yeah.
i didn't miss anything because there wasn't anything to miss. well, ok - i would have gone out a couple of times, maybe. weather permitting...
sllllooooow year in detroit.
there's a few things coming up, but, again, it's the same bands i've been seeing for the last couple of years.
i pointed this out about this time last year - i may spend more time exploring the artier fringes this year, as a consequence of age. i may end up at the dso a few times. there's lots of shows happening, but rock music has really turned over to a point of macho stupidity that i never liked. the artsy fringe of rock that i always existed within has largely evaporated, or at least isn't appearing in detroit. it may be lost to history at this point. the aesthetic i'm looking for will inevitably appear in some combination of hip-hop and techno, but it's not really presenting itself to me at this point; what i'm seeing is mostly the same kind of toxic masculinity, which has long been the norm in hip-hop, and appears to have become the norm over the last few years in techno.
so long as i can find something to do a few times a month, i'm not going to be obsessing over sorting through much of this stuff. but, i'm going to have to survey bits of it....
we're in a down period, musically.
the go-to spot in mexicantown appears to have shifted directions. that was apparent from the start, but the turnover is at this point apparently mostly complete. oddly, though, some of these shows are showing back up at the magic stick, or at least at the theatre downstairs. the venue in mexicantown was really simply too small to be detroit's go to rock bar; maybe everybody just finally came to terms with it. some of them have been moved back out to the suburbs, which is where they were when i first got here. it's going to be a trek out to la dispute.
there appear to be a few new venues. ufo is re-opened....
detroit is known for this. you have to pay attention, or things start disappearing in front of you and you don't know where they end up. ottawa, on the other hand, has had the same five bars for fifty years; they just change names once in a while.
anyways, i should get out to see something in a few days. for now, i'm going to nap and try to call about the fingerprints again in the afternoon.
Tuesday, March 19, 2019
i'm defending my views on this by pointing to liberalism, but i will acknowledge that my liberalism is on the far anti-authoritarian extreme of the spectrum, and i have made no secret of the fact that i identify as an anarchist.
you can't call yourself an anarchist and then go walking around apologizing for islam. there's no such thing as an anarcho-muslim. it's a contradiction in terms.
and, as an anarchist, my fundamental concern is with the abolition of the illegitimate use of power, which means two things:
1) i am simply not going to stand with a group of people that define themselves by a system of brutal oppression, and muslims are exactly that. my political vision necessitates abolishing their religion; co-existence isn't actually possible.
2) nor will i offer blanket condemnation for any group fighting against a system of hierarchy, no matter how misguided their approach may be. so, i will not offer blanket condemnation towards palestinians fighting the occupation, and i will not offer blanket condemnation towards anybody fighting against the spread of islam in the west - even if i don't like their tactics, one bit.
in a sense, i'm refusing to take a side in a debate between white supremacists and muslims because i actually view them as essentially interchangeable, and the truth is they largely are - they both hate jews, they both hate queers (if anything, nazis are less anti-queer than muslims), they both hate africans, they both believe in slavery, they're both hyper-capitalistic, etc. i'm not sure that the differences between the modern saudi state and the historical nazi state are very substantive; there's terrible people on both sides, here.
but, i'm also sincere in my belief that this is not something that ought to be fully condemned, because there is a basis of resistance underlying it.
discourse is always preferable, granted. but, if we can't win this argument, there may come a time when violence is actually rational.
is that an acceptable diversity in opinion?
you can't call yourself an anarchist and then go walking around apologizing for islam. there's no such thing as an anarcho-muslim. it's a contradiction in terms.
and, as an anarchist, my fundamental concern is with the abolition of the illegitimate use of power, which means two things:
1) i am simply not going to stand with a group of people that define themselves by a system of brutal oppression, and muslims are exactly that. my political vision necessitates abolishing their religion; co-existence isn't actually possible.
2) nor will i offer blanket condemnation for any group fighting against a system of hierarchy, no matter how misguided their approach may be. so, i will not offer blanket condemnation towards palestinians fighting the occupation, and i will not offer blanket condemnation towards anybody fighting against the spread of islam in the west - even if i don't like their tactics, one bit.
in a sense, i'm refusing to take a side in a debate between white supremacists and muslims because i actually view them as essentially interchangeable, and the truth is they largely are - they both hate jews, they both hate queers (if anything, nazis are less anti-queer than muslims), they both hate africans, they both believe in slavery, they're both hyper-capitalistic, etc. i'm not sure that the differences between the modern saudi state and the historical nazi state are very substantive; there's terrible people on both sides, here.
but, i'm also sincere in my belief that this is not something that ought to be fully condemned, because there is a basis of resistance underlying it.
discourse is always preferable, granted. but, if we can't win this argument, there may come a time when violence is actually rational.
is that an acceptable diversity in opinion?
see, in justin trudeau's warped and shrunken pre-adolescent benetton faux liberal pea brain, when a muslim stands on a pulpit and attacks jews and queers and calls for the annihilation of infidels and the subjugation of women and the enslavement of blacks, that is a diversity of opinion - which underlies our strength, as a nation.
however, when a jew or a queer or a woman or a person of colour pushes back against their hateful tirades, that is toxic and deplorable and should be censured.
in the end, we end up supporting hate speech in the name of suppressing it, and advancing hate in the name of reducing it. this is indeed the era of orwell....
but, as i've pointed out repeatedly, and the evidence seems to be mounting in favour of, the reality is that this analysis is giving the man far too much credit. the actual truth of it is no doubt that this guy simply lacks the cognitive ability to work through this kind of contradiction, and is resorting to the doublethink out of a feeble deficit of intellect rather than a downwards enforcement of brainwashing. this is no doubt less some kind of elaborate psy op and more just a completely naive, total idiot.
if he were to wake up one day and see a group of muslims stringing a bunch of people up a tree on his front lawn, he'd no doubt just conclude they don't understand each other well enough and require more face time together. the problem isn't an ideology rooted in hate, it's just a lack of community and fraternity. they just need to sit down and worship together.
as i've said repeatedly: the only difference between a muslim and a klansman is the colour of their hoods, and they need to be treated the same way.
however, when a jew or a queer or a woman or a person of colour pushes back against their hateful tirades, that is toxic and deplorable and should be censured.
in the end, we end up supporting hate speech in the name of suppressing it, and advancing hate in the name of reducing it. this is indeed the era of orwell....
but, as i've pointed out repeatedly, and the evidence seems to be mounting in favour of, the reality is that this analysis is giving the man far too much credit. the actual truth of it is no doubt that this guy simply lacks the cognitive ability to work through this kind of contradiction, and is resorting to the doublethink out of a feeble deficit of intellect rather than a downwards enforcement of brainwashing. this is no doubt less some kind of elaborate psy op and more just a completely naive, total idiot.
if he were to wake up one day and see a group of muslims stringing a bunch of people up a tree on his front lawn, he'd no doubt just conclude they don't understand each other well enough and require more face time together. the problem isn't an ideology rooted in hate, it's just a lack of community and fraternity. they just need to sit down and worship together.
as i've said repeatedly: the only difference between a muslim and a klansman is the colour of their hoods, and they need to be treated the same way.
Monday, March 18, 2019
i mean, if the prime minister wants to hold to the position that perpetuating a medieval system of violence designed to advance slavery and war is acceptable, while fighting against it is toxic, then i suppose he is entitled to his backwards opinion, but such is not an opinion that many observers would associate with descriptions like "progressive" or "liberal", but rather a pretty extreme form of far-right conservatism.
i don't think that his mishandling of the lavalin farce says much about his opinions on gender. these were poorly performing ministers that got demoted due to their clear incompetence; the media's insistence on making it about gender was vacuous.
but, his strange affinity with this violently anti-woman philosophy actually reveals a lot about where his head is about gender, and it's pretty damaging.
you can't be an apologist for islam and a feminist at the same time. this is a specific instantiation of the religion's broader incompatibility with the left, but it's one that cuts to the core of his astounding array of contradictions. and, if you ask me, his head isn't really with equality, but more with religion.
we don't need two conservative parties in canada; we already have one, and their track record at governing isn't very good.
i don't think that his mishandling of the lavalin farce says much about his opinions on gender. these were poorly performing ministers that got demoted due to their clear incompetence; the media's insistence on making it about gender was vacuous.
but, his strange affinity with this violently anti-woman philosophy actually reveals a lot about where his head is about gender, and it's pretty damaging.
you can't be an apologist for islam and a feminist at the same time. this is a specific instantiation of the religion's broader incompatibility with the left, but it's one that cuts to the core of his astounding array of contradictions. and, if you ask me, his head isn't really with equality, but more with religion.
we don't need two conservative parties in canada; we already have one, and their track record at governing isn't very good.
again: the prime minster's so-called moral relativism is in truth an absolute moral depravity, and his comments about new zealand are contemptible.
the most toxic, hateful people in the world today are muslims - and it is standing up for islam (a religion that would enslave 70% of the population and kill 15% of it if allowed to) that is by far the most toxic thing a politician can do, in the current environment.
if one is to condemn hate in any meaningful way, the strongest condemnation must be directed at the most hateful people, and the most hateful people are muslims. this is an empirical question. i'm not interested in the doublethink and intellectual dishonesty that would suggest otherwise, this depraved idea that it is acceptable to uphold the hate inherent in the core of islamic teaching and yet somehow unacceptable to condemn it, and that would hold muslims to a double standard.
the cliche is that we don't need to tolerate islamic hate, but i'm interested in liberalism, and not in tolerance.
i agree that simply killing them is not going to work.
but, mr. trudeau's comments reveal a fundamental incompatibility with liberalism. and, if he insists on aligning ideologically with an ideological system that insists on extremist conservative values then i might suggest he cross the floor to the conservative party, as that is where he truly belongs.
the most toxic, hateful people in the world today are muslims - and it is standing up for islam (a religion that would enslave 70% of the population and kill 15% of it if allowed to) that is by far the most toxic thing a politician can do, in the current environment.
if one is to condemn hate in any meaningful way, the strongest condemnation must be directed at the most hateful people, and the most hateful people are muslims. this is an empirical question. i'm not interested in the doublethink and intellectual dishonesty that would suggest otherwise, this depraved idea that it is acceptable to uphold the hate inherent in the core of islamic teaching and yet somehow unacceptable to condemn it, and that would hold muslims to a double standard.
the cliche is that we don't need to tolerate islamic hate, but i'm interested in liberalism, and not in tolerance.
i agree that simply killing them is not going to work.
but, mr. trudeau's comments reveal a fundamental incompatibility with liberalism. and, if he insists on aligning ideologically with an ideological system that insists on extremist conservative values then i might suggest he cross the floor to the conservative party, as that is where he truly belongs.
no, honestly - this is a responsible approach, and is more evidence that we're looking at an internal reclamation by the liberal party intelligentsia rather than a coup from the fringe.
no matter how you frame it, it's clearly a step in the right direction.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/anne-mclellan-justice-lavalin-wilson-raybould-1.5061475.
no matter how you frame it, it's clearly a step in the right direction.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/anne-mclellan-justice-lavalin-wilson-raybould-1.5061475.
the weather is finally turning today, it seems for good. sort of. it's still clearly spring.
despite the air outside being bad, the smoke really, really doesn't seem to be coming in through the window, so i'm back to being 90% sure that the smoke is coming from upstairs and bracing myself for another legal battle. i don't know how to prove this, but i have no interest in hacking and wheezing all of the time. i'll have to figure something out. and, i'm just confused as to how and why this is happening. who signs a non-smoking lease and then smokes inside? what the fuck...
i don't remotely get it. but, if this is some kind of joke, it's going to backfire. hard.
this should be coming up on a full ten months entirely straight edge, but it's been ruined by whatever is happening upstairs, and i'm just tired and drained and sick all of the time as a result of it. sore throat. dizziness. it's like i never quit.
i crashed for a few hours yesterday afternoon and was nearly done filing when the kernel crashed; i overloaded the processor, and this board has been on the skits for a while. there's not a lot i can do with this machine due to the broken screen, so i'd might as well ride it out until the end. but, i may need to figure something else out for an internet gateway in the near term. the chrome book can work in a pinch, but it's not what i got it for, and i simply can't handle the lack of ad block for long periods.
i'm trying to file a folder with 75,000 html files in it, and it's just not liking it. i don't think it had started copying yet, so i don't think anything blew up, but i wanted to run a chkdsk to make sure. that 2 tb drive is a long scan - 12 hours in was only at around 5%. i had to cancel it to make some calls this morning...
so, the day, which is ending, was largely wasted, but i managed to get a few ideas cleared up and a few calls in. it's still cold for the day, so i guess we'll wait until tomorrow to get things going.
first, i had to figure out what i need to do about the border issue, now that the report came back unsubstantiated. it turns out i should have gone to detroit immediately. as it is, i need to get the disposition from the court house and bring it to the detroit side of the ambassador bridge, pretty much asap. so, i'll need to plan a day into detroit soon....and we'll see if my bicycle is still there while we're at it....maybe i can drop off some recycle, etc...
the person on the phone indicated that a dropped charge will probably not affect my status. we'll see what happens....
there is no statutory time frame on an appeal to divisional court, but i'll want to have it dealt with 30 days after i get the response on the review. documents were email saturday morning; i'll mail them to toronto tomorrow, unless i get a response today.
i was able to get a hold of somebody about the prints today as well and am expecting a response as to the status of them before the end of the day.
finally, the request to the privacy commissioner is in process, and i'm advised to sit tight and wait.
so, tomorrow is a running around day....
....and, what's going on in detroit this week? what did i miss this year?
despite the air outside being bad, the smoke really, really doesn't seem to be coming in through the window, so i'm back to being 90% sure that the smoke is coming from upstairs and bracing myself for another legal battle. i don't know how to prove this, but i have no interest in hacking and wheezing all of the time. i'll have to figure something out. and, i'm just confused as to how and why this is happening. who signs a non-smoking lease and then smokes inside? what the fuck...
i don't remotely get it. but, if this is some kind of joke, it's going to backfire. hard.
this should be coming up on a full ten months entirely straight edge, but it's been ruined by whatever is happening upstairs, and i'm just tired and drained and sick all of the time as a result of it. sore throat. dizziness. it's like i never quit.
i crashed for a few hours yesterday afternoon and was nearly done filing when the kernel crashed; i overloaded the processor, and this board has been on the skits for a while. there's not a lot i can do with this machine due to the broken screen, so i'd might as well ride it out until the end. but, i may need to figure something else out for an internet gateway in the near term. the chrome book can work in a pinch, but it's not what i got it for, and i simply can't handle the lack of ad block for long periods.
i'm trying to file a folder with 75,000 html files in it, and it's just not liking it. i don't think it had started copying yet, so i don't think anything blew up, but i wanted to run a chkdsk to make sure. that 2 tb drive is a long scan - 12 hours in was only at around 5%. i had to cancel it to make some calls this morning...
so, the day, which is ending, was largely wasted, but i managed to get a few ideas cleared up and a few calls in. it's still cold for the day, so i guess we'll wait until tomorrow to get things going.
first, i had to figure out what i need to do about the border issue, now that the report came back unsubstantiated. it turns out i should have gone to detroit immediately. as it is, i need to get the disposition from the court house and bring it to the detroit side of the ambassador bridge, pretty much asap. so, i'll need to plan a day into detroit soon....and we'll see if my bicycle is still there while we're at it....maybe i can drop off some recycle, etc...
the person on the phone indicated that a dropped charge will probably not affect my status. we'll see what happens....
there is no statutory time frame on an appeal to divisional court, but i'll want to have it dealt with 30 days after i get the response on the review. documents were email saturday morning; i'll mail them to toronto tomorrow, unless i get a response today.
i was able to get a hold of somebody about the prints today as well and am expecting a response as to the status of them before the end of the day.
finally, the request to the privacy commissioner is in process, and i'm advised to sit tight and wait.
so, tomorrow is a running around day....
....and, what's going on in detroit this week? what did i miss this year?
there is a deep, fundamental contradiction between islam and liberalism that needs to be more thoroughly examined, as so-called liberal parties rush towards increasing muslim demographics in an attempt to pander for votes.
liberals are making a dangerous, faustian bargain, here - and we're already seeing some consequences of it.
in the end, liberalism will defeat islam - this is clear enough from history. so, i am less concerned about liberalism being defeated by islam in the long run, i don't think this is a fair fight, than i am about being forced to fight battles that have already been won.
it is easy for a cis white male that is born into privilege to talk about tolerance for differing views, as he is under no threat of harm from anybody at all. but, essentially all of the most vulnerable groups in society are in immediate threat of harm from increasing muslim political power, and we cannot accept this kind of depraved apologism for a system that would kill us on the spot, if it only could.
https://centerforinquiry.org/blog/is-islam-compatible-with-democracy-and-human-rights/
liberals are making a dangerous, faustian bargain, here - and we're already seeing some consequences of it.
