Ezra Levant compares Arthur Pavlovsky’s legal battle to an egg hardening under pressure, as Alberta’s Court of Appeal struck down a May 2021 ex parte order—issued secretly by Alberta Health Services—citing vague language binding all Albertans without clear targets. The ruling overturned Justice Germain’s decision, exposing potential contempt violations and parallels to China’s censorship tactics, while criticizing Trudeau’s government for weaponizing laws like the Emergencies Act against dissenters. Levant praises lawyer Sarah Miller’s "relentless" defense, funded by Rebel News supporters, as a victory for civil liberties that may deter future abuses. [Automatically generated summary]
I bet you're expecting Ezra Levant and his lyrical musings.
But no, it's me, Sheila Gunried, and I'm filling in for Ezra on his show tonight.
Tonight, my guest is Adam Soast, and we're talking about the papal visit to Canada that's happening early next week and the lies that prompted it.
And my monologue tonight is about how Canadian-style book censorship has come to China.
I didn't say that wrong.
I really did mean to call it Canadian-style book censorship coming to China, and you'll see exactly what I mean now.
The show is fun to listen to, but it's even more fun to watch ad-free.
Now, in order to watch ad-free and early, you need to be a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
That's what we call our premium long form-style shows here on Rebel News.
Subscribers get access to my usual show, The Gun Show, it airs on Wednesday night.
You also get access to Ezra's, normally hosted by Ezra Levant, show that's every single night, fully produced.
You also get access to David Menzies' fun Friday night show Rebel Roundup, Andrew Chapados' show Andrew Says, and Katen Nat's show Misunderstood.
All of that, all of that.
We added two new shows and we never raised the price is just eight bucks a month.
So just go to RebelNewsPlus.com to subscribe today.
And now please, enjoy this free audio-only version of, well, not my show, Ezra's show.
Canadian Censorship Echoes China00:06:23
Canadian-style book censorship comes to China.
Yes, I did read that right.
Then reporter Adam Soast joins us to talk about the Pope visiting Alberta and then Quebec.
It's July 22nd, 2022.
I'm Sheila Gunreed, but you are watching the Ezra Levant show.
Shame on you, you censorious bug.
Do you remember when Justin Trudeau said this about the communist dictatorship and chronic human rights abusers in the Chinese government not all that long ago?
Remember this?
There's a level of admiration I actually have for China because their basic dictatorship is allowing them to actually turn their economy around on a dime and say we need to go green as fast as we need to start investing in solar.
I mean, there is a flexibility that I know Stephen Harford must dream about of having a dictatorship that he could do everything he wanted that I find quite interesting.
But Justin Trudeau's admiration for the evil communist government of China is so deep and so all-consuming that sometimes he out-CCPs the CCP.
For example, in May, China arrested Cardinal Zen, the outspoken Catholic Cardinal of Hong Kong, an elderly man who fearlessly speaks out for human rights and religious freedom, knowing it could mean his death.
This man begs his own church not to capitulate to the evil of the communists as they force Christians underground and rewrite the Christian Bible to strip it of important lessons about the supremacy of God over the state.
And the world when Zen was arrested took notice.
But here in Canada, we've been doing that stuff for years, arresting pastors like Art Peloski, Tim Stevens, James Coates, forcing their congregations into hiding and holding the men in prison for failing to give their churches over to the control of the state during COVID.
Now, to be clear, this, much of it happened in Alberta under a conservative premier who has now resigned, thank God.
But had this happened in China or the USA, the world would have spoken out.
But since it happened in progressive Trudeau's Canada and to Christians, none of the usual human rights advocates said much of anything.
By the way, that ruling which saw Art Peloski held for contempt for weeks, it was thrown out today in the Alberta Court of Appeal, three judges were sober second thought as they threw the whole thing out.
They ordered the fines and costs paid by Art returned, but they can't give him back the time he served in jail.
Now, back to Cardinal Zen, unlike Alberta's pastors held for weeks each, Zen was released on bail within hours.
But in Canada, political dissidents like Cardinal Zen, well, they're denied bail.
Pat King, a man with whom I have many disagreements, was recently just released on bail after being held since February on a dozen mostly minor charges related to his participation in the anti-Trudeau, anti-COVID restriction Freedom Convoy to Ottawa protest.
Five months in jail.
Then there's Tamara Leach, the smiley Métis grandma from Medicine Hat, a woman so diminutive and unthreatening that she makes me look like an Amazon.
She was held for weeks after her first arrest for the crime of creatively and peacefully protesting her government in our nation's capital.
She was rearrested after taking a verboten photograph with a fellow convoy organizer, which the liberal supporting crown prosecutor now claims is a violation of a requirement to not communicate with her fellow convoy organizers unless Leach is with her lawyers.
However, the picture was taken at an event put on by Leach's lawyers.
Trudeau's Emergencies Act, the one he used to euthanize the protests against him and silence and imprison his critics, sounds a lot like the security laws the Chinese government frequently uses to arrest people like Cardinal Zen for being just a little too vocal about their distaste for the current government.
And that brings me to my actual point, and I know it took us a bit of a ways to get here, sorry about that.
Because this story here is why I really started this monologue today.
I saw this in The Guardian.
Yeah, I know sometimes I read The Guardian.
This looks like Canadian-style book censorship coming to China.
Look at this.
Hong Kong publishers excluded from book fair over politically sensitive material.
At least three booksellers say they were banned from the annual jamboree as the city embarks on new forms of censorship.
Hong Kong publishers have decried a new form of censorship after vendors selling books deemed politically sensitive were allegedly excluded from the industry's traditional annual trade fair.
With hundreds of exhibitors spread over the city's major exhibition facility, the seven-day event, which began this week, once drew more than 1 million visitors and was a staple business opportunity for the sector.
But this year, publishers that showcased books last year about the protests that swept the city in 2019 have been banned from the book fair without explanation.
I know you might say, Sheila, we don't ban books in Canada.
You're being crazy.
Yeah, we just investigate them like when Justin Trudeau's elections cops investigated my boss, Ezra Levant, for writing a book critical of the government in the lead up to an election, which is exactly when you should be reading books critical of the government, by the way.
But no, we actually do ban books.
And no one really bats an eye about it because politics.
True North journalist Andrew Lawton wrote a best-selling book that was a bestseller in multiple categories before it was even released.
It's called The Freedom Convoy, the inside story of three weeks that shook the world.
And it's about those anti-Trudeau Freedom Convoy protests that landed in the city of Ottawa and remained peacefully there for nearly four weeks before, as I explained earlier, Justin Trudeau used a Chinese-style security law to round up political dissidents like Tamara Leach and seize their assets.
