(0:00 - 1:05) I've done quite a number of interviews in the past few years on the corruption of our courts. Courts that used to adjudicate the law, independent of societal or government ideologies, but by and large no longer do. The Coutts 4, Tamara Lich and Chris Barber, Pastor Art Pawlowski, and many others. Law-abiding Canadians who exercised their charter rights to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and security of the person, and were persecuted for that by the very courts that should have been protecting their rights. But what I have not yet done is an interview that connects the dots and explains how everything, not just the corruption of our courts, but also how law societies, universities, schools, and local governments have been taken over by the globalist agenda for one singular purpose. Not to take from us our rights and freedoms, but to have Canadians voluntarily surrender them. (1:07 - 1:42) Glenn Blackett is a lawyer with the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms. He is currently engaged in legal battles which, together, demonstrate that the fight for our rights and freedoms in our courts is far from over. In the course of this discussion, you will learn just how far off the rails our legal system has gone, and you will understand how that is just a small part of the globalist plan to destroy our society and erase conservative values to make of us enemies of the state. (1:50 - 2:00) Glenn, welcome back. Thank you very much. I wanted to bring you in because we were talking not long ago at a JCCF event, and you and other lawyers from the JCCF were talking about the cases you're doing. (2:01 - 3:46) I think that there's this impression on the part of a lot of Canadians that the persecution, the violations of our rights and freedoms that have been upheld by the courts are somehow over, that that's not going on anymore. That's not true at all. The JCCF is still very busy representing Canadians whose rights have been violated. Would you please give us a summary of some of the cases you're working on? Sure. I'm working on a couple of files. One that we talked about last time I was here, which is the Frances Widdowson v. University of Lethbridge file, which is effectively a campus-free speech file. It involves a university which, like many universities, has undergone a process of indigenization, which is an introduction of indigenous ways of knowing. For the purpose of the Widdowson file, what's important in that indigenization process would be making the campus a safe space for indigenous students, which means effectively insulating those indigenous students from ideas that they would find traumatic. Frances Widdowson has many ideas that, according to indigenization theory, would be very traumatic for indigenous students, so she was not allowed to speak on campus for that reason. We've sued the University of Lethbridge for that violation. It's an interesting case, too, because across Canada there's mixed case law as to whether or not the Charter of Rights and Freedoms even applies to universities, which I think is kind of crazy. If you look at the cases that established the precedent in the 1990s, basically what the Supreme Court of Canada said was, well, one reason that we apply the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to an organization is if that organization is controlled by government. (3:46 - 7:36) And then they looked at universities in Ontario and BC and a college, and they found that, okay, they're not sufficiently controlled by government to be government for the purpose of making the Charter apply to it. If you take that same principle, that if there's sufficient control, then the Charter applies because the thing becomes basically an entity of government, and you look at the facts today, it's pretty clear that today universities are much more significantly controlled by government, very highly controlled by government. The nuts and bolts or the details are left to the university to iron out, but on an ongoing, regular basis, in great detail, governments, so far as I know across Canada, but definitely I'm aware in Alberta and BC, governments are really involved in the control of universities. They assign them on an annual basis, several sort of duties that they have to fulfill. They have ways to measure their performance against those duties they're supposed to fulfill. And of course, they fund them massively, which has always been the case, but massive funding. So my view is that if you take those legal principles, which is that the sufficient government control means that the Charter applies and you apply them to the facts today, then the Charter should fully apply to universities. The only provinces where the courts have recognized some degree of charter applicability to universities is Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and most especially Alberta. And in Alberta, basically, the Court of Appeal found that universities, insofar as they regulate campus free speech for students, they attract charter scrutiny, which is an odd finding. It's odd that it's a general way that it applies. Anyway, so the Widdowson file is interesting and important because one of the arguments we're running there is that the Charter should apply to universities in a much broader way. Basically, they should just apply to them, whole scale, as an entity of government, because they very much seem to be an entity of government. And just before we move on to other cases, what do you think of the recent law in the UK that protects freedom of speech on campuses? Well, I mean, that's great. I mean, we should definitely have laws. And to some small extent, we have those kinds of laws in Canada. But, you know, I think that free speech is very important. It's one of the most important parts of the Charter as it relates to a campus. But the Charter is much broader than just free speech, obviously, which that's section 2b. But there's also section 2a, which is freedom of conscience. And to some extent, there's, you know, I think that the problems that we see on university campuses today involve also problems of infringing on freedoms of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly. And, you know, even with the vaccine mandates, for example, perhaps section 7 violations, so freedom of or your security as a person. So, you know, so, I mean, it's a step in the right direction. But I think that, you know, because the Charter has a lot more teeth than just freedom of speech, that the Charter could be and should be more robust constitutional protection on campuses. Okay. (7:36 - 10:55) Now, later on, we're going to talk in detail about another case you're working on that Roger Song and the Law Society of Alberta. But do you have other cases as well? Yeah. Yeah. So the, so there's the University of Lethbridge case. I'm running a similar case in BC that's been going on for some time now against the University of British Columbia. And that arises out of a 2020 event, planned event at the university's, University of British Columbia's downtown campus, where a student group called the Free Speech Club, which had done a number of campus free speech events, had invited Andy Knoll, who like NGO, he's, I think he's a Portland based kind of specialist in Antifa journalist in the US. I think he works mostly for the Postmillennial now. Anyway, he was going to come up and give a speech on Antifa violence. And lo and behold, in large part because of the threat of Antifa violence, the University of British Columbia decided to Yes, of course it did. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, wow. All right. Well, and if you look at the, if you look at the history of that file too, it doesn't look to me like it was really a concern for physical safety. And in fact, they've expressly said that it was to some degree, and I would say entirely in the interests of preserving again, like the University of Lethbridge case, psychological safety. So the view was that again, if you have these, you know, Andy Knoll, he's, because he covers and reports on and, you know, I think discloses some of the problems with Antifa violence in the United States. The university, you know, basically, he's kind of on the, he's not firmly on the left wing of politics anymore. And there was some communication to the university about the fact that, oh, he's coming onto campus and he's a right-wing provocateur, which I don't think is a fair description of him at all. But nonetheless, it was that attribution of the right-wing political affiliation that seemed to be one of, if not the driving factor for the cancellation of it. So in any case, we're in, we're fighting the same basic fight in BC to see that the charter applies to universities. That case is pretty interesting. We've been to court now once. We went before, it would have been 2023. We went, yeah, we went before Justice Greenwood of the BC Superior Court. And he determined that the charter doesn't apply to the University of British Columbia. If you look at the decision, though, it's pretty interesting because again, like I mentioned before, what we're supposed to do is we're supposed to look at old cases, take these legal principles, and then apply them to the facts today. And what I think Justice Greenwood, his error was, was he looked at the facts of the old case. He looked at the facts of what was happening in 1990, and he applied those facts to today, which is backwards. So he basically looked at a case in the 1990s that said, well, today, based on the current facts, the government does not control the university. (10:56 - 15:40) And so Justice Greenwood determined that, well, then today governments do not control universities based on the case law, but that's not how it's supposed to work. Yeah. There's a couple of things that are probably puzzling me about that one. Okay. So this is Justice Greenwood. Determines that the charter doesn't apply to the universities, but that's my question. Number one, the charter of rights and freedoms is supposed to apply to all Canadians, right? So how are they justifying this idea that the charter doesn't apply to a university? Well, I mean, it definitely protects all Canadians. Well, I mean, to the extent that it provides protection, it protects all Canadians, but it only governs the conduct or restricts the ability of certain entities to do things. So if you are a, let's say you're an employee with a private employer and the employer does something, which is a breach of your privacy rights or something like that, that's not a constitutional violation. It might be a legal violation, but it's not a constitutional violation. The charter only restricts the rights of government to infringe those constitutional rights. But hang on, we're talking about freedom of speech. That's protected under the charter. So once again, I'm sorry, I got to ask this question. It makes no sense to me that this Justice Greenwood would turn around and say the charter doesn't apply to a university when what we're talking about here is very specifically a freedom of speech case. Well, yeah. I mean, I don't think he would have doubted, and not that he got into it, but he wouldn't have doubted that the facts would constitute a violation of freedom of speech if the person who violated the free speech was government. And the charter is very clear that it only applies to governments. So we are all protected. We have the rights under it, but we only have those rights vis-a-vis government. Right. And thus your statement earlier about it not making any sense. He's taking a look at 1990 sometime case law and applying it today, because back in the 1990s it's possible that the government did not have as much influence over the universities as they have now. And they clearly have a great deal of influence through funding, through their social agendas, whatever. Right. Okay. So thank you, because I was getting very puzzled. That wasn't making sense. All right. What else do you have? So those two cases, I'm still working on a file right now for Pastor Stephens, Tim Stephens. He was a pastor who during the COVID lockdowns made the fated decision to continue to have in-person services. Yes. I interviewed him some time ago. Oh, did you? Okay. That's great. Yeah. He's a great guy. And he was jailed for that, which is not even the problem. Although him going to jail for doing that is obviously a problem, but the real constitutional violation in our view came from the fact that the police, technically what happened is they had an order from a judge that didn't apply to Pastor Stephens, and they didn't serve it on him. And then they thought they served it on him. They served it on the wrong guy. And then they arrested Pastor Stephens for breaching the order that didn't apply to him, and he had never been served with. He told the police that at the time they ignored it. They sent him to prison. They sent him to the police holding center. And then overnight they decided to send him over to a provincial corrections facility. And that was his first arrest. He spent a couple of nights in jail the first time around. So we see a violation there because he was jailed for an order that didn't apply to him. And then the order had been amended to make it very clear that it didn't apply to him. If it wasn't clear enough already, but I think it was already clear enough. But it was amended really for the express purpose of making sure that it didn't apply to someone like him. And then it was served on him again as if it applied to him. And then they arrested him again as if he had breached it, even though it didn't apply to him. And this time they sent him to prison for like 30 days. And the only reason he got out, he was actually offered to get out of prison if he undertook to comply with public health orders. Namely, if he undertook to not lead his congregation in service. And he said, no, I'm not going to. So he was in prison. So far as he knew, definitely, he didn't know when he was going to get out. And just as luck would have it, about 30 days after he was sent to prison that second time, the province announced that they were going to drop those mandates. And therefore, he was able to then comply with public health orders because there was no public health order restricting his ability to lead his congregation. So he was out just kind of by a fluke. (15:40 - 15:47) And did he not also end up under house arrest though? There was a restriction on his movement. Oh, was there? Oh, I didn't know that. I believe so. (15:47 - 15:48) Yeah. Okay. I didn't know that. (15:49 - 17:03) All right. So everything that you're talking about, and like I said, we're going to get into Roger Song in a moment folks, because that's a big one. It all seems to have to do with freedom of speech, freedom of assembly. So because you've been very central in fighting for people's rights for this, what would you say to the people who I referenced earlier, the people who think, well, it's over. That's all done now. Right. Well, when we get into Roger Song, we'll see that it's definitely not. But I think that what we saw during COVID especially is it exposed some real cracks in the system. And I think it exposed that, like it or not, the judiciary, the judges provided a very anemic response. In many cases, not even wanting to analyze whether or not there were constitutional violations because the theory was, well, this is, pandemic's over. What does it matter if there was constitutional violations or not? Let's not even bother to look at it. I've had my own comment on that with all the cases that they declared moot. (17:03 - 17:20) Right. It's not for the courts to determine if a crime is in progress. It is for the courts to determine if a crime was committed. So saying that, for example, the travel ban is moot. Right. Because the travel ban is no longer in place is to me, no different than saying an assault case is moot because the assault is no longer happening. (17:21 - 19:57) Right. Right. Yeah. I mean, I have some sympathy for that position for sure. Yeah. And I mean, I think it's, the court has recognized, in some cases, the court has a very vigilant sense of constitutional rights and mootness wouldn't even enter their mind. And in some cases, the courts don't. And I think that we can understand, we'd have to look at the particular cases that we're dealing with. But I think some of that can be explained by the fact that you have a, you have sort of a social zeitgeist that says we need to have mandates and we need to have these constitutional violations. It's not about your freedom, was the quote we heard. Right. It's not about freedom. It's not about your choice. Like, it's not about my choice. Sure it is. So I think that what we see is that when there's a social movement or a social kind of a change in attitude, that migrates, that thinking can migrate onto the bench, which is a fact of life. Judges are humans. They live in the same social milieu as the rest of us who, like it or not, Canadians really got swept away in this sort of let's violate constitutional freedoms in the name of safety. And I think judges are vulnerable to that same sort of mindset, which is a problem because judges are supposed to rise above that. And they're supposed to be really dealing with cases just strictly on the basis of what the law is. So I guess my point is that what it showed us is that in our institutions, we have some serious deficiencies that we think that we have constitutional protections, but when we need them, they weren't really there. And so, you know, it's nice to say that we have a constitution. It's nice to see what's written down there. It's nice to take some comfort in the fact that we're going to have all those protections. But if when push comes to shove, you know, it just all falls over and there's nothing there to really protect you. Then it's a bit of a mirage that we have those rights. Yeah. And I think there's more for us to discuss there, Glenn, but let's talk now about Roger Song and the case against the Alberta Law Society, because you're right. This is, wow. I'm just going to let you talk about it because I honestly don't even know where to start with this one. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Fair enough. We've discussed it before. I've interviewed Roger on this and wow. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it's, you know, talk about a systemic problem, right? Basically the Roger Song file. So Roger Song is a lawyer in Alberta. He's actually formerly from China. (19:58 - 22:21) He lived in China up until I believe about 2010 or something. He was a member of the Chinese Communist Party. He was a teacher of international law at the Beijing School of Law. And I think that his sort of faith in the whole system started to wane at about the time of the Tiananmen Square Massacre. He traveled abroad. He traveled abroad because he was deemed what the Chinese call politically competent, which meant he had taken all the indoctrination. He had said all the right things. He didn't have any black marks on his record indicating any kind of problematic thought or speech. And so he was deemed to be competent in order to leave the country basically. So he went to South Korea originally, then he went to New York and then eventually he landed in Canada. So that's our plaintiff. He's a guy who knows a thing or two about ideological indoctrination, and especially he knows the fact that when you have an ideology that interfaces with the law, the ideology basically melts the law. The ideology will trump that legal system. And actually, for an example of that, we can look at John Carpay's recent book, Corrupted by Fear, which in the first four or five chapters, he goes through a detailed analysis of basically the legal culture, let's call it, during the Nazi regime. And how it wasn't that the Nazi government passed laws that were implemented and all those laws were problematic. That was a big part of it. But it was also that the institutions like the judiciary and the legal profession that were supposed to at least protect legal and constitutional rights under the law as it was, they completely failed. Because again, they sort of absorbed this social zeitgeist that for safety, we have to do X, Y, and Z. Anyway, so that's our plaintiff. In 2019, the law society went woke. And they probably went woke earlier than that, but it got real official in 2019. And so the lawsuit is basically Roger Song suing the law society for going woke. (22:23 - 25:16) Well, I think we should be clear about that. He's suing the law society for trying to dictate social policy to lawyers. Yes. Yeah. Right. And that social policy just happens to be very woke. But I think the point is, they've got no business doing that. It's a law society. It's not some sort of cultural revolution society. Right? Right. Yeah. Not a cultural revolution society. And lawyers are supposed to be protecting citizens' rights and citizens' interests under the law, loyal to the law. But what happens when the law society goes woke and puts pressure on lawyers to go woke is that lawyers then become agents of political change. And so basically what I think happens is that you have a transfer of power from the democratically elected legislature to the bar, to the profession of lawyers. Because now instead of the legislature saying, well, let's get elected and let's all get together and talk about what we're going to do, and then let's pass these various policies, what happens instead is the policies are passed, laws are created, and then lawyers are given all those laws. And they're supposed to go basically implement those laws and help clients access justice under those laws. And instead, the lawyers have an attitude about those people don't like those laws. We don't like these laws, so we want to change the laws, but we can't change the law mechanically. So what we're going to do instead is we're going to change the way the law is applied. And so basically the trick there is we don't change the law, we change the legal culture. And so instead of really faithfully translating the law for clients and courts, lawyers become translators where they sort of pervert the law in the translation of the law and in its application. So yeah, and I mean, you say that the problem is not so much going woke, but the social policy. Social policy is downstream of going woke. So wokeness is both an attitude about, well, it's a belief structure about how the world operates, and it's a mission. It's a political mission. It's both of those things. And so the law society has adopted wokeness, which means it has adopted this belief structure about why the world looks the way it does and what's good and what's bad. And it has adopted a mission where it is going to use its regulatory powers to basically try to achieve social equity by, yeah, using its regulatory powers, including the power over lawyers to control how the lawyer does its job. Right. So now let's talk specifically about how they're going woke and what it is that they're trying to dictate to lawyers. Right. So, I mean, first of all, how they're going woke, they've, well, a number of ways. (25:17 - 25:39) Primarily I would say it starts with what they call their regulatory objectives. I don't know if they have a list of regulatory objectives, which is a bit weird because it sounds like something that was handed to them by the government. And they would say that it was technically something handed to them by the government. But in fact, it was something that they wrote. Okay. So they wrote this document called, these are our regulatory objectives. (25:39 - 30:44) They basically say, we're mandated to regulate the legal profession and we're supposed to do that in the public interest. And therefore we're going to direct our energies toward these five objectives. Okay. And one of the objectives, which we would expect is things like upholding the rule of law and making sure that citizens have access to justice and making sure that citizens are protected when they access legal services. So, which is obvious. So if you get a lawyer and the lawyer is negligent and you suffer a loss, the law society makes sure that there's insurance in place to compensate you, for example. Okay. And make sure that if the lawyer was negligent, that the lawyer is either punished or disbarred or whatever. So that's all fine. That's a proper part of their actual objectives assigned to them by the legislature. But then they've also inserted in these five objectives, one of those five objectives, which is woke. Okay. And actually they've peppered wokeness through the whole thing, but one of them is diversity, equity, and inclusion. Okay. Which is code word for woke. And if you have any doubts as to whether or not they mean, you know, diversity, equity, inclusion in the traditional sense of those words, let's call it. Like, I mean, if you asked somebody in the 1950s, what is diversity, equity, inclusion, they'd probably come up with some perfectly reasonable things that that means. But if you look at their materials, we can see what they mean by it. And what they mean by it is clearly wokeness in its hardcore form, which is postmodern activist sort of authoritarianism. Well, and I think in particular, in case of the law society, that hiring or giving somebody a position of power or authority or whatever has nothing to do anymore with merit or intelligence or competence. But what's the color of their skin? What's their claimed gender? Right. That's the criteria. Right. Right. Yeah. And I mean, I don't think we're quite there yet, but I mean, that's definitely where we're heading. Right. You know, I mean, for example, and this is not quite the law society regulation, but more the judiciary. In order to become a judge in either Alberta or a federal judge, and probably in other provinces as well. So if you're either going to be a judge appointed to the provincial court, or you're going to be appointed to the court of King's bench of Alberta, which is either by the province or the federal government respectively, you have to complete woke indoctrination first, or you have to promise to complete woke indoctrination on like systemic discrimination and stuff, which is really, I mean, it's a fealty test. Right. You know, if you're going to go through the training and you don't believe it all, and you think it's a bunch of garbage, you're probably going to fail the training and you're not appointed. Right. So, you know, there is already an element in statute, which requires a certain sort of judicial, let's say ideological conformity in order to get appointed to the bench, which is a problem. And once you elevate, well, once you in any way start to elevate ideology as the deciding factor for whether or not a person gets the job, ultimately that will slide towards that's really the only test. You know, are you ideologically conformist or not? So, you know, I think we're going there in the law society as well. I mean, the law society has redefined competence. So they've added to competence a whole bunch of wokeness now. And they basically say that in their view, a lawyer is not safe, effective, and does not have sustainable legal practice unless they're woke. And, you know, if you want to know what woke is, you can look at their definition of what these new competencies are. And it's very clearly, again, sort of hardcore activist, postmodern wokeness. Right. And then the other thing factor is that lawyers have to regularly update their wokeness training. Right. Yeah. Well, yes and no. Hard to say. I mean, so the law society, they have a new tool that they gave themselves in 2020, I think it was, a new rule where they can force lawyers to take training. And it doesn't need to be training in your kind of traditional legal realm. It can be training in just pretty much any area they'd like. And the training that they chose, which I think the rule was really designed for, was, again, woke cultural competency training. So in 2020, they ordered all 10,000 Alberta lawyers to undergo this woke training. And it was called The Path. And again, it was in the indigenous space. (30:45 - 31:40) And it was characterized as a form of reconciliation. And basically, the invitation to lawyers is that lawyers should be part of the reconciliation process by incorporating these sort of different woke concepts into their legal practice. And if you look at The Path and what The Path had to say, I mean, there's, first of all, there was, I would say, a distorted history of Canada, a biased history of Canada. Nothing but contempt and genocide for indigenous people seems to be the history of Canada, according to The Path. I think that's a misrepresentation of Canadian history. I think instead, Canadian history is more, I would say, characterized by cooperation and mutual assistance between indigenous and other Canadians. (31:42 - 31:59) In any case, so it has kind of a historical component. And then it's got a part that you might think is what cultural competence is about, because this was a course in cultural competence. Again, let's remember Roger Song, when he was in China, in order to be a lawyer, basically, in order to travel outside of the country, he had to be politically competent. (32:00 - 32:35) Okay, now lawyers need, we'll talk about that in a second, but need to be culturally competent. And when he saw cultural competence from his law society, and he saw that he had to take this ideological training, he immediately recognized this as an ideological invasion of professional independence. Right. And because both terms really come down to demonstrating that you have been brainwashed, that you have accepted their narrative. Yeah. I mean, I think if you accept the premises, then you are a hundred percent brainwashed. Yeah. Right. Or in the case of Roger, at least that you managed to convince them that you did. (32:35 - 36:42) Yeah. Yeah. Well, I mean, that's the thing. You can either, you can either, you know, and this is, Roger is a fascinating guy to talk to about this stuff. But one of the things that came up in court was, we went to court on this recently, but one of the things that came up in court was, well, you know, was the course of a violation of freedom of conscience or freedom of speech? Because yeah, there was a, there was a component where lawyers are these 10,000 lawyers are then are quizzed on what they've learned in it. Right. And you have to obviously get the right answer. And if you don't get the right answer, you don't pass the course. And if you don't pass the course, you're not, you can't practice. Right. So you have to give the right answers. Right. So that's a, that's compelled speech. All right. So if it, for example, and I don't remember at this point what the questions in the path were, but it, the path told us, for example, that, that Sir John A. Macdonald basically hated Indigenous people and he wanted them to suffer. And he was in government when he passed the Indian Act in whatever it was, 1867-ish. And that's not right. First of all, Sir John A. Macdonald for his time was very progressive and very caring about Indigenous people. He took a lot of flack for various programs that he was involved in to help Indigenous people, including before the time of the railway, sending food into central Canada and, and Western Canada to help Indigenous populations that were starving to death. He did a lot of flack for that at the time because, you know, we didn't live in a welfare state where this was the kind of thing that was done. So, you know, I think it mischaracterizes him generally, but also he didn't pass the Indian Act. He was in opposition. So there's just clear misinformation in there. So now, okay. It gives me misinformation or biased information or stuff that I don't agree with. And now as a lawyer, I'm required to answer questions true or false, you know? So there's compelled speech and it could be compelled speech against my conscience. I don't believe these things. I don't believe this to be true. Okay. And I don't remember exactly what the questions were, but anyway, that's a breach of both freedom of your mind, freedom of conscience, which is section 2a and 2b of the charter and freedom of speech. Namely, you can't compel me to say something that I don't want to say. I don't want to say, you know, Canada has a history of genocide. I don't want to say that because I don't believe that. In court, the law society, their, their argument seemed to be that, well, it wasn't, it's not compelled speech because, or it's not a breach of your freedom of conscience because the question wasn't worded thus. It wasn't worded, I believe that the following is true, which is so irrelevant to the, to, to freedom of conscience. It's not a, it's not a breach of your freedom of conscience if the government makes you say, I hereby believe that. It's a freedom of your, your, or it's a breach of your freedom of conscience for the government to make you act against your conscience, for you to, for the government, whether or not it's worded, I believe it, or you just say, I think this is true or this is true. It doesn't matter how it's worded. It's all a breach of your freedom of conscience and freedom of speech. So, and again, Roger's fascinating guy to talk to. He, he grew up in, in communist China. And when he heard that, that exchange in court, he said to me that that's not how totalitarianism works. They don't, the Chinese communist dictatorship does not say, you must now say, I believe, but if you don't say you believe there will be consequences. Nobody tells you that, but there are consequences. We all know, you know, so it's, it's yeah, again, we get back to the sort of cracks in the system. It concerns me that the regulator of the profession has such an atrophied sense of your constitutional rights that I think was on display when we were in court. Right. So now, Glenn, I think we have to tie all of this together. (36:42 - 37:15) But just before we do, I have one more question. I'm assuming that there are very similar things happening in other provinces with the other law societies. Yeah. Yes. Okay. Yeah. I mean, I, I say, yeah, I, I'm aware of some of it. I, I'm certain that it's the case, but I, I, I don't have a lot of information about it. Right. So what I think you've just done, Glenn, in the last half hour is you've actually given the viewers a very good summary of what has gone wrong with our court system. And so I'm going to summarize what you've said, and I'm going to ask for your comments on it. Sure. (37:15 - 39:01) So we started out with talking about Professor Whitteson and the, the university here in Calgary that ejected her for not going along with their woke narrative. And then we moved on to the University of British Columbia and Antifa and the speaker and Justice Greenwood saying, well, no, universities aren't subject to the charter because they're not a government organization, except that they are because they're heavily funded by the government. And then we come to Roger Saw, who is suing the Alberta Law Society for trying to impose upon lawyers here, woke indoctrination, which isn't their job. It's not their purview at all. And then you talked about how the judges, in order to be appointed as judges, have to demonstrate that they're on board with that agenda. So what we have is this ground up programming from the government. Let's be clear about that, where it's coming from. It's coming from the government, from our leftist liberal government. And why, why do they want to do this? And I've had some very interesting conversations lately with a couple of people who do understand why. Tom Luongo, who is, he's got a podcast called Goats, Guns and Gold, who understands what's going on around the world. Also the economist, Martin Armstrong, Armstrong Economics, who once again, pays a lot of attention to what's happening behind the scenes. And so why do leftist governments do things like this? Because any government, but especially a leftist government, wants greater control. And that's not necessarily because they're evil. It has to do with the difference in mindset between a liberal and a conservative. And I've said this many times, liberals believe that the society is responsible for the individual and conservatives believe the individual is responsible for society. (39:01 - 42:04) So even if you are a benevolent liberal, let's say you're in the government and you actually do care about the people and you care about the country, you're still going to want more power and control because you believe it is the government's job to look after everyone. And you can't do that if you don't have the power to do it, to impose what you think should be done, should be the best for the people. And that's assuming you've got a benevolent government, which we do not, obviously that's been amply demonstrated in the last 10 years. So what you have now is this malevolent leftist government that believes that the society or the government is responsible for the individual. And in order to exercise the power to do that, they need more and more power. And so they seek to put into place people they can easily manipulate in order to steer where things are going, rule by the minority for the minority. And we see this with the indigenous and Professor Widdowson's excellent 2008 book, Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry, which shows that the billions of dollars that are given by the government every year to our Aboriginal peoples by and large do not end up in their pockets. They go into the pockets of wealthy lawyers and activists, white people for the most part, who are taking that money and leveraging this narrative about the natives that isn't true. So now we've got, once again, the law societies being gutted by this woke narrative that, and as you've talked about, it undermines the whole principle of law. It was not about law anymore. It's about ideology. And if it's about government appointed ideology, then the law is whatever they say it is. And this right there explains how our courts have gone so far off the rails in the past few years, ruling against law-abiding citizens who were exercising their charter rights. Why? Because it goes against the government narrative. And these people had been put in place by that leftist government. So there's my rant, Glenn. I want your opinion on it. Well, I would say, I think you're right. I mean, I recently read Frederick Hayek's The Road to Serfdom, which is an analysis of, you know, I mean, he didn't use the term wokeness, but I think this is a bit, maybe from the Tower of Babel, humanity has been aware of this impulse to sort of, you know, plan in a hubristic way, right? Where we imagine that we know better and we can plan a utopia. And so instead of allowing people to sort of organize themselves, and as you say, citizens sort of taking care of society, the government is going to structure society, is going to plan society, and then it's going to put all the people in this utopia that they planned and everyone's going to be so happy. And as Frederick Hayek points out, you know, the goal seems to always be equality, that we're all going to be in an equal position. (42:05 - 45:21) But as he points out, and as communism has demonstrated, it's equality in slavery, right? Because what they're actually talking about, and I'm sometimes a real stickler for terms, it's not equality, it's equity. Equality is what we, we already have that. Everybody under a free society has the ability, the right to pursue their lives as they see fit, to the extent that the limit, that my rights, the rights of my fist and at the tip of your nose, as long as we observe that, we had equality. That's not what they're after. They're after equity, which is a communist idea and it never, ever works. It just makes everybody equally poor under a ruling oligarchy. Right, right. Yeah. Equality under the law as opposed to equality of result. Yes. Right. Yeah. And I mean, I would, you know, I mean, to put my sociologist hat on, I would say where you have a homo, sorry, heterogeneous society, some people are rich, some people are poor, some people have broken homes, some people don't. If you have a heterogeneous society, even if you have equality under the law, it will be more difficult to get ahead for some people. I mean, that's just a function of your, the situation in which you're born. And that's just, that's just the reality. And so I think that part of that, you know, if we're going to try to characterize that planning impulse as a benevolent impulse, part of that planning impulse is to say, well, it's unfair that some people are born in sort of lower stations in society and therefore are going to have more trouble, you know, going to university or starting a business or whatever. And therefore the government should fix that problem by facilitating, you know, each person's ability to actually, you know, achieve a quality of outcome. And, you know, I mean, that's a, that's a fine impulse. And I mean, I think, for example, if it was structured properly, public education could, could be something that would have that sort of equalizing effect on the population. So it's a, it's a fine impulse. It's in small doses, maybe it's, it's something that a government could achieve. But, you know, I think wokeness is really that concept on absolute steroids, which is, you know, now, instead of trying to facilitate a free citizen's ability to achieve whatever they would like to achieve, right? We, we have to destroy the freedom of the individual because that gets in the way of our planning, right? And so we have to not allow the citizen to exercise their freedom because that's going to, that's going to wreck utopia. We can't plan utopia with the oldest side and what you need to do. So we need to first basically terminate freedom or seriously limit freedom. And then we can plan this utopia. And then once we've got it all properly planned, everyone's going to, going to, you know, achieve equality of outcome. It's just, again, it's, it's like the tower of Babel. It's this, it's this hubristic concept that we know better than, than people themselves. And we know better, um, you know, how to, how to create a society that they'll enjoy than they know themselves. It's delusional. Yeah. Even if, once again, we were talking about hypothetical benevolent leftist government, you can't create utopia. (45:21 - 45:26) You can't have a quality of outcome. That's not human nature. It simply will not work. (45:27 - 47:29) And so, and I'm going to make that point again, folks, it's, we're not talking about a benevolent government here. We're talking about one that wants to work for the, for the globalist agenda to destabilize our country, to take everyone's rights away so they can dictate to all of us. And this is how they've been doing it. And if we could have gone back further in my rant earlier, I could have started with the grade schools and SOGI. Yeah. And you know, the trans agenda that they're brainwashing them with. Why do they attack them, especially the young kids with SOGI, with this idea that gender is, you know, it's fluid when clearly to any rational person, it is not, it's binary. The reason they do this, and I'm going to play armchair psychologist here, maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong. But the first thing that we notice about ourselves as children is our gender. I'm a boy or I'm a girl, or I'm not a girl, or I'm not a boy. And that foundation is what we build everything else on about who we are. And so if you could take that away from kids, well, now they have no foundation. And so now the society, the government, whatever, can dictate to them what they stand for, who they are, what they believe. Program them from the ground up. And everything we've just talked about, all these cases that you and other JCCF lawyers are representing in our courts, they're all focused, and it's no accident, upon freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, divide people, take away their right to talk, then program them with your agenda, with your ideologies. And the younger and younger you can do that, the more control you have. Right. And this is another very interesting thing that I've learned from Roger, which is that in the Chinese communist system, the most powerful entity is the person or people who control the dogmas. It's the person who controls the ideology, who dictates what the ideology is, or what exactly it means. That's the person who has massive control. And so I think you're right. (47:29 - 49:32) I mean, part of the woke indoctrination of kids, I don't fully understand the whole thing, but I think a big part of it is about teaching kids early on to surrender their faculties of reason. Right. And wokeness is, you know, wokeness says in the Law Society's materials, for example, show this kind of thought process that wokeness is a rejection of reason. Because reason, even though it seems like it might be true, or it seems like there might be inherent value to reason, reason is really just a manifestation of whiteness. It's an oppressive construct. There's nothing real about reason. There's nothing real about empiricism. There's nothing real about science. These are all things that have been created, invented by the white, Anglo-Saxon, Christian, Protestant, able-bodied, heterosexual male to oppress all other identity groups. So once you reject those concepts as just inherently, not only oppressive, but invalid, something else goes in its place. And what goes in its place, you know, for the person who otherwise would have used their reason, like a child, you know, reasons that, well, you know, I have a penis, you don't, we must be somehow fundamentally different. That's using your senses, that's using empiricism, and that's using reason to find a truth, right? And every single part of that process, wokeness says, is a corruption. They say that your senses lie to you. Empiricism is a lie. Reason is a lie. And there's no such thing as truth, right? There's your truth. There's cultural truth. There's relative truth, but there's no such thing as just universal truth, right? And so I think that part of that SOGI process is to invalidate in the child's mind their own, I guess, faith in their senses and faith in their own faculties of reason. (49:32 - 50:11) And the child learns early on that, oh, you know, I thought that there was just kind of a boy and a and I thought that I knew if I was a boy or a girl based on my genitals. The ideology teaches you, no, even something so simple, something so basic, something, as you say, you learn and observe so early on is something that you can't trust. You must trust instead what the ideology tells you, because it has secrets about the universe that you can't perceive unless you just put your faith in this ideology. And so once you've surrendered your faculty's reason to the ideology, then whoever controls that ideology controls you. Exactly. Right. (50:11 - 52:58) Right. So now, because, and we started out this whole conversation with me saying to the viewers, there's a lot of people out there who think it's over. Sure, there's a lot of people who are aware of the travesty of justice that is the Chris Barber and Tamara Lich. There's fewer people, but still a substantial number who know that two of the Coutts 4 are still in prison. But other than that, there's a lot of people who've had this impression. Oh, no, Canada's returned to normal and the courts are, you know, all of those cases have been dealt with and nothing could be further from the truth. And everything we've just discussed, Glenn, it details how the breakdown of this system, not much of the legal system, our whole governmental cultural system, it's all falling apart and it's being purposely deconstructed. So as a lawyer who is in the middle of this, being very deeply involved in what's going on, even I think that the globalists who are behind all of this are losing, slowly, but they're losing. They're going to do a lot more damage yet, but, and even some of them admitted they were losing. If you listen to some of the comments from them, I won't get into that right now, but that's on a broader scale. That has to filter down into Canada. It has to filter into replacing our corrupt government with a just government. It has to filter down into our local boards and such, you know, for example, my wife is running for Catholic school trustee because the Catholic schools are as off the rails as the public ones are. So in within the law profession itself, are you, to what degree are you optimistic or pessimistic for its future? Well, I'm not a Christian, but I know that being too pessimistic is a sin. So I try not to be too pessimistic, but there's a lot of reason to continue to be worried for sure. Again, COVID was a kind of a special case, but it revealed a serious problem in the legal profession. It revealed that there aren't a lot of lawyers out there that are concerned about the issue. Not a lot of judges out there that are concerned about the issue and that there's this temptation to sort of go along with the flow instead of applying the law in a rigorous way. That habit, that tendency, that vulnerability in the system still exists. I don't know what the number is right now, but I've heard numbers like 80 to 90% of our sitting justices and King's bench level judges are appointed by Trudeau. The last figure I heard, it was either 78 or 83%. Okay. There you go. So that's a big number. (52:58 - 55:06) It is. So, I mean, 85% chance when you go into court and you roll the dice and you see who your judge is, you're going to meet a Trudeau appointee. And Trudeau, I think for example, if you look at his elevation of Mary Moreau from Alberta to the Supreme Court of Canada, Mary Moreau, one of her vocal points apparently was a keen interest in judicial education. Okay. So, and again, that's code word for let's make our judiciary culturally competent. Let's understand how systemic discrimination operates. A code word for wokeness, basically. So, I think that I think that Justice Moreau is likely woke and not only woke, but is interested in using judicial education to reify or not reify, but to reinforce wokeness in the judiciary. And that would be why she's elevated. So when judges are appointed by Trudeau or elevated by Trudeau, I think we can trust that he's doing that in part or largely, I don't know what, because of their ideological bona fides. So we have an expanding problem of wokeness on the judiciary. And we have an expanding problem of wokeness in the profession. You know, we have the Law Society of Alberta putting pressure on lawyers to be woke or at least to pretend they're woke. We have law schools that have, you know, probably woke admission criteria. And they also have woke, you know, it's a woke education. They do, you know, this kind of mandatory course that 10,000 Alberta lawyers were made to do by the Law Society is something very similar to what law students are required to take. And as you point out, even before law students get into law school, they're indoctrinated from grade one with all this stuff as well. So the profession itself is becoming more woke. (55:06 - 55:42) The judiciary is probably becoming more woke. And so those are trends in the wrong direction. I think that there's a, I think that there's a temptation to think, well, Trump was elected and wokeness seems to be sort of dying in the US. So maybe it's dying here too, to which I would say, A, I wouldn't be so sure. And B, I'm not so sure it's dead there either, you know, but. It's not dead. It's simply a minority. And it's become safe to, it's become safe to publicly oppose it now. Yes. (55:42 - 55:54) It sort of gave people the freedom to say, yeah, I don't agree with this either. This is the important concept that you've just brought up because the woke, the radical left have always been a minority, will always be a minority. Right. (55:54 - 56:26) And this is what I was referencing earlier, when I talked about rule by the minority, for the minority, because if the government can control this highly vocal minority and then silence everybody else, they can convince people that that vocal minority represents a majority opinion, which they do not. But that's the goal. Or through Sutter fusion about what do we mean by diversity, equity and inclusion? They can make people who don't actually agree with its radical elements believe that they're woke. (56:26 - 56:50) I mean, there's a lot of people right now walking. I mean, I would say probably 95% of the people that spell woke nonsense, probably A, don't really know what they're talking about. B, don't. They think that wokeness is civil rights. They think it's, you know, inclusion in the sense of we should just love people for who they are and we should all get along and not try to control other people, which I completely agree with, but that's not what wokeness is about. So, you know, you're not only. (56:50 - 56:58) Because first of all, once again, we're using different terms. Wokeness is a completely different thing than individual rights and freedoms. That's what you're talking about. (56:58 - 57:24) Almost its opposite. Yes. It's a complete opposite. Because individual rights and freedoms is you, me saying, as long as that other person there is respecting, once again, that rule of law that says the rights of your fist and of the tip of my nose, you can do whatever you want. You go right ahead. Wokeness is you have to conform to our ideology. And if you don't publicly conform to ideology, you will be canceled. You will be excised from society. Right. (57:24 - 57:28) You'll be excommunicated, basically. Right. From our church of wokeness. (57:29 - 57:36) Right. Right. Inclusion is exclusion of the ideological dissenters. (57:36 - 57:41) Right. Exactly. Which is why white males are not allowed. (57:41 - 57:59) Right. And I've always wondered about that. If I went down to one of these rallies for inclusion as a white male, and somebody said to me, well, what are you doing here? Just, well, I'm a straight white male and you guys are all about inclusion, right? So, I mean, why shouldn't I be here? They'll throw a fit. (58:01 - 58:06) Well, they'll really throw a fit if you walk around with a Trump hat on. Yeah. Right. That's what'll get you. Yeah. Exactly. (58:07 - 58:40) Yeah. I mean, another thing I learned from Roger is that in China, the world is divided between oppressor and oppressed. Just like wokeness, it's a form of socialism, right? The oppressors are the bourgeoisie, the oppressed, or the proletariat, the sort of worker class, right? But you don't have to be born from the worker class. You don't need to be a farmer to be in the worker class. The worker class are the ideological conformists, right? Or the ideological leaders. As soon as you oppose the ideology, now you're bourgeoisie. (58:41 - 58:46) Yes. So a guy who works on the farm and says, I don't believe in communism, he's bourgeoisie now. Right. (58:46 - 1:00:17) Right. So, you know, your white skin, you know, is important only so far, really. It really is about your ideological conformity. But, you know, if you're white skinned, obviously under wokeness, you were stained with a sort of inherent sin of oppression, which is not easy to cast off. Right. So just to finish up, we last talked about Roger Song's case against the Al-Assad of Alberta a year ago. Where's that case standing right now? The Song case? Yes. He is, yeah, so we went to court earlier this month. And so we're waiting for a decision from the lower court and we'll see what that decision is. I didn't get warm fuzzies when I was in court that it was going to go the way it needed to go. I mean, what I found most revealing about the whole thing was, you know, we submit a 200 page brief where we explain the law society has gone woke. Wokeness is a political objective. It's inappropriate for lawyers or the law society to have a political objective. This particular political objective is hostile to the constitution. It attacks things like the dignity of the individual, personal liberties, freedom of speech, all these kinds of stuff. Therefore, it's totally improper for the law society to be involved in this area. The law society's response was basically nothing. They basically said the court should not look at the evidence of what our politics are. (1:00:17 - 1:03:00) The court should not think about what our politics are. The entire subject matter should just be ignored. Trust us. What we're doing is we're doing something called competence, and competence is within our jurisdiction, which it is. Therefore, the court doesn't need to look any further because for the court to look any further, according to the law society, it would be basically improper for the court to look any further and the court wouldn't really be able to understand any of it. I mean, basically that's the summary, but I would have expected, I mean, this was one of the points I made in court. It's such a wild accusation. It's so wild for me to be standing in court. I thought about this as I was going to court. It's so weird. I'm suing my law society. I'm standing in court saying that they've adopted this anti-constitutional, authoritarian, irrational ideology. They're pushing it on lawyers. It's also inappropriate. What are they going to say? What they basically said was, nevermind. Don't look at it. Don't think about it. They didn't actually address it. What they didn't say was, this stuff is a wild conspiracy. It's totally irresponsible to be saying it. Of course, this isn't what we mean by all of these things. The law society just said, well, we politely dispute the characterizations and that's it. But we found all this material on their website. It's in their new definition of competence. It says all of this stuff right there. So what do you say about that stuff? And the answer was, nothing really. It's just, to me, so revealing. I think that if Roger was wrong, significantly wrong in what he was saying, the law society would have come out swinging and would have very clearly refuted the accusations instead of a bare technical denial and then silence. So it sounds to me like we can be pretty sure what the court's going to decide. And so I have to ask then, you said earlier, you try to remain optimistic. Based on what? Well, one of the reasons I'm optimistic for our legal profession and for Canadians' constitutional rights to be protected by our legal profession is the Alberta government. The Alberta government right now, the Smith government is conducting a review of professional regulation in the province. All different professions, quote unquote, and small P professions, massage therapists or something, I don't know, like a whole list of them. (1:03:01 - 1:04:10) But one of them that they're looking at is the law society. And so I hold out hope that the government is going to understand the problem, is going to agree that the law society's business is not politics. The law society's business is especially not politics, which is hostile to the constitution, and therefore is going to amend the Legal Professions Act to basically ban politics from professional regulation. And to your viewers, I would encourage them to contact their MLA, contact the justice minister, and insist that that professional regulation legislation specifically ban politics from regulation. And I think that's a good place to end, Glenn. Thank you so much for your time and for your efforts with the JCCF. We can hope that my assessment of what you've just told us about this case is wrong, and that they'll decide to scrap all this ridiculousness. But even if they don't, we can hope that, yes, the Alberta government will get involved and put a stop to it. Right. Okay. Thanks very much for having me.