#id argue/defend in private in a respectful way with someone

[yhwhrulz]

A Bible Devotional 12th January 2023

Stop Condemning Other Christians

ROMANS 14:10 NLT 10 So why do you condemn another believer? Why do you look down on another believer? Remember, we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.

Many Christians seem to have the idea that their job is to evaluate others and point out errors and shortcomings. But our job is not to condemn other Christians!

ROMANS 14:4 ESV 4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

We can share truth with an attitude of humility, respect, and concern for other's well-being, pointing out areas where we think they may not yet have a correct understanding of Scripture. But name-calling, fighting, and public ridicule should never happen among Christians!

Privately correcting someone in humility is quite different from arrogantly condemning another brother or sister publicly.

We can teach truth without mocking, ridiculing, and condemning others. Those who resort to such tactics often do so because they cannot convince based on the facts.

Whatever we do should be done in the spirit of Christ, to help people, not condemn them.

Jesus said the world would know we are His followers by our love. So our enemy tries to stir up strife between believers.

JOHN 13:35 ESV 35 By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."

We are all in the same family. Instead of attacking our brothers and sisters, love should protect them and defend them.

ROMANS 14:1-3,13 NLT 1 Accept other believers who are weak in faith, and don't argue with them about what they think is right or wrong. 2 For instance, one person believes it's all right to eat anything. But another believer with a sensitive conscience will eat only vegetables. 3 Those who feel free to eat anything must not look down on those who don't. And those who don't eat certain foods must not condemn those who do, for God has accepted them. 13 So let's stop condemning each other. Decide instead to live in such a way that you will not cause another believer to stumble and fall.

There are many differences among Christians. We are all growing and learning. Not one of us knows everything. Even Paul, who wrote down much of the New Testament, said he only knew in part (1 Corinthians 13:9).

We all have much to learn. So we should be slow in telling others how wrong they are. The Lord may have taught them something He has not yet taught us.

Many are too quick to label all those who do not agree with them on every point of doctrine as a cult or some other name to put them down.

Usually, those who are in the habit of putting down others do so in an attempt to elevate themselves. But God has already elevated us in Christ, so we don't need to fall into this trap.

ROMANS 14:19 NLT 19 So then, let us aim for harmony in the church and try to build each other up.

SAY THIS: My job is not to condemn people and call them bad names, but to bless them, help them, and pray for them.

To give: http://aDevotion.org/give

Devotions in book form: http://CFApublications.com To hear audio teachings by the author of this devotional, visit https://adevotion.us11.list-manage.com/track/click?u=5ccca9ca3fa78afdf489a2454&id=9a22b79684&e=22c78815cb

[olivieraa]

I saw a questionnaire thing earlier today and I glanced at it and it said “how have you changed in the past 10 years”

if I look at myself from a strictly tumblr perspective, and especially my ‘fandom’ self, I’ve changed a looooot

like maybe it releases endorphins or some shit like that to get into debates and arguments, but I quite liked doing it back in the day. defending my fave ships or characters or, idk getting into an argument with someone about how Puzzleshipping isn’t canon lmao (I mean I think that even more now after reading the manga). but anyway, at the end of the day, I know it was moooooooostly playful. or something along those lines.

I just got heated about stuff I thought was like, actually serious.

I’d never care to get into an argument about that shit now (I most likely still have the opinions I had, but sure fuck it. like. I’ll post about it to myself. that was the original intention back in the day. but the search bar made even private-ish posts easy to find and argue with you over)

but I had a gander in the sessrin tag.

there’s obviously controversy surrounding that pair. always has been. I... legit get it. from both sides. I get why its hated, I get why its defending. but I was leaning towards one side more than the other.

at the end of the day tho, it aint a fave pair of mine, and I’m just so not bothered hopping in to argue about or defend it :’D

just reblogging some pics and on my way I go

[lifewithchronicpain-original]

Long post ahead, but I need to address this so I can move on.

Over ten years ago, I was really into atheism and debating theology on an atheist forum, and became popular as their first female member and eventually rose to moderator then administrator, setting up a lot of rules that they still have up posted in my username. I always find that funny.

I felt like I had met a great group of people with leftist politics and all that. I felt special because I was basically their token female until the forum gained more popularity. And then the owner added a kudos system to rate someone’s popularity and I was given many kudos for being able to argue against religion, mostly Christianity, so well and I even met up with the owner at Dragon*con one year.

Then a thread got into the topic of sexual objectification and this spiraled into an unpleasant discussion about rape culture. The same men I thought who appreciated what I had to say just didn’t listen anymore and I was viewed as being ridiculous. One was so offended he started putting typical MRA jokes in his signature. Also the guy I met decided he was now libertarian and whole heartedly believed regulation caused the 08’ crash. :/ I remember another guy on Facebook from my local atheist group agreeing with those men when I brought it up; and then said “oh come on, I’m an atheist, you know I’m not sexist!”

I was now facing the fact that this group of people I had enjoyed spending my time with online for about two years might praise me now, but when I would tread into territory that could make men face how they treat women, I was shut down and told a woman in a mini skirt is Just like a rich man with a visible wad of $100s in his back pocket. I was quickly understanding for the first time why there aren’t more women and POC in these “new atheist” groups. They thought their lack of religion immunized them because they blamed religion for racism and sexism. Conveniently ignoring they also believe religion was created by men and thus promoting their already established views of women and other races. Funny that.

At the same time (we had a few women on board but they were avoiding that conversation) a woman joined and spoke up. They ripped into her. I had the comfy cushion of my status, she had none. She was given all the negative kudos and when I talked to her privately I found out she was also a survivor.

I was facing so many arguments I knew were wrong but couldn’t fully articulate. That’s when I discovered what rape culture, as well as the Just world theory. That’s when I changed from becoming a feminist in label to a feminist in deeds and thoughts. I learned the responses to their arguments and then I learned I also don’t want to waste another minute on these men. I posted my goodbye explaining their responses have caused a lack of trust I can never get past because they refuse to even see how their so-called reason left the room when they started dealing with sexism.

The only man who defended me was the lone Christian who for some reason liked hanging out there. There was also a trans women there, she was very happy to agree with the men’s victim blaming and I never understood that. But it also taught me you can’t expect to know someone’s full politics just because you happen to agree or disagree on the issue of god, or really on anything.

I learned that belonging to a group of people on the surface doesn’t mean we’re all lock-step in ageeememt over every issue. I learned I can’t trust anyone who treats relationships and sex as something they deserve and not something you enter with mutual respect for boundaries. I’m not denying it hurts to be rejected and people can be rejected on prejudicial biases, but it’s still a situation that requires mutual consent and you can’t force that on people by calling them bigots. Shaming a woman into having sex with you because otherwise you’ll call her out, is essentially forced consent which is rape. I can’t say it plainer than that.

My consistent insistence that a woman’s boundaries are to be respected, that our sex lives are not political statements to be commented on, and that lesbians owe no one anything has ruffled a lot of feathers.’A lot of people don’t like that. I have seen this from MRA’s to variois online factions of bisexual and trans people (And to be very clear, not all, I don’t like painting a group with one brush) acting like lesbians not sleeping with them is an act of cruelty, a prejudice that must be corrected. In other words, “how dare you not let me get off this is a violation of my civil rights! Lesbians must be so privileged for dating other lesbians!” It’s really fucked up and everywhere on this site. And no, trying to dress it up in woke language like “you should really examine why you don’t like penises” isn’t better. Rather it betrays an obsession with getting penises into lesbians. Not all trans women have one, but that’s too pesky a detail when you’re obsessed with getting dick into a lesbian. And trust me as a lesbian, this is an obsession many people have.

I am seeing the same things that played out before playing out time and again in online spaces, where there’s little cost to being an asshole. People decided an issue is pivotal to their identity or whatever, and do everything they can to “other” people who don’t agree. They use their online social capital to try to shame people. They knowingly post call outs to attack decent people they just don’t agree with. If they can’t chase someone off the platform they’ll make it hell for that person if as much as they can. And they will resort to nasty sexist slurs because to these people nothing is worse than woman with a mind of her own. I’m no longer 25, I don’t seek the approval I used to, I can deal with online anxieties by not engaging. I know to block people and turn off anon. It hurts to be targeted for sure, but ten years later people trying to slander me online is more like water to a duck. But I’m not everyone and ten years ago this kind of online drama could be a suicide inducing event. But they don’t care.

I’m gonna let you in on a secret, the majority of political disagreements are not worth burning down the house and destroying every relationship over. Not only will you have no true friends, you will never challenge your beliefs, your beliefs will stagnate and you will never grow, never learn.

People might read this and assume that because I don’t think sex with a lesbian is a civil right that I must hate trans women. I don’t, that’s not who I am. I know what it’s like to question my gender, I suffer from mild disphoria. I can’t imagine what severe dysphoria is like and I don’t presume to assume what is right for everyone suffering from this. It is terrible, and no one deserves to be treated like shit for it. But that also doesn’t give some people (I emphasize, this is not every trans person’s doing) the right to attack women for talking about sexism, their vagina, pregnancy, or being a lesbian. I couldn’t give a rats ass if a lesbian and trans women get together, I have no right to judge or police that, but it’s okay to police lesbians? That’s fucked up, and let’s not pretend the same standard is applied to gay men, because it 100% is not.

Everyone, no matter the gender, is susceptible to sexism. Calling that out is not me saying I hate trans women, or I want to fight against trans advocacy or anything like that. I just want to talk about sexism and how it affects me as a female lesbian woman. No matter how hard you try, you can’t ID your way out of sexism, just like I, as a white person, cannot ID myself out of the racial bias I was taught from birth. These things are no different to me and has no bearing on me respecting pronouns and promoting issues of trans disability on this blog.

This one issue has painted me as a TERF, when my radical feminism (which I’ve never 100% agree with, one example is bathrooms, just let people pee! When people start monitoring bathrooms I get questioned because I’m GNC) has never been about misgendering and denying the painful realities of dysphoria. I believe and trust we can better understand transmisogyny when we better understand traditional misogyny. If one gender wasn’t so overwhelmingly oppressed I can’t imagine people would have such a knee jerk hateful reaction to trans people. I might think male socialization is a thing, but unlike other people, I don’t attack trans women for our disagreement on this one point. I’ll never make a call out post because I couldn’t make a trans women say what I wanted. I will never ever call anyone a slur either, while I’ve been called a bitch and cunt.

This blog is about disability. All I care about is promoting disability justice, information, and social support. I will always be open to discussing disability as it effects any minority group: POC, female, poor, trans, gay, etc... I’m more than happy to reblog posts regarding trans disability especially with regards to HRT or surgery can effect that. This blog will never be about attacking people and trying to tear them down. I might disagree with people but I won’t try smear someone’s reputation because of it. In recent years I have striven to disagree with people without resorting to insults and assumptions. I’m not perfect but I try.

I have talked before how there are zealous aspects to all groups. You won’t have me denying that radfems can be just as nasty. I condemn any radfem who has treated anyone the way I’m being treated right now. I personally don’t believe that because one trans women did something wrong that it’s okay to misgender all trans women. I am not like that. I’m not so bitter and hateful that I can’t separate one group of assholes from a minority group.

I’ve always been about being the better person, not for the people you hate but for yourself. Holding on to all this hate and negativity, attacking women for daring to state their mind, encouraging people to attack that person, that must be aweful. I can’t, and I won’t be like that. My own mental health couldn’t take it when I did participate in some of these behaviors on my early tumblr experience. Then I realized it was tearing me apart, and that the person on the other end is a human too. I don’t have to like them, but I can respect they have feelings and a world view that wasn’t built just to attack me.

Whether or not you agree with me on a lesbian’s right to bodily autonomy, does that really warrant a response meant to tear a disabled woman down? Are the only people entitled to their own opinions the ones that agree with you?

This matter truly is about sexism whether you believe it or not. I do not actively discuss trans issues on any of my blog. I was targeted for guilt by association (because I can’t follow people I don’t 100% agree with I guess) on main and when asked I said I got nothing against trans women I do have problems with rhetoric that treats sex with a lesbian as a civil right. I was then called out. That is exactly what happened and why I had to shut down questioning and take a break.

This post is to let you all know, I’m back, I’m okay, and this blog will continue with its mission to support disabled people. If you think a disabled women like me who only ever wants to help others, deserves this, then please unfollow. I don’t care how many people follow, I care that the people who do, want to follow me. If you’re a trans woman uncertain if you can bring an issue to me, of course you can. I’m not here to judge anyone, I’m here to give whatever disability advice and support that I can.

So yeah if you can’t understand that disagreements don’t warrant tearing down a person, especially someone who is disabled and has mentioned suicide attempts, then I can’t help you and the unfollow button is right there. If you do or don’t agree with me but think it was fucked up to get called out for, welcome. This blog will return to disability issues and this is the last I’ll be addressing this issue. I’m just going to delete and block people who think calling a disabled woman a cunt is top notch activism. You will not ruin what I’ve built here. You will not cower me. This bitch has been through too much to let anonymous trolls take me down.

Much love to all those who have supported me, it has meant a lot. 💕

[pfandghoul]

what the sokovia accords really are

a quick study bc what the fuck guys

(copied from the mcu wiki entry about the accords - all of it and not just parts of it)

here goes:

The currently known regulations established by the Sokovia Accords include:

Any enhanced individuals who agree to sign must register with the United Nations and provide biometric data such as fingerprints and DNA samples.

- Any who AGREE to sign. I dont think this is asking too much. If ur working for a government agency, if ur using force in any way during ur work, I think its fair to ask you to give them biometric data. And if its only so in case there is an investigation afterwards (which their always should be imo) its clear distinguishable who was where and did what.

- Also, what if someone suddenly decides "something happened, im changing sides, imma take revenge" (no matter if its a concious decision or brainwashing 👀)? Would probably be good to have some data and perhaps be able to track them. If its managable or not- hm. But theres no harm in giving that data if ur only goal is working towards a safer world.

-----

Those with secret identities must reveal their legal names and true identities to the United Nations.

- Oh nooo, no unknown vigilantes that might make mistakes while fighting on their own and then cant be held accountable? No one is perfect, OF COURSE, but from a realistic pov I wouldnt feel safe with someone running around fighting whoever-

And I know we love the romantic comic fantasy of "everybody can be a hero", and I swear I love it as much as you! But imagine ur just a normal person while spiderman is swinging above ur head- or even imagine ur spiderman- and then one tiny thing wents wrong. The normal person is crushed, dead or paralysed- Spiderman is in shock because that was Not supposed to happen and he is so so sorry!- But what now?

- If enhanced people were to work under an organisation (that is ideally not as shady and riddled with Hydra as Shield was) then those incidents would be covered. Yes it would still be terrible but Spiderman would get mandatory therapy session to work through it and the normal person... well if theyre dead then i guess the organisation would at least pay for the funeral and compensate the family (like if they were the only one providing for partner and kids), additionally a conversation between both partys if possible.

-Basically: nothing can be swept under the rug. The enhanced people can be protected!!! PLUS they only have to reveal their identity to the UN and not the world.

---------

Those with innate powers must submit to a power analysis, which will categorize their threat level and determine potential health risks.

- This would benefit the person with power too, you realize that, dont you?

You cant possibly know how much power you actually have. Is there gonna be another level-up for you? Are you Jean Grey? We wouldnt want to repeat that specific clusterfuck, right?

But if you submit to an analysis it can help find ways to train you, circle ur weaknesses, etc.

Yes the UN would know ur threat level- and that would be bad why? Are you planning to attack Them? If not then no problem. Instead they would know if they should send you in or not- depending... you dont need a level 5 when there is a cat in a tree. We want to avoid unnecessary damage, thank you. If ur a level 1 you also dont want to be on the front lines against an alien invasion for example- better help evacuate non-powered individuals and not die immediately.

- Also worth mentioning: this is all still part of the "if you agree to sign" paragraph

-------

Those with innate powers must also wear tracking bracelets at all times.

- Yes I admit this one sucks. I could argue the pros but I dont really want to because this one is literally just a "we want to control you" rule and should be scratched.

------- (new paragraph in the accords)----

Any enhanced individuals who sign are prohibited from taking action in any country other than their own, unless they are first given clearance by either that country's government or by a United Nations subcommittee.

- I really want to think I dont have to say anything here but I feel I do.

No I do not want a guy wearing an american flag running around in my country if my government didnt explicitely allow it. Same for a giant tin man or a creepy spiderlady.

- If anything then this paragraph would help improve the communication between countries. Yes people fear that in emergencies this will all take too long but 1) thats not the Accords fault and 2) I think we already have situations like this irl and most times it does work.

---------

Governments are forbidden from deploying enhanced individuals outside of their own national borders, unless those individuals are given clearance as described above. The same rule also applies to non-government organizations that operate on a global scale (including S.H.I.E.L.D. and the Avengers).

- Same reasoning. I really really dont want Shield around with their shady everything.

- And always needing consent before weaking havoc in other countries? nice

--------(new paragraph)-----

Any enhanced individuals who do not sign will not be allowed to take part in any police, military, or espionage activities, or to otherwise participate in any national or international conflict, even in their own country.

- Basically if you dont sign up then you cant be a super-cop. Groundbreaking.

(This is very much explained in the first paragraph already.)

----------

As a corollary, they will not be allowed to participate in any active missions undertaken by private or governmental law enforcement/military/intelligence organizations (such as S.H.I.E.L.D. and the Avengers).

- s a m e t h i n g

--------(new paragraph)-----

Any enhanced individuals who use their powers to break the law (including those who take part in extralegal vigilante activities), or are otherwise deemed to be a threat to the safety of the general public, may be detained indefinitely without trial.

If an enhanced individual violates the Accords, or obstructs the actions of those enforcing the Accords, they may likewise be arrested and detained indefinitely without trial.

- Cancel the without trial part and then Id say its just. This way it stinks and I feel Ross had his hands in this. No, I am not defending this one. Its Not Okay.

------(new paragraph)-------

The use of technology to bestow individuals with innate superhuman capabilities is strictly regulated, as is the use and distribution of highly advanced technology (such as Asgardian and Chitauri weaponry).

- You cant just experient and turn urself into the Hulk anymore??? Where is the fun in that?? //sarcasm//

- I dont need to go deeper into this, do I?

-------

The creation of self-aware artificial intelligences is completely prohibited.

- Here comes a problem. For Tony mostly.

- I can think of a few reasons for this but I dont think many people are even capable of doing this. I think it would bd enough to file a request if you want to try and build an AI.

--------(new paragraph)----

The Avengers will no longer be a private organization and will operate under the supervision of the United Nations.

- See.. all of the above on why this is a good thing?

- The Avengers as a private organisation is actually a super scary thought. And if you arent at least a little freaked out about this (all from the point of looking at this as if it were real) then idk what to tell you.

---------(new paragraph)-------

For the purposes of the Accords, an "enhanced individual" is defined as any person, human or otherwise, with superhuman capabilities. This includes individuals whose powers are an innate function of their biology as well as individuals who utilize highly advanced technology to grant themselves superhuman capabilities. However, individuals with advanced prostheses do not seem to be considered "enhanced", even if their prostheses give them capabilities beyond those of ordinary humans. 

- Basically just explaining what they mean by "enhanced individual": people with powers. Doesnt matter if you are born with ur power or built urself a supersuit.

-If you got leg protheses that are super bouncy you arent considered an "enhanced individual" (to put it as simple as possible).

-----

All members of the Avengers are subject to the same conditions as enhanced individuals, even if they are not enhanced themselves: Black Widow was required to sign so she could continue serving on the Avengers, and Hawkeye was incarcerated on the Raft after violating the Accords.

- I think this is fair because if you consider urself an Avenger and fight with them then you also should be held accountable.

- You wouldnt want a Someone to work in super-person capacity which both gives a great deal of responsibility and allows a high chance of fuck ups and destruction without them having any regulations, okay?

AND THATS ALL THERE IS

THATS ALL THE MCU WIKI SAYS THERE IS

Which is ofc bullshit because the Accords were thick and 117 countries worked on them for idk how long. Do you understand what that takes? The compromises and politic battles thats been fought over this document?

And yes it is still not perfect.

But who in the seven Hells said that this was the final draft? Who??

"I dont wanna sign away my freedom of choice" F you! What about my freedom of choice of having some costumed weirdos run around my town blowing stuff up killing people?

"We cant save everyone" yEAH but maybe just mAyBe if you werent a dumb cunt then mayyybe with some teamwork with the countries respective secrurity personell (as every fucking country does have) then maybe Kyle, Maria and Dembe would still be alive?? Who knows.

So what I hear is "I dont wanna give up my freedom and continue to do as I see fit. Because I think I am a better judge than a UN committee and 117 governments that dont want me breaking into their countries on a semi-regular basis."

and thats why im generally pro-Accords :)

[mgladkikh]

Technology and Privacy Rights

In recent years, technology has come to the forefront of social life. For many people, old and young alike, technology has become integral and necessary to the daily maintenance of everyday living. It is easy to understand why this is so: technology provides unparalleled comfort and accessibility for relatively little hassle. And yet, an unseen aspect of this lifestyle is that surveillance and monitoring are increasingly intensifying, as are the technologies that extend their reach. This kind of surveillance is responsible for the “BarWatch” program in BC.

What is BarWatch?

BarWatch is a scan-to-enter system largely seen in bars, clubs and some restaurants. While BarWatch was originally intended to combat gang presence, its reach has since stretched to include general rowdyism and related types of uncivil behavior associated with nightclub patrons.

How Does BarWatch Work?

The purpose of BarWatch is to promote safety and security of patrons in licensed establishments; all visitors attempting to enter a participant establishment must present identification for scanning before they can enter. Any patrons that have previously engaged in unlawful or uncivil behavior are flagged at the scanner and prevented from entering the establishment. Participant establishments must warn patrons that they are members of BarWatch by affixing signs at entryways that contain the BarWatch “code of conduct”.

Who Participates in BarWatch?

Participant establishments that operate and own scanning systems subscribe to an open list of banned patrons. Most bans last one year. Once the ban has run out, the problem patron is moved from the open list to a closed list of banned patrons specific to the establishment originating the ban. This is because problem patrons are often banned—either permanently or temporarily beyond a year—from the establishment that originated the ban in addition to being placed on BarWatch. Such closed lists are not available to other participant establishments.

PatronScan is the company that provides the scanning devices and stores the scanned IDs on a private server. Although its privacy policy states that any data gathered is deleted every 24 hours, PatronScan actually deletes information permanently from the server after 90 days in most jurisdictions. The police are the only authority with the right to store any such information beyond the 90 day period.

The local police partner with participant establishments and actively sponsor and support the BarWatch program. This partnership operates similarly to the partnership between law enforcement and businesses under the Inadmissible Patron Program.

What are the Concerns?

According to the BC Civil Liberties Association, BarWatch is a method of screening, surveillance and black-listing that lacks transparency. It is unclear what rules customers must follow in participant establishments and there is no publicly-accessible information/catalogue regarding what information the scanning system collects and where personal data is kept. Moreover, there is no way to appeal a decision to remove someone from an establishment, and it constricts people’s life choices. Quite possibly it also punishes those who have left the criminal lifestyle, become rehabilitated and rejoined mainstream society. It is also rife with opportunities for abusive banning practices, and may have unintended but harmful consequences for minorities, who are profiled and excluded. This is consistent with BarWatch’s commitment to putting “safety before privacy”, which contains the implication that safety must come at the expense of privacy and that the two cannot exist cooperatively and in tandem.

Collection of Data

When the BarWatch program was initially piloted, participant establishments employed the TreoScope ID scanning system to gather personal data from patrons. This system recorded the age, name, gender, expiry date, driver’s license number and photograph of every patron upon entry at any participant establishment. However, in 2009, BC Privacy Commissioner, David Loukidelis, issued a report stating that a Vancouver bar using Treoscope was collecting and retaining too much personal data from patrons.

In his report, Loukidelis submitted that privacy legislation should be viewed in the same light as human rights legislation, in that it seeks to protect and respect the dignity of individuals. He argued that proportionality and reasonableness should properly limit what surveillance is permissible by private and public entities. Loukidelis found that the bar was collecting too much information in relation to deterring violence and preventing under-age patrons from entering. He suggested that perhaps the Treoscope system was less about deterring violence and promoting public safety, and more about creating evidence to be used to defend against a potential lawsuit.

This report brought changes to the BarWatch system: participant establishments switched to the PatronScan system which collects only names, dates of birth and photographs. Despite this, the debate surrounding BarWatch’s legality has continued.

Accessing Information Illegally

One major concern surrounding BarWatch has been police access to the BarWatch database. Although the database (with respect to both open and closed lists) is owned by the participant establishments themselves, police can access it through a court order when dealing with issues of public safety.

In some circumstances, this has worked well: in 2013, a Victoria man was apprehended by police on attempted murder charges after they were granted a warrant to view a BarWatch database. The charges were connected to the man’s behavior in a participant establishment and the database belonged to the club that originated the ban.

In other circumstances, this has worked quite poorly: in 2015, management at Studio Nightclub & Lounge (“Studio”) in Vancouver granted police access to their BarWatch database in the course of a criminal investigation. The BC Supreme Court would later reject the evidence obtained by police from the database because police failed to obtain judicial authorization before requesting that Studio turn over its records from the night in question. The information gathered by police from the database was key to linking the alleged assailant to an act of violence in the Granville Entertainment District. The photographic information (connected to the accused’s name) turned over by Studio along with street surveillance footage taken of the suspect provided the police a reasonably clear picture of the accused’s footsteps on the night in question. According to the defence, this amounted to a breach of privacy and Charter rights. In providing its reasoning, the Court agreed: there was no evidence that Studio had affixed the necessary signage warning patrons about how the information obtained by BarWatch would be used or stored, and that the nature of the information collected by BarWatch afforded the accused a reasonably expectation of privacy. In conclusion, the Court found the accused not guilty because the police had violated the accused’s Charter rights by obtaining data from Studio’s BarWatch without a warrant.

Arguably, this finding may fall into a pattern of police activity that skirts the rule of law for the sake of convenience. Around 2013, a Freedom of Information Request revealed that the Victoria Police were encouraged to use BarWatch to track the movements of a suspicious individual. This is problematic because the BarWatch program is not designed to provide police with opportunities to retrospectively track citizens. When law enforcement engages in this kind of behavior, it raises serious legal and ethical concerns about the failure of public authorities to comply with provincial privacy legislation.

Nothing to Hide Argument

Much of the debate about the legalities of BarWatch seem to stem around the idea that “if you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear”. Notably, this same idea has been used to promote and legitimize the CCTV program practiced across the United Kingdom. Privacy advocates and data security experts alike have described the popularity of this idea as the belief that “the dominant orientation is that mechanisms of surveillance are directed at others”. In other words, most people wrongly assume that surveillance monitoring is not directed at them, but rather at some vaguely-defined societal subset comprised entirely of ill-intentioned delinquents. This suggests a lack of appreciation for the full scope of privacy rights which cannot technically be infringed upon without adequate justification.

In Conclusion

Over the past year, the pro-BarWatch community in Vancouver has unsuccessfully advocated for CCTV on Granville Street. BarWatch Vancouver has also recently announced a partnership with Vancouver Transit authorities to bar individuals who engage in problematic behavior on public transit from entering participant establishments. While police have argued that information would only be passed on from police to BarWatch if the public was at risk, the BC Civil Liberties Association has argued that this sounds “an awful lot like profiling people on transit to give information to a private entity”. This may spell the need for greater oversight over decision-making by BarWatch partners, especially if police are collecting and passing information to private organizations and other police departments for intelligence services. Arguably, if people behave egregiously and violently, there are adequate legal consequences in place to address and curb unwanted behavior without risking function creep. As it stands now, the BarWatch lobby is powerful and may continue to eat away at privacy rights for the foreseeable future.  

Further reading:

https://bc.ctvnews.ca/legal-advocates-concerned-over-transit-police-partnership-with-barwatch-1.4510588

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/code-of-conduct-granville-strip-1.4662910

https://www.martlet.ca/inside-b-c-s-barwatch-program/

https://www.nanaimo.ca/docs/doing-business/doing-business-with-the-city/bar-watch.pdf

https://vancouvercriminallaw.com/zh/is-information-obtained-from-nightclub-id-scanners-an-unfair-invasion-of-privacy/

https://www.ipc.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/Resources/pbd-surveillance.pdf

https://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/op-ed/comment-police-use-of-vehicle-bar-data-misguided-1.39429

[nancydhooper]

The Feckless Thuggery of Anthony Scaramucci's Defamation Threat

Anthony Scaramucci, former White House communications director, a man with a temper, a narrow-band vocabulary and an improbably inflated sense of Steve Bannon's flexibility, has threatened a defamation suit over a student op-ed in the Tufts Daily. The threat — made through Scaramucci's counsel, Sam Lieberman of Sadis & Goldberg LLP — is every bit as blustery and frivolous as the players and circumstances would suggest.

In the op-ed, Tufts student Camilo A. Caballero argued that Scaramucci should not sit on Tuft's Board of Advisors. Scaramucci's letter calls out several passages in the op-ed:

A man who is irresponsible, inconsistent, an unethical opportunist and who exuded the highest degree of disreputability should not be on the Fletcher Board.

This is Anthony Scaramucci, a man who began his infamously short career as the White House communications director by uttering profanity-laced comments on national news outlets, the man who sold his soul in contradiction to his own purported beliefs for a seat in that White House and a man who makes his Twitter accessible to friends interested in giving comfort to Holocaust deniers.

(The links in the second passage above are in the original piece.)

Scaramucci's letter also calls out Caballero's November 13, 2017 follow-up op-ed:

In addition, the administration has announced its intentions to invite Scaramucci to campus to discuss his “experiences in the private and public sectors, and lessons learned.” This invitation by Tufts and the Fletcher School, as the first statement/response they have put out since the student/faculty petition, the Tufts Daily op-ed and the Boston Globe article, is a way to give Scaramucci a platform to legitimize his unethical behavior.

. . .

But as we know now, Scaramucci has shown his intentions while in the White House as well as in his public statements that he cares about gaining attention and nothing more, and we should not let this distract us from what the administration wishes to avoid having to take up and answer.

Lieberman's letter on behalf of Scaramucci is frivolous, thuggish, and an example of the modern trend of people with money believing that they should be protected from criticism through abuse of the legal system.

As I've discussed here many times before, only provable statements of fact can be defamatory. An opinion that does not imply a provably false statement of fact cannot be defamatory and is absolutely protected by the First Amendment. Courts deciding whether a statement is potentially defamatory fact or absolutely protected opinion look at the totality of the circumstances, including the entire context and the viewpoint of people familiar with the publication and the figures discussed. Here, multiple factors rather conclusively establish that the statements Scaramucci complains of are protected opinion. First, the columns are expressly labeled as editorial and opinion. This isn't dispositive but strongly frames the context. Second, the editorials are about a controversial political figure. Courts are far more likely to interpret statements about politics and political figures as opinion rather than fact, and to treat comments therein as rhetorical hyperbole rather than as provable literal fact. Third, the statements are couched in heated rhetoric that makes it far more likely to be treated as opinion — it's difficult to imagine a court that would treat "sold his soul" as a statement of provable fact. Fourth, rather than implying undisclosed and potentially provably false facts, the author repeatedly offers links demonstrating the basis for his opinions. For instance, the statement that Scaramucci "sold his soul" is linked to a scathing opinion piece arguing that Scaramucci's acceptance of a job in the Trump administration contradicted his past rhetoric about the Republican party. Hence, "sold his soul" is clearly a characterization of Scaramucci's decision to accept a job — and notably Scaramucci's letter does not quarrel with any of the underlying factual assertions about what Scaramucci said before about the Republican party. Similarly, Scaramucci complains that the op-ed says he gave comfort on Twitter to Holocaust deniers. Once again, the author provided a link establishing what he was talking about — an imbecilic Scaramucci Post tweet asking Twitter users to vote on how many Jews were killed in the Holocaust, as if historical facts are resolved by a vote on a platform squirming with bigots and trolls. Once again, this is an argumentative characterization of Scaramucci's action, not a provably false statement of fact.

Lieberman's letter strains mightily to distinguish well-established law that would demonstrate that these claims are frivolous. For instance, Lieberman cites Van Liew v. Eliopoulos, 84 N.E.2d 898 (2017), a recent Massachusetts Court of Appeal case, for the proposition that accusing someone of "ethical violations" could be defamatory rather than merely opinion. That case is not remotely apt and the citation is highly misleading. In Van Liew, the plaintiff established that the defendant had made specific provably false statements of fact: that the plaintiff was under investigation by the Attorney General's office, that he lied to officials, and that his actions in connection with a sale of property were in violation of specific ethical rules governing his position as a public official. In other words, the case involved specific allegations about specific actions, not a general rhetorical allegation that the plaintiff was unethical. The citation to the case is empty and cynical.

Lieberman's letter also engages in a rhetorical trick I expect to see on Twitter and Reddit, not in a letter from an attorney. Lieberman cites a series of cases saying that accusing Scaramucci of lack of ethics is "defamation per se." But "defamation per se" refers to the doctrine that, with respect to certain types of defamation, the plaintiff need not specially prove damages, because some amount of damages will be presumed. The doctrine does not excuse the plaintiff from any of the other elements of a defamation case — like proving that the statement is a provably false statement of fact or that the speaker (in the case of a public figure) knew it was false or acted with reckless disregard as to its falsity.

Lieberman's letter ends by piling on more argument about Scaramucci's moronic Twitter poll about the Holocaust. This is simply insipid. The op-ed, which linked to the story about the tweet, self-evidently offers a non-provable opinion that taking Twitter polls about Holocaust deaths gives comfort to Holocaust deniers. As I've discussed here repeatedly before, characterizing someone's actions as racist is classic opinion. Lieberman cites Herlihy v. Metro. Museum of Art, 608 N.Y.S.2d 770 (1994) for the proposition that an accusation of antisemitism can be defamatory. Once again Lieberman is misleading the reader. In Herlihy the plaintiff accused the defendant of entirely fabricating a series of antisemitic statements by the plaintiff; the case did not involve a dispute over whether the plaintiff's actions could be characterized as racist. Put another way, the defamation there was claiming the plaintiff said something she didn't say at all, not arguing that her undisputed words made her racist.

Scaramucci's letter is vexatious, meritless, dishonest, and thuggish. A decent lawyer would not draft it and a decent man would not have it sent on his behalf. It represents the growing trend of the wealthy leveraging a broken legal system to suppress criticism. It is entirely consistent with Scaramucci's past conduct as a vain, bumbling lout, and inconsistent with his attempts to rehabilitate himself. For shame.

Copyright 2017 by the named Popehat author. from RSSMix.com Mix ID 8247012 https://www.popehat.com/2017/11/27/the-feckless-thuggery-of-anthony-scaramuccis-defamation-threat/ via http://www.rssmix.com/

[nothingman]

It was an extraordinary critique of a sitting president’s behavior and character.

James Comey’s testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee Thursday was an extraordinary public critique of President Donald Trump’s conduct in office and character as a whole.

“I knew there might come a day when I would need a record of what had happened, not just to defend myself, but to defend the FBI and our integrity as an institution and the independence of our investigative function,” Comey said.

Speaking at length and in great detail, Comey laid out four main examples of behavior by the president he found either inappropriate or troubling.

First, Trump repeatedly asked for Comey’s “loyalty” at a private dinner in January, in what Comey interpreted as an effort to “get something in exchange” for keeping him in the FBI director post.

Second, on February 14, after Trump asked a set of other White House advisers to leave the room, he told Comey that he hoped he could “let” the matter of fired National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, then the subject of an FBI investigation into whether he’d made false statements about his contacts with the Russian ambassador, “go.” Comey says he “took it as a direction” from the president, not a request, but that he decided not to carry it out.

Third, Comey said that in a pair of phone calls, Trump asked him to publicly state what he was saying privately — that Trump wasn’t personally under investigation — as a way to lift what he called a “cloud” over his presidency. Again, Comey says he refused.

And fourth, Comey argued that Trump and his White House initially told “lies” about why he was fired and attempted to “defame” him. He also said he believed his firing was related to his handling of the Russia investigation, citing the president’s own words.

Now, Comey did not draw any conclusions about whether the president was attempting to obstruct justice, saying that that would be up to special counsel Robert Mueller to determine. And it is important to note that, per Comey, Trump never actually asked him to shut down the Russia investigation.

Furthermore, Comey straightforwardly confirmed that while he was in office, President Trump was not personally the subject of an FBI investigation. Comey also confirmed that he privately assured the president of this several times, which makes Trump’s desire to have Comey make the same statement publicly more understandable.

In a statement released afterward, Trump’s personal lawyer Marc Kasowitz denied that he ever asked Comey for loyalty or suggested that he stop investigating Flynn, essentially accusing the former FBI director of lying under oath, writing, “The president never, in form or substance, directed or suggested that Mr. Comey stop investigating anyone.”

But the revelations didn’t stop with Trump. Comey tantalizingly suggested that there is more nonpublic information about Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Russia that was bound to force his recusal from the probe. And he confirmed reports that President Obama’s Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s conduct around the Hillary Clinton email investigation seriously troubled him.

The big picture, though, is about the president. Comey has laid out a troubling pattern of the president’s refusal to respect or understand the traditional independence of the FBI director — a pattern that culminated in his own firing under a transparently bogus pretext.

The Flynn request: “I took it as a direction ... this is the president of the United States”

Before Comey’s firing, the incident that raises the most serious questions about whether the president was trying to obstruct justice occurred on February 14, 2017.

According to Comey, on this morning, Trump asked all other administration officials to leave the room after an Oval Office briefing so he could speak to the FBI director alone. The president then brought up Michael Flynn, who was fired as national security adviser the night before. Comey’s prepared testimony states:

The President then returned to the topic of Mike Flynn, saying, “He is a good guy and has been through a lot.” He repeated that Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong on his calls with the Russians, but had misled the Vice President.

He then said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.” I replied only that “he is a good guy.”

At the hearing, Comey was questioned extensively on how he interpreted this exchange. Some Republican senators, including Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID), focused on the president’s words “I hope,” suggesting that he was merely vaguely expressing his wishes rather than making a direct instruction.

Comey didn’t buy it. “I took it as a direction,” he testified. “This is a president of the United States with me alone saying “I hope” this. I took it as, this is what he wants me to do. I didn’t obey that, but that’s the way I took it.”

He later elaborated: “It rings in my ear as, well, ‘Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?’” — making a reference to the tale of how King Henry II “suggested” to his advisers that someone kill Thomas Becket, which someone soon did.

The specific ask Comey thought Trump was making was for him to drop the FBI probe into Flynn for making false statements about his contacts with the Russian ambassador (including whether he made false statements to government investigators). He says he didn’t think Trump was referring to investigations into Flynn’s foreign lobbying, or the larger Russia probe. He continued:

I don’t think it's for me to say whether the conversation I had with the president was an effort to obstruct. I took it as a very disturbing thing, very concerning, but that's a conclusion I'm sure the special counsel will work towards to find out the intention there and whether that's an offense.

Now, Trump’s personal lawyer Marc Kasowitz released a statement Thursday afternoon claiming that “the President never, in form or substance, directed or suggested that Mr,. Comey stop investigating anyone, including suggesting that Mr. Comey ‘let Flynn go.’” (Kasowitz does, however, confirm that the interaction happened, writing that Trump told Comey Flynn is a “good guy” who has “been through a lot.”)

But Comey was testifying under oath, and he says he documented the incident at the time in a memo and shared it with other FBI leaders. It does not seem particularly likely that he is lying — especially since President Trump has already brought up the possibility that tapes of their encounter exist, lying under oath would put him in serious legal jeopardy. (“Lordy,” Comey said, “I hope there are tapes.”)

A troubling pattern beyond the Flynn request

On its own, Trump’s alleged request about “letting Flynn go” — a seeming attempt to protect a former close aide from criminal charges by having the FBI drop an investigation — demonstrates a troubling lack of respect for the rule of law.

But Comey laid out a larger pattern in which the president made clear that he either does not care about or does not understand the traditional independence of law enforcement agencies like the FBI from the president.

Comey made clear that he was wary of Trump from the get-go and had a low opinion of his honesty and character. He testified that he felt compelled to meticulously document all his interactions with Trump because of his opinion of the president’s “nature,” saying that he was “honestly concerned that he might lie about” what went on in their meetings.

January 27 was the unusual dinner in which Trump repeatedly asked for Comey’s “loyalty.” In the context Comey provides, this looks even worse, because he says that Trump had already told him three times that he hoped he’d stay on as FBI director and Comey had confirmed he would. So he concluded that Trump wanted something from him.

The next Friday, I have dinner and the president begins by wanting to talk about my job. And so I'm sitting there thinking, wait a minute, three times we've already — you've already asked me to stay or talked about me staying.

My common sense, again I could be wrong, but my common sense told me what's going on here is, he's looking to get something in exchange for granting my request to stay in the job.

(Trump’s lawyer Marc Kasowitz denies Trump asked for Comey’s loyalty, saying, "The President also never told Mr. Comey, 'I need loyalty, I expect loyalty,' in form or substance.")

Then there were Trump’s complaints to Comey about the FBI’s Russia investigation in two phone calls, on March 30 and April 11 — he called it a “cloud” hanging over his presidency, per Comey.

This could be interpreted as an attempt to vaguely pressure the FBI director, but Comey testified that Trump never asked him to shut down the Russia investigation as a whole and in fact said that if his “satellite” advisers did anything wrong, it would be good to find that out.

Trump’s specific ask in these calls, according to Comey, was that the FBI director publicly state that he wasn’t personally under investigation. Comey may have had his reasons for refusing to do this, but considering he confirms that he freely told the president in private, several times, this request seems understandable from Trump’s point of view. (He wanted Comey to put out true information.)

Still, all of these tensions, unfulfilled requests, and awkward interactions lead in the end to Comey’s firing under transparently false pretexts (the reasons given were that he was too tough on Hillary Clinton in the email case, and that the FBI was a mess with poor morale under his leadership). Comey minced no words here, calling these “lies” and saying the administration tried to “defame” him:

Although the law requires no reason at all to fire an FBI director, it confused me when I saw on television the president saying that he actually fired me because of the Russian investigation, and learned again from the media that he was telling privately other parties that my firing had relieved great pressure on the Russian investigation.

I was also confused by the initial explanation that was offered publicly that I was fired because of the decision I had made during the election year. That didn't make sense to me for whole bunch of reasons, including the time and all the water that had gone under the bridge since those hard decision that had to be made. That didn't make any sense to me.

And although the law requires no reason at all to fire an FBI director, the administration then chose to defame me and more importantly the FBI by saying that the organization was in disarray, that it was poorly led, that the work force had lost confidence in its leader. Those were lies, plain and simple.

The hearings also revealed newsworthy information about Loretta Lynch and Jeff Sessions

In addition to raising these troubling questions about President Trump’s conduct, Comey made news on two other matters — one involving his boss in the Obama administration, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, while the other involved his boss under Trump, Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

First, in defending his extraordinary public presentation about the Hillary Clinton email case in July 2016 — in which he criticized Clinton’s conduct but announced he wouldn’t charge her — Comey confirmed that he was troubled by Lynch’s behavior around the case.

What made up his mind, Comey said, was the infamous impromptu tarmac meeting between Bill Clinton and Lynch. But even before that, he continued, Lynch made a request of him that sounded odd:

The Clinton campaign at the time was using all kinds of euphemisms, “security review,” “matters,” things like that for what was going on. We were getting to a place where the attorney general [Lynch] and I were both going to testify and talk publicly about it

I wanted to know, was she going to authorize us to confirm we have an investigation? She said yes, but don't call it that, call it a “matter.”

I said why would I do that? She said, just call it a matter. ... That concerned me because that language tracked the way the campaign was talking about the FBI's work and that's concerning.

And elsewhere in the hearing, Comey made a statement about Jeff Sessions that raised eyebrows in Washington. In explaining why he didn’t brief Sessions on Trump’s request that he drop the Flynn investigation, Comey said:

Our judgment, as I recall, is that he was very close to and inevitably going to recuse himself for a variety of reasons. We also were aware of facts that I can't discuss in an opening setting that would make his continued engagement in a Russia-related investigation problematic.

So, Comey appears to be indicating that there’s more to the story of Jeff Sessions and Russia beyond the two encounters with Ambassador Sergey Kislyak (a meeting in his Senate office, and an exchange at a public event) that Sessions failed to disclose at his confirmation hearing, and that led to his recusal in the first place.

Overall, though, Comey’s account of Trump’s conduct was rightly treated as the major story coming out of this meeting. He has given his side of the story, and now, the ball is in special counsel Robert Mueller’s court.

via Vox - All