Dichotomy or...

As a person in a legal profession operating in Ontario, I am genuinely fascinated with Jordan B. Peterson who recently "went viral" last fall in regards to the new Federal Bill which amends the Criminal Code and Canadian Human Rights legislation.  

This change also captures a curious, yet profound amendment which essentially obligates speech by fiat.  This relates to an amendment which enables protection under the Code / Act (dependent on institution - Feds or Province) which obligates an individual to refer to a trans gendered or trans person by their pronoun of choice upon request.

Now, the law doesn't specifically refer to this obligation, but it does apply in regards to Provincial Human Rights Codes which exist when referencing their policies which capture these situations.....say for example in post secondary institutions like the University of Toronto, where, Mr. Perterson, a clinical psychologist is teaching students based on his book, "Maps of Meaning".

I've generally let my cerebral curiosity lapse over the last few years when delving new topics, either due to schooling / work / business.  However, this one really peaked my interest as it relates to a forum where I represent clients.  It’s given me a new perspective on not only the law, but has also forced introspection.  This eventually led to a compulsory revisit of my previous conclusions on a personal level.  The more I watch and listen to this man, I am more and more compelled to delve further.  It may be due to a personal bias in respect of the topic I have been forced to reconsider, not sure yet.

Anyways, enough of that.  Below are some links to the youtube videos I have watched.  I actually came across this gentlemen on Joe Rogan.  Joes also a curious fellow.  The interview lasted just shy of 3 hours.  I actually watched all of it, despite having to parcel it and watch it in chunks.  I won't post the Rogan clip, but I will post the original 3 part video which started the minor furvor ("viral" online with over 100 plus media articles / interviews / News ) as well as the very interesting debate at the University of Toronto where he spoke against a law professor, and another professor (women and gender studies?) who flew from the UBC to engage in the topic.  Another debate I will post is less contentious as the only other professor of law who would engage (6 were asked) was from Queen's U and essentially played a devil's advocate role as nobody else stepped up.

Part 1




Part 2




Part 3




Debate 1 - November 19th, 2016 - UOT



Debate 2 - January 23rd, 2017 - Runnymede Society - Law student group



Now, if by some crazy chance someone makes it through these, is compelled to hear a little more, but on a different topic, his video to "Millenials" is actually very compelling.  Would love to get some feedback on his list of "required" reading referenced in the video.  List consists of the following:

• Dostoevsky
  
• Tolstoy
  
• Solzhenitsyn
  
• Orwell
  
• Huxley
  
• Neitzsche
  
• Jung
  

He gets into the reasons in the 30 minute video.  It was actually somewhat inspiring and hopeful....and with a cynic like me, that's quite an accomplishment...

Other reading lists posted on his site consist of 15 of the following "terrifying" books.  Yup...he has a terrifying disclaimer issued on the following:

1. Brave New World – Aldous Huxley
2. 1984 – George Orwell
3. Road To Wigan Pier – George Orwell
4. Crime And Punishment – Fyodor Dostoevsky
5. Demons – Fyodor Dostoevsky
6. Beyond Good And Evil – Friedrich Nietzsche
7. Ordinary Men – Christopher Browning
8. The Painted Bird – Jerzy Kosinski
9. The Rape of Nanking – Iris Chang
10. Gulag Archipelago (Vol. 1, Vol. 2, & Vol. 3) – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
11. Man’s Search for Meaning – Viktor Frankl
12. Modern Man in Search of A Soul – Carl Jung
13. Maps Of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief – Jordan B. Peterson
14. A History of Religious Ideas (Vol. 1, Vol. 2, Vol. 3) – Mircea Eliade
15. Affective Neuroscience – Jaak Panksepp


My Message to Millenials: How to Change the World -- Properly

I've watched the UofT debate and read his website and this guy reminds me of other 'anti-PC' psychologists like Mike Persinger and Sam Harris.This means I agree with some of Peterson's science (esp. about gender not being totally constructed!) but his politics and his targets are taken right-out of the 'alt-right' - or 'South Park conservatism' as I used to call it.  Even a glance at his book list shows this bent.

With that caveat, I'm willing to discuss anything.  If you have digested his philosophy enough to help me separate the wheat from the chaff I'd really like to know what you found useful. Or if my first impression of him is deeply misguided - let me know. Is there a specific point you wanted addressed?

Also I'll see your 'Clint Eastwood' Jesus and raise you a 'Combat Jesus'.

Love the combat Jesus.  You win.  

I have been revisiting the SJW dynamic and seeing exactly what realm I fall within.  I used to be such a staunch and steadfast advocate of the minority and helping or facilitating the process to enable them to have a voice, so to speak.  I still am to a very large degree, but with much more distance from the Messiah complex I had in the past.

I represent either an individuals and/or a collectives human rights which are at issue based on the code.  I facilitate and enable them to empower themselves and allow for equal opportunity and seek redress. This is not a bad thing, it's a good thing.  However, the gender pronoun issue, in my opinion, does border on the ridiculous.

