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

Misogynist Sentences

3

Hate Speech Sentences

3


Summary

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

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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.