Ezra Levant exposes Calgary’s Safe and Inclusive Access Bylaw, fining dissenters up to $10,000 or jailing them for a year—targeting conservative protests like Pastor Derek Reimer’s disruption of a Drag Queen Story Hour, where Mayor Jody Gondeck called objections "hate." Reimer’s bail includes a $3,000 surety and bans contact with "LGBTQ2S plus" individuals, raising concerns about vague enforcement mirroring historical thought-policing. Lawyer Ben Allison plans to challenge these conditions by March 29, while Levant warns of broader censorship risks, comparing Calgary’s pattern to Alberta’s gun law overrides and criticizing Canada’s courts as overly liberal. The episode ties legal overreach to deeper threats of civil liberties erosion under progressive governance. [Automatically generated summary]
Today we talk about a new bylaw in Calgary that would make it a not a crime, but a serious offense punishable by $10,000 fine and a year in jail for quote disapproving, unquote, of an idea, unquote, including LGBTQQS Plus ideas.
If you think I'm exaggerating, I will read you verbatim the bylaw, and I'll talk to Pastor Derek Reimer's lawyer, who is on the case, and we've got a feature interview with him.
That's ahead.
But first, let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
It's the video version of this podcast.
It's only $8 a month, which I think is a bargain.
Get the video side of the story.
And the $8, it might not sound like a lot to you, but I tell you, that's how we pay a lot of bills around here because we do not take money from the Canadian government or any government.
We don't take money from Trudeau.
Most media do.
And by being independent, that's how we can tell you the other side of the story.
Please help us by subscribing at RebelNewsPlus.com.
All right, here's today's podcast.
Tonight, Calgary City Hall continues to ban conservative protests, but only conservative protests.
Who will stop them?
It's March 14th, and this is the Ezra Levant Show.
Shame on you, you censorious bug.
Yesterday, we talked with Tracy Wilson of the Firearms Coalition about an interesting idea by the provincial government in Alberta to stop Justin Trudeau's gun laws.
To do that, they're introducing their own gun laws.
And the legal theory is that while actual crimes are a matter of federal jurisdiction under our Canadian Constitution, property and civil rights and other things that would touch on a gun registry for non-criminals, that's a provincial matter for provinces under our Constitution.
So if a province were to pass pro-gun laws first, Justin Trudeau's anti-gun laws would be overridden.
I like the theory.
Protest Bans and Physical Impediment00:12:57
I'm not sure how it would actually shake out in our courts, which are more liberal and activist than ever, despite Stephen Harper having appointed so many of those judges.
I just don't think Stephen Harper cared enough about who he put on the court.
In the U.S., it is often the most important legacy of any president.
Donald Trump's Supreme Court appointments may well be his most enduring impact on America, and certainly they were outstanding picks by him.
Harper, I don't think, even cared.
He delegated that to his justice ministers who didn't care either.
Those judges are our real masters in Canada, and you can't fire them, can you?
But hey, let me tell you what's going on in Calgary today, even as I speak.
Pastor Derek Reimer had a quick court appearance through his lawyer today, just administrative matters.
I'll talk a little bit more about that.
I should tell you that the Democracy Fund has hired a lawyer named Ben Allison to represent Pastor Reimer.
And if you want to help out, go to savepastorderer.com.
And like all civil liberties cases handled by the Democracy Fund, you get a charitable tax receipt.
So we knew that was happening.
We've known that for a few weeks.
It was outrageous.
Pastor Derek went to one of these drag queen story hours for children of tender years.
And he verbally disrupted it.
He heckled.
And so they physically picked him up and threw him out the door.
I'm sorry, that's an assault.
That's just way overreacting.
They weren't security guards.
They weren't police.
They weren't owners of the facility.
They were just people at a library.
They didn't like them.
They threw him out.
Remember the video?
Take a look.
Okay, we don't know what to do.
We are now calling the police.
We have the police coming.
So it is your choice to leave or deal with the police.
Very abusive Americans.
Yeah, he went to jail, and he served more time already in jail for that heckle than many actual criminals serve in Canada.
Well, the City Hall in Calgary is not pleased enough with the jail term that Derek Reimer has received.
And they're not pleased with the fact that there's anyone who would dare to dissent with Drag Queen's story hour to begin with.
So today, City Hall went at it again.
I think they went crazy.
When I say crazy, they're just, there's such a group thing.
There's such an echo chamber there, and there's so little opposition or dissent there.
The media is so submissive there that they don't hear any other point of view.
They just think everyone, of course, we agree we have to censor dissenting voices.
Of course, we're going to censor anyone who disapproves of our point of view because they're hateful.
We hate them, but we're not hateful.
They're hateful.
Reminder, here's the mayor of that city, Jody Gondeck is her name, just laying it right out there.
She's not even pretending to care about civil liberties.
She's not even pretending that this is some neutral, non-partisan rule.
She is saying, as plainly as can be, in her official capacity as mayor, this is about silencing the people she hates, about peaceful protesters and critics.
The things she lists here are not crimes, but she's going to silence them using the police.
Remember this?
We had a drag brunch at the rec room in the north of Calgary by our community of drag queens in Calgary who have done amazing work promoting inclusion and really raising awareness of how important it is to be a welcoming community.
Unfortunately, some members of our population thought it would be a good idea to protest this event, which is, I'm just going to use my opinion, a horrible thing to do.
I was very happy that CPS was there to provide a buffer and to ensure that everyone was safe and that the show could go on.
My question is, do we have the ability when a protest is rooted in hatred to ticket people and shut this down?
How does it work?
Mayor Gondeck, I will seek to answer that question.
I am responsible, of course, as the general manager for community services for our bylaw work.
And so it would be a bylaw that we would be pursuing that way.
I imagine that there's some complexity to defining what we anticipate to have happen at protests.
And so I don't feel like I have the crisp answer that I would like to.
Right now, I'm happy to look into that.
And I will send a note to all members of council when we have a good, clear answer to your question.
Thank you, GM Black.
I appreciate that.
I didn't expect you to have an answer immediately, but I do appreciate that you will look into it.
We cannot have this kind of intolerance and hatred in our city, so thank you for pursuing it.
Well, that bylaw became the law, and I believe that's actually one of the things that Derek Reimer is charged under.
But apparently, that is not enough for the mayor or city council, because let me read to you from their agenda from today's city hall agenda, hundreds of pages of notes.
Let me quote to you from the bylaw that was introduced today.
I'll quote to you, this bylaw may be cited as the safe and inclusive access bylaw.
Well, Orwell would have a field day.
You saw how safe Pastor Derek was.
He was physically thrown out, and he was not included because he doesn't agree with Drag Queen's Story Hour for children of tender years.
So it's not safe, and it's not inclusive, but it is bylaw.
It only bans protests that the government doesn't like.
You heard Jody Gondak.
Now, it's quite a trick to do that in a law.
It's quite a trick to write a law that will only be used to hurt your enemies because what happens when the other side is in power?
Of course, it's a lot easier when you control all the levers of power, which City Hall often does.
They control City Hall.
They control the physical plant.
They control the libraries and the rec centers physically.
They control the police.
For a moment there, Calgary police resisted arresting Derek Reimer until the mayor went on a tantrum, a rant on Twitter, and then they just bent to her will.
When you control all the factors, you can write a biased law, and it will have the effect you want.
Really, every institution, you know, the saying you can't fight City Hall.
There's a reason that's a saying, because they have all the angles covered.
Normally, politicians pretend that their law isn't just targeting their enemies.
That's a real Venezuela move to do that.
I mean, Justin Trudeau did that in the Emergencies Act.
But they're not even pretending in Calgary.
So they are, and I'll read to you more from the bylaw of who will be banned.
But as I do so, think: could this same bylaw be used to ban Black Lives Matter protesters or Idle No More protesters or even just labor unions on strike on a picket line, or certainly any of the environmental movement, not that they're having a lot of rallies in Calgary.
But no, this will never be applied to the heroes of the left, certainly not against Antifa or any violent people.
Just Christian pastors.
Here, let me read from section 21G of the bylaw called Definitions.
And look at what they're banning.
They're not banning protests.
That would be too crazy.
I think even the nut bars in Calgary City Hall would say, no, we just can't do that.
So they're banning what they call specified protests, just only certain kinds of protests.
They think this will make it Charter of Rights compliant.
So here's how they define specified protests.
This is what they're going to ban.
Specified protest means an expression of objection or disapproval towards an idea or action related to race, religious beliefs, color, gender, gender identity, gender expression, physical disability, mental disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income, family status, or sexual orientation by any means, including graphic, verbal, or written means,
but does not include messaging at an event scheduled by a library or rec facility.
So you can't disapprove of an idea.
Did you catch that?
If you object to an idea, if you disapprove of an idea, that was the first thing they said.
It just can be an idea or people or the, you cannot disapprove or disagree.
You must approve of the Drag Queen Story Hour.
You must approve it or be silent.
You cannot oppose or criticize.
That's the actual language here.
Nothing to do with violence or threats or crimes.
Those are already covered.
This is pure thought control.
Disapproval is an idea.
It's a thought.
It's some words.
That is now banned.
But did you notice that the library itself, which is controlled by the city, can have gatherings like Drag Queen Story Hour for young kids where they can disapprove of things.
Did you notice that weird exception?
Because an obvious response would be, well, those people at that library, I didn't see Pastor Derek doing the heckling in there, but I certainly saw the pro-trans drag queen people showing their disapproval by physically throwing a man out of the public library.
But that is specifically exempted.
Anything that their side does in the library is exempt.
Isn't that crazy?
I'm going to read section 3.1 of the bylaw.
I'll give you a little bit more.
A person must not engage in specified protest on publicly accessible property within 100 meters of an entrance to a recreation facility or library.
A person must not engage in specified protest anywhere inside a recreation facility.
A person must not physically impede or attempt to impede the passage of a person to or from an entrance to a recreation facility or library.
They have all these maps where they have these color-coded zones for banning free speech.
You have just like circles.
It's like a bullseye.
And if you're standing one meter too close, get ready to go to prison.
Now, what would happen to this woman in the United Kingdom who was within 100 meters of some public place?
Just take a look at this excerpt from this video in the UK.
You do not have to say anything.
It may harm your defense if you do not mention one question, something which you later on in court.
Anything you do say may give you what are you here for today?
Physically, I'm just standing here.
Why here of all places?
I know you don't live nearby.
I think this is an abortion something.
Okay, that's why I'm just standing to be part of the protest.
No.
I'm not protesting.
Are you praying?
I might be praying in my head.
So I'll ask you once more: will you voluntarily come with us now to the police station for me to ask you some questions about today and other days where there are allegations that you've broken public spaces protection order?
If I've got a choice, then no.
Okay, well then you're under arrest on suspicion of failing to comply with public spaces protection order, which is under the anti-social behavior common policing act 2014.
And I'll caution you again, you don't have to say anything.
It may harm your defense if you don't mention one question, something which later on in court, and you can do say maybe give them.
Do you understand the caution?
I do.
So she was silently praying in her mind.
And then a cop came up to her and said, what are you doing?
And she said, I'm praying in my mind.
So until that moment, he didn't know what she was thinking.
And then she said, I'm thinking, I'm praying against what's going on here.
In that case, it was an abortion clinic.
And so he arrested her because she told him what she was thinking.
So I think that same woman in Calgary, if she was totally silent and didn't have any writing on her, could go within 100 meters of a library or rec center.
But if someone said, why are you here?
And she answered, then she could be arrested because you don't have to make a fuss.
Drag Queen Protests Popped Up00:07:21
You don't have to commit a crime.
You don't have to threaten anyone or even insult anyone.
All you have to do is disapprove or object to an idea.
And you've just committed an offense.
And let me describe that by reading section six of the bylaw.
Any person who contravenes any provision in this bylaw by doing any act or thing which the person is prohibited from doing or by failing to do any act or thing the person is required to do is guilty of an offense pursuant to this bylaw.
And then 6.2 says any person who is convicted of an offense pursuant to this bylaw is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year or both.
$10,000 or prison or both for objecting, for disapproving to an idea.
You know, when I was looking for the text of this bylaw, I went on Google, as I often do, and I just simply typed in the word, draft Calgary bylaw.
I just typed in those three words and so many bylaws popped up.
Now, you would think that there would be bylaws about zoning, about buildings, about garbage pickup, about police, about pets, all the things that are the stuff of life of a city bylaw.
Bylaws are very low-level laws.
They're not federal crimes or international treaties.
But look what popped up.
You just type in Calgary bylaw.
That city has a reputation, at least on Google, for censoring and banning things.
Here's a story that popped up.
First page on Google when I typed in Calgary draft bylaw.
This is from February 2020.
This is the CBC State Broadcaster.
Calgary Council unanimously votes to draft bylaw banning LGBT conversion therapy.
Calgary City Council has unanimously voted to support a conversion therapy ban, with many councilors sharing their personal feelings Monday on the controversial practice.
So we're having some feelings-based laws.
I don't know if it's constitutional for some city councillors to ban private, religious, or healthcare or psychological treatments, but they don't really care.
It was unanimous, and I find that very telling that everything in Calgary is a group thing.
There's no one dissenting.
There's no one saying, is that even within our constitutional power to do that?
No one is saying, is there nothing more important for us to do?
And no one is saying, does everyone in the city have to absolutely agree with us?
And if they dare disapprove or object to our idea, again, I'm using language from the bylaw, they have to go to jail.
Like, what is wrong with that city?
Why is Calgary the most censorious city in the country?
I typed in draft Calgary bylaw and this popped up too from just November 2022.
This was incredible to me.
City hall to draft bylaw restricting how graphic anti-abortion flyers are distributed in Calgary.
Calgary City Council has voted again unanimously to crack down on graphic anti-abortion flyers.
Council is asking city administration to draft a bylaw that would put restrictions on how pamphlets with graphic images of abortive fetuses are distributed.
Pure censorship and only for pro-life material.
Nothing else will be banned.
Certainly not sexuality, not half-naked drag queen stalking the kids.
That kind of graphic stuff is A-OK on city property.
Just stuff that the city council doesn't like.
Isn't that crazy?
And this week, this week, the story about what I'm talking about today, this was just, let me quote to you from this CTV story.
Proposed safe and inclusive bylaw to protect LGBT2Q2 plus community to be debated Tuesday.
A series of protests against drag queen story hours in recent weeks has made the city of Calgary act to try and stop them.
Described as protests of hate by Mayor Jody Gondeck, the city's asking that council immediately approve the new safe and inclusive access bylaw.
It would ensure that any event taking place inside a city facility, such as public libraries or city-owned or affiliated rec centers like the YMCA, a 100-meter buffer zone, will be in place to stop any protests.
Any person who contravenes the law is guilty of an offense pursuant to this proposed bylaw.
If convicted, they could face a fine up to $10,000 and or one year in prison.
So this is basically what I've just read you.
What's interesting to me is not, it's quite a lengthy story, but there's not a single point of view quoted against the idea.
Not one.
Not from a civil liberties point of view, not from a Christian point of view, people who they're obviously targeting, not from a conservative point of view.
It's just all unanimous.
You know, their political media industrial complex, they all agree that if you're pro-life and against abortion, you're a bad person, you have to be censored.
If you're worried about drag queen story hours sexualizing children of young years, well, you're an evil person, have to be censored.
There is no disagreement in the entire complex there.
But look at that photo of Pastor Derek being thrown out of the room.
That photo is a good photo.
It's an interesting photo.
But look at the caption.
Derek Reimer, a street church pastor.
It's true.
They put street church in there to diminish them, I think.
Was removed.
I love that.
He was removed.
Not picked up and thrown out or assaulted.
He was removed after disrupting, he did indeed disrupt, a, this is my favorite part, a family-friendly reading with royalty event.
Family-friendly.
Is that news or is that opinion there on a photo caption?
Family-friendly.
Reading with royalty event.
Why don't they say drag queen story hour?
Why don't they say drag queen?
Reading with royalty.
You know, I've taken the kids to Disneyland and there are Disney princesses everywhere.
Family-friendly Reading with Royalty event sounds like a Disney princess meet and greet where they talk about Snow White or Sleeping Beauty.
Calling an event where grown men wear revealing clothes while dressed up as women do sexual dances.
I don't know if they're dancing at these story hours.
I haven't seen footage from the inside.
Family-friendly story reading with royalty event.
Like I say, there is a political and media unanimity here.
So let me tell you what a Justice of the Peace ordered when Derek Reimer was picked up, thrown out, put in prison for a week.
The Justice of the Peace who let him go let him go with these conditions.
And I think this is exclusive to us.
I think we're the first to have this document.
So this is the conditions by which Pastor Derek was released.
I think this is fascinating.
He has a $3,000 bail surety, I think it's called.
But look at this.
Bizarre LGBTQ2S Plus Ban00:04:29
Except when in court or through legal counsel, you must have no contact or communication directly or indirectly, including face-to-face or by means of text, email, or social media, or through a third party with any identified LGBTQ2S plus community member.
What?
He can't talk to or meet or contact in any way someone who's gay or not just gay, someone who is a member.
What does that mean?
You're a member of that community.
Does that mean you have to be gay or just if you use funny pronouns?
I'll read the next part.
Except as specified below, you must not attend at or within 200 meters of the addresses or locations described as any LGBTQ2S plus community event.
He's literally banned from talking to any person who is gay or identifies as gay or is just gender fluid but not gay.
And apparently every gay person is banned from speaking with him.
How does that work?
And how do you know, by the way?
Does that include friends or family?
Seems like the only exception is his lawyers or his court.
How would you even enforce that?
I mean, if he talks to anyone who is gay or who identifies as that alphabet soup, he goes straight back to jail and loses his $3,000.
I bet you that the Justice of the Peace doesn't even know what LGBTQ2S plus stands for.
Can you do that without checking?
Can you do that?
But it doesn't matter, though.
Does it?
And it doesn't matter if all this is unconstitutional.
They'll put him in prison for, what, 50 days like they did to Arthur Pavlovsky?
Because who cares?
Who's going to stop it?
City Hall?
The Justice of the Peace?
The cops?
Look, they got away with this for Arthur.
Don't you think they learned a lesson from that?
Sure, Pastor Arthur Pavlovsky eventually won at the Court of Appeal.
Two and a half years later, after 50 days in jail, after hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, yeah, Pastor Arthur won too many more victories like that, and we've lost this whole thing.
Imagine if this order said you can't talk to any black people.
You just can't communicate with any black people.
Well, even your friends, even your family?
Well, at least then you could probably identify a black person and not run into legal trouble.
Although, how black is black enough to be in trouble?
During more racist times like slavery in the U.S. South, they had to come up with these rules.
They had an atrocious vocabulary of racism.
There were black people, then there were people who were called mulatto, and then they had these terrible words, quadroon, octoroon.
We never even hear these words anymore.
This was the official racist language of the South, because how black did someone have to be to be banned from certain things?
Apartheid South Africa had to do the same thing too.
Nazi Germany had to do the same thing with Jews.
They came up with the concept of Mishling, a mixling.
If you were half Jewish, that was obviously far too Jewish.
If you were mixling first degree, mixling second degree, if you had one Jewish grandparent, you wouldn't be killed, but you would not be allowed to join the SS, for example.
These are insane rules when you're trying to pass laws regarding race.
At least with race, you could maybe spot someone, but how do you know who's gay or not?
What kind of law, how on earth is that possibly constitutional?
And doesn't that violate the rights of gay people to talk to Pastor Derek?
Not everyone who's gay or LGBT2QS plus agrees with Drag Queen's Story Hour, but this Justice of the Peace has conscripted them to his bizarre army.
This is happening in Calgary, allegedly the most conservative city in the country.
And the only media coverage is to cheer it on.
Criminal Defense Hope00:15:50
These are dark days, my friends.
Stay with us for more.
Well, Pastor Derek Reimer is out of jail.
He was put in the Maximum Security Remand Center for heckling.
Now, I don't deny that heckling can be offensive.
It could even be called rude.
He may even ought to have been cast out of a library room if he was disrupting people who were gathered there willingly and he was messing things up.
I get it, although I think they put hands on him in a way that someone else would have been charged with assault.
But to charge a pastor with crimes in the criminal code, to hold him in jail where I tell you, in this country, terrorists, accused terrorists are allowed on bail, tells you how serious a position we are in.
And joining us now, Via Skype, from Calgary, is a criminal lawyer.
And I hate the fact that a criminal lawyer has to be retained to fight for the freedom of a Christian pastor who simply expressed his dissent.
That criminal lawyer is Ben Allison.
He works for Shori Law Firm, and he has been funded by the generous donations of people to the Democracy Fund.
You can chip into at savepastorderk.com.
Ben, nice to meet you, and thanks for joining our viewers, many of whom care very much about freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Good afternoon.
Well, thank you.
And I want to brag about you.
You and I have spoken once or twice on the phone.
One of my favorite things about you is that you're classmates and friends with Sarah Miller, who is well known to our viewers as the tireless defender of Pastor Arthur Pavlovsky.
You and Sarah went to class together.
She's pretty bright and she's fought hard.
It's my hope, Ben, that you become a similar advocate for the case of Pastor Derek.
Yes, Sarah's a wonderful friend of mine.
We did get a chance to go to law school with Sarah.
We've been able to maintain touch, count her as a friend.
And yes, certainly I have been retained to fight for Mr. Reimer and all of his rights in these criminal matters, and I'm happy to do so.
Well, thank you very much.
We need the help.
This sounds very unusual to me.
I recall the mayor, Jody Gondeck, went on Twitter and had sort of a tantrum saying she rejected the, quote, reasons, and she put that in scare quotes.
She rejected the reasons why police and prosecutors, she said, were not charging Pastor Derek after he was thrown out of that Drag Queen story hour.
And after she went on that Twitter tantrum, then they did, in fact, arrest him.
I mean, that just stinks of political interference to me.
I don't even know how that's kosher.
I mean, Danielle Smith got in trouble with the media party and the opposition for saying she would consider staying some prosecutions that weren't in the public interest against some lockdown targets.
Here, the mayor practically commands the police to do her bidding, and they do it.
This feels political.
How has it been so far in the courts?
Can you give us an update?
When you've been to court for Pastor Derek, who is there representing the government?
Is it a criminal prosecutor?
Is there a city lawyer?
Who's there on the other side?
And what has politics entered into any of the conversations, including with the Justice of the Peace who granted him bail?
In terms of who is involved on the court appearances thus far, it's frankly very early on in these proceedings.
Most court appearances that we've done are what I would call administrative appearances.
So there are various crown prosecutors who will speak to this matter.
In terms of who's on for the city, there is a city lawyer who will be dealing with the bylaw offenses.
So there's two different and separate Crowns offices who are involved because there's two distinct sets of charges.
There's municipal bylaw offenses, and then there's, of course, allegations of crimes that are listed in the criminal code.
In terms of politics, thankfully, that's something that I'm not obligated to get involved in, and I've been able to steer clear.
But in these very early proceedings, I don't, nothing's been political thus far.
Okay, well, that's good to know.
I found it upsetting that the mayor felt that she could command the police to fill her political wishes.
That's not their role, of course.
Can you tell us what the charges are?
You mentioned there were some bylaw offenses, and I know the one you're referring to, we've done a show on it before.
I understand there was causing a disturbance and a mischief charge.
I saw reports in the media about hate crime charges as well.
So far, have there been any hate crime charges or an element of hate crimes that has been mentioned by police or prosecutors?
So, no, hate crime isn't an express charge in the criminal code, but there are charges within the criminal code that more appropriately would cover things that most people would consider to be a hate crime.
To my knowledge, Mr. Reimer has not been charged with anything like that.
The charges that he's facing under the criminal code are in mischief and cause disturbance.
Now, in our system, after and if Mr. Reimer is sentenced, a judge can consider whether or not the offenses relate to a hate motivation as an aggravating or a factor to be considered that would increase a penalty.
So, that could come into play later on, but that's we're far far away from that.
There'd have to be a finding of guilt first.
Well, I certainly hope it doesn't come to that.
And I find it terrifying that a Christian pastor who was not uttering threats, was not engaged in any violent or any violence or anything that we would normally call a crime, could be faced with a criminal conviction, let alone a hate crime conviction.
I find that terrifying.
Have you had a chance to be properly briefed by Pastor Derek?
I mean, when someone's arrested and put in the clink, it's often this scurry to connect them with a lawyer.
Did they have a chance to fully talk about the facts?
Is the lawyer fully instructed?
Have you had a chance to properly meet with your client and understand his case and give him tips already?
I suppose he's been out of jail a few days now.
Have you synced up with him?
Yes, I've been able to speak with Mr. Reimer.
I've obtained instructions.
I've explained the lay of the land, the next steps.
Those are kinds of the, you know, in terms of broad scopes, the conversations that we've had.
Again, we're so early on in these proceedings, I don't have any disclosure yet from either of the Crown's offices.
So discussions between Mr. Reimer and I are mostly centered around to ensure he can do all that he can to abide by the conditions he's under.
Right.
Well, I want to talk about that, if you don't mind, because often when someone is released, you know, I haven't done criminal law in a long time.
I was a lawyer way back in the day, Ben, but I haven't darkened the doorstep of a courthouse other than in civil litigation, often on free speech matters.
But when I was a criminal lawyer, there were two main questions that were decided if someone should be released on bail.
It's number one, were they a danger to the community?
And number two, were they a flight risk?
Were they a risk of running away and never coming back to the hearing?
Now, I guess there's a third condition, sort of general, you know, community conditions.
But I would think that Pastor Derek Reimer, there was no violence afoot.
It was a heckler.
And in terms of flight risk, I think he's very much committed to the city.
There's not a chance he would run away.
I don't even know if he has the ability to run away.
He's not like a gazillionaire with five passports in a private gem.
And so he was granted bail, but one of the bail conditions is the strangest thing I've ever seen in my life, that he is barred from contacting anyone in the end.
And I'm going to try and get this right, the LGBT2Q plus community, which I think means anyone who's gay or trans or I think the Q is 2Q is, I think, queer and questioning.
Like it's such a huge, expansive list.
And how do you know if someone is gay?
You know, you don't outwardly know.
How on earth can someone be told you're allowed out of jail, but you're not allowed to contact any gay people, even your friends and family, even a shopkeeper or a barista, you're not allowed to contact them.
That just sounds so vague and political.
That scares me, that bail condition.
I'm worried that he's going to accidentally trip it and be in trouble again.
And I can't believe it's even there in the first place.
What can you say about that?
Are you guys going to try and have these bail conditions varied?
Yeah, so any kind of condition that's placed on release, there's a couple different avenues that counsel can go down to try to get them altered or varied.
The first is by consent.
That's, of course, with an agreement with the Crown's office that they would agree to revised conditions.
And the second is to do a bail review.
So right now we'll pursue the first and we'll seek to have them varied and clarified so they're more likely that Mr. Reimer is going to be able to abide by them without inadvertently breaching.
And then I'll obtain instructions regarding set two if that's necessary.
Yeah.
Well, I hope you'll keep us posted on that.
I was thinking about that.
What if they said you can't come into contact with anyone who's Jewish or anyone who's black?
What if someone was told those things?
It wouldn't just be an impairment on the person who was ordered.
It would be an impairment on anyone who was Jewish or black or in this case, gay.
Like if you're a gay person, are you allowed to contact Pastor Reimer?
Well, of course, because there's no rule against the general public.
But it's just, like you say, it is so impossible to comply with this because it's so odd and strange.
It does not feel like a standard rule.
It feels, to quote the Constitution, there's a section there that there may be no cruel or unusual treatment.
This certainly feels unusual.
And it may even be cruel to say to a man, you can't talk to any friends or family who are gay.
I just find it the strangest thing.
And I find that the city is, this is what I mean by politicization, this bail condition.
Do we have a court date for the next hearing?
Today you were in court for administrative matters.
Is there a timeline laid out for things?
I guess the crown has to give you disclosure of their case.
Is there something else that's being locked in or a thing still up in the air?
No, nothing's really locked in, as you say.
Again, right now it's so early on it's hard to tell exactly what the next step should be.
So there will be some communications between myself and the various Crown's offices that make decisions as to what happens next.
In terms of next court date, I did appear for Mr. Reimer today.
And so his next date was adjourned to March 29th in courtroom 308 in the Calgary courthouse.
So at that time, I'll be speaking to his matter again, and hopefully I'll be able to advise the court on what the next step is going to be.
Okay.
And will that be a substantive hearing?
Will that be a bail review?
Or what would that be on March 29th?
Nothing substantive is going to happen on March 29th.
At the most, scheduling is going to happen for something substantive further down the road.
But I'll have to wait and see how discussions with the Crown go and whether or not a bail review is going to be necessary for these matters.
Well, Ben, I appreciate you taking the time.
I like your calm, cool, collected approach.
And I think that's necessary in a hot case like this.
I think you need a criminal defense lawyer who can just look at the law and look at the facts and be above the political fray.
And I like the fact that you mentioned that.
What's interesting to me is the international attention this case has received.
I've seen a lot of coverage.
I mean, frankly, a lot of media in Calgary covered it.
And I know for a fact there was coverage on the largest show on cable TV in America, Tucker Carlson's show on Fox.
I heard from my colleague Sheila Gunread that only Sheila and our reporter Angelika Toy, they were the only reporters in court today.
Is that true?
Have you seen, have you, I guess it's only been recently that you've been Pastor Derek's lawyer.
I just hope that they cover more than just the accusation against him.
I hope they cover his defense and I hope they cover the other point of view.
And I hope they see the dangers of the precedent that's being set here.
I guess you're just so new on the file and people maybe don't know that you're the lawyer involved, but I take it that other media haven't contacted you yet.
Yeah, I'm very new on this file.
And when you're new on the file, obtaining instructions on what to say and to whom you should speak to, that's always a little slow in the beginning.
So again, it's early days to see what's going to happen.
But in the meantime, I'll do whatever I can to fight for Mr. Reimer's rights and to ensure he's treated fairly.
Well, listen, you're such a good sport for talking with me.
I know you're a man of the court, the court of law, not so much the court of public opinion, but I think this battle will be in both.
And I want to invite our viewers to chip in to help cover Pastor Derek's legal fees and to pay Ben Allison's fees.
It's important that we do this.
As you know, we've been fighting for Pastor Arthur Pavlovsky for three years.
And I think he's had 16 appearances in court in that time.
And I hope it won't be as many for Pastor Derek.
But if you want to help keep Ben Allison of Shori Law on the file, go to savepastorderer.com.
And those donations go to the Democracy Fund, not Rebel News.
They go to the Democracy Fund, and you will, in fact, receive a charitable tax credit for it.
Ben, thanks for your time.
I know you're more a man of the court than a man of political pundit panels.
So I appreciate you joining us today.
And we're going to support you journalistically, and we're going to support you financially.
And we know you'll do your best legally.
And hopefully, we'll have a result that gives us expanded civil liberties.
Why Canada Shouldn't Fund Ukraine War00:07:03
Because whether or not you agree with Pastor Derek, either his views on drag queens or Christianity or whatever, the freedom that he uses today is the freedom that you will use tomorrow.
That's why precedents are so important.
We have to fight for freedom, even for cantankerous people, because if they can go for him today, they'll go for you the next day.
Good luck in there, Ben, and we'll keep following this story.
Thank you, Ezra.
All right, my pleasure.
There you have it.
Ben Allison of Shori Law.
You can help out at savepastorderek.com.
Stay with us.
more ahead.
Hey, welcome back.
Your letters to me.
Someone whose nickname is COVID is a hoax says, did I just hear correctly?
Is Ezra in favor of the Zelensky and his Ukrainian Nazi regime?
If this is true, then some of us on here have been correct.
This is a controlled opposition site.
Better recant and change your mind with apologies, Ezra.
I have no idea what you're referring to.
I was explaining why Canada calling for regime change is a terrible idea, why it's not something that Canada could achieve in Moscow.
It's a dangerous provocation.
Even Joe Biden walked it back.
So I was saying that calling for regime change in any country is very risky.
It may even be illegal in some cases.
So I don't know why you think I'm pro-Zelensky.
I don't believe that Ukraine should be invaded.
And I note that Russia signed a treaty, I think it was in 1994, approving of the borders with an independent Ukraine.
So I think that there should be peaceful negotiations, and I do not support Vladimir Putin.
But that doesn't mean I support Zelensky, who has made extreme comments like reconquering Crimea or that Western armies should fight in Russia and our children, our boys and girls should die.
He actually said something to that effect.
So I don't know why you think I'm a Zelensky shill or a Putin shill.
I'm just a Canadian who doesn't like this war, who doesn't like the civilian carnage, who doesn't like solving problems through wars, who wants a diplomatic solution, and who thinks that sending money over there is risky from an accountability and accounting point of view.
So I have no idea why you would say the things you said in your letter.
Tyson says, hey, Ezra, about our call for regime change to Russia, as a Western Canadian to Russia, I would welcome a regime change in Canada.
I also think Putin would be relatively kind to Western Canada, not just for geographical reasons, but as a token of good faith to show us how he wants to see us win again.
Maybe I sound crazy, but this does not sound like too bad of a future.
Well, I disagree with you.
And Russia is not a totalitarian regime like it was under the Soviet Union.
But neither is it completely free.
Putin is effectively a president for life.
The elections there are not fair or open.
Political leaders are attacked, jailed on trumped-up charges, sometimes even poisoned.
I think there's no doubt that Vladimir Putin is a brutal person, former KGB agent.
And as we discussed yesterday, he's an invader of his neighbors, whether it's Georgia or Ukraine.
I don't think he would want to be ruled by Putin.
I don't think he would like the approach to civil liberties.
Now, it's not the caricature that we see in the media party.
For example, when we sent our reporter Jeremy Lafredo to Moscow to do streeters, I thought there's no way that people are going to openly criticize the war or Putin on camera without hiding their face.
And some people didn't want to talk to us on camera, but others did.
We had people on camera saying, I'm opposed to the war, I'm opposed to Putin, and for a number of reasons.
So I don't think that Russia is totalitarian.
It's not.
Unlike during the Cold War, you can leave Russia.
You couldn't emigrate from Russia during the Cold War.
I think there's a little bit of shades of gray in this.
It's not just black or white.
But I do believe that we need to have a diplomatic negotiated solution.
And I just don't hear that language from Biden, from the Canadian side, or from the British side.
Other countries, like I follow Victor Orban, the Hungarian leader, online, and literally every day he's tweeting about a diplomatic, peaceful solution to the war.
And I just think, how is that not the default position for any of us?
Benjamin says, Dear Ezra, I know that this may seem unfair to those that wish to immigrate to Canada legally and take the appropriate steps to enter the country properly, but something has to be done about Wroxham Road.
Why not instead of giving the asylum seekers social assistance in a hotel room, give them a temporary work permit and some resources to find employment?
Limit the free accommodations and make attempts to integrate them into society.
The work permit should come in strict limits and should be renewable upon conditions such having a positive employer reference and positive landlord reference.
Well, really, what you're doing, what you're saying is what there is now.
I mean, a number of these people do work.
Some of them go on welfare, but many of them have been here for years.
I mean, the first Wroxham Road border crossers were in January 2017.
So there have been people who crossed Wroxham Road six years ago.
I have no doubt that some of them have married, have got children born here.
I'm sure many of them work here.
So what you're saying is actually happening.
I just say that that is wrong.
Legally, because they're not refugees.
Diplomatically, we shouldn't be letting America get rid of its fake refugees in our country.
And morally, I don't believe in rewarding people whose very first act in Canada is breaking our law, whose very first words they hear from the RCMP is, you're under arrest.
Now, it's a joke arrest.
They're immediately released.
So I'm going to politely agree with you and say we should just put up a chain link fence there and direct them to the regular border crossing and just do what Canada and the U.S. have done for decades, which is have an unmanned, unguarded border, but anyone caught crossing is deported.
And you know, some controversial and spicy emails today.
That's our show for the day.
Ben is shy, eh?
Ben the lawyer is a little bit shy.
I was trying to warm him up.
But I remember Sarah Miller was shy in her first interview too.