Connecting Canadians to Democracy

Eva Chipiuk is a Lawyer with Masters in Alternate Dispute Resolution. She questioned Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on the stand. She speaks english, French, Spanish and Polish. Eva joins me to discuss how Canadians can better engage with the democratic process in Canada. Eva is a founder and facilitator for Courses offered through Empowered Canadians which aims to improve political literacy of Canadians.

She can be found on Twitter at @echipiuk
Her website is chipiuk.ca

Transcript

[00:01] Russell: All right. And we're back. Russell here with the canadian conservative podcast. And today I have Eva Chipiuk.

[00:10] Eva: Good enough. You had it right earlier.

[00:13] Russell: Chipiuk dropped the ball. And she is in the studio today to talk about how we can better empower Canadians to be good participants in democracy and to give a little bit of background. She has a master's degree in alternate dispute resolution, a bachelor of science, and a law degree. She has two businesses focused around health and wellness, and she also has her business empowered Canadians. I believe you speak several languages. I think it was Spanish, English, French, and Polish, if I was correct.

[00:52] Eva: Yeah. And sometimes English is my toughest.

[00:55] Russell: Well, thank you very much for joining us today on the show. And I wanted to start off by asking, what is the one thing that Canadians need to know to be empowered in our democracy in Canada?

[01:09] Eva: Tough question right off the bat there. Let's go straight forward. And just to let you know, I used to have the two health and wellness businesses, but no longer. Those ended during COVID so I walked away. So I just read somebody's comment. Sue wrote, I so appreciate Eva and her and find her just about the most balanced and fair canadian that I know these days. And I thank you, sue, first. And I think that maybe that's where I'm going to start from, is what I found in Canada. And this is why I created the organization, empowered Canadians. And I'm doing. What I'm doing is I just find that the level of discourse and dialogue in this country is so poor. And that's what saddens me in Canada the most, is that we can't even seem to. We can't even seem to have conversations. It is incredibly childish behavior. I see. And this is coming from our elected officials as well. So if our elected officials are acting this way, then, you know, Canadians are following suit. That's what our leaders are doing. Let's. Let's engage in the mudslinging, too. And so that's where I'm coming from. And it's so funny because I just created a podcast and started doing these podcasts called dialogue over division as well. And then the people that challenge me so much about it, anytime I just try to hold the government to account or critique something, I'm not rude about it. I like to ask questions a lot, and that's what I try to do a lot of. But I always get critiqued for what about dialogue over division? And I'm like, hold on. What do. I'm being respectful. I'm responding politely. It doesn't mean that I'm going to be silent and you're going to suppress my voice. And I feel every time I'm challenged just on those words, that's where we're at in this country. So it's. We've lost the balance. We've lost respectful conversations. We rush to silence, censorship, name calling. And I'm hoping that's something that we could change in this country.

[03:28] Russell: I definitely agree. When it comes to the childish antics. I believe it was. Was it Mark Garretson the other day who was like having a catch me outside? How about that moment?

[03:41] Eva: I did see that earlier. I have to say I hardly can stomach watching some of these people. Unfortunately, this MP would be one of them. I don't think he deserves Canadians attention, so I don't give him my attention.

[03:57] Russell: When it comes to what we should expect from our leaders. What do you think we should expect from our leaders in the modern era? What would be some good things that we as Canadians should expect from our leaders and that would bring us to being more. Less divided and more focused on achieving our goals.

[04:20] Eva: Yeah, I'm just writing notes because I always have a million thoughts when I'm asked questions. So the one thing that I've really noticed, and this is, again, something I'm hoping to change as I find, and I don't think it's this era. I think it's any time, is that I don't think leaders or elected officials are really talking with or to Canadians or their citizens. They're talking at them. And I think that's a problem. I think that's a very big problem because they're not engaging. And especially when, you know, we were in Ottawa quite a bit, you could really see it's a bubble and they like just see anything. Today I wrote on Jaigmeet Singh's post for the first time in forever, he's so out of touch with Canadians and people appreciate what I have to say over what he has to say. And it's not a popularity contest in that way, but it just shows how disconnected they are to the people, the base. Whether or not that's intentional is another question. The other thing I think that leaders have lost touch on is they're not leading. They're literally not leading. They're looking at polls and they're following the polls. And I think Canadians, if we want to see change, we have to start understanding that and recognizing there's an insane amount of power in that as well. So if leaders are looking to citizens and Canadians and Poles, who's the most organized, basically, to get their message across. That's all we have to do right now, really. And I've been watching Canadians run around a little bit, chickens with their heads cut off since the freedom convoy. Really. That was the largest, more most grassroots, unorganized, organized protest you could ever see. And then after that, it's just chickens with their heads cut off. Get organized, get informed, organized, involved. And I think we could really see.

[06:29] Russell: Change in this country with that idea. Since the freedom convoy and this feeling of being unable to be organized. Do you think that part of that is some of the demoralization from the effects of the freedom convoy?

[06:46] Eva: Of course. Of course there's an effect. Very much so. But how do you combat that? What really opened my eyes as well to the really low level of engagement and respectful engagement in this country is, unfortunately, the fact that lots of people aren't very knowledgeable about our legal and political systems. And I get it, I guess, you know, why would you have to be on top of it all when that's somebody else's job, somebody else's role? But we have to be educated enough to know how to stand up for ourselves, how to have these respectful conversations, how to challenge not just elected officials, but our neighbors, our families, regulatory decisions or things that are being implemented around us. If we're a little bit more educated, I think that we could be challenging a lot of these things a lot more. One of my biggest pet peeves since the freedom convoy is the amount of time there was any air given to overthrowing the government. The most ludicrous accusation made against regular canadian citizens was overthrowing the government when they were cleaning the streets of Ottawa. Zero graffiti, handing out food to the homeless. How do you overthrow the government when you're not there? Has to. And that. That conversation went for years, like two, three years even till now. Nobody was accused of that by the police. Nobody was charged with anything to anything close to that by the police. Yet that conversation went on for so long. And yes, I very much blame elected officials and the media for allowing, because they were the ones promoting it. So again, citizens were following and they said, the leaders said this, the media said this. But if we were just a little bit more educated, we could have quashed that a lot quicker. And that was one thing that gave me hope. And we saw that in the federal decision of Justice Mosley on the Emergencies act. If you watched that, even the lawyers for the federal government made the argument. There was, there was an MoU and they wanted to overthrow the government. And the judge shut it down immediately. He said, that's not the case. If anybody thinks that's overthrowing the government with a piece of paper, they need lesson in the constitution. And I was like, okay, finally we have somebody talking sense. But, you know, if we were all on the same page on that is a piece of paper with people signing it on Facebook, we could laugh about it rather than argue about it.

[09:52] Russell: But it makes for easy clickbait, though. It makes for easy headlines. It makes for easy fear. One of the things that you said, I think, that resonated with people is the final question you asked Justin Trudeau, and that was when did he become afraid of his own citizens? And how big do you think the disconnect is? And I'm not just talking the liberal party or the NDP. It could be the conservatives, the Green Party, the bloc. How big would you say the disconnect is between the citizenry and the politicians?

[10:30] Eva: Generally? My answer would be there's a large disconnect, but I'm a very optimistic person. And I think it also depends on who it is you're talking to. There are some elected officials more locally that I know that are not like that at all. But then there's others local as well that theres no engagement. Unless, of course, maybe youre in their own circle and same ideology. But to have a dialogue with somebody outside of that, theres none of that that ive seen. And also even on the same ideology, I have to say, is there seems to be a very large disconnect with some of the elected officials, you know, and we could just, I've never had the opportunity to meet Pierre Polyvier, and I see him, you know, going around the country and putting on really large town halls. So I hope he's connected with people a little bit more. But personally, I wouldn't know.

[11:41] Russell: Well, I thought those town halls were green screened.

[11:45] Eva: Apparently nothing is real anymore.

