "she's sending me so many emails that i can't look at the other applicants", then that is an intentional strategy - i don't want them to look at the other applicants. the annoyance is purposeful, with the intent to advance my own interests.

but, is that harassment? not in canada. in canada, harassment necessitates an objective concept of fear; i would have to engage in behaviour that a reasonable person would interpret as threatening to them or their family, and that is clearly not happening, here.

so, why am i responding further? i'm trying to draw them out at this point - i want them to send me a smoking gun that i can use in the human rights trial. but, i'm also simply being insolent. they have no legal recourse to tell me not to apply to the ad, and if they're going to make threats, i'm going to push them on it.

this issue would come up later with the cop. the crown was no doubt going to try to argue that the cop warned me, and i didn't listen. but, this is backwards logic - when a thug shows up at your door with a gun and orders you not to do something that is not illegal, you have a moral imperative to do exactly what you've been ordered not to do.

so, i mention i'm just trying to piss them off - and, at this point, i largely am just trying to piss them off, and insistent on enforcing my legal right to do that, as they have placed this question in doubt. i'm now also a free speech activist, in addition to fighting against housing discrimination. and, listen - you don't have to like that, but you do have to accept the legality of it.

while i continued to respond to the ad for the next several weeks, before being arrested and held over night on sept 24th, i did not receive another response from the property owner.

so, harassment? hardly. rather, it seems as though it is a pre-emptive attack to prevent me from filing a human rights complaint, and if anybody has grounds to claim they were harassed it is me.

a man for all seasons / thomas more's utopia. grade 8. that's clear. but, it was handed out in loose leaf, i think. i also vaguely recall some kind of shakespeare for grade 8. i guess we did shakespeare every year almost - hamlet, macbeth, merchant of venice, romeo & juliet, henry viiii, a mid...yeah. that was eight. midsummer night's dream. i remember the plays relatively well, but i always took shakespeare as a chore, and it's not well-ordered in time in my mind. i think the merchant was 9, romeo & juliet was 10, macbeth was 11 and hamlet was 12, but that could be completely wrong. i have a vague recollection of something atwood as well. and some sherlock holmes, too....

well, that's something, anyways.

it's the old english, that was my issue with shakespeare. i know a lot of people like it for that reason, but, to me, shakespeare should be catalogued with chaucer - it's a mild degree of separation, and well past the point of incomprehension; it's far enough back in time, now, that a translator really ought to be deployed. it just struck me as needlessly frustrating. but, i was a kid that liked to read, so i think i would have enjoyed it much more had they just translated it for me. we'll see how i react to it the second time over...

grade seven is still a dead block, but my teacher got fired early in the year and the class kind of fell through the cracks. after five or six substitutes that were sequentially brought in as babysitters, they finally hired one. we lost at least half the year. but, i'm remembering a grade 7 "english textbook" that was all highlightered up from previous use, and a really boring story by a gordon something that was in the textbook. this was just painful to trudge through - enough to make a kid hate reading for life. this is the consequence of the "canadian content" requirements, and a teacher that didn't really give a fuck. so, i think what i need to find is the textbook. english class at that point no doubt had an actual language component, which was no doubt the focus of the textbook.

was there a grade eight "english textbook" with excerpts in it? i'm thinking that's the answer, and why my memories are so dismal around it. my grade eight teacher was a rather finicky old woman, and she may have photocopied the textbook out of fears we'd spill juice on it.

i wouldn't mind trying to track down the math & science textbooks from high school, while i'm at it.

that just randomly vomited up on me, which is how this often works. i've been offline for the last few days, because i've had difficulties staying awake. i'm still filing; it should be done, but i've been sleeping 20 hours a day. the air quality in here has just collapsed, but it's only in the one room, leading me to wonder if it's mostly the window, after all.

i'm going to get some more coal the next time i'm out and see if it helps a little.

the first asimov text is here from the uk, but dhl made a scan error and is trying to charge me customs on a purchase under $20. it should be here as soon as that is ironed out, so i could in theory get started this week.

but, not with the air quality like this, i won't. i'm going to have to get to the bottom of this - as of right now, i'm basically in the same problem i was in before.

i can't and don't want to live the life of a lethargic drug addict.

i actually haven't left the house since feb 24th and don't plan on going anywhere this week, either.

i kind of suspect that what they're actually doing is spying on me, with the expectation that i'm a drug addict or a sex offender or a russian spy or something. it's maybe a little ironic - i'm asking for an investigation into a cop with a clear anti-queer bias, and the department is just carrying through with it.

whatever absurdity they're insisting on will come out in the wash and just help me in the long run; the fact is that i have nothing to hide.

but, i have to wait for them to finish wasting their time first...

ok, so i got something from the cops extending the investigation until the 18th.

it's clear enough that they're stalling; the evidence of misconduct is about as obvious as could be. but, i have little recourse but to wait them out.

however, i'm going to have to make calls about the prints and the access to information act in the morning.

what have i been doing? i've been sleepy, again. i dunno; i know the weather is finally set to turn within a few days, even if it's lacklustre.

the immediate task in front of me is to finish filing, to make sure everything is organized properly.

disappointing, if not unexpected.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/03/trump-once-again-requests-deep-cuts-us-science-spending

i actually agree with her.

if time was infinite, sure. but, i'd guess that pelosi is more aware than most that it is in fact not.

they're better off writing legislation, and trying to avoid the perception of being a do-nothing congress, which is what took them out the last time.

it's less that he's not worth it, and more that there's more pressing concerns to deal with.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/nancy-pelosi-impeaching-trump-he-s-just-not-worth-it-n981941

if that's as good as a physical blockade, and that's not clear, then the end is near.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-oil-exports/venezuela-blackout-halts-most-oil-exports-hits-crude-upgrading-sources-idUSKBN1QS1WW

it's not even that they're liars, it's that they're such poor liars.

if they were good liars, you wouldn't even know. the russians are a good contrast, as they are excellent liars - you never know if what they're saying is true or not. flip a coin. who knows.

with the americans, it's just a steady stream of constant untruths, so you can get a decent approximation of reality by just negating everything.

the russians keep you guessing; you know the americans are constantly completely full of shit.

but, i mean, i was making that argument ten years ago...

we're at the surreal point, now, where nobody ever believes anything the american government ever says, ever.

the sad truth is that the revelation around the aid convoys in venezuela (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/10/world/americas/venezuela-aid-fire-video.html) was beyond predictable but entirely obvious. it's to the point where you instantly assume that the americans must have bombed their own aid as occam 's razor.

if you dissect the statement, there are some truths and half-truths to it. it is true that there is a humanitarian crisis in venezuela, and that the government has mismanaged the situation. it is also true that the sanctions have exacerbated a situation of poor management. and, while i haven't looked into it very deeply, i've seen this situation before: the security forces are probably reacting to provocateurs, who are inciting them into violence to generate headlines. then, cnn will run a story about some protestors being shot, but will forget to mention that they were lighting cop cars on fire.

https://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2019/02/in-trump-era-its-easy-to-forget-that.html

yeah, it's maybe a reminder of how lucky we are to live in a country where politely asking the attorney-general to be reasonable more than twice is about as bad as it gets.


https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/2019/03/11/snc-lavalin-matters-a-lot-but-lets-look-at-some-other-news.html

stephen harper sold our wheat board to the saudis.

yeah.

some separation from government is a good idea.

there is a romanticization of the independent farmer in the united states, no doubt brought about by a variety of factors. i don't want to write this history.

further, resisting the dominating influence of agribusiness has some value, although we need to be a little bit careful about how we talk about this. this is not the 1930s, and these people are not like the characters in the grapes of wrath. what we call "independent farms" nowadays are mostly large scale operations that rely on exploiting underpaid workers, many of them undocumented. the functional difference between the independent farm and the agribusiness is far less than many would imagine. really, i would probably argue that the most pressing difference at this point is in regulating carbon emissions.

but, the reason that agribusinesses do well is through economies of scale, which are more efficient, and the most effective way to counter the financialization of the agriculture business is not going to be through antitrust legislation, which is just going to make the process less efficient.

if the farmers are going to be successful in the long run, they are going to need to organize. what that means is forming boards and unions to determine supply management and set prices. if successful, this is actually going to create larger organizations with more integrated workforces. and, where my heart is in this is really in finding ways to better compensate agricultural workers, who are by far the most exploited workers out there - which is a legacy of slavery.

people might like the idea of the family farm, but it is not a coherent economic proposal in the 21st century. the choice is between financialization and collectivization, and that choice ought to be up to the farmers to make themselves.

a politician of the left should be about organizing and empowering the farmers to make their own choices, rather than having them pushed down to them from large banks on the coasts.

this is one of the biggest misconceptions about slavery. people think slavery was about race; it wasn't, except in a very small time window in a very small area of the united states. what slavery was actually always about was religion.

why did the british enslave the irish? the reason is that they were catholic.

on the other hand, why were the ethiopians never enslaved, and not even colonized until the late nineteenth century? the reason is that when the portugese got there, they realized they were christians, and they consequently had no authority to enslave them. ethiopian christianity appears to be egyptian in origin, and to stem from the middle byzantine period.

why were the indigenous people of the americas enslaved by the spanish? because they weren't christians.

and, why were the slavs and balts of eastern europe enslaved by almost everybody, christians and muslims? because they converted to christianity relatively late. the word "slave" in english is derived not from a word about africans but from the continuing ethnonym for eastern european; slave and slav are the same word.

the history of slavery in the new world begins with a papal bull that gave the european explorers the explicit right to enslave non-christians:

We grant you [Kings of Spain and Portugal] by these present documents, with our Apostolic Authority, full and free permission to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, and other property [...] and to reduce their persons into perpetual servitude.

that is from a statement issued by the pope in 1452, 40 years before colombus, but well after the circumnavigation of the cape. it was partially directed at africa.

however, what it was really directed at was the turks, who were in the process of conquering constantinople, which fell in 1453. the pope realized he would likely be targetted.

however, there's fundamentally a concept of reciprocity underlying it, as it was essentially a restatement of existing turkish policy. the era of dangerous turkish pirates raiding the european coasts (which ended only with the french invasion of algeria in the nineteenth century) was still a ways away, but (and this is contrary to a popular myth) there was a longstanding practice in the muslim world of enslaving just about anybody that wasn't muslim - and this included africans, europeans, indians, asians and really anybody else they can get their hands on. i think it's well known that there were large slave networks moving from africa into arabia as early as 1000 ce, but there were also networks moving from india and also from the ukraine. those fair-haired ukrainian women were a special prize for arab slave traders, as they fetched good money.

so, european slavery started in 1452 as a consequence of a papal bull, was based on religion (not race) and was actually an emulation of existing muslim practices, not an original innovation.

england, of course, went through a process called the reformation in ways that mainland europe didn't. in the process, it ended up with it's own church. it also went through a period of puritanical fundamentalism that culminated in a short dictatorship under the control of a fascist called oliver cromwell. throughout these various power struggles, catholics faced various types of persecution, over quite a long period; it wasn't the irish that were enslaved specifically, so much as anybody that was catholic, which included the irish. catholic emancipation was still a political issue in the uk until the late nineteenth century. while the authorities and legal statements shifted all over the place, the ultimate authority for slavery in england did come from the papal bull, even if it ended up with protestants enslaving catholics.

so, when the various european countries started transferring african slaves across the ocean, the legal justification for it was never that they were black, but always that they weren't christians. as mentioned: ethiopians were never enslaved, because they were already christians.

and, the reality is that there was a period where conversion to christianity was actually a way out of slavery.

eventually, however, the system began to collapse. there is of course a contradiction between christianity and slavery, whether the slaves are christian or not. the africans were also increasingly being christianized, which put the slave owners in a bit of a quandary. it was actually the christian authorities that reacted to this by citing biblical passages that condemned africans to slavery; there was the bit in the noah's ark story about ham, specifically. now, this was always totally ad hoc, just thrown together to prevent an uprising. in the end, it didn't work, but the long term consequences have been pretty devastating.

so, people can't understand the premise of irish slaves. they were white. what? well, they didn't have the right religion, which is the actual reason that africans were enslaved, as well.

