The Pardy School of Law
How the law works, and how it doesn’t.
A National Citizens Inquiry Roundtable Discussion
The proverb, “It takes a village to raise a child,” has expanded in the modern context to become an ideology that’s been politicized. We assume if there’s value in the idea of a village raising children (safe, structured, nurturing environments), there must be value in the governmental and educational infrastructure of a so-called village that makes decisions about our children.
The state in tandem with the legal system believe they have a legitimate role in making decisions about our children—their upbringing, including medical care; overreaching into every aspect of their lives. The village has taken over. But a sacred bond exists between children and parents that doesn’t between children and governments. How do parents move beyond the control matrix to get back to parenting?
Roundtable Guests:
Bruce Pardy, Professor of law at Queen’s University and executive director of Rights Probe
Dr. Julie Ponesse, PhD in ethics and ancient philosophy. Author.
Paul Jaffe, B.C.-based lawyer
Host: Shawn Buckley
First Freedoms Foundation
The Constitutional Right to Property in the Fifty First State
Although property rights were considered during the creation of the Charter of Rights led by Pierre E. Trudeau, they were ultimately dismissed. Section 35 was instead added to the Constitution Act of 1982, which recognized existing aboriginal and treaty rights. The Supreme Court of Canada has since expanded these rights, with a recent New Brunswick court suggesting that aboriginal rights could supersede private property rights, raising serious implications for the future.
Professor Pardy discusses these developments and questions whether Canadians would be better off under the U.S. Constitution, which provides stronger protections for property rights, compared to the current Canadian Constitution. This raises a provocative debate about the constitutional framework in Canada and its implications for property and aboriginal rights.
WATCH THE CONVERSATION IN FULL HERE
Related Reading
In Canada, Aboriginal Title Has Become a Constitutional Threat
Canadian Libertarian | X Spaces
True Liberty Requires Evolution Not Revolution
“The Canon of Classical Liberalism—The Liberty Angle”
An expansive conversation between Professor Bruce Pardy and Canadian Libertarian host, Bennett Hunter. Initially, this conversation was prompted by an X exchange between Prof. Pardy and host Hunter on the three foundational concepts in classical liberalism—natural rights, rationality, and objective truth. Prof. Pardy argues these philosophical concepts are not strong enough to support political liberty. Political liberty, he says, is fundamentally the absence of coercion. The alternative to liberty is violence, including state violence. Therefore, liberty should be the default, and those advocating for coercion must justify their stance.
Prof. Pardy also looks at moral ambiguity in law and the philosophical discourse surrounding it. People give law "too much credit for something it is not," he says. The law is "a social system of making political decisions that appear to be something other than they are."
LISTEN TO THE CONVERSATION IN FULL HERE
Related Viewing & Reading
Canada’s Constitutional Mistake: How the Rule of Law Gave Way to the Managerial State
Breaking Free from Political Polarization with Classical Liberalism
The Lavigne Show | January 23 via X Spaces
Is it time to remove the Monarchy in Canada?
In this episode of The Lavigne Show, Bruce Pardy, a law professor and freedom advocate, and Matthew Ehret, a historical and geopolitical analyst, discuss the implications of Justin Trudeau’s prorogation of Parliament and its potential legal consequences.
For Prof. Pardy, the prorogation is a distraction from the main event: the opportunity presented by the suspension of Parliament to explore a different future for Canada in the form of a republican system of government.
Recommending we seize the moment and correct the mistake our forefathers made, Prof. Pardy provides a constitutional perspective on the stakes involved, emphasizing that the issue goes beyond mere parliamentary procedure. Matthew Ehret discusses global historical and geopolitical trends, highlighting how Canada’s monarchy debate fits into broader movements towards republican governance.
The Liberty Exchange: In conversation with Professor Bruce Pardy, host Jonathan Fortier examines the erosion of key libertarian principles through the lens of the pandemic experience. Prof. Pardy credits the one upside of Covid-19 as the moment when the coercive role of the administrative state finally revealed itself. That rupture marked a turning point for the freedom movement as the government and elite organizations imposed unprecedented restrictions on civil liberties, with mainstream professionals largely supporting these measures. The trucker protests in Canada brought these issues to widespread attention, showing ordinary citizens resisting government overreach—a public vote of no confidence the government found threatening to its legitimacy. A strong voice throughout the trucker protests in Ottawa, Prof. Pardy reveals a number of takeaways from that time, including the clarity pandemic restrictions offered up. It was no longer possible to ignore the expansion of the administrative state and its invisible coercion through regulations, subsidies and various means to limit meaningful choices for the individual. The overarching problem lies not just in bad policies, argues Prof. Pardy, but in the power of authorities to make such policies in the first place. [For more on this, see Canada’s Constitutional Mistake: How the Rule of Law Gave Way to the Managerial State].
Becoming the 51st State
Canada: A User’s Guide and Owner's Manual with Randy Hillier on X Spaces: Joining the United States could be advantageous for Canadians, asserts Professor Bruce Pardy. The U.S. Constitution offers a better framework as a constitutional republic than Canada’s Westminster system for addressing and resolving national issues, he argues. Prof. Pardy recommends Canada view President Trump’s call for annexation as an opportunity to resolve flaws in the U.S. Constitution as a negotiating lever for Canadian provinces to join the U.S. as states. Diminishing the powers of the administrative state as a condition of entry is also a benefit the new Trump leadership would likely have enthusiasm for, he says. Given Canada's smaller size and dependence on the U.S., threatening retaliatory tariffs is “intellectually laughable,” he says, especially when it could harm the country’s leading exports and western provinces. Joining Prof. Pardy in conversation along with host Randy Hillier: veterans and activists White Wabbit Warrior and Marty Speyer.
Left vs. Right: Making Sense of the Political Ecosystem
Nadine Ness, founder of Saskatchewan’s Unified Grassroots, a group concerned with civil liberties formed during Covid, invites Professor Bruce Pardy to explain changes in the political ecosystem that her group [and many of us] have grappled with but have not been able to articulate. To that end, Prof. Pardy shares his “horseshoe spectrum” of the various political labels; labels we assume we understand that do not align with our experience of these political identities. In reality, this landscape, explains Prof. Pardy, is populated by three main political persuasions beyond left vs right: Collectivist left (progressives and socialists) vs Collectivist right (conservatives) vs Individualists (classical liberals and libertarians).
In the horseshoe model, the political spectrum is represented as a string pulled into a horseshoe shape. The ends of the string, representing the far-left and far-right, come close together at the bottom of the horseshoe. This visualization suggests that both extremes share a focus on group values and dynamics, despite their differing ideologies.
The horseshoe is divided by an imaginary line, with individualists above the line and collectivists below. At the top of the horseshoe are classical liberals and libertarians, who prioritize individual liberty and choice. Below the line are the collectivist left (progressives and socialists) and the collectivist right (conservatives), who emphasize group solidarity and common values.
From this illuminated landscape of alignments, differences and deep divides to getting rid of the Bank of Canada, the discussion becomes a journey that calls into close focus our political system and institutions that have collectively become the managerial state, warping our fundamental understanding of the rule of law. As Prof. Pardy warns: “Instead of protecting liberty, the state has become its leading threat.” If we are not at the point of transformation (firing our administrative state), we can for now embrace the process of clarity. Enjoy the view.
Free Speech Does Not Protect ‘Imminent Threats of Violence’
The Ezra Levant Show | Rebel News: Professor Pardy joins host Ezra Levant for a wide-ranging discussion encompassing personal liberty in a context where the state has taken over the job of shaping society to such an extent that state and society become indistinguishable, a development Prof. Pardy refers to as "state singularity". The conversation moves on to the concept of personal freedom in relation to acting against one’s self-interest (in the example of drug addiction), as well as in the context of hate speech—for example, Hamas sympathizers who shame and intimidate Jewish Canadians and other ethnic groups for not backing their ideology. "If there are people who are actually making threats ... that might suggest that the law is not being applied the way we would like to imagine it," says Prof. Pardy. "And if you have laws that are not being applied evenly, regardless of the political orientations or the identities of the speakers, that's not good either." Prof. Pardy emphasizes that threatening or intimidating others with violence is already a criminal offence and that the concept of "hate speech" is problematic. If free speech is sacrificed, he says, it can then be weaponized and "will likely come back to bite you."
Professor Bruce Pardy calls for the elimination of federal research funding for universities in his presentation to the Standing Committee on Science and Research studies (SRSR)—tasked with evaluating whether the criteria used for awarding federal funding on research excellence are still appropriate or whether modifications should be made. View the proceedings in full here.
Summary: In Canada, the primary focus of universities isn't just about making money; it's about securing government funding. Canadian universities are largely dedicated to obtaining as much government money as possible, becoming chronic welfare recipients akin to the CBC, reliant on government support with no prospect of self-sufficiency. “These institutions are like deep black holes where vast amounts of money disappear,” argues Prof. Pardy, as he continues: “If you are a young professor today, your university probably doesn't care so much about your work, it cares more about whether you get federal grants.” Universities take a significant cut from each grant, he notes, and to secure grants, the research must align with the preferences of granting councils. Universities have entire departments of administrators focused on coaching academics to present their research in a way that pleases those holding the purse strings. The result: federal research funding corrupts the intellectual mission of universities.
Danielle’s Legacy: A powerhouse panel unpacks the new wording in Bill 24, the Alberta Bill of Rights Amendment Act. By incorporating phrases such as "demonstrably and proportionally justified based on evidence," the panel looks at the ways in which the legislation diminishes protections for Albertans and grants unprecedented authority to courts and future governments. If this amendment doesn't provide Albertans with reassurance in the wake of Covid, what amendment would have been stronger? Should an entirely different move have been made? What gains are there for litigators in certain areas?
Joining host Jason Lavigne are guests law professor Bruce Pardy, lawyers Leighton Grey and Marty Moore, and political commentator Marty Belanger. Prof. Pardy and Leighton Grey describe the bill as a missed opportunity, with the former arguing that as the bill is only a statute, changes without constitutional backing may permit future legislatures to ignore essential rights protections. Marty Belanger believes the government is advancing too quickly, and Marty Moore finds concern with the bill's wording, which mirrors Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
There is no such thing as centralization of power for good.
We Approach State Singularity: This presentation, based on an earlier piece by Professor Bruce Pardy for The Brownstone Institute, warns of an approaching "State Singularity," where the state and society become indistinguishable, and legal norms lose relevance. At this point, the government justifies its actions under various social causes, expanding its control without necessarily solving underlying problems. This gradual erosion of individual freedoms and voluntary community structures is likened to historical authoritarian regimes, although it develops more insidiously. As governments leverage advanced technologies for surveillance and compliance, citizens, rather than calling for reduced government interference, often seek more services and better policies. True liberation requires a fundamental shift away from the current trajectory, an escape velocity from an impending "Event Horizon" that signifies a point of no return in the loss of freedoms.
The Reason We Learn: Former classroom teacher turned homeschooling consultant, Deb Fillman, explores the state of education in the U.S., including education trends, reform efforts, and the need to research first before reacting to or supporting any of them. In this episode of "The Reason We Learn," she invites Professor Bruce Pardy to discuss the different philosophical perspectives of "freedom people" and "virtue people," two groups often in the same room in the fight against authoritarian woke globalism. This "rebel alliance," however, is complicated by conflicting worldviews. How this tension plays out within the private and public spheres when two groups share a cause in common but, ultimately, different ideas about how to accomplish societal flourishing is the topic of discussion. For background reading (or further reading), see: Freedom and Virtue: Friends or Enemies? and The Virtue In Liberty.
Canada: A User’s Guide and Owner's Manual: The law is intended to prevent injustice, serving as a shield to protect our freedoms. At the forefront of these laws is the Constitution, designed to limit government power and safeguard those freedoms. In the past four years, we have collectively experienced all levels of government using so-called legal protections as instruments of control, a shift supported by political decisions rather than established rules. Prof. Bruce Pardy, a prominent figure in the “No More Lockdowns” movement, joins host Randy Hillier, former Ontario MPP and noted activist, to examine constitutional law [the rule of law, division of powers, common vs. statute law] and the complex hierarchy of laws that make it difficult for individuals (and even lawyers) to navigate the legal system. How can citizens drive change, curb government overreach, demand accountability, confront existing power dynamics, and participate in open political dialogue? Unlike law, the answer is a direct one! Joining the discussion are fellow guests, citizen journalist Leigh Stewy, and farmer Shawn McRae of McRae Farms Ltd. This episode was originally livestreamed on November 18.
The Lavigne Show: Professor Bruce Pardy and Leighton Grey, an Alberta lawyer and King's Counsel, examine the recent proposed amendments to the Alberta Bill of Rights (BoR). On the surface, Bill 24 is good news but will Alberta seize the opportunity to establish a robust framework that sets the pace for other provinces to follow? The discussion looked at key concerns, including how to return an effective system of checks and balances to ensure separation of powers between the executive branch, the legislature, and the judiciary. Leighton Grey highlights a need to restore the supremacy of the legislature with a statement of rights based on natural law and the Christian principles our society was founded on. Professor Pardy argues for a rethink of our expectations of government and a means of restraint. If Bill 24 can't rise to the call for change, what actions can Albertans (and all Canadians) take as individuals to safeguard our rights and freedoms and strengthen the communities we live in?
Professor Pardy drafted his own version of a proposal for an amended Alberta Bill of Rights to address concerns about the potential for rights violations under the guise of reasonable limits, the collusion between the three branches of government, and the need for term limits for all state employees to prevent a permanent professional ruling class from becoming embedded, as is the case now. To hear Professor Pardy explain his proposal in more detail, see here.
The Ezra Levant Show: Equality and the status of Canada’s legal system. Professor Bruce Pardy describes calls for reparations in Canada “political nonsense”. Punishing people for things they did not do, and rewarding people for damages they did not suffer runs contrary to the premise of how liability claims are (or were) handled in Canada, he says. In regards to Section 15(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which seeks to address historically marginalized groups through equality affirmative action programs, Prof. Pardy notes that, in the reality of now, “there is nothing that a white man is entitled to do that other people are not entitled to do." The discrimination equity is left to address, he likens to “chasing ghosts” and “the attempt to make into villains the descendants of those groups that might have originally had a leg up.” By comparison to south of the border, Americans still have a constitutional guarantee of equal treatment under the law, which in Canada is not the case. In Canada, our constitutional right is the right to substantive equality, and that means equity.
The Ezra Levant Show: Professor Bruce Pardy discusses his recent Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy paper on equality before the law in Canada. Offering seats on post-secondary campuses or employment on the basis of skin colour is an indication of the extent to which Canadian courts have redefined the equality clause in the Constitution to prioritize "equity" over individual equality. One case in point, notes Prof. Pardy, is Toronto Metropolitan University (formerly known as Ryerson), which has reserved 75% of seat eligibility at its new medical school for “people of particular identities.” How much of a minority do you have to be to qualify? Can Canada's Constitution even protect equality rights, or is it all liberal mumbo jumbo? Tune in for the full conversation. [Rebel News subscribers: video is available here. A podcast version is available via the link below without a subscription].
Leaders on the Frontier: Who's really controlling our society? Professor Bruce Pardy looks at why the legal system is not working the way it should, as well as the impact of the deep state, and how governments are being compromised. He also unpacks the gender debate, parental rights, and the threat to free speech. Host David Leis.
Speak Free: Professor Bruce Pardy explores the shift in Western societies from the rule of law to rule by law, and the use of laws by governments as tools to achieve specific goals. Speak Free is hosted by Simon O’Connor, a former member of New Zealand Parliament.
Jordan Peterson Online Training: Counterpoint host Tanya Granic Allen and her panel discuss why the College of Psychologists ordered Jordan Peterson to take social media training. Guests include Professor Bruce Pardy, Scott Masson, and Lisa Bildy.
Guests Professor Bruce Pardy and Viva Frei joined Grey Matter host Leighton Grey for a roundtable on Canada’s freedoms and what the future holds for our civil liberties. Why are rights and freedoms under attack in the West? Can we do something to improve the forecast? Yes! Recommended background reading: Anatomy of the Administrative State.
The "Liberty" People v. The "Virtue" People: Professor Bruce Pardy (liberty) and Liberty Dispatch co-host Andrew DeBartolo (virtue) discuss at length the alignment of two very different worldviews in the fight against pervasive and destructive ideologies (scientism, the managerial state, wokeism, etc.) and where they depart. As Andrew DeBartolo notes: “Those who reject God's ultimate authority will not be able to work with those who embrace God's ultimate authority when it comes time to rebuild culture and re-establish laws.” These two cobelligerents, beyond the immediate struggle, are committed to very different political goals and the means to achieve them in terms of an “ultimate” authority, laws of the state, the way in which the state should govern, and much more. Sharing and analyzing these viewpoints in heated but mindful conversation makes for compelling listening on the meaning of freedom, how that meaning is defined, and the outcomes for freedom according to these divergent worldviews through examples ranging from property rights to morality.
There are still people who value civil liberties in this country.