[11:48] Russell: Well, that's just it, right? You know, reality can be whatever we want it to be, and that makes it difficult for people to put their feet on the ground and really take a look objectively at things around them. When anything can be fake news, anything can be real at any time. You know, I think Jody Wilson Raybolt there, when in her testimony, Katie Telford said that if Jodie's nervous, we can line up all sorts of people to write op eds saying what she's doing is right. I mean, she said that as official testimony. And once she said that, I began looking at all the op ed pieces in the news a little bit differently. And whenever I started to notice that whenever the liberal party would propose something, it only took the next day or the day after, and there would be a talking head opinion piece on there saying, oh, this is the greatest thing since. Since the microwave oven, I really thought to myself, like, are they really doing, or are they really astroturfing public opinion by having opinion pieces that lean in one direction? Is that really the best way to do things? I mean, I don't think it is. To me, it's a manufacturing consent. You know, Noam Chomsky, the idea, if you, you know, just say something often enough, it becomes the truth and it becomes what people will want, even if that's not actually the case.

[13:15] Eva: 100%. And I think we have a very clear and interesting example right now with all of the premiers speaking against the carbon tax, and yet we have talking heads saying, this is what Canadians want. It's like, okay. And something I try to remind Canadians about is, I think we've been a bit confused with what the role of the federal government is compared to the provincial government. And somebody likened it to, it's a sibling relationship. It's not a parent child relationship there, actually. It's a parent child relationship, the province to the municipalities. And so when you're just disregarding. These are seven equal voices to you in the federal government, and you're disregarding them like nothing, you know, again, if we were a little bit more educated about that, we could laugh off, basically the federal government saying, what do these premiers know? Who are they to say anything? Actually, they're your counterpart. You have. You are not in any position of higher authority than them at all. So I've just been watching that lately, and I'm like, this is just nauseating, really. It's not. It's hard to even digest it when you understand that, well, yeah, we're not.

[14:40] Russell: In a fiefdom, right? Like, these aren't. These aren't little feudal lands that are ruled by a lord here with, you know, as separate leaders. It's confederation, and everyone voluntarily signed on to Confederation. And it's really worrying the attacks that the federal government is doing on provinces and premiers and really taking the federal aspect of things and diving into provincial responsibilities with it. One of the biggest ones I'm seeing now is this renters bill that they're proposing. And I'm like, well, that's clearly a provincial jurisdiction. I'll say this. I grew up in Ontario, and to be honest, on the news, we really didn't hear that much about the western Canada when I was growing up, like you heard about it, you heard that there was oil and you heard that there was lots of good money there. If you couldn't find a job in the auto sector or something like that, or agriculture in Ontario, and then you could head out there and make good money. But other than that, I really never heard all that much about Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Alberta. They almost didn't exist unless, you know, there was something really significant going on there. And I think from what I understand, that attitude still continues to this day where Ontario itself lives in a bubble.

[16:04] Eva: Yeah, well, I think that's a good observation. And, you know, I had to drive out of Ontario not that long ago. It's a large province. It's a very large province. And when you just recognize the geography of this country, it kind of makes sense. Like, Ontario is very far from Alberta, so I can understand why, you know, it's not top of mind. Same for Alberta. Ottawa shouldn't be, or Toronto shouldn't be top of mind. It's 5000 km away. So. And this is another aspect of what I've been trying to get Canadians to appreciate, is how important it is to get involved locally and provincially, because even geographically, you know, let's start cleaning up our own backyards before we can attempt to, you know, clean up this massive country and trying to govern it a bit more cleanly.

[17:15] Russell: Well, I agree. I actually took your empowered Canadians course and I really enjoyed it. I enjoyed the feedback that I got on. On different things. And it was good to just hear where other people were at and what their concerns were. And I've always been a big proponent when people talk about, you know, how do we solve this? How do we fix this? And I would say it starts in your community. It starts with knowing your immediate community. It starts with, you know, Jordan Peterson says, clean your room. Right? Like it starts in your own household. What are you living your best life in your household? Are you doing everything you can and then expanding that to your neighborhood, then expanding that to your city, your town, and then expanding that to your province. The federal government, it's accessible, but it's largely out of reach for most people. I think when I say it's out of reach, it's a big machine and it's not centralized. When you live in a town and you're saying, okay, well, I'm concerned with the homeless in my town, concerned with the drug use. I'm concerned with people can't afford the rent in town and things like that. The federal government can't solve that. And if people think the federal government's going to solve homelessness and stuff like that, then I think that they're a bit mistaken. I think that it has to start in your community, and that's where democracy is the most accessible in your community. Anyone can go that lives in a city can go to their town hall meeting once a month, but yet oftentimes the gallery is completely empty and there's no one there. And so is it because they don't think it's important, or is it because they're just so busy in their lives? Or they just don't know? What do you think it is that stops people from saying, okay, you know, I go to my doctor to do, you know, medical check, I go to a mental health professional to do a head check, but when's the last time someone went to their city council meeting to do their democracy check?

[19:20] Eva: I like that. Democracy check. Well, and great questions. I don't know the answer. I've been pondering that myself. You know, there's only so much you can talk about things, these things, without educating. So that's why I thought the. The best value that I could provide Canadians is to help them understand that. I think that maybe many people don't know that there's town council meetings that they can attend, and they don't know what jurisdiction that is, what powers the federal government has versus the provincial government versus local government. And you said, you know very well that it's not the federal government that is going to answer a lot of these things. Where there's a little bit of the gray area is that there's a lot of funding coming from the federal government, but it's not their policies on affordable housing, for example, although there are strings attached with some of the federal money. But provincially, if we're. Some of the most important things our public money goes to is healthcare that's provincial or education that's provincial. There's so many topics like discussions and contentious issue around just those two, and those are provincial matters. So it's super important to get involved locally, provincially. And I think people don't know that these opportunities are available or that those would be the more the proper places to have those discussions. And one thing I try to make people aware of and encourage them why it's important and a good idea to go to town council meetings is that's the one opportunity you could actually speak to elected officials and counsel the mayor and councillors. Elected officials. You don't have that opportunity at a provincial level. Or at the federal level. So when there's something being passed or an issue that the city is debating, you actually can speak to the council, and it's an excellent opportunity to be there publicly and give them your thoughts about rezoning or policing or safe supplies and all these other things that are coming up on a local level. You have an opportunity to tell them to their face and have them respond there.

[21:51] Russell: Sue in there says that she's having issues even in her local government, that things are often dismissed even in the local government. And I kind of see where she's coming from. We've seen clips go viral on Twitter and YouTube, and that of the people trying to get situations addressed, whether it be a city council meeting or whether it be at a school, school board trustee meeting where they're entitled to be there and, and they want to give their opinion. And for some of the school stuff, you know, when it comes to parents questioning certain books in schools and that trustees just get up and leave, they say, okay, well, we're not going to entertain this. They shut the mic off. They get up and they leave. And to me, that's really, really worrying. When you have elected officials, they don't want to hear. Right. They don't want to hear what is going on or they're being dismissive of people's concerns in their community, like sue says, because they're not experts.

[22:53] Eva: So, yeah, I'll go back to what I was saying. I think originally is it's about getting involved too, though. Educating and getting involved on a local level, not that hard to get elected to your school council or locally in some communities, in larger cities, there is a little bit, it is a bit tougher. We're not talking about the laurentian elite and really established parties at that level. So if you're seeing school trustees get up and leave, I don't think they're hard to replace when the term comes again. Those are ones that most people have no idea who they're voting for. So this goes back to the word I wanted to use was get organized. So it's not enough just to understand the processes, but you have to get involved and organized at the same time. So figure it out, see who's going to be, you know, how to get a voice on there so that it can't be shut down. And with respect to experts, kind of similar. Like my understanding with local levels as far as I've been involved is there's generally more than one opportunity. So if you go there and they say, okay, you don't have the expertise or whatever, get it, then come back and get it. And I know the example I'll give is in a local community, there was a discussion about a gender neutral washroom. One citizen got very involved. And then basically she was a citizen voice on this committee, and she prepared a report. She started contacting other jurisdictions. She even contacted people in the United States that had gender neutral washrooms. She did research. She became the expert. And that's one thing people need to understand, and this is something we say as a lawyer all the time. Well, I do with the kind of work that I do is you're the expert in whatever it is that, like, in your life. So if you're going to be talking about gender neutral washrooms, there's also some expertise that you have from your experiences and your concerns and your fears, and that's something worth putting together. So we're quick to dismiss how much information we have and what we are able to accomplish or put together or prepare for these things, because again, the power really is with us. So I don't know exactly what experts, what kind of expertise would develop that, learn more about it and then come back a bit more prepared. The next time you'll definitely be more of an expert than the city councilor, probably because they didn't know anything about the issue. They were being informed by this resident that took action.

[25:58] Russell: One thing that kind of worries me a little bit about even that. So we're probably, like you said before, we're divided in many aspects. And I find people are really, they're really hard lined on topics. They find something and they have a camp and they get to that camp, and then it's very hard to move them from that camp in either direction on the topic. And in some cases, it's a little worrisome because there's people that have gotten the knowledge and they've read the studies and they've done the research, and then they get up and they do their presentation, they do their findings and they get accused of all sorts of phobias or they're only presenting one side of the argument. Do people have a responsibility to present both sides of the argument? Just normal, everyday people?

[26:56] Eva: So I think it's a bit of a tough question just to answer like that. But one thing I just wanted to touch on is you said it's hard for them to move from their position. And I, I don't think that is something that at least that's not what looking really to do. And I think that's a little bit more of the talking at people is you can have these kind of not looking to move anybody's position, really. I want to elevate the conversation. I believe if the conversation is more elevated and we're more educated, then naturally people will move their positions. But I'm not seeking that out. So going back to your question about on a city council, for example, if you have, if it's your responsibility to bring both sides, I don't think so. I don't know why you would have to. You're a citizen. Your job is to advocate for your issues and your concerns, and then it's their issue to balance all of the citizens concerns. So I think you could just acknowledge maybe that there's other ones. But I don't, I don't think that's your role or job to come out of balance. I think it's important to, as a lawyer also. It's also good to know your opponent's arguments so that you could then be prepared for that or even come prepared with that. I know the other side, or you could always make those arguments. This is what the other side is going to say. These are the arguments that they made and have your kind of position ready.

[28:36] Russell: Well, I do agree we have to know the other side because you have to be able to steel man your arguments and you have to be able to say, okay, my opponent is most likely going to say this, and this is how I steal map my argument against that.

[28:50] Eva: Well, and just while we're there is like, this sounds a bit more of the lawyering thing. So it really, it is, you know, somebody's on the other side, they're suing you. But we, I don't think we should be, that should be the standard for citizens engaging with their elected officials. I don't think that these are opponents on the other side. These are citizens that just have different values or needs or priorities in their life. So you have to acknowledge them. This isn't an enemy. This is your neighbor. And your neighbor wants to live another life. And how are we all going to come together and live a life together? Because that's essentially what we're doing. So I think we sometimes make it harder than it is. Clearly, we're all living, we're all, you know, living in the society, living in Canada. I just think that there's an opportunity to elevate and be better. What we see online, too, is not something we see on the streets. I don't have people yelling at me or calling me a moron or an idiot all the time, which I do see sometimes on the Internet.

[29:58] Russell: Well, yeah. If social media is a parasocial relationship and it's not usually reflective of people's real intentions in real life, when you're face to face with someone, I think that when you're face to face with someone, there's more of a human connection. More than when we're just typing something onto a screen and we feel disconnected from the other people that we're commenting to or commenting about. Yeah, I'm working through a book right now. We've got issues by Phil McGraw, and in the book, he says that they did some polling and some studies, and they say that about 70% of Americans are self censoring right now to some degree.

[30:44] Eva: Wow.

[30:44] Russell: And it's really, really worrisome when I hear that, because when we were younger, we're probably told at some point that there's three topics you don't discuss at the dinner table with polite company, religion, politics, anything to do with, like, a contentious topic of the day. And do you think that's hurt us, not talking politics at the dinner table and not just talking politics with our neighbors, even when we disagree on certain issues?

[31:14] Eva: Yeah, totally. And I think it depends. My family wasn't particularly educated, both farming backgrounds, mom from Poland. And it's not like we ever had that conversation that you don't have these conversations. And I think it's normal for me. I'm an open book. I'm not really good at not talking about the issues that we have. And again, it's about being better. Why don't we just talk about these things so that we can then do something about it? I don't understand. If we all acknowledge that there's a problem or an issue, why we can't just chat about it like adults. So I think if. Yes, if people are basically burying their heads in the sand, that's not helping anyone. So I certainly think that we need to have these discussions. And again, what is the heart we're living in? Society? And you learn so much. Like, I've had a couple conversations with a bit more recently with people that are, for all of the transgendered stuff, including, like, everything. And I. I've learned from those conversations. I don't agree, particularly when it comes to children, but I, by having that conversation, it opened my eyes to some of the things that they were coming from. And so it's helped me every time when I'm having a conversation about it now, I have those thoughts, their fears in my head, just from. So I know how to address it. And talk about it.

[33:00] Russell: I would say the pandemic and the ferdian convoy in that it brought different people together and different opinions. I don't think that people would normally be open to hearing and hearing about from other people. I think about one of the people I interviewed on my show, Stuart Parker. He's very socialist, and even I would say communist. And he was saying that the freedom convoy was the biggest workers protest ever in Canada, and it was the elites that shut it down. I just. It kind of provided a different perspective. And then I'm thinking to myself, well, why don't the. Why, why don't other socialists see that? They just see it as this is an unruly mob that's here to overthrow democracy in this country. And so it really made me realize that people have different reasons for why they support different things and how they approach things. And that really kind of opened my mind to just where different people come from. Because before we had talked about that, I'd never really thought of it. Then I just. It makes me have even more questions of, okay, then where's the disconnect, then, between the, you know, the modern left, let's say, and those, and those socialists? Where's the disconnect where you think that they would, you know, be supporting a big workers movement? Because it is. It was workers. It was everyday people, was everyday business owners. You know, I had several family members that were. They went down to the Windsor protest and that. And they're just regular everyday people. And so I just don't know where the disconnect happened. Where we have, you know, this idea. It's a workers protest, and then we have people saying, well, no, it's a bunch of unruly people.

[34:50] Eva: Yeah, well, and 100% that's how it started. It was Trucker said, okay, well, if we're not trucking, then that's a strike. That's what it was. A couple things happened, though, is this is where the federal government was very clever, and our prime minister came out immediately and called these terrible workers unacceptable, fringe, minority, that racist and bigoted. So immediately that causes division. And he worked that very well. And the other thing we have to recognize in this country is the very large public sector that we have in Canada. That's been the sector that has grown in Canada over the last few years. So if you're challenging the government, a lot of people feel that they're being. Their work is being challenged. Their living is being challenged. And so that's also something I think that the federal government has done very well is that they've expanded the public sector.

[35:59] Russell: And do you think the public sector supports the government? Because I know a few public servants out in this area and they're not happy at all with the liberal government. But I think if I went to Ontario and I talked to the public servants in Ontario, the federal ones, I might get a different opinion on that.

[36:19] Eva: Well, so it's funny, I just today got this really lovely comment from a federal government worker that said, I can't say anything publicly, but thank you for everything you're doing. And I think that kind of demonstrates the problem. If you can't say anything but you're in the system and you're not doing anything to change it and you're a large part of this sector. You know, I think it's like 40% of Canadians are public sector workers. That's a really big percentage. Are we dealing with that effectively? I don't think so. If there is an issue with the job and the work, I think there's an obligation to say something not on behalf of yourself, your family and your country. And I think that that's a massive disconnect that we haven't seen public sector workers step up in this regard.

[37:18] Russell: I think it is difficult in some ways for them with the public servants. I mean. Well, let's look at the CSIS whistleblowers. We have the CSIS whistleblowers, they spoke to the media about foreign interference, and the powers that be in the government seem to be more concerned about finding out who blew the whistle than actually finding out about foreign interference. And this is a trend we've seen time and time again. A public servant speaks out and they're in trouble for it. And I think some of this, we talk about cancel culture and people getting canceled and things like that. And it's when you look at the public service code of ethics and values, it really does limit what people can say. I mean, you can be a public servant and not be happy with things. And if you put out something on Facebook saying, you know, I'm not happy with the carbon tax, and your fellow public servant sees that and they report you to, you know, your supervisor or something like, you can get in trouble for that because the idea is you're supposed to be impartial, but you're still a canadian citizen and you're allowed to have opinions on what's going on in the country.

[38:33] Eva: Yes. And are you willing to take that chance? That's. That's what I, you know. And how many people you said we'll get in trouble. What's going to happen? They're going to have a discussion with you. You might lose your job. Maybe you'll find something better in your life where you're not going to be beholden or can't express your opinion, and then you're silenced anyway and censored through that job. So we live in, if we're living in a state of fear all the time, I don't think that's, you have an obligation to yourself, your family, your country. And if you're not able to sleep at night because of those things, maybe reconsider what you're doing.

[39:13] Russell: I agree. It's difficult. I do think it's difficult because people say, you know, they, they have, they have kids, they have the spouse, they have a comfortable job that, you know, they go to and they come home, they get to turn on the news and turn on the sports and kick their feet up and live a comfortable little existence. And the alternative is chaos and disorder and being dragged through disciplinary hearings and being dragged through maybe even your employer publicly shaming you and saying, we're distancing ourselves. And then the idea of picking up the pieces. Bravery. I think people rally around people. There's someone that speaks out and then people are like, you know what? This person represents what I like, I'm going to rally around them. And that way I don't necessarily have to speak out. I'll support this person that is speaking out. But you're still self censoring.

[40:09] Eva: Yeah. And I don't even. Yes, very much so. And I think that. What does that mean to support somebody that's doing it? How?

[40:19] Russell: Well, like James Lindsay, you know, he, he's talked a bit about, you know, how to counter a struggle session. Right. And he says, like the person that's being struggled, you have to support them publicly and you have to let them know because part of the process is to make the person feel isolated, to make the person feel like they have no support, to make the first person feel like even like being gaslit, make them feel like they're going crazy in that. And he says the most important thing to do is like, you have to be publicly supportive.

[40:48] Eva: Yeah.

[40:49] Russell: Because if not, then they'll just get bully mobbed and out of, out of the sphere. And it just reinforces that this technique works. This works. And this is what we're going to do to anyone that speaks out.

[41:01] Eva: So. Exactly. So public support is you can't self censoring yourself. And that's why it didn't seem to make sense 100%. And on Twitter, you do get a lot of anonymous accounts supporting, but it is a lot more valuable when people put their face in their name to the support they're giving. I think it depends what kind of support they're providing. If they just, you know, say, oh, thank you for speaking out in their head, you know, great. Not very supportive or helpful. And when people are taking these big leaps and risks and chances, I think it is. And then it also shows what I was talking about earlier is that's where the public support is. So if you're vocal and you're loud and you're able to organize, politicians will notice that they're like, oh, this group of Canadians seems to be the ones that are getting the most attention. Why are they getting. What are they talking about? What are their issues and policy? You know, whatever. That's exactly the problem. If we're staying silent, it's the loud voices that are dominating the conversations. And that's. I think that's the biggest problem we've had in this country.

[42:20] Russell: Again, reading Phil McGraw's book right now, the tyranny of the Fringe, the loudest voices on the most polar opposite sides get the attention. But I don't. But I would counter that in Canada, I wouldn't even agree with that there. In Canada, you're allowed to organize for certain political reasons. And that's. I feel like there's a bit of a disconnect there where there seems to be a government side where they can get funding. They can get all sorts of different perks for promoting something that's viewed as socially acceptable. And on the other side, people have to rely on private business and private donations anonymously to get their kind of groups going. And then their group is under constant scrutiny, anything from doxxing to threats online. In real life, I do just want to give a very quick personal anecdote here. So I went and saw Jordan Peterson last year in Saskatoon. One of the questions I was asked in the audience was like, you know, how do we reach our government officials? How do we, you know, get our voices and that? And he actually gave a. A really good answer to. He said, what have you done? Where you deserve to have the government officials pay particular attention to you? And he said, it's not like they should pay attention to you as a citizen. How do you basically get your voice to rise above the crowd? What have you done? Where's your competencies? And it got me thinking, if I can go and I can say that we need to rezone an area, let's say for business and in a local town. But if I go there as a representative of the local business association, that's going to hold a certain level, I think beyond, okay, a private citizen is coming here saying expand that, we'll consider it. But if I'm here representing 50 businesses and we're all saying rezone this area, I feel like that's going to get a bit more attention than just me as one private citizen going to, you know, express that I think an area should be rezoned.

[44:28] Eva: Yeah, well, and I think he's, him and I are saying the exact same thing. And it's also about getting organized. So going back to the question about the expert or that's all it is, coming prepared to these meetings, you don't just come saying I don't like this because a lot of the times we don't know enough about it. And like I said too, a lot of the elected officials, especially at a local level, aren't incredibly sophisticated themselves. So you can educate them. If you said, I talked to 50 business owners, they've all signed this thing, we've all read this and this is what we're proposing. Of course I would think that that's going to carry more weight and I don't think we're doing that. So I very much agree with what doctor Peterson said. If. What did you do? 110%. What I see a lot of is really childish conversation on both sides, on all sides, without a plan, without the knowledge of what we're going to do outside of debate online. So that's where I think there's a huge, huge opportunity. Or even if an elected official is doing something good that you agree with, have you ever went out of your way and supported that, wrote, written in with a thank you note or called into the office or publicly acknowledged it on online?

[46:06] Russell: I agree. And I generally find, you know, like I identify as conservative. I hope you know that from the name of the show. But at the end of the day tomorrow, if, let's say, let's say a Liberal MP tomorrow said something or they want to pass a policy that's in line with my values, I'm probably going to tell them, yes, do that. And I agree that in a way I think some of these topics, if we just said yes, we like what you're doing, keep doing that, even if it's someone that's our political opponent, but they're doing something that we agree with, then we can move the needle in the right direction towards whatever our goals are. I think of like Manitoba people. I know they're conservatives. I'm saying that they appreciate some of the things that the premier is doing there even though he's NDP and they're not supportive generally of NDP itself.

[47:09] Eva: Well, and I'm glad you brought up the name of your show, too, because generally when I'm on a. On my own podcast and somebody says the word conservative, I actually asked them what they mean by it because I think that that term has changed a lot. And actually today I heard Pierre Paul Liverpool say that Justin Trudeau is not a liberal. He's illiberal. And I agree with that. Like, I think these definitions have changed. So I think it's. And it's very easy to, again, disqualify or kind of push something away when there's a name that people have associated with something for a long time. But I think it's helpful if we go beyond those terms and those words. Let's talk about it. What does it mean to be conservative for you? And I think that we'll find more commonality than less. Because if you're saying, yeah, like the NDP person or a liberal person, if they have something in line with your views, then let's move past these labels. I think especially because these labels have changed so much over the last, really, the last five years has accelerated it. I think, like, let's just start having the conversation about what it is we're looking for. What is it that you want to accomplish, whether or not the label is there?

[48:34] Russell: I agree with you. I do think that the labels can be very limiting because. Yeah, you're right. Even the term conservative has really changed because are you a conservative that believes in the monarchy and believes that, you know, classic conservatism, pre liberal enlightenment, where, you know, conservative, where everyone stays in their social class and you're ruled by a king and a queen and. Yeah, and that's, you know, that's like a very classic version of conservative or.

[49:03] Eva: The big c, small c. And I bet you most Canadians, the majority of Canadians don't know anything about all of the things you just said, too. It's conservative. One label.

[49:15] Russell: Well, 100%. 100% same that. You know, even. There's a lot of people that think, you know, someone's a liberal, that they. That they follow the most extreme progressive policies that are out there when there's also. I found a lot of classic liberals that are saying, like, this isn't liberalism, this is not real liberalism and that. So is there any topic that we didn't touch on today? That you wanted to talk about before we sign off?

[49:47] Eva: No, I think we kind of covered everything and then, you know, ending with the labels and how they've changed so much. So a great way to end because again, it gives you more to. Gives everyone more to think about. Let's get past the words and let's get to action and solutions.

[50:09] Russell: Hey everyone, I hope you enjoyed the episode with Eva today. It was a great episode and just wanted to let you know that my next episode will be with Fergus Hodgson and it should be uploaded sometime this week. If you want to support the show further, you can go to my website, thecanadianconservative.com, at which I have different articles, different links to different sub stacks I think you might be interested in based on listening to this content. I also have my paid tiers on there. I do sometimes publish articles that are subscription only and supporting me means I can publish more episodes and continue to run the newsletter and it means a lot, keeps the show going. So again, really appreciate everyone for listening and I hope to see you at the next episode.