Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 22, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

02:03:28

Interview with Keith Wilson - Brian Peckford's Charter Challenge UPDATE - Viva Frei Live

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	So we are, as a board, we are committed to human rights, and we're committed to supporting all our teachers and staff and students in an environment that upholds their dignity, their gender identity, and their gender expression.
	Issues around safety are matters that we deal with on an ongoing basis, and we continue to deal with those issues, not just with any best teacher, but with all teachers.
	So that is something that we're committed to health and safety for all our students and staff.
	I noticed, Mr. Ernest, you can't display nipples as part of the dress code of the Halton District School Board.
	I love men's shoes.
	All of his outfits, he's displaying nipples.
	In the shop, he's wearing long sleeves.
	Those massive prosthetic breasts are near cutting equipment.
	I would argue if this was a student doing this, it would not be tolerated.
	So why does this person...
	I get such leeway.
	You keep saying he.
	First thing is, we are, you know, being respectful of all of our gender identity and gender expression of all of our staff.
	And we are supportive of our staff and our students.
	The dress code is for students.
	Dress code is for students.
	And the dress code is not for staff.
	It's not for staff.
	It's for students.
	Oh, there is so much.
	That is wrong with this video.
	Now, first of all, people, I'll bring this out until I bring it back in.
	What am I doing here?
	I'm on the road.
	On the road again.
	Hold on.
	I'm not in a bathroom.
	I'm close to one.
	In New York City for the Rumble NASDAQ party tonight.
	On the floor of the NASDAQ.
	So an overnighter to attend the party because everybody might.
	I have not heard the news, although I suspect most people did.
	Rumble officially merged with that company, CVFI, and they've gone public, and it's now trading on the NASDAQ under rum.
	I suspect there's going to be rum tonight.
	So the audio's not good.
	I don't have my good mic, but I've got my good camera, and I've got my headphones, which actually just act more like a bandana or a beret than anything else.
	I'm going to do this entire interview with Keith Wilson on both YouTube and Rumble because I don't want to break it up into two pieces and then stop shaking the camera.
	I guess I'll have to keep my hand off this table.
	I will try to not shake the camera.
	But let's just start with this fantastic journalismizing.
	From David Menzies.
	David Menzies, I thought it was in Rebel News, but this piece seems to have been published with True North.
	Let's just dissect this, shall we?
	Because there is a lot to this.
	In terms of reading into body language, demeanor, somebody who quite clearly does not seem very comfortable with what he's saying.
	So, we are, as a board, we are committed to human rights.
	That's Dalton School District?
	What's the name?
	Halton School District?
	I forget what it's called.
	He's on the board.
	And we're committed to supporting all our teachers and staff and students in an environment that upholds their dignity?
	In an environment that upholds their dignity.
	He seems to be talking about only one person right now because there are a great many people who might argue That an environment in which a teacher is parading around a class, a biological male teacher, parading around the class in, I don't want to say obscenely, almost caricature obscenely big prosthetic breasts.
	There are some who might say that is not, what was the word he used?
	I forgot it already.
	Upholds their dignity?
	There are some people who might argue that a 14-year-old girl might feel somewhat uncomfortable around a biological male teacher transitioning as he may be, wearing ridiculously, mockingly massive prosthetic breasts with huge erect nipples.
	It might make some young girls feel a little uncomfortable.
	Just throwing that out there.
	Their gender identity?
	And their gender expression.
	The catchphrase, gender identity, gender expression, because the Ontario Human Rights Act has added these two caveats into the act.
	We're going to see it later after the interview with Keith.
	And so it's just going to be the catch-all.
	And I'm asking myself, what is going to be the limit to the expression of gender identity and gender expression?
	What's going to be the limit to it?
	I mean, clearly, absurdly...
	This immense, large, ridiculously huge prosthetic breasts with massive erect protruding nipples has not crossed the line yet.
	How much bigger?
	Is there a limit?
	Is the doorframe the limit?
	Are they going to have to actually accommodate someone who wants to wear prosthetic breasts that are so big they don't fit through the door?
	Like wheelchair ramps, you're going to have to accommodate my gender expression because I want prosthetic breasts that don't make it through the door.
	Let's keep going.
	Issues around safety are matters that we deal with on an ongoing basis.
	And we continue to deal with those issues, not just with this teacher, but with all teachers.
	Very interesting, by the way.
	So is this guy implicitly, if not explicitly, confirming that there are issues of safety that have been brought up with this teacher?
	And he brought it up, not me.
	And I'm wondering, you know, they're talking safety because Menzies is going to talk about the big...
	Prosthetic breasts getting near cutting stuff.
	There's that safety and then another type of safety.
	Which one is this guy talking about?
	And what do they know that they might have just inadvertently let out of the bag?
	So that is something that...
	Look at his hands in his pocket.
	This is not how you give an interview when you are comfortable and confident in what you're expressing.
