Juno News - Variable Variants

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 0.99

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 0.99

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 1.00

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 0.61

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 0.57

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, 0.96

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 0.64

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 0.79

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 0.88

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 0.98

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 0.69

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 0.84

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 0.99

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 0.92

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.

Juno News - February 09, 2021

Variable Variants

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript