Rebel News Podcast - EZRA LEVANT ｜ Pastor Artur Pawlowski appeals criminal conviction from Coutts sermon

00:00:00.000 and start roaring. Let's go. Let's go. I'm talking about peaceful resolution. I'm not

00:00:07.660 talking about guns and swords. Shame on you, you censorious bug. 0.99

00:00:24.080 Oh, hi, everybody. I'm back in Canada. I was in Sao Paulo, Brazil for a day and a half, 0.92

00:00:29.020 but I learned a lot about freedom and how precarious it is and how governments, in the

00:00:33.600 name of justice, can silence people. You'll remember when I was down there, a lot of people

00:00:37.940 were talking about the censorship of Twitter. More than 20 million people in Brazil use that

00:00:43.300 social media app, or at least until they did, until a rogue judge just banned it, just banned it,

00:00:50.080 saying there was misinformation in it. A lot of people were talking about Elon Musk and hoping

00:00:55.180 he would fight back for them, but the judge isn't bending the knee. What does that have

00:00:59.160 to do with Canada, you might ask? Well, everything, I think. First of all, every would-be tyrant

00:01:04.220 around the world is watching what Brazil is doing and thinking if they can get away with 0.67

00:01:08.360 the same thing in the name of misinformation, that's a new way of saying things I don't like

00:01:13.840 to hear. Trudeau, as you know, has brought forward Bill C-63 called the Online Harms Act that

00:01:20.680 wouldn't censor Twitter as a whole, although there are huge fines in there for the company

00:01:25.280 of Twitter, but would censor individual users like has been done in Brazil as well. I think

00:01:31.500 that freedom of speech is undone in similar ways, though. It's never called censorship.

00:01:38.060 It's always called defending the peace or public health, and that's the case today. Arthur Pavlovsky,

00:01:43.980 who we've talked about 100 times at Rebel News, it's his appeal we're attending today. See,

00:01:49.800 two and a half years ago, Arthur went down to the Coutts border blockade between Alberta and the

00:01:56.580 state of Montana. It was a small town, but it had a big footprint. It totally sealed off the border

00:02:02.900 because unlike other blockades in Windsor, the Ambassador Bridge, or in Ottawa, Coutts, Alberta

00:02:09.160 is so far away from any large center, there's no local big police force that could sort of push it

00:02:15.000 away. No tow truck drivers were willing to tow their local community members. And so that blockade

00:02:20.780 got a lot of attention, and it inspired a lot of people, and in fact broke the back of the lockdown

00:02:26.400 movement in Alberta shortly after the Coutts blockade ended. Jason Kenney, the premier at the

00:02:31.920 time, announced the end of his vaccine passport scheme, for example. The police arrested a lot of

00:02:39.360 people down there, and as you know, the Democracy Fund is defending many of them. But one of the people

00:02:45.000 Arthur Pawlowski, not for blocking the road, but for inspiring the men. Arthur didn't even spend a

00:02:51.200 full day down there. He went down for a few hours. He drove through a police checkpoint with their

00:02:55.840 approval down to Coutts, and he didn't go to the blockade. He didn't go to the road. He didn't go to

00:02:59.560 the border itself. He went to the local saloon where the men had gathered. That's sort of where they

00:03:04.220 were hanging out and getting their food and drink, and it was so cold down there, that's where they

00:03:08.160 stayed warm. And Arthur got up, and he gave an impromptu, I think it was a 17-minute sermon,

00:03:14.680 basically telling his own story about being a freedom-fighting pastor, telling the story about

00:03:19.500 the Solidarity Movement. That was Lech Walesa's freedom-oriented trade union in the Gdansk shipyard

00:03:25.680 that really lit the fire for the freedom movement in Poland that marked the end of the Soviet bloc.

00:03:33.360 So Arthur talked about what he learned in Poland. He talked about that general strike. He talked

00:03:38.500 about being peaceful, but freedom-fighting. He said three times in his sermon, if I recall,

00:03:44.820 stay peaceful.

00:03:46.200 It's about time for Canadians to rise up and start roaring.

00:03:50.660 Let's go!

00:03:51.880 Let's go!

00:03:54.580 I'm talking about peaceful resolution. I'm not talking about guns and swords.

00:03:58.620 You see, this image, this image right here, it was the most powerful thing I could ever

00:04:05.760 do. And it went viral all over the world because it showed simply me on my knees on a middle,

00:04:13.680 in the middle of the highway, being taken by SWAT team. Why? For inciting people to come

00:04:19.520 to church, participating in illegal church gatherings, and officiating a church service.

00:04:24.260 Who do those people think they are? But the police reviewed that 17-minute sermon

00:04:32.460 and charged him, charged him with inciting mischief. And there was a trial in Lethbridge,

00:04:40.100 and we covered it closely, and he was convicted. And imagine the precedent that sets. If you can

00:04:46.200 convict someone for a sermon, you could call anything a sermon, I suppose. If someone says,

00:04:51.660 go and commit terrorism, I mean, you might actually have a sermon in a radical mosque saying

00:04:55.860 that. But that's not what Arthur said. You can watch the video for yourself. It's on Facebook

00:05:00.360 to this day. If you simply say, hold the line, retake your rights, be peaceful, if anyone could

00:05:07.900 be convicted and jailed for that, there was a jail sentence attended to that, then we're all in

00:05:14.300 trouble, including political commentators and any one of us. That's how bad it is in Brazil. And

00:05:19.500 that's the new state of the law in Alberta right now. That is the state of the law, which is why we

00:05:25.720 have come here to the Court of Appeal today. This isn't actually the normal building for the Court

00:05:30.240 of Appeal, but this is where the hearing is today. A three-judge panel will review this for two full

00:05:35.380 hours. And I am hopeful that they will overturn this conviction now that more sober-minded senior

00:05:42.000 judges are looking at it and that our lawyer, Sarah Miller, is on the case.

00:05:45.960 It's a two-hour hearing. There's no new evidence. There will be no witnesses testifying. It'll simply

00:05:53.660 be lawyers on both sides showing the judge, for example, Sarah Miller, Arthur Pavlovsky's lawyer,

00:05:59.960 will show the judge where the lower court made errors and say to these three senior judges, look,

00:06:05.860 you got the law wrong, you got the facts wrong, let's fix it. And the Crown prosecutor is sending

00:06:10.600 the lawyers saying, no, no, no, the lower judge got it right. This was a proper conviction. I'm hopeful

00:06:16.520 if Alberta still has any of its Alberta-ness and its freedom-loving nature that this three-person

00:06:23.160 appeal panel, including former boxer Willie DeWitt, will still stand for freedom. I can't imagine,

00:06:29.440 I can't imagine a Canada where if you give, where if a pastor gives a sermon to men 0.62

00:06:35.220 and repeatedly calls for peaceful protest, that that pastor is jailed. I just, that is so abnormal.

00:06:43.060 That was the mania of the times during the lockdown, but surely in the several years since then,

00:06:49.860 we've come to our senses and realized that the state had massive overreach. I'm sorry, I do not

00:06:54.840 want to live in a country where a Christian pastor is picked off and jailed for saying, hold the line. 0.77

00:06:59.780 By the way, show me the last time a Muslim imam was arrested for actually inciting violence. 1.00

00:07:06.240 Hasn't happened in Canadian history. Anyways, this is my commentary before I go into the courts.

00:07:11.940 I will be live tweeting today. I've spoken with Sarah Miller, Arthur's lawyer. She's agreed to do

00:07:17.240 an interview after the hearing. If we see Arthur himself, we'll talk to him too. This is an important

00:07:22.960 battle for Rebel News viewers. We have been supporting Arthur really since the very first day of the

00:07:28.640 lockdowns. I remember he was client number one of what we then called the Fight the Fines campaign.

00:07:34.760 He was the very first person we decided to help when he was pushed around and given a ticket for

00:07:40.260 feeding the hungry homeless in the streets of Calgary. Remember that video? This is the video

00:07:45.000 that started it all. A Christian pastor in the cold handing out food to the indigent and police

00:07:50.920 coming and saying, hey, this is an illegal gathering. Take a look at this.

00:07:54.380 We are providing necessities of life to those that you and your bosses refuse to provide.

00:08:02.500 Do you guys do that? I respect the social distancing.

00:08:04.260 Who's allowed? Stand back from me a little bit.

00:08:05.740 Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. I need feet. Stand back. 0.88

00:08:09.460 Or what? You're going to f***ing threaten me and f***ing abuse me. 1.00

00:08:12.760 Hey, guys. Do not do that. 1.00

00:08:15.080 Tell him not to touch me.

00:08:16.600 Six feet away for everybody. That's for everybody.

00:08:19.420 That video caused me to phone up Arthur and say, let me crowdfund your legal defense.

00:08:24.760 And soon we had another pastor who was prosecuted for the same thing.

00:08:29.040 And then we had 50 cases and then 100.

00:08:31.240 And then the Democracy Fund was created and to this day has helped 3,000 people.

00:08:35.840 But we're still here for client number one, who is actually in some ways being the most pesky

00:08:41.300 of the clients because he just won't obey edicts.

00:08:45.760 I guess that's the Polish nature in him.

00:08:48.040 He's a contrarian. He's a dissident.

00:08:50.220 And he doesn't shut up just because the government tells him to.

00:08:53.140 That's a tough road to follow.

00:08:55.740 Democracy Fund has gone on to defend other people, too, including Tamara Leach.

00:08:58.980 I'll be in Ottawa for her trial again on Friday, if you can imagine.

00:09:04.080 So here we are, years after the trucker convoy, and we're still fighting the legal battles emanating therefrom.

00:09:11.760 But I think, as Martin Luther King Jr. said, the arc of the universe, the moral arc, bends towards freedom.

00:09:19.700 It just takes a very long time.

00:09:22.900 I'll catch up with you after the hearing.

00:09:24.560 Well, the two-hour Court of Appeal hearing for the case of Arthur Pavlovsky's conviction for inciting mischief

00:09:40.500 by giving a sermon down at the Coutts border crossing two and a half years ago is concluded.

00:09:46.060 And standing with me now to talk about it in her finest barrister's robes is my friend Sarah Miller,

00:09:51.900 one of the two lawyers who is representing Arthur and the Democracy Fund in the court.

00:09:55.820 Sarah, great to see you.

00:09:57.140 Thank you, Ezra.

00:09:57.780 Nice to see you as well.

00:09:59.060 I've sat in different courts around the country and, indeed, around the world and different judges of different styles.

00:10:05.060 The three Court of Appeal judges today were very interactive.

00:10:08.940 I'd almost call it a banter.

00:10:10.800 You came ready to make presentations, but I think most of your time was just spent answering questions, wasn't it?

00:10:16.340 Yeah, that's right.

00:10:17.060 And usually that's what counsel prefer.

00:10:19.440 Lots of questions from the bench means we get to answer what they want to talk about and engage with them

00:10:24.520 rather than, you know, reread our submissions.

00:10:27.720 Right.

00:10:27.920 I mean, especially at this level of court, when you're dealing with senior, serious people,

00:10:33.300 they will have read your written submissions before.

00:10:36.680 And they don't need you just to read them like a bedtime story.

00:10:40.120 So they've been thinking of quarrels and you want to hear that.

00:10:44.120 You want to address that.

00:10:45.520 That's right.

00:10:46.100 Yeah, exactly.

00:10:46.680 So you were there with your colleague, Evan Best.

00:10:49.980 Tell me the essential.

00:10:52.280 But first, before I get into the arguments, just for our viewers who may not have a legal background,

00:10:58.220 an appeal is not a retrial.

00:11:00.120 Appeal isn't a do-over.

00:11:01.320 Appeal isn't a do-over.

00:11:02.620 It's saying to senior judges, the lower judge got this wrong based on what was in front of them.

00:11:08.640 Tell me exactly what an appeal is.

00:11:11.520 I know that sounds like a basic question, but we should just get that right before we proceed.

00:11:15.600 Yeah, so exactly as you said, it's not a retrial, but it's on the appellant to identify where there was errors.

00:11:23.300 Usually in law, that's the most common or the easiest to present.

00:11:28.340 There can be errors of fact, but those are very difficult to have overturned or mixed fact and law.

00:11:33.580 But the appeal is to identify specific errors that can be overturned.

00:11:38.600 There's a case out of Supreme Court of Canada, Hooson and Nicolason, that set out when errors can be overturned and on what basis they can be overturned.

00:11:46.480 And so there really has to be an error that is appealable and can be overturned by the Court of Appeal in order to proceed on an appeal.

00:11:53.820 Now, and I want to make one more clarification.

00:11:57.140 You tell me if I'm wrong.

00:11:58.000 I haven't practiced law in a long time, so my memory may be fuzzy on this.

00:12:01.920 A judge is allowed to get things wrong to a certain degree.

00:12:08.520 All the judges don't have to agree.

00:12:10.760 There's different standards of review, right?

00:12:12.740 Some are, you know, was a judge patently wrong, like just absurd, which is a very, he has to get it super duper wrong.

00:12:22.900 Others is sort of, what would the standard be for overturning a judge?

00:12:28.320 Because you don't want to, you want to allow judges to have different points of view.

00:12:33.200 And there is some gray area when you have clashing values.

00:12:37.440 What would be the legal standard to overturn a trial judge who heard the whole case?

00:12:44.720 What would these three appeal judges have to find?

00:12:47.720 How bad would the lower court have had to get it?

00:12:50.980 So based on the arguments that we were presenting, we argued that specifically a section of the criminal code was misinterpreted and misapplied by the lower court or sections of the criminal code, I should say.

00:13:03.900 And so that interpretive exercise, according to at least a court in Dooling, which is one of the cases we cited, is on the basis of correctness.

00:13:13.580 That you have to interpret section 430 sub 7 correctly.

00:13:17.700 So there's no wiggle room on that one.

00:13:19.180 Right. No wiggle room on that one.

00:13:21.280 There are other standards.

00:13:23.220 They wouldn't have been applicable in our case because we're arguing a statutory interpretation and exercise only.

00:13:30.120 So that exercise has to be done correctly.

00:13:32.640 There was some very detailed, specific legal arguments I found almost difficult to keep up.

00:13:41.300 But you were talking about a couple of sections in the criminal code, section 429-2 and section 430 sub 7.

00:13:47.960 Now, already I can feel through the TV lens people's eyes glazing over.

00:13:53.400 But those are built in defenses right there in the criminal code.

00:13:57.940 Tell me what they say.

00:13:58.960 I think they were mentioned enough that I could probably do it.

00:14:02.200 But tell me, what was 430 and 429 sections of the criminal code and how did they apply to Arthur's case?

00:14:09.320 So section 430 sub 7 says that if you've committed mischief by way of solely communicating information at a place, by attending at a place and communicating information, then that's what section 430 sub 7 says is that that would not be mischief.

00:14:25.580 Because communication of communication of information would be exempt or that would provide a defense or the essential elements would not be made out because you have to show something more than communicating information.

00:14:37.760 So that's section 430 sub 7.

00:14:41.120 Section 429 sub 2 says that if you act with legal justification, then you are not guilty of committing mischief.

00:14:50.840 So section 429 sub 2, legal justification has been interpreted by the courts, but not in the way that we've suggested.

00:14:58.400 It's a bit of a new issue.

00:15:01.320 So section 429 sub 2, we say a legal justification is the exercise of your charter rights.

00:15:05.920 Now, it's interesting because I think I heard you mention the case Tremblay.

00:15:12.200 And I was in Ottawa recently for the trial of Tamara Leach for something very similar here, inciting mischief in the Ottawa convoy.

00:15:20.000 And the lead lawyer that the Democracy Fund has retained there is Lawrence Greenspon, very senior counsel.

00:15:26.680 And he actually was a lawyer who litigated Tremblay.

00:15:30.240 And it was a goofy story.

00:15:31.760 He told me about it afterwards.

00:15:32.740 He said there was a quarrel between two neighbors and one neighbor like wrote on his truck, on his own truck, don't blame me for your housing problems and parked it right.

00:15:44.020 And and that sort of created a problem for the other homeowner who was trying to sell his house.

00:15:48.660 Like it was it was a real feud between two neighbors.

00:15:52.140 But weirdly, the police charged the neighbor with sort of the homemade sign.

00:15:58.460 And incredibly, he was convicted before going to appeal.

00:16:01.920 So, first of all, that's a crazy story.

00:16:04.100 But second of all, that, you know, how it's a crime to merely communicate something.

00:16:09.120 As Greenspon said in Ottawa, everything we say is communicated for a purpose other than maybe our own diary.

00:16:19.120 So surely going to Coutts to talk about religion and politics and freedom and things like that, surely that is permissible communication.

00:16:29.620 That's what Greenspon was arguing in Ottawa.

00:16:32.820 And it looked like the judges had a lot of time for it.

00:16:35.540 How did these arguments go over today?

00:16:38.620 Well, we don't know.

00:16:40.320 They reserved a decision.

00:16:41.660 So we'll see.

00:16:42.860 You know, we did have a lot of questions about how this analytical framework should go.

00:16:48.740 And we're operating in a situation where there there has been no court of appeal to tell us how inciting mischief should be interpreted, what the essential elements are, whether these defenses apply to inciting mischief.

00:17:02.740 And we'll see what the court does with it.

00:17:06.320 They have time now to sit with it and decide what to do with it.

00:17:10.900 I got a real kick out of seeing Willie DeWitt on the bench.

00:17:13.460 I'm old enough to remember when he was a boxing champ.

00:17:16.380 And then I was at U of A Law School when he started to attend there.

00:17:20.080 And it was sort of funny to see this big guy going around in law school because we all thought of him as a boxer.

00:17:25.120 And here he is on the Court of Appeal, which is a very senior position.

00:17:28.080 I got a kick out of that now that the Crown Prosecution, who was there to say, no, no, don't overturn this judge.

00:17:35.620 He got it right.

00:17:36.680 He said, if we exempt communication from crime, then you'll never be.

00:17:46.820 He tried to give the example of, I think, a bank robber saying, hand over your money.

00:17:51.380 Now, the judges quickly swatted that down. 0.99

00:17:53.680 But what do you make of his larger point that if every communication is exempt by reason of the Charter of Rights, that's going to wipe out a whole bunch of criminal law?

00:18:05.920 Now, maybe a libertarian would say, good.

00:18:08.600 But what do you make?

00:18:09.600 That was a point that the prosecution tried to make several times is warning judge, do not allow free speech to become a defense or that's going to wipe out a lot of criminal sections in the code.

00:18:21.620 I thought that was an interesting point, probably a predictable point.

00:18:24.720 What do you have to say to that?

00:18:26.120 So Section 430 sub 7 only applies to Section 430.

00:18:30.500 And I did make this point in court is that it's got a very narrow application.

00:18:34.900 It's not going to wipe out a whole swack of activity that we would otherwise consider criminal.

00:18:40.780 It's only going to wipe out that very small and narrow amount where we're talking about mischiefs, right?

00:18:46.680 Whether you're a party or a principal of mischief, you're causing mischief, you're inciting mischief, it's only going to capture that mischief.

00:18:53.740 It's not going to capture everything else.

00:18:55.720 Now, with respect to Section 429 sub 2, legal justification, again, it's got a fairly narrow application, broader than Section 430 sub 7, but a narrower application.

00:19:05.740 And so what this court is going to have to really deal with, and I think this is what the court was having a hard time with today, is figuring out what that analytical framework looks like.

00:19:17.660 And that's not an easy task for this court to come up with.

00:19:20.300 And by analytical framework, you mean how does the court, how does a judge handle this confusing problem?

00:19:27.180 Here's a guy saying, no, no, this is my expressive right, but he was encouraging, perhaps, people to do mischief.

00:19:35.400 I mean, this is something I see on our streets every day, and I think it goes far beyond mischief.

00:19:39.500 I see trespass, I see uttering threats.

00:19:41.480 I'm talking about the pro-Hamas street protests.

00:19:45.060 I'm shocked by some of the things I say.

00:19:47.420 I haven't seen prosecutions of them or jailings of them the way I see it for this Christian pastor here.

00:19:53.900 You know, it feels like a two-tier justice, but maybe you're right.

00:19:56.560 Maybe the judges need a rule of thumb, like here's a five-step test to follow if someone is claiming that their mischief was political expression.

00:20:05.500 Is that what you're saying by legal, analytical framework?

00:20:08.520 Yes, that's exactly it.

00:20:09.560 Like, how do you look at this section, and how do you apply it, and what are the parameters about it, right?

00:20:15.260 What are the limits?

00:20:16.120 How far does it take us?

00:20:17.380 And just because I'm here, you know, not everybody, you know, it's the, some of what you suggested was, well, there's not other charges being laid against other people who might be engaged in similar behavior.

00:20:30.320 I do just want to warn about that, taking that analysis too far, because it's the same analysis as, well, if I speed on deer foot and get caught, but somebody else was speeding on deer foot and they weren't caught, like, should I have less moral culpability?

00:20:43.380 And that's not what this is about.

00:20:45.520 We just want the rule of law, and we want the court of appeal to tell us how this, how this should be interpreted, and where we should go from here.

00:20:52.920 And to help counsel who are representing accused at trials, and to help trial judges to figure out what does Section 429 sub 2 mean, what does Section 430 sub 7 mean, what are its parameters, how do you apply it, when do you consider it, and that's what we're asking the court to do.

00:21:09.640 You know, all this started crazily based on, I think it was a 17-minute video that Arthur himself must have taken, because he posted it to his own Facebook page.

00:21:19.460 It was a typical Arthur sermon, rambunctious, energetic, a little bit over the top, talking about freedom in Poland, where he's from originally, using colorful language that is bracing, no doubt about it.

00:21:35.460 The idea that a guy goes to give a sermon in the saloon, he drives in, gives a sermon, and he drives, he didn't blockade, he didn't stay down there, there was no place to stay.

00:21:45.140 The idea that that can be a crime, prosecuted, and he got a jail sentence out of it, too.

00:21:52.240 He got time served.

00:21:53.680 But I find that a little bit scary, because what's the difference between a sermon?

00:21:58.940 It's about time for Canadians to rise up and start roaring.

00:22:04.400 Let's go!

00:22:08.460 I'm talking about peaceful resolution, I'm not talking about guns and swords.

00:22:12.780 You see, this image, this image, right here, it was the most powerful thing I could ever do.

00:22:20.020 And it went viral all over the world, because it showed, simply, me on my knees, on a middle, in the middle of the highway, being taken by SWAT team.

00:22:30.800 Why?

00:22:31.500 For inciting people to come to church, participating in illegal church gathering, and officiating a church service?

00:22:38.220 Who do those people think they are?

00:22:42.060 Versus, let's say, a political commentary that I do on Twitter or video.

00:22:46.000 Like, if anyone who's saying, go get them, guys, hold the line, if that is a crime, you know, as Lavrenti Beria of the former Soviet secret police said, show me the man and I'll find you the crime.

00:22:58.920 Because if that's the crime, I can get anyone.

00:23:01.680 It's just a matter of who I choose.

00:23:03.660 That's a little nerve-wracking to me.

00:23:05.180 Yeah, and that was the very initial part of our submissions, was, you know, these words, in their context, can give a lot of other meanings, right?

00:23:17.340 And doesn't need to require inciting mischief.

00:23:21.420 Like, that's not the default analysis when you watch that 19-minute video.

