Western Standard - Mask mandate & vax passports in Alberta

00:00:00.000 Good evening. I'm Melanie Risden with the Western Standard. Joining me this evening are two Calgary

00:00:14.040 lawyers. We're going to be diving into what is turning out to be a very confusing, very

00:00:20.140 frustrating situation for many Albertans, especially with the lifting of some of the

00:00:27.760 public health restrictions, mandates, masking, the vaccine passports, we're going to dive

00:00:34.760 into this topic. First of all, let's introduce our two Calvary lawyers. We've got Catherine

00:00:40.160 Kowalczyk. She is with Getz Collins, and she's a volunteer lawyer with Lawyers for Truth. We also

00:00:46.240 have lawyer James Kitchen, who works as a volunteer with Lawyers for Truth and also has

00:00:52.900 his own private practice here in the city, focusing on constitutional human rights law

00:00:59.540 and employment law. Catherine more so focusing on family law. So thanks for joining me.

00:01:06.580 And kind of an interesting time we're moving into in this province with mandates

00:01:12.980 in some areas lifting, some are not. Catherine, why don't you fill us in on

00:01:18.420 on what you are seeing with regard to a lawsuit that you have brought against the courts.

00:01:26.100 Thanks Melanie for having us. Yeah, well James is my lawyer and your audience may recall that

00:01:34.340 I am actually suing the Provincial Court of Alberta and the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta

00:01:40.020 With respect to discrimination I faced in December of 2020 regarding my entry into the Calgary Court Center and the court's sheriff requiring me or wanting me to wear a mask and or provide my personal health care information to bypass that requirement.

00:02:02.860 I was threatened with a $1,200 fine, and when I got into the courtroom, Judge Cornfield was seated in the courtroom, unmasked himself, and we had an exchange where he was requiring me to wear a mask on the public gallery side of the courtroom.

00:02:23.700 And then after explaining to him that I had an exemption and that I did not have to disclose my private health care information to him, but in the interest of serving my client that I would put a mask on under protest, he then requested that I step into his jurisdiction in the courtroom, at which point he said I did not have to wear a mask.

00:02:49.380 thereafter he um in his office and myself engaged in a letter writing campaign with respect to what

00:02:58.100 the court's expectations were going to be of me going forward and that was going to be for me to

00:03:04.980 disclose my health care information to the court and abide by their policies i had indicated to

00:03:11.940 them that i didn't believe that they had any authority to demand that from me and that they

00:03:17.460 were violating my human rights and also discriminating against me as well as i didn't

00:03:25.620 think that they had any authority to require my personal health care information to be disseminated

00:03:34.500 to them and or sheriffs that patrol the first floor of the courthouse so that occurred some

00:03:44.180 time ago like i said and james and i both um uh we're discussing this we're both volunteer lawyers

00:03:51.300 with lawyers for truth and uh james agreed to represent me and last july we commenced a charter

00:03:58.900 challenge uh court application against both levels of the courts and uh james can speak to more about

00:04:06.500 where that's at but we've you know now we've seen that the government of alberta has removed all

00:04:13.860 restrictions mostly especially the masking requirements throughout the province and

00:04:20.260 except for public transit and some other areas which I still don't quite understand

00:04:26.340 the rationale behind that or the science behind that in fact considering that masks are harmful

00:04:32.980 and it's not just my opinion but there are actual there's actual expert evidence that will verify

00:04:40.020 that not only are they harmful they're useless in preventing the transmission of a virus so

00:04:47.300 what's concerning me now is that we as lawyers and the public received an announcement from the

00:04:53.380 courthouse yesterday that notwithstanding that the requirements for masking across the province

00:05:01.380 are going to be removed as well as other restrictions that they are in fact going

00:05:06.580 to continue with their policy under some sort of excuse that people are compelled to attend

00:05:15.940 the courthouse and that there are there is a vulnerable population attending the courthouse

00:05:23.700 and they provided no other rationale for that but as you can imagine i'm very concerned about

00:05:33.300 this sort of a continued policy of the courts and it just further supports the opinion that I've had

00:05:41.940 for the past two years that the likelihood that we are going to receive any justice from the Alberta

00:05:49.620 courts with respect to any of these mandates and the litigation that is ensuing and continues to

00:05:56.260 be brought with respect to these mandates and government overreach will likely result in

00:06:06.180 in the courts deciding against us because they themselves continue to discriminate against people.

00:06:14.580 James, what can you say to this notice that was released from the courts just a couple of days ago?

00:06:22.580 well i think it's really telling um where the courts are at that you know the government

00:06:31.460 removes it and let's pretend for a second that this has something to do with science or evidence

00:06:37.700 or safety and and not uh politics and control um then you know you're you know any reasonable

00:06:44.800 person is left asking uh wait a minute let's assume this is about safety and science the

00:06:50.840 government has said we no longer need it anymore but the courts now are saying we still do you

00:06:56.700 know even if i buy all this that doesn't make any sense from a scientific perspective or a social

00:07:02.740 policy perspective and so the rational rational person has to say well what's the real reason

00:07:08.080 well we live in a political world the real reason is politics which i mean it's bad enough when the

00:07:15.440 cdc plays politics um right because they're supposed to be a medical institution but you're

00:07:20.280 overly surprised and you're not terribly concerned. When the courts do that, I think if you're a 0.60

00:07:25.320 reasonable Canadian, you are concerned, or at least if you're not, you know, you should be.

00:07:32.280 We're in a very, very dangerous spot when the courts are that politicized.

00:07:38.760 You know, I know this is a bit of Social Studies 11 kind of thing, but you have to remember that

00:07:43.720 our whole system is predicated on three separate divisions of power in our government, right?

00:07:50.040 you have you have the executive branch right enforcement right but they're not the ones to

00:07:55.320 make up the law that's supposed to be the legislative branch right and that involves

00:07:59.080 all the moas or mps not just not just the the majority party obviously the majority can get

00:08:04.520 whatever they want if all their people are there they vote for it but the idea is that there's

00:08:07.720 deliberation there's there's voting right there's there's that's the legislative branch and then

00:08:12.200 this third branch is the judicial branch right so you can't the idea is that you can't have one

00:08:16.840 person making the law enforcing the law and judging on the law right that's what a king does

00:08:22.040 and you know we've we've said well we don't want dictatorship or kingship we want democracy well

00:08:27.320 in order to achieve that you have to have you know division of power right you have to have

00:08:31.320 all these powers in in separate branches that can hold each other accountable and you know we decided

00:08:36.840 that like hundreds of years ago after lots of people dying to achieve that because we thought

00:08:41.320 hey this is actually a good thing uh you know monarchies not a good thing right we've learned

00:08:46.040 that in britain like 500 years ago this is pretty foundational we kind of gloss over it now and

00:08:50.200 that's part of our problem but so bring it home to the courts nowadays we have this we have this

00:08:55.480 problem where okay this is this is the branch that's supposed to you know um follow the law

00:09:01.560 and be rational and and bring in not only a sober second thought but also that a sober step

00:09:09.240 by you know hundreds of years of a jurisprudence and this this is the realm in which we can test

00:09:15.960 evidence from every angle and it's all done in a very rational and sober way and you know at the

00:09:21.520 end of the day we're you know that this this thing functions because we have decision makers that are

00:09:26.540 although not perfectly unbiased and perfectly neutral and perfectly objectively recognize

00:09:31.640 that they can't be perfect because they are human they're really close to that they're about as close

00:09:36.160 to that as we can get or ideally that's that's the whole premise of the system is these people

00:09:40.240 are not politicized. They're not politically beholden, right? Their salary is not on the hook.

00:09:48.080 Their job is not on the hook. They can decide anything, no matter how politically unpopular it

00:09:52.820 is, because they're free to. They're free to follow the law and make a decision based on the

00:09:57.140 law and the facts, regardless of the political implications. And the whole system is predicated

00:10:02.340 on that, right? The whole administration of justice, the repute of the administration of

00:10:08.580 justice is all premised on that. Without that, it's just taken the rug out of the whole thing.

00:10:14.100 And so this announcement puts all that into question. Say, okay, this isn't about science

00:10:21.580 for safety. I mean, obviously, of course, they're going to say it is, of course. But it really can't

00:10:27.200 be. It just can't be. What reasonable person would infer that it actually is? And therefore,

00:10:31.040 the only explanation left, right? The best inference left is to say it's political. And if

00:10:38.320 it is, then my goodness, we're in trouble. Because if the courts are politicized, well,

00:10:44.020 then how can I trust that we're going to get justice on anything to do with this COVID stuff?

00:10:49.800 And that's a huge, huge problem. And it's difficult even to talk about it because

00:10:57.160 you get into this realm of, well, if the non-lawyers talk about it, then you're kind

00:11:04.840 of missing a huge piece of the conversation. But if the lawyers talk about it, they're

00:11:08.300 get in trouble because the law society is going to come out for them for talking about it so it's

00:11:11.900 it's a really difficult thing right i mean everything i've just said um it's that's it's

00:11:17.740 a very difficult thing to talk about because you know we we as lawyers have to stick our necks out

00:11:23.100 in order to even have the conversation because we're so highly regulated as lawyers by the by

00:11:28.060 the law society of alberta or you know the law society in any other province in the country

00:11:32.300 and uh but it has to be a conversation that we have to have not just at tim horton's coffee

00:11:36.620 tables, but, you know, at the level of media, at the elites and talking about it in a grand

00:11:42.920 political way, because, you know, we have a serious, serious problem here.

00:11:46.700 How are we ever going to get justice for all the injustice that's happened in the last

00:11:50.840 two years, whether it's on the Hinshaw level or the private employment level or on the

00:11:54.840 court level?

00:11:55.400 How are we ever going to get that if the ultimate body that decides that and enforces that and

00:12:01.840 has the social authority to do so, is itself not able to think clearly or to objectively

00:12:09.960 analyze the situation or able to be honest with itself and with the public about its

00:12:16.100 decisions.

00:12:17.980 So James and Catherine, where have you, each of you, seen this play out as well beyond

00:12:24.780 this specific case?

00:12:27.480 with respect to the course yeah where have you seen um this this bias uh do you have any other

00:12:36.720 examples can you speak to that at all or i have i mean let's use the most what i think might be

00:12:48.480 the most obvious example right now uh tamara i think her last name is leash or something like 0.98

00:12:54.660 that. Forgive me if I've mis-said it, but I think everybody knows who I'm talking about, right?

00:12:57.860 Yeah. She's one of the organizers from the Freedom Convoy.

00:13:02.920 She was denied bail, okay? And what did she do, right? I mean, she didn't hurt anybody. She didn't

00:13:10.700 commit any serious indictable criminal offense, right? She wasn't putting anybody in any kind

00:13:16.680 of jeopardy if you're a reasonable person and can think objectively, right? She did nothing

00:13:21.200 that would warrant being held in custody, okay, from any objective point of view.

00:13:29.260 And who was it that sat on her case?

00:13:32.940 Not merely a Trudeau appointee, okay?

00:13:35.520 A lot of judges are appointed by Trudeau.

00:13:37.800 A lot of judges are appointed by the Liberal Party of Canada.

00:13:39.900 That's how it goes.

00:13:40.980 And we shouldn't automatically assume that they're going to be, you know,

00:13:43.580 pro-government and anti-freedom and anti-charter rights

00:13:45.980 just because they're appointed by a Liberal government.

00:13:48.240 That does sometimes be the case.

00:13:51.200 um but this was this was no mere liberal appointee she had ran in the liberal party right um she was

00:13:59.440 aspiring to be a liberal mp justin trudeau specifically talked about how much you know

00:14:04.400 he pre-praised her right talked about her publicly um you know that's a problem

00:14:11.920 that that she was sitting on that case i mean there are hundreds of judges in the ontario

00:14:17.280 Superior Court of the Ontario Superior Court okay it's the biggest court in the country

00:14:21.520 there's hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of judges on this court why was she the one hearing 0.61

00:14:26.080 that okay I mean if I'm if I'm the court I'm thinking okay let's try to make sure that we

00:14:31.200 don't first of all that we don't have actual bias okay but the apprehension of bias which is huge

00:14:36.960 that's huge in law we're all about avoiding the reasonable apprehension of bias because actual

00:14:41.200 bias is very difficult to prove and it doesn't actually probably happen that often but the

00:14:45.280 reasonable apprehension of bias. We as a court, because we want to have people trust us and we

00:14:50.960 want to maintain the repute of the justice system, we need to avoid the reasonable apprehension

00:14:56.080 of bias. We're not going to have this judge sit on this case. And we don't need to because we have

00:15:00.880 hundreds of judges to choose from. So her decision to hold Tamara in custody was egregious. It was

00:15:08.800 banana republic type stuff. And I mean, I've represented two pastors that were held in

00:15:14.320 custody as if i'm in communist china so um you know i've seen that and and here we are again i

00:15:19.760 would say this is at least as bad if not worse to hold this woman uh i mean the the comment the

00:15:25.120 famous comment from this judge who decided this is i'm not you know i i'm i'm not convinced that

00:15:28.960 you won't go and re-offend i mean that's something you say to uh to somebody who's who's done a

00:15:34.240 violent robbery that's somebody you know and i believe her charge was counseling to commit

00:15:40.080 mischief was was the wording of the of the so not even the one committing the mischief just

00:15:46.480 counseling to commit mischief so if there's a pretty low level thing and then it can be all

00:15:50.560 kinds of minor things right that should be taken care of but we're not talking serious serious

00:15:54.480 crimes here right so i mean that's the most obvious example i could give you a few others

00:15:58.560 with with just outright uh absurd decisions we've gotten often from chief justices of of of i mean

00:16:05.600 I mean, there's a real trend in the country with chief justices deciding to sit themselves on key COVID cases.

00:16:11.900 I just had the Ambassador Bridge case that I was handling in February.

00:16:16.140 It was in front of the chief justice of Ontario twice.

00:16:18.960 You know, we were all scratching our heads and asking ourselves, why is it the chief justice that's sitting on this case?

00:16:23.420 You know, and it was a very, very frustrating case.

00:16:27.820 You know, it was very, very dismissive.

00:16:31.020 Didn't want to hear anything we had to say about charter rights or limits on the injunctions he was giving.

00:16:35.380 He just issued a permanent injunction when it was totally unneeded.

00:16:40.420 You know, the big Manitoba case the Justice Center did, it was the chief justice that sat on that.

00:16:44.540 The case we did in B.C. with a church and a protester there was the chief justice that sat on that.

00:16:49.220 And, you know, us as lawyers, not being conspiracy theorists, we left scratching our head.

00:16:54.340 Why are the chief justices sitting themselves?

00:16:56.660 And why was it that justice that sat on that case?

00:17:00.540 And why was it Justice Kirker that sat on all the original Justice Center cases in Alberta that, you know, when she hasn't had that much experience, she was a Trudeau appointee.

00:17:10.920 And then, of course, as soon as she ruled in favor of the government on these covocations, she was immediately appointed to the Court of Appeal, right?

00:17:17.440 And again, this isn't like, you know, conspiracy theory stuff.

00:17:20.800 And this isn't like, you know, automatically imputing corruption.

00:17:23.540 It's just raising the conversation, raising what's going on.

00:17:28.240 help me understand yeah help me understand and and some of the listeners who maybe don't understand

00:17:33.760 why why would it be strange that these were all seen by chief justices versus you know who would

00:17:40.560 normally like like help me understand why that is a strange occurrence well when it happens once it's

00:17:47.600 not that strange but to see it happen so many times in a row you're just kind of left scratching your

00:17:51.440 head because there are so many other justices that could be overseeing it exactly and you know

00:17:58.240 And ideally, as a court, right, I mean, you know, the kind of judge I'm going to appear in front of is not going to be the same one that Catherine appears in front of, right?

00:18:05.460 I should be appearing in front of a judge who spent his career as a lawyer doing administrative law, human rights, constitutional rights, you know, these weird areas of the law that are difficult that a lot of people never practice, right?

00:18:15.840 When Catherine gets in front of a judge, you better be a judge who practice family law because she's going to be a family law case, right? 1.00

00:18:21.500 So, especially in my world, I often get in front of judges that don't have necessarily a lot of experience in these areas that the case is about, and they've maybe only been a judge for a few years, because of course a lot of the cases I do are quite neatly complex, and you're left scratching and you're like, that's odd, just odd that I'm in front of this judge.

00:18:44.160 Well, and the other thing is, James is right. And it seems to be that the same just justices are hearing these cases. Justice, Associate Chief Justice Rook in Alberta was granted that ex parte order against Chris Scott and Pastor Art Podlowski with respect to, you know, not being able to gather and to exercise their rights to freedom of expression.

00:19:12.300 and you know so you have these it just seems like these are going back to james's point about

00:19:20.500 apprehension of bias i mean we're looking at a trend where these chief justices are coming in

00:19:27.220 or associate chief justices are coming in and then they're even justice germain in in the art

00:19:33.140 pulofsky and chris scott case um seized himself of it and or punted it back to associate chief

00:19:40.380 Justice Rook ultimately to determine how anything else would be heard with respect to it. So

00:19:46.500 it's very concerning that these courts, especially in light of the fact that the rest of the country

00:19:57.020 seems to be, the rest of the other provinces anyway, not the country because we have our

00:20:02.680 own issues with Trudeau but the rest of the provinces are relifting these mandates and so

00:20:10.940 it just it boggles my mind why the courts feel that they are this moral superiority

00:20:19.160 over over this issue and how possibly they can justify it and not only that

00:20:26.520 where are we going to go for relief and it's the same it's the same thing that I have in my case

00:20:31.460 right now where I'm suing the very level of court that is supposed to decide this this matter right

00:20:37.700 and so how does that how does that work out for you then who who presides over that case if you're

00:20:44.580 suing the actual courts James does that sounds like it would be tricky it is I mean you know

00:20:54.420 ideally you would you would get a court queen's bench uh judge um you know not the chief justice

00:21:00.580 because the chief justice was the one that brought in the policy right so you get you get this judge

00:21:04.740 that wasn't involved in the development of the policy right and you know theoretically this judge

00:21:10.500 um is is because because they weren't directly involved um they're going to make it they're

00:21:14.580 going to be neutral and objective and unbiased they're going to look at the evidence they're

00:21:17.540 going to apply the law and they're going to they're going to come to a decision but you

00:21:20.340 have to acknowledge the human reality is that judge going to going to come to a decision that

00:21:24.740 is that is that is contradictory it's completely at odds it's hostile to what to what that judge's

00:21:29.860 chief justice has done right really you know do you do you ask do you ask an employee to to rule

00:21:37.300 on whether or not their their boss has has has done something that's not it's i mean the chief

00:21:42.260 justice is not judge's boss that does that chief justice is not going to fire that judge but but

00:21:46.020 you have to think about that right there's a there's a human aspect there that how do you

00:21:50.180 overcome that right there is that reasonable apprehension of bias i mean there's i mean he's

00:21:54.740 it's not only the chief justice i mean that's his whole court the court that he's a part of

00:21:58.260 has decided this and he's going to come out and tell the rest of his whole court you guys were

00:22:02.020 wrong we shouldn't have done this and this is unlawful he's going to declare that his own

00:22:05.460 court's actions are unlawful you need you need some sort of principled courageous person with

00:22:11.700 an enormous amount of integrity to actually do that and and unfortunately the last two years has

00:22:16.820 shown just how rare those those people in canada really are they are extraordinarily rare i'm sad

00:22:24.180 to say and so where where are you left with this case then i mean i know uh it sounds like you guys

00:22:31.540 uh launched this i think you said in july correct so where are you at with this well i slowed down

00:22:38.820 on it for a number of reasons one was because we weren't going to get anywhere as long as everything

00:22:41.940 else had mask mandates i filed it last july and honest honest to god call me naive because i'm

00:22:47.140 normally not when i filed it last july i thought okay we're filing this now because you know we're

00:22:52.100 done we're done with the masks right the collective madness that's infected everybody is finally over

00:22:56.980 we figured this out yeah when alberta was open for for the summer open for good yeah i mean i

00:23:05.380 was skeptical obviously of of kenny and all this at the time but i actually did think there was a

00:23:10.020 decent chance like you know we would only go into partial lockdown in the fall um my clients last

00:23:16.340 summer asked me so what are we looking at in the fall and i'm like well you know and so i thought

00:23:19.860 okay let's file this and let's let's let's get the courts to back off of this this is a good time

00:23:23.780 everybody else is back well and because they had kept the mandate they had kept the masking mandate

00:23:28.420 when when jason uh kenny opened us up so they kept it over the summer as well yeah so here we are

00:23:35.380 you know again again they have kept it when everybody else has removed it right and again

00:23:41.300 if it was if it was about science and safety then you know because i mean science is kind of like

00:23:45.140 it's a you know it says this and so if one person does this another person does that only one of

00:23:49.380 them can claim that they're doing what science says because science is not like you know you

00:23:52.660 can do a here and be here you know it that doesn't make me sound right like like masks

00:23:57.140 either work in florida or they don't and they work in california or they don't and they work

00:24:00.260 in the courts or they don't and you know i mean they just they don't work anywhere that's the

00:24:03.940 scientific reality right we all know that for those of us who are being honest and and have

00:24:08.500 the integrity to say we all know that after two years of this nonsense right so we we know that

00:24:14.340 so what the heck is going on right we shouldn't be keeping it anywhere but especially when we

00:24:18.020 keep it in some places but not others then then it really exposes it for for being a political play

00:24:24.100 because everybody knows they don't work so why are we keeping it i mean why does california

00:24:28.420 have it for it a dozen because the politics are different right i mean i mean this is the reality

00:24:34.660 it's funny i've been i've been watching listening to more american news the last month for some

00:24:38.740 reason and i'm really shocked at how honest they are and the stuff the way they talk clearly i was

00:24:44.820 born in the wrong country you know they they will actually talk about the fact that yeah

00:24:48.880 the courts are politicized right it depends on on their political viewpoints for who they're 0.86

00:24:54.300 appointed by right i mean you know this the the recent denominee by biden i mean is he going to

00:24:59.280 rule the same way that kavanaugh is going to rule or that clarence thomas is going to rule

00:25:02.880 the americans actually know that and they actually admit it and they talk about it they get it right

00:25:07.060 like up here it's oh it's big taboo for anybody to talk the way i have the last 20 minutes right

00:25:11.420 Sorry, that's the reality. Who would appoint me on the bench? Bernier would. I mean, nobody else

00:25:18.380 would touch me. I'm a raging libertarian. I would uphold charter rights 99 times out of a hundred,

00:25:23.100 and I would say section one is not met. That would be how I would rule. I would do it based

00:25:29.500 on the law. Justice Brown, who's a former professor from the U of A here in Alberta,

00:25:36.220 one of two justices on the Supreme Court of Canada who ruled in favor of charter rights

00:25:40.540 more often than not you know when he dissented in the trinity western decision and said look

00:25:44.620 trinity western can have its law school um even though it has a christian code of conduct that

00:25:48.780 says you know no gay sex allowed it can it can it can have its law school that's actually what

00:25:53.020 religious freedom is for is to allow religious minorities to have the integrity of their of

00:25:57.260 their institutions and not allow things that they call sin even if the rest of us find that offensive

00:26:01.340 that's actually what religious liberty is about is protecting minorities that believe in differently

00:26:04.860 than us right so him and the other freedom-oriented justice on the on the bench justice cote

00:26:09.820 they ruled in favor of trinity western they actually cited way more case law in support of

00:26:14.140 their decision than the seven judges who said nope no christian law school not allowed um you know if

00:26:20.620 the law society shut it down it's totally a justified violation of religious freedom right 0.54

00:26:26.060 so it's not it's not like um the law isn't on either side you know often actually the law would

00:26:31.820 be more on on the side of of upholding charter rights we actually have more jurisprudence in

00:26:35.820 favor of that if you go back to the 70s 80s 90s etc right um so it is it's all about it's all about

00:26:42.540 ideological perspective it's all about political viewpoint it's all about world view right justice

00:26:49.180 brown's world is a little more like the three of us and a little less like you know woke justice

00:26:54.860 wagner right the chief justice of the supreme court of canada right and and that's why he came

00:26:59.020 to a different conclusion they they all they all looked at the law right and and and the seven who

00:27:03.580 who ruled against trinity western had some law and the two the two of the world in favor try to

00:27:07.040 write had some law in fact even even more so it's not about the law at that point it is about their

00:27:12.400 differences of perspective on on on what's actually constitutional or not what's actually good or not

00:27:18.500 what's actually right or not what's actually you know you see how i switched into those terms right

00:27:23.600 those are morally normative terms right i believe the world's a better place and people are free

00:27:28.400 right leftist wing nuts believe the world is a better place when the government is powerful

00:27:32.020 people aren't free and everybody's equal whatever the heck that means right and so it's so that's

00:27:37.480 all about worldview and that's what the battle is on the court and the americans get it right and

00:27:41.820 that's and that's why they talk so much about their nominations we don't get it in canada you've heard

00:27:45.400 me say this before right and so we just pretend everybody's just these little robots you impute

00:27:49.620 the law and impute the facts outcomes outcomes the decision no it's not how it works you have

00:27:54.440 law facts political decision maker coming to a political conclusion if they want to you know

00:27:59.400 manipulating the law and facts to get there, right? That's why you can get a 5-4 decision

00:28:04.440 on abortion in the US, right? Some people think that the murder of human beings inside the womb

00:28:08.680 is a bad thing, and people say, no, that's a woman's right, and that's a good thing, right? 1.00

00:28:12.120 There's good arguments either way, but that's a moral normative decision. That's not like a

00:28:16.120 computer decision, right? So it's going to depend on the political viewpoint of your judge,

00:28:22.120 and nothing more than that, right? So where are things at with the court case that you

00:28:28.920 guys are working on together what's what's happening with what you're representing katherine for

00:28:33.960 so i've i've filed one expert report i'm working on a couple others i filed katherine's affidavit

00:28:39.080 um i'm going to be i'm going to be amending the pleadings and now i'm going to be looking to push

00:28:42.600 it forward quite quickly now because it makes it makes a lot more sense again we're back into that

00:28:46.280 situation we were last summer where the government has removed it the courts have kept it in place

00:28:49.960 well you know we got we got we got to deal with it so now as far as the uh the the requirement

00:28:56.680 for Catherine to be showing or revealing her private medical information that sort of falls

00:29:02.520 under the human rights sort of constitutional protections there. Obviously, that's part of this

00:29:10.360 case as well. Yeah, there's the privacy aspect. So what I've, you know, to get technical,

00:29:15.960 what I've claimed is Section 7 of the Charter, which protects security of the person

00:29:20.280 and liberty, right? So a lot of that is wrapped up in bodily autonomy, deciding what you wear

00:29:24.440 and what you what you put in your body what you don't right um you know being able to make those

00:29:28.840 really important personal decisions um so there's that and then there's the privacy bit which is

00:29:34.040 section eight of the charter right so um we have a problem when somebody says well you know catherine

00:29:40.680 i need to see your medical records for you know for you to prove that that you're medically

00:29:46.760 exempt from wearing a mask right well that's an invasion of her privacy so then the question is

00:29:50.520 well is that is that a job right you know and it might be if look if masks really worked and and

00:29:57.000 you know the more people that wore them the the less transmission we get and you know code really

00:30:00.920 was this ravaging thing that was killing tons of people you know yeah you know what that might make

00:30:05.400 sense i mean even you know raging libertarians like like me and a few you know over there the

00:30:09.960 western standard might still be still still have trouble with it but you but a lot of a lot of

00:30:14.120 reasonable rational people could say yeah you know what that kind of actually makes some sense right

00:30:17.160 right? Because these things actually do work. COVID is actually killing tens of thousands of

00:30:20.860 people. This is actually a pretty big deal, right? But, you know, the more harmful that masks are,

00:30:26.580 and the less that they work, and the less serious that COVID is, which is the reality here,

00:30:30.380 then we don't meet that threshold to justify charter rights. Even if you're a woke lefty,

00:30:35.080 and it's really easy to justify charter rights violations, we just don't come anywhere near that

00:30:38.820 threshold, right? So those are the rights at play. It's the privacy, the security of the person,

00:30:44.280 because they're harmful right and you're scared versus about protecting your body and the liberty

00:30:47.880 which is about protecting your bodily autonomy right i mean it's a pretty darn big deal to be

00:30:51.640 covering up your identity right to be covering your face and i would say it's a particularly big

00:30:55.580 deal for for women right i mean i don't know personally but i have a lot of female clients 1.00

00:30:59.920 who've explained this to me and and independent of each other they've they've expressed very

00:31:03.740 similar feelings and emotions and thoughts um for for covering their their face it's it's a really

00:31:09.620 big big deal i mean you know and we know that the whole the whole uh muslim face covering debate

00:31:15.160 right um it's it's a big deal and so to be telling a woman you know uh lawyer or not you gotta you

00:31:21.120 gotta cover your face you gotta you gotta cover your identity against your will in order in order

00:31:26.560 to do this thing even though these things don't work i'm sorry it's it's a big deal and and i mean

00:31:31.180 i you know i would say it's about 18 months too late but i would say it it is and was the precursor

00:31:36.580 to to this vaccine thing which which was a lot more invasive and a lot i mean as harmful as

00:31:41.060 masks are they're not going to kill you likely to the vaccines do you know so that's and and so you

00:31:46.420 know that was a big deal not just for itself but also what it also would have led to yeah

00:31:51.940 and the symbolism around it right and knowing that if if and what i like to think of it as

00:31:57.780 just it was a social experiment that went very successful uh was very successful for

00:32:03.700 these governments to see how many people would comply without a fight and without even thinking

00:32:13.180 about it. And it's to the point right now that, you know, the mask mandates have lifted and you

00:32:18.620 go out in public and the majority of people are still wearing it. It's like a massive mental

00:32:24.560 illness has swept over our entire nation. So when you saw this notice, you have to laugh about it

00:32:32.720 because i'm i'm so frustrated by how this how this situation has been handled by our governments

00:32:41.360 that you know i i i just continue to be so perplexed by it but because everybody adopted

00:32:49.760 this the the mask ritual i mean it's stuck and you know what we're going to wear masks for the

00:32:56.720 rest of our lives like for what I mean it's it's unbelievably um it's such it's such an overreach

00:33:06.400 by governments and these institutions and I know you want to talk to James more about the employment

00:33:10.920 stuff which because this the how the governments have reacted right now and with Jason Kenney

00:33:17.480 saying things like oh well private industry can go ahead and regulate themselves and make their

00:33:21.620 own discriminations when for the last 18 months they've been saying well the only reason why

00:33:26.560 we're doing this is because of science. So what, what possibly could they, these organizations

00:33:34.560 use to justify it? And, you know, I'd love my expert in my court case to go toe to toe with

00:33:40.860 a government OH&S employee. Well, and so, you know, speaking of when the, when this notice came down

00:33:49.920 from the courts, I mean, I guess the way I look at it is, is, you know, I'm reading the notice

00:33:55.620 here it's talking about the fact that vulnerable segments of the population attend people are um

00:34:01.860 a person often is compelled to attend court but but as you mentioned i mean people still have the

00:34:08.980 right to choose to wear a mask i mean that that is a freedom that anyone who feels vulnerable

00:34:18.500 or feels safer doing so can choose to do. So when you saw this notice come out, Catherine,

00:34:28.900 and I understand from even just speaking with you that it concerned you, you know, even with regard

00:34:35.940 to what you're trying to accomplish with your court case, does it concern you, James, to see

00:34:42.260 this notice as well well i mean obviously for all the big um reasons about where our country is

00:34:49.620 going but but let's drill it down to that vulnerable sector thing right that argument is really

00:34:55.220 interesting because it cuts both ways right people are compelled to come to court yes that's right

00:34:59.860 they are so we need we need to be we need to be sensitive to that right and often these people

00:35:04.660 are in emotional distress in their lives they're in a court case they've been sexually assaulted

00:35:08.900 they're in the middle of divorce they've lost all their money you're usually in a bad place

00:35:13.460 when you're going to court actually um so so you are vulnerable even if you're not already

00:35:17.300 vulnerable prior to that um and yet so we're going to take these vulnerable people and tell them

00:35:22.740 you have to cover your face you have to uh hinder your breathing you have to show papers if you if

00:35:29.460 you aren't able to right you have to show a proof of vaccination at certain uh stages stages um

00:35:35.460 that's not everywhere in the courthouse I've learned, you know, or you have to show papers if

00:35:39.620 you're not, you know, it cuts both ways, right? Because you're taking this vulnerable people and

00:35:44.020 you're compelling them and you're coercing them more than they already are to be there.

00:35:49.940 Why are those vulnerable people more, you know, worthy of protection than I am?

00:35:57.220 You know, and it's exactly the same thing that James is saying, like, you know, and besides which

00:36:03.940 i i would love to see and i think we will be making these inquiries as part of our due diligence

00:36:08.900 and um uh with respect to our court case in terms of okay well how many what what is the

00:36:14.260 what what what are what are the statistics of this vulnerable population you speak about

00:36:19.620 uh that needs uh that requires the entire population in the courthouse to remain muzzled 1.00

00:36:25.860 right it's a question too right i mean if these things work then the person wearing it's protected

00:36:33.760 aren't they so the vulnerable person who feels like they want to and they need to because they're

00:36:36.980 scared they're they're they're they're able to wear it and right doesn't that protect them so

00:36:42.520 so it it begs a lot of a lot of questions and it goes back to this philosophical problem of

00:36:47.360 you know do we do we help people do we make the world a better place by forcing them to do what

00:36:53.000 tell them to do right because we know better or do we let them decide for themselves right that's

00:36:57.800 the philosophical difference between you know this woke leftism and the kind of libertarianism that

00:37:03.080 i come from is actually we actually help vulnerable people and we actually make the world a better

00:37:07.960 place since we're all about that by letting them choose for themselves what they do instead of

00:37:13.160 trying to say mother or father knows best do what you're told or else that's what the court's doing

00:37:18.120 to these vulnerable people right instead of letting them choose which i'm sorry that's a

00:37:23.000 fundamental principle to our whole political judicial system the fundamental right to choose

00:37:29.560 the court is taking that away and they seem to be blind to it because they're so wrapped

00:37:32.920 up in their woke viewpoint of the world where those of us that know better will tell everybody

00:37:37.880 outside well and and i can i can speak to like even in my family law cases i you know attend

00:37:43.480 online because you know that's just the way it is right now so i can't attend online and the

00:37:48.440 justices are so concerned and go on for about five or ten minutes about making sure they don't offend

00:37:54.920 anybody and complete everybody please tell me your pronoun and so you know don't be offended

00:37:59.400 if i blah blah blah blah blah and i i i'm just going wow this is really what we've devolved into

00:38:08.520 right this this hyper vigilant uh words worrisome um behavior that we are going to hurt people's

00:38:17.640 feelings you know where we acknowledge various obscure genders that never ever occurred on

00:38:25.560 planet earth before i believe you know like you know this is and this is why lawyers for truth

00:38:34.120 has been so adamant about this mask issue from the very beginning and why we've always said you know

00:38:39.240 do not comply with respect to these mandates is because of this sort of nonsensical decision

00:38:45.560 making and mandate making that um that these governments and now our judicial branch seems to

00:38:52.680 be making without any sort of evidence or justification uh whatsoever and then and then

00:38:58.680 we have a population of people that just go huh okay like this is this is where we're at as a

00:39:04.600 society and it's and it's not everybody of course but um how many people i can tell you how how many

00:39:12.520 lawyers i know in alberta that have stood up against this tyranny that we faced with this

00:39:17.240 government's overreach and i think i'm the only one that i know of that has pushed back with respect

00:39:22.840 to the courts well and it's a it's introduced so much confusion so much gray area so many unanswered

00:39:30.760 questions right now and uh as you alluded to catherine yeah we we need to address this this

00:39:38.120 you know the idea that the the narrative coming from our provincial government is we need to do

00:39:43.640 away with this divisiveness right that has come from these these mandates and and how it's divided

00:39:50.280 people uh yet we're in a we're in this weird zone where the government has lifted the mandates the

00:39:59.240 the vaccine mandates and for the most part like you mentioned the mask mandates uh with with

00:40:03.800 exception to uh you know public transportation and medical facilities at this point but you

00:40:10.200 know this gray area where for instance employers in private industry i mean let's let's back up for

00:40:19.960 a second so so even when the um the province was discussing the lifting of these mandates uh

00:40:27.400 they pushed they they put pressure on the post-secondary institutions that they need to

00:40:33.400 come in line with the provincial mandates we even saw that push you know between the municipalities

00:40:40.360 and the provincial government uh as far as who gets to call the shots here right and and so

00:40:47.000 so now we're in this this this strange world where the government has lifted it in most places but

00:40:54.760 yet we have all of this private industry private employers that are still mandating not only masking

00:41:01.800 but the proof of vaccination for their employees and i know i have been bombarded with emails from

00:41:08.360 a lot of people from the oil and gas sector saying hey what happens now that the province

00:41:13.720 has lifted this but yet our employers are still you know and and and then it you're in this gray

00:41:20.760 area too where for instance oil and gas is is is regulated under the government um you look at uh

00:41:29.000 you know i i had a a student reach out to me and talk about an even more confusing gray area this

00:41:35.800 poor student is a medical student going to become a doctor. And as the post-secondary institutions

00:41:45.560 are doing away with the vaccine mandates and allowing students back into their education

00:41:51.480 and their classes and on campus, these medical students are needing to do their residencies

00:41:59.720 in ahs facilities hospitals if ahs doesn't lift these mandates then these poor students are left

00:42:09.080 in this weird um you know sort of middle zone where they can't they can't even finish their

00:42:15.160 degrees so james can you speak to this a little bit about about the fact that a lot of these

00:42:21.080 employees who have been put on pay or put on leave without pay fired left whatever the case may be

00:42:28.360 for them they're they're still dealing with this aftermath yeah well okay so so legally i get this

00:42:38.280 question all the time so so legally yes if the government doesn't intervene the employers can

00:42:43.320 do whatever they want unless and until the courts will against them when they launch a case right

00:42:49.560 um so which depending on your on your political philosophical viewpoint that can be a good thing

00:42:55.960 right the last thing we want is more government regulation right we already got way too much

00:43:00.040 and so um there's there's there's problems with saying to the government well you need to go in

00:43:05.640 and amend the employment standards legislation to prohibit employee employers from requiring

00:43:11.160 vaccines uh in order to do their job and that would be it would be a good policy goal um not

00:43:16.440 a very good way to achieve it giving giving giving more power to government is just evil

00:43:20.360 results in the murder of human beings. And I think the 20th century backs that up, even

00:43:26.420 though that's a strong statement. So I don't like that. However, I would say that several

00:43:31.300 states in the United States have done that, right? Republican states cannot mask kids

00:43:36.360 in school, Mr. School Board. You cannot force your employees to provide proof of vaccination,

00:43:41.800 Mr. Employer. So was that good as a policy goal? Yes. I don't like the fact that it had

00:43:48.640 come through through through government i'd like it to come through the courts right um you know

00:43:54.080 one of the one of the great things about the courts is it's a way to uphold rights uphold

00:43:58.320 justice uphold social functioning social cohesion uh without the heavy hammer of an of an um

00:44:06.240 overly powerful overly invasive government the courts just say that's unlawful can't do it and

00:44:11.520 then people don't do it because they don't want to be sued anymore right but you don't have this

00:44:14.880 you know a government that's it's always on the tip of becoming tyrannical because they have too

00:44:18.400 too much power, and I'm sorry, if too much power become too radical, no matter how moral of a

00:44:21.900 person you are, that would be ideally the way to do it. The trouble with that, of course, is that

00:44:26.340 right now we're having difficulty trusting that the courts are going to actually really follow

00:44:30.180 the evidence where it leads and apply the law as it has been in this nation for 100 years

00:44:34.900 in the employment law context, right? And plus, that puts a burden on people who have to come up

00:44:39.920 with the money and go through the stress of a court case and the risk of losing, and meanwhile,

00:44:43.360 they've lost their job. So ideally, as a libertarian, I'd like to see the courts come

00:44:48.120 that and solve that problem and then that would be it um but i understand why a lot of people would

00:44:52.200 say well the government should come in and do that and so basically what the ucp has said well

00:44:56.440 it's out of our hands we're not doing it they could they could pass legislation just like

00:45:00.600 republican states have in the states to say we can't do this anymore and and that that would be

00:45:05.560 i would think that would be the in my opinion that would be the morally right and the factually right

00:45:10.440 thing thing thing to do um i just again i have reservations about giving the ucp more power my

00:45:15.320 goodness but but yeah they could they could just do that right so when they say oh we can't do

00:45:19.000 anything about its private industry i mean that's a little crock because they could they could pass

00:45:23.160 legislation tomorrow right saying can't do this anymore just like they pass all the time it says

00:45:27.720 employers you can't do this right for example you have to have 19.5 oxygen on your work site

00:45:33.400 if you don't ohs will come in and shut you down i use that figure by the way because when you wear

00:45:37.640 a mask you have less than 19.5 oxygen so it's actually occupational health and safety hazard

00:45:42.040 um you know we regulate in that area for for for good reasons we could do that here

00:45:48.280 so my question too then is does this not now that the the government has lifted these mandates and

00:45:55.400 and and i i do understand that you know private sector um can make decisions but does this not

00:46:02.840 allow for more of the discriminatory the human rights violations now that this is not sort of

00:46:10.120 mandated uh across the province from the government doesn't it it was never sort of in power but no

00:46:16.120 in most workplaces it was never mandated but remember that nine percent of these mandates

00:46:20.360 for for all the people that did right and i think only about three quarters of employers did this

00:46:25.080 um they never had to right any any any talk from them that oh they already piece you know we had

00:46:30.600 to do this nope no right look in my cases not not in the single one of the many cases that i have

00:46:36.600 that my clients, the employees have been discriminated against and unlawfully dismissed

00:46:41.640 and all the rest of it. Not in a single case was the employer doing it because the government said

00:46:49.000 they had to through legislation. With the universities and the AHS, yes, that was there,

00:46:54.840 but there was never legislation that required these private employers to do what they did.

00:47:00.520 They did it all of their own accord because they wanted to, and they're continuing to do it now

00:47:05.240 because they want to so at this stage does it does it then boil down to what's been playing out

00:47:12.600 already is is you you sort of have to take them to court this is the only option you have there

00:47:18.360 you know it it either falls under a constitutional challenge or potentially a human rights issue

00:47:25.800 only human rights if you fall under those protected grounds right like if you you know if

00:47:29.240 the reason you couldn't take the shot was because of your religious beliefs or or medical disability

00:47:33.640 and usually the medical disability is impossible because you can't get a note from the doctors

00:47:36.720 because they're too scared to because of the chill effect from the CPSA who's saying,

00:47:41.160 if you give too many of these, we're going to come raid your office and you're going to be

00:47:43.880 investigated and punished and all that. So usually it comes down to religious beliefs.

00:47:47.340 Almost all my clients, it's religious beliefs. But so let's say you go to your reporter and you

00:47:52.220 say, I don't want to take the shot. Well, it's not actually unlawful discrimination subject to the

00:47:57.420 Human Rights Act and the Human Rights Commission, unless you fall into that protected ground of

00:48:02.780 religious belief. So for a lot of people, right, some of my clients, it's just, this was wrongful 0.94

00:48:06.920 termination. I was terminated with cause because I didn't take the shot. I was insupported. I

00:48:12.420 violated their immunization policy. Well, that's not, that's not a discrimination issue. That's

00:48:16.360 just plain old wrongful dismissal, which is the type of thing that happens all the time. These

00:48:20.520 are weird reasons for it, but this type of thing happens all the time. And so that's, that's their

00:48:24.240 case. If it was, you know, I asked for accommodation, they said, no, they gave me no reason. They just,

00:48:29.300 you know, they just discriminated against me as a Christian. Well, then you could go off to the

00:48:32.580 Human Rights Commission and have a case. But if you didn't do that and you only just said I can't I

00:48:36.460 don't want to take it because it's dangerous you couldn't go to the commission you'd have to go to

00:48:39.700 the courts right and it wouldn't be it wouldn't be a constitutional case it was unless it was a

00:48:43.620 government employer. If it's a government employer yeah your charter rights are engaged when you go

00:48:47.100 to court you can in addition to pleading the common law employment rights you can plead charter

00:48:50.960 rights. And then it's a whole separate issue of course if you're part of a union because then

00:48:53.880 you're stuck with the with the labor union and the labor relations regime and you know you can't go

00:48:58.520 of the course. Well, it still seems like even though there's a lot of people who've kind of

00:49:05.100 like, we're, you know, we're out of it. I, you know, I think, I don't think we're quite there

00:49:10.500 yet. We're not even close to being out of it. And, and this is, and this should worry everybody

00:49:16.360 because Jason Kenney has said, I mean, as far as I know, we're still under a state of emergency.

00:49:22.780 I don't think that has actually been, I don't think that they've actually withdrawn that.

00:49:31.680 And the other thing is we have hanging over our heads as well the threat that while this could happen, you know, we could have to bring back these mandates should whatever threshold that's made up at the time seem fitting for them to do so.

00:49:47.640 And so and then we have this this other issue that you've raised here today, you know, like the courts continue with these mandates for no justifiable reason.

00:49:59.120 Employers continue with these mandates for no justifiable reason.

00:50:03.260 And, you know, like I haven't I screenshotted and I think I actually emailed James the day that this occurred on February 13th, Jason Kenney, with respect to kids in schools and masking.

00:50:14.680 and he goes starting tomorrow masks will not be mandatory for Alberta students while attending

00:50:20.460 schools and this is this is what I like kids must come first as we lift damaging restrictions

00:50:26.700 yeah what does that like really really so are you telling me and everybody else are you admitting

00:50:40.640 jason kenney that these restrictions have been damaging to these children you think

00:50:48.160 i mean gaslighting that continues to go on with this government um is it's astonishing i never

00:50:58.560 it never ceases to amaze me i hope one day i will figure out what in our brains makes us different

00:51:04.800 than people who have bought into this stuff. I have no, I can, I hopefully will get, get there

00:51:11.120 one day. For me, it's always been about choice. And, and I, we don't have any freedom. This is

00:51:19.980 the thing. We do not have any freedom if we don't have privacy. What's the point? What is the point

00:51:28.840 of of all of this if all of my information is just going to be scrutinized and you know and

00:51:35.840 now with the government uh the federal government with their ridiculous bank freezing um fiasco and

00:51:42.440 maneuver that they've that they've done federally and that they're going to be ushering in permanently

00:51:48.140 according to christia freeland look at we have a long way to go and i hope the next government

00:51:55.700 that gets elected is not the UCP or NDP. And I hope that that government does everything that

00:52:02.420 they can to ensure that this doesn't happen again, including repealing ridiculous legislation like

00:52:08.900 the Public Health Act that should have been caught 20 years ago when it was ushered in.

00:52:14.340 You know, we have now a responsibility as citizens, now that we know better, we have to do better.

00:52:19.220 And that includes holding these government officials accountable and getting rid of this

00:52:24.020 legislation that has allowed all of this madness and COVID hysteria to occur.

00:52:29.860 You know, I will check in with you guys and just see how things are going with the case that you

00:52:35.300 have against the courts, Catherine. And, you know, I just want to thank you both for an update and

00:52:42.740 just an idea on talking a little bit more through what we're still, how far we've come,

00:52:50.660 but how much we still have to to focus to uh to get past you know being still being mandated

00:52:58.420 in many respects in our society still yeah thanks melanie for having us and yeah let's keep going

00:53:05.380 one foot in front of the other and um let's keep pushing yes thanks thanks for your coverage of

00:53:12.020 all this stuff i've always appreciated it likewise thanks james thanks katherine much appreciated

00:53:17.220 Algodex is owned by Algonada. This is great new technology just coming online now in the digital

00:53:26.040 currency world. Algodex is a great way for you to use the digital currency Algorand in your day-to-day

00:53:33.680 transactions. Can you imagine a world where you don't have to buy a cup of coffee using the federal

00:53:39.080 dollar and you don't even have to use the American federal dollar. You don't have to use the euro

00:53:43.280 with the pound sterling you can use real money uh digital currencies uh that are not at the

00:53:48.880 beck and call of governments and inflation the algodex is making digital currencies usable in a

00:53:55.040 day-to-day basis

Western Standard - March 09, 2022

Mask mandate & vax passports in Alberta

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript