TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @PeymanAskari451
@PeymanAskari451 - Peyman Askari
1/ 🧵 There are so many theories flying around as to whether the tariffs are, or are not about securing the northern border that I wanted to create a thread on this. I will start by focusing on the border issue, then I'll move to the grand plan https://t.co/0JncEG5FGV
reSee.it AI Summary
The posts discuss various criticisms of the Supreme Court of Canada and Chief Justice Wagner. The author, @buckmcyoung, highlights concerns about elitism, political bias, lack of accountability, and the need for institutional reform. They also mention specific cases, such as the Mosley case and the Coutts 4, and express a desire for a leader to take responsibility. The author emphasizes the importance of civil discourse and fixing the country.
@PeymanAskari451 - Peyman Askari
1/ THREAD This article criticizing the @SCC_eng was so impactful that I just had to sit down @buckmcyoung and go over it, paragraph by paragraph. https://t.co/X625rv18hh
@PeymanAskari451 - Peyman Askari
2/ @buckmcyoung's aim in writing this article was to draw attention to the elitism that permeates the judiciary. https://t.co/17GgghWQWX
Video Transcript AI Summary
Canada's institutions, including the justice system, are seen as deeply flawed. The prime minister's remarks about protesters in Ottawa were criticized for being divisive and elitist, reflecting a wider issue of elitism in Canadian politics. The lack of criticism towards institutions like the judiciary is concerning.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You said, Canada's institutions are deeply broken. Our justice system is no exception. Little further on, you go on to say that our prime minister disparaged thousands of Canadians who gathered to end the COVID tyranny. I I'm assuming you're referring to Ottawa. Can you tell us why you said that?
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. I mean, I think a lot of Canadians feel that his comments about, you know, the French minority, the racists, they're bigoted, they're misogynistic, But those comments were directed at them. And, you know, and and, you know, the the prime minister may have tried to distance himself from those comments, but, you know, they're very much in keeping with the, you you know, prosecution of the unvaccinated and COVID dissidents throughout the COVID era. So, you know, I think it is emblematic of the elitism that is rife in in Canadian politics and institutions. And, you know, so I'm taking aim here at probably one institution and leader of an institution that, experiences the least amount of criticism, you know, because of all this deference that we give to the judiciary and so forth.
@PeymanAskari451 - Peyman Askari
3/ One common theme throughout our conversation is that @buckmcyoung believes that those in authority won't apologize because it may land them in trouble. https://t.co/QR4W5iLbEz
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker criticizes the lack of accountability and apology from Canadian elites for decisions made during COVID. They believe elites fear being held responsible if they admit mistakes. People are angry at institutions for failing them and violating their rights. The speaker calls for elites to take responsibility and address the issues through self-reflection and accountability.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Their uniform reaction has been to blame the public without one iota of self reflection or discerning contemplation as to what has led to such public consternation. Give me what what are you referring to here?
Speaker 1: I think it's odd that, we can't get a simple apology out of anybody, for any of the decisions that were made during COVID. We can't even get an acknowledgment that, you know, these mistakes were made and and and define them. So, you know, I think fundamentally there is, an expectation among the elites in Canada that if they acknowledge what has transpired, you know, rightly so, they will be held accountable for it. And it seems to be, you know, just kicking the can down as, as far down the road as they can, to avoid, you know, that accountability, while they're still in office or in positions of authority. Right?
So, you know, I think that accounting has to happen. Right? People are are very upset that their institutions failed them, that their rights were, violated and that nobody stood up for them. Nobody in a position of authority or power, leading an institution stood up for them. So, you you know, obviously people, get a little uncivil when, they don't feel like their issues are attended to or the voice is being heard.
And, you know, and that's why, you know, I'm advocating that we have that public accounting. I I I put the onus on the elites. This is a problem they created. It's up to them to solve it, and it was only gonna happen through that, self flagellation.
@PeymanAskari451 - Peyman Askari
4/ Our Chief Justice, like all the elites in Canada, is carrying a bias, and that is is undermining the credibility of the @SCC_eng https://t.co/9offpZKtvz
Video Transcript AI Summary
I believe the chief justice has shown bias in his views on COVID and the convoy, making him unfit for his role. I have personally experienced institutional bias in the legal profession and have evolved to be more of a populist, valuing confrontation in the political process.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What did you mean by, the institution that's principally responsible for discernment and the fact that Wagner's kind of gone off the rails? Well, I mean, this is what we expect of of our courts and our justices is that, you know, they can see things from both sides and find the nuance in arguments. Except that I I think it's pretty clear that our chief justice here has taken a very polarized view, of the issues of COVID and then, the convoy and so forth. And so, you know, that's that to me means, he's unfit, for the role. You know, the lack of, discretion in his public comments, after the convoy, I think is, indicative that, you know, this individual is, carrying a bias.
And, you know, it's the institutional bias that, all of the elites in Canada have for the the pledge. Right? You know, so I I think it's, you know, I I again, I'm taking aim at this institution because, you know, it's one that I understand, to a certain degree. You know, I went to law school. You know, I've been to, you know, meetings with crown attorneys.
I participated in preparing, charter cases. You know, I was a legal observer during the g 20 protests, and I watched, Canadians' rights, to protest be violently repressed. You know, and then during that time sort of, you know, 2008, era where there was a lot of public discontent about, the banking crisis. You know, I think I experienced the institutional bias amongst the legal profession towards, politics of respectability. And I think to a certain extent, I even, you know, bought into that notion.
It's sort of only, having seen where, you know, where that leads us to this indifference to the plight of, average Canadians that I've reversed my view on that and, you know, can appreciate that, confrontation is, is part of the political process. And, you know, so I I, I guess I've evolved on the issue a bit, and I find myself, much more of a populist these days.
@PeymanAskari451 - Peyman Askari
5/ While Chief Justice Wagner is calling for more collegiality, a more aggressive interpretation would be that he is calling for more cowardice in confronting the courts. @buckmcyoung
Video Transcript AI Summary
Civility in the legal profession has led to corruption. Lawyers need to maintain respect for each other but also hold each other accountable. The lack of criticism and courage has allowed the system to be distorted. Only 13 lawyers in Canada have spoken out against unethical behavior. The legal profession needs to reflect on their societal obligations, not just their professional duties.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Civility, I contend contend, is what led to the corruption of this most important democratic institution. Can you can you break that down for us, please?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, you can take it a number of ways. You know, I think within the legal profession, you know, all this collegiality that chief justice Wodgner is always going on about, collegiality and civility. You know, it's really baked into the professional ethos. And, you know, and I can understand that.
You you know, at the end of the day, lawyers are sales advocates for their clients, and, they are to take, you know, an adversarial approach. And that's how the administration of justice is is done. You know, and and so if you're gonna be arguing with your colleagues all the time, you have to maintain a certain, respect, mutual respect for each other, so that you can, you know, make your arguments, but, you can avoid, getting personal about things. And I think that's that that really captures the legal professions ethos. But, you know, we also rely on, lawyers to, be the stewards of this institution.
And, you know, I think all that collegiality and deference and, you know, said more, said more aggressively the, the cowardice that, many people who work in the profession have to criticize judges, criticize politicians, or criticize their colleagues is what has facilitated, you know, the distortion of, of our system, the capture of our system. Right? And so, you know, there are I mean, as in this article, there are 13, you know, courageous lawyers in Canada who are willing to, write a letter, to, the, you know, the administrative body that is supposed to, adjudicate the behavior of judges, which I'll note is led by chief justice Wagner. So we'll see how effective that institution is at, at, correcting his behavior that is, I think plainly offside with the ethics, that they're supposed to be held to. But, you know, I would be surprised there aren't more than 13.
And I'm also surprised that there weren't a bunch of, lawyers in their robes marching with folks during the convoy. You know, I think the legal profession really needs to take a long look in the mirror, about, you know, their obligations to society as a whole and, you know, not just their professional ethos to, any one particular client.
@PeymanAskari451 - Peyman Askari
6/ That David Lametti advised the government to illegally invoke the Emergencies Act and violently repressed Canadian's right to protest and could still show his face in a law firm proves that there is no accountability within the legal profession. @buckmcyoung https://t.co/ANEGA7oGHx
Video Transcript AI Summary
Former Attorney General David Lammetti resigned after the Mosley decision. Despite this, his reputation remains intact among his peers. The fact that he can now work at a law firm shows a lack of accountability in the legal profession.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This one line, it almost made me chuckle. You said the now disgraced former attorney general David Lammetti. Why do you say he's disgraced?
Speaker 1: Well, because he resigned immediately after, Mosley decision came out. Now, I mean, he's not disgraced in the legal profession. He's now a partner at, I forget which firm. I'm not gonna name it. It's just in case I get it wrong.
You know? So, unfortunately, amongst, his peers, his reputation is intact. And I think that actually is exactly what I'm talking about. That somebody, who could advise the government to, illegally invoke the emergencies act and violently repress Canadians' right to protest, seize their bank accounts and so forth, that that individual could even show his face, in in a law firm, I think, is the evidence that, you know, there is not accountability within the profession.
@PeymanAskari451 - Peyman Askari
7/ This is strictly my interpretation, but Chief Justice Wagner is using the concept of 'civility' as a shield against criticism of his own political bias. https://t.co/R7d2TYLcKB
Video Transcript AI Summary
Wagner emphasizes civility for judges to avoid criticizing colleagues, but some see it as a way to hide bias. The focus should be on addressing issues or ideas, not attacking individuals. This concept of civility may be used as a shield to avoid accountability in the legal profession.
Translation: Wagner stresses the importance of civility for judges to refrain from criticizing their colleagues, but some view it as a way to conceal bias. It is essential to address issues or ideas instead of attacking individuals. This notion of civility could be used as a shield to evade accountability in the legal field.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Wagner states in his address that civility means that judges should avoid criticizing colleagues where possible. I think he's not saying this, but, basically, he's using civility as a shield to hide his bias behind?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, the the context there is that, you know, he's talking about, you know, as a supreme court justice versus, you know, reviewing the work of a lower court justice, you know, or or, you know, critiquing a lawyer's argument that you you don't attack the person. You you address the issue or the idea. Right? But I think that is has extrapolated into, as you say, a shield to accountability within the profession.
@PeymanAskari451 - Peyman Askari
8/ When the Chief Justice is explicitly attacking a head of state, we have a serious problem. @buckmcyoung https://t.co/URFAOSSPmO
Video Transcript AI Summary
He criticizes Brexit, social media freedom, and Trump, but not COVID-19. His criticism of Trump shows his political bias, which worries other lawyers in the convoy cases.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: He cites things like Brexit, the freedom on social media, Trump politics. He he sort of criticizes some politicians, but what you're saying is he he did not bring this same level of criticism when it came to COVID 19. Well,
Speaker 1: yeah. I mean, he's explicitly, in 2019, explicitly attacking the head of state Donald Trump, and, and and attacking the people who voted him in. You know, but then just very shortly thereafter, it, you know, refuses. Now I'm not suggesting he should make those comments, and and it's his place to address, you know, our leaders and their behavior. Only in the context in which there's a case before him should we hear his opinions, And and they should be rooted in the law and not, his personal politics.
And so, you know, I only mean to point it out not to say, well, look. There's hypocrisy here, and he should have been criticizing Trudeau and and all the liberal cabinet ministers who continue to lie and gaslight us, like, every day. It's shocking. However, you know, the fact that he did it, you know, felt comfortable to do so in attacking Trump, I think is just a, the veil drops and you understand his political biases. And this is what I think concerns me and these other lawyers about, the convoy cases.
@PeymanAskari451 - Peyman Askari
9/ I'm leading the witness here, but it's my contention that Chief Justice Wagner is more political than his office should tolerate. @buckmcyoung https://t.co/WcOrczqZzM
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker questions the impartiality of a Canadian judge, suggesting they may be more politically biased than previous chief justices. They express doubt about the judge's ability to remain apolitical in their role.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: He has the temerity to to say, in Canada, judges are still seen as being above the political fray. Now I don't understand the the the legal aspect as well as you do, but I'm looking at him, and he doesn't seem apolitical. He doesn't even seem like he's capable of of his position. Is he more partisan than previous, chief justices? I would think so.
Definitely. I I mean, this is very, becoming behavior for a chief justice.
@PeymanAskari451 - Peyman Askari
10/ To further drive home the point that Chief Justice Wagner is behaving in a partisan manner, he was promoting this narrative that the convoy was funded by the US. @buckmcyoung https://t.co/9PWbzsgzYW
Video Transcript AI Summary
He mentioned that some Canadians in the convoy were good-hearted, but claimed others were influenced by external forces, hinting at US involvement. He also said the convoy was turning into chaos and Canadians were being held hostage, which contradicted the peaceful activities seen in livestreams. Despite a court injunction to stop honking, it acknowledged the protest as lawful and safe. His statements seemed to disregard lower court rulings.
Translation: The speaker discussed contrasting views on the Canadian convoy, suggesting external influence and chaos while ignoring evidence of peaceful protests and court rulings.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And could you go on to tell us, what did he say in, oh, lord, that, shocked so many people about the convoy? I have to refresh myself here. I mean, he made another a number of comments. He let you know, he, on one hand, said that there were, you know, good good hearted or or or good natured Canadians involved, but then he also alleged that, many of the protesters were, being directed by some sort of external influence. I think this was feeding into the narrative that the the convoy was some US political influence op operation.
You know, obviously, this that's a a very political take. There's no evidence to suggest that. I don't know how he could, make an allegation like that, you know, in in April other than maybe reading it off of, you know, CTV News or or wherever he got that from. You know? But he also, remarks that the convoy was, devolving into anarchy and, and that, Canadians were being taken hostage.
I mean, this is very inflammatory language. We're talking about, you know, a convoy that was cleaning up the streets and, you know, feeding the homeless and, you know, bouncy castles and children. Like, the the the I watched livestream what was going on, and, and it just doesn't comport at all with, you know, what he was saying. I mean, even to the point where, you know, the horn honking was, very problematic for the residents living in the downtown. And, and there you know, it went to court and, the Ontario Superior Court, had the injunction where on one hand, they said, hey.
The has gotta stop, you know, which I think for the most part was complied with. But at the same time, that decision said that this was lawful peaceful protest and safe protests. So, you know, I just think, he is essentially ignoring the rulings of lower courts, in his public statements, which, contradict that.
@PeymanAskari451 - Peyman Askari
11/ We have a serious problem where the government launders fabrications through NGOs, to the @rcmpgrcpolice, and then back to the government as coroborating evidence. @buckmcyoung https://t.co/d7c3v07z6k
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker questions if the media and courts are shaping false narratives to serve political agendas. They raise concerns about bias in the justice system and the manipulation of information by government-funded groups. The involvement of the chief justice in political narratives is seen as problematic.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm gonna I'm gonna cite something Jan Jekalik said was, when the convoy made its way to Ottawa, the politicians, they they they basically said these guys are insurrectionists. They're here to throw us throw overthrow us. They then turn to the media to parrot that narrative back to them to convince them of what they wanted to be convinced in the first place. Is the same thing happening with our courts? I I hope that makes sense.
Well,
Speaker 1: I mean, I think I'd have to I I don't think I'm positioned to really opine on it yet. Maybe it's something I could get back to you on. You know, I'm taking one one justice's comment, public comments, and, you know, and and making a very specific claim here that this individual, has a bias and that bias is on, you know, full effect. I do think that why would why would our chief justice in April 2022, be making these statements? To launder a false narrative.
Right? In the same way that, you know, Canadian hate alliance, you know, government paid, you know, quote, unquote NGOs are fabricating evidence, that is being laundered, you know, to the RCMP and then back from the RCMP. And and then the government is saying, well, this came from the RCMP. Right? There's all kinds of narrative laundering going on.
And, I do think it's very problematic that our chief justice would be getting involved in shaping political narratives.
@PeymanAskari451 - Peyman Askari
12/ @buckmcyoung suggests that we may have collapsed the three branches of government into one. @PardyBruce https://t.co/sghSMwsoOq
Video Transcript AI Summary
The concern raised is about the merging of government branches in Canada. The speaker points out that the executive, legislative, and judiciary branches are not functioning separately as intended. The executive branch, under a strong majority government, is also leading the legislative branch. During COVID, the judiciary deferred to the executive, creating a situation where all branches are essentially one. This collapse of the three branches into one entity is seen as a fundamental issue in Canadian governance.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: That's actually what I was asking. Like, I I understand if you don't wanna answer it definitively. But to what extent I'm reading this, the the this line right here. The the beginning of anarchy, to take other citizens hostage, to take the law into their own hands, not to respect the mechanism, that I find worrying. That sounds like something, you know, Trudeau handed a a a letter over to Wagner, and he read it.
Like, how are are these two branches of government merging?
Speaker 1: Well, that's a a good point you're making, actually. I think it's something that, Bruce Pardee also makes is that, you know, Canada you know, when we think of the subdivision of powers, we think of, the legislative branch, the judicial branch, and the executive branch. Now in Canada, we don't really conform to that, ideal very well because the leader of the executive branch is also, you know, under a majority government or a coalition that is as strong as this one, the leader of the legislative as well. And, you know, so we're already deviating from that ideal division of powers. You know, but I think it's fair to say that, you know, the judiciary, at least during the COVID era, also deferred their responsibility to the executive.
So we have a legislative that's not legislating, passing laws and leaving it up to the regulations to fill in the details. And you've got a judiciary that is taking judicial notice that the that the decisions that the executive branch is making are valid without even, you know, requiring any evidence for it. So, yes, we have collapsed, the 3 branches of government into 1. And that is a a a root problem for this dysfunction in Canadian governance.
@PeymanAskari451 - Peyman Askari
13/ It's unlikely that we will see any positive self policing from the Council of Judges @buckmcyoung https://t.co/I1DLQm9cRN
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker believes that the legal profession needs reform, similar to the expansion of the Supreme Court in the United States under FDR. They suggest that the current conservative government may face opposition from liberal-appointed judges and senators if they try to address issues from the previous Trudeau era. Strong measures may be necessary to make changes.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We we've kind of talked about you've talked about these 13 judges, 13 lawyers. What do you think is gonna happen? Because it seems like, the council of judges is not doing anything about it. Yeah. I doubt anything's gonna happen, unfortunately.
You know, I think it's good that, lawyers are are planting a flag in the ground. That's the most courageous thing I've seen out of the legal profession in some time. You know, but I don't expect that it it will be addressed this way. I mean, to be honest, I think we are looking at, some drastic, need to reform the courts. And, you know, this happened in the United States, the expansion of the Supreme Court, you know, to because the Supreme Court in the United States, under FDR was opposing, his legislative mandate, you know, he stacked the court.
He added a lot more, justices to, to be able to to move that through. And, you know, I think it remains to be seen, but, you know, the conservatives are likely gonna have a strong mandate. We don't know yet if they're gonna go about trying to fix, a lot of the problems that were created during the Trudeau era. But if they do, you know, expect that, the judiciary and the senate will be brakes on that. And, you know, I think, 7 of the 9, justices on the supreme court are liberal appointees, Trudeau appointees.
And, you know, they may seek to, protect his, legacy. And, and, you know, Pierre is gonna have to consider, some strong measures if, if he's, if that's the case and he is intent on on fixing some things.
@PeymanAskari451 - Peyman Askari
14/ It's important to point out that Chief Justice Wagner is not a @JustinTrudeau appointee, but a @stephenharper appointee https://t.co/pMdgIIakVL
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 mentions that Justice Wagner was appointed by Harper. Speaker 1 notes that most justices seem liberal, but can't speak for all. Some align with liberal agendas, but not all are political. Speaker 1 emphasizes not to be seen as biased. Speaker 0 acknowledges.
Translation: Speaker 0 mentions that Justice Wagner was appointed by Harper. Speaker 1 notes that most justices seem liberal, but can't speak for all. Some align with liberal agendas, but not all are political. Speaker 1 emphasizes not to be seen as biased. Speaker 0 acknowledges.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I I'd just like to point out, I believe you told me that justice Wagner is actually a Harper appointee?
Speaker 1: Yes. So, the 8th of the 9 justices seem to, have a liberal bent. Well, I shouldn't say that. Yeah. I shouldn't say that because I can't speak to the 7 that were appointed.
I know a couple of them that I would say, have revealed themselves, you know, to be ideologically aligned with, the liberal, legislative agenda. But, I shouldn't say just because all of the justices were appointed by Trudeau that they are, political, in nature. That that wouldn't be appropriate for me to say. Make sure that one gets in because I don't wanna I don't wanna be seen as Clarkson.
Speaker 0: Will do.
@PeymanAskari451 - Peyman Askari
15/ If the @SCC_eng was worried less about @JustinTrudeau's legacy, and more about it's reputation, it would have immediately fast tracked the Mosley case. @buckmcyoung https://t.co/pJrv9p1z3A
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker questions if recent events have damaged the credibility of institutions, particularly the courts. They believe the delay in addressing legal issues is a tactic to benefit certain political parties. They express disappointment in the Supreme Court's handling of cases and suggest that clarity and quick rulings are needed to regain public trust. The speaker implies that important decisions may be postponed until after the current political leader has left office.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I don't
Speaker 1: know if this constitutes a constitutional crisis, but has Wagner really eroded the credibility of of, like, his institution? I know I'm I'm beating a dead horse here, but all all across the board, all the institutions are failing. And we all kind of hinted that the the the courts were failing us during COVID, but this is like the nail in the coffin, isn't it?
Speaker 0: Well, this is indicative of what may be to come. I think when we see the, COVID era cases move their way through, you know, I would have liked to have seen the Supreme Court take up the Moseley appeal immediately. That is their prerogative. The fact that they are gonna let that go through court of appeals, before, ultimately seizing the matter, I think is just buying breathing room for the Liberals to, say, well, you know, even though mostly is the law of the land and that was unlawful behavior, the liberals can say, well, no, it's waiting appeal and and, you know, it's yet to be decided, which is factually incorrect. It is decided.
That's the law of the land. You know, I think in a, a supreme court that was intent on engendering support from the public would immediately take up that issue and provide a quick ruling and some clarity on the issue. But, alas, we're not gonna see it until after Trudeau is well gone.
@PeymanAskari451 - Peyman Askari
16/ There is no way that the @JustinTrudeau administration read the Mosley decision before they decided to appeal it. @buckmcyoung https://t.co/DucjnuSUVj
Video Transcript AI Summary
The government appealed a ruling without reading it first, claiming it was wrong. This move was seen as political maneuvering. The speaker believes a previous Supreme Court would have addressed the issue immediately instead of allowing the government to create ambiguity by appealing.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Like, is it proper for a government to appeal a ruling without actually having time to read it? That's a good point. Yeah. I'm not sure exact I try to look up exactly when the decision came out. It was probably around 10 in the morning.
And by 1 o'clock, you know, Freeland was doing her press conference, saying that she consulted with the prime minister and the cabinet, legal experts, and and the Department of Justice. And, you know, and they had all reviewed it and, they had concluded that, this 190 page decision, was, wrong and that they would were going to appeal it. The truth is that there's no way they read that decision, before they decided to appeal it. It's pure political, maneuvering that, that the federal government appealed it. And as I say, I think a a, a pre prior version of the Supreme Court would have, taken up their prerogative and immediately addressed the issue, rather than letting this government, you know, sort of continue on in, in the ambiguity that they created by appealing it.
@PeymanAskari451 - Peyman Askari
17/ Canada owes a debt of gratitude to Justice Mosely for delivering such a bullet proof ruling. @buckmcyoung @GreyMatterConvo https://t.co/94B1ZjAJtw
Video Transcript AI Summary
I spoke with a constitutional attorney about the Moseley decision, which he praised for being well-written and difficult to overturn. Despite some opposition, I believe the decision will stand as good law, especially given the flaws in the national security threat definition. The attorney's recommendation to remove that part of the definition suggests even he recognizes the illegality of its use.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I was talking to Leighton Gray's Alberta constitutional attorney, right after the Moseley decision, and he said that he read the thing, and it's really well written. And and he goes, Moseley wrote it specifically in a way that it probably couldn't be overturned on appeal. What are your thoughts?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I thought it was written really well, as well. I think, you know, folks like that who are practicing professionals, their opinion matters a whole lot more than mine. You know? And I did take some flack for, you know, suggesting that supreme court take this issue up because people were pushing back and saying, no.
No. No. Mostly the law of the land. You know, we've got all these cases that are working their way through the courts. We don't we don't want it overturned.
You know, and I was of the mind. Look. You know, it it's this is gonna be this is good law, and so it's going to stand up, you know, unless we have some crazy travesty of justice. You you know, but I think it's it's very clear. And if you look at the, forgive me the Public Order Emergencies Commission rule decision.
You know, he says he recommend one of the recommendations is that the national threat to national security part of the definition is removed. Well, I think he's even acknowledging, even though he, you know, is a political appointee and he was there to, you know, prop up the liberals and and cover over for them, even he acknowledges that, the the test the standard was not matched for the indication. And that recommendation is is, sort of a clear acknowledgment that even he knows, that, that it was illegally invoked.
@PeymanAskari451 - Peyman Askari
18/ As the saying goes, Justice must not only be served, it must appear to be served. @buckmcyoung https://t.co/HG1CQ0FrbP
Video Transcript AI Summary
The judiciary's impartiality is crucial for public trust in justice. Perception may outweigh reality; if people doubt institutions, even if they function well, they lose legitimacy and can't fulfill their roles.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The impartiality of the judiciary is foundational to the public's confidence in the administration of justice. How much do you think I mean, beyond just the sound administration of justice, how much is it important to have the per the perception of that?
Speaker 1: I'd almost argue that the perception is more important than the fact. I mean, at the end of the day, if people don't think that their institutions work, whether or not they do, then those institutions have lost their legitimacy and they can't fulfill their mandates.
@PeymanAskari451 - Peyman Askari
19/ If doctors can't debate science, if lawyers can't debate law, if cops can't investigate deaths, then what are these institutions doing? @buckmcyoung https://t.co/zyWD1GjalW
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses examples of travesties that have eroded public trust, such as the case of detective Helen Bruce investigating COVID-related child deaths and facing disciplinary action. They also mention Dr. Kovind Kaur, a physician facing repercussions for speaking out on Twitter. These instances highlight a pattern of corruption and suppression within various regulatory bodies, undermining their intended purposes.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It is under acute scrutiny as a result of travesties in the last few years that have shattered the public's trust. We're gonna jump into the Coutts 4. But other than the Coutts 4, can you give me examples of travesties? And and try to give it from the perspective of the audience is the left, Right? So it's not our echo chamber.
Speaker 1: Look, I would bring up Helen Bruce, who is the, detective who, I think was dismissed for, you know, dishonorable conduct because she was investigating, deaths in children, and, you know, with the implication that they could be associated with, the COVID transactions. And she was disciplined and, I think her court case or review is is currently underway. And, you know, and it's it's, it's an essentially, it looks like a cover up. They don't really wanna let the public in. They don't wanna talk about the issues.
So that you know, there there would be an example, I think. You know, I think, doctor Kovind Kaur, again, this is a a physician who was very vocal and outspoken on Twitter. Elon Musk is actually supporting her, litigation right now because, the Ontario Medical Association really came after her. I can't remember exactly all the details, but, you know, I think they they took away your license threatened to take away your license or it's in jeopardy at this moment for simply pointing out things that we all understand to be facts now that you couldn't say back in, you know, 2021. You know, and so what you know, whether it's whatever the institution is, you know, and these are all sort of adjacent, like even if they're not the courts themselves, these are all semi judicial.
All these regulatory bodies and panels and tribunals, all sorta have a judicial flavor to them. And they're all experiencing the same kind of the same kind of corruption for the status quo. Right? This deference to government and the administrative state and, a persecution of dissidents that would seek to challenge it. You know?
And so if if we can't have doctors debate science and we can't have, you know, lawyers debate law, you know, or cops to, you know, investigate, you know, deaths, Like, what are these institutions doing? They have abandoned their foundational purpose.
@PeymanAskari451 - Peyman Askari
20/ The Coutts 4 got framed by the federal government such that it could invoke the emergencies act. @buckmcyoung https://t.co/ECtRzffLoD
Video Transcript AI Summary
The four individuals known as the Cootes Four were unjustly targeted in a political prosecution, falsely accused of involvement in an armed insurrection at the Coutts border blockade. They have been held in pretrial detention for over 800 days without visitation access or being convicted of any crime. The media initially spread false narratives about the case, but a pretrial publication ban now prevents the accused from telling their side of the story. The trial is beginning today, and it is expected that the truth will come to light, revealing the injustice they have faced at the hands of a government that disregards justice and rights.
Translation: The Cootes Four were unfairly prosecuted for a political agenda, falsely accused of inciting violence at the Coutts border blockade. They have been in pretrial detention for over 800 days without being convicted of any crime. The media initially spread false narratives, but a publication ban now prevents the accused from sharing their side of the story. The trial is starting today, and it is believed that the truth will reveal the injustice they have endured due to a government that does not respect justice or rights.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: For people that have no idea who the coupes for are, can you tell us what exactly is the what's the injustice there?
Speaker 1: Well, there's things that we don't know yet, but we're gonna find out very soon that, maybe I'll leave to another conversation because, I'll probably get ahead of myself. But I think what we can clearly say is an injustice is that these 4 individuals were, the subject of a political prosecution, that the government needed a pretext to invoke the Emergencies Act. You know, they laundered false intelligence, Canadian anti hate to RCMP, to government and claim you know, claiming that this was RCMP investigations. You know, this whole narrative around an insurrection and people violent, and so forth, you know, created this, narrative that these individuals were involved in, you know, an attempt to murder an RCMP officer. Warrants were executed at a bunch of locations, not at the Cootes border, but, you know, elsewhere in Alberta.
And, you know, a bunch of guns and ammo were, brought to one location and staged for a photo op, to give, you know, give the public the impression that an armed insurrection was happening at the Coutts border blockade. That is not I'm comfortable enough saying it, and I'll leave these words, if I turn out to be wrong. That's absolutely not what happened there. And, and this very, odious narrative was used to, keep these 4 men in pretrial detention, which is not, you know, don't have all of the, I'll call it, comforts of, prison, but a remand center, which is supposed to be a temporary holding zone where, you you know, the drunks dry out before they go get their court date. They've been they these there's 2 men left who've been there for 843 days, behind bars, without visitation access, away from their families, and they've been convicted of no crime.
Right? Meanwhile, violent repeat offenders are routinely given bail and and go on to, to reoffend and including murder. So, you know, the public safety here was the argument for why these men should be, you know, kept in custody. You know, but, the the the other implication of that is that, you know, they also haven't been able to tell their story. Right?
There was a, a supreme court case that came out, and this was supposed to protect the rights of the accused from, you know, biasing a jury. But there's supposed to be a there is a pretrial publication ban, that is in place that prevents people from talking about what went on. And that that wasn't the case at the very beginning. And so the media was running with all of these narratives about insurrection and guns and ammo and pipe bombs and all that stuff. And then this decision from the supreme court gets handed down.
And and now these men can't tell their story. Right? They are you know, no no no journalist is allowed to report the lawfare that's going on in the courtroom. You know? And so we're gonna I think today is the first day of their trial.
We're gonna get the full accounting and the story soon. And I think what we're gonna come to appreciate is that, you know, these men got railroaded so that the Liberal government could invent a pretext to invoke the Emergencies Act, which was unlawful. And, and so they've lost almost 2 years of their lives to a government, that, doesn't respect justice nor rights.
@PeymanAskari451 - Peyman Askari
21/ The Coutts 4 did not meet the threshold to be denied bail. @buckmcyoung https://t.co/OrQoZtLBG5
Video Transcript AI Summary
There are cases where bail can be denied, like for repeat violent offenders. But in this situation, with charges dropped or individuals choosing to go to court, keeping them in custody for years without conviction is seen as punishment. The process itself changes people, sending a message that challenging the government may lead to retribution. Many others facing similar charges have experienced persecution for resisting COVID regulations.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Can I ask you some basic questions?
Speaker 1: Sure.
Speaker 0: Is there ever a case to deny someone bail?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, I think so. Sure. Certainly, I can conceive of, many circumstances where that would be the case. I think if you've got repeat violent offenders who are a threat to the community, those people should be denied bail.
This is not that context. Right? These individuals, you know, 2 of them have already had the attempted murder charge dropped. They pled out, to lesser charges. And, and 2 of them have decided that they are gonna have their day in court.
You know, and so yeah. I think there are circumstances where it may be appropriate, but I would say that it's it's probably rare. Right? You know, we have a presumption of, you know, innocent till proven guilty. And, if you're gonna keep people in, you know, inadequate conditions for 2 years going on 3 years, you know, without convicting them, well, the process is the punishment.
These men will be let out. They'll they'll maybe have lost their houses, paying for lawyers, overturning, you know, unlawful warrants and so forth. You know, they'll be forever changed. And, you know, and I think that is the whole point. It's, it a
Speaker 0: Buck, we we lost you there. You were saying that these guys were changed forever.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, the process is the punishment. I think this was a signal to folks that, you know, if you challenge the government, they will use whatever means that are available, lawful or not, you know, to, inflict retribution on you. Now I could be wrong. I might be eating these words, the publication ban is up today, and, and we're gonna get that story.
But, I think there's no shortage of other people who, you know, were subject to mischief charges and, you know, the, you know, being terminated from employment and being denied employment insurance and every other, you know, form of persecution that was done to those that, you know, resisted the the COVID regime. You know, it's par for the course.
@PeymanAskari451 - Peyman Askari
22/ A publication ban is meant to protect the defendant, not the government. @buckmcyoung
Video Transcript AI Summary
There is merit to a pretrial publication ban to protect the rights of the accused, not the government. It prevents potential jurors from being biased before the trial. However, in this case, the ban has perpetuated injustice.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Buck, my next question again, these are very basic questions. Is there ever a justification for a a publication ban or a gag order?
Speaker 1: Well, yes. I think there is merit to that supreme court decision about pretrial publication ban because it is intended to protect the rights of the accused. What you don't want is, you know, getting to a jury selection stage and every potential juror has already been, you know, convinced that you're guilty. You know? But the the the point of that pretrial publication then is to protect the rights of the accused, not the government.
Right? And, anyways, I I don't know all the details and I understand that maybe, you know, the lawyers advising these men, you know, may have given different advice, and I I don't know all the context. But I think in this circumstance, that pretrial publication ban has, perpetuated this injustice.
@PeymanAskari451 - Peyman Askari
23/ The government is hoping that the last 4 years gets swept under the carpet and that no real institutional reform is brought about. @buckmcyoung https://t.co/U4m7KgcV67
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 1 believes the justice system is being compromised for political gain. Speaker 0 thinks the situation reveals widespread corruption and distrust in institutions. Speaker 1 wonders why charges aren't dropped, but Speaker 0 has no answer. They agree on the need for change.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm go
Speaker 1: what I'm gonna say is it's like a loaded statement. It's it's almost like it's not even a question for you. But, like, they are dragging the integrity of the justice system through the mud to get a temporary win, I guess, you know, to get the Emergency Measures Act across the line. And now, they just can't let it go? They they're in too deep?
What's going on?
Speaker 0: Well, look. I I think they're hoping that all of this blows over and no real institutional reform as a consequence of COVID happens. I think it's bigger than just the Emergencies Act. You know, I think what what has happened is that people have woken up to the corruption that exists in all of our institutions. There's, you know, a a great deal of resentment, for authority.
And, you know, and if it finds its expression, that'll be a force to be reckoned with.
Speaker 1: I I thought you you put that beautifully, Buck, and I agree. What's to stop them from just dropping the charges at this point?
Speaker 0: That's a good question. I don't know. I I don't know, actually. I don't have a good answer for my payment. It's beyond my pay grade.
Speaker 1: Oh, that's that's too bad you're the expert. So moving on.
@PeymanAskari451 - Peyman Askari
24/ @buckmcyoung's hope is to see just one leader in government step forward and take responsibility for their actions. https://t.co/SWWRPYQP7D
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker criticizes Chief Justice Wagner for bias and calls for accountability. They mention a complaint filed by 13 lawyers and hope for a public apology to restore trust in the justice system. The speaker emphasizes the importance of leaders admitting mistakes to improve civil discourse. They express doubt that Chief Justice Wagner will take this opportunity for leadership.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What are your so going back to what we were talking about, the the appealing of the Moseley decision, can you speak to the bias that you see in the chief justice? Like, I I I call it, like, looking out of one eye. Like, he sees hyper laser focuses on things that he doesn't like and then gives the government a free pass. What are your thoughts on that?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, I'm only basing on this on this, you know, these public statements he made back in April 2022. You know, maybe in the, you know, in the fullness of time, he's helped come to regret some of those statements. I think if the, the the complaint that's been filed by these 13 lawyers results in him giving a mea culpa and saying, you know what? I was wrong.
That wasn't appropriate behavior. I'd love to see a leader of an institution take that kind of approach, right, and admit their own wrongdoing. I think that is exactly what I'm advocating for in this article is that the leaders, contend with the mistakes that they have made or their institutions have made. I see that it's the only way that we get back to, civil discourse. Because until you stop gaslighting people and telling them that, you know, vaccines are safe and effective and, you know, we had to lock you down for your safety, you know, they're just not gonna buy anything you say and and until their that trust is restored.
So, this is a big opportunity for, chief justice Wagner to show leadership and, and reestablish public confidence in in the administration of justice.
Speaker 0: Well, let's hope he's watching this.
Speaker 1: I doubt it.
@PeymanAskari451 - Peyman Askari
25/ Chief Justice Wagner is calling for civility in the face of f**k Trudeau flags, but the reason people are flying those flags is b/c being civil got them de-platformed or silenced or censored. @buckmcyoung https://t.co/GSYI2Bd4xR
Video Transcript AI Summary
The lack of civility in Canada is due to certain viewpoints being silenced, leading to emotional outbursts. When people are deplatformed for expressing themselves civilly, they resort to uncivil behavior. Without all perspectives being heard, there is no genuine discourse, just an echo chamber. It is essential to allow all arguments to be presented for true civility to exist.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Based on his Toronto Star article and, your article, he uses the word civility a lot, and I think civil means something different to him than than it does to me. But what you're saying here is that the lack of civility on display in Canada is because all points of view are not being heard. What do you mean?
Speaker 1: Well, I think, the reason people are flying, you know, fuck Trudeau flags, and, you know, are quite happy to, you know, express themselves in unmitigated ways is because them expressing themselves in civil ways got them kicked off in Twitter, you know, disinvited from Christmas and Easter and, you know, resulted in the loss of relationships. Well, that what is that? You know, somebody's trying to express themselves and you deplatform them, there that that's gonna invoke an emotional response and that emotional response is gonna come out as, you know, discourse with a lack of civility. So, you know, I think that's my point is like when when, you know, the courts will take judicial notice that, you know, non pharmaceutical interventions like, you know, limit restrictions on travel within our own country or, you know, the social distancing laws that, resulted in certain businesses being closed. You know, when when those cases can't be brought forward because judges will just defer to the wisdom of the administrative state, Well, then you can't have there is no civil discourse because one side of the conversation is not at the table.
Right? And so, you know, this is what I'm I'm trying to get at is, you know, he's saying we need civility so that everybody's arguments can can be heard. And I'm saying, you you're not having the argument. You just have an echo chamber of, you know, a bunch of people who are reinforcing their own narrative. You're not letting the counternarrative, come to the table.
@PeymanAskari451 - Peyman Askari
26/ @buckmcyoung is a shining example to Canada. You don't need a 1M Twitter following. Just take what you do best and do it in service of fixing your country. If we all do that, then we're going to get through this. God bless this great nation 🇨🇦