Join us as we hear from two Calgary lawyers, Catherine Kowalczyk and James Kitchen, as they discuss the challenges they are facing with respect to public health and safety mandates, public safety, and masking.
00:00:00.000Good evening. I'm Melanie Risden with the Western Standard. Joining me this evening are two Calgary
00:00:14.040lawyers. We're going to be diving into what is turning out to be a very confusing, very
00:00:20.140frustrating situation for many Albertans, especially with the lifting of some of the
00:00:27.760public health restrictions, mandates, masking, the vaccine passports, we're going to dive
00:00:34.760into this topic. First of all, let's introduce our two Calvary lawyers. We've got Catherine
00:00:40.160Kowalczyk. She is with Getz Collins, and she's a volunteer lawyer with Lawyers for Truth. We also
00:00:46.240have lawyer James Kitchen, who works as a volunteer with Lawyers for Truth and also has
00:00:52.900his own private practice here in the city, focusing on constitutional human rights law
00:00:59.540and employment law. Catherine more so focusing on family law. So thanks for joining me.
00:01:06.580And kind of an interesting time we're moving into in this province with mandates
00:01:12.980in some areas lifting, some are not. Catherine, why don't you fill us in on
00:01:18.420on what you are seeing with regard to a lawsuit that you have brought against the courts.
00:01:26.100Thanks Melanie for having us. Yeah, well James is my lawyer and your audience may recall that
00:01:34.340I am actually suing the Provincial Court of Alberta and the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta
00:01:40.020With 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.
00:02:02.860I 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.
00:02:23.700And 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.
00:02:49.380thereafter he um in his office and myself engaged in a letter writing campaign with respect to what
00:02:58.100the court's expectations were going to be of me going forward and that was going to be for me to
00:03:04.980disclose my health care information to the court and abide by their policies i had indicated to
00:03:11.940them that i didn't believe that they had any authority to demand that from me and that they
00:03:17.460were violating my human rights and also discriminating against me as well as i didn't
00:03:25.620think that they had any authority to require my personal health care information to be disseminated
00:03:34.500to them and or sheriffs that patrol the first floor of the courthouse so that occurred some
00:03:44.180time ago like i said and james and i both um uh we're discussing this we're both volunteer lawyers
00:03:51.300with lawyers for truth and uh james agreed to represent me and last july we commenced a charter
00:03:58.900challenge uh court application against both levels of the courts and uh james can speak to more about
00:04:06.500where that's at but we've you know now we've seen that the government of alberta has removed all
00:04:13.860restrictions mostly especially the masking requirements throughout the province and
00:04:20.260except for public transit and some other areas which I still don't quite understand
00:04:26.340the rationale behind that or the science behind that in fact considering that masks are harmful
00:04:32.980and it's not just my opinion but there are actual there's actual expert evidence that will verify
00:04:40.020that not only are they harmful they're useless in preventing the transmission of a virus so
00:04:47.300what's concerning me now is that we as lawyers and the public received an announcement from the
00:04:53.380courthouse yesterday that notwithstanding that the requirements for masking across the province
00:05:01.380are going to be removed as well as other restrictions that they are in fact going
00:05:06.580to continue with their policy under some sort of excuse that people are compelled to attend
00:05:15.940the courthouse and that there are there is a vulnerable population attending the courthouse
00:05:23.700and they provided no other rationale for that but as you can imagine i'm very concerned about
00:05:33.300this sort of a continued policy of the courts and it just further supports the opinion that I've had
00:05:41.940for the past two years that the likelihood that we are going to receive any justice from the Alberta
00:05:49.620courts with respect to any of these mandates and the litigation that is ensuing and continues to
00:05:56.260be brought with respect to these mandates and government overreach will likely result in
00:06:06.180in the courts deciding against us because they themselves continue to discriminate against people.
00:06:14.580James, what can you say to this notice that was released from the courts just a couple of days ago?
00:06:22.580well i think it's really telling um where the courts are at that you know the government
00:06:31.460removes it and let's pretend for a second that this has something to do with science or evidence
00:06:37.700or safety and and not uh politics and control um then you know you're you know any reasonable
00:06:44.800person is left asking uh wait a minute let's assume this is about safety and science the
00:06:50.840government has said we no longer need it anymore but the courts now are saying we still do you
00:06:56.700know even if i buy all this that doesn't make any sense from a scientific perspective or a social
00:07:02.740policy perspective and so the rational rational person has to say well what's the real reason
00:07:08.080well we live in a political world the real reason is politics which i mean it's bad enough when the
00:07:15.440cdc plays politics um right because they're supposed to be a medical institution but you're
00:07:20.280overly surprised and you're not terribly concerned. When the courts do that, I think if you're a0.60
00:07:25.320reasonable Canadian, you are concerned, or at least if you're not, you know, you should be.
00:07:32.280We're in a very, very dangerous spot when the courts are that politicized.
00:07:38.760You know, I know this is a bit of Social Studies 11 kind of thing, but you have to remember that
00:07:43.720our whole system is predicated on three separate divisions of power in our government, right?
00:07:50.040you have you have the executive branch right enforcement right but they're not the ones to
00:07:55.320make up the law that's supposed to be the legislative branch right and that involves
00:07:59.080all the moas or mps not just not just the the majority party obviously the majority can get
00:08:04.520whatever they want if all their people are there they vote for it but the idea is that there's
00:08:07.720deliberation there's there's voting right there's there's that's the legislative branch and then
00:08:12.200this third branch is the judicial branch right so you can't the idea is that you can't have one
00:08:16.840person making the law enforcing the law and judging on the law right that's what a king does
00:08:22.040and you know we've we've said well we don't want dictatorship or kingship we want democracy well
00:08:27.320in order to achieve that you have to have you know division of power right you have to have
00:08:31.320all these powers in in separate branches that can hold each other accountable and you know we decided
00:08:36.840that like hundreds of years ago after lots of people dying to achieve that because we thought
00:08:41.320hey this is actually a good thing uh you know monarchies not a good thing right we've learned
00:08:46.040that in britain like 500 years ago this is pretty foundational we kind of gloss over it now and
00:08:50.200that's part of our problem but so bring it home to the courts nowadays we have this we have this
00:08:55.480problem where okay this is this is the branch that's supposed to you know um follow the law
00:09:01.560and be rational and and bring in not only a sober second thought but also that a sober step
00:09:09.240by you know hundreds of years of a jurisprudence and this this is the realm in which we can test
00:09:15.960evidence from every angle and it's all done in a very rational and sober way and you know at the
00:09:21.520end of the day we're you know that this this thing functions because we have decision makers that are
00:09:26.540although not perfectly unbiased and perfectly neutral and perfectly objectively recognize
00:09:31.640that they can't be perfect because they are human they're really close to that they're about as close
00:09:36.160to that as we can get or ideally that's that's the whole premise of the system is these people
00:09:40.240are not politicized. They're not politically beholden, right? Their salary is not on the hook.
00:09:48.080Their job is not on the hook. They can decide anything, no matter how politically unpopular it
00:09:52.820is, because they're free to. They're free to follow the law and make a decision based on the
00:09:57.140law and the facts, regardless of the political implications. And the whole system is predicated
00:10:02.340on that, right? The whole administration of justice, the repute of the administration of
00:10:08.580justice is all premised on that. Without that, it's just taken the rug out of the whole thing.
00:10:14.100And so this announcement puts all that into question. Say, okay, this isn't about science
00:10:21.580for safety. I mean, obviously, of course, they're going to say it is, of course. But it really can't
00:10:27.200be. It just can't be. What reasonable person would infer that it actually is? And therefore,
00:10:31.040the only explanation left, right? The best inference left is to say it's political. And if
00:10:38.320it is, then my goodness, we're in trouble. Because if the courts are politicized, well,
00:10:44.020then how can I trust that we're going to get justice on anything to do with this COVID stuff?
00:10:49.800And that's a huge, huge problem. And it's difficult even to talk about it because
00:10:57.160you get into this realm of, well, if the non-lawyers talk about it, then you're kind
00:11:04.840of missing a huge piece of the conversation. But if the lawyers talk about it, they're
00:11:08.300get in trouble because the law society is going to come out for them for talking about it so it's
00:11:11.900it's a really difficult thing right i mean everything i've just said um it's that's it's
00:11:17.740a very difficult thing to talk about because you know we we as lawyers have to stick our necks out
00:11:23.100in order to even have the conversation because we're so highly regulated as lawyers by the by
00:11:28.060the law society of alberta or you know the law society in any other province in the country
00:11:32.300and uh but it has to be a conversation that we have to have not just at tim horton's coffee
00:11:36.620tables, but, you know, at the level of media, at the elites and talking about it in a grand
00:11:42.920political way, because, you know, we have a serious, serious problem here.
00:11:46.700How are we ever going to get justice for all the injustice that's happened in the last
00:11:50.840two years, whether it's on the Hinshaw level or the private employment level or on the
00:13:51.200um but this was this was no mere liberal appointee she had ran in the liberal party right um she was
00:13:59.440aspiring to be a liberal mp justin trudeau specifically talked about how much you know
00:14:04.400he pre-praised her right talked about her publicly um you know that's a problem
00:14:11.920that that she was sitting on that case i mean there are hundreds of judges in the ontario
00:14:17.280Superior Court of the Ontario Superior Court okay it's the biggest court in the country
00:14:21.520there's hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of judges on this court why was she the one hearing0.61
00:14:26.080that okay I mean if I'm if I'm the court I'm thinking okay let's try to make sure that we
00:14:31.200don't first of all that we don't have actual bias okay but the apprehension of bias which is huge
00:14:36.960that's huge in law we're all about avoiding the reasonable apprehension of bias because actual
00:14:41.200bias is very difficult to prove and it doesn't actually probably happen that often but the
00:14:45.280reasonable apprehension of bias. We as a court, because we want to have people trust us and we
00:14:50.960want to maintain the repute of the justice system, we need to avoid the reasonable apprehension
00:14:56.080of bias. We're not going to have this judge sit on this case. And we don't need to because we have
00:15:00.880hundreds of judges to choose from. So her decision to hold Tamara in custody was egregious. It was
00:15:08.800banana republic type stuff. And I mean, I've represented two pastors that were held in
00:15:14.320custody as if i'm in communist china so um you know i've seen that and and here we are again i
00:15:19.760would say this is at least as bad if not worse to hold this woman uh i mean the the comment the
00:15:25.120famous comment from this judge who decided this is i'm not you know i i'm i'm not convinced that
00:15:28.960you won't go and re-offend i mean that's something you say to uh to somebody who's who's done a
00:15:34.240violent robbery that's somebody you know and i believe her charge was counseling to commit
00:15:40.080mischief was was the wording of the of the so not even the one committing the mischief just
00:15:46.480counseling to commit mischief so if there's a pretty low level thing and then it can be all
00:15:50.560kinds of minor things right that should be taken care of but we're not talking serious serious
00:15:54.480crimes here right so i mean that's the most obvious example i could give you a few others
00:15:58.560with with just outright uh absurd decisions we've gotten often from chief justices of of of i mean
00:16:05.600I mean, there's a real trend in the country with chief justices deciding to sit themselves on key COVID cases.
00:16:11.900I just had the Ambassador Bridge case that I was handling in February.
00:16:16.140It was in front of the chief justice of Ontario twice.
00:16:18.960You know, we were all scratching our heads and asking ourselves, why is it the chief justice that's sitting on this case?
00:16:23.420You know, and it was a very, very frustrating case.
00:16:27.820You know, it was very, very dismissive.
00:16:31.020Didn't want to hear anything we had to say about charter rights or limits on the injunctions he was giving.
00:16:35.380He just issued a permanent injunction when it was totally unneeded.
00:16:40.420You know, the big Manitoba case the Justice Center did, it was the chief justice that sat on that.
00:16:44.540The case we did in B.C. with a church and a protester there was the chief justice that sat on that.
00:16:49.220And, you know, us as lawyers, not being conspiracy theorists, we left scratching our head.
00:16:54.340Why are the chief justices sitting themselves?
00:16:56.660And why was it that justice that sat on that case?
00:17:00.540And 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.
00:17:10.920And 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?
00:17:17.440And again, this isn't like, you know, conspiracy theory stuff.
00:17:20.800And this isn't like, you know, automatically imputing corruption.
00:17:23.540It's just raising the conversation, raising what's going on.
00:17:28.240help me understand yeah help me understand and and some of the listeners who maybe don't understand
00:17:33.760why why would it be strange that these were all seen by chief justices versus you know who would
00:17:40.560normally like like help me understand why that is a strange occurrence well when it happens once it's
00:17:47.600not that strange but to see it happen so many times in a row you're just kind of left scratching your
00:17:51.440head because there are so many other justices that could be overseeing it exactly and you know
00:17:58.240And 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?
00:18:05.460I 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?
00:18:15.840When 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
00:18:21.500So, 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.
00:18:44.160Well, 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.
00:19:12.300and you know so you have these it just seems like these are going back to james's point about
00:19:20.500apprehension of bias i mean we're looking at a trend where these chief justices are coming in
00:19:27.220or associate chief justices are coming in and then they're even justice germain in in the art
00:19:33.140pulofsky and chris scott case um seized himself of it and or punted it back to associate chief
00:19:40.380Justice Rook ultimately to determine how anything else would be heard with respect to it. So
00:19:46.500it's very concerning that these courts, especially in light of the fact that the rest of the country
00:19:57.020seems to be, the rest of the other provinces anyway, not the country because we have our
00:20:02.680own issues with Trudeau but the rest of the provinces are relifting these mandates and so
00:20:10.940it just it boggles my mind why the courts feel that they are this moral superiority
00:20:19.160over over this issue and how possibly they can justify it and not only that
00:20:26.520where are we going to go for relief and it's the same it's the same thing that I have in my case
00:20:31.460right now where I'm suing the very level of court that is supposed to decide this this matter right
00:20:37.700and so how does that how does that work out for you then who who presides over that case if you're
00:20:44.580suing the actual courts James does that sounds like it would be tricky it is I mean you know
00:20:54.420ideally you would you would get a court queen's bench uh judge um you know not the chief justice
00:21:00.580because the chief justice was the one that brought in the policy right so you get you get this judge
00:21:04.740that wasn't involved in the development of the policy right and you know theoretically this judge
00:21:10.500um is is because because they weren't directly involved um they're going to make it they're
00:21:14.580going to be neutral and objective and unbiased they're going to look at the evidence they're
00:21:17.540going to apply the law and they're going to they're going to come to a decision but you
00:21:20.340have to acknowledge the human reality is that judge going to going to come to a decision that
00:21:24.740is that is that is contradictory it's completely at odds it's hostile to what to what that judge's
00:21:29.860chief justice has done right really you know do you do you ask do you ask an employee to to rule
00:21:37.300on whether or not their their boss has has has done something that's not it's i mean the chief
00:21:42.260justice is not judge's boss that does that chief justice is not going to fire that judge but but
00:21:46.020you have to think about that right there's a there's a human aspect there that how do you
00:21:50.180overcome that right there is that reasonable apprehension of bias i mean there's i mean he's
00:21:54.740it's not only the chief justice i mean that's his whole court the court that he's a part of
00:21:58.260has decided this and he's going to come out and tell the rest of his whole court you guys were
00:22:02.020wrong we shouldn't have done this and this is unlawful he's going to declare that his own
00:22:05.460court's actions are unlawful you need you need some sort of principled courageous person with
00:22:11.700an enormous amount of integrity to actually do that and and unfortunately the last two years has
00:22:16.820shown just how rare those those people in canada really are they are extraordinarily rare i'm sad
00:22:24.180to say and so where where are you left with this case then i mean i know uh it sounds like you guys
00:22:31.540uh launched this i think you said in july correct so where are you at with this well i slowed down
00:22:38.820on it for a number of reasons one was because we weren't going to get anywhere as long as everything
00:22:41.940else had mask mandates i filed it last july and honest honest to god call me naive because i'm
00:22:47.140normally not when i filed it last july i thought okay we're filing this now because you know we're
00:22:52.100done we're done with the masks right the collective madness that's infected everybody is finally over
00:22:56.980we figured this out yeah when alberta was open for for the summer open for good yeah i mean i
00:23:05.380was skeptical obviously of of kenny and all this at the time but i actually did think there was a
00:23:10.020decent chance like you know we would only go into partial lockdown in the fall um my clients last
00:23:16.340summer asked me so what are we looking at in the fall and i'm like well you know and so i thought
00:23:19.860okay let's file this and let's let's let's get the courts to back off of this this is a good time
00:23:23.780everybody else is back well and because they had kept the mandate they had kept the masking mandate
00:23:28.420when when jason uh kenny opened us up so they kept it over the summer as well yeah so here we are
00:23:35.380you know again again they have kept it when everybody else has removed it right and again
00:23:41.300if it was if it was about science and safety then you know because i mean science is kind of like
00:23:45.140it's a you know it says this and so if one person does this another person does that only one of
00:23:49.380them can claim that they're doing what science says because science is not like you know you
00:23:52.660can do a here and be here you know it that doesn't make me sound right like like masks
00:23:57.140either work in florida or they don't and they work in california or they don't and they work
00:24:00.260in the courts or they don't and you know i mean they just they don't work anywhere that's the
00:24:03.940scientific reality right we all know that for those of us who are being honest and and have
00:24:08.500the integrity to say we all know that after two years of this nonsense right so we we know that
00:24:14.340so what the heck is going on right we shouldn't be keeping it anywhere but especially when we
00:24:18.020keep it in some places but not others then then it really exposes it for for being a political play
00:24:24.100because everybody knows they don't work so why are we keeping it i mean why does california
00:24:28.420have it for it a dozen because the politics are different right i mean i mean this is the reality
00:24:34.660it's funny i've been i've been watching listening to more american news the last month for some
00:24:38.740reason and i'm really shocked at how honest they are and the stuff the way they talk clearly i was
00:24:44.820born in the wrong country you know they they will actually talk about the fact that yeah
00:24:48.880the courts are politicized right it depends on on their political viewpoints for who they're0.86
00:24:54.300appointed by right i mean you know this the the recent denominee by biden i mean is he going to
00:24:59.280rule the same way that kavanaugh is going to rule or that clarence thomas is going to rule
00:25:02.880the americans actually know that and they actually admit it and they talk about it they get it right
00:25:07.060like up here it's oh it's big taboo for anybody to talk the way i have the last 20 minutes right
00:25:11.420Sorry, that's the reality. Who would appoint me on the bench? Bernier would. I mean, nobody else
00:25:18.380would touch me. I'm a raging libertarian. I would uphold charter rights 99 times out of a hundred,
00:25:23.100and I would say section one is not met. That would be how I would rule. I would do it based
00:25:29.500on the law. Justice Brown, who's a former professor from the U of A here in Alberta,
00:25:36.220one of two justices on the Supreme Court of Canada who ruled in favor of charter rights
00:25:40.540more often than not you know when he dissented in the trinity western decision and said look
00:25:44.620trinity western can have its law school um even though it has a christian code of conduct that
00:25:48.780says you know no gay sex allowed it can it can it can have its law school that's actually what
00:25:53.020religious freedom is for is to allow religious minorities to have the integrity of their of
00:25:57.260their institutions and not allow things that they call sin even if the rest of us find that offensive
00:26:01.340that's actually what religious liberty is about is protecting minorities that believe in differently
00:26:04.860than us right so him and the other freedom-oriented justice on the on the bench justice cote
00:26:09.820they ruled in favor of trinity western they actually cited way more case law in support of
00:26:14.140their decision than the seven judges who said nope no christian law school not allowed um you know if
00:26:20.620the law society shut it down it's totally a justified violation of religious freedom right0.54
00:26:26.060so it's not it's not like um the law isn't on either side you know often actually the law would
00:26:31.820be more on on the side of of upholding charter rights we actually have more jurisprudence in
00:26:35.820favor 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
00:26:42.540ideological perspective it's all about political viewpoint it's all about world view right justice
00:26:49.180brown's world is a little more like the three of us and a little less like you know woke justice
00:26:54.860wagner right the chief justice of the supreme court of canada right and and that's why he came
00:26:59.020to a different conclusion they they all they all looked at the law right and and and the seven who
00:27:03.580who ruled against trinity western had some law and the two the two of the world in favor try to
00:27:07.040write had some law in fact even even more so it's not about the law at that point it is about their
00:27:12.400differences of perspective on on on what's actually constitutional or not what's actually good or not
00:27:18.500what's actually right or not what's actually you know you see how i switched into those terms right
00:27:23.600those are morally normative terms right i believe the world's a better place and people are free
00:27:28.400right leftist wing nuts believe the world is a better place when the government is powerful
00:27:32.020people aren't free and everybody's equal whatever the heck that means right and so it's so that's
00:27:37.480all about worldview and that's what the battle is on the court and the americans get it right and
00:27:41.820that's and that's why they talk so much about their nominations we don't get it in canada you've heard
00:27:45.400me say this before right and so we just pretend everybody's just these little robots you impute
00:27:49.620the law and impute the facts outcomes outcomes the decision no it's not how it works you have
00:27:54.440law facts political decision maker coming to a political conclusion if they want to you know
00:27:59.400manipulating the law and facts to get there, right? That's why you can get a 5-4 decision
00:28:04.440on abortion in the US, right? Some people think that the murder of human beings inside the womb
00:28:08.680is a bad thing, and people say, no, that's a woman's right, and that's a good thing, right?1.00
00:28:12.120There's good arguments either way, but that's a moral normative decision. That's not like a
00:28:16.120computer decision, right? So it's going to depend on the political viewpoint of your judge,
00:28:22.120and nothing more than that, right? So where are things at with the court case that you
00:28:28.920guys are working on together what's what's happening with what you're representing katherine for
00:28:33.960so i've i've filed one expert report i'm working on a couple others i filed katherine's affidavit
00:28:39.080um i'm going to be i'm going to be amending the pleadings and now i'm going to be looking to push
00:28:42.600it forward quite quickly now because it makes it makes a lot more sense again we're back into that
00:28:46.280situation we were last summer where the government has removed it the courts have kept it in place
00:28:49.960well you know we got we got we got to deal with it so now as far as the uh the the requirement
00:28:56.680for Catherine to be showing or revealing her private medical information that sort of falls
00:29:02.520under the human rights sort of constitutional protections there. Obviously, that's part of this
00:29:10.360case as well. Yeah, there's the privacy aspect. So what I've, you know, to get technical,
00:29:15.960what I've claimed is Section 7 of the Charter, which protects security of the person
00:29:20.280and liberty, right? So a lot of that is wrapped up in bodily autonomy, deciding what you wear
00:29:24.440and what you what you put in your body what you don't right um you know being able to make those
00:29:28.840really important personal decisions um so there's that and then there's the privacy bit which is
00:29:34.040section eight of the charter right so um we have a problem when somebody says well you know catherine
00:29:40.680i need to see your medical records for you know for you to prove that that you're medically
00:29:46.760exempt from wearing a mask right well that's an invasion of her privacy so then the question is
00:29:50.520well is that is that a job right you know and it might be if look if masks really worked and and
00:29:57.000you know the more people that wore them the the less transmission we get and you know code really
00:30:00.920was this ravaging thing that was killing tons of people you know yeah you know what that might make
00:30:05.400sense i mean even you know raging libertarians like like me and a few you know over there the
00:30:09.960western standard might still be still still have trouble with it but you but a lot of a lot of
00:30:14.120reasonable rational people could say yeah you know what that kind of actually makes some sense right
00:30:17.160right? Because these things actually do work. COVID is actually killing tens of thousands of
00:30:20.860people. This is actually a pretty big deal, right? But, you know, the more harmful that masks are,
00:30:26.580and the less that they work, and the less serious that COVID is, which is the reality here,
00:30:30.380then we don't meet that threshold to justify charter rights. Even if you're a woke lefty,
00:30:35.080and it's really easy to justify charter rights violations, we just don't come anywhere near that
00:30:38.820threshold, right? So those are the rights at play. It's the privacy, the security of the person,
00:30:44.280because they're harmful right and you're scared versus about protecting your body and the liberty
00:30:47.880which is about protecting your bodily autonomy right i mean it's a pretty darn big deal to be
00:30:51.640covering up your identity right to be covering your face and i would say it's a particularly big
00:30:55.580deal for for women right i mean i don't know personally but i have a lot of female clients1.00
00:30:59.920who've explained this to me and and independent of each other they've they've expressed very
00:31:03.740similar feelings and emotions and thoughts um for for covering their their face it's it's a really
00:31:09.620big big deal i mean you know and we know that the whole the whole uh muslim face covering debate
00:31:15.160right um it's it's a big deal and so to be telling a woman you know uh lawyer or not you gotta you
00:31:21.120gotta cover your face you gotta you gotta cover your identity against your will in order in order
00:31:26.560to do this thing even though these things don't work i'm sorry it's it's a big deal and and i mean
00:31:31.180i you know i would say it's about 18 months too late but i would say it it is and was the precursor
00:31:36.580to to this vaccine thing which which was a lot more invasive and a lot i mean as harmful as
00:31:41.060masks are they're not going to kill you likely to the vaccines do you know so that's and and so you
00:31:46.420know that was a big deal not just for itself but also what it also would have led to yeah
00:31:51.940and the symbolism around it right and knowing that if if and what i like to think of it as
00:31:57.780just it was a social experiment that went very successful uh was very successful for
00:32:03.700these governments to see how many people would comply without a fight and without even thinking
00:32:13.180about it. And it's to the point right now that, you know, the mask mandates have lifted and you
00:32:18.620go out in public and the majority of people are still wearing it. It's like a massive mental
00:32:24.560illness has swept over our entire nation. So when you saw this notice, you have to laugh about it
00:32:32.720because i'm i'm so frustrated by how this how this situation has been handled by our governments
00:32:41.360that you know i i i just continue to be so perplexed by it but because everybody adopted
00:32:49.760this the the mask ritual i mean it's stuck and you know what we're going to wear masks for the
00:32:56.720rest of our lives like for what I mean it's it's unbelievably um it's such it's such an overreach
00:33:06.400by governments and these institutions and I know you want to talk to James more about the employment
00:33:10.920stuff which because this the how the governments have reacted right now and with Jason Kenney
00:33:17.480saying things like oh well private industry can go ahead and regulate themselves and make their
00:33:21.620own discriminations when for the last 18 months they've been saying well the only reason why
00:33:26.560we're doing this is because of science. So what, what possibly could they, these organizations
00:33:34.560use to justify it? And, you know, I'd love my expert in my court case to go toe to toe with
00:33:40.860a government OH&S employee. Well, and so, you know, speaking of when the, when this notice came down
00:33:49.920from the courts, I mean, I guess the way I look at it is, is, you know, I'm reading the notice
00:33:55.620here it's talking about the fact that vulnerable segments of the population attend people are um
00:34:01.860a person often is compelled to attend court but but as you mentioned i mean people still have the
00:34:08.980right to choose to wear a mask i mean that that is a freedom that anyone who feels vulnerable
00:34:18.500or feels safer doing so can choose to do. So when you saw this notice come out, Catherine,
00:34:28.900and I understand from even just speaking with you that it concerned you, you know, even with regard
00:34:35.940to what you're trying to accomplish with your court case, does it concern you, James, to see
00:34:42.260this notice as well well i mean obviously for all the big um reasons about where our country is
00:34:49.620going but but let's drill it down to that vulnerable sector thing right that argument is really
00:34:55.220interesting because it cuts both ways right people are compelled to come to court yes that's right
00:34:59.860they are so we need we need to be we need to be sensitive to that right and often these people
00:35:04.660are in emotional distress in their lives they're in a court case they've been sexually assaulted
00:35:08.900they're in the middle of divorce they've lost all their money you're usually in a bad place
00:35:13.460when you're going to court actually um so so you are vulnerable even if you're not already
00:35:17.300vulnerable prior to that um and yet so we're going to take these vulnerable people and tell them
00:35:22.740you have to cover your face you have to uh hinder your breathing you have to show papers if you if
00:35:29.460you aren't able to right you have to show a proof of vaccination at certain uh stages stages um
00:35:35.460that's not everywhere in the courthouse I've learned, you know, or you have to show papers if
00:35:39.620you're not, you know, it cuts both ways, right? Because you're taking this vulnerable people and
00:35:44.020you're compelling them and you're coercing them more than they already are to be there.
00:35:49.940Why are those vulnerable people more, you know, worthy of protection than I am?
00:35:57.220You know, and it's exactly the same thing that James is saying, like, you know, and besides which
00:36:03.940i i would love to see and i think we will be making these inquiries as part of our due diligence
00:36:08.900and um uh with respect to our court case in terms of okay well how many what what is the
00:36:14.260what what what are what are the statistics of this vulnerable population you speak about
00:36:19.620uh that needs uh that requires the entire population in the courthouse to remain muzzled1.00
00:36:25.860right it's a question too right i mean if these things work then the person wearing it's protected
00:36:33.760aren't they so the vulnerable person who feels like they want to and they need to because they're
00:36:36.980scared they're they're they're they're able to wear it and right doesn't that protect them so
00:36:42.520so it it begs a lot of a lot of questions and it goes back to this philosophical problem of
00:36:47.360you know do we do we help people do we make the world a better place by forcing them to do what
00:36:53.000tell them to do right because we know better or do we let them decide for themselves right that's
00:36:57.800the philosophical difference between you know this woke leftism and the kind of libertarianism that
00:37:03.080i come from is actually we actually help vulnerable people and we actually make the world a better
00:37:07.960place since we're all about that by letting them choose for themselves what they do instead of
00:37:13.160trying to say mother or father knows best do what you're told or else that's what the court's doing
00:37:18.120to these vulnerable people right instead of letting them choose which i'm sorry that's a
00:37:23.000fundamental principle to our whole political judicial system the fundamental right to choose
00:37:29.560the court is taking that away and they seem to be blind to it because they're so wrapped
00:37:32.920up in their woke viewpoint of the world where those of us that know better will tell everybody
00:37:37.880outside well and and i can i can speak to like even in my family law cases i you know attend
00:37:43.480online because you know that's just the way it is right now so i can't attend online and the
00:37:48.440justices are so concerned and go on for about five or ten minutes about making sure they don't offend
00:37:54.920anybody and complete everybody please tell me your pronoun and so you know don't be offended
00:37:59.400if i blah blah blah blah blah and i i i'm just going wow this is really what we've devolved into
00:38:08.520right this this hyper vigilant uh words worrisome um behavior that we are going to hurt people's
00:38:17.640feelings you know where we acknowledge various obscure genders that never ever occurred on
00:38:25.560planet earth before i believe you know like you know this is and this is why lawyers for truth
00:38:34.120has been so adamant about this mask issue from the very beginning and why we've always said you know
00:38:39.240do not comply with respect to these mandates is because of this sort of nonsensical decision
00:38:45.560making and mandate making that um that these governments and now our judicial branch seems to
00:38:52.680be making without any sort of evidence or justification uh whatsoever and then and then
00:38:58.680we have a population of people that just go huh okay like this is this is where we're at as a
00:39:04.600society and it's and it's not everybody of course but um how many people i can tell you how how many
00:39:12.520lawyers i know in alberta that have stood up against this tyranny that we faced with this
00:39:17.240government's overreach and i think i'm the only one that i know of that has pushed back with respect
00:39:22.840to the courts well and it's a it's introduced so much confusion so much gray area so many unanswered
00:39:30.760questions right now and uh as you alluded to catherine yeah we we need to address this this
00:39:38.120you know the idea that the the narrative coming from our provincial government is we need to do
00:39:43.640away with this divisiveness right that has come from these these mandates and and how it's divided
00:39:50.280people uh yet we're in a we're in this weird zone where the government has lifted the mandates the
00:39:59.240the vaccine mandates and for the most part like you mentioned the mask mandates uh with with
00:40:03.800exception to uh you know public transportation and medical facilities at this point but you
00:40:10.200know this gray area where for instance employers in private industry i mean let's let's back up for
00:40:19.960a second so so even when the um the province was discussing the lifting of these mandates uh
00:40:27.400they pushed they they put pressure on the post-secondary institutions that they need to
00:40:33.400come in line with the provincial mandates we even saw that push you know between the municipalities
00:40:40.360and the provincial government uh as far as who gets to call the shots here right and and so
00:40:47.000so now we're in this this this strange world where the government has lifted it in most places but
00:40:54.760yet we have all of this private industry private employers that are still mandating not only masking
00:41:01.800but the proof of vaccination for their employees and i know i have been bombarded with emails from
00:41:08.360a lot of people from the oil and gas sector saying hey what happens now that the province
00:41:13.720has lifted this but yet our employers are still you know and and and then it you're in this gray
00:41:20.760area too where for instance oil and gas is is is regulated under the government um you look at uh
00:41:29.000you know i i had a a student reach out to me and talk about an even more confusing gray area this
00:41:35.800poor student is a medical student going to become a doctor. And as the post-secondary institutions
00:41:45.560are doing away with the vaccine mandates and allowing students back into their education
