My Best Friend Blocked Me And The Lessons It Taught Me 

“She was my best friend, but I was probably not hers.“

Last year, my best friend of two years blocked me out of the blue. This was after months of her ignoring my message asking if she was okay and what was wrong. She was going through her third separation from her husband, and I assumed she needed space. This separation seemed permanent this time because she had moved in with him and then broken a lease to end her relationship again a few months later.

She was what I always wanted in a best friend. We connected on our shared beliefs about how fascinating the world is, how everything is connected, and how society is warped by pride and selfishness. We talked and bonded for hours over similar childhoods, regrets, and loneliness. 

I met her near the tail end of my seven-year-long relationship with the one I thought I would spend my life with. I met her after she had been separated for the second, and according to her, final time with her husband. Meeting each other at that time helped us bond over our growing self-respect and helped us cement what we wanted out of life and our partners. She was my best friend; I loved her with all my heart and wanted the best for her. Yet, looking back, I did not know what a good friendship entailed. That was my first mistake.

Growing up, I had few stable and meaningful relationships. I was the outsider wandering from friend group to friend group, exploring different people’s backgrounds and ideas. I found this more fascinating than talking to a set group of people about pop culture, politics, celebrity news or video games. Not that those are bad topics, but they are not for me. I always favored conversations about a person’s views on culture and society or their version of the meaning of life. I soon discovered that most children, teens, and young adults are indifferent to these topics. This is where my best friend differed; she loved these topics as much as I did, and I clung to her. That was my second mistake.

I wanted close friends, but they were few and far between. I developed the belief that I had to over-give to get love back. I did this to anyone that I liked and felt a connection with. I would drive them anywhere they wanted with whoever they wanted. I would buy them drinks, meals and tickets. I would plan day trips without reciprocation. I would drop everything to help them if they were struggling. I did all this with love even though it was exhausting because I was happy to have someone willing to be around me.

This dynamic also manifested in other unfavourable ways. I would ignore poor behaviour because I was eager to have company and a good friend. I would accommodate friends who cancelled on me at the last minute to hang out with others. I was the “therapist” friend who let others talk for hours without them asking anything about my life for weeks. I would plan hangouts only for them to add their friends and become the third wheel in a day I had planned. I would have people invite me to hang out and then tell me that they expected me to pay for them. It would take weeks for friends to message me back, and then they would pop up again and ask for a favor, and I would do it. The issue was that I would do it all with a smile because I cared about them, and I thought that was how you show love. I had always been a good friend to people who had abused my kindness because I cared and loved them.

Going back to my best friend, she would often cancel on me at the last minute. She sometimes stopped responding for weeks only to pop up to ask for a favor. She often cut our hangouts to less than an hour because she had other people to see and other things to do. It was common for her to only talk about herself and rarely ask about me. I had to plan the outings, and I always had to go where it was convenient for her. She was my best friend, but I was probably not hers. Near the end of our friendship, she pulled away and stopped answering my texts until weeks later. To this day, I do not know why she pulled away and then blocked me, but I have my suspicions.

I think back to our last conversation about how she was ending her relationship with her husband for the third time. For months, she was upset about how her husband was not interested in getting to know the “new her”. But, that week, he offered to get to know the “new her” by taking her on a first date again. I excitedly told her that was an improvement, and she should take him up on the offer, but she did not seem pleased with my response. She said she had given him time to do that before, but now it was too late. I told her to give him a chance one last time, as he was now trying to get to know the “new her” for the first time. She seemed displeased with this answer as well. I believe she wanted me to have the same point of view, which I was now denying her.

It may have been a mistake, but I told her I was finally happy after she had told me about her impending separation. I had a new loving boyfriend and great new friends. I had also started exploring the surrounding areas, which I had always wanted to do. I told her this because we had spent years hyping each other to build our dream life with the people we wanted. I thought I had finally done what we had discussed for years, but this was probably my insensitive mistake. Maybe she felt invalidated; maybe she did not like that my life was getting happier while hers was getting worse. I do not know, nor will I ever know, because that would be the last time we would speak. She cut our hangout to under an hour because she was not feeling well. I texted her a day later, asking how she was, and she never responded again.

My best friend ghosting me was devastating. I may have faults like everyone, but I had always prided myself on being an over-giving, accommodating, and loving friend. It angered me to know that this was insufficient to warrant a conversation about what I was doing that upset her or why she needed to end our friendship. 

Her leaving ended my over-giving and tolerance of hurtful and disrespectful behavior. It also prompted me to examine other unfavorable friendship dynamics. If friends were going to leave regardless of what I gave them to my detriment, I might as well respect myself and have good, loving friends back. This meant some other friends had to go too.

I quickly noticed that I was almost always the first to message friends and plan fun hangouts and activities as I did with my best friend. It kept me exhausted and made me feel like, without my effort, the friendships would die. I stopped being the first to initiate conversations and hangouts with two good friends and waited for them to text first for once. Those friendships have now fizzled out because they never texted me back first. That was a painful lesson, but it is a lesson I am grateful to know now.   

I also realized that another good friend only messaged me when they needed a ride and someone to keep them company while they did errands. I would plan day trips and activities for us, but they would save their plans and day trips for other friends. I ended that friendship formally. Within days, they bad-mouthed me to acquaintances who no longer invited me to hangouts. It was upsetting knowing that someone that I cared for would lash out like that to hurt me and my relationships with other people.

I was heartbroken because in six months, not only had I lost my best friend, but I had lost three close friends. It made me realize that friends will come and go, and nothing is wrong with that. Maybe they did not feel as connected to me anymore. Maybe we grew apart, and I was clinging onto them. Maybe they were pulling away and building friendships with other people, and I did not notice. Whatever their reasons are for no longer wanting to be friends, I would no longer be a doormat who over-gave to those I loved. I felt free. 

Removing my old close friends opened me up to the possibility of new friends. In less than a year, I have made two new close friends. With these two new friends, the friendships feel equal; we mutually care and ask about each other and take turns planning hangouts. It has been great. Even though the friendships are newer, I feel less exhausted compared to my old friends. I now have the friends I have always wanted and who I love being with because I am no longer putting up with poor behavior in the name of love.

About the Author Madison Mussio

Feel Free to Connect with Madison on / Instagram / Linkedin / Facebook /

The Industrialization of the Education System and The Dyslexic Student

“Our modern system is heavily based on mass industrialization”

When it comes to schooling itself, having dyslexia often feels like you do twice the work for half the effect. Teachers, parents, tutors, and fellow students will try helping, but they usually give up in frustration once their tried-and-true standardized tactics fail. They even go as far as to blame the student and their brain rather than focusing that blame on their lack of patience and inability to tailor teaching methods. To be fair, most teachers were not taught with adaptability at the forefront but with the mass standardization of educational concepts that ignore differences.[1] This perpetual and frustrating cycle continues for every new subject introduced. It’s embarrassing, tiring, and, overall, frustratingly unfair. 

We often forget that despite the human species being hundreds of thousands of years old, our modern school system has only been around for less than two hundred years.1 [2] Even then, our modern system is heavily based on mass industrialization, a modern concept to our ancient species.1 This industrialized schooling thrives on standardization and memorization, two factors that naturally disadvantage dyslexic students.1 These educational factors, paired with the fact that mass literacy of the populace has only been achieved in the last hundred years, mean that humans have evolved without literacy and industrial schooling for hundreds of thousands of years.1 It is no wonder people with dyslexia struggle; we as a society are still ironing out the kinks of a modern invention. 

There is early evidence through studies that shows that Dyslexic students who learn Ancient Greek can improve their reading and writing skills.[3] [4] I would argue that this could show that for hundreds of years before industrial education, dyslexic people may have been able to thrive on their natural ability to think and process differently with a different language. They may have become philosophers, inventors, artists, bakers, farmers, and labourers contributing to the significant development of humanity, all without the need for our modern approach to literacy and maths. It is disheartening that their descendants struggle to learn in a system never built with their brains in mind. 

Instead of realizing this unfairness, we pressure people with dyslexia to adapt to our poorly planned invention and shame them when they cannot satisfy conformity and categorization. Education is now taught and set up as if it were an industrial assembly line by processing and advancing children once they have met their metrics like a factory part.1

I would go as far as to argue that the diagnosing of dyslexia itself is another way to try to categorize and pressure conformity rather than instinctively taking an individualistic approach regardless of designation. Expanding on this notion, I think the label of dyslexia can and often is used as an excuse for why a student cannot meet standardized quotas rather than blaming the system. I would also argue that the current educational system is, unfortunately, moulding and training kids to become cogs in an economic machine for the benefit of others rather than happy individuals and innovators, but that topic is for another day. 

With all this in mind, I think it is common for parents, teachers, and students to cling to hope that things will improve for the dyslexic student. They prioritize repetition and memorization, hoping things will improve. This approach is oblivious that this system was not built for all humans’ unique strengths and weaknesses and that we cannot mass-produce humans as machine parts.1 I am not arguing for abolishing math and literacy; I am asking for an adaptation. However, this would most likely require a brand-new system with its own kinks to work out. What would that new system of education look like? I do not know, but I know someone out there will, maybe someone with knowledge of the issues plaguing the system through dyslexia. Hopefully, they are not disheartened enough by an ineffective educational system to want to try to fix it. 

The author, Madison Mussio, has been diagnosed with Dyslexia since age 10. She could not read until age 11 and write until age 12. Her father also learnt to read and write at around the same age. Madison is also an ambassador for the non-profit school Fraser Academy, which helps students and the greater community manage and thrive with Dyslexia in Vancouver, British Columbia. 

About the Author Madison Mussio

Feel Free to Connect with Madison on / Instagram / Linkedin / Facebook 

References:

[1] “Our Education System is Losing Relevance. Here’s How to Unleash its Potential”, World Economic Forum, 2020

[2] “An Evolutionary Timeline of the Homo Sapiens” Smithsonian Magazine, 2021

[3] “Help For a Dyslexic Learner From an Unlikely Source: The Study of Ancient Greek” Literacy, 2006

[4] “New Research Shows That Ancient Greek Can cure Dyslexia” Greek City times, 2021

Introduction to The Canadian Governmental Duty to Consult Indigenous Peoples

The Indigenous peoples of Canada have a vibrant ancient history in modern-day Canada. When the lands became colonized and named British North America and later renamed Canada, Indigenous people still occupied their ancestors’ lands. Unfortunately, the Canadian government has a history of discrimination and disregard for Indigenous people and their rights, which modern Canadian courts and governments are attempting to rectify under the name of reconciliation. 

One part of reconciliation is negotiating and settling government lands that Indigenous peoples have disputed to belong to them. Before settling these Indigenous territorial claims, many of these lands have been permanently harmed by government actions in the pursuit of economic activity, as seen on Haida Gwaii. There has also been a history of governmental actions and decisions that have been held to violate Indigenous rights, as stated in R v. Sparrow 1990. With these factors in mind, the governmental duty for the consultation of Indigenous peoples was verified and codified in the keystone case of Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests) 2004. 

Haida Nation involved the Province of British Columbia issuing licencing to forestry companies for logging on the islands of Haida Gwaii, formally known as Queen Charlotte Islands. The government continued to issue licences to the land they have legal title to without the consent of the Haida peoples, who have claimed title to all the lands of Haida Gwaii. At the time of the lawsuit and as continued at the time of writing this article, the Haida people’s title to the land is still in the process of establishing legality. 

The main argument from Haida Nation for establishing a governmental duty to consult stems from the notion that that if the title for their Indigenous traditional territories were eventually transferred to local Indigenous groups, then these lands may be altered and damaged beyond repair. The irreversible and detrimental damage to the lands would go against the fundamental principle of reconciliation. To avoid this issue, Haida Nation established a governmental duty to consult groups of indigenous peoples whom the crown knows to have asserted claims to the lands being used. 

Before Haida Nation, the courts in R v. Sparrow 1990 identified the obligations of consultations with accommodations on affected Indigenous peoples if the government desired to justify infringement on Indigenous rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act 1982. With the acknowledgment of duty for consultation and accommodation set in Sparrow, Haida Nation set objective standards and guidelines for meaningful consultations. In modern times, most cases have been held that the government satisfies the duty to consult. 

One of these standards includes consultations being in good faith. Haida Nation acknowledges that meaningful consultations done in good faith may lead to obligations to accommodate the concerns of affected Indigenous groups. These accommodations vary with the land’s unique circumstances and local Indigenous peoples’ problems. These obligations also extend to legislation as held in Dene Tha’ First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Environment) 2006 and affirmed in Canada (Environment) v. Imperial Oil Resources Ventures Ltd. 2008.

It is important to note that Haida Nation limited the duty to consultation to include the inability to apply Indigenous veto rights to governmental actions and decisions pending final approval of land claims. Haida Nation also emphasizes that consultations must be in good faith from both sides. This includes the obligation of Indigenous negotiators not to frustrate the government’s reasonably good faith attempts nor hold unreasonable positions on government decisions as set in Halfway River First Nations v. British Columbia (Ministry of Forests) 1999. 

In the case of Rio Tinto Inc. v. Carrier Sekani Tribal Council 2010, the courts identified a three-step trigger when the legal obligation for consultation and accommodation arises. In Carrier Sekanil, a dam was planned that would severely alter the water levels and the region’s fishing. The Indigenous peoples from Haisla Nation were consulted, but those from the Carrier Sekani Tribal Council were not. This obligation for consultation and accommodation for a particular Indigenous group would be triggered if three principals were present. 

The first trigger is that the crown had knowledge, real or constructive, of the potential existence of Indigenous rights or titles set in the Haida Nation. These groups can be identified if there are pending negotiations or court cases from the groups involving the lands in question, as established in Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage) 2005. The second trigger is the crown’s conduct and if its conduct engages potential Indigenous rights or titles. Huu-Ay-Aht First Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests) 2005 stated that government conduct is not confined to decisions that immediately impact lands, rights, resources, or titles. The third trigger is if there is a potential that the conduct would cause adverse effects on Indigenous claims or rights. These triggers are intertwined with the governmental obligation for consultation pending a final settlement disputed of land titles. The affected groups must show a correlation between proposed government conduct or decision and the impact on claims or rights. These effects can extend to include the inability of Indigenous peoples to exercise their rights as established in R v. Douglas 2007. 

In conclusion, the governments of Canada have a duty to consult and accommodate Indigenous peoples who would be adversely affected by their decisions and actions. These principles explicitly apply to lands that have ownership disputes by Indigenous groups. Consultation and accommodation are done in the name of reconciliation due to the past injustices of Canadian governments. Haida Nation is the leading case in this subject and codified when a duty of consultation and accommodation to Indigenous peoples arises, as well as its standards and limitations. Later, Carrier Sekani established which Indigenous group’s consultation obligations apply. Overall, the duty to consult and accommodate Indigenous people’s concerns stems from the desire for reconciliation and the prospect of ancestral land titles transferring to Indigenous groups, which may have irrefutable harm through government actions without consultation. 

About the Author Madison Mussio

Feel Free to Connect with Madison on / Instagram / Linkedin / Facebook 

References:

Legislation

  • Constitution Act 1982

Caselaw

  • Canada (Environment) v. Imperial Oil Resources Ventures Ltd. 2008
  • Dene Tha’ First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Environment) 2006
  • Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests) 2004
  • Halfway River First Nations v. British Columbia (Ministry of Forests) 1999
  • Huu-Ay-Aht First Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests) 2005
  • Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage) 2005
  • R v. Douglas 2007
  • R v. Sparrow 1990
  • Rio Tinto Inc. v. Carrier Sekani Tribal Council 2010

Books/Articles

  • Heckman G, Mullan D, Promislow J, Van Harten G, Administrative Law Cases, Text, and Materials (8th edn, Edmond 2022)

Another Way to Solve Vancouver´s Housing Crisis

“Most people don´t want to move anywhere else in British Columbia”

It’s not a secret; Vancouver is one of the world´s least affordable cities, and the housing crisis seems to be the only thing on Vancouver’s minds for the past decade. We blame the housing crisis on foreign investors, lack of available housing, money laundering, our governments, and almost anyone we can. However, we are missing something fundamental that links all these ¨causes¨ together.

One Critical Cause We Are Overlooking

Why is there such a high demand for a specific city when our Province is bigger than most countries?

Why does it only seem like people can live in Vancouver and nowhere else in the Province?

Foreign investors flock to expensive Vancouver over more affordable cities such as Victoria, Kelowna, Vernon or Kamloops. People born and raised in Vancouver refuse to move, even though they claim to be unhappy and to be pushed out of their “city” by increased rent. People from all over the country move to the Lower Mainland despite knowing its lack of affordability.

The reason for the madness:

Most people don´t want to move anywhere else in British Columbia because they believe there is nothing outside the Lower Mainland and a lack of economic opportunity in the rest of the province. 

Why do residents in the Lower Mainland think this?

Let´s look at a personal example of mine.

I was born and raised in Vancouver, 15 minutes from downtown. I moved to Switzerland for economic opportunity (Schooling at one of the best Hospitality Management Schools in the World), which is currently unavailable in Canada. 

The University is in a village of 300 people and a 2-hour drive or 3-hour train ride to the nearest international airport in Geneva.

I left for an internship in Barcelona, again for economic opportunity, with a population of 1.6 million. Then, I moved to a resort town 140,000 for a semester abroad.

After my time in Spain, I had the choice to move back to the village of 300 people, with a post office, three overpriced mediocre restaurants and an international airport, which was a 2-hour drive away, or I could move back to the Spanish city of 1.6 million, filled with world-class restaurants, entertainment, beaches and an international airport 25-minute drive away. 

The choice was a relatively easy one to make. Spain it is. 

This is a European example, but British Columbians face a similar dilemma every time their rent increases and their living expenses skyrocket.

The Common Vancouverite Dilemma 

British Columbians can move to Vancouver, an incredibly international city filled with some of the best restaurants and cafes in the country, large malls and shopping areas, beaches next to downtown, an internationally recognized sports team and a stone’s throw to a world-class award-winning airport.

Alternatively, they can move, for example, to Victoria, which is smaller and has historic charm but with similar unaffordability issues to Vancouver. They could move to Kelowna, which has a small international airport and some city amenities. They can move to Kamloops, known as the tournament capital of Canada (i.e. ice hockey), with limited city amenities and job opportunities.

Smaller city living can be excellent, yet a large population of Canada wants to have economic opportunities and access to a lifestyle that is only available in large international cities. Many people would never consider Kelowna, Victoria, Kamloops, or other smaller cities in British Columbia a viable alternative to Vancouver, resulting in an affordability crisis in Vancouver.

It’s not just foreign investors buying all of Vancouver´s housing; it’s Vancouverites’ attitude towards other cities in B.C., notably smaller cities. The lack of international city amenities and economic opportunity in other areas has reduced emigration from the Lower Mainland to other parts of B.C.  

Not to insult the beautiful and diverse towns of British Columbia, but this is the reality. We only have one international city with amenities and economic opportunities that are on par with other global cities in foreign countries. Vancouver is the only BC city competing with other global cities for job opportunities and international amenities. 

The Solution

Vancouver wasn´t always an international city. Instead, it developed into a renowned city thanks, in part, to the Expo 86´ and, later, the Vancouver Olympics. Because of these world events, Vancouver received a large amount of investment capital from governments, companies, and investors, which was used to improve, develop and expand the city for an international audience. 

From this, we can see the requirements other British Columbian cities need to compete with Vancouver:

British Columbia´s smaller towns and cities need investments from businesses, governments and private citizens to increase the amenities and economic opportunities it provides to its inhabitants and increase the number of inhabitants away from overpopulated Vancouver. 

Over-Developed Neighborhood Theory

People move to other neighbourhoods if a neighbourhood gets too expensive due to demand in the area surpassing supply. This emigration brings the establishment of new cafés, entertainment venues, restaurants, and shops in different places because of the increased population and income bracket. This is also called gentrification. The result is that another neighbourhood develops, attracting more people than before, and the cycle continues. 

Think of Vancouver as an overdeveloped neighbourhood. The natural next step is for people to leave and turn other cities and towns into beautifully developed ones filled with new restaurants, cafes, shops, and entertainment, which creates more jobs and brings more people into the area. Then, as a result, the city will become more sought after, and the cycle continues into surrounding towns. 

Increased Populations and their Effects

We already see increased populations in British Columbia and other small cities across Canada. Kelowna and Victoria have seen an increase in inhabitants over the last decade, most of which is due to Vancouver´s unaffordability. 

Due to the increased population moving outside Vancouver, we are seeing new businesses open or move to these cities, creating more amenities and jobs in the local area. This economic boost creates more amenities, services, and opportunities for people in the area and, therefore, attracting more people to the area. As a result, the non-Vancouver cities have more appeal for people looking for a career, services and housing when priced out of Vancouver. There is also the added benefit of local governments having more taxes to develop their region. 

It will take at least a decade or two to fully see the effects of developing other towns and cities in BC to reduce the Vancouver housing crisis. Still, it’s a natural solution that I feel has not been openly discussed as part of the solution to the housing crisis in Vancouver. Simply put, another way to fix Vancouver’s housing crisis is to make the rest of British Columbia very attractive to people looking for city amenities, services, and jobs, just as Vancouver has. 

About the Author Madison Mussio

Feel Free to Connect with Madison on / Instagram / Linkedin / Facebook /

Initially written in 2019, updated in 2024

Defining Parliamentary Sovereignty in The United Kingdom

Parliamentary Sovereignty is the notion that parliament can create, repeal, or override any statute it desires with minimal limitations.

In addition, parliament sovereignty is not bound by its precedent and cannot bind its successor. The House of Commons and its statute are superior to the Executive and Judiciary, solidifying Parliament’s Sovereignty. Through the judiciary, judicial review and the compatibility of other laws can be used to question recent House of Commons actions. Through the Executive, the monarchy and the House of Lords must pass and assent to all bills passed by the House of Commons.

Doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty

Parliamentary acts are the constitution’s primary source, thus creating Parliament Sovereignty for the House of Commons. Parliament does not have limits to its statutory powers as it can repeal or override previous statutes, in addition to creating new laws. Parliament Sovereignty established the precedent to develop legislation on any subject matter desired, thus creating superiority over other governmental operations. Unlike other forms of government, parliament is not bound by precedent decisions, nor can it bind its successor, thus creating a new Parliament Sovereignty governmental body after every election. The implications of the Human Rights Act 1998, the European Communities Act 1972 and the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 have constructed limitations to parliament and, therefore, to Parliament Sovereignty. However, these power-limiting acts could be repealed and changed if parliament yearned, as seen in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 regarding the European Communities Act 1972.

Parliamentary Sovereignty Regarding Executive and the Judiciary

The Judiciary and Executive governmental branches are inferior to the House of Commons, though they are minor limitation components of Parliament’s Sovereignty. Judges produce everyday law decisions through the judiciary branchby interpreting legislation to ensure its compatibility with constitutional acts, such as the Human Rights Act 1998 or the European Communities Act 1972. Judges can rule on governmental decisions through judicial review, though the merit of a governmental decision would not be questioned. As a result, judicial review creates a minor limitation on Parliament’s Sovereignty, which could be overruled or repealed by the House of Commons. An example of parliament nullifying legislation in its favour can be seen in enacting the War Damage Act 1965 as a reaction to the adverse decisions held in Burmah Oil Co (Burma Trading) Ltd v Lord Advocate [1965].

In the Executive branch of government, the Monarch is expected to consent to all bills passed by the House of Commons and House of Lords. The House of Lords cannot prevent the passing of bills endorsed by the House of Commons but may delay enactment. Through the Parliament Act 1911, lords’ powers to veto public bills were annulled, creating one aspect of the modern Parliament Sovereignty. 

Conclusion 

Statute is the superior constitutional power that only parliament possesses, thus creating Parliamentary Sovereignty. In addition, the power to create, repeal, or override relies on the House of Commons. The Judiciary and Executive governmental branches are bound to the decisions of the House of Commons, assisting in the forging of Parliamentary Sovereignty.  

(Originally Written for Bachelor of Law at Birkbeck, University of London) 

About the Author Madison Mussio

Feel Free to Connect with Madison on / Instagram / Linkedin / Facebook 

References:

Legislation

Caselaw

  • Burmah Oil Co (Burma Trading) Ltd v Lord Advocate [1965] A.C. 75

Books/Articles

  • Loveland I, Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, and Human Rights A Critical Introduction (8th edn, Oxford University Press 2018)

Initially Written in May 2020