From my understanding of the Tribunal "case law" or jurisprudence, it seems to me that the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal will temper their decision making in regards to such issues.  If not, it would "open the floodgates", regarding other "self-identifying terms" in perpetuity, which would be imposed on others in either a job or academic setting.  Would really be taking the "accommodation" code related practices in Provincial legislation to the absurd and/or untenable realm.

The other thing from a legal perspective is what the law prof said in the 2nd debate, which I wholeheartedly agree with, is that it obligates speech.  This could be construed as a pernicious form of legislation when coupled with a strict and rigid interpretation of the policies utilised in Human Rights Tribunal proceedings they utilize for guidance.  It may be an invitation for another "floodgate" event.  Now, I could be wrong, but once a piece of legislation is in place like the Canadian Human Rights Act (plus the criminal code) and the various Provincial Human Rights Codes which obligates speech by fiat, the door is open to adopting it elsewhere.  

A few questions that come to mind are ...will the be a Constitutional challenge?  How long will that take?  What other ideologies instituted by fiat will follow and compliment this?  Liberal version of mission creep?  Somewhat far fetched I admit, but compelling none the less.

I agree on your perspective of the "far right / alt-right" ideology and mindset.  It's almost as if he takes it personally that the patriarchal structure is attacked.  Eager to have you breakdown your perspective of the 'South Park conservatism'.  However, he does raise compelling points in regards to enabling certain behaviour on the "far left" in regards to the 0.03% of the population that the gender pronoun issue may apply to.  Will be interesting to chat next week on the issue. Looking forward to it.  :)

Tricky stuff to sort out.

1) I will default to your legal knowledge. I have heard of enough problems with the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal to hold it in skepticism, yet never having researched it I will withhold any further judgement. Legislating this type of moral decision seems dangerous to me, I don't really understand how you would enforce it.

2) There is no use idealizing the underdogs and downtrodden. It is unfair to them and when they fail to live up to your ideal (or to properly appreciate your saintly help) you'll just swing rightwards. The old phrase is that "a conservative is a liberal that just got mugged", so I believe in 'mugging' myself with the hard truths of life and skipping the political conversion.

3) I agree with Peterson's stance that biology is not socially constructed. I do often wonder how anyone could believe otherwise. I am the odd one in sociology because I embrace evolution and biology. Similarly I also agreed with Persinger's research into electro-magnetic aspects of consciousness.

4) The liberal focus on Identity Politics, especially transgender stuff, is political suicide. Look at Clinton's defeat. Strange language battles that apply to only 0.03% of the population is an obvious dead-end. People want broad-based, material solutions for war, poverty, bank criminality, police abuse, tuition, pollution. Identity Politics is a distraction from these real issues - this might be its purpose.

Yet this over-focus on Identity Politics is also where I differ from Peterson and Persinger. To watch rich, white men choose political-correctness and SJWs as their major target always seems distasteful. The fact that PC proponents and SJW are 80% female means that 'anti-PC' easily blends into misogyny.

There is a paradox:

*) All the best thinkers are anti-PC.

*) Yet if a someone is known primarily for the anti-PC stance, they will inevitable be some right-wing jerk.

I don't want to use ad hominem attacks but I've seen this 'anti-PC psychologist' archetype 5-6 times now.  Let me support my claim.

I would call Peterson 'right-wing' because his politics are focused on the Soviet Union and defeating Marxism. He sees Bill C-16 as the first step toward Soviet gulags...

Peterson wrote:I was spending a lot of time thinking about the Cold War [...] Part of the reason I got embroiled in this gender identity controversy was because of what I know about how things went wrong in the Soviet Union. Many of the doctrines that underlie the legislation that I’ve been objecting to share structural similarities with the Marxist ideas that drove Soviet Communism.

I was also quite profoundly influenced by Solzhenitsyn’s book The Gulag Archipelago. Solzhenitsyn demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that the horrors [of the Soviet system] were a logical consequence of the doctrines embedded within Marxist thinking. I think Dostoyevsky saw what was coming and Nietzsche wrote about it extensively in the 1880s, laying out the propositions that are encapsulated in Marxist doctrine, and warning that millions of people would die in the 20th century because of it.

There are bleak things going on. To start with, Bill C-16 writes social constructionism into the fabric of the law."

http://www.c2cjournal.ca/2016/12/were-teaching-university-students-lies-an-interview-with-dr-jordan-peterson/

As for being "jerky" Peterson is the type of guy who rants against socially-constructed gender and then fills the front of his home-page with him socially constructing his masculinity in the most blatant fashion (even using 3rd person narration):

xxx wrote:Raised and toughened in the frigid wastelands of Northern Alberta, Jordan Peterson has flown a hammer-head roll in a carbon-fiber stunt plane, piloted a mahogany racing sailboat around Alcatraz Island, explored an Arizona meteorite crater with a group of astronauts, built a Native American Long-House on the upper floor of his Toronto home, and been inducted into the coastal Pacific Kwakwaka’wakw tribe.

He’s been a dishwasher, gas jockey, bartender, short-order cook, beekeeper, oil derrick bit re-tipper, plywood mill labourer and railway line worker. He’s taught mythology to lawyers, doctors and businessmen, consulted for the UN Secretary General, ect, ect, ect....

As I read his biography black-and white photos of him popped-up between photos of Dostoyevsky & Nietzsche. It's a little much for my tastes.

If 0.03% of my students requested that I refer to them in some weird way I wouldn't get angry, I won't even really care. Students are a mess of emotion. I would just call them that and get back to teaching them my evolution-heavy course.

6) I deeply understand that no one likes being forced to do stuff - yet I have noticed that the lower you are on the social scale the more stuff you are forced to do. Women, minorities, the impoverished know what being extorted is - it is back-breaking, mind-numbing, soul-destroying. Only full-time white male professors have enough status to get angry over having to say some minor thing. I think that why he needs to tie it to gulags, otherwise it seems petty.

7) I don't think Peterson is a bad guy. He seems to have been traumatized by his study of the violence in the 20th century (" I was very upset by the processes of the cold war – by the superhuman energy of the arms race") and I have noted my own opinion becoming more conservative after years of wrestling with similarly violent topics. His mixture of evolution and mythology aligns with my own interests. He believes in academic freedom.  

UPDATE FROM 2018 wrote:
I guess I should update this debate. My initial distrust of Peterson seems to have been completely correct.

Here are some more critiques of the strange ascendency of the alt-right Peterson cult movement that has paralleled Trump's own rise to power.

* https://nowtoronto.com/news/jordan-peterson-assault-on-academic-freedom/ [On JP's bizarre attempt to setup an algorithm to drive professors he disagree with out of academia!]

*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0OJEIpzlXo [Peterson embraces his inner misogynist: "I would never hit a lady. An aggressive bitch is another question...."]

*https://twitter.com/criener/status/975064877722193920 [Peterson gets angry at a traumatized kid who had just witnessed car accident for not responding to his 'playful poking']


* http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/03/19/jordan-peterson-and-fascist-mysticism/ [An analysis of Peterson's mixing of 'vigorous, virtuous masculinity', self-help bromides, 2nd-rate Jung, and burning hatred for the left. Peterson throw a fit and used twitter to threatened to "slap" this writer...]

*https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve  
"He is popular partly because he offers adrift young men a sense of heroic purpose, and offers angry young men rationalizations for their hatreds. And he is popular partly because academia and the left have failed spectacularly at helping make the world intelligible to ordinary people, and giving them a clear and compelling political vision.

Peterson spares himself from having to actually engage in substantive debates on policy questions, by writing off the left as a bunch of brainwashed totalitarian postmodernist neo-Marxists and misses the incredibly important contemporary conflict between leftism and “identity-based liberalism,” a conflict that is hugely important to understanding the left."

I think JP reveals how deeply most North American males are in crisis and looking for a father figure - but neuro-psych cult leaders who style themselves as right-wing 'mavericks' like Peterson and Persinger are poor choices. The history books will not be kind to this present era or its cultural icons. There is plenty of 'male self-help' stuff without the sneering pro-Trump baggage. Peterson's rich enough now.

Excellent points. Will certainly expound on the issues on the visit. Also eager to hear thoughts on events south of the border.

Shawn - you posted your response to mine before I even finished (I often post half-finished stuff to avoid losing it). I read even more Peterson and tried to end on a conciliatory note. Take a look at the last Peterson quote.

I think that some of his articles combining psychology/evolution/violence would be worth a read. In some ways the gender politics stuff obscures what value his work might have.

The frigid wasteland of northern Alberta? Seems a bit dramatic given that Fairview, Alberta is warmer than Timmins.

I haven't watched the videos or given a much though to gender identity so I don't have a lot to contribute to this discussion but reading the beginning of his web page did make me roll my eyes.

Separating personalities from their theories was so much easier before the internet.  Now every intellectual has to have a blog, a tasteful head shot, and a TEDtalk video.

Core personality traits can effect theorizing. My own interests overlap with much of Peterson but I think we express it differently because (as he relates) he grew up in a small conservative christian Albertan town and now makes 100k+ a year, whereas I'm from Sudbury and clear 30K+ on a good year.

Shawn - could I get your opinion on two recent articles I read recently saying that people need to be more litigious. One is by a cartoonist I like, the other is by Ralph Nader.

 Sue the Bastards? It’s Harder Than You Think

Restricting People’s Use of Their Courts

Next week in the 'courts' part of my course and I would like to get the rust off....

Absolutely.  Quite tricky...as M.C. Ruppert used to say..."gotta separate the ice cream from the bullshit".

1.  I welcome intense scrutiny regarding my legal position.  If not challenged, I will never know if it can pass muster and be successful.  Still not experienced in that forum, but dabbling and learning as I plod along.

2.  Agreed.

3.  Agreed.  The unorthodox teachings of some prof's are quite outrageous when "teaching" their students there is no such thing as biological sex.

4.  Sensational distraction to detract from other more pertinent issues.  Very possible and a standard operating procedure to some degree.

5.  Paradoxical indeed.  I can't disagree in any way with what you say.

6.  That's it exactly.  

7.  I don't think he's a bad guy either.  I can appreciate his tenacity and position on a few things and he seems to be quite alarmist in his position on an issue that is relatively benign.  Reminds me of my intense, alarmist and relatively unrealistic position on Peak Oil (inclusive of the Malthusian theory) when I discovered / tapped into it in 2003 and stuck with me until 2010/2011.

Peterson seems to be applying a similar base mechanism which Trump utilized to his advantage in stirring up fervor in the US.  Focus on the insubstantial and "what ifs", pander to the "far-right" and scapegoat issues, instead of causal issues and presenting solutions.

What you said about your own students rings so true for many.  

Myself, in a position like that, would simply ask for an accommodation for us both.  I would be confused and forgetful in using the innocuous terms such as "Zer" or "Zir" or other pronouns.  I would simply state that it would be challenging for me to recall these terms and would respectfully request that we both use our given first names.  If this wasn't acceptable, I would entertain as well, but would not want to be labelled "trans-phobic" or prejudiced in any way as I am not refusing, it would simply be challenging to adopt a new word in the English lexicon that has no specific definition or operating parameters in which it would be widely used and adopted.  

From the beginning my gut was saying...really...we're getting hung up on this?  I mean, can't we just communicate and come to an agreeable and collaborative solution which respects each party?  I cannot understand why that would be so difficult and what the kerfuffle is all about.  As a caveat, I will say that a staunch and unbending stance on the far right and far left do naturally escalate and, at that same degenerate into untenable positions by each party which prevents any resolution.

This issue has peaked my interest, but yes, I agree it is largely a distraction from more relevant and important issues many face today.  I'm mostly curious from a legal standpoint and the implications at the Tribunal, academic and employment level in Ontario.  Wondering if its a flash in the pan kinda thing or if it has any legs and will reverberate and bleed into those realms from a legal standpoint.  

Also, will dig into the articles and get back to you.  Can speak to the "access to justice" issue which many face today, then meander into the litigious nature of civil actions in the US and Canada.

Civil discourse and respectful exchanges on the internet about 'wedge' issues - it's so weird!

I suspect with the overturning of Obama's 'trans-gender school bathrooms' you will see a continuing back-lash against this type of Identity Politics. I'm not sure how this will play out in Canada but a few years into Trump's term I think will be seeing many shibboleths of the liberal/left under attack.

Hobb wrote:Separating personalities from their theories was so much easier before the internet.  Now every intellectual has to have a blog, a tasteful head shot, and a TEDtalk video.

Core personality traits can effect theorizing. My own interests overlap with much of Peterson but I think we express it differently because (as he relates) he grew up in a small conservative christian Albertan town and now makes 100k+ a year, whereas I'm from Sudbury and clear 30K+ on a good year.

Shawn - could I get your opinion on two recent articles I read recently saying that people need to be more litigious. One is by a cartoonist I like, the other is by Ralph Nader.

 Sue the Bastards? It’s Harder Than You Think

Restricting People’s Use of Their Courts

Next week in the 'courts' part of my course and I would like to get the rust off....

Despite being in the business that would benefit from more people taking a litigious tact or approach to their problem, I hesitate to say it would benefit society and/or the individual(s) who were to take legal action.  There are so many different scenarios where the system can effectively break someone down.  Our system of justice is not aptly named.  I've seen many good people get thrown under the bus when asserting their rights in various forums/courts.  As horrible as this may sound, at times it seems that honesty is really not the best policy as one would think when going to court.  The legal system is a beast all in itself...from experience, I can name a few interesting forums off the top of my head.

Personal injury / MVA accidents - In Ontario, the insurance game is rigged.  For individuals who are not financially, physically, emotionally and psychologically capable of asserting themselves and having the ability to stay the course, it sadly comes down to who has the deepest pockets and what class of representation/advocate you get.  Don't get me wrong, there are many who've gotten favorable results, but there are many who didn't.  Despite being legally obligated to pay for insurance and relying on it just in case something happens, well, it is a for profit industry after all.  Insurers profit more when injured people who can't return to their pre-accident functioning  have to resort to things like ODSP and CPP disability, go without care, treatment, etc..  Many MVA victims have no recourse but to be added onto our already overburdened Provincial/Federal system of assistance.

Regulatory bodies - When dealing with Administrative Boards and Tribunals like WSIB / WSIAT or entities like the AGCO (Alcohol & Gaming Commission of Ontario) and FSCO (Financial Services Commission of Ontario) there are mechanisms in place that give the advantage to the agency itself.  WSIB had contracted a doctor in 2009-2010 to revise some of their policies.  One policy change was the "pre-existing" condition policy (2010).  It disentitled so many legitimately injured workers and caused untold suffering to take down the 15 Billion liability the WSIB was dealing with back then.  The policy was essentially stricken down as unconstitutional and contrary to the Charter (2014?) and is now the subject of a class action in the Ontario courts (3 years now i think?  -  CLASS ACTION).  Coincidentally, the doctor who was contracted (from the USA) pocketed a nice chunk of coin and was under investigation / legal battle for possible fraud in Hawaii and creating medical reports to disentitle MVA victims.  Article Toronto Star - 2016.  As the article indicates, it was to go to trial in September of 2016, so I'm assuming the insurer paid some pretty serious hush money as I haven't really heard anything else.

The AGCO and FSCO both have the inherent power and jurisdiction to impose on a persons / entities Charter Rights.  ie.  Under the LLA (Liquor license Act) an inspector has the following power and authority during said inspection :

Inspections
44 (1) For the purpose of ensuring compliance with this Act and the regulations, a person designated under subsection 43 (1) may,

(a) enter any place at any reasonable time;

(b) request the production for inspection of documents or things that may be relevant to the inspection;

(c) inspect and, upon giving a receipt therefor, remove, for the purpose of making copies or extracts, documents or things relevant to the inspection;

(d) inquire into negotiations, transactions, loans or borrowings of a licensee or permit holder and into assets owned, held in trust, acquired or disposed of by a licensee or permit holder that are relevant to an inspection;

(e) conduct such tests as are reasonably necessary; and

(f) remove materials or substances for examination or test purposes subject to the licensee, permit holder or other occupant of the premises being notified thereof.

(Section 8 of the Charter above)

Another section of the LLA is the immediate deprivation of livelihood.  (Section 6)

Revocation, suspension or refusal to renew licence
15 (1) The Registrar may issue a proposal to revoke or suspend a licence to sell liquor or refuse to renew such a licence for any ground under subsection 6 (2), (4) or (4.1) that would disentitle the licensee to a licence if the licensee were an applicant or if the licensee has contravened this Act, the regulations or a condition of the licence.  2002, c. 18, Sched. E, s. 7 (13).

Now, I use the word "impose" on our Charter rights as I'm not sure it would meet the threshold of violating or infringing on those rights; as the province has given these bodies (through legislation and otherwise) some pretty broad and extensive powers to carry out their mandate.  Is it necessary and required?  I would say yes.  Is it abused and twisted to punish or act in a heavy handed manner?  Absolutely.  I'm just hoping the examples I've been privy to are the exception and not the norm.

Now, as a caveat, the broad powers are an important element and in my opinion, a necessary component.  This allows the regulatory body to take action if necessary, as there are at times some serious issues with licensed establishments.  FSCO has the ability to conduct searches and seize documents as well.  The same goes for bodies like the Human Rights Tribunal where a request can be made to conduct an enquiry.  This enquiry would be a fact finding mission and used only in rare and unique circumstances.  It's used very little, if at all from what I have seen in my research.

However, the threshold and justification in the LLA and AGCO world, is, of course, "public safety".  Now, public safety is important, but I think we all know that whenever any person or entity in authority drags out the words "public safety"....well, we know how that can be twisted and abused and IMHO is just another justification to ask for more money and more power.  It's just kind of the way it is.

Family Law - This is a contentious issue and why the Law Society of Upper Canada (soon to be renamed / rebranded the Law Society of Ontario in January 2018) conducted some studies / research and held consultations on how truly overwhelmed the Family Law courts are.  FAMILY LAW REVIEW - LSUC  In family law there is approximately 57% of people who now self-represent as no other options are available to them.  Families are suffering and being horribly hurt by how expensive it is to get a lawyer and to get any speedy or just resolution to their problems.  To say the judges are completely fed up with dealing with drama and mudslinging from self-reps is an understatement.  That's why LSUC (soon to be LSO) has determined that they are moving forward, tentatively, with paralegals in family law.  Those who receive specialized training in the mandated fashion, will now be able to enter into some cases in the family law court.  Still being sorted out and is tricky, but in my opinion, necessary to help many of those self-reps get access to justice or at the minimum, assistance to navigate the process and jump through all the procedural hurdles and narrow the issues for a judge for a disposition / order.

So, with all the above, I may come across as a little jaded, but I would prefer to simply say it's realistic in the way of knowing what you're really getting into when you attempt to "access justice".  Our justice system is not in the best of shape.  When you make that investment or take that action in court, well, it's akin to caveat emptor I would say.

So, as a final note, I will say that overall, I don't think that people need to be more litigious; I think they need to be more educated and aware of their legal rights.  They need to be made aware of what kind of legal rights they deal with on a daily basis and not just take for granted, as so many do, that they "have rights" and "i have guaranteed rights under the Charter".  It is a deliciously naive notion that I fell victim to as well.  I always thought that, if I have the truth and the law on my side, well, what can go wrong?  

I think a solid primer and background on the legal system we have in place, mixed in with some real life stories and examples, would go much further than encouraging people to be more litigious.  Launching costly actions which bog down the already overwhelmed and overtaxed system we have in place may not be the best thing; especially if the actions are frivolous and vexatious, which is another topic all together.  

Not sure if it answers your question entirely, but I'm certainly open to questions if any.  

Thanks for the excellent primer! Expect some questions in about a month when the course tackles the Canadian court system.

sum guy wrote:I always thought that, if I have the truth and the law on my side, well, what can go wrong?  :Shocked:

About once every two semesters a student will tell me a story of how they decided to confront the police interrogating them by telling them what Charter rights the police are not respecting or telling them about some legal principle being violated. The police response always begins, "Well, college boy..." and it never ends well. 

Reading a history of First Nation legal history, I got the impression that legality is nice but that land was never going to remain in Indigenous hands no matter how much they had the law on there side.

The courts can ramp-down some raw political power into legal discussions, but only some. So I'm still wondering if there won't be a political showdown over marijuana as the Trump regime doubles-down on keeping the prohibition going. Liberal 'vice' profits V. Rightwing police power is a true political showdown.

Young students armed with a little bit of knowledge and little life experience = a valuable lesson or for a select few, a comeuppance.  I can certainly attest to that.

On the marijuana issue, I'm under the impression that since the Harper days, the massive changes back then laid the foundation and mechanisms for the now ever evolving corporate take over the black market / mom and pop operations.  In reality though, it was the tireless efforts of activists and grassroots type of movement, whether it related to medical cannabis or otherwise which brought us to today.  Those activists and mom and pop type growers have little to no chance of reaping any rewards though.  I'm thinking that the only thing that may delay the eventual "legalized" regime is the Senate.  I consider the Liberal "legalization" model as prohibition Ultra with caveats.  It's really brutal how the Libs injected some horrendous mandatory minimums into their "legalization" model.  I really do have to quote "legalization", due to the absurdity of the Liberal legislation.  

Also, feel free to ask whatever questions you may have.  I'm kinda lurking around the RTN forums a little more frequently now.  

Harper's marijuana mandatory-minimums under his ‘Penalties for Organized Drug Crime Act’ were a stupid attack on Mom & Pop operations which may have helped set the stage for the attempted state-control of marijuana currently happening under the Libs. It was also as, a University of Ottawa drug policy lawyer called it, “a wonderful gift to organized crime. We're going to drive some of the smaller players out of the business and they'll be replaced by people who do not respond to law enforcement initiatives."

Harper, in a bizarre imitation of Nancy Regan, said that he wanted this new laws to prevent his own children from obtaining marijuana. The following year an underage girl was rushed away from a birthday party for his son after she collapse due to alcohol poisoning...

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/18-year-old-taken-to-hospital-after-party-at-prime-ministers-residence/article18123317/

Trump is clearly reading off the same old-school repressive page as Harper because he is doubling-down on prohibition. Remember when Mike Harris stopped harassing single mothers long enough to swear that he would fight any move toward marijuana decriminalization because he "preferred booze"?

Last week, US Attorney General Jeff Sessions reasserted the Federal government's prohibition on marijuana overriding states' rights. He rescinded the Cole memo that directed prosecutors to focus on “enforcement priorities”—trafficking, drugged driving, sale to minors—in states that legalize. This provided 'rule of law' for the cannabis industry: so long as marijuana companies complied with state law, they could avoid federal prosecution.

In the early 2003 when Canada began inching toward ending prohibition under Chretien/Martin, the US Attorney General paid a visit and said trade would sharply dwindle if Canada did because the US would have to increase the number of border inspections. Canada backed off under economic threat.

We may be in an Obamacare situation where the purpose of the legislation is a rare glimmer of sanity but the liberal technocrats and corporate lobbyists who draft the bill fuck it up so badly it doesn't get the popular support it should. Then the medieval authoritarians of the Right use this lack of support to overturn it and actually further enslave the population.

Currently the choices seem to be between: a) flawed Liberal "legalization" or b) the Right's re-invigorated prohibition including an assault the fledgling US cannabis industry and, possibly, ecomonic pressure on Canada to stop "legalization".

Agree on what you said above.  I'm still hoping for Trudeau to see this through (so it can be challenged, amended, improved an corrected over the next generation).

However, I should have clarified the changes I was referring to under Harper.  The former MMAR (Marihuana Medical access regulations), now the MMPR (Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations), essentially eliminated the government as the dealer in the scheme.  Remember the irradiated schwagg from the mine in Flin Flon Manitoba?  That was replaced with the now coroporate entities which consist of many companies with either Liberal or Conservative ties.  Alan Rock (former Health minister) is a part of one.  The most hypocritcal and disgusting example I can refer to is of course Julian Fantino.  Favorite quote below from this STAR ARTICLE.

In other words, we are the new, respectable mob. We are going to kick butt and rake in the profits in this new, legal enterprise that has been scrubbed clean and made respectable. Yeah, yeah, we were wrong about this. Dope is actually a good alternative to opioids, which are killing our young people by the thousands across the land. We’ve seen the light — not to mention the cash.

Nice find on that quote by the scumbag Fantino. I don't know if you've seen the stuff I've been putting up on James Woolsey (aka the neo-conservative's Kissinger) but he also seemed to have his thumb in the 'corporate cannabis' pie. I guess that old Bush Jr. anti-drug propaganda was right, buying marijuana really does fund (national security) terrorists.



I didn't know about the MMAR/MMPR - it really fills in some of the pieces explaining why it won't be the Canadian Govt. that will be profiting, it will be well-connected politicians.

Hobb wrote:I didn't know about the MMAR/MMPR - it really fills in some of the pieces explaining why it won't be the Canadian Govt. that will be profiting, it will be well-connected politicians.

To start, I'll just identify that Anne McLellan was made chairperson of the marijuana task force; who has the assistance of Bill Blair of course.  Anne McLellan has a checkered past with the devils lettuce as well in her past public stance(s).  Here's an article from Marc Emery who had the follwoing to say in this article, which I would take with a grain of salt, but his comments still do have merit.

In her time in the Liberal government spotlight, McLellan called marijuana a “scourge”, suggested that marijuana led to the murder of four Mounties in the Alberta town of Mayerthorpe, promised a Liberal government would never be “in the business of legalizing marijuana”, wanted judges who refused to give tough penalties for weed offences to explain their reasons in writing to her, said “we do not want Canadians to use marijuana”, and “essentially instructed staff to obstruct the processing of Canadians” trying to access marijuana to relieve pain.

In an August 17, 2005, Vancouver Sun article entitled “Irwin Cotler Throws Up Smokescreen”, columnist Ian Mulgrew speculated on McLellan’s fingerprints being all over the Emery extradition file, noting she was a "pro-American hawk and rabid anti-pot crusader”.

Once I have some time, I may actually go down the rabbit hole and discern who in the political sphere has reaped the benefits, but for now I will quote from an article online that is mostly verifiable.  For the purposes of just throwing it out there, I will quote from the following ARTICLE - POTFACTS.CA  This relates to people identified as of April 2017.

Anne McLellan is engaged by the law firm Bennett Jones LLP, that describes itself as a ‘very entrepreneurial law firm’ that wants to be the ‘go to’ law firm for licensed producers (LPs) of marijuana in Canada.

McLellan’s place of employment openly seeks licensed providers to represent while she maintains impartiality on this task force.  And it’s not just the chairperson of the Task Force who is facing a conflict of interest. A long list of Liberal Party insiders and government officials connected to the cannabis economy has been circulating around social media:

• Chuck Rifici, is currently the CFO of the Liberal Party of Canada. – founder and former CEO of Tweed
  
  
• Mark Zekulin, CEO of Tweed – former senior adviser to former Ontario finance minister Dwight Duncan
  
  
• Norman Inkster, Independent Director at Mettrum – former head of the RCMP
  
  
• Dr. Joshua Tepper, Independent Director at Mettrum – formerly Assistant Deputy Minister at the Ministry of Health , Senior Medical Officer for Health Canada,
  
• Tom Shipley, Director of Quality Assurance, Tweed – formerly worked on toxicology research, while at Health Canada,
  
  
• Mike Harcourt, Chairman of True Leaf Medicine Inc – former B.C. Premier
  
  
• Kash Heed, strategic consultant with National Green BioMed – Former B.C. Solicitor General and former West Vancouver police chief
  
  
• Herb Dhaliwal, Chairman, National Green BioMed – former Vancouver MP and federal cabinet minister.
  
  
• Neil Belot, Board of Directors for Aurora – was a public servant in several ministries within the Ontario government
  
  
• Brian Wagner, Company founder and CEO of NHP Consulting (consults for prospective LP’s) – Brian was invited to play a strong role in Health Canada’s Program Advisory Committee
  
  
• Tim Humberstone, ABcann Director / Senior Person in Charge – former twenty year member of the RCMP included roles in Municipal/Federal Drug Enforcement and with the Joint Forces Organized Crime Agency. Tim has also received extensive training by the RCMP in providing expert court opinion in the fields of cannabis trafficking and production techniques.
  
  
• Ivan Vrana, founder of Aslan Ross Consulting / speaker mmpr summit – Previously Mr. Vrána worked for the Federal Government for over 15 years. He worked at the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, Finance Canada and in various senior policy positions at Health Canada. At Health Canada he was in charge of the team that developed the policy rationale which led to the implementation of the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations. Mr. Vrána is also a regular Lecturer at both Carleton and Concordia universities and teaches a course that examines the internal communication tools governments use to development and implement public policy.
  
  
• Sandy Pratt, Chief Financial Officer, Emerald Health – Worked at Deloitte (auditing firm involved in the senate scandal), Vice President of Business Development and Executive Financial Officer of the Royal British Columbia Museum, a Crown corporation.
  
  
• Shane Morris, VP, Scientific Affairs and Stakeholder Relations Hydropothecary CEO (now Canadian Cannabis Corp.) – Since 2000 Shane has been in a range of leadership roles within the Federal Government, from Treasury Board of Canada’s senior advisor (Cabinet Operations) on regulatory affairs to director of policy leadership and Reporting for Resources Canada’s major projects management office.
  
  
• George Smitherman, THC BioMed – former Ontario Liberal Deputy Premier with more than 30 years in public policy fields at the Municipal, Provincial and Federal Level, where roles as Senior Advisor, Minister of Energy and Infrastructure and Ontario’s Minister of Health were held.
  
  
• Jake Ryan, Director of Security: Tilray – former RCMP Intelligence Officer and federal criminal investigator overseeing all aspects of Tilray’s security protocols and operations.
  
  
• Ernie Eves, Chairman, Timeless Herbal Care, a Jamaican medical marijuana company – former Progressive Conservative premier of Ontario
  
  
• Kim Derry, a promoter of marijuana facility THC Meds Ontario Inc. – Deputy chief of the Toronto Police Service under Mr. Blair.
  
  
• John Reynolds, advisor to Vodis Innovative Pharmaceuticals Inc – former MP with the Progressive Conservative, Reform and Canadian Alliance parties
  
  
• Senator Larry Campbell, advisor to Vodis Innovative Pharmaceuticals Inc. – former Royal Canadian Mounted Police officer and Vancouver mayor. And sitting Senator.
  
  
• Barry Daniel, Wildflower’s head of security – Former Abbotsford police chief.
  
  
• Cam Battley, Aurora Senior Vice President, Communications and Medical Affairs – Former Legislative Assistant to the Canadian Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, where he was responsible for developing legislation and steering it through the House of Commons, as well as negotiating with Opposition parties and stakeholder groups.
  
  
• John Turner, medicinal marijuana applicant in Ontario (With Kash Heed) – Former Prime Minister of Canada.
  

The Toronto Sun has fact-checked and  published part of the list.

Even police officers have been getting into the game.

“A Durham police officer for six months co-owned a medical marijuana company that is not licensed and offers consumers pot brownies and other products the government says are illegal to sell.”

These establishment-type operations never seem to get raided, though – regardless of public harm.

Quote from the Star article regarding the Durham police officer mentioned above.

After the Star began asking questions, Edgar said he “stepped back” from the marijuana company — Living On Inc. — and is weighing whether he wants to continue a career of policing or branch into the budding medical weed business.

Durham Regional Police Service refused to answer questions about whether it was appropriate for an active police officer to be involved in this kind of business, and why it approved Edgar’s request to co-own the medical marijuana company.

Until recently, Living On’s website stated that the company is “licensed by Health Canada to sell and distribute marijuana for medical purposes.” It has since dropped the claim from its website.

“Dispensaries and other sellers of marijuana who are not licensed under the current law are illegal,” a Health Canada spokeswoman said in a statement.

“These establishments operate outside of the legal framework and provide products from illegal sources that are untested, unregulated and may be unsafe.”

Living On is also offering products that are not approved for sale under current drug laws in Canada.

Also noteworthy is the crazy trading back in the fall of 2016 - HERE

Conservative MPs pressed the government hard Wednesday on a spike in trading in marijuana company stocks two weeks ago, alleging the Liberals may have leaked an upcoming report into legal weed.

On Nov. 16, the TSX halted trading on six different medical marijuana companies over the course of the day -- some of them several times. The halts were automatically triggered by wild swings in prices.

Conservative MP Alex Nuttall says those trading surges make him suspect somebody leaked a report by a federal task force studying how to legalize recreational pot use.

Excellent stuff. I thought it was mostly Liberals but there are so many cops and conservatives. This is going right into my week on policing and prohibition (alcohol & marijuana). The 'war on some drugs' has been a mass of hypocrisy for the last 60 years, nothing has changed even as part of it might wind down.

Nixon domestic policy chief, John Ehrlichman wrote:
The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying?

We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news.

Did we know we were lying about the drugs?

Of course we did.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/index.html

That is an outstanding quote from Ehrlichman in that article. Wonder why the journalist sat on it for over 20 years?