in the end, liberalism will defeat islam - this is clear enough from history. so, i am less concerned about liberalism being defeated by islam in the long run, i don't think this is a fair fight, than i am about being forced to fight battles that have already been won.
it is easy for a cis white male that is born into privilege to talk about tolerance for differing views, as he is under no threat of harm from anybody at all. but, essentially all of the most vulnerable groups in society are in immediate threat of harm from increasing muslim political power, and we cannot accept this kind of depraved apologism for a system that would kill us on the spot, if it only could.
https://centerforinquiry.org/blog/is-islam-compatible-with-democracy-and-human-rights/
the religion of islam - like all other religions - is a violent system of hetero-patriarchal dominance that needs to be resisted at every opportunity, and ultimately abolished; it belongs in the dung heap of history, along with all of the other failed totalitarian attempts at tyrannical social control.
i do not and will never stand with muslims, and insist that fearing them is not merely rational but intellectually necessary.
that said, killing people at a mosque - and they are not innocent if they are attending a religious service - is a terrible way to address the violence of religious intolerance, as it merely sinks the shooter to their own level of depravity. we must be better than them, not become them.
i will always support any rational or effective tactic to annihilate religion; this isn't one of them.
i do not and will never stand with muslims, and insist that fearing them is not merely rational but intellectually necessary.
that said, killing people at a mosque - and they are not innocent if they are attending a religious service - is a terrible way to address the violence of religious intolerance, as it merely sinks the shooter to their own level of depravity. we must be better than them, not become them.
i will always support any rational or effective tactic to annihilate religion; this isn't one of them.
Saturday, March 16, 2019
so, am i going to support this government or not?
this government wants to present itself as representative of the younger generation; it wants to be the millennial-focused government, the future of the country. but, in doing so, it is modelling itself on the obama administration, which was anything but the future of the united states. rather, what we have before us is a government rooted in the values of generation jones.
this is a government that is solely about appearances, and how it looks compared to those around it. they're all about keeping up with the jones'.
but, what i'm jonesing for is some substantive policy fixes, not a caretaker government that is essentially an extension of the previous one. in the long run, we may find ourselves talking about the harper-trudeau years - as we talk about the bush-obama years, or even the reagan-clinton years.
i may insist on distinguishing myself from young people by adopting a gen x identity, but this is not what young people voted for. at all.
the conservatives are hardly a solution, and the ndp haven't addressed any of the reasons why i've tended to prefer the liberals in the first place; if anything, they're less appealing today than they were four years ago. i am not likely to vote for either party.
i would like to vote for the liberals, and i may wade in from time to time to support them on some issue that they've historically taken the right position on, but i want a change of leadership and direction in the party, and will probably abstain from voting at all in this election, unless the green candidate convinces me to actually go out and cast, even if it's merely in protest.
that is the choice in front of me at this point: greens or bust.
i will not be voting for a trudeau-led liberal party; i want him to step down.
this government wants to present itself as representative of the younger generation; it wants to be the millennial-focused government, the future of the country. but, in doing so, it is modelling itself on the obama administration, which was anything but the future of the united states. rather, what we have before us is a government rooted in the values of generation jones.
this is a government that is solely about appearances, and how it looks compared to those around it. they're all about keeping up with the jones'.
but, what i'm jonesing for is some substantive policy fixes, not a caretaker government that is essentially an extension of the previous one. in the long run, we may find ourselves talking about the harper-trudeau years - as we talk about the bush-obama years, or even the reagan-clinton years.
i may insist on distinguishing myself from young people by adopting a gen x identity, but this is not what young people voted for. at all.
the conservatives are hardly a solution, and the ndp haven't addressed any of the reasons why i've tended to prefer the liberals in the first place; if anything, they're less appealing today than they were four years ago. i am not likely to vote for either party.
i would like to vote for the liberals, and i may wade in from time to time to support them on some issue that they've historically taken the right position on, but i want a change of leadership and direction in the party, and will probably abstain from voting at all in this election, unless the green candidate convinces me to actually go out and cast, even if it's merely in protest.
that is the choice in front of me at this point: greens or bust.
i will not be voting for a trudeau-led liberal party; i want him to step down.
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.
Friday, March 15, 2019
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.
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, 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.
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
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.
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,
- (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,
- (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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, March 14, 2019
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.
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.
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.
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
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/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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".
Wednesday, March 13, 2019
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.
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.
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.
Monday, March 11, 2019
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...
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.
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
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 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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)