EXPOSED: Carney's Phony Pipeline Story | Stand on Guard
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
148.28099
Summary
In this episode of Stand on Guard, we have a great drama unfolding in the House of Commons and Bill C9 is back in committee in committee. We also have a clip from Piers Morgan's interview with the woman in the UK who was arrested by 11 cops for a private text message sent to a woman who was having a bath.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
police officers charging into your home as you're having a bath it was very very frightening i
00:00:06.100
probably like i've had nightmares and everything about it and like i'm i've got i've got cameras
00:00:11.320
on my house and stuff i'll keep them on and make sure the doors are always locked now because it's
00:00:14.800
not even the public that anyone needs to be scared of these days it's it's the police
00:00:18.500
welcome back to another episode of stand on guard and of course we'll be watching that interview
00:00:25.840
again later in the show when i come back i'll let you know what else is happening
00:00:30.940
the prime minister lied and his minions continue to your home is your castle we're calling on the
00:00:44.700
government to introduce and immediately pass the stand on guard law
00:00:55.100
we'll do it live okay no we'll do it live i can i'll write it and we'll do it live
00:01:07.860
welcome back to another episode of stand on guard i'm your host david kraidman i'm broadcasting to
00:01:17.200
you today live from very snowy ottawa hope you're having a good december christmas coming
00:01:24.700
the goose is getting fat please put a penny in this old guy's hat and we'll be advertising the
00:01:33.180
merchandise later i hope we have some great christmas gifts for you there so what are we
00:01:39.000
talking about today well there's a great drama going on two-fold drama going on in the house
00:01:45.340
of commons today well let's say the parliament buildings because of course there's a vote today
00:01:51.380
on a conservative motion to support a pipeline through alberta to the west coast to the pacific
00:02:00.180
ocean through british columbia this of course is part of the memorandum of understanding between
00:02:07.080
prime minister mark carney and alberta premier daniel smith which both of them have been crowing
00:02:13.700
about for the last two weeks this was absolutely seminal this was monumental this was ground
00:02:21.700
breaking earth shattering and pure poly of has never bought it he never really has bought the
00:02:30.600
idea that mark carney wants a pipeline built whether it's fully funded by the private sector
00:02:37.580
or not because every time a conservative asks a question about the pipeline
00:02:44.960
mark carney is very loathe to get up and support it he usually has his environment minister
00:02:51.560
stand up or his natural resources minister stand up and talk about how it's going to be great for
00:02:57.340
climate change so i think this is a brilliant move by pure poly to demand the liberals put their policy
00:03:09.820
where their mouth is their big mouth is and we'll see what happens the other drama unfolding of course
00:03:15.740
is bill c9 last i heard it's on again in committee and as i said at the very beginning you saw that
00:03:24.000
little clip from piers morgan uncensored i think it's more like piers morgan self-centered at times
00:03:29.860
but that we're going to show you that again today by popular demand because people are saying i can't
00:03:35.360
believe this is happening in uk and if bills like c9 and the resuscitated online harms act which i keep
00:03:42.320
saying is probably going to be called the online safety act bills like that are going to strangle
00:03:47.760
freedom of speech in canada and if we can get this c9 stopped and if we can continue to build a
00:03:57.740
coalition between those on the right and the left conservatives liberals socialists if we have to
00:04:03.580
whatever whoever really values free speech get on board and fight get on board and fight and join the
00:04:12.040
petition and we'll have more about that later because we've got to stop c9 we stop c9 we got a better
00:04:18.860
chance of never seeing a revived online harms act that's that's exactly where we are so we'll be
00:04:28.520
discussing c9 and a little little later in the show and i got it i've got a clip for you from katie
00:04:35.220
sydney who of course is continuing to fight for justice for what happened on her farm and
00:04:44.200
hope you enjoy that and will also as i said be showing you this
00:04:51.540
10 minute now but a nine minute clip with piers morgan and the woman in the uk who was arrested by
00:04:59.720
11 cops for a private text message it's incredible so without further ado here's what happened
00:05:06.720
if they want to combat their own cost of liberating crisis the liberals would focus on approving
00:05:13.780
pipelines that would sell more oil boost our canadian dollars so canadian's going to buy affordable food
00:05:20.180
and homes in fact there was such a pipeline the northern gateway liberals killed it in a
00:05:25.380
2016 cabinet decision a decision the prime minister supported they further blocked it with a liberal
00:05:31.940
ban on tanker traffic off the northwest bc coast the prime minister claims to have changed his mind
00:05:38.340
in a recent mou so will he been able to change the minds of fellow liberals and vote for his own mou
00:05:44.400
and allow a pipeline to the pacific the honorable minister of natural resources mr speaker it's a sad day
00:05:52.640
because the conservatives are divided the conservative premiers across this country
00:05:57.660
support this mou in its entirety the leader of the opposition is seeking to divide this country
00:06:05.940
and we can see through that cynical tactic the mou is about building a strong country it's about
00:06:12.700
doing it in an environmentally responsible way in partnership with indigenous peoples it would be
00:06:18.120
great if the opposition joined all the other conservatives and all of us in building this
00:06:23.620
country strong the honorable leader of the opposition that's exactly what we're trying to do in the spirit
00:06:32.400
of christmas i decided to take a great act of generosity and lift the words right out of the prime
00:06:40.440
minister's mou in order to support a pipeline to the pacific and a repeal or an overriding of the liberal
00:06:49.900
tanker ban now of course it would mean liberals would have to admit they were wrong admit they were
00:06:55.820
wrong to block that pipeline they were wrong about the tanker ban will in the spirit of christmas
00:07:01.820
liberals admit they were wrong vote for their own wording approve a pipeline and get rid of the tanker ban
00:07:07.440
the honorable minister of natalie weasley mr speaker the spirit of christmas i'd invite the leader of
00:07:14.440
the opposition not to cherry pick parts of the mou but to support the entire mou which is what all of
00:07:22.940
the conservative premiers across this country are doing which is what this side is doing it's how we
00:07:28.040
will build some stop being cynical and build the build this country with us the honorable leader of the
00:07:34.780
opposition i think the only division here is that the prime minister is divided against himself
00:07:42.040
the prime minister opposed the pipeline to the pacific now he claims he supports it he supported
00:07:50.420
the tanker ban now he claims he opposed it mr speaker this is the prime minister who said he
00:07:55.980
wanted to keep half of our oil in the ground and now he changes it pretends to have changed his mind
00:08:01.340
he signed an mou he says one thing in bc the opposite in alberta and here in the house of
00:08:08.000
commons he hides under his desk why don't the prime minister stand up take a position and announce that
00:08:13.780
he's voting in favor of his mou language to build a pipeline well as it turned out and we'll watch a bit
00:08:27.500
of this interview carny government to vote against the conservative motion on pipeline 7 well well well
00:08:32.880
what a surprise and of course they're saying it's got nothing to do with their support for a pipeline
00:08:39.260
there just wasn't in enough in that motion about climate change and about the carbon the industrial
00:08:49.540
carbon tax and about alberta adhering to all of this so but this is all a cop-out this is tremendous
00:08:58.000
cop-out from the carney government i think it is highly indicative of how mark carney really feels
00:09:05.440
about this let's watch a bit of this interview with andrew sheer conservative house leader saskatchewan
00:09:12.880
in the with bassy capellis and i i realize bassy has a host of publicists out there unofficial or
00:09:21.400
unpaid i hope they're unpaid publicists who just think every time she interviews anybody she's doing
00:09:27.140
a masterful job i think she misses the point here actually with this interview with andrew sheer
00:09:33.620
because she keeps saying the mou is highly specific
00:09:37.680
and i think sheer actually proves her wrong again pleasure in welcoming you back to the studio um
00:09:45.800
when premier danielle smith signed this mou with the prime minister she said quote it's a great day
00:09:50.780
for alberta and canada are you saying the premier's wrong well we just don't believe that uh provincial
00:09:56.140
government should have to sign on to something like an increase in the carbon tax a conservative
00:09:59.760
government would not impose that type of condition on uh on a province uh we're pro-energy we we we don't
00:10:06.000
believe that uh that the government should make it harder to get things built we think the government
00:10:10.160
should make it easier to get things built set the rules and make it apply to everybody so what
00:10:13.840
we're saying is that two things one there's a there are conditions in this bill that aren't
00:10:18.320
necessary for the construction of a pipeline and the second thing is we don't believe mark
00:10:23.280
currently is actually serious about getting it done because he's got this very complex and
00:10:26.800
complicated mou with lots of conditions and then he immediately goes out and says these are
00:10:31.440
necessary but not sufficient meaning that even if the government of alberta clears all these
00:10:35.920
hoops and hurdles that he still might say no he said the british columbia premier gets a veto
00:10:40.640
and uh and now we're hearing uh rumors today that they're going to vote against their own mou
00:10:45.200
tomorrow in a conservative motion so that's why we're saying that this mou is is uh is not great
00:10:52.240
we believe that the federal government should be partners in prosperity helping provinces get to yes
00:10:56.720
it's not saying one thing in alberta something completely different in ottawa a couple of different
00:11:00.160
things so i didn't hear uh unequivocally that bc from the prime minister has a veto he's certainly
00:11:05.760
talked about bc needing to agree but i've asked his ministers on multiple occasions because of what
00:11:10.640
your party has brought up does that mean that there is effectively not even constitutional but
00:11:14.880
effectively a veto and everyone i have asked has said no that's not the case second of all what you
00:11:19.680
what your party seems to be inferring by putting this motion forward is that there is ambiguity right
00:11:24.240
a lot of ambiguity within the mou again i'll put to you the premier doesn't seem to indicate at any
00:11:29.200
juncture that that's the case and even when you read through the text like i would have guessed also that
00:11:33.360
it would be ambiguous to allow for multiple different possibilities but it is incredibly
00:11:38.080
specific construction of one or more private sector constructed and financed pipelines with
00:11:42.240
the route that increases export access to asian markets as a priority it is agreed this pipeline
00:11:46.640
would be in addition to the expansion of the tmx pipeline like that is not ambiguous well you are
00:11:51.920
right about the the uh deliberately misleading canadians on on on terms and you you talked about the veto
00:11:58.720
mark carney is getting famous for this by the way saying something and then contradicting himself in
00:12:03.520
the next sentence so when you say that a premier has to agree for it to proceed that's a veto i mean
00:12:09.520
you can say you can call it something else you can say uh you're trying to dance around the language but
00:12:14.000
if at the end of the day david abe refuses to approve refuses to sign off mark carney is saying that
00:12:19.440
his approval is necessary so if if that in fact blocks the the the the pipeline from going ahead then
00:12:26.000
he's effectively got a veto i don't think canadians want to play semantics about
00:12:29.840
word definition i mean i i love going into word origins and things like that but uh canadians
00:12:34.160
want clarity they want certainty and if you look at the entire mou there's a whole lot of conditions
00:12:39.520
on there that conservatives would never impose on the people of alberta or the government of alberta
00:12:43.440
and he immediately comes to ottawa and says even i think andrew shear is making a very good point
00:12:49.440
here because this is a question of having it both ways if you say bc must agree well you might not
00:13:00.560
want to call that a veto maybe it's not a veto in law but it effectively amounts to a veto
00:13:11.040
so they want it both ways no bc doesn't have a veto yes bc must agree to the project
00:13:16.400
because this is the sort of double talk the carney government is so adept if even if the government
00:13:23.840
does all this even if the government alberta does all this he says it's not sufficient he might it
00:13:28.960
still might not go ahead and then we hear you know liberal mp saying that it'll never get built so
00:13:35.520
what our motion is attempting to do tomorrow is to provide that clarity give liberals an opportunity
00:13:40.080
to vote for their own mou we've lifted language right from the mou if they vote in favor then that
00:13:45.440
would send a signal that uh that they're at least going to back up uh what they sign on to if they
00:13:50.560
vote against it or if half their caucus votes against it it's going to be sending a very
00:13:53.600
different message to canadians and what we're trying to show canadians is that mark carney has
00:13:57.120
spent his entire life fighting against energy development he wrote a book called values where
00:14:01.280
he defined himself as a human being and talked about you know the need for higher carbon taxes and
00:14:07.040
leaving up to 50 of canada's natural resources in the ground so he's trying to reinvent himself and
00:14:13.440
and turn him into something that he just has never been and our the motion tomorrow is an attempt to
00:14:18.240
provide canadians clarity about who mark carney really is but is it an attempt to be political
00:14:23.680
because it is an issue that you know that their party doesn't fully agree on and to exacerbate
00:14:28.640
those differences when ultimately the prime minister did sign this mou right like i take your point on
00:14:33.920
things he said in the past i certainly have questioned him about that but he has gone further than i can
00:14:38.800
remember any federal level going in putting down in paper in very explicit and specific terms
00:14:44.320
exactly what this pipeline would look like where it would go how much extra oil beyond what exists
00:14:49.280
right now in the capacity to export uh it would entail like again this is not ambiguous he is signing
00:14:55.120
his name to it well if you look at everything that's happened since the mou was signed there's a
00:15:00.320
lot of ambiguity and uh if mark carney had to come out sign this mou and said i look forward to the
00:15:05.200
day shovels in the ground and i support pipelines he still hasn't even said that mark carney still
00:15:09.040
hasn't even said that he he would like to see this proceed he just says that these are conditions
00:15:13.200
that are necessary but not sufficient that's a very clever liberal politician phrase to basically
00:15:19.360
say two things at the same time that uh it might happen if you do this but it might not happen even
00:15:24.240
if you do all that it's just incredibly confusing if the liberals had to come out of this mou
00:15:28.320
signing with clarity with full-throated support for the men and women who work in canada's
00:15:34.000
energy sector excited about the uh the prospects about opening up asian markets to canadian energy
00:15:39.920
uh we'd probably be debating a different motion tomorrow but the fact that you've got liberal
00:15:43.520
ministers saying something completely different than what the prime minister said when he was in
00:15:46.800
alberta the fact that doesn't your caucus not agree on everything like isn't that a part of a
00:15:51.600
democracy like there's not not everyone is going to feel the exact same way ultimately it's the
00:15:54.960
person in power is going to decide the direction of the party in the government but even mark carney
00:15:58.480
and cabinet can't even provide that assurance to canadians that if the government of alberta
00:16:02.960
succeeds in meeting all the clearing all these new hoops and hurdles and all this new uh the new
00:16:07.200
conditions that they've imposed they still can't even clearly say whether or not a pipeline will
00:16:11.520
actually get that's what the mou does say yes but but they've they've contradicted themselves
00:16:14.960
immediately afterwards that's the point they they haven't been able to clearly even stand behind
00:16:18.960
their own mou the ink wasn't even it still isn't dry yet and you've got senior liberals talking it down
00:16:25.120
senior liberals saying it'll never get built so this is an opportunity for for parliament and for the
00:16:29.840
house of commons for every mp to clearly stake out where they are don davies and the ndp very clear
00:16:34.560
they're against pipelines conservatives very clear we support our energy sector and want to see canada
00:16:38.720
develop it more and get off of the dependence of the us market mark carney the liberals try to say
00:16:43.440
two things at the same time one thing in alberta something completely different ottawa we just want
00:16:47.120
some clarity so that canadians can hold this government to account there's enough clear
00:16:50.720
i think andrew cheer stated the case excellently in that interview and i i don't think bass is
00:17:00.400
getting the point this is clearly they're they're playing both sides of the street liberals love to do
00:17:06.240
that before we get back to the farm here i want to show you this is very very disturbing and this is
00:17:15.360
what happens when relations between canada and the u.s deteriorate to the extent that they have
00:17:24.400
and donald trump is now talking for on a for a tariff on potash and any kind of food war is bad for
00:17:35.600
not just business but it's bad for the national health and and the consequences can be far-reaching let's
00:17:42.800
listen thank you so you you talked about the profitability issue the machinery playing a
00:17:48.320
role in that fertilizer plays another role now a lot of that way i understand it it comes in from
00:17:54.160
canada different countries like that what are we doing to bolster domestic fertilizer production to
00:17:58.720
help make that more affordable and then i think that will transition one of the things a lot of it does
00:18:03.920
come in from canada and so we'll end up putting very severe tariffs on that if we have to
00:18:09.920
uh because uh that's the way you want to bolster here and we can do it here we we can all do that
00:18:16.160
here but i would say what you do you put very severe tariffs on from coming into other countries
00:18:22.240
you'll be making your own fertilizer in fact secretary bergam
00:18:28.640
yeah very very dangerous president even joe biden he was president didn't start putting tariffs even on
00:18:35.760
russian fertilizer at the height of the acrimony over the war in ukraine even joe biden didn't put
00:18:42.640
tariffs on fertilizer coming from russia and never considered it for canada putting a tariff on something
00:18:50.080
doesn't automatically make everything better does the united states even have sufficient potash reserves
00:18:57.280
for the agricultural sector remember the united states is still number one in agriculture
00:19:09.680
colonel uh on on recently to talk about sorry name we he talked about the fact the united states is number
00:19:19.360
one in two things now it's number one in agriculture number one in armament sales
00:19:26.800
and if you erode either of those it gets very upset so i don't i'm not sure
00:19:30.880
that the united states is even able to furnish adequate potash or fertilizer for the agriculture
00:19:42.720
sector which is uh which is massive massive huge long growing season in the united states and
00:19:50.960
that's that's very important now before we get to the rest of the news today i want to show you
00:32:21.520
think think before you share well that means self-censorship that's what that is
00:32:35.600
and you know this is clearly a psyop directed at every one of us and that's
00:32:46.800
you know that is exactly what this is about so these are not easy times for the carney government
00:32:56.800
but mark carney really doesn't seem to care remember who cares who cares and
00:33:05.440
so i want to applaud the good work of people like andrew lawton uh
00:33:09.440
michelle rempel garner and dr leslin lewis who has also done some great work exposing
00:33:21.440
the potential well and the obvious hazards of mark carney's censorship and surveillance bills
00:33:37.120
this video again because if you missed it yesterday you will not believe what's going on here
00:33:45.840
because this is absolutely frightening absolutely frightening we're gonna we're gonna put that on
00:33:52.960
right now thank you again pleasure welcoming you back to the studio um when premier danielle smith
00:34:01.360
signed this mou with the prime minister she said quote it's a great day let's try again police
00:34:07.680
officers turned up yeah they basically said you had committed a hate crime by using that f word
00:34:15.200
in a private text message i was in also shock if the state can pry on our private conversations that
00:34:22.320
really does take us into orwellian territory you well we'll talk about the f word again shortly with
00:34:27.440
my panel who are standing by but tucker carson's claim that i could be arrested the same for saying
00:34:32.800
it was based on a real story he'd read in the daily mail a nursing home worker been arrested and
00:34:37.600
convicted he said for using that word in text messages about a man she claims had assaulted her
00:34:42.720
as i said in the interview it sounded utterly ridiculous ladies in a string of examples of an
00:34:47.440
assault on free speech in the uk but i hadn't actually read the story and i said i'd look into it
00:34:52.160
afterwards that's exactly what i did and i'm pleased to say that elizabeth kinney the mother
00:34:56.240
of four who was convicted over her text messages joins me in the studio now elizabeth uh thank you
00:35:02.240
for coming in and uh joining us today for this debate just first of all just to clear up exactly
00:35:08.080
what happened to you explain to me and the viewers and i should mention because we made sure
00:35:15.920
we did not put the word in here because it leads to potential problems
00:35:22.720
but the word she used in a private text message was f-a-g-g-o-t which a lot of people have pointed
00:35:29.840
out to me the short term of that f-a-g still refers to a cigarette in the united kingdom
00:35:39.200
and in fact i had a when i first started journalism
00:35:46.160
he used to say i had a a fellow editor where i first started out and he he was a well-seasoned
00:35:56.240
journalist originally from great britain and settled in canada and seen it all
00:36:01.520
and he used to like to say i'm dying for an f-a-g usually about 10 o'clock in the morning so
00:36:10.080
i just put that out for your your interest what went down i was assaulted by a male acquaintance
00:36:19.440
um and physically or sexually physically physically physically and it wasn't my ex-partner it was a
00:36:26.720
friend like a group of friends and the female acquaintance that basically she basically was
00:36:36.400
getting jealous over me because she started seeing my ex-partner and so she was trying to cause trouble
00:36:42.720
for me which ended up resulting in me getting attacked and after that um obviously i went to
00:36:50.480
the hospital and i sent her messages and pictures of me injuries and just to prove like
00:36:57.120
what what basically what she'd caused and and obviously i was very upset at the time and i'd had a
00:37:05.280
um like inflammation on me on my brain and i had a skull fracture which made me not really feel
00:37:14.080
like myself at the time i was very upset and i i was very like angry with what had happened to me which
00:37:21.280
made me like say a messages that i really wouldn't have said so you sent her a load of messages i mean
00:37:29.200
would you categorize them as abusive highly abusive it was more just to the to point into the fact that
00:37:36.640
what had happened to me i only just sent her pictures of my injuries
00:37:40.960
and um and and obviously said like why would you cause this much trouble for me and stuff and
00:37:47.200
make up lies and like which now resulted in me being attacked and um she then reported you
00:37:54.160
yeah for what she said were harassing messages yeah i only it was a five minute period of time
00:38:01.520
when i just how did you feel when you when the police contacted you well i was shocked i didn't
00:38:06.000
i didn't expect that i mean because these are private text messages throughout my life i've had
00:38:11.200
messages with my friends and we've fallen out we've said things that aren't very nice to each other but
00:38:15.120
you would never really expect that to to go any further than that i've heard 11 police officers
00:38:19.680
turned up yeah i mean that's completely ridiculous yeah i'd left my front door open and i was waiting
00:38:25.120
for my dad to come to the house and i was actually in the bath and 11 they opened the door themselves
00:38:31.680
and just came in and came and you're in the bath yeah and what do they say to you well i heard
00:38:38.800
i mean are you this this is just so incredible not only these private text messages why would you send
00:38:44.880
11 11 cops to a woman's house who has apparently all she's done is is use a word you object to in a
00:38:56.480
private text message and you you walk through her front door uninvited just because your front door is
00:39:07.680
they've not then they go upstairs to the bathroom all in crowd into the bathroom one only one of the
00:39:17.760
cops is a female the rest the rest the 10 of them are male cops who apparently are really enjoying this
00:39:27.040
i find this incredible just incredible my name which was one female out of the lot of them 10
00:39:34.000
male officers yeah um and then i heard my name and i thought oh it might be my sister because it
00:39:38.800
didn't sound like someone who was because obviously i was upstairs in the bath um and then then they
00:39:44.960
just come up the stairs and they didn't give me any privacy or anything like you were naked yes
00:39:50.560
how did that make you feel disgusted i'm really obsessed i was crying my eyes out and what did they
00:39:56.880
say to you what did they say they were there for um well i was just asking them can they can they
00:40:02.160
just leave the female officer and can they please go downstairs as um obviously i was upset and i
00:40:07.840
didn't i had no clothes on and he kind of wanted to watch me get changed and and i was very upset about
00:40:13.760
that and in the end they did send the males down the stairs and the female officer sat with me and
00:40:19.840
one i was crying my eyes i was really upset and then i said what what he is even here for because
00:40:24.960
i was you know if 11 cops walked into my bathroom when i was having a shower i think i'd be a little
00:40:33.120
upset too i mean it's just this is absolutely so outrageous it's beyond the pale and the fact
00:40:44.400
she had she actually had to negotiate to get these buggers out of her bathroom is incredible to me
00:40:51.040
and who committed the crime in this instance i ask you that who committed the crime somebody with a
00:41:03.040
private text message that's none of their damn business or or 10 gawkers who came in the bathroom
00:41:12.560
because that to me amounts to sexual harassment at the very least i was shocked i was in
00:41:20.880
utter shock and she said um for malicious communications and hate crime and malicious
00:41:28.000
communications and i said what for and um she's obviously they said we'll discuss that when we get
00:41:33.120
to the basically to the police station you go to the station and then they outline that it's these
00:41:38.960
messages you sent to this yeah uh friend that you've had this argument with um all connected to
00:41:45.840
the fact that you yourself as you say have been assaulted um i'm not going to get into that so
00:41:51.760
much as one of the more inflammatory things about this whole story which tucker carson picked up on
00:41:58.160
was in the course of these text messages you use the f word and we've already said what that word is he
00:42:04.400
repeated it many times i choose not to say it you can do what you like um but that word did you intend it
00:42:12.160
in the messages to be a derogatory homophobic slur absolutely because that is that is the alleged crime
00:42:20.720
is that you were promoting hate towards gay people by using that word first of all a lot of my friends
00:42:28.320
are gay i have got i am not homophobic in any way shape or form the words in question is a word that
00:42:38.960
in where we in our town where we live we associate that word with somebody who
00:42:44.640
were mainly males who hit females like it's never a word for a sexuality it's always a word
00:42:52.400
where we live in our context as in like basically a weak person for instance my brother's best friend
00:43:00.320
got sent off the pitch in football last week because one of the guys fell over and you know
00:43:04.880
he called he called him that name but it was just a joke but he got sent and this of course
00:43:10.960
is precisely why so-called malicious communication or hate speech or however you want to describe it
00:43:20.000
this is why it's flawed because hatred is in the ear and the eye of the beholder
00:43:27.360
this woman didn't wasn't even using this word in the context that many of us might think of it
00:43:36.400
she had her own reasons for using that word but yet the government has declared well that's a hateful
00:43:43.680
word therefore you should be charged for using expressing that word this is so anathema
00:43:52.000
the freedom of expression let common sense rule not
00:44:01.520
unwise laws and we'll get on with it it's off the pitch because but but in our context like
00:44:09.120
it just means like you've got a heavier i mean in the end you pleaded guilty first of all why did you
00:44:13.280
plead guilty man my solicitor told me to right and i've never been in trouble before and i i was really
00:44:19.120
concerned about you had no criminal record no because the malicious communications offenses which
00:44:24.640
is under which you were you were prosecuted such as sending grossly offensive messages can receive a
00:44:30.000
hate crime sentence uplift if motivated by hostility towards a protected characteristic like race religion
00:44:37.680
sexual orientation or disability so you got an uplifted sentence they they basically said you had
00:44:45.200
committed a hate crime by using that f word yeah which given that you had no intent to be homophobic
00:44:54.320
with it for the reasons you've outlined just seems preposterous yeah in a private text message to
00:44:59.680
somebody i didn't even say to the person who you were angry with because you had been assaulted yes
00:45:05.920
has anything happened about the assault when i was in the hospital and the police were called by the
00:45:11.600
doctors and nurses and everyone in question um were arrested at that given point and then i end up
00:45:21.600
getting arrested a week after that and what's happened with the no one ever came back to me to
00:45:27.280
discuss that no one wanted statements from me they were just obviously more it seemed like there's been
00:45:32.880
so the fact you're assaulted was deemed to be less serious it would appear than the fact you'd use this
00:45:39.760
f word in communication private communication with this woman you'd had a falling out with yeah
00:45:44.960
what do you feel about that very very disheartened and upset it's it's destroyed my character as a
00:45:52.000
person i've been a care assistant since i was 17 and i want to be a nurse i like helping people i want to
00:45:58.640
save people's lives i have got a good character as as um obviously i'm still working in my post now
00:46:05.440
my managers haven't let me go for the reason being they know me as a person they stood by you
00:46:10.800
they've got i've got everyone's got my back in this what reaction have you had from the community
00:46:16.000
everyone's having me back and everyone's been so supportive i mean i've not heard one bad word said
00:46:21.200
about about this whole that everyone's just just as disgusted as i am how far it's gone i didn't even
00:46:27.840
know it could be a crime so in a private message neither did i use language like that neither did
00:46:33.760
i what do you think it says about free speech in this country um well it's not as heavy as it is in
00:46:40.400
america but i believe that actually it's better in america yeah this would never have happened in
00:46:47.200
america yeah their their first amendment protects your right to be offensive if you want to be yeah you're
00:46:53.200
not you know it's one thing if you came in and said i said all these things and i stand by it and
00:46:57.840
i i wanted to be homophobic that's one thing but you clearly you had a you know you were angry because
00:47:02.800
of what had happened to you you were in a hospital getting treatment for injuries sustained in what
00:47:07.920
you say was an attack and i don't know obviously about that side of it but i'll take your word for
00:47:12.560
it um and then you have 11 police officers charging into your home as you're having a bath it was very
00:47:21.200
very frightening i'll probably like i've had nightmares and everything about it and like i'm
00:47:26.640
i've got i've got cameras on my house and stuff i'll keep them on and make sure the doors are always
00:47:30.560
locked now because it's not even the public that anyone needs to be scared of these days it's it's the
00:47:34.720
police did you it's the police you need to be afraid of and that's how it's getting in canada
00:47:45.200
ask katie who were they afraid of at the farm it was the cfia and the cops want to share something
00:47:56.320
with you here from my good friend nico logan who i guessed on his wednesday night show every week
00:48:03.920
the conservative corner we have a great conversation encourage you to watch that 6 30
00:48:08.000
p.m eastern time wednesday nights we'll be there again i want to show you this
00:49:35.200
and we'd find it one of these days they're they're criminalizing an emotion intense dislike
00:49:49.200
what are the biggest issues with bill c9 the first problem is that there's already a problem in the
00:49:55.040
criminal code bill c9 makes things worse and that is the existing provision that prohibits hate
00:50:01.040
speech 319 subsection 2 everyone who by communicating statements other than in private conversation
00:50:08.320
willfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of an offense but what is not in
00:50:13.840
there right now in the criminal code is a definition of what hatred is and that's one of the things that
00:50:18.480
bill c9 is providing hatred means the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is
00:50:26.240
stronger than disdain or dislike the emotion that involves detestation is now prohibited but the emotion
00:50:35.040
that is mere dislike is not prohibited but what does detestation mean if you look it up one of the ways
00:50:41.680
detestation is described is intense dislike intense dislike is criminal but mere dislike
00:50:50.000
is not so where is the line between intense dislike and mere dislike nobody knows that they're
00:50:56.480
criminalizing an emotion criminal offenses typically have two different kinds of elements
00:51:01.920
things that the prosecution must prove number one is the act you know did you do the thing and
00:51:06.160
the second is the intent you know did you intend to do the thing this is a third thing not act it's
00:51:10.960
not intent it's emotion emotions have no place in the criminal law what they are essentially doing
00:51:16.320
is saying this two acts that are both wrong if one of them is committed with the emotion of hatred
00:51:22.960
that one is worse than the other one so let me give you two examples let's say somebody attacks you on
00:51:27.040
the street actually you you're having a bad day you get attacked twice the first is an attack by a guy
00:51:32.560
who attacked you for no reason at all just because you were there doesn't know you doesn't care what
00:51:37.120
you are the second situation you got attacked again by somebody who looked at you and said i don't
00:51:42.240
like the look of his face or i don't like the color of his face or i don't like his background and so
00:51:46.640
i'm going to attack him in both situations the attacker harmed you to an equal extent question
00:51:51.760
which of those two offenses is worse it should be both equal right because the act was the same in
00:51:56.880
both cases that's my point but not in the law the law now says oh no if you do with hatred
00:52:02.400
in your heart you are a more serious offender than the other guy who couldn't care less that doesn't
00:52:07.200
make any sense there's some others with the idea of you know hatred against identifiable groups and
00:52:11.920
that's because it doesn't really apply to everyone someone were to attack me or my son my 17 year old
00:52:17.600
son who's a white guy that you know white devil or whatever are clearly motivated by that they would
00:52:22.000
not be charged with a hate crime you're exactly right this is a means by which to establish two-tier
00:52:27.520
justice it is a tool in the hands of the state to decide who they prefer be lenient on and who to
00:52:42.320
now that was worth watching i'm going to see if i can get that professor on the show because i i'm in
00:52:50.320
total sync we don't need hate crime legislation we don't need hate speech legislation it should all be
00:52:56.400
eradicated from the criminal code it's dangerous it's counterproductive it is completely fraudulent
00:53:03.280
in its design and it's completely toxic in its delivery and we need to get rid of it if we have
00:53:12.160
any vestige of freedom left in this country you know i think of this there's a great line
00:53:19.680
in the movie gods and generals and the confederate general stonewall jackson talks about the consequences
00:53:29.120
of losing the war between the states the civil war and he says if the if the north loses this little war
00:53:37.280
they'll just return to their factories and their banks like nothing ever happened he says if we lose this
00:53:46.160
war we lose everything and that is exactly where we are in canada right now if we lose this fight
00:53:55.040
for our freedom of speech let me tell you folks it doesn't matter what's in this budget it doesn't matter
00:54:04.800
how long mark carney can survive as prime minister it doesn't even matter
00:54:16.800
if sean fraser continues to be attorney general for the next six months or a year we lose everything
00:54:22.560
foundational to our democracy if we lose our freedom of speech and we are on the precipice of doing that
00:54:28.560
i cannot overemphasize this enough that's not a little redundant i cannot overemphasize the need
00:54:38.080
to keep fighting back and we're going to be doing that every day on this show
00:54:46.080
thank you so much for watching today i'll be back again tomorrow hopefully at the same time 10 10 o'clock i'm
00:54:51.600
trying to get back to a a regular 10 o'clock slot here and like i say we'll be we'll be talking to katie
00:55:00.320
to sit in there later today about her recent experiences thank you for watching god bless you all
00:55:07.040
thank you for sharing this station with your friends and family thank you for hitting that like
00:55:25.120
button because i tell you we have we are fighting back in a way i've never had to before because i'm
00:55:32.560
going to keep this station on the air i'm going to keep fighting for freedom i'm going to keep
00:55:36.720
fighting for justice and truth and i am damn determined to resist this carny government in any
00:55:45.120
way possible as it encroaches upon our individual freedom and it will continue to do that mark my words
00:55:52.960
i'll be back again tomorrow same time same place 10 a.m this has been david creighton
00:56:02.560
broadcasting live from our nation's capital in ottawa thank you for watching we'll see you again