Juno News - LAWTON： The Justice Committee's Attack on Free Speech

00:00:00.000 Good afternoon, Canada. Welcome to another live edition of the True North Report.

00:00:05.280 For True North, I am Andrew Lawton here to talk about free speech.

00:00:09.620 It's a particular bugaboo of mine, if I can use such a trite word,

00:00:13.560 when government does not recognize this fundamental right.

00:00:17.100 And let me say, I've got a lot of material to work with this week.

00:00:20.520 So I'm going to be talking about some of the big battles that have happened

00:00:23.280 and the way that, at the risk of just making it about complaining,

00:00:30.000 I want to make sure that we have some prescriptions for the future,

00:00:34.620 ways that I think we might be able to write this.

00:00:37.460 But it's not going to be easy. It's going to be an uphill battle, but it's an important one.

00:00:42.240 And I think that what we saw this week happen at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

00:00:48.320 really drives home the point of why that is.

00:00:52.520 So to start, thank you very much for tuning in.

00:00:54.420 It's been about a week since I've done this last.

00:00:56.780 Always fun to be live again, especially for me, an old radio guy.

00:01:00.400 I like actually the live me.

00:01:01.820 I like doing the short videos that we do where you really just hammer a point for four or five minutes.

00:01:06.060 But I also love doing this where we get to really take some time, go into the issues,

00:01:10.440 answer some questions that people might have.

00:01:12.660 It's good to get like real-time feedback.

00:01:14.900 Gene or Jean, I'm assuming it's Gene.

00:01:18.120 Gene just liked us on Facebook, for example.

00:01:20.140 So thank you very much, Gene.

00:01:21.100 We're off to a great start.

00:01:22.440 Thanks to you.

00:01:23.760 But I do want to talk about what happened in Ottawa.

00:01:27.480 Now, we've been going at True North absolutely guns blazing on this, and there's a reason for it.

00:01:33.580 And if you think it's overkill, I'll explain to you why it's not.

00:01:37.200 This is a big issue.

00:01:39.200 And the reason why I'm covering it to the extent that I am, well, two reasons.

00:01:44.440 Number one, it interests me.

00:01:46.220 The free speech battles in Canada have been not just the things that I'm most interested in,

00:01:51.400 but they're ultimately the battles that got me into politics, and certainly that got me into talking about the cultural issues we face in Canada.

00:02:00.360 So if you want a bit of a backstory on this, Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is no longer there.

00:02:08.000 It was repealed thanks to a private member's bill about six years ago by former Conservative MP Brian Storseth.

00:02:15.420 Section 13 was the clause in the Human Rights Act that basically allowed the government to prosecute what it called online hate speech.

00:02:26.020 So any content that the Canadian Human Rights Commission thought was likely to incite hatred,

00:02:32.120 not did incite hatred, but was likely to incite hatred, and used electronic communications like a computer or a telephone,

00:02:40.820 the government could prosecute that.

00:02:43.700 And the conviction rate was virtually 100% with this.

00:02:47.060 The majority of the complaints were filed by the same person.

00:02:50.600 And this was the type of issue that ultimately was responsible for Mark Stein going before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal,

00:03:00.900 Ezra Levant going before the Human Rights Tribunal,

00:03:04.360 Connie and Mark Fournier of Free Dominion.

00:03:11.020 They were gone after by this as well.

00:03:14.220 And the one thing that I found fascinating about all of this is that we had in Canada,

00:03:19.880 when this battle was waging about a decade ago,

00:03:22.720 we had a lot of support from all sides of it.

00:03:25.860 The Conservatives were supporting free speech.

00:03:28.200 A lot of Liberals were supporting free speech.

00:03:31.160 Not too, too many of the NDPers,

00:03:34.120 but the Bloc Québécois was.

00:03:38.160 The Bloc Québécois was actually an ally in this.

00:03:41.460 So when you look at this big battle,

00:03:43.920 the Conservative Party of Canada was really at the front line of giving some political support

00:03:50.460 to what people like Mark Stein and Ezra Levant and other advocates outside of the political realm were doing.

00:03:58.540 And there was a lot of support from the media as well.

00:04:01.080 People like Neil MacDonald, who's a left-wing guy at CBC,

00:04:05.400 was very much in alignment with the free speech crowd on this.

00:04:08.920 Other journalists on the left.

00:04:10.500 Because everyone understood,

00:04:12.440 and at the time was very much united,

00:04:15.920 in the understanding that,

00:04:17.140 no, no, no, government cannot have a mandate to censor.

00:04:21.820 Government can't have a mandate to censor.

00:04:23.700 Not only is it politically impractical,

00:04:25.780 but it's just the wrong thing to do.

00:04:28.080 So the reason I want to talk about that 10 years ago story is because we fast forward to the committee now.

00:04:36.620 The Justice Committee, or Justice and Human Rights Committee, rather,

00:04:40.460 exploring online hate.

00:04:42.160 The premise of that study was the idea that I disagree with, by the way.

00:04:47.100 The premise of the study was that the repeal of Section 13 left a void in Canadian human rights law.

00:04:54.820 Left a void, where government no longer has the ability to go after hate speech like it once did.

00:05:00.980 Now, we can see a lot of changes in society in the last six years.

00:05:05.280 The internet, social media, far more ubiquitous.

00:05:08.340 The discussions about online hate are far more prevalent now.

00:05:11.900 But that doesn't mean the actual repeal of Section 13 caused that.

00:05:17.380 We still have a criminal code definition of hate speech.

00:05:21.560 We still have a criminal code definition of hate speech.

00:05:24.620 It's a very high threshold.

00:05:26.340 Any speech that runs afoul of it can be prosecuted,

00:05:29.760 regardless of whether it takes place online or offline.

00:05:33.380 So this idea that government has no jurisdiction over the internet is simply wrong.

00:05:39.260 Government does have jurisdiction over the internet.

00:05:41.140 Government has jurisdiction everywhere within the country of Canada, online or offline.

00:05:47.180 So when people talk about needing something else, needing more legislation,

00:05:51.660 needing an extra push on this,

00:05:54.160 what they're actually talking about is not a jurisdictional issue,

00:05:58.240 but lowering the threshold on how hate speech is defined.

00:06:03.120 That's what these people want, these advocates and these censors.

00:06:06.460 They want to lower the threshold for hate speech back to what it was when Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act was around.

00:06:13.920 And we've heard dozens of witnesses on this.

00:06:16.780 There have been just shy of 60 witnesses that have testified before this online hate committee study,

00:06:23.620 which just wrapped up on Tuesday.

00:06:25.440 And of the dozens of witnesses, I didn't tally exactly, but all but about six, I believe,

00:06:34.000 were coming at this from a left-wing perspective or a left of Senate perspective.

00:06:40.320 Now, some of them were just sharing personal experience they've had with hate.

00:06:44.140 Others, though, were coming at it with recommendations to the government

00:06:47.620 to not just bring back Section 13, but to bring back a supercharged version of it on steroids

00:06:53.800 that gives the government even more power than it had the first time this motion was around.

00:07:00.340 And I'll give you a couple of examples of this.

00:07:02.080 You had people that were talking about the idea of online hate

00:07:06.220 with misgendering someone who's transgender.

00:07:09.520 You had people that were talking about hate in the vague sense, but not actually defining it.

00:07:15.820 So no one who said, yes, we need to regulate hate speech

00:07:18.860 was actually working from a definition of hate speech that was disclosed,

00:07:23.400 which brings us back to that age-old problem of who is going to define it and how.

00:07:28.940 And why this particular round of discussions on this committee is so dangerous

00:07:33.640 is because this time they're not just talking about putting in a section of law

00:07:38.560 that allows the Canadian Human Rights Commission to go after people.

00:07:42.320 What they're actually doing is talking about regulating social media companies as well

00:07:47.700 so that social media companies are punished if they allow hate speech on their platforms.

00:07:54.280 Again, no definition of this exists.

00:07:56.580 Now, I want you to imagine why this would be so dangerous.

00:07:59.400 So let's say government has a definition of hate speech.

00:08:02.760 And if you are charged by the government with violating that, whatever it is,

00:08:08.800 whether it's a high or a low threshold, it doesn't matter.

00:08:11.020 If you're charged by the government with violating it,

00:08:13.520 you would, in a true democracy and in a true sense of due process,

00:08:18.320 have an ability to defend yourself.

00:08:19.780 You could say, well, no, this isn't hate speech or this law is unconstitutional

00:08:23.820 or whatever the case may be.

00:08:25.720 But imagine if all of a sudden the enforcer of that is not a government body,

00:08:31.880 is not a court, but the enforcer of that is a social media company

00:08:36.780 who's been forced by government to take a stand on this.

00:08:40.320 So your Facebook, your Twitter, your Google,

00:08:42.880 companies that already are not entirely online with letting certain people speak freely,

00:08:50.380 which is their prerogative as private companies.

00:08:52.240 I'll get to that shortly.

00:08:53.860 But now they're fearing government intervention.

00:08:58.740 So the natural response, if you're a Facebook,

00:09:01.200 and you don't want to deal with some Canadian human rights bureaucracy,

00:09:05.060 is to take a far heavier hand on censorship just to make the problems go away.

00:09:12.000 And all of a sudden we're no longer talking about Facebook as a private company

00:09:15.500 flexing its muscle the way it sees fit.

00:09:17.560 We're now talking about Facebook becoming an agent of the government.

00:09:21.720 An alliance, and this is what Mark Stein pointed out in his testimony on Tuesday,

00:09:26.600 an alliance between government and big tech.

00:09:30.520 And if you think big tech has enough power now,

00:09:32.820 wait until it has gotten into bed with government

00:09:36.020 in a way that these human rights bureaucrats certainly would want it to.

00:09:41.980 And when you think of the testimony,

00:09:43.960 I mean, I have sympathy for a representative of a Muslim group who says, 0.98

00:09:48.740 look, you know, we've had our mosque spray painted.

00:09:51.780 We're concerned about online hate.

00:09:53.440 We're concerned about attacks like Christchurch.

00:09:58.140 I'm sympathetic to groups like that,

00:10:00.080 to people like that that went before the committee and said,

00:10:02.860 you know, we're concerned about bigotry.

00:10:05.360 We just want to share with you our concerns.

00:10:08.920 I think that's entirely fine.

00:10:11.560 I had no tolerance, though, and still have no tolerance for people

00:10:15.020 that instead went to the Justice Committee demanding from the government censorship.

00:10:21.920 Demanding government censor, demanding government empower censorship.

00:10:25.540 And the worst offenders of this were the people in what I would call the human rights industry,

00:10:31.380 the people who represent these NGOs that find a Nazi under every,

00:10:36.740 like around every corner.

00:10:38.220 And the absolutely most Orwellian and egregious testimony,

00:10:42.460 and I'm going to read a quote from it in a moment,

00:10:44.640 was actually from the chief commissioner of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission.

00:10:51.440 Now, the chief commissioner of the Human Rights Commission of Saskatchewan,

00:10:54.920 this is, it doesn't get more human rights industry than this.

00:10:59.440 We're talking about a guy whose literal job is to find human rights violations,

00:11:04.520 except in the absence of real human rights violations,

00:11:08.440 you start going after people that are just speaking,

00:11:11.600 and the offense of thought crime, as Orwell would say, in 1984.

00:11:15.840 But I want to read, I want to read something that he said before the committee.

00:11:22.040 The quote was,

00:11:25.960 Canada has no democratic tradition of unbridled free speech.

00:11:30.520 Freedom of speech in Canada has always been freedom governed by limits recognized in law.

00:11:37.380 There are numerous limits to free expression that are justifiable in a free

00:11:41.940 and democratic society.

00:11:46.020 He says any censorship is, quote, or sorry, any protection against this speech,

00:11:57.460 any censorship is actually better than what he called, quote,

00:12:01.580 the greater harm that flows from unfettered speech.

00:12:06.000 So that man, the chief commissioner of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission,

00:12:12.300 believes fundamentally that free speech should not serve as the basis for discussions about

00:12:18.240 regulating the internet, regulating social media companies, regulating online speech.

00:12:23.200 He believes that as a fundamental premise,

00:12:26.820 free speech does not need to be held up as the top priority.

00:12:31.260 And I was very grateful.

00:12:32.300 The Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms was invited to testify.

00:12:36.720 And they sent one of their lawyers, Jay Cameron,

00:12:39.160 who said that he was quite perturbed by the fact that the committee study didn't mention free speech.

00:12:47.180 It didn't mention Section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,

00:12:50.600 which affirms for Canadians freedom of expression.

00:12:53.240 And he said that any study on this, on online speech, on regulating the internet,

00:12:58.360 that doesn't mention free speech is concerning to him.

00:13:03.280 And the liberals on the committee got their back up against the wall there.

00:13:06.160 And one of them, I think it was Arif Farhani,

00:13:08.340 who's the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice,

00:13:11.540 was getting all defensive.

00:13:12.620 He's like, oh, well, no, we clearly know it exists.

00:13:14.800 We know it's there.

00:13:15.660 We know it's there.

00:13:16.440 And he's like, well, I don't know you know it's there.

00:13:18.580 We've had this.

00:13:19.980 And I listened to or read every single witness's testimony in this committee.

00:13:26.000 And the number of people that were making free speech the priority

00:13:29.760 in what they were putting to the government was about four.

00:13:35.380 It was about four people.

00:13:37.820 Yeah, that's what it was.

00:13:38.640 It was Jay Cameron from JCCF, Mark Stein, Lindsay Shepard, and John Robson.

00:13:43.940 Now, there are a couple of other people that didn't have an anti-free speech message.

00:13:48.580 The Canadian Civil Liberties Association, which I kind of go hot and cold on,

00:13:53.240 they actually had, I'd say, fairly measured remarks.

00:13:56.420 They were not fire breathers about free speech, but they were not anti-free speech, I'd say.

00:14:02.100 And they weren't supporting a restored Section 13.

00:14:06.460 But again, of almost 60 witnesses,

00:14:09.220 the number that were actively and openly promoting free speech,

00:14:13.860 about four, four and a half, five.

00:14:16.560 But four that I'd say were strongly in that corner.

00:14:20.780 And again, witnesses do not necessarily guarantee an outcome.

00:14:24.840 So just because this is the tone of the witnesses doesn't mean this is what government will put forward in its report.

00:14:30.760 And it's also worth noting that we're pretty much running out of time

00:14:33.640 with the Parliament rising or the House rising in about a week's time.

00:14:38.400 So it's unlikely that any legislation will come from this.

00:14:41.780 But it will serve as the precursor if the Liberals are re-elected or in other eventualities as well to potential future legislation.

00:14:51.620 So I've spent a bit of time there talking about the backstory of Section 13, the backstory of the committee.

00:14:57.120 I want to get to what actually happened on Tuesday, because this was a profound example of why it is so important to talk about free speech in Canada.

00:15:06.500 And what we saw at the meeting, which was supposed to be just a normal run-of-the-mill meeting,

00:15:13.300 three witnesses coming at the end of a two-month-long study.

00:15:17.360 These particular witnesses, as has been reported, were invited on the recommendation of the Conservatives.

00:15:24.820 Most of the other witnesses were put there by the Liberals, but they were invited on the recommendation of the Conservatives.

00:15:32.240 And what happened that I found so interesting was that it was going to be a different session than it ended up being with the whole Michael Cooper thing.

00:15:43.060 And I don't want to rehash too much of the Michael Cooper thing, because I've done a column on it, I've done two videos on it,

00:15:49.360 and I do want to talk about the partisan or cross-partisan element here.

00:15:53.660 But in a nutshell, at a meeting, I think it was a week ago or two weeks ago, I can't remember the exact date,

00:15:59.400 Michael Cooper was the Conservative Vice Chair of the committee, a Conservative Member of Parliament,

00:16:06.920 was asking some tough questions of a witness from the Alberta Muslim Public Affairs Council.

00:16:12.760 That witness, Faisal Khansuri, made a comment in his opening statement linking mass shooters, violent shooters,

00:16:21.520 to, quote, conservative commentators.

00:16:23.800 Now, it was part of a broader point, but he didn't distinguish between extremists or hateful people

00:16:30.120 and, you know, run-of-the-mill conservative pundits like me.

00:16:33.520 He said, conservative commentators inspire mass killers.

00:16:36.500 And Michael Cooper was, as a conservative himself, very right to want to stand up for conservatives there,

00:16:43.080 which is what he did.

00:16:44.040 He was very passionate about it.

00:16:45.500 Maybe he was a little bit harsh by saying,

00:16:48.060 you should be ashamed of yourself to Faisal Khansuri.

00:16:51.380 But what he did that I think was very justifiable in the context,

00:16:55.640 was read from a passage of the Christchurch Killers Manifesto,

00:16:59.500 in which he disavowed conservatism.

00:17:03.120 He wasn't quoting the manifesto to say,

00:17:06.320 well, you know, I think this manifesto is great.

00:17:08.340 He wasn't saying he supports it, agrees with it.

00:17:10.760 Quite the contrary.

00:17:11.440 He's saying, you can't say that this guy was inspired by conservatives,

00:17:15.020 when here he is in his own words explaining that he deplores conservatives and conservatism

00:17:20.120 and actually values the Chinese approach.

00:17:24.180 China was the Christchurch Killers' favorite dictatorship, 1.00

00:17:27.820 which is not the first time we've heard that line in Canada.

00:17:30.380 Maybe it's the first in New Zealand.

00:17:32.600 But Michael Cooper does this, and he's instantly guilty of thought crime.

00:17:37.520 He is guilty of wrong speak.

00:17:39.260 He's said the wrong thing.

00:17:41.040 He's violated the fundamental tenet of political correctness.

00:17:44.040 The liberals, the New Democrats, start calling for his head.

00:17:47.400 Andrew Scheer, the leader of the conservatives, says,

00:17:50.120 we're going to get rid of him off of the Justice Committee.

00:17:53.620 So Michael Cooper was no longer on the Justice Committee

00:17:57.340 for what was basically going to be the last session of that committee.

00:18:02.180 And I think that this is where, and again, I put a video out

00:18:04.980 talking about Andrew Scheer's decision.

00:18:07.120 I stand by my statement that it was cowardly.

00:18:10.020 But I don't want to put the entire brunt of this on Andrew Scheer

00:18:13.600 because what happened at this meeting was a farce and a debacle all around.

00:18:18.600 So even without Michael Cooper, now there's a fear.

00:18:24.040 There's a palpable fear over this committee.

00:18:26.600 The conservatives don't want to be doing anything that is even remotely controversial,

00:18:31.860 but they're stuck with these witnesses, the witnesses they've already invited.

00:18:35.040 And what ends up happening is there's an hour allotted for this, 8.45 to 9.45.

00:18:40.920 What the NDP and liberals start doing is filibustering,

00:18:45.460 coming up with ways that they can shrink that time to embarrass the conservatives

00:18:50.620 and minimize or otherwise de-platform these witnesses.

00:18:55.620 So right out of the gate, Randy Boissoneau, who's a liberal member of parliament from,

00:19:01.920 I forget the name, I think it's in Edmonton riding, but I forget the name of it.

00:19:05.800 Randy Boissoneau introduces a motion, whereas.

00:19:09.520 So the whereas means that the premise of this is accepted as fact.

00:19:14.620 So there's no disputing the fact.

00:19:17.060 He's saying, whereas the comments by Michael Cooper were harmful, were discriminatory.

00:19:27.140 And he used another word that I can't remember,

00:19:29.320 but he said discriminatory and disrespectful and harmful.

00:19:32.240 I think that those were the three.

00:19:33.300 I might be wrong.

00:19:33.900 But he says, whereas, so that's the premise,

00:19:39.100 be it resolved that we strike it from the record so that we go back and take an eraser

00:19:43.840 and remove that Michael Cooper ever said those words from the official record,

00:19:49.260 the official transcript of parliament.

00:19:51.460 And this motion, which you know is going to pass,

00:19:55.460 if the liberals introducing it, the liberals have a majority on committee,

00:19:58.400 you know it's going to pass.

00:19:59.780 So a lot of what happens next is theatrical in nature,

00:20:02.820 but it still is important because there is,

00:20:05.200 I was going to say it's important because there's a record,

00:20:07.320 but now I learned the record is itself some malleable, flexible concept.

00:20:12.960 But they do this, Randall Garrison, who's an NDP New Democrat,

00:20:17.500 who's just an absolutely vile person for reasons I'll get to in a moment.

00:20:23.500 He starts talking about how important it is.

00:20:26.180 And he says, and this is, and I look forward to the transcript coming out

00:20:29.960 because what Randall Garrison said is that, no, no, no,

00:20:31.900 obviously people have the right to have ideas.

00:20:34.940 But then he further said, well, it doesn't mean they have the right to,

00:20:38.300 you know, have those ideas heard by anyone.

00:20:40.820 Or even that they should have the ability to have those ideas heard.

00:20:45.940 And that was, I find, found a fascinating and unsurprising concept

00:20:50.480 because the NDP has actually been trying to get people uninvited from this committee all around.

00:20:55.900 And I'm sorry I'm scratching my nose.

00:20:57.320 I've got like some allergies or something.

00:20:58.860 I was in Ottawa too long.

00:21:00.100 It just messes with your health.

00:21:02.140 But the NDP was trying to get Jordan Peterson cancelled from the committee

00:21:05.540 when he was planned to testify a couple of weeks ago.

00:21:08.440 He never ended up doing it, although he, I think, was responsible for cancelling that.

00:21:12.640 It wasn't the NDP.

00:21:13.760 They were trying to block Lindsay Shepard or make hay about Lindsay Shepard, it sounds like. 1.00

00:21:19.660 So the NDP fundamentally does not believe the debate or discourse are important.

00:21:27.440 Fundamentally does not agree with that idea that there should be any open debate or open discussion.

00:21:34.960 So let's talk about what happened then.

00:21:39.560 The Liberals vote, it's already passed.

00:21:41.800 They have a majority, it's already passed.

00:21:43.220 The NDP votes, it's just one guy, it's passed.

00:21:48.000 And then the Conservatives.

00:21:49.920 The three Conservatives on this committee abstain.

00:21:55.120 Now, this is something that doesn't change what happened.

00:22:01.620 It doesn't change the outcome.

00:22:03.260 Whether they voted against or abstained wouldn't have made a difference in the outcome,

00:22:07.680 but it would have made a monumental difference in the tone that they were sending.

00:22:13.700 The message to Michael Cooper now, as I take it, and as a lot of Conservatives in Canada take it,

00:22:19.720 is that the Conservatives are going to throw you to the curb if you are accused of being politically incorrect.

00:22:26.920 Even if there is a legitimate defense.

00:22:29.700 We're not talking about a guy that made a joke he shouldn't have.

00:22:32.900 We're not talking about a guy that legitimately said the wrong thing or was caught using some slur or whatever.

00:22:40.620 We're talking about a guy who used a legitimate defense against what was, I'd say,

00:22:47.700 a very disparaging and slanderous comment made by a witness.

00:22:51.640 And it wasn't just the you should be ashamed part.

00:22:57.700 Andrew Scheer in his tweets about Michael Cooper said, you know, to quote the manifesto,

00:23:02.680 especially to a Muslim witness.

00:23:04.780 So there was nothing to do with Faisal Khansuri's Muslim faith in his exchange with Michael Cooper.

00:23:11.760 But that was the narrative and that was what ultimately was accepted by Andrew Scheer

00:23:16.060 and then the three Conservative members abstained.

00:23:19.160 So you fast forward to the next vote.

00:23:21.640 Randall Garrison then takes issue with the fact that this meeting is being televised.

00:23:25.860 The reason the meeting was being televised was because Anthony Housefather,

00:23:31.240 who's a Liberal MP and the chair of the committee,

00:23:34.700 said that there was significant interest in this particular committee meeting.

00:23:39.200 So he said to the clerk, hey, can we televise this?

00:23:41.500 The clerk says, yes, it's a public meeting.

00:23:43.000 Of course we can.

00:23:44.140 And the notice was put out Monday that this meeting would be televised.

00:23:47.240 Now, I was one of the people I had actually asked the clerk of the committee.

00:23:51.640 whether it would or could be televised.

00:23:54.620 And I know Mark Stein, who was testifying, he had asked as a future witness if it was going to be testified.

00:24:01.080 So there was legitimate interest in this being broadcast.

00:24:04.900 And if you look at the number of people that are online right now talking about this, sharing the audio,

00:24:10.320 discussing it, wishing there was video, people that were watching the video before the video was canceled,

00:24:17.240 there was huge interest in this.

00:24:18.580 But Randall Garrison didn't want it given an audience.

00:24:22.180 He didn't want the platform for conservatives.

00:24:25.240 So he puts a motion forward that we've got to cancel the video stream.

00:24:30.420 The motion not only passes with liberal support, but it passes unanimously with conservative support as well.

00:24:36.620 And I had a very senior source in the conservatives who, on the condition of anonymity,

00:24:42.140 but a reliable source, told me that this was a whipped vote.

00:24:45.220 That the office of the leader of the opposition, that Andrew Scheer's office,

00:24:48.960 directed the members of parliament on that committee to vote for that motion.

00:24:53.680 Now, that means they would have known the motion was being made in the first place by the NDP.

00:24:58.980 My source didn't get into the details of how or if that happened.

00:25:02.520 This is just my own question that I think is relevant there.

00:25:05.760 And I am working on it.

00:25:06.880 But at this point, I'm not interested in it.

00:25:09.240 I mean, we saw that when the chips were on the table, this is the direction that things went.

00:25:15.140 And a lot of people have said, well, no one's free speech rights were taken away

00:25:19.180 because the testimony went forward and there's audio available.

00:25:22.760 So it still was a public meeting.

00:25:24.320 And that's a fair point that I wanted to respond to here because I didn't argue that anyone was censored.

00:25:30.400 I didn't argue that it made the meeting not public.

00:25:33.920 It's still a public meeting.

00:25:35.340 But it did make the meeting less public because it put a barrier up.

00:25:40.860 It put a barrier up between the public, between Canada, and between what was happening on a committee about free speech.

00:25:49.260 That's, I mean, the most ironic part here.

00:25:51.220 It put a barrier between Canadians and what was being said on a committee meeting about free speech.

00:25:56.340 And it was also the way that it happened because the reason Randall Garrison introduced that motion was not just because, oh, well, you know, this is just a, you know, procedure.

00:26:07.600 He introduced it because he fundamentally did not want people to be exposed to conservative ideas and conservative messages.

00:26:15.620 And we saw proof of that when it was his turn to question the witnesses.

00:26:20.820 MPs on the committee are giving it.

00:26:22.320 It's about six minutes with which they can do anything, but they can ask the witnesses virtually any question.

00:26:28.780 And what does Randall Garrison do?

00:26:30.780 Absolutely nothing but filibuster.

00:26:33.420 He doesn't ask a question.

00:26:36.280 He calls the panel challenging.

00:26:39.060 He says that he disagrees and does not respect anything that's said.

00:26:44.000 He says that they're all wrong, that they don't live in the real world.

00:26:47.280 And then he talks about his history as a gay city councillor and then as a gay member of parliament and threats and hate that he's received.

00:26:53.900 And he waits until he knows his time is up.

00:26:57.380 He's actually watching the clock as he speaks and then at the end of it says, oh, Mr. Chair, I'm out of time.

00:27:04.060 I turn it back to you without having asked a single question.

00:27:07.140 He de-platformed these witnesses.

00:27:10.560 He de-platformed them.

00:27:11.940 Mark Stein came from, I think, New Hampshire.

00:27:14.560 Lindsay Shepard flew from British Columbia.

00:27:17.460 John Robson, he didn't come far.

00:27:19.020 He's in Ottawa.

00:27:19.600 But you've got three busy people that came a distance to testify on this committee to give their testimony on free speech and on online hate.

00:27:27.360 And what does the NDP do?

00:27:28.820 Make it so they do not get a second of time in the period that the NDP can control.

00:27:36.360 This is after Garrison tried to slow down and delay the proceedings, which he did successfully.

00:27:41.940 These motions that were voted on, Garrison called for a recorded vote, which means instead of everyone saying aye or nay, the clerk has to go one by one and ask each MP how they vote.

00:27:53.700 Doing so served no other purpose than to slow things down and delay.

00:27:58.280 So by the time things got started, we're already about 20 minutes into where things should have been,

00:28:05.100 which means that it did actually eat in to the time that would have been put towards the witnesses answering questions.

00:28:10.880 Thankfully, the chair, who I actually like, Anthony Housefather, I think he's good as a chair, at least with this, the Jody Wilson-Raybould stuff, notwithstanding.

00:28:19.740 But he actually let things go a bit late.

00:28:21.900 So it didn't eat too, too much into the time.

00:28:24.120 But the fundamental desire by the left was that we do not want these people to have a right to speak.

00:28:29.880 And this is what we're up against.

00:28:31.140 So there's a difference between this heavy-handed state censorship like you'd get in Pyongyang or like you'd get in South Sudan

00:28:40.280 or you'd get in a genuine banana republic.

00:28:43.500 But just because we are not that does not mean we do not have the license to talk about the issues that we do face in a Canadian context.

00:28:52.280 And even if parliamentarians are not passing laws that allow the government to beat down your door and say you can't say that,

00:28:59.700 Section 13 actually did allow that.

00:29:01.900 So if Section 13 is restored, which has been the whole basis of this committee,

00:29:07.780 that would legitimately make state-mandated censorship the law again in Canada

00:29:13.860 for speech that does not meet the threshold of being criminal hate speech, of being threats, of being defamation,

00:29:19.920 of being all of these things that are limited.

00:29:21.500 But speech should be free right up until the point that it impinges on someone else's liberty,

00:29:28.460 which is why a death threat is not free speech,

00:29:31.320 why citing and invoking and inciting genocide is not free speech,

00:29:35.460 why defamation is not free speech, although that's civil litigation.

00:29:39.400 So all of these limitations on free speech,

00:29:42.220 which the liberals use as justification to put more limits,

00:29:45.680 I'd say are excuses to why the rest of free speech should in fact be free,

00:29:51.120 because we already have the limitations that govern when speech goes over the line to take away someone else's.

00:29:58.480 Free speech needs to be preserved in Canada, and that's where we are.

00:30:02.700 And I want to just end on one final note here, well, two final notes.

00:30:07.200 One is about the topic, the other is unrelated.

00:30:09.740 And this is on my criticism of Andrew Scheer.

00:30:13.080 And I want to explain something to a lot of people,

00:30:16.940 because we have received True North,

00:30:18.780 and I've personally received a fair share of nasty messages from people,

00:30:22.780 essentially saying, how dare you?

00:30:24.300 How dare you, a conservative, take aim at Andrew Scheer?

00:30:27.820 And I've had people call me a liberal shill.

00:30:30.000 I've had people call me a PPC shill.

00:30:32.340 I've had people call me all sorts of names,

00:30:35.480 because I dared to take aim at an unprincipled decision by the conservatives.

00:30:40.360 I don't have loyalty to a particular political party.

00:30:46.080 I have loyalty to my own ethics.

00:30:48.260 I have loyalty to my God, my faith, my values, my family.

00:30:51.740 And I have loyalty to the beliefs that I hold.

00:30:55.220 And I am a conservative, but with a small C, not a capital C,

00:30:58.500 which means that all more often than not align with what the Conservative Party of Canada is doing.

00:31:03.080 But my loyalty is to Conservative values that I feel Canada needs.

00:31:08.660 And if a Conservative Party is no longer championing Conservative values,

00:31:12.900 I'm going to criticize it.

00:31:14.480 It's that simple.

00:31:16.520 And I've done that.

00:31:18.340 Now, again, this does not mean that I'm against the Conservatives.

00:31:22.460 This does not mean that I'm against Andrew Scheer.

00:31:24.140 I actually have a great deal of good things to say about Andrew Scheer.

00:31:28.220 And I know I'm going to get hit from the other people,

00:31:30.080 because I have had a lot of support in the last few days from people that are supporters

00:31:34.020 based on their Twitter and Facebooks of the People's Party of Canada.

00:31:37.800 But I'm not a PPC person either.

00:31:40.520 I support the ideas themselves.

00:31:43.040 I've sat down with Maxine Bernier to talk about his ideas

00:31:46.760 and also talk about the issues that I have with this party.

00:31:49.740 I've talked to Andrew Scheer.

00:31:50.760 Now, I've actually been trying to do a sit-down interview with Andrew Scheer

00:31:53.820 for the last, I'd say probably about the last four months,

00:31:57.960 and it hasn't ended up happening for scheduling reasons.

00:32:00.500 I still would.

00:32:01.520 I still would.

00:32:02.140 I have no issue sitting down with Andrew Scheer and saying,

00:32:04.680 let's talk about what the stakes are for Canada.

00:32:07.000 Let's talk about the Conservative Party's approach.

00:32:09.440 Let's talk about your approach.

00:32:10.660 Talk about the areas we agree,

00:32:12.780 and also talk about the issues that I might have,

00:32:15.240 which I would do with Justin Trudeau, with Jagmeet Singh,

00:32:19.040 with Andrew Scheer, with Maxine Bernier.

00:32:21.280 The second that we expect political tribalism,

00:32:25.060 which is what I've seen way too much of in the last couple of days

00:32:27.940 as I've talked about this issue,

00:32:29.480 is the second that we allow our political leaders

00:32:32.020 to completely walk all over us

00:32:34.800 because we've proven that our loyalty is blind.

00:32:38.560 I like Andrew Scheer personally.

00:32:40.520 Despite my frustrations with what he did, that continues.

00:32:43.100 I like Maxine Bernier personally.

00:32:45.720 Despite what may happen with vote splitting, that will continue.

00:32:48.900 This is not about personality.

00:32:50.840 This is not about my personal affinity or lack thereof of various politicians.

00:32:55.420 What I am saying is that I and True North

00:32:58.800 are never going to be shilling for one party or another.

00:33:02.560 We'll tell the truth, and that's why people have been supporting us.

00:33:06.420 We cannot establish our foothold as an independent media outlet

00:33:10.820 if we cease to be independent.

00:33:12.740 And this idea that we are supposed to back

00:33:15.160 what one person called the home team

00:33:17.580 is fundamentally flawed.

00:33:20.140 So I thank you for those who have given support.

00:33:22.560 To those who have criticized,

00:33:24.120 this is not saying you shouldn't be able to criticize.

00:33:26.400 I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to say,

00:33:28.000 well, actually, I don't think what Andrew Scheer did was all that wrong.

00:33:30.500 This is not that at all.

00:33:31.700 It's to say that we shouldn't have covered it

00:33:34.380 even though you agree with us

00:33:36.720 because of blind loyalty.

00:33:38.800 That's what I'm taking issue with here.

00:33:41.440 We are independent.

00:33:43.080 We are honest.

00:33:43.780 We are transparent.

00:33:44.740 Our social contract, if you will,

00:33:46.460 is not with a political party or a politician,

00:33:48.620 but with you and with our own values and ethics.

00:33:51.160 And that's why we have so much support from across the country.

00:33:54.320 If you'd like to add to that support, please do.

00:33:56.600 There's a link in the description box there,

00:33:59.100 tnc.news.

00:34:00.120 You can join the Andrew Lotton Heritage Club.

00:34:02.280 You get a couple of benefits,

00:34:03.400 and you can also get tax receipts,

00:34:05.300 and you support independent, free-thinking journalism.

00:34:09.560 I want to, before we close,

00:34:12.600 say thank you to the men and women in uniform in Canada

00:34:17.680 who fight for this country,

00:34:19.100 and specifically those who were involved

00:34:21.400 in the heroic and valiant and gallant efforts

00:34:25.500 on D-Day 75 years ago today.

00:34:28.700 I watch the footage.

00:34:30.960 I read the stories.

00:34:32.040 I've heard from the veterans that were there.

00:34:34.840 There's no frame of reference that we have in 2019

00:34:37.900 for what it feels like at 17, 18, 19 years old,

00:34:42.220 when a lot of people in North America today

00:34:44.620 are doing their, you know, gender studies degree,

00:34:48.540 but 75 years ago,

00:34:50.680 didn't know if they'd ever go home again.

00:34:52.800 Boys became men on Juneau Beach, Sword Beach, Omaha Beach,

00:34:57.220 for Canadians specifically,

00:34:59.120 Juneau Beach is the big one that we talk about,

00:35:01.040 on that invasion in Normandy,

00:35:02.600 which really set the tone

00:35:04.460 for what would become the end of the war,

00:35:06.400 the end of World War II.

00:35:09.060 I don't have the frame of reference

00:35:10.860 for what it must be like

00:35:12.540 to rise to the occasion,

00:35:15.180 to fight for king and country,

00:35:18.180 to become someone that delivers such courage

00:35:21.720 because it is expected of you

00:35:24.360 and because you want to

00:35:25.660 and because your country can benefit by it,

00:35:29.120 which makes me all the more appreciative

00:35:32.460 that people did,

00:35:34.940 whether it was civic duty,

00:35:36.660 whether it was obligation,

00:35:38.000 whether it was the feeling

00:35:39.560 that I have something to offer.

00:35:41.640 Thousands upon thousands upon thousands did.

00:35:44.560 Hundreds laid down their lives from Canada alone.

00:35:47.080 But the course of human history was changed.

00:35:52.760 So, to those in uniform, thank you.

00:35:55.340 To those who laid down their lives,

00:35:56.760 we never forget you.

00:35:57.960 To those that came back,

00:35:59.420 know that your risk,

00:36:01.700 if not your sacrifice,

00:36:02.940 is appreciated by all

00:36:05.320 the freedom-loving people in the world.

00:36:08.400 For True North, I'm Andrew Lawton.

00:36:10.180 Thank you.

00:36:10.780 God bless.

00:36:11.540 And lest we forget.

Juno News - June 07, 2019

LAWTON： The Justice Committee's Attack on Free Speech

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript