TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 recounts being told at synagogue while offline that Candice is really going after him, and that heads-up sealed him a little. When he finally turned the phone on, he truly saw all the notifications. He was up until 3AM local time that night dealing with all the messages and emails. It’s not fun. He says, to an extent, it’s part of the nature of the business—when you put yourself out there, you’re going to get pushback. But this is not pushback. This is not someone responding to a legal theory of mine or making an intelligent point about the two-state solution or not two-state solution. No. This is literally just picking a Jewish person and calling him subhuman filth and sinking your band of millions and millions of neo Nazi zealots on a Jewish person who happens to be a husband and father to a young child. So, he says, it’s just awful, awful stuff. And he adds that he’s talking to lawyers. “Aaron, I think I’ve said this publicly already.” He’s a lawyer with his background, he clerked for a federal appeals judge, and he knows a thing or two about United States constitutional law. He thinks that there is a potentially serious case here for defamation, and he is very much speaking with lawyers, and we’ll see what happens.

Josh LaHaz, interim litigation director for the Canadian Constitution Foundation, explains that the CCF is challenging Nova Scotia’s province-wide ban last summer on traveling into the woods as unreasonable and unconstitutional. He describes the case as very controversial. He notes the reaction to his warning that the ban violated Canadians’ rights and freedoms: hate mail accusing him of putting lives at risk, alongside a torrent of emails from Nova Scotians thanking him for standing up to vague, arbitrary, and overbroad measures. To many, the situation felt like the attacks on freedom experienced during COVID-19. People were willing to comply with reasonable measures to combat COVID-19 and protect the vulnerable, just as they complied with measures to prevent forest fires (burn bans and parking ATVs). But they questioned banning dog walking on urban trails, outlawing fishing from rocks on lake shores, and threatening $25,000 fines for attending a friend’s birthday party on rural property, noting none of these pose any fire risk. LaHaz argues that, in a time when taking a dog for a walk was illegal, the government was issuing permits for much riskier activities like forestry. He asserts that, like during COVID-19, the premier and the government did not think the travel ban through and did not even try to justify the decision despite its obvious impact on charter rights. He contends that every administrative decision affecting charter rights must be justified, transparent, and intelligible, justified in light of the facts and legal constraints. In this case, he says, the minister didn’t do any of that, nor did he turn his mind to the charter questions, which is why the CCF is defending rights and freedom to prevent a recurrence. LaHaz concludes by saying he’ll be live-tweeting all week on X at Josh DeHaas, with a summary later in the week after not reserving judgment.

The speaker opens a special edition of Canada marches on August 20 to address a claim from Global News in a recent article titled Good PR Why Anti Hate experts are urging politicians to step up betting practices by miss Rachel Gilmore. The speaker contends that the actual hyperlink to the article reads James Top, white supremacists far right, and describes this as defamation. They state an intention to pursue criminal and legal action. The speaker asks viewers to help by filing complaints with Global News and with various broadcasting standards organizations, promising to provide links in the video. They claim that mainstream media have not been their friend and are inciting bad feeling and hatred toward someone who has done absolutely nothing wrong, which they say could lead to someone getting hurt—specifically themselves, as they describe being on the side of the road. The speaker urges readers to reach out and to cease and desist inciting hatred against someone who has done absolutely nothing wrong.

I'm in a taxi heading to the federal court of appeal in Toronto for a hearing regarding my book, "The Libranos," published during the 2019 election. Elections Canada has been prosecuting me for five years, spending over $1 million on this case, while ignoring serious foreign interference in our elections. My book, critical of Justin Trudeau, is the only one among 24 published that has faced legal scrutiny. I'll be live tweeting the proceedings, and I'm likely to be alone in court without support from civil liberties or journalism groups. If you believe in defending free speech, please consider helping with legal costs at thelibranos.com. I'm fighting against Trudeau's government, and I appreciate any support. I'll update you soon on Twitter.

- Retribution is more formal. It is a more controlled response often associated with justice systems punishing offenders proportionally to their crimes. - Here's where I'm at. Okay. We want COVID accountability. We want Russia, Russia, Russia accountability. We want the twenty twenty election heist accountability. - We want the January 6 Fedsurrection accountability that goes and lands on Pelosi's desk and the general counsel of the US Capitol Police, Ted Tobias' desk and Jamie Raskin's desk, and then the cover up to that Fedsurrection led by David Buckley, one of the 51 spies who lied, who happened to be the IG for Johnny Boy Brennan. We want it all.

I used to love Canada, especially Vancouver, but I won't go there anymore because of the current leadership. The country is heading towards tyranny with oppressive laws and erosion of rights. People there need to laugh, but they're getting caught up in hate speech laws due to their kindness. Compelled speech leads to communism enforced by violence. Canada used to be nicer than America, but now it's a scary place.

The chant "from the river to the sea" is considered by some as a call for genocide and the end of Israel. A proposed bill aims to make saying it illegal discrimination at universities. Most countries have hate speech laws, and Canada is considering life imprisonment for advocating genocide. Concerns arise about potential misuse of such laws to criminalize political opponents, as seen in Brazil, where a judge ordered the blocking of accounts supporting the former president. Scotland banned misgendering, potentially leading to jail time if speech is deemed insulting and likely to result in hatred. JK Rowling intentionally broke the law to protest it. Some view policing speech as a form of cancel culture, citing arrests in Britain for criticizing marginalized groups. One man was arrested for retweeting an image of progress pride flags forming a swastika. Ezra Levant was prosecuted in Canada for a book critical of Justin Trudeau. Levant argues that free speech is a crucial outlet for grievance and prevents escalation to violence. He believes Canada is a "laboratory of bad ideas." While many favor rules against hate speech, the ability to speak the truth is paramount.

Viva Fry contrasts "Vengeance" and "Justice": "Vengeance is get demanding more retribution than what is required, and justice is a question of getting that which is fair and proportionate." He traces his path from a Montreal lawyer to YouTube "Law Tube," detailing censorship: "the opaqueness is the feature, not the bug," and a 2018 Alex Jones Sandy Hook deposition breakdown that was demonetized and later remonetized. He recounts filming the Ottawa trucker protest when the media lied, then moving to Florida in 2022, leaving "Golden handcuffs" to build Fryite Legal and the vivabarneslaw.locals.com community. He discusses Canadian limits on free speech ("There is a First Amendment. Not It doesn't include hate speech" and "susceptible of fomenting disdain towards an identifiable group of people"), Quebec defamation rules ("statements don't actually have to be false"), and Nova Scotia's "$25,000" hiking ban. The talk ends with "What is your price? Because if your price is not your life, then you are for sale."

Chris Sky, speaking from Colombia, announces a significant day in history, January 25, 2024. He recounts his experiences during a protest in Ireland and the subsequent threats from the police upon his return to Canada. Despite being warned about violating quarantine regulations, Chris defiantly attends the protest and becomes the first person in Canada to receive a quarantine violation fine. He challenges the police for an accurate ticket but is later arrested with his wife and charged under the quarantine act. After four years of legal battles, the charges against Chris are dropped, vindicating his stance against the government's actions. He concludes by expressing his victory and defiance towards Trudeau and the pandemic measures.

"Vengeance is get demanding more retribution than what is required, and justice is a question of getting that which is fair and proportionate." Viva Fry argues about free speech in Canada, noting that "you don't have free speech in Canada" and that "hate speech is subjective to the person." He recalls YouTube censorship: "the opaqueness is the feature, not the bug," a strike for hate speech over his Alex Jones Sandy Hook analysis, which he says contained nothing inflammatory. The discussion covers defamation: "In The United States, in order to succeed on a claim of defamation, you have to prove that the statements... were false," while "In Quebec, defamation doesn't even have to be false." He cites the Jones case as "the greatest example of injustice"—a liability verdict by default without a merits trial. He recounts his Golden handcuffs moment, leaving law for independence, Ottawa street reporting, and the Nova Scotia ban: "formally prohibited hiking, camping, fishing and the use of the trail system to prevent wildfires under penalty of fines of $25,000." He contrasts First Amendment notions: "There is a First Amendment. Not It doesn't include hate speech."

"A human being with a soul, a free man, has a right to say what he believes, not to hurt other people, but to express his views." "that thinking that she just articulated on camera there is exactly what got us to a place where some huge and horrifying percentage of young people think it's okay to shoot people you disagree with, to kill Nazis for saying things they don't like." "Well, there's free speech which of course we all acknowledge is important so so important." "But then there's this thing called hate speech." "Hate speech, of course, is any speech that the people in power hate, but they don't define it that way." "They define it as speech that hurts people, speech that is tantamount to violence." "And we punish violence, don't we? Of course, we do."

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.

Speaker 0 notes a doubling or tripling of baby deaths in the last year, which sparked curiosity. Speaker 1 says their own government told them a medical treatment was safe, and it killed babies. Speaker 2 states they have lost all faith that Health Canada is looking out genuine for the best interests of Canadians. Speaker 1 says doctors made extra money to push vaccines and were given a billing code to do it, and she has pulled all the billing codes. Speaker 3 asserts they’ve purchased the vaccine that hasn’t been approved and distributed it to the provinces, so the second it’s approved they can start jabbing themselves and pregnant mothers with it. Speaker 4 asks why vaccinations were necessary, noting that when going to the hospital for birth, you expect to go home, and then you don’t. Speaker 0 suspects criminal negligence by the government and public health officials. Speaker 2 agrees, saying “Possible.” Speaker 0 contends they pushed a narrative to everybody, including pregnant and breastfeeding women, that the mRNA shots were safe and effective. Speaker 2 recalls wiretapping, harassment, and charges, and that they didn’t allow any expert witnesses to testify. Speaker 1 says Canadian babies died, and police are trying to cover it up by stopping detective Helen Graves from testifying about it. Speaker 3 comments that dominant individuals maintain subordinates’ place through constant aggression. Speaker 5 argues that choosing not to vaccinate is one thing, but being unable to fly or ride trains with vaccinated people and thus putting them at risk is another issue. Speaker 2 says CBC started with a story to implicate her and paint her in an uncomplimentary light to the public. Speaker 6 claims Canada must shift its understanding of CBC, describing it as a state broadcaster pushing the agenda of the Liberal government of Canada. Speaker 3 declares this is the most significant health matter affecting children today, and they are still not investigating. Speaker 2 asserts that everything emanates outward from this case involving law enforcement, the judicial system, the pharmaceutical industry, and health agencies, and how they work together and censored information; all of it ties to this one case, making it dangerous.

In 2019, the Canadian government removed the crime of spreading false news from the Criminal Code. This raises concerns about trusting a government that takes our money, restricts effective treatments, and fails to investigate the safety of promoted vaccines. Additionally, the parliament we elect allows mainstream media to freely lie without consequences.

In January 2022, a colleague alerted Speaker 0 that there had been a doubling or tripling of baby deaths in the last year, which sparked curiosity. Speaker 1 states that “Their own government told us a medical treatment was safe, and it killed babies.” Speaker 2 says she has “lost all faith that Health Canada is looking out genuinely for the best interests of Canadians.” Speaker 3 alleges that doctors “made extra money to push vaccines” and were given a billing code to do it, and that she has “pulled all the billing codes.” Speaker 4 asserts that “They've purchased the vaccine that hasn't been approved,” distributed it to the provinces so that once it’s approved, they can “start jabbing ourselves with it” and “start jabbing pregnant mothers with it.” Speaker 3 questions the necessity of vaccinations: “Why did we have to get these vaccinations? Like, why was this something that we had to do? You go to the hospital, you expect to have a baby, and you expect to go home, and then you don't.” Speaker 0 speculates on criminal negligence, saying, “I would suspect that there was criminal negligence on part of the government and the public health officials.” Speaker 3 notes that it is “highly recommended that pregnant women get their vaccine as soon as possible.” Speaker 0 contends that a narrative was pushed to everybody, including pregnant and breastfeeding women, that the mRNA shots were safe and effective. Speaker 2 claims wiretapping, harassment, charging, and barring expert witnesses: “They had wiretapped her phone. They had harassed her. They had charged her. They didn't allow any expert witnesses to testify.” Speaker 1 accuses police of trying to cover up Canadian babies’ deaths “to the point of stopping detective Helen Greaves from testifying about it.” Speaker 4 observes that “The dominant individuals keep the subordinates in their place by constant aggression.” Speaker 5 discusses vaccination choice versus public risk, remarking, “If you don't wanna get vaccinated, that's your choice. But don't think you can get on a plane or a train besides vaccinated people and put them at risk,” and claims CBC initially “started off with CBC running a story to implicate her and to paint her with a brush that looks uncomplimentary to the public.” Speaker 6 claims Canada must shift its understanding of what the is, describing it as “a state broadcaster pushing the agenda of the Liberal government of Canada.” Speaker 4 calls this “the most significant matter affecting our children today from a health perspective,” noting that authorities are “not investigating.” Speaker 2 concludes that everything emanates outward from this case involving law enforcement, the judicial system, the pharmaceutical industry, and health agencies, “how they work together, how they censored information. It all ties together to this one case, and that's what makes it so dangerous.”

They aim to harm us for disagreeing with them. Our justice system no longer prioritizes truth, but winning at all costs.

Counselor Lisa Robinson reports that in Nova Scotia, Canada, people cannot go into the forest from now until mid October. Hiking, camping, walking dogs or children on trails are banned to supposedly prevent wildfires. She says this mirrors the COVID-19-era restrictions that limited outdoor activity and saw neighbors reporting on each other, and argues that the same mindset is used again here, this time claiming a fire-season excuse. She notes disobedience can result in fines over 25,000. She questions what kind of country bans walking in nature and warns that people are leaving Canada, with messages she’s received from residents leaving Pickering over the situation. Robinson highlights a contrast: while banning access to woods, Nova Scotia approved glyphosate spraying on thousands of acres of drought-stricken, fire-prone forests. She points out that glyphosate kills vegetation, dries it out, and leaves behind more flammable tinder, while experts say it destroys deciduous trees and shrubs that hold moisture and slow fire. She cites Safe Food Matters, which warns that glyphosate dries down forest growth, creating forest fuel. She questions whether the policy is truly about preventing fires or about controlling people. She notes there are still supporters who call for stricter government control, describing a mindset of wanting governance to be harder and more in control. She contrasts this with her view and says they are not going to pretend the situation is normal. Robinson mentions Tamara Lynch and Chris Barber, who face seven or eight years in prison for a peaceful protest. She states she has spoken up about corruption at the highest levels in her city, losing a year and three months of pay for telling the truth, and asserts that others can burn down a church and get bail, while organizers or truth-tellers are targeted financially. Robinson declares she is an elected official who will not stay quiet, insisting on telling the truth to protect it. She warns that if they can ban people from the woods while spraying chemicals that increase fire risk, one must wonder what they’ll ban next. She identifies herself as counselor Lisa Robinson, the people’s counselor, and commits to speaking openly. She urges viewers to believe real power lies with the people, asking them to follow, subscribe, and share to stand with them. She closes with a call to stand strong, stay fierce, and God bless.

"Charlie Kirk was assassinated two weeks ago today in an event that clearly is gonna change American history, changed a lot of people inside." "free speech is a virtue. It is, in fact, the foundation of this country, not only its laws, but its culture, and that we should protect it." "Section two thirty is a section two thirty within the 1996 Communications Decency Act, and it is the piece of legislation often credited for creating the Internet." "The distinction allows the platforms to let other people post whatever they want without getting sued for it." "Section two thirty needs to be repealed. If you're mad at social media companies that radicalize our nation, you should be mad." "More than 12,000 people arrested every single year for criticizing their government in The UK."

In 2019, Bill C39 removed the crime of spreading false news from the Canadian Criminal Code. This change was discovered when comparing the 1954 and 2020 versions of the code. It raises questions about trusting the government, which is accused of stealing money, restricting effective treatments, and not properly investigating promoted vaccines. The parliament, elected to protect citizens, has granted mainstream media outlets like CDC and CTV the freedom to lie without consequences.

The chant "from the river to the sea" is considered by some as a call for genocide and the end of Israel. A proposed bill aims to make saying it illegal discrimination at universities. Most countries have hate speech laws, and Canada may imprison people for life for advocating genocide. Some view misgendering a transgender person as a hate crime, punishable by jail time in places like Scotland, but only if deemed threatening or abusive. JK Rowling intentionally broke Scotland's misgendering law and dared police to arrest her, but they did not. In Britain, people have been arrested for criticizing marginalized groups, such as retweeting an image of progress pride flags forming a swastika. Some argue that policing speech increases hate, while others support rules against hate speech. Ezra Levant was prosecuted in Canada for a book critical of Justin Trudeau. Levant argues that free speech is a safety valve that prevents violence and terrorism. He believes that countries restricting speech may see an increase in violent terrorism.

Jeff Evely says this is the woods in their sector of the province, noting that Timmy Houston, a “benevolent dictator tyrant,” granted permission to enter the woods despite a high wildfire risk, whereas during moderate risk the sneakers were not allowed, and during low risk they might have caused a wildfire and were banned. He emphasizes that permission is not the same as freedom. He cites Friedrich Hayek from the constitution of liberty, saying a free society is free of coercion, and he contends that governments are attempting to coerce the population into following their latest projects. Evely adds that he serves in Canada’s military, but that serving isn’t the only reason he joined; he feels a strong urge to go on adventures and that without a mission to pursue, war could turn inward and destroy him. He describes a therapeutic benefit to getting lost in the woods, and quips that if he breaks his leg, he won’t call Susan Holt for ammunition to use against the population. Evely admits he’s currently in unfamiliar territory, having never been to this waterfall before, and mentions Iron Ball Ironville Mountain in Nova Scotia, explaining the woods move and change like in the movie Labyrinth. He recalls a previous trip with Axel where he had no phone, compass, watch, map, or water, and it took six hours to find the way out; he asserts that, as long as you don’t panic, you’ll be fine. He believes that from growing up there, a person can walk in a straight line in any direction and eventually find a path back to civilization. He jokes about last time getting lost but not breaking his legs, addressing Susan Hall. Evely then criticizes people who achieve power by conforming, calling them “squishy, entitled, bureaucratically minded, tyrants” who are fearful cowards and expect others to be like them. If those in charge are to manage a walk in the woods, others must be locked in their homes and treated as dependent. He concludes that the therapeutic benefit of being outdoors is real and asserts, “This is why we live in Nova Scotia,” declaring that “Nova Scotia is the woods.” He notes people accuse him of causing a wildfire for simply taking a ticket, comparing the inconsistent restrictions to arbitrary, capricious totalitarianism in the Atlantic provinces over the years. Evely asserts that freedom does not equal permission and that rights must be assertive, urging action in this historical moment. He signs off with a wish for everyone to enjoy the woods and notes there is still much work to do in the Atlantic Provinces because they’re not out of the woods yet.

He recounts being told, while offline at the synagogue, that Candice is really going after him, and he describes the effect of turning his phone on to see all the notifications and messages. He says he was up until 3AM local time dealing with the barrage of messages and emails. He distinguishes this experience from ordinary pushback, stating that this is not a response to a legal theory or a constructive debate about the two-state solution, but rather “picking a Jewish person and calling him subhuman filth and sinking your band of millions and millions of neo Nazi zealots on a Jewish person who happens to be a … husband and father to a young child.” He emphasizes the severity and ugliness of the harassment, characterizing it as “awful, awful stuff.” He then shifts to his own perspective, noting publicly (as far as he believes) that he is talking to lawyers about the matter. As a lawyer with a background that includes clerking for a federal appeals judge, he states that he “knows a thing or two about United States constitutional law.” He says there is “potentially serious case here for defamation” and that he is “very much speaking with lawyers,” with the outcome still to be determined—“we’ll see what happens.” He frames the situation as a confrontation that goes beyond typical professional disagreement, involving targeted hatred toward a Jewish individual who is described as a husband and father. Throughout, he underscores the personal toll of the online harassment, contrasting it with his professional experience and legal considerations. He communicates a sense of urgency and concern about the legal and reputational implications, while indicating he is actively seeking legal counsel to assess possible defamation avenues. The overall message centers on the severity of the targeted harassment, its anti-Jewish intensity, and the potential legal response he may pursue.

Fear is dangerous and unpredictable, whether it's fueled by a judge or a Prime Minister. Canadians are being urged to fear each other, which is concerning and a threat to our liberty.