Shaun Newman Podcast - #581 - Bruce Pardy

Episode Date: February 8, 2024

He is the executive director of Rights Probe, Professor of Law at Queen’s University, and writes special commentaries for the National Post. A critic of legal progressivism and the expansive managerial state, he has written on a range of subjects at the front lines of the culture war inside the law. Let me know what you think. Text me 587-217-8500 Substack:https://open.substack.com/pub/shaunnewmanpodcastE-transfer here: [e-mail] Website: https://silvergoldbull.ca/ Email: [e-mail] Phone [phone] – general sales line, ask for Grahame and be sure to let us know you’re an SNP listener.

This is Moka Bezirgan. This is Dr. William Maccas. This is Heather Heying. This is Chase Barber. This is Donirancourt. Hi, this is Frank Peretti, and you are listening to the Sean Gubin podcast. Welcome to the podcast, folks. How's everybody doing this Thursday?

Well, there's been a whole lot going on in Alberta. Before we get there, how about here? Silver Gold Bolt, they're out of North America. They're out of Alberta. Calgary, specifically. Why am I stumbling over this? They got state-of-the-art distribution centers here in Calgary and down south Las Vegas. Of course, they started at a Rocky Mountain House.

They insure fast, fully insured, discreet shipping right to your doorstep, and offer a diverse set of services including buyback, wholesale, registered savings, RRS, TFSA, as well as storage and refining solutions. Down in the show notes, you're going to find all the different ways to contact them. So whether you're interested in buying or you just want to reach out and say, hey, thanks for supporting, supporting, supporting, supporting the show. John Newman podcast, email Graham, give them a call. And then it's RRS season.

So if you've ever thought of putting physical metal in your RRSP, you're in luck, call or email Graham today for details. And if you've never ordered from them, silvergoldbull.ca, chips right from them, right to your doorstep. It is very slick. Man, Coots 4. Chris Lysak pleads guilty to a restricted weapons charge, and Jerry Moran pleaded guilty to a weapons trafficking charge.

Chris Carbert and Anthony Olenik remain in custody. So there you go. That's some breaking news, obviously now a day or too old, that, I don't know, I think shocked a lot of people that anything came of it. And so they pleaded out. They weren't charged. They were acquitted, I think is that the right word, acquitted of conspiracy to commit murder, but do plead guilty to a couple different. in charges. So there's two of them

out. I was supposed to interview Jerry Moran's wife literally the day it happened. She walked in the studio and sat, chocked for a few minutes, and turn around and driving

back to meet her husband getting out of remand. So there's a whole lot going on there. We'll see what the podcast can do as far as bringing in And I was supposed to be talking, like I say, I was supposed to be talking to Jacqueline Martin, and that has disappeared. So for obvious reasons.

I think, well, I just think that there's a whole lot going on there. And she was as surprised as anyone that what was going on. So I think when the time is right, we'll get the full story or hopefully the full story. And we'll see about down the road when possible. possibly she can come back in and update us. Maybe, maybe Jerry Morin. I'm not 100% sure, but that's been the big news here in Alberta, Coots 4, two of them plead out and now to remain in custody.

Today's episode is also brought to by McGowan Professional Chartered Accountants. That's Kristen and Team. They're looking for people. She's been in the financial industry since 2009. She's fantastic. They offer accounting, bookkeeping, business consulting, training, financial planning, and tax planning, and they can't take on any more clients because they're overran.

So they're looking for a CPA and would love to grab someone local who understands, sorry, their industries and their clients, how they operate in our community. And, you know, if a line maybe she believes in this show and supporting free speech and starting conversations. So if that's something that is right up your alley, you might be a great fit for more information. Visit McGowan, cpa.ca.ca. If you haven't signed on to Substack, I've been talking off and on about it. You know, there's a lot of exclusives that you'll hear at the end of different interviews where we head over to Substack.

The other thing is, you know, as the world seems to pick up craziness and the podcast seems to get hit in different ways by that, the way that we've been getting messages out, the way that we've been interacting with community, it's been through Substack, we're starting at Discord, so if you want to find out more about that, and interact with some of your fellow community members pledge to the substack and get involved there. So there's a whole lot going on here. And today's episode with Bruce Party was recorded before any of the Coots 4 thing came down. So I may have mentioned that right off the hop, but that's why it doesn't come up today. Either way, let's get on to that tale of the tape.

He's the executive director of rights probe and professor of law at Queens University. I'm talking about Bruce Party. So buckle up, here we go. Welcome to the Sean Numa podcast. Today, I'm joined by Bruce Party. So first off, sir, thanks for hopping on. Not at all, Sean. Nice to be here.

Thanks for having me. Do you realize it has been a year to the date since me and you sat and talked last? Really? No, I had not realized that. I know that's really keeping you up at night. Time flies when you're having fun. Yeah, isn't that right?

Isn't that right? You know, I was, I was like trying to narrow down. When I first invite you on, I had like all these things running through my head. And then I started reading your articles again from Nashville Post. I'm like, oh, my God. Like, how do you stick? Like, each one of these could probably have a podcast on its own. That all being said, we're going to try and do this in an orderly fashion, folks.

And we might also start Bruce with what the article that just literally came out and talk a little bit about undrip. Because, you know, on the podcast, I don't know if I brought it up. And then of course, they're sitting in the national post. I'm like, well, this is interesting. You know, I used to give the, well, and I still do with a lot of mainstream media, I'm not talking to some things that are pretty nefarious. Undrip, it's in the national post. And I guess, you know, for the audience, I feel like they know all about it.

But maybe you could give us a little bit of a brief lesson on it. And then why it's got you concerned. Sure, yes. Well, so it's a bit of a long story. I'll try to make it short. In 2007, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution called the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. And at the time, Canada voted no on that resolution, along with the U.S. and Australia and New Zealand

and 11 countries abstained, I believe. So I just sat there. But in 2016, after Justin Fiddle's government was elected, Canada reversed its objection and basically signed on. But it's a UN declaration. And so a UN declaration on its own, a general assembly declaration on its own, is not either binding or enforceable Canadian courts. So it was sitting out there not doing very much. But on the other hand, it's an outrageous document. It basically says that indigenous peoples basically own all the lands and the resources are entitled to money for this and that and the next thing to run their own governments and societies,

but funded by the government of the nations that they live in. Essential. But as the UN Reservants, resolution, it was harmless just sort of sitting out there and yet it threatened trouble. And the trouble has now arrived. In 2019, I believe it was 19, the BC government passed a provincial statute. The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People Act. that act obligated the government to make whatever changes were necessary in BC to activate the declaration.

Now, again, that's a statute. It's now a provincial statute. It's enforceable in domestic law, but that statute itself didn't actually do anything. It just required the government to do something. But now we have a proposal from the current BC government to amend its Land Act. And the Land Act is the provincial government, the provincial statute, the main statute, under which the provincial government grants leases and licenses and permit and so on to do work on Crown land. And most of BC is Crownland. The vast majority of land in BC is Crown land. So if you're, if you're mining or doing a hydroelectric project or cutting down trees or farming or as the case may be on Crown land, then. Probably you have your lease or license or permit granted through the land act.

Now, the BC government has now proposed to enter into a joint management plan with First Nations, meaning that any activity on Crown land in BC will have to be approved both by the government and by First Nations. So that, and it's not law yet, but it is a proposal. The provincial government has sort of quietly opened up consultations on it. It's on one of their web pages, but it's not been trumpeted very much. But if it goes through, you can imagine both the chaos and the bureaucracy and the financial implications of having joint management of all Crown land in BC being subject to the rule, both of the government.

and of various first nations. And of course, there are hundreds of First Nations in BC. So that's the basic situation. So it's found a way to get through law to give First Nations veto power on everything that happens on Crownland? Essentially. That the joint management arrangement will essentially mean that there is a veto because if it was jointly managed, meaning the both or all parties,

have to give their approval. That means if one of them does not, then the thing's not approved. So it is in effect a veto. And I want to underline this point, because sometimes when you get into issues of international law, people say, well, you know,

the government really had no choice because we approved the declaration and therefore we're obligated. That is not true. This is a call being made by the by the NDP provincial government in British Columbia, they are under no obligation to do this. They've just decided that this is the way they want to go.

And it's weird because this is going to kneecap the province and it's industry. I mean, if you were thinking about investing into some kind of a resource-related enterprise and you had the choice of going to a jurisdiction where this existed or it did not exist, you know, you'd be out of your mind. to to walk into this kind of trouble.

You only got to convince the BC government, though, Bruce, and then 100 others. I mean, what could go wrong? What, are you being sarcastic or? Sorry, I shouldn't have covered my smile there. Yes, I was being a little facetious there. Yes, well, I mean, what could go right? So we already had, before all this trouble came along, we already had a thing. called the duty to consult.

The Supreme Court of Canada many years ago decided that in 1335 of the Constitution, there existed a thing called the duty to consult Aboriginal peoples. Whenever there was a proposal to do activity of some kind on lands or that would affect rights that were either established or claimed. And it was an album. trust that hung around the neck of the Canadian resource industry and still does. The courts have been having a very hard time describing exactly what it is that this duty to consult requires. It has introduced a degree of uncertainty and delay and cost into projects of all kinds.

However, the Supreme Court at least said that the duty to consult does not constitute a veto. So, yes, the obligations can be onerous, yes, they can be lengthy, yes, they can increase the costs. But at the end of the day, as long as you jump through all the hoops, then maybe you'll be able to carry on with the project. That is not a veto. This is going to be effectively a veto, which means that if the proposal is not to the liking of the various First Nations who are in a position to pass judgment on it, then you're saying, simply not going to be allowed to proceed. Why would they do that? Well, you know, whereas we're, we live in a very strange time in the sense that this, this,

this, we seem to have a generation of younger political leaders who seem determined to cripple their own societies. Now, it's perverse. I don't really understand it. It may, it may be that they. that it is to their political advantage to do this. There certainly is a constituency out there who supports them, who supports all this kind of this kind of step.

But I would like to hope that when the public as a whole, it's the idea here, that they will come to the conclusion that the people who are setting this up, are essentially out of their political minds. But we'll see. Yeah, haven't we been saying that now for about five years? And it just, it just seems to happen. And maybe I might even be shortchanging that because there's going to be a lot of people

who've been listening and watching and going what on earth is going on. You know, like a friend of yours, you know, Jordan Peterson going at it with his governing body. I'm shifting gears just slightly because. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, there's lots of gears to shift too. Well, and here's the thing, you know, it's funny because it's like, you know, we'll see. We'll see how the population reacts. And yet it's just like it's an absolute bomb goes off over there, bomb goes off over here.

So it's almost to the point now where you don't even, you don't even realize that because, you know, until I had read your article, I'm like, oh, that is. Well, like I say, I'd heard about. drip, I don't know, folks. Was it a year ago? Was it two years ago? I can't remember. But, you know, the fact that you're talking about, I'm like, oh, boy, this is, this is getting more and more serious because once upon a time is pretty tinfoil hat,

even though it isn't tinfoil hat. I'm not trying to point that out of people, but, you know, it's more in the, the common language right now, but you watch what's happening. Sorry, Bruce. No, no, no, I agree. Sorry. Go ahead. Finish.

No, I was just, but I mean, look at what's in the common language now and look at all the attacks on whether we're talking to judicial system and some of the things that are going on there to the governing bodies of these different areas when it comes to psychologists and and on and on and on or you're talking about undrip and and the fact that there's a government out there that's like you know what we need we need a hundred partners to be able to sign off on this too because of all the things we've done in the past and I'm not trying to make light of any of all that or any of this it's just that it's all happening simultaneously and when ask, why would they do that? It's like, it's almost like it's coordinated. Well, well, I'm,

I'm not sure that I would call it coordinated, but it is related. For it to be coordinated, it would have to be an actual conspiracy. Like, people got together in a room and said, all right, you know, how are we going to play this out? And that's, that's not happening, I don't think, because it's too complicated. You sure if you don't trend, if you don't track it all back to somewhere these ideas don't stem from the same spot? Oh, well, but that is the case. That's the point I want to make. It's related but not coordinated.

It's coordinated in the ideas sense. They all reflect a common set of ideas, including the idea that is held by a greater proportion of people now, including some of these leaders, which is that our society is essentially wrong. It's bad. It's evil. It's based upon a regrettable history that needs to be reversed and that we are the recipients of unfair advantage. And we need to and deserve to undermine ourselves. And so we are going to make things right. we're going to bring in social justice by putting in place rules that are to our disadvantage because we deserve it.

I mean, that's the kind of twisted ideology now that a lot of the political forces in the country run on. You don't look convinced. No, I'm definitely convinced. I'm thinking about it. I'm like, you go, well, it isn't coordinated. I don't know. I'm thinking about that right now.

I'm thinking about what you said there. It's coordinated in the very large sense, in the sense that, you know, all of these, all of these things are. If we trended it, if we trended it all the way back, where does this all stem from? Could we just grab that by the roots and just rip it out and be like, here it is. Now, the problem is, it's not as simple as a plant pulling it out and we're done with it. It's thrown over to the side because it has spiraled and grown and morphed into all these different things. It's embedded in so many different industries, so many different thought

processes, so many schools on and on and on and on and on. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yes. Okay. So I'll give you, I'll give you, I'll give you a theory. So it doesn't come from just one place, but it does come from a certain number of ideas that have coalesced and are now traveling together. One of them was the, the birth of a managerial society. Some people call it the managerial revolution. And even the start date is undecided. It's in dispute.

I mean, some people say post-World War II. Some people say that in the U.S., for example, it started essentially with the New Deal after the Great Depression. Some people would say even earlier than that, sort of starting to get momentum with the Industrial Revolution. But at a certain point in time, the idea of managing people and industries and schooling and resources and military, managing, by managing, I mean, being controlled by a central authority with expertise.

Now, that idea is so deeply embedded now that that doesn't sound like a new idea. That doesn't sound like a revolution. that doesn't sound like anything extraordinary. That's how revolutions happen. Before this managerial revolution, that wasn't the way things worked. Nobody controlled things. Governments weren't big enough to do that.

They didn't have the resources to do that. They were making laws to keep the peace. But now we are operating under a presumption that what government is for is to plan, and direct and heard and supervise and tell us all what to do because they are the people who have the expertise and the authority to do exactly that. And after all, what else is government for? That's what people think government is for. Why else does it exist? Now, all of that

does not mean that these people know what they're doing or that they're doing it in an effective way good outcomes. That's clearly not the case. But that's totally beside the point. They have control because they have two other things. They have claimed expertise and they have the authority of being the state. So you start with that. And then you add on to that managerial idea other ideas that come from elsewhere like critical theory, which is part and parcel of critical race theory and social justice and wokeism and postmodernism and the managerial apparatus has embraced that idea amongst others because there is no more perfect set of ideas than critical theory if what you want to do is manage people because critical theory requires expertise to tell people

what to do. There's an endless number of social problems that you're going to have to fix. And so it gives the managerial state something to do, a justification for its existence that will never end because these things are never finished. And I can go on with other things that the managerial state has embraced as a cause, climate change is another one. I mean, what a perfect thing for a managerial apparatus to want to do, to manage the climate and to manage people's behavior in the name of the client. It's perfect and it's being embraced. And that brings us to the idea of a pandemic and global health. I mean, also a very good excuse for saying, look, there are certain things that we all need to do together. And to do that, we're going to need to be coordinated,

both within countries and between countries. You're layers and layers of bureaucrats and technocrats figuring out what it is that we're all going to do this week. And so you get these people who are assuming that their job is to reorder society. And this is exactly what the joint management plan in BC is all about. It may not make any sense. It may lead to terrible consequences. But from the point of view of these people who are doing it, that has nothing to do with it.

So is that where this leads in, terrible consequences? Oh, sure. I mean, you can see it already. We don't know exactly what the outcome of this BC thing is going to be, but you can see terrible consequences all over the place as a consequence of all kinds of bad calls, all kinds of bad calls. And the bad calls, the danger is that the people who object to these things, whether it's the BC Joint Management Plan, whether it was cooked.

COVID measures, whether it's the carbon tax, or whether it's one of a whole long list of bad moves. The danger is that those people who regard those as bad moves will simply regard them as policy mistakes, as in, well, the people in charge didn't evaluate that correctly, or they got the facts wrong, or the policy didn't make any sense, or they should have done this instead of that. You know, that's all very well, but that avoids the main problem, which is that we are now a society in which government officials are assumed to have the legitimate authority to make these kinds of calls in the first place. For me, the problem is not the particular policy and

the particular mistake. It is the fact that they're making policies at all about these things. We've given away, we've given away, the word I have is sovereignty, and that's not the word I want. But we're leaning so heavily on the bureaucracy because we think, well, they're going to keep us safe, they're going to protect us, they're going to do all these wonderful things. And they know what's better for us because they're so smart. Big brother is just so smart.

Sure, sure. And people have a lot of people that are alive today, most of them, essentially. who are alive today in the West were born into a world with a managerial state. And it's the only world that they know. And so for someone like me to come along and say, look, the managerial state is a mistake. We shouldn't have a managerial state. I mean, that's heretical. Like, it makes me sound like a crazy person.

I mean, what do you mean? What are you talking about? That is what government is. Where is it supposed to go? What are we supposed to do without one? Modern life is too complicated to be able to make our way through life without bureaucracy with expertise. That, I think, is a very broad sentiment.

And we need certain governments to provide us with certain services like public education and public health care and public health measures. So is the question. the question we should be asking, Bruce, sorry to interrupt, but is the question we should be asking then is do we? Do we actually? No, the answer is no. The answer is absolutely, from my point of view, the answer is absolutely no.

So let's contrast two different visions of government. And there's more than two, of course. But let's just contrast these two. You have the managerial state that we've been talking about, which essentially supervises modern life in so many ways. versus its opposite in a way, something that some people have called for the years, a night watchman state, meaning it still exists. It's still a state, it's still a government. It still has laws and still has police. But it's a night watchman state in the sense that its

role is to keep the peace. There's a minimal amount of rules. It has enough force to enforce those rules. It doesn't put up with any violence. It doesn't put up with theft. But it doesn't It doesn't meddle in the way society is carrying on. It allows people to make their own contracts, to make their own valued decisions, to produce their own families and to carry on as long as they don't interfere with other people. The night watchman state.

And frankly, that's what I wish we had. Heck, sounds freaking cool too, doesn't it? Sounds like it's a, I hate to get too comic, uh, quoted to comics or something or pop culture, but it sounds like it's like, that actually sounds rather fun, doesn't it? Like just, but you know,

sometimes I don't know. Are we in the minority on that? Because like, when you say nobody's growing up, you know, like in my lifetime, no, I don't know any different.

I honestly, I don't. And yet I go, there's just times where you're like, why the heck do we need anyone watching that or doing that? You know, we're just farming out our, our rights to the government where they decide and they tell us what to do and what not to do.

And you can feel it every, I don't know, probably every year, but I was going to say every day, but, you know, like it just, that's where it kind of feels like the water temperature goes up just degrees to the point one day. You're like, how the heck do we get here? Yeah, yeah. And the question is, maybe, it's like, how do we get away from this? Like, it's not like I want to go back and live in the 60s, but I certainly don't want to go live in the 2030s where they're, you know, the, they're, they're talking about all these different things, Bruce. Like, I mean, how do we, um, well, give me, give me a for, for instance, what kind of things? Okay. Well, let's start with, um, electric vehicles.

I'm not, you know, I, I would say, and I think the audience would agree with me here, if you asked me six months ago, I was pretty much against all electric vehicles. I'm not saying I'm for them now, but I, I'm like, okay, maybe there's a way in the future where you get to where a healthy majority of the population is using electric vehicles. I can't see it right now, but maybe there is. But what they're going to do and what they are doing is 2026, a certain percentage have to be sold. And every year after that, you get the point. So now. And then you get, you know, and I go, well, I don't want that future. I don't want to be forced into buying something that we almost, well, we did. I keep saying almost and there were people

in and around Calgary, I believe, that had brownouts, right? in minus 50 weather. It's like, that's a future I don't want. I don't want that. And I don't think any Albertan in their right mind wants that. Right. Right. But, but there's, so on the electric cars thing,

there's a difference between allowing electric cars and requiring them. Sure. I've got nothing against electric cars. If people want to produce them and sell them and people want to buy them, that's totally fine. That's the way it's supposed to work. What I object to is what you're objecting to, which is the government's come in and said, we're going to do it this way, folks.

You're not going to be allowed to buy a gas-powered vehicle after a certain day. Well, no, no, no. Now the government is choosing the technology they want all of us to use. That is not the government's job. And if people choose to want to choose to prefer gas-powered vehicles, that should be their call. That's exactly what I'm talking about. This is the kind of control that the managerial state believes that it has a legitimate rule in deciding for all of us. But when you challenge people, and don't, if you take a person off the street who agrees with you and me on this electric vehicle

thing, and you put the proposition to them that we don't need to have a managerial state, And once they figure out what that means, and what does that mean for a moment? What that means is that the government's not providing you with services for one thing. Like there's not going to be public health care in a non-managerial state. And a lot of people have problems with that. They agree that this policy is bad and that policy is bad.

We don't want to have electric vehicles rammed down our throats. But we've got to have public health care because what are we going to do? Well, that is part of the problem. If you believe steadfastly in the necessity for having the government run our health care system, then you are part of the problem. And you've got to let go. You've got to let go of the idea that if the government doesn't provide you with something, you're not going to have it because that's not the way it works.

You will be provided with it. It'll be provided in a different way by people who want to provide it to you because they want to get paid. And it'll be provided in a much better, more efficient, more effective, more professional way, without all the waste, without all the taxes, without all the inefficiencies. I mean, our record on health care in this country is abysmal. And yet, Canadians are devoted to it. And I don't understand why.

Security? Would that be a word to slide there? it make you feel like, you know, if anything goes wrong, I'm safe? Well, maybe. That may be part of it, for sure. I think another part of it is identity. I mean, they associate being Canadian with having public health. I think that got ripped away from me in the middle of COVID.

I don't know if I associate that anymore. But I, but I, but I, but one of the things here, Bruce, you know, that I've been, that I've been talking lots about since it started 2024 is like, how. How do you remove yourself from the government system? I'm not saying completely, but to the point where you don't have to, you know, like just take, take the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the pandemic. What do we call it? Is it a treaty? It's not a treaty.

What do they call that? Agreements. It's going to be a treaty. So it's going to be a treaty. It's going to be a treaty or, or at least an agreement. I mean, the name keeps changing. Right. There are also existing international health regulations that the WHO administers.

And there are proposals to amend those. those regulations, which will bring in all kinds of different rules. So if we dislike how it's going here in our local communities up to our province and our country, they're signing, the country's signing on to things that are going to centralize it even more and make it even worse, right? So I go, no. Well, yes, yes and no. Yes and no. So, so. So yes in the sense that it's quite possible that these documents will state that the who has the authority, for example, to declare a global pandemic and to make binding recommendations on countries,

and the countries in the treaty or in the regulations will promise to follow Who recommendations. And it's all going to look like it's been raised a level and then now being controlled by a global organization and telling us all what to do. Okay. That's the way it's designed to look. But that's not the reality even, either, right? Because I like to call international law the art of the big pretend in this sense. The, the, the, the in domestic law, let's say you drive down the street, downtown. down. And in a new town, and the signs down Main Street say no parking. But the signs also say the city does not enforce parking restrictions. And all the cars are parked all over the place.

So what does that mean? It means that this rule on the sign that says no parking is not really a rule at all because it's not being enforced. And an unenforceable rule, is not a rule. Well, in the international sphere, the, the, the highest level authorities are countries. There are no higher authorities. The UN is just a place for countries to meet. The who is just an agreement made by a whole bunch of countries together. So there is no higher authority to enforce their rules. So if you make a deal with other countries, then then the only way to enforce those rules in international law is not to enforce them at all, but to retaliate country to country or groups of countries to group to countries.

That's not enforcement. That's like having a contract and having your other party, you know, come after you. So my bottom line is this. The idea of enforcing international promises in the same way, that a parking law would be enforced against us doesn't exist it doesn't exist so whenever you make a treaty the international law jurists all say oh well you've made a promise that's binding but by the way it's not enforceable doesn't make any sense so the actual authority about what happens inside your country is still held by your government your own government your provincial government your national your federal

government are the ones who are deciding what rules they're going to accept and enforce against you their citizens and so this idea that the who is taking over is not true and the fault and responsibility still lies upon our own political leaders and our own managers and they are going to do this they're going to say oh i'm sorry we have this treaty and the who has declared a pandemic and they've required us to to lock you down. So I'm sorry. We're sorry. We don't want to do this, but it's out of our hands. We have to say, you have to stay in your house. That's what they're going to say. And it's not true. It is them deciding that they are going to accept the recommendations because that's what they wanted to do anyway. Did you call international law? What did you call it? Make believe?

The art of the big pretend. The art of the big pretend. And I heard make belief because I'm like, we live in the land of make believe. While I agree with you, okay, I understand it. I believe I understood what you just said about, you know, like they literally can't come down to your house and go stay in it, right? Right. The control structures that B will make it feel like they can come straight to your house and do it. Like we just live. Oh, sure.

Sure, sure. They're going to use all these different little tentacles. Yes. To go right to the bar. Yes. Yes, yes. Oh, they will. But that, but but you see that will be the excuse for doing exactly that. It's going to be used as an excuse So the the arguments, listen, I'm not in favor of it. I think it's a terrible idea Terrible terrible idea. We shouldn't do this. We should not sign on to this who is who agreements. We should not agree to follow the who recommendations. We should not do it

but if we do do it our own people are still responsible. There's we we we do not I do not accept that even if they do sign on, which is also their call, that if they sign on, therefore, they're obligated from that moment on to do whatever the Who says. Not true. Well, I like it, Bruce. I like when you get fired up. I look at it and I'm just like, they're probably going to sign on to it.

And saying that, I hold hope that we don't. But, you know, our current leadership group, I don't have a whole lot of faith in. I mean, you look at it and you go and say, that, you know, and saying that, and I'm forgetting his name right now, that's terrible of me. Who just had, what judge just came out saying the EA wasn't just

mostly? Mosley. Thank you. I'm going to say Morsley. I go Mosley. Well, I go don't hold my breath on a lot of things, but then Moseley happens. And I don't know about you. Maybe you saw that one coming, Bruce. I was like, I had to double

check my eyes and then reread it. And I know people are going to be like, well, it wasn't all good. I'm like, you can slice it any which way you want. The fact he said in there not justified and a bunch of other things is about the, is a music to my ears. I guess I've been waiting for well over a year to hear someone with common sense just go like they said it over and over again. A whole bunch of this doesn't make any sense. And there it was. So as much as I go, oh, I'm seating into the population that, oh, the who, yeah, we're signing on to it. There's no one getting around it.

I shouldn't put that thought out there because I still do hold hope and belief that cooler heads will prevail and we won't go into these things. But our current leadership group and giving them the choice, I think they're signing into it like three years ago if they could. Oh, I think that's true. But on the Moseley decision, I mean, it's a very good decision.

But it's a very good decision because it's ordinary in the sense that he did a proper job. And the proper job consisted of going into the act and reading what the act required in order for the act to be used. And the act has requirements, a couple of, in particular. And he went through those, the definitions of those terms, what they meant and what the requirement was. And then considered what the facts were to see if those conditions were met. and concluded that they weren't. I mean, it's a very ordinary kind of analysis, very well done, but not extraordinary. And so I'm not surprised by it.

You would like to think that that's what you're going to get. So I was not surprised by the outcome of the inquiry at all. That's exactly what I expect. Yeah. But the inquiry and the court challenge are two very different animals. the inquiry did not really have the mandate that the court had the court had a very narrow mandate to find out whether or not this was in accordance with the requirements of the act that is not what the mandate of the inquiry was it was a much loosey-goosey kind of thing they were supposed to do

and the results there were exactly what you would have expected but to his credits the the federal court judge did his job, which was to take the law, apply the law to the facts and come to a conclusion. And it might just be worth pointing out. Although, so the decision was in two bits. One bit was whether the invocation of the act was lawful. And the second bit was, if the invocation of the act was lawful, then did the measure, that they put in place were they constitutional, right? And the answer on the first bit was, no, it was not lawful, but people should not jump to the conclusion

that that first bit was a constitutional case because it wasn't. It had nothing to do with the Constitution. All the judge did was say, here's the act, here's what it says, here are the requirements, the requirements weren't met. End of story. Constitution has nothing to do with it. The act is not unconstitutional.

The invocation was not unconstitutional. It just didn't satisfy the threshold. But then he went on and said, well, even if I'm wrong about that, even if you were allowed to take the act off the shelf, is what you did with it constitutional. So he looked at the two regulations that they passed under the act, one preventing gathering in basically, in front of Parliament Hill. They didn't say that, but that's what they meant. And the other one

to give the banks, the authority to freeze bank accounts. And the judge concluded that they were both unconstitutional under Section 2, under Section 8 of the bank accounts, search and seizure. So yes, so it's great. It's great, but it's not extraordinary. It's really pretty ordinary, which is part of his charm. It was exactly what you'd want to hear. And you'd like to think, although no guarantee, that when this is appealed and the federal government has said it's going to appeal, that the appeal courts will see as the trial judge did,

the judge at first review, and do the same kind of analysis. Now, the good thing about an appeal in this situation is, that in order for the judgment to be overturned, an appeal court has to find an error. They don't start again. They have to find an error. It's not obvious to me that there are errors. But even if you could find one,

in order for the federal government here to prevail on appeal, it would essentially have to succeed on four different grounds. Number one, that requirement, Number one was not met. Number two, that requirement two was not met. Number three, that this was not unconstitutional. And number four, that that was not unconstitutional. So there's four things going for the challengers.

And the federal government would essentially have to overturn all four in order to come away, Scott free. And I'm not saying it's impossible. I think the chances are better at the Supreme Court of Canada than they are at the federal court of appeal, depending upon who the judges are. So it's not a sure thing, but for my money, I'd like to think it's going to be a challenge for the government to make its way through this. Why do you say they have a better chance at the Supreme Court of Canada than the federal court of appeal? Well, number one, because we know who the judges at the Supreme Court are.

We don't know what the panel is going to be at the federal court of appeal. You might get a panel at the Court of Appeal. So judges are different from judge to judge, right? They have different perspectives on things. And I can imagine getting judges on the Court of Appeal who would be inclined to think that the trial judge did a proper job because it was a very rule of law, consistent kind of decision.

There are other judges who might not think that. And the judges at the Supreme Court of Canada as a group, yeah, they've done a lot of, they've done a lot of things that over time, I think have been questionable. I should point one thing out in particular. And we don't know whether or not this is going to be a factor yet. But in particular, in the, in April, after in the, in the spring of, the year that the convoy was in Ottawa, that they were there in February, in April of that year, after the Emergency Act had been used and then put back, the chief judge of the Supreme Court gave an interview to Lid de Vois. And in that interview, he condemned the convoy and suggested that, you know, powerful people

inside the state should use force to repel what he called an occupation, essentially. He said, you know, some citizens have decided to take other citizens hostage. Now, he might not have meant that literally, but he was suggesting that this was a kind of occupation. I don't think he used that word, but you can see what he meant. Now, that's an extraordinary thing for a judge to say, any judge, but especially the chief justice of the Supreme Court of candidate. because that's essentially expressing a view about a case that now could very well end up in front of him. Now, maybe he'll recuse himself. He should.

But he's expressed his opinion. And it's just one of the other factors that are in play here now with this case. Sticking with judges for a second, I would say, I know. close to zero, right? So when you say that story about Supreme Court Chief Justice Richard Wagner, and you say he expressed some views, the other one I had written one down here, and he said, quoted, forced blows against, Wagner as having declared that force blows against the state, justice, and democratic institutions like the one delivered by protesters should be denounced with force by all figures of power in the country. So what you're saying, that is the quote I'm referring to.

So what you're saying is here's this guy who's supposed to be impartial. He's not supposed to give his thoughts on this. But now he's given his thoughts on it. So he should not be in a position to preside over it because he already has bias, essentially, right? So for the common person, when they think of a judge, judges are kind of supposed to be like they don't give their opinion because they're going to have to look at the letters of the law and be impartial, meaning they can't lean either or. They have to read the law and then go, does this fit there? But the problem is, is our system, including judges. I don't know the word here, Bruce.

Is it corrupted? Is it something else? Is it caught up in the whirlwind of culture and everything else to where they're like, our country's under attack and I need to be strong and say we need to denounce this? But the problem is, is like it was a legal protest. And now it's going to go up the chain of events to the guy who denounced it in the first place. Yes. So over time, the role...

No, finish your thought and then I'll ask my question. Okay. So over time, the role of our judiciary has been changing. In 1982, when we got a charter of rights and freedoms, to some extent, we created a system of at least partial judicial supremacy. Up until that time, our system was largely based on legislative. supremacy, meaning the legislature, the elected legislature, could basically make pretty much any laws that it wanted as long as it was within its division of powers jurisdiction between provinces and federal government. As long as it was that, they could do almost anything they wanted. But suddenly with the charter, the judges had the last word on what was going to be allowed.

and the courts have taken on that role enthusiastically. And the Supreme Court of Canada in particular has taken for itself the role of being the final policy decider. And even on questions that sometimes it has changed its mind on overtime. And so the idea that judges would have a larger role in the in the in the cultural life of the country has become Not so outrageous as it once would have been heard to be. Go ahead with your question. Well, I was just going to be, if you're sitting here and you're hearing your, okay, so he's impartial.

Yeah, he's exposed his view. What's the big deal? What's the big deal, Bruce? He's just commenting. He's getting caught up. He's just an average citizen. It's not the end of the world. He's got a job just like the rest of us.

Well, yes, yes. And it's becoming more common for judges to do this. I mean, this chief justice, as did his predecessor, they have a press conference every year with journalists to answer questions. Like, where did that come from? You were so, as a judge, the traditional idea was a judge speaks through his judgments. And you don't go into the public realm and talk about the judgments. If you want to say something that's relevant to the case, you say it in the judgment.

And then you let the judgment speak for itself. But they're having press conferences. And judges give speeches. And I'm not saying that that's always wrong. I'm not because some judges have very interesting things to say about jurisprudence and legal philosophy and so on. But the degree to which judges now appear to be fine with commenting on the issues of the day, as happened in this case.

erodes that traditional idea that justice must not only be done, but must manifestly appear to be done. That is, you're entitled to a day in court in front of judges who have not decided your case before they hear you. And when you when you hear any judge express an opinion about the outcome of a case that they haven't heard yet, that's all the alarm bells ought to go off. That's exactly contrary to the whole idea. I just pulled up the ethical principles for judges, okay? And one of them is impartiality.

That's like a whole section. And I'm chuckling because as you're talking. I'm like, okay, principles. Well, the statement reads, judgment, judges are impartial and appear to be impartial in the performance of their judicial duties. And then it rolls through a bunch of principles. And the second one is judges avoid conduct, which could reasonably cause others to question their impartiality. And I guess I sit here and I go, this is probably a stupid example. So apologies.

But I remember in sports, I love hockey. I remember thinking, it's not a big deal to have athletes comment on today's world. What's the big deal? Except now look at hockey. And look how you just, like, it's being corrupted. Can't we just have the game? Do we need to have the side show?

And yet now even the players are fighting for the side show, right? They want to have it too. Because in the public's eye or in their mind, in culture, if they don't go along with what is happening, happening, they're attacked just as vehemently if they don't, right? It's pretty wild to watch. So when I look at the judges thing, bring it back to what you're talking about. I don't think I fully understand or comprehend maybe is the better word where this leads in the future if we allow judges to comment publicly about culture and, you know, an EA on protesters and where that can

lead in the future? Well, it's consistent with the trend elsewhere in the culture, in this sense. You speak of protesters. What has happened is that it's become expected, it's become okay, it's become required for there to be a prevailing political or ideological view about what is proper and what is not. So if you take protesters, certain kinds of protesters deserve to have the books thrown at them. Correct. Like the convoy. Other kind of protesters don't. And the difference depends entirely upon what it is you're protesting. Okay. That is not an unbiased rule of law.

No, that's the definition of bias. That's exactly right. Right. And so when it comes to the Supreme Court, I mean, one of the things that Wagner said long before this, at Wagner's very first press conference as Chief Judge, Chief Justice, one of the reporters at this press conference asked him, he said, do you agree that Supreme Court of Canada is the most progressive court in the world? And he said, yes, I think that's true.

And said so with pride, as though we are the most progressive court in the world. And that's a good thing, because we want to promote progressive values. Okay, now you've already chosen a side. Because progressivism is an ideology. And if you proclaim yourself to be a progressive court, that means you're already preferring progressive solutions to things. So I'm not suggesting that judges don't. disagree or have different perspective on things. But the range of the accepted disagreements is

becoming narrower. You can disagree within a progressive range. But if you're not in that range, then you're not just disagreeing. You're wrong. That's the implication of this. It's a tough, it's an easy and a tough thing to wrap your head around all at the same time. Does that make sense? I don't know. Does that make sense? Like, you're like, that's a heavy, that's a, that's a heavy thought. It just it just is, right? Like, when you talk about, just look at culture. Well, that's pretty simple. You know, I listened to you on,

and I forget the lady's name. It was a very interesting discussion you two had. You were talking about women, men, and women's sports. And you started talking about the duality. I'm going to, I don't know if duality was the word you used, but like you were basically like, well, it's either special or together. We can't have both.

Because as soon as you start doing that, you get into this muddy world. And that's what we've done. We've really muddied the world so that things that shouldn't be crossing over have crossed over. And there's no going back right now. Yes. Well, let's just let's just consider that for a moment because you brought up another one earlier I talked about the managerial revolution. And I talked about critical theory as sort of two origins of this problem that we're now in. There are others. And one of the, other is this feminism and you're you're you're referring to alluding to this idea that feminism was the first to bring to the four i think is a claim now let's just back up a bit so there's a there's a there's a claim at the beginning of feminism i think that goes like this you know in a time when women are not allowed to vote and not allowed to own property and not allowed to do this and that the claim is well you know

This is not right. That can't be. Women are people and they are entitled to the same basic civil rights as men. I mean, of course, right? But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about something that came along at a different stage of feminism, a different wave, if you like, which goes like this. And you alluded to it.

The claim is, we are equal as in we have the same legal rights as men. and we are also special. As in we have rights that men don't have. Why? Because we are women. We need both to be equal and special. And so the example that I was talking about was what happens when women want to play with the boys, you know, girls in boys sports, women in men sports.

versus what happens when men want to play with the women. So when a girl tries out for the boys' team, all the feminists say, well, that absolutely. I mean, if a girl is good enough to play on the boys' team, then she has a right to play with the boys. Because otherwise is to hold her back. Okay, fine. What about the boy who didn't make the boys team

because the girl made the team? Is he allowed to play with the girls? Oh, no, we can't have that. because it's dangerous and unfair to allow boys play with girls okay so here's what we have we have a claim that there can be no men's spaces no boys sports that girls can't join if they're good enough no men's golf clubs that women can't join no men's professional associations that women can't be part of you can have no exclusively men's spaces but it is essential that women have their own spaces that men can't enter.

You know, their own sports leagues, their own professional associations, their own locker rooms, their own prisons, men stay out. We can go in your spaces, you can't come in ours, equal and special. And that is one of the origins of the social justice idea,

which is that some people are more special than others. Different status depending upon your group. and that is one of the ideas that has led us to this bad place. Yeah, when you think of an idea and how it can move a mountain, right? Or just grow into something, that one right there. That's a profound thought, Bruce, honestly, and hearing it firsthand, because I listen to that, you expand on that. I'm like, huh.

You know, sometimes, folks, people say things that you don't expect them to say, and you're like, man, I hadn't really thought about it that way, right? Because I mean, that's been since, you know, I was knee high. That's the way it's been. Women have their spaces and that's growing. And I think most men are like, I think that's great. And if there's a talented one and she wants to come up, I guess that's fine too. Oh, okay, sure.

We'll give women. And yet now we're in this weird world, right? And what you're pointing out is like, I think, I think it's fine if women have their own space, but why can't men have their own space? And just, and have the separation. And if we're not going to have the separation, then put them, together. Right. That is the key. It's like, okay, I'm fine either way. Either everything is open or everything is segregated. Either one is fine, but pick one. You can't

have it both ways. You can't insist these are all open spaces because you want in and these are all the closed spaces because you don't want the interlovers. I mean, come on, pick one. Instead, no. Generally, the insistence of upon the double standard. Does that have like really humble, not nefarious origins in the fact? And I'm just going to pick on my small town. Where I come from, you know, there was maybe one girl hockey player. There's just, there's just no way.

And back then that wasn't a huge thing, right? So the only way she can play is if she joins the boys. There is no two divisions. There's literally, you play with us or you don't play. Right. But you see in that situation. And it just grew in. But that's one division.

That'd be okay because what we're saying there is, you know, there's only one team. So it's going to be an open team and, and you know, and the 15 best players get to play on the team. And if a girl is one of those players, then well, sure. Why not? But that's not what we're talking about now. We're talking about where there are two teams. There is a man than a woman's and the women are, and the women are free to, form their own teams and to build their own golf clubs and to have their own fitness clubs and they can do anything they want.

But one of the things that they insist upon deal is that there can be no male only spaces. Like imagine today if somebody tried to build a golf club that was a man's only golf club, women were not allowed. I mean, oh my God, you can't have that. That's funny, we have a men's group, so we meet, there's a group of us men. Well, I mean, sure. No, no, I know. But I got asked about if a girl could join.

It was an interesting thing to have to ask. I was like, right, right, right. Well, no. And I felt awkward saying no, but I'm like, well, no. And then, you know, like, as I expanded on my thought, I thought it was a relatively good answer. I don't know if it was or not for that said person. But it was, it was weird to have to say it because, you know, for so long, we've been told, you know, just having a men's only spot.

Yeah, no, that's not good. Don't do that. Everybody's welcome. It's like, well, no. I think everyone's welcome in a lot of different spots, but if we have a men's only spot, I think that's okay, too. You know, and a group of married men, Bruce, I might point out. So it's like, you know, we don't need another.

You know, our wives aren't here. We're not going to invite a woman in. Like, that doesn't make any sense. Well, maybe we should have a couple of, well, maybe we should have a different group. But this is a men's group. That's okay. Isn't it? I'm agnostic.

Well, first of all, I think you should be free to do whatever you want. As private individuals, you can have whatever kind of group you like. But even when we're talking about sort of publicly sponsored groups, official sort of space groups or what the nature of human rights law says, So back to the double standard. So this equal and special idea became embedded in our human rights law. So the Human Rights Act of Ontario, just for example, I mean, every province has a human rights act. They all basically say the same thing. Human Rights Act says that people have the rights to be free from discrimination based on a whole bunch of factors, including sex.

looks like everybody has the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of whether they're a man or a woman. But there are exceptions. And one of the exceptions is, and again, each code is built differently, but for the Ontario example, there's a special programs exception, which basically means, oh, if you're dealing with a disadvantaged group, and by definition, women are a this advantage group even today, even though they're not, then you're entitled to discriminate in their favor. So the human rights regime now is set up so that you are allowed to discriminate against men. And that is a result, as a result, at least in part of this feminist argument of equal and special. That's even reflected now in in the way the Supreme Court has interpreted section 15,

the equality provision of the charter. I don't know how to end this on a positive note. Is there a way to end this on a positive note? We have a lot of problems. And the problem begins with the ideas. If you can persuade enough people to that the ideas they hold in their head about what's normal in this country are incorrect or undesirable or need to be changed, then you're making, you're getting somewhere. But specific changes to specific legislation or to particular governments who's in power or all of those things that people are working at, I don't think those make a whole big lot of change. I mean, someone that can be positive, certainly in the short term for sure. I know what I would prefer in the short term. But long term,

that's not going to fix anything. You have to get a grasp of the ideas that are running this show and take those down. And that might require us to rethink, you know, what this country is supposed to be about. When you say rethink what this country is supposed to be about, what do you mean? I mean reimagining or reassessing, for example, what we think the government is there to do. does it exist until you get answering those kinds of questions. Okay, let me let me put it entirely different way. So during COVID, an awful lot of people, and I was one of them, quite rightly said,

you know, I don't want government officials to be telling me what to do. I don't want other people to be telling me what to do with my own business, my own children, my own medical treatments and so on. And that's great. I mean, that's the first stage. That is one of the important questions that we need that answer to. We need more people to say, I don't want other people to be telling me what to do. That's the first one.

But there's a second one. And the second one is more difficult. And the second one is we also have to have people come to the conclusion that they, don't want to tell other people what to do. That is much more challenging because so many of us are sure that we know how other people should behave. And we're sure that the government would be doing the right thing if they made people behave in that way.

That idea has to go. You've got to let go of the idea that you want to tell other people what to do. And until you got that, we're just going to be fighting about it. And you got nothing. Yeah. Bruce, appreciate you hopping on and doing this. I think that's one way to leave it because those are two large questions. And I think people, maybe probably, a lot of us maybe have the first answer, right?

Listen to this. The second one, that's an interesting thought. I appreciate you coming on and doing this. Let's not wait a year to have you back on, okay? Sounds great. Thanks for having me, Sean. Real pleasure.