	Committed to health and safety for all our students and staff.
	I noticed, Mr. Ernest, you can't display nipples as part of the dress code of the Halton District School Board.
	All of his outfits, he's displaying nipples.
	In the shop, he's wearing long sleeves.
	Those massive prosthetic breasts are near cutting equipment.
	I would argue if this was a student doing this, it would not be tolerated.
	So why does this person get such leeway?
	You keep saying he.
	What is left to say anymore?
	This is a biological male who is not engaging in gender expression.
	This person is engaging in gender mockery.
	Based on what this individual, as a biological male, thinks is the caricature of what it means to be a woman, a female.
	Massive, ridiculously big prosthetic boobs with massive erect nipples.
	This is not gender expression.
	It's gender mockery.
	And this teacher, I mean, as far as I understand, also, the teacher has been transitioning for only a year.
	So, I mean, I don't know how new this is, what's going on.
	But the teacher's focusing on the important things right here.
	Lecturing and moral, you know, giving a moral lecture to David Menzies.
	Whether or not Menzies is doing it, you know.
	Inadvertently, on purpose, to needle?
	Who knows?
	But, you know, important things.
	But let's get to the substance of what Menzies was talking about.
	First thing is, we are, you know, being respectful of all of our gender identity and gender expression of all of our staff.
	Are you being respectful of your students?
	Is tolerating this respectful of the environment of your students who are there to learn?
	Arguably not be exposed to hyper-sexualized individuals who choose to express their gender identity in a manner that is overtly sexual.
	Because those prosthetic breasts with those erect nipples, it's nothing but hyper-sexualizing in front of children that are there to learn.
	I'm glad you're very concerned about one person and their rights and their dignity and their sense of inclusion.
	How about the 14-year-old girls at that school?
	And we are supportive of our staff and our students.
	The dress code is for students and the dress code is not for staff.
	The dress code is for students and, hey, you hear that, staff?
	Show up with the ball gags and leather chaps.
	Assless chaps.
	Gender expression.
	Hey, anything goes.
	The dress code, it was only for the students.
	It's not stricter for the teachers.
	The teachers can show up with, you know, band-aids on their nipples if they want.
	Can't judge them.
	It's for the students, not for the teachers.
	My goodness.
	The first paragraphs of that dress code are not for the students.
	It's for the entire school.
	It's about creating an environment in which students feel safe and an appropriate learning environment.
	No, no, no.
	Dress code's for the students.
	ASCHAP Friday.
	That's what it's going to be.
	It's for students.
	Unbelievable.
	We're living, someone said, we're living through an episode of South Park right here.
	Let me see this.
	Is this it?
	I feel like this is one South Park episode where Mr. Garrison tries to be as flamboyant as possible to be fired so he can sue the school.
	All right.
	Well, with that said, people, I see Keith in the backdrop and he too looks like he's on the move.
	Let's bring him in.
	Keith, sir, how are you doing?
	I'm doing great.
	How are you doing, Viva?
	Good, good.
	If I can tell, are you on the road?
	I am.
	Yeah, I'm in a hotel room in Toronto.
	We just left Ottawa this morning.
	I have an event here tonight.
	But yeah, as you know, we were in federal court on Premier Peckford's case.
	Okay, well, I'm not going to waste any time because I know we have a limited amount of time with you and we're going to use it well.
	Okay, I guess summarized for those who don't know, Brian Peckford filed a charter challenge against the vaccine requirements for plane and train.
	He did not file a charter challenge of any other measure, as far as I know?
	That's correct.
	You know, who is Premier Peckford, or I still call him Premier, but he was Premier of Newfoundland for 10 years.
	And he, as you know, because you've had him on your program, is a unique, he's a unicorn in that, constitutionally speaking anyway, because he's alive and he's a signatory, a drafter of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, our significant amendment to the Constitution in the 80s.
	So he is the last living signatory and drafter of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
	And then when he saw what was happening with COVID restrictions, and particularly the decision of the Trudeau government to restrict millions of Canadians from traveling within our country and leaving our country, he decided, well, he was clear that that's a gross violation of Section 6 mobility rights, which are...
	One of our most fundamental rights under the Charter, and I can explain why as we move on.
	And so he instructed me and the lawyers that I have on my team from the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms to bring a charter challenge seeking to strike down the law on the basis that the requirement to force Canadians to be vaccinated in order for them to exercise their basic charter rights is unconstitutional.
	And so we brought that charter challenge back at the end of January.
	And as you know, it's been a journey from there.
	January, February, March, April, May, June, July.
	That's a long time to get to.
	Well, we're going to get to the nature of the hearing yesterday.
	So the issue is this.
	There might have been a number of charter violations that could have been invoked.
	You made a strategic decision to limit it to...
	I forget which section again, but mobility rights.
	Well, yeah, to be precise, we went under Section 7, which is security of the person forcing you to be jabbed is a violation of that.
	Also relates to privacy issues, your private medical information.
	And then Section 6, of course, because that's mobility rights.
	And as well, Section 15, which is the rule against discriminating against a group of people in the country and making punitive measures against a minority or any group of Canadians.
	So we pled all of those in our pleadings, but obviously the most egregious violation, an obvious violation, Is the Section 6 mobility.
	What's interesting about Section 6 of the Charter is people will know or have a...
	The internet might be freezing up.
	Keith, chat, let me know if that's Keith that's freezing up or if it's me.
	Let's try it again.
	I think we lost you, but on Section 6. No problem.
	I'm back.
	I'm going to turn off my...
	Oops.
	No, good.
	I'm just going to turn off my email.
	So I don't have any incoming.
	And I've got no other devices running off the Wi-Fi, but we'll see how this is hotel Wi-Fi, and we all know what that means.
	I'm tethering off my phone because the hotel Wi-Fi was unsatisfactory.
	I even bought the premium package.
	$4.95, I thought, how can I go wrong?
	So Section 6 is unique, and the reason it's different than the other rights that you have under the charter.
	There's the concept of the Notwithstanding Clause, Section 33, that allows government, federal and provincial, to say we are going to put in a law that violates charter rights and we know it's going to violate charter rights and our law is going to stand because we're invoking the Notwithstanding Clause.
	You cannot invoke the Notwithstanding Clause on Section 6. The drafters, including the only last living signatory, Brian Peckford, the Honourable Brian Peckford, concluded that mobility in Canada, second largest landmass country in the world, was such a fundamental right that there should be no circumstance, none, under which a government can restrict Canadians' mobility rights.
	So that's why we really relied heavily on Section 6 in our challenge.
	And now it's been, I won't say almost a year, but like nine months or something.
	What had happened that postponed the trial?
	I mean, not didn't postpone it really, but you had to go through some procedures, some steps.
	Was there discovery?
	What had been done in the last eight months since the filing of this charter challenge?
	Yeah, I have been unable until recently to share publicly what came out of The evidence-gathering phase, and particularly the six weeks of cross-examinations we conducted of 16 witnesses that the federal government put forward,
	five of whom were external experts, but 11 of them were the head epidemiologist for the Public Health Agency of Canada.
	And as I'm giving this list off, Remember what Trudeau and the minister said.
	We're following the science.
	We're following the advice of the experts.
	Oh, this isn't politics, you know, politics of division.
	This is following the science and the advice of experts.
	So I got to cross-examine Dr. Waddell, head epidemiologist for the Public Health Agency at Canada.
	If you look at the organization chart, she's Dr. Tam, two other names, then hers, okay?
	I got to cross-examine Dr. Lorenco.
	She's the equivalent in Canada with Health Canada, the equivalent of the head of the FDA in the U.S. Paragraph four of her affidavit says, I am the government official with Health Canada who approved all of the COVID-19 vaccines.
	So if you look at the authorization, her signature's on it.
	I got to cross-examine her, okay?
	I got to cross-examine Jennifer Little, who is the lead of the COVID recovery team at Transport Canada, and a whole bunch of others.
	and some fascinating yet disturbing things came out of that cross-examination process that I'd like to share now that I'm allowed to.
	I was going to say, not that I, you know, like, I, I, I, we just, I, You've never told me anything.
	But I know things that I know that are not necessarily public yet.
	And no one will ever know that I know them.
	But Keith, now you're here, it's public, and you can disclose these things.
	Do go into some detail about the fruits of those discoveries of the upper echelons of the medical community in Canada that were offering the guidance and what they in fact knew, did not know, or knew that they did not know when recommending these measures.
	Got it.
	Thank you.
	So let's deal with...
	Do you want to pick one?
	Or should I pick one?
	Yeah, you know the order better than me, but I know the quotes that I'm thinking of.
	You'll get there, though.
	I'm going to mix it up a bit because I don't know some of this you may not have heard.
	And it will definitely almost be news to most of your listeners or viewers.
	Let's do Lorenco.
	So she's the one.
	Dr. Lorenco is the head official with...
	With Health Canada, who approved the vaccines?
	All right.
	Well, in our pleadings, we referred to the COVID-19 vaccine as an experimental vaccine.
	And that on its face may seem aggressive, perhaps provocative.
	I wasn't content with either because that's a mistake.
	I've been litigating for 27, 28 years now.
	So, you know, you figure out some stuff in that many years of being a litigator.
	So I was only prepared to put that in our pleadings and describe the vaccine as experimental if it was clear that it was.
	And I knew that if I asked Dr. Larenko in cross-examination, this vaccine's experimental, she's going to say no.
	So here's what I did.
	You're old enough to remember Colombo, right?
	Oh, yeah.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Okay.
	The old TV.
	One more question, ma 'am.
	You know, when you left the country club, did you leave your purse?
	Did you say you left your purse in the trunk or the back seat?
	You know, that kind of stuff.
	So anyway, I kilometer a bunch of times.
	But what I did was I said, I went through the list of vaccines that have been approved prior to COVID chronologically.
	And then I went as far back as I could where she would probably have some understanding or involvement in them.
	So I started with the pneumonia, the first pneumonia vaccine that came out about 12 or 14 years ago.
	And I said, like, help me understand the process that you used and the pharmaceutical companies used to satisfy you that this vaccine was safe for general population use.
	And there's the animal trials.
	There's another phase.
	And then there's two phases of human trials, phase two.
	There might even be phase three, but in any event, the critical point is that there's two critical phases of human trials.
	And so in order to be involved in a human trial of a new drug or a new vaccine, you go through an extensive process where you're sat down.
	And explain to you, you're volunteering for this.
	Here's all the potential risks and everything else, right?
	And people actually, some people get paid to be volunteers.
	Some people just do it because they want to help the advances of medicine and science.
	So I was like, okay, so for the pneumonia vaccine, you did the animal, you did this, you did the...
	Phase one, human, yeah.
	You did the phase two, human, yeah.
	And it was only after you completed the pharmaceutical, completed the phase two human study and provided you all the data that you were satisfied and that you approved that for use in the general population.
	Correct.
	And all right, now let's use the shingles vaccine.
	Same thing.
	Animal studies, et cetera, et cetera.
	You know, there was always these key components.
	And she agreed with each of them.
	And I went to the new pneumonia one.
	I found another vaccine, walked her through that.
	And then I said, did they do animal trials on the COVID?
	Yes.
	Did they do the next phase?
	Yes.
	Bottom line is, the phase two human trial is the last phase of the human trial before any other drug has been approved, is going on right now with the general population of millions of Canadians.
	And millions of Canadians were not sat down and explained to them the risks of being guinea pigs in this trial.
	So she confirmed in her testimony, That the final phase that has been used for every other vaccine in Canada was not completed by the pharmaceutical companies for the COVID-19 vaccines and is going on now on the mass population that was under oath.
	And, of course, the slip-out words or the mouse hole she tries to escape through is, oh, we developed a new process.
	And it's called the pathway approval process.
	And I'm like, okay, nice.
	That sounds great.
	But the fact of the matter is the last phase is going on and you're collecting the data from the general population, right?
	And she admitted this is...
	And by the way, there was so much interest in this case.
	That the court took the unusual step because they're getting so many requests for the evidence, the affidavits, the transcripts and so on, the motion records and other pleadings that they just finally said, we're putting it up on our website.
	So if you go to the Federal Court of Canada, go to their homepage, you'll probably see right on the homepage.
	If not, just dig around a little bit.
	You will see a link and all 15,000 pages of evidence exhibits.
	Affidavits, cross-examination transcripts are there.
	Look for Dr. Larenko.
	Look for the cross-examination volumes.
	Look for my name.
	Start scrolling through and you'll find exactly what I'm talking about.
	So you can fact check it yourself.
	And you'll find all kinds of other things that are interesting and disturbing.
	So that was a big one there for Dr. Larenko, for us to get her to confirm that this is a huge experiment that's going on.
	There was very troubling...
	Go ahead.
	I would say, like, almost tongue-in-cheek, but you had Obama's video clip where he said at a dinner, well, you know, we basically, what did he say?
	We basically run clinical trials on billions of people.
	And from my own perspective, Keith, whenever I refer to it as an experimental vaccine, I just went to the NIH website.
	This is from January 2021, but this is when it's being administered.
	Experimental coronavirus vaccine, highly effective.
	Because I heard people calling it an experimental vaccine as well.
	I thought the terminology was rather aggressive.
	But then you go to the website of the NIH, not Canada, and they literally refer to it as an experimental vaccine.
	And I guess we still haven't gotten to the final stages of it.
	But Keith, did you get into the government immunizing the pharma companies in Canada?
	Did you get into that from the people you examined?
	When I tried to ask some of their witnesses about that, they played dumb on me.
	Oh, no, it's a legal question or their lawyers, the federal government lawyers would intervene and objection.
	My client's not a lawyer.
	You're asking a legal question.
	I'm like, no, it's kind of a policy question, actually, as a legal component to it.
	So they dodged out.
	Dr. Larenko is, if anybody reviews the transcript, you just put up the NIH and I was going to proceed to go after her on.
	A change in recommendations that the NIH had made with respect to administering the vaccine to breastfeeding women.
	And so I started off, you know, you've got to lay the foundation.
	You always walk the witness you're crossing into things.
	You get them moving and then you throw the, you know, you snap the trap.
	And so I was starting to walk her in.
	And yeah, you start off with really simple, easy questions.
	You know, like your first one is always, what's your name, right?
	And what's your qualifications?
	You get them in a rhythm of answering.
	You actually watch their body language, too.
	But anyway, so I'm starting to walk her into this line.
	And I said, you're familiar with who the NIH is.
	And you know what she said?
	No.
	No.
	Like, I was like, OK, we're playing silly bugger here.
	Really?
	All right.
	So I was just kidding me.
	The other thing I asked her and every other government expert, in-house expert.
	Because at this point, we were the only G7 country.
	So these cross-examinations were occurring in May and June.
	Every other G7 country at that point had removed their vaccination requirement for any form of travel.
	Okay?
	Everyone.
	And virtually none of them ever put one in for domestic travel.
	There was one country that lifted its in early June.
	Mid-June, the ministers came together and announced that they were ending the requirement to be vaccinated to fly in Canada and to be on a train in Canada.
	In the first week of June, North Korea lifted its restriction.
	So they even beat us.
	I kid you not.
	These are restrictions on their own citizens for internal travel, not necessarily on foreigners for travel.
	Right.
	And that's my point, and I'm not being clear, I guess, is that Canada was unique.
	The United States never imposed a domestic travel requirement for vaccination.
	Canada was unique.
	And the G7.
	But even for external.
	So I'm like, okay, so no other G7 country at this point is requiring people to travel within their country to be vaccinated, to enter their country to be vaccinated or leave other than the United States.
	And so...
	I put to each of the witnesses, are you aware of anything that's unique?
	I said, are human beings situated in Europe and situated in England different physiologically and from a cell biology point of view than human beings situated in Canada?
	No.
	Okay.
	Does the virus exist differently?
	You know, the strain we were concerned about at that time was Omicron.
	Differently in those places?
	No.
	Is there something fundamentally different and unique about aircraft that are used in Canada relative to these other jurisdictions?
	No.
	Like, come on.
	You know, this was not science.
	But hold on.
	So, Keith, I mean, I say we'll get to the punchline at some point, but then...
	You have to have asked them, so what was the criteria used for establishing this policy?
	What did they say?
	Like, I don't know.
	They would just say, that wasn't my job.
	We would say, what was the metric?
	What was the metric or the metrics for invoking it?
	What are the metrics for relieving it?
	You know, like for lifting the requirement.
	None of them knew.
	None of them knew.
	They would always compartmentalize.
	They just say, oh, my job is just to deal with this part of it and my job is just to deal with this part of it, right?
	They'd always do this.
	I was only involved in the testing stuff because we got to cross-examine the person who was responsible for all the testing programs and what tests they used and the testing requirements.
	Another one that was really controversial was when I cross-examined Dr. Waddell.
	Who is the lead epidemiologist for the Public Health Agency of Canada.
	And I cross-examined her.
	I noticed in her...
	So how it works in this type of a legal challenge is you make your allegation in a notice of application.
	So this is not like a normal lawsuit with a statement of claim and a statement of defense.
	It's a judicial review.
	It's an expedited process.
	And so...
	You make your allegation as to what you think the government's done wrong and what you want.
	We wanted the mandates ended and struck.
	And then because there's a charter challenge, the government's allowed to put in affidavit evidence to support their decision as to why they made the decision to impose mandates, vaccination mandates on millions of Canadians, travelers.
	And we get to put our affidavits in as well.
	And then you cross-examine under oath.
	The witnesses and then you compile all of that evidence along with your legal argument and then you go and argue it lawyers on their feet without witnesses in the witness box.
	You rely on the documentary evidence when you're before the court to argue why you should get the remedy that you're seeking and the government argues why they think their mandate restricting unvaccinated travel is justified.
	So that's the process.
	So when I was cross-examining Dr. Waddell, I was going through her affidavit and I was looking at the exhibits and the exhibits were, there was two exhibits where there was a report they prepared and it was recommendations from the Public Health Agency of Canada to Transport Canada on the minimization or mitigation of COVID spread in air travel.
	Bang on point, right?
	Two of them.
	About six months apart, one was just an update of the second was an update of the first.
	And I noticed that they'd recommended as a mitigation strategy mass, and they recommended as a mitigation strategy social distancing in the departure and arrival lounge and where possible if the plane wasn't full.
	And then thirdly, they recommend, I'm drawing a mental blank, they recommended the testing.
	But I noticed, That they didn't recommend vaccination.
	And I thought, no, this can't be.
	So you know the rule.
	You don't, as a lawyer, you don't ask and cross a question that you don't know the answer to.
	And it's a pretty solid rule that you follow religiously, and there's really good reason for it.
	But there's the odd instance where you roll the dice.
	And you know what?
	I said, I'm rolling the dice, man.
	So I did a long setup to build cover and got a rhythm going.
	Long setup, long setup.
	And I used aggressive questioning patterns.
	So I was like, I put it to you, that blah, blah, blah, blah, right.
	I put it to you, blah, blah, blah, blah, correct, like boxing her in.
	So I had that pattern going.
	Then I said, I put it to you that the truth is that the Public Health Agency of Canada did not recommend to transport Canada the vaccination of air travelers, right?
	And she said, yes.
	And I was just like, I could tell my whole team was just like, you know, thank God they were silent.
	And then I did the lawyers.
	But Keith, that's fascinating also because it's not part of their mitigating factors or their mitigating behavior.
	And yet it becomes an aspect of penalizing Canadian citizens afterwards.
	That which was never recommended.
	But wait, there's more.
	There's more.
	Wait, there's more.
	One of the things that lawyers will do, and it doesn't work on all witnesses, but it works on a sizable percentage, like 30% or more, is after you ask a question, and I'm going to do it in real time because we're in a long format.
	I'd never do this in a short format interview.
	So I put it to you, at no time did you recommend vaccinating of air travelers, right?
	Correct.
	Then you do what I just did.
	Nothing.
	And you know what ends up happening most of the time?
	They start talking.
	They start talking.
	Giving away all the secrets here.
	It especially works.
	Guess what she said.
	She goes something like, because the scientific literature and evidence wouldn't support it being effective.
	I'm just like, wow.
	So not only did you not recommend it, you've now gone further and said it wouldn't be an epidemiologically sound advice.
	And here it became this hallmark policy of the Trudeau Liberals, right?
	To restrict 6 million Canadians.
	6 million Canadians from traveling within their country and leaving their country.
	The last one I want to highlight, there's...
	Lot we could, but this one's really profound and it's disturbing.
	And I raised this in court yesterday, specifically.
	None of the ones I've given so far, yeah, I didn't raise them when I was in federal court yesterday on the mutinous application, which we'll get to.
	But this one I'm about to share with you, I did.
	Because every lawyer on just not only my team, but remember there was other applicants.
	There was Carl Harrison and Sean Rickard.
	Two Brits, expats that had done a challenge as well through a highly skilled lawyer, Sam Prince-Velos.
	I was thrilled to work with him.
	He's an amazing, amazing lawyer.
	And there were some others as well, other applicants.
	So anyway, what, so Dr. Little, not Dr. Little, she's not a doctor.
	She's one of the few people who wasn't a doctor.
	Jennifer Little is with Transport Canada, senior official, kind of works up in the assistant deputy.
	Deputy Minister Sweet.
	And she was the head of their COVID recovery team, whatever that meant.
	And when the Prime Minister started musing about requiring all Canadians to be vaccinated to travel, she put together a slide deck, a PowerPoint presentation, for a briefing meeting.
	With the Assistant Deputy Ministers, the Deputy Minister, and it was suggested that this same PowerPoint presentation was presented to the Prime Minister's office.
	And she testified, and it blew me away that they actually submitted this as an exhibit.
	Like, I just, like, wow.
	If you guys were going to shred or destroy any document, this was the one to destroy.
	It had so many incriminating things in it.
	But the one thing that was so troubling...
	To all of us lawyers who read it, it was slide 15. And this, again, you guys can go look it up.
	It's slide 15. And if somebody wants the specific exhibit number and PDF, I can look at my notes and give it to you because I had to refer to it yesterday.
	And it was a slide about key policy decisions that needed to be sort of reconsidered and very carefully evaluated.
	And the last bullet...
	Was about what kind of exemptions would be allowed?
	Like under what circumstances would you be allowed to travel and being unvaccinated?
	And the decision was made that the bullet was about whether they were going to allow an exemption for compassionate travel, including travel to funerals.
	And travel to care for loved ones.
	And so when I was cross-examining her, I said, I want to be really clear about what you were thinking.
	You know, you wrote this slide.
	Is that correct, madam?
	Yes.
	And you wrote this bullet.
	These are your words, right?
	That's true, right?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Well, let's understand then what you meant by these words.
	And so I went through a whole series of examples.
	And I said, let's say, for example, there was an adult, a father or a mother, and their adult child was there in Vancouver, and their adult child, someone in their 30s or 40s, was in Toronto and got in a motorcycle accident or a car accident.
	And they got the call that their son or daughter was maybe only going to be alive for another day.
	You knew that by making this decision, those parents would not be able to be at their dying child's side, right?
	Yes.
	Did you consider the psychological impact, the mental health issues that could arise from that?
	And I went through all these different real-life examples of not being able to go to a funeral of a loved one.
	I said, you know, I talked about, you know, my wife's a retired nurse and she, bless her heart, she went and provided care to my parents when they were at different stages dying of cancer and out of hospital.
	You know, I was like, so if a family member were to need to travel across the country to be at the side of a family member or a loved one, Who's been released from hospital from surgery or cancer care and needed someone to care for them, you understood that you would be preventing that from happening, right?
	Yep.
	It was just remarkable.
	And why that's remarkable has been borne out.
	In this Trudeau must go, you know, mega viral campaign, because I've been reading many of those tweets and I know you have been, as have been many of us.
	And one of the themes that I've noticed is people talking about how, who they are and what the travel restriction did to them and how they were not able to be at their bedside of their dying father or their dying mother.
	You know, like you've probably read those.
	And so the fact that they made that, they revisited it to begin with.
	It wasn't like, oh, geez, we never realized this was going to be an implication of our policy, right?
	They consciously decided to exclude and prevent compassionate travel.
	To me, that's just so offensive.
	Probably more, but it's deeply offensive.
	That's what came out.
	It's inhumane and it's unforgivable.
	People want to see Trudeau in jail.
	That's probably never going to happen.
	But it's inhumane.
	It has been inhumane from the beginning.
	And these are things which, touch wood, my grandmother died the November before all of this.
	We didn't experience this firsthand.
	But I know people who could not get to funerals.
	I mean, weddings, you're denying people happiness, which is a problem.
	But you're denying people the ability to grieve the way they should.
	It's inhumane.
	And on a lighter side, but a critically important side, I think one of the things that we've learned, all of us, going through the lockdowns and the curfews and the restrictions of the pandemic, that going to even things like your kids being able to go out of town to a hockey tournament.
	Being able to travel for these types of things, families getting together for reunions, being able to go to a graduation, you know, a significant accomplishment.
	These are important things to the fabric of our lives, our development, our social cohesion.
	They're not frills, you know, like there may be frillish aspects to them, but they're critical.
	And for the government to consciously, and of course the irony, which I'm pretty sure I pointed out to her, I think I did, it's obvious if I didn't, is one of the big rationales they were offering as to why we needed to have the mandate was because of not, by this point everybody knew the vaccine wasn't working, it wasn't stopping the transmission and so on, was to reduce the strain on health care.
	Well, if you've got a person who can be discharged but needs a loved one to come look at them and look after them in their condo or their home, and there's no one there to look after them, they've got to stay in the hospital system.
	You know, I'm like, did you factor that in?
	So it's just...
	And the other thing that really came out was...
	And it was frustrating for us in real time because the pressure was building in late May and June.
	And every day in question period...
	You know, the Prime Minister and his ministers would stand up, relying on the advice of officials, relying on advice of the experts.
	And then in the morning, we're cross-examining them.
	And it's like, was it you?
	No, not me.
	Was it you?
	No, not me.
	One of the highlights I remember reading once upon a time was, well, they said, you know, were there any papers?
	Did you base this on any actual documentation of science?
	And they said, well, I certainly hope we did.
	They didn't say this as much.
	They didn't have it.
	Was this based on any research, policy, whatever?
	And the person said, as a citizen, I certainly hope so.
	But you want to talk irony, Keith, and this is disgusting, sick irony, was that someone in the chat pointing out, as I pointed out now many times, 10,000 people over euthanized in Canada in this very same year when they're shutting down the world, shutting down Canada to save old people.
	One of the cases that made the news was someone who was so lonely from COVID lockdown's restrictions, she sought and succeeded in getting permission for state-sanctioned euthanasia, which some people will call something else.
	Her family could be with her to euthanize her, but couldn't be with her to keep her alive.
	They couldn't give her the companionship necessary to save her life, but they were allowed to be there when the state was putting this woman to death.
	I'm a forgiving person.
	And I think I passed my line, which really, you know, concerns me for other people.
	But, okay, with that said, what else, Keith?
	What are some of the other highlights from the however many weeks?
	Do you want a fun one?
	Oh, yeah, please.
	So one of the things that we did, we all know that...
	Our Prime Minister, in September of 2021, went on a French talk show, television, and called the unvaccinated misogynists racists, said they take up space, and asked, do we tolerate these people?
	So we had that video preserved.
	We had it submitted to a court-approved translator who presented an affidavit confirming the translation.
	You have an advantage.
	You're bilingual.
	One of the lines that I keep hearing is, oh, it doesn't mean the same thing in French.
	Which sentence?
	I don't know, but I saw you and Marty on the other day, and you're both fluently bilingual, and you weren't buying it.
	Less innocuous in French.
	I almost got the sense it was worse in French.
	I don't know.
	Let me bring it up and Keith.
	Tell me when to stop, because I want, I'm curious.
	Okay, so I'm going to press play.
	Oh, est-ce qu 'on est tolérmé?
	Qui croient pas dans la science, qui sont souvent misogynes, souvent racistes aussi.
	C 'est un petit groupe, mais qui prend de la place.
	Yeah, well, we were talking about the misogynists and also, they just kept trying to tell me, "Oh, it's somehow not as bad in French." And I'm like...
	It's even worse.
	This translation says they flex muscle.
	"Ils prennent de la place" means they take up space.
	That's what it means.
	To me, the most offensive and dangerous language.
	Do we tolerate these people?
