Juno News - Trudeau gone, but free speech still under attack？

00:00:00.000 Hi, Juneau News. Alexander Brown here, host of Not Sorry. Great to be back for another

00:00:07.480 week. I'm the director of the National Citizens Coalition. I'm a writer, a campaigner, communicator,

00:00:13.340 and always thrilled to be here and really excited for you to take advantage of this

00:00:17.320 promo code, junonews.com slash not sorry for 20% off. It's a good one. There's so much

00:00:23.480 great reporting at Juneau News. Always happy to talk about it and share that work. We have

00:00:29.220 a lot to discuss today because anything but ordinary Canadians, concerned parents, our

00:00:33.520 common sense, classical liberal, conservative, even libertarian minded, they have every right

00:00:38.580 to be concerned. A free speech chill continues in places like the UK and Canada at present.

00:00:45.280 And we have real questions to ask ourselves in regards to, you know, what are we willing

00:00:49.800 to fight for? And can we stand firm enough to prevent some of the cultural and free speech

00:00:55.160 backsliding of the past few years? Juneau's Melanie Bennett has a terrific new episode 0.77

00:01:00.340 on what's happening in the UK right now and what could soon be coming to Canada under bills

00:01:05.580 like C9. Can rude speech about migrant crime get you two years in prison? Why are English 1.00

00:01:12.940 flags ripped from citizens' hands as hate symbols? And is digital ID a kind of revenge against a

00:01:19.240 populist uprising? And could that happen here? In another piece for Juneau News, Sue Ann Levy

00:01:25.780 writes about the Toronto schools swapping arithmetic for inappropriate levels of social indoctrination.

00:01:33.620 Fifth and sixth graders are allegedly being sent to weeks-long workshops on racism as if they

00:01:41.280 are guilty of anything of the sort at such an innocent age and as if it's appropriate to continue

00:01:48.340 to pile on subsidized and industrialized guilt to the young and blameless, while seemingly attempting

00:01:56.640 to lead some down a potentially unhealthy path of social contagion and self-loathing. This is a moment

00:02:04.560 for critical thinking. This is a moment, as I harp on about in episode after episode, to not repeat

00:02:12.680 the mistakes of the last 10 years. MPs and entrenched interests, many of whom are the exact same ones

00:02:20.020 who got us here in the first place, we can't trust them to police themselves. On that, we're talking to

00:02:27.380 the guy you want to be talking to, Professor Bruce Party. Thrilled to have him on the show. This is a great

00:02:33.420 discussion. Stay for the whole thing. And first, a word from our sponsor.

00:02:37.780 I want to give a quick word from our sponsor, Albertans Against No Fault Insurance. So did

00:02:43.300 you know that the Alberta government is overhauling its auto insurance system under a new model called

00:02:47.720 Care First coming to effect in 2027? Most Albertans injured in car accidents will no longer be able to

00:02:52.620 sue the at-fault driver. Instead, decisions about your care and compensation will be made by the

00:02:57.080 insurance company, not your doctor, not the courts. Critics say this system puts insurance companies

00:03:01.860 first and removes key rights from victims and their families. Bruce Party joins the show. Bruce is a

00:03:07.680 professor of law at Queen's University, executive director of Rights Probe, senior fellow with

00:03:12.720 the Fraser Institute and MLI. He's a prominent critic of legal progressivism and the managerial state.

00:03:19.400 He was a real leader to me in Canada during the irrationality and overreach that took over during

00:03:23.940 Canada's COVID-19 response. Bruce, thank you for joining us.

00:03:28.600 Terrific to be here with you. Thank you for the invitation.

00:03:31.000 It means a lot. It's almost hard to get into a topic of the day on the shared worry of that legal

00:03:36.940 progressivism at the moment and that expansion of the managerial state. I wish we only had one to

00:03:41.980 pick from. And I know our audience shares in those concerns because I had Dr. Caroline Elliott on the

00:03:48.740 show over the weekend, prominent media critic on Canada's growing DRIPA issue and the behind-closed-door

00:03:55.060 expansion of Aboriginal title. You wrote recently in the Fraser Institute that Aboriginal rights are now

00:04:02.900 more constitutionally powerful than any charter rights. You also expanded on this idea of some

00:04:08.920 people are more equal than others for the Aristotle Foundation. Why do you feel that way and why does it

00:04:15.040 concern you? Right. Well, Caroline is absolutely right about the Aboriginal question. Things are 1.00

00:04:24.440 proceeding very quickly in a particular direction. They've been on this track for a long time,

00:04:30.180 but it's really becoming acute now, as Caroline no doubt mentioned.

00:04:37.780 The idea that is entrenched in our constitution that people of different lineage or identity should

00:04:45.580 be given different rights than other people. I mean, it is constitutionally entrenched in this

00:04:49.940 country. It's been around for a long time. And so it's very difficult to challenge because it's

00:04:56.900 constitutional. It's deeply embedded in the culture. People think it's the natural order of things,

00:05:00.940 but of course it's none of those things. And it is, it is a very dangerous and damaging

00:05:06.680 idea. If you transplanted this idea to other places, other countries, other, other moments in

00:05:13.140 history and said, right, all of you people who have some kind of connection to the past through your genes

00:05:19.800 and through your parents have these rights. And those of you who don't have that connection have

00:05:25.100 these different rights, you know, that, that is the kind of society that you do not want, because

00:05:30.040 that is not a society governed by the rule of law. Let's just make this clear. The rule of law,

00:05:35.940 like it's a very broad idea, lots of aspects to it, but one of them is that the same laws apply to

00:05:43.400 everybody. And you've immediately breached that idea. You've, you've determined that,

00:05:51.060 that some people have a different special status than other people. And that's all based upon

00:05:55.800 identity group, group affiliation lineage, and so on. That, that is a, that is a terrible idea upon

00:06:01.300 which to base a country, but we have section 35 and section 35 embeds that idea in the constitution.

00:06:08.800 Yeah. And so it, I was just talking to someone in politics about this,

00:06:11.960 where they were lamenting that issue, but it's, it's, they were saying, I don't think you,

00:06:15.820 the average person understands that it is in the charter, that there is this foundational

00:06:21.180 kind of whoopsie here where we've created these protected classes and maybe you had something

00:06:26.440 second last and maybe you have a self-identifying feature and now your rights are more important

00:06:31.780 than others. Well, in fact, so that there is, there is a section of the charter that is relevant

00:06:37.840 here, but in fact, section 35 itself, which, which is the guarantee is not even in the charter.

00:06:44.280 And so that, that, you know, people might hear that and think, well, that means it's not as

00:06:49.820 important as a charter right, but actually it's more powerful than a charter right for this reason.

00:06:53.740 Yeah. It is not even subject to section one, which is the reasonable limits clause and section 33,

00:07:03.000 which is the notwithstanding clause. In other words, legislatures, both provincial and federal

00:07:08.280 can use section 33 to say, well, we're legislating the following thing. We're our statutes in case it's,

00:07:15.900 you know, infringes upon these particular rights, you know, two and seven to 15 of the charter,

00:07:20.060 we're going to just put this in the, in the, in the bill and say, that doesn't matter. That's

00:07:24.640 what section 33 allows you to do. You can't do that with section 35. So if the courts come out

00:07:29.780 with a decision about Aboriginal title, there is nothing that a legislature can do about it.

00:07:37.900 Nothing. The courts control this period. Wow. And the direction that the courts have been taking

00:07:42.960 us over a long period of time is where we're ending up now. Now that's not to say that legislature

00:07:48.400 have the legislatures have been opposed to this. They have not, especially in BC, right? So in BC,

00:07:53.340 there are other things going on as well, pushing us in the same direction. The, the, the government of

00:07:58.680 BC has been making agreements with specific Aboriginal groups over specific territory, like Haida Gwaii,

00:08:05.200 for example, that, that, that either recognize Aboriginal title or promise to do so in the future.

00:08:12.280 And there's a pretend going on in these agreements that private property rights will be honored.

00:08:18.400 Problem is that Aboriginal title and private property are inconsistent. The two things cannot 1.00

00:08:24.140 coexist because Aboriginal title is communal. Private property is obviously private and 0.94

00:08:29.940 Aboriginal title cannot be surrendered to anyone but the crown. So the idea that you're going to 0.99

00:08:35.820 have this private fee simple title on a piece of land that is also covered by Aboriginal title is,

00:08:42.040 is a complete pretend. It's not true. If you are an owner of fee simple title in an area in which the

00:08:48.340 BC government has recognized Aboriginal title, you've got a problem and don't, don't be persuaded

00:08:53.840 otherwise.

00:08:54.080 As somebody who lives in the, the BC lower mainland right now, and is very much a renter because I'm

00:09:00.180 of a certain age and not a foreign speculator or a multi-billionaire, there's a real chill going up

00:09:07.880 amongst the 20 year olds, 30 year olds, 40 year olds going, okay, like best case scenario,

00:09:12.960 we can actually afford a, you know, a dog crate condo one day, what's going to happen to the land

00:09:18.660 beneath our feet. And so I know you've tweeted something recently to this effect. I, I think of

00:09:25.120 these sort of protected classes and where, gee, to know it's enshrined in the charter is, is alarming

00:09:32.400 to a, to a layman like myself on, on DEI initiatives, government DEI, corporate social DEI. Are, are we

00:09:40.180 not engaging in a kind of soft bigotry of low expectations? Would, would you like to see more

00:09:45.780 space for meritocracy in our culture and in our institutions?

00:09:51.140 Yes, sure. So DEI. So there's a lot of misunderstanding about this amongst the broader Canadian

00:09:56.600 population, right? So a lot of people think that there is a basic legal proposition that the same

00:10:06.060 rules apply to everybody and you can't discriminate against people on the basis of their, their race

00:10:11.480 or their religion or their sex. Okay. Not true in Canada. It is true in the United States. 0.95

00:10:20.000 They have a constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the law. And that's what their

00:10:24.280 Supreme court has recently confirmed that it means. In our country, we have section 15 of the

00:10:30.740 charter. Now section 15, one of the charter appears by its words to say essentially the same

00:10:37.920 thing as the American guarantee does. It, it, it provides for equal treatment of the law of people

00:10:45.100 without discrimination. Okay. But we also have 15, two and 15, two is an exception to 15, one. And it says

00:10:52.620 in not exactly the same words, reverse discrimination is okay. Depending upon who it is you're discriminating

00:11:03.060 in favor of and against, but that's not the whole of it. What's happened over time is the Supreme court

00:11:10.760 has taken this exception in 15, two and made it the general rule in 15, one. They've made 15,

00:11:18.080 one mean the same thing essentially as 15, two. So it is a constitutional imperative in this country

00:11:23.980 that we are, that, that, that governments are allowed. And in fact, sometimes required

00:11:30.080 to treat different people differently, as long as you are discriminating against the right groups.

00:11:37.880 And I'll bet you can, I'll bet you can guess what the right groups are.

00:11:40.120 Yeah. And who gets the, yeah, the dictation of the right groups.

00:11:43.760 Yes. That's right. And so this is what DEI means. DEI diversity, equity, and inclusion does not mean

00:11:50.440 diversity, equity, and inclusion. It means discriminating against these groups in favor 1.00

00:11:56.120 of those groups. It does not mean equal protection of the law. It means equity, which is the opposite.

00:12:02.760 Equity means we're going to treat people differently so as to try to provide for equal or comparable 0.87

00:12:10.260 outcomes between groups. Yeah. Okay. This is the opposite of a merit-based approach.

00:12:15.120 Yeah. It is constitutionalized. Just like the Aboriginal rights provision, this is constitutionalized 0.95

00:12:21.360 largely thanks to the Supreme Court. So, so if you are, if you are, if you are a person in the wrong,

00:12:28.880 in, in, in the wrong constituency, if you are, especially, especially if you are a white,

00:12:34.360 white, straight, Christian male, then everything is stacked legally and constitutionally against you. 0.77

00:12:42.940 That's the way it's been designed.

00:12:45.700 It was already hard enough out here as a 30-year-old working hard in a Canadian city with all its

00:12:50.360 problems. It's, I, you highlighted, I loved this speech you just gave and, and expanding on these,

00:13:00.180 these levers of power and things being stacked against you. A, a 2022 Globe and Mail Freedom

00:13:09.220 Convoy op-ed before the Justice Committee recently. I know that author in his words,

00:13:14.700 it set off alarm bells whenever someone, I know it sets off alarm bells whenever someone stumbles

00:13:19.340 across it. Now, would you be so kind to tell us this audience about that op-ed? Who wrote it?

00:13:25.260 Who wrote it? And why the heck does it worry you? This is, this is an, this is a column published

00:13:31.460 by the Globe and Mail in February, 2022. The title is time to stop the sedition by enforcing the law

00:13:42.060 and following the money. Yeah. Right. And it said in the column, people have been terrorized

00:13:48.460 for over a week. Yeah. Right. February, 2022. Right. So who is the author talking about? Well,

00:13:55.860 of course the trucker convoy, right? Seditionists and terrorists. Yeah. And of course the trucker 0.80

00:14:04.260 convoy, no violence, no weapons, no, no assaults, no storming of parliament, you know, road hockey,

00:14:11.040 parking violations. Yeah. And, and unkind words about the government, right? Traditionists and

00:14:16.860 terrorists. And of course, you know, who is the author of this column? Mark Carney, now the prime

00:14:26.000 minister. Yeah. No, it's, it's, it's so alarming when you read that. I, I remember that piece coming

00:14:33.560 out and I was in Ottawa. I was living in Toronto at the time. I was doing media. I'm a third party

00:14:39.700 director with the national citizens coalition, which is very much an organization that does not

00:14:43.980 love big government and big government overreach. And I was writing columns and I went, you know

00:14:48.440 what? I'm just going it. I know that they're seemingly conflating this into a January 6th and

00:14:54.160 maybe I end up on some endless list and maybe I actually am. And I don't know about it, but

00:14:58.640 I'm going, I want to talk to these people. I want to cover it. I was doing radio. I did the great

00:15:04.000 Brady show a few times, uh, really expanded my, my audience and got to know some great

00:15:09.640 journalists. And the moment I got there, Bruce, and I could appreciate that our professional

00:15:14.780 class in Ottawa did not like all the noise and the yobbs and the, the great unwashed to

00:15:19.660 them. Seemingly I arrived to what felt like a music festival. It felt like a particularly

00:15:26.660 were you able to attend it? Did you, I was there. I was there most of the time. I think I saw

00:15:31.300 you dancing on the truck by the, uh, that's possible doubt at the quarter by the Rito

00:15:35.920 center. It, to me, it, it was like a French Canadian music festival. You had all these

00:15:41.320 folks who'd been, especially the curfew. You could see the damage psychologically to, to

00:15:46.220 the rights of these people, to their, to their raison d'etre that they, they couldn't even

00:15:51.000 leave the house after dark. And I was talking to crunchy granola moms and light workers and

00:15:57.880 new immigrants who felt like this reminded them of the communist country that they left

00:16:03.060 Canada. They, and they're going, uh, all the old alarm bells were going off for them.

00:16:07.460 People were hugging. There were a very large Mohawk contingent, which I'm sure you saw as

00:16:12.060 well. Yes. Yes. Yes. Terrific beating of the drums and, and mixed with the, the deafening

00:16:16.720 horns at, at times was, uh, was quite interesting. And so it's,

00:16:20.780 Well, my, my impression was of a whole bunch of people who were so happy to have found each other.

00:16:27.880 Yeah. Because a lot of them had been going through this period thinking, am I the only

00:16:32.220 one who thinks this? Yeah. But actually they weren't, they were so alienated. So, uh, ostracized

00:16:40.060 that they, many of them drove across the country to, to raise the, raise those concerns to feel

00:16:47.180 so misrepresented that they, I, I find it very emotionally powerful that they, they drove to

00:16:52.740 our, uh, you know, our, our, our hall of power to honk out front, to dance, to hug, to reestablish

00:17:01.580 human connection, thriving through minus 40 and barren tundra. It was darn cold too. The, the lens

00:17:09.240 on my, my camera kept freezing. I'm sure. I'm sure it was very cold. Yeah. I remember those days.

00:17:14.440 It was people heating their hands by trash barrel fires and, and just soup kitchens. And, and so

00:17:19.260 it's, uh, it worries me so much. Uh, and I'm so thankful that you highlighted before the justice

00:17:24.540 committee, those carny words, because as a free speech advocate, we're so many people are talking

00:17:31.420 bill C nine right now, the concerns with bill C nine, you yourself, what do you see as the primary risks

00:17:37.140 that bill C nine sort of poses to freedom of expression, particularly in how it might expand

00:17:42.900 the policing of online and public discourse. Right. So you'll see the psychology here. Yeah. The,

00:17:52.280 the, the convoy was called by various different kinds of people. You, you know, the, the Kearney

00:17:58.700 column called them seditionists and terrorists. Yeah. The Ottawa police chief called, called it violence.

00:18:03.580 Ontario's premier. Similarly, a supposed conservative castigated them as well. And the,

00:18:08.760 and the police chief was challenged at the, at the commission. Yeah. On that statement. He said,

00:18:13.340 well, okay, violent. Well, where were the, where was the violence? Words are violent. Are you talking

00:18:18.140 about like communal code violence? And the, and the, and he just right back right off and no, well,

00:18:22.860 not actual, not actual violence. Yeah. You know, the violence that the community felt. And of course,

00:18:28.520 as the ministers of the government, we're talking about the, the, the, the violence of a political

00:18:34.660 rhetoric. Yeah. Right. We are now into the territory where words are violence. Yeah. And

00:18:40.520 you need violence to repel violence of the words that you spoke. Right. So this is uncharted territory.

00:18:47.000 Yeah. I mean, we've been in this territory for a while now, but nevertheless, we have crossed the

00:18:51.600 threshold of saying, you can say what you want, as long as you're not threatening violence.

00:18:55.840 Well, the truckers did not threaten violence and they did not commit violence. And yet the

00:19:02.200 emergencies act was triggered because the government perceived an emergency. Now they were right to

00:19:11.040 perceive an emergency to their political fortunes. Yeah. But that's not the kind of emergency the

00:19:16.120 emergency act was designed to respond to. You hear, you had a group of, of, of ordinary people

00:19:22.840 coming together to say to the government, you know, no, we're, we're not going to go along with

00:19:29.240 this anymore. We don't trust you anymore. We're not complying anymore. We challenge the legitimacy of

00:19:34.580 what you're doing. Now that is a real political threat when it comes from a, a, a groundswell,

00:19:40.900 grassroots gathering of ordinary people right in front of your, of your national legislature.

00:19:46.000 Yeah. Okay. So that was the emergency, but C9 is a set of amendments to the criminal code,

00:19:53.280 which are very problematic. One of them tries to give a definition of hatred. Now we have had on

00:20:00.860 our books for, for a good while, um, a, a, an offense of, of hate speech essentially. Yeah. Which for my

00:20:09.240 money, we should not have, they do not have that in the United States. In the United States, the first

00:20:14.040 amendment protects language that in this country, we would call hate speech. Hate speech is not a

00:20:19.120 thing in the U S is it is constitutionally protected speech, but our Supreme court has said, well, yes,

00:20:27.440 if you're going to, if you're going to police hate speech, it doesn't fringe free speech, but section

00:20:32.120 one says reasonable limits. So if you do it to this extent, it's okay. And if you do it to this extent,

00:20:36.560 it's not okay. And they tried to give a description of where the line was, you know, hopelessly vague.

00:20:41.860 Yeah. But, but the, but this bill doubles down on that vagueness. It, it basically says hatred.

00:20:48.380 Number one, hatred is an emotion. So note this, we are now policing emotions. Hatred is an emotion.

00:20:56.420 It says so right in the proposed definition. So we're no longer just policing acts and, and mens rea.

00:21:02.740 You're like, if you commit an act of violence with intent, you know, that constitutes the offense.

00:21:08.140 Okay. That is not this. This is the emotion of hatred, the emotion of, of, of, of, of, of detestation

00:21:19.700 or vilification that is stronger than disdain or dislike. Okay. Well, so now they're here.

00:21:26.660 They're trying to draw the line. And this, this resembles the language in the Supreme court decision,

00:21:31.360 but it's not exactly the same. Very close though. So, but here's the problem. So they've said detestation

00:21:38.000 is criminal, but dislike is not. So there's your line, but hold on. Wait a minute. What does detestation

00:21:47.120 mean? If you look it up, it means intensely dislike. So here's our legal line. You're allowed,

00:21:54.960 you're allowed to express and have the emotion of dislike, but it's criminal to intensely dislike.

00:22:01.680 Okay. Now, where's the line between dislike and intensely dislike? Nobody knows that,

00:22:07.800 that we have a thesaurus deciding this evidently is that's deeply, deeply concerning. I'm like,

00:22:13.860 are there any adequate safeguards? No, no, no, no. I mean, the, the, the safeguard that people

00:22:21.520 will cite is well, but this won't happen that, you know, won't be convicted of anything related to this

00:22:27.760 except by a court. So the court is the gatekeeper here. And therefore we can be confident, confident

00:22:34.720 that, you know, things won't go awry. Well, problem is that it is the Supreme court of Canada that has,

00:22:41.440 that has sent us down this path in the first place. Yeah. And, and are willing to give ground

00:22:48.720 to governments that want to censor speech. All right. Now there's another aspect and there's,

00:22:55.040 there's several aspects that proposed amendments in this, in this C9 bill, but another one is a one

00:23:02.240 that would be able to target protests. So this one says that if you, if you, uh, near, near a building

00:23:13.840 or something, you're, you're, you're, let's say you're protesting, if you intend to quote, create

00:23:19.280 a state of fear, then you could be guilty of this criminal offense. Now creating a state of fear,

00:23:27.280 here's what they do not mean. They don't mean creating a state of fear of violence. They don't

00:23:32.240 mean that somebody has made threats because we already have an offense for that. That's a,

00:23:36.480 that's an assault. You can't threaten violence. That's makes sense. You can't go up to somebody in

00:23:40.240 the street and say, you know, I'm going to hurt you unless you give me your wallet. You can't do

00:23:44.000 that. This is not that this is, if you create a S a state of fear in somebody of what, well,

00:23:52.080 who knows the state of fear, maybe the kind of state of fear that the residents of Ottawa complained

00:23:59.360 about when the truckers were there, like the state of fear of these ugly, horrible, offensive ideas,

00:24:05.040 some honking and the, the, the, the, the, the, the rhetoric of a political ideology.

00:24:11.200 Yeah. Right. Now, now you're into the, the thought police and, and the potential is this

00:24:17.760 kind of a section could be applied to a future version of the trucker convoy.

00:24:22.320 The worry is too, for me as, as the non charter expert here is it's also the way they refer to their

00:24:29.760 opposition. Everything is, is fear-based and this sounds like political violence and you're blowing

00:24:36.400 a dog whistle. If they're using the same language there, if they're using the same language of

00:24:41.760 these special interests who receive big government subsidies to do some, some hate research and to

00:24:47.440 ostensibly log roll for more government power and to get more things passed, you know, does it,

00:24:53.200 does Pierre Polyev become guilty of that?

00:24:55.920 Well, so they're going to, so the, the number of prosecutions of, of, you know, hate speech under

00:25:02.880 the criminal code is very small. It's something that, I mean, there was a, there was a, a bill in

00:25:09.200 the last parliament, C63, that, that was also a, you know, a, a, a, a, a speech bill.

00:25:14.880 Okay.

00:25:15.440 And it was even more problematic than C9 because it included, uh, amendments to the Canadian Human Rights

00:25:21.520 Act. And it's much easier to get a complaint against you under the human rights,

00:25:25.120 um, um, tribunal commission regime than it is to be prosecuted for a criminal offense,

00:25:31.760 because at least with the criminal offenses, you still have beyond a reasonable doubt as

00:25:35.520 a threshold. You have evidentiary requirements and so on and so forth. You all have, you still

00:25:39.920 have all the protections that attach to a criminal prosecution, not so with a human rights complaint.

00:25:47.280 And so that would have been a much more problematic. And by the way, this may be coming back

00:25:52.080 in a new bill, but more good news. Okay. Yeah. More good news. But that, that, that is the,

00:25:57.040 is the kind of thing that's going to, going to affect a, a larger, broader, uh, number of people.

00:26:03.840 Um, I, you, you'd still hope that the number of actual criminal prosecutions

00:26:09.200 wouldn't get out of hand, but there's no guarantee, but the human rights thing,

00:26:12.480 I think is, is, uh, more problematic even Bruce party. That was a lot to digest. I I'm trying not

00:26:19.440 to red pill myself, black pill myself. I I'm let's hope we're wrong about a few of these things. I, I,

00:26:26.160 you were such a prominent figure who, who stood a thwart the worst of the COVID years and violations,

00:26:31.360 violations of the charter. I wanted to ask you, has, has Canada gotten over, you know, some of its

00:26:36.960 issues with the madness of crowds. Are we better, are we better equipped to deal with social contagion

00:26:42.640 that do we, or do we still have much to learn? But I, I think what we're, we're hearing right now is,

00:26:47.440 uh, you know, it's going to be a challenging few years.

00:26:50.880 Oh yeah. I don't think there's been a reckoning of the, of the, of the COVID, uh,

00:26:56.480 yeah, disaster. I don't think, I doubt that there's going to be one. Um, it just, just, it's

00:27:03.520 too difficult for the powers that be to own up to what happened. And in fact,

00:27:09.600 I've, I've been saying that COVID rather than a mistake is viewed by the powers that be by the

00:27:16.080 administrative state as its greatest triumph. I mean, after all they controlled the game,

00:27:21.520 they got away with it, what it aspires to do. Right. So it's, it's not like they think it was

00:27:25.760 a system, uh, you know, a series of mistakes. No, we're relying on them to police themselves

00:27:30.400 on this to show. That is the key. That is the key problem with, with the way we are governed with

00:27:36.160 the way our constitution works with our, with our, our, our systems of law. We are re we are

00:27:42.640 depending upon the people with power to restrain themselves. Yeah. And, and that is not a good way

00:27:51.920 to proceed. And sadly they figured out that they can really, you know, push that as far as humanly

00:27:57.440 possible. Professor, thank you so much for joining us. This was incredibly insightful. My pleasure.

00:28:03.280 Thanks for having me.

Juno News - October 28, 2025

Trudeau gone, but free speech still under attack？

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript