Rebel News Podcast - EZRA LEVANT ｜ Premier Brian Peckford is challenging the unvaxxed passenger flight ban in Federal Court

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

00:00:39.400 the only thing i have to say to the government

00:00:41.740 is because it's my bloody right to do so

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 1.00

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 0.68

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 0.97

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 0.66

00:49:11.120 place in advance the holocaust could never have happened because it would have been stopped dead in 1.00

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

01:00:09.140 these who come together for weeks

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

01:00:29.640 chicks and look badly

Rebel News Podcast - February 04, 2022

EZRA LEVANT ｜ Premier Brian Peckford is challenging the unvaxxed passenger flight ban in Federal Court

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript