All Episodes
Previous Next
June 26, 2025 - Viva & Barnes
01:09:41
The Downfall of a Nation! From Censorship to Open Borders and National Threat; Live with John Carpay
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And now for something completely different.
We shall take a trip across the northern border, the Maple Gulag, the Iron Rainbow, a country that has become a living, breathing meme.
Canada.
Hi, my name is Mandigal Masti.
I'm the Minister of Indigenous Services.
Today is National Indigenous Peoples Day.
June 21st, the summer solstice.
It is a powerful day.
It's the longest day of the year, and for many people, it is a time of ceremony, celebration, and connection.
For me, it provides an opportunity to reflect on my place within my nation, where I feel the most grounded and proud to be a strong Iuskwa from the community of Weswampee.
Today across the country, communities are gathering to dance, sing, share stories, and celebrate the strength and beauty and diversity of First Nations, Inuit, and Métis cultures.
It's a day to honor our ancestors, our language, and our ways of knowing.
Indigenous peoples have always held long, deep connections to their land.
We must honor the knowledge and leadership that it continues to offer to us.
I encourage everyone to take part in the celebrations, whether you're attending a powwow, listening to an elder, or simply taking a moment to learn something new.
This is a day to come together in the spirit of respect, joy, and unity.
Happy National Indigenous Peoples Day.
Did you notice that I didn't actually, there was nothing really fundamentally mockable in that video, except this watermark on the bottom right, which, if I'm not mistaken, is the throwback or call out to the Pride season, which has gone from a day to a month to a season.
But the Indigenous of Canada, only get a day, people.
We're going north of the border with John Carpe.
If you're not new to the channel, you've seen John on this channel before.
He's been on, I want to say at least three times, but it might be more, might be less.
It couldn't really be less.
John is a lawyer out of Canada, working, president of the JCCF, the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms, working with the truckers, working on constitutional matters of the highest importance in Canada.
And today we're going to get an update on what's going on in the country that is going.
I don't want to be doom and gloom.
It's not on the right trajectory.
Mr. Carpe, can you present yourself to the world, please?
So, David, so glad to be on your show again.
And as you said, I run the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms.
I'm a constitutional lawyer.
We have a team of 10 full-time lawyers across Canada.
We've taken on hundreds and hundreds of cases since we were founded about 15 years ago.
And top of our agenda right now is alerting Canadians to the dangers of the Strong Surveillance Act.
Oh, sorry, the Strong Borders Act is the official title that the government would like to give it.
But I think that the Strong Surveillance Act is more apropos.
And this gives police and other government officials all kinds of new powers for warrantless searches, where the authorities can simply bust into your business and say, we want to look at your computer right now, or ordering companies to turn over their subscriber lists.
It's absolutely terrifying.
And in fact, it's so bad that it makes it almost a challenge to persuade people or to convince people to educate people because some of the provisions are unbelievable.
So that's at the top of our agenda.
We're also quite active on a new emerging issue with these land acknowledgements, Aboriginal land acknowledgements, which have now become commonplace.
There's many schools where every morning they start the day with a land acknowledgement the way that 40 years ago you might have started the day with the Lord's Prayer or the Our Father prayer, but now it's a land acknowledgement.
And we're providing lawyers for a woman in Ontario who very politely objected to a land acknowledgement, and she said it was political, divisive, controversial, and inappropriate.
And for this, she got a letter from the school board saying that she's henceforth indefinitely banned from attending the parent council meeting to which she was elected.
So those are two, maybe I'll just stop right there.
Those are two issues that we're active with.
I don't want to spill the beans.
I was on with Candace Malcolm.
I think she's going to air the segment.
I'm not sure when it's going to air, but we were actually talking about a couple of these stories.
If people don't know the absolute state of Canada, this is not parody.
I thought it was parody.
There's two things that are going on in Canada right now.
I thought both stories were parody until I saw them.
One is unrelated to what we're talking about today, John, so you don't need to comment on it.
But if you, Mark Slipinski, for whatever, you know, never misses an opportunity to make fun of people on Twitter.
But we have a health minister, or no, sorry, it's not a health minister, president of the Public Health Agency of Canada, who does not seem to be the embodiment of health.
And then we have the renaming of a street in Canada.
And I thought it was a joke, John.
You're going to confirm this is reality.
They're renaming a street in Canada this.
And I think the, the, the official pronunciation is what's the official pronunciation.
Schmuck.
Um, I was, they're reading it.
I think they've done it in two places.
This is the level of insanity in Canada is that they're renaming streets that are unnameable streets and what impact this might have for public health, emergencies, logistics, mail delivery, whatever.
This is the absolute state of Canada.
The land acknowledgement things we've been seeing all over the place.
The King Charles came and gave a land acknowledgement.
The Nova Scotia police chief, before talking about two missing children, gives a land acknowledgement.
Looks like she's being held at gunpoint.
When did this become something of official government policy?
Because it is something that we find as official or almost quasi-official government policy to give these land acknowledgments.
Well, I assume that in some cases, maybe there's a municipality that has incorporated it into the bylaws, and maybe there's a bylaw that says every city council meeting shall be commenced with a land acknowledgement.
That might be the case in some cases, but in other situations, it's just something that the powers that be, the people that are now in office, have just decided to start doing it.
And the problem is that it's hypocritical virtue signaling by people who would never, ever give away their own home or their own land to an Aboriginal for free.
And so it's very hypocritical because there's sort of this suggestion that somehow it's stolen land and everybody who's not Aboriginal, which is, you know, 90-something percent of Canadians who are African, Asian, Caucasian, what have you, you know, somehow we should all feel guilty about this stolen land.
And yet the proponents of these Aboriginal land acknowledgements, you'll never see one of them giving away their own house to an Aboriginal for free.
So that's just one problem.
The other one is it does nothing to help the Aboriginals on reserves who are facing high rates of unemployment, poverty, family violence, alcoholism, drug addiction, drug overdoses, often very corrupt local governments that are tyrannical.
And the land acknowledgements do nothing to help Aboriginals on reserves.
And then there's this whole thing about imposing it as part of a school board meeting, city council meeting, the high school graduation ceremony.
This is, it's not appropriate to impose something divisive and political on an entire group of people at a meeting.
We don't put up with it for a prayer.
We say, look, you know, we got different beliefs.
We're not going to recite the Our Father before a city council meeting.
And yet, with these political land acknowledgements, some people think we should just all, you know, put up with that.
Let me play this before we get into the story of the woman you're representing here.
This is one such example.
This was press conference for two missing children.
And now from what I understand of that investigation, it may or may not be focused on the children having gone missing through accident.
We'll see where it goes.
But they haven't found the two missing children yet in Nova Scotia.
But when they give an update, the police chief, constable, whatever this woman is, says this is how they have to start the press conference.
Someone gives her the message.
It's on her phone.
Good afternoon.
She looks like she's being held hostage.
I am Corporal Carly McCann, Provincial Public Information Officer for the Nova Scotia RCMP.
Thank you all for being here today.
Bonjour, je si la capitale Carly McCann, égent d'information public collagé nouvelle casse.
Merci, de vau surprisant au jolgi.
First, I acknowledge that we are in Mi'kma'ki, the traditional and unceded ancestral territory of the Mi'kmaq people.
I also recognize that African Nova Scotians are a distinct people whose histories, legacies, and contributions have enriched that part of Mi'kma'ki, known as Nova Scotia, for over 400 years.
I'm just gonna take that out now.
Oh, you can leave your camera up when that's on, John.
Unceded, by the way, it doesn't mean unseated.
It means unceded, C-E-D-E-D-S.
And they never gave it up.
So you have a white person, the fact that she's a woman is neither here nor there, acknowledging we're on stolen land.
We acknowledge we're on stolen land.
We're not doing a damn thing to give it back to you.
And we'd like to thank African Nova Scotians as a distinct people.
This is possibly the most racist thing I've ever heard in my life.
But the story that you're getting involved with now is that it was a woman at Terry Newman objected to land acknowledgements.
Now she's paying the price for her heresy.
This is the case that you're involved with right now, correct?
Yes, that's right.
Okay, tell the world, tell America who might be watching this saying, holy crap apples, this is batshit insane.
What's going on here?
What happened?
And what she's doing to avail herself of her God-given rights.
So Catherine Cronus is a mom in the Canadian province of Ontario, and she was elected to her parent council, recently re-elected, in fact.
And the meeting was held by Zoom, and she spoke up, and she said that Aboriginal land acknowledgements were political, controversial, inappropriate, divisive, and that she objected to the Aboriginal land acknowledgement being read out.
And she asked that her objection be noted in the minutes.
And that was it.
So this is not somebody who, you know, disrupted a meeting and screamed and shouted this and that.
She very politely.
A month later, in May, she gets a letter from the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board, which is the local school board for that part of Ontario where she lives, and saying you're henceforth banned from attending parent council meetings because of your inappropriate behavior.
And this is another, so many side issues here that we see the weaponization of codes of conduct where if you say something that is politically incorrect or that the woke people don't like, they accuse you of misconduct or, you know, conduct unbecoming of a lawyer, misbehavior, which is, it's a very aggressive and effective, but also terribly wrong way to silence your opponents, right?
If they say something you disagree with, you say, well, you know, what you've engaged in is misconduct.
You violated the code of ethics because you haven't, you know, paid lip service to our woke notions and equity, diversity, inclusion.
Anyway, that's a side tangent.
So she gets this anonymous complaint.
She has no opportunity to respond to the complaint or to know who filed the complaint.
And the penalty is imposed immediately.
There's no process here whatsoever.
Like there's a complaint filed against you.
You have an opportunity to respond.
Then there's going to be a decision made.
And then maybe potentially you get kicked off of the parent council you're elected to.
No, she's informed by letter.
She's not to attend the next public school board meeting.
And so the justice center has provided lawyers to Catherine Cronus.
We've sent a demand letter to the school board, which is one of the most woke in the province, I'm told.
And so far, they are not budging.
So, you know, likely this is going to translate into a court action being filed against the school board, where they're going to use tax dollars to pay lawyers to defend their censorship efforts.
This is the video.
This is the impugned video, I'm not mistaken.
Okay, let's look at this.
Hi, I'm Catherine Cronus, and I just wanted to say, as a parent member of the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board, I would like to emphasize that Principal does not speak on my behalf with regards to the land acknowledgement.
In my view, the board's imposition of a land acknowledgement during our school council meetings undermines the democratic process and constitutes a form of compelled speech, which I believe contravenes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
There is no school board policy mandating its inclusion.
In my opinion, the sentiments implied by the land acknowledgement are political in nature, highly controversial, and therefore divisive and inappropriate within a government institution.
And I respectfully request that my objection be noted in the minutes of this meeting.
That's the extent of the heresy.
John, you could leave your camera open when I played the videos.
First of all, it's amazing.
That was the extent of her heresy.
It's a legitimate point is that it is divisive.
And lo and behold, it led to exactly what it was intended to do, which is an ideological purge of anybody who is not down with the woke BS.
I mean, so what, legally speaking, people often ask this, like, what could be her rights and recourses?
I don't know that we have freedom of speech up in Canada.
In theory, we should, but what would be any remedy for what happened to her?
Well, there's a case on point from the Supreme Court of Canada called Sagnay.
And this case arose in the city of Sagnay, Quebec.
And the mayor of Sagnay happened to be practicing Roman Catholic, and he had the habit or practice.
He would open a council meeting with a Catholic prayer.
I don't know if it's the Our Father or some other prayer, but he'd make the sign of the cross and pray for God's blessing on the meeting.
And then, so there was some Quebec citizens group for secularism, conseil pour laicité or something.
I don't have the name offhand.
They launched a court action and they said, you're imposing prayer, therefore you're imposing religion.
This violates the charter.
The state should be neutral.
And when you have the imposition of a prayer at a public meeting, it violates the state neutrality principle.
They won at the Supreme Court of Canada, and the Supreme Court said, yes, the state is to be neutral.
So you cannot have a Christian prayer, and presumably also, not a Muslim or Jewish prayer.
You can't say a prayer as part of the proceedings of the city council.
Presumably the mayor, and I don't know if he did this or not, like he could be outside of the city hall and on a public sidewalk and he could say prayer there.
Maybe other elected council members wanted to join in.
But once they're in the public proceedings, you can't have a Christian prayer.
Similar principle was applied.
There were court challenges to the practice throughout Canada.
The kids, if you're my age, I'm turning 58 in August.
I remember from through to grade seven, so throughout the 1970s, we would start the classroom with the Lord's Prayer, Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name.
That would be, everybody would recite that prayer.
That was brought to an end in part because there were parents, there were atheist parents and Jewish parents and Jehovah's Witness parents who, for various differing reasons, did not want their kids to be subjected to this.
And there's court rulings saying, oh, and the schools tried to say, okay, well, we'll let the children of the Jewish and atheist parents, they can be excused and, you know, they're not forced to participate.
And the court said, no, that's not good enough because then you're kind of ostracized.
You kind of get singled out that you're the Jewish kid or the atheist kid that's going to be leaving the classroom and then coming back in.
And so that puts those kids on the spot, makes them feel uncomfortable.
So this was the reasoning.
Now, you could agree or disagree with that, but that is the law.
And in my view, the same principle applies.
Here you've got a very political statement, the land acknowledgement.
It implies that we're on stolen land.
It implies that it was a huge mistake for all of the Asians and Africans and Europeans to come to Canada.
It implies that the Aboriginals are somehow more special than all the other ethnic groups that reside in Canada.
And so it is political.
And to impose that as part of the entire meeting is substantively, that's the same thing as the mayor of Sagna saying a Christian prayer at the beginning of a council meeting.
Well, it's interesting because you're going to have to draw the analogy or argue that they're going to distinguish is it's not religion, it's policy.
And so the argument is going to be this is quasi-religious, if not ideological.
It's not religion per se.
It was some sort of ideological, not indoctrination, but ideological requirement that not everybody adhere to the same ideology and then argue mutas mutandis.
I say good luck with it.
It's interesting also you say like, you know, the solution was, which was shut down was, if you don't like it, leave.
I know from experience with some friends who say, I don't want my kid participating in certain gender explorative classes.
And they say, well, you can leave.
It's like you leave, you're putting a target on your back for repercussions, reprisals, hatred, and bullying for being a bigot, so-called.
So for the time being, she's been dismissed and there's been no remedy, but you're contemplating or in the process of taking legal action.
Yeah, and I anticipate that with the consent of Catherine Cronus, that a court action would be filed.
I agree with you.
This is not religious per se.
I mean, it's not talking about a deity and it's not asking God or a God for divine assistance, etc.
But it's very ideological.
You know, the crazy thought occurs to me, you know, if I could write out the mandatory statement at the beginning of every meeting, you know, mine would sound very different.
I might say something like, we all recognize that individual freedom is the highest priority and we need to put restraints on government.
And it's crucially important for governments at all levels to respect our freedoms of conscience, religion, expression, association, peaceful assembly.
And the government that governs the least is the government that governs the best.
Okay, that's ideological, right?
Now, I'm entitled to advocate for those views, right?
But I think it would be not right if that was the mandatory statement that gets read out for every school board meeting, every city council, etc., right?
So we'll have to see what my recitation at the beginning of every class.
Boys have penises, girls have vaginas.
Let's see how long people tolerate that.
And the funny, it was a joke in kindergarten cop, and now it's become a hate crime to say things like that.
It's amazing.
I don't know that many Americans heard of this story or those that did thought it might have been in some sort of parody or joke, but it's reality up in Canada.
Okay, so, well, Godspeed on that.
We'll see where it goes.
I'm non-optimistic because Canada seems to have taken the freaking crazy pill as a society.
The other big one that was on the news front back in the last decade when Carney ran for office, like the news cycle moves so bloody fast, nobody knows what to keep track of.
There was this piece of legislation that just got either passed or proposed or tabled.
And is it Bill C2?
The one I had covered it to go over the thousand-foot overview in terms of what it granted the authorities to do, check your cell phone without a court order, open your mail without a court order.
That is Bill C2?
Yeah, that's correct.
Bill C2 criminalizes the use of cash in amounts greater than $10,000.
It gives Canada Post the authority to open letters, repudiating 158-year-old tradition of privacy.
It imposes a requirement on electronic service providers, which is basically anybody that is using a computer or sending out emails.
They have to, there's all kinds of new obligations imposed on them, warrantless searches, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, his new bureaucrats, they're going to hire another new army of bureaucrats.
They can inspect any computer, anywhere, anytime without a warrant, based on a very low threshold of some reasonable suspicion that a crime may have happened.
We're not talking about the traditional threshold of there's a crime in progress right now, and then a police could bust into a home without a warrant.
But otherwise, we have this common law tradition rooted in constitutional rights that we have privacy rights, we have property rights.
The police cannot enter your home unless they first go to court and they have to swear an affidavit and they have to say, you know, look, we have reasonable grounds to believe that Mark Smith, apology to any Mark Smiths out there, we believe that Mark Smith is possessing, creating, trafficking, child pornography or whatever.
He's engaged in criminal activity.
You go to court and the judge will issue a search warrant for one individual or maybe one bad motorcycle gang.
And then they can violate the privacy of that individual.
That's been our tradition.
This Bill C2 moves us a giant step towards becoming a police state because it's 100 pages long.
It amends a half dozen 139 to be exact, John.
And just to emphasize what this is as well, this goes back to Trump claiming that there were drug problems with the border, terrorists crossing at the border, that Canada had a border issue that was creating a threat for America.
And people said, no, Trump is a liar.
This is called the Strong Borders Act, and it's intended to address the grievances that Trump raised as relates to the Canadian border, at least in part.
To me, it sort of reads exactly like the Quarantine Act, except as relates to border crossings.
It gives the state all the powers under the sun.
And it contains provisions that also don't seem to relate to strong borders.
And Lord knows what outlawing purchases in cash of over $10,000 could mean.
But just so everybody understands that, you know, Trump was called a liar for saying that this problem is at the border in Canada.
Then it was acknowledged, but Trump was still the big bad boogeyman.
And now it's either admitted or denied, but they're exploiting of it under the Carney new liberal government to pass sweeping, restrictive, and authoritarian laws, such as the ability to open mail without a court order, to check electronic surveillance without a court order, to outlaw cash transactions over $10,000.
And I'm sorry, I cut you off there.
So it hasn't yet passed.
It's been tabled.
What's the support for this bill in Canada?
I'm not there and I don't keep up with it that much, but does it have block conservative and NDP support?
So there seems to be more opposition to it than the Online Harms Act, which they tried and would have gotten through.
The Online Harms Act, and I won't say a lot about it, except it was all manner of restrictions on free expression.
And that was actually supported by the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Québécois.
And so that would have gone through if There had not been an election.
Now, this time it's a bit different.
We see the different civil liberties groups, not just the Justice Center, but the Canadian Civil Liberties Association has expressed concerns about it.
And there's some criminal defense lawyers have expressed concerns about it.
There's Professor Michael Geist at the University of Ottawa, who's done a lot of very thoughtful writing about it.
And what we're really dependent on now, and the NDP, the New Democratic Party, in this minority parliament, one of their MPs spoke out very strongly against Bill C2.
So it looks like the NDP is not supporting it.
If the bloc votes against it and the Conservatives vote against it, there's actually a slim chance it might not get through.
Nevertheless, I'm repeatedly, every media interview I do, I'm urging Canadians to contact their member of parliament because, again, this literally takes us a third of the way to becoming a full-on police state.
And that's what makes it so hard to get.
It's almost unbelievable when you think about all these warrant government officials having all of this new authority to demand that you turn over your subscriber list, to demand that they inspect your computer, to be able to enter into your premises without a warrant, business premises.
It's just almost unbelievable.
It is shocking authoritarianism.
And just so people, I've covered it, but we'll get the summary here.
Warrantless access to information, broad scroll of information demands.
The bill's provisions could allow agencies to demand information not just from internet providers, but from a wide range of services, banks, doctors, lawyers, potentially impacting solicitor client privilege, expansion of government power.
Let's see what else we did.
Obligations on electronics service providers.
It sounds just for those who don't remember also, the Online Harms Act was the act that could potentially sentence you to life in prison if you denied a genocide or advocated for genocide.
Yes, yes.
We'll see if that gets passed through, but this really seems like it's a liberal government's wet dream.
And the irony is that it's the most anti-liberal piece of legislation ever.
Do you know not that it matters?
Who proposed it?
Who tabled it?
Do they have sponsors of the bills?
Yeah.
So the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness is, I forget his first name.
His last name is Ananda Sangari.
And he was formerly legal counsel to the Canadian Tamil Congress, which has been accused by the Sri Lankan government as being a front group for terrorists.
I don't know if the accusation is true or not.
So it's Minister Ananda Sangari.
Gary.
I wasn't expecting that.
I'm going to pull up his Ananda Sangari.
And I memorized that.
Ananda apparently is a Sanskrit word for spiritual bliss.
And then it says Ananda Sangari.
I don't know if it matters that much whether it was him or somebody else.
But one thing that was it's sad, but it's also, it makes me laugh.
He said, of course we've reviewed this legislation and we're fully confident that it complies with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
That's what everybody says when they're bringing forward garbage that violates the rights and freedoms of Canadians.
They always say, oh, my laws comply with the Charter.
My lockdowns comply with the Charter.
My vaccine passports comply with the Charter.
You have to use ArriveCan when you enter Canada.
Everything complies with the Charter.
It's just like a speaking point that they will say at the news conference, and it's almost laughable.
Well, what's funny is that the first picture that came up stemmed to be a Caucasian individual named Gary Asandalari.
I think there might have been an AI mix up there.
So, no, no, his last name is Ananda Sangari.
Sati Asangadi.
Gary.
Ananda Sangadi.
Look, I'm observing.
You can call me whatever effing names you want.
Born in Jaffna, 1973.
We're at a point in Canadian politics where 20% of MPs were born outside of Canada.
25% of Canadians were born outside of Canada.
And it's a wild thing.
Like people are flipping out about this, the appointment of this, or the nomination of Zohran Mamdani in New York.
And people are saying, like, he's been a naturalized citizen for seven years.
And it's not xenophobia to suggest like, you know, you have people who were not born in America or Canada, who have totally different cultural, legal expectations, standards coming in now and dictating law.
And it's okay.
So Gary Alansanda Daragari proposed this.
Does it have, I mean, do we, it has passed first reading.
And so now it's going to committee.
Actually, I should note.
I don't know if they're going to committee is before or after second reading.
And this is before second reading.
So it's going to go to committee.
You're going to have a committee with, you know, whatever, six liberals and five conservatives and one block MP or whatever, some kind of a breakdown.
And they go through it with a fine-toothed comb.
They call witnesses.
They listen to testimony.
And then they bring it back to the House of Commons, perhaps in an amended form.
So maybe if the committee, sometimes they vote on partisan lines, but you could always hope that maybe they can put partisanship aside.
So the committee can kind of make all these different changes to it, and it's going to come back for second reading, either in the same form or a better form or, God forbid, a worse form.
And then it'll go to a vote.
And then the minority liberal government will have to hope that they can get some support from one or more opposition MPs.
Otherwise, it's going to die.
So you got to, I'll briefly, it's introduction, first reading, then you get second reading, then you get committee stage, report stage, third reading, consideration and passage.
And then, well, the royal assent is at the end, but it's already gotten it there.
This does take more than a year type thing.
Oh, no, you can rush through a bill in 48 hours.
I've seen Jason Kenney do it in Alberta, just, you know, bang, bang, bang.
He rushed through a bill during lockdowns that gave cabinet ministers the authority to write legislation, to write new laws without any input from the legislature.
And we took That to court, and eventually that was dropped.
But that was from a conservative premier.
But that went through in 36 hours, 48 hours, bang, bang, bang.
Now, with the slim, they had a huge majority, Jason Kenney, right?
Over the, it was 50 conservatives, 25 New Democrats.
With a minority government, the liberals cannot easily just rush things through this quickly.
So I had predicted, at least according to the markets, that it would be something of a de facto liberal majority with NDP support.
As far as the markets on these websites resolving to that, it didn't.
But is it a de facto liberal majority now?
Like, do they have enough support from the NDP?
They don't have the support from the NDP?
Well, what happened in the last parliament was the liberal majority was actually, sorry, the Liberal minority government had fewer seats.
Okay, so they were further away.
They were 10, 15, 20 votes away from the majority.
The NDP, no, from getting my, from 2021 to 2025, for four years, the Liberals, the NDP supported the Liberals over and over and over again.
And I often thought, you know, if I was an NDP supporter, I'd be pretty unhappy with my party and with the leader.
Anyway, they were decimated.
They were crucified in the last election.
They went from 20 or 30 seats.
You probably know the number better than me.
Down to seven to seven?
Or I thought it was down to three anyway.
I thought it was down to seven because they were three seats away.
The liberals were three seats away from a majority.
That was 169 to 172.
And my theory was that they would get there easily if the NDP supported them.
But they got decimated.
They lost official party status.
But I think the lesson, and normally I don't get into this kind of punditry, it's not really what the Justice Center does.
But I think that they got taught a lesson.
If you support everything the Liberal minority government's putting through and you're just, you know, yes, yes, yes, rubber stamp, rubber stamp, rubber stamp, your own voters who have been voting for the NDP for decades, they get very upset with you and you lose a lot of seats.
And political parties do want more seats.
And so I think there's a good chance the NDP has learned its lesson that now that we have a liberal minority government again, they're not going to support the liberals.
And that's a prediction, but I could be wrong.
So Bill C2, it has yet to pass, but it's going for second reading comments.
The online streaming, sorry, Donald, the Online Harms Act.
And that's the one that we were all up in arms about last year before that.
Has that been reintroduced yet or not not yet?
Hints and signals have been dropped to the effect that it will be introduced.
That was a bill that empowered the Canadian Human Rights Commission to launch prosecutions against Canadians over whatever speech the government deems to be hateful, and that's very subjectively defined.
It would have given the federal cabinet new power to create regulations, which of course are not subject to parliamentary scrutiny at all.
And these new regulations would be imposed on all the providers, the hosts of social media platforms, etc., to comply with all kinds of equity, diversity, inclusion.
It would have amended the criminal code to get you life in prison for advocating for genocide.
I think life in prison as well for Holocaust denial.
And it would have also provided new provisions in the criminal code where you could be potentially placed under house arrest wearing an ankle bracelet if your neighbor fears that you might commit a speech crime in the future.
So you're not charged.
You haven't said anything.
You haven't done anything.
And you could go before a judge who could order you to not communicate with certain individuals and take away your legal firearms and place an ankle bracelet on you and confine you under house arrest without having been charged with any offense.
That was actually in Bill C-63.
So Prime Minister Kearney has said that he wants to bring it back.
So wait and see.
And it was Ezra Levant, I think, is the first one who raised it to my attention in his interpretation.
And then Jordan Peterson also echoed the concern, is that it also effectively criminalized not deleting a post to which you have access to delete.
And if someone were to retweet or republish it, it would count as republication under the law for the purposes of sanctions under the law.
So if you had put out an anti-trans, and I'm putting that in quote tweet a decade ago, and you had the ability to delete it but didn't, and then someone retweets it now and causes harm and psychological suffering, that would have been captured under the law.
So it looks like doom and gloom in Canada.
JCCF was heavily involved in a lot of the COVID cases.
For those who don't know, could you refresh memory?
The one pastor that I forget is the one that you guys represented.
There was Arthur Pawlowski.
Then there was the one who was also jailed for...
Okay.
Pastor Coates.
Yeah.
And Tim Stevens was arrested and jailed.
And the Alberta Health Services lawyers lied in court about there being an injunction that didn't even apply to this pastor.
It was just a disgrace.
And again, it was Jason Kenney in Alberta, the self-described conservative and friend of religious freedom who was jailing pastors.
It was disgraceful.
We did not represent Art Pavlowski.
He's probably the most famous.
He's the one, there was a viral YouTube video.
It was beautiful.
These health inspectors came by and he said, get out.
Get out.
Get out.
You remember that one?
Yeah.
So he was represented by Ezra Levant and the Democracy Fund.
They provided lawyers for him.
We provided lawyers for Pastor James Coates, Pastor Tim Stevens, and, you know, as well as other pastors.
Yeah.
But so like, are any of these cases making any progress in Canada?
Like, the thing is, it's been now five years since COVID happened, and it's been, it's like Canada wants to forget, as Does everybody else, but you forget about the pastors that were arrested, jailed, fined for giving services during COVID?
What was the name of the woman who was taken off to the government-designated quarantine facility?
She was a singer, and she was taken off to a government-designated quarantine facility without being able to tell her husband where she was going.
I forget her name, but it was absolutely, she was a pastor's wife, I think.
And I apologize.
It's just so much bad stuff happened.
But yeah, there was a woman was kind of locked into a van and taken off to a hotel, and she couldn't tell her husband or a lawyer.
We had women getting raped in these hotels where the government said that if you are coming back to Canada, you have to stay in a hotel for, I think it was like three days before you can go home.
And these hotels took the locks off of doors.
And we had at least one, if not several, women who got raped because they were in a hotel and they couldn't lock their door thanks to Trudeau doing this quarantine thing.
And you have to stay in a hotel when you come back to Canada and pay for it.
It was the individual who had to stay in it.
So Pastor Coates, what ended up happening with that pastor who was also, he was fined and abused by the system for daring to give service during COVID?
Well, one of the Justice Center's court actions, we sued the Alberta government in December of 2020 over the COVID restrictions being unjustified violations of our charter rights and freedoms.
Disgustingly, it took two and a half years to finally get a court ruling, which is another problem in Canada.
We have too few judges.
And so whether it's criminal law, family law, contract, commercial, constitutional, you have to wait for years to get a ruling, always.
It's not like in the U.S. You can get a ruling within weeks or months, at least, you know, your lower courts.
In any event, two and a half years later, we got a court ruling.
The judge did strike down Alberta's COVID restrictions as illegal.
It was for different reasons than what we had wanted.
So it was a victory.
But she also said that it was fine for the government to trample on our freedoms of association, expression, and so on.
So since that ruling in July of 2023, all of the COVID prosecutions have been stopped.
So we don't have the court cases in Alberta where the police and the health authorities are prosecuting people over violating COVID regulations.
We've also had prosecutions stopped where the College of Physicians and Surgeons was prosecuting a doctor over having given out mask exemptions and vaccine exemptions.
So we had some good in Alberta.
We also had a good, most of the court rulings have been atrocious.
I wrote a book about it, Corrupted by Fear, and that is available on Amazon.
I go through these court rulings where in some cases the judge just writes the media narrative into his court ruling, not supported by evidence placed before the court.
Well, hold on just one second, John.
I'm going to get a link to this right now.
It'll be an Amazon affiliate link, people, and you'll go procure the book if you're interested.
So which cases or which cases in specific do you talk about in the book?
Well, one example is the Gateway ruling coming out of Manitoba.
So the Justice Center's lawyers acted for individuals and churches and other people in Manitoba to challenge the lockdowns.
And so the judge issued a ruling and declared that COVID was unprecedented and it was the worst pandemic in over a century.
And there was no evidence before the court to support either of those assertions.
And in fact, COVID was not unprecedented.
We had the Spanish flu of 1918, which was much, much, much worse, many multiples as bad as COVID.
And even within the 20th century, we've had the Asian flu of 1957, the Hong Kong flu of 1958, were both more deadly than COVID.
And so the judge just writes these assertions into his judgment, which either he's heard them on the CBC or other government-funded media, or he's just read it on the internet and he writes it into his court ruling.
He also completely ignored an expert report by the former chief medical officer of Manitoba, Dr. Joel Kettner, who eviscerated the case for lockdowns.
He went through how PCR testing is not reliable and the government's death numbers were grossly exaggerated and lockdowns were not effective, lockdowns were not saving lives, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Writes this expert report.
The judge completely ignores it.
He doesn't even explain why he's rejecting it.
So this is the kind of, you know, COVID rulings, and they appear thorough because it's a three, you know, it's a, it's a, the judgment's very lengthy.
It's the length of half a book.
But he never says, he never says, they make them so bloody long that people get bored and can't decipher through the bullshit.
So it's like if you can't win them over with reason, baffle them with bullshit, that's what the vast majority of these decisions were.
I was always shocked and appalled.
And I sort of want to do a top 10 or a montage of courts, judges that took judicial notice of the safety and efficacy of the jab, which is now proven to be totally false.
And how you go about overturning those cases where they took judicial notice means it didn't even need to be proven in court.
The judge, it's such an obvious fact, safe and effective for the purposes of denying parents visitation rights.
Sorry, I cut you off there.
Go on.
No, it's just what you said.
This judicial notice thing is terrifying.
We had a judge in Saskatchewan who ordered a 12-year-old girl to get injected with COVID vaccine against the wishes of the girl herself and against the wishes of the mother.
Now, maybe, conceivably, possibly, if he had had an extensive trial and had all these experts in and come and testify about the vaccine, this and that, conceivably, at least in theory, that could have been a reasonable judgment.
But there was very little evidence put before the court about the vaccines.
And he declared, he took judicial notice of the fact that the vaccine is safe and effective for adults and children because, here's where it gets worse: because Health Canada and the Saskatchewan Health Authority have said so.
And these are sources that no reasonable person would dispute.
These are sources of indisputable accuracy that this is judicial notice.
Fortunately, we got that overturned on appeal.
We had a judge in Alberta, Justice Germain, ordered Pastor Art Pavlowski that whenever he spoke in public, he had to preface his comments by saying, I must tell you today that the majority of scientists and the majority of medical doctors recommend the vaccine as safe and effective.
And the opinions that I'm about to express are a minority viewpoint.
I'm paraphrasing, but that also was overturned on appeal.
But why does this get, why do we have trial judges coming out with this garbage?
I've got to find the exact portion of the decision that was, it said, when he is exercising his right to freedom of speech, he must also include the following.
And it was effectively right along the line.
I've got that.
It's in the book too, but I can email you the link.
I'll find it in five seconds.
I know I put out at least 15 tweets.
So how many COVID cases are you still currently involved in carrying on at this point in time?
Are they dwindling out?
They are dwindling out.
The Justice Center has provided lawyers to people in literally hundreds and hundreds of cases.
We've had some good successes on getting bogus criminal charges basically we get acquittals at trial because they abused the criminal law.
There were peaceful protesters in Ottawa and you were there yourself.
You saw how peaceful it was.
And then suddenly you get criminally charged with mischief and inciting mischief and whatever else.
So we have gotten acquittal after acquittal after acquittal and our staff lawyers have handled that.
We unfortunately did not get an acquittal in the trials of Tamira Leach and Chris Barber.
And so those are both ongoing.
But there's a lot of other people where the criminal charges were dropped or withdrawn.
Other COVID cases, yes, we are still fighting against Dr. Bonnie Henry in British Columbia on some of the vaccine-related litigation, but the numbers are now dwindling.
We've lost most of them, which is unfortunate.
That's what prompted me to write the book, Corrupted by Fear, because I'm saying the court system was never going to really radically undermine the government action for any number of reasons.
But by the way, this is, I found the decision.
This is from the decision, people.
This is the terms of his probation.
The final term of his probation order, this is in respect of Arta Pavlovsky, the get-out, get-out pastor, will be that when he is exercising his right of free speech and speaking against Alberta Health Services' health orders and Alberta Health Services' health recommendations in public gatherings or public forum, including electronic social media, he must indicate in his communication the following, what the judge compelled him to say.
I am also aware that the views I am expressing to you on this occasion may not be views held by the majority of medical experts in Alberta.
While I may disagree with them, I'm obliged to inform you that the majority of medical experts favor social distancing, made up nonsense, mask wearing, made up nonsense, and avoiding large crowds, made up nonsense, to avoid to reduce the spread of COVID-19.
Most medical experts also support participation in a vaccination program, unless for a valid religious reason or medical reason, which the government never gave you, you cannot be vaccinated.
Vaccinations have been shown statistically to save lives and to reduce the severity of COVID-19 symptoms.
And just so we understand the insanity, this was in 2021, October 2021, when they didn't know Jack Squat, or they probably knew Jack Squat, but that was Canada.
When you're exercising your God-given right to free speech, here's what you must also say is a violation of free speech.
Sorry.
Did that court order when it got overturned, the bail, that provision never got overturned, right?
The compelled speech?
No, did the Alberta Court of Appeal overturned the entire judgment on a whole bunch of points.
So the compelled speech was not allowed.
They also ruled that for various, it was quite complicated and technical, you know, the authority exercised under the health orders and proper notice, this, that, and the other thing.
It's a very technical ruling, but they overturned the lower court completely.
And they set aside the, because in addition to that gag order to, well, it wasn't a gag.
Yeah.
In addition to violating his free speech, they also ordered the pastor, he had to pay, he was, you know, found guilty of violating health orders and he had to pay $20,000 or $50,000, whatever, and he had to pay $20,000 or $30,000 in court costs to Alberta Health Services.
That got reversed.
So he was found not guilty of violating the health orders.
And then the Court of Appeal ordered Alberta Health Services to pay the pastor something like $20,000 or something for his legal costs.
So, you know, it's good it got overturned, but it's scary that a judge who's responsible for he's supposed to be the one to defend us when governments and politicians and bureaucrats and health officials violate our rights and freedoms.
We're supposed to be able to go to the courts to say, hey, wait a minute, government, you have to provide cogent and persuasive evidence to justify your violations of Charter of Freedoms.
And this the courts generally did not do.
They lowered the bar.
As Justice Pomeran said in Ontario, this is Trinity Bible case.
It was one of the COVID lockdown cases.
And she said, and I quote, I am neither equipped nor inclined to resolve scientific controversies regarding COVID-19.
She actually said that.
Whereas like you and I as practicing lawyers, if you in 2019 had written a letter to the editor saying, you know, Justice Smith is neither equipped nor inclined to resolve scientific controversies, you would have probably gotten a threatening letter from the Law Society telling you that you're being disrespectful of a judge, right?
And here the judge says this about herself.
She says, I'm neither equipped Nor inclined to resolve scientific controversies, but all that the Ontario government needs to do is show that it has some basis for imposing these measures, and that's going to be good enough.
And so she rubber stamped it.
And, you know, this is the quality of judges in Canada, just this abdication of responsibility to look at the science and to demand of government that they actually justify scientifically, medically, and otherwise the efficacy of their measures.
And what the judges did is just lowered the bar and said, well, it's a time of crisis.
And so, you know, the government said that these measures are really necessary.
So, you know, who am I to disagree?
The question is this.
I mean, not to get doom and gloomy, you're still practicing up in Canada.
You're still living up in Canada.
I'm currently not practicing law.
I'm not an active member of the Law Society, but the Justice Center is providing active practicing lawyers to clients all over Canada.
You might actually then have the best end of your entanglement with the government.
Any other notable cases that the JCCF is involved in that you want to mention that I forgot to highlight?
Well, we're going to bat for a school teacher in Quebec who was ordered by her principal to withhold information from parents about their child's gender transition.
That's an example of our case.
We're going to bat, we're providing lawyer for British Columbia nurse Amy Hamm, who has been found guilty of professional misconduct by the British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives because Amy Hamm said publicly, brace yourself, she said publicly that there's only two genders and that women deserve safe spaces like their own female-only bathrooms, locker rooms, sporting competitions.
So she's been found guilty of professional misconduct by the British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives.
We are taking her case to, now that we're done at the college level, we're taking that to court.
We did get a good victory from the Ontario Court of Appeal in the Hillier case.
And this was our first big victory from the Court of Appeal, Ontario Court of Appeal, second most influential court in Canada after the Supreme Court of Canada.
And they ruled that the Ontario government unjustifiably violated the Charter of Freedom of Peaceful Assembly when they placed a total ban on all outdoor protests.
And so that was a positive result that was just in the past month or two.
It's amazing.
I can't stomach this stuff.
It's too bloody frustrating.
And I'm not optimistic on the future of Canada without ending on a doom pill.
What is your prognosis or what is it like up in Canada?
I mean, is it as backwards as it looks down here?
Is it the Orwellian warning to the rest of the world that this is where things go slowly but then quickly?
Look, it's very ugly.
There's an awful lot of Canadians that have left and not just the snowbirds leaving for six months.
I'm talking about people that have moved to the U.S. They've moved to Mexico.
They've moved to Paraguay.
A lot of Canadians still are very naive, very trusting.
But surely the government would not lie to us.
Surely the government would not fail to have our best interests at heart.
There's this naivete, which I think comes from an ignorance of history.
We've been stripping the public school curriculum decade after decade after decade.
Kids are learning less and less history.
So they don't know about people like Stalin and Mao and Franco and Mussolini and the military junta in Argentina and Hitler and Ceausescu and so on and so forth.
They don't get that government, although it can be a force for good, government can also be a force for evil.
So you have an awful lot.
There are a lot of Canadians.
It won't be until they're locked up in a prison cell that they finally start to adopt a more skeptical view of government.
So things might get better.
I have confidence in the long run because I believe firmly that truth always vanquishes the lie.
The freedom will always prevail over tyranny and justice will always triumph over injustice.
So I'm going to fight as hard as I can for as long as I can to, you know, for a better future for my kids.
Well, I think that was the troll punchline of Michael Malice's white pill.
It's like, yeah, truth prevails 60 to 80 million people later.
So eventually the Soviet, you know, the Soviet regimes collapsed, but it only took 60 to 80 million people dying, famine, murder, whatever, for that to happen.
I was going to, oh yeah, there was a question up in our, in our locals, viva barnslaw.locals.com chat.
Hyphen, who's a Canadian, says, can you explain why or how Carney managed to manipulate the MPs and the system to win MP?
That's a political question, but disclosures.
I was told, and I was under the belief that Carney would have 60 days from his appointment as PM, sorry, as party leader to make some disclosures of his ownership in Brookfield, whatever, financial disclosures.
Does he have that obligation?
Did the timeframe lapse?
And is he in default of disclosures for conflict of interests in companies that might own interests in modular housing, which Canada now seems all gung-ho on investing in?
I don't know.
I'm very sorry.
Obviously, it's an important issue.
It's one that I've not been able to follow.
I've had to spend so much time.
I don't mean this as an excuse, but as an explanation, this Bill C2 with its hundred and something pages, trying to properly wrap my head about it so that I can speak about it.
You don't need to worry about that.
Some stuff is politics and some stuff is law.
This one, look, I was following it.
And then, you know, things happen in the global news cycle that are also equally interesting.
One of those one other question here.
The judges, are there any good Canadian trial judges, says Dred Robert?
Well, another related question is, why aren't these judges in jails or being sanctioned?
The bar, John, you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.
The bar in Canada for like bad behavior on the bench, I won't say it's even higher than it is in the States, but these provincial judges are appointed, they're appointed for life, aren't they?
Barring the federal judges are forced to retire at age 75.
That includes the Supreme Court, and I believe it includes the superior courts in every province.
The provincial courts, I suspect that would be different in every province, and some might have mandatory retirement at 75 for judges appointed by the provincial government.
But that would vary from province to province.
We do have some good judges.
I think that the, as the title of the book suggests, right, corrupted by fear.
I'm suggesting it was the media, the universities, the medical establishment, the legal establishment, the courts, the politicians.
Everybody was corrupted by fear because the media kept on driving home this message that COVID was like the bubonic plague or it was going to kill tens of millions of people.
Scary photos, photos of dead people, photos of dying people.
And as an explanation, not as an excuse, I think an awful lot of Canadian judges just fell prey to that media fear-mongering.
And then they abdicated their duty in court to issue rulings based on evidence.
But there are some good judges.
But when I said appointed for life, I didn't mean until like 99.
I meant that they can't be removed from the bench.
There's no electoral, like we don't have elections in Canada.
So when they're appointed by government, they can't be removed except for poor behavior.
But the poor behavior, and I can tell you this from my practice, was there were there were drunks, drugs, and that still wasn't sufficient.
So the bar is tremendously high to remove for misconduct.
Bad decisions, they say, well, that's what the Court of Appeal is for.
Then you get to the Court of Appeal, and when they ratify the bad decisions, lo and behold, they're not bad decisions anymore.
Now they're precedents.
So, John, JCCF is where people could find you.
Are you on Twitter?
JCCF.
Yes.
JCCF Canada, I believe, is our Twitter handle.
And we're putting out tweets all the time about legal and constitutional issues.
And I saw you pulled up our website briefly.
So we have an email newsletter if you're into email newsletters.
There's not very many that I get that I genuinely appreciate.
I would not say if it weren't true, I very much appreciate getting yours.
It does ping me with what's going on in Canada.
So jcdcf.ca is the website.
John, I'm going to carry on for a few more minutes and read some of the super chat rumble rants, not super chats, rumble rants and tip questions.
And then we have our locals after party.
You'll come back on sooner than later, and we'll talk about the developments in Canada and see if it goes right to the shitter with if C2 gets jammed through in the middle of the night, like the online streaming act, which got jammed through in the middle of the night.
Okay.
Well, thanks for having me on your show, and I look forward to the next time.
Absolutely.
I'll talk to you soon.
See you.
Bye-bye.
People, let me get to the tipped questions here.
Encryptus over in our vivabarnslaw.locals.com community says, Gullmasty syndrome is a memetically transmitted parasivic disorder marked by policy-induced bioresonance, named after Canadian politician Mandy Gullmasty.
Symptoms include legislative echoing, zoning obsession, and meta-ferritose spikes.
Post-speech managed via controlled parliamentary isolation.
Gully Masty denies all links.
Denial is now a...
Well, that was funny, Cryptus.
Oh, denial itself is now a symptom.
Okay, I got that.
That's quite funny.
Let me bring these up here so we can see these on the rumble ones I can bring up like such.
And they're actually quite beautiful.
Sire Williamson says, my sister won custody back from the trans kidnapper in New Brunswick.
The Maritimes were off the deepest of the deep ends during COVID and with this ideological stuff.
So congratulations.
Hi, John.
Jeremy of Medicine Hat here.
Sire Williamson, King of Bill Tong in the house.
Taste our authentic Angus and WaggyU beef Bill Tong.
Premium air-dried with bold, savory flavors.
High protein, low-carb snack.
Order now at Billtongusa.com.
Use code Viva for 10% off.
Old man T. Obie, old man Toby, says, Viva, I have to disagree.
It does matter that a woman said it.
We have to see that it's a pattern that many of the woke policies judges, oh, woke police, judges, and politicians are women.
It's a pattern that should be acknowledged.
With that, with that RCMP officer, constable, whatever, I think someone forced her to do it, that she didn't have the testicular fortitude to say, no, I'm not doing this fucking land acknowledgement.
She looked like she was being held hostage there.
Then we got Snooty Mims says, Viva, you're one of the genuinely good ones.
If any of you have kids, check out Viva's book, Louis the Lobster, great children's book.
God bless.
Well, you got me on two there.
I like being called genuinely good.
And God bless, I also like.
Thank you very much, Snooty Mims.
Now I can take this out and go back to our locals community.
Dred Robert says, are there any good Canadian trial judges?
I got that.
Outlook says, if Americans overthrew the exact system of government the Canadian live under, if Americans overthrew the exact same system of government the Canadian live under and America is a free country because of this, whatever made Canada a free country, I'd say arguably was never a free country.
It just wasn't quite this bad.
Or at least the veneer of freedom was much better.
Outlook says, yes or no, Canada is a free country that champions individual rights.
No.
That's a hard no, and it's quite clear.
I don't even think that the government would disagree because they have subjugated individual rights for the greater good.
They'd be proud of it.
It's a good thing.
The breadlines are a good thing.
Okay, what we're going to do now, I'm saving a story on the Liver King for our locals after party.
And I'm going to give a shout out to Sean Strickland.
I'm going to post it as a standalone video anyhow.
I got a...
I've been taking care of my...
Hold on.
Well, there we go.
It's not worth anything, but I got a Sean Strickland rookie card.
there, back it up.
Sean Strickland rookie.
What year is this?
UFC 12.
Let me see what my Sean Strickland rookie card's worth.
We go to this website.
Here you go.
Okay.
Okay.
You go here.
Watch this.
Sean Strickland.
And then we put in the number 172.
And we can see how much this card last sold for.
And it sold for $1.67 the last time.
If you get it in PSA 10, it last sold for $15.
The only problem is to get it in PSA 10, you need to pay $25 to have it graded by PSA and then hope to get a 10 so that you could have a net loss in the present of $10.
I'm holding on to this for when Sean Strickland is inducted into the Hall of Fame.
And then I'll be a $50 card there, people.
And jokes aside, if anybody wants to send over unopened packs, and I'm going to open these as a subset of series.
Viva, what are they called?
It's not unboxing.
It's called...
And they open them and then they go through them.
And yeah, Sean Strickland is going to get a proper shout out because he's got the right take on the Liver King.
Over at VivabornsLaw.locals.com.
Let's go see who we're going to raid.
We're going to raid Redacted.
And I'm going to give Encryptus the link.
I've actually got the link already pulled up, ready to go.
I just want to mention that Casey Gates gifted five subs.
Oh, shoot.
Thank you very much.
Hold on one second.
Who was that?
Let me see here.
Casey Gates.
Casey J Gates.
And I got a, oh, I got to freaking.
I had a team talk with the team as to how we enable Rumble Premium to jive with locals, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
And I'm going to do it eventually.
Finboy Slick.
Hold on one second.
Let's share this one as we go to there's a problem with this one.
It's not far enough off of reality.
I would never eat raw meat because of the fear of parasites, bacteria, and Jacobson Krefauser, bad cow disease.
That's kind of what I look like.
A little bit on a good day.
All right, people, we're going to have our Vivabornslaw.locals.com after party.
Encryptus, what's up?
One more.
A lot of people are asking about the Crowder interview.
Maybe you want to pitch that.
Yes.
I'm going to be uploading the Crowder interview after the Locals After Party.
Supporters over on Locals have access to it now, and that wasn't for any other reason than I couldn't get it up before the interview.
I interviewed Stephen Crowder earlier today.
It's been a busy day.
I did Malcolm, Candace Malcolm interview in the morning, then Stephen Crowder, where we got into the discussion about the division, divisiveness, infighting among the right.
And it was hilarious.
It involves jokes of sexual fornication with APAC.
And I'm going to publish it right after this.
So stay tuned for that.
It'll be a premiere, but maybe I'll be in the chat doing a premiere, and then we can do something fun.
So stay tuned for that.
Steven Crowder was on with me, and it was fantastic.
47-minute interview.
It will be up shortly.
Oh, Snoopy Mimps, you forgot to call him brother as well.
That would have been it.
That would have been the trifecta.
God bless.
You're one of the good ones, brother.
And keep on keeping on.
Okay, we're done.
Come on over to vivabarnslaw.locals.com.
We've rated the redacted.
And not to, let's see what they're saying.
Let's see what they're saying.
On that Iran actually now, in your book, Imperial Hubris, you talked about how your work sound like that.
I love the sound of their mic.
I think I love it more than the sound of my mic.
Encryptus, is that what my mic sounds like?
It does not.
Is there a reason for that?
There's a long discussion there.
Wait, theirs is richer?
Yes, by far.
It's a little bit deeper.
There's much more range to it.
They just have better equipment.
We can talk about it.
No, forget it.
I'm not touching equipment.
This equipment's been working very well for a long time.
The only thing I've said, two things I said I was going to do, get a new chair, which I haven't done yet, and get a DSLR-type camera for this instead of a plug-in, which I haven't done yet.
But if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Let us go and have our party at vivabarnslaw.locals.com.
Stay tuned for the Crowder interview.
It's coming up imminently.
And that's it.
What day is it today?
Thursday, Friday, tomorrow.
Do I have an interview tomorrow?
I don't remember, but I'll be live at 3 o'clock.
So stay tuned.
Peace out, peeps.
▲
Export Selection