EZRA LEVANT ｜ Premier Brian Peckford is challenging the unvaxxed passenger flight ban in Federal Court
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
169.38387
Summary
Tonight, a special conversation with Premier Brian Peckford, the last surviving premier who signed the Charter of Rights and Liberties, about his new lawsuit challenging the vaccine mandate for airplanes. Premier Peckford is a freedom activist who is tackling lockdown extremism. He's based in Vancouver Island, but now he's joining us not as a pundit, but as a plaintiff.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
tonight a special conversation with premier brian peckford the last surviving premier
00:00:19.920
who signed the charter of rights we'll talk about his new lawsuit challenging the vaccine
00:00:25.580
mandates for airplanes it's february 3rd and this is the esra levant show
00:00:29.820
why should others go to jail when you're a biggest carbon consumer i know
00:00:35.520
there's 8 500 customers here and you won't give them an answer
00:00:45.700
well you might recall that we had a fascinating conversation with premier brian peckford who is
00:00:58.220
the last surviving premier who signed the charter of rights and freedoms a generation ago he was the
00:01:06.040
premier of newfoundland at the time and now he is a freedom activist who is tackling lockdown
00:01:12.480
extremism he's based in vancouver island what an enjoyable conversation we had with him
00:01:17.420
but now he's joining us not as a pundit but as a plaintiff he is one of a half dozen plaintiffs
00:01:25.240
who are in a justice center for constitution constitutional freedoms lawsuit
00:01:30.420
challenging the flight ban against canadians who are not vaccinated i have read the lawsuit
00:01:38.080
cover to cover and i encourage you to do so it's only 20 pages long and although there is some
00:01:43.220
legalese in it it's pretty easy to understand it's very clearly written which is something to
00:01:48.840
be admired in a legal document we'll have a copy of it on the website below but what a pleasure it is
00:01:55.000
now to be joined via skype with premier peckford and i'm going to call him that just the same way
00:01:59.660
you call a retired president president we're joined now by premier peckford to walk through this
00:02:04.840
lawsuit page by page and if you're as interested in it as i am i hope you'll stay with us for the
00:02:10.360
whole conversation premier peckford what a pleasure to have you back thank you thank you for having me
00:02:15.320
back i think it's all very important uh we're talking about the rights and freedoms of canadians
00:02:20.420
from coast to coast to coast uh there's nothing more important than this as far as i'm concerned
00:02:24.840
and i'm glad you see it the same way as i do well i've seen a lot of lawsuits over the last two years
00:02:30.980
and many of them were doomed even some very well crafted ones this is very concise there's not a
00:02:38.460
wasted word and i find it very compelling obviously i'm sympathetic let's jump right into it i have it
00:02:44.540
in front of me and we're going to show sections of it on the screen as we go through it premier i'm
00:02:50.040
sure you know this practically by heart the first thing to note is that this lawsuit is filed in the
00:02:55.700
federal court there's different court systems the federal court that's because that would be the
00:03:00.660
court with jurisdiction over national projects like air regulations right exactly exactly and very
00:03:09.540
important also uh we chose the uh mobility uh situation in the charter mobility clause where
00:03:17.600
people are not allowed to travel also because every canadian is affected by it a lot of the provincial
00:03:23.960
measures uh are different they all have measures which we don't agree with
00:03:29.520
but they're different in different provinces but this particular federal action does affect every
00:03:36.320
single canadian because we know we all know we have friends family and work you should see the emails
00:03:41.820
i've gotten so far from people who can't go from vancouver to toronto and they have an office in
00:03:47.740
vancouver they have an office in toronto so this is uh deliberate on the part of jccf and myself and the
00:03:55.460
others who are part of the the litigation that this affects all canadians and like you said goes
00:04:01.780
straight to the federal court yeah well i'm literally going to go line by line here because
00:04:06.480
there's meaning in every line the next line is the list of plaintiffs and you're the first one the
00:04:11.260
honorable a brian peckford and then there's five other names leisha nickanen ken baygent drew bellababa
00:04:18.100
natalie gritch and aid mcdonald forgive me for not pronouncing the names right each one of these
00:04:23.540
people is an is a canadian citizen and further down in the lawsuit their own story is told why they need
00:04:32.060
to fly why they can't fly so these are six severely normal canadians other than the fact that you just
00:04:38.440
happen to be a former premier exactly and i i think i think jccf and their lawyers were very smart
00:04:47.880
as as you you seem to indicate as well in doing this because now you have a cladioscope uh you know
00:04:54.460
view of different canadians all canadian citizens all with that particular story of how they're affected
00:05:01.980
by this travel ban i think that's pretty powerful stuff and in my own case forget that i'm a former
00:05:07.460
premier and a crafter of the constitution um one of the first ministers who helped craft it but here
00:05:12.880
i am in vancouver island and i got family in nova scotia i got family in ontario and i got family back in
00:05:18.320
newfoundland well you know give me a break and the other thing is of course i'm restricted now from
00:05:23.620
speaking because of the distance though so far so most of the speaking i've been doing on the constitution
00:05:30.520
has been here in on vancouver island because i'm prevented from moving quickly to another part of
00:05:36.780
canada and therefore i'm unable to get my message out like i should be legitimately able to do like
00:05:43.040
other canadians yeah and of course these same regulations apply to rail and i understand they
00:05:49.040
apply to ferries as well you know we are the second largest country in the world and to uh ban and you're
00:05:56.440
on an island no less and to ban people from air travel is you know this is not like vatican city where
00:06:03.620
you can walk across it's not monaco it's the second largest and and very interesting to me one
00:06:09.540
of the plaintiffs is in the far north so i mean imagine how critical that is all right let's keep
00:06:14.960
moving i mean we're we're only at the first two lines of the lawsuit and i want to i do want to get
00:06:19.640
through it uh again one thing i want to salute the jccf and we're big fans have been for a long time
00:06:24.980
is how lean this lawsuit is it doesn't go running off in all directions it just sues the minister of
00:06:31.200
transport and it names the attorney general which is appropriate whenever you're suing the government
00:06:35.200
so this isn't going after every single possible person i've seen some lawsuits out there 400 pages
00:06:41.760
that get sloppy and that are this is focused like a laser i think that's important isn't it
00:06:47.260
absolutely important i'm glad you highlighted a lot of other people haven't highlighted it yet
00:06:52.280
because many of them haven't read it they've just read a press report which does nothing to the
00:06:56.920
lawsuit at all and kudos to you for actually having the lawsuit in front of you and reading it
00:07:02.640
because now you can factually indicate what it's all about and yeah it is laser focused upon the
00:07:08.680
ministry of transport who issued those uh travel bans under the air are not exact which we uh through
00:07:16.460
the um the lawyers indicate is completely wrong too it doesn't apply there but but in any case yeah
00:07:22.280
we're zeroing right in on this uh travel ban and how it violates the provisions of the charter as
00:07:28.540
well as the aeronautics act itself so yeah no no question yeah there's no question that a lot of
00:07:35.380
people have not learned that when you go to court you have to be very specific and this lawsuit does that
00:07:42.040
yeah yeah you're right and it and by the way it also means that the government can't get an escape
00:07:48.500
patch through through your like if you don't have five arguments they choose the weakest one as maybe
00:07:53.620
a way out this is lean and focused now this the name of this kind of lawsuit is a judicial review
00:08:01.300
because technically it's uh you're not suing uh something has been done an administrative regulatory act
00:08:09.640
has been done and you're seeking for that to be reviewed so it's just called a judicial review it's just
00:08:15.480
the name of the kind of lawsuit and you're not seeking any money if i'm not mistaken correct me
00:08:22.920
if i'm wrong you're seeking you're seeking a rescission of these rules and a declaration you're
00:08:29.940
this is really you're you're looking for a moral legal and constitutional statement from the court
00:08:36.180
that what is being done is wrong am i right yeah data and that is i think so so important
00:08:43.400
yeah exactly we're we're just seeking for redress where what we've looked at through through the
00:08:50.640
ministry of transport and aeronautics act and and the repercussions of the of the action and how it
00:08:56.080
violates the various provisions of the charter and what we're asking for is a judicial review and that
00:09:02.040
that review be able to based upon the evidence and the legal arguments presented declare that these
00:09:10.040
measures are not consistent with the constitution nor with the law yeah i'm on page two now
00:09:16.640
and we're going through because there's something interesting on every page it's only 20 pages long
00:09:21.400
i truly do uh invite our viewers just to click the link underneath this video it's only 20 pages
00:09:27.000
and it's pretty plain language i think i think it's worth a read now i see that you filed this on january 27th
00:09:32.980
not even a week ago or perhaps exactly a week ago um i have a question for you i think this is news
00:09:40.260
it's news because this uh airplane lockdown is abusive as you say it affects all 38 million of us
00:09:47.480
it's news because you are who you are you're the former premier and and you know a little bit about the
00:09:54.000
charter it's news because the justice center for constitutional freedoms is a credible public interest law firm
00:09:59.880
this isn't some long shot vexatious this is a real deal i got a question for you pretty blunt
00:10:06.560
have you been interviewed and i hope the answer is yes by any mainstream media have you appeared on the
00:10:15.220
cbc have you appeared on ctv or global news i hope the answer is yes in all cases no what you are a former
00:10:24.820
premier i mean you're part of canadian constitutional history you weren't just a footnote premier
00:10:33.580
you were one of the men around the table when the charter of rights when the constitution was
00:10:38.200
repatriated even if they disagree with your point of view you you were a walking repository of canadian
00:10:44.780
legal history are you telling me that you have not appeared on the canadian broadcasting corporation
00:10:50.760
whose mandate it is to talk about canadian issues absolutely not one call not one call
00:10:58.360
from cbc not one call not even just to not even a hostile call you're saying they didn't even call
00:11:04.880
exactly exactly the the line has been silent there's been other uh you know smaller publications or
00:11:14.240
or podcasts and stuff like that that have called me and of course yourself but no uh the canadian
00:11:21.380
broadcasting corporation which gets over a billion dollars a year from the taxpayers of this country
00:11:26.140
have not seen fit to contact the former premier of newfoundland who not only helped craft the charter
00:11:32.600
rights and freedoms but whose proposal the night of november the 4th 1981 was the basis for the
00:11:40.500
constitution and act which included the charter rights and freedoms now that's just where it is
00:11:45.120
well premier i got to tell you i would bet my life savings that if you had come out in favor of the lockdown
00:11:53.620
you would be the toast of the town of the cbc they would be battling over who gets to interview you over
00:12:01.060
there that's my prediction yeah and i couldn't agree with you more they've been extremely uh hostile
00:12:08.140
towards me and of course i've actually written the national post on several occasions and they
00:12:12.880
won't even carry my my letters anymore so the national no and the global mail hasn't even contacted
00:12:20.780
me so if these people keep declaring that they're national newspapers and yet they won't interview me
00:12:26.140
on something as crucial to the history and to the democracy of our nation one has got to ask some
00:12:31.520
pretty serious questions you know even even if they don't support you it's news it just is
00:12:37.240
objectively news that a serious credible lawsuit has been filed in the federal court by six plaintiffs
00:12:43.480
one of whom is the former premier who is actually there the drafting the charter making charter
00:12:47.780
arguments i don't care if you like it hate it or neutral that is objectively factually news and all
00:12:54.080
these newspapers of record that you've just listed i i'm truly shocked that the national post
00:12:58.920
is on your list there because i would have thought that there's a vestige of their old
00:13:03.380
soul still within them but it sounds like i'm very surprised by that i let's let's keep going i
00:13:09.340
want to i forget we're you know that was an important point but let's get back to the document
00:13:13.600
last thing on page two i see that this was issued by the registry officer of the court in calgary now
00:13:21.440
is it a fact that the federal court has one big national jurisdiction so we don't know where the judge
00:13:26.940
may come from you might get a judge from anywhere in the country is that correct it's it's because
00:13:33.000
it's a federal court yes but we've asked for it to be held in ontario in ottawa in ottawa okay yeah
00:13:40.240
all right well let's dig in we're on page three now so we're making good progress and and i see here
00:13:47.400
you're listing the various acts the various laws that you're discussing the aeronautics act
00:13:54.860
and and you're referring in particular to an a interim order respecting civil aviation let's stop
00:14:05.300
there for a minute because you know if you were to ask a canadian how are laws made how are we governed
00:14:12.860
they would say okay there's a parliament or a legislature and someone introduces a bill which
00:14:17.460
is like a baby law and then it's debated and maybe there's some hearings and committee meetings and
00:14:22.800
people get to come and say well there's a problem here or what about that and then the law maybe
00:14:27.420
people who are a little savvy would say okay the the bill is read once and then there's a second
00:14:32.240
reading and a third reading that that's a fancy way of saying it it's amended and then voted and
00:14:37.800
there's it's voted in different stages and there's this whole process there's this whole
