Shaun Newman Podcast - #921 - Tim Haggstrom & Randy Crosson

Episode Date: September 29, 2025

Randy Crosson is the Executive Director of Freedoms Advocate, a registered charity that funds constitutional and human rights litigation across Canada to defend faith, family, and fundamental freedoms. Tim Haggstrom is a Canadian lawyer who currently serves as the National Director of the Runnymede Society, a non-partisan organization focused on promoting classical liberal principles in law and policy. In 2022, as a final-year law student, Haggstrom faced university sanctions for an open letter encouraging dialogue on race, racism, and affirmative action policies (e.g., extra exam time accommodations), which some peers labeled as "hate speech" and "harassment." The University of Saskatchewan deemed it non-academic misconduct, requiring a public apology and statement of regret. Supported by Freedoms Advocate, he sued in 2025, seeking to quash the ruling and challenge university policies for lacking procedural fairness and infringing Charter rights.To watch the Full Cornerstone Forum: https://open.substack.com/pub/shaunnewmanpodcastGet your voice heard: Text Shaun 587-217-8500Silver Gold Bull Links:Website: https://silvergoldbull.ca/Email: [e-mail] Grahame: [phone]Bow Valley Credit UnionBitcoin: www.bowvalleycu.com/en/personal/investing-wealth/bitcoin-gatewayEmail: [e-mail] Use the code “SNP” on all ordersProphet River Links:Website: store.prophetriver.com/Email: [e-mail] Money SummitWebsite: ExpatMoneySummit.com

This is Viva Fry. I'm Dr. Peter McCulloch. This is Tom Lomago. This is Chuck Pradnik. This is Alex Krenner. Hey, this is Brad Wall. This is J.P. Sears. Hi, this is Frank Paredi.

This is Tammy Peterson. This is Danielle Smith. This is James Lindsay. Hey, this is Brett Kessel, and you're listening to the Sean Newman podcast. Welcome to the podcast, folks. Happy Monday. How's everybody doing today? All right, we got a lot to get to here. So how will we start here?

Silver, gold, bowl. Yeah, we're talking some precious metals. and if you've been paying attention to the price of the old gold or silver for that matter, she is going up. And you might want to reach out to Sir Graham and just bug him. You can get his contact info down in the show notes. He'll work with you to, you know, they get a silver gold bowl has a wide variety of best value. Silver, gold, everything.

You can just simply text or email him for details. And whether you're a season investor or new to precious metals, he'll work with you to answer all your questions, and recommend the best products to meet your investing goals. All you got to do is go down on the contact information or all the details around Silver Gold Bull and the show notes and reach out. And yeah, Graham certainly can help you all with any questions you have around that. Just Silvergoldbull.ca.com if you want to go take a look.

And if you're making any purchases, just make sure to reference the Sean Newman podcast. Bow Valley Credit Union, buying and selling Bitcoin has never been easier. And Bow Valley Credit Union has developed the first income. and the Bitcoin Gateway. With just a few clicks, you can buy Bitcoin directly from your Bow Valley Credit Union account. It's also for businesses as well.

If you're a corporation or a business and you want to get in on the Bitcoin Fund, you can reach out to Bow Valley Credit Union. They have that there as well. Your Bitcoin Big Gateway account is linked to your traditional BVCU account, enabling seamless on-ramps, off-ramps between the Fiat and Bitcoin.

Little tech expertise or knowledge of blockchain required. Visit Bow Valley, CU, for more information. Profit River, well, folks, they got their customer appreciation day happening October 25th, and I was just in

Prophet River this past weekend, past week, sorry. And now we got Rod Giltaka from CCFR coming into town. He's going to be there as well on October 25th, so they got a whole bunch of reps coming in. You know, after my conversation with Rod,

I was like, man, you should come to Lloyd. Like, I feel like, you know, there's a ton of people in this area that probably would support what he does. They're gun owners. And if you're around October 25th, you can meet him in person. Of course, then you can also be a part of Profit Rivers' Customer Appreciation Day. You could make any purchases.

On that day, make sure you use the coupon code SMP, gets you in for monthly draws. And the following day, we're working on a little event with Rodgill Tak, Chuck Prodnick, and Profit River, to do a little bit of shooting. and hopefully have some more details on that soon. For anything to do with Profit River, though, go to Profitriver.com.

They are the major retailer of firearms, optics, and accessories, and they serve all of Canada. Windsor Plywood, builders of the podcast studio table, for everything wood, these are the guys, whether we're talking mantles, decks, windows, doors, sheds, podcast studio tables, stop in and see Carly and the team here in Lloyd Minster at Windsor Plywood, and they can get you hooked up with the best wood out there. Cornerstone Forum. It's coming.

2026, March 28th in Calgary. Mark your calendar. I know I've been getting a, I've had a flurry of text about it. March 28th, Calgary, Alberta. Yes, farmers. We were thinking about you. And that is coming soon. The tickets are going to go on, man, I can't spit it out right now. Welcome to Monday. Tickets are going to go on sale here. soon but we have confirmed March 28th in Calgary that is a Saturday it's going to be a one-day conference again just like last year and some of the speakers uh well we'll be announcing speakers soon but you can uh be assured be assured that Tom Luongo Alex Criner will be back we got

some other returnees that we'll be announcing as well and tickets for that going to go on sale soon but Cornerstone Forum mark it on your calendar 26 back in Calgary. Substack, if you haven't signed up for it, you should, free to subscribe to. Some bonus stuff in there. Yeah, there's just some bonus stuff in there. Free to subscribe to, and if you become a paid member, you support what I do. So if you believe in the SMP and you want to do that, we try and give a little bit of behind-the-scenes footage of whether it's the new studio or some things going on elsewhere in my life.

We just try and add a little bit of value. And of course, you get all access to the Cornerstone forums that have happened. And so you can go back and watch all those in the entirety. Here's something you should also pay attention to. Prairie Rising Forum in Regina coming up. I'm hosting that. And it says ticket sales are ending October 4th, and you can't buy at the door. So you might want to get on this.

And the reason I say this is, you know, I reached out to Martin. Because Martin Armstrong is coming back to Canada. Canada, and he is going to be in Regina for the Prairie Rising Forum. Other speakers, Tiana, truth seeker, Wayne Peters, Bryce Wade, Jamie Sinclair, Brett Olin, Matt Erritt, Tom Marazzo, Don Luchick, Zach Schmidt. So I'm like, that's a pretty solid lineup. And, you know, you might want to mark that on your calendar. Yeah, I feel like, you know, they're having similar to the Cornerstone Forum, I would say. they've got five different topics they're trying to discuss the legal path to independence,

economic realities and opportunities, public engagement in the power of a referendum, federal overreach, and erosion of provincial autonomy, media misinformation, and controlling the narrative. So that's October 18th at the Turvey Center in Regina. Martin Freaking Armstrong coming back to Calgary. Coming back to Canada. Oh, hello Monday. Anyways, I thought that was pretty cool. And I texted Martin.

I'm like, you're coming to Regina? He's like, yeah, I'm coming. All right. So if you folks are interested, go to, what is it, Prairie, forgive me, I'll pull it up here. Prairie Rising Forum.ca. To get tickets. And if October 4th is the correct date, you got a little minute of time, get on that, and share with friends, all right? I'll put Prairie Rising Forum, the link in the show notes, but you should share that out.

I think any time specifically Martin Armstrong is coming to this area of the world. that should raise some eyebrows but then the rest of the speakers are solid as well so you know that's no knock on any of the other speakers uh tiana coming up from texas should be interesting um you know i haven't seen her in a little bit and that'll be pretty cool as well but regardless i'll be there as well so um yeah looking forward to bump it into some people in saskatchewan and if you're in saskatchewan you didn't know about it mark it on your calendar because that is coming up awfully quick and the deadline to get tickets october 4th so uh check that out December 20th, I have my Christmas party here in Lloyd Minster.

We got the dueling pianos if you're a company or an individual that's interested in buying a table. We're selling it per table. But it's Christmas party. December 20th, if you're interested in that, shoot me a text. I'll give you the details. I think we got about five tables left, something like that. It's closing in on being a sellout, which will be great. And if you're interested in that, let me know.

I would love to have you there. If you're listening or watching on Spotify, Apple, YouTube, Rumble, X. Make sure to subscribe. leave a review, share with a friend. We are back on YouTube, which, you know, we'll see how long that lasts, folks. But we are back there. All right, I'm eight minutes in. Let's get on to that tale of the tape.

Our first guest is the Executive Director of Freedom's Advocate, a registered charity that funds constitutional and human rights litigation across Canada to defend faith, family, and fundamental freedoms. Our second guest, a Canadian lawyer, currently serving as the National Director of the Roneymaid Society, a nonpartisan organization focused on promoting classical liberal principles in law and policy. I'm talking about Randy Crosson and Tim Hanksstrom. So buckle up.

Here we go. Well, welcome to the Sean Newman podcast. Today I'm joined by Tim Hengstrom and Randy Croson. First off, gentlemen, thanks for hopping on with me. Well, thanks so much for having me. That's looking forward to this, yes. Now, Randy, I got to share this story for my audience because, like, I don't know if it's small world or what, but I was just saying to you, your late wife Carol Crosson, who passed away,

was a guest on this show. And I had to go back and search. It was episode 2.10. This will be episode 921, so roughly 700 episodes later. And I was saying to you, and people should go back and listen to this, because I'm sure it's hard for me to go back and listen to it because at times I'm like, oh, man,

that's tough listening for my brain. But I was saying to her something along the lines, and I'm going to find the clip. I'm going to probably post it. And I'll send it to you. But something along the lines of Carol, like, there's no way the government's that evil. And she kind of just gives me this motherly look of, John, I wouldn't have a business if they weren't. And I was telling you, I had to stew on that.

So it's, I don't know, like it's a wild feeling, surreal feeling on this side of the world to have, you know, certainly because she's passed. But, yeah, I don't know. I just thought I would share that story for the audience and yourself because it's wild to me that now you're on the show, I guess. I didn't realize that. I didn't pull the connection together until I'm looking at your name. I'm going, wait a second. I interviewed across, and, of course, you're related. Yeah.

Well, you know, she started into law when she was 44 and fought a whole bunch of cases. And one over, well, 93% of them, she won. So she really came to understand constitutional law very deeply. And, of course, for us as a family, we actually homeschooled our kids because we saw what was happening in the education system back then. and you know it hasn't changed it's gotten worse Carol probably around 2017 or so we recognized that there were so many really good cases that needed to go forward

but the people didn't have any money they couldn't afford it our average case cost right now is about 50,000 dollars and so it takes a tremendous amount of money and time and effort to fight these cases and so around that time we decided we needed you know she decided we needed to start a charity So we worked together and got all of the stuff together and submitted it. In 2020, beginning of the year, we opened the charity. And so since then, we've been able to raise money every year to keep it going. It's not simple.

People seem to like to throw money at political efforts. I'm from Alberta, right? So they start a new political party every six months. And I sit there and I watch people throwing huge amounts of money at these things. And it all seems to go nowhere. They're never really able to make the changes that everybody wants to see happen. And, of course, that's the reason we got into the last. legal side of it because when you win a charter case and set a precedent, the government doesn't

have a choice. They have to comply. And so does every successive government. So, you know, raising funds is a challenge. But, you know, I'm really hoping people will start to see, get a vision for it. You know, people like Tim, great case. You know, when Carol first took Tim on, she was really excited about the case because it's got all the elements. It's got a great guy who really knows his stuff. and the case itself is sound. And so we're looking forward to this one getting into the court. I appreciate you, Sharon. How about we fast forward then to where we're sitting to today?

I got, you know, once again, Randy and Tim sitting on here. Neither one of you've been on the show before. Randy, you've started it. Why don't you just share a little bit of your background and then we'll flip over to Tim and Tim you can share your story. But Randy, just for the audience, give them a little bit of more background on yourself if they haven't figured it out by now.

now. Okay, well, I spent most of my years in business. I got into management when I was in my early 20s and so have sort of been in that vein of business for a long time. Senior management roles for years. I started on the charity side with the group called Samaritans Purst years ago. I was there for 13 years. And just then I was, you know, watching Carol grow through all of this, the number of cases increase. And then, you know, just seeing the volume hitting her, I decided to leave that organization and start in with the charity we'd started. And so in October of 22, I started in the charity and our goal was to bring on more clients and more lawyers and continue to grow. But by January of 23, the cancer that had been chasing us for about 12 years finally caught up

and Carol passed away from a brain tumor. And so, you know, that's been sort of my history. and now we've just continued the work and we're seeing it grow. And right now we're sitting probably, I think, with 17 cases right now. And so you were talking about how evil the government can be. Well, each and every one of those is a good example of what that is and how far overreach has happened these days. Tim and Randy, once we get going here, feel free to hop in if you want to chime in on anything Tim's talking about.

But Tim, share a bit about yourself and your background. Well, so I went to law school at the University of Saskatchewan and started in 2019. And the first time I met Carol was when we were interviewing and trying to sort out whether she could assist me in this legal case. And as the two of you have referred to before, this is not something where I was going to be able to afford the lawyers that it was going to cost. So it was really a godsend that Freedom's Advocate, which is the name of the charity, was there. So I got to chatting with Carol. It was a few months after I first got notice of this misconduct case against me at the university. It took a few months for me to realize that they were actually going to take it seriously,

that this could have legal consequences for me. And I realized I better go get a lawyer. So, you know, I'm almost, I've graduated by this point, June, just about to convocate, and that's how I met Carol. I did go on to article at a firm here in Calgary. That's where I still live. Then I completed a clerkship at the Court of Appeal in Saskatchewan. And now I'm actually in the not-for-profit world myself at an organization called the Runnymede Society, fighting for free expression on campus. So I guess if I had to sum myself up, at least in the last

several years, I went to law school and I saw how stifled the conversation is, the fact that there are some issues that you cannot broach, even if they're live political or legal issues in Canadian society, you just can't get into them without facing consequences. And in 2022, when I was in my third year, there was this specific issue that was really corroding the social situation amongst law students, I decided to pipe up. And what I decided to say was simply, I think we should try to talk to each other, even though there's this disagreement. And that sort of propelled me into this world of trying to make sense of, I mean, the two of you are using the word evil. I don't know if I would go so far. I think,

you know, people get sort of captured by ways of thinking. And here, in my view, we have a university that has made what we're calling, and even their now former president is calling an institutional commitment. So we're sitting on this case now that has to do with a university that made an institutional commitment to a particular way of viewing the world. And I critique that. I don't believe in that commitment. I have a different worldview.

And so this is a case about whether I was punished simply for holding a different opinion, which, by the way, the vast majority of Canadians, hold and we're ready to tell the court that. So was I punished simply for having a different opinion and what are the legal consequences? Yeah, well, I read your letter and I don't know if there's certain trigger words on each side of the old aisle, but as soon as I saw Soljinnits and I'm like, oh man, you're into things that I'm into, which means you're probably going to be viewed in a certain light because I hear that. And I'm like, oh, man, this is, this is difficult.

Because like, I read your entire letter. And maybe what I'll try and do, folks, is attach it in a link on the podcast notes. That way you can go read Tim's letter because it's very like, I don't know, balanced. Yes. But you're talking to something that is so charged, even talking about it, is deemed a crime. And they're like, nope, can't be talking about this. and for a student to go through that, I don't know, I feel like it's, is there,

can you just walk us through the series of events that go on? Because you're sitting in class one day, I assume, you're getting told you have to do something. You're like, wait a second, that doesn't make any sense. We're brought here to critically think, I assume. And you challenge it in a very plightful manner. At least that's the way my brain looks at the article I've read, the story I've read.

But in your words, I'd be more. curious to hear it from you like walk us through the series events that took place back then so i i forget the exact uh day sean i think you took us back to was it october 2021 when you had that when i had carol on yes so there was covid of course and uh things that were going on with with government mandates and and it was inviting us to consider important questions about the right to protest of course um i want to take us back a little bit further to the summer of 2020. And I think people may remember that is the time when George Floyd in the U.S. was killed. It inspired a lot of discussions about race issues. And there was a version of that that made

its way to the University of Saskatchewan, where the university and many students and faculty members were very concerned about race issues broadly and more specifically about those race issues that affect indigenous peoples in Canada. And so, as I said, I started law school in 2019. So this is sort of coinciding with my time there. And I could see some of my classmates being very passionate about this issue. By the time we get to the fall of 2021, I was just entering my third year. And the summer before, one of my classmates invited me to facilitate what was going to be

a mandatory session for first year students on anti-racism. And so I said, sure, I'd be happy to facilitate. And I did. And so I got to observe what was presented to these students in fall of 2021. It's a mandatory session for first years, a part of the orientation programming. And I was struck because the way that the presenters

were going about understanding racism and this history in Canada of colonization was just to put it bluntly quite narrow. And it also seemed totally uncurious about other perspectives or other ways of thinking about, you know, what is colonization, what are its causes, what effect has it had, how should people relate to each other? I think that was the big one.

It seemed very clear that the message in this training was there are two different types of people. There are people who are colonizers, and there are people who are colonized. And those two types of people cannot relate to each other, no matter what they do. And at the same time, what I saw being taught was that even though there's not much we can do

to solve this problem, it's a great terrible problem and everybody should be really worried about it all the time, especially people who are colonized. So anybody whose skin tone is darker than some shade. I don't know what the science they use behind it and what I came to realize is just, from my vantage point, there really isn't much science behind this. But that's this worldview that I started to see taking over at the university,

or at least having prevalence apparently from the top, because there's these trainings being mandated. And so a few months later, that winter term, I learned that students were, there had been this great conflict arising between students. Some had found out that a relatively high percentage of law students, at the school, get extra time on exams, and wanted to raise this issue or have a student survey or something organized by the Law Students Association. And this came to touch on the race issue because

I don't know if it's still there, but there was at the time a policy where indigenous students, by declaring that they're indigenous, could become eligible to have some assistance with academics that would include extra time on exams. And so, So for some students, even the idea that we would discuss this or discuss the issue of exam accommodations that includes this particular policy was harmful. This was part of this colonization, this moral degeneracy that is harmful to indigenous students. And I talked to a number of people, and I wanted to understand both sides, you know, who's concerned about this and who's sort of on the other side wanting to talk about these policies.

And I just was really struck by how, again, corroded the social situation was at the university. So I knew it was a risk to pipe up and say something, but I decided to do that. So I did two things. First, I wrote a letter to a number of faculty members who, these are generally faculty members that I had an existing relationship with

and who I knew were interested in these issues. And in that letter, I critiqued the school's race pedagogy, similar to what I said before, I felt it was really raising the alarm and putting this burden about colonization, especially on this minority of students who are indigenous, and at the same time, really not based in science or anything that could practically be used to understand these problems and help us solve them. So that's essentially what I said in this letter to faculty. And then separately, I took a spot on the agenda at a meeting of the Law Students Association. And I read aloud what is now a letter.

It's published in the materials in my court case. But that letter basically said disagreements are part of life. And I believe we have to have the maturity and the courage to talk about those disagreements. Because if we don't, we're going to end up on opposite sides. and we're going to start to lose sight of the humanity of people on the other side. So those are the facts leading up to, ultimately, I got notice a couple months after I released that letter to my classmates. I received notice that one of my classmates had filed a complaint with the university's office that does non-academic misconduct matters. And so we proceeded.

And the university had to decide whether I committed misconduct. They had to decide whether I made an inappropriate comment that was detrimental to the psychological health of one or more of my classmates and are generally harmful to health and safety. And ultimately they decided that I did, that that letter was misconduct, that it was harassment. I tried to appeal at the university, and they refused to turn over that decision. So I still have this decision. They decided I have to write a letter of apology and that I'd have a reprimand on my file with the university. And now we're in court to try to get this all straightened out. You know, I have multiple thoughts rolling through my head, folks.

One is, you know, like I'm a little bit shocked. I didn't hear about it. You know, normally these things seem to define me these days. But, you know, Saskatoon, U of S is a pretty prestigious school in this area, I would say. and, you know, from where I sit, it's like two and a half hours, let's say. And I guess one is, I don't remember reading anything about this. So like, did it just quietly, I mean, don't get me wrong. In your life, it's like, this is insane.

But was there any coverage of this or it was just everyone agreed that you should be reprimanded? So I guess I'll start with the press piece. It did not have broad coverage when it was happening. I mean, people at the law school knew about it. They knew about the controversy when I decided to stick my neck out and say something about it. It was quite the news at the law school. I don't think it made the news outside the law school at that time. And maybe it's the unique nature of a university proceeding.

They do it in a way where everybody's confidentiality is protected. And I understand there are good reasons for that. And I think, you know, keeping it private, in that way can also help support informal resolutions. So something that I was really hoping would be the outcome was, you know, let me meet with this complainant. Initially it was one person and then it grew to be as many as 16 people and then that number started to shrink.

Did you get to meet with the complainant? So not really. I wanted to and I tried again and again with the university to say, I really think we can work this out. If this person thinks I've been spreading hate and causing cyclone, harm, there must be a misunderstanding. Get a mediator, if you'd like. I offered to pay for a mediator.

Get us in a room and let us talk. I think we could work this out. And that didn't happen, unfortunately. But just all that to say, that's part of the reason we keep these things confidential in these types of proceedings. It didn't become public until we filed in court, which I think was April of this year. Yeah. Yeah. And that's part of, you know, the case itself. There's restrictions, as Tim says, so we're restricted from doing certain things as well. So once we hit the court, which was a good thing, it allowed us to then get out into the public and let them know that's happening. And you can see by, you know, listening to Tim, I mean, if there's ever been, I remember Carol when she first talked with Tim and took on this case, she was just excited. Like, this is the perfect case. The law is squarely on our side here. And you can, you know, listening to Tim, you understand this is a man who fully understands the law and the approach you should have taken that was appropriate and did just that.

So it's an excellent case for free speech in a university. Yeah, I also have a couple other thoughts from my head. One is, you know, like Francis Christian, back in COVID times, that was U of S. If memory serves me correct. And the timing of when it happens, I wonder if there was, for lack of a better term, brain drain on society. after coming out of COVID. It's just like, just let me go out and enjoy some things and act like the world's normal.

Certainly sitting on this side. I remember that time, you know, and then, you know, as time marches on and the things keep going on, you're like, oh,

this ain't getting better. Like, this is a new form of, you know, of a world that is very confusing. Because what I hear, constantly coming out of your mouth, Tim,

and maybe I'm wrong. And maybe you can just clear it up because maybe you're a little more harsh. But it's, it's like, I just want to open the discussion on this. I just want to open a discussion on this. I just want to try and understand. This doesn't make sense.

We're actually doing some things that have repercussions if we go down this road. If we have this narrow view, we're missing out on a whole bunch of things. And instead of being like, yeah, you're right, maybe we should sit down and try and open up discussion. It's like, nope, book, case settled. We're not talking about this. Instead, let's reprimand Tim for trying to have a reasonable thought. and then try and explore that. And, you know, like so many things have happened since then, right?

Like, I mean, Charlie Kirk was a guy who went around universities trying to open up discussion. You can love or hate everything he said. You don't have to agree with them all. But the general idea was to, you know, let's just open up the discussion. I mean, he's dead for it now, right? Now, I mean, so, you know, the world is just, there's a whole bunch of us that agree with everything you're saying and i think a lot of society agrees with what you're saying not that they agree with everything you think just in the yeah let's open

up discussion that would make the most sense let's just talk about these things and yet i know when it comes to uh the indigenous realm even as a host talking about those things makes me uncomfortable and i'm i'm like as i told you i'm like 900 episodes in i've been talking about all the wild issues but that one for some reason even on this side is uncomfortable so to pen a letter at that time it doesn't shock me that this that outcome happened i guess it surprises me to this day that i didn't hear anything about it and i guess uh you know like what you know like i'm sitting here you're a lawyer now right i i am a lawyer i'm uh i'm not an active member of of the bar because i don't practice law i'm in non-for-profit and i should say um i'm speaking well

in my personal capacity, not for any organization in this interview. Sure. Sure. I'm speaking in my personal capacity and I'm quite okay with that. My podcasting chair, you know, like I'm like, I don't have enough, you know, I have no problem saying things, but every time I have somebody who's got a professional agree on, it's like, and I remember, I'm just sitting here on my personal, and I get it. It's a real shame at times that we can't speak more freely, but that's, that's part what's going on in the world. That's kind of what you touch your your finger on was exactly that thought. Well, I think it, I regret that you didn't hear about this earlier. Obviously, I heard about it as it was happening and I've needed all the time since then, I think, to just make sense

of what's going on here. Okay. So have you made sense of it then? Well, I, I've learned a lot and it actually touches on the legal issues and some of the evidence that we're putting into court. Because a lot of what I've learned to make sense of this will have legal ramifications. And it may be helpful not just for us to win this case in court. This could be really an important case to help other people in similar situations. because some of the evidence that we're bringing into court, I think, goes to what's happening in universities elsewhere in Canada, maybe even a dominant trend across the entire country.

Maybe North America. That may be it, too. I guess to me, this just is an isolated incident, you know. I hear about these things happening far across the land. what would when I sit here, U of S is kind of like, I don't know, as a Canadian,

it's like kind of like in my backyard, you know, like it, you know, two and a half hours is roughly the backyard for any Western Canadian. We drive all over the place. So,

um, you're closer to Saskatoon than, than Regina, I think. Yes, I certainly am. I certainly am. So you're right there.

And, you know, it, you know, my heart is, is close to the university. and mostly my law school experience was very good. That's part of what's disappointing

about what happened on this particular issue. And part of what we're raising in court is that the University of Saskatchewan's statute, which is the legal instrument passed by the legislature in Saskatchewan, and which gives it all its powers, that statute says that the university has to have regard to the recognized principles of academic freedom. So we see that as a legal way to really bring into issue what's happening here.

And one of the experts that we've had to prepare a report, which is a lot of work, and he was very gracious to do it, he's an expert in academic freedom. And so he's going to be presenting to the court what it actually means when this statute says the university has to have regard for the recognized principles of academic freedom. And our argument basically is that academic freedom applies to students, so scholars, not just students, not just scholars. And it protects the ability to engage in sincere and open dialogue about ideas, about the matters of the day. And what we're looking to establish is that the university had an institutional commitment to a worldview that, if you can imagine it, expressly opposes liberalism.

And I mean liberalism in the sense of classical liberalism as a philosophy. And we also are seeking to establish that by speaking up and saying that I was encouraging dialogue, I was taking the position of a classical liberal. And so academic freedom, if the university is having regard to the recognized principles of academic freedom, They had to tolerate my view, even though at that point it was a dissenting view from what was dominating in the university. And some of the other evidence we have is that although this worldview that opposes itself to classical liberalism dominates in universities, it represents the views of something like two-thirds or maybe even more of Canadians across the country. So it's this very strange situation, but we say has legal.

ramifications. And I'm sure, Sean, in your discoveries of things that were going on with the COVID pandemic, you learned a lot about the charter. People's charter rights, probably their right to peaceful assembly, to association, and to protest. This is the charter case as well with the University of Saskatchewan. So we're making the charter argument that I was expressing myself and that that's protected and that this also engaged my freedom of conscience because I was expressing my my conscientiously held beliefs. And again, that's my belief in classical liberalism. So I believe that people can understand each other regardless of their race. I believe that dialogue can be productive and should be pursued when there's a disagreement. And those are the views that I was

defending in the university. So those are some of the insights I've gained. I guess I can talk about our other expert report, which tells us more about the university's institutional commitment, just to fill in the picture. And this is all filed in court. It's a lot for a judge, I think, to kind of work through. But I found it to be very informative. It helped me learn. Now I feel like I have a greater sense of what happened here than while it was happening. And I think it can help Canadians learn through a judgment with a judge who works his or her way through this about what's going on in certainly at the University of Saskatchewan, potentially in other universities, and where are the lines? What are our rights? So I guess I can describe. Our

other expert is an expert in political philosophy and sociology. And he describes that the university's institutional commitment based on their own policy documents and some of their news releases and especially some training materials that they were mandating senior leaders to undertake. This expert describes that the university's institutional commitment is what he calls cultural socialism, which is opposed to cultural liberalism, which would describe my view, and again, the view of most Canadians. So what are the beliefs of what this expert describes as cultural socialism? One of them is the belief that every disparity or difference in outcome,

in how you're doing in life, between a group that has darker skin versus groups that have lighter skin has to be attributed to white supremacy, basically. They don't measure it. They don't try to use different variables or scientific methodologies to say, you know, why is a first nation in rural Saskatchewan not as wealthy as people living in Saskatoon, for example, they just assume, in every case, this is caused by white supremacy, which is a moral degeneracy and it has to be fought. So that's one of the sort of pillars of cultural socialism as this expert is describing it. And the other pillar has to do, with protecting the psychological safety of people who belong to these minority groups.

And in some instances, what our expert describes is that this is taken to such an extreme that it's almost like a fundamentalist religion, where members of what in this case, I think the category would be BIPOC, so black, indigenous, and people of color. So members of that group in this worldview, when it goes to an extreme, it's almost like they're sanctified. They're treated as though they're up on a pedestal, can't be criticized, and any assertion of harm by a person on that pedestal cannot be questioned. So that's the second pillar. And anyways, this is all coming into court because we've got to establish, number one, based on the statutory requirement to have regard to the principles of academic first. freedom. And number two, based on the charter which protects freedom of expression, especially the right to have a dissenting view, the university had to tolerate that I have a dissenting view against this institutional commitment. So they weren't allowed to just say, well, if your complainant is part of a minority group, we cannot question their assertion that there was harm. And they cannot say that what I said was wrong because it disagrees with the minority group. We cannot question their assertion that there was harm. And they cannot say that what I said was wrong because it disagrees with the

notion that a disparity in outcomes must be attributed to white supremacy. And so if you accept that, by the way, there's no way to dispute against this affirmative action policy for extra time on exams. So we're trying to show that not only is there no reasonable way for the university in this specific case to have decided that I committed harassment, but it's a much broader issue. What we're arguing in court is that there isn't a way for any university that has an institutional commitment like this ever to decide a case like this. So if we manage to pull that off, I think it's an ambitious argument to make in court, but we're making it. And I think we could take it over the line if things go right.

If we manage to do that, it could have repercussions in many different universities across Canada. Before I hop to Rani, this extra time on exams, walk me through this. You're a student at U of S. How does this come about? I don't know. Just walk me through this. Well, as a hockey player, I don't know. Maybe some of your friends in that world would have come across the fact that universities tend to have,

I don't know what they're always called. I think it was an accessibility office when I was in my undergrad. And I was a rugby player and I had a pretty severe concussion at one time. So I ended up in the accessibility office. And based on my tests showing that I had a concussion, they sort of threw a number of accommodations at me. Do you want a note taker? Do you want extra time on exams?

Do you want to be able to drop classes without a penalty? That sort of thing. So we think about these offices that give accessibility. It's meant to be for people who need it. you know, if you broke your right hand or something and you need a different way to write your exam when you normally would have used a pen and you're right-handed, that sort of thing. Sure. Some people have disabilities.

So there's a number of reasons why a person can be given extra time. And basically at the University of Saskatchewan, and I think this policy is specific to the College of Law. It has to do with they're concerned about there aren't as many individuals. indigenous people in the legal profession, as you would expect, based on the percentage of people in Saskatchewan who are indigenous. And a similar issue in law schools, at least in the only law school in Saskatchewan, which is at the U of S. And so they're wanting to write what I think is Iraq historically. And so there's a variety of ways that the university and specifically the College of Law tries to level that off. and I don't think there's any clean way to do it.

And one of the policies they've adopted, which they've had for decades, long before these developments, starting in 2020, with this institutional commitment. For decades, the College of Law has had a program where people who come into the university as indigenous applicants and are accepted sort of come together with other students, who for other reasons would be granted assistance

on their academics. And all these students together can go to specialized academic success classes with professors who sort of help them along in their courses. And my understanding is if you're in that program and you attend enough of these classes, you get extra time on your exams. I don't mean to make this comparison, but I don't how else to make it. You go like, you got a concussion, you got a broken arm and you can't write. You know, you got some other little disability.

and then a class of people. I'm like, so are they saying a class of people has a disability? Is that, is that the comparison that I'm supposed to make out of that? I don't need, I'm, it's more of a question for myself out loud than, than anything, because I'm just like, you're, you know, like everybody's been in, even in elementary school or on and on and up, right? You break your arm and it's your dominant arm, right? They realize you can't do the work. It's pretty, it's pretty like, you know, common sense.

There it is. Boom. Okay, fair enough. You get a concussion in sports. All right. You know, like, that's it. Okay, fair, right? And there's some things like that.

But when you give it to an entire group of people, they're saying they have a disability. Are they not? Like, am I reading that wrong? Randy, am I reading that wrong? I mean, that's how it comes out, doesn't it, Sean? I mean. It doesn't it sounds like.

Maybe I'm just, I'm a moron. Folks, that's impossible. You know, you know, the reality. I mean, what did Voltaire, sir? He said, I hate what you say, but I'll lay down my life for you to, have the right to say it. And that's what's at issue here. Tim has the right to say that. They might not agree with him. He didn't say, go out and change the system. He said, let's talk about the system. Let's talk about this issue. And that was it. And he gave, you know, he backed it up

very powerfully. And that's the issue here. Does he have the right to say that from a charter perspective? And we believe squarely that he does. Oh, for sure. For sure. So do you think, forgive me i i i don't know if i speak from my audience maybe it's just me but i sit here and i go do you have any faith after all we've been through in the last few years with a charter challenge but then again i i go back to carroll and her very very high success rate do you have any faith in the judicial system that when they see this they're going to be like no you this is a open shut case like you don't need to go any further is this going to get drug out like we've seen with so many other You know, time is always the thing with courts. It does take time to get things through them.

But, you know, the reality is with this case, it's a very sound case. It has all the elements. The law is squarely on our side. You know, I have people telling me all the time how evil judges are and how evil the system is. Well, if that were true, we wouldn't win. The reality is, they're looking for people to present their cases in a very sound way and deal with it from a charter perspective. We have lawyers come to us that have just taken on a charter case and lost it, and they'd never practiced in the area before. And when I read the submissions and the final decision, I would have agreed with the judge. They really didn't know how to handle the matter before them. And, you know, the thing with us is we bring on lawyers and this is all they do. They focus on charter challenges and human rights cases day in, day out.

So they're very well versed in it. And when you're fighting a charter case in Canada, they're not very common, not like they are in the States, right? The states, they love going to court. Canadians don't. They don't really see the understanding. But when we bring on a client, like somebody like Tim, they're coming at this because they feel this is wrong. This is an injustice. They're people of principle.

They're willing to stand up for the thing that's inappropriate and to get it back on track. And that's exactly what Tim's doing. He's had the courage through all of this to stand and face this. And, you know, you get demonized. The school will demonize you. Those that are not on your side will demonize you. And he's right within the culture we see today that that carries a lot of weight, right? People get frightened.

Look what happened to Charlie Kirk just because he was willing to speak. And like so many people on Charlie Kirk's side, that's all they really want to do is speak about it. Let's talk about these things. Let's have a good intellectual conversation around this issue. And instead, what they're met with was, you know, violence in some cases. that their dissension is extreme and they're being pushed to the side. One would hope that our universities were the places that you would experience free speech and free thought. And it would be encouraged.

But the number of cases we've had in universities is extreme. Like it's the highest group area that we fight cases right now and has been for years, whether it's for groups that, well, marginalized groups. So for example, pro-life groups, we've won several cases with pro-life groups. Not everybody agrees with them, but they have the right to share. their opinion and express their beliefs. And, you know, that's the country that we live. That's the culture we should be living in.

But things have changed radically. And I think, Sean, you know, since you first interviewed Carol, you've seen what's been going on. And it has become extreme. For your organization, it's nonprofit, correct? Did I hear that? It's a charity. Yeah, it's a registered charity. So we can, if anyone wanted to go, yeah, if anyone wanted to go look into it,

where would you send them? Freedom's Advocate.com. Freedom's with an S. Freedom's Advocate.com. Or just type in Randy Croson, too. That should take you to us. And yeah, join us, join the crowd. We've got a lot of people that participate and subscribe with this. We're constantly looking for donors.

As I mentioned before, these are expensive. Tim's case, when it's all said and done, will have cost a substantial amount of money. When does the court case, like things have been submitted, do we have a court date? Is there a timeline of events coming up here? So this is a critical question. And if I may, the topic you were just talking about, I think, is so important about dialogue.

Because it really goes to what this case is about. I'm convinced that dialogue is the most peaceful option when we have a dispute. So if you take dialogue off the table, what happens? Then we have to be worried about potentially violence. Now, I'm very lucky because there's no violence in this case. People have gone to the courts. Or I guess the students who were concerned about what I was doing trusted a university procedure.

So fair enough. At least it wasn't violence. And now we're in the courts. And I do, like Randy, I believe in the courts. I think we're going to get a decision, obviously. And that's where we're hashing this out. And at least it keeps us away from violence. I think it'd be better if we had dialogue, and I hope we get there.

And just the last reflection on that, before I get to the timeline, I view dialogue as sort of like a public good, and it's as rich, or only as rich, I guess we could say, is what every individual person puts into it. Every single person who decides to speak up, even when it's hard, they're contributing to a culture where people can talk. And then that becomes something that everybody benefits from, where you don't have to go to court or worse in order to resolve disputes. So I just had a few reflections as you were talking about what's at stake in this case and across the country. But in terms of timeline, we've got a court date, and it's the 20th of May, and we actually won't yet be dealing with the merits of the case. We're going to be responding to preliminary arguments of the university,

they're trying to get the case thrown out. And so, of course, everything is on the line on May 20th. If anybody's in the area and they want to mark that day in their calendar, you could come and view the application. It'll go on for a hearing all day. I believe it makes a difference if people show up in the courtroom and show that they're interested in the case. So that would be a way to help us.

For example, if anybody's not in a position to give financially. Um, but, uh, is it going to be in Saskatoon or? In Saskatoon, at the Saskatoon, uh, court of Kings bench. May, so that's our May, May 20th, 2026. So you're, in my world, it's a ways out, but in the same token, it's not that far out either, right? Like, I mean, we'll blink and may be here, but at the same token, you get a little ways to wait. Yeah. Yeah. So, sort of three things can happen out of that hearing. One is the case could be thrown out entirely. it's a possibility.

I don't think we have a higher risk there. The second thing that could happen is everything goes ahead. So we get to make all the arguments I've been describing, especially this point about the institutional commitment. And the third thing that could happen is that our case gets narrowed. So basically, part of what the university is wanting to do is make this a case only about Tim and not about the institutional commitment and things that could have implications in other cases. cases. And, you know, on that one, I don't know what will happen, but all the support we can

get will help us hopefully get a win on that issue. Jens, is there anything we're missing, you know, like that I've skimmed over, you know, I don't want to leave anything out here. You know, I think, Sean, one of the things that I see in all of these cases is that institutions understand the law. They understand where they've breached it. And I'm certain these folks, actually do understand where they've breached his charter rights. But what happens is they become so ingrained in having to fight for what to make themselves right. And you know, as what Tim was describing the three various options there, you start to realize how intricate this can become. They're going to do everything and anything they

can to get this out of the limelight. They don't want it to become public that they did something wrong. And so they will fight, fight, fight, they'll put every bit of money they've got into it and, you know, try and drag Tim down in the process. When all they really had to do was say, yep, we made a mistake. Something that every husband in the world knows. But does the government or institutions do that? You know, it's all of it, you know, Sean, we look at the government, Justin Trudeau, Mark Carney, and we blame them. Yes, they've got their issues.

The challenges, we're seeing this all down at the front lines of government. government employees, people, you know, being given power and authority, and they push it. They've been given control over certain aspects, and so they'll step all over people to do what they want or to promote their ideology. And, you know, this is where it all gets fought. Cases like Tim's and the other 17 we're working on right now. It's getting government to back up and just realize you don't have this kind of authority. You know, we do not need to be afraid of government. Government should be afraid of us.

We're the ones that can hold them accountable. And so that's what we do. That's our day in, day out. And it's kind of nice to wake up every morning and take the government to court. Tim, you get the final word. Any final thoughts before I let your boys off? Well, I would say I think freedom is only protected to the extent that individuals who are meant to have that freedom defended. So that's on my mind as I'm in this fight. And it's been really quite energizing to see other people who have the same beliefs. come by my side in this. You know, we could use all the support we can get. The university is a well-funded organization.

We're outgunned in this fight, but I think we can win it. And I just encourage anybody listening to this to think about how they can help defend their freedoms. Appreciate you gentlemen hopping on and discussing this. And best of luck in the court case, once again, if they're looking to attend it's May 20th, 20th, 26th in Saskatoon. If they want to donate anything like that,

forgive me, Randy, where can they go again? It's freedomsadvocate.ca. There you go, folks. Thanks gentlemen for hopping on and doing this.