"but, i don't care about white people."

then, why would you expect white people to care about you?

and, no, servitude isn't ok if you sign a contract. a contract requires an exchange of something - you can't sign yourself away. the english legal system would have no patience for that, whether the right argument is unjust enrichment or something else.

i don't think you need a clever analysis of this - bernie means what he says, here.

but, let's think about this. what would actually happen if you handed out a $50,000 check to every black person in the country?

i'm not going to complain about the debt; you can print the money. but, the immediate result of this is that you're going to produce an underclass of poor white people that are all of a sudden at a disadvantage in things like housing.

"but they have privilege."

riiiiight.

worse, you're going to send a substantial amount of money to people that actually don't need it at all, and that is money that could be spent on infrastructure, instead. if the result of the policy is functionally a large tax break, we're essentially talking about a race-based tax cut. that gives progressive taxation a new meaning.

listen - poverty might be correlated with race in the united states, and especially in the south, but racism and poverty are fundamentally not the same thing, and it is wrong to erase the identities of poor white people in the drive towards a poverty strategy. race is the absolute worst way to target a poverty strategy.

the media wants to hit him on this, is reporting it as a liability, is trying to expose it as a weakness...

the truth is that bernie is right, and that most people are going to agree with him.

if we are to be fully fair about this, the descendants of the enslaved irish (and, yes, the british enslaved the irish), as well as the descendants of indentured servants of german and other descent, ought to have some consideration, as well.

and, if everybody gets a check, why not just look at a ubi, instead?

https://truthout.org/articles/bernie-sanderss-personal-reboot-on-racial-justice-may-not-be-enough/

dammit, jim.

no, he's right. that's what i've been saying from the start...


https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/warren-trudeaus-error-was-in-not-picking-loyalists-to-cabinet

they should convert them into homeless shelters.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/losing-churches-canada-1.5046812

i'm not convinced people really care much about this, given the other options.

but, there is going to come a time when the data comes in, and to suggest that the discussion is out of bounds is disingenuous. nor, would this be precedent setting, as it is exactly what happened to chretien, to mulroney and to the elder trudeau, as well - all were replaced due to fears that they would lose the next election.

likewise, there's all kinds of precedent for turfing rowdy ministers from caucus. these women are clearly acting maliciously, and the pmo appears to be too stupid to figure it out.

what i might rather point to is the question of whether the tactic of replacing a pm to save the election was ever actually successful.

john turner got completely destroyed by brian mulroney. while the elder trudeau was clearly in trouble, it's hard to argue that john turner saved any seats - and easy to point out that he no doubt lose a lot of them in quebec.

a few years later, kim campbell got completely ripped apart by jean chretien. there were other factors at play, certainly, but going from a majority to two seats is hardly an inspiring example.

likewise, it's hard to argue that martin saved the government. chretien won huge majorities, and martin eventually lost to harper.

do i think trudeau should go? the lavalin issue aside, which i think is a triviality, i am uncomfortable in the direction he's taken the party and would like to see somebody more representative of the trudeau-chretien years take over and steer it back. i don't care about their gender or background; kathleen wynne would be a good choice. but, i'd like to see a convention and a proper process, not a resignation and ad-hoc replacement.

and, if the bigwigs think going into an election with an unelected pm is a good idea, i'd just remind them of what happened the last three times a party tried that. it's not a good tactic; that's not going to work.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-should-justin-trudeau-resign-thats-not-up-to-you-to-decide/

the future of the left is, of course, also a kickass post-punk band from cardiff.

i've never been sure if this is about condy or hillary.

it may be the case that bernie sanders is the only leftist candidate that makes sense right now, and that he's a kind of necessary stop-gap. the left, overall, is a gerontocracy. i mean, we're just escaping from 40 years of conservative consensus, so we've had an entire generation stolen from us in terms of experience-building.

it seems like he lived a lifetime ago, but michael dukakis is only 8 years older than bernie sanders. ralph nader, who is known for his trolling of the nixon administration, is the same age as michael dukakis. geraldine ferraro, who died at the age of 75, would only be seven years older if still alive. if ted kennedy were alive today, he would only be ten years older, although he would no doubt be wheelchair bound due to the now catastrophic effects of gravity on his gigantic head. and, he is even only 13 years younger than noam chomsky.

the clinton/gore/kerry/obama/clinton years that followed had the democratic party firmly on the right of any reasonable spectrum. but, the dominance of the narrative means there's nobody to turn to except the academy, which is the real reason we've got the left-wing party pushing harebrained academic theories about identity that nobody really actually believes in; if there was any kind of movement on the left at all during those years, nobody would be talking about identity politics.

whatever happens in 2020, something here has to break. even if biden ends up winning, and somehow serves eight years, it's going to be a completely different electorate on the other side of it.

the future of the party is bernie sanders.

but, stated tersely, i don't think that the future of the democratic party is a coalition of teenage girls that are tied to identity politics, are openly religious and think jews run the world.

rather, i think the future of the democratic party is a multi-ethnic, technocratic, post-religion party rooted in liberal concepts of equality.

the actual truth is that these kids are the future of the republican party.

that they would freak out in minnesota.

first, they came for the jews...

did you say anything about it?

why not?

and, i always forget that parenti rewrote the article.

the initial version makes a better point:
http://dissidentvoice.org/Articles9/Parenti_Tibet.htm

periodic reposting of the excellent parenti article:
http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html

see, here's the thing: i actually agree that religion (and islam is kind of the last religion left standing in a lot of ways, so it is often going to get singled out for that reason....) is a mental illness.

so, i don't really have any particular aversion to a social program designed to help the uighurs modernize their society, and discard their religion as obsolete.

further, i know that the atlantic isn't even a good source of information about dissident movements in north america; this is a publication that routinely smears everybody left of hillary clinton. i would expect that they're exaggerating a little bit.

my bigger concern here is whether or not something like this is actually going to work. if you compare the chinese attempt to modernize tibet (which was largely successful) to the russian attempts to modernize the slavic heartland (which was a disaster), you'd think the chinese would learn lessons from their own model - that this is a carrot & stick operation that needs to be carried out very carefully, and not something that can be pushed down too violently from the top. even genocide, as ghastly as it is, would be unlikely to actually be effective as the few that escape are going to attribute their good luck to being chosen.

the left really needs to learn the lesson: you can't wipe out religion with force. this question of if it's right or wrong is tricky, but it largely doesn't matter, because it just doesn't work. you have to actually convince them.

so, i worry that the chinese are repeating the error that the soviets made, and that in the end the religion comes out stronger.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/08/china-pathologizing-uighur-muslims-mental-illness/568525/

this is what she was talking.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/International_Jewish_conspiracy

ok, so i think i now understand the (bad) logic working it's way through these nazi apologists around ilhan omar, who, once again, is quite clearly projecting a debunked conspiracy theory about jewish bankers controlling the world that was at the core of nazi propaganda.

it seems like almost nobody is actually defending what she said, excluding a few palestnian nationalists, which is not surprising. there is a kind of blanket condemnation, however milquetoast.

rather, the apologism seems to be fundamentally rooted in a kind of hierarchy of oppression. the argument appears to be that, while her views may be toxic, her placement in a lower rung of this hierarchy of oppression means that criticizing her for being oppressive is itself oppressive. this goes beyond a double standard, and is really a different set of rules.

i find this whole "hierarchy of oppression" thing to be so poorly reasoned through that it's hard to deconstruct. it's a fundamentally illiberal way to interpret the world, that places people in these rigid categories, whether they want to be in them or not. so, i'm not going to try to deconstruct this here, because i fully comprehend that i don't understand it well; my claim is that i don't understand it well for the reason that it is incoherent.

but, functionally, what that means is that you can't criticize her on this because she's black.

i have a different take on this. my empirical observation is that the democrats made the mistake of opening up their party to muslims, and the first thing they did was go after the jews. why is anybody surprised by that? nothing could be more predictable. and. the next thing you should expect is for them to go after the gays...