關於 only one of爭議 ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

林昶佐委員因為市場防疫的議題，陷入是不是稱職立法委員的爭論。
有關爭議當天的發言，林委員事後已有針對市場表達謙卑的歉意，但是，還是有種種攻擊餘緒未消。
我要分享「外交家雜誌」這篇報導：
台灣打造「數位民主國家」的成就，很受國際矚目，開放國會部分，也是林昶佐委員的問政所關注的焦點，國際研究因此知道聽取他的意見，我們因此在這篇報導看到他的意見被呈現出來。
立法委員問政，因為不是執行者，往往不如行政官員有能見度，但是國家建設的成功，確實有國會議員共同參與的貢獻在裡面！
林委員很多問政都有佳績，慢慢大家會了解，至少這件事，國際間的評價很高，是台灣創造「數位民主國家」中的一環，而林委員長期關心！
提供大家參考：//

台灣能否提供數位威權的另一選擇?
Can Taiwan Provide the Alternative to Digital Authoritarianism?
(Diplomat https://ppt.cc/fjDcrx)

中國和台灣正成為匹敵的數位國家—
中國是數位威權政權，台灣是數位民主。
China and Taiwan are becoming digital states in parallel —
China as a digital authoritarian regime, and Taiwan as a digital democracy.

7月1日中國共產黨成立百年之際，中國分析專家正密切關注習近平主席的下一步。另一方面，台灣正在推進 2020 年 6 月推出的開放國會行動方案和徹底透明的政策。中國和台灣正在同時成為數位國家—中國是數字威權政權，台灣是數位民主。 兩者中，數位威權更容易實施，也已有許多學術專業定義和理解它。雖然目前尚未有明確的數位民主模型，但台灣正在創造一個範例。

開放國會行動方案究竟是什麼？去年由Freddy 林昶佐立法委員提出，部分受到行政院開放政府國家行動方案的啟發。 開放國會行動方案為台灣立法院制定了五個主要目標：透明、公開、參與、數位化和理解。 林昶佐委員表示他長期以來相當關注科技和政治，並補充說：“推動此方案的原因是對政府和國會的未來創造新願景。”

開放國會行動方案包括改革，例如電視轉播，主要增加手語。 禁止閉門跨黨談判，包括委員會層面。 另一個重大變革是公開可取得的數位數據，例如投票記錄、預算和利益衝突。 目前公開的線上資訊有限，大部分的資料必須實體索取。

類似的開放政府國家行動方案側重於台灣政府的一系列政策變革來提高透明度、提供資料和增加公民參與。 因為台灣不被承認為國家，所以不能成為開放政府夥伴關係聯盟(OGP)的正式成員。 儘管如此，台灣依然在 2019 年宣布制訂自己的開放政府行動方案。

台灣政務委員唐鳳將 OGP 描述為“一項國際倡議，提倡核心價值如透明度、問責制、參與和包容，強調政府和民間的合作和共同創造。 全都符合台灣努力的方向。” 唐鳳希望開放開放政府國家行動方案是台灣加入OGP的路徑。

台灣公民科技的例子比比皆是，例如 2020 年 COVID-19 爆發初期使用的口罩地圖、針對追蹤接觸者足跡的QR Code 簽到系統、 闢謠機器人、公民自發的群眾外包政策，等。
“[公民科技]是台灣治理未來的關鍵，也是我們如何推動整個系統向前發展的關鍵。 公民科技將發揮非常重要的作用，”林昶佐委員說。

唐鳳也樂觀的表示：我相信我們今天面臨的許多挑戰，包括流行疫病和假訊息大流行(infodemic)，都可以透過民主深化和促進我所謂的‘人民-公眾-私人的合作夥伴關係’來克服。”

林昶佐表示，台灣與中國的主要區別在於，台灣對科技的使用(例如切斷數位連結)以及疫病大流行時權力擴張的時間設限都有監督。

一個沒有監督或信任的政府的範例就是中國共產黨，它越來越依賴數位威權來監視和控制人口。 最極端的在其周邊地區：西藏、香港和新疆。 然而，即便是北京的街道上也佈滿了監視攝影機。

“台灣的數位民主與中國的數位威權之間存在根本區別，”唐鳳說。 “北京使用社會信用體系和國家審查等數位工具的同時，台灣積極創建數位基礎設施，使一般公民能針對政策改革提出和表達意見。”
“數位民主的透明度是讓國家對大眾透明，”唐鳳繼續： “在數位威權下，‘透明’一詞表示讓民眾對國家透明。”

台灣民主的數位化可能尚未完成，但其政府和公民社會的努力指示了一個數位威權主義的可行替代方案。改革政府過程中的數位工具和政策可以應用於其他民主國家。

“對於中國來說，也許只有一件事可以確定，他們多年來的大宣傳故事『民主不適合亞洲』
在台灣的進步發展下不再令人感興趣，”Ttcat 表示。

There is no clear model of what a digital democracy is yet, but Taiwan is in the process of creating one.
Digital Minister of Taiwan Audrey Tang described the OGP as “an international initiative that advocates core values such as transparency, accountability, participation and inclusion, with an emphasis on cooperation and co-creation of the government and civil society. These are all in line with what we are doing here in Taiwan.” Tang hopes the Open Government National Action Plan will be a path for Taiwan to enter the OGP.

Tang is also optimistic: “I believe many of the challenges we face today, including the pandemic and the infodemic, can be overcome by deepening democracy and promoting what I call “People-Public-Private Partnerships.”

According to Lim, the key difference between Taiwan and China is that in Taiwan, there is oversight for the use of technology, such as de-linking data, and time-limits to expanded powers during the pandemic.

“In a digital democracy, transparency is about making the state transparent to the public,” she continued. “Under digital authoritarianism, the word ‘transparency’ means making citizens transparent to the state.”

The digitization of Taiwan’s democracy may not be complete, but the efforts of its government and civil society point to a viable alternative to digital authoritarianism. The digital tools and policies to reform its government can be applied in other democracies.

“For China, maybe only one thing is certain, that the propaganda narrative they ran for years— that democracy is not for Asia— is no longer appealing under Taiwan’s progress,” said Ttcat.

這是前些日子爆出已經被加拿大法院接理對藏傳佛教噶舉派法王的訟訴。（加拿大法院鏈接在此：https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/21/09/2021BCSC0939cor1.htm?fbclid=IwAR2FLZlzmUIGTBaTuKPVchEqqngcE3Qy6G_C0TWNWVKa2ksbIYkVJVMQ8f8）

這位法王的桃色事件，我是幾年前才聽到。但，藏傳佛教的高層有這些性醜聞，我已經聽了幾十年。我以前的一位前女友也被一些堪布藉故上她的家摟抱過，也有一些活佛跟她表白。（這不只是她，其他地方我也聽過不少）

這是一個藏傳佛教裡面系統式的問題。

很多時候發生這種事情，信徒和教主往往都是說女方得不到寵而報仇，或者說她們也精神病，或者說她們撒謊。

我不排除有這種可能性，但，多過一位，甚至多位出來指證的時候，我是傾向於相信『沒有那麼巧這麼多有精神病的女人要撒謊來報仇』。

大寶法王的桃色事件，最先吹哨的是一位台灣的在家信徒，第二位是香港的女出家人，現在加拿大又多一位公開舉報上法庭。

對大寶法王信徒來說，這一次的比較麻煩，因為是有孩子的。（關於有孩子的，我早在法王的桃色事件曝光時，就有聽聞）

如果法庭勒令要驗證DNA，這對法王和他的信徒來說，會很尷尬和矛盾，因為做或不做，都死。

你若問我，我覺得『人數是有力量的』，同時我也覺得之後有更多的人站出來，是不出奇的。

我也藉此呼籲各方佛教徒，如果你們真的愛佛教，先別說批判，但如鴕鳥般不討論這些爭議，你是間接害了佛教。

（下面是我從加拿大法院鏈接拷貝下來的內容，當中有很多細節。）

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

ANALYSIS

A. The Spousal Support Claim in this Case

B. The Test to Amend Pleadings

C. Pleadings in Family Law Cases

D. The Legal Concept of a Marriage-Like Relationship

E. Is There a Reasonable Claim of a Marriage-Like Relationship?

F. Delay / Prejudice

CONCLUSION



INTRODUCTION
[1] The claimant applies to amend her notice of family claim to seek spousal support. At issue is whether the claimant’s allegations give rise to a reasonable claim she lived with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship, so as to give rise to a potential entitlement to spousal support under the Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25 (“FLA”).

[2] The facts alleged by the claimant do not fit within a traditional concept of marriage. The claimant does not allege that she and the respondent ever lived together. Indeed, she has only met the respondent in person four times: twice very briefly in a public setting; a third time in private, when she alleges the respondent sexually assaulted her; and a fourth and final occasion, when she informed the respondent she was pregnant with his child.

[3] The claimant’s case is that what began as a non-consensual sexual encounter evolved into a loving and affectionate relationship. That relationship occurred almost entirely over private text messages. The parties rarely spoke on the telephone, and never saw one another during the relationship, even over video. The claimant says they could not be together because the respondent is forbidden by his station and religious beliefs from intimate relationships or marriage. Nonetheless, she alleges, they formed a marriage-like relationship that lasted from January 2018 to January 2019.

[4] The respondent denies any romantic relationship with the claimant. While he acknowledges providing emotional and financial support to the claimant, he says it was for the benefit of the child the claimant told him was his daughter.

[5] The claimant’s proposed amendment raises a novel question: can a secret relationship that began on-line and never moved into the physical world be like a marriage? In my view, that question should be answered by a trial judge after hearing all of the evidence. The alleged facts give rise to a reasonable claim the claimant lived with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship. Accordingly, I grant the claimant leave to amend her notice of family claim.

BACKGROUND
[6] It should be emphasized that this is an application to amend pleadings only. The allegations by the claimant are presumed to be true for the purposes of this application. Those allegations have not been tested in a court of law.

[7] The respondent, Ogyen Trinley Dorje, is a high lama of the Karma Kagyu School of Tibetan Buddhism. He has been recognized and enthroned as His Holiness, the 17th Gyalwang Karmapa. Without meaning any disrespect, I will refer to him as Mr. Dorje in these reasons for judgment.

[8] Mr. Dorje leads a monastic and nomadic lifestyle. His true home is Tibet, but he currently resides in India. He receives followers from around the world at the Gyuto Monetary in India. He also travels the world teaching Tibetan Buddhist Dharma and hosting pujas, ceremonies at which Buddhists express their gratitude and devotion to the Buddha.

[9] The claimant, Vikki Hui Xin Han, is a former nun of Tibetan Buddhism. Ms. Han first encountered Mr. Dorje briefly at a large puja in 2014. The experience of the puja convinced Ms. Han she wanted to become a Buddhist nun. She met briefly with Mr. Dorje, in accordance with Kagyu traditions, to obtain his approval to become a nun.

[10] In October 2016, Ms. Han began a three-year, three-month meditation retreat at a monastery in New York State. Her objective was to learn the practices and teachings of the Kagyu Lineage. Mr. Dorje was present at the retreat twice during the time Ms. Han was at the monastery.

[11] Ms. Han alleges that on October 14, 2017, Mr. Dorje sexually assaulted her in her room at the monastery. She alleges that she became pregnant from the assault.

[12] After she learned that she was pregnant, Ms. Han requested a private audience with Mr. Dorje. In November 2017, in the presence of his bodyguards, Ms. Han informed Mr. Dorje she was pregnant with his child. Mr. Dorje initially denied responsibility; however, he provided Ms. Han with his email address and a cellphone number, and, according to Ms. Han, said he would “prepare some money” for her.

[13] Ms. Han abandoned her plan to become a nun, left the retreat and returned to Canada. She never saw Mr. Dorje again.

[14] After Ms. Han returned to Canada, she and Mr. Dorje began a regular communication over an instant messaging app called Line. They also exchanged emails and occasionally spoke on the telephone.

[15] The parties appear to have expressed care and affection for one another in these communications. I say “appear to” because it is difficult to fully understand the meaning and intentions of another person from brief text messages, especially those originally written in a different language. The parties wrote in a private shorthand, sharing jokes, emojis, cartoon portraits and “hugs” or “kisses”. Ms. Han was the more expressive of the two, writing more frequently and in longer messages. Mr. Dorje generally participated in response to questions or prompting from Ms. Han, sometimes in single word messages.

[16] Ms. Han deposes that she believed Mr. Dorje was in love with her and that, by January 2018, she and Mr. Dorje were living in a “conjugal relationship”.

[17] During their communications, Ms. Han expressed concern that her child would be “illegitimate”. She appears to have asked Mr. Dorje to marry her, and he appears to have responded that he was “not ready”.

[18] Throughout 2018, Mr. Dorje transferred funds in various denominations to Ms. Han through various third parties. Ms. Han deposes that these funds were:

a) $50,000 CDN to deliver the child and for postpartum care she was to receive at a facility in Seattle;

b) $300,000 CDN for the first year of the child’s life;

c) $20,000 USD for a wedding ring, because Ms. Han wrote “Even if we cannot get married, you must buy me a wedding ring”;

d) $400,000 USD to purchase a home for the mother and child.

[19] On June 19, 2018, Ms. Han gave birth to a daughter in Richmond, B.C.

[20] On September 17, 2018, Mr. Dorje wrote, ”Taking care of her and you are my duty for life”.

[21] Ms. Han’s expectation was that the parties would live together in the future. She says they planned to live together. Those plans evolved over time. Initially they involved purchasing a property in Toronto, so that Mr. Dorje could visit when he was in New York. They also discussed purchasing property in Calgary or renting a home in Vancouver for that purpose. Ms. Han eventually purchased a condominium in Richmond using funds provided by Mr. Dorje.

[22] Ms. Han deposes that the parties made plans for Mr. Dorje to visit her and meet the child in Richmond. In October 2018, however, Mr. Dorje wrote that he needed to “disappear” to Europe. He wrote:

I will definitely find a way to meet her

And you

Remember to take care of yourself if something happens

[23] The final plan the parties discussed, according to Ms. Han, was that Mr. Dorje would sponsor Ms. Han and the child to immigrate to the United States and live at the Kagyu retreat centre in New York State.

[24] In January 2019, Ms. Han lost contact with Mr. Dorje.

[25] Ms. Han commenced this family law case on July 17, 2019, seeking child support, a declaration of parentage and a parentage test. She did not seek spousal support.

[26] Ms. Han first proposed a claim for spousal support in October 2020 after a change in her counsel. Following an exchange of correspondence concerning an application for leave to amend the notice of family claim, Ms. Han’s counsel wrote that Ms. Han would not be advancing a spousal support claim. On March 16, 2020, counsel reversed course, and advised that Ms. Han had instructed him to proceed with the application.

[27] When this application came on before me, the trial was set to commence on June 7, 2021. The parties were still in the process of discoveries and obtaining translations for hundreds of pages of documents in Chinese characters.

[28] At a trial management conference on May 6, 2021, noting the parties were not ready to proceed, Madam Justice Walkem adjourned the trial to April 11, 2022.

ANALYSIS
A. The Spousal Support Claim in this Case
[29] To claim spousal support in this case, Ms. Han must plead that she lived with Mr. Dorje in a marriage-like relationship. This is because only “spouses” are entitled to spousal support, and s. 3 of the Family Law Act defines a spouse as a person who is married or has lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship:

3 (1) A person is a spouse for the purposes of this Act if the person

(a) is married to another person, or

(b) has lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship, and

(i) has done so for a continuous period of at least 2 years, or

(ii) except in Parts 5 [Property Division] and 6 [Pension Division], has a child with the other person.

[30] Because she alleges she has a child with Mr. Dorje, Ms. Han need not allege that the relationship endured for a continuous period of two years to claim spousal support; but she must allege that she lived in a marriage-like relationship with him at some point in time. Accordingly, she must amend the notice of family claim.

B. The Test to Amend Pleadings
[31] Given that the notice of trial has been served, Ms. Han requires leave of the court to amend the notice of family claim: Supreme Court Family Rule 8-1(1)(b)(i).

[32] A person seeking to amend a notice of family claim must show that there is a reasonable cause of action. This is a low threshold. What the applicant needs to establish is that, if the facts pleaded are proven at trial, they would support a reasonable claim. The applicant’s allegations of fact are assumed to be true for the purposes of this analysis. Cantelon v. Wall, 2015 BCSC 813, at para. 7-8.

[33] The applicant’s delay, the reasons for the delay, and the prejudice to the responding party are also relevant factors. The ultimate consideration is whether it would be just and convenient to allow the amendment. Cantelon, at para. 6, citing Teal Cedar Products Ltd. v. Dale Intermediaries Ltd. et al (1986), 19 B.C.L.R. (3d) 282.

C. Pleadings in Family Law Cases
[34] Supreme Court Family Rules 3-1(1) and 4-1(1) require that a claim to spousal support be pleaded in a notice of family claim in Form F3. Section 2 of Form F3, “Spousal relationship history”, requires a spousal support claimant to check the boxes that apply to them, according to whether they are or have been married or are or have been in a marriage-like relationship. Where a claimant alleges a marriage-like relationship, Form F3 requires that they provide the date on which they began to live together with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship and, where applicable, the date on which they separated. Form F3 does not require a statement of the factual basis for the claim of spousal support.

[35] In this case, Ms. Han seeks to amend the notice of family claim to allege that she and Mr. Dorje began to live in a marriage-like relationship in or around January 2018, and separated in or around January 2019.

[36] An allegation that a person lived with a claimant in a marriage-like relationship is a conclusion of law, not an allegation of fact. Unlike the rules governing pleadings in civil actions, however, the Supreme Court Family Rules do not expressly require family law claimants to plead the material facts in support of conclusions of law.

[37] In other words, there is no express requirement in the Supreme Court Family Rules that Ms. Han plead the facts on which she relies for the allegation she and Mr. Dorje lived in a marriage-like relationship.

[38] Rule 4-6 authorizes a party to demand particulars, and then apply to the court for an order for further and better particulars, of a matter stated in a pleading. However, unless and until she is granted leave and files the proposed amended notice of family claim, Ms. Han’s allegation of a marriage-like relationship is not a matter stated in a pleading.

[39] Ms. Han filed an affidavit in support of her application to amend the notice of family claim. Normally, evidence would not be required or admissible on an application to amend a pleading. However, in the unusual circumstances of this case, the parties agreed I may look to Ms. Han’s affidavit and exhibits for the facts she pleads in support of the allegation of a marriage-like relationship.

[40] Because this is an application to amend - and Ms. Han’s allegations of fact are presumed to be true - I have not considered Mr. Dorje’s responding affidavit.

[41] Relying on affidavit evidence for an application to amend pleadings is less than ideal. It tends to merge and confuse the material facts with the evidence that would be relied on to prove those facts. In a number of places in her affidavit, for example, Ms. Han describes her feelings, impressions and understandings. A person’s hopes and intentions are not normally material facts unless they are mutual or reasonably held. The facts on which Ms. Han alleges she and Mr. Dorje formed a marriage-like relationship are more important for the present purposes than her belief they entered into a conjugal union.

[42] Somewhat unusually, in this case, almost all of the parties’ relevant communications were in writing. This makes it somewhat easier to separate the facts from the evidence; however, as stated above, it is difficult to understand the intentions and actions of a person from brief text messages.

[43] In my view, it would be a good practice for applicants who seek to amend their pleadings in family law cases to provide opposing counsel and the court with a schedule of the material facts on which they rely for the proposed amendment.

D. The Legal Concept of a Marriage-Like Relationship
[44] As Mr. Justice Myers observed in Mother 1 v. Solus Trust Company, 2019 BCSC 200, the concept of a marriage-like relationship is elastic and difficult to define. This elasticity is illustrated by the following passage from Yakiwchuk v. Oaks, 2003 SKQB 124, quoted by Myers J. at para. 133 of Mother 1:

[10] Spousal relationships are many and varied. Individuals in spousal relationships, whether they are married or not, structure their relationships differently. In some relationships there is a complete blending of finances and property - in others, spouses keep their property and finances totally separate and in still others one spouse may totally control those aspects of the relationship with the other spouse having little or no knowledge or input. For some couples, sexual relations are very important - for others, that aspect may take a back seat to companionship. Some spouses do not share the same bed. There may be a variety of reasons for this such as health or personal choice. Some people are affectionate and demonstrative. They show their feelings for their “spouse” by holding hands, touching and kissing in public. Other individuals are not demonstrative and do not engage in public displays of affection. Some “spouses” do everything together - others do nothing together. Some “spouses” vacation together and some spend their holidays apart. Some “spouses” have children - others do not. It is this variation in the way human beings structure their relationships that make the determination of when a “spousal relationship” exists difficult to determine. With married couples, the relationship is easy to establish. The marriage ceremony is a public declaration of their commitment and intent. Relationships outside marriage are much more difficult to ascertain. Rarely is there any type of “public” declaration of intent. Often people begin cohabiting with little forethought or planning. Their motivation is often nothing more than wanting to “be together”. Some individuals have chosen to enter relationships outside marriage because they did not want the legal obligations imposed by that status. Some individuals have simply given no thought as to how their relationship would operate. Often the date when the cohabitation actually began is blurred because people “ease into” situations, spending more and more time together. Agreements between people verifying when their relationship began and how it will operate often do not exist.

[45] In Mother 1, Mr. Justice Myers referred to a list of 22 factors grouped into seven categories, from Maldowich v. Penttinen, (1980), 17 R.F.L. (2d) 376 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), that have frequently been cited in this and other courts for the purpose of determining whether a relationship was marriage-like, at para. 134 of Mother 1:

1. Shelter:

(a) Did the parties live under the same roof?

(b) What were the sleeping arrangements?

(c) Did anyone else occupy or share the available accommodation?

2. Sexual and Personal Behaviour:

(a) Did the parties have sexual relations? If not, why not?

(b) Did they maintain an attitude of fidelity to each other?

(c) What were their feelings toward each other?

(d) Did they communicate on a personal level?

(e) Did they eat their meals together?

(f) What, if anything, did they do to assist each other with problems or during illness?

(g) Did they buy gifts for each other on special occasions?

3. Services:

What was the conduct and habit of the parties in relation to:

(a) preparation of meals;

(b) washing and mending clothes;

(c) shopping;

(d) household maintenance; and

(e) any other domestic services?

4. Social:

(a) Did they participate together or separately in neighbourhood and community activities?

(b) What was the relationship and conduct of each of them toward members of their respective families and how did such families behave towards the parties?

5. Societal:

What was the attitude and conduct of the community toward each of them and as a couple?

6. Support (economic):

(a) What were the financial arrangements between the parties regarding the provision of or contribution toward the necessaries of life (food, clothing, shelter, recreation, etc.)?

(b) What were the arrangements concerning the acquisition and ownership of property?

(c) Was there any special financial arrangement between them which both agreed would be determinant of their overall relationship?

7. Children:

What was the attitude and conduct of the parties concerning children?

[46] In Austin v. Goerz, 2007 BCCA 586, the Court of Appeal cautioned against a “checklist approach”; rather, a court should "holistically" examine all the relevant factors. Cases like Molodowich provide helpful indicators of the sorts of behaviour that society associates with a marital relationship, the Court of Appeal said; however, “the presence or absence of any particular factor cannot be determinative of whether a relationship is marriage-like” (para. 58).

[47] In Weber v. Leclerc, 2015 BCCA 492, the Court of Appeal again affirmed that there is no checklist of characteristics that will be found in all marriages and then concluded with respect to evidence of intentions:

[23] The parties’ intentions – particularly the expectation that the relationship will be of lengthy, indeterminate duration – may be of importance in determining whether a relationship is “marriage-like”. While the court will consider the evidence expressly describing the parties’ intentions during the relationship, it will also test that evidence by considering whether the objective evidence is consonant with those intentions.

[24] The question of whether a relationship is “marriage-like” will also typically depend on more than just their intentions. Objective evidence of the parties’ lifestyle and interactions will also provide direct guidance on the question of whether the relationship was “marriage-like”.

[48] Significantly for this case, the courts have looked to mutual intent in order to find a marriage-like relationship. See, for example, L.E. v. D.J., 2011 BCSC 671 and Buell v. Unger, 2011 BCSC 35; Davey Estate v. Gruyaert, 2005 CarswellBC 3456 at 13 and 35.

[49] In Mother 1, Myers J. concluded his analysis of the law with the following learned comment:

[143] Having canvassed the law relating to the nature of a marriage-like relationship, I will digress to point out the problematic nature of the concept. It may be apparent from the above that determining whether a marriage-like relationship exists sometimes seems like sand running through one's fingers. Simply put, a marriage-like relationship is akin to a marriage without the formality of a marriage. But as the cases mentioned above have noted, people treat their marriages differently and have different conceptions of what marriage entails.

[50] In short, the determination of whether the parties in this case lived in a marriage-like relationship is a fact-specific inquiry that a trial judge would need to make on a “holistic” basis, having regard to all of the evidence. While the trial judge may consider the various factors listed in the authorities, those factors would not be treated as a checklist and no single factor or category of factors would be treated as being decisive.

E. Is There a Reasonable Claim of a Marriage-Like Relationship?
[51] In this case, many of the Molodowich factors are missing:

a) The parties never lived under the same roof. They never slept together. They were never in the same place at the same time during the relationship. The last time they saw each other in person was in November 2017, before the relationship began.

b) The parties never had consensual sex. They did not hug, kiss or hold hands. With the exception of the alleged sexual assault, they never touched one another physically.

c) The parties expressed care and affection for one another, but they rarely shared personal information or interest in their lives outside of their direct topic of communication. They did not write about their families, their friends, their religious beliefs or their work.

d) They expressed concern and support for one another when the other felt unwell or experienced health issues, but they did not provide any care or assistance during illness or other problems.

e) They did not assist one another with domestic chores.

f) They did not share their relationship with their peers or their community. There is no allegation, for example, that Mr. Dorje told his fellow monks or any of his followers about the relationship. There is no allegation that Ms. Han told her friends or any co-workers. Indeed, there is no allegation that anyone, with the exception of Ms. Han’s mother, knew about the relationship. Although Mr. Dorje gave Ms. Han’s mother a gift, he never met the mother and he never spoke to her.

g) They did not intend to have a child together. The child was conceived as a result of a sexual assault. While Mr. Dorje expressed interest in “meeting” the child, he never followed up. He currently has no relationship with the child. There is no allegation he has sought access or parenting arrangements.

[52] The only Molodowich factor of any real relevance in this case is economic support. Mr. Dorje provided the funds with which Ms. Han purchased a condominium. Mr. Dorje initially wrote that he wanted to buy a property with the money, but, he wrote, “It’s the same thing if you buy [it]”.

[53] Mr. Dorje also provided a significant amount of money for Ms. Han’s postpartum care and the child’s first year of life.

[54] This financial support may have been primarily for the benefit of the child. Even the condominium, Ms. Han wrote, was primarily for the benefit of the child.

[55] However, in my view, a trial judge may attach a broader significance to the financial support from Mr. Dorje than child support alone. A trial judge may find that the money Mr. Dorje provided to Ms. Han at her request was an expression of his commitment to her in circumstances in which he could not commit physically. The money and the gifts may be seen by the trial judge to have been a form of down payment by Mr. Dorje on a promise of continued emotional and financial support for Ms. Han, or, in Mr. Dorje’s own words, “Taking care of her and you are my duty for life” (emphasis added).

[56] On the other hand, I find it difficult to attach any particular significance to the fact that Mr. Dorje agreed to provide funds for Ms. Han to purchase a wedding ring. It appears to me that Ms. Han demanded that Mr. Dorje buy her a wedding ring, not that the ring had any mutual meaning to the parties as a marriage symbol. But it is relevant, in my view, that Mr. Dorje provided $20,000 USD to Ms. Han for something she wanted that was of no benefit to the child.

[57] Further, Ms. Han alleges that the parties intended to live together. At a minimum, a trial judge may find that the discussions about where Ms. Han and the child would live reflected a mutual intention of the parties to see one another and spend time together when they could.

[58] Mr. Dorje argues that an intention to live together at some point in the future is not sufficient to show that an existing relationship was marriage-like. He argues that the question of whether the relationship was marriage-like requires more than just intentions, citing Weber, supra.

[59] In my view, the documentary evidence referred to above provides some objective evidence in this case that the parties progressed beyond mere intentions. As stated, the parties appear to have expressed genuine care and affection for one another. They appear to have discussed marriage, trust, honesty, finances, mutual obligations and acquiring family property. These are not matters one would expect Mr. Dorje to discuss with a friend or a follower, or even with the mother of his child, without a marriage-like element of the relationship.

[60] A trial judge may find on the facts alleged by Ms. Han that the parties loved one another and would have lived together, but were unable to do so because of Mr. Dorje’s religious duties and nomadic lifestyle.

[61] The question I raised in the introduction to these reasons is whether a relationship that began on-line and never moved into the physical world can be marriage-like.

[62] Notably, the definition of a spouse in the Family Law Act does not require that the parties live together, only that they live with another person in a marriage-like relationship.

[63] In Connor Estate, 2017 BCSC 978, Mr. Justice Kent found that a couple that maintained two entirely separate households and never lived under the same roof formed a marriage-like relationship. (Connor Estate was decided under the intestacy provisions of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act, S.B.C. 2009, c. 13 ("WESA"), but courts have relied on cases decided under WESA and the FLA interchangeably for their definitions of a spouse.) Mr. Justice Kent found:

[50] The evidence is overwhelming and I find as a fact that Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor loved and cared deeply about each other, and that they had a loving and intimate relationship for over 20 years that was far more than mere friendship or even so-called "friendship with benefits". I accept Mr. Chambers' evidence that he would have liked to share a home with Ms. Connor after the separation from his wife, but was unable to do so because of Ms. Connor's hoarding illness. The evidence amply supports, and I find as a fact, that Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor loved each other, were faithful to each other, communicated with each other almost every day when they were not together, considered themselves to be (and presented themselves to be) "husband and wife" and were accepted by all who knew them as a couple.

[64] Connor Estate may be distinguishable from this case because Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor were physically intimate for over 20 years, and presented themselves to the world as a married couple.

[65] Other decisions in which a marriage-like relationship has been found to exist despite the parties not living together have involved circumstances in which the couple lived under the same roof at previous points in the relationship, and the issue was whether they continued to be spouses after they took up separate residences: in Thompson v. Floyd, 2001 BCCA 78, the parties had lived together for a period of at least 11 years; in Roach v. Dutra, 2010 BCCA 264, the parties had lived together for approximately three years.

[66] However, as Mr. Justice Kent noted in Connor Estate:

[48] … [W]hile much guidance might be found in this case law, the simple fact is that no two cases are identical (and indeed they usually vary widely) and it is the assessment of evidence as a whole in this particular case which matters.

[67] Mr. Justice Kent concluded:

[53] Like human beings themselves, marriage-like relationships can come in many and various shapes. In this particular case, I have no doubt that such a relationship existed …

[68] As stated, Ms. Han’s claim is novel. It may even be weak. Almost all of the traditional factors are missing. The fact that Ms. Han and Mr. Dorje never lived under the same roof, never shared a bed and never even spent time together in person will militate against a finding they lived with one another in a marriage-like relationship. However, the traditional factors are not a mandatory check-list that confines the “elastic” concept of a marriage-like relationship. And if the COVID pandemic has taught us nothing else, it is that real relationships can form, blossom and end in virtual worlds.

[69] In my view, the merits of Ms. Han’s claim should be decided on the evidence. Subject to an overriding prejudice to Mr. Dorje, she should have leave to amend the notice of family claim. However, she should also provide meaningful particulars of the alleged marriage-like relationship.

F. Delay / Prejudice
[70] Ms. Han filed her notice of family claim on July 17, 2019. She brought this application to amend approximately one year and nine months after she filed the pleading, just over two months before the original trial date.

[71] Ms. Han’s delay was made all that more remarkable by her change in position from January 19, 2021, when she confirmed, through counsel, that she was not seeking spousal support in this case.

[72] Ms. Han gave notice of her intention to proceed with this application to Mr. Dorje on March 16, 2021. By the time the application was heard, the parties had conducted examinations for discovery without covering the issues that would arise from a claim of spousal support.

[73] Also, in April, Ms. Han produced additional documents, primarily text messages, that may be relevant to her claim of spousal support, but were undecipherable to counsel for Mr. Dorje, who does not read Mandarin.

[74] This application proceeded largely on documents selected and translated by counsel for Ms. Han. I was informed that Mandarin translations of the full materials would take 150 days.

[75] Understandably in the circumstances, Mr. Dorje argued that an amendment two months before trial would be neither just nor convenient. He argued that he would be prejudiced by an adjournment so as to allow Ms. Han to advance a late claim of spousal support.

[76] The circumstances changed on May 6, 2021, when Madam Justice Walkem adjourned the trial to July 2022 and reset it for 25 days. Madam Justice Walkem noted that most of the witnesses live internationally and require translators. She also noted that paternity may be in issue, and Mr. Dorje may amend his pleadings to raise that issue. It seems clear that, altogether apart from the potential spousal support claim, the parties were not ready to proceed to trial on June 7, 2021.

[77] In my view, any remaining prejudice to Mr. Dorje is outweighed by the importance of having all of the issues between the parties decided on their merits.

[78] Ms. Han’s delay and changes of position on spousal support may be a matter to de addressed in a future order of costs; but they are not grounds on which to deny her leave to amend the notice of family claim.

CONCLUSION
[79] Ms. Han is granted leave to amend her notice of family claim in the form attached as Appendix A to the notice of application to include a claim for spousal support.

[80] Within 21 days, or such other deadline as the parties may agree, Ms. Han must provide particulars of the marriage-like relationship alleged in the amended notice of family claim.

[81] Ms. Han is entitled to costs of this application in the cause of the spousal support claim.

“Master Elwood”

你們知道台灣海域有很多大白鯊嗎? 🦈 (請向右滑)照片中看到的大白鯊都是在台灣補到的也是世界目前被捕殺到體型最大之一⋯
每年全球有 1 億條鯊魚被獵殺，台灣只有兩千三百萬人口卻被列為全世界四大捕殺地區之一。
我想透過 @empireaqua 來提高人們保護及保存鯊魚的重要性，台灣是一個美麗的島四面環海，周遭有許多很特別的海洋生物，但很少人知道，鯊魚在海洋生態系統中扮演非常重要的角色，少了鯊魚會導致生態系統失衡海洋生物退化，台灣在2020修正「大白鯊象鮫及巨口鯊漁獲管制措施」，這只是一個開始，但還是有非常多的漏洞，每天仍在屠殺大量的鯊魚，我想要此做些事情，這會有非常多的爭議，但我認為透過教育年輕一代需要更加了解海洋生態對地球的影響，這是我們的責任，年輕的一代是未來

Did you know there are a lot of Great White Sharks in Taiwan? Swipe to see some of the biggest recorded great white sharks ever caught by fishing vessels and fishing nets in the world, and these were all in Taiwan. Roughly 100 million sharks are caught and killed a year globally. For only 23 million people on the island, Taiwan is ranked top 4 in the world for the amount of sharks killed per year. This is tragic.

Through Empire Aqua I want to bring more awareness and education on the importance of saving and protecting Sharks in the ocean, in particular Taiwan. Taiwan is a beautiful island and has extraordinary marine life around it, and not many people know this. Sharks are an essential and integral part of the entire marine eco system. Without them, there will be an unbalance and bring degradation to marine life. In 2020 Taiwan passed laws protecting Great White Sharks and a few other rare shark breeds. It’s a good start, but there’s still too many loopholes in these laws, and tons of sharks are still being slaughtered daily. I want to do something about this, and I want to find the right way with the right balance without stepping on too many toes. I know this will be a controversial journey, but I think the younger generation needs to be more aware and needs to be educated on the state of the marine life and how it affects the planet and each one of us. This is our responsibility now and the younger generation is the future.

【BABI/你是豬】將在11月20日，於全台灣戲院正式上映! 並在11月6及7號在《金馬影展》世界首映。

【BABI/你是豬】由真人真事改編, 這起大型的校園種族暴動事件，發生在2000年馬來西亞南方小鎮的一所學校裡。

當時的馬來西亞處在一黨獨大，爛權腐敗，媒體被嚴格控管及消息封鎖的階段。因此這起事件在當時已被相關單位“和諧”，在馬來西亞幾乎沒有人知道。

我想把這部電影拍出來，目的除了要揭露事實的真相，也要藉此提醒馬來西亞人種族之間必須更團結，互助，交流，才不會一直被政治人物利用，以操弄種族情緒而達到政治目的。不然就會發生更多類似的悲劇。。。

“BABI”在馬來語裡面是“豬”的意思。在一般人眼裡，“豬”就只是一個動物的名稱。但在穆斯林的眼裡，豬是不潔的動物，只要在任何媒體上或言論上提到“豬”這個字眼，等同犯了大忌，會引起很大的爭議。而這部電影就是建立在“豬”這個字眼所引發的一系列連鎖效應，最後造成的悲劇。

【BABI/你是豬】在馬來西亞是一部禁片，沒辦法找到投資，因此只用了非常低的成本來拍攝，過程非常艱難和痛苦。但慶幸的是，最後我們不但在重重壓力下完成了拍攝，甚至還受到了各國影展的青睞，包括【德國柏林電影節】，【泰國國際電影節】以及【金馬影展】，有這樣的成績讓我們都感到非常欣慰。

感謝【金馬影展】的評審對【BABI/你是豬】的肯定，希望未來能讓更多人知道，並看得到這一部電影。

我們堅決反對種族政策，反對政府控制媒體及各種官官相護的行為。在此祝願我的國家馬來西亞未來能夠更好，各族團結共榮，一起譴責種族主義和一切歧視的行為。

最後，我要感謝台灣這片土地對不同聲音及藝術作品的包容與接納，感謝台灣，感謝【金馬影展】【金馬獎】以及發行商【華映娛樂】對我的肯定!

我們11月20號不見不散!

‘Babi’ will be available in all Taiwan cinemas on November 20 onwards! The film is also scheduled to debut internationally at the ‘Taipei Golden Horse Film Festival’ on the 6 and 7 of November 2020.

‘BABI’ is a film which is based on an actual real-life event, the movie sheds light on a massive school racial riot, the incident took place in year 2000 in a small town somewhere Southern in Malaysia.

During that time Malaysia was still under the authoritarian rule of one-dominant party, abuse of power and corruption were frequent, media and news were being stringently controlled or filtered. Thus, the incident was being ‘compromised’ by relevant authority, the case was unknown to most of the Malaysians.

I want to disclose the story though art and filming but most importantly sending a message to all Malaysians that we must be more unified disregard of our ethnicity and race. In short, we shall always lend a helping hand to each other and communicate with our hearts and souls therefore we won’t be exploited by politicians who incite racial sentiment to reach their end goal. Otherwise, we will only be trapped in this tragic never-ending cycle…

‘BABI’ in Malay means ‘PIG’. In someone’s eyes, ‘BABI’ is purely just a name for an animal but in Muslim’s eyes, pig resembles unholiness, a word which would radiate sin even mutter from one’s mouth, a taboo word which would spark controversy on any given media or comment section. Hence, this movie is built upon how the word ‘BABI’ triggered a chain reaction which ultimately resulted a series of misfortunes.

‘BABI’ is not passed for screening in Malaysia, a banned film. Due to this reason, the budget for this movie was very limited, I have had only a little of resources to finish this project, the process was arduous and agonizing. Luckily, we have not only completed the film under such immense pressure but being invited to Berlin International Film Festival, International Thai Film Festival and Golden Horse Film Festival as well, I’m relief that our labour and passion bore fruit right in the very end.

I want to thank the judging panel for all the recognition. I hope that in the future more people would know about the film and able to watch it.

We stand firm against any race policy and structural racism, we strongly oppose nepotism and government controlled media. I wish my home country Malaysia, to be ever united against racial policy and has a brighter future ahead.

I would like to thank Taiwan for welcoming all different kind of voices and art, thank you Taiwan. Lastly, shout-out to the ‘Taipei Golden Horse Film Festival’, ‘Golden Horse Awards’ and the film’s distributor ‘CPT Entertainment’ for their acknowledgment.

See you in the cinemas on November 20!

-

【你是豬|BABI】購票連結 Ticketing Link: https://www.ezding.com.tw/movieInfo?movieid=1fb7e4b914af42a3b44c268aba72fa75

【你是豬|BABI】預告Trailer：https://youtu.be/_ZuZiHMSXtE

【你是豬|BABI】電影插曲【Happy Family】https://youtu.be/tdnfe3lALd8

【你是豬|BABI】解釋 Penjelasan：https://bit.ly/3mog7ps

-

配合《BABI 你是豬》正式在台灣上映，黃明志決定開放福利給粉絲啦‼

黃明志將會於11月13日 - 16日在台灣舉辦《BABI 你是豬》電影見面會。屆時你將會和黃明志一同看電影，還有機會能在電影結束後向黃明志提問，無論你心中有什麼疑惑都可以大膽地提出來！

除了和黃明志近距離接觸外，還有機會獲得簽名海報喔！看到這裡你心動了嗎？心動不如行動，趕快點擊連結買票吧 ?


粉絲簽名分享會地點如下：

11/13(五) 桃園 - 美麗新台茂影城 19:00
活動頁面：https://fb.me/e/3g4Q1KlrQ
桃園粉絲簽名分享會買票連結：https://reurl.cc/3Lm7K8

-

11/14(六) 台中 - 台中站前秀泰影城S2館 13:30
活動頁面：https://fb.me/e/4tF9LvhyX
台中粉絲簽名分享會買票連結：https://reurl.cc/k0vWG9

-

11/14(六) 嘉義 - 嘉義秀泰 18:30
活動頁面：https://fb.me/e/cnL2zcQ8B
嘉義粉絲簽名分享會買票連結：https://reurl.cc/Q3DoQ5

-

11/15(日) 台南 - 台南大遠百威秀影城 13:00
活動頁面：https://fb.me/e/4szAREnw3
台南粉絲簽名分享會買票連結：https://reurl.cc/EzDN8g

-

11/15(日) 高雄 - 高雄喜滿客夢時代影城 17:30
活動頁面：https://fb.me/e/3HEFXP91r
高雄粉絲簽名分享會買票連結：https://reurl.cc/8n76xy

-

11/16(一) 台北 - in89豪華數位影城 19:00
活動頁面：https://fb.me/e/1KkqasF4G
台北粉絲簽名分享會買票連結：https://reurl.cc/R1D74D

-

欲網購黃明志最新實體專輯《亞洲通才》及歷年專輯和周邊商品請到。Purchase Namewee Latest 《Asian Polymath》 , Others Music Albums & Merchandises Please log in to https://namewee4896.com/

Namewee 黃明志 Official Facebook Fan Page:
https://www.facebook.com/namewee/

Namewee YouTube Channel Link:
http://www.youtube.com/user/namewee

#Namewee #黃明志

最新影片: 《最後生還者》如何將遊戲化為藝術?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1JVdvfdD8Y --~--
我要來批判媒體了 這次是從Kanye West的MV-Famous來看近年的嗜血媒體亂象
這部MV看似是在對嗆 但其實是對於名氣以及媒體、潮流的深度反思 一起來看懂吧!

監製/編輯: 黃豪瑞 (Jasper)

 加入會員:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0Q-fBheHysYWz9ObSEzMdA/join
=====================================

還可以在哪裡找到我:
FB: https://www.facebook.com/tessereq
twitter: https://twitter.com/TessereQ
twitch實況台:http://www.twitch.tv/chantienchiu

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

歡迎來到超粒方，一個主要探討影視作品的頻道，在這裡，你可以看到各種電影和影集的觀點解析，從熱門大片道經典老片到必看的冷門電影! 有時也會探究時事。還有迷因，非常，非常多的謎因


All videos on my channel are only used for commentary.
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.




啊，是的，全世界正在對抗數百年來最嚴重的病毒爆發，
美國正在內戰2的邊緣(但是沒有驚奇隊長或鋼鐵人能來救你)
同時也在跟中國冷戰，
但是顯然媒體以及眾多人們最在乎的還是各種名人八卦和腥羶色爭議，
有鑑於此，我想是時候來重新認識近年來最具爭議，
但是也最值得挖掘的MV，Kanye West的2016單曲-- Famous。

啊，是的，今天我又來探討偉大的媒體了，
暨《英格麗向西》、韓國瑜、脫歐之戰、以及《黑暗騎士:黎明昇起》的影片之後，
這部影片又要再一次地發揮超粒方「白天批判、晚上批判、假日批判」的精神了。
如果你還想要看到更多批判影片，首先別忘了訂閱以及按下小鈴鐺，
因為顯然無論標題再怎麼農場，Youtube就是不願意推薦這頻道的影片。
「為什麼你突然要講一部三年之前的MV?」你問，
是啊，好問題，要像This is America那樣跟風，我早就錯過時機了，
然而，這部當年撼動全美國的極爭議MV所傳達的訊息，
再現今可說是再適合不過了。
這不僅是肯伊對於自身名氣的反思內省，也諷刺著當今媒體圈以及觀眾的嗜血。
身為公眾人物，的確會帶來無可比擬的名氣和財富，
但是換來的，卻也是狗仔以及狂熱觀眾們無止盡的窺探，
以及那些竊笑、無名的酸民，
迫不及待等著你犯下任一個錯誤，瞬間將你碎屍萬段。
首先，在談論這部MV之前，先來介紹一下肯伊，
他從許久以前就是個充滿爭議的饒舌歌手，
無疑地極有才華，但是也著名的非常自傲，
不僅自稱為”Yeezus” (諧音耶穌Jesus)，
也絲毫不吝嗇宣稱自己是當代最偉大的饒舌歌手，更是21世紀最偉大的藝術家。
”I am Warhol. I am the number one most impactful artist of our generation...I am Shakespeare...in the flesh.”
在肯伊眾多的驚世行徑和言論之中，最出名，最引起眾人關注的，
莫過於他與泰勒絲超過十年的世紀之仇。
有些人大概知道，這爭執源自2009年的音樂錄影帶大獎，
正在泰勒絲要上台領獎時，肯伊突然衝上台，搶走她的麥克風表示:
“Ima let you finish...”
當時泰勒年僅19歲，是個閃亮的新星，
所以肯伊理所當然地受到眾人攻擊，就連歐巴馬都說他是個機掰郎，
...如果連歐巴馬都說你是個機掰郎，你就知道你大概做錯什麼了。
當然，在一連串的訪談之後，他們過了不久就和好了，
直到2016，肯伊新發單曲Famous這首歌竟包含這段台詞:
“I feel like me and Taylor might still have sex / Why? I made that bitch famous.”
大概不用我跟你說發生了什麼事，肯伊馬上又面臨了如紙片飛來的批評，
但是後續又出現了「驚人」的轉折，
那種會連續好幾周上頭條新聞的轉折，
肯伊的老婆金卡達珊揭露了肯伊與泰勒的電話錄影，
其中泰勒似乎認為肯伊「人很好」，這首歌很有趣，似乎是在給予祝福。
想當然耳，風向瞬間一轉，許多人都表示泰勒是一條虛偽狡猾的蛇，
你可能有注意到我剛剛強調了「似乎」這兩個字，
因為幾個月前真正的完整的電話紀錄才揭露了真相，還泰勒絲一個公道。
不過在當時最驚人、最爭議的是在這首歌的MV揭露，
其中有著全裸的泰勒絲蠟像躺在肯伊身旁，
以及旁邊另外十來位出名(或者更貼切是惡名昭彰)的人物。
究竟，這部MV的目的是什麼，讓我們從頭開始:
畫面開始於迷幻的夕陽，就這樣一路下降到陰暗的恐怖谷之中。
躺在床上的裸體，哪些是本人?哪些是化妝或是蠟像?
也許這一切都不重要，因位在媒體以及八卦的輪迴之下，
這些名人早已被去人性化，
一舉一動，一言一型，都成為了提供人們娛樂的人偶。
接著，在那段極具爭議性，直接開嗆泰勒的開場之後，就進入了肯伊常見的自大宣言:
For all the girls that got dick from Kanye West
If you see 'em in the streets give 'em Kanye's best
Why? They mad they ain't famous
They mad they still nameless
”


但是這並不是單純的比老二大賽而已，
在過了兩分鐘之後，這首MV忽然進入了最讓人困惑的橋段。
長達五分鐘無音樂的橋段，只剩下呼吸以及打呼聲，
配上這些名人赤裸的身軀以及臉龐，
泰勒、雷哈娜、川普、小布希、考斯比等，全都用幾近病態的特寫帶出來，
我們從沒看過如此私密的畫面，就像是個偷窺狂，甚至殺人犯，
悄聲無息地滑過這些熟睡的人，這不是我們該看到的畫面。
然而因為這些人是名人，是人們生活之中執迷的對象，
我們還是繼續觀賞。
但是與此同時，卻也感受到這些人的人性，甚至感到些許同情。
這其中出現的眾多人物時常面臨主流社會和媒體的抨擊，
但是在此處，他們一絲不掛地熟睡，
完全對我們這些窺視者以及外在的世界一無所知。
在此時此刻，這些幾乎不可觸及的人物，都展現了他們最脆弱的一面。
最後，鏡頭漸漸向上升起，揭露了一幅如夢境般的畫面，
這時已經不再是先前的低畫質、手持攝影機畫面，
而是充滿鮮豔色彩、近乎可說輝煌的景象。
床上沉睡中的人物，都成為了肯伊繪出的這幅畫之中的元素，
矛盾地同時帶著挑釁、煽情、平靜、以及無瑕的純潔。
更是在鏡頭最高點時，忽然看向鏡頭，彷若是在說:
「我知道，我知道你們都在看著我們」
所以，這一切究竟代表什麼?
最後全景的畫面明顯是在致敬文森特·德賽德里奧在2004年的畫作Sleep，
當時他就曾對於這幅畫表示:
「有些人認為這是性愛轟趴，但是這樣解讀是錯的，
這其實是在代表集體的睡眠-廣義來說是代表整個文化的沉睡，理智的沉睡」
也許這就是整個MV最受到忽略之處，
就如同我在韓國瑜現象那部影片開頭引用的紙牌屋台詞一樣，
「歡迎來到理性時代之死」
所謂理智的沉睡，甚至死亡，就是媒體，尤其是社群媒體所造成的集體盲目。
我們看的愈多，真「看見」的，反而愈少。
人們說肯伊是個狂人，但是對我來說，他是個天才，
他完全知道怎麼操弄這個嗜血的媒體生態，
他知道自己造成的所有爭議、失序的言行舉止，
極為逆風的言論、對於川普的強烈支持，
帶給他的，都是眼球
而越多眼球，就等於是越多錢錢。
我們時常聽到對於低素質媒體的抱怨，尤其是最近幾個禮拜，
但是卻非常少見到有人追根究底是什麼造就了低素質媒體?
是什麼，讓我們眼前所見，耳邊所聽的，都是無止盡的噪音?
不就是閱聽者本身嗎?
有需求才有供給，有了供給，就會有更多需求。
這些爭議的、這些聳動的、這些時常不道德的獨家腥聞，
會如此渲染就是因應觀眾們的嗜血口味，
當然，名人也因此嚐到甜頭，製造更多爭議，讓媒體加以報導，
形成了自給自足的血盆大口。
你有看過冰與火之歌嗎?
的確，混亂是一把階梯，讓那些抓緊機會的人能夠逐漸往上爬，
而這混亂的來源，是所有人都參與其中的。
我並不是在捍衛那些無良媒體，完全不是，我就直說了，
他們對於我們認識這個世界真的毫無價值。
但是，當一名公眾人物的隱私被爆出來時，
那些無良媒體只是在行使一個我們早已簽下多年的隱形合約而已，
這隱形合約充滿著腐敗、俗濫的氣息，
但是幾乎所有人都如飛蛾撲火地搶著將它納入自己的生活之中。
這合約，就是對於風潮、八卦、爭議的追求。
前陣子才在探討黑暗騎士系列之中，
提到人們對於能夠代表希望以及正義之象徵的追求。
不過事實上，現實世界之中更多的是小丑們，
似乎只想看到這些與眾不同的公眾人物
被揭發、羞辱，看見他們被拉到跟凡人一樣的程度，
看到他們跟我們一樣是有所缺陷的。
也許肯伊希望透過這MV來傳達的訊息，
就是我們不需要透過嗜血的啃食來證明這些名人只是凡人，
因為他們本來就是與常人無異的普通人，有著缺陷，有著弱點，
甚至在內心某處，還留著當初的自己。
藉由在畫面上呈現這些全裸名人的沉睡，
他剝去了他們被媒體套上的皇冠，
無論是令人退避三舍，還是令人目不轉睛的表層。
這些由他們自己所創造，由媒體所形塑的外皮，都在此處被褪去。
正因為有著「公眾人物」這樣的稱號，
並不代表這人沒有犯錯的權利，
並不代表這些人不能如凡人一般大聲地表達自己。
奇怪的是，在這媒體的循環之下，人們對於公眾人物的看法似乎飄搖不定，
有時候認為某人不該被放大檢視，
有時候卻因為某人的一句話不符合自己的觀點而大加撻伐。
也許我們都簽下了這隱形的合約，但是肯伊透過這部MV，
褪去了虛偽的外表，毫不留情地揭露所有人跟隨風潮的盲目。
也許你可以說這非常偽善，畢竟他自己也是這無盡輪迴的參與者，
不過他至少提醒了我們，在這理智的沉睡之中，
我們仍然有尋求一絲清醒的希望。
混亂的階梯也許永遠沒有終點，
但是有時候，攀爬本身，才是真實存在的。
又或許，這全都毫無意義，
一切只不過是另一個令人繼續沉迷、繼續追星的陷阱。
簡單粗暴的事實是，
有愈多人關注你的生活，無論這種關注是正面或負面，
你就能賣出愈多的鞋子/口紅/隨便你要賣什麼。
你知道最諷刺的是什麼嗎?
當年，肯伊在讓明星好友搶先看這支MV後，他們一致的反應都是:
「我也想躺在這床上」
你不需要這樣想像，因為我們早已在這張床上打滾許久了，
問題是，你要繼續沉睡，還是張開雙眼?

如果你想要我閉嘴不要繼續嫌演算法的話，麻煩訂閱一下按個小鈴鐺，
我會感激涕零地跟你磕頭。
如果你喜歡桌遊的話，也去看一下我的桌遊副頻道，裡面全都是你沒看過但是超好玩的遊戲。
留個言說一下你對這部MV的想法，我是超粒方，我們下部影片見!

會員: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8vabPSRIBpwSJEMAPCnzVQ/join

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/dw_kid12/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/deepwebkid/?modal=admin_todo_tour
訂閱: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8vabPSRIBpwSJEMAPCnzVQ?sub_confirmation=1

鬼故事: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4rmkFI1ik0&list=PLglqLngY6gv5BCwaoP-q6DOwUmw1lIusF

我最高觀看次數的影片 (我為何不再拍暗網? 只說一次): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbihKaqEEQw&t=127s

曼德拉效應: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMutzRIE_uE&list=PLglqLngY6gv5BCwaoP-q6DOwUmw1lIusF&index=17&t=5s

我的100K成長故事: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kdhtp6A6YJE

破解Kate yup事件是假的! 不是綁架! 不要被騙! (Facebook上的證據): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NJVt56ORWo&t=2s

日本最殘酷的直播節目: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E81OKVX7wc

網上最可怕的一個字 (Ft. HenHen TV): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLedkSHc7Os&t=145s

The verge article: 
https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/25/18229714/cognizant-facebook-content-moderator-interviews-trauma-working-conditions-arizona

深入Facebook員工崩潰的恐怖真相

我看過一條 2013年 ‘蘋果’ 動新聞説 每日運送到堆填區的廢膠以噸計, 政府卻不扶助產業發展導致 “廢膠迫爆堆填區” 的標題. 其實2020年全球最大的堆填區是社交媒體.

像Facebook每日上載超過3.5億張照片, Youtube每日上載超過四十三萬小時的影片內容.

可想像到這個人類 ‘推填區’ 有幾多個 ‘膠’ 啦.

大家好又是我暗網仔, 今日我們第一集的 ‘你不知道的事’ 系列會分享一些普遍你不會知道, 但應該要知道的事.

上年sundance電影節出了一部名 ‘The cleaners’ 的德國記錄片講述content moderator (內容管制員) 的工作. 全天候8至10小時, Content moderator就是坐在電腦前幫一些像Facebook的平台, 是否適宜在該網站出現?

片中拍攝地點位於菲律賓馬尼拉的office. 一個個隔間著moderator在按 ‘ignore’ it means the post remains on the website和’delete’ which means the post is taken down.

合同工的moderator也希望有一日能成為該平台的正式員工. 甚至到美國工作, 但大部分也是outsource公司聘請回來的.

2017年67%的美國人口日常使用Facebook, 到2019年下降到61%的美國人口會使用Facebook. 但實質Facebook總用戶數目是有所增加的.
Facebook近年市場發展由第一世界國家擴散到剛有網絡的第三世界國家. (Show burma civil war) 一個任何人也能分享自己的地方, 其實可以看到什麼呢?
恐怖分子的血腥影片, 自殘片段, 兒童色情, 虐待動物, “ignore” “delete” 是content moderator貧貧接觸的.
2019年6月美國媒體網絡The Verge在Youtube上載了一條 ‘inside the traumatic life of a Facebook moderator’ 得到主流媒體的關注.

“The video depicts a man being Murdered. Someone is stabbing him dozens of times, while he screams and begs for his life. Chloe feels an overpowering urge to sob. She leaves the room and begins to cry so hard she has trouble breathing. No one comforts her. This is the job she was hired to do.”
目前Facebook有意將gim視影片的工作交給AI去做. 但準確性會否能和真人一樣呢? 社交媒體需要乾淨的平台讓用戶能花最長不間斷時間在該網站上. 要低成本達到這個目的需要不同國家找lim ga勞工然後迫使他們24小時不停 “ignore” “delete” 的開工.


網上資訊揭發了一些Facebook 一些恐怖的真相. I want to start by saying a disclaimer: the points from this point forward are allegations from various individuals and not empirical facts. Additional information are quotes taken from mainstream new sources.

根據Phoenix arizona州科技公司一些ex員工表示: moderator每天正常有15分鐘休息時間, 30 分鐘午飯時間, 9分鐘 “wellness time”

工作環境非常惡劣. 一間800人的公司只有一個洗手間. 可能因為工作上要看的東西的性質, 常常會有員工在後樓梯用大麻和喝酒. 性慾按耐不住在停車場性交. 上司性騷擾下sook. 而我本人的角度: 這麼一個地方跟地獄沒分別.



Over the last few weeks, we’ve seen people hurting themselves and others on Facebook— if we’re going to build a safe community, we need to respond quickly.

The cleaner記錄片的尾段講Facebook近期社會上得到的各個爭議. 但content moderator現在真正成為熱點的原因可能是緬甸現在的政治事件. New York Times指出現在該地方的內戰是軍方利用facebook去加強的. And so many people were fooled into the war.

為facebook講的是: 樹大招風. A total of 2.8 billion people use facebook. I remember when I was kid my favorite movie was the social network that talked about Mark zuckerberg creating Facebook. The initial reason he did that was because the prestigious Phoenix club at Harvard didn’t accept him. He hated them. So he made his own club, facebook. That was exclusive to him and the people he deemed fit. And I guess in some way today, facebook has now become the Phoenix club he once hated. Only now he is on top, and facebook is the most non exclusive, exclusive club in the world.

The end