Will Dove 0:00 Our courts, especially in the last 3 years, have frequently ruled in favor of clear violations of our constitutional rights. Leighton Grey is a constitutional lawyer, and has fought successfully against the Government of Alberta, most recently in the landmark case of Ingram vs. the government where Justice Barbara Romaine ruled the Covid mandates in Alberta to be illegal. But that does not mean that Justice Romaine is in favor of upholding our rights. Her decision is far more a testimony to the cleverness of Leighton Grey, and his legal partner, Jeffrey Rath. The fact is that our courts have been captured, and many judges are willing enforcers of political corruption, rather than the impartial arbiters of justice under the law that they are supposed to be. In this interview, Leighton explains how we lost our hold on the judiciary, but more importantly, how we take it back, and secure for ourselves and our children, a just future, where everyone is equal under the law. Will Dove 1:14 Leighton, welcome back to the show. Leighton Grey 1:17 Thanks, Will, it's pleasure to be here again. Will Dove 1:19 In our last interview, you made reference to the fact that we've done several interviews together. In fact, I'd been on your show as well and on Grey Matter, you've been on my show several times, my first interview with you with some two years ago, and I can remember at the time asking you, if you felt that our courts were corrupt, and at the time, your answer was, well, not so much that, I believe your answer was that the reason why the courts are ruling in favor of these constitutional violations of our rights is that it is the judges' job, the courts' job to interpret the law, not to make the law, and therefore they are very reluctant to step in and make any kind of judgment that could be seen as making the law. But I have to ask now, two years later, has your opinion on that changed? Leighton Grey 2:09 Yes. And I mean, first of all, what you said there is a very accurate summary of what I said at the time. However, looking at this situation two years on. And based on some of the research that I've done since then, I'm very concerned about the behavior of judges, generally, in our country. And my chief concern is that, and this has always been a concern in almost any country, because judges necessarily are political figures. But I don't think there's ever been a time in our history where the judicial selection process has been more politicized, or where judges have been more bold about the fact that they see themselves as political actors. And that is not their traditional role in society, their traditional role has been that they are to operate outside of the political process to be fair, independent, and impartial. But you know, something happened, not just during COVID, but in the years leading up to it, really going back about 40 to 50 years in our country that has changed the role of the judiciary in our country and not for the better, certainly not for the betterment of Canadians in terms of their rights and freedoms. Will Dove 3:28 We've heard people and yourself included, make reference to our courts being captured. I've reported on my new show recently that Trudeau has appointed some 80% of the judges that he has appointed are Liberal donors, and only 21% are conservative donors. And this has caused, basically, it's made Trudeau directly responsible for rising violent crime, because what's happening is violent criminals are being released on bail because there aren't enough judges to hear the cases. So what are your thoughts then on this idea of the captured courts? Leighton Grey 3:58 That is one manifestation of having judges who are, let's say politically allied with the prime minister's office. That's one of the problems but there's a deeper problem in our country, and that is that our prime minister simply has far too much power. Our country was not designed to have a prime minister as the most powerful person in the country. He's not just appointing judges, he appoints the Governor General, he appoints the cabinet. He appoints all the deputy ministers in the cabinet. He appoints all of the foreign diplomats. He appoints the heads of Crown corporations. This power is really incredibly ubiquitous. And as we've seen over the past several years, it's become increasingly obvious that he does not consider himself accountable to Canadians. I mean, the most obvious example is the way he jet sets around the country around the world and then tells us that, you know, we're in a climate crisis, where you know, one of his trips produces more co2 in a day than the average Canadian family of four does in an entire year. So there's a deep, deep problem. I think that the corruption is there at the government level. And I think what's what's happening with the in our courts is they've just become far too politicized. And there's a long version of an explanation of why the courts have become sort of have come to be seen by many as an extension of the administrative state, which in our country means an extension of the power of the Prime Minister Will Dove 5:34 Please give us an explanation. Leighton Grey 5:38 Well, here's a great book that's written by an Alberta historian you might have had him on your show, and if you hadn't, you should. His name is Michael Wagner, and he's written a great book called Leaving God Behind. And in this book, what he essentially explains is that it was the life's work, the dream of Pierre Elliot Trudeau, Justin Trudeau's father, when he became prime minister in 1968, to repatriate the the Canadian Constitution, and to entrench this Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was not designed to, to enhance the freedoms or protected freedoms of Canadians. It was actually designed to do two things. It was designed to limit individual rights and freedoms. And it was also designed to transfer in a sort of surreptitious silent way over time, transfer lawmaking power from the legislatures in our country, to the judiciary. Why would this be so? Well, the, you know, the country that Pierre Elliot Trudeau became prime minister of in 1968, was a federation of sovereign provinces. And it still is, under the Constitution. As you know, there are federal powers that are enumerated and provincial powers. But what Prime Minister Trudeau the first Trudeau was able to do, and whatever the prime minister since then, including Mr. Harper has done is to gradually consolidate more and more power the prime minister's office, and our country does not function very well, constitutionally, under that type of rubric. And so the way this works is something like this, it might surprise many of your viewers and listeners to know that the Prime Minister actually appoints all of the superior court judges in Canada, in every single province. So recently, there were three Alberta judges appointed to the Court of King's Bench, all of them were appointed by the Prime Minister, I think you've seen enough to know that he's not appointing people with conservative political views. So 80% of the people that he's been appointing are not only members of the Liberal Party, their liberal party donors, Mr. Lametti, who is a rather mediocre lawyer, who was our Justice Minister, until recently, he was removed in a cabinet shuffle, because he had been very brazen about stating publicly what he was doing. But what happened was our new justice, Mr. Virani, in Ottawa, after he made these recent round of appointments, he thanked Mr. Lametti for providing him with the list. So that's an example of the sort of sleight of hand that's been going on. But to answer your question, how does this work? Well, if the Liberal government is able to if the federal government is able to appoint judges, these are unelected officials that have enormous political power, they have a they have the ability to strike down legislation, they have the ability to, as we saw during COVID, to override really serious charter violations in favor of a of a public government narrative, whether or not that narrative can be proven to the standard of law, and they're appointed for life. And so they exercise enormous power in our country. In fact, they're responsible for creating new categories of rights, which were really never imagined at the time that the charter was formed. For example, in 1982, if you talk to someone like Brian Peckford, he never could have been envisioned that Section 35 of the Constitution would have expanded would have been expanded to the point where, you know, aboriginal title to lands exist, the point that it does today, we're actually large tracts of land in our country are being seated to to native groups or where indigenous groups actually have the authority, the ability to veto energy projects, you know, things like pipelines, which which put food on the table for millions of Canadians. So this transference of power from our legislators and by extension from the peo- from the people because we elect our MPs and our MLAs has been something that has happened very gradually over the past 40 years through the Charter and it began back in 1985, with the abolition of the Lord's Day Act, which was essentially an acknowledgment that Canada was no longer a Christian country. So what we've seen since then is the concentration of, of power so that these governments who are supposed to have respect for the Constitution, actually have no regard for the Constitution whatsoever. They operate above the law, our current prime minister has violated parliamentary ethics six times. In terms of that record, he's like the Wayne Gretzky of Parliament, he holds that record, and I pray that no one else ever comes along and approaches his record. And he's very brazen, I mean, he just recently he invited a 98 year old Waffen-SS Nazi war veteran World War Two, the war veteran into parliament where he was given a standing ovation. And he makes no answer whatsoever to the Canadian people, you know, so that's a very serious problem in our country is that the judiciary job constitutionally, is to be a check on government overreach they're to be fair and impartial, they're to be that there is a safeguard, because the charter operates as between the individual protects our rights in relation to government action. Well, if we have a judiciary, that is totally beholden to government, that's not going to go very well. And we saw this played out in real in real time during during COVID. More than that, and I'll just quote from you from something our Chief Justice said, in the aftermath of the Freedom Convoy in 2022. In his interview with Le Devoir, in French, Chief Justice Wagner's Supreme Court of Canada, he characterized the protests there where Parliament and the Supreme Court are located as, quote, the beginning of anarchy, where some people have decided to take other citizens hostage. He says the article that article there reported that Wagner has declared that forced blows, that this was a forced blow against the state, justice and democratic institutions like the one delivered by protesters should be denounced with force, by all figures of power in this country. That's the Chief Justice of our Supreme Court, he's saying that about the Freedom Convoy, which was a peaceful demonstration, everybody around the world saw it. But he's saying that it should be denounced with force, by all figures of power in this country. And what he's doing there, as he's sending a signal out to every single judge in our country, he's the chief judge, he sets the tone. He's the boss of every judge in Canada. And that's what he says, a peaceful protest should be denounced with force by all figures of power in the country. And when you think about what those people were there to protest, they were there. They were there. It was the freedom convoy. So here we have the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada is saying that a Freedom Protest, a protest in favor of freedom should be denounced. Now, here's the they knew more to that story. A group of lawyers actually got together and complained about what the Chief Justice said, they filed a complaint about these comments with the Judicial Council of Canada. Unfortunately, their complaint was summarily dismissed by the head of the Council, who happens to be Mr. Chief Justice Wagner. And so if you don't see the problem, folks, I can't help you. Will Dove 13:21 Yes. Folks, those of you who have been watching my interviews, you know that sometimes they seem to be going off on a tangent or really not stick with me here, I'm going to come back to the point where I have to give us some background. Leighton, you are a Christian, and you make no bones about it. Leighton Grey 13:37 Right. Will Dove 13:38 I have told people, my viewers and you that I am what I call a respectful atheist, I don't share your faith, but I respect it. I certainly can't prove you wrong. And the reason why I tell my viewers that I am a respectful atheist is because I think it gives us a great deal more weight, when I say that the major problem we have in our country right now is that we have lost our Judeo Christian values. If we had not lost those, our entire society would not have gone off the rails. And so if I'm understanding correctly, what you're saying about the capture of our courts about judges becoming nothing but an extension of political power, it's really nothing more than that, on a grander scale. And in our last interview, you were talking about, in conclusion, that the real fault of the mandates and all the violations of our rights was ours, because we allowed it to happen. And we allowed it to happen because we didn't have enough people who would stand up and say, Wait a minute, this is wrong. You're destroying people's lives. You can't do this. And so if I'm understanding you correctly, what you're saying is essentially the same disease has infected our courts and our our political systems. Leighton Grey 14:44 Yeah, it's, um, you know, I'm going to quote Aristotle, shared about 3000 years ago. He wrote a lot of things, but he wrote, he wrote something called the politics and in the politics, Aristotle said that when you look at societies that tend to disintegrate and he accurate- he accurately predicted the downfall of the Roman Empire before he ever really saw it. But he said it was because of two things, an overabundance of two things. The first is obvious it's apathy. But the second is tolerance. Tolerance. And coming back to your point about Judeo Christian morality, what that system of morality provides is it provides a standard, because when you... peo- people have, we've made a God of tolerance in Canada, we've made a God of tolerance in the West. But the problem is, tolerance is, has to be measured against a standard. If an engineer was building a bridge, and you want to know if if the bridge was going to hold up, you would measure the you know, the tolerance of the beams, you would measure the tolerance of the structures, they do that mathematically, do that scientifically, against a standard. What we've lost in Canada is we've lost the standard. And part of the reason why we've lost the standards because we have liberalism has run amok. And liberalism taken to its nth degree, which is what we're seeing right now, and really says that there are no community standards, it takes the rights of the individual, to such to a degree of nihilism, where actually nobody is free, nobody has protection. And if you want to see what this looks like, in real time, go online and watch people looting in stores. Okay, these people come in, they steal, they harm they, they, sometimes they do violence to others, and they're not prosecuted. Because there are no standards. There's no standard of law and order. That's one example. We don't have standards, for example, in the context of sexuality, where we can, what is a woman? What is a man, what is you know, even what is gender, and when we lose sight of those standards, we make a lot of tolerance. And that's part of the damage that the courts are doing. They're not applying, they're not applying standards of the community that need to be there, in order for us to live peacefully, to coexist peacefully. For example, you're an atheist, I'm a Christian, we could have a Muslim in this room, we can all agree on certain community standards that would permit us to live together and coexist harmoniously, peacefully and even profitably, we can do that. But we can't do that without a s... without standards, right? If we're each insisting that our view of the matter is correct, and that everyone else is wrong, all we have is division, and conflict, which is the state of Canada that we have today. And it's the role of the law. That's the purpose of the law, to be a set of rules, a set of standards that permit individuals and groups to coexist and relate to each other peacefully in society. That is the purpose of the law. The judges are the guardians of the law. And they're... they are there to ensure that those standards, which are set out very clearly in the Constitution, are upheld. And right now, the judges in this country simply aren't doing that. If there is a standard that they're upholding, if they're... one at all, it's one that that is essentially being upheld by the, by the or be being propagandized by the, by the federal government, you see this on a number of fronts, where essentially, anytime somebody goes up against the government in this country, they lose Will Dove 18:38 and you made reference just a few minutes ago to liberalism, to these liberal ideas that are poisoning our society, that are robbing us of those standards. And I've defined a conservative and a liberal this way. And I think it's very relevant to what you just said, a conservative is someone who believes that the individual is responsible to the society. And a liberal is someone who believes the society is responsible to the individual. And the problem with that liberal idea is if you take it to the extreme as say, the woke have, what you end up with is a group of people who don't just think that society owes them something. They think it owes them everything. And they can't get it through their heads, that if all there are are parasites like them, you're pulling from the society and no one's putting back, no one's putting in, your society is going to crumble. And this gets back to what you were talking about earlier. And I believe it was was Plato, you were requoting, predicting that... Leighton Grey 19:35 Aristole Will Dove 19:35 ...a society when you get to that point, it's going to fall apart. Right? Well, of course it is because no one's contributing. Leighton Grey 19:41 Now, there's a joke that a liberal is one who cannot take their own side in an argument, which is essentially what you just said. A conservative essentially conserves and that begs the question, what is the conservative conserving? Well, I would say that some... the conservative conserves some versions, some understanding of what is truthful and beautiful and worth preserving in a society. And these are values, I feel like for example, like our shared history, like our architecture, our literature, our our paintings, our music, our sports, anything else that culturally is a value to us, that defines us as Canadians, the core values that our prime minister says don't exist, which those of us who live here and love this country, know do exist. And they're all worth preserving. To me that's conservatism, you know, divorced from the religious manifestations of it. Yes, Christian conservatives do put a religious element into that. But that doesn't have to be there. And there's no reason why those of us who are Christians cannot live peacefully, in a society with people who are non Christians. In fact, we've done it very well in this country for a really long time. And we've done it, I think, better than anyone else. I don't think there is a more properly tolerant, you know, country in Canada, or than Canada in all the world. In fact, I'm not sure there's been one in all of history, we certainly have not had the terrible heinous race relations that have existed in the United States, even though some politicians have tried to falsely import that into Canada by creating some sort of white privilege in relation to indigenous peoples and white people in Canada. To me, that's ridiculous, you know coming back to our topic, what is the proper role of judges in our society? First of all, to have judges deci- you know, deciding our laws, deciding the way we're going to live, is deeply and fundamentally undemocratic. We don't elect judges anywhere in this country. Where did these judges come from? I can tell you, they come from law schools. Let me tell you what else come... has come from law schools. Let's start with oh, I don't know critical race theory. Let's start with a diversity inclusion equity. Let's move on to let's see, radical feminism. Let's talk about queer theory. That's all come from law schools. Let's talk about radical environmentalism. All this is spawned from law schools. And these people enter the legal profession. And they tend to maintain those values, develop them over time, and they take the, those, these quote unquote, liberal values with them, sometimes strong staunch leftist values with them into the judiciary. And right now in this country, they are being given, as you can see from Chief Justice Wagner's comments. They're being given carte blanche to to express those values. Judges are not being told to put their politics apart, their politics at the door. They're being told to decide cases through the lens of these radical liberal leftist ideas, critical race theory, diversity inclusion equity, all the ones that I described, okay, if you look at the carbon tax reference, where several provinces went to court and challenged the carbon tax, the Supreme Court of Canada essentially bought into, in the absence of any persuasive scientific evidence, they bought into the Federal Government's narrative on co2 emissions, and told several provinces that they would have to assess carbon taxes. That's an example that this type of radical liberalism, that is in our courts. And we had the same thing happen during COVID, where we had multiple cases, in several provinces, where we had the most flagrant right, uh, violations of individual rights and freedoms that we've seen in this country, certainly in my lifetime. And they were all forgiven, all the sins are forgiven in favor of the Liberal government narrative, that we have to save the healthcare system. And it was never true, there would... never was any evidence to support it. This is the problem that we're facing. And so what do we do? So we appeal these decisions which happen in Manitoba, BC and Ontario, you appeal those decisions in the Supreme Court of Canada, Supreme Court of Canada exercises its discretion not to even hear those cases. Not even hear them. That's all that's what we're dealing with. So this judicial activism is kind of an untold story right now in Canada. It's not just here. It's also in the United States. That but it's a very, very serious problem. Now, there is some light at the end of the tunnel. And if you look at countries like Switzerland, where the judiciary has managed to maintain its independence, is operating as a proper check upon government. You can see how effective the judiciary can be as a bulwark for the citiz- for the citizenry against government overreach. So this could be a very different story than it is right now in Canada. But unfortunately, the situation we have with the judiciary right now is, by and large, if you are someone who is going up against the government in court, you know, your chances of winning are slim and none and slim just left out Will Dove 25:24 Leighton, you've done a very good job of explaining the problem. And prior to the interview, you told me there is a solution? Leighton Grey 25:30 Yeah Will Dove 25:30 What is it? Leighton Grey 25:31 Well, the thing that the judges fear the most is twofold. Number one, they're very, very concerned about public scrutiny, about public, you know, criticism, and those of us in the legal profession, you know, we have to be careful about this. But you know, for the rest of the of the public, you know, it's open to them, they can be very, very critical of these judges as public figures. And I think that Canadians generally are not as aware as they need to be of the power that's being exercised by these judges. And I think if there are more sincere, justified public criticism of some of these, these, you know, judicial decisions, I think that that would have an impact upon the behavior of, of these judges. Right now, they're being able to operate in the way that I've described with the great deal of impunity, without really real consequence. So that's the solution. The deeper solution, though, is this. Fundamentally, our constitution in Canada is very, very good. It might be the best in the world. If not, I mean, it's probably only the American one is its rival. But it's not working very well, right now, because our elected officials and our judiciary are not really acting in accordance with the Constitution, the way our laws are, our system of laws is supposed to work is that first of all, no one's above the law, not the Prime Minister, not his cabinet, you know, not unelected judges. No one is above the law. And they're all answerable to it. And what has happened, the reason why judges have been able to make law is because they've been granted tremendous discretion. And so were they able to make laws, they exercise discretion, that discretion is subject to the will of the legislatures, the legislatures are constitutionally, the sole authority, because we elect them in a democratic way. They're the sole authority to make laws in our country. And our legislatures can pass laws limiting the the judicial discretion that these judges enjoy. So for example, there is a, and I've made this recommendation to the Premier of Alberta, for example, there's a statute in Alberta called the Interpretation Act, it directs judges in this province, about how to exercise their discretion in interpreting statutes. Well, why not make changes to the Interpretation Act, so that, for example, judges in Alberta are directed and are told statutorily that they are not to interpret a Charter violation in such a way as to permit a Charter right to be violated simply upon the basis of a public policy objective, that there has to be, for example, an existential crisis, such as a state of war, or something of that nature, before Section One could be invoked, that those type of limitations could be placed on judicial discretion. And I happen to think that it's necessary. Honestly, I think some judges would welcome that. Because that would give them the direction that they need to make proper decisions, the ones who are ideologues and want to see themselves as arms of the administrative state, they're not going to like that, that sort of fettering of their discretion very much, but they're going to have to live by it. Because if they don't, their decisions are going to be are going to be illegal. The other thing that I think we're going to see more of in this country, is invocation of the Notwithstanding Clause. I happen to think that if we had had a premier, with more courage than Mr. Kenney, a few years ago, when that Supreme Court of Canada decision came down on the carbon tax, I think that our premier, that would have been an ideal time to invoke the Notwithstanding Clause. With the Notwithstanding Clause is a section of the Constitution, which Quebec has invoked many, many times, which basically says it to the Supreme Court, to the federal government: Look, I don't care what you say, this violates what we consider is the proper governance of our province, and we're simply not going to follow that decision. Of course, in Quebec, they've done this over over language, where they don't respect it that Canada is a bilingual country. They've they've, in fact, they've invoked it many times. In Alberta, we've done it a couple of times, but I believe in the coming years, with your premiers like Mr. Moe and Danielle Smith, I think that we're going to see invocation of the Notwithstanding Clause become more common, and I think it's necessary. Because otherwise, we are going to continue to be a country that is really ruled by judges. And essentially what we'll have is the situation we have right now where, you know, Justin Trudeau and Mr. Guilbeault, they can create really terrorist environmental policies, like the Just Transition, which is going to wipe out the energy production that helps every single Canadian especially Quebec, they're going to be able to do that and be assured that the courts are going to uphold whatever nonsense they come up with, because they have liberal ideologues in the in the judiciary, that are going to uphold anything that the Liberal government comes up with. And so, you know, there are ways that that we can stem this tide. But it's important to remember, you know, this is a long process, it was really a long game, I am now firmly convinced, based upon my research, and reading authors like Michael Wagner, that indeed, that we are less free under the Charter than we were before. And the proof of this is actually in the pudding in Scotland, which is actually a more secular country than Canada is now, when they went to court during COVID, to open up the churches when they were locked down. They won and the reason why is they in Scotland, they still have the common law, rights, rights and freedoms that we had prior to the Charter. But in Canada, every time we went to court to challenge these lockdown measures, we were faced with Section One. So prior to the charter, we didn't have this constitutional limitation on our freedoms, which gives the government sort of an ace card, but now we do. And so now, every single right that we have, is subject to government interpretation. The best example of this is freedom of speech, where our prime minister of all people who, as far as I understand has no legal education whatsoever, is telling everybody that he respects freedom of speech, but that my freedom of speech ends at the point where something I say might offend someone. And what I would say to him is, how could we possibly have any type of a meaningful conversation? If I can never say anything that could possibly offend you, especially when you are defining what it means to be offended? Will Dove 32:19 Earlier in the interview, Leighton, you made reference to Trudeau and the centralization of power and how they have, he has far too much. And my question might be related to the Notwithstanding Clause, or it might be something else, I need you to clarify on this. Because, of course, you are a constitutional lawyer. What I have heard is that while the federal government does have the right to unilaterally pass a law, that would apply to all Canadians, if the province did not have a hand in the writing of that law, they are not required to enforce it. Is that correct? Leighton Grey 32:51 That's correct. That's essentially the the distilled wording of the Notwithstanding Clause. Will Dove 32:57 Okay. So, and, and an application of this, as we were discussing in our last interview, would be if Ottawa, say next year after the international health regulation amendments come into play, and WHO comes along and says everybody has to lock down again, and Ottawa says, You all have to lock down. Well, the provinces can turn around and say, we didn't sign the International Health Regulations. You did. Leighton Grey 33:20 Right. Right. Will Dove 33:21 And therefore, we don't have to follow that. Leighton Grey 33:23 That's correct. The same is true under it, by the way. We can say no to these things, and we should say no to these things, you know, they should not be part of Canadian law. Because we have a federal government right now, that is not governing for the good of Canadians, that should be really, really obvious to people and must be at this point. Anybody who doesn't realize that is really not paying attention, or is completely deluded, you know, by the cult of Trudeau. But if you go on to the World Economic Forum website, and you look at everything that they stand for, and you look at all the policies that this Federal Government is, has been invoking, in this country, especially over the last four or five years, there's no discrepancy. We are a World Economic Forum client state, and internationally we're a joke. And that's how we're known around around the world now, we're a joke. This has to come to an end. And it can be stopped through the proper use and invocation of our Constitution. The problem that we faced is that we haven't had yet leaders with the fortitude, with the conviction to do it. Because it's risky for them. You know, they're afraid that many people who might vote for them, you know, will will turn on them and they might lose power. And, you know, we're living through a time unfortunately, where we don't have enough leaders who are willing to stand up for their values, and for what is right, what is true. Hopefully, we have some of those leaders coming to the fore now. Will Dove 34:48 Talking about... you were talking about 15 minutes ago about the root of the problem. And the first thing you mentioned was that in the last, yes, 20 or 30 years we've had a flood of ultra left liberals going into law and bringing their ideas with them. And of course, the reason why they're going into law, at least I would think so, is because they want certain rights. And so they go into law so that they can fight for those rights. It seems fairly obvious to me that if we want to take our judiciary back, we need to have conservatives going into law in order to do exactly the same thing. Leighton Grey 35:22 Right Will Dove 35:23 How would you encourage young people, especially, to do, who are conservatives to do that, because a lot of them are aware of what's going on in our courts, they realize, if I'm a conservative lawyer, and I go into our liberal courts, I'm going to have a hell of fight on my hands. Leighton Grey 35:39 Right Will Dove 35:39 So how do we encourage these people it's worth it, go out there, do it, find others, like yourself, and turn the tables on them? Leighton Grey 35:49 I think that, first of all, the you know, the law schools and universities have taken a real turn to the left in recent years in recent decades. It was even so back when I was in law school, many years ago. There weren't very many conservatives there. In fact, I'm not sure that I was a conservative back then. Excuse me. To answer your question, no, is I think that what we see in our law schools, is a reflection of what's going on in society generally. And the old liberalism is a nihilistic ideology, and I include in there progressivism. The problem with progressivism is you reach a point where you can progress no further. And so it eats itself. So, you know, the progressives there through all of these ideologies, which is really just a form of cultural and political Marxism, they're aiming at some utopia that they're never going to reach. In fact, progressivism, by definition, never ends that you have to keep, you know, progressing. You never arrive at a, at a destination. And that's the problem. But I think the answer your question is, I think that we are on the cusp of a cultural shift. And it is going to happen, because young people, the younger generation, almost by instinct, countercultural. The best example of this, I think, is what you see in, let's take rock and roll music, or today, what you see in rap, a lot of what you see in that popular culture is counterculture. It goes against, I can't listen to it, I have two teenage boys, I can't listen to the stuff that my kids listen to. I mean, my, my father probably felt the same way about some of the bands I listened to. That's an example. But I think young people now are facing a dominant culture, which is liberal and leftist. And what we're seeing now in young people more and more is a shift to conservative values. A great example of this is the young man, Josh Alexander and his brother, who have been very, very outspoken. One of them was actually assaulted during the recent Million March for kids, and arrested, which was shameful. But I see young leaders like that as the hope for the future. And I think I think they are sparking, and I wouldn't say a revolution, but an evolution in our culture back to a more conservative approach to to values. And it's necessarily so because what we're facing is a cultural war that is, is is an existential crisis, we cannot go on the way we are right now. We're headed for the cliff, you know, but for some turn, significant shift in our culture and our institutions, we're not going to be able to survive for the things that we've that we've developed over many generations, things that our forefathers fought, died for, will be lost. And I think that young people are coming around to the idea that our system of government or institutions are in need of major overhaul, major change, are not fitting their needs. And they have the power to change it. And so the young people listening to my voice and, and hear this or are watching this, I put the call out to you, this is your country. This is where you're going to you know, you're going to raise your family and have your kids and build your businesses and have your careers and build your dreams. You know that this is your country, and you can take it back. But the system that's in place right now is not built for you. It's built for an elite that wants to subjugate you and enslave you. That's what people like you and I are, and those are in the quote unquote, Freedom Movement are fighting against. We're fighting for the next generation. We want a Canada that we can all be proud of, again, you know, the kind of country that we grew up in that we know, has better days ahead of us. And I have that belief. I do believe that Canada has its best days ahead of us if we make the right decisions. But it's going to depend a lot of what the younger generations, as you say the ones coming into universities, the ones who are going to become, you know, doctors and lawyers and engineers and podcasters and everything else, they're going to make the biggest difference in the long run, what I'm trying to do and I know what you're trying to do is to give them the information that they need. And to teach them to question what politicians and judges and people in power are doing, you know, the large, you know, people like, you know, Bill Gates, and Jeff Bezos, and people of that ilk, question what they're doing. Because if we don't, if we just carry on, go along to get along and put our masks on and march in lockstep, you know, we're not going to have much of a country. Will Dove 40:38 And I agree completely, Leighton, society will turn, is turning, and we are seeing it in people like Josh Alexander and others, members of Over to the Youth, there are.. is a core out there of young people who understand what's going on, and who are taking responsibility to stand up for what's right, and to change things. And what we have to do, our generation, I think, is yes, first of all, bring them the truth, be prepared to answer the questions, but also to mitigate the damage as much as possible while we wait for that change to happen. Leighton Grey 41:12 Agreed. Totally agree. Will Dove 41:15 Leighton, thank you very much for your thoughts on this. Leighton Grey 41:18 Thanks, Will, it's been a real pleasure being here. And I wish you continued success on the show and everything that you're doing. You're an inspiration to a lot of people, including myself, so, you know, keep up the tremendous work. Will Dove 41:30 Well, thank you. That's very kind