Ezra Levant argues powerful elites—from Al Gore and Jeff Bezos to Boris Johnson and Kate Josephs—ignore lockdowns they enforce, exposing a pattern of hypocrisy tied to unchecked privilege. A Rhode Island doctor lost his license for refusing the vaccine despite natural immunity, while Canada quietly settles cases to avoid precedent, unlike the U.S. Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling blocking mandates. Protesters in Montreal claim 80% of vaccinated individuals now face Omicron, accusing governments of divisive policies over health. Levant warns systemic resistance persists, even as voter fatigue and legal pushback grow, risking long-term societal fractures. [Automatically generated summary]
Today I want to talk to you about why powerful people break the lockdowns that they themselves enforce on you.
And it's a phrase I've used in the last week or so.
It's not hypocrisy, I say.
It's hierarchy.
I'm going to give you a few examples from the United States, from the United Kingdom, from the world of global warming, and also from obviously lockdownism.
I'll take you through it.
And I'll tell you the only person in the hierarchy, in fact, right near the top of it, who actually obeys the rules, you might be surprised who it is.
So I'd be very curious what you think about my monologue today.
It's a little bit different.
So thanks for tuning in.
I'd encourage you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
That's a video version of this podcast.
There's lots of clips I'd like to show you today.
Obviously, if you're just listening to this as a podcast, you won't see them.
But if you go to RebelNewsPlus.com, click subscribe.
It's $8 a month.
You'll get all the visual stuff.
In addition to my show, David Menzie, Sheila Gunread, and Andrew Chapados do weekly shows.
And $8 a month, it's half the price of Netflix, but it keeps Rebel News strong.
All right, without further ado, here's today's podcast.
Tonight, just like they're not really scared of global warming, I don't think the powerful people are actually scared of the virus.
I have proof.
It's January 14th, and this is the Ezra 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 is government for why I publish it is because it's my bloody right to do so.
I was peer-pressured into seeing Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, 15 years ago.
I probably would have gone to see it just to know what it was and to know how to rebut it.
But I didn't like the fact that I went with someone who really liked it and took it at face value.
I don't know if you saw the movie.
I don't really recommend it.
But Al Gore won both an Oscar and a Nobel Prize for it, which I think tells you more about those organizations than it tells you about Al Gore or the movie.
But just like me, I don't think Al Gore actually took it at face value himself.
Even as he was making the movie, part of the movie, he had himself lovingly filmed flying back and forth across the ocean, all around the world, really, in first class, no less.
I'm not sure what he was thinking artistically to show, I don't know, how tireless he was, to show that he was working while on a plane instead of snoozing or watching an in-flight movie.
I don't know what the message was supposed to be, but the message I got was either that he really wasn't worried about carbon emissions, I mean flying first class, or that he just felt whatever rules he wanted to implement on society wouldn't apply to him himself, obviously.
John Kerry, another Democrat, has the same attitude.
He's just too important to follow the rules for the little people.
On that issue, pollution, I understand that you came here with a private jet.
Is that an environmental way to travel?
If you offset your carbon, it's the only choice for somebody like me who is traveling the world to win this battle.
It's the only choice for someone like me.
Well, that's obviously not true.
You can use the phone or use Zoom or you don't even have to find a private jet.
He's saying there are other things more important to him than reducing carbon emissions, like his own convenience, like his own preferences, like his own politics, like his own self-fulfillment, his own self-image.
Now, why can't I say that?
Why can't you say that?
I love that phrase.
It's not hypocrisy, it's hierarchy.
He's the boss.
You're not.
Know your place.
People like me, he said.
Al Gore is the boss.
You're not.
There's the ruling class, and you're not in it.
Here's Jeff Bezos.
He's the master, so he doesn't wear a mask.
His servant does.
All of these billionaires have their own rocket ship companies.
You notice that, including Elon Musk, who I sort of like.
But there has literally never been anything in the history of the world as carbon-intensive as a rocket ship.
You can't power a rocket ship using energy from windmills or solar panels.
You can't store that much energy in a battery.
You need pure rocket fuel, the most carbon-intensive fuel ever, to break out of the Earth's gravitational pole.
There might be the odd scientific purpose to these vanity space missions, but come on, not really.
It's a bunch of middle-aged men who, if they were thousandaires, would be buying a Camaro.
If they were billionaires, maybe they'd buy a yacht.
But when you're worth, I don't know, $100 billion, you buy rocket ships, I guess.
Yeah, it's a bit weird watching a guy worth a quarter trillion dollars have a midlife crisis.
It's quite something to behold.
But my point is, they all use the language of environmentalism, especially Elon Musk of Tesla.
But that's because they know it sells and they make money off it.
And Al Gore got a couple of awards out of it.
He couldn't be elected president, but he got his Nobel Prize.
These people don't actually follow the rules.
They don't take the train.
They fly in private jets.
I'm sure Elon Musk actually does own a Tesla.
I mean, he's the president of the company.
It would be weird if he didn't own one, but you don't think he actually drives a Tesla around, do you?
I mean, if he moves, it's in an SUV with an entourage of armed bodyguards.
Hierarchy more than hypocrisy.
I mean, Bill Gates, a close friend of Jeffrey Epstein, the child rapist.
Bill Gates kept visiting Epstein long after he was convicted of pedophilia, long after he was a registered sex offender.
It's not just hypocrisy, it's hierarchy.
Do you know what I mean by that?
Bill Gates is so rich and so powerful, he can do whatever he wants, including consorting with a child rapist who ran a child prostitution ring.
And why shouldn't Bill Gates feel untouchable?
I mean, he's interviewed on TV almost every week, and not a single reporter that I've seen has ever asked him genuine and probing accountability questions about what he did with Epstein.
What do you think he did with Epstein?
The closest I saw was this.
You know, I've said I regretted having those dinners, and there's nothing, absolutely nothing new on that.
Is there a lesson for you, for anyone else looking at this?
Well, he's dead.
So, you know, in general, you always have to be careful.
Yeah, that's not a persuasive answer.
Well, he's dead yet, no.
Or this question from Anderson Cooper.
You know, I had several dinners with him, you know, hoping that what he said about getting billions of philanthropy for global health through contacts that he had might emerge.
You know, when it looked like that wasn't a real thing, that relationship ended.
It was a huge mistake to spend time with him, to give him the credibility of being there.
There were lots of others in that same situation, but I made a mistake.
Bill Gates' wife literally divorced him because of what he was doing with Epstein.
Gee, I wonder what that was.
But even this reporter didn't actually press him on what he was doing with Epstein.
Those two reporters being timid at best.
So, yeah, better than anyone else.
The Queen Knew Too00:09:27
So, yeah, hierarchy.
Based on what?
Because they're rich?
Because they can pay off people, literally, pay off people.
You know, I saw this document fairly recently released.
It's a contract.
Epstein paid off a child that he raped, paid her off for half a million dollars U.S. to keep her quiet.
Now, the reason we see this document, it was recently released because Prince Andrew said this agreement protected him too.
Now, the court disagreed, and now we see the document.
By the way, try finding a copy of this $500,000 payoff agreement online.
It's a public court record document.
It was surprisingly hard to find a copy of it, and I think I'm pretty good at Googling.
I wonder why.
I wonder if it's a coincidence.
And the payoffs aren't just to rape victims like Miss Jufrey.
Bill Gates has given nearly a third of a billion dollars to journalists in grants.
That shuts up a lot of people who might ask him about Jeffrey Epstein, doesn't it?
Like I say, hierarchy.
And what are you going to do?
You're going to, I don't know, take one of these people to court or something?
Well, he's dead.
Do you know who really does have hierarchy?
I mean, true, deep-rooted hierarchy in our country?
A living person who is not morally superior to you, but who is actually legally and politically and constitutionally superior to you?
Well, take a look at your money.
Take a look at your stamps.
Take a look at your passport.
If you need some clues, the answer is Queen Elizabeth, Prince Andrew's mom.
Now, we forget about it, but every lawsuit in criminal court is called the Queen versus so-and-so.
Have you ever heard that?
R v so-and-so?
The R stands for Regina, which is queen in Latin.
We call it Regina when it's a city in Saskatchewan.
Crown prosecutors.
Whose crown do you think they're talking about?
Queen Elizabeth.
The phrase royalty is in a royalty payment.
If you mine gold or drill for oil, you pay a royalty because it's the queen who owns the subsurface mineral rights in Canada, et cetera, et cetera.
The queen.
Except for the queen, is not evading taxes like those rocket ship billionaires are that I mentioned.
She legally is exempt from paying taxes, but 30 years ago, she decided she was going to pay them anyways as a sign of solidarity with the people.
The queen has castles and whatnot, but they're hundreds of years old.
But she does not live as lavishly as American president or the French president or the Russian president do.
She's actually quite modest by comparison.
I mean, compare her motorcade with Joe Biden's motorcade, but in fairness, he has many more nurses and doctors than she does, and she's about to turn 96.
But let me show you the woman who truly has legal, constitutional, political, historical hierarchy over you and me as Canadian subjects to her.
Let me show you how she lives.
There she is at her own husband's funeral last year, wearing a mask, though there is no one near her, and no one is near her at her husband's funeral.
Not her children, not her friends.
That is not by her choice.
That is because some cruel health bureaucrat said so.
And the queen, who could literally, legally, constitutionally do whatever she pleases, including, I presume, fire those bureaucrats.
I mean, the legal name of the British government is Her Majesty's government, if you can believe it.
She actually obeyed her servants, not like Bezos and Gates, the Queen of the United Kingdom and Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Queen of Canada, the Queen of Australia, and a dozen other Commonwealth countries.
That queen obeyed her foolish servants with her trademark dignity, even though she probably knew it was all bollocks, as they say over there.
But she did it because for a woman of hierarchy, she strives to sympathize and care for the lowly as much as for the high.
And I tell you this because look at what is happening across in the UK right now.
Boris Johnson, while imposing harsh restrictions on the country, invited his own staff to a bring your own booze party.
But of course he did, and of course it stayed secret for a year.
Because do you doubt that the entire media class in the United Kingdom has been going to parties too, while scorching mere citizens for doing, you know, private gatherings of more than six people.
What reporter could possibly criticize Boris Johnson for having a party when they themselves either went to that party or went to their own media party?
Literally everyone in charge of implementing the lockdown in the UK broke the lockdown in the UK.
One of my favorite or least favorite stories, I don't know, is Professor Neil Ferguson, the chief doomsayer and lockdown activist in the UK.
He was caught having an affair, running all over the city, breaking his own lockdown rules to have an affair.
He resigned, though the media still go to him for his wisdom and judgment.
But the health minister at the time, Matt Hancock, criticized Ferguson, which is sort of bold, because Hancock was also using the lockdown as an opportunity to have an affair with a lobbyist.
They were both cheating on their own families, caught by a surveillance camera.
I love that part of the story.
So imagine how many people in the ruling class have been going to secret parties or breaking the rules or having affairs.
Did they actually do any work over there between their parties and their affairs?
I'm going to say most of the ruling class has broken the rules.
Some of the stupider ones like Matt Hancock will condemn other rule breakers, hoping they themselves won't get caught.
But really, if you're caught, what does an additional charge of hypocrisy mean?
But that's my theory for why a party where dozens or even hundreds of people knew about it stayed secret for so long in a world of gossip because the entire political media establishment, the whole class, was in on it, or if not in that particular party, they were in on another party, so they couldn't criticize.
Like this, an announcement today from Kate Josephs.
As people know, I previously worked in the cabinet office COVID task force, where I was director general.
Let me cut to the chase.
She threw herself a huge going away party, a boozy one, when the government was in lockdown.
Lockdown for the little people, that is, because hierarchy.
I am truly sorry.
She says, no, you're not, sister.
I don't think you are.
I think you're sorry you got caught.
Yes, I'm sure of that.
But if you were actually sorry about what you did, you could have come clean over the past year in any number of ways.
You didn't.
You tried to get away with it.
You're sorry you got caught, that's all.
Do you really think she'll suffer at all?
Guess again, she's now the CEO of the city of Sheffield.
Salary, 190,000 pounds.
That's $325,000 Canadian dollars a year.
She's in charge of enforcing the rules in Sheffield now.
Do you think she has obeyed the rules in Sheffield?
Do you really think she has?
You think so?
Here's what pundit Piers Morgan said about all this.
He said, the worst thing about all these illicit Downing Street parties is they will make COVID skeptics and anti-lockdowners feel vindicated in their suspicions that the virus was never that dangerous.
Or why would the people running the country all be ignoring the rules so brazenly?
No, Pierce, that's not the worst thing about it.
That's the best thing about it.
It shows that, obviously, no one in power is actually worried about COVID.
Haven't been since very early days.
Two weeks to flatten the curve.
Well, nowhere in the free world that I know about was the curve not flattened.
Simply didn't turn into the zombie apocalypse that the fearmonger said.
Everything after those first two weeks was theater.
We knew very early that masks didn't work, that the disease focused on seniors, and to be clear, fat seniors with underlying health problems.
It's about the same level of terrifying as the annual flu.
And the Omicron variant is actually less terrifying than the flu.
You know that, right?
You don't think that they know that?
Like Al Gore and Leo DiCaprio on a yacht, they know it.
Like Boris Johnson and the rest of them at their garden parties, they knew it.
Like Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates, they know it.
You know it too, but you also know your place.
Your place is to obey the rules.
Yours is not to reason why.
Emergency Mandates and Harm00:15:23
That's left to the special people, the important people.
I think the Queen knew it was all BS too.
I think as she was sitting there by herself at her husband's funeral, I think she knew it was BS.
And I think she must literally be the only person at the top of the hierarchy who morally deserves to be at the top of the hierarchy.
Stay with us for more.
Well, one of the main differences between the Canadian Constitution and the American Constitution when it comes to our civil liberties and our fundamental freedoms is that the very first section of Canada's Charter of Rights describes the way in which governments can infringe upon our liberties.
assuming that they will.
The first paragraph of our charter says that there are limits that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society, and only then, after that caveat, does it list the so-called fundamental freedoms, basically casting a paw on them.
The American Constitution, by contrast, says that the freedoms are the center of the document, and any infringements have a high burden to overleap.
I think that's one reason why not a single substantial challenge to lockdown laws in Canada have succeeded over the last two years, including shocking cases where you'd think it would be a slam dunk, like the airport detention centers where healthy people were detained for three days with no cause, no warrant.
The Federal Court of Canada said that wasn't even a detention, let alone one that had to be justified under Section 1.
Just incredible.
By contrast, our American friends love liberty just a little bit more.
And yesterday, they saw the fruits of it, an important Supreme Court case striking down a national vaccine mandate.
Very big news.
Joining us now from Washington, D.C. is our friend Janine Eunice, litigation counsel of the new Civil Liberties Alliance.
What a victory.
Janine, I'm thrilled to hear it.
Can you tell our viewers in Canada what happened in the United States yesterday in the fight for freedom?
Yeah, so the Supreme Court struck down the OSHA mandate.
Biden had an exec, sorry, an executive order that basically implemented four different vaccine mandates.
One is this one, the OSHA mandate, and that applies to private companies of 100 or more employees.
So just for one second, I'm so sorry to interrupt.
Up here, I think folks won't know that OSHA, that's occupational safety and health, right?
That's basically a federal rule that governs workplaces, right?
Right.
That's an agency.
And so this, so it's an agency that governs workplace safety and enacts rules and regulations designed to make workplaces safe for employees.
Oh, yeah.
I'm interrupting, but keep giving it.
Yeah.
This was actually the biggest one.
So this affected about 84 million Americans would be subject to this mandate.
And then the other three were federal employees had to get the vaccine, federal contractors, and then healthcare workers.
So the OSHA one, because this was important because it was the biggest one.
And basically what the court said was that OSHA was designed to address workplace hazards, not a disease that's sort of omnipresent in the world at this point.
So, you know, it's really about like getting access to a helmet if you're a construction worker or making sure that the office where you spend eight hours a day doesn't have asbestos.
And one way in which the court drew a distinction was to say, well, you don't, you can't take your vaccine away at the end of the workday.
You know, it's still there.
So this was a very important decision for liberty.
I should be clear that this does not really create precedents for state mandates, which are usually based on sort of the state's 10th Amendment police power.
And this was really about executive overreach.
So this doesn't mean that all vaccine mandates are going away in the United States.
I saw a reference in the ruling to a tweet made by Joe Biden's chief of staff that this was a workaround, that making an executive order to tackle 84 million people was a workaround Congress, a way of avoiding that.
Obviously, that caught the judge's attention and it said, yeah, we know what you're doing here.
I think that's what you're getting at when it was more a technical win.
What were the other reasons that the court ruled this way?
And can you tell us what was the division of the judges?
Because quite often it's a very narrow decision.
What was it?
How many judges were for the mandates and how many votes struck them down?
There was only three were actually for the mandates, the ones who are considered the liberal branch of the court.
That's Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor, who also made some shocking misstatements of fact at argument a week ago.
For instance, Justice Sotomayor said something like that there were hundreds of thousands or 100,000 kids in critical condition from COVID, which is just absurd.
That's not even close.
But as far as other aspects of the decision that were important, well, the major questions doctrine played a large role.
So that's a doctrine that says if Congress wanted something that's so big, you know, this is so big that this affects so many people, it's going to have massive economic implications.
Congress would have spoken directly to that.
So you can't just read this authority into the OSHA statute.
And so again, this was like this was an important case for limiting executive overreach, for limiting agencies' ability to just do whatever they want and run roughshod over people's liberties.
Now, let me ask you a procedural question because again, I'm just so jealous of the way your law works here.
It's so slow.
There's no way that this matter would go directly to our Supreme Court.
You would first have to go to a local, like the lowest level court, most likely lose, then maybe the next year you'd be in the court of appeal, and then maybe the year after you'd be in the Supreme Court.
You know, basically, in fact, I don't think a single case in Canada has gone to the Supreme Court yet touching lockdownism.
How did this get to your Supreme Court so quickly?
Who were the plaintiffs or petitioners?
Was it states?
Was it governments?
Who had the standing to get in the front door of the Supreme Court?
So, this the plaintiffs in this case were employers.
So, it was a lot of businesses.
So, they were basically saying, We don't want to, you're forcing us to implement this vaccine mandate.
It's going to harm us economically because people will quit.
We're going to have trouble replacing those people.
So, that was the harm that was alleged.
It wasn't really about personal harm because it wasn't so much people said, you know, it wasn't really about people not wanting to get the vaccine.
As far as the procedural aspect and how this got there so quickly, well, this was a preliminary injunction or an appeal from a preliminary injunction.
So, that's a motion that you make when you need immediate relief in court.
And one of the things that you have to show, so you have to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.
So, you basically have to make your case, and then you have to show irreparable harm.
Irreparable harm typically can't be monetary damages, although there's sort of an exception when you're assuming the U.S. government.
But, so, courts have held around the country that it actually is irreparable harm to be forced to get a vaccine because you can't undo that.
And you might do that so that you don't lose your job, et cetera.
And so, here the businesses were alleging the irreparable harm of basically being financially ruined.
In fact, the court didn't really address that issue.
So, I think everybody sort of agreed on it.
But when you are able to make that showing, then things can happen very fast.
So, typically, this would start in the district court, which is the lowest federal court, and then go to the court of appeals, a circuit court of appeals, and then the Supreme Court if they agreed to hear it.
There's a peculiarity of the OSHA statute that it actually just starts in the Court of Appeals.
So, this case originated actually in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
So, 84 million people have a reprieve.
Yes.
And now, you say that's just a quick injunction, which I guess assumes that at a later date there might be a larger hearing.
But I'm guessing that this is effectively dead.
I mean, Joe Biden, is he going to try and pursue this and take it up with the same court a second time?
That's a really good question.
You know, typically, injunctions, I mean, although technically they're not the end, you can, you know, continue with the underlying lawsuit.
Typically, the court has said what it thinks, you know, because they're saying substantial likelihood of success on the merits.
They're saying, you know, it's basically a ruling.
So, in this case, there were six judges who voted to strike down the mandate.
Sorry, I'm pretty sure it was two had a con so, no, that was the percurium opinion.
I'm sorry.
So, a couple of them thought that the rule was too broad, but you could have a similar rule if it was limited to workplaces where COVID spreads more quickly.
That was actually the percurium opinion, the main opinion.
The justices who wrote a concurring opinion, I think, didn't agree with that.
So, Biden theoretically could come back with a narrower rule, say, and say, Oh, well, meat packing plants or a place like that where the virus spreads really readily, they have to implement this.
But I don't think that they will.
And one reason I don't think that they will is one of the problems the court seemed to have with this mandate was that it was done pursuant to its emergency, its ability to issue a regulation on an emergency basis.
And they seem to doubt some of that.
Like, so the public doesn't have the opportunity to notice and to comment in these circumstances.
And so I think they don't want to go through the regular procedure because then once people give notice and comment, I'm not sure that it would actually go through.
So I'm guessing this is effectively dead, to put it, to sum up.
I understand that one of the Supreme Court justices is one of Trump's appointments, Amy Coney Barrett, asked that question.
How long?
is an emergency?
When is it over?
If I'm recalling the headlines correctly, I think that's a good question that can apply to so many parts of the lockdown.
So many things are being excused or justified because it's an emergency.
Well, we're now coming up.
It'll soon be the third year of the emergency.
It's like what Castro says, the perpetual revolution.
It ain't a revolution anymore.
It ain't an emergency anymore.
And everything from the emergency use authorization for the vaccines to other draconian powers that are not normal in even in Canada, let alone America.
I think that that's a good question.
How long is this emergency going to go on for?
Well, at this point, it looks like it can go on forever.
I mean, it doesn't seem that the use of the term emergency or exercising emergency powers has to do with anything but the facts on the ground.
I mean, there's no emergency.
And where I live in D.C. now, the mayor just announced a vaccine passport program.
You have to show your vaccine card to go into a restaurant.
This technically is starting tomorrow, actually, but some of the restaurants are already doing it.
And it's just, I mean, this is sort of upending life as we know it.
These are all done under their emergency powers, and it's unbelievable.
Well, maybe your Supreme Court or other courts will have a ruling on that fundamental question of what is an emergency and is it really one?
Let me, you've been very generous with your time and I'm learning a lot.
You talked about the ruling for the occupational safety and health aspect, but you said there were other factors.
There were health care workers.
That was one mandate.
And there were contractors.
I guess that means any company of a certain size doing business with the federal government.
Were those ruled on as well?
And how did they go?
So the healthcare workers mandate was also ruled on yesterday.
And there it went the opposite way.
Roberts joined the dissenters in the other case.
So that, and the judge, basically what it was was the judges just, it was sort of a workplace specific thing.
If you're working around the most vulnerable people in hospitals, et cetera, you have to be vaccinated.
I still don't agree that this makes sense, particularly when you were, you know, they don't make an exemption for people with natural immunity, which is a large portion of healthcare workers since they were on the front lines during COVID.
But, you know, this affects a much smaller number of people.
So I suppose if I, you know, had to choose the OSHA mandate is more important.
As for the others, there's the federal contractor mandate, which I think affects about 20 million Americans.
And that one has been stayed nationwide by a district court in Georgia.
So it's actually not technically in effect.
I anticipate that it probably won't go to the Supreme Court because that legal basis for enacting that mandate is even more tenuous.
So I'm guessing the government's not going to keep pushing it because they're going to be worried about creating bad law.
And then we have the federal employees, so people who are actually employees of the federal government.
Our office has a lawsuit challenging that right now.
And there's actually been sort of, there's a new development there because we hadn't been able to move for a preliminary injunction recently because the federal government said they weren't going to start disciplining people till after the new year.
But some of our plaintiffs just got letters threatening them with discipline and termination if they don't get the vaccine.
So we may be seeking some sort of emergency relief in that case.
I want to shift gears.
But I know this isn't your turf.
I mean, you've been very focused on American litigation.
That's your job.
But probably out of the corner of your eye, you've been following the case of one of the world's great tennis players, Novak Djokovic from Serbia, who applied for an exemption to get a visa and to play in the Australian Open.
And he filled out all the paperwork and there were panels that reviewed it.
And he got the exemption because he had COVID.
In fact, it was very public that he had it, and he recovered from it, and he had natural immunity, and the state of Victoria, Australia, approved it all.
But there was a bit of a media kerfuffle.
So when he landed, they revoked that and detained him.
But he went to court and had, anyhow, it's going back and forth.
It's very, it's riveting, but it shows that in many jurisdictions, natural immunity is a thing.
I know in the United Kingdom, in many instances, even in Israel, if you can show natural immunity, you're exempt from these forced jabs.
What's the state of natural immunity litigation and legislation in America?
Well, so far, there has been not much recognition of natural immunity.
I don't quite understand what's going on there.
In fact, all of our cases so far have been brought on behalf of people who have natural immunity.
It sort of seems like the most logical people that you should grant vaccine exemptions to.
But the courts have been willing to defer basically to the agencies, the CDC and the FDA, who have been saying if you're naturally immune, you should still get the vaccine.
It provides additional protection, blah, blah, blah.
So it's very frustrating.
Blue Jurisdictions Think Tough00:07:03
There's, you know, it's just very illogical.
In fact, I tweeted something about this the other day.
We have a client who's a doctor in Rhode Island who has natural immunity and who had his medical license suspended or revoked because he didn't want to get the vaccine.
And he also had a history of Bell's palsy, so he's worried about getting the vaccine.
What's ironic is because Rhode Island is facing a shortage of healthcare workers, they're actually allowing people who have active COVID infections to treat patients so long as they wear a mask.
But our naturally immune client, who also wears a mask when he practices, can't treat patients.
It's completely insane.
It's unbelievable.
They've taken away his right to practice medicine.
That's happening in Canada as well.
In fact, doctors who grant exemptions to patients are being investigated and suspended in Canada, too.
I mean, it couldn't be more on point with the Nuremberg Code and the lessons that were supposedly learned in the 40s from the Nazi doctors.
I got a question for you.
I want to end on a positive note.
I started by complaining that here in Canada, we have not had a single substantive win in court.
Individual cases, quite often, the authorities or the institutions bend the knee and quietly make an exception because they don't want to have a full-blown trial.
They don't want to set a precedent.
So there have been individual cases that have been settled, it's true.
But there has been no resounding ruling like the one that happened yesterday in the OSHA case.
I know things are still bad there, but I feel like what happened at the Supreme Court, especially this, I think you said it was six to nine.
I think that's a signal that the pendulum in the establishment itself is swinging back.
I heard that comment by Justice Sotomayor that there's 100,000 children in hospital.
Completely factually false.
First time I've ever seen a Democrat fact-checked by an official fact-checker.
But to me, that shows that people in their 60s and 70s who are in official circles and sort of cloistered from the world, they're probably the most afraid of COVID of anyone in society because they're old themselves.
Maybe they're fat.
Maybe they have an underlying health condition.
They're part of the establishment.
They're part of the inside club.
They're naturally compliant rule enforcers.
Like, I think there's no one in the world who would be more sympathetic to upholding a mandate than a 70-year-old Supreme Court judge.
I mean, just everything about their life would say, yeah, let's be careful, abundance of caution.
So, if even six out of nine supremes say, no, this has gone too far, to me, that's a sign that the whole of society, including important parts of the establishment, have realized there was an overreach.
Are you encouraged?
Do you feel some hope?
Do you think that maybe you're past the watershed, that it's going to get better now?
Or do you still think it's going to be tough going?
I think it's going to be tough going in blue jurisdictions, Democratic strongholds.
I'm actually really not very hopeful.
I mean, this just goes on and on.
So, New York was the first to implement a vaccine passport program, basically, where you have to show vaccine card and ID to get into anything indoors, theater, restaurant, gym.
It was a complete failure, complete in every way.
It's been economically harmful.
It's harmed the people of New York.
Tourists don't want to go there.
And instead of learning a lesson from that, all of these other cities, Boston, Chicago, Minneapolis, St. Paul now, D.C., are doing the same thing.
So I think what's happening is that there's just more and more of a divide and it's sort of hardening people's positions.
So, you know, so the federal, sorry, this decision that affects the federal mandate is good, especially for people who live in red states.
But I don't, it's not really helping with the, for the, you know, with the daily lives of people who live in blue jurisdictions.
I really think your best bet if you want to be free is to move to Texas or Florida or something like that.
Yeah, well, we all saw the data of states people are leaving and states people are moving to, and it really tracks this COVID lockdown legislation.
Same thing in Australia, by the way, that state of Victoria has had a net out migration of people.
I have one last question.
I know I've kept you longer than we said we would.
I notice that the high priests and priestesses of the COVID lockdownists have started to make concessions that a few months ago would have got you banned from Facebook or Twitter for saying.
Even Albert Burla, the head of Pfizer, said the first two jabs don't really protect you from Omicron.
You see the CDC and the FDA changing their thoughts on everything from masks that have been cultishly followed for over a year and quarantines.
Like I feel like, and even their narrative, well, we have to live with COVID.
We have to get used to it as endemic.
I sense that they feel a reckoning is coming at the ballot box in the midterms.
And I sense that that may sober them up.
So you're pessimistic about the blue jurisdictions, but I think that the fact that some of the keepers of the narrative are saying, hey, maybe let's just pump the brakes a bit, that tells me they think that a reckoning is coming.
That's me in Canada.
I don't know American politics.
And I know that's, I mean, you're a lawyer, not a politician, but do you think that's a factor?
Do you think that even in blue states, people are just going to say, I'm sick of schools being banned?
I'm sick of masks.
I'm sick of vax passports.
I'm just sick of this whole thing.
Democrats out.
Yeah, so to an extent, I do think that's happening.
And I obviously, you know, as a former Democrat, I hear from people every day who, you know, are changing their minds as this goes on and on and on.
And in New York City, for instance, they're actually trying to mandate N95s for children now, which healthcare workers say are suffocating, impossible to tolerate for long periods of time.
And we're putting them on little kids who face no risk of this disease with readily available vaccines for those who want them, you know, that increase the chance of severe symptoms of COVID, or sorry, decrease the chance of severe symptoms of COVID.
It's just, it's insanity.
So I do think that there may be some changes at the ballot box.
The problem is, I think a lot of these politicians, like Mayor Bowser in D.C., knows she's going to get re-elected.
She doesn't have to worry about it.
The mayor in New York, you know, if they're not about to be held democratically accountable, then they're just basically behaving like tyrants.
Yeah.
Well, it's so good to catch up with you.
I follow you on Twitter.
I'm a fan of your organization.
I love the name of it, the New Civil Liberties Alliance.
Janine, you and the rest of your team and other great litigators around America who have taken the place left by groups like the ACLU.
Conservatives And Communists00:02:16
Once upon a time, they would have fought against this tyranny.
And I'm just so glad you're doing it.
And hopefully, we'll have some wins up in Canada one day soon.
We sure could use them.
Great to see you again.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
All right.
There you have it.
Janine Unis.
Stay with us.
More ahead.
Hey, welcome back.
Your viewer feedback on Stephen Gilbo.
M. Larson 69 says, reshape?
You mean destroy it worse than it already is?
What does an ecoterrorist know about the economy other than what his puppet masters tell him to do?
Well, you know what?
I think that a lot of Marxists, a lot of communists just believe in burning things down.
They haven't really thought through the hard part.
I think it's like any Marxist approach to things like art or architecture.
I once heard something that really stuck with me: that everyone is a conservative about the things they know.
So let's say you're a craftsman.
Let's say you're a mason, a bricklayer.
You know about laying bricks.
Well, how is that a conservative thing?
Well, you know what works and you don't because you're a craftsman and you've been doing it for, you know, it's a trade, but it's also in a way an art.
And how do you put the mortar in and how do you do this and how do you do that?
And let's say you've been doing it for 20 years.
You know what works and you know it doesn't and you know what you were like when you were a junior and the mistakes a beginner could make and that's why there's an apprenticeship program.
But let's say someone comes in and says, nah, I don't want to do it that way.
I want to do it a different way, but you haven't mastered the craft yet.
So you know what you don't like, but you have no clue about how to, you know what you want to tear down, but you have no clue about how you want to build it.
People are conservative about the things they know the most about because they know about them.
And I think that the radicals, the communists, as I said, in Trudeau's cabinet have one thing in common.
They've never actually done something.
Catherine McKenna, luckily no longer in cabinet, she never did anything.
She was just part of a jet set, you know, photo op, go to conferences elite.
Critique Of Political Leaders00:04:10
Stephen Gilbo, his whole life, was an activist.
Has he never done anything?
Can you name for me anyone in a significant position in cabinet who was actually a serious builder, entrepreneur, leader, someone who actually knows something about something?
Trudeau himself flitted around.
You know, he was a ski bum and he talked for a few months here and there.
No one there actually knows anything about anything other than they want to tear it down.
Someone that named The World Went Crazy 2021 says, I think it is quite despicable what Ronald McDonald House is doing.
That baby needs that help.
So does their family.
So tired and disappointed in this world, can't believe all the things that are going on.
Nothing's being done about it.
They need to leave these poor people alone and let them stay there with their baby while he gets his treatment.
I think everybody needs to boycott McDonald's.
Well, and that's the thing.
I mean, Ronald McDonald House is a worthy charity.
They've just made a disastrously wrong decision.
I'm not sure if cutting them off is the right thing.
I think they need an attitude readjustment.
I don't know how that would come about.
Yeah, I mean, and that's that we see that in the Salvation Army as well.
We see that even in nurses, doctors, paramedics literally firing life-saving people because they didn't get a jab.
And as we talked to Janine today, why are you firing people who have natural immunity that's in many cases as strong, if not stronger, than vaccine immunity?
Rodney 998 says, I won't be contributing to the Ronald McDonald House Canada again.
This is sad and despicable.
Well, I can understand you feel that way.
I mean, they're literally punishing this family.
Well, that's our show for today.
Until next week, on behalf of all of us here at Rubber World Headquarters to you at home, good night and keep fighting for freedom.
And let me leave you with an interview that our Alexa Lavoie did with Maxime Bernier in Quebec.
Good night.
Donc, ici, Alexandre Lavoie pour Revenues.
Je me trouve en ce moment à la place Jacques Cartier, ici à Montréal.
Une grande manifestation va commencer contre les mesures sanitaires.
Donc, ici, Alexandre Lavoie pour Revenues.
Je me trouve en ce moment à la place Jacques Cartier, ici à Montréal.
And a great manifestation between the centre, in those government governments, announces extremely positive for our vaccine and essential services that are brave vaccines,
I will slaughter more, and what is that or who is provided and that provides people of the manifestation known as the measures that will possess our vaccine so that you can let us know.
So we have the media that you're seeing, which space the self-demand or how you know, it's great that you can see if you play Alice on lockdownreport.com and help and demonstrate what Quebec.
Vaccines and Measures00:08:35
Personally, I think, without accidentally, everything is mascarades, I can't agree with the sons of impossible.
So, Jean Juice, several people possessed these measures, and on all the divisions, the segregation conferred in our society.
With all the measures, You think that's provided?
My jeff of vaccine, I think the fair effects, my family and not vaccinated, but the room who are vaccinated, who will not be possible, and very fast province of their effect, it isn't anyway.
They can vaccinate, but it's in our passion measure of the United States, with my family.
Just in Florida, more Alberta, or Britain.
It's not Costa Rica.
You have a promise on Canada, and a promise on Quebec, who lives in population, and Jesus vaccinates for us to move.
If we are in my terms, my mother is the vaccine.
In my opinion, I think, not all.
I impress that on the government to do the force.
And what I think is the measure.
But I think the rhetoric: I not the division of the population.
No, I can't think of our vaccines.
I think it's a cause of government, because there are nothing in the sector.
It's because it's not for the health.
No, you.
But I think it's categorical.
I think it's 80% of vaccines, but I think I think it's fine for our vaccine.
If it had one person in our person, I vaccinated them.
No, I think our vaccines, I think, because it is adequate because the vaccine can be a little bit with the measure, the SQDC, are these two measures will affect your life?
Yes, not directly, but more in the sense that the guy announced that there will be more worse measures that come from, it's already planned, and he said that these are very frustrating measures, so we know that they're going to go to the recipes and things like that.
It's not easy to buy alcohol or drugs on the black market, so it's not a problem.
Anyway, it's a concern.
It's not a little bit.
If we really do this vaccine, when people are more than immoral.
But we're doing it, I can duty to the scene.
If there are secure, it's good.
If it's not the vaccine, with this possibility of it, why?
No, we can't do all that.
Absolutely.
I'm not parents, man.
It's a little excessive because if they mask, even if they vaccinate, we like injury for others.
If we talk about other people, if they are not excessive, because you system is authorized or in vaccine.
What?
Personal vaccine, I think that it would be the hospital.
It's one of the things we can do.
It's not the vaccination that you source the Greece, it's the collective unit that Chris, and we see that we approach the collective.
It's not a brilliant people, we will see not the parliament.
That's chronic all the days that they vaccinate.
If it's the propaganda, it's the propaganda.
From me, I went to employ the price on the south because they were like, we don't know what humans are in the catalogue.
It's a scale, it's not like the friends, the people of the tale.
There are no vaccines on my list if they vaccinate the voice.
It's the scales, so we're like oh, we pay our taxes, we work, we provide for the society as all.
And it's one, because it's another.
I think it's going to necessarily serve.
I think that we will encourage a vaccine.
We are not necessarily more negative that are probably.
The group of our vaccines for us is a lot of mission, but very responsible for all the mission.
It's the policy, the policies that are made to change and Canada, whose socialists who function is not caused by our vaccine.
Because you remark that the vaccine function, and because the three dose and the port for Toussaint, the three conferences,
and in the world, and very minimal, in 60 other variants, and the hotel and our vaccine that vaccines, and what you have done, and the Sorta Ports.
If you vaccinate our peps, push in this obligatory, it is a sense that we can partner our vaccine because it is really a culture that the group developed by the vaccine with people who are developed and resources.
So, if they oblige the people of this country, then we can see we will have a new variant in a couple of years in the city.
And as two, I think the three, but I think we have segregation, and we have the people that are normal, not in Quebec,
because the vaccine, our score comes up, what we say that 25 years, because health, or attention, no respect, And everyone, and everyone will have the right profit of these saints in the world.
Two Sides of the Story00:00:30
So the march is just here at the place Jacques-Cartier.
We have asked the two sides of the story.
It's interesting to know their opinions on this subject.
I think we have my report and civil continuous continuous.
So we have the media that you have, which space the self-worth demands the world.