Charles Anderson

@DisrespectedThe It’s time to declare a moratorium on putting dramatic music under clips where it doesn’t belong. This is a soundbite, not a movie.

We need to listen to this man.

P.K. Subban completes landmark $10M donation to Montreal Children’s Hospital montrealgazette.com/news/p-k-subba…

@MarcFische8673 @HenriAGS @acoyne Ruslan Novruzov

@HenriAGS @514charles @acoyne Came here to say the same lol. Everything they listed has ties to far right nationalism rofl.

Freedom Convoy Organizer Identifies Herself as a “White Nationalist” in Conference Call With Neo-Nazis - Canadian Anti-Hate Network antihate.ca/freedom_convoy…

@HenriAGS @acoyne Ruslan Novruzov

@514charles @acoyne I mean, the people in conference calls with real-life neo-Nazis are the odds-on favourites to have vandalized Jewish schools 🤷‍♂️

@StaceyMonette27 In yesterday’s Globe, the two conflicting stories appeared side by side:

Welcome to Canada, where bullshit really does baffle brains.

Pixel City My latest collaboration with my longtime creative partner Jack Hackel is a seven-part docuseries exploring the world of game design in Québec City. Now playing on Bell Fibe TV1.

@mario4thenorth The Globe and Mail doesn’t seem sure what it’s trying to report…

WOW Yesterday CTV and CBC ran wall to wall coverage claiming Russia and the US were interfering in the Alberta separatist movement. Today the Globe and Mail reported: The RCMP deputy commissioner told Alberta’s Public Safety Minister there is NO credible evidence of foreign interference in the Alberta separatist movement. ZERO. None The RCMP’s own words. The study CTV and CBC cited? Produced by “DisinfoWatch” and “academic researchers.” Not CSIS. Not the RCMP Not any law enforcement agency This is the same CTV that called my verified content “Deception Decoded.” The same CTV taking millions in government subsidies A study nobody can verify Cited as fact, to discredit 301,000 Albertans who signed a petition. This is why people lose trust in MSM. CTV & CBC are cut from the same cloth.

I don't think many people outside Quebec know about this sad fact. But also, even in Quebec, nobody is calling it a genocide.

UN Watch calls for the immediate release of Iranian Nobel Peace Prize laureate Narges Mohammadi, jailed for speaking out against the regime’s brutality. Her health is in critical condition as the regime denies her urgent medical care. reuters.com/world/middle-e…

@ryangerritsen "Would you or anyone you know invest their hard earned money in the new Canada Wealth Sovereign Fund?" Don't fall for the gaslighting. You already are investing in it. Don't you understand that?

Ok I have to ask, would you or anyone you know invest their hard earned money in the new Canada Wealth Sovereign Fund? We’ve all seen how these individuals manage a Country, now we are supposed to put our faith in them managing our money?

@nationalpost "He must recuse himself from Emergencies Act case." He must do more than that. He must step aside from determining if the court will hear the appeal. His comments disqualify him from having anything to do with this case.

Michael Higgins: The arrogance of Chief Justice Richard Wagner nationalpost.com/opinion/the-ar…

@newstart_2024 Actually, psychopaths are the ones more likely to show up 15 minutes late.

Ever wanted a cheat code for spotting psychopaths in the wild? Rory Sutherland dropped a quietly savage one: bribe the waiter to spill soup on them. The mask slips instantly — they lose their rag, no control, pure reaction. Or simply turn up 15 minutes late. Most of us would say “traffic was terrible, sorry.” The dangerous ones? They make sure you know they’ve been sitting there like an idiot, seething. It’s not about paranoia. It’s pattern recognition. Real character leaks out in how people handle small chaos and minor inconveniences, not in the polished first impressions. This stuff fascinates me because we’re all running around trying to read people, but the truth usually hides in those unguarded micro-moments where the script fails. Saves you from years of slow disappointment if you catch it early. In dating, hiring, or even friendships, these tiny tests protect your peace without needing grand gestures. They remind us humans are glitchy, predictable creatures once you know where to look. Got a subtle real-world “character reveal” test you’ve learned the hard way? Share it — I’m genuinely curious.

@jimbobrays_ Dead wrong on both counts. Zero for two.

montreal is beautiful bc if you speak english they get annoyed and if you try to speak french they get annoyed and speak english back to you

This is a bust of himself that Canada’s Chief Justice had installed in the entrance hall of the Supreme Court. Wagner refuses to reveal who paid for it, but it’s pretty clear it came from the Franklin Mint’s Insecure Judges Series™.

Canada’s Chief Justice Richard Wagner has installed a lifelike bronze bust of himself in our highest court. It should be called ‘Narcissus Canadiannus” - There is no precedent for something this vulgar in the history of the Court. It should be taken down. Richard fancies himself. - Richard also fancies his own opinion on things. He violated legal due process and the Courts reputation by publicly accusing the Convoy - who protested backwards federal Covid policies that were soon dropped of ‘anarchy’ and ‘hostage taking’. Now that the Convoys freedom of speech, assembly and due process rights have been asserted by lower courts the Supreme Court has to consider the appeal of the federal govt and weigh the rights of citizens against the decision of the federal government to impose the Emergencies Act to suspend those rights. Wagners lack of judicial discretion in the first instance makes his recusal from such an important rights-defining case important because it signals not just fairness in the content of the decision but in the way the decision gets reached by the highest Court. He has already shown his bias. Any decision against the convoy poisons the integrity of the Court if he remains present. But Richard - the man with the bust of himself in our Court - doesn’t imagine himself under the law he imposes on others. He hasn’t completed any graduate work in law or published any academic work in law, philosophy or jurisprudence so it’s hard to know how he justifies himself in these matters. Ironically, he has a reputation for warning others - including those far more qualified in formal jurisprudence than he is - not to critique Canadian judges like himself or their (increasingly bizarre and politicized) decisions. But, from the Magna Carta onwards, Richard should know that in law as in politics dissent is democracy. The dissent of the Convoy and the growing critique of Richards own bizarre behaviour and inability to articulate a judicial philosophy is exactly what’s needed to save Canada - and the Court’s reputation as a place where justice - not the ego of the Justices - is at stake. Richard should recuse himself. And remove that vulgar bust from the Supreme Court. #SCC #RuleOfLaw

@LionAdvocacy c.org/JhV7yGsTCQ

@GadSaad Gad Saad’s ‘suicidal empathy’ is just Karl Popper’s ‘paradox of tolerance’ with a new label. Rebranded as his own idea. An academic should know better.

Gad's Maxim: Suicidal Empathy is fuelled by degenerate progressive white women.

@saskatchewan_in The same logic that disqualifies him from hearing the appeal also disqualifies him from deciding whether it should be heard. He has no business anywhere near this case.

A Failure of Judgment at the Highest Court To Richard Wagner, Your refusal to recuse yourself from the Emergencies Act appeal is not a demonstration of judicial confidence. It is a failure of judgment at a moment that demanded restraint. You have justified your decision on the basis that your prior public comments did not address the specific legal questions before the Court. That argument may satisfy a narrow, technical reading of judicial conduct. It does not satisfy the standard Canadians are entitled to expect from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The governing principle is not whether you commented on the precise statutory interpretation of the Emergencies Act. It is whether a reasonable and informed person would conclude that your previously expressed views could influence your assessment of the case. You publicly characterized the convoy as the “budding start of anarchy,” described residents as being “taken hostage,” and spoke in terms that conveyed clear condemnation of the events and participants. Those were not neutral observations. They were judgments about the nature, legitimacy, and perceived threat posed by the very situation now under review. This appeal is not a retrial. It does not exist to rehear evidence or relitigate the convoy as though the past can be reset. Appellate review in Canada is focused on whether the law was correctly interpreted and properly applied to established facts, with significant deference given to the findings already made by the lower courts. That distinction matters. The federal government is asking the Supreme Court of Canada to overturn decisions that found its use of the Emergencies Act unlawful. Those rulings concluded that the legal threshold for a national emergency was not met, that existing laws were sufficient, and that certain measures infringed Charter rights. In response, the government argues that the courts applied the wrong legal standard, failed to give appropriate deference to executive decision-making during a crisis, interpreted the definition of a threat to the security of Canada too narrowly, and erred in their Charter analysis. Each of those arguments turns on how serious and threatening the underlying events were understood to be in law. The Court must assess necessity, proportionality, and justification. It must determine whether extraordinary powers were warranted under the circumstances that existed at the time. Those are not abstract exercises. They require judgment about the nature of the events themselves. To suggest that prior public condemnation of those events has no bearing on your ability to assess the legality of the government’s response is to rely on a distinction that may be legally convenient but is publicly unconvincing. The issue is not your personal belief in your own impartiality. Every judge holds that belief. The issue is whether Canadians can reasonably maintain confidence in the Court’s impartiality when the Chief Justice has already expressed strong views about the factual foundation of the case. Recusal would not have weakened the Court. It would have strengthened it. It would have demonstrated that the Supreme Court understands the difference between legal defensibility and institutional legitimacy. It would have signaled that preserving public trust matters more than maintaining personal participation in a high-profile case. Instead, your decision suggests that the threshold for stepping aside is so narrow that even prior public condemnation of the central events of a case does not meet it. That is not a reassuring message to Canadians. Other members of the Court have recognized the importance of avoiding even the perception of bias and have stepped aside in contentious cases to preserve the integrity of the institution. That example was available. It was not followed. The principle of natural justice is clear. Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. In a case of this magnitude, involving the limits of state power and the rights of citizens, that principle should have guided your decision. This was an opportunity to reinforce public confidence in Canada’s institutions at a time when that confidence is already strained. You declined it. As Chief Justice, you are not merely a participant in this case. You are the steward of the reputation of the Supreme Court of Canada itself. That reputation rests not on assertions of impartiality, but on decisions that demonstrate it beyond reasonable doubt. In choosing not to recuse yourself under these circumstances, you have not strengthened that reputation. You have placed it at risk, at a time when public confidence in national institutions is already fragile. The damage may not be immediate, but it is real, and it is yours to own. Respectfully, Melanie in Saskatchewan

A judge would disqualify someone from jury duty if they had made these kinds of comments on a case.

Properly understood, Wagner not only needs to recuse himself from the appeal; he needs to recuse himself from deciding whether the Court should hear the appeal. His on-the-record pronouncements disqualify him from both. He has no business passing judgment on anything related to that protest.

Chief Justice Richard Wagner is refusing to recuse himself from the Emergencies Act case, despite previously calling the Freedom Convoy the “start of anarchy” and saying protesters “took citizens hostage.” He has clearly shown his bias. Now he says there’s “no reasonable apprehension of bias.” That’s a problem. You don’t publicly characterize one side in those terms, then turn around and sit in judgment over them. This isn’t about whether he believes he’s impartial, it’s whether a reasonable person would. Do you or I believe him to be unbiased with everything we currently know? From his comments I don't see him as unbiased on this matter. When the Chief Justice has already framed the conduct as “anarchy,” the answer isn’t complicated. It's a given. Even Mahmud Jamal stepped aside in another case to avoid becoming a distraction, not because he had to, but because public confidence matters. That’s the standard. This isn’t just about one case, it’s about whether the public believes the process is fair. Because once that’s gone, the ruling doesn’t matter. No one will believe his "findings." And we currently have a government that are happy to ignore 'bias' in their favour if it adds momentum to their current goals. #onpoli #cdnpoli