A heart to heart with Bruce Pardy, a contrarian, freedom fighter, and law professor at Queen's University, about his views on the state of Canadian law, and about the need for a Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
00:00:00.000Hello, my friends, a great heart to heart with Bruce Pardy, the Queens University law professor, contrarian and freedom fighter.
00:00:08.180You know, I want to invite you to get the video version of this podcast because there's a video clip I want you to see that I play in this interview.
00:00:14.820Go to rebelnewsplus.com, click subscribe. It's eight bucks a month.
00:00:18.180By the way, you get my show every night in video form and Sheila Gunn Reads weekly show, plus the satisfaction that you are helping us stay free and independent.
00:00:26.360You know, we don't take a dime from Trudeau and it shows.
00:01:01.720You know, there was a tradition for years that the prime minister would appoint one or two journalists to the Senate.
00:01:17.060And that dream of winning that appointment was enough to keep a hundred journalists loyal to a prime minister, even though only one or two would ever get that magical golden call.
00:01:30.020The rest were certainly auditioning for it.
00:01:32.560They say that the Senate is not a thankless task, but a taskless thanks.
00:01:38.040And indeed, it really is the best perk you can get, other than, I suppose, being the governor general.
00:01:44.240But there is a better perk, a better patronage appointment, because the Senate has the travel and the, you know, the prestige, but it doesn't actually have any power.
00:01:54.580What is a perk that is even greater than being appointed to the Senate?
00:02:00.840I tell you, it's being appointed a judge, because a judge is appointed for the same duration as that of a senator, earns even more money, but unlike a senator, actually has power.
00:02:13.760I put it to you that that is enough to keep so many lawyers and law professors in line, even though only a handful will get that golden nod.
00:02:24.080The rest of them will be auditioning their whole careers.
00:02:26.840And that is why the law, in my opinion, is increasingly political, or at least one of the reasons.
00:02:31.920So it's very hard to find a lawyer, let alone a law professor, let alone a law professor at a prestigious school who is willing to be a little bit contrarian and willing to call out the excesses of his industry.
00:02:46.860In fact, in this whole country, I think you can count them on one finger's hands, one hand's fingers.
00:02:52.040And joining me for the duration of today's show is one such man.
00:03:09.900Do you think I'm accurate when I say that at least for some ambitious, politically-minded lawyers, the ultimate outcome is to become a judge?
00:03:18.260Oh, there's no doubt that it is the ambition of many.
00:03:22.080Now, not all of them compromise themselves in search of that goal,
00:03:28.180but it's certainly a matter in the back of your mind, I would think, so that you don't...
00:04:30.820It's as if Canada didn't exist before.
00:04:32.900It was, even though the first line of the Charter refers to, you know, under God, most law professors skipped that part, and they thought that this was like a holy text.
00:04:43.900And yet, after 20, 25 years of hearing that, the Charter of Rights is above all.
00:04:50.260I mean, I guess it's been more than 40 years since the law said it looks.
00:04:54.680It didn't do a bloody thing during the pandemic.
00:04:57.100I can't think of one systemic case of discrimination, infringements on our civil liberties, lockdowns, shut down churches.
00:05:25.040It was a great disappointment, no question about it.
00:05:28.700It reflected, though, the faith that a lot of people put into it.
00:05:34.040And, you know, in a way, if there's any silver lining to this COVID thing, it is in a way that, for some people, a curtain has been pulled back on the way the thing actually works.
00:05:45.380And it's actually not quite true that the Charter has ever been the foundation of our legal system.
00:05:52.940I mean, it looks to be a very important document.
00:05:55.860It's our Bill of Rights or the equivalent.
00:05:58.300But, really, the Charter functions only as a gloss on what legislatures can do.
00:06:05.220And it's only, really, it's turned out to be only an interpretive guide for the courts in terms of judging what the legislatures do.
00:06:15.240So, people, to this document, it's written down in black and white.
00:06:20.220Therefore, I have the freedoms that are listed.
00:06:22.640But the test of whether or not you actually have those freedoms is what happens when you go into a court and say, this happened to me, you know, please enforce my right.
00:06:32.420And then sometimes the courts say, well, I'm sorry, I know it says this, but that's actually not what it means.
00:06:39.100And, in a way, this is the premise of our system, even with or without the Charter.
00:06:47.540The system is, somebody always has to have the last word.
00:06:51.520And, in our system, the courts have the last word.
00:06:55.020And, in particular, the Supreme Court of Canada has the last word.
00:06:58.180And there's no overseer of the Supreme Court of Canada.
00:08:31.600We will interpret it in accordance with principles.
00:08:34.240We won't sort of wander off and do whatever we think is right.
00:08:37.220But we've now entered a period where more courts are inclined to think that it is their job to do the policy work and to design things so that it works in the way that they approve of.
00:08:50.240And the former chief justice said, it's a dialogue between us and the legislators.
00:08:56.600You know, our Beverly McLaughlin, restrained, was she?
00:09:01.780She was the one who said that Canada was a genocidal state.
00:09:05.340And she didn't even say so through a court case, which is a speech.
00:10:22.620So, what we do is, number one, Hayek says, rules fixed and announced beforehand.
00:10:30.400That's what the law is supposed to be, right?
00:10:32.100So, we can all know what the laws are ahead of time, govern ourselves accordingly, make sure we don't get into trouble.
00:10:37.340But you have to at least tell us where the lines are that we have to obey.
00:10:41.520And the second way is to divide powers between our legislature, our courts, and our executive branch so that none of them have concentrated power.
00:10:50.820Right. And the natural instinct is checked by the other national instinct.
00:10:54.980Exactly. So, they're all checks and balances on each other.
00:10:57.260But both of these ideas now are eroding.
00:11:00.660Because they're, all three of these branches are on the same page about the necessity for having the state manage society.
00:11:10.500You know, and I see that in America, too.
00:11:12.560I mean, we're in Canada, we're mainly going to talk about Canada.
00:11:14.880But I see that there are certain things that we must, you know, whether it's the CIA or the Justice Department or, I'm going to say, the military-industrial complex.
00:11:26.400We have a higher duty than to allow that Donald Trump to run wild here.
00:11:31.820Sure, you know, we may be exceeding our office, head of the FBI.
00:12:12.100And in part, I think this is maybe part of the reluctance of the courts to condemn the COVID regime, because the COVID regime was all about managing.
00:12:38.900What have they ever gotten right or wrong before?
00:12:40.400Suddenly, we had a roster of new people running things, and every politician deferred to them.
00:12:45.920Deferred because, and this is what politicians do now, the legislatures now pass statutes that delegate enormous rulemaking authority
00:12:56.620to other branches, to the executive branch and other authorities, like public health officials, but I'm not limited to that.
00:13:03.500The whole regime of administrative bodies that we have commonly now make rules and policies about all manner of things because it's part of their management function.
00:13:14.680That, I think, is one of the cores of the difficulty.
00:13:18.740We believe, we're now in the era of the administrative state.
00:13:22.220And if you, you know, stop any random person on the street and you ask them whether or not the administrative state, if they knew what that was.
00:17:03.840And in a sense, the protesters only managed to make the points that Jordan was making inside the hall, which is, these people just don't want to hear anything they don't agree with.
00:17:15.420You know, I am sure that every young person, and I presume it was students mainly in their room, although there would have been others in the community.
00:17:23.740And I'm sure they won't forget that night, the drama, the excitement, and being the receivers of a knowledge that the other side wants to ban.
00:17:33.760There's something tantalizing about secret knowledge.
00:17:37.160I think it's one of the reasons why people are open to conspiracy theories, because they have an alternate explanation for the world that only they know.
00:17:44.260And it gives them some sort of superiority.
00:18:24.480You will never forget what you heard that day.
00:18:27.800And if there's any doubt that you heard something important, that doubt is gone because the other side certainly thought it was important enough to stop.
00:18:35.980I'm not sure if my analogy of secret knowledge works there, but you heard something that the other side wants to make impossible to know.
00:18:42.720I think you're right about proving the point.
00:18:45.500I've got to think that makes Jordan Peterson's followers even more dedicated.
00:21:02.460And eventually he wins most of them, by the way.
00:21:05.840But I think there's something wrong with a society that will simply keep charging a man and jailing, jailing, jailing, jailing, jailing, Risa, sorry, Tamara Leach for 49 days without a, without a hearing.
00:23:05.380Well, so, so that these are the things that give our system legitimacy in the minds of the people.
00:23:11.940If you think you're going to get a fair shake, if you're charged or the like, then you're going to go along with the idea that the process will protect you.
00:23:19.600Whatever the outcome is, you're going to get a fair shake, but you can take examples like the Tamara Litch situation and think, well, that, that wasn't fair.
00:23:29.940Uh, in the Tamara Litch situation, as you alluded to, she was kept in jail for 49 days in total in two different, at two different times for a charge that was nonviolent, um, in, within a system in which people charged with all manner of things, including violent crimes, are let out on bail routinely.
00:23:52.600And, and, and twice, on, on both these occasions, she was, she was, uh, put in jail by lower court officials and then released by, uh, superior court judges when the case came before them.
00:24:05.440And, and it certainly seemed like the prosecutor was determined to hold her in jail and maybe even punish her before her trial and before conviction for this crime of the century that she committed in Ottawa, even though, as you say, it was a, it was a peaceful protest.
00:24:21.360So, it's, it, it's one of the challenges, one of the examples, and this is not to say that this happens all the time, it doesn't.
00:24:27.480But, if you can pull out anecdotes, examples of things where it doesn't go right, then the strength of the story begins to, to weaken.
00:24:37.940And when you learn things, and this is what they mean in the law, not to bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
00:24:45.520That's a great line that's burned in my memory because you've got to conduct yourself in a way that people have confidence, even, especially the losers.
00:24:55.460The losers have to love and trust the system enough that when they lose, they say, well, I had my shot.
00:25:02.160That's exactly right. There's another phrase that goes, justice must not only be done, but must manifestly appear to be done.
00:25:09.880And when they put Moise Karimji, the out-of-control, vendetta-driven, liberal donor, as the prosecutor for Tamara Leach, they undid that and they undid that on purpose.
00:25:22.540And, by the way, that same prosecutor tried to have our reporter, Sheila Gunn-Reed, convicted of contempt of court.
00:25:28.080Out-of-control madman. Now, I should tell you, go ahead, they just recently replaced him, sacked him as the prosecutor on Tamara Leach.
00:25:35.580And part of me says, thank God, what took you so long.
00:25:40.240Another part of me said, well, I wish that madman would go all the way to trial just to get a proper smackdown by a court.
00:25:47.340The silver lining in this situation, if you watch the thing the whole way through, was in the way that the Superior Court responded to the attempts to have her released.
00:26:02.360You know, the committals were done by one level of court and then the Superior Court, in what I thought were very good judges, said, this is not correct.
00:27:35.880And in that interview, as published by the Devoir, the Chief Justice condemned the convoy
00:27:41.540and suggested that, you know, the powerful forces in the country ought to have done what they did, essentially.
00:27:49.080So, we've got a pundit on our hands now.
00:27:50.880And if anybody else other than a judge has said that, there would have been no trouble because it's an opinion.
00:27:55.760Yeah, it's a perfectly valid opinion, but he's the Chief Justice of the whole system.
00:28:01.180And shortly after the Emergency Act was invoked, a number of applications were brought to challenge the validity of its invocation, of course.
00:28:09.420And those applications have now been heard at first instance by the federal court, not yet decided.
00:28:14.940But this could very easily go before the Supreme Court of Canada.
00:28:17.660And now you have a Chief Justice who has already essentially given his opinion about this issue.
00:28:22.740And so, going back to this idea that justice must not only be done, but manifestly must appear to be done,
00:28:28.960it would be difficult if you were bringing the applications to think,
00:28:32.860well, I'm going to get a fair shake from the Chief Justice because he's already told me what he thinks.
00:29:51.160But during COVID, some courts went so far as to take judicial notice of certain facts about the vaccine,
00:29:59.440especially in family law cases where there is a dispute between parents about whether or not a child is going to be vaccinated.
00:30:04.360And there are, there's more than one example, but I speak about one example from Saskatchewan where the, the, the judge basically said, I'm going to take judicial notice of the fact that the virus is dangerous and that the vaccine is safe for children to take.
00:30:51.540And, and it was, you know, sometimes having old people as judges is very, is, you know, uh, word senator, senior, a lot of, a lot of, you know, age and wisdom are correlated.
00:31:04.180They really are because you have life experience.
00:31:26.620But we have gotten to the point now where our idea about equal treatment under the law has morphed into something very different.
00:31:32.780The idea of justice being blind is just that, that the, the, the, the law shouldn't care who you are, what your characteristics are, whether you're a man or a woman or a rich or poor or black or white or straight or gay.
00:31:45.360We should apply the same rules to everybody without regard to your identity.
00:31:49.760And we, we've now gotten to a place where the law very much wants to know who you are, both in civil matters, in, uh, in human rights tribunal matters, in, uh, criminal sentencing.
00:32:02.600They want to know, you know, what race you are and, and other kinds of characteristics so they can, they can adjust the rules in accordance with the groups that you may or may not belong to.
00:32:14.700And there was a very interesting statement by the human rights tribunal of Ontario, uh, from last fall, where, and this is not a, this is not a new thing, but it's, it's, it's new to see it set out loud this way.
00:32:27.320They basically said in black and white, white people cannot claim discrimination under the code.
00:32:32.120Now, I'm not sure that's entirely correct, but it's certainly that trend that we're, we've been headed down for Cordova.
00:32:37.760Yeah. You know, I, I, I'm not even kidding when I say, I wonder how that works for people who are mixed race.
00:32:45.060Well, this is the absurdity of it, right? I mean, it, it, it doesn't make any sense.
00:32:48.960Yeah. I mean, Barack Obama was black, but he was also white.
00:32:54.080And I think so many people in humanity, I mean, everyone's fascinated by those DNA tests, 23andMe, because they want to say, well, what percentage is this and that?
00:33:02.420And, you know, a lot of people were kicked out of some place and moved to some other place. That's the history of the world.
00:33:08.980I mean, uh, my own family, 120 years ago, was kicked out of some place.
00:33:14.840And, I don't know, it's just such a strange thing that people who are, who were not hard done by hundreds of years ago are being reimbursed either legally or financially by people who didn't do anything wrong to them today.
00:33:29.980But this is, this is what happens, though, when you, when you start down the road of, of trying to treat people as though they are merely members of groups instead of individuals, right?
00:33:41.660You reward them and punish them for things they had nothing to do.
00:33:44.500And then they start to think of themselves in those terms. I think that's the weaponization of race.
00:33:48.700And I think that's the new weaponization we see with sexuality.
00:33:51.520I mean, I mean, gay rights was one thing, but the T in LGBT and the Q, that's not, it's got nothing to do with the L and the G.
00:34:02.260I think it's about weaponizing gender, weaponizing sex, weaponizing psychology and self-identity, just like wokeness around race.
00:34:12.780And I think that, I think the critical race theory and cultural Marxism, I really think it's, I think it's real.
00:34:21.160And I, I think it's too coordinated. I mean, I, for it not to be a strategy.
00:34:26.920Well, let's put this in very simple political terms.
00:34:28.780So, in a, in a sense, the idea that everybody should be entitled to the same rights regardless of their identity is a classical liberal idea.
00:38:20.320Well, and, and this all gets tangled up in the role of these executive bodies, like the regulator.
00:38:27.480The regulator is a government body, even though it's self-regulation.
00:38:31.120And, you know, when the, when the courts, you know, hear the application with respect to what the college has done,
00:38:39.060then you get the question of whether or not the court should defer to the regulator or whether or not the limits are strict.
00:38:45.360I mean, all, all of these things we're talking about are, are displayed in cases like this and bring to light the dilemmas that we are now facing as a society and as a legal system about how the rules are supposed to work and, and who gets to say.
00:39:05.940I practiced a bit, but then I, I got busy doing other shenanigans, but I kept my status with the law society because I, you know, I sort of liked, I liked calling myself a lawyer.
00:39:14.200But that opened myself up to complaints identical to this.
00:39:18.720I didn't have any clients, but that conduct on becoming a lawyer is such a catch-all.
00:39:23.560They would, they, it was a handful of people who would, every time I would write a newspaper column, they would submit it.
00:39:29.640And there was a point in time when I was responsible for 10% of all the work at the law society of Alberta's compliance, what they told me.
00:39:36.260And I got to know the staff there and I, I jokingly said to them, I'm sorry, you have to read all of my columns and watch all of my TV shows.
00:40:04.680So I said to the law side, I'm happy to resign, but I can't resign under a cloud of an accusation because that's called a deemed disbarment.
00:40:32.540They want to say he is a, I don't know, the equivalent of disbarred or defrocked.
00:40:37.820I don't know what you say about a psychologist who is being disciplined, but they want to attach that huge asterisk to his name because he's out there.
00:40:46.340Combination of psychology and philosophy and history.
00:42:00.420Why should your right to freedom of speech, Trump, a trans person's right not to be offended?
00:42:06.720Because in order to be able to think you have to risk being offensive.
00:42:13.640I mean, look at the conversation we're having right now, you know, like you're certainly willing to risk offending me in the pursuit of truth.
00:42:20.000Why should you have the right to do that?
00:43:05.260Well, you manipulate the legal system, a legal system that was built to protect patients from abusive psychologists has now been taken off mission and by woke extremists.
00:43:16.500And it's not just the college of psychologists.
00:43:18.600I mean, so the, the idea of, of professional competence more and more and not, not across the board, not in every case, but, but you can see how more regulators are looking at professional competence through an ideological lens in there.
00:43:33.780Well, that's why they shut down, uh, I think it was called Trinity Western University and BC wanted a law school and they forbade them.
00:43:42.120They said, yeah, your teaching's up to snuff.
00:43:43.760There's no doubt your curriculum is, as rigorous, but you have a student, um, personal conduct policy not to have sex outside of marriage.
00:43:53.480That includes gay sex because you have this student conduct code.
00:44:02.740We're not going to, so the, the law side of Ontario and so the other law society said in advance, we will not acknowledge that anyone, even someone who is gay, you can be gay and go to Trinity Western.
00:44:16.560Even a gay graduate from Trinity Western law school will not be certified in Ontario or other problems.
00:44:23.180You can come from a law school in Saudi Arabia or Iran and take your tests and be certified where they literally stone gays to death.
00:44:32.120But how dare you think that a Christian university will be able to accredit lawyers.
00:44:36.600And this brings us all the way back full circle to the charter because the Supreme Court of Canada heard that case and deferred to the law societies to do as they had done, even though the only charter right in question was held by Trinity Western and its people.
00:44:59.600But the Supreme Court said, we're going to defer, essentially.
00:45:02.460We're going to allow the law societies, as long as what they've done is reasonably within what we are going to imagine as the values of the charter, then we're going to let it go.
00:45:15.520Well, Bruce, it's great to catch up with you.
00:45:18.160And I understand that you may be going back to teaching.
00:46:16.780For my money, inside the universities, there's also a narrowing of acceptable thought on the part of the faculty and the granting agencies and so on.
00:46:26.700So, in many ways, the university environment has narrowed in that sense, yes.
00:46:32.680Well, listen, I wish you good luck here.
00:46:34.540As I said, at the outset, you're a rare person in the legal community in the highest heights of the priesthood, and yet you haven't bent the knee.