Indigo, Canada's largest physical book retailer, will not put Andrew's book on the shelf.
They won't explain why they won't do it.
Now, this is a publisher that will happily sell you a copy of the Communist Manifesto in paperback for about 11 books.
A book that laid the groundwork for the deaths of millions of people worldwide.
Chapters Indigo will also sell you a copy of Mein Kampf written by Hitler.
But the subject matter of Andrew Lawton's book, his first-hand reporting on the freedom convoy, well, that might be just a little too touchy for these people.
Justin Trudeau didn't even have to do what other communist countries do, forcibly nationalizing the business sector.
Pope Francis's Controversial Visit00:15:18
You see, in the Western world, the business community is just so woke and so weak that they comply out of laziness and cowardice.
They know the rules without even being told.
Makes me wonder if someday some idiotic generational Chinese politician will say that Canada is the authoritarian bully that he really admires.
Stay with us.
Adam Sos joins us up after the break.
Early next week, Pope Francis, the leader of the Global Catholic Church, is coming to Canada.
His first stop is in Edmonton.
And Rebel News journalists, you might not believe this, but we have been accredited to cover the event.
And the accreditation process was actually handled through Global Affairs Canada.
But we are going to be out in full force to cover this monumental and historic visit by Pope Francis to Alberta's capital.
And we're going to cover a lot of the different political angles that perhaps the other outlets covering the event may not understand.
So joining me now is a fellow Catholic and Pope Watcher, Adam Sos, my colleague from Calgary.
Adam, thanks for coming on the show as I fill in for Ezra.
Why don't you give us a rough breakdown of sort of the Pope's itinerary and then we'll talk about why he's coming.
Yeah, so Pope Francis is set to arrive on Sunday in Edmonton.
Effectively, that day is going to be, he's an older man, obviously.
So Pope Francis will arrive, make his way, which in fact actually involves closing down the entire QA2 into Edmonton.
He's going to rest for the remainder of the day.
For the following few days, he is in Edmonton, visiting a couple locations of significance.
I'm just outside of Edmonton, kind of back towards Calgary a little bit.
He's going to be visiting one of the Indigenous communities there, as well as Sacred Heart Church in Edmonton, which is sort of an Indigenous-oriented Catholic church.
And then the big day really will be Tuesday, where there will be mass at Commonwealth Stadium.
65,000 people or more are expected for that, and that's not including potential protesters.
And there'll also be a pilgrimage of sorts out to Lac St. Anne, which is a rather well-known and famous Catholic, Indigenous connected pilgrimage site here in Alberta, an hour and a half out of Edmonton.
So a very busy itinerary.
After that, he's going to be heading out to Quebec.
And I know Alexa will be there touching base with her, but it should be a very interesting visit.
Overall, they're assuming that there will be as many as 120,000 visitors, whether protesters or attendees or whatever it may be, in Edmonton for the papal visit.
So basically, a 10% jump to the city's population accompanying Pope Francis.
Yeah, this is a huge deal.
One of my earliest memories is John Paul II coming to Edmonton and going with my mom.
And I think the reason for this trip spawns from a lie, and it spawns from Justin Trudeau attempting to abdicate liberal responsibility for the residential school problem.
So the demand for Pope Francis, an elderly, sickly pope, to come across the world on this trip has to do with residential school discoveries, which, as it turns out, are not really discoveries at all.
And then Justin Trudeau demanded that Pope Francis apologize for cultural genocide.
And as you have an interview coming out with a priest who is of Indigenous descent, who says that this, the church did what the government asked them to do with regard to residential schools.
Why do you explain it?
I'm talking too much.
You have the full story.
You explain it.
Yeah, you know, it's incredible, actually.
And very often, what we have, and this is extremely problematic, which is why I wanted to go straight to the source.
You have people speaking on behalf of Indigenous communities rather than members of the Indigenous communities themselves sharing their story.
So Father Cristino Bouvet is a priest of Indigenous heritage.
He's also, as I mentioned, a Catholic priest.
So I sat down with him to talk about sort of the hopes, ambitions, and intentions behind this.
But we did get into some of the nitty-gritty and talked about the history, the fact the church has apologized several times.
John Paul II made it apologized on his tour.
Pope Benedict apologized.
Pope Francis apologized repeatedly, saying, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, to make overtly clear that this is certainly a dark portion of the church's history.
But Father Cristino Bouvet did an incredible job getting into the fact that these residential schools were mandated by the government, organized by the government, funded by the government.
And basically what happened was they would ask local communities, so it wasn't necessarily always Catholic communities, but places that had facilities that could oversee teaching, oversee hospital care, all these types of things, to be involved.
So they would effectively contract them out to run these federal state-mandated residential schools.
That being said, that doesn't excuse that there was abuse, that it was categorically wrong, but it does 100% speak to the fact that this was run by the liberal government and even Justin Trudeau's own dad was involved in the residential school legacy.
But yeah, the amount of malice directed and the redirect that the government's trying to do to point the finger at the church and single-handedly the church is political and it's dangerous.
We saw mass arson, vandalism, all of those things resulting from these faulty headlines that have now largely been debunked.
Father Cristino and numerous Indigenous leaders that I've spoken to when we've been out doing the repair the roof campaign or some of these other initiatives, they've said that this is not news.
This is news to white people maybe, but for the Indigenous communities, this is hurt that they've been working through.
And for this to be drawn up and drawn out as political fodder or political campaigning material is sickening.
And the fact that when they realized, oh, wait, they already knew about this, or this isn't a mass grave, it's actually an apple orchard.
When that stuff came out, these mainstream media outlets who were all over this, who were heralding this and demeaning and bashing the church, well, they were nowhere to be found when it came to retracting or correcting those errors.
One of the things we talked about was truth and reconciliation.
And Father Cristino rightly pointed out that truth encompasses all truth, not just the truth of certain voices and certain people, and that we can't have honest reconciliation if we're only having versions or select sort of snippets and selective choices of the truth.
We need the truth in its entirety.
As I see this, as I see Justin Trudeau demanding that the Pope come here and apologize for cultural genocide, something the church has repeatedly apologized for, it feels as though cynical legacy building for Justin Trudeau, that he is the guy that was able to wring out yet another apology from yet another highly apologetic pope.
So I don't know what he thinks Trudeau thinks he's achieving here, but I think it's legacy building for Trudeau that even the church, the global church, was under his foot and did what he demanded.
100%.
I think you've got it right there on the money.
And frankly, as someone who's extremely concerned about Indigenous issues, I mean, I've got a few issues in this country that really get me upset.
And the fact that current Indigenous populations don't have clean drinking water, the kids' skin is being burnt by acids and even carcinogens in those waters in Canada, a purportedly advanced civilized democracy, while Justin Trudeau parades around as though he's the savior of these people is absolutely sickening to me.
So we also spoke at length, and I asked if he expected Pope Francis, a pope who's known to speak at length to social issues and sometimes step into that arena that popes in the past haven't.
He may very well call on or at least suggest that the government absolutely needs to, instead of only looking at the past and apologizing for the ills of the wrong, needs to take active action and enact some social justice for the Indigenous communities today.
Because the fact is, we care about as much, and I'm not saying we, I'm saying this government, cares about as much about the Indigenous peoples today as they did when they ran the residential schools.
And that's proof in point in the fact that there isn't clean drinking water.
Yeah, John Paul II apologized for residential schools in 1984.
He made a special visit to Canada just to repair the relationship with Canada's Indigenous people.
Anybody who knows anything about the church knows how much John Paul II cared about Indigenous people.
And he said it had a lot to do with that his mom was an Eastern Rite Catholic.
So he thought it was important for the church to speak to the people who are worshiping in the churches in their language, in their native culture.
But leave it to somebody like Justin Trudeau to completely either ignore that or disregard it for his own cynical purposes.
And Adam, you've probably repaired one more church than the entire liberal government ever has.
Yeah, and we're just getting started.
I think that people at Rebel News, obviously, as we saw with the Repair the Church campaign, where we did replace that church, we replaced some broken windows, got some pest control after the request of Ruby Starlight there for us to help her church out because she couldn't get funding from the government.
It took mere hours to raise that entire fund base.
And I absolutely love that the careless and cold-hearted conservatives that we are, well, it took them hours to pay for that entirely.
I don't think that there is an issue that is so unifyingly impassioning as the thought of a Canadian child, Indigenous or not, not having clean drinking water, not having the same rights that we all enjoy as Canadians.
So I think we're just getting started on that front.
And I do have a campaign in mind that we're working on in the background to have some more meaningful action because I'm sick of politicians campaigning on the suffering of Indigenous people.
We need politicians provincially, federally, and church leaders to take a stand and make an active change, not just virtue signal and host panels and synods.
We need to have action right away, not in 10 years, not in five years, in a couple months.
Now, on just on the matter of the church and the Pope coming to Edmonton, the size of the city is anticipated to go up 10%.
The Pope is a big draw.
He's a big deal.
And I know that there are Catholics coming from all over the country, all over from North America to Edmonton.
But I anticipate that there will be protesters just due to the location of where the papal mass is being held at Commonwealth Stadium, the biggest venue, the only venue that would be able to facilitate something like this.
But it's right off the LRT.
It's not in the best part of the city.
And Edmonton was hit with church vandalism just up the road at St. Joseph.
They vandalized a statue of Pope John Paul II.
And so, what are you and the team sort of planning for with regard to the protests or the antis here?
Yeah, we will certainly have an extensive team on the ground bringing you that, bringing the other side of the story, certainly.
And it's interesting, Father Cristino, as I spoke with him, he said it's important to hear those perspectives because while there may be some protesters who are there, whether they're paid to or because their boss tells them to revert, whatever it may be, there will be people protesting because they are absolutely devastated by what I will call the crimes of the church, the crimes of the government within these residential schools.
Some of the things we've heard are absolutely heartbreaking that we know to be facts.
So, I think it is important, and we will ask these people why they are protesting.
But I do hope that they come from a place of wanting to heal, wanting to obtain truth, wanting to obtain reconciliation through that process, which can be painful and can lead to these types of outbursts.
I think Martin Luther King said something to the effect of like violence is the language of people with no voice.
There will be some of that.
But what my major fear is here is that people who have politicized this issue rather than humanize this issue will be there, the same people who are burning the churches that belong to these Indigenous communities, they will be there completely undermining the process, as Father Christina and I spoke about in the interview, picking at the scab of reconciliation for personal and vindictive reasons.
There will be people there who simply hate the church, hate Christianity, and want to sow seeds of destruction.
And I suppose on that front, we're going to cover it.
We're going to show those stories that maybe other people will shy away from.
If there is ugliness to that side, we will show that as well.
But I'm hopeful that people can be respectful, understand that this is a religious leader of a religious community.
And if you show up issuing threats, being violent, those are hate crimes.
You can't profess to be a great protector and equal rights advocate and progressive and then overtly marginalize, attack, and oppress, and even become violent towards a religious community gathering for worship.
That's categorically unacceptable.
But again, we will be on the ground covering all of that.
And you can find all those reports at PopeReports.com right across Canada with Alexa heading over in Quebec too.
We're going to be covering it from start to finish.
We'll be inside some events, hopefully asking some questions.
We'll certainly be looking in from the outside.
The media accreditation process, because there are so many people, is a little bit chaotic.
We've applied for access.
We've been accredited, but then there's access because there's only so many spots to different areas.
We're waiting to hear back what we'll actually have access to inside.
But again, we'll be bringing you the other side of the story from the Pope's visit in Edmonton.
Yeah, no matter where we are, whether we're inside or outside, I think we're going to be doing important journalism that you won't see anywhere else.
And I do think there is going to be a lot of hypocrisy, hate crimes, hate speech committed against Catholics that the mainstream media will ignore.
And we will be there to document it.
Adam, thanks so much for being willing to make the journey up to see the Pope and to cover the papal visit to Edmonton.
And, you know, you're just such a valuable member of the team, a real team leader in Calgary.
Thanks so much, Adam.
Thank you.
Appreciate that.
Your letters to Ezra up next after the break.
I've come to the portion of the show that, well, Ezra used to call it reading his hate mail, but I don't think he gets that much hate mail anymore.
Prices And Hypocrisy00:04:25
I know I don't.
I don't think we generally do at Rebel News because despite what the corporate bought-off media would have you believe, I think we're the mainstream.
improperly identify the corporate bought off subsidized media as the mainstream media but frankly I think it's us because I think that nowadays the people who watch us sure yeah the majority are from the right but there's a substantial portion of people who are on the left but they are united with us in the idea that they just want to be left alone by the government and by their neighbors to live their life lives however they see fit Now the mainstream media,
they will tell you how to live your life.
They'll happily take your money from Justin Strow, but they don't want to hear from you.
We do.
That's why we take your questions and comments at the end of the show.
So let's get right into it.
Chris Wallace says, the reduction of many taxes and especially the elimination of carbon taxes would immediately leave more money in the pockets of Canadians and avoid the need of a raise.
If only the government could understand basic economic principles, CBC should have a 30% reduction in salaries, if not more.
This is a comment based on, I guess it would be my monologue the other day when I covered for Ezra about somebody from CBC, I think it was their financial advice person saying, like, look, if inflation's hitting you hard, just go to your boss and ask for a raise.
It works at the CBC because they've paid out $30 million in pandemic raises and nobody watches them.
But moreover, to your point, CBC could have a 100% reduction in salaries and I wouldn't care.
And I don't think most people would miss them either.
I think their latest viewership on their flagship shows, like the news, the reason they say they exist, it's a statistical rounding error of Canadians.
I think it's Canadian grandparents who had their grandkids put their TVs on CBC because they wanted to watch curling and then they just didn't know how to get it off CBC to watch something better.
Let's keep going.
Smokey the Bear says, just remember, prices won't go back down.
Even if costs go down for companies, they'll still keep the prices high for more profit.
I'm not necessarily sure about that.
There are a lot of things that factor into the price of everything.
And I'm not sure where costs can go down for companies at this point.
Do you think fuel is going to normalize?
There are a lot of companies right now that are really having their profits eaten into as they resist raising the prices.
People talk about how sinister Walmart is, but they are really resisting raising their prices, even though they are being hammered by carbon taxes and transportation costs and supply chain issues.
And they just really are resisting raising the prices to the consumer.
So, you know, I'm not, but prices will probably never go back down, but I think it is because the input costs will also probably never go down either.
Big Dipper188 says, does anyone else have an uncontrollable urge to yell silence, Karen, whenever they hear Freeland speak so much as a single word?
I've actually seen her speak in person, and it is as bad as you can imagine.
Sometimes, though, when I'm watching clips of Christia Freeland, just to fact check myself, because sometimes I think maybe it's her voice I hate, but it's not.
Turn the sound off and watch Christia Freeland with no sound.
And look at just how wriggly that woman is.
And it's not just when she's around Justin Trudeau.
At first, I thought maybe Justin Trudeau has that effect on her that she's sort of wiggling out of her skin.
Maybe he drives the woman wild.
No, I was at the Media Freedom Conference a few years ago in London with Ezra, and she was on stage.
No Justin Trudeau to be found, and she was still doing that thing that she does where she doesn't know how to sit still and behave herself.
It was frankly quite embarrassing.
If I were a liberal, I would be mortified, but I'm not, so I'm less mortified.
Why Clear Court Orders Matter00:13:31
Anyway, that's the show for tonight, everybody.
Thank you so much for tuning in.
Thank you to everybody in the office in Toronto who works really hard to put the show together and everybody who works behind the scenes.
Thanks to my guest, Adam.
Thanks to the boss for trusting me with his show one more night.
And as Ezra always says, keep fighting for freedom.
And this morning, those three judges issued their unanimous ruling.
And they found that the order, the Rook order, that warrant of sorts, that court order that the cops used to arrest Arthur Pavlovsky, they found that that court order was invalid.
It was impermissibly vague.
It was useless.
No one could rely on it.
They struck down the order that started all of this.
And therefore, all the fruit from that poisoned tree, the shock and all brutal arrests, the jail after jail after jail, Adam Germain's word ban, the fines, every shred of it was thrown out today by the Alberta Court of Appeal.
And that was only possible because of you, because you and thousands of people like you chipped in 50 bucks or 100 bucks or 5 bucks or $1,000 to pay for top-notch legal talent that fought with Arthur every step of the way.
And that, by the way, is still engaged in defending Arthur from other abusive prosecutions.
Today, the legal system slowly and costly finally vindicated Arthur Pavlovsky, throwing out his convictions, throwing out the order, and condemning by name that partisan judge, Adam Germain, and throwing out the underlying order.
And I am delighted to have on the line with us now from Calgary the lawyer who deserves so much credit for today's win, a passionate civil libertarian.
You know her from her reports on Rebel News as she was interviewed by many of our talent.
I'm talking about Sarah Miller with the leading litigation firm JSS Barristers.
Sarah, congratulations again.
I'm so pleased.
And I say this in the most generous and friendly way.
I'm so proud of you.
I'm so proud of what you've achieved for our country and indeed beyond our country because Arthur Pavlovsky has had the support of people around the world.
And that support came down to you and your team.
And you were there in the Court of Appeal.
And today you had an utter win.
So I thank you, Sarah, on behalf of our viewers.
Oh, I think you're on mute there.
Or maybe we were on the other side.
Thank you for having.
Thank you for having me.
Well, it's a pleasure to have you.
Now, I know you're under the weather.
I'm under the weather, too.
I came in because I thought this was such an important story.
Now, listen, I'm more political in my language, and I know you would never say the words that I've just said about the police or indeed about Judge Jermaine.
And that's one of the reasons you're so effective, because you're a disciplined professional lawyer who went into that court of appeal, headheld high, and you made the case based on the facts and the law, not just on emotion and not on politics.
You went in there in the law.
Give me a minute on that.
This case is about Arthur Pavlovsky, but it actually sets a precedent that could have gone a very different way for the government to have such enormous power to order people to make compelled speech, to order them to condemn themselves, to put people at such risk of vague court orders.
Arthur Pavlovsky, his liberty was in the crosshairs, but you actually, I think, fought for every Canadian of every political background.
That's my view.
Tell me what you thought of it.
That's exactly how I was approaching it as well, Ezra.
So the issue that I really saw with the decision that Justice Germain made when he first made the finding of contempt was extremely concerning and for a number of reasons.
The core reason that I thought was the most concerning was it really attacked the division of powers that we have in this country.
So we have laws that are made by different actors, right?
We have laws that are made by our elected representatives and they create things like our Public Health Act.
And so in Alberta, we have elected officials acting in government, creating this structure of the Public Health Act.
And the Brooke order, as interpreted by Justice Germain, made it so that the Public Health Act and the fines and sanctions made under that were no longer in effect because now we've got this new order, this new approach of how we're going to police and monitor our citizens.
It overreached.
It was an improper and inappropriate approach to injunctions as far as applying it to the Poplowskis or interpreting it so it should apply to all Albertans everywhere.
And it was a concerning precedent.
I am so thankful that we were able to go to the Court of Appeal thanks to the contributions to the Democracy Fund so that we could make sure that that kind of precedent does not remain the law in Alberta.
And thankfully the Court of Appeal has agreed with us and has struck down the decision by Justice Germain.
All right.
Well, you said a lot of interesting things there.
I want to break this apart.
Do you have about 10 minutes with us, Sarah?
Because I want to get into the meat of the ruling.
Now, Olivia, I think you've got the ruling there.
I'm looking at paragraph 53 of it.
Now, Sarah, I'll read it out in case you don't have it in front of you, but I know you know this ruling pretty well.
So what we had is a couple of different problems, and frankly, you were victorious in all of them.
We have the compelled speech issue, which is just so odious to me.
But the reason Arthur got caught in this trap is he was handed a court order from this judge Rook that didn't have his name on it, didn't describe him or exactly what he did.
And so I'm going to read a little bit from the Court of Appeals' unanimous ruling today.
I'm going to read paragraph 53.
So give me about one minute to read the text, and then I'd like to invite you to explain, maybe in plain language for our viewers, why this is so important, why having clear court orders protects all of us against overreaching police and, frankly, overreaching judges.
So let me read a bit of paragraph 53.
When determining who is subject to an order, that means who's bound by it, the words used in the order must be clear and like the language of a statutory instrument, are presumed to have been included for a reason.
There are two aspects to paragraph one of the injunction, identifying the persons to which the injunction applies, identifying the nature of the prohibited conduct.
And I'm just going to read a few of the details there.
Shall be restrained anywhere in Alberta from organizing an in-person gathering, including requesting, inciting, or inviting others to attend an illegal public gathering, promoting an illegal public gathering via social media or otherwise, attending an illegal public gathering of any nature in a public place.
And then I'm just going to read paragraph 54.
It is the first aspect of paragraph one that's at issue here.
The injunction does not state that it applies to all persons with notice of the injunction, nor to all persons with such notice, including the named respondents, which is essentially the interpretation.
There's some technical language here.
But I don't want to get bogged down in the wording, but you understand the gist of what I'm talking about here.
Clarify this.
Does this mean that a court can't just name the vast swath of people without particularizing what you have to do wrong to be in breach of the order?
Am I right on that?
Yeah, so we're dealing with two steps here, right?
The first step is what Alberta Health Services did, which is go into court and ask for an injunction to constrain some sort of behavior.
The second step is, okay, well, if you breach that order, can you be held in contempt of it?
So in theory, the order as it was obtained can be done.
But if you want to find somebody in contempt of the order, that's never going to work for you.
The way it was drafted, the way it was written, the way that was obtained, according to the Court of Appeal, won't work.
So an order that is going to constrain an Albertan, their ability to move and do things and gather with people or say certain things on social media or encourage people to attend a gathering or even just promote it by retweeting or anything like that, needs to name people specifically.
You can't go in and get some vague language about people acting under their instructions or independently to like effect.
And things that is those words are going to capture any Albertan and prohibit them from doing things.
So we see this in environmental protesting.
We see this in Indigenous protesting.
You need to name the people specifically.
Or if you're doing, you know, a John Doe Janeo situation, that's still permitted, but you need to be really specific as to who is going to be captured under this order.
And that's what the Court of Appeal is saying here.
Yeah, I mean, let me just read one more paragraph.
And I'm sorry, I chose one a minute ago that was a little bit technical.
I'm going to read paragraph 59 because this is sort of their summary of it.
Where there is ambiguity in a phrase that purports to identify a group of individuals to whom an ex parte injunction applies.
And by the way, ex parte is Latin.
It means without that person there.
So Alberta Health ran to court in secret.
They didn't tell Arthur.
They didn't tell you, even though they knew you were on the file for Arthur.
They ran into court secretly and convinced a judge to issue this order.
So they have a high burden of being fair if you're sneaking into court and not letting the other side know.
So here's what the Court of Appeal said today.
Where there is ambiguity in a phrase that purports to identify a group of individuals to whom an ex parte injunction applies, the injunction may not be sufficiently clear to found contempt proceedings against such individuals for breaching the terms of the order.
As all elements of contempt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt, and here's the line, we conclude that the injunction here was not sufficiently clear and unambiguous when it referred to other parties, quote, acting independently to like effect, so as to apply to the Pavlovskys.
The contempt finding against the Pavlovskys must therefore be set aside.
So that's really the nub of it, isn't it?
Yeah, exactly.
And it's really important to hold, especially a government actor, to a really high degree of specificity.
Because as you said, they went in not only without giving us notice, but they went in on their first day in court, May 5th, 2021, and had the matters proceeding in camera, which means there was no court recording.
Usually, you go into court.
I couldn't convince a judge for the life of me to turn off the recording and let us speak privately without it being recorded.
It's a public institution.
It's there for the public.
I'm going to be recorded when I'm in court.
May 5th, 2021, Alberta Health Services goes into the court and proceeds in camera without court recording.
We have no idea what was said between them and the judge.
They go back on May 6th.
Again, still no notice to me, still no notice to the Poplowskis, no notice to Christopher Scott, who is named in the order, no notice to his counsel, who Alberta Health Services was aware of, and gets this order, which is very vague.
And that's why you want to give notice to the other side.
The other side sits there and goes, well, this doesn't make sense.
Where is this going to go?
We look at things when we're looking at somebody else's work product in a more particular way.
Alberta Health Services got this order.
They didn't turn their minds to, I guess, how it was going to be interpreted or thought that it would be so vague and broad that they could apply it to anyone.
And the Court of Appeal has said, no, you can't do that.
You know, one of our mottos at Rebel News is telling the other side of the story.
We believe that there's more than one side of the story and we should hear from both sides.
That's not just a journalistic rule of thumb.
That's actually a precept in the law.
In Latin, they say, audi alterum partum, hear the other side.
Hear the other side.
Maybe they know something that would enlighten us.
Maybe we're missing a trick, right?
Hear the other side.
The clash of two passionate parties and a neutral judge in the middle sorting it out.
So if you have a secret meeting where the other side is not invited, and I didn't know what you just said, that they literally turned off the recording.
I've never heard of that before.
Even in cases where there are minor children and there's a court publication ban to protect the identity of the kids, they don't turn off the recording.
They just make a rule, hey, journalists, you can't say the names of the kids.
I have never in my life heard of a recording being turned off so you could have a, like, a little secret justice.
Secret Justice Revelations00:14:55
That reminds me of the Star Chamber in medieval times.
But at least in the Star Chamber, you were there with a lawyer.
I didn't even know how bad that was.
And that's the thing.
I mean, I showed, I'm a little under the weather, so I'm not as high energy as I'd like to be, Sarah, but I started the show today with the first thing I saw very early in the pandemic when the cops were pushing around Arthur when he was feeding people in the snow in Calgary.
And that's what got under my skin.
I thought that that's not right.
They're picking on this guy.
And so we retained you.
That was in April or even March of 2020.
And so by the time this rook order, and by the time the Nazis out, and by the time the Shock and Austral team arrest happened, you had been working for Arthur for a year, right?
Over a year.
Yeah, so you had interacted with the government by phone, in person, by email, by fax, in court.
So they knew you.
And for them to pretend they didn't know you, pretend they didn't know you were on the file, and to go to court and have a secret huddle with a judge, and then serve this order on Arthur instead of on you, and then arrest him in the street like he's El Chapo, instead of just saying, hey, Sarah, you know what?
Can you bring him in?
Can we arrange for a time where you can bring in Pastor Arthur?
Because we are going to charge him.
Can you bring him in?
Like for them to pretend that you were not on the file is, I believe that's unethical.
I believe that's sharp practice.
I believe that there was so much bad behavior here by the government.
And once, okay, you make a mistake.
Twice, maybe you're exuberant.
But again and again and again and again and again, I really feel like this was a government vendetta against a man.
They just, you know, will someone save me from this turbulent priest.
You know, I believe that they hated this man so much that they justified it in their mind that they would break any ethical and legal norm to get him.
That's how I feel.
Yeah, I think it's very easy once you let your emotions get involved into something to forget what your role is as an, you know, to the court to bring all the evidence forward.
When you feel like somebody is so very wrong in what they're doing, it makes it very easy to turn off that filter in your brain to say, I'm not going to be concerned about that, or this is right and vindicated in some way.
I don't know that anybody at Alberta Health Services really went out to act inappropriately or to ignore the laws and rules and principles that we usually use to guide ourselves.
But I am certain that they were motivated by emotion and by a misplaced sense of righteousness.
And they forgot to keep their filter on to say, what is the legal analysis here?
What are my duties here to the court?
And what are my duties to people in Alberta to make sure that people who I'm not thinking about right now in my anger are going to be captured by and subjected to this order?
So we know that there was other pastors arrested that same weekend with Arthur and David.
And I just wanted to mention one other thing is you said they served Arthur.
They never actually even served him.
He was running his church the whole day.
He never received service of this order at any point during that whole day.
It was served on David, who, of course, didn't understand what he was being served with because he had never heard of this and didn't know what was happening.
And the police couldn't be bothered to explain it to him.
And there's technical language in there.
I mean, he's an immigrant.
English is not his first language.
The law, which is a technical English, is not his first language.
He has a top-notch lawyer, you, but they didn't give it to you because the whole thing was cut any corner necessary.
You know what?
I quoted that line.
Whoops, I'm going to turn my phone off.
I quoted that line.
It was Henry II who said, will no one save me from this meddlesome priest?
And they killed Thomas Beckett.
They killed the priest.
It's not new for politicians just to.
And why do they hate the clergy?
Because the clergy are obedient to a higher power.
Most churches closed their doors because Jason Kenney told them to.
Most did.
But a few true believers, some in Edmonton, some in Calgary, just refused to.
And that's a real power struggle.
Am I not the king?
Am I not the king?
Will someone save me from this meddlesome priest?
And four men said, okay, I better damn well save the king from this meddlesome prince.
They went and killed Thomas Beckett, the head of the Church of England.
I think it was the Archbishop of Canberra, as they called him.
Well, who's the boss here?
Am I not king?
And Jason Kenney couldn't get this meddlesome priest to bend the knee.
So they got him to bend the knee on the street, didn't he?
He bent the knee on the street.
All right, I'm mad.
Sarah, I got a question for you.
What other cases are proceeding against Arthur Pravlovsky and his brother David?
Oh, there's quite a few.
So related to this decision that we had from Justice Germain, that's now been struck.
But while they were under that probation order, both of them were charged with breaches of probation.
We've entered not guilty pleas to those charges.
There's all sorts, before this was set aside, there's all sorts of issues with those charges, but both of them were charged with breach of probation.
Archer Pavlovsky has also been charged with criminal contempt of the Rook Order, which, based on the analysis given by the Alberta Court of Appeal, the recorder doesn't apply to the Pavlowskis or Artur specifically, so that also should not be proceeding, but it's still outstanding as of today.
There's also a charge against Archer Pavlowski for attending the Coutz border here in Alberta and giving a speech, I guess, or a sermon at the Couts border during the trucker convoy protest that was down there in February.
So he's been charged not only for criminal mischief, over $5,000 for supposedly inciting mischief with the highway, but also under what is legislation in Alberta only, the Critical Infrastructure Defense Act.
Now, the unions who sometimes want to strike, sometimes want to demonstrate, have tried to challenge this act as unconstitutional.
They've not been granted standing.
They've not been allowed to proceed with their challenge, but it's widely understood that this act is likely unconstitutional.
So Archer is the first person that we have been able to figure out who has been charged under this act, and so he's charged with mischief and the Critical Infrastructure Defense Act offenses for the February protest.
I got a question for you.
All those breaches of probation and all those things that emanated from this, like I say, fruit of the poison tree, it would seem to me that those are all now moved.
That's what you suggested.
Yeah, the Coutz protests, not moot, but the because it arises from the- That's the infrastructure law, yeah.
Yeah, but the probations they should be moot.
So I hope, I expect that the Crown will discontinue those charges for breach of probation against both the Pavlovsky brothers and as well the criminal contempt proceedings for Archer Pavlovsky should also be discontinued based on this decision.
So, but you know, Arthur has been subjected to arrest, detention, David II arrest, detention, and outstanding criminal proceedings for two men who are in their 40s with no criminal record to date facing criminal charges because of this decision from Justice Germain and everything that flowed from that.
You know, I don't want you to talk about anything subject to solicitor clan privilege.
I don't want you to give away any strategies.
I don't want you to tip your hand.
I don't want you to give any notice to the bastards on the other side.
But it is my observation that the prosecution and I would say persecution of the Pavlovskys was not normal, that it would not have been abided by a normal prosecutor, that there were decisions made at higher levels.
You don't have an eight-car 15-cop takedown of a guy on a highway without that being approved by senior police brass.
I'm sorry, it doesn't happen that way.
You don't have a hunter-killer team of dedicated police, Alberta Health Service officers and prosecutors going church by church.
That's a special advice squad.
I believe that there was a higher level of operation here, a political level of operation.
Like I say, I've never heard of a recording being turned off in a court before.
Never heard of that.
Never heard of that.
I believe that there was malicious prosecution.
I believe there was abuse of office.
Now, I know that just because you lose a court case doesn't mean there's malicious prosecution or abuse of office.
Courts are allowed to get it wrong, and the way you solve a wrong court is with an appeal to a higher court.
So, Justice Adam Germain, I think he's a disgrace.
I think he should resign.
I don't think he should have been put on the bench in the first place.
I think he discredited his name for all time.
But that's not a criminal.
That's not necessarily even unethical.
That's to be corrected by the higher court.
And indeed, he was slapped down pretty hard today.
So I'm not saying just because someone got it wrong that there was malfeasance.
We're humans.
We're allowed to get it wrong.
But there is a 20-year vendetta against Arthur Pavlovsky.
You've been on his file for two and a half years.
I happen to know that he's been fighting with City Hall for at least a decade before that.
And they just can't stop hating him.
And it infected the last mayor of Calgary, the police chief.
It infected Jason Kenney in the cabinet.
I do not believe that the persecution and the prosecution of him was normal.
It feels like the kind of obsession the governments have with, I'll just pick a name, Julian Assange, obviously a different species altogether.
But it feels so obsessive.
It's not normal.
Are there any tools that a thoughtful, professional, ethical, fact and argument-oriented lawyer could use?
And don't give anything away here if it's private.
But I just feel like a court of appeal ruling, it feels good, but good Lord, the guy had to go through two months in prison, high six figures in legal fees, humiliation on purpose.
Is there nothing more for him?
Can there be some sort of inquiry?
Can there be some sort of come up and investigate how did this get so wrong?
There's a few things that could be considered going forward.
One is, as you indicated, a tort action for malicious prosecution and abuse of position.
So that's certainly an option.
Those are not easy cases to make out.
As far as the decision, the wrong decision by Justice Germain, that, as you say, the remedy is go to the court of appeal.
Getting the law wrong, applying the law wrong, interpreting the law wrong.
You know, courts of appeal overturn decisions all the time, so there's not a lot we can do there.
But arguably, the action of either Alberta Health Services or the Crown Prosecutor's Office, depending on how the next few days play out, at least with the Crown Prosecutor, could attract at least the consideration for the tort of malicious prosecution.
As I say, it's not an easy case to make out, but certainly, from our perspective, this was so clearly something that should have never gone to the first hearing date.
You know, police failed to give proper notice.
They arrest the detain for three days, 54 hours or something, so nearly three full days.
And they release him on with no conditions, really, keep the peace, be in good behavior type.
And then for Alberta Health Services to pick up the mantle from that mistake and to continue it through Bringing multiple witnesses through combing through his social media for months to give additional little tidbits to Justice Germain to feed on,
or bringing irrelevant evidence into court, failing to comply with the rules of court regarding hearsay or regarding splitting the case or bringing certain evidence at certain times.
All of those things are very concerning.
It's either an indication of, as I say, forgetting to keep that filter on with respect to not being motivated by emotion.
But that emotion feels like malicious emotion.
Now, whether a court would agree with us when the test is so very high and there's going to be feelings on both sides as to, well, are you allowed to dislike somebody who is so loud and open and abrasive as Archipoplowski?
It might not be the easiest case to bring, but it's certainly something available.
Once in a while, people call me irritating and annoying, too.
It's very rare.
I'm always shocked to hear it.
But thank God being annoying and irritating and sandpaper-y is not a crime.
City Calgary's Bylaw Unit00:04:40
And I think that, you know, it's funny, I have some family from the former Soviet Union, and they told me that the people who would get into trouble with the authorities were not normally political dissidents.
There were very few of them.
It was just people with quirks, quirky personalities that were irritating, that bugged people, that maybe were on the spectrum, or that it was a personal slight.
The people who were always in trouble with the KGB were quirky people, annoying people.
And that was the ultimate way of solving a problem: rat someone out or snitch on someone to the secret police that they just hated.
That it wasn't that they were democracy activists in Siberia or something.
It's just someone who rubbed a powerful person the wrong way.
Arthur Pavlovsky has a very strong personality.
He's not meek and mild.
He uses the lion metaphor, and he tells those people to be lions against the hyenas.
That's very different than other church leaders in Alberta being prosecuted.
You know, be wise as serpents and gentle as doves.
You know, there's doves out there.
Arthur says he's a lion.
That's not a reason to throw a lion in a cage for 50 days.
I want to tell you why I'm sitting here, Sarah.
I got a text from a cabinet minister who either looked at my tweets or is watching this program right now.
Now, I respect the fact that he texted me directly, and so I'm not going to quote it because I think it was sent to me in some confidence.
It was a rejection of some of my points that this was politically motivated.
So I wrote back to this cabinet minister, I'm not going to name them, and I said, will you make a public statement about this case?
And will you see that this anti-church squad was it Karen Thorsrude?
Was that the prosecutor?
No, so for this particular one that we just got the Court of Appeal decision from, it was actually in-house counsel at Alberta Health Services who prosecuted this whole proceeding.
So not any formal crown prosecutor on this particular file.
Got it.
So I think Thorsrude was on another one.
I'm just writing this to the cabinet minister.
Is there this squad of police and prosecutors who were assigned to this detail?
Am I right when I say there's a kind of vice squad, kind of like a gang squad, a drug squad, a vice squad, that there is a squad that's been going on around Alberta specializing in going after the meddlesome priests?
Am I accurate when I say that?
This cabinet minister challenges me.
So Calgary Police Service created a unit for the purposes of enforcing and acting against anybody who may have been breaching Public Health Act violations.
So the city of Calgary, their police force created that unit.
We have that in the cross-examination transcripts on this matter from the Court of Queen's Bench.
So numerous police officers who provided statements, they had testified that they were part of that unit, that that's what their mandate was.
They had a somewhat secretive meeting the morning of May 8th, 2021, a town hall meeting of sorts to send out multiple groups and multiple teams to go and enforce the Rook order, which we now know was completely unlawful.
It didn't apply to anybody in Calgary that weekend.
It applied to the rodeo organizers and participants up two hours away from Calgary.
So that whole unit has been mobilized to act against Mr. Archer Poblowski and David Poblowski multiple times.
They also have this, the city of Calgary has bylaw enforcement that also they have a unit created essentially to respond to what seems to be responsive to the Walk for Freedom marches.
So once those started getting up and going and happening weekly in the city of Calgary, they set up a bylaw service that also triggers it.
So at least in the city of Calgary, I don't know what RCMP is doing.
I can't say, yeah, in all of Alberta, that's happening.
But certainly it's happening here in Calgary.
Core Freedoms At Stake00:05:03
I've got some ideas I'll share with you off camera about what to do.
Listen, you've been very generous with your time, and I've learned a lot from you.
I would encourage our viewers to read the ruling.
It's on our website, savearthur.com.
We have a number of lawyers who work for Rebel News directly.
You're working on this project for the Democracy Fund, which is a registered CRA charity designed to litigate and educate Canadians about civil liberties.
And that's very much on point with Pastor Arthur.
You've got freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion.
There's a lot of really core freedoms at stake.
And then, of course, the due process, the fundamentals of just natural justice.
So it really is a great case.
People who chip in get a CRA tax credit, which makes it easier for people to give.
And your fees, which I glance at, are reasonable, and we're grateful to you.
But for someone to fight, this is not your full-time job, but I'd say it's probably close to a half-time job for you working on Arthur, and it has been for years.
And you have colleagues.
You have a senior lawyer there, Robert Hawks, QC.
You've worked with Chad Haggerty, former cop who's now a criminal lawyer.
You have staff.
So you're the star and you're the leader, but you have a larger team.
And I am not going to, for reasons of confidentiality, disclose the total amount we have paid amongst all the lawyers.
But it is an enormous fee, worth every penny, because this isn't about money.
It's about protecting our civil liberties.
But if it were not for the donors and this charity, the Democracy Fund, no normal human could have defended themselves for a two-year battle, three prison terms, hundreds of thousands.
Let me just put it that way, hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, endless court appearances.
I mean, I admire Arthur for his stamina to being arrested, being jailed, and not breaking.
They were trying to break him.
But no normal person could afford this fight.
And even if you were a millionaire, I think most millionaires would say it's not worth it.
You know, just pay the penalty, take the loss.
I'm not going to spend two years of my life and countless hundreds of thousands fighting on a point of principle.
I think there's something wrong in the system when it takes a guy two years, two, three, four lawyers, not quite a million dollars, to get a little bit of justice, and he's still being hunted.
Yeah, absolutely.
I mean, for this case to have been the size and nature of it that the government has brought against Archer Pavlovsky and David Pavlowski, that they have brought so many witnesses, that they have tried their absolute hardest to make sure that he was in prison.
I talked to other lawyers at my firm who, you know, on a normal matter, well, everything's contentious, but not civil liberties oriented.
A contempt proceeding might take a day, might have maybe 10 pages of written submissions.
In this case, we had cross-examinations on five different witnesses.
We had briefs due on the contempt finding and the sanction finding.
We started this process on the contempt finding in May.
We had a release hearing.
We had multiple hearing dates throughout May, all the way through to October.
On something that in other cases could have been a day and 10 pages of written submissions, we have over 100 pages of written submissions, charter issues arising, cross-examination of witnesses, to go all the way through to have a judge find wrongfully against the Pavlowskis and have to then launch an appeal to correct that bad precedent finding and bad precedent not only for the Pavlovskys, but for all Albertans.
And arguably, you know, all of our provinces, we rely on one another, so arguably all Canadians, is amazing that your viewers, that the supporters of the Democracy Fund has been able to make sure that this was not just a steamroll by government overreach and that we were able to put up the fight that we did and eventually get the win that we got.
Yeah, and credit to Arthur, of course.
I mean, just it's one thing for me to be a pundit who's mad about things.
It's one thing for you to be a lawyer who, as a profession, fights things.
But he was the one in the prison cell.
He was the one arrested on the street.
Difference Maker00:05:06
He was the one who didn't know and still doesn't know how long will this go on for.
You know, I was at the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms dinner in Vancouver a few weeks ago honoring Tamara Leach, who's in prison, by the way.
And John Carpe, the leader of that group, he's Dutch, and he told me that his grandparents, he told me what it was like in Holland when the Nazis rolled in in 1940.
And we know now, with the benefit of history and hindsight, that it was, you know, that the World War II ended in 1945.
So they had to be able to hold out for four or five years.
But they didn't know that.
Was Holland going to be a German province forever?
For a hundred years, for a thousand years?
Or more to the point for the rest of their lives?
Where do you get the courage to fight against something on principle when you don't know how it's going to end?
And Arthur's been in this for years, even decades, and he's not done yet, as you pointed out.
So it takes a lot of courage.
Like, salute that guy.
He's a prickly pear.
You know, he's like an egg.
You boil it, it gets harder.
The more you boil an egg, the harder it gets.
I think that's him.
You know, I just got a note back from the cabinet minister.
I called on him to make a public statement.
He said, I can't make a public statement on an ongoing legal matter as a minister of the crown.
And I said, the court said the rook order.
I'm writing, I'm chatting with him while I'm chatting with you, Sarah.
The court said the rook order was invalid and the Germaine order was outrageous.
I think it would behoove you to make a general public policy statement regarding freedom.
You don't need to refer to the case at hand.
I'm not asking for any cabinet minister or premier to refer specifically to this case because this case might be appealed for all we know to the Supreme Court.
I doubt it will be.
And there's other cases involving Arthur.
But surely this case is a splash of cold water to those fevered prosecutors and police.
I'm going to stop reading from this cabinet minister before I'm tempted to go further.
Sarah, I'm grateful for your time.
You've spent an hour with us, and I didn't mean to keep you that long, but I'm glad you were here to bring some sober-minded thought.
I'm hot, but you're cool.
And that's what won it.
Cool, collected, relentless, indefatigate, indefatigable is the word I'm looking for.
And I don't want to get too emotional, but I believe that you personally played a very important role and that your qualities, like there are many lawyers in the world, and a number of them could have done it, but it was your personal qualities that I think really made the difference here, some of the qualities I just listed.
And you have my personal gratitude.
And the reason that so many Rebel News viewers have donated is in part because they've gotten to know you over the last two years in your interviews with our reporters.
And so they've learned to trust you and indeed to love you because you share our concerns.
Even though I'm quite sure we disagree on many political or ideological points, in fact, I think that strengthens our admiration for you because it goes to your belief in principle.
And I know that I'll forever be grateful for the fact that you were there in the court.
You never said die.
You never said blink.
You never said throw in the towel.
You never said plea bargain.
You fought all the way.
And I really think you made a difference.
And I hope you get, I know you'll get the affection of our Rebel News viewers, but I hope you get it from other fancier people too.
I hope you get it from other members of the bar.
And I hope you get it from across the ideological spectrum.
I hope people on the left who find Arthur Pavlovsky a pain in the ass, I hope they see how your work in court has strengthened freedom for all of us.
And you mentioned some of the other people who've been arrested before in vague and general court orders.
They will never know the work that you did, but they will benefit from it.
So thanks very much on behalf of all of us here.
We love what you've done for us, and we're so glad you're on the team for freedom.
Absolutely.
Thank you, Ezra, and thank you to all your viewers who have been contributing and helping Archer's fight and Ovid's fight.
It's been a wild ride, and I'm really thrilled that we got the decision we did today.
Well, thank you for that.
All right, we'll say goodbye to you, and we appreciate you joining us.
I understand you're in lockdown.
You got the roan up.
May you get back to good health.
It looks like you're doing okay, but I hope you're 100% soon.
I'm a little under the weather too today.
The both of us are quite a case, but you did a great job today.
Thanks for explaining things.
Thanks, Ezra.
All right, there you have it.
Sarah Miller, isn't she great?
I'm just so I feel so grateful to her.
And her fees are what you would expect from a bright young lawyer working on this case for years.