Juno News - Patient Choice, Netflix Creeps and Internet Censors

00:00:00.000 Welcome to Canada's Most Irreverent Talk Show.

00:00:06.740 This is The Andrew Lawton Show, brought to you by True North.

00:00:12.740 Coming up, a blow against healthcare choice in Canada,

00:00:16.900 Hollywood's misguided priorities,

00:00:18.800 and a crackdown on internet free speech is coming.

00:00:23.800 The Andrew Lawton Show starts right now.

00:00:30.000 Welcome to The Andrew Lawton Show,

00:00:32.240 Canada's Most Irreverent Talk Show here on True North.

00:00:35.600 Going to have a busy show today with all that's happened this week,

00:00:38.640 so I want to get right into the thick of things here.

00:00:41.160 Yesterday, the British Columbia Supreme Court ruled on the Canby Surgical Center's case.

00:00:47.240 This is a case of a private surgical clinic led by Dr. Brian Day in Vancouver

00:00:52.400 that has had 10 years of litigation going, actually I think 11 now,

00:00:55.980 against the BC government protesting the bans and restrictions that the BC government has

00:01:02.020 on private healthcare providers like the Canby Clinic.

00:01:05.960 And Dr. Day has basically argued that when you have massive wait lists,

00:01:10.320 patients unable to access healthcare,

00:01:12.440 and these surgical centers and surgeons that are able and willing to help them,

00:01:16.480 it's a violation of those patients' right to the security of the person

00:01:20.820 for the government to do things to say,

00:01:22.860 no, no, no, you can't operate, you can't provide these treatments for money.

00:01:26.700 Of course, the activists don't like it because they want to preserve and cling to

00:01:30.920 this idea of a universal healthcare system,

00:01:33.880 which, while noble, is not working for a lot of Canadians

00:01:37.240 and for some of the patient plaintiffs that were in this case.

00:01:41.500 But of course, the ruling handed down came against Dr. Day and the clinic and the patients,

00:01:47.000 and basically defended this idea that we must at all costs preserve and protect

00:01:52.380 the universal healthcare system, even flying in the face of the facts of the case,

00:01:57.380 which say that these patients' rights are being deprived.

00:02:01.020 And we'll talk about that right now with Joanna Barron,

00:02:03.920 who is the Executive Director of the Canadian Constitution Foundation.

00:02:08.320 Joanna, thank you so much for coming on today.

00:02:10.300 Really great to speak with you.

00:02:11.580 Good to be here with you, Andrew.

00:02:12.620 Now, I know that this was not the decision that you had anticipated,

00:02:17.260 or should I say hoped for, certainly not the one I had hoped for.

00:02:20.220 Just for context, the CCF wasn't an intervener in the main trial, correct?

00:02:25.640 No, we're supporting the litigation.

00:02:27.960 So we're supporting Dr. Day and the Canby Surgery Centre

00:02:31.140 with assisting fundraising communications,

00:02:34.140 because we really believe that the outcome of this case,

00:02:37.440 which is not final, and what I'm sure we'll get to that in a moment,

00:02:40.880 has repercussions for all Canadians.

00:02:43.840 And more specifically, the government's actions in BC

00:02:46.740 represent a violation of the charter rights,

00:02:49.660 which are enjoyed by all Canadians.

00:02:50.940 So that's our interest in this case,

00:02:52.960 is the constitutional rights and violations.

00:02:55.340 And I think that's a great place to start off here.

00:02:57.760 Now, I haven't read through all 800 and some odd pages of it,

00:03:00.480 but I've read through a lot of the key points of the decision.

00:03:03.720 And before the decision was released,

00:03:05.580 my thought was that really at stake was whether the rights of patients

00:03:09.780 who are stuck on wait lists, who aren't able to access care in the public system,

00:03:13.940 whether their rights are violated by all of the restrictions on private health care.

00:03:18.780 And I was quite shocked, actually, reading through the decision

00:03:21.540 to see that the court accepted that.

00:03:23.680 The court actually accepted that their rights are violated,

00:03:26.580 but ultimately said that wasn't enough to say that

00:03:29.600 these bans should be found unconstitutional.

00:03:32.140 Explain that for me.

00:03:33.040 Yeah, so as you mentioned, the decision is 880 pages,

00:03:36.860 so we're still digesting it.

00:03:38.780 But the really nub of the important finding was that, as you mentioned,

00:03:43.320 there were multiple findings of fact made that the patient plaintiffs,

00:03:47.760 one of which is deceased, one of which is permanently paralyzed,

00:03:51.160 one of which was a competitive soccer player.

00:03:53.820 And because she didn't receive knee surgery in time,

00:03:56.620 she was deprived of her college soccer scholarship.

00:04:00.660 So, of course, the judge couldn't but find that there was a violation of their rights.

00:04:06.400 However, he found that the violation effectuated was not arbitrary or overbroad.

00:04:13.660 And I find that to be a very difficult needle to thread,

00:04:16.800 especially in light of...

00:04:18.400 And so the Charter right that we're speaking about here is Section 7,

00:04:21.840 the right to life, liberty, and security of the person.

00:04:24.940 Previously, the Supreme Court of Canada has found that state actions,

00:04:29.060 such as preventing prostitutes from running bodyhouses or hiring security,

00:04:35.080 preventing terminally ill or debilitating ill people from seeking physician-assisted suicides,

00:04:41.240 as well as preventing drug addicts from seeking safe injection sites,

00:04:45.640 all of those government actions were found to be arbitrary and unjustified violations of Section 7.

00:04:52.100 The fact that 30,000 British Columbians each year suffer on waiting lists

00:04:58.460 that exceed the government's own targets do not meet that threshold,

00:05:04.120 frankly, should shock the conscience of all Canadians.

00:05:06.580 It really seemed like the court was defending this idea of the public health care system

00:05:13.800 in spite of the facts of what that system's effect is on a lot of people.

00:05:18.400 And I don't know if I'm reading perhaps an ideological component into this that isn't necessarily there,

00:05:23.660 but especially when I was looking at one of the concluding remarks in it,

00:05:27.700 and I'll pull up the exact quote here from it,

00:05:30.820 it's that the court found that, quote,

00:05:32.280 preserving and ensuring the sustainability of the universal public health care system, unquote,

00:05:38.060 really trumps those rights deprivations that we're talking about here.

00:05:42.180 So am I reading into that correctly,

00:05:44.660 that they're saying that protecting this idea of the health care system matters more

00:05:48.140 than really dealing with the individual cases that were put before the court?

00:05:52.020 Yeah, absolutely.

00:05:54.060 And I was particularly shocked by the juxtaposition of the minimization of the harms to the individual

00:06:01.580 plaintiffs and individuals and the deference to government public health objectives.

00:06:08.800 And I would note that the government did not present any compelling evidence

00:06:13.780 that allowing a private safety release valve would have any deleterious effects on the public health care system.

00:06:22.560 These private clinics, in fact, have been operating in British Columbia for the last 20 years

00:06:27.320 and have only been prevented by government fines and enforcement orders in the last few years.

00:06:32.180 So, in fact, in B.C. itself, there's no evidence that there's been any effect, any deleterious effect.

00:06:38.600 If anything, logic would suggest that if you have fewer people,

00:06:43.000 if you have certain people that are opting out of the public system,

00:06:46.020 that would almost certainly free up time.

00:06:48.260 So I agree that there seems to be an ideological, unquestioning deference to government objectives.

00:06:56.060 And just to go back to sort of Law School 101 or Charter 101,

00:07:01.040 the charter is designed to give individuals rights against the government.

00:07:05.100 So to see it turned around and used as a sort of complex, multilayered apparatus

00:07:11.480 to give government escape valves to defend arbitrary actions is simply unacceptable.

00:07:18.040 And that's why we're looking forward to appealing this decision on an expedited basis.

00:07:22.820 To go back to that word arbitrary.

00:07:24.920 So, you know, basically what the court is saying here is that you could deprive rights,

00:07:28.580 assuming it's not arbitrary, excessively broad or grossly disproportionate,

00:07:33.020 I think are the three parts of that test here.

00:07:35.800 How clearly defined is arbitrary in the jurisprudence?

00:07:40.000 It's extremely subjective.

00:07:41.620 And even our Supreme Court of Canada, which is not known for its clarity,

00:07:45.160 specifically in its last Section 7 decision,

00:07:49.080 acknowledged how much ambiguity there was around it and how subjective it could be.

00:07:54.120 However, here we think it's very clear that where there is luminous evidence of harm

00:08:01.900 and regular harm and systemic harm that we know is happening year over year

00:08:06.540 and only theoretical and, in fact, not borne out by real-life experience,

00:08:11.780 either in the very jurisdiction, B.C. or in every country in the world besides Canada

00:08:17.520 that allows private surgeries, that it's shocking that the judge found the subterfuge to hide in.

00:08:25.040 So it's quite poorly defined.

00:08:27.540 But I mentioned the three major Section 7 cases, the Bedford, Carter, and Insight,

00:08:33.880 and all of those would lead to a different result than the one we saw in this case.

00:08:38.200 So we feel quite strongly about our appeal.

00:08:40.940 So this is going to the Supreme Court, and I think it's probably a pretty good bet

00:08:46.180 the Supreme Court picks it up, given there's this case and also the Chaiouli case in Quebec in 2005,

00:08:52.300 which I had to ask about here, because it seems like there was quite a lot of twisting

00:08:57.340 to try to say that the Chaiouli case didn't apply.

00:09:01.060 And that was obviously a case that, I think, on very similar circumstances,

00:09:05.640 found that these sorts of prohibitions in Quebec specifically were not valid.

00:09:10.500 And that was not something that expanded nationally.

00:09:13.060 And I know that Dr. Day and the Canby Clinic had recognized that in their arguments.

00:09:17.920 But it did seem like there was really, I think, an excessive interpretation of that in this decision.

00:09:24.620 That, oh, no, no, that doesn't apply.

00:09:25.880 Totally different circumstances.

00:09:26.940 And they were even saying that the state of health care in Quebec in 2005

00:09:31.120 is different than British Columbia health care of 2020.

00:09:34.860 So you can't necessarily take the ruling in that case.

00:09:38.680 But I don't necessarily buy into that.

00:09:42.140 No, absolutely not.

00:09:43.460 And, you know, I think whenever you read or as a lawyer,

00:09:48.740 I know whenever I start trying to spin reasoning that, you know,

00:09:51.620 a five-year-old wouldn't understand at all, there's a problem with the reasoning.

00:09:54.920 Here's the nub of Chaiouli.

00:09:56.580 Access to a waiting list is not access to health care.

00:09:59.480 When the government takes actions to prevent people from taking their health into their own hand,

00:10:04.680 it is unconstitutional.

00:10:06.460 That is, you know, the main takeaway from Chaiouli and any attempt to, you know, shrink away from that.

00:10:13.140 Although I also would mention, and this is heartening to us,

00:10:15.640 that Chaiouli also lost at the trial court as well as the Quebec Court of Appeal.

00:10:19.980 That also was a case that, you know, people were skeptical of and the Supreme Court of Canada clarified it.

00:10:25.820 But I agree. I didn't think any of the attempts to distinguish Chaiouli were compelling in the least.

00:10:32.380 So what would you say are the big errors or aspects that you think were at their core wrong here?

00:10:39.060 I mean, do you think it all comes down to the meaning of arbitrary?

00:10:41.500 Or were there other key aspects of this decision that you think are really the strongest points of argument going into a Supreme Court appeal?

00:10:49.100 Well, I think, first of all, there's a sort of gross misapprehension of the evidence.

00:10:54.560 On the one hand, minimizing the evidence of the suffering occasion to people who face excessive waiting times and don't have any other option.

00:11:04.340 Yeah, and just to interrupt there for a moment,

00:11:06.100 there was no dispute whatsoever of the facts that these people have suffered directly as a result of the public system, correct?

00:11:13.380 Correct. Correct.

00:11:14.420 There's just a question of if that suffering occasioned by the provisions of the BC Medicare Protection Act was arbitrary.

00:11:22.960 So I think certainly the application, there's a question about the Section 7 life, liberty and security of the person and the application of the overbreadth and arbitrary test.

00:11:32.620 And I think also there was a gross misapprehension or a mischaracterization of the evidence that the government intimated that allowing access to private surgeries would occasion harm and that there was a clear connection between these provisions that were put into question and the protection of the public health care system.

00:11:54.940 And that, again, that connection was not made out by the evidence.

00:11:58.700 And of course, I would note our final appeal strategy is very much not settled, but on sort of first take.

00:12:06.000 Those are the things that stand out most to me as most egregious.

00:12:09.380 I know that when I look at, and I don't want to pull you out of the legal argument here, but I hope you'll bear with me for a moment.

00:12:15.780 Looking at just some of the reaction on Twitter, a lot of the people are celebrating this ruling just because,

00:12:21.700 to go back to that sort of philosophical underpinning of protecting the universal health care system,

00:12:27.260 there seems to be this fear that if this case were to have gone a different direction,

00:12:33.040 that it would have just been the dismantling of universal health care in Canada.

00:12:36.560 And I don't really see how that's the case, because there was nothing in this that was trying to take away from the universal system or the public system.

00:12:44.580 If anything, it was just trying to add to it and say, listen, when there are people that want to go to a private alternative,

00:12:49.400 they should have the right to do that.

00:12:51.140 And this isn't, you know, big pharma that's suffering here.

00:12:54.300 It's individual patients that have fallen between the cracks of this supposedly universal system.

00:12:59.580 Yeah, I mean, there's so much to say about this.

00:13:02.680 It's sort of a dogma among certain people, but there's so many myths.

00:13:06.560 And I think one of the main myths is that people fear that if we allow a private option,

00:13:10.820 it's going to lead to the Americanization of Canadian health care,

00:13:14.540 when America and Canada are both outliers.

00:13:17.700 America is the only OECD country that does not provide public care to its citizens,

00:13:22.660 and Canada is the only country that does not provide a private option.

00:13:26.140 So look more at our OECD allies like France and the UK for a more realistic idea of what it would look like,

00:13:33.200 which is about 10% in the private system.

00:13:37.200 And there's also, you know, fear mongering about physicians being lured into the private system.

00:13:44.280 And I understand why, because I didn't quite understand this until I got involved in this case.

00:13:49.460 But in fact, physicians are rationed operating room and scheduling according to the government budget.

00:13:56.340 So some of them don't have enough operating time to make a living and, in some cases,

00:14:02.540 not even to fulfill their professional requirements.

00:14:05.460 So it's not a question of parceling out or of luring public physicians into the private system.

00:14:13.720 It's rather an option.

00:14:15.180 It's rather an option of responding to the needs of the citizens.

00:14:19.900 Yeah, and that point you just raised there was part of why this particular surgical center was founded in the first place,

00:14:26.200 because you had all of these surgeons that had time on their hands and no operating rooms in which they could work with that time.

00:14:32.960 And that problem has not really gone away.

00:14:36.020 I think certainly there have been changes in the last, I think, 24 years since the clinic opened,

00:14:40.280 but a lot of those core problems are still there.

00:14:42.480 That's right.

00:14:43.980 That's right.

00:14:44.480 And actually, the biggest user of Canby Surgery Centers is WorkSafeBC, which is the workers' union.

00:14:51.040 So there's also, arguably, we didn't really talk about the equality argument, Section 15,

00:14:56.320 but there's arguably, when you have a huge part of the population being allowed to access this care

00:15:01.640 because they're part of a workers' union, but people who don't have the benefit of extended employer insurance

00:15:07.400 not being able to access it, there's a question of equality as well.

00:15:10.900 Well, since you did bring it up, let's go into what that argument was.

00:15:14.760 Well, the argument was simply that we know that, I think, about two-thirds of Canadians

00:15:20.440 are covered by extended health care insurance.

00:15:23.960 People are covered by BC's auto insurance policy as well as WorkSafe policy.

00:15:29.620 So there's, you know, a substantial chunk of the population that has access to private care one way or the other.

00:15:37.000 And people, unfortunately, who need it or are being deprived of it are being discriminated against arbitrarily.

00:15:46.060 So let's talk about the forecast here because this is going to go to the Supreme Court.

00:15:51.280 I don't know how much other, you know, how many other arguments there are beyond the ones that were put in

00:15:57.540 because this is a pretty extensive ruling.

00:15:59.740 But do you think that there will be something gleaned from the Chayuli case at the Supreme Court level?

00:16:05.840 Or do you think that is going to continue to be dismissed and discounted as it was in this decision?

00:16:10.100 I think the Supreme Court of Canada's Section 7 jurisprudence, and of course there's Chayuli, 1.00

00:16:17.600 but it leads directly into its sort of landmark trio on Section 7 that I've mentioned a few times.

00:16:24.900 I think it's a very robust line of jurisprudence.

00:16:28.660 And as the Supreme Court of Canada is bound by horizontal stare decisis, bound by its own decisions,

00:16:34.820 it will see that there is a clear legal error here.

00:16:39.100 And since it's a legal error, they are subjected to a correctness review, meaning it's owed less deferent.

00:16:47.100 So if they find that their own previous decision of 2005 was misinterpreted or misapplied,

00:16:53.360 they can really stand up for their own precedent then?

00:16:56.720 That's correct, yeah.

00:16:58.420 Otherwise, they would have to overrule not just one case,

00:17:01.240 but four cases that have become sort of landmark to the court.

00:17:05.480 Well, I think if anything, I've learned to never be too optimistic about these things.

00:17:09.720 And I know certainly the Camo case of the beer purchase across provincial borders

00:17:14.300 that your organization fought was one as well, where optimism ended up being misplaced.

00:17:18.980 But it does sound like there's a strong basis here.

00:17:21.580 So again, not the end of the world, although it is certainly disappointing

00:17:24.920 when you want to stand up for the right of patients and of all Canadians.

00:17:28.300 So I appreciate you taking some time to shine the light on this.

00:17:31.540 Joanna Barron, Executive Director of the Canadian Constitution Foundation.

00:17:35.380 Thank you.

00:17:36.400 Thanks, Andrew.

00:17:38.120 You know, it's hard to talk about Supreme Court decisions or B.C. Supreme Court decisions

00:17:42.520 without feeling like you're getting a little bit too bogged down in the details.

00:17:46.040 But I always get very annoyed when the media will really misrepresent what a case was about

00:17:51.260 and misrepresent, by extension, what a decision was about.

00:17:54.980 So that's why I wanted to make that segment with an interview of someone who's actually been involved in this,

00:18:00.340 someone who's actually a lawyer.

00:18:01.500 I just sometimes play one when I'm covering cases, but I'm not actually a lawyer by any stretch.

00:18:06.340 So I'm glad Joanna was able to come on.

00:18:08.880 And, you know, it's so difficult because in so many cases,

00:18:11.080 this is where my absolutist libertarian streak comes in.

00:18:14.800 The question is, should I as an individual have the right to do whatever the heck I want

00:18:18.560 when it comes to my health care?

00:18:20.160 And that shouldn't take 800 pages to explain at all.

00:18:23.640 It certainly shouldn't take 800 pages to explain no.

00:18:27.580 And I almost feel like the longer the decision,

00:18:30.520 the more proof it is that they're desperately trying to justify something

00:18:34.260 that fundamentally does not make sense.

00:18:36.820 And that's what Joanna said that I thought was very valid

00:18:39.160 about how the second you start hearing things that a five-year-old couldn't understand,

00:18:43.340 you've tended to go in the wrong direction here.

00:18:46.020 Ultimately speaking, access to a waiting list is not access to health care.

00:18:49.240 And if the government is to provide something and provide a monopoly on it,

00:18:54.860 they have a moral and a legal imperative to provide it well.

00:18:59.080 So if the government says we are the monopoly on health care,

00:19:02.340 we are the only ones that you can get health care from,

00:19:04.880 you better damn well provide the health care,

00:19:07.440 which for so many people on waiting lists, 0.76

00:19:09.460 they simply are not doing.

00:19:11.740 We've got to take a break.

00:19:12.840 When we return, more of The Andrew Lawton Show here on True North.

00:19:17.280 You're tuned in to The Andrew Lawton Show.

00:19:24.820 Welcome back to The Andrew Lawton Show.

00:19:27.560 A few weeks ago, there was a controversy that put Netflix

00:19:31.100 in the crosshairs of the social media world

00:19:33.880 over the marketing campaign of a French movie

00:19:37.380 that Netflix had picked up called Cuties.

00:19:39.620 You remember the poster, I'm almost certain it was very memorable.

00:19:43.960 It was three or four girls, 0.69

00:19:45.780 a young girl's children in provocative attire on some dance stage.

00:19:50.720 And the description for the show that Netflix put out

00:19:53.160 is that, you know, an 11-year-old becomes fascinated with twerking

00:19:56.420 and then decides to explore her femininity or something to that effect. 1.00

00:20:00.580 So this was very much promoting,

00:20:03.060 even if the movie hadn't been released yet,

00:20:05.420 this idea that this was going to be about some child

00:20:08.440 embracing her inner girl or inner woman

00:20:11.060 on some dance stage twerking.

00:20:13.580 And if you look at the promos that have come out,

00:20:16.220 the clips from the video,

00:20:17.320 you see girls grabbing their crotches dancing.

00:20:20.480 We're not going to show the video

00:20:21.420 because I don't want to promote this.

00:20:23.340 But ultimately, this is what's happening.

00:20:25.460 And this is what the movie has as a key feature of it.

00:20:29.620 Now, understandably,

00:20:30.920 people have been fairly upset about this.

00:20:33.520 People have been registering their discontent with Netflix.

00:20:36.380 Some people have been boycotting Netflix,

00:20:38.560 cancelling their subscriptions and doing all sorts of other things.

00:20:41.660 Netflix so far has been unrepentant about this.

00:20:44.700 They're standing by it.

00:20:46.820 They say that this is actually a commentary,

00:20:49.940 a social commentary against the sexualisation of young children.

00:20:54.940 But what's worse is that anyone who's criticising this

00:20:58.060 is now being accused of essentially just stoking some conspiracy.

00:21:02.200 There is one story in The New Yorker, Cuties,

00:21:04.980 the extraordinary Netflix debut

00:21:06.820 that became the target of a right-wing campaign,

00:21:10.300 blaming the right for saying,

00:21:12.400 hey, you know, maybe we don't want to promote children

00:21:14.720 in scantily clad attire,

00:21:17.080 grabbing their crotches as they explore their inner femininity. 1.00

00:21:20.480 Now, I'm going to be honest to say,

00:21:21.620 I have not seen it and I have no interest in seeing it.

00:21:24.140 So I'm not going to be commenting on it as though I have.

00:21:27.080 I'm going to be commenting on the marketing campaign around it,

00:21:29.960 which even people who like this movie seem to think Netflix botched.

00:21:34.440 My concern is with Netflix.

00:21:36.440 If the movie is not actually about this,

00:21:39.440 and this is the subject of The New Yorker piece,

00:21:42.180 they say, oh, no, no, no, it's actually about resisting that.

00:21:45.540 It's about a girl that resists the patriarchy and all of that.

00:21:48.880 But resisting the patriarchy is done by provocative dancing.

00:21:54.180 So I'm not sure how that actually helps the point

00:21:56.080 that this movie is not normalizing the very thing

00:21:59.900 that Netflix is pretending it's combating.

00:22:03.880 And moreover, the fact that when Netflix had this,

00:22:06.520 it was a French film that Netflix adapted,

00:22:08.640 and I don't know if it's dubbed or subtitled,

00:22:10.320 but the fact that Netflix had this and they say,

00:22:12.400 hmm, how can we best market this to our audience?

00:22:15.480 And they sat around the boardroom table,

00:22:17.360 they put up some posters,

00:22:18.380 and what they settled on was the poster

00:22:20.980 that I talked about earlier

00:22:22.160 of the girls on the cover in their dance attire

00:22:25.700 showing their midriffs and doing all that. 0.52

00:22:27.880 And I'm not one of these pearl clutchers, okay?

00:22:29.960 I'm not one of these people

00:22:30.980 that thinks everything is supposed to be a moral panic.

00:22:34.100 But I don't think having some basic morality and decency

00:22:37.720 when we're talking about entertainment,

00:22:39.720 even if you believe as I believe

00:22:41.580 in a fairly absolutist view of free speech,

00:22:44.600 I don't believe this is conducive

00:22:47.140 to growing all of the things we want to grow in society.

00:22:50.980 And when it is normalizing pedophilia,

00:22:54.840 as the charge is put towards it,

00:22:56.780 I don't even think you have to go that far,

00:22:59.940 but you can just say it's creepy.

00:23:02.540 You can say it's creepy and not be off base on that.

00:23:06.080 And I remember a few years ago, I'll tell you a story,

00:23:08.460 and this was something with a backlash I got

00:23:10.400 I didn't understand and still don't.

00:23:12.580 But I worked in a downtown office building

00:23:14.780 that was connected to a few hotels.

00:23:16.940 And there was one particular day

00:23:18.660 where I had gone to one of the hotels

00:23:20.360 to get a coffee from the hotel Starbucks.

00:23:23.080 And there was some juvenile dance competition

00:23:26.320 that was going on at the same time.

00:23:28.940 So the hotel lobby was just completely filled

00:23:31.340 with dance moms and dance kids.

00:23:35.020 And the one thing that I found really jarring

00:23:37.520 is that a lot of them were wearing attire

00:23:41.220 that I would say is skimpy.

00:23:43.420 And I don't just mean tight clothing,

00:23:44.700 because I know when you're doing dance or gymnastics

00:23:46.580 or anything like that, you wear something

00:23:48.580 that's form-fitting or alleged, I don't know.

00:23:50.960 I don't even know the terminology.

00:23:52.200 That's how little I know about that world.

00:23:53.840 But I'm talking about exposing midriff,

00:23:57.280 really, really short, short, short,

00:23:58.900 for people that are, I don't know, what,

00:24:00.720 eight, nine, 10 years old.

00:24:02.240 And I had said something about this later that day

00:24:04.760 on my show.

00:24:06.440 And then I got backlash from people,

00:24:08.560 including a few dance moms,

00:24:10.100 saying that by even being weirded out by it,

00:24:13.140 I was being creepy, that by saying you have an issue

00:24:16.520 with it, it means that you're looking at something

00:24:18.700 in a sexual way, and that makes you the problem.

00:24:21.320 And I don't buy into that, because it does seem

00:24:23.640 like there is something overtly sexual

00:24:25.640 about the way that the girls in this movie 1.00

00:24:29.080 are being marketed.

00:24:30.480 And it's not just this critical satire

00:24:32.660 or social commentary, but there's something

00:24:34.660 in how Netflix has marketed the movie

00:24:37.540 that shows they want to exploit that sexualization.

00:24:41.620 And that's the big problem here,

00:24:44.740 is that bisexualizing for the purposes of marketing,

00:24:48.260 even if you can say, and I don't buy into it,

00:24:50.380 but even if you can say that Netflix has misrepresented

00:24:52.560 what it's all about, the fact that they think

00:24:55.020 that's what their audience wants,

00:24:56.460 the fact that the people around their marketing table

00:24:58.540 think, okay, this is the greatest selling point of this.

00:25:03.300 And that's where, irrespective of the intention

00:25:06.480 of the filmmaker, which I don't know,

00:25:08.500 and I won't even pretend to know,

00:25:09.820 that's where the big problem is,

00:25:12.040 that Netflix is putting this out,

00:25:13.600 promoting it in this way.

00:25:14.980 That's what they think it's all about.

00:25:16.980 I mean, look at Little Miss Sunshine, for example. 0.90

00:25:19.340 Little Miss Sunshine was a great movie.

00:25:21.100 It kind of mocked that, you know, child dance world.

00:25:24.460 It didn't do it in a sexualizing way.

00:25:26.960 So there's something very distinct in cuties,

00:25:29.620 and even in the name, there's a problem.

00:25:31.680 There's something very distinct in cuties

00:25:33.380 from what a lot of the defenders of this

00:25:35.940 are trying to portray.

00:25:38.340 And that's where a lot of the outrage

00:25:40.460 is not just this, you know, Helen Lovejoy.

00:25:43.820 Is it Helen Lovejoy in The Simpsons?

00:25:45.240 This is, won't someone please think of the children.

00:25:47.260 It's not that, or is it Maude Flanders?

00:25:49.160 I don't even know.

00:25:50.280 I know the clip.

00:25:51.100 I don't know The Simpsons, I'll admit.

00:25:53.160 But there's something very disingenuous

00:25:57.240 about what's happening right now in the media

00:25:59.660 to try to downplay all of the concerns and say,

00:26:02.920 oh, it's just like, you know,

00:26:03.640 I saw someone likened this to Pizzagate, for example.

00:26:06.100 If you have concerns about the way children

00:26:08.260 are being sexualized by Netflix,

00:26:10.020 that is apparently no different than thinking 0.96

00:26:12.500 there's a pedophile ring being run out

00:26:14.640 of a pizza shop on Connecticut Ave.

00:26:16.520 So this has now been put in the culture war,

00:26:19.180 which is, I think, a very important place for it to be.

00:26:22.040 But if you come against it, you're now the problem.

00:26:24.940 And this is just the level of gaslighting that's going on

00:26:28.060 that needs to be rejected

00:26:29.720 and needs to be repelled by people.

00:26:31.740 So, you know, watch it, don't watch it,

00:26:33.700 cancel your Netflix subscription,

00:26:35.020 don't cancel your Netflix subscription.

00:26:36.960 I really don't care.

00:26:39.220 But what I do care about is that no one should be allowed

00:26:42.800 to be told that you are not allowed to be frustrated

00:26:47.620 or even offended by something that it seems like

00:26:51.740 is designed to do that.

00:26:54.180 And that's where he gets to the other part of me.

00:26:56.260 And perhaps this is a bit cynical,

00:26:57.400 but Netflix just wanting to wade into this controversy.

00:27:00.680 So to certain people, it can look all progressive and hip.

00:27:03.640 And, you know, to other people, it doesn't really matter

00:27:06.780 because those people might not have been

00:27:08.220 Netflix subscribers anyway.

00:27:10.560 What was interesting is that the Netflix CEO was on CNN.

00:27:14.580 And I saw this in a piece on Summit News.

00:27:18.760 And despite this interview at the middle of this scandal,

00:27:21.940 the middle of this cutie scandal,

00:27:23.680 not a single question about it.

00:27:25.940 Not a single question.

00:27:27.460 So this was an interview with a Netflix co-CEO.

00:27:30.580 I don't know how you have a co-CEO.

00:27:32.040 It's a, you know, basically,

00:27:33.180 so no one has to take responsibility.

00:27:35.220 But co-CEO Reed Hastings was on CNN Newsroom anchor,

00:27:39.720 Poppy Harlow's interview.

00:27:42.280 And they had questions that were basically just about

00:27:45.320 the new corporate structure of Netflix.

00:27:47.040 So the middle of a scandal,

00:27:48.600 and he's being asked about, you know,

00:27:50.260 where the blinds are going to go

00:27:51.400 and which office he's taking.

00:27:52.640 And that's it.

00:27:53.680 Oh yes, and diverse programming.

00:27:55.900 Because that's the whole point now.

00:27:57.380 I mean, right now, the diversity cult 1.00

00:27:59.140 has prioritized diversity and wokeness

00:28:02.680 over anything else.

00:28:03.660 So you can actually normalize child abuse,

00:28:06.000 and you can normalize the sexualization of children.

00:28:08.560 But as long as you have a multiracial, 0.98

00:28:10.440 multiethnic caste, you know,

00:28:11.780 the only way that the left would oppose cuties 0.87

00:28:15.740 is if it had an all-white caste. 0.94

00:28:18.240 That's the only thing that would get people annoyed by this.

00:28:21.880 And if you don't believe me,

00:28:22.780 just look at the new guidelines

00:28:24.760 for the Academy Awards Best Picture.

00:28:27.440 These are the death of the arts.

00:28:32.180 Because what's happened here

00:28:33.560 is in order to qualify for Best Picture,

00:28:36.880 you have to meet a certain set of criteria

00:28:39.460 that are not based on the quality of the film,

00:28:42.380 but that are based on whether the film was inclusive or not.

00:28:47.920 This is not a joke.

00:28:49.120 This is not parody.

00:28:49.900 This is the Oscars.

00:28:50.780 It's the gold standard of recognizing art

00:28:53.960 and recognizing film.

00:28:55.420 And now it's all about diversity.

00:28:58.000 It's all about wokeness. 0.98

00:28:59.140 So no longer is it just the speeches that are woke

00:29:01.400 and the speeches that are obnoxious,

00:29:03.480 but even the criteria for nomination.

00:29:06.880 And let me explain some of this,

00:29:08.340 because what has happened here

00:29:09.780 is there are a number of criteria

00:29:12.040 that have been put out.

00:29:13.560 And in order for something to be nominated

00:29:15.460 for Best Picture,

00:29:16.640 you have to meet two of these four

00:29:20.200 so-called inclusion criteria.

00:29:23.100 So there are four representation categories,

00:29:26.240 on screen, among the crew, at the studio,

00:29:29.240 and opportunities for training and advancement

00:29:31.760 in other aspects of the film's development

00:29:33.780 and release, whatever that means.

00:29:35.240 You have to meet two of the four standards.

00:29:37.400 And within each category, there are substandards.

00:29:39.940 So for example, you have to have a lead

00:29:42.920 or a significant supporting character

00:29:44.840 from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group,

00:29:47.480 or at least 30% of secondary roles

00:29:50.360 from two underrepresented groups,

00:29:53.720 or a main storyline that focuses

00:29:56.320 on an underrepresented group.

00:29:58.580 And that means women, people of color,

00:30:01.000 LGBTQ people, or people with disabilities.

00:30:03.680 And this is for Best Picture.

00:30:06.380 So again, this is for the apex,

00:30:08.020 the ACME of the Academy Awards.

00:30:10.920 And if you make it and have a white cast 0.99

00:30:13.860 and your secondary cast is not 30% minority,

00:30:17.380 and your plot is not about social justice,

00:30:19.360 you might not be able to have an actual go

00:30:22.760 at the Oscars.

00:30:25.200 And look, I mean, the reality is a lot of movies

00:30:28.360 are doing this anyway,

00:30:29.260 because there's a market for this sort of content.

00:30:31.260 There's a market for leads that are not just,

00:30:33.940 you know, white males like James Bond.

00:30:35.980 There's a market, sure.

00:30:37.520 It's the idea of forcing this

00:30:39.300 and saying that recognition,

00:30:40.880 which is supposed to be about the quality of the art,

00:30:43.340 now has to be about all of these other things.

00:30:45.960 And a lot of actors are heralding it

00:30:47.640 because they want to look all woke and justicy.

00:30:50.500 Kirstie Alley, who admittedly,

00:30:51.920 I don't think is an invitee at the Oscars normally,

00:30:54.780 she says it's a disgrace

00:30:56.080 because she doesn't buy into this whole

00:30:58.000 long-lasting change narrative.

00:30:59.540 She's saying, and I think this is very good,

00:31:01.940 she said, imagine telling Picasso

00:31:03.720 what had to be in his effing paintings.

00:31:06.680 You people have lost your mind.

00:31:08.720 Control artists, control individual thought,

00:31:11.040 Oscar Orwell.

00:31:12.400 Now, she ended up deleting this

00:31:13.720 because every now and then

00:31:15.140 when a celebrity says something smart,

00:31:17.140 all their celebrity friends jump on them

00:31:19.300 and they have to back away.

00:31:21.400 You know, remember when Ricky Gervais

00:31:22.740 just absolutely slayed at,

00:31:24.840 I think it was the Golden Globes last year?

00:31:26.380 I would love to see him at the Oscars right now,

00:31:29.540 the year that they put this nonsense into effect.

00:31:32.640 And, you know, it's good

00:31:33.440 because the Oscars have been declining in relevance.

00:31:35.980 This is probably going to be the final nail in the coffin

00:31:39.280 or pretty darn close to it.

00:31:41.640 But just contrasting this with cuties,

00:31:44.060 these are the things that the entertainment sector

00:31:46.880 is choosing to prioritize.

00:31:49.160 And just think of that very carefully.

00:31:51.340 When we return,

00:31:52.160 more of The Andrew Lawton Show here on True North.

00:31:54.300 You're tuned in to The Andrew Lawton Show.

00:32:03.540 So right now, I take a fair bit of pride

00:32:06.360 in being an unlicensed broadcaster,

00:32:09.160 an unlicensed podcaster,

00:32:10.420 an unlicensed commentary

00:32:11.420 on the unlicensed True North.

00:32:13.520 And this is something that, again,

00:32:14.820 will make us like the new sort of

00:32:16.060 pirate radio stations of 2020

00:32:17.960 if Stephen Gilbeau,

00:32:19.700 the federal heritage minister, gets his way.

00:32:21.940 Once again, he is talking about licensing

00:32:25.320 and regulating private media companies.

00:32:28.900 This guy, it's like his go-to trick

00:32:30.620 when he doesn't have anything else to say.

00:32:32.220 He goes back to licensing.

00:32:33.860 Sometimes he walks it back later.

00:32:35.740 A lot of the times he doesn't.

00:32:37.400 But here is a clip of Stephen Gilbeau

00:32:39.240 talking about this on Global News.

00:32:41.740 Minister, I do want to ask you as well

00:32:43.560 about Facebook, Twitter,

00:32:45.120 some of these internet giants

00:32:46.560 that are here in Canada.

00:32:47.460 There's been a lot of discussion,

00:32:49.620 including in your cabinet,

00:32:50.940 of whether these platforms

00:32:52.300 are taking responsibility

00:32:53.640 for some of the content

00:32:54.840 that's being posted there

00:32:55.960 and calls to do more to regulate that.

00:32:58.460 Also concerns about free speech.

00:33:00.560 What's your approach

00:33:01.440 in terms of getting these big internet giants

00:33:04.480 that are not based in Canada

00:33:05.680 to take responsibility for things

00:33:07.880 that are put up that either incite violence

00:33:09.820 or hate speech,

00:33:11.160 or in some cases are basically

00:33:12.880 just massive social media gang-ups?

00:33:14.780 Well, we have made a commitment

00:33:18.500 to fight online hate,

00:33:22.100 child pornography,

00:33:24.940 and really incitement to terrorism.

00:33:29.100 And we are seeing a lot of that online.

00:33:31.260 And we all are also seeing

00:33:33.320 that these platforms

00:33:34.620 can't regulate themselves.

00:33:36.380 We've tried that,

00:33:37.880 and it's simply not working.

00:33:39.800 Now, there's a big difference

00:33:40.740 between saying that we're going

00:33:41.920 to regulate these hateful things

00:33:45.000 and these appalling things,

00:33:46.540 and we're going to put an end

00:33:47.760 to free speech on the internet.

00:33:48.880 That's really not what this is about.

00:33:50.800 Just like we have free speech

00:33:51.920 in our society,

00:33:52.560 but people can't say everything.

00:33:55.520 You can't verbally abuse someone.

00:33:58.640 We have courts

00:33:59.560 that have put measures

00:34:01.940 around free speech.

00:34:03.980 Well, we're doing it

00:34:05.160 in the real world.

00:34:06.600 We can do it

00:34:07.480 on the virtual world as well.

00:34:10.040 And this is something that myself,

00:34:12.620 my colleague, Minister Baines,

00:34:14.220 obviously, Justice Minister Lamedi

00:34:16.600 are working on,

00:34:18.720 and we will be coming up

00:34:20.000 with legislation

00:34:20.680 in the very near future.

00:34:23.680 What about regulation

00:34:25.100 of some of these internet giants

00:34:26.460 as well that are providing content

00:34:28.140 and news and entertainment?

00:34:29.800 And I think of Netflix

00:34:30.920 or perhaps Apple News,

00:34:33.620 Amazon,

00:34:34.880 a number of platforms

00:34:35.880 that are effectively now competing

00:34:37.300 with Canadian media organizations.

00:34:39.340 But they're not regulated

00:34:41.060 in the same way

00:34:42.060 that Canadian broadcasters

00:34:43.420 and media are.

00:34:44.120 Is your government

00:34:45.060 looking at either deregulating

00:34:46.620 some of what you're putting

00:34:47.640 onto broadcasters

00:34:48.720 or putting stricter regulations

00:34:50.400 and requirements

00:34:51.120 on some of these companies?

00:34:54.380 Well, there's really two things.

00:34:55.600 On the one hand,

00:34:56.640 there's investment

00:34:57.820 in Canadian cultural content.

00:34:59.960 Just like we're asking

00:35:01.280 Global or CTV

00:35:03.960 or CBC

00:35:05.440 or Bell Media

00:35:06.860 to invest

00:35:07.760 in Canadian cultural content,

00:35:09.680 we're going to ask

00:35:10.840 the same of web giants,

00:35:12.880 the Netflix of this world,

00:35:14.840 Apple Music,

00:35:15.840 Spotify,

00:35:16.800 Amazon Prime.

00:35:17.800 We're going to put some fairness

00:35:21.320 into the Canadian regulatory system

00:35:23.940 because right now

00:35:24.520 there is no fairness.

00:35:25.640 We have Canadian companies

00:35:27.020 that have regulatory obligations

00:35:29.040 and we have international web giants

00:35:31.560 that have none.

00:35:32.320 And that's unsustainable.

00:35:35.400 And I have said

00:35:37.160 that I would be tabling a bill.

00:35:39.160 I was hoping to do it by June.

00:35:40.420 Obviously, COVID delayed this.

00:35:43.480 But when the House comes back,

00:35:45.900 I will have a bill

00:35:46.680 to table in the House

00:35:47.700 looking specifically

00:35:49.080 at Canadian cultural content.

00:35:51.280 Okay.

00:35:51.600 I know that's a long clip,

00:35:52.820 but there's a lot in there.

00:35:54.080 I mean,

00:35:54.240 he goes through

00:35:54.740 all of the greatest hits

00:35:55.740 talking about hate speech

00:35:56.980 and extremist speech

00:35:57.940 and the need to bolster

00:35:59.140 Canadian content

00:36:00.100 and sharing news content

00:36:01.580 and all of these things.

00:36:03.020 And it's a very dangerous position.

00:36:05.340 And the reason is

00:36:06.460 that the Heritage Minister,

00:36:07.660 and I said this in an interview

00:36:08.780 on Ezra Levant's show

00:36:09.880 a couple of days ago,

00:36:11.360 the Heritage Minister

00:36:12.220 used to be about,

00:36:13.540 you know,

00:36:13.840 grants for this Canadian art project

00:36:15.620 and that Canadian art project.

00:36:17.480 But now it's a lot more than that.

00:36:19.940 I mean,

00:36:20.100 now it's like the chief censor role

00:36:21.960 in Canada.

00:36:23.480 And when big tech

00:36:24.540 is becoming such a huge force,

00:36:26.480 now regulation

00:36:28.080 has become such a huge priority.

00:36:30.680 And whatever you think

00:36:31.380 of Facebook or Twitter

00:36:32.440 or Google or Spotify

00:36:33.860 or any of these other tech giants,

00:36:35.800 know that government regulation,

00:36:37.780 especially this liberal government

00:36:39.380 in Canada,

00:36:40.140 is never going to make

00:36:41.680 any of these things better.

00:36:43.020 It can only serve

00:36:43.780 to make them worse.

00:36:45.480 So when he's saying

00:36:46.660 we don't trust them

00:36:47.420 to regulate themselves,

00:36:48.860 he's saying the government

00:36:50.040 needs to start cracking down

00:36:51.600 to purge so-called hate speech

00:36:53.800 from social media platforms,

00:36:55.380 even though there already

00:36:57.120 is a legal mechanism,

00:36:58.860 there's already

00:36:59.480 criminal hate speech.

00:37:00.720 If something is illegal offline,

00:37:02.720 it's also illegal online.

00:37:05.180 But he's trying

00:37:05.840 to gaslight people.

00:37:07.040 Stephen Gilboa

00:37:07.660 is trying to say

00:37:08.260 that there's this big gap

00:37:09.580 in the law

00:37:10.000 where if you do something

00:37:10.720 on the internet,

00:37:11.420 you get immunity.

00:37:12.180 It's like, you know,

00:37:12.700 diplomatic immunity

00:37:13.560 except for social media.

00:37:15.360 So you can't be prosecuted

00:37:16.620 for anything you say online

00:37:17.840 when anything that is illegal

00:37:19.580 in the real world

00:37:20.540 is also, to use his words,

00:37:22.520 illegal in the virtual world.

00:37:25.460 And this whole thing

00:37:26.460 about, you know,

00:37:27.060 forcing social media companies

00:37:28.700 to pay for news content

00:37:30.520 being shared,

00:37:31.200 I mean, this is just him

00:37:32.160 trying to buy the support

00:37:34.420 from the media.

00:37:36.460 He's trying to buy the support

00:37:37.460 from the mainstream media

00:37:38.280 by saying,

00:37:38.800 hey, you know,

00:37:39.160 what we're trying to do

00:37:39.860 is get these big tech companies

00:37:41.760 to start writing you guys checks

00:37:43.120 to supplement the checks

00:37:44.580 that the government itself

00:37:45.720 wrote you

00:37:46.180 in that $600 billion bailout fund.

00:37:48.700 And all of this

00:37:49.660 is just a desire

00:37:50.820 to license, to regulate,

00:37:52.220 but it means the government

00:37:53.760 wants to control the internet.

00:37:55.860 So at the beginning

00:37:56.540 of this segment

00:37:57.120 when I kind of joked

00:37:58.080 about being an unlicensed,

00:37:59.400 unregulated broadcaster,

00:38:01.360 podcaster, columnist,

00:38:02.820 I mean, that's not really

00:38:03.840 much of a joke.

00:38:04.820 He's already talked about

00:38:06.060 wanting to license,

00:38:07.920 specifically,

00:38:08.680 that's his word,

00:38:09.320 wanting to license

00:38:10.360 publishers in the past.

00:38:12.220 And when there was

00:38:12.920 a lot of backlash,

00:38:13.880 he had said,

00:38:14.340 oh, no, no, no,

00:38:14.860 well, you know,

00:38:16.000 we're not going to make

00:38:16.600 news outlets licensed.

00:38:18.240 Well, he hasn't defined

00:38:19.600 what a news outlet is.

00:38:22.420 And we already know

00:38:23.480 that the government

00:38:24.280 doesn't view us

00:38:25.060 as proper media.

00:38:26.120 They don't view us

00:38:26.760 as a news outlet.

00:38:27.540 So will they force us

00:38:28.620 to get a license?

00:38:29.440 What about any other companies?

00:38:30.680 It's not just about

00:38:31.660 Facebook and Google.

00:38:32.840 It's about anyone

00:38:33.680 who has an online presence,

00:38:35.380 even if it is just

00:38:36.820 on social media platforms.

00:38:39.180 And the reason for that

00:38:40.560 is that if the government

00:38:41.920 starts threatening

00:38:42.700 social media companies

00:38:43.800 with fines or prosecution,

00:38:45.220 if they don't take down speech,

00:38:47.560 that means that government

00:38:49.060 will have deputized Facebook

00:38:51.420 to be its enforcer

00:38:52.700 on so-called hate speech,

00:38:54.240 which means that

00:38:55.280 you're getting censored.

00:38:56.660 It's the illusion

00:38:57.580 that it's coming

00:38:58.180 from a private company,

00:38:59.600 but it's actually government.

00:39:01.600 And this is all part

00:39:03.100 and parcel of the plan

00:39:04.220 that is supposedly

00:39:05.820 to protect

00:39:06.480 Canadian heritage interests.

00:39:08.460 We've got to wrap

00:39:09.300 things up there.

00:39:09.940 We'll be back in a few days

00:39:11.180 on Monday

00:39:11.760 with another edition

00:39:12.560 of Canada's

00:39:13.360 most irreverent talk show.

00:39:15.000 You're listening

00:39:15.620 to The Andrew Lawton Show

00:39:16.860 on True North.

00:39:17.700 Thank you, God bless,

00:39:18.780 and good day, Canada.

00:39:19.840 Thanks for listening

00:39:20.500 to The Andrew Lawton Show.

00:39:22.020 Support the program

00:39:22.740 by donating to True North

00:39:23.980 at www.tnc.news.

Juno News - September 11, 2020

Patient Choice, Netflix Creeps and Internet Censors

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript