All Episodes
Previous Next
June 23, 2022 - Viva & Barnes
02:00:01
SCOTUS 2nd Amendment Decision; Jordan Peterson vs. Ethan Klein; James Topp Update & MORE!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
We have breaking news into the CBS2 newsroom.
I'm Mary Calvey, and the Supreme Court just came down with its biggest Second Amendment ruling in more than a decade.
The high court overturning New York's concealed carry law that requires gun holders to show a special need to be armed in public.
We have team coverage for you.
First, we begin with CBS2's Jessica Moore breaking down the big decision.
We'll come back to them breaking down the big decision.
Good afternoon, everyone.
Some technical problems today with memory, with typography, and with being on time.
I forgot Robert was live with the Duran at 1 o 'clock.
I think they're still live right now.
Then I set it up and then I forgot I had to pick up kids.
Then I forgot that I had invited James Topp to come on and give us the rundown of yesterday's meetings in Ottawa.
Look, all's well that ends well.
And it's at least starting well.
We'll see how it ends.
Okay, while everyone trickles in, on the menu for today, I do not believe the, as it's called, the Dobbs decision, the overturning Roe v.
Wade decision has come down from SCOTUS.
But what has come down, according to mainstream news, is the biggest Second Amendment decision in over a decade.
I am not watching.
The January 6th hearing.
I actually went into a room and it was on the TV.
I changed the channel on the TV, then turned the TV off just in case.
Yeah, we'll walk through.
I mean, I didn't get through the 115 pages of majority and dissenting opinion.
I've gotten a gist of the decision.
Was listening to Barnes on the Duran while jogging on the treadmill.
And I think I've gotten the perspective of people who I know are more informed than me on the subject.
It's interesting stuff.
But before anything else, I'm a Canadian.
We're going to talk some important Canadian stuff.
Yesterday, James Topp, the man who is marching across Canada, canadamarches.ca.
He started at the Terry Fox Memorial in Vancouver.
I want to say it was after February, March.
I think it was April.
And has been marching across the country ever since.
He's a military veteran, suffered some employment consequences for refusing to submit to a certain medical profession.
He's been marching across Canada.
If it had been anyone else for any other cause, he would have had the Canadian legacy media hounding him for the story, celebrating him as a hero for constitutional rights.
But alas, he's protesting the wrong constitutional violations.
So the...
Legacy media that is being spoon-fed cash by the handful.
What a mixed metaphor there.
No interest in it.
I think I might have been one of the first people to actually interview James Topp.
He put out a very...
It was an informal...
I'm sure in hindsight it'll be a cringy video announcing what he was doing and reaching out to other social media people with platforms.
I saw the video.
He came on.
We talked for a long time.
He's been marching across the country since.
As he's marching across the country, protesting these, I will say, unconstitutional vaccine mandates, travel restrictions, COVID restriction responses.
He's been marching in protest to that, reaching out to members of parliament to meet, to sit down for what he calls the three R's plus one.
Repair, remedy.
Rectify restitution.
Something along those lines.
He'll explain it.
He's been reaching out to parliamentarians to meet with him, to talk with him.
And yesterday, a handful, I think it was maybe a dozen, agreed to.
And I think at some...
Double WEF mandates.
I think, according to some, several of the MPs walked out...
Mid-meeting.
It was a meeting with Dr. Paul.
I forget his last name.
I'll get it.
Tom Morazzo, who's been on the channel.
James Topp and a handful of MPs.
I don't think there were any NDP or Liberals there.
And now he's back on the road.
They drove him in from where he was on his trek for the meeting.
He had two meetings in one day and they shipped him back out to where he ended up and now he's continuing his march to Ottawa to arrive, I believe, on the 1st.
And we're going to bring him in.
Talk to him about his day yesterday.
Get the update.
And then we're going to get into some other stuff.
SCOTUS.
An online debate in absentia that I'm having with Jordan Peterson and Ethan Klein.
More of a discussion with Jordan Peterson that he doesn't yet maybe even know is happening.
And a lesson that we can all learn from Ethan Klein's loser think.
And then I guess we're going to touch on the Gab situation.
And they rumble terms of service, which I think we're going to hold off on the meaningful discussion until Sunday night with Barnes, but I'll address some, you know, basic, basic concerns and some funny stuff.
I never understood what gab was.
And it's bizarre for a company, the CEO of a company, to behave in such a manner.
But we'll get there.
We'll get there.
Right now, James Topp.
I'm coming into you.
Topp of the afternoon to you, sir.
James, how you doing?
Good.
How are you?
Good.
Hold up.
Your audio is blasting.
Edit mic settings.
I'm going to just take that off.
Okay.
I'm going to bring you way down.
Okay.
Let's see it.
Let's see how it works down.
Mic check one, two.
Check.
Check one, two.
Okay.
I think that's better.
Chat, let me know if the audio is way out of sync.
James, where are you?
Yeah, hey, I'm outside of Petawawa, Ontario.
Kind of my old stomping grounds, actually.
I was posted here at CFB Petawawa from about the mid-90s up to the, well, mid-2000s, about 10, 12 years.
And I know a lot of fellas in the area.
This interview might get interrupted.
Fellas and ladies, I should say.
So, I was listening to your intro there.
Thank you for that.
Yeah, we did stop just outside of Deep River, Ontario yesterday.
Drove in on the night of the 21st to Ottawa.
We spent a lot of time A lot of blood, sweat and tears went into arranging this meeting, I can tell you that much.
And it happened.
It happened.
Who showed up exactly?
Are you allowed to mention the names?
Say again?
Are you allowed mentioning the names of which MPs showed up?
I don't have them in front of me, but they've been published in a couple of articles now.
It's actually a point that...
I'll speak to you in a second because let me tell you something, Viva, I went in and I saw politics in all its ugly glory, okay?
It was a sight to behold.
I got into the gallery in between our sessions with MPs and watched Question Period on how anything is accomplished in this country is beyond me.
But what I will say is that the list is out there.
It's actually something being used to club Conservative MPs over the head with now for the audacity that they had in meeting with me.
But what I will say is this: I applaud their courage.
In general, we kind of have this impression of Members of Parliament as this kind of mass of ineffectual and, you know, they're ineffectual and not able to get anything done.
However, what I saw was, you know, they are human beings individually.
They're just like us.
But they are part of a larger organization that I think is, you know, not that responsive or has a lot of efficiency.
So what I'm going with this is that the ones that came out to say there was 23 of them all together that came out primarily from the Conservative Party.
So I was asked early on why it was only Conservatives that came out and my response was, I don't know.
I think it's because of their aligning with anything that they see is...
How do I put this?
I don't know.
At odds with the current federal government, it's hard to explain.
But the reality is I would have met with any member of parliament.
Any member of parliament was welcome to come to that meeting, and it was only conservatives that showed up.
I pulled up an article.
It's on the CBC.
It says...
Included in the meeting, Leland Lewis, Warren Steinle, John Barlow, Ryan Williams, Dean Allison, and Arnold Vearson.
I can only recognize one name there.
Leslie Lewis is the one I recognize.
But it's a funny thing, James.
I know who I've invited on the channel for discussions, and I know typically who says yes and who politely does not respond.
Your reach out was not just to conservatives.
Your reach, as far as I understand, was an open invitation.
To all parliamentarians, the people who were elected to represent the likes of you, even if they don't agree with you.
You reached out to all of them.
You only got response from a handful of conservatives.
That's correct.
And a lot of the conservatives, it seemed to me there was some kind of factional conflict going on there.
But, you know, it was encouraging, I have to say, despite the party politics, like I said.
This whole thing, okay, in one of my letters I wrote, I said we need to demonstrate to the Canadian people that this system still functions in some way.
And I think, you know, the problems that we have with the system, it shows that if you put your mind to it and you have enough help, you can at least get something going.
I'll just elaborate a little bit on the outcome.
Well, I'll just talk about the whole day, really, and then I can elaborate on the outcome.
So, we got into Ottawa.
The meeting venue was provided to us at the Valor Building.
And, you know, it was an excellent location.
We had all the bells and whistles when it came to AV and presentation capabilities.
We're able to stream it and broadcast it and I encourage anybody to go and look at the presentation in its entirety because I did have myself and the name you were looking for is Dr. Paul Alexander.
So he's an immunologist, epidemiologist of some renown and he was able to speak to why the Mandates must be repealed, and I'll go into what I was calling the 3R equation, okay?
So the 3Rs are repealing mandates in other forms, more or less, reinstating workers, granting restitution, and that 3Rs is going to give you repair.
So 3Rs equals repair.
Because the repair that we need to do, and I don't know if we spoke about this before, but there's a divide that's been introduced in this society.
We have a number of people who identify with this, you know, quote-unquote freedom movement.
A number of people who, you know, went along to get along, and they're not seeing the suffering that's been inflicted by the imposition of these mandates.
And then we have the group of people who...
Do what they're told all the time, anywhere, anyplace, anytime.
So that's what the divide is all about.
And we need to repair it, because as I see it, it's severe, and if we don't get on top of it, it's going to cause some kind of upheaval, and I'd rather not see that.
It doesn't take much.
So I had Dr. Paul Alexander there to speak to repealing mandates, because as you know...
There's been some suspension of travel restrictions and other things.
Some federal government workers are getting called back to work, so forth and so on.
And I keep getting asked this question, well, they're lifting mandates, why are you still marching?
So I'll answer that in case you were thinking about it.
Number one, they're not lifting any mandates.
They're being suspended just in case.
There's a presence of a new variant or the resurgence of an old variant or some other hypothetical situation where they will be reimposed on us.
I don't doubt it.
So that was why I had ensured that I was able to bring an expert to speak to me on why all of these things must be repealed.
And the point of fact is that you can prove through analysis of the data That most of the pandemic measures that were put into place did little to nothing to prevent this thing we're calling COVID from circulating.
Just to stop you there, for anybody who does not recall in real time when Texas was announcing lifting the mask mandates and they said, wait two weeks, you're going to see.
It was always the wait two weeks.
When Florida, which never enacted...
Anything close to what we had in Canada.
You overlap the charts.
You're going to see, by and large, identical progressions, identical curves.
So there have been now studies coming out showing that that which was done had minimal impact, if any, as relates to combating or slowing down the spread of the virus.
Where we're going to see effects that it's going to have are going to be in the coming years and decades, and that's going to be a totally different...
Totally different set of consequences.
Sorry, James, so carry on.
Number two.
Yeah, yeah, number two was the efficacy of the vaccination protocol that was put into place is also of limited or zero benefit, okay?
So, and in point of fact, may be actually damaging.
So he has the data.
Available to him is capable of studying it and interpreting it and and telling us exactly You know why all of the imposition of these things was was harmful at a greater level so Which is why I introduced and had him come to the conversation because It was important that he speak to the relevant point so Repealing,
reinstatement, restitution equals repair.
And to the point, these Members of Parliament who showed the courage to come and speak to me, they were prodded into activity by all of the folks that I met along the way who have been following this journey, who I asked to write to your Members of Parliament and get them to come and talk to me.
So this system does work.
Like what I am doing, what my team is doing, what they have enabled me to do, people resonated with it.
They reached out to their members of parliament in email and mail, calling, saying go talk to James Topp.
And I know this because the member of parliament that I met said, I have a number of constituents who said I should come and talk to you.
This is where we're at with this.
This is one of the things I wanted to do and bring it forward to the Canadian people so that they could see it takes some effort, but if you can get those cogs in the machinery working, then you have the ability to make an effect.
So that part, that mission task, I think was accomplished.
What I had wanted to speak to them about was who I am, what I'm doing, why I'm doing it.
Here's what I see, the problem, here's some solutions.
And the solution that I presented to them was the establishment of something we're calling the Canadian Citizens Coalition, which is bringing under one umbrella a number of loosely affiliated organizations.
Sorry, let me back that up.
A number of previously loosely affiliated situations.
That we can get working together to achieve a common goal.
So we have police on guard, Vaccine Choice Canada, Veterans for Freedom, Mounties for Freedom, Taking Back Our Freedom, Frontline Nurses, okay?
And we want to get more partners.
We want to get more communities involved.
And this is the answer because what I see the problem is, And, you know, feel free to reinterpret it as you will.
But I've been doing this for four months.
I've met thousands of people from Vancouver to Ontario.
Most of them are unhappy with the federal government.
And they see the federal government as inflexible, intractable, and unresponsive.
Yeah, go ahead.
I see it as corrupt, immoral, and with absolute wanton disregard for the Constitution.
Some might see ineptitude.
Others might see evil, for lack of a better word.
In which case, someone's going to say, how do you negotiate with bad faith?
But, sorry, James.
Okay, carry on.
Well, there's a number of adjectives that we could throw in.
I don't doubt.
However, what I'm just trying to...
To say is that this is me talking to folks in the old-timey way, face-to-face and in close contact, okay?
This is what I've heard.
This is the common ailment facing us, okay?
So what I see is that there's too much power in too few hands in one location.
And the answer to that is a citizens' coalition.
And this is what I think all of these, like I said, loosely, previously loosely affiliated groups can achieve and bring some kind of balance back.
You know, give people, give voters, give the public, inform them of what they are capable of, what their rights are, and how they can kind of Counterbalance all of the power on one side and bring it back to their side.
So, you know, like for example, I've marched with my team here, 4,000 kilometers.
You can get, you know, 4,000 people to march one kilometer instead.
Does that make any sense?
No, I know what you're getting at.
So, this isn't a union.
It's not a lobby.
It's not a party.
It's not a political action committee.
It's a chimera of those things.
And we're going to try to make something work with it.
Because I needed to bring to that meeting something to show members of parliament that there are things going on.
There are citizens getting together.
They are working towards something, and it's something that they're working towards a solution.
to the problems we have and that's what I presented to the members of our parliament and I am extending I went forward to extend a hand to them and I believe it was taken up and I believe that over the summer and fall we can have further discussion on how to get out from underneath all of this government-imposed These government-imposed
mandates and restrictions and requirements and this kind of thing.
So what I will say is that my faith in this system was somewhat restored because I can see that there was human beings there.
When you can put a name to a face and speak to them, a lot of them are earnest.
They believe in what they're doing.
But the parliamentary system, I think, is structured in such a way as to...
Oh, no.
I hope we didn't lose James.
Chat, let me know.
I was happy with the way it turned out because, you know, yeah, it took marching 4,000 kilometers and ceaseless overcoming...
Seriously, the bureaucratic hurdles along the way, but I was able to establish this meeting and get it going.
Well, okay, look, I don't want to impart my cynicism on you, but I'm not sure what I think I would see in those politicians if I were to have met them.
But let me ask you the one question that people in the chat are asking, but the answer seems to be no.
Did Pierre Poilievre show up, and did he even respond?
Yes, well, interestingly enough, After having not heard from him for a number of, well, right up until the day of the night of the meeting, he had one of the people reach out, and we were able to have a conversation with this.
Thank you.
James, we're having some connectivity issues.
Damn it.
I'm going to text...
He got some of his staff.
Sorry.
After all this time, one of his staff finally contacted us.
Pierre wasn't going to attend the meeting because I do believe he was out of Ottawa at that time.
But he did want to meet for a coffee, as I understand it.
Well, it wasn't...
How do I put this?
It didn't seem fair to other members of Parliament to, you know, give them the photo opportunity since they had the courage to come and see us.
And just, you know, be able to say, hey, yeah, Pierre, we're going to swing out of our way to come and have a coffee with you.
But he didn't attend the meeting, unfortunately.
His staff member reached out to us.
We weren't able to accommodate him.
Okay.
Hang on here.
Yep.
All right, we're not going to be able to.
Okay, you're just going to have to keep going.
This is a bad spot.
I don't know.
Does that answer your question?
At the last moment, one of his staff members reached out to us.
And we tried, but it didn't work out.
It answers the question.
I think some people might come to their own conclusions based on that from what you've described.
No response.
Response the day of.
Can't make it.
Let's meet up for a cup of coffee somewhere else.
Okay.
Draw your own conclusions, people.
Who were the members of Parliament that walked out of the first meeting that you had yesterday, and do you know why?
I actually don't know who they are.
All I can say is that it probably had something to do with...
Like, look, I don't know, okay?
Did they have other committee meetings that they had to attend?
Was there an emergency?
They live by their phones as much as more than any one of us probably does.
And, you know, they could have got called to respond to some kind of emergency or something.
So I can't say.
I don't know.
May I ask, did it appear that they left at a certain time?
I was led to believe that they left when Dr. Paul Alexander was speaking.
It's okay.
Let her know she's live on the interwebs.
Yeah, you're on the internet, right?
So you guys know that?
Okay.
Well, they know it now.
So Feyenoch...
Sorry, can you give me one sec?
Pierre is campaigning for leadership.
He's all over Canada.
He's campaigning for leadership, which is why he should have been there, specifically.
In my humble opinion.
So, yeah, sorry.
No, Dorma, James, was that...
So...
Do you know if they left when Dr. Paul Alexander was talking, a doctor who can be a little abrasive and direct in his message?
Did they leave it roughly that time that you know of?
I honestly can't remember.
It was a hell of a day up today.
It's not every day I get 20 MPs in a room and have a chance to address them.
I don't know what to say.
They got up, they left, they have their reasons.
Maybe one day they'll feel like talking about it.
I didn't see the first meeting, I saw the second one.
How many stuck around afterwards to meet you, ask your questions?
Give me five minutes.
How freaking cool is this, people?
How cool is this?
This is inspirational, albeit I feel a little jaded and black-pilled.
James had his day with the MPs, felt encouraged.
I think I might feel discouraged based on what happened, but we'll see.
But, James, how many stuck around to talk with you afterwards, privately, publicly, ask you questions, shake your hand?
Yeah, quite a few, actually.
To put a number, probably about 10 or 15. I mean, ultimately, like I said, I have to look at this from a positive point of view.
Because it was, you know, why not?
Like, I mean, it took a lot of blood, sweat, tears to get there.
A lot of people put some time and energy into it, and I want to tell them that it paid off.
Could it have been more, could have more of them showed up and made an even better demonstration that our democracy still functions in some way?
Yes, but to be perfectly honest, I was expecting, like, possibly zero.
To show up.
So it's a win for me, okay?
They know who I am.
I know who they are.
My concern about all of this is that we had two sessions.
In the morning session, we had a lot more attendance.
In the second session, we had three.
And in the second session, we had our friends from CBC, CTV, and Global show up.
And, of course, what they decided to zero in on was my...
Trying to impart on the members of parliament why we needed to have a repair.
And we needed to have a repair because of what I saw in similar situations 25 years ago in a war-torn country.
So you have a population that is intensely dissatisfied with its government.
You have a population that is suffering from inflation, high gas prices, ballooning public and private debt.
I said I've seen these things in war zones.
Because I said it that way and because my colleague also kind of compounded that, that was zeroed in on by our friends at the mainstream.
And they didn't want to talk about anything else.
No, no.
Give it a second, people.
James.
James, you might have to reboot.
Hold on.
I'm going to text your connection cut out.
You might have to log off and come back in.
Nobody else hears, okay?
Right?
This is not...
James, we can't hear you.
I think they're going to disconnect and come back in.
Unless they are...
Damn it, Elon.
I'm losing my patience here.
Don't know what that means.
We can't hear you, James.
Let me put this up here.
We can't hear.
I'll put this up right here.
Okay, there we go.
Oh, by the way, if anyone's wondering, I came out of the shower.
If I'm not on the good mic, I'm going to go nuts here.
Hold on one second.
Audio?
Good.
I hope I wasn't too negative with James.
He met with these parliamentarians.
From what I was explained, it may be wrong, but a bunch got up and left.
Apparently, when Dr. Paul Alexander was speaking, Dr. Paul Alexander can be a little abrasive in his message.
Not wrong, and that is why one has to, if one is sincerely interested in honest discourse, Sometimes you have to focus on the message and not the method of delivery or the tone of delivery.
The second meeting looked good, but 12 parliamentarians, all conservatives, very little media interest, no liberals, no NDP.
It goes to show you who they are.
James' success is going to be not with parliamentarians, but with the people.
And he's already achieved that.
The amount of people honking, honking.
Honking now at James.
Exponentially more than when he first started and we first did the walkie-talkie live stream.
Okay, he's back.
Hold on.
All right, James.
Let me see if we got this now.
I did not kick him from the studio.
Okay.
No.
Try again.
Okay, they're going to try again.
What's the shirt?
Why, that would be...
Who?
What?
I just spat.
Who, what, when, why, where?
At vivafry.com, where you can get all the merch.
So, Pierre Poilievre doesn't respond until the day of, yes, he's campaigning for leadership of the party.
I mean, maybe he wants a photo op without everyone else and he thinks he's going to get it because he's running for leadership of the party.
Maybe he just wanted the photo op.
That's bad form.
And that is not how you show courage and show leadership and show what Canada needs right now, which is unification and not, you know, let's get...
If what it was, was he wanted the best photo op.
If he's busy, you make time in your damn schedule when you're running for leadership at the Conservative Party to meet with probably the most popular person among the people right now, that being James Topp.
Okay, let's see what's going on here.
Okay, I hear some good audio.
Yes, sorry about that.
It was some technical problems that I had here.
Somebody interrupting the call.
But I'm just going to pass you to James in one second.
He's just meeting with a bunch of folks here.
I'll just show you the scene a little bit.
This is beautiful.
Is he at an RV?
Is he at a campground?
Or is this people just pulling over on the side of the highway?
It's people just pulling over basically every three to five kilometers, our RV support vehicle.
James is stopping, and he stops and has some water or some food.
And James, he's back, and this is one of the spots.
I'll just pass you now to him.
Fantastic.
And we'll go for a few more minutes, and then you'll get back.
The people need to see you, James, and they want to see you.
Yeah, do you guys want to get a picture?
Okay.
Well, we're going to keep more marching then.
Okay.
Is your family going to do that?
I gotta tell you, it's a beautiful area.
Ontario is beautiful.
Ontario is surprisingly beautiful.
It's amazing.
Can you imagine?
I mean, the parliamentarians should be ashamed of themselves.
Trudeau, there's no pride left.
There's no shame left.
There's nothing.
He's a man who thinks he's beyond speaking to the rabble that he represents.
Jagmeet Singh has proven himself to be the foot washer of the tyrant.
Yeah.
I'm a little surprised and disappointed with Kualievra.
Leslie Lewis.
I've liked her for a while.
Fantastic.
James, do you know, is Leslie Lewis running for the head of the leadership of the Conservatives, is she?
I believe he is.
I'm honestly not following it.
So I want to put something out there just on that topic, okay?
We are not...
This is not political for us, okay?
Like you had mentioned earlier, we're putting this out for every...
We put that letter out for every single inhabitant of the House of Commons, not just Conservative members.
But what else is happening in the mainstream media is they're trying to paint it that it's the Conservatives meeting with freedom leaders.
Okay, let's look left.
Well, the technology is good when it works.
We're going to see...
First of all, we've gotten, I think, enough of a...
If it doesn't come back today...
Okay, they're running.
So it's like they're trying to paint the Conservatives as aligning themselves with...
You know, people like me, okay?
So, it's like you mentioned earlier.
If I was protesting any other thing, I would probably have a CBC bus behind me 24 and 7. But because I'm protesting against a mandate that I think is intruding in our personal lives, not a word.
So, this is the way I was kind of expecting it.
I saw the direction that things were being framed when I spoke to my first CBC reporter there a couple weeks ago, a gentleman by the name of David Fraser.
You know, as well as I do, there's framing and bias, and that is in full effect right now.
And it's unfortunate, because like I said, there's a lot of positive things to talk about.
With regards to this march and what we were trying to achieve.
There's two things that happened at those meetings, right?
We had established contact with members of the federal government.
I was able, with a great deal of effort, to arrange a meeting with them to voice my grievances and propose solutions.
And then finally, demonstrate that.
To the Canadian public by having it live streamed, having it recorded, and we're broadcasting it.
So I encourage everybody to go and download and watch the entire proceeding.
It's not long.
It's about an hour.
And you can compare it to what is being reported in the news.
Because I want to thank you for this opportunity to also clarify what is also being reported as this quote-unquote summer of protests, okay?
I'm not really sure how this began or how it started, but it appears to me that we have this agenda put in place to kind of whip up the citizens of Ottawa and get them into a state of fear again because, you know, you're going to have people visiting on Canada Day.
They're going to outlaw Canada Day, James.
That's the end goal.
It's astonishing to me.
So this is, unfortunately, yeah, I don't doubt it.
It seems to be going in that direction.
But more importantly, what I'm trying to get across, and, you know, you guys have been helping me with this too, with this messaging, is that I'm still going.
I got the meeting.
I said what I needed to say.
I think we're going to make progress in establishing future...
Future communication.
And I'm going to complete this march because I told people that's what I was going to do.
And on the 30th of June, I'm marching into Ottawa.
And what I'm not doing is occupying Ottawa.
What is going to happen though is there are a bunch of people who have been following this, who have supported me.
And they want to see this to a successful conclusion.
And they've been telling me they're going to be meeting me in Ottawa.
So yes, we are going to be in Ottawa on June the 30th.
And I need to reiterate this to anybody watching.
I'm visiting!
Okay?
I'm visiting.
I'm going to walk up to the War Memorial and I'm going to put my hand on the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.
And like I said in previous interviews...
I'll know in my heart of hearts and be able to kind of have a little prayer to myself that there was Canadians out there who had the courage to stand up, do something, stand together and in a peaceful way demonstrate their opposition to what they saw as authoritarian.
Moved by their own government.
And, you know, that's what we did.
This is in the spirit of veterans who sacrificed in not just World War I and II, but also a number of conflicts, including Afghanistan.
And they're standing up for the democratic ideals that this country was founded on.
We're free to go where we want, say what we want.
Free to vote for whom we choose.
And we'll abide by the laws of the land, you know, that are founded on true justice.
And I'm paraphrasing Diefenbaker, of course, but this is what it's about, okay?
I had one more question.
Go ahead.
So, Poirier, you didn't meet him.
Leslie Lewis, did she meet with you after the presentation?
Sorry?
Did Leslyn Lewis meet with you after you spoke?
Say again.
Leslyn Lewis, did she speak with you after?
We're hitting digitization again.
Okay, they're on mute.
Yes, she did.
Yes, she did.
Excellent.
It's going to be a telling thing.
When you arrive on June 30th...
Do you have any plans or have you reached out to other politicians, other MPs to meet with you upon your arrival?
My focus now is, so that will be something I hope happens after July the 1st.
I don't want to engage in any kind of hyperbole.
The amount of effort...
So I went in to getting that meeting on the 22nd of June weighed on every single member of my team, all 12 of us, okay?
And at this point, we are a small concern of limited budget and training, and we're going to focus on the next goal, which is June the 30th, and all the events that are going to happen on June the 30th.
And when I say that...
I'm getting a lot of messages saying that there's folks who want to join us on the march, and I'm trying to arrange it so that I have some veterans helping me manage those people, okay?
And in doing so, I have to reach out to a couple of different agencies, including the Parliamentary Police Service, the Ottawa Police Service, and possibly the OPP.
So that's the focus of the next seven days.
If we have something going on on Canada Day, it's something that we're being invited to because at that point the team's pretty tired and we want to go just attend something as guests.
I am hoping and we have made contacts that we can arrange more meetings in the summer and the fall.
Does that answer your question?
That's good, yep.
All right, James, two things everybody in the chat wants you to know that millions of people are marching with you.
If you were carrying another flag behind you, the media would be all over this, but the fact that Justin Trudeau did not dignify the Ottawa protests with so much as a discussion and it's been radio silence on what you're doing, it's a sign of who we have in politics in Canada.
Cowards, to put it mildly.
And I'm lumping Jagmeet Singh in there as well.
Well, can I just jump in there for a sec?
Oh, please.
Because...
Like, I'm not going to criticize and call people out.
I think there's an institution at work here that is even more at fault.
And that is our friends in CBC, CTV, and Global.
Because, like I said before, instead of reporting on this in a positive light, they choose to frame it as this, you know, something that is negative.
And that, like, the attention that we have gotten is always reported as, you know, such and such marching across Canada.
Summer of protests.
You know?
So that is just as much of a problem.
I'm going to pull up one article after this just to highlight it and then pull up some other stuff to highlight Justin Trudeau's inhumanity in these COVID restrictions.
James, where can people find you?
Where can people help you, support you if they want to?
And how can they do it?
Well, we are about 200 kilometers west of Ottawa on the Highway 17, and we're on our way.
It's going on.
We got the rest day coming up on, I think, the 27th of the 28th.
You can find us using the GPS link on our website, canadamarchet.ca.
Presently, our merch shop.
It's just like one of the kind of pillars that I see as part of this Canadian Citizens Coalition is small and medium business.
So we have t-shirts that it comes to printing t-shirts right now.
So instead of letting people put orders on And having to wait for weeks and weeks.
We're just going to shut it down until we get caught up.
And then we'll restart the t-shirt selling business.
But for the time being, if you want to go into the merch shop and just donate, you can do that.
We have landed all of the latest bells and whistles when it comes to donating online.
Sorry, if I can't be more specific, I spend all day doing this.
Don't worry about it, James.
I'll pin the link afterwards.
Okay.
Go for it.
Yeah, sorry, I just wanted to say thank you for having me on.
It's my pleasure, James.
We're going to talk soon.
I don't know if I'm going to be in Ottawa on the 1st or the 30th, and just so there's no rumors, it's not for fear of getting arrested or having my bank account frozen.
I might be out of the country at that time.
A lot of people are doing that.
It's summer.
It is absolutely not for fear of having my bank account frozen.
That was not the reason for why I didn't go down yesterday.
I couldn't get in the room and I wasn't going to drive four and a half hours to see it for five minutes.
I might do that at some point between now and the 30th if I can.
Let me see.
James, the presentation was fantastic today.
I think they meant yesterday.
But that you can find the entirety of the second meeting on Viva Clips on James Top's YouTube channel.
I'll put all the links in the pinned comment again.
CanadaMarches.ca to support.
And that's it.
James?
James, be safe.
Keep on keeping on.
I think you're...
I am inspired by what you're doing, but not because I think it's going to make the slightest impact on these politicians.
The groundswell movement will come from the people, and they're going to see that it's going to be popular to actually represent the people and not snub them like Trudeau did to go gallivant to California to overseas and wherever.
So, keep it up.
People are watching and people are getting inspired, and thank you very much.
All right.
Have a good one.
Thank you, Viva.
Talk to you later.
Yeah.
Just don't get hit by cars, man.
I don't know if he's on the 417.
I want to show you something.
I'm going to kick from studio.
Kick guest.
They'll be removed from the studio.
Okay.
Kick them.
I want to bring up an article from the CBC.
Let me just see.
I think it might have been this one.
From the CBC.
Are we looking at this?
This is how the...
And we're going to get to the Supreme Court decision today in a few minutes.
Let me just see what we're looking at here.
Okay, we got it.
This is the CBC.
I hope this is the right article that I noticed the spin on.
June 22nd is yesterday.
Last updated, June 22nd.
CPC MPs meet with Freedom Convoy organizers.
That's already a lie in the headline.
They're presumably referring to Tom Morazzo, who was one of the individuals at the meeting.
Tom Morazzo was a volunteer for the convoy, was by no means an organizer, but was participating in it.
James Topp wasn't.
And I think Dr. Paul Alexander wasn't.
But connected to the convoy, connected to the occupation, a group of Conservative Party...
Of Canada MPs met with some of the people planning protests in Ottawa this summer.
Oh, this is the first article from CBC.
State-funded propaganda.
Including organizers of the Freedom Convoy that occupied downtown streets earlier this year.
Can you believe this absolute propagandist drivel?
James Topp, a veteran marching across Canada to protest against remaining vaccine mandates, wrong, is set to end his journey on June 30, but he drove into Ottawa Wednesday to take part in the meetings.
He was joined by Paul Alexander.
I think you could probably say Dr. Paul Alexander?
CBC?
The dude worked for it?
Bastards.
Paul Alexander.
A former official in U.S. President Donald Trump's administration, and Tom Marazzo, who served 25 years in the Canadian forces and had a failed bid as an Ontario MPP candidate.
25 years in the Canadian forces probably makes Tom Marazzo exponentially, I don't want to say better, a more patriotic, responsible Canadian than the person drafting this article.
Maratzo was invited by James Bauder to come and help run the Freedom Convoy during protests in Ottawa earlier this year.
Didn't they say it was an organizer and not a volunteer?
Bauder, who is facing charges in Ottawa, my goodness, it's great that they pumped up all those charges, facing charges in Ottawa and continued to protest in British Columbia after leaving the city in February, is responsible for creating the Canada Unity Group.
And website that helped develop the initial convoy plan to come to Ottawa.
So, Morazzo was asked to help by one of the organizers.
And so they say CPC MPs are meeting with convoy organizers.
It's amazing how they do that.
It's beautiful.
It's actually creative.
Creative dishonesty.
Yada, yada, yada.
Let me just hear it.
Taking place in a government building near Parliament Hill just days after Ottawa suspended vaccine.
Look at this.
What are they complaining about?
They suspended the vaccine mandates.
For federal employees and passengers traveling to Canada, Alexander, that's the doctor, Alexander, Dr. Paul Alexander, more credentials than a great many doctors out there, told MPs the COVID-19 pandemic is, you can read that word, I don't want to get in trouble with YouTube, although the entire restream has remained greenlit on YouTube, criticized what they call government overreach.
In one instance, blaming lockdowns for the May 24th...
Oh, wow.
I think I know probably what Dr. Paul Alexander said, but I know what someone's going to think by reading this.
You are the worst, CBC.
You are the journalistic scum of the earth.
Period.
You have no shame.
And we're going to get into, you know, when you say shame on you or you try to shame somebody, it's...
Sometimes a last resort when you have nothing else to say.
It's also sometimes a last resort after you've exhausted everything you have to say.
CBC, you are the journalistic scum of the earth.
And but for your billion dollars in federal funding, you would have evaporated into insignificance and bankruptcy long ago.
In one instance, Alexander, who we won't identify as a doctor or cite his credentials, blamed the lockdowns for what happened in Nuvaldi.
I have a sneaking suspicion he might have been talking about the distress caused from the social isolation among young people.
I suspect he might have been talking about that.
Awful, awful people.
I'm sorry.
Okay, it is a personal ad hominem insult.
It is sort of a hyperbolic shame.
Yes.
Substantively speaking, this is...
Outright journalistic dishonesty.
It is just bad journalism, dishonest journalism, journalism that nobody reads, and if it weren't for a billion dollars in federal funding with my taxpayer dollars, and I pay a lot of them, CBC would be bankrupt, and rightly so.
Top told MPs that a number of groups formed out of the Freedom Convoy hadn't come under the umbrella, yada, yada.
I think I've had enough of this anyhow.
He added he would meet with anybody he wants.
Well, hey, the Liberal and the NDP can now feel very empowered not to meet with James Topp because to meet with him would be to meet with convoy organizers, people who were arrested, and people who suggest that the incident in Uvalde was COVID-related.
CBC has given the cover to the coward that is Trudeau and the foot-washing coward that is...
Jagmeet Singh, they've given the cover so that politically and publicly speaking, Justin Trudeau can now say, why would I go meet with that extremist who organized the convoy and his criminal activity and his quack doctors who suggest that, why would I meet with them?
I don't have to.
And the ignorant citizenry who read this rubbish are going to say, good for you, Trudeau.
Good for you for not fraternizing with those criminals.
Doesn't matter.
Okay, that's it.
Just awful.
That's the CBC spin.
It's the spin a billion dollars can buy.
Before we get into the SCOTUS decision, let's just, I mean, to really hammer home.
To really hammer home.
There's no other word for it other than inhumanity.
I could use the word evil, but evil is sort of thrown around a little too hyperbolically in any event in modern times.
Inhumanity.
Justin Trudeau has imposed inhumane policy on Canadians.
Discriminatory, unconstitutional, inhumane policy on a specific class of Canadians, the unvaccinated.
And that would have, in fact, did have a disparate impact on other minorities in Canada.
The man who purports to be women's rights, minority rights, Indigenous rights, because it's 2020.
The man who purports to be all about minority rights, who demonizes everyone else as misogynists, racists, xenophobes, transphobes, anti-Semites, the one who demonizes others for being intolerant, imposes policy that he knows will and did in fact have a disparate impact on minority groups and on women.
Imagine calling someone a misogynist.
At that Ottawa protest?
And basically telling a woman if she doesn't want to submit to this medical procedure for fears that it might have to her body, that she's a misogynist extremist?
Oh my goodness.
But that's Trudeau.
And he gets the cover, he gets the political cover he needs from the media that he funds.
Who would have thunk that that's how the circle of corruption would work?
This is my tweet.
I would say it out loud.
Canadians and the world must never forget.
Justin Trudeau is a creature of immeasurable, unconstitutional, unconscionable cruelty.
You'll all recall that until, as the CBC noted, he suspended the vaccine travel.
He just suspended them.
Didn't end them.
Didn't enact law to prohibit such unconstitutional violations in the future.
Suspended it.
Because come September, we might have to go back to more back mandates.
He suspended it.
And now people are going to forget.
Because by and large, it didn't affect them.
90% of Canadians are vaccinated or didn't have to get vaccinated, didn't have to suffer the inhumanity of this policy.
When it was in place that unvaccinated Canadians, who were not getting exemptions because Justin Trudeau publicly stated he was going to make it exceedingly difficult to get religious exemptions.
When the policy was in place...
Unvaccinated Canadians could not travel on airplanes or trains.
When they came back, if they left the country, they had to and still have to quarantine for no less than 14 days.
But surely, you know, Justin Trudeau is a man of the people.
He wouldn't enact a policy that...
He knew would have and did, in fact, have a disparate impact on Black Canadians, Latino Canadians, and Indigenous Canadians who statistically remained under-vaccinated or under-represented in the vaccination status than Caucasian and Asian Canadians.
Surely, he wouldn't impose such a discriminatory policy without providing humanitarian exceptions.
Oh, no, no.
This is from the government website, by the way.
It's been updated, so you can go back and find it in the Wayback Machine.
COVID-19 boarding flights and trains.
This page is about the requirements to board a flight or train in Canada.
For the requirements to board a cruise ship in Canada, visit the cruise ship page.
And you'll see that's the highlighted section where I clicked on exemptions to the vaccination requirement.
Exemptions to the vaccine requirement.
Vaccination is required for travel within and out of Canada.
A valid COVID-19 test will only be accepted for one of the following...
Limited exceptions.
The following are examples of travel that would not be considered emergency and urgent travel.
Attending weddings and funerals.
Seeing, caring for sick family members.
Seeing, caring for sick family members.
I'll tell you, we have the shirt, it's Barnes' old expression.
Never forgive, never forget, hold the line.
There's no line to hold here anymore.
This is never forgive and never forget.
There were people who were denied seeing their sick and dying loved ones and attending the funerals.
Not because they had COVID.
Not because they tested positive for COVID.
But because they hadn't submitted to a medical procedure which we now know fill in the blanks because you darn well better know it.
No.
No, no.
You can't go to a funeral.
You can't travel.
First of all, good luck getting to Victoria Island.
You can't even drive there.
Good luck getting to Newfoundland if that's where your loved one happens to be.
Good luck getting from Montreal to Vancouver in time for a funeral.
Can't fly.
That's not emergency and urgent travel.
No funeral for you.
No seeing you're sick.
Not because you're positive.
Not because you're sick.
Because you haven't submitted to...
A procedure.
A procedure which is so, so useful that Justin Trudeau, who is submitted twice and then probably with a little amplification at least once or twice, gets COVID twice within a five-month period if we believe what he's saying.
He gets to go gallivant around California, shake hands and make selfies with Gavin Newsom, meet Joe Biden, get COVID, and then come back to Canada.
He gets to travel.
But no negative test.
That's not good enough.
It's a punishment.
It's an inhumane, unconscionable punishment.
And people should never forgive, and they should never forget.
Because this is not something that's done by accident.
This is not something that's done out of incompetence.
This is something that is done out of a power play and malice.
Unscientific, unconstitutional, inhumane, unconscionable.
And by the way, Jagmeet Singh, you're just as guilty of it right now.
Oh my god, this terrible government.
You know what's a way to resolve this terrible government?
Call another election.
No, but you don't want to do that.
Your pension.
Hold it off.
Stave it off for another three years so you get your pension, so you can afford a few more of your designer bikes when you're in your 60s, a few more watches, more watches than you should have, fancy designer suits.
Prop up an unconscionable leader who has done more to destroy the fabric of Canada than anyone in the history of our country.
People used to make the joke that Trump was going to be the last president of the United States.
I don't know what is left of what was Canada.
Oh, sorry, I forgot some chats here.
Rant over.
Do not ever forget the torture that Justin Trudeau single-handedly imposed on Canadians.
It's not because I was...
Yeah, I see some people in the chat.
Viva got the jab.
He's a hypocrite.
Shaming someone for doing something to their body is just as bad as shaming them for not doing something to their body.
So everybody says, shame on you, Viva.
You're a hypocrite.
Congratulations.
You're just as bad as the people who say you can't get on a train if you haven't been vaxxed.
I told everyone quite clearly why I got vaccinated when I was running for federal office.
PPC candidate infecting kindergartners in the park.
That he plays in because his kid was in that kindergarten probably doesn't make for the best headline.
And yeah, I'll take my own risks with my own body and I will not coerce anybody else to take risks with their own body that they don't want to take with their own body.
You should have a sidebar with James Rosen or James Hogan about Watergate after 50 years.
I thought I knew about it.
I knew nothing.
We could do that.
That would be a good one with Barnes and maybe Grobert and Hundley.
Maybe we do like a round table.
With the whole party.
STFUFFS says, I posted to locals.
Did you know boot?
Can't say these things.
I don't know anything.
I'm not a doctor.
There's a number of studies that are coming out now showing things.
One day, we will be able to have free discussion.
But the wonderful thing about it...
These idiotic censorship rules, they're not preventing the discussion.
They're just transforming the discussion.
I can look at you right now, and you know exactly what I'm thinking.
A lot of new studies coming out.
Okay.
Hold on a second.
Check this out, people.
Oh, okay.
It's not quite as wavy as I thought it was.
I exercise while listening to Barnes on the Duran.
Then I took a shower and washed, brushed, and then oiled my hair.
I was jogging.
Eight miles an hour for 35 minutes.
I swear to you, because I could see it on my treadmill.
On the treadmill.
Not my treadmill.
Barnes went for 18 minutes uninterrupted.
It was magnificent.
It was magnificent.
Okay, so that's James Topp.
That's Trudeau.
Never forgive, never forget.
There are certain things.
They're unforgivable.
Now, it doesn't mean anything more than that.
And I do believe that Trudeau is going to go down in the annals?
He's going to go down in the history books as the worst in every single respect.
History is not going to be any more kind to Trudeau than the present should be.
Imagine what he's done to this country.
I hope that WEF stuff was worth it.
I hope it was worth it, Trudeau.
And by the way, just in case anybody thinks I'm crazy, it's funny.
Where's the Twitter?
The tweet was, Canadians in the world.
It's this one.
Just so everybody appreciates this.
Justin Bieber, Justin Trudeau.
WEF.
Look at this.
It's such a beautiful landing page.
Look at his...
He's so handsome.
He's so good looking.
Can you imagine?
First of all, I'm joking.
Not that he's physically unattractive, but the filth within, the spiritual filth, is enough to make even Amber Heard unattractive.
But just look at this landing page.
It's amazing.
It's amazing.
What the...
What?
W-E-F?
W-T-F is Justin Trudeau doing on the W-E-F landing page.
It's not a landing page.
What?
WTF?
Does Trudeau have a WEF landing page?
It's amazing.
It's just amazing.
We have infiltrated the Canadian Parliament.
Yeah, you have.
You certainly have.
Okay.
Who wants it?
Do we want Ethan Klein, Jordan Peterson, Gab before the Second Amendment?
No.
We shall do the Second Amendment.
Let's remove that.
They have penetrated the cabinet.
Most of the half of the cabinet has been penetrated.
Political violation is what that is.
Foreign political violation into national politics.
And it was conspiracy theory two years ago.
Oh boy.
Okay.
Okay.
Let me just...
I'm going to bring up the...
So the bottom line...
Supreme Court, we'll do this for a bit, because there's some funny, funny stuff.
You can watch the MSM review, and you can look at the commentators on both sides of the debate, and you can know who's right, who's wrong, who's educated, who's ill-informed.
You can know it just by the arguments that they raise.
Okay, let's do this here.
Current New York law says anyone seeking a license to carry a gun outside their house must demonstrate, quote, proper cause to obtain one.
Proper.
Proper cause is going to be the center point of the regulation that was at issue that led to this decision.
The two individuals, this is an overview of the case, 30,000 foot overview.
I do not know it in as much detail as Barnes or a great many other people.
So take everything, you know, this summary with a grain of salt, although I think I've got sufficient gist.
Two individuals sought concealed carry permits under New York law.
So the states in these cases all enacted state law, or some, the idea here is that some states enacted state law regulating concealed carry.
The question was, is it unconstitutional in that it impedes on a Second Amendment federal constitutional right?
Within the regulation, It said you can't get a concealed carry unless you show a not probable cause, proper cause.
Proper cause, which was not defined in the regulation, but read to mean, hold on, I just took the note, a unique need for self-defense.
There were other proper causes like target shooting and whatever, but one of the proper causes, proper, the proper causes to get a concealed carry permit in New York under that regulation...
Proper cause, which was unique need for self-defense.
Okay.
And then the question was whether or not this violates the Second Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment and the Second Amendment.
So fair protection, equal protection under the law, that being the Second Amendment constitutional right to self-defense.
Okay.
Carrying on.
If I can hit play.
Which state courts have said is a special need for self-protection.
I didn't even need to have my notes.
Okay.
And then listen to their first expert.
And then you'll just see, who do you think understands the issue and who presents the more compelling argument?
The question before the Supreme Court right now is whether New York can do that.
Do you need to show that you have this risk to be able to have concealed carry?
Or can anyone on the R train now have a gun in their back pocket?
By the way, it's amazing now that I've read enough of the decision.
Can anyone on the R train...
Well, there is an issue that setting aside overturning this regulation, there can be reasonable limitations on where you can conceal carry, and on the subway might not be one of them.
And it's funny, when I was in Virginia, and I just noticed it was at one of the museums in Harpers Ferry, had a sign that said, you cannot come in with a firearm, which means that you can carry one around elsewhere.
So already, even within this expert, for anybody who knows, there's a bit of strawmanning because the issue does not become, you can carry one wherever you want into a museum or wherever.
The issue is proper cause.
Is it sufficiently ambiguous?
And does it impose an unfair burden on exercising a constitutional right?
Court said, yes, it was an unconstitutional burden on the Second Amendment right to self-protection, an extension of the Heller decision from, I guess, more than a decade ago.
Challengers to the law argued the Second Amendment protects the right to carry firearms outside the home for self-defense, while supporters warn invalidating the restrictions could lead to more firearms on the streets.
This is an argument we hear all the time, and it was addressed by the court.
I am fairly certain it was addressed by the court.
The idea that First of all, it will necessarily lead to more firearms on the streets.
Invalidating the restrictions could lead to more firearms on the streets.
It necessarily will because it will allow law-abiding citizens to carry firearms on the streets.
So it depends on what you mean by more firearms on the streets.
Typically, colloquially, when we hear that, we understand that to mean criminals carrying criminal...
Guns for criminal purposes.
That typically means guns on the streets.
You don't understand, nor are you intended to understand, guns on the streets as including, for example, police officer guns.
Police carry guns.
You would not refer to that as more guns on the streets.
So clearly fudging, blending two ideas here, it will result in more guns on the streets, but not illegal guns on the streets, and not in the sense that everyone is concerned about more guns on the streets.
Supporters also maintain the Second Amendment was adopted to allow militias to fight the government, not allow everyday citizens to carry weapons for personal defense.
Okay.
That was one of the arguments raised in the decision.
It was only for militia.
Hold on.
I don't want to go to...
It was only for a well-regulated militia.
I'm going to bring it up afterwards.
We read the provision.
A well-regulated militia...
And the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
That's the wording.
So one of these arguments is, because this only pertains to handguns, small arms, not rifles, not long arms, that the Second Amendment only refers to a well-regulated militia, which doesn't mean that individuals get to carry guns, concealed carry on the street.
The court will throw that argument out and say, no, it's twofold the Second Amendment.
A well-regulated militia to fight government tyranny, if need be, and the right to self-defense, the right to the preservation of the safety and security of your person.
So they tossed that argument as well.
And I think six to three decision, by the way.
I think rightly so.
The question here is just a very narrow one.
Can any state, not just New York, say, can you not have a gun when you're walking around town unless you're special?
So the question is, is the default rule you can have the gun and you need to take it away only for someone with a mental illness?
Or is the default rule you can't have the gun and you can only have it if you have a special need for safety?
Even after the shootings?
That's sort of the question.
Is it only for special people?
Is self-defense only for special people?
Is the right...
To bear arms, which shall not be infringed, only for special people to carry a firearm in public to protect themselves.
The court says no.
And the court says your proper cause, the unique, which has no definition but has been read to mean unique need for self-defense.
Can you imagine being told you have no unique need for self-defense?
It's only the special people, which is probably the people who already have enough means for their own hired security.
The everyday citizen has no special need for self-defense.
I mean, that's basically what it's saying.
In Buffalo, Texas, Tulsa, Philadelphia, and Chattanooga, over the course of just a few weeks, the majority conservative court ruled anyone...
Oh, by the way, hold on.
I cut this off.
You've got to hear this.
This is some classic.
Fake news spin.
Even after the shootings in Buffalo, Texas, Tulsa, Philadelphia, and Chattanooga.
Even after the various shootings.
By the way, do you know what a non sequitur is?
That's a non sequitur.
It's a non sequitur and a bit of a straw man.
It's a non sequitur.
Because the premise has nothing to do with the conclusion.
Even after a bunch of shootings throughout the country, the court came to the conclusion that people can carry a firearm for self-defense.
I'm gonna go out and venture.
I don't know all of these cases.
I don't know all of the cases she's referring to.
Even after the shootings in Buffalo, Texas, Tulsa, Philadelphia, and Chattanooga.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say those were probably illegal.
Use of firearms.
Probably.
Probably illegal use of firearms.
And some are going to go out and say, which could have been potentially averted, had people been allowed to conceal carry.
Let me just see which, because I think the first one was in Buffalo, New York, where this particular regulation prevented law-abiding citizens from having concealed carries, which would effectively prevent them from ever countering an unlawful use of a firearm.
And I'm going to go out on another limb.
Probably.
The individuals who carried out these crimes probably did not apply for a permit, a concealed carry permit, in the first place.
If one is going to break the law, one is not going to apply for a permit to legally carry a firearm in public so they can then use it for criminal purposes.
But it's so subtle.
Even after a bunch of illegal acts involving people who used...
Probably unlawfully procured firearms, but definitely use them for unlawful purposes.
Even after that, the court says individuals cannot lawfully procure and use for self-defense firearms.
It's not only a non-sequitur.
It probably actually, if properly explained, justifies the conclusion of the court.
Over the course of just a few weeks, the majority conservative court ruled anyone can carry a gun anywhere.
That's actually just factually incorrect.
I think they said that the states could probably still enact regulations to restrict certain areas, so long as it's rational and a reasonable limitation.
But...
Attorney Andrew Lieb says New Yorkers should brace for a shift in expectations.
Wait, do you see this?
But thus far, people, who's convinced by the expertise of that expert lawyer, Lieb?
I'm not.
We've lived since 1911 with a law that said most people you're talking to don't have a gun on them.
And now you're going to feel like most people you are talking to do have a gun on them.
And that creates a different energy going on.
Most of us in New York knew if we wanted to live in that environment, we could move to Texas.
Great point.
I don't know what the crime stats are between New York and Texas.
New York City and Austin, but Austin might be a bad example because of certain policies.
We could, rest assured, hitherto, maitre is what we say for lawyer in Quebec, Liebesquire, hitherto we could take for granted that when speaking with law-abiding citizens, we could take for granted, or at least in New York, when speaking with law-abiding citizens, we could take for granted...
That they are law-abiding citizens and therefore not breaking the law by concealed carry a firearm.
We could take that for granted.
We could not take for granted that when speaking with individuals who might be criminals, that they might not be respecting the law and might be concealed carrying, unlawfully so, firearms.
Let's just follow the reasoning, Lieb.
Hitherto, we could take for granted when talking to law-abiding citizens, they would not be breaking the law.
Okay.
Hitherto for.
Under what will be the new regulation, we can take for granted that we might be talking to a law-abiding citizen who might lawfully be carrying a lawfully procured and lawfully carried concealed weapon.
Am I to now think that this otherwise law-abiding citizen who is now still respecting the law by having applied for, gotten the proper permit to abide by the law to conceal, carry within the limits of the law, is now just going to pull it out and go crazy and just break the law?
So yeah, when you're dealing with law-abiding citizens and you know they're law-abiding, you can count on them to abide by the law.
I feel I want that.
You can go to Texas.
Attorney David Schwartz.
Okay, now here.
Take David Schwartz.
Listen to his arguments and see who makes the more compelling argument.
Says the high court's ruling simply allows regular people to carry a handgun in the state, not just the privileged few, celebrities, ex-cops, those with cash businesses as it is currently.
Someone who works late at night.
That's leaving work late.
It could be a nurse.
It could be anybody that has to walk around late at night.
They don't have a right right now to get a carry permit.
Well, they have the right, but they have to show the unique need for self-defense.
So maybe a nurse who's leaving a bad area at night might be able to make that argument.
Maybe.
But what was clear from the case, it was exceedingly difficult.
Capricious, arbitrary, where people were denied the permit as the two petitioners, willy-nilly, relying on the better discretion of some bureaucrat.
So a bit of a straw man, but the point is, yeah, now everyday people who feel the need, maybe because crime is going through the roof in a great many cities, feel the need, they can conceal carry, and some bureaucrat can't say, no, you're not important enough.
But, you know, Angelina Jolie is.
The idea that criminals now will go out and start applying for licenses, for carry permits, I think is a little bit illogical.
It's going to be people that...
He's right.
You cannot argue with logic.
Criminals who were hitherto carrying guns to commit crimes or for criminal purposes...
Robbing a store.
Responding to a fight between clans.
I don't know what the words I'm looking for.
They're not going to now go apply for a permit so they can legally carry the gun, concealed carry, so they can then use it for illegal purposes because that only goes past the first incident of lawfully carrying it and then using it for criminal purposes.
And I suspect there will probably be some restrictions in any event.
On who can lawfully carry a concealed weapon as relates to criminal history and the like.
You can't argue with logic.
It's just the way logic works.
Can't show an extraordinary purpose, but still want to carry a gun.
And that really does fall within the heart of the Second Amendment.
Schwartz says the state will still be allowed to regulate where people can carry firearms and may exclude certain places like the subway system.
But we just heard the first guy say that every Tom, Dick, and Harry can now get on the subway pack in heat.
And even if they could, you know, I'm not so concerned about a law-abiding citizen who's lawfully applied for the permit, carrying it for their own self-protection.
Where it becomes a legitimate concern is if they, you know, a citizen who lawfully procured the permit, concealed carry, if they drop it, if it discharges accidentally, if they're negligent in how they deal with it, if they forget it in the bathroom.
Like some Capitol Police officer.
That's where, if there were stats to show that when you make it more accessible to the public to conceal carry for protection purposes, people just forget their guns willy-nilly everywhere.
They just go off left, right, and center, shoot people in the legs.
Then you might have an argument.
From what I understand of the decision, the dissenting opinions were not providing those statistics.
They were providing suicide statistics.
They were providing like, you know...
100-year-old case law.
Ballparks and schools.
The high court struck down the New York law on the grounds it's too strict and gives too much discretion to state licensing officials.
Too strict and too much discretion is one way of saying vague and arbitrary.
I mean, it's an amazing thing, by the way, because one makes it sound like there was logic to the system and they were just applying it strictly.
Whereas the reality was there was no logic.
It was willy-nilly arbitrary and therefore purely capricious.
The ruling marks a disappointment to many New Yorkers who think federal gun regulations should be stronger, not weaker.
Well, this is mixing up an argument as well because they're talking about federal gun regulations in the context of a state law that infringed on a constitutional right.
This is a problem when you don't understand the subject matter enough.
If you want stricter federal gun laws, then that's where you go to do it.
But the issue is still going to be, can the feds, barring a constitutional amendment, infringe on a constitutional right?
The state of New York has made strides in reducing gun violence.
This woman's...
2019 called, it wants its statistics back.
They continue to do so.
We need the federal government to step up and to prioritize life-saving gun safety measures.
This person does not realize that she just made the compelling argument for striking down that state law that infringed on a constitutional right.
That is the argument.
If you want the change...
It's got to come from the federal level, and it's got to be by way of constitutional amendment in theory.
Or there's, you know, creative ways like eliminating liability for gun manufacturers so that they get bankrupted through lawsuits in highly politicized or political districts.
That woman inadvertently made the argument justifying this court decision.
It's not done through the state-level firearm restrictions.
It's not done at the state level.
And if you want this change, constitutional amendment at the federal level.
New York State has no recourse on the SCOTUS ruling, barring a change in justices or a constitutional amendment.
I said it recently, is that you're not going to win the fight, I'm paraphrasing, on what the Second Amendment says.
But what we can do is take away the liability protections on the federal level.
Here you go.
If we can't get it directly, we're going to get it indirectly.
From the manufacturers.
And even though then the government wouldn't be restricting people from having guns, the manufacturers, based on exposure concerns, would themselves restrict people from having guns.
Lieb pointed to the settlement reached in February that forced Remington to pay $73 million after the Sandy Hook massacre.
Remington was the maker of the rifle used in that 2012 school shooting.
The settlement bankrupted the gun manufacturer.
In the newsroom, Jessica Moore.
So, I mean, it's actually fascinating because, and it shows you the game of politics.
If you lose on the merits, try to do indirectly what the court basically said you can't do directly.
And, you know, if this is where we're going, people, if this is where we're going bankrupt, The manufacturers of anything that when used properly but for criminal purposes causes damage.
If someone poisons their husband or...
I don't know why I go straight to husband.
If someone poisons their spouse with rat poison, bankrupt the rat poison manufacturers.
Product designed for its intended use did not malfunction but was used for criminal purposes.
That is...
Those are the three relevant points.
Abstractify it from the tool, from the object.
There is nothing uniquely...
Someone's going to say, well, guns are only meant to destroy.
False.
Just false.
They're meant for hunting.
They're meant for self-defense, which I guess is a form of destruction.
They're meant for target shooting.
They're meant for a slew of other things other than illegal purposes.
Vehicles.
Not switchblades because those are illegal in most places.
Knives.
Spyderco knives.
Someone uses it for a stabbing?
Why wouldn't the rationale be the exact same?
It was made very sharp.
So sharp it sliced right through the person.
It was easy to open.
So easy to open.
The criminal opened it quickly.
So sharp.
Cut through the person and ended that person's life.
Sue Spyderco.
Bankrupt Spyderco for the proper functioning of their Of their object that was used for criminal purposes.
Not as though someone's using a Spyderco knife and it's one of those lock blades and the lock blade doesn't work and it accidentally slices an artery and the person bleeds to death.
Defective product leading to harm?
Of course you sue the manufacturers.
But the proper functioning of something that is used for illicit purposes, and now you want to open up the floodgates to bankrupting the companies for criminal use that people decide to make of their products?
Let's see where that goes.
It's not going to be anywhere good.
I'm going to just pull up a few highlights from the decision.
At least some relevant parts.
Let me just get...
Oh, did I miss this?
I'm going to flag this.
Not flag, star.
Sorry, I'm not flagging anything in any nefarious...
Censorship-boreal purpose.
Where did I put the decision?
Share screen.
I think I got to go to tabs for this.
Yeah, this is it.
Okay, now I'm going to see in my notes.
Are we looking at the same thing, people?
How do I get rid of this?
Man, whatever.
I'm not going to be able to waste too much time doing that.
Just a few interesting passages.
Let me make sure we're looking at the same thing.
We are good.
I had a page three.
Well, I'm going to do this.
This might not be as fun as it was when I was doing it on my own.
page three To determine...
Let's see here.
To determine whether a firearm regulation is consistent with the Second Amendment, Heller and McDonald...
Point toward at least two relevant metrics.
First, whether modern and historical regulations impose a comparable burden on the right of armed self-defense.
And second, whether that regulatory burden is comparably justified.
Because individual self-defense is the central component of the Second Amendment right, these two merits are central considerations when engaging in an analogical inquiry.
I loved at one point in the decision, I don't know if I can find it.
Imagine someone said, When you're exercising your First Amendment rights, what's the word I'm looking for?
You'd better have proper cause.
You'd better have proper cause to be saying those words.
And, you know, a necessity.
You'd better have a necessity to say those words.
The Second Amendment, it's an interesting thing, the argument that there's a hierarchy among the amendments and that the Second Amendment is almost as important as the First Amendment.
But at the very least, it's exceedingly important.
That's why it's the Second Amendment.
Whether or not it's on par with the First Amendment, it's exceedingly important.
A well-regulated militia, the right to bear arms, shall not be infringed.
I think the...
I don't know, actually, I forget now whether or not the amendments, because of their order, are hierarchical.
But just imagine someone said, you better have a proper cause to exercise your First Amendment.
That would fly about as far as a Led Zeppelin.
Does everybody know that that's actually the story of how Led Zeppelin got their name?
They said they're going to be as good.
They're going to fly as...
They're going to be as successful in their band as the flight of a Led Zeppelin.
You better have proper cause for speaking them words.
It's not going to get very far.
And some bureaucrat saying you better have proper cause to exercise your Second Amendment right to self-defense didn't go any further.
Okay, so I'll pull that up in a second.
Let's just get some super chat so I don't lose this.
Nothing to add.
Just want to say thanks for your channel and information you provided.
Christopher Conard.
Conard.
That looked like canard, which is duck in French, but it's with an O, not an A. Thank you, and thank you all for allowing this channel to become what it is.
I get to learn things in real time and have fun doing it and make a living doing it.
I love this stuff.
I love learning in real time.
I think I know so much more now about the Constitution, American law, Canadian law for that matter, than I did four years ago.
I love doing it and I'm glad people also enjoy watching it.
Viva, please thank James on behalf of all of us peeps for his patriotism and endurance.
I saw that one earlier and did.
What would Bernhard Goetz go to?
That's the guy who was on the subway in the 70s in New York, right?
I think...
Yes, it is.
How does the dissent account for the fact that one of the shootings at the top of the list took place in Buffalo?
The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator, Justice Alito.
Not just that.
It's not that the law just didn't stop the perpetrator.
It also prevented other people from stopping the perpetrator.
The thing is this.
Bass player 2011 iffy.
That's an interesting name.
It's not just that it didn't stop the person, it made it impossible for other people to stop the person.
The thing is this also, anybody who's applying for a concealed carry permit, I suspect there's a risk.
They're either going to be applying for this and not have any idea what goes into actually carrying a firearm in public.
If you're carrying it, it means that something happens, you might be using it.
It takes a, I don't know, not a special breed of person to do that, but it takes someone who's committed to that.
From what I understand, in any event, the CCW permit process is relatively arduous and pretty hands-on.
You learn.
It's not a toy.
If you're not ready to do this, you're not going to do it.
So people who would have been concealed carry in that area presumably would be ready to use it if something happened.
So it's not just that it didn't stop the act of criminality.
It actually exacerbated it when it occurred.
There's the old joke, an armed society is a polite society.
There's exceptions to that, and it's not necessarily as simple as that.
But I can tell you one thing.
Criminals might think twice.
There is the argument that criminals might think twice, and it might make them even more aggressive in their criminal conduct.
Or it might make them go look for softer targets, which might be why Certain things tend to happen in certain soft, you know, gun-free zones.
Vivi, you really need to get Tracy Wilson from the CCFR to talk about the handgun freeze in Canada.
Screen grabbed.
André, I'm going to see if I can find the person.
Hitherto, criminals could take for granted the victim they confront would be unarmed.
Yes.
And sorry, I didn't mean to make fun.
This is when I see hitherto, I immediately break into Viva Golf voice.
Hitherto 4. But yeah, it's...
Whether or not it's going to make criminals more brazen, because if they have to assume that everybody around them is potentially armed, they'll be even more brazen in their criminality.
Or not.
I mean, I'm not sure.
You look at countries with the highest firearm homicide rates or the highest firearm gun violence, they tend to be places with high degree of regulation.
South America in particular.
And then the counter-argument is that, well, South America has high gun crime, not because of gun laws, but because of corruption.
Criminality will find a way.
California is following San Jose City ordinance requiring all gun owners to have civil liability for any use of their firearm, even if it was stolen and the thief committed the crime.
Mark, so I'm not sure that I disagree with that so much.
Liability for use, even if it was stolen.
If it's stolen and reported, that would be the end of the liability.
So where it would be an issue is if it's stolen and the individual does not report it, that's not unheard of.
I would be shocked if a high court would say that's an undue burden on exercising your Second Amendment right.
The argument might be that poor people might not be able to afford civil liability insurance.
I'd have to flesh that argument out in my brain, actually, because I was going to compare it to driving and not being able to afford insurance, but driving is not a constitutional right.
The right to bear arms is.
If you make it financially, what's the word I'm looking for?
Prohibitively expensive to carry the insurance that would be needed for civil liability, there'd be an argument there.
But I fly a drone.
Under Canadian drone laws, I had to have...
A million dollar personal liability insurance in order to fly a drone lawfully.
A drone that weighed 250 grams or more on takeoff.
So there's something there, but I don't think that's egregiously shocking.
That might make a little bit of sense.
Most ASs have obtained guns with laws in place that would prevent them.
Almost 95% has been a failure of the government to enforce current laws.
Why trust them with more?
Really now?
We talked about it yesterday.
Was it yesterday?
The Nova Scotia shooting, worst one in Canadian history, they don't mention the fact, they're not too keen on mentioning the fact that that individual had procured his firearms unlawfully, illegally smuggled the small arms, and unlawfully procured the long arms.
They don't like to mention that.
Even that, that they use as the pretext for more gun bans under the Order and Council, I don't know if all of them were unlawfully procured.
But many of them were.
But they don't like to mention that because that would mean that the existing laws they already have don't do anything or are not...
The existing laws are not being enforced properly.
And by imposing even more laws...
Tell you what, the people who are never going to follow them in the first place still are not going to follow them.
Hello from...
California or Canada?
No, California.
What does this mean for the timeline process for overturning cases decided by intermediate scrutiny?
Example, Miller v.
Bonta, Duncan v.
Bonta.
Okay, that's a question that I had.
I went looking through that decision to see if they definitively addressed the intermediate scrutiny versus strict scrutiny versus rational basis.
And my understanding is that it sort of affirmed the, was it intermediate scrutiny?
I think it was intermediate scrutiny.
Barnes and I are going to talk about this on Sunday, and Barnes will know.
The man will know.
And I know the limits of my own ability to read a 115-page decision in two hours, even to be able to talk about it.
Rob from Law& Lumber said this morning, read the ruling but substitute speech instead of gun.
It makes it very clear.
Absolutely.
I mean, that was one of Thomas's points in the decision.
Says the first and the second.
Are the most important.
And if it wouldn't fly for the first, it's not going to fly for the second.
Can we apply the same logic to rushed...
Really now?
Don't get me in trouble.
Let me just read.
Let's all read it together.
I...
But if you listen to Joe Biden, the gun manufacturers are the only company...
With immunity.
And you know what?
It's not even analogous.
Because if the object, if the substance, if the product worked properly, you don't have to worry about a lawsuit.
In one case, they want to go after the manufacturers for the proper but unlawful use of the fully, properly functioning product.
They want to allow people to go after them.
In the other case, They immunize the manufacturer from the potential improper functioning or prejudicial or harmful functioning of the product.
Immunize the potential negligence, incompetence, or worse on the one side while...
What's the word when you make something about liability?
While opening up the liability on the other side to a company.
That did nothing wrong but create a proper functioning object that was used for illegal purposes.
This shows you where the priorities are at in the minds of the politicians.
Intermediate scrutiny uses studies to amend the decision rather than what the lawmakers intended.
I'm not sure if that's...
Okay, so I'll bring this back up here and let's just see something here.
I think we'll cheat.
Hold on, let's see if I can get to one of the other pages that I knew was interesting.
15 and 19. The only problem is the pages start again on the other person's either concurring or dissenting opinion.
There was something that I said on page 15 was interesting to read.
Oh yeah, well that's okay.
In sum, I won't highlight it.
In sum, the Court of Appeals' second step is inconsistent with Heller's historical approach and its rejection of means and scrutiny.
We reiterate the standard for applying the Second Amendment is as follows.
When the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.
The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.
Only then may a court conclude that the individual's conduct falls outside the Second Amendment's unqualified command.
Page 19 was another interesting one.
Let's see what it was.
Oh, they're going through Heller.
That was it.
We will start here.
We have already recognized in Heller at least one way in which the Second Amendment's historically fixed meaning applies to new circumstances.
Funny thing, you're going to hear...
I mean, Joe Biden said it.
I think he got fact-checked.
You couldn't own a cannon in 1776.
Yes, you could.
Yes, you could.
And Barnes talked about it on the Duran.
And we'll talk about it Sunday.
You could own a cannon because protecting ships was an issue.
You could own a cannon because it was necessary for self-defense.
The question going to be...
Oh, the nuclear arms.
Chemical weapons.
Difference of scale.
Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communication and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of speech, the Second Amendment extends prima facie to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of its founding.
Thus, even the Second Amendment's definition of arms is fixed according to its historical understanding that general definition covers modern instruments that facilitate armed self-defense.
Let's see if intermediate is in here.
There we go.
How many times do we have intermediate scrutiny?
Hold on.
Intermediate 20. Anyhow, that's it.
You can go read the decision yourselves if you want to.
It's interesting.
Interesting times, people.
Did the Roe v.
Wade overturn decision come down?
Oh, let me just go refresh on the rumbles.
Then we'll get into some other stuff.
I just got a text from someone that says...
Okay, there's some funny stuff.
We're going to get to the other stuff afterwards.
It's an interesting decision.
Did I just put it in here?
Go.
Read away, people.
It's long.
Can't say that I read it slowly enough to appreciate the nuance, but I think I got the gist of it.
Did Roe v.
Wade overturned decision come down?
Let's just see that.
I don't think it did.
That's what I went to my phone to check, and then I forgot.
In the meantime, not watching the January 6th committee hearings, it's atrocious.
Okay.
We're good on the second amendment.
We're good on the decision.
Whatever, we're good on that.
Let me just make sure that I had nothing else to bring up about it.
Okay, we got it.
Wait.
Oh, wait is tomorrow, people are saying in the chat.
What day is it today?
It's Thursday.
Tomorrow's Friday.
Okay.
Not yet, potentially tomorrow, though it's still possible they may not actually overturn.
Yeah, yeah, no, I'm just saying when the decision comes down.
I thought it was going to come today.
Okay, good.
Let's go to some irrelevant internet drama.
Ah, Ethan Klein, man.
I don't know.
This is a concern.
Everybody who, in this industry, in this field, you want to be relevant.
But you want to be relevant for good reasons.
You want to be relevant because of the insights that you offer, because of your accuracy, your predictive accuracy, your analytic skills, the value that you bring, at least for me.
I want to be relevant, and when I say relevant, I mean in that sense.
I don't want to be relevant in an exploitive or juvenile sense.
I'm not going to point to each their own.
I want to be insightful.
I want to be value-added.
I want to be accurate, and I want to be on point.
I can see how, at some point, some people say, in order to be relevant, you just have to be edgy.
Or in order to be relevant, you just have to, oh, I don't know, do certain things that you might not have thought you'd ever wanted to do, but for the desire.
This is an exchange.
It starts off with a Jordan Peterson.
Tweet.
Where Jordan Peterson says, remember when pride was a sin and Ellen Page had her breasts removed by a criminal physician.
Okay.
By the way, I didn't know what happened to this page.
I had no idea.
I remember seeing Juno.
I learned it relatively recently.
For anybody who doesn't know, go check it out if you don't know.
I had no idea what Page...
What happened to Page?
Jordan Peterson tweets this.
Some people can disagree with the tweet.
I can see now in reading it how some people can be triggered by the tweet.
Because in the tweet, Jordan Peterson is using a former name that Ellen Page no longer uses.
Now Ellen Page goes by Elliot Page.
So I think this is called a dead name.
And apparently it's taboo.
Or in certain circles, It's an act of aggression to refer to the dead name, the previous name.
The her, that'll go twofold.
Because if Ellen Page is now Elliot Page, it will be a double affront to refer to Elliot, who now wants to be referred to as a him, as a her.
That would be dead naming and then misgendering in Canada.
Breasts removed, which would be the full mastectomy for the transition therapy, I guess, that Page is going through, by a criminal physician.
Okay.
One can read that tweet and disagree with it.
One can read that tweet and even understand the point that is being made in that tweet, but still disagree with it.
But one, I don't think, can honestly and credibly take that tweet in order to say Jordan Peterson is Hitler incarnate.
I don't think so.
At all.
I think Jordan Peterson has done already...
Even if one were to disagree with this tweet, Jordan Peterson has done so much good, offered so much insight, built sufficient goodwill, that this is not enough.
This is not enough to destroy and write off all of that.
Unless you're Ethan Klein.
Okay.
I love this stuff.
This is internet drama, but there is something to learn from it, and it all goes back.
I don't think Scott Adams, loser think, Was the first iteration of this idea of how to detect bad arguments, trolls, people's deficient reasoning skills.
I don't think Scott Adams was the first to come to those determinations that he did in his book.
And if you haven't read it, read it, loser think.
But he certainly succinctly summarized it.
Ethan Klein, in responding to Jordan Peterson's tweet, says, Oh, there's so many more.
I didn't realize he started off by saying the first name.
Jordan, you have completely lost the plot.
Anything that was inspiring about you is long gone.
You have whored yourself out.
That's offensive.
That's demeaning.
You have whored yourself out to the worst.
I can't even do this in my British golf voice.
This has to be like a whiny voice.
You have whored yourself out to the worst among us.
Now you are nothing more than a useful idiot to the hordes of hateful bigots.
I gotta tell you, if I'm seeing hate, it's not coming from Peterson's tweet.
You have forsaken any semblance of decency.
Shame on you.
I can't avoid it, people.
I can't avoid it.
A masterclass of Scott Adams' loserthink right here.
Now, we're going to go through this because I couldn't fit it all into one tweet.
Ad hominem, which is attacking the individual and not the arguments.
Name-calling is a form of ad hominem, but it's the projection part in this that drives me crazy, is that you're accusing your adversary of doing what you're doing.
Imagine Ethan Klein accusing Jordan Peterson of being a useful idiot.
Oh, no, wait a minute.
I'm sorry.
Note that he's being a useful idiot to the hordes of hateful bigots.
It's not even what a useful idiot means, but imagine Ethan Klein is accusing Jordan Peterson of trying to appeal to his hordes of hateful bigots.
There was one more element in there.
And attempt to shame.
When all else fails, shame on you.
Now...
That can be the conclusion following an argument.
And when it's done, and when I do it, I always ask myself the same question.
Am I doing it for the hyperbolic purpose?
Because whenever I make these assessments, I say, who's going to pull out a tweet where I say, shame on you, Trudeau, or there can be no shame where there is no pride?
Yeah, there's a time sometimes.
In that entire response, Ethan Klein managed to say nothing.
Other than name-calling, demonizing, doing exactly what he's accusing Peterson of doing, and not actually getting into the discussion of, can an adult do what an adult wants to do with an adult's own body?
And where is the line?
It's a discussion that I got into.
We're going to get to that in a second.
No.
Where I said, look, I can appreciate that people might find Peterson's tweet...
Offensive.
I might suggest that if you're offended by that tweet, increase your threshold of sensitivity.
Even if you are an individual who would like to be gendered one way, I would say increase your threshold of sensitivity.
You know, so that when someone calls you a shape-shifting Jewish lawyer, you say, okay.
Thank you.
Now I know who you are, and I'll know who to invite over for the holidays next Christmas.
I can understand that, but I think people need to realize that there's no fundamental strength in trying to turn yourself into a victim for insignificant reasons.
There's no fundamental virtue in that.
But I think we've gone way off the rails on that in terms of thinking there is fundamental virtue in being a victim.
Being offended doesn't make you right, and there's no fundamental virtue in walking around feigning offense at the slightest slight.
I disagree with Jordan Peterson's tweet, and it led to an interesting discussion on my Twitter feed.
Good example of disagreeing with a statement while still respecting the person.
Paige is an adult.
Adults can do what they want with their own bodies.
Physicians perform cosmetic surgery on adults all the time.
If Paige were a minor, however...
Very different story.
And this led to a legitimate discussion.
One person, I think it's Sigurd, who I think is of good faith and legitimate question.
If someone wants to end their own lives, should they be able to do so?
Interesting analogy, but I think it's inapplicable.
Doing something to your body, which in some sense is somewhat reversible.
I mean, a mastectomy is not reversible because I think you're cutting off glands and the nipple.
But you can still rebuild those things as opposed to doing things which are fundamentally irreparable, like the woman who identified as a blind person and wanted to, and in fact did proceed to burn her eyes out with acid.
I hope that wasn't the booger on my nose the entire time.
Ending one's life is fundamentally different than altering one's body.
But even still, I think a great many people might say, yeah, adults in a sound state of mind, not sure anybody who wants to end their own life for no obvious reason.
It, by definition, is a sound state of mind, but many people say, yeah, let them do what they want with their own body if it doesn't hurt anybody else.
And then we get into these types of analogies.
Cutting off an arm.
If someone says, I want to do that, I want to mutilate my own body.
And there's been some very extreme examples where, you know, the people who tattoo their bodies top to bottom, insert spikes on their foreheads, cut their tongues.
You know, there is a line that I think I have that I think should not be crossed.
But there's a very big gray zone.
And in this debate as to what an adult can do to their body for cosmetic purposes, preference purposes, and whatever, it's a big gray zone.
I'll defer to the better judgment of the individual to the extent that it doesn't harm anybody else.
To the extent that it's not an adult authorizing it for a minor.
To the extent that it's not a doctor.
Doing it to a minor at the assistance of the minor with the authorization of a parent or a court.
There's a lot of things that I would not do and that I think are really borderline.
Slicing your tongue so it looks like a lizard.
Inserting spikes under your skin.
I mean, these are things that people do.
Whether or not I think that there are underlying mental issues to the people doing them.
And whether or not I think they might regret them when they're 70 years old.
That holds true for a tattoo as well.
It's just a different of a degree.
So it's an argument, it's a discussion, it's a debate.
But what an adult does to their own body of sound mind is on them 99% of the time.
But the idea that this is how the debate has to be vitriolic, that if there's disagreement, shame on you, you're a hateful bigot.
I'm burning all your records.
I mean, it's nuts, but unfortunately, it's a sign of the times.
But if you have the discussion, it's an actually interesting, meaningful discussion.
People are saying, cutting a mastectomy for cosmetic purposes, there's no good reason for it.
Some people point out that people have preventative mastectomies just because of the fear of getting breast cancer later in life.
So someone who has a preventative mastectomy...
How's that different than someone who wants to transition physically from a female form to a male form?
And why is one or are both equally unjustifiable in the minds of somebody who doesn't have to do it to themselves if they don't want to?
Where I said, you know, people who want to have like the biggest breast implants ever, ridiculously big breast implants, is that as ridiculous as wanting to remove your breasts entirely?
This is...
Life and people come in all flavors.
And to the extent that what you're doing only affects you, I tend to draw the distinction at whether or not it's going to be crippling what you do, whether or not it's going to impede your ability to even function as a normal human,
▲
Export Selection