250129 Chris & John Carpay, JCCF

John Carpay of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms wrote a letter to Dr. Shelley Duggan, President of the Alberta Medical Association in their response to AMA’s Statement on the Final Report of the Alberta Covid Pandemic Data Review Task Force in which she originally signed the statement and then withdrew it.

January 29, 2025

Episode Transcript

(00:30):
Well, good evening, everybody. It's Chris here from the Whistle Stop Cafe. And as you
can see by the little blue banner down there, I'm also the Chris in the Chris and Kerry
show. Tonight, I'm reading this Popular Mechanics. I love these magazines, Popular Mechanics,

(00:50):
Popular Science, those types of things, kind of on the more nerdy side of things. And the
reason I like that is because I like to know how things work. Over the last few years,
I've had to learn how a lot of things work. Government, law, recipes, those types of things.

(01:11):
And it's been quite the adventure. It's quite the steep learning curve. There's a lot of
things in this province and in this country, or even in our towns and cities, that we don't
really understand how they work until we're forced to figure it out. Well, I was forced
to figure out how our country works and how our province works because they came for me
and they told me that I had to shut down my business and sacrifice my livelihood to protect

(01:38):
from something that they couldn't prove we needed protection from. By the way, someone,
if you don't mind, and put up in the comments whether the audio is good or not, I'm trying
my Yeti microphone instead of the integrated microphone in my headphones. So I'm just curious
as to how that sounds. Anyway, one of the things that I had to do to find out how things

(01:58):
work is I had to reach out to some experts. You might remember from early on in my fight
against the Alberta government that I had to seek out doctors and scientists and all
sorts of people to talk about what was going on globally with the pandemic and the government's
responses to try and get some ammunition for when I went to court, which I, of course,

(02:20):
I did. So I really had to learn how that stuff works. Now, nothing has changed. We're still
in this strange kind of limbo where we seem to be at the whim of our governments and it's
like almost like they don't listen to us sometimes or if they do listen, maybe they're not listening
all the way, that kind of thing. And we find ourselves in an interesting place where the

(02:43):
government listened to us and they did a investigation, a commission into a task force into how the
government handled the COVID pandemic and what it looked like for people and where we
failed and where we did good and what we could do better next time because there will be
another pandemic. Let's face it. It always, I mean, there's it's part of life. It was

(03:03):
a very robust report. It was geared towards data and statistics, not necessarily blaming
or anything like that. Very, it was very sound and science used primary data and the task
force interviewed people from all over the world, all sorts of different jurisdictions
to get this information and they presented it to our government and it was pretty scathing.

(03:27):
It's pretty much what most of us were saying the whole time. It wasn't handled correctly.
It caused harm. People died and we need to do better next time. And I would take it a
step farther and say some heads probably need to roll, but justice is oftentimes the last
part of the puzzle. So for now, I think we need to talk about what this report says and

(03:51):
really get people to understand that we need to act on it. But of course, those who did
these things to us over the past while don't like this report. And so we see online, they're
calling it misinformation and it's unscientific and all these things, but they never cite
any evidence or data to back up their claims. They don't bother to tell us which parts of

(04:15):
the report are misinformation and disinformation because I mean, is the biographies are those
misinformation that they do that wrong? Were they wrong when they gave this statistic from
the Alberta government website and from the CDC and from Health Canada on vaccine injuries
and things like that? Was that misinformation? Because if it is, well, that's primary information.
Primary data from supposedly reliable source. So that's something we should probably look

(04:40):
into, right? Anyhow, I decided after reading a open letter that our friend John Carpe from
the JCCF, the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms, an open letter that he wrote to
Dr. Duggan from the Alberta Medical Association. She wrote a letter slamming the Davidson report
and the Alberta government for doing this. And John replied, and I really liked his letter.

(05:04):
So I decided let's get him on the Chris and Kerry show tonight and talk to him about it
and kind of dive into this and see what all this really means. So please join me in welcoming
our friend, John Carpe from the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms. Thanks for joining
us, John.
Glad to be with you, Chris.
Yeah, it's been a long time since we've had a chat longer than maybe three minutes. So

(05:27):
I'm really glad that we were able to connect tonight. We had originally we were going to
have one of the MLAs come on and talk about what this was looking like in government.
But I think they're kind of coming up with an idea on how they need to handle this because
it's not going to be an easy task for any of them. That's for sure. I think our government
really has their hands full with this one. But you stepped up and wrote an open letter

(05:52):
to Dr. Shelley Duggan from the Alberta Medical Association after she trashed the Davidson
Report. Do you want to maybe give the viewers a kind of a brief rundown on what you saw
going on and why you decided to say something?
So I heard about the Davidson Report on Friday evening. I didn't have a heads up that it

(06:14):
was coming. I thought it was rather odd that something so important, so significant would
be released on a Friday afternoon. That's typically when governments release things
that they want minimal attention paid to. They could have released it on Monday morning,
you know, two and a half days later or, you know, any morning really. And so that was

(06:36):
unfortunate. But I read through the report and wrote a column about it. I took a 269
page report and tried to summarize it down into 900 words. And I was able to get through
the executive summaries of each of the nine chapters. I have not yet read the 269 page

(06:58):
report in full. I plan to do so. And then the reaction started to come in. And on Monday,
the 27th of January, the AMA released a statement in which they said that the report was anti-science,
anti-evidence, spreading disinformation, advancing fringe approaches. And not one single example

(07:27):
was given by the AMA. It was just they slammed the entire 269 page report as anti-science,
anti-evidence and so on. You know, this is not what scientists do. Scientists debate.
And so if the Alberta Medical Association, the AMA, wanted to take a scientific approach,

(07:49):
they would go through the report and they'd say, well, on chapter nine regarding vaccines,
the report says A, B and C, you know, here's why we disagree because of these reasons,
because of this evidence. And they would go through it and they would debate it. Instead,
they denounced the entire thing as anti-science, anti-evidence, which is very political language.

(08:11):
It's the same language that Jason Kenney used to describe people who were opposed to his
human rights violations and his violations of charter rights and freedoms. We were all
deemed by Jason Kenney to be unhinged conspiracy theorists.
And so rebels. And he called me a rebel. So I just made t-shirts.

(08:33):
Well rebel might be an accurate term. And that's good, right? Rebel is a neutral term.
If you're rebelling against evil, it's a good thing. And if you're rebelling against
what is good, then it's a bad thing. But unhinged conspiracy theorists is pretty clear what
his intentions are there. You know, shut down debate. So I challenged Dr. Shelley Duggan.

(08:59):
She did not sign the statement as hers, but I'm pretty confident that as president of
the AMA, she reviewed it, she approved of it. So it's not unfair to call it her statement
or the AMA statement. And I challenged quite a few things. One of them is that the AMA

(09:21):
appeals to consensus. And I've seen this in court rulings as well. I've got a new book
out that reviews these court rulings. And in some of them, the judge will actually say,
well, you know, Dr. J. Bhattacharya has got his opinions and I'm glad there's some debate
going on. But you know, the majority of scientists think that a majority of doctors think that
lockdowns are valid. So therefore, I'm going to give it my stamp of approval, which is

(09:44):
completely anti-science. And it's also that's not how courts are supposed to function. They
don't just take an opinion poll. They're supposed to base their rulings on the evidence that
was presented in court, not on media reporting and not on some majority consensus on some
issues. They're supposed to look at the evidence and come to a conclusion independently.

(10:05):
Yes. And that brings up a point. So you're not a doctor, of course, you're a lawyer.
So I imagine people might be saying, well, why would John Carpe, a lawyer, be talking
about doctors engaging in these type of back and forth things? And one of the things that
occurred to me is you see this stuff all the time in court, I'm sure. Right. And in court,

(10:26):
if you went in, like say the Davidson report went in and we'll just imagine that that is
a pleading that goes in or something like that. Right. And then the opposing party just
says, well, no, that's just misinformation, disinformation. And we condemn that. We don't
agree with it. Is the judge going to say, okay, well, they say it's misinformation.
So let's just go with that. Well, hopefully not. I mean, in some of the

(10:49):
COVID rulings, we've had, there's one judge in one of the justice centers court cases,
State Wave versus Manitoba. The judge actually writes in his judgment that COVID was unprecedented
and it was the worst global pandemic in over a century. Both claims are false. COVID was

(11:09):
not unprecedented. We had the Spanish flu of 1918, which was at least a hundred times
as deadly as COVID. And then we had the worldwide global pandemic with the Asian flu of 1957,
the Hong Kong flu of 1968. Both of those were more deadly than COVID. And the judge just
writes into his ruling, well, COVID was unprecedented and it was the deadliest pandemic in over

(11:36):
a century. False claims not supported by the evidence put before the court.
I felt that Justice Adam Jermain, when he delivered his reasons for my sentencing, he
actually said that I had caused irreparable and immeasurable damage to the people of Alberta.
And so all parties were kind of stunned. Like that's interesting because that was never

(11:58):
something anybody talked about. AHS never said that. They never even alluded to that.
And yet there's this activist judge telling the province that I harmed an immeasurable
amount of people in sentencing is unreal.
That's the same judge who ordered Pastor Art Pavlovsky to state a pro-government narrative

(12:18):
every time that he spoke in public about lockdowns or vaccine passports.
We had identical sentences. We both had that.
You had the same speech violations imposed on you.
I was compelled to deliver the government side of the story every time I did a speech,
but I had fun with it. Now, at first I wanted to be like, screw you guys. I'm not doing

(12:39):
that. I'm not being your mouthpiece. I'm a big enough mouthpiece myself. So what I did
is I said, okay, well, if I have to say these things, it doesn't mean people have to listen.
So I explained when I went to a rally, I have to say these things. I said, but that doesn't
mean you guys can't shut me down. So I would deliver my little, oh, most scientists agree
this is safe and effective. And people were laughing and cheering. And I had a really

(12:59):
fun time with that. So thank you, Justice Jermain, for enriching my life in that matter.
Good for you. But fortunately it was overturned on appeal, but that's absolutely frightening
that a judge would... And this sentencing hearing, my understanding, I was not a lawyer
involved in the case directly, but this was not a trial about the safety or effectiveness

(13:23):
of the vaccine. You didn't have pro-vaccine, anti-vaccine experts before the court. And
yet this judge declares that the vaccine is safe and effective and everybody should get
injected. And it's just like, wow, he's just basing that purely on media or what he's read
on the internet, or he just assumes whatever the government says is true.

(13:44):
There was another judge in Saskatchewan, Michael McGaw, who was appointed by Stephen Harper,
not by Trudeau. And he ordered a 12 year old girl to get injected with the mRNA vaccine.
And he went on to... Was that Michael Jackson's daughter? Not Michael Jackson, like the singer,

(14:04):
but there was another Michael Jackson who was trying to protect his daughter from that.
And he was arrested. They charged him with kidnapping his own daughter because he was
trying to protect her from that.
Well, this particular court case, the name of the child is not identified. So the court
case is named, I think, OMH versus HSC or whatever. It's three letters versus three

(14:27):
letters. So it's anonymized for protecting the privacy of the minor. But what's really
creepy as well is he says, I take judicial notice of the fact that these vaccines are
safe and effective for adults and children. And his basis is that Health Canada and the
Saskatchewan Health Authority have said so.

(14:50):
Now taking judicial notice is a technique, it's a tool in a judge's toolbox. If you get
somebody that denies... If somebody who's a flat earther or denies gravity, there are
certain issues where it's like, look, we're not going to entertain evidence on that. It's
supposed to be reserved for situations where no reasonable person would dispute this. And

(15:17):
it can be verified by reference to authorities of indisputable reliability and accuracy.
So it's a tool that can be used appropriately by a judge in some situations to take judicial
notice of something. But here you've got this brand new vaccine, which in 2021, when the

(15:37):
judge released the judgment, it was still in clinical trials in 2023. And he declares
purely on the basis of the assertions of Health Canada and Saskatchewan Health Authority,
that the vaccine is safe and effective for adults and children. And this is beyond debate.
This is taking...
And pregnant women.
And pregnant women.
And pregnant women.

(15:58):
That was a big one.
Judicial notice of the fact that the vaccines are safe and effective. In September, October,
2021, they had just been made mandatory. They'd been released a few months prior. So that's
really scary that we've got some judges in Canada that have what Mussolini in Italy referred
to as state-olatry, which is the worship of the state, which means the government said

(16:22):
it, I believe it, that settles it.
We have a lot of that. We have a lot of that going on. And I don't understand why people
are so... Maybe we don't teach enough history in school anymore, but I've learned a lot
about...
We don't.
I learned enough in school to know that we should respect our government, at least when
they're earning respect, but we should always be wary and we should respect authority, but

(16:45):
question it, question everything. And that seems to have been lost over the last few
years and people have just become these... I don't even know how to describe it. It's
like they're just a... Like those memes you see where people are just marching in line
to their job to do their duty for the government and they never question anything. And there's
that one guy looking around like, why are we doing this? Why are we listening to this

(17:08):
thing that's obviously harming us? But people are just... They're just comfortable to do
it, which is really strange.
And then when something like the Davidson Report comes out, that manifests itself in
hideous actions by people who don't want that view changed. So they push back against anything

(17:29):
that threatens the status quo. And the Davidson Report threatens the status quo big time.
So now they're lying and they're slandering and they're trying to shut down conversation
by using slave speak words like denier or misinformation. And here we find ourselves

(17:49):
in the trenches again, trying to duke it out. So your letter that you wrote, is that kind
of the same way you would respond to an argument in court? Is that...
Well similar. I mean, if I was cross-examining Dr. Shelley Duggan on her statement, so I

(18:11):
asked her a bunch of questions, primarily saying, what examples do you cite? So she
makes all kinds of assertions, the same assertions that we've heard before. And lockdown saved
millions of lives and yet there's nothing said there about lockdown harms. I would be
surprised if she's given any serious consideration to lockdown harms. I've asked her how...

(18:38):
What makes you say that lockdown saved lives? Considering the fact that lockdowns did not
stop COVID from spreading everywhere to everyone, COVID went to every city, every town, every
hamlet, every village, everywhere where people lived, COVID went. So lockdowns didn't stop
COVID from spreading everywhere where people live. Lockdowns didn't stop COVID from spreading

(18:59):
into the nursing homes where about 80% of the people that died of COVID were in nursing
homes. And there's just no... There's no explanation. I've yet to hear somebody explain how... They
say that lockdown saved lives and I ask the question, how did lockdown save lives considering

(19:19):
that lockdowns didn't stop the virus from spreading everywhere, including nursing homes?
I've never heard an explanation of that and I'd be happily surprised if I get an explanation.
The other thing is she appeals to consensus, right? It's like, well, I don't have a statement
in front of me, but the gist of it is the majority of doctors and scientists were in

(19:42):
favor of lockdowns, therefore we know it's true. Well, she should know as a medical doctor
that there was a drug called thalidomide given to pregnant women in the fifties and sixties
caused massive deformities in babies, babies born without limbs, babies born with damage
to their eyes, to their brains, many miscarriages, many stillbirths. So if the baby was born,

(20:05):
but then died shortly after birth, and this was approved by health authorities. And even
when there was growing evidence, I mean, eventually they banned thalidomide, but they should have
banned it. They could have banned it a lot sooner. They didn't because the medical establishment
was in favor of it. There was money involved. There is a pharmaceutical company, which eventually

(20:28):
through court actions, et cetera, ended up paying huge sums of money to people victimized
by the drug, but it took years. Okay. So that's your consensus. The other famous one was Dr.
Samuel Weiss. I don't have his name in front of me, Hungarian doctor in the 18 fifties.
He noticed that there were a lot of women died after childbirth and the doctors were

(20:52):
not washing their hands prior to delivering babies. And he noticed the differences in
two wards. There was one ward where it was midwives were delivering babies and the other
ward it was doctors. And there, there is a way higher death rate in the ward where doctors
were delivering babies. He came up with this crazy idea that doctors should wash their
hands before delivering a baby. And that's a true scientist. And he was mocked and ridiculed

(21:17):
and, uh, you know, told he was crazy. Uh, and yet he was right. Threatened. He was threatened
too. This is the progress of science. It's, it's based, it's not based on, uh, on majority
rule. The moment somebody consensus is not science, science is not consensus. Science
is a process of exploration and discovery. And you put forward your thesis, like Dr.

(21:42):
Samuel Weiss put forward the thesis that, uh, hand washing is going to reduce child
mortality. Maybe it was more detailed. Maybe he had specific things in there about bacteria.
You put forward a thesis and then other people, they'll attack your thesis. And that's a
good thing because maybe your thesis is flawed. Where's the evidence? This is how science
progresses. And what we have with lockdowns is, it's just this nauseating repetition of

(22:06):
claims. Well, lockdown saved millions of lives. Okay. Where's the evidence? Um, and, and this
deliberate ignoring of lockdown harms is, is not only is it against the Canadian charter
of rights and freedoms, which expressly requires that governments look at harms and, and benefits
when they have a health order or some policy that violates your charter of freedom, but

(22:29):
also as a practice of medicine, you're always supposed to look at the benefits and the costs
of a particular treatment, particular drug, a particular therapy. You always look at both
the benefits and the side effects, harmful effects. You look at both and with lockdowns,
all these medical doctors, I think betrayed their profession by having this blind fanatical

(22:52):
advocacy, this claim that lockdowns are saving lives. And, you know, very, very few doctors
took a hard look at all of the lockdown harms, which are extensive.
Well, there, the blinding could have, there's, there's, there's a, an explanation for that.
And this isn't the whole thing, but money is blinding. One of the people that the government

(23:16):
hired to deal with misinformation and disinformation on social media, Timothy Caulfield, I think
they paid him like $348,000 to do that. During the course of the pandemic and the response
and all those things, we moved, I can't remember what the number was, it's something like $200
billion moved from the, you know, the middle and lower class to the upper class, the elites,

(23:39):
as they call themselves. There's a lot of very, very big, big money behind this. And
some of these people that encouraged or helped spread this narrative, they got some of that
money. There was organizations in this country that were paid by the federal government to
promote vaccines. There was a program out there. I put, I put it on my Facebook and
did a podcast on it a couple of years ago, but the federal government was paying up to

(24:01):
$50,000 if your organization would help, help to get rid of vaccine hesitancy by promoting
it. So churches and universities and charities and all sorts of outfits were doing the work
that the government wanted them to do and getting paid for it. And now as we learn,
or as more people learn what we've been trying to say for years, all of a sudden those people

(24:24):
that did those things are like, well, crap, I helped with that. And I can see now that
people got harmed. So I have two choices. I can either apologize and I can try and,
you know, I can try and get some of that grace that society generally gives people who apologize
or I can just dig my heels in and I can try and shut these people down, shut the conversation

(24:47):
down, shut the debate down and just continue with the narrative so that I don't have to
accept responsibility for what happened. So it's, you know, it's as, as, as my lawyer
Chad would have said, it's a multifaceted thing. And I don't, I don't think there's
just one piece to the puzzle, but it is important that we keep chipping it down. So I've, I
did bring up the, the letter from the AMA and I would like to point out, I don't know

(25:10):
if this was an error or intentional, but when I first saw this, when I first saw this little
note here, this signature was present on the bottom, Dr. Shelley Duggan, president of the
American medal Alberta medical association. It's not there now. So for some reason, her
name isn't attached to this letter, which I found, I don't know, maybe it's just a,

(25:34):
maybe it's cause I, maybe it's cause I challenged her to a public live stream debate. It could
be, who knows? It's not, to me, it's not a big deal either way, because if you're, if
the justice center releases a statement, you know, as we do from time to time, we release
a statement about an issue, you know, my name's not necessarily, not necessarily assigned
to it, but you know, unless I'm on a month long vacation and, and, you know, totally out

(25:59):
of reach, you can assume safely that I approved the statement as president of the organization
so, you know, the same for her, but I extended my, I said, I'll challenge you to a live stream
debate on the resolution. Be it resolved that lockdowns and vaccine passports imposed on
Albertans from 2020 to 2022 did more harm than good. And then Dr. Duggan or anybody

(26:23):
else that said, if you're not willing to do it, I'll debate any doctor in Alberta, um,
live stream debate and, uh, you know, we'll have it, uh, fairly timed, something like
a chest clock, no interrupting, but everybody gets equal time. And when you're speaking,
your clock is counting down, you know, we'll have 30 minutes each, whatever. And, uh, now,

(26:44):
you know, and I'm not a medical doctor, they would be at an advantage. They have a far
better understanding of medical issues. Uh, but, um, common sense would tell you that
you cannot stop a virus from spreading. Common sense would tell you whether you're a doctor
or not, that you should look at the benefits and the harms of any policy, the same decision

(27:08):
you make in your daily life. You know, if you're thinking of an investment or you're
thinking about a business decision, let's say you're thinking of, of buying, uh, you
know, a new stove for your restaurant, you know, you look at the cost and the benefits
and the trade-offs, you don't, you don't just fanatically look at the benefits only of a
potential decision that you're making. And so there's, there's common sense. And when

(27:31):
it comes to public policy, nobody has a monopoly. Um, you know, if, if parliament, uh, brought
back the death penalty for premeditated first degree murder, everybody would have an opinion
on that, uh, including non-lawyers, but you know, you don't need to be a lawyer to have
an opinion on whether it would be a good thing or a bad thing for parliament to bring
back capital punishment. Just throwing that out there as an example, right? The point

(27:54):
is when it comes to the formulation of our laws, it's about common sense and it's about
wisdom and neither doctors nor lawyers nor restaurant owners, nor mechanics, nor science,
nobody has a monopoly on that in a, in a democracy where we have the opportunity to debate laws.
And this was sorely lacking from the whole lockdown process. We had Dina Hinshaw as a

(28:18):
medieval monarch. Uh, the words of her orders literally said, I decree, you know, like a
king from medieval times, you know, I woke up this morning and I typed this out or I
wrote this out and I decree that such and such is going to happen. There was no process
in place to have the, uh, elected MLAs question her about her orders. And it was the same

(28:40):
in every other province. So we, we had this, uh, exercise of, of, uh, executive power without
any accountability, uh, going on for years.
And even so, um, the, there were people who spoke up who at one point had been hired to

(29:01):
do a duty for the people of Alberta by governments through democratic process. For instance,
Lieutenant Colonel David Redmond, he, he Redmond, he spoke up early on and said, Whoa, you
guys, what are you doing? This isn't what you're supposed to be doing. This isn't the
plan that we've been working on for years. This is something completely different. Why
did you toss that out? He was shut down. Uh, Dr. Peter McCullough, Peter McCullough, who

(29:25):
really knows his stuff, especially when it comes to, uh, cardiac issues, he spoke up
right away saying, Hey, you know, why are you doing this? This is going to cause a massive,
what you're doing. This is a, this is a coronary toxin, what you're doing. It's going to cause
problems and he was shut down and shouted down in the public sphere. So it wasn't even
just that Dina Hinshaw was, was doing this stuff and getting away with it. There was

(29:47):
a lot of opposition from very prominent learned people who had spoken up and they were persecuted.
Dr. Davidson was one of them. You know, Dr. Davidson came up publicly in a meeting in
olds. And I remember I was standing right there and I listened to his story and he was
talking about how what he saw going on in the hospitals was not conducive to health.

(30:09):
It wasn't the steps that we needed to take to keep people healthy. And he tried speaking
up a little bit about it within his professional association, stuff like that, and was quickly
shut down. Um, and he, he did the right thing anyway and he saved lives. But, and now we
have Dr. Shelley Duggan, the president of the American metal, pardon me, Albert, is

(30:29):
that a Freudian slip that I say the American association for the Alberta medical association.
And she is, she's written this letter with what appears to me to be the utmost, utmost
confidence in what she's saying. So how long was it from the time you sent her a request
for a debate on a live stream to the time she accepted and said, yeah, I'm going to

(30:51):
smoke because I know my stuff.
No, she would have, she would have a huge advantage over me. She knows more about medicine
than I do. But, you know, I'm asking questions about lockdown harms and, and taking a common
sense approach and, you know, how, if it's true that lockdowns were effective in saving

(31:14):
lives, how is that considering the fact that, that lockdowns didn't stop COVID from, from
spreading to everyone. And, um, you know, I'm not going to hold my breath, but, uh,
I'm willing to, uh, I'm willing to do it. No. Oh, well, I haven't heard, I haven't heard
back. I haven't heard back. And, uh, you know, in, in fairness, I think that challenge was

(31:37):
sent to her just yesterday or the day before. So, you know, give her some time, but I, but
I've said, if, if you're not available, I will, I'll debate any medical doctor in Alberta
on this resolution, be it resolved that lockdowns and vaccine passports imposed on Albertans
from 2020 to 22 did more harm than good. Very simple, broad, uh, uh, proposal about lockdowns

(32:02):
and vaccine passports. And that's a very reasonable thing. Like let's have a conversation. One
time I went with a whole bunch of truckers to Ottawa to have a conversation. Um, nobody
would talk to us. Of course. I met some amazing people, actually some people that I had met
before. Dr. Paul Alexander was one of them. Dr. Roger Hodgson, Dr. Eric Payne. Um, and
Dr. Paul Alexander, he said, you know what? Government of Canada, you have these experts

(32:25):
that say we're wrong. Um, well, we rented this room, come and talk to us about it. Tell
us while we're wrong. I'll bring my data. And he had a stack of papers that thick. Now
this guy is the ultimate evidence-based, uh, uh, physician that like the, the things that
man, the things that man found, uh, it's just unreal. He, he, he was the, the authority

(32:48):
on all things pandemic. And he said, come and tell me how I'm wrong. Have this conversation.
That's a reasonable request in a, in an open, free and democratic society, especially when
you're talking about the impact in lives and the, and the rights and freedoms of people.
If you can't have a conversation about it, what, what does that tell you about what you're
trying to push as a narrative? How weak is your narrative if you can't have a conversation?

(33:10):
So let's get rid of, uh, Shelley Duggan's letter here. I'm sure everyone's seen it by
now and I'm just going to go back and find your letter so we can talk about that. I think
it's more interesting.
We've, we've covered, we've covered parts of it already. And I've got a column coming
out in the, in the Western standards that also challenges the, uh, the AMA statement.

(33:35):
It's it's particularly scary that, uh, the AMA statement references fringe approaches
as though, um, the majority must be right just because it's the majority, which again
is incredibly anti-science. Science is not a majority vote. Science is where you say,
you know, we've, here's the evidence that, that supports your thesis. Here's the evidence

(33:57):
that, that discredits your thesis. It's, it's a process of honest debate, discovery, exploration.
That's what science is. And, uh, this is sad too. It's, it's like the colleges of physicians
and surgeons, which silenced doctors prior to lockdowns in 2020, the, the college of

(34:19):
physicians and surgeons of, of Alberta and in every province, uh, did not get into medical
debates. Uh, doctors have always been debating, you know, various things, uh, you know, is
high, is high blood pressure medication. Some doctors say, oh, it's great. You know, lots
of people should take it. Other doctors say it's terrible. Nobody should take it. Other

(34:39):
doctors say, well, it could be good for some people. You have this debate. You don't have
the college of physicians and surgeons, uh, writing, uh, mandatory, uh, uh, policies on,
on patient treatment, telling doctors, you must prescribe, uh, anti-cholesterol medication
or you must refrain from prescribing anti-cholesterol medication. And here we have the college just

(35:01):
dives in and most of the threats were veiled, but some of them are more expressed, but doctors
in Alberta, uh, and in every province were told by their college that if they, uh, were
not promoting lockdowns or at least at minimum, they had to refrain from opposing lockdowns,
but doctors were told you got to support lockdowns. And if you don't, you could get in trouble

(35:23):
for a doctor. That's very frightening. Uh, the Alberta medical association is basically
a lobby group for doctors. So they're going to be meeting with the health minister, uh,
you know, for more money, basically, I'm not saying that's a bad or wrong, but they're
a lobby group for, for doctors, for doctors interests, in particular, their pocketbooks,
what they're getting paid, totally legit, but they don't have, uh, uh, they don't hold

(35:48):
anything over a doctor. So if a doctor offends the Alberta medical association, it's, it's
irrelevant. That would be like me offending the Canadian bar association, completely irrelevant.
The college of physicians and surgeons is very different. It has the power to pull a
doctor's license, which means that, you know, after so many years of study and 80 hour weeks

(36:09):
as an intern, et cetera, et cetera, if you get your license pulled, you cannot earn your
living as a doctor. Now, maybe, you know, if you're on the verge of retirement, maybe
you don't care, but for most doctors, that's a really serious threat. Same with the law
society that threatens lawyers, uh, over their, their, their public comments, uh, on, on,
on political issues, which, which I'm aware of happening in Alberta. So as the colleges

(36:34):
have been just awful in, uh, threatening doctors, coercing doctors to, uh, support, uh, lockdown
support vaccine passports, uh, even to the point, I remember I met a nurse who was told
by Alberta health services nurse was told by her own doctor in early 2021 that she should

(36:56):
not get, uh, she should not take the COVID vaccine because of her medical conditions.
And she said, okay, I won't. Six months later, Jason Kenny makes the vaccine mandatory. And
so she goes back to the same doctor. She goes back to her own doctor who told her, you shouldn't
take this vaccine because it's, it's bad for you, uh, for her and her medical conditions.

(37:18):
And now the doctor says, no, I'm not going to give you a medical exemption. That's the
state of science that the college of physicians and Albertans has, has brought us to. Yeah.
The college of physicians and surgeons, uh, a governance body effectively became people's
doctors and they interfered in the doctor patient relationship. Now at the beginning
of this podcast, I, I mentioned how I like learning how things work. Um, you know, I've

(37:43):
learned a lot about the law, certainly haven't even really scratched the surface and a lot
about politics, a lot about governance, those types of things. I didn't really know anything
before. And in the report, uh, by the way, it actually speaks folks, the Davidson report
actually speaks about how the college of college of physicians, surgeons, um, weaponized against
doctors to push the nerve. He also mentions that if doctors had simply bothered to find

(38:08):
out how the college of physicians works and what their bylaws state, it actually is right
in their bylaws that the culture, the CPSA cannot, um, sanction a doctor unless they
can prove that what they're doing, the treatment is, uh, less effective or dangerous. So all
these doctors that wanted to prescribe, I prescribe Ivermectin that had their hands

(38:29):
slapped because of it, the CPSA really had no power over them. The only power they had
was the words that they were saying in the veiled or sometimes not veiled threats that
they made. Um, other than that, uh, you know, if, if everyone had known exactly how the
process works, it might've been a different story.
I respectfully disagree. They have a huge power because the process is the punishment.

(38:51):
Yes. Yes. I mean, you're correct. At the, at the end of the day and the justice center
has provided lawyers to, to doctors across Canada to, to defend against these disciplinary
proceedings. The problem is if you're, if you're a doctor, when you get the letter,
it's terrifying because they do have the power to pull your license. Then you have to spend
a whole lot of time to gather together what you are. You have to put together like a legal

(39:18):
brief and, and put forward all of, all of the research that you've read and that you're
familiar with, but now you've got to put it together into a persuasive package and you
have to, um, go through this arduous disciplinary process that will take a year and a half.
And so it's like, you've got this, uh, you've got a sword hanging over you for a year and

(39:40):
a half. And even if you win at the end of the day, you've already lost a great deal
in terms of your peace of mind and, and, and your wellbeing. And you've been drained of
massive amounts of energy that you could have been devoting to your patients, devoting to
your husband, wife, kids, whatever, right? They just suck the energy right out of you.

(40:02):
So that's most of these, uh, complaints, uh, majority of them that I'm familiar with. The
college has backed down at the end of the day. Uh, for example, there was Dr. Covinder
Cowher Gill in Ontario who denounced lockdowns and vaccine passports. And she had a great

(40:23):
lawyer, Lisa Bildy, uh, it was sort of affiliated with the justice center. She she's done some
cases for us. Um, this was not one of the cases. I think this one was funded by the
democracy fund, but in any event, uh, Lisa Bildy pressed the Ontario college and said,
okay, let's have a disciplinary hearing on, uh, and let's look at the merits of what Dr.

(40:44):
Gill said. And here's the experts that were calling and we're bringing in the experts
to talk about lockdowns and vaccine passports. And then, uh, last minute, uh, just a few
days before hearing the college back down and said, okay, we're withdrawing the complaint
against Dr. Gill. Uh, there's another great case in BC where a brilliant lawyer, Lee Turner,

(41:06):
he's actually memorized the list of, you know, 47 ingredients in the vaccine, just amazing
mind and he's fighting back, uh, tooth and nail on behalf of Dr. Charles Hoff. And so,
you know, but there are two, that case had to be funded and it's cost, uh, Charles Hoff
and he's willing to pay the price, but it's cost him huge amounts of, of time and effort

(41:30):
and energy to fight back against this prosecution that's been commenced against him for, you
know, questioning the, the efficacy of the vaccine. Yeah. I, you know, I forgot about
me of all people. I can't believe I forgot about how the process is the punishment. And
I did a little bit of reading. I'm not sure if it was in the Davidson report, but I, I

(41:51):
read somewhere that up until some recent ruling, a judge kind of fixed this, but the college
was billing the doctors for their own investigations, I think. And there was some, would not surprise
me. Would not surprise me as a here's our investigation costs. I know the law society
does this for lawyers. So the law society will say, okay, well, you got to pay us, you

(42:13):
know, 5,000 or 2000, or if it goes to a hearing 30 or $40,000 for the cost of the hearing.
So yeah, it's, uh, you know, they're, they're coming out with the big guns. They really
are another, another thing the CPSA can do is at any time without notice for any reason,
they can just go and take your patient files and review them. So Jeff Roth, uh, his doctor,

(42:35):
he mentioned that he had a medic or a mask exemption from his doctor. And like a day
later or two days later, the CPSA showed up at his doctor's office and pulled simply Jeff's
file and reviewed it to try and sanction his doctor. Like that's the kind of weaponization
of these, uh, you know, these, these governance bodies that can happen under the current system.

(42:59):
So I think, I think what we're, it's important that we push back against this garbage.
Yeah, my, I'm not an, I'm not that politically active myself. I'm not any kind of an insider,
but I do believe that the government is, uh, is looking at reining in the, uh, outrageous
prosecution powers of the college and of the law society. And so they should, I mean, the

(43:22):
law society of Alberta, I'm familiar with, you know, I won't mention his name. It's a,
it's a lawyer who was co-author of a paper. I won't mention the paper because it's, it's,
uh, it's going to destroy the confidentiality, but it was a public policy paper on a political
issue and he was one of three authors and it gets a threatening letter initiated by

(43:44):
the law society. There wasn't even a public complaint and, uh, he had to spend a whole
lot of time defending himself and going through and explaining, uh, and, and, you know, mentioning
the names of other lawyers who had also endorsed the paper, et cetera, et cetera. And you know,
this had nothing to do with how he was, uh, providing legal advice and legal representation

(44:08):
to his clients sucked up a whole bunch of time. So they go after your speech. There's
another lawyer. Um, this one I wrote about publicly, uh, Leighton Gray, I'm sure you
know who he is. And he said, friend of mine as well. And he said publicly that black lives
matter is, is a Marxist organization, which I understand to be correct. And if it's not

(44:28):
correct, it's at least it's a reasonable statement of opinion. And the law society kicked him
off of a volunteer committee that he was on. So he didn't face disciplinary proceedings,
but it was just a big slap in the face where he was doing volunteer work for the law society.
They sent him a letter and saying, you're fired from the volunteer position. Uh, why?

(44:48):
Because they didn't like him saying something, uh, about black lives matter being a Marxist
organization. So they police the speech of lawyers. It's disgusting. It's despicable.
And they do it from a, uh, woke ideological perspective. Yeah. That's the problem. He
was also canceled at one point because he spoke to judicial appointments should be

(45:10):
based on merit. It shouldn't be matter. You're having heaven forbid that it should be based
on the quality of your work and your, and your knowledge of the law and nothing else.
And they canceled him. He was actually, as far as I recall, I think they were considering
him for the band. He was appointed. Jason Kennedy appointed him to a, uh, provincial
court judges review committee or provincial court judges appointment committee. So it

(45:35):
was a committee of, you know, a number of people that look at the CVs of, of prospective
judges that want to be appointed to the provincial court of Alberta. And, uh, yeah, he was, he
was, uh, I think, uh, I think he regrets resigning from the committee. If you should never resign
in those circumstances, but first the other side to fire you and quite often the other

(45:59):
side won't, they don't have the spine or other body parts to fire you. They want you to resign.
Uh, but if you're in a difficult situation, uh, the best thing to do is, is not resign
and, uh, leave it to the other side to fire you. And quite sometimes they still will,
but then they have to own it. It's like, well, we fired him for saying such and such, right?

(46:19):
When you resign, they can just be, uh, they can wash their hands of it and, you know,
aw shucks, you know, unfortunate developments. They don't have to own it and accept responsibility.
Yeah. Well, what, what do you, what does the average person do now? I mean, we, we all
see these things going on around us. Many of us want things to change for the better.

(46:41):
Um, a lot of times we feel like maybe our government just isn't acting or not acting
fast enough or, you know, the other side is running rampant with these ridiculous narratives
and kind of crapping on everybody. What is the average Albertan do to try and phone your
MLA, email your MLA, uh, always use polite, respectful language, which doesn't mean that

(47:06):
you cannot also use Frank and honest language and, and say what you mean and mean what you
say, but don't be mean. And, uh, you know, cause people hurt their own cause regardless
of what cause they're advocating for. If you get rude and belligerent or start dropping
a lot of F bombs and start, you know, just getting really angry, uh, whatever you're

(47:27):
fighting for, you're, you're hurting your own cause, but tell MLAs, uh, you know, lockdowns
were very bad. Uh, I urge you to read the Davidson report or at least read the executive
summary. Uh, there's an executive summary at the end of each of the nine chapters and,
uh, we want you to implement these policies. And, uh, uh, I had a doctor tell me the other

(47:50):
day that Alberta health services is still recommending, not requiring, but recommending
that six month old babies get injected with M RNA vaccine. It was absolutely insane. I
mean, babies were, were never threatened by COVID. It was, it was only, uh, people who
are elderly and already sick with cancer, heart disease, emphysema, et cetera, et cetera.

(48:13):
So, um, so people need to contact their MLA. Uh, most MLAs are followers, not leaders.
Most politicians, I'm not going to limit it to MLAs. Most, most politicians are followers,
not leaders. If they sense that people want X and people are opposed to Y, that's going
to have a huge influence on, uh, on public policy in Alberta. And people have to tell

(48:37):
their MLAs, no, we're not forgetting about, you know, that I couldn't hold the hand of,
of my dying mother, or I couldn't have Christmas dinner with my father or, you know, my, my
teenager, uh, turned to drugs because he couldn't handle the isolation. We have to not let the
politicians and our friends and neighbors forget that these lockdowns caused real harm

(49:01):
to real people. That was totally unnecessary. Uh, and there's no evidence of good having
come out of it. Uh, you know, pro lockdown people, they want it to go away because it's
easy to fool people, but it's very, very hard to persuade people that they have been fooled.
But that's, so it's, it's just a long-term project that we have to keep on advocating

(49:22):
for, uh, for our charter rights and freedoms and for common sense and for, for truth in
medicine and for debate and for the scientific methods.
Yes, discussion. This country was founded on the principles of talking to each other,
open debate, dialogue, and it doesn't seem to be like that these days. I would take your,
your advice even a little further, John, I would say, you know, if you're doing those

(49:45):
things and your MLA is just kind of blowing it off, or maybe they were one of the ones
that did this and they just don't want to let go and they refuse to apologize, something
like that, find a couple, 300 people, take over your CA, nominate somebody new and fire
them. Just fire them. We can do that. It's a lot of work, but we've seen it happen.

(50:06):
We've seen it.
That's how, that's how Jason Kenney got, got removed from his job as premier was because
people took out a membership in his political party and forced a leadership review and,
uh, and voted him out. So this is another thing I always stress is if, if you're a member
of a political party, you have literally 10 times as much influence over what goes on

(50:28):
in Alberta, in Canada, as somebody who's not a member of a political party, you get three
rights. If you're a member of a political party that other Canadians don't have, one
is to vote in a leadership race or even a leadership review vote. Uh, so that's huge,
right? If you're a member of a party, you know, once every five or 10 years, a political
party will, will change its leader and you actually have a say in who becomes a new leader.

(50:52):
So you can vote for the better man or the better woman. That's one thing you can vote
in a leadership race. Secondly, you can influence party policies, which in turn have an influence
on laws that are introduced in the legislative assembly or the federal parliament. And thirdly,
this is the best part. You actually get to decide who makes it onto the ballot. So prior

(51:13):
to an election, uh, in Alberta, the, the, the, the UCP members in a particular riding
or electoral district, they decide who's going to be the next candidate. Uh, and the NDP
members, they decide who's going to be the NDP candidate. If you're a member of a political
party, you actually have a say in who makes it onto the ballot. You can make sure the

(51:34):
best possible person gets onto the ballot for that party. So you have two votes. You
vote in the nomination race and then three, six, nine, 12 months later, you vote in the
general election. If you're not a member of a party, you have no say over who makes their
way onto the ballot. So there's a three good reasons to take out a membership in a political
party. Yeah. Democracy isn't just ticking a box every four years. You know, it's, uh,

(51:57):
there's so much more to it than that. And if you, if you, if you look at Canada as a
whole, I think it might've changed a little bit over the last couple of years, but less
than 4% of Canadians hold memberships in political parties. Less than 4%. I'm surprised it's
that high. I would have guessed 1%, but even there, yeah, less than 4% are a political

(52:19):
party members. Yeah. That is, it's absolutely unreal. And then people like me, I'm totally
guilty of this. I spent most of my adult life whining and bitching about the government
does this government does that. And I thought that voting was the way to fix that, but voting
it, that's the tip of the iceberg. What you're talking about, John, the meat and potatoes
behind that, the party policy and the constituency association, uh, nominations for who's going

(52:45):
to run. Those are so, so important. And we know it's important because there's times
when those who are against our ideas, our, our vision of what we want the prompts to
be, they have brought a whole bunch of people to these CA meetings and just wiped it out
and installed their own person. You know, that's, that's how this works. So if you want

(53:05):
to change things, you have to bring enough people with you. Um, and the first step of
course is to figure out, you got to be educated and know what you're doing. And that's part
of the reason why I try and do this is I try and have guests on that, uh, not only can
talk about the problems, but also offer solutions to what we see in our day to day lives. One
thing, a very, very common thing in the comments is a complete distrust of the judiciary. Yeah.

(53:34):
How do we fix that? Well, I wrote a book on it, corrupted by fear. It's, uh, I, this book
arose in part out of getting asked at public meetings. You know, I live in Calgary, but
once a month or so I'm, I'm in Vancouver, Toronto, Edmonton, medicine hat, uh, Saskatoon,

(53:54):
Regina, et cetera. And I kept on getting asked what's up with these judges. Are they
getting thick wads of a hundred dollar bills or are they getting a, you know, thick brown
envelope full of cash? Are they getting a threatening phone call from the prime minister?
Are they getting emails from the world economic forum? And my answer was no, no, and no, I
don't believe that judges are getting paid off. I don't think they're getting threatening

(54:16):
phone calls or emails. However, uh, judges bought into the media narrative and became
afraid like the rest of the population. And when you're full of fear, you tend to not
think clearly or debate honestly, or analyze things rationally. Uh, it's like, you know,
if somebody told me right now that, that, that the building that I'm in is on fire,

(54:40):
I'm probably not going to ask a bunch of questions like how fast is the, uh, fire spreading,
uh, where is it located currently? Uh, how much time is it going to take before it gets
to my part? I'm just going to get up and run out of the building as soon as I can. That's
what fear does. And that can be a good thing. You know, you don't, if somebody tells you

(55:00):
your building's on fire and if they're not joking, uh, you don't want to be this guy
that's going to sit there and ask a bunch of questions. You probably want to get up
and run out, but this happened on a massive scale. The media, uh, you know, we had the,
it was kickstarted by Dr. Neil Ferguson of Imperial college London, who said that COVID

(55:20):
would be as deadly as the Spanish flu of 1918. I remember that he talked about, uh, about
10, tens of millions of, of COVID deaths, uh, which, which never materialized, uh, even
four years down the road. But, uh, that started the fear and then the fear became self perpetuating
and the media wanted to be relevant. So of course, uh, you know, if you've got boring

(55:44):
coverage like Paul COVID's, uh, really the data is showing us that COVID is, is like
a bad annual flu. That's not going to get your ratings up and people are not going to
pay attention to you. So they made it the story. Now the judges bought into this and
you see this, uh, in the book, I go through, it's written for non-lawyers. I think there's

(56:06):
a lot of lawyers have, some lawyers have read it already in the reviews on, on Amazon and
lawyers find it interesting, but it's, it's written for non-lawyers. So you know, get
through it without a lot of legalese, but I go through these court rulings and the evidence
and the judges come out with these crazy claims that are media driven, media based, not supported

(56:26):
by evidence that was presented before them in the courts. And so my thesis is, it's a
thesis cause I can't be inside their hearts and inside their minds. I don't know for sure,
but my thesis is corrupted by fear. They were so full of fear, like the rest of the population
that they didn't, uh, they didn't rely on the evidence presented in court and they wrote

(56:48):
the media narrative into their rulings. Now having said all of that, I'm not excusing
that. I'm not saying it was okay. It was not okay. Uh, judges should be a ruling based
on the evidence before them. They should not be ruling based on what they've heard a thousand
times on the six o'clock news. Yeah. That's a, it's a lot and it is frustrating. Our,

(57:11):
our, the judges in this country, they're kind of our last resort and we've got to spend
a lot of money even to get to the point where a judge will rule on anything and either vindicate
us or sentence us. So justice isn't easy to access. It's a little easier because there's
places like the JCCF who will, uh, help stand up for people's constitutional rights and

(57:31):
freedoms when they're threatened. So thank you for that, John. Uh, and you mentioned
the democracy fund. They were the ones who, who funded my legal battles and there's many
others. There's individual lawyers that have taken things on all sorts of stuff, but we
have to remember, uh, these are all people and people, human beings all are afflicted
by the same things. We have the human condition. We're all flawed. Not one of us is perfect.

(57:55):
Uh, I'm thankful that the judge of judges isn't inhibited by human flaws because if
he was, then we'd all be in big trouble, but that's what we're dealing with. They're dealing
with men and women and they're not perfect. They're fallible. And the only way to, the
only way to get through when dealing with other human beings is to keep talking about
things and, and try and push the, try and push the needle and not to the needle, the

(58:19):
jab. Wow. That's a, I gotta stop saying that one. Try and tip the scales, I guess I'll
say, but there's something more in this province are, we don't have any say really in who gets
appointed to be the ones that determine our fate. If we have to fight the government,
it's the government that appoints them. You're correct. Well, we have this indirect

(58:41):
influence. This is why it's so important to elect freedom minded MLAs who truly cherish
our charter rights and freedoms and the free society and the rule of law. If every MLA
in Alberta was, was in that category, and I don't think that's the case, uh, they would
naturally appoint judges who also have a love for freedom and, and truth and justice in

(59:03):
the free society. Judges who, uh, really appreciate our charter freedoms of association and expression,
conscience, religion, peaceful assembly, uh, the right mobility, travel, uh, the right
to bodily autonomy. We want to appoint judges who have, uh, a large appreciation for these

(59:23):
things who are not going to give governments an easy pass. So when a government, uh, is,
is hauled into court by a citizen challenging charter violations, the government, the judge
is going to hold the government to a high standard where it's going to say, look, you
have to prove with cogent persuasive evidence. You have to demonstrably justify that your

(59:44):
health order is a justified violation of our bodily autonomy or freedom of association,
whatever. And so it's, um, I'm saying the same thing you are, but in different words,
that it's, it's that cultural battle where if, if 60, 70, 80, 90% of Albertans have this

(01:00:05):
very high level of appreciation for charter rates and freedoms, that's going to trickle
up to the politicians and that's going to trickle up to the judges because it is the
politicians who appoint the judges. So we don't have a direct say, but we have an indirect
say in who we elect.
How could we change that? One person in the comments says the government ignore, ignored
the rule of law. Good luck fixing it. Now I would say, yeah, in some cases they did,

(01:00:29):
but at the end of the day, when we're trying to deal with that, it's judges that are going
to interpret the law and decide whether or not the government ignored the law or they
just worked within it. That's a problem. So if I said, well, maybe, you know, it would
be better if we were more like the United States and we, we, we elected judges, you
know, maybe that would give a better balance in our regional differences, cultural values,

(01:00:52):
those types of things. And we could have a more, more effective protection from government.
How would we go about that? Is that a constitutional thing, how judges are appointed?
Well, okay, but elected judges are only going to be as good as the culture of the people
that elect them. So if you're in, if you're in a culture where it's only a third or only

(01:01:14):
40% of the people that really have a strong appreciation for human rights and, and, and
constitutional freedoms, if, if these voters are, you know, a third or 40%, the judges
that will get elected will be these judges that have very low level of appreciation for
fundamental human rights. So electing judges, I don't have a strong view either way. I don't

(01:01:39):
think it's necessarily all that helpful if, if we, if we're not able to elect a higher
percentage of freedom loving MLAs and MPs to our provincial legislature and our federal
parliament, why do we think that elections for judges is going to do us a lot of good?
If we can't even get some of these terrible people removed from school boards that want

(01:02:04):
to harm our children by promoting transgender ideology, by teaching children this lie that
it's possible to transition to the opposite sex, which is not, it's not possible. But
if, if we can't even clean out our local school boards and get better people elected at that
level, why would anyone think we're going to, we're going to elect these wonderful judges

(01:02:27):
if judges are elected rather than appointed?
That's a really good point. So the systemic problems within the society just manifest
themselves in the themselves and the judges that we would elect anyway. It's almost like,
it's almost like we need some sort of a foundational, foundational law or foundational set of rules
that really elevates personal rights, freedoms, and responsibilities above everything else.

(01:02:50):
Almost like, you know, almost like the way a Republic works, where even if democracy
decides that it wants to flush itself down the toilet, the foundational law prevents
it. Like our kind of like our neighbors to the South. Maybe that's, maybe that's a better
idea for fixing some of these things.
But they've had to fight the same battles to get judges appointed and judges there are

(01:03:11):
not. I mean, yes, there are some states that have elected judges for some of the local
state judges and, and that's fine. I'm not, I'm not against that. When it comes to the
federal judiciary, they are appointed by the president and they have to be ratified by
the U.S. Senate. So you have politicians at that level. They have fought starting in the
eighties, the Justice Antonin, the late Justice Antonin Scalia and others, Eugene Meyer with

(01:03:37):
the Federalist Society. They fought to promote a doctrine called originalism, which says
that you interpret the constitution according to the original intent, not the political
preferences of a judge. And if you don't like the outcomes, then change the constitution,
but don't pervert the rulings.
After literally 40 plus years of hard work, I was talking about courage and perseverance,

(01:04:03):
right? We're not going to get changes in the next few months or years. But after
40 years of work, you now have a U.S. Supreme Court where the majority on the court is originalist.
And so we're having this big shift, but that took decades of, of, of activism. And in Canada,
we do have the foundational rules in the charter. The charters would be next to impossible to

(01:04:28):
change. You'd need the majority vote of seven provincial legislatures plus the federal parliament
within a five year time span. I mean, it's next to impossible. The problem in Canada
is that the judges are misapplying section one. Section one requires governments to justify
demonstrably that their health order that violates charter freedoms is doing more good

(01:04:55):
than harm demonstrably. And the judges have just lowered the bar for government. So we
need better judges is something that we can, we can start getting that tomorrow. Well,
not tomorrow, but better judges is something that we can get by electing more, electing
better people federally and provincially. The constitutional change to the charter is,

(01:05:19):
is next to impossible.
I know one way we can do it with leverage and Alberta could have the leverage if we
got together and did it in the form of a referendum on independence. That's one of the things
that we talk about the Alberta prosperity project all the time. In the meantime, I like
what you say about putting in good MLAs, good legislators, because their job, their only

(01:05:43):
job by the way, folks is to make law on our behalf, make law to our benefit. That's it.
So if we have a bad system, we have bad laws that are being used and abused, we can elect
people that would make good laws to protect us. One of the ones that we almost had was
so close was that new Alberta Bill of Rights without the section one ask a part in it that

(01:06:08):
that could have been, I think a lot better than it turned out. And we almost got it.
But if we, if we start changing out some of these people and make laws to protect ourselves
in the meantime, while we're working towards greater structural reform, I think that's,
I think that'd be a very, very good thing.
Do you have, do you have anything else to offer John? I know we're getting to be just

(01:06:28):
over an hour here.
Let me, let me close on a positive note. If we elect better MLAs provincially and better
MPs federally, it wouldn't even matter how good or bad the judges were. Because, because
if you get pro-freedom MLAs who truly understand and appreciate the free society, who truly

(01:06:49):
believe in human rights and constitutional freedoms, they're not going to pass the bad
laws that citizens need to take to court. So like you cure, you cure 90% of the problem
just by electing better people. Right. And then you don't need to go to court and hope
that a judge is going to strike down a bad law. The best thing to do is you, you elect

(01:07:10):
people who are not going to pass bad laws in the first place.
That's a good point.
Close on that.
We do what we can now and we keep our mind on the future and what's, what's coming later
on and we just chip away at it as best we can. And I would say folks, another thing
that's important is we really need to support the people that are caught up in this as we

(01:07:31):
go through it. Right now we have, we got all sorts of things going on, all sorts of people
that need help because they have been caught up in a system that is far less than perfect.
So I would encourage you to just follow what's going on at the JCCF, see what they're doing
and help where you can. And that goes for, you know, anyone else that's doing that, or
even the individuals that are fighting for change, the people that are involved in advocacy,

(01:07:56):
if you like what they're doing, help them out, support them. Maybe you can't be out
there standing on a, on a milk crate giving speeches, but you can certainly help them
get there with a little bit of gas money or something like that. So we all, we all have
our part and if we all do a little bit, how does that go? One person can't do everything,
but if everything does a little bit, it's easier, something like that.
Be the change, be the change you want to see in the world.

(01:08:18):
Yeah. You know what? My friend Gandhi said that once. That was a, that was a good one.
Yeah. I know I'll never forget that. All right. Well, I think that's pretty good. We're just
over an hour and that's kind of where we're shooting for. I think this is a great place
to end it. If you folks, if you have any questions about any of this stuff, put them up in the
comments. I'll try and go through some of the stuff. Maybe John will have a look at

(01:08:39):
it. You can also reach him. If you go to the JCCF website under the contact stuff, contact
tab, his information is in there and you can reach him with questions and things like that
too. And I guess all we got left is just thank you very much for what you're doing. Thanks
for coming on the show and thank you for even doing things like challenging, uh, Shelley,

(01:09:00):
Shelley Duggan, uh, who is trying to discredit some people who are doing good work in this
province. I know that's kind of not your wheelhouse and you didn't have to take the time to do
it. You did it anyway. So thank you very much. Thanks for having me on your show. Have a
great rest of the night. Anytime. Good night, John. Good night. Take care. There you go
folks. John Carpe with the justice center for constitutional freedoms. He wrote an open

(01:09:25):
letter to the Alberta, the Alberta medical association after they released a letter,
basically condemning the Davidson report that recently came out, uh, as misinformation,
disinformation, anti-science, those types of things. The one thing that we didn't see
in that open letter that they wrote, and as a matter of fact, even the Ed, the Edmonton
zone medical association or whatever, they did the same thing. The one thing they're

(01:09:49):
not doing is they're not telling you what data they're looking at that disagrees with
the data that the Davidson report brought out. They're not telling you which parts of
it they believe are misinformation and why they're just trying to silence and cancel
rather than have the healthy, robust debate that we're supposed to have in this province

(01:10:11):
and in this country as a peaceful way of getting things done. And when you see those things,
when you see people doing that type of, that type of, uh, of, uh, you know, cancel culture
action with people they disagree with, you should challenge them to feel free to ask
them, well, you know, if this is wrong, I'm, I'm open to the, to the position that this

(01:10:34):
might be wrong, but please tell me how so I can at least weigh and form my opinion.
I think that's maybe the best we can do. Thanks again. Uh, I'm going to sign off now, but
before I do, I just want to let you guys know yesterday, Carrie had to take off a little
bit early. He got some bad news yesterday at the end of our show and I'll just, he's,

(01:10:56):
he's okay. His family's okay. I will let him discuss that with you when he's back, but
you can rest assured that Carrie is okay. Um, so yeah, we love the guy. Have a great
night everyone. We'll see you on the next Chris and Carrie show. Probably Chris sans
Carrie because Carrie's, you know, it's too busy, you know, karaoke and jobs and stuff

(01:11:17):
like that to be on here. But it'll be tomorrow night, 7pm with our friend Sheila Gunn, Sheila
Gunn Reed from rebel news. She's going to come on and talk about all things Canada,
Alberta, and hopefully even a little bit United States and Switzerland. So stay tuned for
that.
Meow.