00:02:55.020patriot this is the patriot line of t-shirt from tacit investigations and security and
00:03:04.800at tacit the mission is to be the pinnacle solution service provider of investigation
00:03:10.220and specialized security services to clients through innovation intelligence and integration
00:03:14.240by the way you'll have a chance at winning that t-shirt later on in the show tonight
00:03:18.040headquartered in winnipeg manitoba canada tacit is a full service licensed and bonded investigation
00:03:23.400and security agency with service areas all across canada and abroad they handle surveillance they
00:03:28.860handle insurance fraud investigations they do digital forensics they do corporate they also
00:03:33.600handle special security operations you can find them online tacit-investigations.com or you call
00:03:39.820204-952-4775 24 hours a day seven days a week 365 days a year tacit investigations and security
00:03:49.560And the show is also brought to you by Canada, nanosilver.ca.
00:03:53.860I understand that the brand new face serum, the facial serum, is just flying off the shelves because people have been watching this show, you see, and they see how young I've been looking for the past few weeks because I apply this stuff twice a day, every single day.
00:04:10.700And it's doing exactly what they said it was going to do.
00:04:14.340It stimulates stem cell activation, it's anti-inflammatory, cleanses the skin, promotes natural healing, diminishes wrinkles and fine lines, as you can see.
00:04:25.660It hydrates your skin, it keeps collagen synthesis up, it increases skin hydration, my apologies, locks in moisture, boosts skin elasticity, nourishes skin cell growth.
00:04:38.120Here's the interview I did with the inventor of the product, Dr. Keith Mahler, a couple of weeks ago.
00:04:42.700It's here on the website. You can enjoy it at your leisure and find out more about this product and go ahead and pick some up. Canada nanosilver.ca. Canada nanosilver.ca. All right. I want to talk about the constitutional court case that was heard last week in Alberta. We're going to bring Derek Frum on in just a minute. Our constitutional lawyer in Alberta to discuss this. He was telling me before the show, he goes, wow, maybe I bit off more than I can chew.
00:05:08.080There's a lot of stuff from Sheila Gunn-Reid's tweets on Twitter here, but I do have this story from TrueNorthTNC.News.
00:05:15.880This is from day four of the trial last week, so it was published about a week ago.
00:05:22.480Alberta Provincial Health Officer Dr. Dina Hinshaw faced her fourth straight day of questioning in an Alberta courtroom Thursday
00:05:30.340as an unprecedented civil suit against the province's COVID restrictions continued.
00:05:34.660Lawyers with the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms have zeroed in on Hinshaw's use of certain language, including, quote, non-believers, quote, conspiracy theory, quote, naysayers, quote, new normal and social justice commitments, as well as a highly publicized incident from October that saw Hinshaw apologize for initially blaming the death of a 14 year old on COVID when he had actually died of brain cancer.
00:06:01.300The long-delayed trial began last week, sorry, again, this was published last week, so this week, they say,
00:06:07.920with JCCF lawyers representing a number of churches and individuals, including a gym owner who had filed a constitutional challenge in December of 2020.
00:06:17.940At that time, the plaintiffs had filed for an injunction against Alberta's restrictions, including lockdowns involving their businesses, places of worship, and family gatherings pending the trial.
00:06:27.040a different judge had struck down that petition, ruling the government's health measures to be in
00:06:31.940the public's best interest. The time frame of the challenge is important, as it means the health
00:06:36.860orders brought in after the summer of 2021, including Alberta's vaccine mandates and passports,
00:06:42.080are not within its purview. Neither is the hindsight of new research since, narrowing the
00:06:47.740relevance to what Hinshaw allegedly knew or believed at the time she imposed her health orders.
00:06:52.700Court of Queen's Bench Justice Barbara Romain is presiding over the hearing.
00:06:56.640The suit is one of many currently ongoing against the federal and provincial governments over violations of charter and other rights under COVID, including travel restrictions, vaccine requirements and lockdowns.
00:07:08.440The lawsuit states the Alberta government had violated rights to peaceful assembly, to travel, to conduct a business, to earn a living, to visit family and friends, to have visitors in one zone, private residence and to worship.
00:07:21.360Select individual rights and freedoms have been constitutionalized in this country for a reason, the JCCF wrote.
00:07:27.180Not merely because living in a free society is convenient, because of the recognition that the activities, experiences, and endeavors those rights protect are what make life truly worth living.
00:07:37.980The JCCF's lawyers have been cross-examining Hinshaw on her 206-page affidavit detailing pandemic statistics, timelines, and decision-making frameworks.
00:07:48.300Hinshaw testified that it can take months to distinguish people who died from COVID from people who died with it.
00:07:56.520When asked whether the number of people who died from COVID is actually lower than what was reported, Hinshaw answered, it's part of the ongoing checking process.
00:08:06.220Questions also arose around the slippery slope of socialized medicine, in addition to social justice considerations and Hinshaw's decision making, with lawyer Leighton Gray asking her why she hadn't asked people to get their weight under control when evidence showed that obesity, along with many other conditions, was a major contributing factor to COVID hospitalizations.
00:08:26.840you never told Albertans they could reduce their risk of COVID-19 by reducing the amount they ate
00:08:33.200said Gray you never said you know it would really help you it would really help your health
00:08:38.020if you'd get your weight under control replying that obesity is not something that can be changed
00:08:43.420in a short time Hinshaw then faced questions over restrictions involving children and young people
00:08:49.460whom evidence showed were at next to zero risk from the pandemic Hinshaw admitted that COVID-19
00:08:55.260infection is not a significant risk to people under the age of 19 on tuesday gray invited
00:09:01.740hinshaw to explain to the court why she had used the term non-believers to describe people who did
00:09:06.700not go along with her covet recommendations hinshaw defined non-believers as those who
00:09:13.340hang on just a second here guys let me there it is let me scroll this down hinshaw defined
00:09:19.580non-believers as those who adopted beliefs that would lead to behaviors that would put themselves
00:09:24.300and others at risk. When asked about her use of conspiracy theory and naysayers to describe people
00:09:29.940who held different opinions from government doctors, she replied that a small number of
00:09:34.620individuals with a differing opinion does not change the consensus. All right, enough of that.
00:09:42.060Let's bring in our constitutional lawyer. Well, he's a lawyer with a constitutional background
00:09:46.540out of Alberta. It's Derek Frum. Derek, thank you for coming on the show tonight. It's been a while.
00:09:51.320I hope you're doing well. I am doing well. Thank you. Yeah. So let's start with with her
00:09:57.840naysayers and nonbelievers and all of those remarks. I mean, she submitted a 206 page
00:10:06.680affidavit to the court and actually use those phrases in those words. Would that make a judge0.83
00:10:13.600go, wait a minute, this woman is clearly biased and not using just medical knowledge to go ahead1.00
00:10:19.300implement these ridiculous mandates? Well, I would like to think so. I think it's very interesting1.00
00:10:26.780that she uses terms like that that are so charged. I think those particular terms are only ever used
00:10:35.980in a pejorative sense, aren't they? I would say. It's like when I hear the word non-believer
00:10:41.660used in that context, my mind goes right to infidel. And that's more of a moral term1.00
00:10:49.140and um quite frankly it's a much better term she should have used that one um but naysayer too
00:10:56.120a naysayer that that's that's a little bit belittling is it not i would say to dismiss
00:11:02.040to dismiss my um criticisms of her based upon the constitution of canada
00:11:11.240as just being naysaying that's like saying oh it's not that significant you're just naysaying
00:11:16.060You don't really have a legitimate problem or gripe with what's going on.
00:11:20.400You're just you're just a naysayer. You're taking pot shots.
00:11:23.740It's dismissive. And I think her her choice of terms betrays just that she's not really a serious person.
00:11:32.880She's not a serious thinker and she doesn't really understand what she's been doing.
00:11:39.040And that's that should be really discouraging for all of us.
00:11:42.940But yet at the same time, maybe a little bit liberating as well.
00:11:47.580You read some of Sheila's tweets over the time that the court case was going on last week and just reviewing them today.
00:11:55.820Do you think that the two lawyers who were cross-examining Hinshaw hit her hard enough in all the right spots?
00:21:52.260And so when the constitution says you have a right to religious freedom,
00:21:57.100well taking that in a proportionate way you think well what what good comes from religious freedom
00:22:06.540well people have community they have support groups they have emotional security in a time
00:22:11.700that's difficult they might be able to get financial support from their fellow believers
00:22:16.240and congregants and you can go through the list and anyone who's been involved in a church or
00:22:20.280religious group a synagogue a mosque will recognize the good that comes through that social bonding
00:22:25.360and relationship. Well, it's in times of pandemic where those things are most needed, is it not?
00:22:33.700And yet the government took that away, and in Hinshaw's testimony, she wouldn't even acknowledge
00:22:38.500that she had a great impact on religious freedom in Alberta. No, she didn't acknowledge a whole
00:22:43.760bunch except for that, I believe, the one case of the 14-year-old who died of brain cancer as
00:22:48.320opposed to COVID, which was announced by her and then corrected two days later. Let's get back to
00:22:54.440the court of science and you'd suggested a judge might throw up his or her hands and go look i
00:22:59.280don't know what the hell is going on you scientists you're arguing here so in that case what would a
00:23:05.040judge do would they defer to somebody who does understand that language or would they just defer
00:23:10.640to the government because they don't know you see this is i think what happened in manitoba last
00:23:15.460year uh with that court case we had it's very similar to the one that's ongoing in alberta
00:23:20.640right now where the i mean it seemed as though the side for freedom had the the best medical
00:23:28.220expect uh experts from across the world and here uh dr brent rusen went i don't know uh we did this
00:23:35.740because we they did and and that's it seems like exactly what happened in alberta and they won the
00:23:41.820case here in manitoba the government won the case yeah is that the same thing that's going to happen
00:23:46.860there because the judge is just frustrated and doesn't know? Yeah, it might be. But I think
00:23:52.840my heuristic illustration there, I would hope that a judge would follow that sort of reasoning and
00:24:00.680say, look, in times when I just don't know, I'm going to have to rely on the wisdom of those who
00:24:06.360came before me. And they decided that freedom of religion, freedom of expression, liberty,
00:24:13.640security of the person these rights are so important that we protect them we may not know
00:24:20.200why we may not know why in every circumstance but Canadians have chosen to protect those and you
00:24:25.920know those rights didn't start with the charter which is fascinating the courts have said this
00:24:30.120repeatedly and I think I think law professors in the last 20 years have forgotten that and
00:24:35.120certainly lawyers don't remember but I mean the court early in charter jurisprudence went out of
00:24:41.560its way to say these rights didn't start with the charter they're just embodied in the charter
00:24:46.720they're continued and set in stone in the charter but here here's the deal i think i i think i think
00:24:53.680conservatives and i say this with caution i think uh political conservatives who have who have often
00:25:04.020um described courts as activist um have maybe done us a disservice here
00:25:11.980activist court we hear we hear that a lot particularly we don't hear it so much in
00:25:18.240canada we do hear it at times uh but it's mostly an american thing and i i would put it to you
00:25:24.280that we don't have a problem in this country with activist courts what we have a problem with is
00:25:31.340abdicist courts, courts that abdicate their responsibility to uphold the charter and uphold
00:25:37.960the constitution and the law. They look for a way to not have to do it because it's hard.
00:25:44.060And so, for instance, in the case law, for years, conservatives, and again, I say this with caution,
00:25:51.380I would maybe put a capital C on that conservative. Conservatives have pushed hard
00:25:58.320for parliamentary sovereignty. We don't want the courts being the unelected true governors of
00:26:04.980Canada. That's true. We don't. But the pendulum swung. And in the case law, if you go to a free
00:26:12.540legal database called Canly and do a search for a string called, or quotes around these two words
00:26:20.980together, or three words, margin of appreciation. You'll find cases where conservatives push back
00:26:29.280because we want parliament to make a decision on something, not have the courts to overturn
00:26:34.680the parliament's legislation on charter grounds. Let parliament do what it wants, basically the
00:26:41.760argument has been. And what this margin of appreciation is, is in times where it's really
00:26:49.380cloudy and a court doesn't really know what to do, it should say this to itself. I'm only a court.
00:26:56.900I'm not a parliament. I don't have elected members in me. I didn't hear debate at three
00:27:04.720different sittings. I wasn't there when these bills went to committee. I should just take a
00:27:10.760back seat and let this go through and let the government do what it wants. That's the margin
00:27:17.700of appreciation and that's what we're up against here because i'm worried that a court will too
00:27:23.740easily abdicate its role to uphold the constitution which i think is very clear yeah well we're not
00:27:30.460talking about laws even uh we're talking about mandates and there have been many people in the
00:27:35.860past couple of years who said not a law mandate is there a difference i i don't see a difference
00:27:41.340um you know uh and any difference that there is might just be the way the two words are spelled
00:27:48.480because at the end of the day what i think a law is is when you're given a command by somebody who
00:27:54.680can enforce it with guns and uh when it's the state particularly that's that's problematic
00:28:01.180and uh we've seen a lot of that in alberta we saw boys playing hockey outside get tackled by cops
00:28:08.100we've seen pastors arrested on the road others stuck in solitary confinement for weeks at a time
00:28:15.360we've seen restaurant owners have their businesses destroyed and and we've seen the social fabric0.98
00:28:23.660torn apart here in big ways by the vaccine passport which came in subsequent to this
00:28:30.260to the issues at trial in the case we're discussing tonight but these are all all terrible0.57
00:28:37.420terrible things that have been done and uh so i i don't know it just makes me wonder when you see
00:28:45.960somebody like dina henshaw sitting up on the stand um completely and totally expressionless
00:28:52.200uh you know admitting well you know what i was very sorry about the 14 year old boy and
00:28:57.680but just absolutely no emotion involved in this at all you know they don't say wow man like we
00:29:03.640really screwed this up badly we we screwed up our society for the next 20 years if we're lucky
00:29:10.260we've got mental health issues coming out the wazoo here and we don't even know how to begin0.89
00:29:15.380to tackle that and what you want to see i think more than anything is just an apology
00:29:21.140but that's never going to happen how do these people live with themselves
00:29:24.860that that's a very good question i mean it's it's hard enough it's hard enough for i found
00:29:33.340it hard enough in the last two years to live with the knowledge of what they're doing and and being
00:29:38.640kind of the person that likes to solve problems and likes things to be neat and tidy this way
00:29:42.680and honestly don't really like to live in conflict i don't mind the conflict i don't like to live in
00:29:49.660conflict this has been eating me up i hope it's been devastating for them but i'm i'm not i'm not
00:29:57.520I've seen nothing that convinces me that it has, because I see when I hear her use words like naysayer and non-believer and conspiracy theorist, all I hear is dismissiveness.
00:30:10.100When I see a pastor cuffed on the streets or when I hear of children who can't go to school or children that have had to wear masks in school for long periods of time or young men and women who are looking for the greatest years of their lives, you know, being a young teenager, late teenager, going off to university, having this enormous disruption.
00:30:40.100that will affect them potentially for the rest of their lives and then their concerns are just
00:30:46.580being a naysayer like that's unconscionably dismissive well that is the uh argument0.54
00:30:54.100misinformation disinformation anybody with a contrary view to your own and i'm speaking now
00:30:59.240about you know government leaders trudeau kenny uh whoever who say anybody who is going against
00:31:06.540the government narrative is a dealing in misinformation and disinformation when really
00:31:11.620they have valid points as well they've just sussed out the the existing science in a different way
00:31:16.760i have a question here uh derek from karen emsley she says can you ask shadow why they're mandating
00:31:22.520a vaccine that's still in trial stages and that it should be up to the people to decide if they
00:31:27.820want it or not that's a very old question i think we even talked about that last time you were on
00:31:32.080the show, Derek. Yeah. Well, you know, I, I, I don't have an answer to that. I don't know how
00:31:36.140they can do it. Um, and, uh, I, I think this is this particular thing that I'm going to say is
00:31:42.620the one that really irritates me is, um, so in the summer of 2021, I can remember, uh, maybe
00:31:51.520in the end of June that there was a CDC or FDA release in about Pfizer suddenly is gonna or was
00:32:02.820gonna soon start its trials on women who are pregnant and meanwhile in this province Dina
00:32:10.980Hinshaw was trumping around stomping around saying that oh it's it's safe and effective get it get it
00:32:18.040during your pregnancy and the trials literally had not started and um so i don't i don't know
00:32:27.420what the answer is how can they well i think this is where the the libertarian in me comes out
00:32:32.820they can do it because they're the state and they have the guns that's why they can do it
00:32:37.440there's more of us than there are of them my friend there's more of us than there are of them
00:32:42.940Speaking of which, let's go to the Freedom Convoy in Ottawa.
00:32:46.580We've heard, I read a letter in response.
00:32:49.860It was a response from an MP, a Winnipeg MP who was asked a question and the MP was an NDP member.
00:32:57.380And the question was, why did you support the enactment of the Emergency Act?
00:33:03.500And he gave this long diatribe and he used illegal occupation, that phrase, illegal occupation, four times in his response.
00:33:13.860And I just want to ask you, was it illegal?
00:33:30.120So I said this is the second part to what I said before.
00:33:33.280So I said before in Westminster system, the government can do whatever it wants and it's only it's only constrained by the Constitution and the law.
00:33:41.580Well, it's the same for you and I. We can do whatever we want.
00:33:45.840Whatever we want, unless there's a law saying otherwise.0.94
00:33:49.460So when I say you can do whatever you want, yeah, you can you can go killing people indiscriminately.
00:33:54.840Oh, but inconveniently, there's a law preventing it.
00:35:49.600Yeah. And if we had politicians of good character, they wouldn't enact such laws, arguably.
00:35:56.320But, you know, I think this is this is just shows the reason why the law has developed the way that it is.
00:36:03.860And the reason why I hate to hate to say something nice about this man, but the reason why there is a push by Pierre Elliott Trudeau to get a bill of rights.
00:36:15.060I mean, that's what our charter is. It's a bill of rights.
00:36:18.100why there was a push for that because it's a constant tension between government power and
00:36:24.800individual liberty those two are at odds and in our system we're supposed to be a free and
00:36:30.660democratic society so it's supposed to err on the side of free and democratic not controlled and
00:36:38.100authoritarian and so you know before the charter there's there's constitutional cases going back
00:36:44.340in this country right to the very beginning and sometimes it was between governments like
00:36:50.620if you look back at the history of canada 1867 that's when we had our british north america act
00:36:56.640that then turned into the constitution act that's our first real constitutional document
00:37:01.440we didn't have a supreme court for a number of years there was quite a few years that passed i
00:37:07.960now if i i'm gonna have to uh maybe take this back but i think the supreme court act was 18
00:37:13.940in 1975, so like seven, eight years later. Well, how on earth did we have a country without a
00:37:20.920Supreme Court? Well, we had perfectly good courts out in the provinces. The Supreme Court arguably
00:37:29.920was brought in to keep the provinces in place because we have these rogue provinces doing what
00:37:34.580they want. The federal government has to rein them in and keep them under its control.0.90
00:37:39.160wow isn't that funny nothing very little has changed yeah yeah and um so
00:37:45.060this this is a constant tension parliamentarians want to expand what they know which is government
00:37:54.040and uh us little people who have to live under their rules um have to fight back constantly
00:38:01.900for that and this the this covid catastrophe this biggest mistake in canadian history in
00:38:08.900the world's history maybe not the biggest but one of the biggest um i i would think this is
00:38:16.160this shows shines a bright light on the fact that those who govern us don't really have our
00:38:23.260interests at heart they don't really care they just want to uh expand their their jurisdiction
00:38:29.660and expand their their franchise let me ask you this um i i did a story last night on the show
00:38:37.760there's a guy a former high school teacher here in winnipeg who was just arrested for uh sexually
00:38:45.000molesting five students between last year and 15 years ago and all of these students came together
00:38:51.100and they went to the police they told the story kind of like the theo flurry sheldon kennedy thing
00:38:56.160with graham james sad story this teacher was arrested he was charged and released on uh
00:39:04.000a promise to appear one day later with charges like that pat king is still in jail in ottawa
00:39:12.600for mischief and inciting mischief and tamara leach is was released after what three weeks in
00:39:19.240jail in ottawa and she's got such stringent bail conditions she can't really do anything except
00:39:25.060sit in her home. How can a judge impose bail restrictions so severe that they are actually
00:39:31.680against the charter of rights and freedoms based on such a small offense? Is it even legal?
00:39:40.800I mean, it's legal if a judge says it is, but in one sense, in another sense, I think we're
00:39:46.900right to criticize it. It doesn't seem proportionate, does it? It doesn't. And you
00:39:52.940No, the other thing, like Tamara Litch's bail conditions and her, you know, when she was being held in custody, that was in stark contrast, too, to that mentally deranged person that drove his Jeep Compass, was it?
00:40:20.680I don't know if that was the intent. I don't think that's been shown to be the intent yet. It hasn't been tried, obviously, but the guy was released on a promise to appear.
00:40:29.700So even if what, I feel stupid even saying this, but even if the truckers were endangering people's lives by being outside and honking horns, so was this fellow that drove his Jeep into a crowd.
00:40:50.160yeah um i i have a difficult time getting those two things to square especially looking at the
00:40:58.840type of people that we're talking about here so i don't know it strikes me as is disproportionate
00:41:05.460and and a poor decision but yeah all right you know what i want to talk about elon musk i've
00:41:11.180got you here and i i'd mentioned today uh that because you spend a lot of time on twitter you've
00:41:15.860got a lot of followers on twitter by the way how do we find you on twitter oh i am uh i don't know
00:41:21.140what i am now derrick james maybe derrick james from what do you have to change your name i'm
00:41:26.860constantly i'm messing with my twitter handle and uh and uh security settings frequently to
00:41:34.440shake some followers off once in a while followers bots you name it that's how i found you in the
00:41:39.740first place so elon musk has twitter's embattled board of directors and management team by the
00:41:45.840short and curlies here the tesla ceo who has a 9.2 stake in twitter offered to buy twitter for
00:41:53.46054.20 a share that offer was this morning i was going through twitter this morning and i saw musk
00:42:00.280tweet i made an offer and then he had the uh security form attached to it so i opened that
00:42:06.460up and went oh my god this is crazy uh twitter had the board of directors had an emergency meeting
00:42:13.240At five o'clock Eastern today, there's been no reports on that yet.
00:42:17.360This is what a financial analyst is saying.
00:42:20.900There's three different things that can happen.
00:42:22.720First, the board led by new Salesforce co-CEO Brett Taylor could either accept Musk's very fair bid.
00:42:29.780This is well above the price of Twitter shares right now by $20, I think.
00:55:03.540That would be like me going to law school and doing an assignment and then grading myself and telling the professor, well, I gave myself this grade.