The Critical Compass Podcast - John Carpay & the JCCF's Mission to Save Freedom of Speech in Canada

00:00:00.000 It's a chilling effect that makes it hard to engage in open, honest, healthy debate because it's, it's possible if depending on how the, depending on the wording of the law, the wording of the law might allow somebody to say that, uh, there's only 37, uh, uh, bodies of, of murder children that are buried there and not 215.

00:00:26.340 And so you got this great freedom to go ahead and make the argument for 37, but even if the law is worded in such a way that you can get away with, uh, saying 37 bodies instead of 215 bodies is still a chilling effect.

00:00:39.620 People are not even gonna say that there's only 37 bodies and they're certainly not gonna feel free to say that it's unlikely that there's any children and argue these arguments have been put forward by people because we, we still have a lot of free speech left in Canada.

00:00:54.660 that there probably aren't any children buried there because there's no children reported missing.

00:01:01.040 Uh, there, there's no complaints of parents on file about, uh, you know, their, their child not coming back home in June or whatever the end of the school year was.

00:01:10.860 So the only way to find out if there's bodies there is to do an excavation.

00:01:14.580 They've received the money.

00:01:15.480 They're not doing an excavation.

00:01:17.140 Well, what does that tell you?

00:01:18.060 Where is their love for truth?

00:01:24.660 Hello, everyone, and welcome back to the Critical Compass.

00:01:38.880 My name is Mike, and this is my co-host James, and we are very happy to be joined today by Mr. John Carpe,

00:01:44.740 a constitutional lawyer and, uh, one of the founders of the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms.

00:01:51.360 Uh, about a 14-year-old institution, uh, uh, Mr. Carpe, before we get into it, why don't you give us a brief, uh, overview, overview of, uh, how you ended up where you are today, how the JCCF did, and, uh, and a little bit about your story.

00:02:07.500 So the Justice Center defends freedom in Canada.

00:02:10.340 We fight, uh, for freedom in the courts of law and in the court of public opinion, in the courts of law in the past, uh, 14, 15 years that we've been in existence, we have fought for and continue to fight for the freedoms of expression, conscience, religion, association, peaceful assembly, mobility, and travel, uh, the right to life, liberty, and security of the person,

00:02:36.340 which includes a right to bodily autonomy, which includes a right to not get pressured or forced or coerced into, uh, a medical treatment that you might not want.

00:02:46.340 So we've gone to bat for the rights of individuals to not get injected with the, uh, COVID vaccine.

00:02:54.340 We have fought for the rights of parents to have, be able to raise and educate their own children as they deem best.

00:03:01.340 Uh, not necessarily as some political activists might deem best.

00:03:06.340 Uh, we're on the front lines of fighting the harms of transgender ideology. 1.00

00:03:12.340 One of our court cases is to defend the rights of women in federal prisons to not be subjected to male inmates who get into women's prisons by claiming to be a woman.

00:03:25.340 Um, we have, uh, we're, we have defended or currently defending Chris Barber, uh, who's co-accused with Tamara Leach, uh, over there.

00:03:35.340 Uh, participation in the peaceful freedom convoy in Ottawa.

00:03:40.340 Uh, we had lawyers on the ground in Ottawa in, uh, February of 2022 to help the truckers and provide legal advice.

00:03:48.340 Uh, the justice center was the only civil liberties group in Canada to call for an end to lockdowns.

00:03:55.340 Uh, other civil liberties groups thought that some of the rules went a bit too far, but they were fundamentally not opposed to the whole lockdowns.

00:04:03.340 The whole lockdowns and, and, and vaccine passports.

00:04:06.340 Uh, so we've grown a lot since, uh, since lockdowns and vaccine passports.

00:04:12.340 And then today we, we are still in the trenches.

00:04:16.340 We've got, uh, nine lawyers in BC, Alberta, uh, Ontario, Quebec taking on cases in, I think every province or maybe we're missing PEI or, you know, but, uh, we, we've got cases all over Canada.

00:04:33.340 Yeah.

00:04:34.340 Amazing.

00:04:35.340 Uh, so what, what I'm hearing is that you're very popular with the liberal, liberal government and media of this country.

00:04:41.340 Oh, the media love me, you know, they just, uh, they just can't write enough positive stories about the justice center and, uh, and John Carpe, especially the CBC.

00:04:51.340 They get the most government money more, more than the other media.

00:04:54.340 So they're, they just love the justice center.

00:04:57.340 Yeah.

00:04:58.340 Yeah.

00:04:59.340 So it seems like you're feeling very much a, uh, a necessary checks and balance against the system.

00:05:07.340 And as we see more and more, as we see this line get pushed, your need, like your, your role expands because there's more things to push back upon.

00:05:19.340 So it makes sense that you have more and more lawyers.

00:05:22.340 Like you've been fairly busy since 2020 because the most egregious examples of this emerged in the last five years.

00:05:30.340 Before that, maybe we had more isolated examples or like on campus, maybe you have some free speech examples, but now these are things that the average person can't ignore.

00:05:43.340 It's very transparent to a lot of people.

00:05:46.340 And we need the, we need these checks and balances.

00:05:49.340 We've had, I would say a gradual decline in respect for the free society in the past 40, 50, 60 years.

00:05:58.340 It used to be pretty obvious in 1945 at the end of world war II, we had just fought a war against Nazi Germany and a fascist Italy, Imperial Japan.

00:06:08.340 We went on to fight and eventually win a cold war with the communists who were in power in the Soviet union.

00:06:15.340 And what all these different regimes had in common is that they did not have freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, parliamentary democracy, an open society, a free society debate on issues, rights of citizens when they are accused of a crime.

00:06:34.340 So a right to, you know, a fair hearing and a right to a lawyer and a right to not have a confession extracted out of you by torture.

00:06:44.340 All of these rights and freedoms, you know, we, in 1945 at the end of world war II, every Canadian of every age understood that the free society is superior to tyranny.

00:06:58.340 Tyranny, whether it's a Nazi tyranny or a communist tyranny or a theocratic tyranny, you know, you've got the exterior coding can be very different.

00:07:09.340 It can be any, any color of the rainbow.

00:07:11.340 Right. But fundamentally you've got tyranny is a disrespect for human rights.

00:07:16.340 And so it used to be that everybody in Canada understood that, but I gradually, uh, because history is not taught in the school system, uh, judge, I mean, there's very little of it left.

00:07:28.340 Okay. So it's been declining every decade.

00:07:31.340 There's less and less and less history that's being taught and people who are ignorant of history can be persuaded of anything.

00:07:38.340 And so when the lockdowns were imposed and these were blatant violations of our freedom of association, if it's illegal to have Christmas dinner with your parents, that's a violation of your freedom of association.

00:07:50.340 Uh, the, and the government's admitted in court when the justice center, uh, when our court actions, when we were suing governments, the governments admitted in court quite freely that yes, these lockdowns were violations of charter rights and freedoms.

00:08:05.340 And so the, but the, the lack, the level of respect has, has gone downhill.

00:08:13.340 And so when these violations of charter rights and freedoms were imposed on Canadians, a lot of Canadians just shrugged their shoulders and said, oh, well, you know, that's okay.

00:08:21.340 Like they didn't really care, uh, about it being fundamental freedoms that were being violated.

00:08:27.340 So this is where we're at in the country today.

00:08:30.340 And, uh, things might have to get a bit worse before enough people wake up to fight back hard enough to restore the freedoms that we've lost.

00:08:40.340 There's a, you may be familiar with this.

00:08:42.340 Uh, he's a, he's a psychologist and an economist, I believe, Matthias Desmet.

00:08:47.340 He, uh, he wrote about, yeah, yeah.

00:08:49.340 Okay.

00:08:50.340 So his, his theory about how mass formations, um, generally, I think, I believe the number is they only take about 15 to 20% of a population.

00:08:59.340 To believe something so strongly that they can start a mass formation in your opinion.

00:09:04.340 Um, what, I don't, I don't know if you can put a number on this, but what's your feeling on the percentage of people in Canada who truly don't seem to care about their fundamental freedoms?

00:09:16.340 Is it, is it more of a, of a manufactured media sort of narrative or do people fundamentally just, are they just too lax to really, they're too kind of lazy to care about their, their freedoms?

00:09:26.340 It's, it's, you know, it's such a good question.

00:09:30.340 It would be, you would need to do some pretty comprehensive polling.

00:09:35.340 And I think you might see different responses to different kinds of freedoms.

00:09:38.340 So you might see, um, that a lot of Canadians have, um, a lot of appreciation for freedom of expression.

00:09:47.340 Mm.

00:09:48.340 But then some of those same people that are strong on freedom of expression, they might not care if they get confined to a 15 minute prison district or a 15 minute city in order to save the planet from the impending climate Holocaust.

00:10:01.340 Yeah.

00:10:02.340 You know, so you might have some people that, that are, uh, I, I know some people were strong, strongly in favor of religious freedom, uh, generally, but when the government shut down churches and said, you know, you can't worship, which was, which happened in British Columbia and, and on a, on a smaller scale elsewhere.

00:10:22.340 Some of those same people who pre 2020 were strong believers in religious freedom, they also supported lockdowns.

00:10:29.340 Mm.

00:10:30.340 So it's a little bit all over the map.

00:10:32.340 Uh, you used to have people who, uh, called themselves pro choice and said that the right to bodily autonomy includes the right to abortion.

00:10:41.340 And then a lot of those same people, they were fanatical, like, oh yeah, everybody's got to get injected.

00:10:47.340 And if you don't get injected, well, uh, too bad, you're, you're going to be a second class citizen. 0.88

00:10:51.340 You can't travel.

00:10:52.340 You can't effectively, you cannot leave the country.

00:10:55.340 You cannot go into a nursing home to hold the hand of a dying parent.

00:10:58.340 You cannot play sports.

00:11:00.340 You cannot watch your children playing sports.

00:11:02.340 You cannot go to movies, restaurants.

00:11:04.340 You're going to get fired from your job.

00:11:05.340 You're going to get expelled from the university and all of that's totally fine.

00:11:09.340 You should just get pressure to get this injection.

00:11:12.340 And they basically said to hell with bodily autonomy.

00:11:15.340 It just means nothing.

00:11:16.340 So, you know, people are quirky would be a way people are inconsistent.

00:11:22.340 Yeah.

00:11:23.340 And that seems to be part of human nature.

00:11:25.340 Yeah, but nobody forced you, right?

00:11:27.340 Nobody forced you actually.

00:11:28.340 Oh, what a lie.

00:11:30.340 What a lie.

00:11:31.340 Disingenuous.

00:11:32.340 There's some very intelligent people, actually, very intelligent people who came out with this claptrap and they said,

00:11:38.340 well, you have a choice to get injected or not.

00:11:41.340 Now it's tricky because technically that's true in the same way that you have a choice.

00:11:47.340 If somebody puts a gun to your head and says, hand over your wallet or I'll pull the trigger.

00:11:51.340 You have a choice.

00:11:53.340 You don't have to give them your wallet.

00:11:55.340 You can test them and see whether they're serious or not about blowing your brains out.

00:12:00.340 So it's technically true that yes, Canadians who chose not to get injected, technically it's true that yes, they did have a choice to get injected or get kicked out of university, lose their job, lose their ability to travel.

00:12:17.340 Um, but very disingenuous the way that these people were kind of pounding the table saying you have a choice when in fact it was the pressure and the coercion that removed that choice.

00:12:29.340 It wasn't a free choice anymore.

00:12:31.340 So I think the thing that underpins this is coercion feels necessary if you wrap it up in moral camouflage.

00:12:40.340 So they'll say that our rights and freedoms, well, okay, we hold those dear, but the collective good is essential.

00:12:49.340 And what that actually means depends who's defining the collective good.

00:12:53.340 So that's open to manipulation, let it be from politicians or the media.

00:12:58.340 And as soon as you wrap it in moral camouflage, the coercion is a necessity because it's a threat to the collective good.

00:13:08.340 It's a threat to other people's expression.

00:13:11.340 So let's say if we point to the, um, even just the, like the trans, um, issue right now, we're saying, well, we're protecting their freedom of expression because if you deny their identity, you're denying their expression.

00:13:30.340 And it's almost like they're inverting what these lines actually mean and they're weaponizing the, like inverting the spirit of the law and weaponizing it to, to push these ideas forward, using coercion to protect the vulnerable in that sense.

00:13:47.340 Yeah.

00:13:48.340 Or the slogan of, of protecting the vulnerable, even though they're not.

00:13:52.340 Yeah.

00:13:53.340 That's a perfect example because freedom of expression could mean that any of the three of us, if we wanted to put on.

00:13:59.340 Uh, lipstick and other makeup and a wig and wear a dress and, and say that we're women, you know, part of freedom of expression would be is like, well, okay, you go ahead and do that.

00:14:11.340 But if I take that a step further and I demand that other people call me a woman.

00:14:16.340 Now this is, this becomes core speech.

00:14:19.340 It's a perversion of free expression, right?

00:14:21.340 Free expression could mean that a guy can, uh, dress up like a woman, act like a woman, call himself a woman.

00:14:28.340 Okay, fine.

00:14:29.340 That's your freedom of expression.

00:14:30.340 You're not imposing that on others, but when you demand that other people must refer to you.

00:14:36.340 Uh, and, and this is a serious problem in certainly in Ontario, Manitoba, other places where you've got human rights legislation gets twisted into.

00:14:44.340 Uh, that, that, that there, there's this obligation to say things that you disagree with.

00:14:52.340 So you, you lose the freedom to, uh, to be able to look at a guy with the makeup and the dress and to say, well, I'm not going to refer to you as ma'am.

00:15:04.340 You know, because I don't want to because, or whatever, right?

00:15:07.340 Like that.

00:15:08.340 For whatever reason.

00:15:09.340 That's like your freedom of expression.

00:15:10.340 Yeah.

00:15:11.340 So it gets twisted on its head.

00:15:13.340 Yeah.

00:15:14.340 That's, that was a, you know, one of the most fundamental points that I don't know if people accept it now and they've moved on to other arguments.

00:15:21.340 But I remember this being such a mind blowing thing in like 2016, 2017, when Jordan Peterson was really actively fighting this, when he was explaining how there's a difference between a band speech and compelled speech, because that's, it's a fundamentally different ask that is being made of you.

00:15:39.340 But they're both, they're both forms.

00:15:40.340 They both violate your freedom of expression.

00:15:42.340 Mm-hmm .

00:15:43.340 So censorship would be that if, if you say that there's too many immigrants coming into Canada and the government says, well, that's racist.

00:15:50.340 So we're going to shut you up and, you know, we're going to file a human rights prosecution against you and whatever.

00:15:56.340 Right.

00:15:57.340 So that's like censorship.

00:15:58.340 You're not allowed to say such and such, but also the, a different form of violating free expression is compelled speech, where the law says that.

00:16:08.340 If a dude calls himself a woman, you also must speak or write, you know, if you're typing an email or if you're speaking to him or speaking about him, you must, uh, refer to this guy as a woman.

00:16:22.340 That's compelled speech.

00:16:23.340 Uh, you see it on a minor scale, um, with the Ontario law society a few years ago required every lawyer in Ontario had to sign a statement of principles saying that they personally supported and would promote.

00:16:37.340 And I'm paraphrasing this.

00:16:38.340 These weren't the exact words, but the gist of it was you would personally promote, uh, equity, diversity, inclusion, and this is coerced speech.

00:16:49.340 Like your first, there might be people who say, Hey, you know, I don't believe in equity, diversity, inclusion, or I do believe it, but I, I believe it in a very different way than what you do.

00:16:58.340 And it was coerced speech.

00:16:59.340 And so, um, Canada summer jobs, uh, one of the justice centers cases was, um, uh, this is about six years ago.

00:17:09.340 The government said in order to be eligible for a Canada summer jobs grant, a small business or a charity needs to sign a statement saying that they support abortion or they support pro-choice or they support.

00:17:22.340 I don't know what the wording was, but you had to, you had to tick off this box to say, yes, we, as a church, a charity, a small business, uh, we believe in a woman's right to choose.

00:17:32.340 We had to put that down.

00:17:33.340 And if you didn't check off the box, you would, you were not eligible for a government program into which you've paid tax dollars.

00:17:41.340 That was compelled speech.

00:17:42.340 Hmm.

00:17:43.340 That was, and, and the fortunately they scrapped that policy, but you know, shouldn't have been brought in, in the first place.

00:17:50.340 And these emerge in different ways.

00:17:53.340 So like, let it be these professional societies, they act as they, they are enforcing ideology in their own ways and they can bully anybody in like, let it be nurses, let it be lawyers, let it be engineers.

00:18:09.340 Like we're seeing some industries get maybe a little bit more intertwined with the ideology than others.

00:18:15.340 Like, but it eventually, uh, like appears in, in pretty much all these societies.

00:18:22.340 I, I did want to, um, ask you specifically, where have you seen, like, there's, there's been some discussion about the human rights tribunals being these pseudo courts.

00:18:35.340 And they've kind of got a strange setup and they're not, they don't have the exact same structure as a court of law and they're not staffed in the same way.

00:18:47.340 They don't proceed in the same way.

00:18:49.340 And have you, uh, has the JCCF, have you intermingled with any human rights tribunals themselves?

00:18:58.340 Like w w what role do you see the human rights tribunal in Canada?

00:19:03.340 Is it a force for good?

00:19:04.340 Is it problematic?

00:19:05.340 Like, uh, what is that doing to actually ensure people's fundamental rights and freedoms?

00:19:11.340 Well, they've, they've just gone completely woke.

00:19:14.340 And I think we're at a point where they're doing more harm than good.

00:19:17.340 Uh, we defended, uh, women, we provided lawyers for women in British Columbia who were subjected to the harassment of a person.

00:19:25.340 A person who at that time had the name of Jonathan Yaniv.

00:19:29.340 Uh, Jonathan Yaniv now goes by the name Jessica Simpson.

00:19:33.340 And, uh, Jonathan Yaniv was, I don't know, transgender, trans identifying, whatever, but, uh, he had his male parts intact and he would phone up these Brazilian bikini wax.

00:19:47.340 Uh, he would phone up women who provided a Brazilian bikini wax to women. 0.92

00:19:52.340 I remember this.

00:19:53.340 In a lot of cases, these women were working out of their own home. 1.00

00:19:57.340 So they're kind of in a vulnerable position, uh, that way.

00:20:00.340 And, and there could be small children present in the home as well.

00:20:04.340 And so he would phone up and the woman receiving the call would say, sorry, I don't do transgender. 0.88

00:20:12.340 Uh, we do women only. 0.99

00:20:14.340 And then Jonathan Yaniv would file the human rights complaint against, uh, the woman.

00:20:19.340 And he did this to many, many women, many of whom, uh, we have it on good authority, wrote him a check.

00:20:27.340 You know, 5,000, 1,000, 3,000, whatever.

00:20:30.340 They wrote him a check to settle the complaint.

00:20:33.340 And so he was harassing and intimidating these women with these human rights complaints.

00:20:38.340 One of the women, uh, was turned down by, and I, I don't remember where the 17 law firms or 13 law firms, but it was, there was a whole bunch of law firms said, oh, we're not going to take on your case.

00:20:51.340 We're terrified of being called transphobic.

00:20:53.340 And so the justice center is not terrified of being called any names.

00:20:58.340 Uh, it doesn't bother me.

00:20:59.340 I say, call me whatever you want, as long as it's not late for dinner. 0.97

00:21:03.340 And, um, so we took on these cases and we were successful in defending these women against Yaniv, whose Twitter handle, by the way, was wax my balls.

00:21:14.340 And, um, we also defended, um, Canada galaxy beauty pageant, uh, based in Mississauga, Ontario.

00:21:23.340 Uh, Yaniv filed a complaint there because the beauty pageant refused to allow Yaniv. 0.91

00:21:31.340 Now, Jessica Simpson, uh, Jessica Simpson had male parts, twig and berries and wanted to get into the change room with women and girls as young as six years old. 1.00

00:21:44.340 And so we, it was good that we defeated Yaniv's claim.

00:21:50.340 The scary thing was it was defeated on procedural grounds because Yaniv or Jessica Simpson had been too late in meeting various deadlines for, you know, filing evidence and filing this, filing that.

00:22:05.340 And so the human rights tribunal got fed up with, with all the delays and complaint was dismissed on procedural grounds.

00:22:12.340 Had this gone to a real hearing, I'm not confident that the human rights tribunal in Ontario would have ruled in favor of the beauty pageant.

00:22:20.340 Uh, I think there's a good chance they would have ruled in favor of Jessica Simpson, uh, having access to, uh, girls change room. 1.00

00:22:28.340 That's, that's so, yeah, that's very frightening to think of.

00:22:31.340 I, I often wonder, and I don't know, maybe you can shed some light based on your experience, but like, you know, we look at these cases, we talk about them all the time.

00:22:39.340 And, and we think like looking at these cases, do these people on these boards or these, these, you know, kangaroo human rights tribunal courts, like, do they not have kids or grandkids?

00:22:50.740 Like, do they not know like how they personally would react in their own lives?

00:22:54.880 Like, is it, is it a case of sort of like what you said in, in, in a related, you know, they're just, they're so afraid of being called transphobic or being labeled as this or that, that they're willing to vote against, against their own personal beliefs because of it.

00:23:09.380 Now, well, I wonder, you know, if, if, uh, if former prime minister Trudeau had a sister in, uh, women's prison, federal prison, federal penitentiary for women, uh, would he have the same view on allowing men to transfer into women's prisons?

00:23:29.380 Uh, and the same goes for every member of parliament, uh, it was the liberal government of the day and the current liberal government has not changed this policy.

00:23:39.380 So like today, if you're, um, by the way, the, the, the men that are transferring into women's prisons, 90% of them are, uh, have been convicted either of a violent crime or a sexual crime or both.

00:23:54.380 Yeah.

00:23:55.380 So some of these, some of these guys are sex offenders convicted of rape.

00:23:59.380 Yeah.

00:24:00.380 And if they say I identify as a woman, then, uh, you know, I'm, I'm sure that they don't get transferred the same day.

00:24:09.380 It might take a few days, a few weeks for the paperwork, you know, but they can, they can get transferred into a women's prison just by saying they identify as a woman. 1.00

00:24:17.380 And yeah, I wonder like people who support this, you know, how would you feel if your mother, your aunt, your daughter, your grandmother, uh, your sister, your niece was in a federal prison and ended up getting raped by a male prisoner who got in there.

00:24:35.380 Uh, by saying that, that he identified as a woman. 0.67

00:24:38.380 Yeah.

00:24:39.380 I don't know if, if it's, uh, not thinking things through or fear of getting called transphobic.

00:24:46.380 I, I can't, I don't know what's going on in their minds.

00:24:48.380 Yeah.

00:24:49.380 The ideology seems to override the, the power of the ideology overrides the, the rational faculty.

00:24:56.380 Well, that's what we saw with lockdowns.

00:24:58.380 I mean, absolutely unscientific rules.

00:25:00.380 You know, if in 2019 before lockdowns, if you had asked a hundred doctors, is it possible to stop the spread of a virus?

00:25:08.380 They would have said, no, uh, you could protect the vulnerable and maybe set up, uh, really high, uh, safety protocols around nursing homes where people are the most vulnerable, but you can't stop a virus from spreading throughout society.

00:25:23.380 Yeah.

00:25:24.380 And if you was to ask doctors, can a cloth mask protect you, you know, against an airborne virus?

00:25:29.380 Uh, they would have said no.

00:25:31.380 And they would have, uh, uh, uh, thought about, talked about the harms of lockdowns, uh, because the Canadian death rates are up.

00:25:39.380 But yeah, you know, people are there when they're, when they're in the, in the midst of that ideology, they're, they're not really thinking no.

00:25:47.380 Yeah.

00:25:48.380 So I think it stems from, uh, as things become more complex, we offload a lot of our thinking to experts and we get hyper specialization.

00:25:58.380 So we have less and less people that are confident, even like exploring a little bit in different areas that, that seems like, well, it's outside of my expertise.

00:26:07.380 Who am I to say anything about a cloth mask, but you can vape and you can see it breathing out through like the vape coming through the cloth mask.

00:26:16.380 Cloth mask, you can demonstrate these things pretty easily and make some educated guesses on the effectiveness of that.

00:26:24.380 But as people export to experts, I feel like their level of thinking gets wrapped up in slogans.

00:26:33.380 So you're easily controlled by like, well, if it just reduces the spread a little bit and these things, yeah, it prevents inquiry.

00:26:44.380 These, and it keeps everything on the surface level.

00:26:46.380 Cause you're not diving into the full ideas you've kept at surface level and you're like, well, I can't go any further.

00:26:52.380 They put their own mental roadblock and then they just let it be handled by the experts.

00:26:57.380 And I think it doesn't matter if it's COVID.

00:27:01.380 I don't, it doesn't matter if it's like the gender debate.

00:27:04.380 They're like, well, I'm, I didn't study.

00:27:07.380 Like, I can't speak about what a woman is because I didn't study gender.

00:27:12.380 Cause you don't have a biology degree.

00:27:13.380 I don't have a biology degree or I didn't study gender studies for four years.

00:27:19.380 Therefore, well, I have to leave it to the experts.

00:27:22.380 And so we're seeing these very like.

00:27:27.380 Seemingly obvious things now become too complex for the average person to even have an opinion about.

00:27:35.380 And it shuts down any inquiry and enforces alignment.

00:27:39.380 So it's, we're, we're pretty much in a death spiral that way on a society.

00:27:44.380 It's a bad trend.

00:27:45.380 I loved, uh, I heard somebody say the other day, um, I don't, I don't need to be a veterinarian to know that, that this is a dog.

00:27:53.380 Right.

00:27:54.380 And pointing at, uh, you know, it's like, well, that's, that's a dog, you know, that's a bird.

00:27:59.380 That's a cat.

00:28:00.380 That's a spider. 0.80

00:28:01.380 Uh, we don't, we don't need a biology degree.

00:28:03.380 We don't need to be a zoologist or, or, or a veterinarian or, or whatever.

00:28:08.380 And it is, it is a pretty scary trend.

00:28:11.380 Um, I think the next, the future waves of attacks on our rights and freedoms are going to likely be under the banner of saving the world from the, uh, impending climate Holocaust.

00:28:26.380 And we're all going to burn to a crisp unless we, uh, we, the people, not the elites, but as we, the people have to stop driving our cars and we have to, you know, uh, live in these 15 minute prison districts or 15 minute cities where you can walk everywhere within 15 minutes.

00:28:44.380 And we don't have to drive our cars and, and so on and so forth.

00:28:48.380 And, um, you know, a lot of people will buy into that because the, the, the so-called experts, uh, who typically will not debate, they will denounce their opponents as anti-science Neanderthals.

00:29:00.380 I see a lot of the same dynamic with the, with the climate issue where you've got people who, you know, they won't answer a tough question.

00:29:10.380 Like if, if mankind controls the climate, if that's true, how do you explain the medieval optimal when, you know, from the years 900 to 1100, the world's climate was much, much warmer than what it is now.

00:29:23.380 And mankind thrived and we had vineyards in England and we had olives growing in Germany.

00:29:29.380 And we, you know, the, the crops were abundant and, and mankind was thriving when the world was a lot warmer, but nobody was driving cars.

00:29:37.380 So how did you get that, uh, um, increase in the temperature and then decrease and then heading into mini ice age in the 1600s?

00:29:46.380 See, that's a question I would love to ask somebody who believes that mankind controls the weather.

00:29:52.380 I'd like to ask, well, how do you explain just the past 2000 years, or even go back millions as well, but, but even the past two thousand years,

00:29:58.380 how do you explain, you know, and you don't get debate.

00:30:03.380 What you get told is, well, you're, you're, you're a climate Holocaust denier.

00:30:06.380 Yeah.

00:30:07.380 Right.

00:30:08.380 But that's a loaded end of discussion.

00:30:09.380 That's even emotional language.

00:30:11.380 That's trying to.

00:30:12.380 And it's emotional language.

00:30:13.380 That's trying to borrow the same kind of shame of somebody denying a Holocaust and they're just applying it to these new things to shut down discussion.

00:30:23.380 Yeah, there's a, there's a modern day philosopher.

00:30:28.380 We often, uh, bring up on the show, Peter Boghossian.

00:30:31.380 I'm not sure if you're familiar with him.

00:30:32.380 Um, he, uh, he's talked about what he calls a substitution hypothesis.

00:30:37.380 And, uh, and so his, the, the idea is that as the, uh, global and specifically in the West, as the Western levels of, uh, adherence to religion drops, uh, we see an increase, uh, uh, uh, uh, counter increase in the adherence to these sorts of, uh, you know, climate, uh, catastrophe, uh, your gender ideologue or your, you know, things like veganism, stuff that you can identify with.

00:31:06.380 As a, you know, as a, on a level that normally would in your brain be filled by religion, you substitute it for some of these ideologies that are totally like, but you treat it like a religion.

00:31:17.380 And that's why people react as if you were blaspheming against their religion when you talk about these things.

00:31:22.380 Right.

00:31:23.380 Yeah.

00:31:24.380 Yeah.

00:31:25.380 Good analogy.

00:31:26.380 Um, well, it certainly was treated like, like blasphemy.

00:31:31.380 I mean, if you said that, uh, it was blasphemy to say that the, uh, COVID was a bad annual flu statistics, Canada backs it up.

00:31:43.380 If you look at the death rates, uh, if you look at total death rates in Canada, uh, there was a, the, the jump from 2019 pre COVID to 2020 COVID's first year, that jump was certainly bigger.

00:31:56.380 A little bit bigger than the previous jumps the last few years, but, um, it wasn't vaguely or remotely close to the catastrophic predictions that, uh, Neil Ferguson of Imperial College London.

00:32:09.380 Yeah.

00:32:10.380 Uh, was saying there'd be, you know, 326,000 Canadians were gonna die of COVID.

00:32:15.380 326,000.

00:32:16.380 Wait.

00:32:17.380 You're saying Neil Ferguson was wrong about something?

00:32:19.380 Yeah.

00:32:20.380 Well, he was wrong on the bird, on the bird flu was gonna be catastrophic.

00:32:24.380 Yeah.

00:32:25.380 And, and, uh, uh, there, there's other, he's, he's been talking about catastrophes that never materialized, you know, for a long time.

00:32:31.380 Yeah.

00:32:32.380 And then somehow he says COVID's gonna be like the Spanish flu of 1918 and kill tens of millions of people.

00:32:39.380 Specifically the young too.

00:32:40.380 Right.

00:32:41.380 And, and the young, and it's just like, no, it was, uh, uh, definitely a serious threat to less than 1% of the population.

00:32:51.380 And there were, uh, there were some seniors who died who, you know, but for COVID they might've lived for another three, six, nine months, or in some cases another year or two or three.

00:33:01.380 Yeah.

00:33:02.380 But it didn't have a big impact on population mortality at all.

00:33:06.380 And yet the lockdown deaths, um, and if you want to talk about a report that we've just released, the lockdown deaths are, are primarily amongst younger Canadians against the under 45 crowd of people.

00:33:20.380 where the COVID deaths are, uh, less than 1% of Canadians under the age of 45.

00:33:27.380 Uh, it's 99% non COVID deaths.

00:33:30.380 Okay.

00:33:31.380 And so deaths among young Canadians are up, uh, remarkably since lockdowns and seeing passports and it cannot be attributed to COVID.

00:33:40.380 Mm.

00:33:41.380 And this is, uh, this is based on Statistics Canada data.

00:33:44.380 And this is our entire report.

00:33:45.380 All cause mortality.

00:33:47.380 All cause mortality.

00:33:48.380 Yeah.

00:33:49.380 So three, three different, uh, three different things.

00:33:53.380 First of all, this is all based on Statistics Canada data.

00:33:56.380 So anybody who disagrees with the report, I say, okay, fine, uh, roll up your sleeves, get to work and spend many hours going through the Stats Canada data and tell us how and why our interpretation is wrong.

00:34:09.380 And I, I would love the debate.

00:34:11.380 I think it would be great if somebody rolled up their sleeves and did the hard work that our research, uh, primarily Ben Clausen, there's one researcher, but there's other people involved as well.

00:34:22.380 According to Statistics Canada, COVID deaths went up after more than 80% of the Canadian population got two or more injections.

00:34:32.380 The COVID deaths went up from 16,000 in 2020 before the vaccine to 20,000 in 2022 after the vaccine.

00:34:41.380 Mm.

00:34:42.380 So interesting.

00:34:43.380 Go figure.

00:34:44.380 Interesting piece of information.

00:34:45.380 Uh, 30% increase, 30% increase amongst, um, Canadians under the age of 45.

00:34:55.380 If you look at the death numbers pre COVID, uh, so 2015 to 2019, you had, um, 257 younger Canadians dying every week.

00:35:10.380 Okay.

00:35:11.380 257 Canadians under the age of 45 dying every week after lockdowns.

00:35:17.380 So 2020, 21, 22, 23 in those years, we have a 30% jump and we get 334 Canadians dying every week under the age of 45, not COVID deaths.

00:35:31.380 So almost a one third increase.

00:35:33.380 Now the population grew.

00:35:35.380 Okay.

00:35:36.380 So that accounts for a little bit, but this, this jump is more than three times as much as population growth.

00:35:44.380 Um, so this is, this is stats Canada saying there's more, 30% more younger Canadians are dying after lockdowns and vaccine, uh, the vaccines, uh, and it's not COVID deaths.

00:35:59.380 And so I, I would guess without having seen the report, that's going to be things like, uh, alcoholism related disease.

00:36:06.380 That's going to be things like, uh, male suicide, probably females side as well. 1.00

00:36:11.380 Other like socially, uh, socially predicated types of, uh, mortality.

00:36:16.380 Could also be like some sudden death and those get washed out.

00:36:21.380 So those are hard to like pin down without granular data.

00:36:25.380 Right.

00:36:26.380 15% of the deaths are from unknown cause, which is a huge percentage when you think about it.

00:36:33.380 So, uh, in 2022 and here we are three years later.

00:36:38.380 Okay.

00:36:39.380 So, uh, this number of unknown cause deaths is, is not likely to go down because we're three years past and it's not a lack of autopsies.

00:36:47.380 Autopsies are performed in only 6%, 7% of Canadian deaths.

00:36:53.380 Right.

00:36:54.380 So 90, 93, 94% of deaths that there's no autopsy performed as such.

00:37:00.380 So that's not really the issue.

00:37:02.380 So we are three years past 2022 and we've got 15% of younger Canadians under 45 dying of unknown cause.

00:37:10.380 Mm.

00:37:11.380 Uh, it points to lockdowns in the vaccine.

00:37:14.380 Mm.

00:37:15.380 Uh, alcohol related deaths are up by a fifth.

00:37:20.380 Um, and they have stayed, uh, this is after lockdowns, after vaccine passports and they've stayed at the higher level.

00:37:27.380 So that's very sad.

00:37:29.380 Uh, the, uh, number of Canadians dying of drug overdoses up 55% since lockdowns were imposed.

00:37:38.380 Sadly, those rates have remained high.

00:37:40.380 Yeah.

00:37:41.380 So even today, 2025, we are past the lockdowns.

00:37:45.380 We're past the mandatory vaccinations, but we still have 55% more Canadians dying of drug overdoses than in the pre COVID years of, um, the, the 2019, 2018, 2017.

00:38:00.380 Yeah.

00:38:01.380 So that's very sad.

00:38:02.380 And that's, that's not new by any means.

00:38:04.380 Um, it has been well known for decades that any increase of unemployment is always followed with an increase of death.

00:38:12.380 Yeah.

00:38:13.380 And that, I believe that was part of the rationale in the great Barrington declaration as well.

00:38:17.380 They were pointing out to like, well, we need focus protection because you have a large group that are not at risk of COVID.

00:38:26.380 They're not 70.

00:38:27.380 They're not 80.

00:38:28.380 So you have a large group of healthy working people who, if that unemployment jumps up, that there's a host.

00:38:37.380 There's a whole range of ways that mortality goes up in them, let it be alcohol or drug abuse or suicide, that all, like that all increases.

00:38:47.380 So you've turned a, a non at risk group into a at risk group in another way through these policies.

00:38:56.380 Yeah.

00:38:57.380 And this, all of this was known.

00:38:58.380 I mean, this is, you get back to Matthias Desmet and the, uh, the, the, the psychosis.

00:39:03.380 Uh, there was medical research pre 2020 medical literature, which I think it's safe to assume was not biased for or against lockdowns.

00:39:14.380 I may, it might've had other biases in there.

00:39:16.380 Nothing's totally unbiased, but the medical literature pre lockdowns, uh, made it very clear that in-person contact was essential to mental and physical wellbeing.

00:39:28.380 And so there's abundant research showing that if, if you are isolated and your only contact with people is by, by phone or zoom, right?

00:39:37.380 You're not doing in-person interactions.

00:39:39.380 You have poor health and a shorter life expectancy.

00:39:43.380 It's bad for you to be connecting with people only by phone and zoom.

00:39:49.380 You know, we need, we need in-person contacts.

00:39:51.380 That was well established.

00:39:53.380 The unemployment thing, as you mentioned, was well established.

00:39:56.380 There is abundant research.

00:39:58.380 This was ignored by, even by courts.

00:40:00.380 Uh, we had, uh, Dr. Kevin Bardosh in one of the justice centers court cases in Ontario.

00:40:07.380 Um, justice Callahan, I think it was the, uh, Randy Hillier case.

00:40:13.380 They, um, I'll mention this as well because I've written a book about this called, uh, corrupted by fear.

00:40:22.380 And we go through the, the Canadian court rulings.

00:40:25.380 And so Kevin Bardosh did this comprehensive report on lockdown harms.

00:40:30.380 And he, one of the things he mentioned was, you know, when, when unemployment goes up, it has a negative impact on life expectancy.

00:40:37.380 More people die when the unemployment is higher.

00:40:40.380 And the judge, it doesn't even look at this report.

00:40:44.380 It was just disgusting. 0.93

00:40:45.380 It was disgraceful.

00:40:46.380 He, um, he says, well, Kevin Bardosh was not, uh, an epidemiologist.

00:40:51.380 So we're going to not listen to anything he has to say, even though his, uh, uh, evidence had been admitted and he was recognized as an expert.

00:41:00.380 The judge didn't even go through his report and try to refute what was in the report.

00:41:06.380 Uh, we saw this in Manitoba as well.

00:41:08.380 The, uh, the gateway Bible chapel case where the judge, he has before him a report from the former chief medical officer of Manitoba.

00:41:18.380 Dr. Joel Kettner just eviscerates the government's case for lockdowns and explains why they're causing more harm than good, uh, on and on and on.

00:41:28.380 And, uh, the judge doesn't even mention this report, right?

00:41:34.380 So this report eviscerates the Manitoba government's case for lockdowns.

00:41:38.380 It was open to the judge to explain why the report was wrong.

00:41:41.380 The judge doesn't do that.

00:41:42.380 The judge just doesn't mention the report at all in his court ruling.

00:41:47.380 So this is, uh, this is a challenge we're facing too, that, that the, uh, and I say, I, I call the book corrupted by fear because that's the, um, it's, um, the judges as well as the media, the medical establishment, the legal profession, everybody's corrupted by fear.

00:42:05.380 And so they're not thinking there's a fear element.

00:42:09.380 And then there's also, there are some who they believe their position is so moral.

00:42:15.380 Like it's a obvious moral truth that engaging with the opposite side would be immoral at that point.

00:42:23.380 So they're like, we can't even give them any error.

00:42:26.380 That's why you don't see, um, like, you, you don't see people on the right being invited to these left leaning, like, uh, spots on CPC or they, they get blacklisted essentially over the time because they, they get put in this kind of category.

00:42:45.380 Well, you have the wrong views and like, since our position's so morally obvious, only a bad person would believe these wrong ideas.

00:42:56.620 Therefore we, we don't have to treat you like we would anybody else on our side.

00:43:01.780 Yeah. And, and John, just to, just to piggyback on that, and maybe you can tell us your experience about this, cause I'm sure you have lots.

00:43:09.100 We've talked about this on the show where what we've noticed, uh, is that there's a, there's a fundamental difference between how the left views the right and how the right views the left tip tip, tip, generally speaking, how a conservative will view a liberal and vice versa. 0.51

00:43:21.680 And, and generally speaking, conservatives, libertarians tend to view liberals and leftists as mostly just wrong, like maybe gullible, maybe silly, maybe naive, like these types of, yeah, maybe stupid, these types of words, but the, by and large, the left and liberals tend to view conservatives and libertarians as not just wrong or misguided, but actually as evil. 0.61

00:43:45.240 And you can't have a conversation, and you can't have a conversation with somebody who you believe is evil. 0.58

00:43:54.160 That is, that's a whole other level of interaction that people have that doesn't allow itself to be, uh, like you can't chat that out, you know, and, and maybe you could speak a little bit to your experience with that and some of the things that have been thrown your way.

00:44:07.000 Well, let me preface, uh, David Suzuki, uh, this is, I can't remember this two, four, six years ago, but it, it was media reported that he, he said that if you, uh, don't embrace his thesis of the, uh, impending climate Holocaust, and we're all going to burn to a crisp and we need to, uh, we need to embrace poverty, which is what you get.

00:44:32.400 If you cut off the, the oil and gas and try to run the economy on, on windmills and, and, and solar panels, you get poverty, massive poverty, but you know, we need to all embrace poverty to avoid the climate catastrophe, blah, blah, blah.

00:44:47.480 And anybody who disagrees with that, they, they should be prosecuted.

00:44:50.360 They should be jailed.

00:44:52.000 There is a NDP member of parliament, uh, representing one of the Winnipeg ridings.

00:44:57.200 This was about six, six, eight months ago.

00:45:00.320 It was before the last election.

00:45:01.600 I don't know if she's still an MP today or not, but she said that the, uh, residential school denialism, uh, should be criminalized so that you cannot speak.

00:45:15.400 Uh, you know, you cannot question, for example, the entirely unsupported claim, uh, by the Canloops Indian band saying that they found the bodies of 215 children.

00:45:25.720 They've been given millions or at least large sums of money to do an excavation, which is the only way to actually determine whether bodies are buried there or not.

00:45:35.720 And they've received the grant.

00:45:37.960 They're not doing an excavation because, uh, probably afraid of, of not finding bodies. 1.00

00:45:42.960 And they would look like a bunch of idiots. 0.99

00:45:45.720 So, uh, these, these are examples, but it, it, it, it's true that you get this, uh, fanaticism where people say you gotta go to jail. 1.00

00:45:56.040 If you, uh, speak, uh, what, what government is determined to be the, the, the absolute truth.

00:46:03.840 So, you know, it's, it's bad.

00:46:05.960 Uh, we've amended the criminal code to make, uh, Holocaust denial can be, uh, criminal as well.

00:46:13.460 Mm-hmm .

00:46:13.760 And I think that holo, the actual Holocaust of World War II, and I think it's very vile speech.

00:46:20.320 Uh, I also think people should not be sent to jail for, uh, advocating that.

00:46:27.100 Yeah.

00:46:27.360 I think.

00:46:28.100 That's, that's the whole reason why.

00:46:29.640 Incorrect viewpoint.

00:46:30.020 Yeah.

00:46:30.260 Well, that's the whole reason why free speech protection protections exist, right?

00:46:33.280 I just, you don't like every day, you know, uh, generally agreed upon safe opinions don't

00:46:38.840 require speech protections.

00:46:41.740 Yeah.

00:46:42.220 And it also depends what's under that umbrella.

00:46:44.620 Uh, let it be like Holocaust denial or residential school.

00:46:47.920 They're like, well, you denied it.

00:46:49.380 Like, well, what does that mean?

00:46:51.060 Did you not deny a specific count?

00:46:53.920 You say like, what, what if somebody said like only 37 bodies were found in that residential

00:46:59.840 school?

00:47:00.180 Like, well, you denied that one number, you lose clarity.

00:47:04.040 So like, how do you actually navigate this objectively when this umbrella will expand and

00:47:10.800 it'll keep expanding, like, cause it's politically useful, um, it'll just be used as a shield and

00:47:18.660 then used as a club eventually.

00:47:20.340 So it's a chilling effect that makes it hard to engage in open, honest, healthy debate because

00:47:30.140 it's, it's possible if depending on how the, depending on the wording of the law, the wording

00:47:35.660 of the law might allow somebody to say that, uh, there's only 37, uh, uh, bodies of, of murder

00:47:45.120 children that are buried there and not 215.

00:47:47.500 And so you got this great freedom to go ahead and make the argument for 37.

00:47:52.360 But even if the law is worded in such a way that you can get away with, uh, saying 37 bodies

00:47:57.840 instead of 215 bodies is still a chilling effect.

00:48:00.780 People are not even going to say that there's only 37 bodies and they're certainly not going

00:48:04.920 to feel free to say that it's unlikely that there's any children and argue, these arguments

00:48:11.720 have been put forward by people because we, we still have a lot of free speech left in

00:48:15.240 Canada that there probably aren't any children buried there because there's no children reported

00:48:20.720 missing.

00:48:22.140 Uh, there, there's no complaints of parents on file about, uh, you know, their, their child

00:48:27.860 not coming back home in June or whatever the end of the school year was.

00:48:31.820 Uh, and the fact that this Kamloops, uh, band has received money to carry out an excavation

00:48:40.580 to find out the truth.

00:48:42.140 So it's like, okay, if we love truth, let's do an excavation because they've, they've only

00:48:46.720 had ground penetrating radar, which will beep if there is a tree stump or a rock or an irrigation

00:48:54.140 system, you know, any kind of disturbance under the ground, it will beep.

00:48:59.080 So the only way to find out if there's bodies there is to do an excavation, they've received

00:49:03.800 the money, they're not doing an excavation.

00:49:05.840 Well, what does that tell you?

00:49:06.820 Where is their love for truth?

00:49:07.880 It's non-existent.

00:49:09.300 And we're coming up to this National Day of Truth and Reconciliation, what, September 30th?

00:49:13.580 Something like that.

00:49:14.540 Um, it'll be, uh, I was thinking of a, like, Trudeau go surfing in Tofino day, Tofino, British

00:49:22.080 Twombia, that was the first, first day of National Truth and Reconciliation, Trudeau

00:49:27.760 went surfing in Tofino.

00:49:29.940 And, um, anyway, um, you know, if, if the, uh, if the Canloops band loves truth, they're

00:49:37.720 going to carry out their, uh, their excavation.

00:49:40.200 Well, you could even say, even if they don't like, like if it was so true, the most

00:49:46.520 political, the most political leverage they would get is by finding the bodies.

00:49:51.180 Like, they'd get a whole bunch more.

00:49:53.060 So like the incentives there would be for them to actually carry through.

00:49:57.720 And we're not seeing that.

00:49:59.760 So like, what does that tell us about the reality of the situation?

00:50:05.760 It says a lot.

00:50:06.920 It says a lot.

00:50:08.220 Um, I'm going to do a hard pivot for us now because, uh, James said, uh, said a word

00:50:13.620 that stuck in my head.

00:50:14.480 He said, you lose clarity, clarity.

00:50:16.900 That reminds me of something that we're going to talk about.

00:50:19.080 Mr. Carpe, um, as you may know, our, uh, our viewership tends to, uh, to lean, maybe

00:50:25.580 skew a little, a little bit to the Alberta independent side.

00:50:29.060 Us, you know, we're, we're Edmontonians and we're, we're, uh, filthy, uh, Alberta

00:50:34.220 sovereigntists ourselves.

00:50:35.300 And we tend to talk about this issue quite a bit and interview people about it.

00:50:39.420 Um, you had mentioned, uh, prior to the show, um, if we wanted to talk about this,

00:50:44.340 you'd be happy to go into, uh, the 1990, uh, 1998, I believe Supreme Court, uh, decision,

00:50:50.260 uh, that Clarity Act, correct?

00:50:52.240 Well, the Clarity Act was a interpretation of the Supreme Court decision.

00:50:57.540 Correct.

00:50:57.880 And that's the Clarity Act is correct me if I'm wrong.

00:51:01.600 It's the federal government's basically declaring what the federal government would act based

00:51:07.380 on the Supreme Court's ruling of that if a province got a successful referendum.

00:51:15.620 Yep, absolutely.

00:51:17.140 So you've got that right.

00:51:18.820 The Clarity Act came later.

00:51:20.020 So the Quebec secession reference came out, uh, that ruling came out in 1998 and, uh, it's

00:51:26.900 written in such a way that even though as per the title, it's, you know, can Quebec separate,

00:51:32.100 but the principles in there are pretty clear that they apply to every province.

00:51:38.340 And so the court mentions certain fundamental principles of federalism.

00:51:43.780 We have a federal, uh, system.

00:51:46.420 Um, we, we have the charter, we have individual rights, we have democracy.

00:51:51.060 Um, it's kind of an interesting read.

00:51:53.620 If you want to get a, an introduction to constitutional law, it goes through some of

00:51:58.260 these principles of what they mean and by way of background, the 1980 Quebec referendum,

00:52:05.060 uh, then premier René Lovac had put forward a proposal for sovereignty association and it was

00:52:10.820 a bit murky.

00:52:11.780 It was definitely not that Quebec would become an independent country, you know, in the same way that,

00:52:19.060 that, you know, Mexico is independent from Canada, for example.

00:52:24.180 Um, and then in 1995, we had a very tight, it was almost 50, 50%, 50%, but it too was pretty vague.

00:52:32.180 There's a lot of people voting yes for Quebec independence, but they assumed that they would

00:52:36.820 still kind of be part of Canada and they get their Canada pension check.

00:52:40.740 And, you know, it was just very murky and, and it was scary too, because what if there was a yes

00:52:46.100 vote, but then, you know, it wasn't really clear what, what was being voted on.

00:52:51.060 So the Supreme court said that, uh, a province does have a right to leave Canada, which is really

00:52:58.260 good because if the Supreme court had ruled the other way, if there's not a legal way to leave,

00:53:03.940 it kind of makes it that the only alternative is violence and military conflict.

00:53:08.900 And that the Quebec or Alberta would have to take up arms to forcibly liberate themselves

00:53:15.220 through military strength. So thankfully the, the court said, no. Yeah. If you have a clear majority

00:53:21.460 on a clear question. So the clear question would be something like what now has been put forward in

00:53:27.620 Alberta. Yeah. So unfortunately the, uh, um, chief electoral officer in, um, in Alberta who is

00:53:35.940 independent right is, is appointed, but is not under the control of the premier's office. So it's an

00:53:44.020 independent position. He has taken it upon himself to, uh, go to court to ask for whether that's,

00:53:52.660 whether that question's clear enough. Well, it's ridiculous because the Supreme court said that a

00:53:58.100 province has a right to leave. And this question is, is pretty clear. And, uh, anyway, it's, it's kind

00:54:07.300 of a delay tactic. I, I, I would venture a guess that the chief electoral officer of Alberta is staunchly

00:54:14.100 against independence. And so he is trying to do this to slow things down. Yeah. But the court was

00:54:21.060 clear a province can leave. Uh, and then the clarity act is sets out certain, uh, uh, terms, uh,

00:54:27.940 about how the federal government would respond if a province chose to leave. Uh, it's related to the

00:54:33.860 Supreme court decision, but it's also different. It, it gets very specific into what the federal

00:54:41.220 government would do and how the federal government would behave. So we've seen a little bit of the,

00:54:46.180 like, we've seen comments and I've seen people kind of bring up like, what about this? What about

00:54:50.820 that? We're, we're trying to think down the line of like, what would happen if Alberta actually went

00:54:55.300 through this? And it seems like, first of all, a citizen led referendum is that's our way of,

00:55:03.700 well, it's a petition for referendum, but even if that fails, if there's enough support behind it,

00:55:10.020 the Alberta provincial government, UCP could just put in legislation for a referendum anyways. So

00:55:17.940 what this really speaks to is that ultimately it just requires enough will, like a very obvious

00:55:25.380 majority, a loud enough signal that cannot be ignored. And then there's multiple avenues. Let

00:55:30.900 it be citizen led petition for referendum or just enough pressure that a referendum happens. And if

00:55:38.100 that's strong enough and a referendum goes through now, both Alberta and Canada are duty bound to

00:55:45.220 negotiate in good faith. I believe the Supreme Court decision says, well, Alberta can't unilaterally

00:55:53.940 leave without good faith negotiations, but Canada can't prevent Alberta from leaving. But what is good

00:56:01.940 faith negotiation? That kind of, well, that depends. So let's say Canada plays hardball and says you owe us

00:56:08.020 two trillion dollars for us granting you everything. Alberta could argue, well, you're not negotiating in

00:56:16.100 good faith. And if negotiations break down or if they say, well, we need to update the constitution,

00:56:23.380 we're going to try to prevent you to leave. Then it's into Alberta's hands to just say, well,

00:56:29.380 okay, we went through the proper channels. We are going to declare our independence. And now it's out

00:56:35.540 of the kind of the federal and now it's into the international recognition. So it seems like it's

00:56:41.780 almost a game of chess. You have to go through each of these steps. You need a clear democratic will to be

00:56:48.660 expressed. And the referendum proves that. And then the rest is kind of unknown until you fully go down that

00:56:56.980 path. A chess game is a really good analogy, actually, because it's like, you know, and for

00:57:03.140 the, for the viewers and listeners that, that know chess and presumably most do, I mean, it's like you,

00:57:08.660 you know, you, you put your pawn forward two spaces and the other, you know, player might do the same

00:57:15.060 thing or might do something different. You take out your knight, you take out your bishop, your, it's just,

00:57:19.300 it's, it's very back and forth, back and forth. So there have to be these negotiations because indeed,

00:57:25.060 it's not open to Alberta to unilaterally leave and just get whatever it wants, no questions asked,

00:57:33.780 but nor can the federal government say, well, we're going to, we're going to prevent you from,

00:57:38.100 from leaving. It's like, no, if, if there was a clear question to separate, if that had, uh, you know,

00:57:46.740 50% of the vote plus one, uh, I mean, hopefully there'd be more clarity. You know, you could see a lot of,

00:57:53.300 uh, um, negotiations wouldn't be as smooth if it was really a 50, 50 split, but if you had a

00:58:02.020 50.5%, 51%, uh, more than 51%, you know, it's, uh, it's a majority vote and, uh, it's, it's a far

00:58:13.300 stronger mandate that, that than any government in Canada. I mean, currently neither the federal

00:58:18.180 government nor any prevent, oh, I'm sorry. No, the UCP in Alberta, I mean, they got 54% of the vote.

00:58:24.420 That's the exception, but I mean, most, most premiers in power right now, all over Canada,

00:58:29.460 their party didn't get 50% of the vote in the election, you know?

00:58:32.980 So, yeah, we interviewed, uh, um, uh, Dr. Dennis Modry of the, uh, Alberta Prosperity Project just,

00:58:39.220 uh, the other day. And, um, he, uh, we were, we were talking to him at an APP event and he mentioned

00:58:45.300 how it's sort of his evaluation. It's his, it's his guess that based on the strength of, uh, the recent,

00:58:52.660 uh, referendum that Alberta had a few years ago on, um, equalization, uh, which I believe was 60 plus

00:58:59.380 percent, uh, in favor of, of, uh, uh, changing, if not outright removing, uh, you know, certain

00:59:05.940 provisions of the equalization payments between provinces. Uh, it's, it's his kind of estimation

00:59:11.460 that the, uh, the feeling, the general feeling amongst the Alberta population is probably leaning

00:59:18.660 towards independence. Like he's, he's feeling pretty strong about it. Do you, do you have much

00:59:22.820 of it? Do you have any sort of, uh, any guesstimates, uh, anything? No, nothing you want to stake your

00:59:28.100 reputation on, sir? I try to, I, I avoid making specific predictions about the future.

00:59:34.740 That's smart. I mean, a few minutes, a few minutes ago, I, I made a general prediction that,

00:59:41.060 that the next wave of assaults on our rights and freedoms will probably come in the name of saving

00:59:48.740 the planet from the climate Holocaust. But, you know, and I'm happy to be wrong on that prediction.

00:59:54.100 I, I hope that there won't be more, you know, waves of attacks on their rights, but, but, uh,

01:00:00.500 uh, you know, a lot of, uh, a lot of politicians or just people in general have learned the lesson

01:00:07.620 that a lot of, a lot of Canadians, uh, will believe fewer, believe whatever the media tells them.

01:00:14.900 But I, I think we've come a long ways. I think there are far fewer Canadians, uh, today in 2025,

01:00:21.460 uh, who accept whatever the government funded media is telling them as reliable as truth.

01:00:28.740 I think the number of Canadians believing the government funded media is, uh, far less today

01:00:35.060 than in 2019, 2019, 2020, when lockdowns came, that would have been at a far higher level.

01:00:40.740 And now it's at a far lower level. And the next time that there's an assault on rights and freedoms,

01:00:49.700 you're going to see more pushback right away early on when lockdowns were passed. I mean,

01:00:56.580 you take the justice center, for example, we didn't, I became skeptical after four weeks,

01:01:03.460 uh, seeing that, that this two weeks to flatten the curve was not going to be two weeks and it was

01:01:08.420 going on. And then the government was not considering lockdown harms at all. It was a zero, you know,

01:01:14.900 we're not looking at this. We're not thinking about it. We know that lockdowns are saving lives. We know

01:01:19.540 they're wonderful. Uh, we don't need to think about lockdown harms. I thought that was a red flag

01:01:23.940 because that was contrary to the constitution, which requires governments to do a cost benefit

01:01:28.100 analysis when they have a health order that violates our rights and freedoms. Anyway,

01:01:35.540 even the justice side, we called for an end to lockdowns in may of 2020. So it was two months in

01:01:40.500 and we called for an end to lockdowns. All of that to say, if there is another wave of assaults, uh, under,

01:01:49.860 you know, preventing the climate Holocaust or any other thing, it's not going to be a two month delay.

01:01:56.180 It's going to be more like a, a two day delay or, or a two hour delay. And then a lot of people are

01:02:01.700 going to come out saying, no, this is wrong. This is just like COVID. It's a false narrative.

01:02:06.420 And right off the bat, you're going to have a far larger core of Canadians standing up for rights and

01:02:12.740 freedoms than what we did in March of 2020. I totally agree. We, we've, we've talked about

01:02:18.660 that before too, where it's like, you know, I hope, I hope the government enjoyed the power that

01:02:23.300 that they had through the media and through their, you know, press briefings that they had

01:02:26.820 during that time, because for better or worse, they're never going to have that again. So,

01:02:30.580 so that's, that's something to look forward to now. Um, Mr. Carpe, we've had you, uh, for,

01:02:35.460 for about an hour here. We, uh, we were going to keep it to about an hour, but we did mention

01:02:39.300 before we started recording, maybe we'll do a quick, a quick little, uh, uh, uh, topic change

01:02:44.900 to the end here on the, uh, the recent, uh, decision regarding yourself from the, uh,

01:02:49.060 the law society of Alberta, if you wanted to, uh, say a few words on that.

01:02:54.420 Well, it was, it was very disappointing. Um, four years ago, I made an error in judgment by

01:03:01.860 including a judge in, uh, uh, surveillance on government officials to see if they were

01:03:07.620 complying with COVID rules, yes or no. Um, I hired a private investigator who did surveillance on

01:03:13.860 Manitoba's premier Manitoba's chief medical officer and the chief justice of Manitoba.

01:03:19.540 And he was sitting on one of the cases that the justice center was involved with. So

01:03:24.420 I've apologized for, for having included that judge who was still sitting on the case, uh,

01:03:30.820 because it, um, you know, it opened the door for people to, um, speculate that maybe I had

01:03:39.300 nefarious intentions of, you know, blackmailing the judge with, uh, with photographs showing him

01:03:44.980 to be breaking COVID rules or, you know, whatever. In any event, um, the Alberta law society received

01:03:53.300 a complaint, uh, against me as a member of the Alberta law society. And they wrote,

01:04:00.180 they talked with the Manitoba law society. The two law societies had these conversations

01:04:04.260 and they decided together that disciplinary proceedings against me would be handled by the

01:04:09.540 Manitoba law society. So I have a letter from the Alberta law society. In fact, I've got a copy of

01:04:16.500 it here and they say that the Manitoba law society is the proper jurisdiction to handle this complaint.

01:04:23.620 Uh, the Alberta law society and Manitoba law society have agreed that the Manitoba law society should

01:04:29.780 assume responsibility for the proceedings. The Alberta law society will not be taking any steps,

01:04:35.460 uh, closing its file. So when you say you're going to close your file, you're not taking further steps.

01:04:41.780 So this whole thing was handled by the Manitoba law society. Uh, it dragged on for two years.

01:04:48.820 Uh, I spent $50,000 of my own money on legal bills. I was punished. Uh, the proceedings were

01:04:56.980 concluded two years ago in August of 2023. Uh, I was, uh, they placed a lifetime ban on practicing law

01:05:05.380 in Manitoba and I was ordered to pay $5,000 and that was, you know, it w it was done. Um, I then resigned

01:05:14.740 from the Alberta law society. I tendered a letter of resignation and they said, oh,

01:05:18.580 we're not accepting that we're going to prosecute you again over exactly the same thing. And so, uh,

01:05:24.820 why do you think we are two years later? Sorry to interrupt, but why, why do you think they made that

01:05:28.580 decision? Just punitive? It's just, it's vindictive and it's a power trick. Yeah. And, uh, the,

01:05:37.700 there's not much I could do about it other than hire a lawyer again. And this time I, uh, you know, I,

01:05:46.020 I did fundraise, I didn't pay for it, uh, myself, but I had to hire another lawyer to defend me the

01:05:51.220 past almost two years against these, uh, these brand new disciplinary proceedings over exactly the

01:05:57.140 same thing. So, uh, so then I, on, on, on, uh, last week I, I got this, uh, decision that they're

01:06:05.380 going to disbar me. So this is, you know, almost two years after I've tendered my letter of resignation.

01:06:11.460 And it says a lot more about the Alberta law society than it does about me.

01:06:15.540 Can I just double check this logic? So let's say like, okay, there's an event going on,

01:06:19.300 you're like, I'm going to leave. And they're like, no, you can't leave. We have to get security

01:06:25.060 to like throw you out the window instead. To escort you out. Yeah. We're going to fraud march you

01:06:30.660 in front of everybody. We're going to have security march you out, like just to publicly

01:06:34.260 humiliate you because we're not going to let you leave our event quietly. It's like, I was just going

01:06:38.500 to leave. Why make a big deal? Yeah. Well, you know what that where I had started leaving,

01:06:43.940 I had started leaving. Right. It wasn't just like, it wasn't saying that I would do it. Right. But I,

01:06:48.740 you're like, I actually, I tend to block the door. I tender my letter of resignation.

01:06:54.020 Yeah. So it's like, yeah, yeah. You're not allowed to leave unless we escort you out by force

01:06:59.460 and, and publicly humiliate you and tell the whole world that we're forcing you out. Uh, so no,

01:07:05.700 there's, there's no, uh, you know, they say, oh, this disbarment is necessary to protect the,

01:07:10.420 the, the public. Uh, it's like, it's ridiculous. Perhaps that's the theme of tonight is we're 0.85

01:07:16.180 seeing like an, an inversion of any course of action that any logical rational person would take.

01:07:24.020 Like we're, we're, we're seeing things that don't hold up to scrutiny, like the motivations behind it.

01:07:30.020 And I feel like this is why we're, we're trying to push back against all of this.

01:07:35.060 Well, it's some, something too, that I think is, is, is very obvious too, is that

01:07:39.540 what you've experienced, what I'm sure other lawyers involved with the JCCF experience constantly

01:07:45.540 is that it doesn't matter how good your intentions are. It doesn't matter, uh, you know, how, how

01:07:51.700 honorable your, your methods or your, how, how careful you are. Um, if you're proceeding with anything

01:07:59.300 that goes contrary to what somebody in a position of power and influence wants, you're going to have,

01:08:06.340 you're going to have, as they say in the, in the nerd world, you're going to have the band hammer put

01:08:10.180 on you. So, um, I don't know, would you, would maybe as a final question and we'll let you go

01:08:15.380 other than maybe what you just said about the, the, the Winnipeg judge, uh, would you do anything

01:08:21.700 differently?

01:08:22.260 From what I did four years ago?

01:08:26.180 Well, from, from where, how you've gotten to where you are today, the things that you've,

01:08:30.980 that you've stood up for, the things that you've pushed in your law career, would you change anything?

01:08:35.620 Are you, are you pretty happy with, uh, with your own, are you, are you happy with your own,

01:08:40.580 can, can you sleep well at night knowing what you've done?

01:08:44.980 Well, I mean, like I break that down into two separate questions. I regret having included

01:08:50.340 the judge with the surveillance that was, uh, that was a bad move and I've apologized for that.

01:08:56.500 Apart from that, no, I've, I've, um, I just, I wished I somehow, you know, I don't know how I could

01:09:02.820 have been better, stronger, more effective, but I, I'm very, uh, you know, very happy with my

01:09:12.100 fighting for truth and justice and freedom in the, in the many years. I mean, my whole legal career has

01:09:18.820 been devoted to, uh, defending these fundamental charter freedoms of, of expression, conscience,

01:09:24.980 religion, association. And it's been an honor for me to represent very courageous Canadians

01:09:32.820 who have stood up to tyranny, who have stood up to injustice. And it's been a great honor for me

01:09:39.540 the last 15 years to have run the justice center and to have been, you know, involved in all these

01:09:46.260 court cases. I mean, we've grown so much. I mean, I, the last time I was in court on behalf of a

01:09:51.620 client was, it was 10 years ago. So I'm not, I'm not personally the lawyer in court, but it's a great

01:09:57.380 honor for me to have been able to play a role in bringing so many Canadians together to fight for

01:10:04.420 freedom in this country. And I think we're going to win in the long run in, in no small part, thanks to,

01:10:10.180 you know, podcasts and video casts, uh, of the kind that independent media like you are doing.

01:10:15.940 We keep on pushing the envelope for truth and justice and freedom. And, um, you know, we're

01:10:21.620 going to, uh, things might get worse temporarily in the short run, but, uh, we're going to win in

01:10:26.980 the end because truth will always vanquish the lie. Yeah. Well, I think I'll, I'll, I'll speak.

01:10:31.460 Well, sorry, James, I'll let you have the last word, but I'll, I'll speak for both of us when we say

01:10:35.700 too, that we're, we're honored that people like you are doing what you're doing, uh, that you take

01:10:41.780 the time to chat with people like us about it and, and let us, you know, lay people who just happen to

01:10:47.380 have an interest in this sort of thing, chat with you and, and you can, uh, you know, you, you find

01:10:52.100 the time to do these things. So we're, uh, yeah, we're very honored that there's people like you doing

01:10:56.580 this stuff and, uh, yeah. And that you chat with us. So thank you for that. Thanks for having me on your

01:11:02.100 show. Have a great rest of the night. All right. Thanks, John. Take care.

01:11:05.700 Bye.

The Critical Compass Podcast - October 08, 2025

John Carpay & the JCCF's Mission to Save Freedom of Speech in Canada

Episode Stats

People

Summary

Transcript