關於 one last time事件 ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

【國立臺灣大學 109學年度畢業典禮 校長致詞】
Opening Remarks, National Taiwan University Commencement 2021
President Dr. Chung-Ming Kuan

.
各位師長同仁，各位畢業同學以及家長們，歡迎大家參加 109 學年度的線上畢業典禮。

去年新冠疫情初起，學校雖仍舉辦實體的畢業典禮，但規模大為縮小，許多師生和家長均以無法參加典禮為憾。今年初臺灣的疫情持續穩定，大家原本期待今年畢業典禮能按照往年方式辦理。不料五月時疫情急轉直下，臺北市疫情警戒程度提高，我們於是推遲畢業典禮，並改以線上方式進行。這也是臺大首次以線上方式舉辦畢業典禮。

隨著疫情發展，線上活動如今已成為生活中的新常態。我們雖逐漸習慣線上教學，線上會議，線上交流，線上購物訂餐等，但連期待了四年的畢業典禮也只能在線上參加，許多同學與家長們難免失望。為此，學務處與許多同學攜手，精心策劃了今天這場特殊的線上畢業典禮，希望能讓大家留下不一樣，但仍美好的記憶。

因為新冠疫情，有些同學會抱怨：這樣大的疫情怎麼就正好被我們在畢業時碰上了？也有些同學則樂觀的想，一旦有了疫苗，疫情得到控制，世界最終還是會回到以前的軌道，大家仍可以過著平穩安定的日子。

然而這個世界從不曾平靜。今年畢業的同學多數出生於1999 年，那正是規模達 7.3 的 921 大地震發生的那一年。時隔四年，亞洲（包括臺灣）爆發了罕見的急性呼吸道感染病 SARS。不過五年之後，源自美國的金融海嘯席捲全球，影響全世界經濟數年之久。2009 更是不平靜的一年，臺灣出現莫拉克風災，造成慘重傷亡；全球則爆發了 H1N1 流感大流行，數十萬人因此死亡。這些當時都曾被認為是數十年（甚至百年）一遇的重大災難。

回顧二十多年來的這些事件（這還僅僅是一部份與臺灣相關的事件），我們就會發現：巨大的天災人禍，過去曾頻繁出現，未來應該也不會少見。

當然，新冠疫情的影響範圍遠超過 SARS 與 H1N1 流感，對世界的衝擊則更大於金融海嘯。近代能與這次疫情相比的是一百年前 (1918-1920) 的全球流感大流行；據後來估計，當時全世界人口三分之一染疫，約有五千萬人因此不幸喪生。

那次流感爆發時正值第一次世界大戰末期，對當時的德軍主力造成嚴重打擊。而後疫情時代，戰敗的德國被列強宰割，奧匈帝國及奧圖曼帝國亦隨之瓦解，徹底改變了舊的國際秩序，也為後來的世局（從歐陸，到中東和亞洲）埋下許多不安定的種子。

這次新冠疫情並未伴隨著世界大戰，但出現在國際強權針鋒相對，世界產業供應鏈重整的關鍵時刻；後疫情時代因此充滿不確定性。而重組後的國際政經秩序，我不知道那會是一個「美好或不美好的新世界」*，但它就是大家必須面對的世界。那裡將充滿挑戰和機會，如何善用所學回應挑戰，如何從機會中脫穎而出，都是大家新的功課。這些功課沒有標準答案，你們必須自己解答，自己審閱答案。

我也希望利用這個機會提醒同學們，對於正在醫療前線奮戰的眾多醫護人員，其中包括了許多學校師長與大家的學長姐們，我們一定要心存感念。當疫情大浪襲來時，他們勇往直前，力挽狂瀾，不僅保護病人，也捍衛著臺灣社會。他們是真正的英雄。只要大家共同努力，疫情終會過去，我們一定會贏得抗疫的最後勝利。

最後，我謹代表所有老師和行政主管，向所有畢業同學們表達最深切的祝福，也恭喜辛苦多年的家長們。敬祝大家未來一切順利，身體健康
最後我還想講幾句話。我記得我看過一篇外國人寫的文章，他說他在臺灣多年，注意到臺灣有個很奇怪的習慣，朋友分手時都常常會說：「要小心哦」。我看到這篇文章的時候，也突然心有所感；多年來我媽媽每次看到我出門時會跟我講這句話，而後來我跟自己的小孩，也會講這樣的話。所以在畢業典禮這個時刻，我敬祝大家未來一切順利，身體健康，大家都要小心哦！

2021.6.26

*「美好新世界」(Brave New World) due to A. Huxley

.
==============================

.
When the COVID-19 pandemic began last year, NTU was still able to hold graduation ceremonies in person but on a much smaller scale and with the absence of many faculty members, students, and parents. Earlier this year, we were hoping to gather for a traditional commencement. But the sudden outbreak in May had forced Taipei City to raise its epidemic alert level. So we postponed the Commencement and made the decision to hold the ceremony virtually. This is the first virtual Commencement in NTU history.

To our faculty, new graduates, and parents, welcome to the National Taiwan University’s Commencement celebration for the Class of 2021.

As the pandemic unfolds, digital is the new normal. While we gradually adapt to online learning, virtual meetings, social media, online shopping, and food delivery, it is inescapably disappointing for many students and parents to have to celebrate the achievements of our graduates this way after anticipating this event for four years. And because of this, the Office of Student Affairs has teamed up with the graduates to ensure that this unique virtual Commencement is a moment that everyone will remember fondly in the future.

Some of you may ask, "why does this happen just when we are graduation?" And some of you may think optimistically that once the vaccines are available and the pandemic is contained, the world will be back to normal, and that we will all live peacefully.

But the world has never been peaceful. Most of the graduates this year were born in 1999, when the magnitude 7.3 earthquake happened on September 21. Four years after, SARS broke out in Asia, including Taiwan. Within another 5 years, the financial crisis, originated in the United States, affected global economies for years. In 2009, Typhoon Morakot landed and caused severe casualties in Taiwan; the H1N1 flu pandemic took hundreds of thousands of lives. These disasters were, at the time, seen as rare catastrophes that would only take place once every few decades, or even centuries.

Looking back to the past 20 years, we’d notice that, even just in Taiwan, catastrophes have never been in short supply. And they will probably never be in the future either.

Of course, the effect of COVID is far beyond SARS and H1N1, and its impact is greater than the financial crises. What came close was the Spanish flu that took place a century ago (1918-1920), when, according to estimation, one-third of the global population was infected and about 50 million people died.

The influenza pandemic outbreak took place at the end of WWI and hit the German military especially hard. And after the pandemic, Germany was forced to cede its territories to the great powers. What followed was the fall of the Austro-Hungarian and the Ottoman Empires. The series of events reset the international order and formed the settings for many conflicts in the years to come.

While COVID did not break out during a world war, it came at a critical time when great powers bicker and the global supply chains face a reform. The post-pandemic ear is therefore full of uncertainty. I don’t know whether it’d be a "Brave New World"* once the international political and economic orders are reshuffled. But it will be a world we have to live in. There will be many challenges and opportunities, and it will be our new task to utilize what we have learned to tackle challenges and grasp opportunities. Unlike any standardize
d test, you will have to answer and grade the answers yourselves.

I also want to use this opportunity to remind the graduates, that we must have appreciation and gratitude for the healthcare workers who are on the frontlines fighting. Many of them are our faculty members and alums. When the waves of the pandemic hit, they stood up to save lives and protect Taiwan’s society. They are true heroes. As long as we work together, we will weather the crisis and win this battle.

Finally, on behalf of the faculty and management, I send you our deepest best wishes. And congratulations to the parents and families who have supported the graduates for years. I wish you success and good health.

One final thing, I remember reading an article by a foreign writer who said he had lived in Taiwan for years and had noticed that Taiwanese people have a strange habit of saying "be careful" when they part ways. When I read the article, this resonates with me from the heart. For years, my mother would say the same thing whenever I am leaving the house. Now I say the same thing to my children, too. So at this Commencement ceremony, I wish everyone great success in the future, good health, and "be careful."

2021.6.26

*「美好新世界」(Brave New World) due to A. Huxley

.
詳見：
https://www.facebook.com/NTUCommencement/posts/2718144868475937

.
#臺灣大學 #畢業典禮 #NTUCommencement2021 #校長致詞

【CNN難得一次客觀報道中國疫苗接種就被美國🇺🇸輿論批評“為中國宣傳”，這是什麽“雙標”？】

當地時間18日，美國有線電視新聞網(CNN)報道了中國疫苗接種量將破十億劑次，並驚嘆“中國速度”。這則報道觸動了一些美國媒體人和政客的敏感神經，他們指責“美國有線電視新聞網(Cable News Network)”成了“中國新聞網(China News Network)”，並指CNN為“中國共產黨做宣傳”。針對中國的一則客觀報道竟淪為於中國有利的“宣傳”，再次體現了美西方部分群體在針對中國問題上的雙重標準。

其實，這並非他們第一次上演針對中國的“雙標”戲碼。此前，包括CNN在內的一些美國媒體將SpaceX的火箭殘骸墜落浪漫化為“點亮夜空”的電影大片場景，卻“齊心協力”炒作“失控”的中國火箭殘骸可能對地球造成威脅，此類報道被部分政客廣泛引用來質疑中國。而此次CNN報道中國疫苗接種量將破十億劑次，卻被部分美國媒體和政客點名，稱其為“中國共產黨做宣傳”，更有甚者質疑中國數據造假。謊言被追捧，事實卻遭到質疑和嘲諷，從根本上講，是他們對中國發展先入為主的偏見在作祟。

此次中國疫苗接種突破十億劑次是一個不容置疑的客觀事實。美國媒體口口聲聲推崇新聞自由，卻針對對中國的客觀事實報道大肆質疑和嘲諷，表現出十足的“酸葡萄”心理。這讓人不禁懷疑，他們推崇的“新聞自由”究竟是什麽樣的自由？難道只能容忍攻擊抹黑中國的自由？

然而，無論這些美媒如何費盡心機汙蔑中國，都改變不了中國在抗擊疫情方面取得的成效。中國國家衛生健康委員會6月20日公布的數據顯示，截至6月19日，中國新冠疫苗接種劑次已突破10億。數據公開透明，事件真實可靠，我們奉勸美西方部分群體還是停止玩弄“雙標”的把戲，遵守基本的新聞事實和職業操守，公正客觀地報道中國的新聞。

CNN dubbed 'China News Network': what double-standard trick are some U.S. media playing?

By John Lee

(ECNS) -- U.S. Cable News Network (CNN) was surprised by China's coronavirus vaccination rates, calling it "a scale and speed unrivaled by any other country in the world" in its report "China is about to administer its billionth coronavirus shot" last Friday. Fox News cited a commentary by NewsBusters analyst Nicholas Fondacaro, who labeled CNN as "China News Network pumping out propaganda for the CCP." A fact report on China was interpreted as "pro-China propaganda", showing some people in the U.S. and other Western countries had played a double-standard trick on China once again.

In fact, this is not the first time that they have practiced double standards on China issues. Previously, some U.S. media including CNN romanticized the rocket debris of SpaceX as "lighting up the sky with a spectacular rocket show", while coordinately stating China's rocket debris would "cause threats to objects on Earth". This time, CNN's report on China's vaccination speed was called "running Chinese propaganda for the CCP", with even Chinese statistics brought into doubt. It is nothing but their prejudice against China's development that sees lies flattered while facts are questioned and ridiculed.

It is an established fact that China has administered more than one billion doses of the COVID vaccine. Some U.S media shout for press freedom, but can't stop satirizing and questioning objective China-related reports, which is no doubt "sour grapes psychology." Does their press freedom mean unlimited freedom in attacking and smearing China?

China's achievements in fighting COVID-19 won't be effaced despite their slander. Statistics released by National Health Commission on Sunday shows more than one billion vaccines have been administered across China as of Saturday, which is definitely true and reliable. Therefore, U.S. media should give up their double-standard related to China, abide by news facts and professional ethics and report on China in a fair and objective way.

