Rebel News and Dr. Patrick Moore, alongside Leo Gamo, launched a $100K–$150K constitutional challenge against Saskatchewan’s lockdown laws on January 27, targeting Public Health Orders (PHO) by Dr. Saqib Sahab—last updated December 14—that banned gatherings like Moore’s planned Regina town hall despite safety measures and a venue capacity of 2,200. With just 33 ICU patients in a province of 1.2 million and no under-20 deaths, the lawsuit argues restrictions violate Charter freedoms (Sections 2B–2D) and lack proportionality, contrasting them with permitted NHL games or Toronto film shoots. Ezra Levant defends Rebel’s legal stance while dismissing criticism over name-tag blurring, framing the fight as necessary to expose arbitrary power—where even Dickensian extremes of control demand resistance. [Automatically generated summary]
Well, another day, another lawsuit, but this time we're on the hunt.
We are taking the government of Saskatchewan to court.
We're challenging the constitutionality of their ban on political gatherings.
Wish us luck.
I'll tell you where you can read the entire lawsuit and I'll quote a bit to you.
Before I do, let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
That's what we call the video version of this podcast.
Plus, you get shows every week from Sheila Gunread, David Menzies, and now Andrew Chapatos.
So that's a lot of content for just eight bucks a month.
Seriously, two bucks a week.
I think maybe we're undercharging.
Anyways, just go to RebelNews.com and click subscribe, and you'll get the video side of things, and it helps us keep the lights on, you know.
Okay, here's today's podcast.
Tonight, we filed a constitutional challenge to Saskatchewan's lockdown laws.
I'll tell you about our project to open Saskatchewan.
It's January 27th, and this is the Ezra Levant Show.
Why should others go to jail when you're a biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here, and you won't give them an answer.
The only thing I have to say is government a lot of publisher is because it's my bloody right to do so.
There are 76 hospitals in the province of Saskatchewan, and according to the latest statistics, there are a grand total of 33 people in the entire province, out of a population of nearly 1.2 million, 33 people who are in intensive care from the coronavirus.
So one person for every two hospitals in a province physically larger than France.
I'm not trivializing even a single death, but I'm pointing out that it is not a crisis by any normal measure.
Like the rest of Canada, it's overwhelmingly a problem for the very old and very sick.
Again, their lives have value.
My point is, is that it is a disease that is focused on people in their 80s and 90s who have other health problems.
So why are young, healthy people being locked up?
It's the same story across Canada and indeed across much of the Western world.
Now, as you know, we have helped lots of individual citizens who have received outrageous tickets and fines from the lockdown.
In the name of the pandemic, they've been given these abusive treatments.
Like in the Saskatchewan city of Prince Albert, where the local mayor has had a long-running vendetta against a particular church for years.
And so he used the pandemic as an excuse to give the church the largest fine in Canada.
$14,000.
He hates that church, and he's using the pandemic as an excuse to smash it.
How did the fines come down?
How did you find out that you were levied some fines?
You had an evangelist, Ian Lavly, he received a $2,800 fine plus a victim surcharge.
And your ministry received what I think so far is the largest fine issued in the country for the coronavirus and breaking the regulations of a municipality is $14,000 plus a victim surcharge or with 10 plus the victims.
So, yeah, I was just contacted by Peter Ross from the, you know, from the health authority.
Said he wanted to talk to me.
And I wouldn't, even if he said, I've got something for you.
I think he did say that anyways, but he didn't tell me he was going to give me a fine.
But yeah, two weeks ago, he contacted me.
And so I met him at my place of quarantining and out at the farm.
And he basically gave me the ticket.
In a way, how the mayor is using the pandemic to go after his rivals, that's a microcosm in the whole thing.
There is a problem with COVID-19.
It is a real problem.
But by declaring a total emergency in the country and putting everyone into crisis mode, authorities now have powers to do a lot of things that are completely unrelated to the actual problem.
And they're simply using these emergency powers to do all sorts of things that would never be acceptable in normal times in a free society.
Public Health vs. Fundamental Freedoms00:15:20
And now we're coming up on a full year of this.
So much for two weeks to flatten the curve, eh?
So we've helped individual people in Saskatchewan and all around Canada with our Fight the Fines project.
We crowdfund lawyers to defend them, but that's reactive.
That's defensive.
It doesn't actually solve the problem.
It's like whack-a-mole.
The government will just find more people and just bring in more lockdown rules.
It won't end, will it?
Politicians love it too much.
I want to tell you about something we're doing to change that.
See, we booked a town hall meeting in Regina, Saskatchewan for last May, May of 2020.
It was our friend Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace.
He had been invited by the city of Regina to give a speech at a conference for the city.
And then censors, deplatformers, cancel culture types, they jumped in and bullied the city into banning him.
Now, that's outrageous and unfair.
So I called up Dr. Moore and I said, don't cancel your trip to Regina.
I'll rent a big hall in town and we'll hold your speech anyways that same night as planned.
And we'll keep the ticket prices really low and we'll make it a great night, get as many people out as possible.
And we did this and it worked amazing.
And well over a thousand people signed up, far more than the original conference.
We were making lemons into lemonade.
He was banned, but we re-platformed him.
It was going to be great.
And that was scheduled for May of 2020.
Well, of course, the pandemic came in in March, and no one knew just how bad it was going to be in those early days.
So when the giant auditorium we had booked called the Connexus Arts Center told us we had to postpone the event, we obviously agreed.
And most of our ticket buyers, our would-be audience, agreed too.
No one really knew what was going on.
That was in the early days.
Would we even survive the calamity?
Was this the new Ebola?
No one knew back then.
Well, within a few months, we pretty much knew.
You're going to be fine, statistically speaking, if you're a healthy person under 70.
If it makes you feel better, wear a mask or use hand sanitizer or whatever.
But we're going to be okay as a community, as a country.
If you're very old and very sick, take special precautions.
But we're going to get through this thing as a country.
So we asked the theater to reschedule the event for later in 2020, and they did.
But the province hadn't changed their rules banning indoor gatherings.
They only allowed a tiny number of people, and not for the purposes we had in mind.
Even though the Connexus Art Center's main auditorium could hold over 2,200 people, they wouldn't let us have anyone in there.
So we rescheduled it again.
And each time some ticket buyers asked for refunds, which is fair, and we gave it to them.
But as our audience got smaller, well, guess what?
We could actually socially distance inside that giant theater.
So individual families could sit far apart from each other in that main theater.
Certainly farther apart than they would in a Walmart or a Costco or on an airplane.
But the province just refused to update its original ban on indoor events like theaters.
Even though this wasn't like a rock concert or something like that, it was a political town hall meeting, one that had already been banned by the city.
So this was very important.
And I'm not saying that music concerts and other things like that aren't important too.
But legally speaking, constitutionally speaking, as part of our democracy, political meetings, the freedom to assemble and speak and to listen to Professor Moore, those are given a very high level of protection.
Those are actually called fundamental freedoms.
You can look them up in Section 2 of our Charter of Rights.
I think everyone has the right to meet and assemble for whatever reason.
That's my personal opinion.
But political speech about the problems of public life after a professor, Dr. Moore, had been censored and banned.
Well, that's the most protected speech in our Constitution.
So we wrote a polite letter to the health minister and to the Justice Minister of Saskatchewan.
We said, look, we understand the need for public health, but we can do this.
Let me quote.
Given the large size of the main Connexas Theater, it is possible to hold the event with all current ticket holders attending while maintaining social distancing between family bubbles.
Most ticket holders are couples or groups of four.
And based on our clients' experience, it would be possible for every cluster of people to sit six feet away from the next cluster.
Certainly, seating would allow greater separation than is currently permitted on airplanes within the province of Saskatchewan where masks are required, but there is no social distancing.
Beyond this, Rebel plans to take other precautions, including providing multiple hand sanitizer stations in the lobby, providing a free mask to every attendee, screening all guests with a portable infrared thermometer, adjusting the reception and dinner events accordingly.
Rebel News is also prepared to take any other reasonable precaution that the government of Saskatchewan may require to allow this event to proceed.
You can see that letter in full on our website, opensaskatchewan.com.
So it was a friendly letter.
Constructive, wouldn't you say?
And we pointed out that it's frankly illegal for a government to just ban political gatherings.
There is no pandemic exception in the Charter of Rights.
There just is.
And let me read a little bit more from the letter.
Dr. Moore's speech is an important public policy event.
His ability to speak freely and the opportunity for attendees to assemble and associate is a constitutionally protected right.
The event came into being to counteract what Rebel News identified as a troubling act of censorship and deplatforming.
It has been delayed once to accommodate public health concerns, but with the pandemic being under control in Regina, with not one active case being confirmed, whatever justification may have existed to prohibit events similar to this can no longer reasonably be said to exist.
With flights and movies being approved, activities in the province, there simply isn't any reasonable justification for a continuing ban on this event.
Despite this, the government has to date refused to relax its lockdown restrictions.
Now, there are a handful of cases in the province again.
But back then, the government had none, and they still wrote back and said, no, No compromise.
No timeline for opening up.
No recognition that we know more about the virus now than a year ago.
And basically, protect the long-term care centers, protect the seniors' homes, but young people just are less likely to get this disease and are less likely to be affected by it.
No one under 20 in Saskatchewan has died from this disease.
For example, there's different degrees of risk.
We didn't know that a year ago.
There's no understanding that there must be a balance between the public health goals and other societal goals, including our fundamental freedoms.
So we decided to challenge this ban on gatherings with a constitutional challenge.
We're suing the government of Saskatchewan.
We have standing against rebel news.
We have the right to organize, the right to assemble and associate.
We signed a contract with the Connexus Arts Center.
Dr. Moore has the right to speak.
He has agreed to join the lawsuit too as a plaintiff.
And our paying customers have the right to hear.
They have the right to listen.
One of our ticket buying guests, Leo Gamo, has agreed to be a plaintiff, too.
And last week, we filed the lawsuit in Saskatchewan.
You can see that on the website, opensaskatchewan.com too.
The lawsuit's only 10 pages long.
We've also filed affidavits from me, from Dr. Moore, and from Leo explaining how our rights have been violated.
I'd encourage you to go to opensaskatchewan.com to read them in full.
I think they're interesting.
There's some legalese in them, but it's not that bad.
I mean, it's a serious lawsuit filed by serious lawyers who know their constitutional law, but I believe that the documents are accessible to anyone who just thinks about freedom.
Let me quote a little bit from the lawsuit.
So I told you who the plaintiffs are.
Well, here's who we're suing.
The respondent is Her Majesty the Queen in right of Saskatchewan, as represented by the Attorney General of Saskatchewan and the Saskatchewan Minister of Health.
The applicants seek judicial review and challenge the constitutional validity of the public health orders issued by Dr. Saqib Sahab, most recently dated December 14, 2020, or any subsequent or substantially similar order, the PHO.
So PHO stands for Public Health Orders, which is the most recent of a number of orders previously issued under the Public Health Act.
And here's what we're asking for.
Remedy, that's what you call it.
The public health order is ultra-virus, the PHA, so it's outside the powers of the government under the Public Health Act, and an unjustifiable violation of the fundamental freedoms of expression, assembly, and association, as well as freedom of the press.
As a result, the applicants seek A, an order or declaration pursuant to Section 52 of the Charter that the public health orders is unconstitutional for infringing on Sections 2B2C and 2D of the Charter, is not justified under Section 1 of the Charter, and is therefore of no force or effect.
So you've got to go a little slowly as you read this, but I think it's clear, isn't it?
I'll read a little more.
Further, or in the alternative, such remedy or remedies pursuant to Section 24 of the Charter that this Honorable Court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances, including damages suffered by the applicant due to the postponement or cancellation of the CAC event.
C, a declaration that the public health order is unconstitutional for being inconsistent with and contrary to Section 1E of the Bill of Rights, and as such is of no force or effect.
D, an order or declaration that the public health order is invalid, unlawful, and ultravirus the Public Health Act, and therefore of no force or effect.
So we're both referencing Trudeau's Charter of Rights and Diefenbaker's Bill of Rights.
That's a good Saskatchewan boy.
And here's the grounds we're suing on.
The grounds for the application, eight, the applicants assert that the public health order is improper and ultraverised the authority granted to the Ministry of Health pursuant to the Public Health Act, as the Ministry of Health does not or cannot believe on reasonable grounds in the prerequisites for issuing health orders prescribed in Section 45 of the public health.
That's specifically, A, a serious public health threat does not exist in Saskatchewan, and B, the restrictions set out in the Public Health Act are overly restrictive and are not necessary to eliminate the risk to health presented by COVID-19 in Saskatchewan.
I know I'm getting in the weeds a bit and there's some jargon here, but I want to read the next couple of paragraphs to you, okay?
And that's it.
I won't read anymore.
You can read the whole thing at opensaskatchewan.com because what I'm about to read is how judges balance fundamental freedoms in Canada with other goals that are also important, like public health.
So you've got to balance these things.
This isn't the first time a law has been challenged under the Constitution, under the Charter of Rights.
It's been on the books for almost 40 years.
And over the years, courts have developed a test.
It's called the Oaks Test, named after a famous case.
And it guides governments and courts about how to carefully balance, especially when they're violating our freedoms.
I mean, no one would deny our freedoms are being violated.
They would say it's justified.
Well, let me read this part.
I think this is the heart of the lawsuit.
Take a look.
In addition, the public health order unjustifiably infringes upon fundamental freedoms protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and freedoms, the Charter, Part 1 of the Constitution Act, and to that extent is of no force and effect.
Specifically, A, the public health order unjustifiably and unreasonably has the effect or incidental purpose of restricting expressive activity, causing a chilling effect on expression and activism, and impairs the ability of the applicants in seeking or attaining the truth, participating in social and political decision-making, and achieving self-fulfillment, contrary to Section 2B of the Charter for Freedom of Expression.
B, public health order unjustifiably and unreasonably prevents the media from producing and publishing news and creates unconstitutional obstacles to media activities, contrary to Section 2B of the Charter for freedom of the press.
C, public health order unjustifiably and unreasonably impairs the right to gather and engage in public life, contrary to Section 2C of the Charter for the Freedom of Assembly.
And D, the public health order unjustifiably and unreasonably impairs the right to join together for common goals, contrary to Section 2D of the Charter for Freedom of Association.
The public health order is not rationally connected to the legislative purpose, does not minimally impair fundamental rights, fundamental freedoms protected by the Charter, and is not a proportionate response to the public health situation in Saskatchewan.
Therefore, the public health order is not reasonable or justifiable and is not saved by Section 1 of the Charter.
I'm almost done.
Stay with me, folks.
Finally, the public health order also unjustifiably infringes upon the freedoms of assembly and association as protected by Section 1E of the Canadian Bill of Rights.
That's Stephen Baker's Bill of Rights.
Okay, I'm going to, sorry, that's a lot there, but those phrases I just read through there and those terms like unjustifiable, unreasonable, not rationally connected, not proportionate, those are the key words from the OAS test.
That's how the government has to be when infringing on a freedom.
They actually do have the power to infringe on your freedom if it's minimal, the least possible, if it's rationally connected to their legislative purpose.
They have all these checks and balances on them.
They have to be the gentlest they can be.
They have to be reasonable.
They have to be able to justify it.
They can't simply say, for example, that even a huge auditorium like the Connexus Arts Center can't have more than a handful of people in it for a political gathering.
That's just not how our freedoms work.
You have to justify every single infringement and prove it's proportionate and prove it's rationally connected to your goal and prove it's minimally impairing.
You have to do that or you're going to fail.
That's the law.
People Want to Gather Freedomously00:13:04
And you know what?
We know a lot more about the virus now than we did a year ago.
It's simply unacceptable to have a permanent ban on political gatherings and speeches just because the politicians are scared.
The laws in Saskatchewan do not allow political gatherings at all right now.
That's just not how democracies work.
It's just not.
So we've made the decision that we have to do more than just fight individual tickets and fines.
We have to be proactive.
We have to work to open all of Saskatchewan.
And if the politicians ignore us, as they've been ignoring us, well, we have to go to court.
I'm confident in our lawyers.
They are experienced.
They support freedom, and they're excellent on constitutional matters.
You tell me.
I'd like you to read this document.
Go to opensaskatchewan.com yourself and read the lawsuit and the affidavits.
And if you can help us, well, please do.
I don't want to tell you exactly how much we've spent on this lawsuit so far, but it's safe to say it'll cost us between $100,000 and $150,000 for sure, or even more by the time we're done.
Obviously, we're not doing this for the money.
Our Patrick Moore speaking event wasn't about making money either.
It was about stopping the censorship of an intellectual and a scholar and an author at the hands of a cancel culture mob.
Well, we beat that canceled culture mob by having our event, but now we don't seem to be able to beat the public health lockdown.
So we have to go to court, not just for ourselves and our event, but for all Saskatchewan people.
It's just that we have standing there because we are personally affected.
It was our event.
We were gathering.
We wanted to speak.
We wanted to meet.
If you are from Saskatchewan or if you're from anywhere else that wants to see these limits on our freedoms lifted, please read the lawsuit at opensaskatchewan.com.
And if you can, please consider contributing to our crowdfunding campaign to pay for our constitutional lawyers.
I know I ask for help for our lawyers a lot, but there is so much to do.
And I think we have to do it in the courts because we see no courage amongst politicians.
We defend individual Saskatchewanians right now.
We do that.
But it's time to free everyone in the province, not just a handful of people.
And hopefully, if we are successful, it will inspire people across Canada to take their freedoms back.
Thanks for your support.
Now, let's go open Saskatchewan.
Well, I acknowledge, and I always have, that COVID-19 poses a health threat.
But it is not, thank God, on the order of the Black Plague or Ebola.
In fact, we must learn to balance public health concerns with other concerns, economic concerns, the concerns that the lockdown or the medicine, so to speak, the public health medicine might be worse than the disease, the unintended consequences of shutting down the economy and shutting down normal hospital access.
And one of the things that concerns me the most is the flattening, not of the curve, but of our civil liberties.
We were told 15 days to flatten the curve.
We're coming up on the one-year anniversary of that.
And it's now illegal in many parts of Canada to gather in any numbers, in some places even to visit your own family.
And political gatherings, political protests in particular, have been shut down.
Well, as you know, Rebel News has filed a constitutional challenge to some of the lockdown rules in the province of Saskatchewan.
We have standing there because for about a year now, we've been trying to have a political gathering, an event where people in Saskatchewan can hear the other side of the story.
You might recall that our friend Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, was invited to speak at a conference convened by the city of Regina.
Well, some people didn't want to hear what he had to say, so they launched a campaign to de-platform him.
And to their eternal discredit, the city caved in, banning him, ripping up the contract that they had signed with him.
I called Dr. Moore, an old friend of mine, and I said, no, no, no, save the date.
We'll book a facility and we'll invite everyone who wanted to hear what you had to say to do so.
And we'll have a question and answer session at the end.
We booked the largest venue we could find, the Connexis Arts Center, which holds more than 2,200 people in their main auditorium.
Very quickly, we sold over 1,000 tickets.
I think it maxed out at close to 1,700.
But then the pandemic hits and we were told that everything had to be shut down, two weeks to flatten the curve.
Well, that two weeks has turned into almost a year.
We've rescheduled and then rescheduled again, and we've written to the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Justice and said there must be some way to balance health with other rights too.
Can we social distance?
Can we have masks and hand sanitizer?
Can we have temperature checks of everyone in the room?
Can we space things out in the auditorium so no one is within six feet of the others?
It's a big enough auditorium to do so.
Time and again, we were told by the government no, and they have no plans to lift the bans either.
So we have filed a constitutional challenge based on our charter rights, our rights to hear Dr. Moore, his rights to speak, the rights of people to gather and to hear a political message, especially a message that was deliberately censored by the government in the first place.
You can see that lawsuit in full at our website, opensaskatchewan.com.
And joining me now via Skype from his home in British Columbia is Dr. Patrick Moore, who is one of the plaintiffs in this case.
Great to see you again, Dr. Moore.
Thanks for being here today.
Good to be back with you, Ezra.
You know, I was so excited about the speech we had organized for you.
We had over 1,600 tickets sold, and it was so symbolic that you were censored by the government.
And when we set up an alternative venue, so many people said, we want to hear from the guy who they want to shut up.
And I was very proud to be affiliated with you and to fight for free speech.
I understand why everything was shut down because of the pandemic.
But the government shows no sign of balance between health and other interests like freedom of speech.
What's your view on the subject?
My view on the subject, Ezra, is they should be willing to let me speak there if people want to come and all the precautions are taken.
The Australian Open is going ahead this year in Melbourne, where they allow pods of up to six people who are a unit that is exposed to each other regularly anyways, and where they then social distance everybody in pods of one to six.
And why can't we do that in Regina inside a huge auditorium?
There's no good reason for it.
So I believe that we should win this case and that I should be allowed to speak, especially now that I've made a book out of the talk I was going to give the book title Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Doom.
And I would be very interested in hearing my story about how nearly all the scare stories today are about things that are either invisible, like carbon dioxide, which is blamed for about 50 different bad things.
And then there's coral reefs and polar bears, which are so remote that nobody in the average population can go and count the polar bears or see the coral reefs for themselves because they're very remote.
So I want to give that talk to people and show them how all of these scare stories are fake and invisible.
And the threat of doom is in the future.
So many of these scare stories are about the future, which hasn't happened yet.
In other words, they are speculation, and yet they are talked about as if the scientists know for sure what's going to happen in the year 2100 or something.
So I really do believe that the 1700 people who signed up to hear me speak would like to have that information and they deserve to have it.
And we can do this in a way that complies with all of the restrictions.
I think you're right.
And that's a very good point to point out sports events.
I mean, across Canada, kids' hockey leagues are shut down.
Even outdoor rinks, we had that infamous case in Calgary where a young hockey player on an outdoor rink was threatened with tasering by the police.
In the meantime, the NHL is allowed to play.
They're allowed to go to the gyms.
I just see in the newspapers today, there are two dozen film shoots going on in Toronto around the city.
Obviously, if you've ever seen a movie production, there are 50, 100 people on set.
So those things are open for recreation and celebrity entertainment.
But when people want to gather to learn for political reasons, to hear your presentation, there is no flexibility, not even the same.
All I would say is give us the same rules as the NHL gets.
Give us the same rules.
And I think that there's something special about political speech.
I think that, by the way, you should allow concerts and performances.
Again, follow some reasonable precautions.
Let people choose their own.
Like if people don't want to come, that's fine.
But the fact that there's no flexibility at all for political speech, but these other recreational or entertainment things are allowed to go if they have the right lobbyists, I find that contradiction erodes the rule of law.
I mean, why can't we meet together to hear political ideas?
And why can sports events, the professionals meet and gather to make millions?
I just don't see the, I just don't see the rule of law there, Dr. Moore.
Well, it's all very arbitrary, Ezra.
And that's because politicians these days are pretty darn arbitrary about the decisions that they're making.
We simply do not have a good system of governance in this country at many levels.
And I don't know what is going to happen in the future.
I hope people wake up and realize that we're a democracy.
You know, being from British Columbia, of course, I've grown up, I was born here and lived here all my life.
I've grown up with Western alienation, knowing that what British Columbia thinks doesn't matter a hoot if as long as Ottawa and as long as Toronto and Montreal and Ontario and Quebec agree on something, the rest of us are chopped liver.
So I'm very cynical about politics to begin with.
They say out here that Canada is a road from Ottawa to Montreal and back again, and that's the size of it.
So I just think that they're making a decision about whether I can speak or not on political grounds.
So surely I should be allowed to have my political grounds.
And the political ground I want is in that auditorium in Regina where I can talk to people who want to hear me speak.
That is what democracy is all about.
And yes, the COVID requires restrictions.
I totally accept that.
And I'm glad I haven't got it yet because I've been very careful.
And I live in a place that's not so populated as downtown Toronto.
But just the same, we should be able to continue with life as normal to a certain extent.
And there must be a happy medium somewhere here.
Yeah.
Well, our Constitution, as it's been interpreted in the courts over the years, says that if the government is to infringe our fundamental freedoms, they have to prove the burden is on them to prove that it's reasonable, that their infringements are rationally connected to their goal, that it's the least infringement possible.
The government simply can't take away your freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom to do political gatherings.
They can't take those things away lightly.
And I fear that they have.
I'm so proud that you've agreed to be part of the litigation as a plaintiff, and you've sworn an affidavit in support of the lawsuit.
Proud Plaintiff00:03:05
I would like to invite all our viewers to go to opensaskatchewan.com.
You can read the entire lawsuit for yourself.
And you can also read our letters to the Department of Health and the Department of Justice asking, suggesting reasonable accommodations to allow these events to proceed.
The answer has been a stonewall every time.
Dr. Moore, we're going to fight all the way because we believe in freedom over here.
And I think that we need to take this to a court.
And when that trial happens, I hope many Canadians are watching.
Thanks for being part of this.
Thank you, Ezra.
I'm on your side.
Right on.
Well, I'm on your side.
And I'm so tantalized by what your speech will be like when we finally return to Regina and give that speech in front of 1,600, 1,700 people.
That'll be a great day.
Thanks, my friend.
Thank you, Ezra.
Take care.
All right, you too.
Well, there you have it.
Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, the author of a new book.
I can hardly wait to see his presentation.
It's called Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom.
That's pretty exciting.
You can learn more about our lawsuit at opensaskatchewan.com.
Hey folks, welcome back on my show last night.
Harley writes, best episode ever.
I will be with you for this fight.
Harley, thanks very much.
I was mad because I felt it was unfair.
Lydia writes, wow, that's awesome.
I was intense with you, and then I started to laugh.
I laughed because I think it's great.
This is righteous anger.
I think it's necessary.
When up against these kind of people, bullies need to be put in their place.
Yeah, I had a range of emotions too.
Like I knew I was a little bit cheeky when I said, why are you so mean?
And will you apologize?
It's a little bit cheeky, but I sort of meant it.
And their answers were not satisfactory to me.
And I was really, I don't know if outrageous is the word, but the fact that they called me up and didn't, obviously hadn't even talked to the cop.
And it's so clear that just showing a torso doesn't breach anyone's privacy.
And then it was a promotional picture that they took.
It was just so stupid.
I thought, I don't know if they're that stupid.
If they're that stupid, that's shocking.
I think they're actually smart, playing dumb, just to get us.
Wendy writes, I do not like all Ezra's conjecture that Doug Ford directed this.
Like Rebel News is the biggest thing on his mind.
There are many other possibilities.
The fact is, we really don't know.
And asking someone to blur a name tag sounds like a reasonable request.
The two lawyers were doing what lawyers do, representing their client.
There's no need to be so rude and aggressive over the phone or to trash them in the monologue.
Ezra, I'm disappointed that you put this show in the air.
All right.
Well, I really appreciate you giving me your most clear criticism.
My first point would be that the name tag is blurred.
It's blurred.
If you go to fightthefince.com and zoom in, you cannot see the name.
Blurred Names and Legal Games00:01:21
I know because I tried.
So my first point is it is blurred.
I guess my second point is it's blurred on the source photograph is from them.
And my third point is they put the picture up as it is with the guy's face.
But I want to tell you that it is the law in Ontario and elsewhere in Canada that a policeman has to tell you their name and their badge number.
They can't be secret.
So that's not a thing.
If you say I was rude on the phone, I'm going to take a little bit of an objection there.
I was maybe a little cheeky, but I didn't raise my voice at them.
I certainly didn't swear at them.
I didn't call them names.
I said they were mean.
That's the closest thing.
I asked for an apology.
I asked them pointed questions, but they're the ones who threaten me with four lawsuits.
So I don't think I'm going to accept the charge that I've been mean.
But I feel great that you asked me those tough questions.
I really do, and thank you for doing that.
Well, my friends, that's the show for today.
There's so much going on all the time, isn't there?
It's incredible.
We live in, as Dickens would say, the best of times and the worst of times.
I think that was Dickens.
Until tomorrow, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters TV at home, good night.