Juno News - February 09, 2021


Variable Variants


Episode Stats

Length

39 minutes

Words per Minute

172.11507

Word Count

6,755

Sentence Count

308


Summary


Transcript

00:00:00.000 Welcome to Canada's Most Irreverent Talk Show.
00:00:06.700 This is The Andrew Lawton Show, brought to you by True North.
00:00:12.940 Coming up, Toronto's top doctor warns of a new pandemic,
00:00:16.240 even though we haven't gotten rid of the old one yet.
00:00:18.400 How the Canadian government has failed to deport a former Nazi
00:00:21.220 and compelled speech in Canadian law.
00:00:25.720 The Andrew Lawton Show starts right now.
00:00:30.000 Welcome to Canada's Most Irreverent Talk Show, February 9th, 2021.
00:00:36.920 You're listening to The Andrew Lawton Show on True North
00:00:39.580 as we are approaching year two of our two weeks to flatten the curve.
00:00:44.500 Yes, it was first flatten the curve, plank the curve, bend the curve,
00:00:47.920 do whatever you want to the curve.
00:00:49.220 And then it became, okay, well, you know, when we've got a vaccine
00:00:52.140 and now it is, as we talked about last week, the lockdown that never ends.
00:00:56.860 Yes, it goes on and on, my friends.
00:00:59.420 Haven't heard that song in a while, but you'll be hearing a lot of it
00:01:02.000 in the days, weeks, months to come.
00:01:04.500 Here's the thing that I find fascinating.
00:01:06.680 Just as we're starting to get to the point that we are getting back into normal life
00:01:11.200 and the restrictions are coming to a little bit of an easing point
00:01:14.980 in Ontario and Quebec, Alberta as well.
00:01:18.480 BC also, which has had more lax restrictions
00:01:21.440 and generally speaking has seen a very good management of the case counts,
00:01:25.520 which have been on the decline even without draconian lockdowns.
00:01:29.640 Those four provinces represent 80% of the population of this country.
00:01:35.220 I think it's 81% if I'm being technical,
00:01:37.400 but 80% at least of the province's population or the country's population.
00:01:42.840 And in other provinces that are more sparsely populated,
00:01:45.700 they've got relatively low numbers of cases in general.
00:01:49.660 But let's just focus on Ontario, Quebec, Alberta, and British Columbia,
00:01:54.420 the most densely populated and the most populous in the country.
00:01:58.100 They are finding that the levels of COVID-19 cases are acceptable enough
00:02:03.420 that they can start to gradually, just ever so slightly,
00:02:06.340 bring down their restrictions.
00:02:07.680 Do I think they could do more?
00:02:08.900 Sure, but that's what they're doing.
00:02:10.540 At the same time, at the federal level,
00:02:13.080 we have travel being made all but illegal.
00:02:16.080 They can't officially outlaw it,
00:02:17.600 but they can make it so difficult for people to come back into the country
00:02:20.600 that they better not think about leaving the country.
00:02:24.080 And the reason for this is the variant.
00:02:26.980 This is what we're told, the variants,
00:02:28.620 the South African variant, the Brazil variant,
00:02:31.060 the United Kingdom variant,
00:02:32.300 all of these different variants
00:02:33.480 that two lawmakers are plunging us right back into
00:02:36.880 where they were circa February, March of 2020,
00:02:40.340 which is, well, we don't know what we're dealing with,
00:02:42.760 so we've got to err on the side of caution.
00:02:44.800 The problem with erring on the side of the caution
00:02:48.480 is that we've had to look at a lot more errors
00:02:51.240 than we've had to see caution.
00:02:53.440 And that's where I am on this now.
00:02:55.640 I think, yes, we need to take this seriously.
00:02:58.740 Variants are, by their nature, variables.
00:03:01.520 The South African example is one
00:03:03.480 where South African variant is the dominant variant
00:03:06.200 in the nation of, well, South Africa.
00:03:08.460 So the South African government was finding in a small trial
00:03:11.100 that, eh, you know, that AstraZeneca vaccine
00:03:13.540 that we were rolling out
00:03:14.560 isn't really protecting as much against this,
00:03:16.840 so let's halt it while we investigate further.
00:03:19.960 We have in Ontario, someone from the modeling table
00:03:22.800 suggesting that in Ontario's case,
00:03:25.160 the UK variant will be the dominant strain
00:03:27.660 within four to six weeks.
00:03:29.080 Now, that may sound bad,
00:03:30.400 but remember that these are the same modelers
00:03:32.800 who, as my colleague Anthony Fury pointed out,
00:03:35.440 said that by next week, we'd see 20,000 cases a day.
00:03:39.340 20,000 cases a day is what the Ontario modeling desk
00:03:43.040 predicted the province would see by mid-February.
00:03:45.820 They made this prediction in January,
00:03:49.020 which, as Anthony pointed out,
00:03:50.480 was actually when things started to peak.
00:03:52.920 So they were looking and saying,
00:03:54.040 all right, it's gonna be awful,
00:03:55.080 it's gonna be terrible, we're already in lockdown,
00:03:57.000 but even so, 20,000 cases, that's where we're headed,
00:03:59.760 and it went the opposite direction
00:04:01.600 and has continued to go in that direction,
00:04:04.320 even in spite of the almighty modeling.
00:04:06.760 So the modeling has been consistently wrong,
00:04:10.760 and I'm very glad about that.
00:04:12.080 I'm very glad that we have not, in reality,
00:04:14.780 seen such extreme examples of what's happening
00:04:18.080 as the modeling has predicted and projected.
00:04:20.880 But it also makes me a lot more skeptical
00:04:23.460 of the variant fear,
00:04:26.300 which in a lot of cases seems to exist,
00:04:29.040 at least in part,
00:04:30.400 so the government can use the looming unknown
00:04:32.940 as justification to continue to impose major restrictions.
00:04:39.100 The fact is that all three of these major variances
00:04:41.520 have already been found in Canada.
00:04:43.360 So the idea of locking down travel
00:04:45.380 to avoid influx of variants,
00:04:47.320 I mean, that ship sailed, that's already done.
00:04:49.060 And as we saw with COVID 1.0,
00:04:51.320 you can't, once it's already in,
00:04:53.280 do much with the border.
00:04:54.520 If you're gonna do a border measure,
00:04:55.760 you have to do it before these things
00:04:57.240 are in the country, not after.
00:04:58.960 The reason I bring this up
00:05:01.940 is because right now we are seeing very mixed messaging.
00:05:05.440 In some senses, provinces are saying,
00:05:07.180 yeah, you know what, we've gotten this under control,
00:05:08.960 we've learned to live about it.
00:05:10.360 And even in Ontario,
00:05:11.760 Ontario's amending its very strict lockdown
00:05:14.420 to say that, all right,
00:05:15.680 we think retail can now open
00:05:17.460 even under lockdown at limited capacity.
00:05:20.460 Well, they should have known that months ago.
00:05:22.020 They should have known that
00:05:22.680 when they imposed the lockdown,
00:05:24.260 knowing that retail was not
00:05:26.620 and never has been the problem,
00:05:28.220 just as international travel is not the problem.
00:05:32.400 So what's the point of closing down the borders,
00:05:35.240 of putting people into government hotels,
00:05:37.360 of imposing the quarantine and multiple tests
00:05:39.940 when all of these really do the same thing?
00:05:42.320 I mean, even Patty Hajdu had conceded
00:05:44.100 a couple of weeks back
00:05:45.320 that the 14-day quarantine
00:05:47.180 is still the number one measure
00:05:48.500 to make sure that someone doesn't spread the virus
00:05:50.720 if they come into the country.
00:05:52.960 If you're gonna quarantine for 14 days anyway,
00:05:55.980 why do you need to go to a hotel?
00:05:57.420 Why do you need to do a test on arrival?
00:06:00.640 What good is the test
00:06:01.800 if you're gonna have to sit in your home
00:06:04.420 for 14 days as it is?
00:06:06.720 If everyone has to quarantine,
00:06:08.660 having multiple tests is not adding anything.
00:06:11.180 It's just adding theatrics of layers
00:06:13.760 rather than genuinely more measures.
00:06:16.920 So the variant fear,
00:06:20.380 which again, we should pay attention,
00:06:22.540 we should look, we should observe,
00:06:23.940 we should measure,
00:06:25.440 but we should not go back into this,
00:06:27.820 oh, we don't know what's going on,
00:06:28.980 we don't know,
00:06:29.500 so we have to just lock down everything,
00:06:30.900 shut down everything,
00:06:31.720 which seems to be the direction
00:06:33.280 the federal government is trying to push people.
00:06:35.880 And interestingly enough,
00:06:36.860 it was on Monday
00:06:37.720 that the Ontario government announced
00:06:39.700 it would be gradually moving
00:06:41.100 into its reopening plan,
00:06:42.360 moving back to the color-coded layers of shutdown
00:06:46.260 that they had prior to everyone
00:06:48.180 going into max lockdown mode.
00:06:51.200 And Eileen Davila,
00:06:52.200 Dr. Eileen Davila,
00:06:53.200 who's the chief medical officer in Toronto,
00:06:55.840 has actually on the same day
00:06:57.460 come out against it.
00:06:58.700 She said,
00:06:59.080 the time is not now.
00:07:01.380 Now she's been a notoriously
00:07:03.140 lockdown happy public health advisor,
00:07:05.760 even by Canadian public health advisor standards.
00:07:08.520 But she said something
00:07:09.500 that I thought was very concerning.
00:07:11.500 She said there is a transition underway
00:07:13.480 to a new pandemic.
00:07:16.560 She said,
00:07:16.940 I understand the value of preparing
00:07:18.420 for the time we can lift restrictions
00:07:19.940 from a public health perspective in Toronto.
00:07:22.200 That time is not now.
00:07:23.680 But a new pandemic.
00:07:25.520 Now, most people still didn't know
00:07:27.080 the first one had ended
00:07:28.140 because it never did.
00:07:29.220 But now we already have a new pandemic.
00:07:31.040 Instead of just the same pandemic
00:07:33.200 that we were already in,
00:07:34.040 it's a new one now.
00:07:35.000 So we hit the reset,
00:07:35.880 we go through the same process all over again.
00:07:38.220 If you thought you were getting back to work,
00:07:40.000 getting back to school,
00:07:40.860 getting back to travel,
00:07:42.140 getting back to your old life.
00:07:44.000 Well, no, you're not doing that
00:07:45.140 because now we're in a new pandemic.
00:07:47.080 You know, we were talking last week
00:07:48.420 about the new normal and the old normal.
00:07:50.440 Well, now it's just the new pandemic
00:07:51.780 or the old pandemic.
00:07:52.900 There's no no pandemic,
00:07:54.080 just new or old.
00:07:55.240 And right now we're in that overlap period
00:07:57.080 where we get the restrictions for both
00:07:59.080 because you know what?
00:07:59.840 We have to flatten this curve now.
00:08:02.160 Just as we were still flattening the last curve,
00:08:04.420 now we have a new curve to flatten.
00:08:05.800 And there's been a profoundly dehumanizing effect
00:08:09.480 to some of these measures,
00:08:11.260 particularly the government detention facilities,
00:08:14.200 which is really the only thing you can call them.
00:08:16.260 These hotels that are being converted
00:08:17.740 to be these massive quarantine facilities.
00:08:20.360 Now, interestingly enough,
00:08:21.920 there was this one hotel
00:08:23.140 that I was supposed to be staying at,
00:08:25.340 I think last month or two weeks ago in Calgary.
00:08:28.100 And I got an email from the hotel saying,
00:08:31.440 we have to cancel your reservation
00:08:32.660 because we are closing due to COVID.
00:08:35.340 And at first I was thinking
00:08:36.220 this was just such a terrible thing
00:08:38.420 that was happening,
00:08:39.400 that hotels have had to just close down altogether.
00:08:41.940 And then I realized later on
00:08:43.820 that this hotel had actually gotten
00:08:45.720 the sweetheart government contract
00:08:47.080 to be a quarantine facility.
00:08:49.300 So it wasn't that they just couldn't manage,
00:08:51.600 it was that they were managing so well
00:08:53.180 because the government was loading them up
00:08:54.720 with people who were being securely detained
00:08:57.480 at the Calgary airport.
00:09:00.380 And there was this CBC story
00:09:02.300 that did a glimpse,
00:09:04.900 a glimpse at the COVID-19 isolation hotel
00:09:08.020 with travelers who had been detained there
00:09:11.320 sharing pictures of their journey.
00:09:13.680 And they were given
00:09:14.900 just absolutely terrible looking food.
00:09:17.460 I'm a big guy, so I eat a lot.
00:09:19.200 This guy though looks a lot fitter than I am.
00:09:21.320 And he says that the meals were kid-sized
00:09:23.780 with no meals after 6 p.m.,
00:09:26.220 no room service available,
00:09:28.100 the vending machines only sell snacks,
00:09:30.120 you're allowed out of your room
00:09:31.540 for 15 minutes a day.
00:09:34.400 Even prison inmates get more time in the yard
00:09:38.280 than you get if you're in a Calgary COVID hotel.
00:09:42.460 And he didn't have COVID by the way,
00:09:44.060 he had done a rapid test
00:09:45.460 which the government didn't accept
00:09:46.980 because he needed to have a PCR test.
00:09:49.400 And that was that,
00:09:50.300 that was what got him relegated
00:09:52.020 to this hotel in Calgary.
00:09:53.440 And you have just a very sterile
00:09:56.720 looking environment here.
00:09:58.360 And I feel bad for people that are like this.
00:10:00.940 Now, I mean, I'm glad that the government
00:10:02.420 has taken so long
00:10:03.460 to get its more recent hotel
00:10:05.660 detention announcement together.
00:10:07.200 So people were able to kind of sneak
00:10:09.100 into the country under the radar
00:10:10.380 because the government hasn't been able
00:10:12.420 to get these things up and running.
00:10:13.940 To which I say, well, you know,
00:10:16.060 there's a slight benefit
00:10:17.520 in the glacial pace
00:10:19.000 at which the bureaucracy moves
00:10:20.460 in that sense, at least.
00:10:22.680 But this is insane.
00:10:24.420 And the Canadian Constitution Foundation
00:10:26.180 has launched a movement
00:10:27.480 no to quarantine prison hotels.
00:10:29.980 They're signing a petition
00:10:31.340 and asking people to tell stories
00:10:33.000 of how these measures will hurt them.
00:10:35.240 And listen, I'm not one of these,
00:10:36.620 you know, eat the rich,
00:10:37.620 tax the rich,
00:10:38.560 destroy the 1% types.
00:10:40.240 But it is funny
00:10:41.180 that if you have enough money,
00:10:42.620 these things don't really matter.
00:10:44.520 If you have enough money,
00:10:45.740 the $2,000 to hang out
00:10:47.280 at a government hotel
00:10:48.220 isn't a big deal.
00:10:49.460 Spending money on all the tests
00:10:51.340 that you have to do,
00:10:52.160 not really a big deal.
00:10:54.860 The average people
00:10:56.060 that want to get away,
00:10:57.560 maybe they want to visit family,
00:10:59.120 they're going to be safe,
00:11:00.120 they're going to follow
00:11:00.640 all the restrictions,
00:11:01.500 they're going to quarantine.
00:11:02.540 Those people are now effectively
00:11:04.540 banned from travel by default
00:11:06.740 without the government
00:11:07.840 actually saying
00:11:08.500 you are not allowed to do this
00:11:09.560 because the government's
00:11:10.380 made it so prohibitive.
00:11:12.420 And this is why people need to say,
00:11:14.380 no, if on one hand
00:11:15.260 we have things moving
00:11:16.140 in a good enough direction
00:11:17.240 that provinces
00:11:18.240 that have been very happy
00:11:19.260 to lock us down
00:11:20.080 are starting to ease up on that,
00:11:22.180 then surely we could say
00:11:23.660 that we don't need this ban
00:11:25.200 on going to sunny destinations,
00:11:27.040 which the government
00:11:27.860 has been effectively trying to do.
00:11:29.940 I mean,
00:11:30.340 flights to the Caribbean
00:11:31.360 and to Mexico
00:11:32.020 are banned until
00:11:32.860 the end of April
00:11:33.940 because the government
00:11:35.300 got airlines to agree to this
00:11:36.860 and the airlines
00:11:37.640 are playing ball
00:11:38.220 because they don't want
00:11:38.840 to anger the government
00:11:39.580 that they might be petitioning
00:11:41.020 for bailout money
00:11:41.900 or in fact are probably
00:11:43.240 petitioning for bail money.
00:11:44.380 And this is where we are.
00:11:46.060 So the government is again
00:11:47.000 turning its back
00:11:48.100 on the so-called
00:11:48.980 evidence-based decision-making
00:11:50.520 that they claimed
00:11:51.580 would be the very cornerstone
00:11:53.260 of their approach to policy
00:11:55.160 and Canadians are left in the lurch.
00:11:58.060 We'll be back
00:11:58.700 in just a couple of moments
00:11:59.780 with more of
00:12:00.300 The Andrew Lawton Show.
00:12:01.200 Stay tuned.
00:12:02.580 You're tuned in
00:12:03.760 to The Andrew Lawton Show.
00:12:09.360 Welcome back
00:12:10.220 to The Andrew Lawton Show.
00:12:11.760 Something as serious
00:12:13.100 as being involved
00:12:14.480 with the Nazis,
00:12:15.560 being involved
00:12:16.240 with a Nazi killing unit
00:12:17.920 you'd think would warrant
00:12:19.480 swift action
00:12:20.460 from a government
00:12:21.320 but in Canada
00:12:22.120 it has been anything but.
00:12:24.000 The Canadian legal system
00:12:25.300 has been working
00:12:25.900 for about 25 years now
00:12:27.760 to deport Helmut Oberlander,
00:12:30.180 now 96,
00:12:31.220 who in his younger years
00:12:33.220 in the time of the Holocaust
00:12:34.620 and World War II
00:12:35.600 was a translator
00:12:36.820 in a Nazi killing squad.
00:12:38.660 He made a life
00:12:39.300 for himself in Canada
00:12:40.360 as a developer
00:12:41.140 in the Waterloo area.
00:12:42.720 He did not disclose
00:12:44.140 his involvement
00:12:45.220 with the Nazis
00:12:45.880 when he came here
00:12:46.740 which is really the crux
00:12:48.140 of the government's thrust
00:12:50.380 to try to get him
00:12:51.260 out of Canada
00:12:51.860 but this has become
00:12:53.280 mired in multiple layers
00:12:55.020 of bureaucracy
00:12:55.600 and as I said
00:12:56.380 25 years after the process
00:12:57.940 was initiated
00:12:58.640 he's still here.
00:13:00.240 This week
00:13:00.840 yet another delay
00:13:02.100 as the can was kicked
00:13:03.620 a bit further down the road
00:13:04.820 for a hearing
00:13:05.960 that was supposed to happen
00:13:07.140 but really underscoring this
00:13:09.060 beyond all the legal arguments
00:13:10.540 is a fundamental question
00:13:11.880 about whether there is
00:13:13.380 a statute of limitations
00:13:14.680 on the forms of crimes
00:13:16.340 in which the Nazis
00:13:17.640 were complicit
00:13:18.720 and those involved with them.
00:13:20.380 Joining me on the line
00:13:21.160 is Shimon Koffler-Fogel
00:13:22.540 who's the president
00:13:23.200 and CEO
00:13:23.740 of the Center for Israel
00:13:25.540 and Jewish Affairs.
00:13:26.720 Shimon, thank you so much
00:13:27.700 for your time today.
00:13:29.140 Andrew, it's great
00:13:30.000 to be with you again.
00:13:31.620 One of the biggest defenses
00:13:33.180 we've seen
00:13:34.020 of Helmut Oberlander
00:13:35.480 from people
00:13:35.980 is that
00:13:36.460 well, you know,
00:13:37.340 so much time has passed
00:13:38.620 and he wasn't personally involved
00:13:40.320 and he's made a life
00:13:41.720 for himself
00:13:42.260 and as he gets older
00:13:43.400 and older
00:13:43.860 he just starts to look
00:13:45.420 like this frail man
00:13:46.500 and people don't want
00:13:47.500 to throw the book at him
00:13:48.600 so to speak.
00:13:49.540 Why is it so important
00:13:50.680 in your view
00:13:51.280 to continue to prosecute
00:13:53.020 and advocate for justice
00:13:54.780 on these matters?
00:13:56.560 Well, Andrew,
00:13:57.000 as you pointed out
00:13:58.100 this didn't begin
00:13:59.600 in 2021.
00:14:01.080 This began 26 years ago
00:14:02.880 when he was less frail
00:14:05.040 and less old
00:14:05.900 and I think
00:14:08.320 the real core
00:14:10.200 is based
00:14:12.380 in your introduction
00:14:13.200 about the question
00:14:14.100 of statute of limitations.
00:14:16.320 Is there a time
00:14:17.760 after which
00:14:18.680 accountability
00:14:19.780 and responsibility
00:14:20.980 for crimes
00:14:22.300 of the proportion
00:14:24.220 that the Nazis committed
00:14:26.140 expire?
00:14:27.640 And our view
00:14:29.120 would be
00:14:29.600 for multiple reasons
00:14:31.140 no.
00:14:32.400 Number one,
00:14:33.660 there's a need
00:14:34.500 for justice.
00:14:35.160 There's a need
00:14:36.040 for accountability
00:14:36.840 and Oberlander,
00:14:38.660 however he might
00:14:39.760 want to portray
00:14:40.680 his involvement
00:14:42.020 with the Nazis
00:14:42.720 was actively involved
00:14:44.940 in units
00:14:46.520 that actually went
00:14:48.000 from location
00:14:49.640 to location
00:14:50.420 rounding up Jews,
00:14:51.800 Roma
00:14:52.080 and other undesirables
00:14:54.340 and brutally
00:14:55.920 massacred all of them.
00:14:57.680 So there has to be
00:14:58.600 accountability for that.
00:15:00.020 But it goes beyond that
00:15:01.320 because Oberlander
00:15:02.700 also represents
00:15:03.980 a challenge
00:15:05.020 to our whole
00:15:06.020 refugee
00:15:07.080 and immigration
00:15:08.080 policy.
00:15:09.120 We have a set
00:15:10.540 of criteria
00:15:11.620 and laws
00:15:12.560 that govern
00:15:13.740 how people
00:15:14.720 come into Canada,
00:15:15.840 which after all
00:15:16.580 is a refugee
00:15:17.580 intake country.
00:15:18.960 If those are going
00:15:20.180 to be breached,
00:15:21.340 it undermines
00:15:22.300 the credibility
00:15:22.900 of the whole system
00:15:23.980 and it's under
00:15:24.840 enough strain
00:15:25.780 that we should be able
00:15:27.200 to say with some confidence
00:15:28.460 that the laws
00:15:29.700 are applied evenly,
00:15:31.820 consistently
00:15:32.400 and across the board.
00:15:34.300 But I would suggest,
00:15:35.480 Andrew,
00:15:35.800 that there's
00:15:36.400 a more compelling reason
00:15:38.060 than either of the ones
00:15:39.520 that I've presented
00:15:40.300 so far.
00:15:41.320 We now live in a time
00:15:42.740 when populism
00:15:44.900 and nationalism
00:15:46.400 has regained
00:15:48.040 a certain entrenchment
00:15:50.860 within society,
00:15:52.340 well beyond Canada,
00:15:53.560 but it certainly
00:15:54.120 includes Canada.
00:15:55.060 and we have
00:15:57.080 a compelling
00:15:58.080 responsibility
00:15:59.040 to remind citizens,
00:16:02.740 especially those
00:16:03.720 who grew up
00:16:04.760 and were born
00:16:05.540 long after the Holocaust,
00:16:07.900 of what potential
00:16:09.960 there is for evil
00:16:11.360 and for the kind
00:16:13.760 of destruction
00:16:14.360 that's associated
00:16:15.240 with the Nazi regime.
00:16:17.040 And if we give a pass
00:16:18.580 to people like Oberlander,
00:16:20.280 we're essentially
00:16:21.320 diminishing
00:16:22.260 and whitewashing
00:16:23.500 the seriousness
00:16:25.480 of what took place
00:16:27.200 and we can't then
00:16:29.220 apply the lesson
00:16:30.080 of never again.
00:16:31.420 We are so desperate
00:16:32.300 to build a better society,
00:16:34.460 a more inclusive society.
00:16:36.060 But if we allow
00:16:37.580 in that inclusion
00:16:38.560 those who really
00:16:41.480 were the poster children
00:16:43.100 for the exact opposite,
00:16:44.880 then we're really
00:16:45.720 undermining
00:16:46.240 our own efforts.
00:16:47.580 When you say
00:16:48.460 poster children,
00:16:49.420 I feel there's
00:16:50.180 an important dialogue here
00:16:51.620 because, again,
00:16:52.600 one of the defenses
00:16:53.480 that I would appreciate
00:16:54.540 your analysis of
00:16:56.120 or your response to
00:16:57.040 is when people
00:16:58.180 use those terms
00:16:59.120 just a translator.
00:17:00.560 Well, he wasn't
00:17:01.420 personally the one
00:17:02.580 killing.
00:17:03.480 That distinction,
00:17:04.760 in your view,
00:17:05.400 is relatively irrelevant
00:17:07.060 given the scope
00:17:08.000 of evil
00:17:08.580 the Nazis committed,
00:17:09.580 correct?
00:17:10.820 Absolutely, Andrew.
00:17:12.120 I think that everybody
00:17:13.600 has the opportunity
00:17:15.900 to do what's right
00:17:17.060 or to acquiesce
00:17:18.720 to what's wrong.
00:17:19.440 A 17-year-old conscript
00:17:22.960 is an adult,
00:17:25.460 is somebody who's
00:17:26.380 able to distinguish
00:17:27.220 between what's morally
00:17:28.620 acceptable
00:17:29.880 and what is reprehensible.
00:17:32.260 If we had had people
00:17:34.160 willing to stand up
00:17:35.540 and push back
00:17:36.340 against the dictate
00:17:37.680 of the Nazis,
00:17:38.780 then we would have had
00:17:39.960 a very different outcome
00:17:41.060 to World War II.
00:17:42.400 So I think that you
00:17:43.600 can't skirt accountability
00:17:45.320 and responsibility
00:17:46.340 for the personal
00:17:47.740 decisions that you make.
00:17:49.520 And it's not as if
00:17:50.620 he was a translator
00:17:51.600 for a weekend
00:17:52.400 when they were
00:17:53.440 in a particular venue.
00:17:55.680 He was with the group.
00:17:57.200 He was attached to it.
00:17:58.640 He continued to operate
00:18:00.560 with them and for them
00:18:02.140 and in essence
00:18:03.380 was an enabler
00:18:04.580 of the kind of murder
00:18:06.220 and atrocity
00:18:06.980 that those groups
00:18:08.660 associated.
00:18:09.620 Yeah, and one of the things
00:18:12.540 I should probably point out,
00:18:13.760 I had the great privilege
00:18:14.620 of accompanying
00:18:15.460 a delegation
00:18:16.460 from your organization,
00:18:17.640 the Center for Israel
00:18:18.520 and Jewish Affairs
00:18:19.280 to Israel
00:18:20.040 back in 2015
00:18:21.780 and visit Yad Vashem,
00:18:23.680 which is the Holocaust Museum
00:18:25.140 and speak with a number
00:18:26.240 of the people
00:18:26.680 who have devoted
00:18:27.600 their lives
00:18:28.160 to studying
00:18:28.780 and preserving
00:18:29.520 this horrific chapter
00:18:31.400 in history.
00:18:32.240 And one of the things
00:18:33.480 that came up
00:18:34.480 and I've seen,
00:18:35.660 especially in talking
00:18:36.460 to younger Jewish people,
00:18:38.060 is how the more time
00:18:40.120 that passes
00:18:40.800 between the Holocaust
00:18:41.880 and now,
00:18:43.140 the more abstract
00:18:44.180 it becomes
00:18:45.060 and the fewer
00:18:45.880 living survivors of it,
00:18:48.120 people who have
00:18:48.940 survived the Holocaust
00:18:50.040 but have succumbed
00:18:51.060 to old age,
00:18:51.660 the harder it is
00:18:52.600 to have that living memory
00:18:53.900 and in a lot of cases,
00:18:55.420 Holocaust indifference
00:18:56.560 is a big problem
00:18:57.500 and you raised
00:18:58.200 an important point there
00:18:59.120 when you said
00:18:59.620 about never again.
00:19:01.020 People need to remember
00:19:01.840 that yes,
00:19:02.500 this is not something
00:19:03.600 that just has fizzled
00:19:05.240 out to history.
00:19:06.100 I think you're
00:19:08.180 so right, Andrew.
00:19:09.760 Look,
00:19:10.500 when we try
00:19:11.920 to undertake
00:19:12.480 Holocaust education,
00:19:14.280 for example,
00:19:14.940 in the public school system
00:19:16.140 here in Canada,
00:19:17.080 we struggle
00:19:18.240 to find ways
00:19:19.360 to make it relatable
00:19:20.760 to kids today
00:19:22.580 who have no terms
00:19:24.100 of reference,
00:19:24.780 who don't really
00:19:25.740 have any clue
00:19:27.260 as to what the Holocaust
00:19:29.840 was,
00:19:30.920 how it came about
00:19:31.940 and how it could
00:19:33.420 have been prevented.
00:19:34.180 And as we struggle
00:19:36.160 as a society
00:19:37.040 and we've had
00:19:37.680 a pretty intense year
00:19:39.160 in addition to COVID,
00:19:40.680 there was so much attention
00:19:43.200 and rightly so
00:19:44.280 to issues of racism
00:19:46.280 and discrimination,
00:19:47.860 some of it really built
00:19:49.360 into the very fabric
00:19:50.640 of our society.
00:19:52.080 We have no possibility
00:19:53.760 of addressing those
00:19:55.300 in a constructive way
00:19:56.500 if we don't have
00:19:57.740 an appreciation
00:19:58.560 for what things
00:19:59.880 could have been
00:20:00.680 and what things were.
00:20:01.760 So when we look
00:20:03.340 at the Uyghur in China
00:20:04.800 or we look
00:20:05.520 at what's happening
00:20:06.140 in Burma
00:20:06.700 or we look even
00:20:07.940 to places like
00:20:09.280 Eastern Europe
00:20:10.540 and the Ukraine,
00:20:11.780 we have to connect
00:20:13.700 the dots
00:20:14.400 between what was
00:20:16.040 and what could be.
00:20:17.940 And if we are dismissive
00:20:19.620 of the past,
00:20:20.720 if we simply whitewash
00:20:22.440 people like Oberlander,
00:20:24.220 then really we're
00:20:24.980 condemning ourselves
00:20:25.940 to repeating
00:20:27.140 those terrible events
00:20:28.900 and experiences
00:20:30.020 of the past.
00:20:30.740 One thing that I would
00:20:33.660 point out here
00:20:34.520 to go back
00:20:35.200 to the Oberlander case
00:20:36.340 is that the government
00:20:37.800 has tried
00:20:39.020 and I don't know
00:20:40.400 if there are other tools
00:20:41.340 that the government
00:20:41.900 could have employed
00:20:42.660 that would have expedited this.
00:20:43.900 A lot of the issues
00:20:44.580 have been in the courts
00:20:46.060 and in some of the legal
00:20:47.220 mechanisms there
00:20:48.100 and this has spanned
00:20:48.920 liberal and conservative
00:20:50.180 governments
00:20:50.760 because of how long
00:20:51.600 it's gone on.
00:20:53.240 You know,
00:20:53.500 if this country
00:20:54.940 is not ultimately successful
00:20:56.960 in deporting
00:20:58.460 Helmut Oberlander,
00:20:59.480 it really does show
00:21:01.760 I think a profound
00:21:03.220 lack of commitment
00:21:05.560 in some way.
00:21:06.460 I don't know the right word
00:21:07.560 but a lack of ability
00:21:08.840 to see this through
00:21:09.680 and understand
00:21:10.200 the severity of it.
00:21:11.200 I mean,
00:21:11.540 if this had happened
00:21:12.480 for example
00:21:13.100 with someone
00:21:13.780 whose role
00:21:14.560 were less ambiguous
00:21:16.520 or perceived
00:21:17.940 as less ambiguous,
00:21:19.080 I can't imagine
00:21:20.640 that they would have
00:21:21.260 allowed this to go on
00:21:22.300 for 26 years.
00:21:23.360 So it does strike me
00:21:24.820 as very odd
00:21:25.800 that this has not
00:21:26.480 been successful
00:21:27.140 and this may well be
00:21:28.680 and in fact
00:21:29.160 it probably will be
00:21:30.160 the last such case
00:21:31.380 ever in Canada
00:21:32.280 and one of the last
00:21:33.640 in the world.
00:21:34.420 It's important
00:21:35.100 to get it right.
00:21:36.420 So I think
00:21:37.340 that's absolutely
00:21:38.800 spot on, Andrew.
00:21:40.100 I think one of the questions
00:21:41.560 that has been triggered
00:21:43.320 or prompted
00:21:43.900 by this experience
00:21:45.300 over 26 years
00:21:46.320 and you're quite right,
00:21:47.620 successive Canadian governments
00:21:49.460 have endeavoured.
00:21:50.900 I think there were
00:21:52.180 four definitive
00:21:53.240 decisions taken
00:21:54.400 to strip him
00:21:55.780 of his Canadian citizenship
00:21:57.080 and deport him
00:21:57.840 to Germany
00:21:58.380 where he would
00:21:59.460 stand trial.
00:22:01.300 It prompts
00:22:02.880 the question
00:22:03.720 how is
00:22:05.540 our independent
00:22:06.540 judiciary
00:22:07.160 managing
00:22:07.940 things
00:22:08.920 in a way
00:22:09.460 that simply
00:22:10.200 makes sense
00:22:10.980 if the judiciary
00:22:13.340 can be abused
00:22:14.440 in the way
00:22:15.080 that Oberlander's
00:22:16.060 legal team
00:22:16.600 has done it
00:22:17.280 for 26 years.
00:22:18.580 It begs the question
00:22:20.940 are we doing
00:22:21.800 something wrong
00:22:22.580 in terms of
00:22:23.260 how we're organising
00:22:24.540 the legal process?
00:22:28.320 Ensuring justice
00:22:29.260 for the target
00:22:31.140 of a particular prosecution
00:22:32.640 has to be balanced
00:22:34.280 by ensuring justice
00:22:35.440 for the victims
00:22:36.600 of the alleged crime.
00:22:40.360 And I think
00:22:40.900 that in this case
00:22:41.800 it is clear
00:22:42.800 that the 15,000
00:22:46.500 or 20,000 survivors
00:22:48.220 living here
00:22:49.300 in Canada now
00:22:50.160 observing what's
00:22:51.380 happening with
00:22:51.940 Oberlander
00:22:52.600 are certainly
00:22:53.600 bitterly asking
00:22:54.780 themselves
00:22:55.680 where is the justice
00:22:57.040 for me
00:22:57.680 and the family
00:22:58.760 that I lost?
00:23:00.720 Yeah,
00:23:01.360 and one point
00:23:02.440 I would raise here
00:23:03.400 is that it seems like
00:23:04.600 for the Oberlander
00:23:05.740 legal team
00:23:06.420 the delay
00:23:07.440 is the win.
00:23:08.480 I mean,
00:23:08.740 the guy's 96.
00:23:09.840 Let's be real.
00:23:10.540 The delay is the win.
00:23:11.920 They don't need
00:23:12.420 a court to declare
00:23:13.440 them the victors.
00:23:14.440 They just need
00:23:15.020 to drag it out
00:23:15.760 until such a point
00:23:16.700 that he's reached
00:23:17.980 his natural end.
00:23:20.840 I think that's
00:23:22.620 exactly right.
00:23:24.780 They're not looking
00:23:25.760 for vindication.
00:23:27.660 They're looking
00:23:28.440 just to allow him
00:23:29.640 to remain in place
00:23:31.100 and be comfortable
00:23:32.080 for the rest
00:23:33.180 of his days
00:23:33.900 and thereby
00:23:35.980 to dodge
00:23:37.440 having to be
00:23:38.420 accountable
00:23:38.920 for what he's done.
00:23:40.480 We have to remember
00:23:41.420 the Canadian piece
00:23:43.380 is only a portion
00:23:44.920 of this process.
00:23:46.140 It's not as if
00:23:47.040 he would be deported
00:23:48.260 simply because
00:23:49.260 he misled
00:23:51.480 immigration officials
00:23:52.420 when he applied
00:23:53.180 for Canadian citizenship.
00:23:55.320 There's a court
00:23:56.260 waiting to try him
00:23:57.520 for war crimes
00:23:58.460 and for him
00:24:00.640 not to be
00:24:01.740 deported from Canada
00:24:03.500 would mean
00:24:04.460 that he never
00:24:05.160 has to account
00:24:06.080 for his decisions,
00:24:08.240 for his actions,
00:24:09.280 and is for participation
00:24:10.480 in the
00:24:11.660 Nazi killing mission.
00:24:15.160 That's actually
00:24:15.880 a tremendously
00:24:16.560 valuable point.
00:24:17.520 In a lot of cases
00:24:18.180 we view this
00:24:18.820 as a deportation case
00:24:20.000 which is how it is legally
00:24:21.100 but it has a lot
00:24:22.560 of the hallmarks
00:24:23.160 of an extradition case
00:24:24.320 as well
00:24:24.700 which I think
00:24:25.340 that change in words
00:24:26.620 has a very
00:24:27.480 significant change
00:24:28.580 in the perception
00:24:29.400 of it.
00:24:30.140 Shimon Koffler-Fogel,
00:24:31.200 President and CEO
00:24:32.020 of the Center for Israel
00:24:33.180 and Jewish Affairs,
00:24:34.180 thank you for your
00:24:34.960 commitment to justice
00:24:36.160 and accountability
00:24:36.800 on this, Shimon.
00:24:38.140 Andrew, it's always
00:24:38.880 great to be with you.
00:24:39.980 Just a, I mean
00:24:41.080 I can't stand bureaucracy
00:24:42.340 and I am also
00:24:44.080 very keen on
00:24:45.140 remembering the Holocaust
00:24:46.080 and holding those
00:24:47.200 who were complicit
00:24:48.280 in it to justice
00:24:49.020 so this case
00:24:49.800 has been infuriating
00:24:50.780 and the fact
00:24:51.580 that I've been
00:24:52.040 covering this case
00:24:53.020 for I think
00:24:53.460 five or six years now
00:24:54.640 and every time
00:24:56.140 there's a revival
00:24:57.480 of the discussion
00:24:58.300 it has gone
00:24:59.200 absolutely nowhere
00:25:00.120 which is just
00:25:01.000 profoundly,
00:25:01.980 I mean the system
00:25:02.900 is an injustice
00:25:04.460 on top of the
00:25:05.340 master of all
00:25:06.080 injustices
00:25:06.720 which is the
00:25:07.220 Holocaust itself
00:25:08.060 but this system
00:25:09.160 continues to
00:25:09.980 just drag its heels
00:25:11.100 and not do anything
00:25:12.620 unreal.
00:25:13.680 We've got to take a break
00:25:14.520 when we come back
00:25:15.160 more of the
00:25:15.740 Andrew Lawton Show.
00:25:16.600 Stay tuned.
00:25:19.140 You're tuned in
00:25:20.120 to the Andrew Lawton Show.
00:25:23.420 Welcome back
00:25:24.280 to the Andrew Lawton Show.
00:25:26.140 I want to read
00:25:26.600 a headline for you.
00:25:27.860 British Columbia's
00:25:28.760 practice directions
00:25:29.980 on preferred
00:25:30.880 gender pronouns
00:25:31.920 in court
00:25:32.460 are problematic.
00:25:33.980 Now this was published
00:25:34.820 in Canadian Lawyer,
00:25:36.500 a magazine that
00:25:37.340 deals with issues
00:25:38.560 of relevance
00:25:39.180 to the Canadian
00:25:40.020 legal community
00:25:41.080 as the publication's
00:25:42.180 title would suggest.
00:25:43.660 And it sounds like
00:25:44.600 if a court is putting
00:25:45.620 in place a policy
00:25:46.640 that affects lawyers
00:25:47.620 that perhaps
00:25:48.440 different perspectives
00:25:49.360 on those would be
00:25:50.220 a good idea.
00:25:51.280 I'm glad the magazine
00:25:52.180 ran the article.
00:25:53.540 Well, a few lawyers
00:25:54.760 were not.
00:25:55.640 An open letter
00:25:56.280 was published
00:25:56.980 calling out this
00:25:58.160 as being problematic
00:25:59.840 itself,
00:26:01.040 despite the fact
00:26:01.880 that it was calling
00:26:02.600 out behavior
00:26:03.540 that was problematic
00:26:04.360 in another way.
00:26:05.720 And what did the magazine
00:26:06.520 do?
00:26:07.200 Commit themselves
00:26:07.900 to supporting
00:26:08.860 diverse viewpoints?
00:26:10.040 No, of course not.
00:26:11.000 It's 2021.
00:26:12.300 They yanked the article
00:26:13.240 and put up in its place
00:26:14.500 an apology
00:26:15.120 saying that it did not
00:26:16.640 reflect the views
00:26:17.500 of Canadian Lawyer magazine,
00:26:19.060 Key Media,
00:26:19.800 and its related entities.
00:26:21.240 That's signed by
00:26:22.160 Tim Wilber,
00:26:23.080 the editor-in-chief
00:26:23.900 for Law of
00:26:25.200 Canadian Lawyer magazine.
00:26:27.380 D. Jared Brown
00:26:28.180 is a lawyer.
00:26:29.300 You may know him
00:26:29.780 on Twitter
00:26:30.180 as the litigation guy.
00:26:32.320 And he was very clear
00:26:33.980 in pointing out
00:26:34.800 this open letter
00:26:35.600 calling for the article's
00:26:37.340 withdrawal,
00:26:38.060 all the names of lawyers
00:26:39.140 that apparently
00:26:39.680 don't support free speech.
00:26:41.340 Jared, good to talk to you.
00:26:42.160 Thanks for coming on today.
00:26:43.540 Thanks for having me, Andrew.
00:26:44.840 So I want to,
00:26:45.960 there's two aspects to this.
00:26:47.520 There's the initial discussion
00:26:48.980 about pronouns,
00:26:49.680 which we'll get to
00:26:50.580 in a moment.
00:26:51.460 But I'd say the bigger issue now
00:26:53.160 is that a magazine
00:26:54.340 that you'd think
00:26:55.360 would have differing perspectives,
00:26:57.080 would have even
00:26:57.680 dueling perspectives
00:26:58.720 on key issues
00:26:59.880 that are relevant to lawyers
00:27:01.360 is now memory-holing
00:27:03.540 one side of the argument.
00:27:05.440 Yeah, I mean,
00:27:06.120 Canadian Lawyer magazine
00:27:07.240 is traditionally
00:27:07.800 a pretty moderate,
00:27:09.120 up-the-middle publication.
00:27:11.420 What we see here, though,
00:27:12.740 is that not only
00:27:13.640 are they going to
00:27:14.620 fall victim to the mob
00:27:17.080 in terms of the pressure
00:27:17.980 to remove a particular article,
00:27:19.560 but it would seem to me
00:27:20.700 that they're not prepared
00:27:21.440 to publish anything
00:27:22.280 outside of what I would venture
00:27:24.180 as a very narrow,
00:27:26.140 defined,
00:27:26.740 and I would even say
00:27:27.700 radical ideology.
00:27:29.060 One of the things
00:27:29.900 that I would point out
00:27:30.860 is that the magazine
00:27:31.900 does not have the final say
00:27:33.660 on what Canadian lawyers think,
00:27:35.800 but I'd say that
00:27:36.820 industry publications
00:27:38.040 have always been,
00:27:39.640 I thought anyway,
00:27:40.520 or should have always been,
00:27:41.520 the last bastion
00:27:42.480 of being able to hash out
00:27:43.940 what are intra-industry battles
00:27:46.480 and really discussions
00:27:47.920 and debates
00:27:48.540 that lawyers could talk about
00:27:50.600 because they're all operating
00:27:51.900 from the same basis
00:27:53.500 and on the same wavelength,
00:27:55.360 at least in some areas,
00:27:56.700 you'd hope.
00:27:57.480 And at the same time,
00:27:58.420 I find that quite distressing
00:27:59.900 because when you're talking
00:28:01.420 about these things,
00:28:02.660 what a bunch of the lawyers
00:28:03.720 who signed that letter
00:28:05.040 were saying is that,
00:28:06.340 you know what,
00:28:06.720 we're not allowed,
00:28:07.880 even us as professionals,
00:28:09.320 to have these discussions.
00:28:11.560 Yeah, I mean,
00:28:12.720 it's evidence of sort of
00:28:15.220 the ideological capture
00:28:16.340 that's happened
00:28:16.840 in the legal profession.
00:28:17.800 The profession itself
00:28:21.760 is increasingly
00:28:23.060 becoming a monoculture,
00:28:26.240 one that is subscribing
00:28:28.100 to sort of one side
00:28:29.340 of the politics,
00:28:32.140 one side,
00:28:33.020 or one particular ideology.
00:28:34.900 Right now,
00:28:35.300 it happens to be
00:28:35.980 a very leftist viewpoint
00:28:37.100 on things.
00:28:38.580 And because of that
00:28:39.620 ideological capture,
00:28:40.760 because the legal profession
00:28:41.800 is increasingly becoming
00:28:43.460 that monoculture,
00:28:45.120 it's shunning viewpoints
00:28:46.920 that are independent
00:28:48.880 or outside that bubble.
00:28:50.700 And so Canadian Lawyer Magazine
00:28:52.180 and what's just happened
00:28:53.420 is simply evidence
00:28:54.740 of that movement,
00:28:57.520 of that,
00:28:58.160 I guess you'd say,
00:28:59.060 consolidation of viewpoints
00:29:00.520 in the legal profession.
00:29:01.740 Yeah, and there's still
00:29:04.280 an archived version
00:29:05.740 of the now censored article
00:29:08.020 that you can find online.
00:29:09.840 And, you know,
00:29:10.620 I've read through it
00:29:11.400 after it ended up being yanked,
00:29:13.080 so I'm glad that version
00:29:14.020 was still available.
00:29:15.240 And a lot of the arguments,
00:29:16.480 I mean,
00:29:16.640 maybe I'm just immune
00:29:17.520 to these things
00:29:18.500 that are supposedly
00:29:19.240 cancelable offenses,
00:29:20.340 but a lot of the arguments
00:29:21.320 are, you know,
00:29:22.640 perhaps disagreeable to some.
00:29:24.240 But we're not talking
00:29:25.040 about unprofessional.
00:29:26.340 We're not talking
00:29:27.220 about offensive.
00:29:27.840 We're talking about arguments
00:29:29.120 that are grounded
00:29:29.900 in a legal basis
00:29:32.500 and in a legal argument.
00:29:34.000 Arguments against
00:29:34.720 compelled speech,
00:29:36.340 arguments against
00:29:37.140 the infringement
00:29:38.080 on privacy rights,
00:29:39.500 supporting judicial impartiality.
00:29:41.240 I mean,
00:29:41.380 these are all things
00:29:42.140 that you shouldn't
00:29:43.640 find controversial.
00:29:46.040 No, no.
00:29:46.720 If you read the article
00:29:47.700 and like you said,
00:29:48.540 it's still available,
00:29:49.640 you know,
00:29:50.400 out on the internet
00:29:51.140 and out in the ether,
00:29:52.580 it's a pretty milquetoast
00:29:54.160 approach to something
00:29:55.160 that is, you know,
00:29:56.780 an interesting issue
00:29:58.700 politically.
00:29:59.820 I don't think
00:30:00.640 that there's anything
00:30:01.240 in that article
00:30:01.980 that goes beyond the Paul
00:30:03.920 or for that matter,
00:30:05.440 goes beyond the law.
00:30:06.920 It was a one woman
00:30:09.580 of color's perspective
00:30:11.300 on a dictate
00:30:12.820 that came down
00:30:13.760 for how the courts
00:30:14.540 in BC are to operate.
00:30:16.080 And I think it was,
00:30:17.360 you know,
00:30:17.980 reasonably well considered.
00:30:19.640 I'm not sure I agree
00:30:20.860 with everything
00:30:21.880 that was presented.
00:30:22.700 I think she could
00:30:23.260 have gone further
00:30:23.960 in enunciating
00:30:25.520 the compelled speech argument,
00:30:27.540 but given the time
00:30:29.020 and space constraints
00:30:29.920 that you usually see
00:30:30.660 in columns like that,
00:30:31.740 I think it was fine.
00:30:33.220 There was nothing
00:30:33.720 offensive about it
00:30:34.720 unless, of course,
00:30:36.040 you subscribe
00:30:36.880 to a single sort
00:30:38.460 of radical leftist ideology.
00:30:41.280 At that point,
00:30:42.320 you can't even
00:30:42.920 have that debate.
00:30:43.900 I mean,
00:30:44.080 I'm sure many people
00:30:44.920 who signed
00:30:45.420 that joint letter
00:30:46.200 and there were law firms
00:30:47.920 as well
00:30:48.480 that were in that letter.
00:30:50.580 I'm not sure
00:30:52.900 they're even aware
00:30:54.160 that there are
00:30:54.900 more than one side
00:30:56.120 to some of these arguments
00:30:57.280 and some of these issues.
00:30:59.060 I think what happened
00:31:00.360 more than anything
00:31:01.140 is that this particular article
00:31:04.000 punctured their bubble.
00:31:07.160 It punctured their safe space
00:31:08.940 and their only reaction
00:31:11.320 that they have
00:31:12.980 in that instance
00:31:13.580 is rather than engage
00:31:14.480 with the arguments
00:31:15.060 and deliver the counterpoint
00:31:16.180 was to memorable it.
00:31:18.760 Yeah, and that was,
00:31:21.480 I found it interesting
00:31:22.820 when I was just scrolling through
00:31:24.080 to see if I knew
00:31:24.800 any of the names,
00:31:25.600 the lawyer who fought
00:31:26.680 against True North and I,
00:31:28.860 True North and me
00:31:29.460 in the Leaders Debates
00:31:30.400 Commission case
00:31:31.120 against the government
00:31:31.780 was on there.
00:31:32.580 So, I mean,
00:31:33.120 that's the only personal connection
00:31:34.300 I have to anyone on this list
00:31:35.540 is someone that was
00:31:36.260 on the wrong side
00:31:36.920 of another issue.
00:31:37.740 But you are very right
00:31:39.700 when you point out
00:31:40.820 that there's a risk here.
00:31:42.480 And I saw a lot
00:31:43.200 of articling students
00:31:44.220 that were naming themselves
00:31:46.460 as such
00:31:47.160 that I'm looking at them
00:31:48.360 like you're kind
00:31:48.740 coming into the legal profession
00:31:50.100 from a place of
00:31:51.900 we should not be standing up
00:31:53.440 for diverse perspectives.
00:31:54.600 And that makes me
00:31:55.840 very pessimistic
00:31:57.120 about the future
00:31:57.800 of the profession.
00:31:59.640 Yeah, I mean,
00:32:00.560 like I said,
00:32:01.600 the legal profession
00:32:02.280 is not immune
00:32:02.920 to what we see going on
00:32:04.060 in wider society
00:32:04.940 with the outlawing
00:32:06.880 of certain viewpoints,
00:32:08.020 particularly those
00:32:08.780 that would be more,
00:32:09.680 I guess, centrist
00:32:10.700 or right of center even.
00:32:12.800 But what was most shocking
00:32:14.240 to me is that
00:32:14.880 it wasn't simply
00:32:15.520 a group of lawyers
00:32:17.400 that signed that article,
00:32:18.280 but they were lawyers
00:32:19.060 from major law firms,
00:32:21.000 Bay Street law firms.
00:32:22.940 And I guess,
00:32:23.980 you know,
00:32:24.900 I put that list up,
00:32:26.440 that joint letter up.
00:32:27.480 I did so
00:32:27.980 because I think
00:32:28.660 it's important
00:32:29.160 that the public realize
00:32:30.400 that the profession
00:32:32.680 has been captured
00:32:33.620 at its highest levels
00:32:34.760 and that,
00:32:36.580 you know,
00:32:36.920 when their back
00:32:37.620 is up against the wall,
00:32:38.900 I'm not sure
00:32:39.480 you can look
00:32:40.000 to some of these law firms
00:32:41.340 and some of these lawyers
00:32:42.360 to sort of be
00:32:44.180 the bulwark
00:32:45.520 against tyranny
00:32:47.220 and oppression
00:32:47.760 that the legal profession
00:32:49.240 used to be.
00:32:51.340 Yeah,
00:32:51.760 and I don't want
00:32:52.600 to focus entirely
00:32:53.640 on Canadian Lawyer Magazine
00:32:54.920 because I feel
00:32:55.620 that the point
00:32:56.280 of the op-ed
00:32:58.280 in question,
00:32:59.020 even if,
00:32:59.500 as you know,
00:33:00.000 you might not agree
00:33:00.780 entirely with what's being said,
00:33:02.480 was an important issue.
00:33:04.000 And this was
00:33:04.540 a practice directive
00:33:05.720 issued by the B.C. Supreme
00:33:07.220 and provincial courts
00:33:08.180 to lawyers
00:33:09.180 that require parties
00:33:10.500 and lawyers
00:33:11.120 to state
00:33:12.000 their preferred
00:33:12.720 gender pronouns
00:33:13.960 at the beginning
00:33:14.740 of all court proceedings.
00:33:16.560 And that's where
00:33:17.360 in the context
00:33:18.140 that the author
00:33:19.240 of the piece
00:33:19.720 brings it up,
00:33:20.360 there's a potential
00:33:21.320 violation of privacy rights,
00:33:23.140 there's a judicial
00:33:24.000 impartiality issue,
00:33:25.200 and there's
00:33:25.620 a compelled speech.
00:33:26.660 You now have to say
00:33:27.740 something as part of this.
00:33:29.420 We don't have this
00:33:30.400 in Ontario,
00:33:31.500 and you actually
00:33:32.300 were instrumental
00:33:32.900 in a group
00:33:33.600 to take over
00:33:35.040 the Law Society
00:33:35.860 of Ontario
00:33:36.540 Board of Governors,
00:33:37.740 basically,
00:33:38.160 the benchers,
00:33:38.760 as they're known,
00:33:39.660 to try to put
00:33:40.760 in a very robust fight
00:33:42.620 against compelled speech.
00:33:43.940 But when you see
00:33:44.720 something like this
00:33:45.500 coming down the pipe,
00:33:46.600 I mean,
00:33:46.700 what's your response?
00:33:48.620 Yeah,
00:33:48.860 it's a sensitive issue,
00:33:50.520 and it's a deeper issue
00:33:52.880 than what it appears
00:33:53.580 to be on its face.
00:33:54.520 It's positioned as one
00:33:55.380 of obviously respect
00:33:57.020 for the individual
00:33:57.840 litigants and participants
00:33:59.040 in the judicial process.
00:34:00.420 And I think
00:34:01.040 we'd all acknowledge
00:34:01.840 that there needs
00:34:02.980 to be some modicum
00:34:03.900 of respect,
00:34:04.960 and also I think
00:34:05.660 that the courts
00:34:06.280 absolutely have
00:34:07.840 the authority
00:34:08.300 to sort of control
00:34:09.040 their own process
00:34:09.800 and those that
00:34:10.240 appear before them.
00:34:11.180 The problem was
00:34:12.060 is that this was
00:34:13.100 making the issue
00:34:14.400 of pronouns,
00:34:15.900 pronouncing an edict
00:34:16.660 on what I would say
00:34:17.780 is a highly political
00:34:18.800 and I would even say
00:34:19.840 controversial issue,
00:34:21.060 and that is
00:34:21.500 this idea that,
00:34:23.400 you know,
00:34:24.040 implementing,
00:34:24.760 I guess you could call it
00:34:25.380 the social constructionist
00:34:26.400 theory on gender.
00:34:27.380 I mean,
00:34:27.540 not everybody subscribes
00:34:28.740 to that.
00:34:29.160 and when the court
00:34:31.380 decides to take
00:34:32.280 a position
00:34:32.800 on those issues,
00:34:34.120 highly political issues,
00:34:36.060 then it's right
00:34:37.000 that we have
00:34:37.580 this discussion,
00:34:38.500 that we have
00:34:38.980 this debate,
00:34:39.560 and that it should
00:34:40.100 and ought to play out
00:34:41.000 in the pages
00:34:42.060 of Canadian Lawyer magazine.
00:34:43.940 As it stands right now,
00:34:45.440 the court can
00:34:46.400 and will make directives
00:34:48.380 as to how you address
00:34:49.460 certain participants
00:34:50.300 in the proceeding.
00:34:51.300 The difference was,
00:34:52.200 though,
00:34:52.380 that this one,
00:34:53.340 this directive requires
00:34:54.620 that everyone walk
00:34:55.500 into court
00:34:56.140 and identify
00:34:57.500 their gender identity
00:34:59.280 at the outset
00:35:01.280 of the proceedings.
00:35:02.380 And, you know,
00:35:03.540 as the article points out,
00:35:05.540 you know,
00:35:05.900 that's problematic
00:35:06.680 on a variety of levels,
00:35:08.540 and perhaps the court
00:35:10.000 didn't consider that
00:35:10.980 when it pronounced
00:35:12.740 that edict.
00:35:13.560 But, yeah,
00:35:15.060 I mean,
00:35:16.220 setting aside simply
00:35:17.480 the compelled speech argument,
00:35:19.320 we should be able
00:35:20.580 to have this discussion
00:35:21.640 about whether or not
00:35:22.900 the courts should be
00:35:23.700 making these orders.
00:35:24.460 and the article points out
00:35:25.740 some interesting examples
00:35:27.040 as to when
00:35:28.680 that could jeopardize
00:35:30.720 the impartiality
00:35:31.500 of the court.
00:35:32.120 I mean,
00:35:32.340 there's the instance
00:35:32.960 that they mentioned
00:35:33.640 the case over in the UK
00:35:34.720 where a victim of rape
00:35:38.500 was directed
00:35:39.600 to refer to her attacker
00:35:42.460 by female pronouns
00:35:45.800 when, in fact,
00:35:46.640 the attacker
00:35:47.040 was a biological male.
00:35:48.240 You can see
00:35:48.760 where that would be an issue.
00:35:50.280 It's almost as if
00:35:51.120 the court is prejudging
00:35:52.320 the issue.
00:35:53.840 Yeah,
00:35:53.900 and that was
00:35:54.520 when I first heard,
00:35:55.600 before I even saw
00:35:56.340 the magazine essay,
00:35:58.020 when I first heard
00:35:58.660 of this directive,
00:36:00.060 the concern that I had
00:36:00.900 is what if
00:36:01.460 the issue of pronouns
00:36:03.220 or gender identity
00:36:04.240 were central to the case?
00:36:06.060 And I don't want to
00:36:06.780 dwell on hypotheticals,
00:36:08.280 but I could see
00:36:08.780 a number of cases
00:36:09.720 where,
00:36:10.760 including one,
00:36:11.640 by the way,
00:36:12.020 in British Columbia,
00:36:13.120 where forcing someone
00:36:14.720 in the court proceeding
00:36:16.080 to be referenced
00:36:17.000 a certain way
00:36:17.880 would actually get to
00:36:19.440 what was in part
00:36:20.540 the pith of the case itself.
00:36:22.040 Yeah, absolutely.
00:36:25.660 And I mean,
00:36:25.920 that's the most obvious
00:36:26.860 example of where
00:36:27.680 this would be an issue.
00:36:29.440 And I mean,
00:36:30.680 the courts already
00:36:31.820 traditionally had the tool
00:36:32.880 to deal with that.
00:36:33.620 They were allowed
00:36:34.120 to step in
00:36:34.820 in the middle of
00:36:35.400 or at the beginning
00:36:35.920 of a proceeding
00:36:36.480 and give a directive
00:36:37.680 one way or the other.
00:36:38.880 And we were trusting
00:36:40.440 the bench
00:36:41.000 to deal with the issues
00:36:42.160 that come before them
00:36:43.040 as they come.
00:36:44.260 But now,
00:36:44.920 with a directive
00:36:45.600 from on high,
00:36:47.040 you're requiring
00:36:47.820 all courts
00:36:48.520 to start the proceeding
00:36:49.660 in this way.
00:36:50.580 And I mean,
00:36:51.240 it's obvious
00:36:51.880 why that's going
00:36:52.540 to be an issue.
00:36:53.620 But more than that,
00:36:54.560 like I said,
00:36:55.040 it shows a lack
00:36:55.940 of confidence
00:36:56.680 in the bench
00:36:58.220 to be able
00:36:59.020 to deal with these issues
00:36:59.920 delicately and appropriately
00:37:01.040 and respectfully
00:37:01.780 as they arise.
00:37:03.500 Yeah,
00:37:03.940 and beyond that,
00:37:04.820 going back to
00:37:05.580 the yanking
00:37:06.440 of this column,
00:37:07.980 it shows an inability
00:37:09.120 or an unwillingness
00:37:10.100 for people to entertain
00:37:11.660 that,
00:37:12.000 hey,
00:37:12.260 when something like this
00:37:13.480 is coming
00:37:13.980 in the context
00:37:14.820 of a social
00:37:15.760 or political debate,
00:37:17.300 you should be able
00:37:18.760 to hash that out
00:37:19.880 and not have one side
00:37:21.260 just summarily censored
00:37:22.760 by the other.
00:37:24.180 Well,
00:37:24.680 you would hope so.
00:37:25.460 You would think
00:37:25.860 that the law
00:37:26.320 would be the last bastion
00:37:27.540 of freedom of speech,
00:37:29.880 freedom of conscience.
00:37:31.220 You'd think
00:37:31.780 that we would continue
00:37:33.380 to be that bulwark
00:37:35.360 against the state encroachment
00:37:37.540 on our rights.
00:37:38.320 But unfortunately,
00:37:39.280 like I said,
00:37:39.760 the legal profession
00:37:40.460 is not immune
00:37:41.220 to what we see happening
00:37:42.580 in wider society.
00:37:43.740 And there is
00:37:44.120 an increasingly illiberal,
00:37:46.000 I would almost say
00:37:46.780 authoritarian perspective.
00:37:49.700 And it is happening
00:37:51.100 within the law
00:37:51.860 and it's happening
00:37:52.420 as we just saw
00:37:53.400 in that joint letter
00:37:54.320 across all levels
00:37:55.760 of the profession
00:37:56.420 and right up
00:37:57.400 into the highest towers
00:37:58.820 in law firms.
00:38:01.420 D. Jared Brown
00:38:02.740 is a lawyer
00:38:03.720 with Brown Litigation
00:38:04.760 and also a bencher
00:38:05.720 with the Law Society
00:38:06.800 of Ontario.
00:38:07.740 Jared,
00:38:08.000 thanks so much
00:38:08.440 for coming on today.
00:38:09.240 Great chatting with you.
00:38:10.260 Thanks for having me,
00:38:10.920 Andrew.
00:38:12.060 That was lawyer
00:38:13.340 Jared Brown.
00:38:14.420 And that does it for us
00:38:15.620 for today's edition
00:38:16.700 of the Andrew Lawton Show.
00:38:17.940 But speaking of censorship,
00:38:19.720 I got to put in a plug
00:38:20.840 for a panel
00:38:21.720 I'm hosting
00:38:22.320 tomorrow evening,
00:38:23.440 Wednesday night
00:38:24.200 at 7 p.m.
00:38:25.500 Eastern time.
00:38:26.260 It's presented by
00:38:27.020 True North
00:38:27.520 in partnership
00:38:28.160 with Civitas Canada.
00:38:30.160 A panel on
00:38:30.960 big tech censorship
00:38:31.860 called Purged.
00:38:33.320 I'm going to be
00:38:33.980 moderating it
00:38:34.660 and we've got
00:38:35.140 an absolutely fantastic
00:38:36.580 array of guests
00:38:37.320 from Bruce Party
00:38:38.140 to Kelly Jane Torrance
00:38:39.760 of the New York Post
00:38:40.580 to Robbie Suave
00:38:41.780 of Reason Magazine.
00:38:43.300 Some great perspectives
00:38:44.140 on big tech censorship
00:38:45.640 and how we can combat it
00:38:47.720 from the classical
00:38:48.920 liberal perspective,
00:38:49.940 the libertarian perspective,
00:38:51.260 the conservative perspective.
00:38:52.880 And if you're a
00:38:53.540 True North Club member,
00:38:55.200 you can actually
00:38:56.040 submit questions
00:38:56.900 ahead of time
00:38:57.400 that we may read
00:38:58.100 and there's information
00:38:59.220 available at
00:39:00.260 TNC.news.
00:39:01.800 So we'll see you
00:39:02.400 tomorrow night
00:39:02.880 and with another episode
00:39:03.940 of the Andrew Lawton Show,
00:39:04.920 we'll see you Thursday.
00:39:05.960 Thank you,
00:39:06.460 God bless,
00:39:06.940 and good day to you all.
00:39:07.820 Thanks for listening
00:39:08.840 to the Andrew Lawton Show.
00:39:10.360 Support the program
00:39:11.080 by donating to True North
00:39:12.320 at www.tnc.news.