00:14:42.460
process there's a record of it all that uh there's official transcript called the hand cert like
00:14:48.600
i'm using technical jargon but i think everyone could say okay yeah i know what you mean like we've
00:14:53.520
all watched that kid show how does a bill become a law the american version at least we have a similar
00:14:58.200
version here is it a fact and i believe it is that this ban on travel was actually not passed
00:15:06.300
in a law in parliament it was not a bill that was debated it didn't go to committee it was not
00:15:12.180
subject to debate in parliament it was simply issued like a like someone high on mount olympus
00:15:17.580
issuing an order is that correct premier exactly there was no this is one of the arguments i've had
00:15:23.660
all along with all of the measures is that they've used existing legislation and under existing
00:15:29.280
legislation issued interim orders rather than do what in this kind of circumstance you would have
00:15:35.860
thought they would have done is to go to their parliaments and introduce a new bill to cover this
00:15:41.080
particular unique circumstance yeah i'm going to read paragraph two of the lawsuit verbatim because
00:15:47.740
i think it's very clear language the decision so we're talking about the decision that was made by
00:15:54.480
some bureaucrat somewhere and just spoken into effect like like it was some king the decision implements
00:16:02.700
restrictions on canadians that are not related to a quote significant risk direct or indirect
00:16:08.240
to aviation safety or the safety of the public and our ultra virus which is outside the power
00:16:14.020
the authority of the aeronautics act the decision with limited exceptions effectively bans canadians
00:16:23.020
who have chosen not to receive an experimental medical treatment from domestic and international
00:16:27.120
travel by airplane the result is discrimination and a gross violation of the constitutionally protected
00:16:34.560
rights of canadians as guaranteed by the charter of rights i think that sums it all up in that one
00:16:39.240
paragraph doesn't it it really does and i was really happy when i first read it when they said it to me
00:16:46.720
is you know asking me my opinion on it uh yeah it's extremely succinct and to the point and look at that
00:16:54.440
part about the the aeronautics act being ultra virus i mean that's very important we're we're alleging that
00:17:00.960
the the aeronautics act doesn't apply here and they're using something that doesn't apply so
00:17:05.960
even from square one right the aeronautics act that they use and then using it and the way the travel
00:17:12.720
ban is being implemented it violates all of these provisions of the charter so um yeah i think we've
00:17:19.540
successfully put together a succinct way to canadians like i said every anybody could read this
00:17:26.820
anybody could read this and so it's very simple but it's very poignant and to the point yeah i'm
00:17:33.080
going to skip ahead to page four and this is a section called relief sought that's a legal way
00:17:38.980
of saying what do you want what do you want the court to do so you've got a few things here i'm not
00:17:44.900
going to read them all you want a declaration that this order is of no force and effect that's sort of
00:17:51.000
obvious a declaration that it's got errors in it i'm going to skip on down here this is one of the
00:17:58.020
most interesting things i like this disclosure from the governor and council that means from the
00:18:03.300
cabinet of all information relied upon by the minister of transport informing the decision
00:18:11.580
that the freedom of mobility of canadians should be restricted based on vaccination status
00:18:16.800
so you're not just asking for the law to be struck down you want to put eyes on what was what they
00:18:23.840
were looking at who said what what facts were there even any facts or was it as i suspect not based on
00:18:32.060
health but based on political compliance and punish people so i love section 5d which is you want to see
00:18:42.540
what they're hiding do you know something that's really important since we signed off on that and
00:18:49.660
that's in there uh yesterday i found out that the uh constitutional court in austria is asking for the
00:18:58.700
same thing that we are asking for in our litigation and in our lawsuit and i think this is extremely important
00:19:06.360
because i suspect you may be right that this was just a recommendation from a number of departments
00:19:12.420
without the data and the evidence to demonstrate that what they were doing had legitimacy yeah i and
00:19:19.780
and we'll get to it later but we talked about this in our last discussion section one of the constitution
00:19:24.560
uh which you helped draft says you can violate someone's rights but only on strict conditions
00:19:31.200
it has to be rationally connected to your public policy objective it has to be uh you know the the
00:19:37.340
least infringement possible um it has to you know be a pressing and substantial problem you're solving
00:19:45.540
it has to be bona fide it can't be some trick or some political move it has to have a real reason
00:19:52.240
exactly and that's why the oaks test in a court decision back in 1986 the supreme court of canada
00:20:00.320
itself was very careful in talking about section one of course my argument is section one doesn't
00:20:05.800
even apply because i remember clearly that by putting it in the constitution where we're talking
00:20:10.700
about permanent values and only if the state was in deep peril could you use it and the state is not
00:20:15.960
in deep peril but even for argument's sake if you say it does apply those four tests you have to
00:20:21.120
demonstrably justify you have to do it by law it has to be with reasonable limits and we all know
00:20:26.840
these limits of change which each new eating and it has to be done in consistent with a free and
00:20:32.120
democratic society all of these tests have not been met by what the government has done both in
00:20:37.420
this particular lawsuit and then the larger measures that other governments have taken yeah you know
00:20:42.800
what i i'm too excited about this lawsuit i'm talking too much let me get back to the document
00:20:47.160
um i just mentioned d so you're looking on the information that the minister relied on
00:20:52.200
but e i think could be even more interesting because you're asking for all relevant materials
00:20:58.360
relied on forming uh informing the decision and obtained during the course of consultations with
00:21:06.480
any person or organization so so the government itself had its documents but who did they consult
00:21:13.600
with who did they talk to did they talk to pfizer just picking a name out of the hat who did they talk
00:21:20.280
to and what did what did those other did they meet with any lobbyists what did they show yes normally
00:21:26.840
in a normal healthy legislative process this is all transparent you see you know this is all chewed
00:21:33.640
over in the in the light of day this was done in the dark room absolutely no question and that's why
00:21:40.640
that that the demand or that request is so so important where did they get them information who did
00:21:47.060
they talk to did they talk to uh did they talk to dr brian bridle did they talk to dr eric pain
00:21:53.640
two canadians who've done a lot of research on this did they talk to dr jessica rose did they talk to
00:21:59.600
dr julie panessi did they talk to any of these people did they talk to dr roger odginson's that
00:22:06.160
you know did they go outside their circle or was this just a one-trick pony that whatever their own
00:22:12.440
internal department gave them they relied on which would would show that they were completely
00:22:17.680
uninformed about the totality of the science if they did it that way and would their and therefore
00:22:24.140
would bring complete disrepute on their decision to the courts right now your next section you talk
00:22:30.180
about the different sections of the charter that are violated i'm going to skip over that because we
00:22:34.040
come back to it later i want to i want to get to point uh i five i i believe it is because this is a
00:22:42.060
this is such a huge point that suddenly like i mean if you've taken high school biology you don't have
00:22:49.060
to be a professor to know about immunity i mean you just have to be a kid who gets chickenpox or
00:22:54.980
whatever and you know what it means you know you you get a disease you get it better i mean i'm old
00:23:00.640
enough that there that when kids had chickenpox the other moms would bring their kids over
00:23:04.940
so you'd get it early instead of later in life when it could actually be a serious
00:23:08.980
health problem and that's natural immune everyone knows with them your immune system strengthen your
00:23:15.000
immune system everyone knows that that's a thing you don't have to be a scholar to know that
00:23:19.360
and yet let me quote your lawsuit you were seeking a declaration that natural immunity to covet 19
00:23:28.600
as evidenced by a serology test be recognized as equivalent to being fully vaccinated as defining
00:23:36.120
that decision so i you know many countries around the world from israel to the united kingdom
00:23:42.000
have acknowledged natural immunity as a thing canada bizarrely just doesn't that i mean that is
00:23:51.080
kooky unscientific misinformation to pretend it doesn't exist it does exist and you're asking a
00:23:58.560
court to acknowledge that aren't you absolutely and it's medically and scientifically without
00:24:04.680
question that natural immunity is a thing is real and does do the same protection uh as do as does or
00:24:15.320
more so than the vaccinated so this is an extremely important point and uh and you know why why the
00:24:21.600
governments haven't already acknowledged that this is exactly like you said we know from our own
00:24:27.240
history now you know i had the measles i had the mumps i had the chicken pox we stayed home
00:24:32.360
right there our mothers and fathers looked after us and they they kept telling us that after five or six
00:24:38.340
days this will you know gradually go away and we were crying and we weren't right but it did and then we
00:24:44.680
were immune and we had immunity and so and we've had everybody's had a cold or the flu and so on
00:24:50.560
so i think this is extremely important and of course there's a real weakness that the federal
00:24:57.360
government and the governments of the provinces have now and we're zeroing in on that weakness
00:25:02.040
because this is a medical fact that they have not acknowledged and we must get the court to
00:25:06.500
acknowledge it on their behalf now yeah i like section j that you're seeking a declaration
00:25:12.120
prohibiting the government from issuing subsequent orders of a substantially similar nature so
00:25:18.860
basically if this gets struck down you don't want them to immediately put in something very similar
00:25:23.600
exactly now i'm going to go ahead a little bit i'm on page six but i'm not going to go through every
00:25:28.840
page here this is this you know what some of the finest lawyers in america there's american lawyers
00:25:36.540
do this a lot more than canadian lawyers i think they they make their lawsuit tell a story
00:25:43.180
in plain accessible language it's almost literature it's not just legalistic yes and here each of the
00:25:52.540
plaintiffs is described um a little bit about their life a little bit about who they are and you know
00:26:00.080
we we know you we had a good conversation last time i won't go through all the names but what you know
00:26:05.900
people are in different geographies someone's in the uk and has to come back they're allowed to get on
00:26:10.480
the plane in the uk to canada but they can't go from canada to uk apparently the science makes sense
00:26:15.980
um or or come come to canada and land in toronto and they and they live in saint john's or they live
00:26:24.700
in calgary and then they can't get about another plane to go to inside canada but they can come in
00:26:29.600
to canada so they're now stranded in toronto in their own country from getting home yeah i mean is that
00:26:35.560
ridiculous that makes no sense on page eight of your lawsuit um section 16 i think this is a good
00:26:42.760
point it shows i mean there's a phrase what are the what are the framers intent or what are the
00:26:48.280
legislators intention because sometimes courts say okay we're arguing over the law but what did the
00:26:54.000
people who wrote the law in the legislature actually mean and let me read section 16 of your lawsuit
00:26:59.740
in the months leading up to the issuance of the decision the prime minister of canada made
00:27:05.680
pejorative and discriminatory statements towards canadians who have made the decision not to receive
00:27:11.700
the covet 19 vaccine including by calling them racists misogynists and asking do we tolerate these
00:27:20.140
people that is i mean could you possibly have starker evidence of bad faith and malice
00:27:28.640
absolutely and it colors completely all of what the government has done because if the leader of
00:27:35.940
the government is acting in this manner and has this kind of view and attitude towards one group of
00:27:42.480
canadians then this must color all of the decisions that come down which therefore were prejudicial
00:27:48.920
right from the start yeah section 19 you refer to the four different vaccines in canada
00:27:55.120
and you say all covet 19 vaccines are still undergoing clinical trials which are scheduled
00:28:00.660
for completion in 2023 or later none of these vaccines prevent the infection or transmission of
00:28:07.260
covet 19 including the omicron variant yeah i mean we've learned a lot since the advent of these
00:28:13.240
vaccines about a year ago when we were told by everyone in authority that they are a real vaccine i don't
00:28:20.160
even know if if they were introduced with what we know now if if we would even be calling them
00:28:24.680
vaccines and i don't say this as a conspiracy theorist it's just a vaccine in plain english is
00:28:31.120
something you take that you will not get sick from justin trudeau himself has had three shots
00:28:36.500
allegedly and he claims to have covid so it's not much of a vaccine exactly and what everybody has
00:28:43.720
ignored and i i don't understand why and even some of the great scientists who are um who are you know
00:28:49.580
have questions about the vaccine and even calling it that have not highlighted the fact that i mean
00:28:54.840
through the various system in the united states so the u division in in in europe we do know that you
00:29:01.760
know upwards to 50 000 people have died after taking the vaccine and over you know over one million
00:29:08.000
have been injured as well as a matter of fact there's over two million now have been injured
00:29:11.620
and these are actual reports that have been submitted voluntarily by people in these jurisdictions
00:29:19.020
and so and they also admit that that number is only one to ten percent of the total so it's highly
00:29:25.820
likely that there's over 150 000 to 200 000 people in the united states and new york that have actually
00:29:32.640
died from these vaccines and three to four million that have been some seriously injured or injured
00:29:39.320
generally uh by taking these vaccines that part of the equation has been ignored and i don't know i
00:29:46.100
don't understand why because the data is out there and i have it here on my computer i can go in and
00:29:50.760
check theirs every day of the week and i can do the same thing for your religion and here come up
00:29:55.580
up the numbers which nobody has really disputed yeah uh in section 20 of your lawsuit you list
00:30:02.480
some of these side effects bell's palsy thrombosis um i don't even know some of these words i know
00:30:08.080
myocarditis some pericarditis it's a fact and again these things are published but they're
00:30:12.320
certainly they're published by the government but they're underreported by the media section 21 of your
00:30:17.920
lawsuit vaccinated and unvaccinated canadians can be infected with and transmit covid19 however
00:30:25.240
individuals under 60 years old without comorbidities have an approximately 99.997 percent chance of
00:30:35.000
recovered from covid19 and the thing is i mean i don't want anyone to die from the disease
00:30:40.000
but if you know if you know if you're 80 years old plus if you're very fat if you've got heart disease
00:30:49.360
and liver disease and kidney disease okay that you're at high risk you're at high risk but you're a 20 year
00:30:56.920
old young man fit healthy athletic active the idea of having a one size fits all rule is absurd and
00:31:07.160
again i i don't think anyone would dispute that had we had those facts more clearly a year ago but we're
00:31:13.900
so locked into this we're in a rut and and they can't lose face they're so obsessed with the vaccines
00:31:20.380
they don't dare acknowledge these obvious facts now and lieutenant colonel david redmond you know
00:31:27.220
a year and a half ago described all of this and show just what you're saying now and because what
00:31:35.120
he showed was because he was involved with emergency measures alberta years ago after he got out of the
00:31:39.520
armed forces is that all of the provinces have an emergency measures organization which is set up just
00:31:45.340
to handle this uh these kinds of circumstances so that it wouldn't be just a one-size-fits-all
00:31:52.380
a single uni-dimensional approach it had to be a multi-dimensional approach bringing in all the
00:31:58.960
departments the private sector and then developing a mitigation plan which a lot of these emergency
00:32:04.820
measures already have on their desks that the governments have never used yeah i want to read
00:32:10.340
uh then this is one of my favorite parts of the lawsuit it's a subsection called the impact of
00:32:17.060
the decision on the applicants and this is what i mean about literature it it humanizes the lawsuit
00:32:21.800
it tells the personal story of everyone i'll just read a little bit from yours i thought this was
00:32:26.060
interesting so this is referring to you when i say he it's referring to you uh premier preckford
00:32:32.140
he believes that there is too much uncertainty and risk with this medical intervention for him to
00:32:38.480
give informed consent to receiving it mr peckford did not apply for a medical or religious exemption
00:32:44.080
as he objects to the use of such products in exercise of his conscience bodily autonomy life
00:32:50.760
liberty and security person and believes that having to disclose his vaccination status to the
00:32:55.640
respondents as a condition of boarding an airplane is a violation of his privacy mr peckford also has
00:33:02.000
been segregated from other vaccinated canadian air travelers which renders him a second-class citizen
00:33:06.720
so you haven't even tried to say well it's against my religion or i have a medical reason you're just
00:33:12.540
saying my deep beliefs my personal beliefs my brain my own assessment of my own life and the fact that
00:33:19.640
it's none of your bloody business those are your reasons i think that's a very principled line to take
00:33:24.140
as opposed to you know come participating in the rules you're saying i don't even want to participate
00:33:29.860
in this system i don't want an exemption in this system this whole system is rotten
00:33:34.020
i was pointedly asked by the lawyers about that i'm glad you raised that particular point because
00:33:43.620
i was pointedly asked by the lawyers when they were developing the case why didn't you do this
00:33:49.660
why didn't you get a medical exemption and my answer was as you just detailed there in the suit
00:33:55.880
i didn't want to participate in something which violated my rights as an individual over body
00:34:01.620
the autonomy security the person as in the the charter itself and so that therefore i wasn't
00:34:07.820
willing to engage in something where my privacy was being infringed and my right to my own body was
00:34:13.720
being infringed yeah um i'm not going to read through all the stories of the individual plaintiffs
00:34:21.000
they're very interesting and i say again you can read the the 20 page lawsuit on our website
00:34:25.760
but mr baygent if i'm saying that right forgive me if i'm not saying his name i this caught my eye
00:34:31.620
he lives in uh or he goes back and forth between ontario and yellow knife i've been a yellow knife
00:34:39.140
it is a very far away place let me read from the lawsuit mr baygent had to drive 5 000 kilometers
00:34:49.140
of dangerous highways in extreme winter weather conditions to reunite with his family in ontario
00:34:54.360
he will have to make the return trip in february under the same extreme winter weather conditions
00:34:59.440
he will have to complete this journey four more times in 2022 mr baygent does not have the financial
00:35:06.800
means to travel to and from work in a private chartered aircraft and by the way private chartered
00:35:10.940
aircrafts are not exempt from the vaccine rules if you're taking off from a certain airport that's an
00:35:16.100
incredible story of someone who's basically being told you can't live you can't work you can't travel
00:35:22.500
unless you get this jab no matter what your conscience says no matter if you're natural like
00:35:26.860
that's an incredible story i think that is a really compelling story absolutely no question about it
00:35:32.960
and i've had like i say since this lawsuit has been filed you would it's unbelievable number of emails
00:35:41.200
i've had and phone calls i've had from people to say if your lawyers want to add another story
00:35:46.640
here's my story which is like absolutely some of these stories are so touching i had one from a
00:35:52.980
from a lady a non-married mother with a couple of children and she's a professional and how it's
00:35:59.100
affected her life it's just unbelievable and so there's stories out there all over the place including
00:36:04.680
this man and i've been to yellow knife as well and to go from yellow knife to ontario this is
00:36:09.980
unbelievable yeah what they're putting this man through in a democracy called canada is just not
00:36:16.320
right yeah undemocratic and has to be struck down yeah now i'm going to skip over the other plaintiffs
00:36:24.160
they're all interesting stories and they each have a slightly different uh argument there there makes for
00:36:28.340
compelling reading but what's what's notable to me over the last two years is the legal trickery by
00:36:35.560
which things have been done um so much power invested in health officers who none of us ever
00:36:41.660
heard of before none of us voted for none of us can vote out who in many cases seem to have power
00:36:47.660
trumping those of elected officials um sometimes elected officials hide behind the skirts of these
00:36:53.080
public health officers uh when it suits them but this is not any democracy we've ever been taught about
00:36:58.800
and if this is the new permanent emergency i don't think you can call it an emergency anymore i think
00:37:03.580
i think you start to use other words like an undemocratic system let me read section 37 of
00:37:09.100
your lawsuit on page 13 so it talks about how this was done this was not a health order this was not
00:37:16.600
done in a parliamentary debate here's how it was done the decision for the vaccines is outside the
00:37:23.920
power ultra virus the authority delegated to the minister of transport under the section of the
00:37:29.340
aeronautics act which restricts the minister's order making power to matters related to aviation
00:37:36.040
safety consistent with the scope and objects of the act the aeronautics act the decision is
00:37:42.680
ultra virus outside of his power as it was made for an improper purpose and in bad faith in further
00:37:50.600
furtherance of an ulterior motive and here's the key part to pressure canadians into taking the
00:37:58.800
covid 19 vaccines so pretending to be about aeronautic safety pretending to be about like this is where
00:38:07.080
you go to about engine failure or maybe the boeing 737 max or you know maintenance of an aircraft
00:38:15.940
this is where you're supposed to take care of airplanes and you're using the airplanes act literally
00:38:22.300
it's called the aeronautics act as a ulterior way to force people to get jabbed because you know people
00:38:31.980
like to fly and they have to fly but so what sneak it in the aeronautics act for that purpose to force
00:38:39.820
them to and i don't think anyone would pretend it's anything else other than pressuring force i mean
00:38:45.200
leaders around the world have said as much the the president of france has said he wants to like
00:38:49.420
make life very difficult for the unvaxxed we've heard half a dozen canadian politicians say the
00:38:54.640
same thing i think that that is a microcosm of everything that's happened over the last two years
00:39:00.220
people doing things improperly improperly with laws that weren't meant to do so and so far no judges
00:39:07.420
stood up to it no i couldn't agree more and i think that's a very important section uh of the lawsuit
00:39:13.620
there's no question that the the aeronautics act was for safety was for the safety of the
00:39:19.020
airplane that people getting aboard could be ensured assured that this was a safe plane had the proper
00:39:25.200
maintenance there was everything that was working that kind of thing and then to trans to try to get
00:39:30.060
that to fit into a situation as relates to a medical experiment you know completely is that i think
00:39:37.300
myself that the federal government today after seeing this lawsuit uh understand and are scared
00:39:45.600
that what they did in this particular case uh because i think they would have thought they
00:39:51.920
had better legs to stand on if they stayed within the public health services legislation to move it
00:39:58.000
into aeronautics in this way to uh to inhibit travel ban really stretched and exposed the federal government
00:40:06.520
for what they were doing even in the public health act but what they were doing now they were just
00:40:11.600
trying to get people to get the jab yeah and they were using illegal matters means to do it yeah i'm hoping
00:40:21.320
that the combination of a very well crafted lawsuit and your personal moral authority as one of the
00:40:31.760
signers authors of the charter will perhaps give the federal court cause to carefully consider
00:40:41.520
because there have been no meaningful court victories to to put the brakes on this this lockdown
00:40:48.060
extremism we've seen now the most important part of the lawsuit is now section 39 onwards the charter
00:40:56.600
violations this is the base this is your home turf you were there you were you know we said the
00:41:04.000
legislators intent well you're the guy you were there you know you were in the room you know what the
00:41:08.540
debates were now i'm not going to read all of this but i'm going to list the charter rights that you
00:41:15.200
say were violent i'm just going to list them and then i'd like you to speak to them so the numbers i'm
00:41:21.160
going to give are the sections of the charter which you know by heart section 2a freedom of religions
00:41:27.320
and conscience section 6 right to leave the country and travel within the country section 7
00:41:34.780
life liberty and security of the person that but your own body section 8 right to privacy
00:41:44.220
section 15 equality rights so i mean there's there's a lot here but instead of reading the lawsuit
00:41:52.740
well why don't we just hear about the guy who wrote the charter with the other premiers so that's
00:41:57.740
those are any one of those should be fatal to this but you've got what five different sections of the
00:42:03.640
charter there yeah absolutely no question and in my public meetings i go through those five
00:42:10.080
and and uh yeah i to me you know this is this is so over the top what's happening to but and
00:42:18.500
remember uh as we put this in the constitution if we wanted this to be easy for change and to use in
00:42:26.660
all kinds of weird circumstances that the governments in their wisdom or lack thereof and in this case
00:42:32.460
lack thereof want to declare an emergency then they could easily use uh the section one and override and
00:42:39.680
do whatever they want but by putting all of this in the constitution which everybody knows is supposed to
00:42:46.380
be away from the everyday political machinations that go on it's for permanent values that only could
00:42:52.700
be overridden in the most extreme circumstances like war insurrection that's why i was put in the
00:42:59.480
in in the constitution in the beginning in section two i mean you know freedom of conscience freedom of
00:43:07.460
religion right freedom of expression even freedom of of the press freedom of assembly freedom of
00:43:14.000
association right and then you go to six mobility itself the right to move or to travel anywhere
00:43:20.840
in canada or leave canada and in that section two of course is the right to pursue a living and here's
00:43:26.920
this man in the yukon having to travel back and forth to ontario right the right to pursue a living
00:43:33.100
anywhere in canada well this poor man citizen has been denied his freedom to pursue his job in in the
00:43:41.980
normal sense of the word this is unbelievable and then of course i love section seven i just love
00:43:49.180
section seven right every canadian has the right to life liberty and security of the person these
00:43:56.740
things can't be taken away with a declared emergency with a 99 recovery rate and less than
00:44:02.540
one percent fatality rate you can't you can't bargain rights and freedoms using that kind of a
00:44:08.800
circumstance you just can't do and then of course as you say your privacy in section eight of the
00:44:15.940
individual the right to privacy and section 15 i love that one too the right of equality before the
00:44:22.080
law right everybody's equal before the law and here i am in parksville bc today i don't have the same
00:44:28.260
rights as people across the street i don't have the same right i can't go to same places that they
00:44:33.080
can go these are powerful concepts look it took 114 years to get a written charter rights and freedoms
00:44:40.600
and you're telling me 40 years later they were suddenly going to eviscerate this in a bargain between
00:44:46.520
a 99 recovery rate and a less than one percent fatality rate and bargain my rights and freedoms away
00:44:52.740
oh no that ain't a valid equation wow well we're almost at the end of the lawsuits um i'm on page 16 now
00:45:02.840
we're talking about how this infringement was done again it wasn't in a parliament it wasn't in a vote it
00:45:13.340
wasn't in a debate it wasn't fully aired there was no transparency there was no transcript there was no
00:45:19.060
public consultation there was no chance for people to to weigh in on this it was done rashly and
00:45:24.880
quickly and haphazardly and here's how you put that section 41 in section 45
00:45:29.680
the decision was not made by due process of law among other things the decision was not subject to
00:45:39.440
legislative controls customarily applied to the introduction of a new law as a result canadians
00:45:46.480
did not receive the benefit of multiple readings of parliamentary debate and scrutiny
00:45:49.440
the minister of transport has made the decision in an overly broad manner there was no or insufficient
00:45:56.380
stakeholder engagement or consultation so this just so it would be bad enough if parliament met
00:46:03.900
and deliberated and everyone said we agree but there wasn't even a vote there wasn't even a debate
00:46:10.720
there was no bill right exactly and this is this i think this is the most egregious part of it all and
00:46:17.380
goes right to the core of uh section one again which says all of the tests that you need to do even an
00:46:24.460
award insurrection and even if it applied in this circumstance must be done within the context of a free and
00:46:30.580
democratic society well what does a free and democratic society mean that means parliamentary democracy
00:46:36.240
whatever happened to the parliamentary committee to take a look at these actions and and and seek out
00:46:42.160
right uh alternate points of view to seek out the view of stakeholders none of this was done and
00:46:47.760
therefore it is basically and inherently undemocratic in the canadian sense of parliamentary democracy
00:46:54.960
yeah all right well we're done the part of the lawsuit where you make the arguments now we're
00:47:02.800
where you list the laws and the regulations that you will cite and use as an authority obviously the
00:47:09.900
charter of rights is the first one you mentioned sections 1 2 6 7 8 15 and 24 the constitution we
00:47:15.680
talked about most of those you mentioned the constitution act you mentioned dieffen baker's bill of rights
00:47:22.060
which which has similar language you mentioned the nuremberg code of 1947 and i think some people don't
00:47:31.240
know what that is that was part of the judgment in the nazi doctors trial wasn't it that was these
00:47:40.820
doctors joseph mengele type doctors who did horrific experiments on people without their permission or
00:47:46.600
consent they were put on trial very famous trial and part of that was here's how we do medicine going
00:47:53.340
forward we had no idea doctors could do such horrific things here are the rules
00:47:59.320
and every doctor yeah and every doctor in canada and in the western world and beyond
00:48:06.460
have used this code ever since it's an ethical code for the world to delineate the rights of individuals
00:48:16.000
and how they must it must be informed consent right and this business of experimental stuff
00:48:21.160
you know this is doesn't work and and that's what they were doing in nazi germany at the time and
00:48:27.380
that's why the nuremberg code was written how soon we forget that there's some basic human rights
00:48:33.700
that are at issue here i mean so therefore i think we were very appropriate to use this
00:48:39.580
the nuremberg code as being an applicable ethics code that all medical practitioners are familiar
00:48:48.000
with when they go to law when they go to medical school and go and go to their various professional
00:48:52.560
schools so i think it's very important for us to give a historical backdrop to this yeah you know
00:48:59.180
whenever people mention germany or not nuremberg code some people say oh you're equating with this
00:49:05.400
the holocaust no no this is it this these are the lessons of the holocaust if these rules were in
00:49:11.120
place in advance the holocaust could never have happened because it would have been stopped dead in
00:49:15.080
its tracks it's many of the lessons we learned about conformity and fascism and abuse and shutting
00:49:22.800
down dissidents and segregating people and and treating people as unclean and demonizing them there are
00:49:29.260
many lessons from the 30s and 40s in germany that can apply and thank god we're not as far down
00:49:35.380
the road as they went but we are definitely out of the start of the demonization go ahead
00:49:43.040
absolutely we're along that road there is absolutely no question and i am still amazed today
00:49:48.560
even this morning in calls that i got and talks that i had with people who still don't recognize
00:49:54.600
the sacredness of an individual freedom and right and how it supersedes all others i mean in the
00:50:02.240
constitution act 1982 it says the supreme law of canada is the constitution of the land that stands
00:50:09.860
over and above all else because it protects the individual rights and freedoms everybody's still
00:50:16.060
looking at or a lot of people still don't get it that this is not a federal law this is not a provincial
00:50:21.820
law or municipal this is the constitution of our country which is a national law and is there to
00:50:28.380
protect us and to guarantee us certain rights and freedoms it is in a league all of its own if there's
00:50:36.440
a national if there's an american hockey league and a junior hockey league and then a national hockey
00:50:41.140
league this constitution goes even above the national hockey league so that's why you know i i'm out there
00:50:48.680
preaching every day both on my blog and in interviews like this and publicly i got a public meeting
00:50:55.820
coming up this weekend in the comox valley area in campbell river area vancouver island and this is
00:51:01.480
what i'll be saying this is so important that it stands alone and we've got to understand that this
00:51:07.700
is sacred it could only be violated in the most extreme circumstances yeah well we're almost on the
00:51:14.360
lawsuit on page 18 you list uh a request for documents from the government and i'm just going to read
00:51:22.960
this paragraph that describes what you want because you don't have these i don't have these the public
00:51:28.420
doesn't have these because like i say this was not done in a transparent way so here's what you ask
00:51:32.680
for that only the government has and you do not all records including but in no way limited to research
00:51:39.060
analysis policy papers briefing reports studies proposals presentations reports memos opinions advice
00:51:46.500
letters emails and any other communications that were prepared commissioned considered or received by
00:51:53.400
the government in canada in relation to these matters and that's the thing we don't know we didn't see it
00:51:59.360
and then you list the different government agencies
00:52:04.140
prime minister's office the justice department global affairs
00:52:09.020
all the different you know all the different arms of the government that might have them
00:52:15.680
and then i'm just going to skip to the very last page which is the names of the lawyers
00:52:21.440
keith wilson of wilson law office i i know him from my alberta days very principled man great lawyer
00:52:28.200
very freedom oriented and a couple of lawyers for the justice center for constitutional freedoms
00:52:33.200
allison kindle payovich i don't know her but i know eva chipiak a little bit i've spoken with her
00:52:39.560
very bright lawyers this is a tightly written easy to understand clear focused presentation of the case
00:52:51.780
against airline vaccine mandates could obviously be applied to railways and and ferry boats as well
00:52:59.400
it's well drafted it's clean it's done by very legitimate reputable folks our friends of the jccf
00:53:06.860
this is the most hopeful legal document in canada today yeah i i think you're right i think we we've
00:53:14.740
managed to really uh clean this up and and provide something which like i say is easily understandable
00:53:21.080
uh mr wilson uh the jccf were i think smart to also go outside their own um
00:53:28.960
um auspices and look for lawyers who are very um well versed in in taking um issues like this to
00:53:37.220
the federal court of the federal court and uh they they even sought consultation beyond those ones that
00:53:44.180
you name so this is a highly well crafted document that went through many many eyes before it was
00:53:50.320
submitted to the court by the way it got registered on january 31st okay it was submitted on the 27th and it
00:53:56.000
got registered on january 31st so it is a a legal document now accepted or legal lawsuit now accepted
00:54:02.320
by the court got it well you know we took a lot of time but we literally went through every single page
00:54:08.860
i enjoyed the conversation i'm uh i found every page to be informative uh i would encourage our readers
00:54:18.600
our viewers who are not lawyers to read it anyways i don't think there's anything in there that will be
00:54:23.320
baffling there's not a lot of legal gobbledygook in there um we'll post a copy on the website
00:54:29.740
we'll obviously keep our eyes peeled for the government's response obviously time is of the
00:54:35.560
essence and i see in there i skipped over the part where they're asking the court to sort of move along
00:54:40.320
quickly exactly exactly we're asking for the decision yeah yeah well this is very hopeful i i enjoyed going
00:54:50.160
through this and of course it's a pleasure to talk with you because you're the actual one of the
00:54:53.940
framers of the charter but the actually in the in the past hour the most dramatic thing that was said
00:55:02.340
was you telling me and i'm just turning this over in my head again that the canadian broadcasting
00:55:08.200
corporation has not asked you or and you mentioned the globe and mail and you mentioned the national
00:55:16.980
post that the the what i call the media party the legacy media the corporate media the established
00:55:22.340
media they simply have ignored this there is no journalistic excuse for that there's no editorial
00:55:29.440
excuse for that there's no political excuse for that i find that deeply depressing but i'm glad this
00:55:35.540
is going in a court where the judges will look at it and hopefully they'll be moved by it because god
00:55:41.260
knows we need some check and balance if it won't be the media maybe it'll be the courts i wish you so much
00:55:46.180
luck premier brian go ahead thank you no i've always said that you were in the second period it might be
00:55:54.080
getting near the end of the second period we have to exhaust all of our means that are available to us
00:55:59.740
on our existing system before we throw it all out and so this is very important so i thought it was
00:56:06.000
important for me to come forward i've talked a lot about it for a year and a half now i think i'm going
00:56:11.760
to not only talk the talk i want to walk the walk well you certainly are you always have it's a
00:56:18.140
pleasure talking with you i hope we'll keep in touch if there's movement on this lawsuit i hope you'll
00:56:22.180
come back and talk to us again and even though thank you very much well you're welcome and even though
00:56:26.700
it's against my interests as a competitor as a canadian i would hope that other networks and other media
00:56:32.980
outlets speak to you uh even if you know we've spent an hour together but even if it's a more brief
00:56:39.300
interview even just mentioning it even just showing it i would hope that other journalists get behind
00:56:43.820
it too uh you're a canadian treasurer you're uh an important part of our political legal and
00:56:51.100
constitutional past but you're very very relevant to the constitutional and legal present and and this
00:56:58.040
lawsuit if successful will bring more freedom to more people than anything else i can think of
00:57:06.680
in the political legal world today so i wish you so much luck and thank you again for being with us
00:57:11.420
thank you very much for having me and thank you for going through it i don't think i'll ever get an
00:57:16.720
opportunity again and any media to be able to go through the lawsuit like you did so thank you for
00:57:22.560
giving me all this time and going through the actual words that are in the lawsuit have a wonderful
00:57:28.100
day and thanks again for taking the time to interview me in this manner well it's my great pleasure there
00:57:34.360
you have it a great canadian premier brian peckford who is fighting for freedom in the court with our
00:57:40.880
friends at the justice center for constitutional freedoms stay with us my final thoughts are next
00:57:52.560
well my head is spinning so much in there um you know i've read a lot of lawsuits in my day
00:58:05.100
and i've even written one or two uh this is very well done and i think it's got a chance
00:58:10.960
um of course i keep thinking of that uh remake of the movie true grit uh by the coen brothers and
00:58:16.960
my favorite line in it when one of the bad guys says i don't need a good lawyer i need a good judge
00:58:22.440
and um i think having a good lawyer helps but the federal court and indeed every other canadian
00:58:29.460
court has so far completely sided with the government in fact sometimes atrociously so
00:58:34.720
maybe it's the fact that most judges are elderly and so they're afraid of the virus more than other
00:58:40.660
people maybe it's because judges at that level are in a very elite society where everyone's a rule
00:58:46.380
maker rule follower and they're not out and about in gyms in restaurants with the young people
00:58:51.680
were working class they're very stratified they're in elite society i say that because of course the
00:58:57.980
alberta judge that issued such an atrocious uh sentence against arthur pavlovsky adam germain is
00:59:05.480
his name he's in the alberta uh courts um his ruling was full of factual misinformation
00:59:12.660
he said things like every albertan knows at least one person who died from covid no no that's
00:59:18.020
that's not true in fact uh such a small number have actually died but if you're saying that
00:59:24.320
you're probably a fear monger who's been surrounded by terrible news in europe so i'm worried that the
00:59:30.760
the nature of judges is to be old so they're vulnerable scared because they're not amongst
00:59:38.720
happy people living their normal lives and of course they defer to authority so i'm worried that
00:59:44.860
we will not have judges speaking out for freedom as they have been in other countries including
00:59:48.080
of course the united states but if there is a lawsuit and a plaintiff that could actually possibly
00:59:53.200
win maybe it's this one well that's our show for today until tomorrow on behalf of all of us here
01:00:00.680
at rebel world headquarters to you at home good night and keep fighting for freedom
01:00:04.620
we will not have this year to meet and hurt that we could fight back again like that for
01:00:20.060
have a wonderful ceremony ре don't necessarily have a very good power ahead of you
01:00:23.940
a wave that might be successful in how there's a lot going to work
01:00:26.700
and they were looking back to you at hol店 pavlovsky