If you think about it,

the issues are generally the same.

 

That they were in the channel,

and conspiracy to either neglect or harm was present.

 

Even siding with people who were obviously in the wrong.

Keeping this bias that I was already in a 'privileged' position.

 

I wasn't.

 

 

I needed protection, all the help I could get because

I was a target both online and offline.

 

 

Those were my rights,

of which they deviated constantly with some form of prejudice.

 

 

People think, because of my goals or achievement,

that i'm somesort of cerebral environment-manipulating

sinister, with words.

 

I wasn't.

 

I was simply stating the rising issues because of the environment.

 

 

Because of the people.

 

 

I tried my best to calm the situation down,

 

but whatever it was in them, they didn't rise above the harmful behavior.

 

They continued. And continue to visit the channel so.

 

 

 

On Douglas, that was willful harm, calculated harm by

affecting the environment, both online and offline, knowing that I was already a target.

 

Whereas the staff, confusion under bias/prejudice, and singled me out

labeling me as something. But, at least to the supervisor, Milena,

the issue was something I mentioned in detail, along with its progress.

 

*I remember this one guy was smirking behind the glass, after the fight,

and he quickly hid himself raising the mask. It was a sick grin, he was happy about it.

Don't even know the person's name. About 5'11?

 

Look, people. There was obviously something went on there, at least by the few -

don't be silent about that and protect them. It makes you an accomplice if you don't speak out

about their attitude.

 

So I would say, overall,

 

Ontario bill of rights 168 applies. Direct application of harm (Douglas),

and in other cases, indirect, the staff.

 

But conspired (direct or passive) nonetheless.

 

 

That is my logical conclusion.