00:23:26.060 You know, when I watched it, I thought, well, this is, you know, just calling for a gathering of people, calling for people not to work.

00:23:34.760 It's not, obviously, the trial judge thought differently.

00:23:37.900 But ultimately, even if it is inciting mischief, Section 430-7, Section 429-2 should hopefully provide some parameters to that to say, okay, well, maybe that is, strictly speaking, inciting mischief.

00:23:51.440 But you're expressing yourself, you're not doing anything physically to interfere with the property, physically to interfere with the highway in this case.

00:23:59.880 So, you have that defense available to you.

00:24:02.680 And that's what we're hoping the Court of Appeal will say eventually.

00:24:06.180 You know, September 2024, these events happened in February 2022.

00:24:12.100 So, we're two and a half years into it, and we're not even done.

00:24:16.100 Like, it wouldn't surprise me if these, I mean, maybe they'll get their ruling out before Christmas.

00:24:19.760 But this is a heavy matter that they're obviously engaged in, and they could be drafting this new analytical framework, as you call it.

00:24:29.420 And that will affect many cases.

00:24:33.660 And given that this is the Court of Appeal, it'll be binding in Alberta and persuasive in other provinces.

00:24:39.420 There's a chance it could be appealed to the Supreme Court.

00:24:42.260 So, this is heavy stuff.

00:24:44.180 I think it's going to take them a while.

00:24:46.180 I mean, it's a fool's errand to try and guess when we'll know the result.

00:24:49.360 Do you think we'll get it before the new year?

00:24:52.020 I mean, of course, I really want the decision to come before the new year.

00:24:55.840 I'm very interested from a rule of law perspective as to what the Court of Appeal is going to say about these issues.

00:25:02.320 It really, I think it will really inform how police, how prosecutors, how trial counsel, how trial courts interpret a lot of important case law on protesting and mischief.

00:25:14.820 But that's why the Court of Appeal has to take their time and do it right.

00:25:19.780 So, of course, I want it to come before Christmas.

00:25:21.840 You know, it would be great to know what they are doing.

00:25:23.360 I don't know the backlog in the Court of Appeal in Alberta is all I'm saying.

00:25:26.940 I don't know how long it typically takes them.

00:25:28.800 Yeah.

00:25:29.660 Sometimes you get decisions quite quickly.

00:25:31.800 Sometimes it takes them a while.

00:25:32.900 And in this case, they need to do it right and they don't have a lot of other cases kind of guiding them.

00:25:39.280 So I think it's going to take some time.

00:25:41.540 It must be scary to be a Court of Appeal judge trying to come up with new rules of interpretation because a lot hangs on it.

00:25:48.620 It's not just it's a heavy thing.

00:25:50.520 So I'm going to go ahead and predict that the ruling from this court won't be out until 2025, which will mark nearly three years.

00:25:58.420 And like I say, that's not necessarily the end of it.

00:26:01.800 Either side could theoretically appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

00:26:05.960 Then they have to decide whether or not they even hear it.

00:26:08.800 And then they have to schedule that hearing.

00:26:11.240 This could theoretically stretch into 2026.

00:26:15.780 What do you think?

00:26:16.920 Oh, absolutely.

00:26:17.460 If if we if there is a split bench, so meaning two to one on the Court of Appeal, I imagine that whether that goes in favor of Crown or defense, that it will be appealed, that that the counsel on either side of that losing equation would appeal.

00:26:36.320 So if that's the circumstance and we're going to Supreme Court of Canada and then we have to wait for a hearing of Supreme Court of Canada, we could be into 2027 before this is finally determined and over.

00:26:46.680 Five years and, you know, it's been a labor of love.

00:26:51.120 Rebel News has crowdfunded a lot of litigation, not just Arthur, but out out east were crowdfunding Tamera Leach's trial.

00:26:58.740 I'm going back out there on Friday for the last that's like 44, 45 days of hearings now.

00:27:04.260 And I'm sure the Crown out there will will appeal if they lose.

00:27:08.780 But like you say, either side will.

00:27:10.460 Well, the reason I say that is these are the spectacular cases, Arthur's case, Tamera Leach's case.

00:27:16.740 There's been a few other nationally famous cases, but ninety nine point five percent of the cases the Democracy Fund has taken are just severely normal people.

00:27:27.480 Six thousand dollars in arrive can fines times for family members, 24 grand.

00:27:32.660 But there's no way a normal human could pay for that.

00:27:37.520 And as I say about these massive cases, a poor person couldn't and a rich person wouldn't.

00:27:45.380 A rich person wouldn't take their life savings and spend it on lawyers to fight for freedom.

00:27:51.580 A rich person would cut their losses.

00:27:53.340 They would do the the math and say, all right, I'm going to pay a fine.

00:27:56.620 I'm going to cut my losses and I'm going to live a subdued, humble life of privacy now.

00:28:02.980 It's only through the unique combination of motivated litigants and crowdfunded dollars that this is possible.

00:28:11.620 On the one hand, that's a wonderful innovation because I don't think that was really around before the edge of the Internet.

00:28:17.040 On the other hand, it's deeply sad to me that the financing of legal liberty in this country is done in 50 and 100 dollar chunks by, frankly, Rebel News viewers.

00:28:31.500 And the great institutions that in the past we've relied on to protect our freedoms have been silent.

00:28:37.460 That's how I feel about it.

00:28:39.060 I mean, I love the fact that you guys are in there fighting like hell.

00:28:41.700 I love the fact that Lawrence Greenspan's out there with his team in Ottawa.

00:28:45.780 But it makes me a little bit depressed because it shouldn't feel this lonely to fight for freedom.

00:28:54.820 Yeah.

00:28:55.100 So the Trombley case that Greenspan did in the Ontario Court of Appeal, the man with the van on the side of his property, that did have CCLA intervene.

00:29:04.520 That was 2010.

00:29:06.640 CCLA did intervene.

00:29:07.880 That's the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

00:29:09.900 Yes.

00:29:10.320 They did intervene on the Pawlowski matter the last time we were at Court of Appeal.

00:29:14.040 Oh, that's good to hear.

00:29:14.640 I didn't remember that.

00:29:15.500 Yeah.

00:29:15.860 So they did apply to intervene and they so they're there.

00:29:18.840 I think I think there's a real funding issue with respect to civil liberties groups.

00:29:23.480 I think the Democracy Fund has done an amazing job to make sure that these cases are progressed and that they're dealt with by competent counsel.

00:29:31.400 And it's an amazing, I've said this to you before, I've said it like on different interviews, it's an amazing initiative for access to justice.

00:29:39.600 And the reality is that some people are going to take issue with me saying that to say, well, these people are rebel rousers and they're awful and they say bad things.

00:29:49.540 But that is where we have to be pushing things to understand where those limits are, that's where we get the interesting case law, that's where we get the definitive case law that tells us how to interpret things.

00:30:01.380 It's where we're pushed to limit, not when you're walking across the street and blocking a car for 10 minutes for, you know, an ongoing little march protest.

00:30:09.800 Right. Most of the time, those innocuous things are going to be ignored by police.

00:30:14.720 But it's it's these types of cases that allow us to interpret the law and then know how to apply it to to the smaller individuals.

00:30:23.320 Well, almost by definition, mild speech is not censored.

00:30:28.960 It's the prickly stuff. And I alluded to it before.

00:30:31.800 Arthur Pablovsky is a prickly bear.

00:30:34.040 I mean, I like the fella, but he can be hard to handle.

00:30:37.180 And Tamara Leach is just an absolute sweetheart. 1.00

00:30:40.020 I can't find a single critical thing to say about her.

00:30:42.920 But I think of myself and the trouble I've gotten into over the years.

00:30:45.440 I think of Mark Stein. I think of the case that was mentioned today, Bill Watcott, who's an anti-gay activist who hands out flyers.

00:30:53.320 He's very prickly. And a lot of people are more than just annoyed by him.

00:30:57.260 My point of saying this is if you are going to defend free speech, almost by definition,

00:31:02.460 you will be defending people who are sometimes impolite or make people uncomfortable.

00:31:08.200 But those that's the front line. It's not going to be the boring weather man who gets prosecuted.

00:31:14.080 It's going to be the political commentator.

00:31:16.240 And, you know, I remember the late Alan Borevoy, who really embodied the spirit of free speech

00:31:23.860 when he was an early leader of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

00:31:28.060 He said this, and I'll never forget it. He said, free speech is the gift you have to give to your opponents if you want it for yourself.

00:31:36.320 And always think if the rules were switched.

00:31:39.960 Always think, is the precedent you're arguing for, would you be okay with it if it was your speech or your opponent's speech on the other side?

00:31:49.420 And I don't know. I feel like what you're doing in there is important.

00:31:52.580 I want to thank you.

00:31:53.140 So you've been the lawyer for Arthur really since the very, he was client number one of the Democracy Fund, by the way.

00:31:59.080 He was the very first case we took.

00:32:00.940 Yes. Yeah. And it's been great.

00:32:02.740 I think you were scared of him back then, to be honest.

00:32:04.700 I've gotten used to him now.

00:32:06.340 But yeah, I really appreciate everything the Democracy Fund has done.

00:32:09.900 It's like for Arthur, for Arthur's rights and for the rule of law, because this is where it's getting decided at the Court of Appeal today.

00:32:19.960 I mean, it is for Arthur's rights, but the precedent will be binding on every Albertan in this case and what we do in other provinces.

00:32:27.460 You said some kind words about the Democracy Fund, so let me close on that note.

00:32:31.920 As you know, when we started defending people during the pandemic, the Democracy Fund wasn't a thing.

00:32:37.420 We took one case, then we took a second pastor in this city, and they were arrested for feeding the homeless.

00:32:43.020 That was called an illegal gathering.

00:32:44.840 Before you knew it, we had 25 cases and 50 and then 100.

00:32:47.940 And we said, oh my God, what have we gotten ourselves into?

00:32:50.760 But then we created, at arm's length, I mean, it's not run by Rebel, it has its own board of directors and its own accounting,

00:32:58.080 the Democracy Fund to take all these cases off our hands with the added bonus of issuing charitable tax receipts, which Rebel News cannot do.

00:33:06.940 And over the course of the last three and a half years, the Democracy Fund, as I mentioned, has taken 3,000 cases and literally raised millions of dollars.

00:33:16.520 And it's been an amazing project that has been one of the most, I don't know, most important or meaningful things I've done with my life.

00:33:26.460 And you've been an important part of that.

00:33:28.340 You've taken a lot of cases and your firm has taken cases.

00:33:31.640 I believe in hiring lawyers, not pro bono lawyers.

00:33:36.220 Pro bono is the Latin phrase for someone who does it for the public good.

00:33:39.660 And I admire anyone who would volunteer, but typically a volunteer isn't a subject matter expert.

00:33:45.300 And the thing about volunteers is they're very emotionally passionate in the first round, but will they be there 500 hours of work later?

00:33:54.560 Or will they say, I've just got to earn a living.

00:33:56.600 I've got other things more pressing.

00:33:58.240 So the Democracy Fund has always paid its lawyers.

00:34:00.500 It's never had volunteers.

00:34:02.060 And I actually think that's been an important thing because we need excellent lawyers, not just available lawyers.

00:34:08.040 God bless the pro bono lawyers of this world, but I would rather win and have to crowdfund it than lose, but lose for free.

00:34:17.140 And the government lawyers who are on the opposite side doing good work themselves, but they're not working for free either.

00:34:24.260 So, you know, it's an unfortunate circumstance of the situation, but everybody needs to get paid to make their living.

00:34:32.960 And those government lawyers are getting paid as well.

00:34:35.660 That's what's so frustrating here.

00:34:36.900 I mean, sometimes we do access to information requests about legal battles we're in.

00:34:41.120 And the government outspends us five to one.

00:34:44.520 There was a case, you know, my friend Chad Williamson, your colleague down at a different firm.

00:34:50.300 We fought the government on the Election Debates Commission, which kept out Rebel News.

00:34:55.060 I think they had seven lawyers on the other side. 0.55

00:34:57.240 And I can't remember the bills.

00:34:59.900 So the government has unlimited funds.

00:35:02.600 They don't have to crowdfund.

00:35:03.980 They don't have to look into the camera and say, please go to savearthur.com.

00:35:08.740 They just don't.

00:35:10.300 But I love that David and Goliath feeling.

00:35:12.100 I wouldn't have it any other way.

00:35:14.400 Sarah Miller and JSS Barristers, give our thanks to Evan Best, your colleague in court today.

00:35:18.580 We'll talk to you when the results of this are known.

00:35:22.500 I think that's going to be in 2025.

00:35:24.440 And we just keep fighting.

00:35:27.820 It's in our blood.

00:35:28.820 Because if we don't, what is there?

00:35:30.800 As you know, I was in Sao Paulo on the weekend for a rally of about 200,000 Brazilians who were rallying because a judge there shut down all of Twitter.

00:35:41.220 You cannot get on Twitter in Brazil.

00:35:43.040 If you try to, by using a VPN to get around it, which is what I did, you're liable for up to a $9,000 fine.

00:35:52.260 I just want to put a plug in for our VPN.

00:35:55.020 I've never really used one before, but I downloaded it on my phone.

00:35:58.920 Anyhow, I won't talk about it.

00:36:00.000 But it was sort of fun to get around the government censorship.

00:36:03.940 But that's how far things are in Brazil.

00:36:07.060 And I hope they don't go that far here.

00:36:09.700 Let's call it quits for now.

00:36:11.000 Thanks to Sarah.

00:36:12.380 If you want to help Arthur, go to SaveArthur.com.

00:36:14.960 You'll get a charitable tax receipt.

00:36:16.700 And we'll keep following the story to the end.

00:36:18.280 We're committed to it.

00:36:20.000 Until then, on behalf of all of us at Rebel News, to you at home, goodbye.

00:36:24.640 And keep fighting for freedom.

00:36:41.000 Thanks for listening.

00:36:54.360 All right.

Rebel News Podcast - September 11, 2024

EZRA LEVANT ｜ Pastor Artur Pawlowski appeals criminal conviction from Coutts sermon

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript