The National Telegraph - Wyatt Claypool - January 01, 2024


Canadian court rules in favour of open drug use


Episode Stats


Length

16 minutes

Words per minute

176.16225

Word count

2,991

Sentence count

140

Harmful content

Misogyny

3

sentences flagged

Hate speech

3

sentences flagged


Summary

Summaries generated with gmurro/bart-large-finetuned-filtered-spotify-podcast-summ .

In this episode, I talk about how far left the Supreme Court has become and why we need more conservative judges on the bench. I also talk about the BC Supreme Court ruling that blocks third parties from intervening in drug use in public spaces.

Transcript

Transcript generated with Whisper (turbo).
Misogyny classifications generated with MilaNLProc/bert-base-uncased-ear-misogyny .
Hate speech classifications generated with facebook/roberta-hate-speech-dynabench-r4-target .
00:00:00.280 Canadian Conservatives, both on the provincial and federal levels of government, need to get way more serious about the issue of court appointments in this country.
00:00:08.740 I know as soon as you bring up court appointments and actually wanting more conservative and charter-respecting people on the bench,
00:00:15.000 the legacy media and the left-wing political parties are immediately going to attack you as trying to Americanize Canadian politics,
00:00:21.760 as if because Americans care about an issue, if you care about it as a Canadian, somehow you're doing something wrong.
00:00:27.760 Conservatives need to weather that stupid storm because the courts are going to get in the way of a lot of legislative reforms that we want to pass. 1.00
00:00:35.520 The best example of how far left the court has become is a story out of British Columbia,
00:00:40.460 where the BC NDP actually tried to do something very good, which was trying to re-ban, re-criminalize, as the left would say,
00:00:48.720 illicit drug use in public areas, also trying to make sure that people can't use drugs right next to storefronts and all this sort of thing.
00:00:56.300 Just basic stuff anyone would expect should be illegal in a province.
00:01:02.040 So the British Columbia NDP put forward legislation to ban illicit drug use,
00:01:08.020 and the BC Supreme Court actually blocks that from happening.
00:01:12.720 They put a pause on the legislation until modifications can be made under the guise
00:01:18.560 that somehow they're going to cause harm by not letting people basically poison themselves on the streets
00:01:24.520 based on the cries of activist groups saying that criminalization will harm people
00:01:31.560 and that if anyone is hurt because they aren't given safe supply drugs
00:01:36.140 and they're not allowed to use drugs in a public park and they have to do it in their own homes,
00:01:41.380 that that somehow is going to make it more difficult from third parties helping people who are overdosing on the streets.
00:01:47.940 They're never investing.
00:01:49.380 The court never even considers the fact that British Columbia is becoming the overdose capital of Canada
00:01:54.740 because of loose drug laws that are encouraging people to use drugs.
00:01:59.480 And you could say, well, they're not encouraging people to.
00:02:01.840 They're just trying to keep people safe.
00:02:03.740 Well, if you put more of a safety net in place for bad activity,
00:02:07.120 you're going to find a lot of people are going to gravitate towards that bad activity.
00:02:11.520 Just because you, in your upper middle class bubble, thinks it's a bad idea to smoke meth on the streets
00:02:18.300 doesn't mean that you're not going to have a specific demographic of people
00:02:21.620 that if you make it easier to do meth on the streets are then going to start doing it.
00:02:26.140 It can't be shocked that people are going to follow incentives as silly as the incentives are.
00:02:31.520 But I want to start talking about this court case and the conclusion of this decision
00:02:35.180 because it is wacky and it demonstrates that we either need to find a way of getting these people off the bench
00:02:40.600 or once they retire, we need to be forcing through conservative court appointments 0.76
00:02:45.840 to make sure that the people making decisions on like in court cases
00:02:50.980 and on legislation challenges are not far left sociologists
00:02:55.080 because these people do not sound like real lawyers or judges.
00:03:00.200 I say lawyers because you have to be a lawyer before you become a judge.
00:03:02.820 These people do not sound like they actually understand the charter.
00:03:06.520 They just see the charter as a vehicle to push far left insanity.
00:03:10.460 The fact that they're running up against the BC NDP is a big sign
00:03:13.920 that the people getting on these courts are so political
00:03:16.080 they probably wouldn't even get through a BC NDP nomination
00:03:20.220 without being considered so radical they get disqualified.
00:03:23.880 But so Supreme Court Judge, Supreme Court Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson
00:03:29.060 issued this decision.
00:03:31.540 I'll bring it up on screen because I want to read the conclusion.
00:03:34.260 It was like some, I just want to read who it was that intervened in this case.
00:03:39.340 Sorry if I start sounding a bit clunky here.
00:03:42.020 It was the, it was the Harm Reduction Nurses Association
00:03:48.040 was the one challenging this decision.
00:03:50.440 I don't know why activist groups can challenge like decisions from the legislature
00:03:55.340 based off of not even being a relevant plaintiff.
00:03:59.260 But I guess the BC courts will hear you if it gives them an opportunity
00:04:02.820 to strike down legislation that they don't like.
00:04:05.800 And so this entire case is based on the idea
00:04:10.180 that this, that this legislation by the BC NDP
00:04:14.580 will harm the ability for nurses and other third parties
00:04:20.060 from intervening and helping people who are overdosing by,
00:04:24.020 you know, because they're using dirtier drugs
00:04:26.020 or because they can't use it in a public park,
00:04:28.020 they're going to use drugs somewhere where it's still technically legal
00:04:31.240 and it's farther away from people who can help them
00:04:33.860 or some other nonsense.
00:04:35.780 It's like the BC government argues.
00:04:39.020 It's all based on anecdotal examples.
00:04:41.800 There's nothing actually substantial to the argument that,
00:04:45.440 like there's nothing substantial to the argument
00:04:47.140 that the Nurses Association,
00:04:49.440 the Harm Reduction Nurses Association is making.
00:04:51.500 But the court just decides that they don't care
00:04:53.620 because they agree with the nurses.
00:04:55.580 And it's exactly how this thing reads.
00:04:57.820 So on line 89, the conclusions on irreparable harm
00:05:02.320 because they argue that somehow this legislation
00:05:04.460 will cause irreparable harm.
00:05:06.520 It reads,
00:05:07.120 Given the evidence before me,
00:05:08.900 I find that there is a high degree of probability
00:05:11.120 that at least some of the harm set out by the plaintiff
00:05:13.920 will in fact occur.
00:05:15.660 Some?
00:05:16.340 That's a little bit odd.
00:05:17.600 So they only had to prove that some harm
00:05:19.760 could be done by this legislation?
00:05:21.440 Whatever, sir, I'll keep reading.
00:05:23.420 Centrally, but not exclusively,
00:05:25.320 the act will promote more lone drug use,
00:05:27.460 which carries incumbent risks of PWUD.
00:05:31.040 That's the idea that like risks to PWUD,
00:05:34.300 third parties trying to help people overdosing
00:05:36.380 or it's putting them at greater risk or whatever.
00:05:38.540 So it carries incumbent risks to PWUD
00:05:41.880 and also the plaintiff's members.
00:05:44.220 Line 90.
00:05:45.300 The province argues that the plaintiff's evidence
00:05:46.860 is composed almost entirely of affidavits
00:05:50.020 prepared by administrators of public interest groups
00:05:52.220 that are replete with anecdotal evidence,
00:05:54.860 unsubstantiated inclusionary statements,
00:05:58.200 layers of untributed hearsay,
00:06:00.700 inadmissible expert opinions,
00:06:01.980 and public recommendations.
00:06:03.860 The evidence, it argues, is generic
00:06:05.580 and therefore without necessary convincing level
00:06:08.540 of particularity and is factually untethered
00:06:13.840 from the actual restrictions contained in the act.
00:06:17.140 I find it necessary, this is line 91,
00:06:19.240 I find it unnecessary, however,
00:06:20.780 for me to place reliance on what the province
00:06:23.400 describes as anecdotal evidence,
00:06:25.220 unsubstantially conclusionary statements,
00:06:26.820 and layers of unattributed hearsay
00:06:28.800 and policy recommendations,
00:06:30.200 as I find the evidence adduced by the plaintiff
00:06:33.880 from the death review report on its own
00:06:36.420 could establish the risk of irreparable harm
00:06:38.660 to at least some of the plaintiff's members
00:06:40.240 and to PWUD.
00:06:42.680 This is blatantly insane.
00:06:45.520 The judge, Justice Hinckley, or yeah, Hinkson,
00:06:49.900 is arguing that because you can maybe prove
00:06:53.520 that by restricting drug use
00:06:56.280 from these sort of safe injection sites,
00:06:58.960 from this like safe supply program,
00:07:01.280 and in public parks,
00:07:02.240 because by getting rid of some of those services
00:07:04.800 or by not allowing people to use drugs publicly,
00:07:08.100 that there might be some level of higher difficulty
00:07:11.900 in treating someone overdosing,
00:07:13.740 that means this legislation can't be passed.
00:07:16.220 That is insane.
00:07:17.440 This is basically saying,
00:07:18.960 and the idea that because there's some,
00:07:22.060 because some of what the plaintiff is saying
00:07:24.100 could cause harm, we can't have any legislation.
00:07:26.820 We should just ban legislation entirely
00:07:28.480 and live in an anarchy
00:07:29.720 because that's what this justice is effectively saying.
00:07:32.700 If he can even imagine a hypothetical situation
00:07:35.760 where someone overdosing is harder to help
00:07:38.280 because we don't let them use meth in a public park,
00:07:42.400 that that means this legislation is somehow bad.
00:07:45.100 The guy has to ask himself,
00:07:46.880 well, why is it that Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario
00:07:50.920 has a lower drug death rates than BC,
00:07:54.180 who has all these safety measures?
00:07:56.020 The idea that somehow because per capita drug overdose deaths,
00:08:00.480 so the amount of times you have to overdose
00:08:02.140 before you die might go down
00:08:04.580 because there's like less safety nets around,
00:08:07.480 is somehow means that this is going to cause
00:08:09.200 irreparable harm.
00:08:10.440 Maybe in the immediate short term,
00:08:12.540 there might be a few more deaths because of overdoses,
00:08:15.380 but his argument would say
00:08:17.460 that we can never enforce drug laws
00:08:18.920 because if we do, the few people who are using drugs
00:08:22.200 might become more at risk of death.
00:08:24.980 That is insane, unethical,
00:08:27.200 and it's actually going to cause more people
00:08:29.040 to die in the long run.
00:08:30.840 This guy, Hinkson, is not arguing anything
00:08:33.360 that's actually legal.
00:08:34.760 He's just, he's basically bending to political arguments.
00:08:38.920 And I believe it's because he himself
00:08:40.800 is extremely political.
00:08:42.880 I just want to create a couple more things here.
00:08:44.500 It's just so baffling when you read this.
00:08:46.440 So this is line 92.
00:08:47.920 The plaintiff suggests that in a case like this,
00:08:50.320 where the fundamental rights and lives
00:08:51.880 and safety of marginalized people
00:08:53.300 have been put at risk,
00:08:54.420 the balance of convenience
00:08:55.660 should fall overwhelmingly in its favor.
00:08:58.120 That is insane.
00:08:59.560 That is an insane line I have just read.
00:09:01.860 That because something might affect people
00:09:03.920 that we have defined as marginalized,
00:09:06.180 the convenience of like basically the evidence,
00:09:09.560 the way that we should read the evidence
00:09:11.100 should be like heavily in favor of them.
00:09:14.040 If there is, if you can find someone
00:09:16.300 who is a minority in some way,
00:09:18.520 who is affected by something,
00:09:20.200 basically the state and courts
00:09:22.180 should bend over backwards to help them.
00:09:25.220 And this is ridiculous.
00:09:26.480 This drug legislation trying to ban
00:09:28.900 the public use of fentanyl in BC
00:09:31.580 is going to help people who are using drugs the most
00:09:35.220 because it's going to stop them
00:09:36.880 from like diving deeper into their addictions
00:09:38.960 by having the state just kind of like
00:09:40.780 turn a blind eye to it.
00:09:42.080 It gives the state more resources
00:09:43.780 to intervene with these people
00:09:45.660 so that they're using drugs publicly.
00:09:47.720 There is a reason now that the police can arrest them
00:09:49.960 and potentially force them into rehab.
00:09:52.720 That is good for them.
00:09:54.000 The BC courts think someone
00:09:55.240 basically deteriorating on the streets
00:09:57.300 using heavily toxic opioids.
00:10:00.080 That's actually good for them
00:10:01.260 because somehow they're black.
00:10:03.400 So that ergo means, that's just an example.
00:10:05.220 They're black. 0.74
00:10:05.840 So ergo, decriminalizing drugs is bad.
00:10:08.800 That is actively left-wing insanity.
00:10:12.640 I just want to keep reading a little bit more of this.
00:10:14.660 I'm sorry, this is a little bit painful.
00:10:17.780 And then so he goes on to say,
00:10:19.340 it contends that in light of the province's actions
00:10:21.460 in changing the status quo,
00:10:22.940 status quo, the status quo has only been around
00:10:24.760 for a couple of years, but now it's status quo.
00:10:27.280 I know status quo is just whatever
00:10:28.600 the current situation is,
00:10:29.860 but like the current situation is very out of the norm
00:10:32.780 for both British Columbia's history
00:10:34.640 as well as Canada as a whole.
00:10:36.540 There's very few places you can find as nutty
00:10:38.580 as BC is on the issue of drugs.
00:10:41.320 And the BC NDP is actually trying to reverse it
00:10:43.360 because it's just so obvious
00:10:44.320 that what they're doing is insane.
00:10:45.740 So anyways, I'll go back to reading that.
00:10:47.400 It contends that in light of the province's actions
00:10:50.080 in changing the status quo,
00:10:51.620 it has acted swiftly to seek relief
00:10:53.660 that it deems unnecessary.
00:10:55.500 The province responds that it must be assumed
00:10:58.600 that the act poses a public benefit
00:11:00.640 and the court should assume the plaintiff
00:11:02.180 is acting in its own interest
00:11:03.360 and that an interim injunction
00:11:04.800 would deprive the public
00:11:05.700 from benefits of the law.
00:11:06.840 Yes, that is 100% true.
00:11:09.300 That if the act clearly benefits the public,
00:11:13.780 it clearly benefits the public
00:11:15.340 for less people to be using drugs
00:11:16.960 in a children's park.
00:11:18.320 I'm not sure why I need to explain that
00:11:20.540 to a left-wing judge
00:11:21.860 who probably stole his law degree
00:11:25.100 based on how bad this is.
00:11:26.600 But like, because there is,
00:11:29.160 he's arguing that province can't argue
00:11:31.040 that there's potential benefit.
00:11:32.080 But you're letting the plaintiff argue
00:11:34.280 that there's hypothetical potential harm
00:11:36.260 and that they don't even get to,
00:11:38.360 and there's not even harm to the,
00:11:40.180 and the province can't even argue back
00:11:42.580 there's harm to leaving the status quo in place.
00:11:45.460 This court decision is basically saying,
00:11:47.540 I'm going to let the activists win
00:11:48.960 and whatever you say in response to me,
00:11:51.000 I'm going to put my fingers in my ear.
00:11:52.980 That is what this judge is saying.
00:11:54.400 This guy is an embarrassment
00:11:55.520 to the law's legal system.
00:11:57.640 But to go on a little bit more
00:12:00.480 because it's just kind of funny to me
00:12:01.700 at this point.
00:12:03.080 It says,
00:12:03.980 in addition to the law on public benefit
00:12:06.880 to settle above,
00:12:08.480 in whatever some court decision consider,
00:12:11.900 injunction against Crown explains,
00:12:14.080 this is from another legal decision,
00:12:15.900 such relief should not be granted
00:12:17.180 without a consideration of the public interest,
00:12:19.500 including the public interest
00:12:20.800 in the legitimacy of public institutions.
00:12:22.920 The public interest includes,
00:12:24.140 in my view,
00:12:24.620 a high level of respect for the decision
00:12:26.200 of the legislative and executive branches.
00:12:28.180 Well, this judge is just walking all over
00:12:29.780 the decision of the legislative
00:12:30.840 and executive branches.
00:12:31.740 He's basically saying,
00:12:32.580 well, I don't care if there's any benefit,
00:12:33.960 but he's pretending he's being balanced.
00:12:35.620 So it says,
00:12:36.600 in my view,
00:12:37.320 a high level of respect
00:12:38.320 for the decision of the legislative
00:12:39.780 and executive branches of government,
00:12:41.320 the jurisdiction of the courts
00:12:43.100 to enjoin impugn government actions,
00:12:45.540 which may or may not,
00:12:46.920 in the end,
00:12:47.360 be found to be unconstitutional,
00:12:49.140 must recognize the court's own
00:12:50.720 limited institutional competence
00:12:52.960 and public interest
00:12:53.740 and having publicly elected bodies
00:12:57.040 and officials enact legislation
00:12:58.480 and determining public policy.
00:13:00.600 So he's pretending that,
00:13:04.040 like, somehow he is still respecting
00:13:07.160 the ability for the legislature
00:13:08.480 to pass some laws.
00:13:09.960 And that, like,
00:13:11.100 the insanity of this,
00:13:12.780 it's basically insane court decisions
00:13:14.300 referencing other insane court decisions
00:13:16.160 saying that,
00:13:17.000 well, whether or not the legislation
00:13:18.220 is actually going to benefit British Columbia
00:13:19.480 is neither here nor there
00:13:20.600 because I can invent a scenario
00:13:22.680 in which the current legislation
00:13:24.160 could do something bad to somebody.
00:13:26.340 And guess what?
00:13:27.420 Every piece of legislation
00:13:28.600 is going to somehow harm somebody.
00:13:31.180 There's no question
00:13:32.580 because we live in a big, crazy world
00:13:35.060 and even the most obviously good piece
00:13:37.900 of legislation,
00:13:38.880 you'll find somebody.
00:13:40.800 It somehow hurts
00:13:41.520 in the most subjective,
00:13:43.320 like, fringe way possible.
00:13:45.580 And this court is basically saying
00:13:46.940 that because I can invent fantasies
00:13:49.280 in my head
00:13:49.860 or because we can find one person
00:13:51.520 who might OD
00:13:52.100 because they weren't allowed
00:13:52.840 to keep doing math
00:13:53.600 in the middle of a park.
00:13:54.740 Ergo, this legislation
00:13:56.200 is unconstitutional.
00:13:58.180 Insane.
00:13:58.680 I hope that the B.C. government
00:13:59.980 appeals this to the,
00:14:02.360 like, to the Supreme Court of Canada
00:14:03.860 and the Supreme Court
00:14:04.720 has a few brain cells in it
00:14:06.360 that they, like,
00:14:07.000 actually defeat this decision.
00:14:08.320 It's insane.
00:14:09.380 But this is why,
00:14:10.960 sorry for how much of this
00:14:12.380 has become a rant,
00:14:13.440 but this is why Canadian conservatives,
00:14:16.100 federally and provincially,
00:14:16.980 need to ram through better judges.
00:14:20.560 I don't care if they say,
00:14:21.880 oh, these people seem partisan,
00:14:23.140 they seem conservative.
00:14:24.660 The liberals don't care about that,
00:14:26.020 so the conservatives shouldn't care
00:14:27.000 because at the end of the day,
00:14:28.100 we should have people on the court,
00:14:29.720 no matter what their party affiliation is,
00:14:31.600 who understand how to read the charter,
00:14:33.980 understand the place of the court,
00:14:35.600 and aren't just a bunch of activists
00:14:37.700 using the courts
00:14:38.600 because they couldn't get elected themselves.
00:14:41.400 If you can't get,
00:14:42.320 if you're, you know,
00:14:43.240 if you're just too incompetent
00:14:44.920 to get elected in a party system
00:14:46.840 to get in the legislature
00:14:48.080 and you still want to make decisions,
00:14:50.080 go, you know, go write a book.
00:14:51.680 Go write a book
00:14:52.460 about you being a progressive hero.
00:14:54.400 Don't get on the courts
00:14:55.240 and start shoving that down people's throats. 0.99
00:14:56.820 It's disgusting.
00:14:58.300 Anyways, this should be it for me today.
00:15:00.880 I have my usual give, send, go link
00:15:03.400 in the description of this video.
00:15:05.300 If you want to contribute,
00:15:06.760 I'm being sued by a billionaire.
00:15:08.960 It's an obviously stupid defamation case.
00:15:11.060 Speaking of stupid court decisions,
00:15:12.520 I wish in Alberta we had anti-slap laws 1.00
00:15:15.900 that would actually allow dumb defamation cases
00:15:18.040 to be thrown out early,
00:15:18.960 but we don't have that.
00:15:19.780 That is more of a legislative problem,
00:15:21.220 but whatever.
00:15:23.100 It's complete, if you want,
00:15:24.800 it's a completely ridiculous case.
00:15:26.140 If you want to contribute,
00:15:27.040 you can give five, 10, $15 to my legal defense.
00:15:30.460 It helps pay down my $25,000 legal costs.
00:15:34.380 Other than that,
00:15:35.480 I'm also running for the Calgary Stigal Hill
00:15:37.080 Conservative Party nomination.
00:15:38.420 If you live in that running,
00:15:40.200 make sure you and your friends
00:15:41.360 have Conservative Party memberships,
00:15:44.960 vote for me in the nomination,
00:15:45.960 number one on your ballot.
00:15:46.920 It's a ranked ballot system.
00:15:48.200 That's Calgary Stigal Hill.
00:15:49.680 Look it up.
00:15:50.320 See if you live in the riding.
00:15:51.900 And you can check out the website.
00:15:53.340 I have it also linked in the description.
00:15:55.220 I know I make a lot more videos
00:15:56.620 where I seem to just rant on,
00:15:57.920 but this decision from the court
00:16:00.240 did require me to do more reading.
00:16:02.160 And it's just so horrifying
00:16:03.860 that there's nothing to do
00:16:05.580 but just say that it's stupid 0.67
00:16:06.920 and just talk about how incompetent
00:16:09.080 this Justice Hinkson is.
00:16:10.700 This guy's not a judge.
00:16:12.100 This guy's just like a sociologist
00:16:14.020 who somehow snuck onto the court.
00:16:16.300 Anyways, I can't believe
00:16:17.900 I'm actually having to back up
00:16:18.940 the BC NDP and Premier Eby,
00:16:20.580 but this is what we've brought ourselves to,
00:16:23.380 is that even the NDP
00:16:24.400 is not far left enough
00:16:25.560 for the BC Supreme Court.
00:16:27.860 Have a great day, everyone.
00:16:28.740 We'll see you next time.