Shaun Newman Podcast - #935 - John Carpay & Leighton Grey

Episode Date: October 20, 2025

John Carpay is a Canadian lawyer and founder of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF). He hosts the "Justice with John Carpay" podcast and writes for outlets like The Epoch Times. Leighton Grey is a senior partner at Grey Wowk Spencer LLP and host of the Grey Matter Podcast.We discuss bills C2, C8 and C9.Tickets to Cornerstone Forum 26’: https://www.showpass.com/cornerstone26/Tickets to the Mashspiel:https://www.showpass.com/mashspiel/Silver 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] your voice heard: Text Shaun 587-217-8500

This is Viva Fry. I'm Dr. Peter McCulloch. This is Tom Lomago. This is Chuck Pradnik. This is Alex Krenner. Hey, this is Bradwell. 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? Well, let's talk a little silver gold bull, shall we?

Precious metals, that is. You know, at the time of recording, I keep doing this, because I'm like, I just kind of want to see you. Friday, October 17th, as I record this, yes, I'm recording on a Friday. We got the, we got the Prairie Rising Forum tomorrow. So I'm recording this early, so I ensure it gets out on time. At the time of this recording, Gold's sitting at 5907. That's Canadian.

A year ago, 3715. So well over two grand above where it started a year ago. Silver, let's take a little peek at that. A year ago, 43, 73, and closing on. on Friday, 72. So almost $30 up. There you go. There's your live look at the precious metal,

silver and gold. And when you're looking for silver and gold, text or email Graham, it's all down on the show notes. When you're buying, selling, storing, or using retirement accounts to invest in precious metals, reach out to Graham. He'll give you the downlaw. And hopefully some deals you might be able to find through a silver gold bull. Anytime you're on silvergoldbill.c.orghum.

Just make sure to reference the Sean Newman podcast. Bow Valley Credit Union, Brett Olin is going to be in attendance at the Prairie Rising Forum this weekend. And while buying and selling Bitcoin has never been easier, Bow Valley Credit Union has developed the first in Canada Bitcoin Gateway. Of course, you've got to be in Alberta to do that. I'm sure he's going to get a ton of questions from Saskatchewan folk on how Bow Valley Credit Union can move into Saskatchewan as well.

And your Bitcoin Gateway account is linked to your traditional BVCU bank account enabling seamless on-ramps and off-ramps between Fiat and Bitcoin. Little tech expertise and knowledge of blockchain required, visit bow valley cu.com for more information. Profit River, all right, we are less than a week away from their customer appreciation day. That is Saturday, October 25th. Rod Giltaka, going to be in the store that day. Any purchases you're making, make sure to use the coupon code SNP.

That's going to get you thrown in for some monthly draws. Of course, on Sunday, October 26, Profit River, supplying the ammo for Giltaka, Pradnik and Sinclair doing a little shrew. We'll get to that in a few seconds. When it comes to Profit River, though, they are the major retailers of firearms, optics, accessories. They serve all of Canada. They got their customer appreciation day on the 25th. Just go to Profitriver.com.

You can find out that and more. The Cornerstone Forum, yes, it returns, folks. March 28th in Calgary, Alberta. This year at the Weston, Calgary Airport. Everything's going to be there. Showpass.com backslash Cornerstone 26. That's going to be where you're going to be. find everything to do with tickets. We got some different levels. We got stuff with no food,

lunch, lunch, and supper. And we're returning Luongo, Kraner, Matt Erritt, Tom Baddovich, Vince Lanchi is going to be in attendance this year. And Toos has got a new role that we'll be talking about here as we go along. He's going to be doing something for me that, I don't know, I guess it eases a little bit of stress and puts him as a part of the show as well. So Toos is there. We're going to be announcing. some more guests as we go along. But the Cornerstone Forum returns tickets now on sale. And when you're doing, you're buying your tickets.

Make sure you click on the free ticket as well for the Friday Night Social. That's complimentary with any ticket purchase. You can buy those. And now you can be a part of the Friday Night Social at the Weston as well. So that's one of the new features this year. And it's all there on the website. So grab your tickets today. They're early bird pricing here for limited time.

So looking forward to seeing a bunch of you, March 28th, tickets now on sale. If you're listening or, no, actually, before we get there, if October 26th shooting guns, Githecke, Pradnik, and Sinclair, Sinclair, oh man, I butcher that, Lloyd Minster and District Fish and Game Association, indoor range, profit river, supply and the ammo. Text me if you're interested, 20 bucks to get you into that. Quick Dick, MacDick, live November 22nd. It's a fundraiser for the Lashburn Elementary Playground.

They're building a new one. The S&P Christmas Party, December 20th, dueling pianos. I got one table left. If that's what you want, text me before it's gone. The Mashbilt January 17th, Calmar, just west of the Ammonton International Airport. We're under 14 teams now left for that. So if you're wanting to get in on a nice community event from the mashup crew, text me or showpass.com backslashmash.

Spiel, and then once again, the Cornerstone Forum, March 28th. Let's go. Happy Monday. If you're listening or watching on Spotify, Apple, YouTube, Rumble, X, Facebook, make sure to subscribe, make sure to leave a review. Make sure to share with a friend, folks. Now, let's get on to that tale of the tape. The first is a Canadian lawyer and founder of the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms, the second, a senior partner at Gray, Walk, and Spencer, and host of the Gray Matter podcast. I'm talking about John Carpe and Layton Gray. So buckle up. Here we go. Welcome to the Sean Newman podcast. If I sit here and wait for you two to finish your gab and we'll be here for a long time.

Layton Gray, John Carpe in studio. Before we, well, hey, thanks for coming in. This is going to be, I think, a ton of fun. I mean, I've had you both on before. Layton several times and John just the once, but regardless, a ton of your staff, your people that are working with you. And I got a ton of time for both of you. So I think we're going to have an interesting chat here. So you two being in the studio.

I used to work for John too, so. Did you? Yeah. Retained on a file. Yeah. Yeah. Not my employee, but yeah. Well, this is the man behind the Ingram victory where the court.

Yes. Not if you ask Jeff Rath. It was a victory and a loss. It's complicated. But two and a half years of litigation, the Justice Center was the first civil liberties organization in Canada to sue government over lockdowns. We're also the only group that called for an end to lockdowns. So we sued.

and Leighton Gray was the one of the lawyers acting for these different individuals and churches and whatnot. And we filed a court action in December of 2020. And two and a half years later, this is, it's a disgrace how long it takes, right? The violation of charter rates and freedoms. Oh, yeah, yeah, we'll get back to you in two and a half years. And so we got a ruling in July, July 31st, 2023, and the court said that Dina Hinshaw's health restrictions, the health orders were illegal, and so Leighton played a big role in that. Before we go any further, okay? All right, thank you.

Thank you. One ounce of silver. Well, thank you. Charles III. So if you don't know, when you come in studio, John probably doesn't know this, Leighton probably does, But when you come in studio, silver gold bull gives a one ounce silver coin any in-person guess. That stuff is going up. I would guess that your silver gold bullion fans out there are doing very well right now.

And apparently the run is just beginning. I think gold was at about $4,200 an ounce of U.S. today and silver, almost $53 an ounce. Yeah, I always go in the Canadian prices. It's high. $70-some an ounce Canadian for an ounce of silver. And when we started doing this with Silver Gold Bowl, which is now over two years ago, it was under 40. I remember having Premier Smith sit right in that chair. And I wasn't sure I could give her anything.

And then she's like, well, you can give me something under $500. I'm like, oh, way, way less, way less. It's just a silver coin. It's only $40. She was just really quick with that, $500 limit. She was very quick with it. Yes, absolutely. Now, okay, gentlemen, thanks for coming in.

Silver one ounce coin to both you. I think the thing I'm most interested to talk to the both of you about is all these bills coming in that are, you know, limiting. You've had a podcast late in that if people haven't listened to your commentary on it, they should. You've written about the, you know, police state by Christmas for Pete's sake. These bills coming in censoring the internet, monitoring everything, you know, like we're watching the UK. I think the last number I saw was 12,000 of people arrested for online, online posts. Is this hitting the Canadian shores faster than we expect? What are your two thoughts?

Please don't feel like it has to come back. You too can discuss. I got two brilliant guys here who stare at this problem. Well, John wrote a great piece that came out about a week ago, where he went into a lot of detail about the guts of the bills and what they mean. And I've written more about the bigger picture, 10,000-foot views. So maybe, John, you go first and maybe talk about it. about the bills themselves and what you talked about in your piece.

So I'll just cover the tip of the iceberg because like we need a five hour podcast to properly go through. Bill C2 is 140 pages. It's called the Strong Borders Act. I think it should be called the Strong Surveillance Act. Just touching the tip of the iceberg, it is Canada Post authorized to open letter mail without a warrant. It is making cash donations and use of cash in amounts of.

10,000 or more illegal even for a bona fide purpose. It is a brand new authorized access to information act, a brand new piece of legislation where an electronic service provider is required to submit to warrantless searches and demands for information. It means the federal government can go to Rogers or tell us and demand subscriber lists. An electronic service provider, when you read the definition, is anybody who sends out e-mails, So it's every church, every business, every nonprofit. If you're sending out emails, you are an electronic podcaster.

Every podcaster. So that's Bill C2. Again, just the tip of the iceberg. There's, there's more to it. Bill C8 is the Cybersecurity Act and it is going to empower federal cabinet ministers to kick you off the internet by giving the power to the federal cabinet to order a a telecommunications services provider, which is anybody who provides internet or phone,

order them to do anything or to refrain from doing anything if in the minister's view there is a threat to the security of the Canadian telecommunications system. So this is very broad. Now, it says if the minister believes on reasonable grounds that there is a threat, well, that's way too broad. I mean, the Prime Minister Trudeau believed on what in his own mind were probably reasonable grounds, that we should freeze bank accounts.

If you get kicked off the internet and get kicked off your phone, you know, in the year 2025, you're kind of handicapped. It's a big blow. Now, theoretically, you can go to court and sue to have the minister's order overturned. Yeah, you just told me about the Ingram decision taking over two years. So while you can go to court. Yeah. And by the way, he's talking about the Ingram decision.

He didn't mention his book, which is in large part about that case. John's book, which is called Corrupted by Fear. There you go. Seamless plug. Here, shameless plug for both of them, okay? I'm not getting any royalties, folks. John's my friend. I wanted to sell lots of books.

Corrupted by fear. We got one book there given to me. Thank you very much. And then Lies, Laws, and Liberties. There's Leighton's book as well, folks. Okay. All right. Everybody's seeing that? Kind of similar books, variations on a theme. Yeah.

Which is the one he's talking about, really. So the, so C8, again, a lot of bad stuff, but the highlight is cabinet ministers can kick you off the internet. And the pretext is like national security. Well, you know, cyber crimes are already in the criminal code. You can't hack into somebody else's computer system. If you do, it's a crime. If you destroy property, it's a crime. These are already criminal.

offenses. Why does the federal government need the power to kick Leighton Gray or Sean Newman off of the internet? Well, we know why. For national security. I mean, is this a hypothetical you're asking me? I know why, because we're criticizing them. And they want complete control and they're going to find it any which way they want. That's the big picture. I mean, isn't it? Yeah. I mean, you already have a whole bunch of laws already in effect that take care of the nasty stuff. Which they're not enforcing very well. No, they're not. Well, you take Bill C9 is the pre-19. The text is we have to protect worshippers, people going to their mosque or synagogue. Churches are not mentioned, of course. Because they're burning down.

Right. When introducing CNI, so this is the Combating Hate Act. And the minister, Sean Fraser, says, because of rising, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, homophobia and transphobia, for pretty, you know, says nothing about churches being burned to the ground. We need this legislation to protect access to houses of worship, except that the criminal code already prohibits threats. It already prohibits physical obstruction. If you physically block somebody from getting into their car, their home, their church, any physical obstruction,

even if you don't touch, if you touch somebody, it's an assault. But even if you don't touch somebody, you block their access, that's the crime. It's one of the crimes of mischief, right? interfering with the lawful use and enjoyment of property. So it's already on the books. C-9, it bans the swastika, not the communist hammer and sickle.

So it's very political. More people have been murdered under the banner of the hammer and sickle. But anyway, it's political. The worst part, I think, is that, well, two worst parts. It allows a judge to more than double the penalty if a crime was committed and the judge feels that hate was part of the motivation. So a crime where the maximum sentence is two years can become five years, five years can become 10 years, 10 can become 14, 14 can become life if the judge feels that there is hate

involved in the crime. That's one big problem. Feels being the opera of work. Yeah. Yeah. Feels. Because as you know, aren't you to raise a sunshine today, okay?

Sorry. There is an antidote. I can talk about the antidote. But, yeah, dealing with the problem, that's the beginning, right? Fred Flintstone said, knowing it is half the battle. Right? So I'll finish the tip of the iceberg with one more point. So Bill C-9 also gets rid of the current requirement that a prosecution for a hate speech crime requires the consent of the attorney general, the justice minister,

which means that the local police and crown prosecutors, if they want to prosecute you for hate speech, and we can have a good laugh about their attempts to define it with disdain and dislike is not hate. However, be careful because detestation and vilification is hate. Disdain and dislike is not hate. You can mock, ridicule, discredit, and offend people and hurt their feelings. That's not necessarily hate. But do not cross into detestation and vilification. I'm warning you right now because that's hate.

Anyway. So you're going to have, they're going to scrap this. requirements. So currently there's a bit of a restraining, there's kind of a sober second thought. If the local police, the local crown prosecutor, if they want to prosecute you for hate speech, they have to run it by the attorney general and kind of a sober second thought. They have to run it by there for a review. Bill C-9 would get rid of the review. So now we're at the mercy, whether you're in Hamilton or Victoria, Vancouver, Calgary, St.

John's Newfoundland, Montreal. It's the local police and crowns can decide. Remember the cops during COVID? Yeah. They get to decide what's hateful. And they can just lay charges and then say, hey, don't worry about it. Because, you know, like you, you know, if I'm wrong, you're just going to get acquitted. But meanwhile, you know, $50,000 in legal bills later, you finally get acquitted.

That's the problem. Yeah. Yeah. And I mean, these laws, like the bigger picture of what I think is happening is the liberals have come up with their own state sanctioned religion, which we're not supposed to have in Canada. That's the that's the essence of freedom of religion. We're not supposed to have a state religion, but they have created their own state religion. And it's a, it, their, their God is a jealous God and it has to, it has to force out, it has to destroy the freedoms and the remnants

of Judea-Christian morality, which are underpinning all of our, all of our fundamental rights and freedoms. I can talk about this a bit more later, but I'll give you a concrete example. Bill C-63 is another bill that it sort of got pushed aside, but its ghost is still around. It's another hate speech law. But Bill C4 is still is already law in Canada. This is the gender conversion, gender conversion being sort of a leftist euphemism. But this is a concrete example. Think about this. So under the law right now, if somebody goes to their pastor or to their therapist or to their medical doctor and says, you know, I think I might be gay or I think I might be trans. I think I might be non-binary. Okay. It's now criminal for that the person who's hearing that to provide any sort of

counseling or treatment that might dissuade them from going down the road of that decision. That's criminal. Okay. So that kind of gender conversion, okay, is criminal. But think about this. if that same person goes to the therapist or their doctor or their pastor and says, you know, I think that, you know, I think I'm gay. I think I'm trans or I think I'm non-binary. That doctor or that therapist is actually under a legal duty to affirm that decision. And if it's the case of a medical doctor, they have to provide access to a panoply of drugs that are that are physically altering permanently and soul destroying.

They have to tell them about gender mutilation. So this law, C4, does not ban gender conversion. It only bans gender conversion one way, you see. Gender conversion isn't the problem. It's just that if you provide, if you talk about gender conversion in a way that supports the state's narrative, the new state religion, then that's okay. But if you if you talk about it in a way that supports a different type of morality, let's say, you know, Christian morality, which says that we're made in the image of God and that we have, we have, you know, fundamental dignity and importance because of that and that there are only two genders, that sort of thing, that doesn't reinforce the state's bias, okay? And this is a this is what's called a prospective discrimination, okay? And this is what's going on in our law. And all of these laws, and all of these laws, this whole suite of laws that John is talking about and C4 is just is another one of them is

all about concentrating all of the power in our society in a single government and everything that they're doing is consistent with this they're doing with the economy to where they want to create the national economy they want to destroy Alberta's ability to produce resources because that causes Alberta to be able to have a bargaining position within confederation and the real problem and John talks about this in his book is that we have a constitution we have a very good constitution we have a constitution and in many ways is the envy of of the world and some very wise people you know set up Canada in ways that we could solve problems and govern ourselves in a way that's peaceful but this government is not governing us according to that constitution and I can talk

more about this later but I've been talking for a while here but just want to put a kind of a 10,000 foot view on some of these bills that John was talking about, why they're such a problem. And I'll add in maybe some humor, because as you two talk, all I think about, it had the same, I had the same thought in the middle of COVID as all these new laws were coming in is Harry Potter. It's like book number five. Umbrage comes in, and I don't know if anybody knows what the heck I'm talking about. Oh, I read these books with my son. Oh, yeah.

So the ministry of magic, ministry or whatever, it comes in and starts putting rules on Hogwarts and they have this wall and at the start, there's two rules. And by the end, there's like 5,000 rules. You know, you can't dance in the, you can't sing a song in the hallway, but maybe you can sing over here and you can't do this and you can't laugh at that and you can't, you have to tuck your pants. Anyways, there's just rules for everything. Yes. And Umbrage comes from the ministry in that book. And I'm like, oh my God, this is what's happening in COVID, right?

Like, you know, like we got to stand this far apart and you can't look that way and you can't wear your mask over your nose. You can't wear it under your nose because I haven't forbid you do that. And on and on the list went. And now what you two, you know, we get out of that. And now we fast forward a few years. And I see all these bills coming out. I'm like, what are just going on? And it just reminds me of, once again, it's a, you know, I'm the silly guy with pop culture references.

But it just, it just feels like, I'm like, how did, how did J.K. Rowling get the, the, the, the, well, she's a brilliant artist. And oftentimes artists will, will be very appreciate in the way that they, I mean, of course, everybody talks about George Orwell is another example. but they do see things in the culture, you know, even before we see them. And that's part of the, you know, the component of talent. There's a great book by Neil Gorsuch, who's a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States that just came out about a year ago. It's called Overruled. And it talks about this where he says that essentially what we're dealing with, not only

in the United States, but also in Canada, is a hyperabundance of laws. We have so many laws. And the people who are making the laws are not the people that we, elect that we don't have we're supposed to have this thing called the same called representative democracy but in fact we're being we're being governed by bureaucrats and COVID was a great example of this talking about the one of the cases I did with the JCCF was when I represented Pastor Coates and I had this young woman in the witness box and I was cross-examining her and bear in mind this is a woman

who had sent James Coates to jail twice she issued the order that shut down and barricaded his church for three months. And I asked her, how much training did you have in policing and law enforcement? And she said she had a 30 minute Zoom call with about 200 other people. And she's making all these orders. So that's a concrete example of what we're talking about here. And bills, these bills that John was talking about, it's the same thing, right? Like the online harms act, which was known as C63, and if it's brought back,

it'll have a different number. But one of the provisions is it empowers, the federal cabinet to pass regulations to regulate the content on the internet where the likes of, you know, whoever's in power. And it's easy to fixate on the liberals. But I mean, the point's not really who's in power. The point is you don't want any politician in any strike power. We know, like, you don't want, you don't want them to decide what you can and cannot say, right? It's not about, you know, I don't want, uh, Trudeau or Marks Carney to, to, you know, to, to, be able to decide what I can say or not say, but I wouldn't want Trump or fully ever either. I'm getting to start using that.

He said Marx-Carnie. I said that on purpose. Marks-Carnie. So that, you know, that's Bill C-63. You never know what's going to happen on the S&P show. We might as to laugh about it, folks, because we'll be arrested in six months for this conversation. Sorry, carry on. Well, this is that like the, just taking a,

Building on what what Leighton said, you know, people talk about the deep state. You have these regulations which are often pushed by bureaucrats who've got this full-time job. They've got all day to think of new laws and how we should have more laws, right? So they have all this time on their hands. They take it to the cabinet. The cabinet ministers are busy. They might not necessarily know. You know, if I was fisheries minister, maybe, you know, I got.

appointed because of geography or politics this or that I don't necessarily know the topic right so my bureaucrats say well well minister we've got these great new regulations I'm unless I really know my portfolio really well I'm not going to really oppose that so then they become law so the bureaucrats create laws because the regulations are just as binding as the legislation passed by the legislature the regulation is authorized by cabinet but it's equally binding as legislation A young, brilliant man, who I think we all know. I know for sure me and Lighten do. The first time I ever was on stage with him, he said the big laws give you freedom

and the little laws take it away. And that was Tanner today. That was the first time we're sitting in Wainerang. He's written a couple of great books too, by the way. He has, yeah, show up to Tanner. Because when I hear all these laws coming in, I'm like, to me, I just go back to him talking and I sat back and I'm like, that is. That is.

This is the Online Streaming Act gives the CRTC, power to regulate Canadian content. And how that's likely play itself out is it starts very innocuous. The government says, if you have a podcast, you just have to register. You don't have to do anything else. There's no paperwork. Just register. And then after a year or two, they say, well, you just have to complete this form

with, you know, answer two or three questions. How many podcasts did you do in the last 12 months? No big deal. Then the next step is, what were some of your topics, right? And then the next step, you know, do you have a lot of, how much equity, diversity, inclusion content did you have? How much LGBTQ content did you have? We're not telling you, like, it could be zero.

We're only asking the question. So, you know, you put in your... It's funny. I feel like I would fit quite well into that. How many indigenous people are? Actually, that's some people on. It's probably just not saying what they want to hear. Yeah.

So this is how it escalates, right? You get the CRTC, which currently now has, thanks to the Online Streaming Act, getting passed two years ago. They have that power. They might not be exercising it yet, but they have that power to regulate all podcasts in Canada and regulate them for Canadian content

and do you have enough of it? I can give you one example where the CRTC is regulating. I have a client, well, it's not a problem. I say it's Alan and Corey Huntsburgh. They have a popular show called Talk Truth. Yes, wonderful man. And they bought a radio station or tried to buy a radio station in Saskatchewan, which has been a Christian radio station for over 30 years.

And they were going to continue the type of programming that has been on that station for over 30 years. But of course, they cannot buy that because they cannot get the license unless CRTC, you can't grandfather the license. So they have to get CRTC approval. And I went through the application process with them and just tying into what John was saying. in order for CRTC to put its blessing on the sale, these two, basically one man who's a pastor and the other one, his son who operate a Christian radio program,

had to sign on to all this woke ideology. And just like you said, Sean, you know, they could show that they had a lot of diversity within their organization, that they respect diverse views, that they had, they had an indigenous Christian lawyer, they had all this stuff going on.

But the CRTC said, oh, no, because you will not sign on to this stuff, which incidentally offends their Christian beliefs, we will not approve the sale. And so the net effect is not only could this family not sell their business, which is an obvious interference with personal property rights, that's a big problem. But essentially what the CRTC is saying is to them who are Christian broadcasters who want to carry on the tradition of Christian broadcasting, even though they don't want to operate the radio station anymore. CRT is essentially telling them you can't sell this to another Christian

broadcaster who is going to carry this on. So the CRTC is effectively, in the way John describes, they're using their discretion to kill Christian broadcasting. But it gets worse than they did this. I should show John the letter because I think the people at JCCF would really be intrigued by this. the CRTC has been given the the regulatory authority to to basically consider whether or not they violated their your your charter rights and so they said to mr mr mr mr mr's huntsberger we know that we violated your charter rights but we and we but we but we in fact we we we know that we violated them but we've reviewed our own decision in the context of section one and we found that you know it's a what we've done is a reason limit. This is this is bizarre world. Like this is like a judge reviewing their own decision, right?

And determining whether or not there's grounds, there's proper grounds for appeal. But this is what's happened in the apparatchiks of our state is we've delegated so much power to bureaucratic bodies and just think now that's just one example of what's going on. And most people in Canada would be horrified to hear about that. But this story doesn't make it on to the CBC news or CTV or which is okay. They're dying. Yeah. They're dying a well deserve. But that's an example of what John was talking about. You just put it on the SMP instead.

Yeah, as I just did. Lay it out for your consideration. What would you call this religion? Because you made several references to it. Would you call it wokeism? Would you call it DEI diversity equity inclusion? Or how would you name it? Or neo-Marxism?

How would you name it? I think probably the best term that's been put on it is post-modernism. Because post-modernism is this theory of, it actually started as an artistic school. but but actually all these different streams that john was just talking about um they fit in to sort of the umbrella term that combines all these different streams you're talking about critical race theory critical theory by the way most of these really bad ideas come out of law school so i'm ashamed to say but but uh essentially what it does is it it it's it hates christianity it's definitely atheistic and you know fundamentally Marxist Marxist Marx famously said that

atheism, that the communism begins where atheism begins. And so there's no question that Christianity is a casualty of this. Because fundamentally, I could talk more about this later, but fundamentally our constitution is grounded in in Western principles, in Western culture. And that involves a theory of morality that comes out of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Yeah, I can't speak for Eastern Canada. So, you know, because once again, I know I have people who listen to me out there, but I know my views are in the minority, I think, sorry, sorry, Ontario folk and elders.

But like, one of the, one of the Streisans' effects of all that they're doing is I see a resurgence in Christianity. I'm in case and point sitting right here. Like, you know, like, I remember having Preston Manning on here and him talking about his father, having the being the premier of a province and then doing. his Christian radio show. And I'm like, oh, that's pretty wild. He's like, yeah, we'll never see those days again. I'm like, I don't know.

And I remember telling Preston, like, to me, it's coming back because the harder you push it, try and push it out, the more people start staring because you're looking at all the world, right? You're seeing, uh, that's wrong. That's weird. Now they're pushing on that. Now I've got to go explore that. I think more and more people are exploring it and finally out, geez, that makes a whole

lot of sense. And so, I mean, it doesn't mean that all of a sudden you snap fingers and, and, and, and, and, it gets booted out because this is a large, large problem. I don't know how many different people I've had on from different areas of expertise. Lawyers, right? Professors. It was the Aristotle Foundation was just on a couple weeks ago talking about the study they did on students, not feeling. It doesn't even matter if you're the extremes. If you're sitting in the middle, you feel uncomfortable to say anything in class anymore.

You think about that. This is a very large problem. We're seeing the tentacles go out and all these different people. Bill. Sean Buckley was just on talking about their health charter tour and what they're trying to do to health products. And you're like, man, like anything you can think of that would be a bad idea. They're pushing it. They're pushing it. Yeah. Yeah. Take away people's freedom to choose their own health products. I mean, it's one thing for the government to, you know, prohibit maybe cyanide if there aren't valid purposes for it. You know, or something that's definitely

poisonous that will definitely kill you. I could say. say, okay, you know, notwithstanding my libertarian leanings, but if the government wants to prohibit something that's demonstrably harmful and lethal, okay, maybe, you know, but this is kind of going, the government's going to decide on whether, you know, maybe you find rose hips are really beneficial for your health and I don't like them. And but the government's going to step in and they're going to ban and regulate. Maybe two lawyers can, can, can enlighten me. When the government decides what is safe and isn't safe, I'm like, I don't know anymore because we just had this thing.

I don't know what to call it because every time I call it what it is, I get removed from things, right? So the old jibby jab, I think it's demonstrably not safe. I run into too many people now where it's just like, it's just common knowledge. It's just like, yeah, I got affected by it. They were kind of, you know, and if they're going to regulate what is safe and not, well, here's your Super Bowl. It's time to get rid of it. And instead they're like, to say, yeah, the injection.

And they're still saying it's safe and effective. Safe and effective. I'm seeing it all over now again. I'm like, okay. So then we're going to say cyanide is demonstrously dangerous. I'm like, I don't know. How about you just give us the information? How about you just give people the information?

And we go, oh, that's pretty bad. Because they're telling us all these things are safe. None of it turns out to be true. They're telling us all these things are dangerous. Half of that stuff turns out to not be true. Yeah. The safe stuff can be extremely dangerous in the wrong. quantities. Because if you were to consume a whole, a large bottle of Tylenol, for example,

you could name a hundred other things that are, you know, safe in moderation, you eat the whole bottle, it'll probably kill you. Yet we sell that because the government still trusts our judgment. They were going to take one or two for a headache and we're not going to down the whole bottle. Yeah, but this is this insidious, neo-Marxist, woke ideology wants to control everything. So they're even going to take away your personal decision about which health food products you might want to purchase for your own health. Layton, you said there's a way out. I am, you know, we have been digging down the hole of how deep we're going. And everyone's sitting there going like, so, okay, how do we get out of this?

Well, again, I'm not being paid to do this, but I'm plugging John's book again. John's book actually talks about this, about some of the solutions that we can do. but you were getting into the why. Why is this happening? And I was just going on a little brief explanation of, there's kind of three different schools of thought about how laws are made. Okay. And two of them result in tyranny.

And they usually work in tandem. And they're working in tandem in Canada right now. So the first school of thought is called legal positivism. And the basic tenet of this is that law is the command of the sovereign. So this goes back to, you know, King Henry the 8th says, you know, we're not going to follow Rome anymore. I'm starting my own church and I'm the head of it. We still have positivism in our law in that, you know,

parliament, our legislatures are supposed to be our sovereign. They have lawmaking power. But we've built in checks and balances on that because we've seen the dangers of legal positive when it goes, legal positivism when it goes too far. And the way we've done that is through a constitution. Okay. So that's one school of law. The other school of making law is called legal realism.

And what this says is that, you know, legislatures and governments don't really make laws. A law doesn't become real until a judge or a court gets their hands on it. And they interpret it and they apply it. And then it becomes a real law. And one of the major problems that we have in our country, and I talk about it in my book and John does in his too is something called judicial activism. where we have judges who are unappointed elites who are making laws. A lot of laws that we think that we obey are actually being made by courts,

people we've never elected and that we would never elect. Just pause there for a second. When you say they're making laws, but you also said they're interpreting. So you mean they're making laws by their interpretation of what's come through to them? Well, I'll give you three shining examples. Basically, the whole body of indigenous land rights laws and Aboriginal rights in Canada is judge-made law. That's number one.

Basically, the whole translation of LGBTQ into human rights, that's our courts. Okay, that's number two. And the third one is essentially the idea that the federal government can legislate in areas of provincial jurisdiction such as healthcare or energy, even though the Constitution clearly says that that's not the case. So that's only three examples,

where our courts are making laws, but there's many, many, many more. And it's in family law, it's in criminal law. Here's another example. Right now, the federal government is with, John wrote about this recently, I think. The federal government is withholding money. The federal government pays the province's money

to prosecute criminal offenses. But they're withholding that money from provinces that will not sign on to an agreement which tells the provinces, compels the provinces to instruct judges. Stop there for a second. government is instructing judges about the way that they will sentence offenders and the and where the rubber meets the road is judges the first thing judges are supposed to look at everything that

they do when they sentence an offender is they're supposed to look through the lens of race now Alberta has signed on to this our premier suspended that God bless her but these are examples that's legal realism right these two legal positive is an illegal realism are working together. They work in tandem. And some of the laws that John was talking about, the reason why a government is so bold in making these laws is because they don't see any risk. We don't have an effective opposition in our country right now. We have it had for a long time in parliament. And the courts are not being any sort of check on government. I mean, our Supreme Court has not hurt a single COVID case. And now, just recently, the federal government is actually going to the

Supreme Court and saying, oh, well, you have to go and relook at that whole, relook at that whole notwithstanding clause. In other words, courts, you have the power to rejig our constitution, even though we have a really good formula for amending our constitution that nobody's looking at because it's tough to do. So we have these two schools of thought, positivism and realism working together. And this has happened in most totalitarian societies. I was just watching a documentary about Nazi Germany. Roland Friesler, that's the name that you moved in for John, where essentially the courts were just arms, we're basically arms of the administrative state in Nazi Germany. And unfortunately, we're experiencing that, you know, right now.

Now, what our, what our constitution is based on is a different idea about how we make laws that's grounded in something called natural law. And I can, I can explain about that in more detail. And I think that is getting back to that, getting back to having our country governed according to the constitution, which is informed by natural law. and the common law, that's the antidote to the chaos that we're experiencing right now. You want me to go into more detail about that? I've been talking for a while.

John probably wants to. Well, I'm like, A, I'm curious what another lawyer thinks about it, right? Yeah. Like is that, do you hear that and go, yeah, that makes sense? Well, I agree with that. That's been our tradition is this, this assumption that there is a higher law against which we measure our earthly laws. So there's this ultimate justice.

and, you know, for theists, they would say it's God's law, but it need not be theistic, per se. But there's natural law. So, I mean, the parliament could say that, you know, it's okay to murder somebody who's very old or very young or of a particular race. But that doesn't, of course, want to natural law. Natural law would say that everybody has a right to life regardless of personal characteristics, just to come up with an example. So the moving Canada, and unfortunately, it is similar to other regimes, communist regimes,

the National Socialist regime in Germany in the 1930s, where ideology penetrates into the law societies, the law schools, and the courts. And so you have judges ruling ideologically to advance an ideologically. to advance an ideology as opposed to trying to apply laws that are based on natural law and trying to apply that fairly, they're pushing a political agenda. And that's the direction that Canada has been moving in. And it didn't start with Trudeau. You know, Stephen Harper appointed Wagner to the Supreme Court.

And Wagner is a woke ideologue who is going to use his power, which is a master. to advance woke neo-Marxist progressive ideology. And that was a Harper appointment. So it's a longstanding cultural problem. I probably got worse under Trudeau. Oh, yeah. But it didn't start with him. I keep talking about an interview I did with Ron Wallace.

Did you listen to the Ron Wallace? Yes, I did, yeah. And Ron Wallace was talking about the National Energy Board. Yeah. And I'll butcher this. But, you know, he was talking about it. It used to be a panel of experts in their fields that looked at National Energy Board. projects from an economics background.

You know, I can argue about expert and what, you know, and who you put on it. But regardless, when you're looking at feasibility studies of like, do we spend a billion dollars to do this and what does that actually look like? That at least in my brain makes sense. And what he was talking about and what he was nervous about back then was that the new Bill C5 that allows a stronger Canada, you know, national infrastructure projects, was that the power was going to go to the ministers. And doesn't it, doesn't it seem like the more conversations we have, they're consolidating power into the ministers. And what are they all governed by? You call

it whatever religion you want. They're ideologically motivated. They're no longer looking at anything but planet, mother earth. We have to save her. And the only way to save her is by green tech. It's by diversity, equity, occlusion, but take the D out of there because the only thing we want is different looking people, not worried about different opinion. It's all these things and it's all being consolidated into a group of people who have no background in any of these things. Like it's insane. Yeah, this is the irony is that the people who will call me a, you know, a Bible thumping lawyer will say, when I say we have to recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law, the irony is what we're really talking about with this, the whole suite of

laws that John described is the state venturing into the realm of morality. And so although they accuse Christians of trying to create some kind of theocratic state, it's actually them, they who are doing it. But what they're doing is their false God, their idol is power. And that's what it's all about. So when I talk about natural law, I'm talking about someone you can look up someone like Spooner who was writing about 150 years ago. And what he says quite clearly is, we know that there's such a thing as a natural law because we sense it. One way that we sense it is because human beings have a natural yearning for the transcendent, right? C.S. Lewis said that there must be heaven because we yearn for it in the same way that we get hungry because we know there's food and we get thirsty because we know there's water.

But I'll give you an example. Here's a concrete example for you, Sean, of how natural law works because you're a parent. If you go home tonight and you tell your eldest to go outside and rake all those terrible leaves off your front lawn and he goes out and he does all that work and he works up a sweat, he's going to come to you and he's going to want to get paid, right? So that's part of the natural law. And even kids understand this innately. Well, if you pull out your wallet and you give 10 bucks to his sister who didn't do a stitch of work, okay, you're offending natural law. But that's Marxism. That's socialism.

it works. And what you're really doing is you're saying to your your child, look, we know, I understand that you know innately that you deserve this money because you did the work. But I'm going to give this money to your sister who did no work because I'm trying to make you understand that that natural law doesn't operate here. It's the same thing that happens in 1984 where they're going through, I don't know if you read the book. I have two plus two equals five, right? And I took a cold shower after and then watch something funny because I was so depressed, yes. Right. And, you know, talking about natural, for example, you have kids and I assume yours like mine

occasionally got in fights and hit each other. Well, that child knows when they hit the other one that that's wrong, that they've caused an injury. That's natural law. And that type of injury, that happens at the family level, at the relationship level, and at the political level. So these natural laws are all the way through. What Spooner would say is these laws are so true, they go.

all the way down to the level of things like gravity, okay, or the sun coming up in the morning. In other words, we know what the natural laws are that govern the universe in the same way that we know what the natural laws are that govern peaceful relations between human beings. And our constitutions of countries like Canada, the United States, and Great Britain, they grew up out of this sense of what the natural law is. And what John said earlier was that our man-made laws are supposed to have some relationship to our sense of what the natural law is. And that is where the disconnection is right now in Canada.

Is these laws that they're making just don't make any sense to us. And that's how we know that they offend the natural law. It's almost like someone who's singing off key. Okay. It doesn't sound like Sinatra or Presley or the Beatles. It sounds bad because they're singing off key. We know what good music is too. It doesn't matter whether what genre it is, right?

In Alberta there's only, you know, we have both kinds of music. country and Western, but you know, you get the picture. So what I'm saying is the antidote to the chaos is we have to get back to our Constitution. We have a good constitution, but we're not making laws according to that constitution. That's my view of the matter. So I don't disagree with what you're saying. The only thing I go to is I'm like, can't even, like, you can't even get, is it 50%? Is it 40%? Is it 30% that gets something's going wrong? Right? There's this huge chunk of people that are, you know, there's lots of great people. They're all working hard. They're all trying to do what's right by their family and heck, probably by their community.

And yet, like, there's a disconnect there too late. And of like, how do you, how do you get? I think it's disappearing. When I, I've, I've spoken with and heard from so many people in the last six years who said that in 2019, they never paid any attention to politics or the news or laws, nothing. The only thing that they did was focused exclusively on their work and their family, maybe recreation, entertainment, hobbies, and that was it. And now there's a small army of Canadians who are alert and awake and attentive and aware, and they are paying attention. And the next wave of tyranny, which I predict will come under the guise of saving us from the impending climate holocaust. But the next wave of tyranny, or if it's, you know, to everybody's got to get injected with something because we've got a new horrible virus, there's going to be way more pushback than what there was in 2020, which was almost zero pushback in 2020. So people are waking up. And the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.

And we've got more and more Canadians. We're not doing nothing. I can't disagree with that sentiment. I can't. And I'm not the pessimist of this group. And I'm not saying either one of you are. because I see the work you do. I just look at it and I go,

I don't think it'll be an injection. I think it's going to be convenience and the convenience is going to come through digital something. You could call it CBDC. You can call it, you know, like Alberta just unveiled how many weeks ago was that, folks,

the digital health pass. Right. And it's going to be convenience. It's just optional. You know, you go back to your example. It's just optional. We're not forced to anyone to do this. It's like for how many years?

How many years are you going to let it be optional to have that paper card? I used to hate that paper card And now I'm like, you know what? I don't mind the paper card Because I ain't signing up for no digital nothing And yet it's like, so how long do you allow that for? But you know, there's pushback.

There's people that don't want it And if they speak out, I would predict that Premier Smith would listen to that. I wrote a column published September 19th It was in the Western Standard saying there's a disconnect there. You could be a Canadian citizen and not have a driver's license. You could be a non-

non-Canadian that is legally living here and working here and you have an Alberta driver's license, there's no connection. So if you want to cut down on election fraud and make sure that non-Canadians don't vote, you ask for proof of citizenship for people when they vote. So you've got to bring your passport or your birth certificate, which is a hassle and it's a pain in the neck. But to do that, you know, once every four years for provincial, once every four years for the federal municipal. Like, are we going to sit here and say bringing your passport for an election is a big deal? Something you got to do once every four. It's important.

It's important enough if you want to, if you want to go south to Mexico or Florida in the winter, and you grab your passport for that, why can't you be asked to bring a passport when you go vote? Instantly, you eliminate the whole problem of non-citizens voting to whatever extent it's going on. I don't know, but you eliminate the problem. Whereas putting C-A-N on your Alberta driver's license as, you know, hey, look at this. I'm a Canadian citizen I can vote. No. There's no connection there.

And it's really a bad idea to put it all in one place, the information. Interesting. Yeah. You're right. You're right, though, the disawareness thing. I agree with John, though. It's usually a safe thing to, to quote C.S. Lewis. And he said one of the most cowardly things that ordinary people do is to shut their eyes to the facts.

And like, we all do this. you know. Willful blindness. Yes. And Bruce Party, I believe you've had them on your show. If you haven't, you really should because I think he's one of the, one of the brightest minds in Canadian law right now, certainly of the ones who are speaking publicly. And he says something that really struck me, and I think is very important and ties into the topic we're discussing today.

And Bruce says that there's a disconnection between what Canadians think the law is, and what it should be doing and what it actually does. And one of the reactions that people have, and COVID is a good example, you know, when we had all these tickets landing on people and pastors being thrown in jail, is a great shock to, you know, to the system. I was in court and I heard a judge, I won't name the judge, but I heard a judge tell Pastor James Coates, who's the most deeply religious man, one of the most, devout men I've ever met, respect him so much.

He basically called him a terrorist. He said that because he didn't tell all of members of his congregation to abide by COVID restrictions that he was basically endangering the lives of every single Albertan. This is coming from a judge. And the folks, you can look it up. It's in the transcript. Okay. And, but that's, that's, to me, when I read that, I was like, it, that hit me like a truck.

to me that was astonishing. But that was a wake-up problem. The judges would just buy the media narrative and then write it into their court rulings. That's one of the things I write about in my book corrupted by fear, that the judges give you a case in point, a judge in Manitoba who ruled in the gateway case

in favor of Manitoba. He writes in his judgment that COVID is the worst pandemic in over a century and it's unprecedented. both claims are false the the Asian flu of 1957 never mind facts in a court folks

yeah and there's no evidence before the judge to support that he's just repeating what he's heard on the CBC hopefully but maybe we could get him to listen to this and that they could start changing their narrative maybe I should mail him a copy of my book but I prefer he purchase it himself but but the Asian flu of 1957 was more deadly than COVID

the Hong Kong flu of 1968 was more deadly than COVID the Spanish flu of 1918 was many, many multiples more deadly than COVID. So for a judge to write into his judgment that it's unprecedented and the worst pandemic in a century is false, is not supported by any evidence, and he's just repeating the narrative. We had another one, Michael McGaugh in Saskatchewan, who appointed by Harper, who took judicial notice of the fact that the vaccine is safe and effective for adults and children. because, drum roll,

because Health Canada and the Saskatchewan Health Authority have said so. So there you go. The government said it, I believe it, that settles it. It's just frightening

that a judge, when the government is a litigant before the court, he declares that because the government says the vaccine is safe and effective for adults and children,

he writes into his court ruling that the vaccine is safe and effective for adults and children. Will you agree with me that before it gets better, it will get worse? It very likely could.

my view. It's not guaranteed you get worse, but it very likely could. I mean, you've got, you've also got a lot of people that have zero knowledge of history, which is frightening. Yeah. If somebody is ignorant of history, you can persuade them of anything.

They're gullible. Yeah, I know. Well, I have hope on that side, because I was one of those morons not that long ago, right? I mean, like... You knew a lot about hockey history. Yeah, for sure I did. Yeah. And there's a lot that can be learned from the game of hockey that translates over to the world. But, But overall, I was a history major in college, and I've read enough, I think, but obviously

not enough because the old education since that time has been, you know, I just, Layton was laughing, you know, when he gave me his book and I'm like, oh, I've got to find a way to, you know, like I've been, it's funny, how many guests of the show have been writing really good books, right? And then to try and find time to get through them, but I'm reading all the time. As much as I can, you know, I'm trying to add in. as much as I can. And I think a lot more people are doing that as well,

because I'm case in point. Like if you go back five years, I think I'm a complete nutter moron. That's one of the, that's one of the, I strongly disagree with that, that last comment. But what you're doing is actually one of the best defenses

against what the government's trying to do because the other undercurrent of what we're talking about is they're trying to take over language itself. And if, speaking of books, if you read 1984, there's this concept in that book of news speak.

Yeah. And essentially what it is, it's, it's all about taking over the language. And your language in our culture is really, really important. For example, in North Korea, in the North Korean language, there's no word that translates to escape. So you cannot even form the thought now in North Korea. And Orwell, again, was very, he saw very far into the future. And, and, and he talks about this about.

newspeak and how it would actually not just change the way we communicate with each other. It would be, you know, they were talking about the thought that stops thought to quote Chesterton, right? The thought that stops thought is obviously, you know, like a bullet to the throat, like what happened to the late Charlie Kirk. But the stop that stops thought might be that you cannot form words like freedom or liberty. I'll give you a nice, easy one, okay? I'm sitting at, uh, after a practice about two weeks.

weeks ago and it slipped from my mouth and I caught myself and I apologize and then I was more annoyed that I apologized. Said us staying U-18 here in Alberta. I said midget triple-A. Oh yes. And then I went, oh, probably shouldn't say it. Because that offended so many of the little people when we said that. Whatever the heck a bantam was. I mean, or a pee-wee. I know, but it must have thought we were talking about a male body part. But it's funny. I go, I go back to, I go back to Minnesota where my wife's from. You'd be shocked. They still use all those. those names. And I'm like,

wait a second. One of the bluest states in all the United States still uses Bantam, midget, pee-wee, right? I'm like, and we're,

supposedly the Texas to the north and we're still, you 18, you everything. Anyways, the self-censoring, as soon as I said it,

I corrected myself immediately and I'm like, what? And that's a big part of these bills. I was more mad at myself for that than anything. Yeah, that's a big part of these bills

is taking over language. and remember, you know, the foundational knowledge in our society in Western culture is the Bible. And in Genesis, an omnipotent God spoke the universe into existence. In John, the gospel of John, it says Christ was, he was the word made flesh. And so words are vitally important in our society. And so control of them, taking over the meaning of them is one of the ways that the state uses to achieve basically oppression. The ultimate oppression is to control what people think.

Yeah. So you get medical assistance in dying is the term pushed by government in the courts. It's assisted suicide. That's what the Supreme Court did in in the Carter ruling. It was 2016. They reversed themselves from precedent from from from barely 15 years ago in Rodriguez. And they said that the prohibition on assisted suicide is a violation of the right to life. I have to do some triple backflips for that, but whatever. But then they come with medical assistance and dying. It's false because we've had this civilization and I would venture, I guess other civilizations have had medical assistance and dying by way of pain relief for millennia. And but now they don't want to say assisted suicide because then people

are like, oh, wait a minute. Yeah. You're helping somebody to kill themselves. That like, that's not very appetized, but if you talk about medical assistance and dying, you know, would you like some medical assistance and dying? I mean, I would, but... Wouldn't a more accurate term be euthanasia? And it would be a neutral term, and it would be more accurate. I don't know. I don't find that, I mean, if you go back to high school class, what did they talk about the Germans, that they were euthanizing people? I feel like it actually carries a heavy weight to it these days. Well, maybe it doesn't. The other one is, you know, gender affirming care. In the law, in the statute,

in the policies, in what many politicians are saying, if you encourage a young man to, you know, take puberty blockers, not develop naturally and eventually get castrated. That's called gender affirming care. Or for a girl to get her breasts removed, that's gender affirming care. That's what the media speak and political advocates, et cetera.

So those are examples. And it's not that hard. like everyday people can push back and say, no, it's not medical assistance and dying. It's assisted suicide or it's euthanasia. And you say, no, no, no, no, no. Castrating a man is not gender affirming care. That's a great questioning the euphemism.

That's euphemisms. And we have these everywhere, everywhere. We're constantly confronted by these euphemisms. We're terrorists. The CBC will call terrorists militants. Like when I think a militant, I think if somebody within a union that is, you know, pushing harder to go on strike, making more, like higher wage demands. Like those are the militants,

right? They're going to pound the table and demand higher compensation and they're more willing to go on strike. Militants, right? Very different from a terrorist who's going to blow you up and kill you, right? And you get the, the CBC, especially in other media, they describe, you know, Hamas as like, militants. Right. Give me a break. Or speaking of Hamas, they'll use the word genocide to describe what Israel was doing to people in Gaza, but they won't use the word genocide to describe what's happening to Christians in Nigeria. And talking about Maid, you know, the sinister underbelly of maid is, this is a real example. In Ontario, in order to qualify for Maid, you are, you are required to meet with people who are, they basically won the contract for all the organ harvesting

that's going on in Ontario. So there was a recent case of a 38 old man in Ontario who had ALS, he went through maid and his heart ended up in the chest of a man in the United States. Now, you can see how the machinations go here. The crass part of it is that heart was harvested and sold because they have private health care in the United States. And the biggest purchaser of Canadian body parts that are harvested from people who, uh, who die through Maid is China. Now here's the other thing, here's the other sinister thing about Maid and people don't think about this. They think, well, the organ is harvested after you're dead. No, no, no. Okay. Behind Maid is the theoretical concept that's never been proven of brain death,

something that was created by doctors in the 1960s. There's really no medical evidence for this. All of your organs are harvested while you're alive so that your actual cause of death is the harvesting of organs because they have to be harvested while you're alive. You see? And then so and then looking at gender affirming care. Well, we talk about gender affirming care, but we don't talk about how the, the billions and billions of dollars of profit that are being made by selling these drugs and by all these doctors and hospitals who are providing all this gender affirming care, which is

actually destroying the lives of confused young people and mutilating their bodies. You see, but again, this is all, this is this all. just elucidates the problem with changing the, changing the words, right, talking about something care, right? Well, what's the first principle of providing care in the Hippocratic oath? Do no harm. Do no harm. Right?

But we've gotten away from that, and that's fundamentally, that comes from ancient Greece, but it's a Christian principle, right? But we've gotten away from that natural law principle to the law of anything is possible as long as a human being will consent to it. And as long as they have capacity to consent to it. And we're constantly playing with this concept of capacity. I know there's a ton of people and you're all listening. You're all wonderful.

I just don't see how it doesn't get worse before it gets better. Well, if it does so be it. But I mean, you just got to keep on going, right? The worst thing that we can do is give up and quit. No, no, no, no point. I'm not saying you're advocating for that. I'm not saying you're advocating for that. No, I know we know.

But I just go, people don't move from a place of comfort. And as bad as it is, and as bad as I think it is, I watched a lovely interview. I wish I knew which interview. It was Jordan Peterson, and it was a reporter asking him basically, why don't people see it? And he was telling her, you're the tip of the spear. You're supposed to see it.

This is your job. You talk about this. You talk to a whole bunch of people, and you're like, holy crap, this is really bad. Because it's your job to know how bad it is. Right. But you're first through the gate, through the wall. use whatever war analogy you want.

And then you just tack on. People don't move from a place of comfort. So what's going to shock them out of their? Because if you talk to enough people, it happens to me all the time. And now I go on. Because of the job I do, probably a little bit. But just in passing, you'll hear about people having issues

with the shot from a few years ago. It's become so common that it's actually starting just become a common talk. You're like, huh. And they don't see, maybe they just put that somewhere deep down. made I'm telling you assisted suicide yes thank you using Asia like people are talking

it's 4.7% of all deaths in Canada's 1 in 20 right it people in Lloyd where I sit they'll start talking oh yeah Bob's uncle yeah he did it oh yeah I heard about oh right really you too oh I thought we were the only one and it's becoming more like it's just like common that this is happening right and it's said in such a way that that isn't that bad

you know, you're 90 and you go out your way, that ain't so bad. But, I mean, that's the problem. They've made it so common that the everyday average person, I don't know if they realize how bad this is getting. Well, that's part of the, that's part of the plan, right? That's, that is, that's a feature, not a bug. Yeah, agree. Yeah.

But, you know, the, you know, a mind once enlightened can never, again go dark. Thomas Payne wrote that. He was one of the chief ideal makers behind the American Revolution. And so that's a lot of what, you know, the JCCF and what John's trying to do. That's obviously what you're trying to do. But it's important to remember, you know, if you look historically, we were talking about history earlier, these movements don't necessarily require a mass majority. In fact, that rarely happens. Rarely, yeah. Okay. What we do need is a very, a very very principled set of leaders who are prepared to say the right things and do the right things. And that's my biggest concern in Canada right now, is that we don't seem to have, we don't seem to have these people.

For example, the laws that John's talking about, I mean, I don't hear Pierre-Polivir talking about them. I haven't seen the Premier come out and talk about them, even though these are the most important laws that will fundamentally change. John in his piece He said, C2 C2, C2. He says we could be a totalitarian society by Christmas. And he's right.

But why aren't our leaders talking about this? You know, they're talking about pipelines and all this other stuff. The good news is we've had a partial retreat from Bill C2. So just you want to ray of sunshine. This got so much criticism

from across the political spectrum so it wasn't just the justice center. John, you want to do me a favor. Take this thing and just tilt it. No, just tilt it. Oh, just tilt it. Okay. Yeah, there.

That's weird because I can hear them just fine. I feel like you bumped it at some point. Anyways, carry on. So the C2, the Strong Borders Act, or again, the Strong Surveillance Act, got criticism from, you know, Canadian Civil Liberties Association and from the, you know, Professor Michael Geist at the University of Ottawa. And there's all these groups. There's dozens of groups that all said Bill C2 is terrible. And so they've split it, right? And so they've kind of split it up.

So now they've got C12, which is actually focused just on the borders, okay? And it's got content that I predict that conservatives would likely support. And it doesn't have this. We're going to make cash illegal. We're going to have the authorized access to information act where every electronic service provider in the country has to turn information over to government, et cetera, et cetera. It doesn't have the really bad stuff that people object to the most strenuously.

It's just border security changing. immigration policy, changing refugee policy. So that's C-12. They're going to push that one ahead. They'll probably get it through. The conservatives will probably vote for it. They'll get that done so they can please President Trump because I think that's what's motivating it. Not to say whether it's a good or a bad bill, but I think Trump has made it very clear to Marks Carney what he is to do. And so now, but this is a C-2, they're still going to try to push it, but they're not, going all out in trying to get it through.

They've kind of backed off because there's been this massive opposition. So it does show that when people do speak up, it does change the dynamic. One of the politicians that I see speak in a ton and she's been doing it for a long time has been less on Lewis. She seems to. C.H. She was very good on C.H. Yes, she was. The House of Commons just recently talking about a mythical Sarah getting frozen out of her internet and phone and bank account.

If anyone is listening to this, it knows how to get into contact with Leslie and Lewis, because I've been trying this now for like... You want to get her on your show? I do. It's been like two years of me reaching out to her team. Other people surround. I swear there's like this, this like cone of silence around her to try and get a message through. I'm like, just get a message to her because I'd love to, like, allow her to speak to the audience. Like, I see all her videos.

She, she's, she's hitting a nail on the head a ton of the time. Yeah. Yeah. I think what people need to understand about these laws, I might say, well, that doesn't apply to me. I'm not a podcaster. I'm not saying anything on the internet. But I mean, what we're really talking about fundamentally is the state legislating lies.

Okay. And I heard a case that happened in the United States that really hit this home for me. So imagine you probably know a family like this. A Christian family in Tennessee. took in a bunch of foster kids. So these are orphans. These are kids that, you know, their natural parents wouldn't care for them. Essentially, there's nobody else to care for them.

So these foster parents step forward. And so over a period of years, they build a relationship with these foster kids. I think they adopted one of them. And then what happens is the state changes the rules. And the state says under its apparatchiks and its regulations that in order to be a foster parent in the state, you have to sign on to the LGBTQ, you know, the alphabet, you know, ideology in order to have foster kids. Otherwise, you're not a proper parent.

You can't be a proper parent. Well, this is a Christian family. These kids are all doing well. They're in school. They're healthy. Their dental checkups are up to date. Everything's fine. But they're going to pull these kids out of the home because the parents cannot be Christians

and be foster parents. And just like Pastor James Coates. I believe it's Tennessee. see in a red state yeah where they have to decide between whether or not they're going to be Christians or they're going to be foster parents so this is what happens when you legislate lies when you make your your lies the the law when you violate what I call natural law right and and you make you have this conflict between the command of the sovereign which is the state saying you know you must accept this ideology and then you have the courts buying into it that legal realism that I talked

about and it violates the natural law that that, you know, Ma' and Pi average and all the rest of us know to be the real law that should be governing human beings in a peaceful way. And it causes real harm. And so if people are listening to this thing, oh, these laws, they're not going to touch me. Oh, no, no, no, no. This is going to hit everybody. The truth is going to hit everybody really, really hard if we don't stop these laws. Case in point in Canada, Nicole and Matt Alexander are school teachers in Ontario. This is one of the Justice Center's cases. They had no complaints against them. whatsoever, both teachers for a long time, uh, that they had mistreated, been, you know,

unkind or disrespectful or discriminatory or whatever, no complaints about their behavior. Uh, but their son, Josh Alexander was openly publicly protesting against school board policies in a different school board, but whatever against policies that, that men can go into women's bathroom. Got assaulted for his trouble. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

been treated horribly. So they attack the parents. parents and they basically, it's analogous to what you said, they are asked expressly to sign on to this LGBTQ narrative where they celebrate and affirm the LGBTQ narrative. They would have been perfectly happy to have signed on to any human rights statement or quote of ethics where it said, you know, we commit to treating every human being with dignity and respect, you know, full stop. Or if you want to add, including people who are same sex attracted or struggling with their gender identity, whatever, laundry list, race, religion, etc. They would have been willing to sign on to that.

They could not in good conscience sign on to making a commitment to celebrate and affirm the LGBTQ narrative, which is a particular political opinion. And they could not in good conscience. They lost their jobs. Their union did nothing useful to help them. And now the Justice Center is funding lawyers to help them. On Matt specifically, they got them for social media. post. But he didn't have a social media account. And he didn't have social media when they first accused him of that. Think about that. So they're going after the parents to punish

them for the behavior, the good behavior in my opinion, but good or bad, he's exercising his free speech rights and they're going after the parents. This is where we're at right now. So how could this impact you? Well, if they can get rid of, if they can force teachers into unemployment, they can also, it's not

very far jump away to say that engineers, plumbers, electricians, you know, the electricians Association of Alberta, probably got the name wrong, but there probably is such a group. They say, well, in order to have a license to be an electrician and in Alberta or a carpenter or a plumber, you need to sign on to our, you know, equity statement or our diversity equity inclusion statement. And then you're going to be in trouble if you don't buy into the neo-Marxist woke narrative, if you can't in good conscience sign on, then it's like, well, sir, you don't have a license to be an electrician in, in Alberta. You're not licensed, right? Well, now what do you do? Well, they've, they've done this with lawyers, haven't they? I just talk with Roger

song. The path. Right. And, and basically what the law society is saying is that if you don't buy into all that stuff, then that you are, you are not ethically fit to be a lawyer. and they'll suspend you though you will not you're not be permitted to we love to practice law you don't sign on of the stuff but we don't love diversity of opinion

yeah and and so but and again you know Christians get labeled with being theocratic and we don't want to impose religion but but actually you know Christian based societies are the only ones that are tolerant

if you go to a place like Hungary or Poland or never mind Christianity, you go to Israel. Israel is a true Western. Has more religious freedom than other countries surrounding it. Multi-ethnic society, right? Right in the middle of, you know, the Muslim world. But it's more than just these bills in terms of the jackboot of the state coming down.

You know, I was on a podcast recently talking about what happened with these ostriches out in BC. and the lady there, her name was Katie Pissettany, I think her name is. She was saying basically that the way that they were, that the Canadian government, the, you know, Canada food inspection agency was treating them in the same way that they treated the suppression of the Freedom Convoy back in 2022. It was a full-blown military operation. Operatives with rifles, they had drones out there. She said that in fact, speaking about cybersecurity,

that they were actually creating false accounts for her on social media. One of them said, was from a fake bot account that said, oh, we're going to come there with rifles to deal with those cops. And this was used as the basis for the government people to, have more people out there with rifles. And so I think it's important for people to pay attention to what's going on in the country. Just not this suite of bills, but look at what's going on in situations like that. Look at what's happening with the Freedom Convoy. You know, the persecution slash prosecution of Tamara Leach and Chris Barber. You know, these people treated as criminals because

they organized a peaceful protest in Canada and embarrassed, you know, the Trudeau government. There's a lot of these things going on in our country. And, you know, what I talk about a lot, I know what John does is to try and talk about these things and bring them to light so the people will have the awareness. But awareness is not enough, right? You've got to, you also have to walk it out. You have to get involved. You can get involved in politics at the municipal level. You can get involved in the library board. You can go out and do a peaceful, be involved in a peaceful protest. Get together with a group of friends and talk about these things. You know, the citizen activist is so vitally important in our society. And I think it's one of the serious problems, one of the things that we've gotten away from.

You know, you talk about Preston Manning. He has a great book called Do Something, which basically says there's one thing you can do every day, 365 days a year to make a difference in your community, whether it's in your family or coaching hockey. like you do or, you know, getting involved in your church, volunteering, donating your time, donating your money or food or jackets or whatever it is, you can make a difference in your society. And unfortunately, we're not doing, in my opinion, we need to do more of that. We have to get back to restoring our families and our communities because that's what permits the jack boot of the state to come in. They'll come in wherever we aren't doing. For example,

Churches are a great example. Churches used to do a lot of the things that the government is trying to do but not doing very well. For example, daycare or lunches or things like that. Churches used to do a much better job of that. But churches, unfortunately, many of our churches are just content to let, you know, the state do it. And that's become a real problem in our society. We need to take back control of our communities. And it starts with you and me and everybody else.

And everywhere else we go, everyone else we talk. talk to. Man, you, you are got the positive bone in you today, Leighton. I like it, you know? I mean, both. I'm a Christian. Yeah. I got John who's, you know, JCCF just just fights the good fight every single day of

week, you know? Like my hat's off to what you've got there. He's a brave soldier, this man. And then I got Leighton here. Normally I'm the guy going. We're not, nope, this is how we're doing. And I feel like I'm the negative one today. Gentlemen, before I let you out of here, is there anything else we haven't

Discussed before I let you out. John, fire away. Contact your member of parliament about bills C2, C8, C9. And just an email or a phone call and say, I need you to vote against this because I don't want Canada to become a police state. Vote against bill C2, C8, C9. And if you vote in favor of these bills, I'm going to vote against you. That's it.

Short email just like that. And I don't care if your MP is, is liberal conservative NDP greener block, just send the email because it does make a difference. Now, if you want to up the ante, take it to the, so that's just basic starting point. If you want to go further, you request a meeting. And you might not get one, but maybe you will.

And you go in with a friend, don't go in alone, but go in with one friend or two friends and sit down and say, I've got concerns about C2, C8, and C9. And there's actually very few people. people that contact their MP as a percentage of the population. It's probably 1% of 1% of 1% of 1%. It's educated guess. So do that.

And maybe it'll stop right there. Keep it simple. Keep it down to one thing that you can remember. You're channeling Chris Sims. Chris Sims used to, or doesn't use to. That's what she comes back to. And she's like, I know you don't want to hear it, Sean. But the only way to do this is you got to get involved and you got to contact your MP, your

MLA, you're a representative and let them know. And if more people do that, then they realize how important of an issue it is. Leighton, anything else from you? I would say read your Bible, especially. I would read one Psalm and one proverb every day. Psalms will give you hope, because especially the ones that David wrote, you'll feel like things aren't nearly as bad in your life as what he was going through. And the proverbs are the greatest source of wisdom in the world.

You cannot find that kind of wisdom anywhere else. And if you do that every day, it'll go a long way to getting you through your day. Well, it's funny. We've read Marcus Aurelius's book. Why am I spacing on its name? Regardless. Meditations. Thank you.

And I'm like, I started reading Proverbs. I'm like, oh, my God. He just took this from Proverbs. I'm like, you know, like when you talk about a wealth of information. Yeah, he's known as a Stoic, but he was a Christian who didn't know he was a Christian. who didn't know he was a Christian. Socrates, too, if you go and you read the dialogues of Socrates, where he talks about the virtuous man.

He presaged Christ, even though he was many, many years before Christ. Again, these are proofs of the truth, of the historical truth and the spiritual truth of Jesus Christ, which in my mind is completely undeniable. Yeah. I appreciate you guys coming in and doing this, and I feel like I'm going to, you know, at Christmas I have Tanner. I don't spoil too many shows on here,

but me and Tanner have done two Christmas shows now, back-to-back years. And I'm like, wow, you're coming on for a third. I feel like late, and you'd quite enjoy that chat. Maybe we'll do it in the new studio, fingers crossed, and we could have a little roundtable for Christmas. Either way, gentlemen, thanks for coming and doing this. John, thanks for, I mean, you've got an event here in Lloyd tonight.

I'm going. That's why I'm here. I appreciate you making some time for this, because it's super cool to have you in style. studio. I don't know what anybody else thinks about in person, but man, I love it thousand times to a virtual. Yeah, that's a different energy, doesn't it? Oh, 100%. In person, body language, everything. It's just fun to be able to, as we talk through some of the rough things it is, we can still have a chuckle in here at the absurdity of where we're at in Canada. And you two are fighting the good fight and doing a lot of great things for Canadians. And I appreciate you. You give me some time today. Yeah, it's my pleasure always. Thank you. Honor to be here. Thank you.