Talk to my listeners, talk to the listeners of the show about Tim Hagstrom.

Right.

Well, great to be here, Ben.

Thanks for having me.

So Tim Hagstrom was a law student at the college at the University of Saskatchewan, my alma mater, my old college.

And he did a terrible thing, not, in writing a letter to faculty and peers challenging critical race theory.

And critical race theory, as we know, has become a very insidious thing thing over the last decade or so where, you know, you really can't challenge anything because it's my truth or no truth.

It's over.

And then I want to talk a bit about the notwithstanding clause and the role you see it playing here.

Right.

Well, so first of all, I guess on more of the, yeah, the social side before we get into the notwithstanding clause, I mean, this was of course legislation, which was brought forward formally by the minister of education at the time.

So it was an education bill.

Obviously I was involved and spoke to it and the rest and, and, and you know, spent five hours in committee on it and, and, and, and so on.

I, I, think how it was seen and how I see it looking back was really to restore an honorable relationship, if you like, between, you know, sort of the triangle of student parents and school.

And what we were seeing was active efforts to cut parents out of the conversation for, you know, for students.

So is that a concern that MPs or MLAs or MPPs don't have enough say in the system because of that party control by the leaders?

What is it about that library that's got you so concerned?

Well, I think that there are some issues that should be addressed more transparently and certainly should have been addressed about the current library situation before a new library was built.

I think there doesn't appear to be any real plan to address in that new library what those issues are.

And you mentioned the social media posts.

I mean, people have shared their experiences on there about open drug use and excrement and the rest.

It's pretty eye-popping in terms of some of the the social needs, let's call them, which are presenting there.

I also think just on the cost front, Brent.

And you think it's a good thing to have that notwithstanding clause.

And so I don't know how we proceed.

And I think we have to listen to women, you know, in this case.

And in the piece that I wrote, it was in the National Post on this on the weekend, I cited a case R&T, a brave judge in Nunavut who took this issue on last year.

And he in turn quoted some women whom he had spoken to and he integrated them into his sentence.

And he talked about a female INUC leader who once told him, you know, talking about Gladue, that women are supposed to be protected by the Charter too, she said.

And he quoted another woman who said, you know, that we need our women to be taken seriously and for offenders to stop being complacent, that they will get away with their offenses.

They're saying it.

And and I don't know how we get out of that cycle of just ascribing victimization to everyone all the time or even why it serves any benefit to ascribe victimization for everything all the time.