A new study says that Russia was definitely behind the trucker convoy. And the proof? Well, they certainly talked about it a lot on social media, so therefore, they organized it. I wish I were making this up, but that's how stupid academia has become. I'll take you through the study and who's promoting it.
00:12:05.460Nearly a year after the start of Canada's 2022 Freedom Convoy,
00:12:08.720a series of protests and blockades that brought together a wide variety of far-right activists and extremists,
00:12:15.140as well as ordinary Canadians who found common ground with the aggrieved message of the organizers.
00:12:20.980The question of whether and to what degree foreign actors were involved remains largely unanswered.
00:12:27.000Yeah, no, sister, it's been pretty exclusively and exhaustively answered.
00:12:30.920This paper attempts to answer some of those questions by providing a brief but targeted analysis of Russia's involvement in the Freedom Convoy via media and social media.
00:12:42.180The analysis examines Russian involvement in the convoy through the lenses of overt state media coverage,
00:12:47.360state-affiliated proxy websites, and overlap between Russian propaganda and convoy content on social media.
00:12:53.260The findings reveal that the Russian state media outlet, RT, covered the Freedom Convoy far more than any other international media outlet,
00:13:01.040suggesting strong interest in the far-right Canadian protest movement on the part of the Russian state.
00:13:07.700State-affiliated proxy websites and content on the messaging platform Telegram provide further evidence of Russia's strategic interest in the Freedom Convoy.
00:13:16.420Based on these findings, it is reasonable to infer that there was Russian involvement in the 2022 truck convoy,
00:13:25.180though the scope and impact remain to be determined.
00:13:28.340So because Putin's TV channel covered the truckers, it is reasonable to infer that the Russians were organizing it,
00:13:38.540they were involved with it, they orchestrated it.
00:13:40.340So there's actually no evidence of that.
00:14:56.120And if they were, do you think that is evidence that Russia was running things?
00:14:59.320I do ask that because, you know, given Canada's support of Ukraine in this current crisis with Russia,
00:15:06.920I don't know if it's far-fetched to ask, but there is concern that Russian actors could be continuing to fuel things as this protest grows,
00:15:17.960but perhaps even instigating it from the outset.
00:15:23.540Underneath all of these seemingly distinct movements is a rising tide of right-wing populism infused with a toxic blend of conspiracy theories,
00:15:32.260disinformation, grievances, and scapegoating that is now dominating political narratives
00:15:36.940and leading to increasingly inflammatory rhetoric that, at times, has spilled over into violence.
00:17:42.520It was claimed that protesters were being demonized and abused by the media and the government and accused the Trudeau government of ordering the use of violence against demonstrators.
00:17:53.420Yeah, that can't possibly have been a legitimate criticism to Trudeau invoking martial law and asking if we should even tolerate the unvaccinated.
00:18:05.720Just like that Calgary disinformation professor, Jean-Christophe Boucher, who accused Rebel News of being Russian agents because we undermined support for Trudeau and the liberals.
00:18:17.500That was proof, he said, that we were Russian propagandists.
00:18:20.980I mean, who other than Putin could possibly be against Trudeau?
00:18:26.940Disinformation, fact checks, censorship, it's all an attempt to control you, to gaslight you, to lie to you, to propagandize you, to sell you.
00:18:35.720You might even say it's a bit of a Soviet kind of thing to do.
00:18:42.220Stay with us for more about misinformation.
00:18:59.320And yet the Supreme Court of Canada has yet to weigh in on any of the civil liberties infringements emanating from the pandemic.
00:19:06.920I guess they're busy with more important things.
00:19:09.960Or maybe they already did weigh in on the matter.
00:19:12.680As you know, the chief justice of the Supreme Court early on announced he was imposing a vaccine mandate on Supreme Court staff themselves.
00:19:21.720So, really, he telegraphed to the world before a trial, before a hearing, that his view was vaccine mandates were obviously okay since he was imposing one himself.
00:19:32.140That is the quality of our justice in Canada.
00:19:35.020And, indeed, the message was heard by all lower courts.
00:19:37.860To this day, there has yet to be a single substantive civil liberties law or regulation that was struck down, even though our vaunted Charter of Rights was said to be second only to the Bible in terms of defining what Canadians were.
00:19:54.980It is therefore with great jealousy that I cast my gaze down to the United States where their courts, even in blue Democrat states, are not shy about striking down overreaching legislation that uses COVID-19 as an excuse.
00:20:12.860And what I find very gratifying is that when there is a battle in an American court for freedom against a lockdown overreach, odds are you will find our next guest there.
00:20:26.280I'm talking about our friend Janine Younis, a lawyer with the new Civil Liberties Alliance.
00:20:30.460And what a delight to have her on the show today.
00:20:32.160Janine, great to see you, fresh on the heels of a victory in California.
00:20:42.100So, yeah, this was a law that prohibited doctors from giving misinformation to patients, disseminating misinformation to patients.
00:20:52.400And misinformation is defined as false information, contradictory to the scientific consensus and contrary to the standard of care.
00:21:00.260Sorry, contrary to the standard of care.
00:21:01.760There's no and in there, which was one of the sticking points.
00:21:04.460So it's this phrase that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
00:21:07.840It's mishmash the whole, you know, standards together, standard of care, scientific consensus.
00:21:14.420And when you take into account, of course, that this whole issue has been politicized and the bill's legislative history, which is clearly designed to shows it's clearly designed to silence doctors who disagree on COVID related matters, especially masks and vaccines.
00:21:37.900When you throw in words like COVID-19 and misinformation, you're touching all the buzzwords used for censorship in other parts of society.
00:21:47.620That's what YouTube says in their, quote, community guidelines.
00:21:51.720That's what they use to shut down discussion on social media.
00:21:55.280So when the legislature of California thought, well, let's just combine those two things, talk about COVID, talk about misinformation, it's a slam dunk.
00:22:04.780But the judge called the definition of misinformation, if I'm quoting correctly, he called it nonsense, as in he couldn't make heads or tails of it.
00:22:13.300I can see that because really one man's misinformation is another man's truth.
00:22:18.680And, you know, it's and by the way, we don't quite yet know what all the truths are because let truth and falsehood grapple that all progress depends on revealing new truths that we don't yet know.
00:22:32.960So the idea that you can define what idea is good and what idea is bad in advance by a legislature is so it's the opposite of science, Janine.
00:22:44.780And yet this was being imposed on doctors.
00:22:48.180And so the state's argument was basically that, well, doctors have to abide by a standard of care anyway, right, to prevent medical malpractice lawsuits.
00:23:13.620But our argument was, first of all, yes, standard of care is a term in medical malpractice lawsuits, but you're putting it together with the term scientific consensus in a way that, you know, that term is not one that doctors are really familiar with in operating their practices.
00:23:27.380So it doesn't make a lot of sense. And if the two terms are the same, then why do you have both of them?
00:23:31.640It seemed to me obvious that what it's trying to do is to make doctors afraid so that they don't say, you know, they don't tell patients, you know, I'm not sure that masks work, which many doctors are asked about.
00:23:42.440Or maybe you don't need the vaccine because you're 15 and you just had COVID.
00:23:46.900And that's, in fact, what I'm representing five doctors in the case.
00:23:50.640And they said they're, you know, those are things that they've said to patients in the past.
00:23:53.500They intend to say in the future, but they're afraid to say them now because they think they could be disciplined under the law.
00:23:59.180And the state attorney actually acknowledged the judge directly asked her, well, could these plaintiffs be disciplined for the things they're saying?
00:25:16.500So the First Amendment prohibits, among other things, the government from censoring people for expressing certain views, disfavored views.
00:25:22.800And so we were arguing that this was effectively viewpoint discrimination.
00:25:26.820The judge actually decided, for reasons I can only speculate about, not to address that.
00:25:31.340So he said, I find it vague, so I'm not even going to go to the First Amendment question.
00:25:34.820But in terms of our First Amendment argument, we said our argument was one of the reasons you know that this is designed to silence doctors who disagree with the state is it's just about COVID.
00:25:45.060If you're so concerned about misinformation causing death, why aren't you concerned about misinformation with cancer?
00:25:50.800You know, there are lots of doctors who say maybe you don't need chemo or, you know, who embrace alternative treatments for cancer or heart disease.
00:25:59.660I mean, you have doctors now telling people it's perfectly healthy to donuts are just as good as fruits and vegetables, which I would call misinformation for other political reasons.
00:26:09.480But the fact that they're targeting COVID shows that this is a viewpoint based law.
00:26:16.600And I imagine it'll be addressed on appeal.
00:26:19.380Yeah, I understand that the California Medical Association actually supported this law, which, if true, is deeply disappointing.
00:26:27.140I mean, they're supposed to be advocates and champions of doctors.
00:26:30.620It's sort of like a doctor's union if it's the same as the Canadian Medical Association.
00:26:35.640And yet they look like they've been colonized.
00:26:38.560They're the enforcers, just like in Canada, the College of Physicians and Surgeons, which is actually the regulatory body, has been, in fact, in their own way, Janine, implementing this California law.
00:26:51.580They have been suspending or prosecuting or at least investigating any doctor who issued an exemption or spoke out against it or called for alternative treatments like, let's say, ivermectin.
00:27:04.580But the CMA, why would they support it?
00:27:08.280Are they just a political creature posing as doctor's advocates?
00:27:12.960Yeah, I mean, I think at this point that would be my take.
00:27:15.560All of these organizations, you know, CDC, the California Medical Association, any doctor's association in a blue state has really just become sort of political actors who, you know, any, they're just design.
00:27:28.520Or at this point, their main goal is just to further a certain viewpoint, which is, you know, COVID restrictions.
00:27:33.860So I think that's the explanation there.
00:27:35.500And one of the interesting things about the proponents of this bill was a number of them have threatened my clients on social media saying, you know, we can't wait to get your licenses taken away using AB 2098.
00:27:46.980So that was another argument we used to say, this is clearly designed to silence doctors who have different views from the state.
00:27:53.480This isn't some kind of benign or reasonable law preventing doctors from saying that vaccines have a microchip or, you know, will turn you into an alien or something, which I don't think any doctors have ever said anyway.
00:28:06.880And other, you know, other parts of the state's business and professions code prevent them from saying those things.
00:28:42.780I don't know if you have the same concept or term in Canada, but it's, you know, they're not parties to the lawsuit, but they have an interest based on what their organization's mission is.
00:28:51.580So, uh, actually the ACLU submitted an amicus brief, which is, um, somewhat unusual because the ACS is, sorry, the ACLU has been a bit, um, absent during the COVID pandemic, one might say.
00:29:03.360So I should check on which side they, um, on whose side they intervene.
00:29:07.200I should double check because I don't know the answer.
00:29:13.320So they've actually been on the, uh, the wrong side of this, but they actually, uh, filed an amicus brief in support of us, um, and made a lot of excellent points actually.
00:29:21.200So we were pleased to have their support.
00:29:23.300Another organization, um, a voice for choice submitted an amicus brief.
00:29:27.480It's sort of a physician's group that, um, you know, it actually, I think it's a patient's group that advocates for informed consent.
00:29:44.580Well, listen, I, I just, I knew you'd be involved with this case because you in particular have been fighting the good fight on so many COVID related and lockdown related battles, including, I remember professors who were commanded to take a jab, even though they had natural immunity and things of that sort.
00:30:02.040I think you're really fighting the good fight.
00:30:03.360Let me ask you one last question before I let you go.
00:30:05.060So in Canada, most of the mandates are gone, not all, but most.
00:30:11.680And I think a lot of the tickets and cases are, you know, not being prosecuted.
00:30:18.560They're sort of aging out and they'll just sort of wither on the vine.
00:30:21.500I think a lot of the more spectacular charges were just to scare people into compliance.
00:30:27.360They wanted it to look so brutal out there, be so, to make people afraid to go out.
00:30:32.720I mean, I mean, uh, some of the enforcement I think was literally designed to, to create shock in the community, to scare people, to stay home, to scare people, to not travel.
00:30:44.840So the abusiveness of it was actually the point of it.
00:30:48.740And now that prosecutors have to take these tickets and charges to court, I think a lot of them are saying, yeah, in the cold morning after the wild party last night, I don't know if I want to go to a judge with this.
00:31:01.600I guess what I'm saying is in Canada, I sense a lot of cases are just going to be stayed or dropped.
00:31:50.780The lawsuits are actually getting a little bit more successful.
00:31:54.000Like there have been some recent vaccine mandate successes that I think wouldn't have been successful a year or two ago.
00:31:58.860Because I think courts are starting to see, okay, this is ridiculous.
00:32:02.400And even though the law is the same, it's honestly, you know, the facts that the landscape has changed, especially now we know that the vaccine doesn't stop transmission.
00:32:24.540So I think of all the people to adjudicate these matters, scared judges, part of the establishment who, like other experts such as themselves, were probably the most lockdown friendly people in society.
00:32:39.640And I think that they have sobered up a little bit over the years.
00:32:42.260Janine, great to see you again, folks.
00:32:44.080She's fighting for freedom with the new Civil Liberties Alliance.
00:32:47.560Look forward to your next battle, my friend.
00:33:23.200Even if your fears turn out to be true, as so often happened during the lockdown in California, they tried to actually pass a law banning misinformation.
00:33:32.120But the judge found the definition to be nonsense.
00:33:35.100How can you tell if something is true or not in a piece of legislation?
00:33:38.940It's like when Justin Trudeau banned Rebel News from the leaders' debates, he couldn't come up with any criteria that would allow them to ban Rebel News but let in the CBC or the Toronto Star or some left-wing publications like, say, the Narwhal or the Taiyi.
00:33:56.940Because they literally could not describe Rebel News because they literally could not describe Rebel News and what they hate about us in a way that doesn't touch half the rest of the media.
00:34:08.360What Justin Trudeau calls misinformation can only be explained based on him, what he doesn't like, what he says you shouldn't believe.
00:34:17.660There is no way to define it in an objective sense.
00:34:21.960Anyone who uses the word misinformation or disinformation with you, or even fact check, which every journalist should be, anyone who uses that lingo with you, well, they're the misinformationists.