Frances Widdowson’s invitation to Provost Helstein, Instructor Gamble, and student Nathan Crow (University of Lethbridge)

These ‘academics’ you are hoping to have a civil discussion with are about as vituperative as Reichminister Goebbels would have been, had anyone ever dared to suggest ‘a debate’ about the ‘The Jewish Question’, or questioned the veracity of ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion’…

Marshmallow fascists I think…..and a complete waste of space and effort. They won’t and can’t engage you in a conversation that they are not guaranteed to win, which is only possible if you aren’t there.

But that was never a problem for the Sturmarbteilung bovver boys any more than it is for them

Why is the McCrae Rational Space Disputation not posted? I guess it went up only on Youtube. At any rate, some questions and comments on that Video.

WIDDOWSON: You can ask me (1:05:34) anything you want except about uh my situation with Mount Royal because “that is currently in arbitration and therefore is something that cannot be talked about” but everything else (1:05:45) is on the table.

REPLY: You have invited, so far, 6 individuals from the University of Lethbridge to debate you in a public library on the topic of that University and individuals, thereof, violating your rights to freedom of expression, for which you have sued their employer. So why would they talk to you about the same subject for which you have sued them while that Court Case is on-going? Don’t you think that they might say (parallel to you) “that is currently the subject of a Court challenge and is therefore something that cannot be talked about” — but everything else is on the table!

#1 QUESTION: You have a Court Date, according to your filing, scheduled for Sept. 12. Why are you debating that very same topic in a library on Sept. 16th, 2023?

#2 QUESTION: [Preamble]: Pickle, Viminitz and Widdowson are the applicants in that alleged Constitutional Challenge, but actual application for Judicial Review, citing the Charter to justify the application for Judicial Review. Thus the expression “constitutional challenge” — you are challenging the University for violating the Canadian Constitution’s granting of you persons’ right to, quote: “2.(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication. ” [i.e. 2. (b) of The Charter] So why did you say at around 1:09:26, quote: “the Justice Center for constitutional freedoms is uh mounting a 1:09:31
charter challenge against the University of Lethbridge which is going to go ahead in 2025.”???

EXPLANATION: Your name is on the Style of Cause, Frances. That is your “charter challenge”, not the JCCF’s “challenge”. They may be financing it at no cost to you people — which is kinda “cheating” — just like scabbie lawyers tell natives that they’ll do law cases with/for them at no cost to the natives but big costs to Canadian Tax Payers. That is called “turn about is fair play” or “quid pro quo” and comes from government financed “Charter Challenges”, when nobody had any idea HOW Pierre the Elder’s ambiguous goofy “Charter” might be interpreted or WHAT the goofy ambiguous document actually meant — which is why nobody at either Meech Lake or Charlottetown actually ratified our Constitution.

3. QUESTION: How can the “Charter” be our Constitution when nobody has consented to be actually “governed” by that document — given that “consent of the governed” is the essential and most fundamental principle of Constitutional Government???

Finally, you say something very intelligent for a dialectical materialist Marxist, quote:

FRANCES: “Jonah pickle [snip; who] wanted (1:09:15) to listen to The Talk which is (a) very important aspect of freedom of expression. It’s not just your right to (1:09:20) speak. It is your [i.e. other people’s] right to hear things and make a decision for yourself.”

Very good Frances. That is called a corollary. Your free expression is someone else’s right to hear your expression. And when you take that principle of free expression into a Court of Law, the corollary becomes a DUTY of the Court to provide free speakers with the “… right to a fair HEARING in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice for the determination of his rights and obligations;” [Canadian Bill of Rights 2.(e); NOT the Charter of Rights! The Bill of Rights! Different Document!] Thus when Mr. Justice Paul B. Schabas violated Jordan Peterson’s right to freedom of expression, in Ontario on August 23, 2023, he also and, at the same time, equally violated Peterson’s equal right to, quote “[11.(d) of The Charter] … a fair and public HEARING by an independent and impartial tribunal;” That is because all LAWS are INTEGRATED with all other laws and also why INTEGRITY is the fundamental legal principle. Veracity (truth) can’t be a/the fundamental legal principle because were that the case, every lawyer in the world would have to go to prison with the guilty clients s/he defend/s/ed!

And remember, Frances. You, also, are doing exactly the same sort of application as Jordan Peterson did — an application for judicial review. Thus I don’t think that it is an accident that Peterson’s decision came out in August, not long after you filed, in Alberta, in July — for you and Peterson are, arguably, the most intelligent critics of Orwell’s alleged Newspeak, which is a close cousin or analogy of our modern “woke speak”. So don’t be surprised if the lawyers on the other side of the case try to spout Schabas’s illegal decision as a “precedent” in/for your case. Schabas is another crooked Canadian lawyer, just like Murray Sinclair and easily proven to be such. He proved it with his own stupidly irrational argument. It wasn’t a judgment. It was an argument and a perfectly lousy argument at best. I’ll explain why, if you answer my previous question from Facebook, which was:

How many ways did that lawyer rationally “lie” (i.e. demonstrate irrationality) my first day at Court when I asked him a hypothetical-rhetorical question.

FINAL QUESTION and COMMENTS: Why did you say to McCrae that your case [which you incorrectly called the JCCF case] was proceeding in 2025, when you had a Court Date for Sept 12th??? Did they actually file something? Did they ask for extra time? I heard John Carpay say that it would take “almost a year” or some such. Your case shouldn’t take any longer than a single month at the most, although lawyers always talk about “Court Delays”, when they’re actually being intentionally slow or they’d say cautious/conscientious in dealing with other people’s cases (than your case) in their large lists of clients and cases. These modern clowns take forever. The Athenians could do their most important sorts of Court cases in 1 day — Socrates argued that they should “sleep on” their decisions for one night and take 2 whole days to decide important cases! St. Thomas More literally cleared the Highest English Court’s Docket — with fair, thorough and just hearings. In any and every law case, you can make a Motion to get things moved along to trial with 2 full days Notice to the opposed party. So don’t let these legal “priks” slow you down — whether it is your lawyer or the other jerk’s lawyer/s.

Your friendly Catholic critic,

Kevin James “Joseph” Byrne