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”

RANDONAUTICA
恐怖遊戲實況

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

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/deepwebkid/?modal=admin_todo_tour

訂閱: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKC6E5s6CMT5sVBInKBbPDQ?sub_confirmation=1

暗網? 陰謀論?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5RVLpFkAKQ&list=PLGzW5EwcApFuqKoowMHS9v8W34vIPyrtk

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

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

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

深刻個人經歷: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Roa6Vs1qWc&list=PLglqLngY6gv4mm_doLUUJx4zq5KvLJ2VE


在外國試驗恐怖Randonautica App能碰到什麼?
會帶你到異度空間的靈異App
會帶你到異度空間的靈異APP
會帶你到異度空間的電話APP
會帶你到異度空間的恐怖APP

你相信世界有巧合嗎? 你在街上一日chait身而過的人有數百個, 是什麼能讓我們uw yue, ying sik, kauw gun?
旅遊恐怖app ‘Randonautica’ 令到douyin那班leng jai在公園揭發一douy死人wuy tuy,
Randonaut會信是宇宙萬物中的量子yun ling他們到那個地方.

Randonautica跟Pokémon GO相似: 在現實世界進行探索任務. 唯一分別是你探索緊的那樣東西由你念力出發. 他們腦子又是想什麼的呢? 根據量子物理學, 電話app會吸收你腦粒子加上靈性學你用個app時的intention=你去到的最終目的地.

‘Randonautica’ 拿了你地址後會有3種不同分bo模式.

‘Attractor’ 模式: 會到量子點很擠迫的地方.
‘void’ 模式: 量子點極少的地方.
‘anomaly’ 模式, 如果你心裡面有強烈信念, 一些答案就會找到.

網上有Randonaut用了這個app去到自己爺爺的fun mo. 而暗網仔今天要出街希望找到人生的意義.

現在你聽到的聲音 , 6個ging點我已經去過. 當中lui ching不jook yi改變我一生, 但神奇地也有不可思議的地方.

朋友
(Say Maslows hierarchy of needs love and belonging is #3. Quarantine has been hard and friendship has been difficult to maintain... finding friendship.)
全名:暗網仔. 年齡: 27身高: 181cm. 職業: Youtuber.
這是啊暗第一個被yun ling到的地點: 43.599747, -79.595291.
所以啊暗食了一條蕉( 還放上IG!!!) 照了照鏡子make sure自己有Indiana jones的氣質就出門口.

Yik情的關係令我想 ‘朋友’ 這個koy nim好多. 朋友’ 定義是: 要天天boon cheuy你身邊一定做不到, 所以只好在你生日時pooy你fung kwong一晚就是 ‘朋友’? 啊暗猜不到命運第一達帶他去的地方會是一dung 大ha. Google map確切的位置是大ha pong been的一po植物. 其實啊暗知道app指ling他發現的是一位拿著高爾夫球裝備, 剛剛做完運動的大約50多歲的白人男子. 他面dai笑yung, 好奇望著啊暗在sow yiw那po jik mut..
那位大sook好快就上了友人的車離去. 啊暗回到車後承認自己不夠勇敢, 沒有真實地dap出第一步. 有時d friend可能就要你call一call佢
但Randonautica怎會知道我在想什麼?

(-found a guy playing golf. Smiled at me but was a bit hostile. I was too afraid to go make contact. Maybe that’s what life is like, friendships you have to reach out.)

*use attractor.

“It was my first time randonauting. So I just manifested seeing something red and the coordinates led me here...”

性&食物
(Physiological needs)
*use void

(Sex: the place is an isolated location, or a void. Their was a sign on the door of the place called ‘just shoot it!’ -a hockey club. Maybe the place is a good one to take a date for sex?)
啊暗在想著性被帶到一些工廠背後一達地方. 調查後發現tit門上有 ‘just shoot it!’ 3個英文字. 可能這個地方不是尋找性的一個地方. 也許是帶人來 “just shoot it” 的一個地方.

下一個神奇地啊暗想著食物後, 就帶了他去到平時喜歡食的Five guys burger的那一個soing cheung. 不是確切地點, 但啊暗實在太肚餓.

iPhone等Apple產品有都市傳聞說會偷聽用戶的對話. 我第一個地點是有講過 ‘找朋友’ 這句說話, 之後也有講過 “找東西吃” 這句說話, 但我整程車根本沒有講過’five guys burger’ 這個地方名字. Randonautica會不會kuy用你部iPhone的Google map偷看我平時到開車到達最多的chan teng呢? 電話整天都跟身, 10足10跟jung器.
Ping goh隱私權政策有提到 “we may collect and store details, including search queries. This information may be used to improve the relevancy of results provided by our searches”

(Food was just food. Went to five guys and got some food. Even though it wasn’t directly at the place. It’s usually where I buy my food anyways.)


工作
(Safety needs)
這裡, 這裡, 這裡...公園內的一大peen空地是啊暗要找 ‘工作’ 的地方. Randonautica能這麼短時間受歡迎起來因為他破壞城市人一般的jit juw帶你到平日不會去的地方.
*use attractor
(Park )
(Video of girl witnessing someone getting shot)
[破解] 影片中的女生發現一個恐怖案法現場然後bung kwooy. 但為什麼這不是一件好事呢? 有分sik Randonautica的網友用Despair-meme法juk段定Randonautica的最後結果. 如果在經歷跟自己日常生活變化時, 對世界多一份敏感是好事. 但如果整天看負面新聞, hoi怕改變, 可能就會好像這個女生, manifest 生活以外一些悲劇的發生.

名氣
(Esteem needs) (say this is something you truly want and you crave for. Extremely important to you.)
*use anomaly
(Someone’s house. So disappointing)
這個是啊暗好想要的. 失望地只是一間屋的門口. 又是不敢去看看. 啊暗的想法是: 我相念不夠keung嗎?

[真相]
Randonautica創辦人表示app根據Fatum project去geen jo. Fatum project原本的用意研究我們每一個人以外有可能jook poong到的reality. 根據我們每一個人的lo chup, jap gwan, 人生ging lik, 條件及外在因素我們在生ming會到達的地方永遠ley不開那幾個.

Sierpinski三角形是最好representation. 無論你在三角型任何一個點開始chong jo三角形, 也到不了一些blindspot. (好像我由細到大都經過的那座大樓) 那個行為由如到達另一個星球一樣.
唯一是kauw randonautica ley hoi ‘static’s field’ 甚至影響你自己生命道路的那一條線.

人生的意義
(Self actualization)
*use anomaly
(Someone’s house again)
人生的意義最終也是人家的屋子. 雖然我最後也是um yeen ley hoi但可能...這就是人生的意義. 有些事你是suey yiw dap出第一步的. 即使你不是玩這個game的時候人生才會不停有duk po. 可能我就是要be reminded of 這個道理. 有不可思議的地方, 學到了新東西, 流了一些hon: a good summer day well spent.

(Need to take the first step to change your life and change your pattern. So I will be trying new things. First is to wake up earlier.)

(Last story: I used the app with a friend the next day...we ended up at a house with a pool. She said that although her intent was buying a present, in reality she wanted to swim. So we were suppose to knock on the door and ask the family if we could swim with them?)
之後一天跟朋友再玩. 原本這位朋友想找一份生日禮物, 但我們到了一個wing chi. 因為原本他心底想著是yuw水. 而最尾...

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

Refined version:

I’m here at this press conference today for one reason - I’d like to tell you in my own words how sorry I truly am. I have to express my deepest apologies to my family, my wife’s family, our friends and all those who have loved me because I‘ve made a mistake. A mistake which I can never make up for. A mistake that is unforgivable. Because of this wrong that I’ve done, I’ve been reviewing and reflecting on my behaviour. Indeed, I’ve made a disgrace of myself. That’s why I’m here today to tell you that I shall bear full responsibility for what I’ve done.

It is true that I was under the heavy influence of alcohol that day, but being drunk can in no way excuse the grave mistake that I’ve made. I have felt deeply regretful for what I’ve done. I have found it difficult to face and accept myself. After reading the news report, I have found myself and my behaviour most shameful, deplorable, abominable, disgusting and absurd. I have pondered and reflected deeply on why I had not been able to exercise better self control and why lust would have had the better of me.

I shall bear full responsibility for what I’ve done. To that end, I shall do two things. The first thing is that I shall suspend all projects at hand until I found good in myself again and I have examined the way I’ve been conducting myself. The second thing is that I have, from the bottom of my soul, found myself to be ridiculous. Because of my wrongful behaviour, people around me, who have loved me, have been facing up to immense stress and pain. I hope that I could properly make it up to all those on whom I have inflicted pain. This report has made me reflect deeply on what I’ve done. The worst mistake that I’ve committed here is that I’ve gone astray from my former self. Last but not least, I need to say this to all those who have loved me once again: I have brought shame on you all; I’ve been wrong and I’m sorry. I’m sorry, Sammi. I don’t know what I am going to do in the future. I am a heartless and broken mess. I hope everyone will be kind enough to let me have the time (to make amends for what I’ve done).


▍成人英語再起步
● 課程資料 & 報名表格 ► http://bit.ly/成人英語再起步
● 由於報名人數眾多，下列空缺名額未必能及時更新。如欲查詢更準確的空缺數字，請參考報名表格。如已經付款，但最後因為額滿而未能加入已報名之課程，我們會安排退款。
第一期：初階文法
26/4 開班；逢星期五 7:15 pm - 8:30 pm（已滿）
30/5 開班；逢星期四 7:15 pm - 8:30 pm（已滿）

第二期：進階文法
25/4 開班；逢星期四 7:15 pm - 8:30 pm（剩3）
31/5 開班；逢星期五 7:15 pm - 8:30 pm

第三期：基礎發音
26/4 開班；逢星期五 8:45 pm - 10:00 pm（剩2）
30/5 開班；逢星期四 8:45 pm - 10:00 pm

第四期：語調
25/4 開班；逢星期四 8:45 pm - 10:00 pm（剩3）
31/5 開班；逢星期五 8:45 pm - 10:00 pm

● 成人英語再起步、One-day course、說話/寫作實戰班 詳情 ► http://bit.ly/fla-adult-infosheet

▍中、小學常規班
課程資料、時間表 ► http://bit.ly/fla-courses


訂閱與芬尼學英語 ► http://bit.ly/flayt-sub

喜歡我們的短片嗎？到 Patreon 支持我們！ ► http://bit.ly/fla-patreon
歡迎提供字幕 :)

▍播放清單：
今天只學一個字 ► http://bit.ly/2DRQPgE
名人英語 ► http://bit.ly/2EUc8QO
語文知識 ► http://bit.ly/2GzuW8b
Word Pairs 怎樣分 ► http://bit.ly/2hS1MCF
時事英語 ► http://bit.ly/2RqrMok
品牌名學英語 ► http://bit.ly/2qd3mUq
朗誦節特訓 ► http://bit.ly/2PBqZno

▍更多學習資源：
● 加入 Finnie's Facebook 群組：bit.ly/flafbgp
● 訂閱電子報：http://bit.ly/fla-nl
● 下載免費學習資源：http://bit.ly/36VhrYS

▍Follow 芬尼：
● Blog: http://bit.ly/fla-blog
● Facebook: http://bit.ly/fla-facebook
● Instagram: http://bit.ly/fla-instagram
● Pinterest: http://bit.ly/fla-pinterest

Free stuff!!! :)
● Use my iHerb Discount Code: ASC7218
● Sign up at AirBnb and get HKD$290 in travel credit: https://www.airbnb.com/c/tiffanys213
● Get a FREE first Uber ride (up to HK$50): https://www.uber.com/invite/tiffanys2213ue
● Get TWO months of free SkillShare premium with this link:
https://skl.sh/2IIHhr8

#名人英語 #安心 #黃心穎