Ezra Levant critiques Canada’s October 6th vaccine mandate for travelers and November 30th deadline, enforced by Trudeau (32% election vote) and Freeland despite Conservative opposition. Pfizer biochemist Nick Carl allegedly claims natural immunity surpasses vaccines, while Israeli studies show efficacy dropping to 39%. Hundreds of myocarditis cases in Ontario’s vaccinated youth raise safety concerns, especially for kids as young as five. Pastor Arthur Pavlovsky faces a 21-day sentence for defying mandates, and Without Papers Pizza—serving all customers despite fines—symbolizes broader dissent suppression, pushing legal resistance through the Democracy Fund. [Automatically generated summary]
Today I take you through some of the federal government's new rules, including forced vaccines on any planes, trains, or boats in this country.
Second largest country in the world, but you cannot travel except for by your own car or by foot.
If you're not vaxed, boy, Pfizer never had it so good.
I'll take you through that.
And then we'll talk to Professor Bruce Party at Queen's Law School about what we can do, if anything.
That's today's podcast.
Before I get to that, let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
You get the video version of the podcast.
Just go to RebelNewsPlus.com and click subscribe.
Eight bucks a month.
That's about half the price of Netflix.
And frankly, it's one of your few sources of news in Canada that tell you the other side of the story.
All right, here's today's show.
Tonight, Justin Trudeau makes his move and forces vaccination on anyone who wants to fly in a plane or take a train or a boat.
It's October 6th, and this is the Es Levant Show.
Why should others go to jail when you're the 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 to government about why I publish it is because it's my bloody right to do so.
You can't say he didn't warn us.
Justin Trudeau during the election threatened to force vaccinations on anyone in Canada, the world's second largest country by geography.
Anyone who wants to fly on a plane or take a train.
You can always walk or ski.
Trudeau said it, and today he did it.
Take a listen to this from his press conference.
By the end of October, everyone 12 or older on a plane or train within Canada should be fully vaccinated.
There will be a short period where people who are in the process of getting vaccinated can show a negative COVID-19 test.
But by the end of November, if you're 12 or older and want to fly or take the train, you'll have to be fully vaccinated, as will staff.
Testing will no longer be an option before boarding.
That's stunning.
Christy Freeland joined the announcement.
She announced that anyone who works for the federal government, including those who work from home, must get vaccinated or fired too.
Federal public servants in the core public administration must be fully vaccinated by October 29th.
This will apply to those who work in the federal government's various departments.
The RCMP, Correctional Services of Canada, the Canada Border Services Agency, and many other offices and agencies.
Why Vaccines Seem Forced00:10:40
In one sense, this is astonishing, but on another, why would it be?
Sure, Trudeau only got 32% of the vote, the lowest in history for a party forming the government in Canada.
Sure, voter turnout was low, only 62%, but there really was no official opposition to it, certainly not from Aaron O'Toole's Conservatives, and frankly, I haven't seen them speak out on it too.
So although Trudeau himself has less than a third of Canadians behind him, Aaron O'Toole says conservatives support this.
How do you feel about this?
I want to show you some real news by real journalists.
We regard ourselves as real journalists here, but I think most people in the media party are just amplifiers for the government narrative.
Look at this new video from Project Veritas.
Take a look at this from a Pfizer executive speaking to a hidden camera, not knowing it would be published.
So your antibodies are probably better at that rate than the vaccination.
Nick Carl is an experienced biochemist at Pfizer with a history of working in the pharmaceutical industry.
Nick admits to our undercover journalist that those who've had COVID have stronger immunity than those who've received the Pfizer COVID vaccine.
When somebody is naturally immune, like they got COVID, they probably have better, like not better, but more antibodies against the virus.
Because what the vaccine is, is, like I said, that protein holder.
So that's just on the outside.
So it's just one antibody against one specific part of the virus.
When you actually get the virus, you're going to start producing antibodies against like multiple pieces of the virus.
And both of them.
Not only just like the outside portion, like the inside portion and the actual virus.
So your antibodies are probably better at that rate than the vaccination.
What are we going to do?
Natural immunity, that means someone who got sick from something and then got better from it, which happens to more than 99% of people who get COVID.
And as you saw there, Pfizer acknowledges it's better immunity than from their vaccine.
It's not just his point of view on that.
Massive studies in Israel show the same thing.
Take a look at this, that natural immunity is better than vaccine immunity.
Again, Israel, because that is one of the most vaccinated countries in the world, they're already on their fourth shot, their second booster after the first two jams.
And because they've been doing it long enough, they have real data.
And look at this study.
Israel says that the effectiveness of the Pfizer vaccine is just 39%.
Not even half the time does it work.
Whereas Pfizer claimed that its clinical studies showed it's effective 96% of the time.
That's false advertising.
Imagine if any other product or service had such a failure rate.
I want to show you Senator Rand Paul grilling a vaccine apologist.
I wish we had even a single MP or senator in Canada who would show some sort of opposition, but we don't.
With an Israeli study that had 2.5 million patients and found that the vaccinated group was actually seven times more likely to get infected with COVID than the people who had gotten COVID naturally.
Senator, I'd have to get back to you on that one.
I'm not familiar with that study.
Well, you think you might want to be if you're going to travel the country insulting the millions of Americans, including NBA star Jonathan Isaac, who have had COVID, recovered.
Look at a study with 2.5 million people and say, well, you know what?
It looks like my immunity is as good as a vaccine or not.
And in a free country, maybe I ought to be able to make that decision.
Instead, you've chosen to travel the country calling people like Jonathan and Isaac and others, myself included, flat earthers.
We find that very insulting, goes against the science.
Are you a doctor or a medical doctor?
I have worked over 30 years on health science.
You're not a medical doctor.
Do you have a science degree?
And yet you travel the country calling people flat earthers who have had COVID, looked at studies of millions of people and made their own personal decision that their immunity they naturally acquired is sufficient.
But you presume somehow to tell over 100 million Americans who have survived COVID that we have no right to determine our own medical care.
You alone are on high and you've made these decisions, a lawyer with no scientific background, no medical degree.
This is an arrogance coupled with an authoritarianism that is unseemly and un-American.
You, sir, are the one ignoring the science.
The vast preponderance of scientific studies, dozens and dozens show robust, long-lasting immunity after COVID infection.
Even the CDC does not recommend measles vaccine if you have measles immunity.
The same was true for smallpox.
But you ignore history and science to shame the flat earthers, as you call them.
You should be ashamed of yourself and apologize to the American people for being dishonest about naturally acquired immunity.
Because we don't have any mainstream media, any official opposition opposed to this, any doctors who speak out or tamped down immediately from the colleges of physicians or surgeons, we have a runaway train and so obviously wrong ideas are promulgated with no consequences.
Because Trudeau was so bad at logistics, he separated the time between the first and the second jab by up to six months.
Trudeau simply made up that you could mix and match vaccines.
This was obviously junk science on the fly to excuse his political failures, but simply no one is speaking out against this vaccine freight train.
Just recently, it was declared that Moderna shots should not be taken by young men because of heart problems.
Well, how many young people, young men, took those jabs before the government decided to warn them?
It's shocking to me.
And look what's coming.
The government so eagerly is preparing for making the injections open to kids as young as five.
That's kindergarten age.
Hundreds of people in Ontario alone have had myocarditis or pericarditis, inflammation of the heart or the lining of the heart because of these vaccines.
Why would you inject children as young as five who are at virtually zero likelihood of the vaccine?
Why would you inject them with something that we know affects teens and 20s with heart disease?
Why are you doing this to children?
I don't know the answer to that.
I don't know if there is one.
Oh, well, in the second largest country in the world now, you'll not be able to travel by boat or by plane or by train unless you vaccinate.
I suppose you could walk.
I think a lot of people will feel compelled to do this.
I mean, I suppose you can still be in your car for now.
You can still walk for now.
But even that, I'm not sure.
We've already gone through a dry run of police in various provinces having curfews like they did in Quebec.
I suppose that was just a test run, soften people up, get them used to bending the knee.
I don't think this is going to stop anytime soon.
The government says their app will be ready next year, their vaccine passport.
That tells us that this problem, or at least the solution to it, will be around next year.
And remember this, Justin Trudeau says he bought 400 million booster doses, which tells you that he intends to keep things locked down and vaxed up for, well, I don't know, that's 10 booster shots per Canadians.
Remember this?
I wonder why they're forcing vaccines harder and harder all the time.
Already around 70 or 80 or even 90% of different jurisdictions in Canada are vaxed.
Shouldn't we be at herd immunity?
Aren't we effectively safe now?
And of those who aren't vaxed, a proportion of those have natural immunity.
So why as more and more Canadians are vaxed, why is the pressure on the remaining outliers getting harder and harder?
I don't understand it.
One theory, and I don't know if it makes sense, is to eliminate the control group.
Do you know what I mean by that?
If you have half the population vaxed and half that's not vaxed, and you're giving the vax population a fairly experimental drug, for which the FDA has ordered more experimentation until the year 2027, you want a control group to know what other morbidity and mortality is like.
If all of a sudden there's new cancers or infertility or any other illness that doesn't get detected for five or ten years, you need a control group that didn't take the drug to know if that Pfizer or Moderna or Johnson ⁇ Johnson vaccine caused the harm.
Is that the reason that they're getting tougher and tougher on that remaining percent or two of the population that doesn't comply?
I don't know.
We should be at the point where we declare victory over this virus.
But two things are happening.
They're getting tougher and tougher against people who aren't vaxed.
And we're acknowledging that the vaccine doesn't actually stop people from getting the disease.
How is that even a vaccine?
I don't know the answer to these.
But after the break, we'll talk to Professor Bruce Pardy, the new senior legal advisor to the Democracy Fund.
Welcome back.
Joining me now in studio is Professor Bruce Pardee, a professor of Law Queens University and the senior legal advisor to the Democracy Fund, the charity that's fighting back against vaccine mandates.
Bruce, great to see you.
Thanks for joining us in the studio.
Quarantine Consequences00:04:37
Well, it's nice to have you.
And listen, I'm full of fight.
I want to fight against these forced vaccinations.
I see them as forced, but I know that in each instance, the government say, oh, you're not forced.
You could choose not to have a job.
You could choose not to travel by plane, train, or boat in the second largest landmass in North America.
What's your first glance legal reaction?
I know you haven't seen the fine print in the orders, but just based on the headlines, what's your reaction?
Well, this is the same pattern as the provincial ones, right?
So they are playing this game wherein it is still your choice.
But of course, choices have consequences.
And the consequences are, as you say, which is if you're not vaccinated, then you can't fly, you can't take a train.
That still doesn't amount to unlawful coercion, I'm afraid.
But they are creeping closer to it.
So again, if you take that basic situation where a government said, you must get vaccinated, we're going to hold you down, or we're going to throw you in prison.
That's going to be a charter violation.
But of course, they're not doing it that way.
They're doing it so as to give them some distance from that outcome.
But every time that these things come out and they're a little bit tougher, they're a little bit more stringent, you are a little bit more coerced, then you get closer to that situation where, in fact, you're not able to do anything if you don't go along.
Well, I feel like the forced masks, the house arrest, it was de facto house arrest when you were told you couldn't leave your house for various reasons.
I feel that was conditioning us to accept infringements on our liberties just for two weeks, but people got used to it.
And some people sort of enjoyed it.
They enjoyed the new rules and to be little homemade enforcers of the rules against their neighbors.
And I think that that gave us sort of an obedience training.
We were conditioned to accept these infringements.
And I think it's going to be a shock to people for the first while that we have this whole class of people who are now untouchables.
But I fear that this will be the new normal quite soon and people will be delighted to go about their day.
Some people will love to be informants and snitches and enforcers.
Yes, well, but you're touching on the cultural aspect of this problem, right?
So people are inclined to think, well, we have these mandates, and surely the law is going to protect us from them.
I mean, the law is a foundational thing.
It's the bedrock of our culture.
It's written in black and white.
And therefore, it's going to come and save us when it's important.
And because it's the product of culture itself, it too is susceptible to these changes.
And so when the mass of people and the mass of institutions accept this state of affairs, then things have changed and they have changed fundamentally.
I mean, you'll be, of course, familiar with the outcome in the quarantine case.
And in the quarantine case, it's a situation, of course, where people are being made to go into a hotel and can't leave for a certain period of time after they arrive back.
It's a kind of a jail.
It's a kind of a jail.
And yet, the federal court decision basically said, that's not even a violation of your Section 7 liberty rights.
Yeah, it's not even a detention.
It's not even a detention.
Which is madness to me because it really is.
You're forced into custody.
What's so crazy about that quarantine case, and by the way, the Democracy Fund was one of the interveners in that case along with the Justice Center.
What was so crazy about that is that there wasn't even a common sense behind it.
It was our reporter who was forced into one of these COVID jails, we called them, came into contact with 14 different people.
He counted.
Whereas without these quarantine jails, he would have just gone straight home in his own car by himself.
So there wasn't even, in my mind, a compelling, overriding, pressing, and substantial reason to throw him in jail.
But the judge says not only was he not detained, but it was reasonable.
I found that deeply depressing, and it really rocked my faith in our courts.
Concerns Over Child Vaccination Consent00:04:21
Well, part of the problem is that the authority of governments to make rules and regulations about things does not depend upon those rules being reasonable or sensible.
Now, if you get into a situation where a charter right has in fact been breached, then there's a proportionality test under Section 1 for a reasonable limit.
But in general, the test of the lawfulness of a regulation is not dependent upon whether it makes sense.
And there are so many things in this COVID era that just don't make any sense.
I mean, you can include the vaccine mandates.
People who have had COVID and have a degree of natural immunity are not being exempted from having to take a vaccine, which simply does what the natural immunity is already doing.
So on that and so many other bases, you can poke holes in all kinds of places in the COVID rules we've seen since March of 2020.
That doesn't make them unlawful in and of themselves.
Yeah, I'm really worried.
I can see, I can see that in Canada they're pressing to lower the age for vaccination to five-year-olds, children of tender years, as they're called.
I know from watching the stats for the last 18 months that the number of kids that, those are, I mean, they're not quite toddlers, but they're not much more.
That's not even grade one.
That's kindergarten.
The number of kindergarten kids who have gotten very sick or died, God forbid, from the vaccine is in single digits, if there's anyone.
And yet, if you're going to vax every child who is at virtually no risk, you are, that is, in my mind, tantamount to sentencing them to some, to illness or, God forbid, death.
We've seen hundreds of cases of myocarditis and pericarditis in Ontario in young people already.
And I just, if this were like the Black Plague, if like Marseille in 1720, 40% of the city was dying, okay, fine.
But no young people are dying.
My concern, or one of them, about the prospect of vaccinating these young kids is the possibility that they will put into place clinics or programs wherein the kids will be vaccinated without the explicit parental consent of their parents.
I mean, we do still have the idea in our law of requiring the informed consent of any patient to any treatment.
Now, the fact that you are being asked to vaccinate to keep your job doesn't mean that you're being coerced in the legal sense.
You still have to go to the clinic and ask for a vaccination and that's your consent, assuming they've told you about the risks.
But with kids who are five or ten or the like, those kids have no idea what's happening.
And so in order for there to be informed consent, it is necessary for the parents to be informed and to give their consent.
And I have fears that that will not happen in a rigorous way.
Well, not just that, but the parents could be put under duress.
Your child will be kicked out of all society.
Your child will be marginalized.
Your child will be de-socialized, kicked out of school, kicked out of sports.
So the parents could be under duress, but I think something worse is afoot.
Because I know in Toronto they had, I'm not even kidding, the city of Toronto sponsored a day where they were giving free ice cream to kids as young as 12.
And I'm sorry, you're a 12-year-old kid.
Yeah, right.
There's nothing you're allowed to do legally at 12.
You can't join the army.
You can't go to a bar.
You can't get married.
But you were allowed to, without your parents, consent to this injection, and they would give you ice cream as an inducement.
It also gives the message that this is not a big deal.
This is like ice cream.
I mean, it might be not as fun as ice cream, but it's in the same category.
I'm worried that the age of consent will be, it's a kind of grooming, really.
Don't trust your parents.
Don't trust yourself.
Trust us.
Trust anyone with a badge.
Trust anyone with a lab coat as young as 12.
I'm terrified of the age we're in.
Judges and Civil Liberties00:06:04
And I do not see a single judge standing athwart this.
You know, other great movements in the civil rights movements, you had some judges who took bold stands.
You did.
Or think of something more modern.
In Canada, gay rights, gay marriage came to us not through the legislatures, but through the courts.
That's true.
Many social changes came to us through the courts, standing up against legislatures or moving where legislatures wouldn't.
And I cannot point to a single court case in this entire country other than some tiny tweak to Montreal's curfew, I think, that was done by a judge.
Not one.
In fact, the judges are the most angry of all.
There's a judge in a couple days from now going to decide whether or not to throw Pastor Arthur Pavlovsky back in prison for 21 days for contempt of the health order.
He won't apologize for opening his church for one hour.
So 21 days hangs in the balance.
I can't point to any judge who stood up.
And it's breaking my heart.
It is true that the litigation record so far in the COVID era is spectacularly unsuccessful.
It may happen.
We have good judges in this country, for sure.
And it's worth continuing to try to push back on what we would regard as unreasonable, even dictatorial policies.
But one has to admit that the record so far hasn't worked.
Yeah.
Well, I went to law school.
I was a lawyer for a while.
I no longer remember the bar.
But the whole time, I mean, I didn't even do a lot of law, Bruce, but I loved the law.
I loved the idea of the law.
I loved the idea of justice and a place to run when the world gets unfair.
You can run there.
That was always the idea, right?
So the idea has always been that we all have a set of individual rights that protects us from the majority.
So when the majority goes squirrely, there is a place to go.
So far that hasn't worked in the past 18 months.
Not really.
Not in any major way.
I find that deeply troubling, more than anything else I think I've seen in my life.
But I'm glad you're with the Democracy Fund.
Folks, you know what the Democracy Fund is.
It's a registered CRA charity that fights the civil liberties battles, including in court.
It sponsors the FightVaccinePassports.com project, and it financed the FightTheFines.com project.
And we'll keep trying.
We'll keep trying because we have to.
What else can we do?
Professor, great to see you again.
Pleasure.
There you have Professor Bruce Party, who is now the senior legal advisor to the Democracy Fund.
Well, I got to admit, I'm a little bit depressed.
I mean, look, I love to think that the law is a shield to protect you against the evils of the world.
But as Professor Party points out, the government can do quite a lot of things, even if it's unfair or unreasonable.
And the notion that our courts would stand up for us, well, they haven't yet.
I find that deeply depressing.
I can imagine that there's a lot of pressure on a judge.
I mean, look, they're silencing doctors who dare dispute this emergency.
And a lot of judges are in cloistered little insulated worlds.
They're not really in the rest of the community.
They're often in the elite circles, political circles.
And judges might be older.
They might be more afraid of their own health.
We have not had judges who have protected our civil liberties.
That makes me deeply worried.
I don't know what the future is, but I know that we'll keep reporting the stories as honestly as we can.
And where we can, we'll fight back, including by supporting the projects of the Democracy Fund.
Let me close with a video of one dissident pizzeria in Calgary.
It's called Without Papers Pizza.
But boy, they're being smacked down.
I look at our coverage, sympathetic and factual, but then I look at the coverage of the local mainstream media who hate this place.
I saw a report on CTV, didn't talk to anyone from the pizza shop or any of its customers, just kept on going to people who denounced them, including one neighbor who had to be 300 pounds wearing a mask.
Listen, I'm fat too, but if you're 300 pounds and wearing a mask, maybe you're not quite actually as concerned about your health.
And this neighbor was saying he was scared of the unvaccinated people next door.
That's a kind of mania.
That's a kind of phobia.
It's kind of bigotry.
It's a kind of bullying.
And it's completely normalized.
That's the worst part of this.
It's not actually that the government is taking away our liberties.
That's terrible.
But it's the fact that so many Canadians are going along with it.
I'll say goodbye to you now, and I'll leave you with that video from Calgary.
Until next time, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, to you at home, good night and keep fighting for freedom.
License has been suspended as you no longer have health approval.
All right, so I need your business license off the wall.
I'm just good employee rolls.
So I'm going to give you a copy of the letter.
This is the only restaurant in the city of Calgary who is standing up against the vaccine passports and who are not implementing the mandates.
We adhere to the laws.
We expect the law holders, the people who are defending us, to adhere to the oaths that they've also taken to not discriminate.
All of the people in here are humans, every single one of them.
They have their choice.
It's not a letter quality.
The majority of the people in this room are vaccinated.