00:41:51.480and their classes and on campus, these medical students are needing to do their residencies
00:41:59.720in ahs facilities hospitals if ahs doesn't lift these mandates then these poor students are left
00:42:09.080in this weird um you know sort of middle zone where they can't they can't even finish their
00:42:15.160degrees so james can you speak to this a little bit about about the fact that a lot of these
00:42:21.080employees who have been put on pay or put on leave without pay fired left whatever the case may be
00:42:28.360for them they're they're still dealing with this aftermath yeah well okay so so legally i get this
00:42:38.280question all the time so so legally yes if the government doesn't intervene the employers can
00:42:43.320do whatever they want unless and until the courts will against them when they launch a case right
00:42:49.560um so which depending on your on your political philosophical viewpoint that can be a good thing
00:42:55.960right the last thing we want is more government regulation right we already got way too much
00:43:00.040and so um there's there's there's problems with saying to the government well you need to go in
00:43:05.640and amend the employment standards legislation to prohibit employee employers from requiring
00:43:11.160vaccines uh in order to do their job and that would be it would be a good policy goal um not
00:43:16.440a very good way to achieve it giving giving giving more power to government is just evil
00:43:20.360results in the murder of human beings. And I think the 20th century backs that up, even
00:43:26.420though that's a strong statement. So I don't like that. However, I would say that several
00:43:31.300states in the United States have done that, right? Republican states cannot mask kids
00:43:36.360in school, Mr. School Board. You cannot force your employees to provide proof of vaccination,
00:43:41.800Mr. Employer. So was that good as a policy goal? Yes. I don't like the fact that it had
00:43:48.640come through through through government i'd like it to come through the courts right um you know
00:43:54.080one of the one of the great things about the courts is it's a way to uphold rights uphold
00:43:58.320justice uphold social functioning social cohesion uh without the heavy hammer of an of an um
00:44:06.240overly powerful overly invasive government the courts just say that's unlawful can't do it and
00:44:11.520then people don't do it because they don't want to be sued anymore right but you don't have this
00:44:14.880you know a government that's it's always on the tip of becoming tyrannical because they have too
00:44:18.400too much power, and I'm sorry, if too much power become too radical, no matter how moral of a
00:44:21.900person you are, that would be ideally the way to do it. The trouble with that, of course, is that
00:44:26.340right now we're having difficulty trusting that the courts are going to actually really follow
00:44:30.180the evidence where it leads and apply the law as it has been in this nation for 100 years
00:44:34.900in the employment law context, right? And plus, that puts a burden on people who have to come up
00:44:39.920with the money and go through the stress of a court case and the risk of losing, and meanwhile,
00:44:43.360they've lost their job. So ideally, as a libertarian, I'd like to see the courts come
00:44:48.120that and solve that problem and then that would be it um but i understand why a lot of people would
00:44:52.200say well the government should come in and do that and so basically what the ucp has said well
00:44:56.440it's out of our hands we're not doing it they could they could pass legislation just like
00:45:00.600republican states have in the states to say we can't do this anymore and and that that would be
00:45:05.560i would think that would be the in my opinion that would be the morally right and the factually right
00:45:10.440thing thing thing to do um i just again i have reservations about giving the ucp more power my
00:45:15.320goodness but but yeah they could they could just do that right so when they say oh we can't do
00:45:19.000anything about its private industry i mean that's a little crock because they could they could pass
00:45:23.160legislation tomorrow right saying can't do this anymore just like they pass all the time it says
00:45:27.720employers you can't do this right for example you have to have 19.5 oxygen on your work site
00:45:33.400if you don't ohs will come in and shut you down i use that figure by the way because when you wear
00:45:37.640a mask you have less than 19.5 oxygen so it's actually occupational health and safety hazard
00:45:42.040um you know we regulate in that area for for for good reasons we could do that here
00:45:48.280so my question too then is does this not now that the the government has lifted these mandates and
00:45:55.400and and i i do understand that you know private sector um can make decisions but does this not
00:46:02.840allow for more of the discriminatory the human rights violations now that this is not sort of
00:46:10.120mandated uh across the province from the government doesn't it it was never sort of in power but no
00:46:16.120in most workplaces it was never mandated but remember that nine percent of these mandates
00:46:20.360for for all the people that did right and i think only about three quarters of employers did this
00:46:25.080um they never had to right any any any talk from them that oh they already piece you know we had
00:46:30.600to do this nope no right look in my cases not not in the single one of the many cases that i have
00:46:36.600that my clients, the employees have been discriminated against and unlawfully dismissed
00:46:41.640and all the rest of it. Not in a single case was the employer doing it because the government said
00:46:49.000they had to through legislation. With the universities and the AHS, yes, that was there,
00:46:54.840but there was never legislation that required these private employers to do what they did.
00:47:00.520They did it all of their own accord because they wanted to, and they're continuing to do it now
00:47:05.240because they want to so at this stage does it does it then boil down to what's been playing out
00:47:12.600already is is you you sort of have to take them to court this is the only option you have there
00:47:18.360you know it it either falls under a constitutional challenge or potentially a human rights issue
00:47:25.800only human rights if you fall under those protected grounds right like if you you know if
00:47:29.240the reason you couldn't take the shot was because of your religious beliefs or or medical disability
00:47:33.640and usually the medical disability is impossible because you can't get a note from the doctors
00:47:36.720because they're too scared to because of the chill effect from the CPSA who's saying,
00:47:41.160if you give too many of these, we're going to come raid your office and you're going to be
00:47:43.880investigated and punished and all that. So usually it comes down to religious beliefs.
00:47:47.340Almost all my clients, it's religious beliefs. But so let's say you go to your reporter and you
00:47:52.220say, I don't want to take the shot. Well, it's not actually unlawful discrimination subject to the
00:47:57.420Human Rights Act and the Human Rights Commission, unless you fall into that protected ground of
00:48:02.780religious belief. So for a lot of people, right, some of my clients, it's just, this was wrongful0.94
00:48:06.920termination. I was terminated with cause because I didn't take the shot. I was insupported. I
00:48:12.420violated their immunization policy. Well, that's not, that's not a discrimination issue. That's
00:48:16.360just plain old wrongful dismissal, which is the type of thing that happens all the time. These
00:48:20.520are weird reasons for it, but this type of thing happens all the time. And so that's, that's their
00:48:24.240case. If it was, you know, I asked for accommodation, they said, no, they gave me no reason. They just,
00:48:29.300you know, they just discriminated against me as a Christian. Well, then you could go off to the
00:48:32.580Human Rights Commission and have a case. But if you didn't do that and you only just said I can't I
00:48:36.460don't want to take it because it's dangerous you couldn't go to the commission you'd have to go to
00:48:39.700the courts right and it wouldn't be it wouldn't be a constitutional case it was unless it was a
00:48:43.620government employer. If it's a government employer yeah your charter rights are engaged when you go
00:48:47.100to court you can in addition to pleading the common law employment rights you can plead charter
00:48:50.960rights. And then it's a whole separate issue of course if you're part of a union because then
00:48:53.880you're stuck with the with the labor union and the labor relations regime and you know you can't go
00:48:58.520of the course. Well, it still seems like even though there's a lot of people who've kind of
00:49:05.100like, we're, you know, we're out of it. I, you know, I think, I don't think we're quite there
00:49:10.500yet. We're not even close to being out of it. And, and this is, and this should worry everybody
00:49:16.360because Jason Kenney has said, I mean, as far as I know, we're still under a state of emergency.
00:49:22.780I don't think that has actually been, I don't think that they've actually withdrawn that.
00:49:31.680And 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.
00:49:47.640And 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.
00:49:59.120Employers continue with these mandates for no justifiable reason.
00:50:03.260And, 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.
00:50:14.680and he goes starting tomorrow masks will not be mandatory for Alberta students while attending
00:50:20.460schools and this is this is what I like kids must come first as we lift damaging restrictions
00:50:26.700yeah what does that like really really so are you telling me and everybody else are you admitting
00:50:40.640jason kenney that these restrictions have been damaging to these children you think
00:50:48.160i mean gaslighting that continues to go on with this government um is it's astonishing i never
00:50:58.560it never ceases to amaze me i hope one day i will figure out what in our brains makes us different
00:51:04.800than people who have bought into this stuff. I have no, I can, I hopefully will get, get there
00:51:11.120one day. For me, it's always been about choice. And, and I, we don't have any freedom. This is
00:51:19.980the thing. We do not have any freedom if we don't have privacy. What's the point? What is the point
00:51:28.840of of all of this if all of my information is just going to be scrutinized and you know and
00:51:35.840now with the government uh the federal government with their ridiculous bank freezing um fiasco and
00:51:42.440maneuver that they've that they've done federally and that they're going to be ushering in permanently
00:51:48.140according to christia freeland look at we have a long way to go and i hope the next government
00:51:55.700that gets elected is not the UCP or NDP. And I hope that that government does everything that
00:52:02.420they can to ensure that this doesn't happen again, including repealing ridiculous legislation like
00:52:08.900the Public Health Act that should have been caught 20 years ago when it was ushered in.
00:52:14.340You know, we have now a responsibility as citizens, now that we know better, we have to do better.
00:52:19.220And that includes holding these government officials accountable and getting rid of this
00:52:24.020legislation that has allowed all of this madness and COVID hysteria to occur.
00:52:29.860You know, I will check in with you guys and just see how things are going with the case that you
00:52:35.300have against the courts, Catherine. And, you know, I just want to thank you both for an update and
00:52:42.740just an idea on talking a little bit more through what we're still, how far we've come,
00:52:50.660but how much we still have to to focus to uh to get past you know being still being mandated
00:52:58.420in many respects in our society still yeah thanks melanie for having us and yeah let's keep going
00:53:05.380one foot in front of the other and um let's keep pushing yes thanks thanks for your coverage of
00:53:12.020all this stuff i've always appreciated it likewise thanks james thanks katherine much appreciated
00:53:17.220Algodex is owned by Algonada. This is great new technology just coming online now in the digital
00:53:26.040currency world. Algodex is a great way for you to use the digital currency Algorand in your day-to-day
00:53:33.680transactions. Can you imagine a world where you don't have to buy a cup of coffee using the federal
00:53:39.080dollar and you don't even have to use the American federal dollar. You don't have to use the euro
00:53:43.280with the pound sterling you can use real money uh digital currencies uh that are not at the
00:53:48.880beck and call of governments and inflation the algodex is making digital currencies usable in a