because i'm not licensed, i need a judge to order the audio from the bail hearing.

that's whacked. i understand the restriction as it applies to media or the general public, for privacy reasons. i don't really want a newspaper combing through my bail hearing without a court order declaring it's public knowledge; i get it. but, it's my fucking bail hearing. is my self-interest not obvious?

worse, i have to sign a waiver that says i can't use the audio for any meaningful purpose.

i guess the transcription lobby has some power, huh?

it would be a lot of effort to get a recording, and i couldn't do anything with it. let's see if the rules around transcripts are equally draconian.

ok.

no, i knew this already...you have to hire a transcription service to get transcripts...and that's expensive...

i wonder if i can just order the audio for $20 or something.

so, what do i need to do for tomorrow?

1) file the appeal with the fee exemption. remember: i'm poor. i don't pay court fees. there's plenty of justice for the impoverished; it's the working poor & middle class that get reamed.
2) request full disclosure from the crown.
3) ask for the transcripts of the bail hearing, including the sections i missed.
4) ask the duty council if she has any documents i'm entitled to see. i should have done that the other day. i was not exactly thinking straight. she should also have some information for me regarding a legal aid certificate. was there a warrant for my arrest?
5) ask for video of my time in detention, as i was clearly in anguish. tortured. dying inside. so sad. so sad...

i think i will need to wait until the process plays out before i can prosecute the officer, or file the complaint. right now, i want data. i just have to figure out how to get all of these things.

i think it's freedom of information. and i think it's a $5 fee.

i've never seen a bar exam, i don't know how i'd do on one.

is it oral or written?

i guess he wasn't expecting the spanish inquisition.

https://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/prosecutor-on-probation-for-meeting-prostitute-in-court-house-washroom

i'm going to get something to eat first, but this looks like what i'm up to.

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_Criminal_Procedure_and_Practice/Disclosure

my voice is a little better, now.

i've graduated from beginner trumpet player to sounding like stephen hawking.

maybe i'll do some physics tonight? naw.

i know, i'm such a badass, aren't i.

sexy, isn't it?

lol.

so, i'm going to write the crown a letter requesting immediate disclosure and leave it at the court house tomorrow morning. i just need to figure out the proper protocol...

and, i can be persistent about that, too.

what are they going to do?

charge me with harassment?

ok.

i took three years of a "law and society" course, which included courses on tort law, constitutional law, aboriginal law and criminal law as well, but i have never studied the procedures involved in an actual trial. and, they tell you this, right. "this course will not prepare you for a court room". this is why lawyers go through an apprenticeship process, right.

so, i need to teach myself how this is going to actually happen.

one of the reasons that duty counsel was so necessary for me yesterday is that i didn't have access to a computer, meaning i was unable to research the topic. i've never studied bail conditions. i don't have any idea. if you gave me the night to figure it out, mind you...

i assumed i was going to go to a pre-trial hearing first, and a bail hearing second. that is, i assumed the judge would base their bail decisions on a pre-trial. well, how is a judge supposed to figure out proper bail conditions without looking at the trial evidence? apparently, what they actually do is look at prior history. i guess you could argue that i'm missing the point: the bail hearing is not intended to weigh the value of the evidence, but whether i'm eligible for bail, which is not determined by evidence but by history. but, that still strikes me as irrational. i do believe that had the judge looked at the actual evidence, i would have been released without conditions - and the case would have been dropped.

if i am right, and the judge dismisses the case immediately, i am going to be forced to deal with the consequences of a charge pending on my record while i am searching for housing, in a very critical period, in the first few days of a stay. it's difficult to underestimate the potential damage that this is going to create for me. and, while it may work out in my favour in the end, it's an outrageous scenario in the short-term.

imagine a scenario where, on sept 30th, i am permitted to sign a lease on the condition of passing a police check, fail that check, and then have the charges dropped on oct 1st. that's a lawsuit the cops can't win, sure. but, it's a deep cost for me, as well.

so, the purpose of the date on the 10th is supposed to be to ask for disclosure. but, i really feel that the crown should have had that information available before they even arrested me, and that it should have formed the basis of the bail hearing.

i frankly do not think it is unlikely that the court will drop the charges before the 10th, making the hearing and disclosure unnecessary - although i will ask for disclosure, anyways.

but, the longer this drags on, the more annoying it is for everybody, as the harder it is going to be for me to leave.

at this point, i don't even know if the crown is seeking to send me to jail or not. while i would consider that extremely unlikely, it's kind of important information for both me and a potential landlord to have, as i am about to sign a lease.

i suspect that the actual truth is that the situation was driven by the officer, who essentially filed a false report. but, this is what we'll need to determine over the upcoming weeks. either:

1) this woman legitimately thinks that somebody aggressively applying for an ad puts her in some kind of risk category, which indicates she's dealing with some kind of schizophrenia, or some kind of stress disorder. she appears to be imagining that i'm following her around. i've never met her. but, if her fear is truly honest, it implies she requires psychiatric attention. or,

2) the cop manufactured the situation to go after me, in whatever collusion there was with this woman.

so, it's either a crazy woman that needs help or it's a malicious cop that needs to be fired - or both.

we'll figure this out, soon enough.

i really had no option but to sleep.

i'm up now....

the most annoying thing about what happened yesterday is that i lost the day to applications, and i'm going to lose the day today, as well, because i lost my voice. i spent much of the night and day screaming to see a judge.

i sound like a kid learning how to play the trumpet: sound for a second or two, and then wind. if i yell, it comes back a little. i probably just need to rest them. hopefully, i'll be able to talk again tomorrow.

20 hours. i was very close to being released; the magic number is 24.

i'm going to roll with the system so long as i have to, but i don't think things are happening the way that they're supposed to. i have yet to see the charges laid against me, or any evidence or arguments from the crown. i told them i was representing myself, but they put the situation in the hands of a duty counsel instead. she had a conservative approach that was focused on getting me out of jail, and she did - my conditions are that i can't apply to the ad again (until the charges are dropped) and that i can't be around guns, which isn't much of a condition at all. if somebody sees me with a gun, i'll have to pay a $100 fine. but, i would have taken a much more aggressive approach in insisting there are no grounds for any restrictions at all.

in my view, the situation essentially reduces to due process. the woman is making an accusation against me, and i need to defend against it. this accusation may be frivolous and vexatious, but i will need to suffer the consequences of it until that is demonstrated - and then be compensated for any damages i suffer as a consequence of it.

as this ad is posted every day, i'm of the opinion that i have every right to apply to this ad every time it is posted. i will continue to exercise my rights in due course. but, because i'm guilty until proven innocent, and i signed an agreement, i will need to back off for a few days or weeks.

i will be aggressively attacking this woman in the court. some cursory google research suggests that she has a history of filing vexatious charges, and usually has her cases dropped. i am absolutely willing to be the person that stands up and puts a stop to this, has her ordered to undergo a psychiatric evaluation and has her barred from further vexatious litigation. she should expect this to be very difficult. and, am i supposed to shed a tear?

i will be aggressively attacking the officer, as well, with the intent to have him fired.

i will be suing the city for emotional damages related to locking me up on false charges.

i will probably launch a civil case against this woman for damages resulting from having to fight off a harassment charge while i am trying to move.

and, i will be launching a human rights challenge against the apartment complex, as well. i was going to have a hard time doing that, up until this point, because i didn't have a lot of information. but, the information being presented by the court is full of language like "the tenant is not welcome". that is, her vexatious litigation is going to give me the information i need to prosecute her for discrimination, that i didn't previously have.

in ontario, applications may be denied for financial reasons like failing a credit check. but, telling a tenant that they are "not welcome here" is discrimination under the law. it's amazing that this ended up in the court documents, but i'll take my good luck, as it is.

obviously, my first order of business is getting the charges dropped, and i legitimately do not expect this to be difficult. i'm really fairly stuck until i can do this. i'm almost wondering if i'm better off waiting, so i don't scare off any potential landlords.

and, while i don't even expect the case to go to trial, there is an obscure possibility that i could be facing up to ten years' imprisonment. it's almost impossible for me to think about moving until the tenth...

yeah.

i'll need to file in the morning.

i'm going to accept legal aid, because it is available and it would be foolish not to. i don't want to pay for a lawyer, but i'll take a lawyer, for free. see, i think i understand the law well, and i'm good at winning arguments, but i'm going to need help with the procedural aspect of it. i really think what i need is a tutor, to help me through the procedure the first time. and, once armed with that experience, i can then represent myself in future cases. i'm expecting to hear something back by the end of the day, and, if i don't, i'll call after 17:00.

the one qualification i need to present is the following: given the context, i need the lawyer to be female. and, you can expect me to show up to court looking pretty, too.

the last 30 hours have been absurd.

full write-ups will happen over the evening. but, i now have to fight an absurdly frivolous harassment charge over the next few weeks, which is going to make it difficult to find an apartment. i think i'm actually dealing with a dumb cop. but, i'm now going to fail a criminal check, until i can get the charges dropped..

i have no choice but to appeal and will probably file it immediately in the morning.

in the long run, i expect to end up richer from this. a lot richer. in the short term, it's massively disruptive.

this is a letter meant for potential counsel.

http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/thoughts/kafkavsorwellinreallife.html

on that old debate as to whether kafka or orwell was the better prophet...

i had to get a few hours of sleep when i got home, as i hadn't slept in custody. they picked me up right before i was going to make spaghetti and take a shower, too, to end what was already a long day. so, i need to recuperate a little tonight. 

but, you are correct: i am a creature of the internet, and i make arguments better in writing. you also tend to take control of conversations, which is a good trait, but i learned a long time ago that i need to write an essay, sometimes, to accommodate for disconnects with certain personality types. 

i was barely awake during our conversation outside of the court, but if i remember correctly, you were going to speak to legal aid and get back to me before the end of the 26th. i'm hoping that this essay can find it's way to a potential lawyer that is making a decision on taking the case, as i don't think this case is really about harassment on my behalf, but more about police harassment against me. this essay should form the basis of my defence. i don't think that a bail hearing was the right time to have this discussion, but, as mentioned, it would have required a soliloquy from me that you weren't likely to grant. 

i got arrested for repeatedly applying to an ad for housing on the internet, and essentially charged with stalking somebody that i've never met. i had a speech prepared, but i didn't need to use it, because the justice didn't need to hear it - how do you get from being persistent in applying for housing (however annoying...) to criminal harassment directed at a specific individual unknown to the accused? and, this was really the crux of the matter from the crown's perspective. the bail conditions were set up to treat me like i was stalking this woman, and she required protection from me, when the reality is that i was being persistent in looking for an apartment, and had no idea she even existed. the justice immediately realized that disconnect. i think you saw the gulf in logic, too. even the crown seemed less than convinced that this was worth her time, frankly. so, how do you get such a ridiculous charge out of such a benign behaviour? 

ockham's razor really suggests something else is at play, and i do believe that the actual issue was that the officer was out to get me. if we need some alternate way to explain how somebody gets arrested and held for 20 hours for replying to a non-personal ad on the internet, this is the answer that seems most apparent. i had not only dealt with this officer previously, he had threatened to charge me with harassment previously, and i had in fact filed a complaint against him with the oiprd. while i do not claim to know whether caroline chevalier's fears are real in her own mind or not, i think the irony of the situation is that her narrative suggests some paranoia or ptsd on her behalf, and that that may require some treatment for her own well being. i don't want to seem insensitive towards people that are dealing with real harassment, as i actually have a great deal of empathy, but i must be adamant that this is not it, and that any attempt to frame the issue as one where a potentially vulnerable female is being threatened by a rejected suitor or aggressive pursuer is not consistent with any evidence that actually exists. i was pursuing an apartment, and under the impression that the person on the other side of the machine was ryan myon. this is a case the crown appears to be pursuing due solely to the nature of the report that exists, rather than any meaningful evidence, which reduces to an issue of framing by the officer. as such, i think this is the real issue before the court. 

i initially had contact with this officer in the summer of 2018 on an unrelated call regarding a conflict between my neighbour and i about the issue of secondhand smoke. i am living in a unit with poor flooring, on top of a very heavy marijuana user. i must keep the windows open at almost all times to prevent being stoned by the second-hand smoke. this is the topic of a suit i filed against my landlord, swt-16361-18. i actually took myself to the hospital at one point and tested positive for thc, from the second-hand smoke. at the start of the summer, a new tenant moved in next door that insisted on getting very drunk and chain smoking regular cigarettes directly in my air supply, leaving me in a situation where if i closed my window i'd get stoned, and if i opened my window i'd get smoked on. frustratingly, there is a very big yard next door, and no reason this person was required to smoke in my air supply. after several polite attempts to ask her to smoke elsewhere, i resorted to more powerful tactics, including blaring loud music and yelling rude things out the window. 

there's no question that i've been very rude to this person, but there's no question that she's been very rude to me, too. she doesn't have the right to smoke wherever she wants, and i don't have the obligation to live in her smoke, but most smokers don't see it that way: they think they do have the right to smoke wherever they want, and everybody else does have the obligation to deal with it. what should have been a polite and neighbourly request to move a few feet away from the building turned into frequent yelling matches with a quite belligerent drunk. and, at some point she decided i was harassing her and called the cops. 

now, this is really a situation without a proper remedy. i believe i should have some legal recourse to prevent her from smoking in my air supply. if these were private houses, rather than apartments, i could sue for trespass; i can't really do that, in the existing situation. i've explored the idea of having her charged with nuisance, and i'll get to that in a second. but, there really isn't anything i can do in this situation besides make the experience unpleasant, and hope she smokes somewhere else - which is in fact what happened, in the end. but, i'm cognizant of the law, too. i knew not to threaten her or make her feel unsafe - just to be irritating enough to get under her skin. i don't expect she had the same subtle understanding of harassment, and consequently felt justified in calling the police for being irritated. 

i believe that the first time i met the officer that pressed charges (an "officer muntino") was on a call from the neighbour that i was harassing her by yelling things out the window at her. and, i actually think that the key bias underlying the charges that were pressed comes from this encounter, directly. while i don't recall all of the mean things i said to this woman to try to get her to smoke somewhere else, i can be certain that i didn't say anything racist, for the reason that i'm not a racist. i'd just never do that, and i'm confident i didn't. there's certain things that you make sure you don't say to a black person, that you very carefully avoid, at all times. but, the smoker does happen to be quite visibly african in descent. i don't know how this information found it's way to the officer. it may have even been coerced by the officer, who could have accidentally framed the issue that way. but, when the officer appeared at my door, he accused me of hurling racial slurs and was quite angry and perturbed by it. again: it's hard to know what the smoker is thinking. but, the thing is that it isn't actually true. i simply wouldn't do that. this officer then reassured this woman that she has the right to smoke wherever she wants, which just fed into more conflict in the space. fwiw, she has no problems yelling transphobic slurs at me, and doesn't think twice about it, but i don't care as long as she smokes somewhere else. 

as mentioned, i am of the opinion that she should not be legally permitted to smoke at such a close proximity to my window, and i should have a legal method at my disposal to force her to move. i couldn't get bylaw to do anything. trespass doesn't make sense in context. i can't sue the landlord next door for reasonable enjoyment. but, in researching approaches, something that struck me as potentially worthwhile was building evidence for a possible nuisance case. i tried exploring these options with police, and was told i need to establish intent. so, i started filming her while she was smoking - and telling her why i was doing it. i then got a second visit from officer muntino, ordering me to stop filming her smoking, under threat of being charged with... 

....criminal harassment. 

i told him that i was building a case for nuisance, and he said there's no such thing as criminal nuisance. there is of course such thing as criminal nuisance, and this behaviour is not harassment, either. i was not charged for this, for obvious reasons. but, there's a commonality in these cases - this cop likes to throw his weight around, and ultimately doesn't know what he's talking about. 

the story i'd like to paint is one of a cop that is convinced i'm a racist, and is essentially out to get me, so jumped on an opportunity to charge me with harassment when he finally could, as trivial as it might actually be. but, i'm not a racist. nor am i even very white, really. i'm just a non-smoker trying to find a healthy place to live. 

the report i filed with the oiprd on sept 16th is based on a different narrative of the events that occurred in relation to this case than the one presented by the crown. from file #E-201809161252432765, 

Your complaint details 

Address 

15-851 tuscarora 
windsor 
there was a phone call & a visit to my door, of a threatening, harassing and frankly simply incompetent nature. 

Incident Dates 

Date 
12/9/2018 
Time 
3:56 
Date 
16/9/2018 
Time 
12:00 

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 was arrested on the evening of sept 24th and held for 20+ hours before being released. 

while i understand that i am the one on trial, i think that the evidence against me is so flimsy as to dispense of it rather quickly, and i think that it is the officer that truly needs to stand trial here. i believe the case should be dismissed, that this officer should be severely disciplined and that i should be compensated generously for the ordeal. so, i would hope that potential counsel would be looking towards the longer term, in turning the situation over: for the person being harassed here, and quite violently, is in fact actually myself. 

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/07/j-reacts-to-bloomberg-as-reaction-to.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/07/j-reacts-to-bernie-sanders-reaction-to.html

i don't have any clear memories of going to dunrobin - i may have had some relatives on my mom's dad's side up that way, although i want to say they were closer to the water, in an older community. shirley's bay? - but i know that strip in gatineau well, and may have known people affected by the tornado, in a past life.

dunrobin is a wealthy community, but that part of gatineau is quite poor and those people will feel this for a long time.

that said, leftists understand that criminalizing drug use does not help in emancipating workers from addiction or in abolishing nihilistic attitudes towards consumption. this is a battle that must be waged via information, not with the force of authority.

the proper solution is to build a society where people have better things to do than get stoned, and consequently don't want to be stoned all of the time.

kind of like how i've built my life.

i realize that the drugs are affecting my productivity, and i don't like it. the ideal is to create systems where everybody has enough self-interest in their own labour that they feel this way; drug abuse is abolished not by force but via mass disengagement and mass disinterest.

it follows that the solution to drug addiction is the same thing as the solution to religion - the eradication of poverty.

a relaxed attitude towards gratuitous drug consumption is a broadly liberal/libertarian view, and not one that is properly associated with socialism, anarchism or other systems on the left. it's a fundamentally capitalistic position that puts profits over people.

historically, the left has generally tended to take a negative view of habitual drug use, as it works against any latent revolutionary potential, and converts rebellious workers into mindless drones. and, this function of drug use has never been lost on the elites, either, who have used it as a weapon on multiple occasions (see opium wars).

not only am i not a pothead, nor have i ever been one, nor do i want to be one, but i tend to look down on them as undesirables, and as a kind of lowest common denominator in society.

i have a broadly negative view of habitual marijuana users, as my experience with them has been that they have been slow-witted, lazy and unintelligent.

i am, have always been and always will be an advocate of sobriety, of science and of learning.

i continue to drink a lot of coffee, and i used to smoke a lot of cigarettes, but i have never smoked a lot of drugs, and i never will.

i have never been and have never wanted to be a pothead in the past.

i am not and do not want to be a pothead now.

i do not want to and will not become a pothead in the future.

i'm sorry.

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/07/j-reacts-to-how-dangerous-and-radical.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/07/j-reacts-to-irrelevance-of-dnc-leak-on.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/07/j-reacts-to-type-of-creeeping-right.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/07/j-finally-tersely-reacts-to-pokemon-go.html

so, the new climate in ontario seems to be as follows:

1) spring: feb-apr
2) summer: may-sept
3) fall: oct-dec
4) winter: january. sometimes.

i can't risk leaving on oct 1st, as it could take a while, and the climate could get rough in november.

but, it's been hot here all september, and it seems likely to stay summerish past halloween.

we used to talk about labour day as the end of summer. nowadays, the end of summer is halloween. & we used to talk about victoria day as the start of summer. nowadays, that's more likely to happen before easter.

i have to keep looking, but i've largely given up and i'm really planning for a move out in march, at this point. i'm even staring to consider the benefits of stopping looking and just focusing on catching up in the alter-reality.

at the reduced rent of $525, i should be able to put aside $500-600 months until then, which would be another $3000 or so, leaving me with around $7000 on the move out. that's getting close to the down payment i want.

 i think the maximum i'm allowed to sit on is $20,000 before the government decides i'm too rich to be disabled.

so, this isn't exactly what i wanted to do, but it's an approach, if you'd like to help me get out of this situation.

if you've been reading this page, you know why i'm doing this.

https://www.patreon.com/user?u=13732362

listen, i could have applied for a job with the government, and bought a nice house in the suburbs...

....only to have a family of four with with two teenagers, all smokers, including a pothead mother, move in next door, and have smoke parties outside all of the time, and smoke through open windows.

it would be easier to get up and move if i had more cash, granted. but, that's what the case was for - i can afford to move, that's not the problem. and, i'm in fact in more or less exactly the same situation i'd be in, even if i did have a stable income.

that's why i did the right thing in fighting back.

the issue is not my income, it's the city. i continue to be astounded by the smoking rates, here, and the deficit of healthy housing, in an era where the simple reality is that the vast majority of people think that smoking anything is retarded.

and, i might point out the following: if i had a job i couldn't just get up and leave town.

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/07/j-reacts-to-kaine-pick-being-official.html

a lot of the activism that exists right now is rooted in very poor understandings of history, that are mangled to fit into a pre-existing narrative, and consequently come to a set of ridiculous conclusions that are going to prolong capitalism rather than abolish it.

we have to have these historical debates.

we have to reverse the false understandings and set the record straight before we can carry forward. & it's not academic. it's not historical materialism. it's just the recognition that you can't undo processes that never were, and you have to understand how processes actually are before you can actually unravel them.

if you try and eat an orange like it's an apple, you're going to get sick. and, you have to unpeel the fruit the right way - you can't unpeel a banana like it's an orange. or, at least not without destroying the delicious fruit, inside.

northern europe fought a thousand year war to defeat roman/christian colonialism, and ultimately lost, but then undid it's effects from the inside out.

the christian armies were victorious, but pagan science carried the day in the end - in england, in germany, in sweden.

there's a reason the vikings burned the churches, and ignored the granaries: colonialism is a function of catholicism. and, it was northern europe that was it's first victim, not it's primary exponent.

by the time of the colonial era, most of northern europe had undergone a reformation, which reasserted it's sovereignty from rome. and, you see the differences in history. the spanish & portugese were catholics and slaughtered and enslaved, while the protestant english attempted to do things like buy the land and the half-calvinist/half-catholic french had a mixed identity - the church was as bad in the french colonies as it was elsewhere, including in much of canada, but the french explorers were often more interested in trading than colonizing, and this underlies much of the reasoning behind the stronger alliances with french groups.

it's not all white conquistadors conquering and planting flags. there's alliances. there's self-interest, all around. and, you have to understand where they came from to understand what they did.

but, almost everywhere, the root cause of the problems that happened, when they did, is ultimately catholicism. even the slave trade that the english took over was ultimately...it was muslim in construction, but catholic in emulation. the reason africans were enslaved was not because they were black but because they weren't christian, on orders from the pope, and in emulation of the existing muslim practice - for the muslims would enslave christians at any chance they got, including frequent raids into cities like london and paris. yes, that happened. it's why france conquered algeria, to stop the pirates from raiding the coasts.

what i want is to build solidarity between indigenous groups and white europeans on this basis of a shared opponent in messianic religion. and, i think the indigenous groups might be pleasantly surprised about what science really teaches, when separated from industrial capitalism - there's more commonality than apparent. but, we need to talk about ecology, not religion; we need to talk about interdependence, not sovereignty.

i am confident that the descendants of indigenous people will look back at this period and recognize it as a civilizing era, even as they cringe at the dual evils of capitalism and catholicism, much as white people look at the european dark ages and pull out competing and equally correct narratives about the retarding influence of the church, and it's ultimately civilizing impact.

had a native warrior met a german barbarian in the year 300, they would have made a fast alliance in their attack on the romans. that's what i want to emulate, now.

stop.

you have to understand that the roman church did exactly the same thing to germans, slavs and celts in northern europe from c. 500-c.1500 as it did to indigenous peoples in the americas from c. 1500-c.1900. if anything, the colonization of native americans was less brutal and less complete than the colonization of northern europe. but, there was a continuity - the colonization of the americas was the next step in the process, the logical continuation of colonizing europe.

there's a common enemy here in christianity. but, the natives need to drop their own xenophobia in order to get their heads around it.

the church carried out massacres against the natives, no doubt. but, there was nothing as horrific as the genocide that charlemagne carried out against the saxons, there was never anything like the crusade against the albigensians, there was nothing as systematic as the inquisition, etc.

and, this is my piss off against this modern foucaudian concept of history: it is ridiculously ignorant, in it's total lack of knowledge of europe. it knows nothing of the history of this continent, and yet somehow claims to right a set of wrongs carried out by this continent, from this position of abject ignorance about it.

is there an african or indigenous tribe that has been so violently separated from it's past that it can't even reconstruct it? for, that is the truth of indigenous european religion: it is so utterly erased that we only have scattered fragments remaining of what it even was.

and, then they blame these crimes on white europeans, who are the most colonized people on the planet.

your enemy is messianic religion, and it is a common enemy that we both share. let's understand that.

really.

i get more than i need for food.

but, i get half of what i need for shelter.

so, i use the money they give me for food and apply it to shelter....

i'm not concerned about the price of food; food is not too high, it's fine.

i'm concerned about the price of housing. that's where all the money goes.

so, if you want to help poor people, stop obsessing about their diets, and offer more rent-controlled or subsidized housing.

macaroni by itself is just empty sugar, although you'll note it's cheaper to buy it as spaghetti - "kraft dinner" is overpriced, even as a no-name brand.

but, if you take the spaghetti and put vegetables and meat and dairy in it, then it's no longer empty sugar, it's actually quite healthy.

i am a paragon of perfect health, and i spend about $50/week on "groceries" - including things like toilet paper and toothpaste. that's probably around $40 on actual food. a naive extrapolation would be to $120 for three people, but you could save a little in bulk. and, a kid doesn't eat like a grown-up.

i'm the person he's talking about: i budget, i eye bargains, etc.

so, it's an under-estimate, certainly, but perhaps not by as much as some are claiming; $100 is probably not undoable.

and, what do i eat? it's on my vlog channel. daily fruit smoothies and a lot of spaghetti, with eggs every few days.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/09/21/philippe-couillard-grocery-bill_a_23535545/?utm_source=spotim&utm_medium=spotim_recirculation&spotim_referrer=recirculation

i mean, we still have catholic schools in this country.

think about that.

we haven't learned much, have we?

another thing people seem to have their head stuck up their ass about regarding residential schools is the idea that it is somehow unique to indigenous people.

as though the catholic church only abused indigenous children, right?

i'm actually of the opinion that this may have worked out rather splendidly, if we had used secular institutions, instead - that this really isn't about colonialism, per se, as much as it's about the fucking church.

indigenous groups shouldn't see themselves in opposition to french canadians or the irish, or the italians, on some kind of a racial axis. the church did exactly the same thing to all these other kids, too. rather, they should be standing in solidarity with each other, on the side of modernity, and in opposition to religion.

we will have progress when the question is redefined in this way, away from an indigenous grievance against colonialism and towards a general social grievance against religion.

but, again: when you talk to these people, you realize that will never happen, because they're deeply socially and culturally conservative people, to the core of their identity. they don't want to free themselves from the oppression of organized religion, they want to re-establish their own traditional systems of oppression.

i stand with those oppressed by religion - and that means i stand with those oppressed by traditional and indigenous religions, as well.

the system didn't work: they didn't discard their beliefs, and they didn't learn to read. they were just molested by catholic fundamentalists and largely left to languish in their own ignorance.

you don't see white people walking around carrying out witchcraft and sacrificing goats any more, do you? and, the reason is that they were romanized by a structure that beat the ignorance out of them. christianity has created it's own set of problems, but at least white people generally reason out problems using science nowadays, rather than superstition or tradition.

a properly altruistic approach towards the indigenous peoples of this country (and i am one of them.) is to help them get passed the limitations of their own culture, abandon their religion and embrace science. that is what i want for my own people: for us to abandon our ignorance and enter the modern world.

so, the problem with the question is that it is wrong: residential schools were not an effective means of teaching indigenous people how to read, civilizing them or separating them from their ignorance. in order to achieve that desired end point, we need to try something else - something less violent, less authoritarian and less religious.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/09/20/alberta-course-asked-students-about-positives-of-residential-schools_a_23534319/?ncid=other_trending_qeesnbnu0l8&utm_campaign=trending

yes, they probably need to send a male.

but, he needs to be a little bit older.

and, he needs to have a decent grasp on policy, in addition to being sympathetic to the president's views.

you couldn't ask for a better guy than chretien. he's not a compromise. he's exactly what they need. if you were to imagine the guy, it would be him.

but, again: this government has a chip on it's shoulder in wanting to distance itself from it's own legacy.

and, the country is on the brink of suffering dramatically for this foolishness - this hollow pride.

how many people do you thin doug ford could feed, if they roast him outside the capitol?

our government's opinion of the president of the united states is so low that we've sent doug ford to talk to him, thinking he's the guy that fixes the impasse.

my friends....

(pause. looks towards cue cards.)

my...my...

*cough*

my friends!

*crickets*

my friends, that's not going to get us very far.

it's a function of the smug sense of misplaced superiority that we're projecting.

we're looking down on somebody that could wipe us off the map with the press of a button, and is actually demonstrating some restraint in not doing so.

any intelligent outside observer can see the truth: we're the idiots at the table.

the premise that donald trump is going to have any respect for doug ford at all is just further indicative of the stupidity that is driving the canadian side, and further evidence that much of what trump is saying about us right now is actually true.

donald trump is going to interpret doug ford as the complete fucking idiot that he is, and hold us in contempt for wasting his time pandering to him by sending the village idiot to talk to him.

the right person to send is jean chretien.

all throughout history, science has fought against - and sometimes lost to - superstition and ignorance.

and, that is how indoor smoking, or really smoking at all, ought to be approached: this is another battle for science to fight and win against superstition and ignorance.

there will be ups and downs, but history is on the side of abolishing smoking.

...eventually.

my misanthropism is not so great that i think this is beyond us. but, i know i need that caveat: eventually.

for, there are still people that will argue in favour of any manner of superstition and nonsense, aren't there? but, they are mostly waning, as the stupid is beaten out of them.

i was thinking about this the other day as i was walking. the smoking rates amongst young people are dramatically lower, indicating there is good reason to think i can hope to wait it out by waiting for them all to die. and, they will die young, and terribly - that is what the science informs us of.

that is some cause for optimism - that they will be dead, soon. that humanity is in fact winning this battle, however slowly.

but, in the process of waiting for them to die, i am also waiting myself out, for my own limits are finite, as well. it's a solution that leaves much to be desired...

i was up late last night fighting with the smoke. i'm going to eat and see what's available to look at.

excluding the second hand smoke, and the perpetual caffeine, i'm coming up on four months straight-edge, fwiw.

i intend to remain straight-edge until i can find healthy housing.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/08/americas-invisible-pot-addicts/567886/

to be clear.

they put an ad up for a bachelor at $700. i'd seen it before and knew it was a small one bedroom. so, i get there and the property manager says "i thought it was a bachelor, but it turns out it's a one bedroom". after sniffing out the place a second time, i tentatively take an application - and ask if it's the same price, now that she realizes it's a one bedroom. she says it is.

the building was recently purchased.

i decide to apply later that night, so i call her up, and she's evasive - tells me to drop off the application on the other end of town. them, claims she's not in the office. she's never in the office, apparently, until i get declined.

she claims i was the only applicant, and that appears to have been true.

there are other reasons for a big company like this to decline me, but i have to point out that they rent to refugees and to students, so they don't have problems taking government checks, or applicants with high rent to income ratios. students might have cosigners, though. and, as mentioned, i don't know what the real story about housing access and refugees is - i don't know what kind of a deal a big company like york is getting to open up housing.

i suspect it was at least a partial factor.

it's now listed for $775, which is still affordable. my own rent is set to go up in a few months, remember, to about $720 - as my income goes up this month from $1150 to $1170.

but, i was clear enough that i was kind of panicking, and now that the serve is down, the impetus of that panic seems to have passed. i'm not sure that moving there solves the problem i set out to solve...

the place that declined me also just relisted, but at a higher price. they didn't give me a reason for declining me. how much did the price boost have to do with it? they also changed the listing from 'bachelor' to 'one bedroom', which is correct, but when the manager told me she had it listed wrong, she told me the price would be the same. if that's what was going on, it might explain why the situation felt so sketchy. i may call them again if it's still sitting there, as it's actually still in my price range, although it seems a little odd to react to disinterest by increasing the price.....

but, i have to get across once again that...

there's 50 people there to see a tiny little apartment. they're all white. yet, we know that the factor causing the housing crisis is an influx of migrants - and i see them out and about all over the place.

they're here, and they're occupying a lot of housing, but they don't apply for the places i apply for. why is that?

i don't pretend that i fully understand what's happening, but it doesn't add up.

the showing was a bust - smoke coming up through the vents. yet, labelled non-smoking. this happens over and over again...

i don't see any clear way out at this point, and am planning to file the appeal.

the unit had a lot of flies when i moved in, and i've actually mostly cleared them out.

as far as i can tell, the termites are coming up from the subfloor, and i suspect there's a nest between the units. for a few weeks at the end of june, they were "swarming" the light fixture in the living room, which is a technical term around their mating rituals. and, they seemed to come right up out of the floor. it's just another reason to repair the flooring....

the moths are coming in through the screens, i think, but are not really that bad, either. i can deal with a few stray moths.

it's the termites that seem like a real problem.

that should have been clear from the start, but some people are stubborn.

don't misunderstand me: i don't know what happened.

but, it's been clear from day one that the situation was eventually going to flip over, and the tables would eventually turn. at some point, the owner has to pull his head out of his ass and realize "this chain smoker is costing me a fortune, and i'm sick of standing up for her.".

so, i got my money order back, and deposited it back into my account. it cost me $7.50 in money, and i got some exercise - it's not catastrophic. or, at least, it won't be if i can figure it out...

like i say: it was a long shot, although it really shouldn't have been. it's the same thing i'm paying right now, for a slightly smaller unit. the reason i'm not that upset is that i don't know if it was really a way out of the smoke or not.

that company doesn't seem to care about non-smoking policies. and, that building was a little older.

on they way back in, i noticed that they've got signs up in the building explaining that they're taking some steps to keep the bugs out of the building. and, you know, for all the problems with smoke i've had here, i haven't had really serious problems with bugs - or at least not the bad ones. no bed bugs. no roaches. well, i've seen a couple, but it's been very minor. i've had some flies, some termites and some moths, which i think are of at least concern in the broader scheme of it. i don't know what other people are experiencing, but it's not something i've dealt with, here...

i noticed on the flyer, though, that there's a new property manager.

did i get this woman fired? i don't know. but, there's a new sheriff in the building.

i have a showing this afternoon, but i'm going to give the new boss a call when i get back. i don't think the situation is in any way immediately salvageable. but, if the new manager gets rid of the smoke machine below me, and i'm still here for the length of time it takes, it could make sense to put in a new offer.

i want out of here, don't get me wrong.

but, i'm having a hard time finding healthy housing. i need to look at all of the options.

at the least, what i can say is this: i think this old woman was a big part of the problem, because she took the wrong side of the fight. if this new woman takes the right side, the situation could reverse itself.

i mean, get your head around what i'm dealing with: i have a neighbour that smokes drugs and listens to loud music all day and all night, and when i made a complaint i was asked to move. that's absurd, and could only exist as a function of the friendship between the neighbour and the manager. if the manager is out, the friendship is out, and there's some possibility that logic could reassert itself.

i said some possibility.

this is still windsor, after all.

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/07/j-reacts-to-laughable-notion-of-trump.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/07/j-reacts-to-2016-cycle-being-battle-for.html

if you think that being addicted to nicotine is some kind of exercise of freedom, you're a complete fucking idiot. full stop.

freedom is the right to fresh air.

cancer sticks are slavery.

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/07/j-reacts-to-hillary-clintons-insistence.html

i actually think that the time-out, combined with the serve, was something i sort of needed.

i need to slow down a little bit and make sure i'm only applying for apartments that are actually solutions to the problem.

and, i don't expect that they're going to be able to get me out of here any time soon, either - or at least not legally.

i have an appointment tomorrow. it seems like it's non-smoking. and, if it is, it may be the first chance i get to see the type of unit i actually want.

i was thinking about that this afternoon. while i have put several applications down, none of them have really been what i actually wanted. what i'm going to see tomorrow is potentially the first opportunity to see what i actually want.

i could potentially set up a fake did and use a fake voice, but i could be blowing a chance if i get caught.

and, i need a potential landlord to understand that i'm an introvert on disability for anxiety, i spend all day at home by myself and i don't have or want any friends. i can't have them misunderstanding what i'm like, and then expecting me to be a social butterfly.

given that my situation of conflict with a landlord is common, what do most people do?

most people bullshit their references.

they give them a friend or family member's number, and just lie through their teeth about it.

so, this whole process of reference providing and reference checking largely reduces to the ability to get somebody to lie on your behalf. that's what an employer or landlord is really checking up on.

and, that's the actual problem i have - i don't have anybody i can get to lie for me.

but, how stupid is this? what is the purpose of determining if somebody can get another to lie on their behalf?

only capitalism, right?

i've had this problem for years around references in a wide variety of contexts, and i've never been able to figure out what the point of it is.

if i'm applying for a new job, it's because i don't like my current job, right? so, why would you ask the people i'm bailing on for their opinion of me? i obviously don't like them, so what difference does it make if they like me or not? why wouldn't you ask me of my opinion of them? isn't that what's important?

likewise, if i'm looking for a new apartment, it's because i don't like the one i'm in. so, why would you ask the landlord i'm moving away from? of what value is their opinion of me? why wouldn't you ask me what i think of them? isn't that the important thing?

i'm a clean non-smoker that is trying to get out of a dirty apartment building that is full of drug addicts and heavy smokers, with a landlord that sells drugs to the tenants and refuses to address the smoke complaints. i've sued and won a rent reduction and an end to the lease. yet, they want to call this landlord and ask them for a reference? it's surreal & ridiculous.

the landlord should be arrested and put in jail, not quizzed on their opinion of the situation.

but, this isn't unexpected, and i'm well aware that i'm going to need to find somebody that isn't interested in references and/or is willing to look at actual evidence, rather than ask the problem in the scenario what their opinion is.

if i got along with my landlord, why would i move?

no. really.

why would anybody move, if they got along with their landlord?

so, doesn't the premise of somebody telling you "i'm moving" presuppose a conflict with their existing landlord? why else would they move?

as expected, the application was declined.

i can supposedly get the money order tomorrow...

i actually suspect it was declined several days ago, and she was holding on to it, hoping to keep it. i'm not surprised or disappointed by any of this - it was a shot in the dark, and it might not have even worked out well. the annoying thing is that i lost a week that i could have spent looking.

i haven't seen anything i'd really jump at, although i'm obviously going to have to spend the day calling.

it seems as though i very well may have to actually file this appeal on the 28th.

it's one thing to give a marginalized group a voice, and then completely ignore them. that is the typically "enlightened" liberal perspective - let them speak, they add "diversity" and "culture", and then just walk away and completely ignore them.

this is the status quo on the pseudo-left. but, this is deeply patronizing and deeply racist.

it is another thing to listen to the voices of the marginalized with goodwill, and make a good faith effort to take them into consideration. this ought to be the preferable approach, at face value. but, anybody who has actually done this has learned how impossible it is to stay consistent with an ideologically left approach and listen to these group at the same time - which is why they're so often ignored in the first place.

so, we're left with a pointless choice between ignoring them altogether and infantilizing them into something that isn't worth taking seriously, because you can't take a group seriously when they show up at a science conference and start taking about great spirits - you have to approach them with some patronizing concept of fiduciary obligation and patiently wait to ignore them, or you have to continue to marginalize them.

what you want is for these groups to be able to come to the table and be able to represent their interests using modern language, with an understanding of modern science and modern law. but, you probably realize they wouldn't be marginalized any more if they could stand up and speak for themselves, right?

i don't think that the liberals of past eras were wrong in pointing to education as a way out. today, we point to mary wollstonecraft as the originator of feminism for pointing out the idea that what women need is equal access to education, but we attack people who made similar arguments about indigenous groups as racists and colonialist wasters. it's not an inconsistency, it's an inversion; it's repressed racism for us to continue to cast them away as the other, and then justify that as an "embrace of diversity". if we saw therm as equals, we would insist on educating them so they can stand up for themselves, not let them languish aimlessly in their own ignorance, and then steal their resources when they can't present a defence of them.

it's not what we did that was wrong, it was how we did it. and, it is the how that we should be adjusting, not the what. because, the endpoint of education and modernization is the correct one, and the correct way for these groups to save themselves - and help the rest of us save the planet.

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/07/j-reacts-to-blocking-highways-as.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/07/j-reacts-to-longstanding-recurring.html

the idea that i would vent my frustration using violence is comedic.

i actually have a black belt in karate, which is something i picked up as a kid because i was being picked on. well, it was fairly coerced, but it came out of that necessity - i was a scrawny little kid that was unable to defend myself, so i got sent to self-defence classes.

the funny thing is that my dad was actually a semi-pro boxer at one point. he was drafted by the 67s, too. yet, i never learned to skate, and i never learned to fight. my mother would not allow it.

no, instead, i went to self-defence classes - where i was taught concepts of proportional force, as much as i was taught how to spar. i was just a kid; my black belt was more about self-confidence than skill in martial arts. as an adult, what i remember about it is more in the philosophical realm than the realm of actual fighting.

it is always a better idea to avoid a fight than start one because even if you are the greater fighter, you do not know what weapons your opponent has. you can't win by bringing fists to a knife fight.

intimidation is a key component of any conflict; if one can outsmart their opponent, they need not actually fight them.

and etc.

i think a part of the purpose of sending me to the classes was to bulk me up, as a part of the problem was that i was a little scrawny kid; it didn't seem to have the intended effect, and i ended up as a scrawny teenager, too. but, i learned those lessons well, and was mostly able to avoid conflict through those years, by consistently head faking my opponents.

i'm going to beat you down with words and lawsuits. and, i'm going to enjoy it, too.

but, i'm not a violent person, i never have been one and i couldn't imagine becoming one.

i grew up as an opposition leftist in the 90s.

the core of my political identity is in alter-globalization, in opposition to "free trade".

if trump was a little more specific, such that i could take him seriously, as opposed to saying vague things like "it's the worst deal" and "we'll get a better deal", i might have endorsed him.

it's the most important thing. and, by a good margin.

and again: it's not like this new deal is perfect or anything. but, it's aiming for the goal of raising workers' standards in mexico, which is at the crux of the original problem. that is the fundamental problem that needs to be addressed, and it seems like it's being addressed...so, if i were an american, i would have to support that, even if i have qualms in other points.

a big part of the initial calculus was that i simply didn't believe what he was saying on trade, because i'd heard it so many times.

clinton was going to pull out of nafta. & obama was, too. so, why would i believe either of them?

so, i never thought he'd pull out of the tpp.

& i never thought he'd take the lines he's taken on nafta - which aren't perfect, either. but preferable. definitely.

so, let's say the democrats try to run on the left on immigration and the right on nafta, while trump runs on the left on nafta and the right on immigration.

well, i might agree more with the democrats on immigration - but i agree more with trump on nafta.

and, i care more about nafta than i care about immigration.

so, i'm going to vote for trump instead.

do you understand this?

donald trump could very well see himself facing a militant, pro-war, neo-liberal democrat that wants to ramp up the war(s), strengthen nato, resurrect the tpp, bring back nafta, etc.

and the neo-liberals are sitting there in their business suits and don't understand why i wouldn't want that, or why so many americans wouldn't want that.

there's still some bad sides to trump, no doubt. but, a lot of it is actually more about congress. so, one of the biggest arguments in favour of voting for clinton was the supreme court. but, if the congress can drag the process past the midterms, it may be a democratic majority that gets the final say. what would immigration reform look like with a democratic congress? &etc.

i'd obviously rather see the democrats run a left-wing option that wants to....that wants to carry through what trump has started on a lot of these points, to better conclusions than trump could. a bernie sanders, for example.

but that simply isn't likely.

and, if you made me choose, i'd probably pick trump as a lesser evil over a lot of the party's more likely candidates, on the issues that i actually care about.

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/07/j-reacts-to-protestant-work-ethic-in.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/07/j-reacts-to-her-own-political.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/07/j-reacts-to-police-strikes-as-necessary.html

what we learned in the 2016 election cycle was that the republican voter suppression tactics are extremely effective.

i'm not going to get into the details of american senate or house races from up here in canada. but, don't be surprised if the democrats have a hard time getting the vote out - or if that is, at least, the official narrative.

it's the people that scream 'fake news' that are pushing fake news. my analysis at the time was that if the vote is fair then hillary will win - but the vote is not fair, so you should expect trump to win. the details of predicting specific seat numbers in the house and senate is a much more complicated problem, and suppression is a much more variable factor. but, the same basic narrative is likely to hold.

the polling isn't wrong.

the vote is being suppressed.

i'm not in a position to make a prediction as to the outcome right now, and will likely not be before november.

but, the methodological pushback i want to present is the following: it's not clear why you'd vote for a democrat in the house or senate if you don't like donald trump, both because it's not causal and because trump may actually have an easier time getting much of his mandate through with a democratic congress. much of the pushback against trump is coming from corporate democrats, who are broadly on the right of the spectrum, and more similar to house republicans than house democrats. trump may be personally unpopular, but i may speak for a number of people when i suggest that i don't like him but am pleasantly surprised by a percentage of his policies. i could easily imagine a scenario where donald trump is the lesser evil in 2020. so, this is far too simplistic a way to understand what's going to happen.

i mean, if you want to fall into the cliche that he's unprecedented, that's more or less what i'm saying. but let's get out head around that. all the way.

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/07/j-reacts-to-mike-pence-as-republican-vp.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/07/12-07-2016-swans.html

no, listen.

i'm not on the side of people that want to criminalize communication.

i will stand up for my right to be annoying.

and, fuck you if you don't like it...

Your complaint details

Address

null
windsor
there was a phone call & a visit to my door, of a threatening, harassing and frankly simply incompetent nature.

Incident Dates

Date

12/9/2018

Time

3:56

Date

16/9/2018

Time

12:00

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 . 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 filed a complaint on the following grounds.

1) calling me at 4:00 am from an unofficial #.
2) threatening to file charges on unjustified grounds.
3) refusing to let me close the door, without a warrant.
4) refusing to give me his badge number.

and, i do very much hope that he gets fired - or that it at least contributes to the process of him getting fired.

that officer should be immediately fired.

if i have to defend myself against a frivolous criminal harassment charge - for repeatedly applying to an ad for an apartment that is being denied to me on enumerated grounds - you can be sure that i will seek a seven figure settlement from the city.

bring it on.

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/07/j-reacts-to-example-of-how-my-life.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/07/j-reacts-to-absence-of-ministerial.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/07/j-reacts-to-general-election-choices.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/07/j-reacts-to-administrative-review-and.html

swimming is boring.

everybody knows i'm going to sink, so why would you throw me in the lake?

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/07/06-07-2016-j-reacts-to-inability-of.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/07/j-reacts-to-no-indictment-in-clinton.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/07/j-reacts-to-wikileaks-prosecution-of.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/07/j-reacts-to-contrived-nature-of-media.html

stop.

when did they test you?

did they do a blood test?

maybe they told you it's on the other side of the blood-brain barrier, so they can't do it.

did they do a dna test?

maybe they told you that they don't understand the genetics.

ok.

but, where is the test of this imbalance? where is the chemical evidence? have you seen anything of the sort, at all?

you haven't, have you?

in truth, it's just been presented to you in mystical terms, hasn't it? some fucking dualistic zoroastrian bullshit, or some hippie nonsense about forces out of sync.

"you are angry because your chemicals are imbalanced. let us medicate slowly on the one. deep breaths."

hey, at least they're not doing exorcisms. but, exorcisms involved herbs, too, you know....

so, what does that really mean, then?

it means that if you want to do mdma, then you should just do mdma, and stop pretending you need it to balance out your dopamine levels.

so, you like popping pills. you don't need them, but you like them. and it's not such a bad thing.

saying "you have an imbalance, so you should take this drug", without doing any testing to determine the existence of the imbalance, is actually scientifically equivalent to saying "your aura is off-centered, so you should take this herb".

without an empirical test, this claimed imbalance is no more real than any other mystical entity. it's an abstract idea. an aura. truly. 

maybe you're into this shit, but it's not science!

i've been in and out of these offices.

they talk to you for less than a minute before they start prescribing.

it's a joke.

that is what psychiatry is - it's a giant drug racketeering operation.

you go to the "doctor", who sells you drugs. these drugs don't fix anything, they just get you stoned, and leave you dependent on them, as well. and, that is the definition of a patient: a dependant drug addict.

well, unless an imbalance can be determined chemically, how can you tell you need help synthesizing this thing? you can't. nobody determined that this was wrong with you - they just gave you a drug that makes you high, and then asked you how you feel. and, you're high on the drugs they gave you - of course you feel better.

chances are that you don't have an imbalance at all, and you just like getting high - because that's all they did, was prescribe you drugs to get you stoned. it was never determined if you have an imbalance; it was only determined that you like the drugs.

again: if somebody can prove to me that i need something then i'll take them seriously. but, nobody wants to do that. all these "doctors" want to do is sell drugs to people that probably don't have anything wrong with them and probably don't need them...

i am willing to acknowledge that i may have a condition of some sort, but i am not willing to experiment around chemical approaches to treating it. what i want to see is a test that defines a specific problem, and a specific solution to treating it.

so, i don't want to be told i'm "bipolar" or "schizophrenic", and should take these drugs with an unclear mechanism for it - these are meaningless diagnoses and shots in the dark at fixing an undetermined problem.

i want to be told i can't synthesize a specific protein, due to a specific genetic mutation. and, i want to take a targeted treatment option for it.

until then, i will refuse medication, outright - because i'm not being presented with a useful diagnosis, or being told that the medication will fix an actual problem.

what is actually happening is that i'm just being drugged for financial gain, at a devastating cost to my personal well being.

the reality is that most of what we call psychology is utter quackery.

these diseases don't actually exist - there's no basis to test for them. if you have an infection, you can do a blood test to determine that you have it. if you have a psychiatric condition, you get five minutes with a "doctor" that presents a subjective opinion of your diagnosis, with no empirical basis whatsoever, and then prescribes a drug to address a problem that was never established exists in the first place.

so, let's say you think you have schizophrenia. you might imagine there's a way to test for that, right? a blood test? a dna test?

no.

the way they determine if you're schizophrenic - which is something that is claimed to be a physical health problem - is by observing your behaviour and then presenting an opinion on the topic.

there is absolutely no science involved in this process, whatsoever.

they then give you drugs that they claim are intended to reduce symptoms. but, without establishing a chemical basis of the symptoms, or even determining if symptoms are actually present, what could that possibly mean? again: let's say you have high cholesterol. well, they test to determine your cholesterol levels, first, and then give you drugs to chemically alter your cholesterol levels. but, nobody tests for a chemical basis of schizophrenia, so how can the efficacy of the drugs even be measured? what does it even mean to say they don't work?

this is not science, and it should not be treated as though it is. this should be treated like the quackery it is, and relegated to the dustbin of "alternative medicine".

if a doctor cannot give you a medical basis for your diagnosis, that is a chemical imbalance or a genetic abnormality, then they should not be administering you drugs.

at all.

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/07/j-reacts-to-apparent-serious-opposition.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/07/j-reacts-to-tim-kaine-as-vp-and.html

there are certain things that you couldn't imagine being true, but you just as verifiably can't not imagine being false.

and, my landlord is served, via personal service, with the encounter on film, as of roughly 9:40 this morning.

apparently, i'm also supposed to serve the board.

i'll need to call to figure out what that means.

the thing you have to understand about serving is that the judge isn't going to look at the rules and dismiss the thing on a technicality. serving has a function: to draw attention to an appeal. the person i'm serving must be made aware of the appeal. what i'm going to need to demonstrate, if i need to demonstrate it, is that the company knows what the appeal is, or should know what the appeal is, not whether some protocol is followed.

the bottom line is that she's evading, and i can show it.

i can confirm that they got my money order, but my application might not be processed until monday.

i tried to personally serve this evening, but i got hung up on. that's twice now.

she's essentially been instructed to not communicate with me, and i know that because she told me. she wants me to go through the paralegal. so, if the corporation refuses to communicate with the tenant, and directs all communication to the paralegal, then serving means serving the paralegal, right?

that's not in the rules of service. the rules of service only talk about lawyers, and they're not going to tell me who their lawyer is. it's not transferable well, because the point of the process is to get a confirmation of representation - and a paralegal cannot represent anybody in divisional court in this province. it would be more like leaving it with a representative of the corporation than it would be like leaving it with a lawyer.

i sent an email to the paralegal, and i'm going to consider them served as of 00:00 on the 14th. but, i'm going to try a few different approaches, as well.

i'm doing an all nighter, and i will try to get her the document in the morning; if she hangs up on me, i'll call back and read it to her voicemail. then, i'll txt it to her. and, then i'll call her back again. if she still doesn't accept it, i'll leave a physical copy with the paralegal, and then fax one to the board through service ontario.

and, hopefully, i'll have an answer on the app tomorrow night.

i'm going to get some work done tonight...

it might be frontline assembly,

which i never liked.

at all.

there has been music coming up from downstairs for over 48 hours. and, the weird thing about it, right now, is that it's some kind of ebm.

that is, the kind of thing that you're supposed to experience in a live setting, with people.

and, i'm left imagining this 50+ year old woman, sitting in her apartment, by herself, listening to club music, smoking herself stupid and...what? imagining she wasn't 50+ years old? imagining she was out having fun? on a wednesday night? on thursday afternoon?

everything about this situation is just so remarkably pathetic. and, if there's any debate, the only meaningful one is whether she needs psychiatric help or should be tolerated.

but, the shift in mindset you need to have is around whether she's harmless.

she's not harmless.

she's severely degrading my health, by chain-smoking for hours at a time.

i was hoping to get some work done tonight, but it seems like i'm nodding off...

right now, i have 5 units directly adjacent to this one: one on either side, and three on the floor below me. there are two further units directly below me, on the lower floors. it's the unit directly below me that is the major problem, but the other units have been minor annoyances.

this unit would only have three adjacent units to affect me: one beside me, and two on the floor below me. there would also be two above me. there would only be one unit below me. if the unit directly below me is non-smoking, and stays that way, it could work out just fine.

a living situation update. there's not a fun story with this, but it might be the way out.

i put an application down on tuesday, but i didn't want to put the check down with it. i frankly didn't expect to be approved. but, i looked into it and...

i can't get a certified check from my bank, anyways. they just don't do that. and, my daily limit for the money order was too small..

or, at least, that was my excuse.

i just felt it was pointless to buy a money order, get rejected and then have to get it back. its only $7.50, but i have better things to do with $7.50, you know? and, what if they decide not to give it back? so, i put the app down without the check and called in the morning...

she wouldn't even look at it. fuck.

but...

there are no other applications.

i had to do it...

so, there's a money order with my name on it in a box at one of the york buildings, and i'll have to follow up on that tomorrow. if i'm the only applicant, it's a question of the merits. which, even so, are at best 50/50.

i picked up some new vlog batteries on the way home, so i'll be back to that, too.

the unit shouldn't be better, but i've been in that building twice now and have not smelled any smoke, so i decided to take the leap on it, sort of thing. it's a little smaller than this one, but more compact. and, it's on a corner, so i should get some cross flow. that's one of the biggest problems in this unit: the prevailing winds are in the opposite direction, so the smoke just hangs and has to be pushed out using heat or fans.

am i worried about it? yeah. more than a little bit. and, half of me is hoping it gets denied, so i can keep looking.

i have some more appointments this week.

i have not served yet.

and, this disgusting, filthy, vermin below me appears to have quit her job, as she hasn't left for work in days, making the situation that much less bearable.

again: when a government suspends the rule of law, it breaks the social contract and forfeits it's claim to legitimate authority, thereby inviting revolutionary action. that is the lockean principle underlying our system of government.

“The thinking is that (the premier) is prepared to stand up to the courts"

in a constitutional system of government, the premier does not "stand up" to the courts, but defers to them.

whatever thinking is behind this is very dangerous.

it is the idea that canadians want a lapse in the rule of law. and, if that is what we are to see from this government, it is a justification and an invitation for open revolt.

i'm also going to call on the conservative party of ontario to step away from the brink and vote against this crazy, unconstitutional bill - and your insane, despotic, lunatic leader.

so, that's what you do as an activist: you argue that the state has lost all justification for authority, because it has broken the social contract, by abolishing the rule of law.

but, what do you do legally?

you appeal.

i think a part of the problem here is that the supreme court hasn't dealt with these cases very often. there should be a deeper level of case law around s. 33. something frivolous like this ought to be squashed on appeal, but it's going to require creating a judicial precedent that, frankly, nobody really thought was necessary.

what doug ford would do if he wasn't an irresponsible despot would be to send the issue to the supreme court as a reference, and have them work out the proper precedent.

but, he is an irresponsible despot.

so, he won't do that.

somebody is going to have to actually appeal. it's a shame you can't send the bill to his estate...

this is the scenario where revolt is justified.

there's a concept called the rule of law in government, and it's tied into a social contract.

the city council should hold the election as initially planned - in open revolt to doug ford's abuse of power.

see, the fact is that douggie really thinks getting elected gives him absolute power.

...because he doesn't have the slightest concept of constitutional government. at all.

the tyranny of the majority is generally seen as a tory idea. it points out the importance of a limited scope of government power, and a system of checks and balances, in order to prevent abuses of power. and, this is all very conservative in scope.

what doug ford is really standing up and saying is "i don't understand what a conservative governing philosophy is". no conservative would argue that an elected premier has absolute authority over the courts; any conservative would argue that that's preposterous, and that a strong court system is required to keep people like doug ford in line, and prevent them from abusing power, or behaving foolishly, or both.

so, who is he representing?

a despotic streak on the contemporary right, and one that's largely being imported.

this is authoritarianism and despotism, it's not conservativism - not even of a reactionary sort.

(and that's a friendly message from the left.)

it is no surprise at all that doug ford thinks he's above the law, and that the rules don't apply to him.

so, as frightening as this is as a tone issue, it's absolutely expected.

you should expect this kind of corruption and abuse of power from this government. daily. 

the notwithstanding clause is largely meant for national security issues. you have to remember that canada didn't have a constitution until 1982, so the various governments were apprehensive about signing away too much power. trudeau actually pointed out that the constitution was a consequence of the october crisis, but a lot of people at the time were wondering why he gave in to the bleeding hearts - and what would happen if they couldn't restore order by force.

this kind of frivolous use is unheard of. but, we elected a buffoon, and we need to expect him to act like one.

fwiw, i have little interest in how many city councillors are elected in toronto.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/judge-ruling-city-council-bill-election-1.4816664

"i think you're late for prom.

real late."

"you ever danced with the devil in the pale blue night?"

is chrystia freeland's gender a difficulty for the us side?

i might suspect that her height is a bigger issue.

we were concerned about them pushing us around, and we sent a 4' 12" journalist in a prom dress to stand up for us.

does anybody have one of those milk crates for her to stand on? i think i have a soapbox she can borrow, just a second...

well, where did the idea that canada and mexico should act in solidarity against the united states come from, in the first place?

was canada colonized by the spanish or the english? is it a borderline third world country, or a g7 economic powerhouse?

it's nice to argue that canada has more leverage if it aligns with mexico, but that presupposes that mexico and canada have common interests. in fact, our interests are diametrically opposed. so, it was a ridiculous premise from the start.

and, this was the point i was trying to get across: our interests were never aligned with mexico against american investment, but always aligned with america against the race to the bottom that happens when you bring a third world economy into a free trade deal with two major economies, as an equal.

you can't blame mexico for stabbing us in the back. they never had any reason to take our side, or be our ally. and, we were stupid to ever think that would happen.

we were even more stupid to prioritize the interests of a state we share common concerns about with our primary ally, over that of our primary ally.

the sad part is that it may expose some underlying perception of what canada is by the colonial liberal elite. mexico north was always a pejorative term, meant to expose the decline in living standards nafta was going to bring forward. to an elite that just sees the country as a set of resources to refine and export to foreign markets, maybe canada really isn't that different than mexico.

we should have put our own interests first. we were simply fools not to. but, maybe it's less clear what 'our' means.

to be clear.

what this is going to do is put me on month-to-month at the rent reduction, $525, until i can get out of here.

they can try and file an n4, but i think they'll lose. they can try an n5 if they want, but they'd have to win an argument, and that might be harder than they think; i have two bullshit n5s as it is, and the first one is almost at six months.

it's going to be as hard for them to get me out as it is going to be for me to get out. and, it's not going to be cheap, either.

they're better off waiting me out. but, they've consistently made stupid choices...

my landlord could very well end up with an aneurysm from this.

it's costing him a fortune!

he should have dealt with the smoke.

i actually spent quite a while over the last few days trying to figure out how to do this in a way that was frivolous, but when i sat down to write it, i realized that i actually have a decent argument.

at the very least, this is going to be hard to actively dismiss.

==

THE APPELLANT APPEALS to the Divisional Court from the order of (Landlord and Tenant Board) dated Aug 1, 2018 made at London, Ontario.

    THE APPELLANT ASKS that the order be set aside and an order instead be granted for month-to-month tenancy in the unit in question, and at the 25% reduction, until the appellant is able to secure smoke-free housing and consequently vacate the unit.

    THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL are as follows: 

    Main Grounds under s. 83(3)(d)

1.    The initial application to the board, made in April of 2018, was a T2 and a T6, together, requesting an end to the tenancy and compensation for negligence around non-action in keeping second-hand smoke (SWT-16361-18) out of the unit. The applicant initially thought that it would be relatively easy to secure non-smoking housing, and requested a July 1st move-out date as a result of this. However, the tribunal date was delayed until July 5th, making the initial request impossible. The applicant also learned over May and June that moving would be more difficult than initially thought, as the vacancy rate in Windsor is low and non-smoking housing is scarce. The provincial election also created some uncertainty.

2.    At the hearing, the applicant requested that the tenancy be placed month-to-month to ensure that this process did not lead to accidental homelessness, as that appeared to be a potential outcome, in the case that healthy housing could not be found. The adjudicator insisted that the respondent has a right to certainty, and asked for a specific date. Under some duress, the applicant accepted a move-out date of Sept 30, 2018, and hoped it would work out for the best.

3.    As of Sept 10, 2018, it appears that this hard exit date is going to lead to the feared condition of homelessness.

4.    To use a deprecated term with some poetic license, it is patently unreasonable for a tenant to apply to the board seeking damages for negligence, win the case and then end up homeless because alternative housing arrangements cannot be found. Under s. 83(3)(d), eviction cannot be ordered as a consequence of enforcing a right. Yet, this is essentially what is happening. This agreement to end the tenancy was coerced by the adjudicator, who should have put the tenancy on a month-to-month as was requested, rather than effectively order an eviction on a rights issue.

5.    So, the error made by the adjudicator is under s. 83(3)(d), as she ordered an eviction as a consequence of a conflict stemming from an assertion of rights, when the applicant requested a month-to-month agreement, instead. This will be clear in the audio and the transcripts.

    THE BASIS OF THE APPELLATE COURT’S JURISDICTION IS: The appeal is from a final order of an adjudicator of an administrative tribunal, namely the Landlord and Tenant Board of Ontario; see Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 19(1)(c).

    The appellant requests that this appeal be heard at 245 Windsor Ave, Windsor, Ontario.

====

the appeal will probably be heard in london, if we get there.

this is actually kind of recursive, isn't it?

i will obviously drop the appeal if i find a way out.