	So what we did strategically is I put that in the Honorable Brian A. Peckford's affidavit.
	That's how we got that evidence before the court.
	Because it's relevant to the argument about discrimination, it's relevant to our jurisdictional arguments as well, that he misused this power for an improper purpose and for bad faith, abuse of power.
	However, what happened was Not totally surprisingly, the Attorney General lawyers decided that it was too dangerous to cross-examine the last founding signatory to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
	So they waived their right to cross-examine him.
	Under the federal rules of court, I think they forgot about this rule.
	I can't remember the rule number.
	It doesn't matter because it's there.
	It says if someone pleads an affidavit or presents an affidavit that's adverse to your interest, And you don't cross-examine on it or provide rebuttal evidence, the court is to treat it as an established fact.
	And it actually goes on to say adverse in interest, but they didn't need to add that last bit.
	So because we put it in the affidavit of the Honorable Brian Peckford, and because they chose not to cross on him, it's now uncontroverted evidence.
	So, at the end of my first cross-examination of one of the officials, I might have been Dr. Waddell, it doesn't matter, I can't remember because there were so many of them, but at the end, I would say, if it was a scientific expert, like Dr. Waddell or Dr. Lorenco, because I did it to all of them, I couldn't resist, I would say, based on your review of the scientific literature, did you find any evidence to support the proposition?
	That unvaccinated Canadians are misogynists.
	And the Crown lawyers, they were like, objection!
	That's completely inappropriate and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	And boy, did I go, I went full on.
	It's go time.
	Now is my time.
	And I said, no, it's absolutely relevant.
	It's in paragraph five of Premier Peckford's affidavit.
	You didn't cross on it.
	You didn't rebut it.
	Rule X says, this is now the uncontroverted evidence before the court, and I'm entitled to cross-examine on it, and I shall do so.
	And we've got to leave in a little more heated than that.
	That's in the transcript, too.
	You can watch us in battle.
	And then the senior lawyer for the attorney general, they had 12 lawyers on the case or something.
	The senior one goes, proceed.
	So then I got it.
	The answer is going to be obviously no.
	It's going to be a hard no.
	Nothing more than that.
	Do you have any evidence?
	No.
	Well, there was a legal reason to do it.
	I mean, it was fun.
	Like, why not, right?
	But it was fun in a very serious way.
	And I did say, I now remember, I said when I was going at it with the head lawyer from the other side, I said, I think my wording is, so I'm going to look it up.
	It was something like, these are despicable words.
	This is despicable language.
	No leader should ever use these words.
	And our history has shown, when a leader of a country uses words like this, it invariably results in many people dying, often millions.
	How do we deal with these people?
	It's remarkable that he wasn't immediately, you know, Put out of office when he made that statement.
	Like, if you wanted to do a hypothetical, sit around the campfire exercise three or four years ago and say, think of an expression that a Canadian Prime Minister could make that would be the most extreme, un-Canadian thing to say.
	That one would rank, man.
	Because, you know, we're about diversity and acceptance and recognition and inclusion.
	And here he made the most offensive statement.
	So I put it to each of the witnesses.
	And the legal reason for doing it was, you know, a priori.
	Maybe there is some science that says, I don't know, maybe there was a sociological study that did that found a correlation between those people who are unvaccinated.
	In other words, there'd be some justification for the Prime Minister saying that.
	Keith, the ultimate...
	Kicking the teeth irony is that a great many people who didn't want to get vaccinated were women because of things that they said were not the case at the beginning.
	It won't affect your period.
	It won't affect your menstrual cycle.
	It's safe for pregnant and breastfeeding women, except for the study from the UK.
	Sorry, the directives from the UK government that says we cannot recommend this to pregnant and breastfeeding mothers.
	A great many of the people who were statistically under-vaccinated, women.
	And ethnic minorities.
	And yet, those are the racists and the misogynists.
	It's like, not only was there no study, it's actually the exact opposite way around.
	The people who were reluctant to get vaccinated were ethnic minorities and women, more often than not.
	And as we know, studies have come up and explained why.
	Because in Aboriginal communities, there's a distrust of government.
	Well, imagine that.
	Of course there is.
	And same with ethnic minorities.
	So, yeah, it's so spectacular.
	But that was one of the other, you know, interesting moments.
	And I guess the fun, the important part for me was to be able to wag my finger at these senior lawyers defending the conduct of this prime minister and point out on the record how completely despicable it is, it was, and continues to be.
	So now, you do, you know, however many weeks of depositions, discoveries, examinations, whatever we would call them, but the hearing yesterday...
	Was not on the substance.
	This was a hearing for mootness because now that Trudeau has announced allegedly that these measures are going to be suspended as of, what, September 30th?
	No, it was June 19th, June 14th.
	I'm just actually looking at my notes here from court.
	It was June 14th.
	I just snickered because there's something else I got to tell you that happened.
	This won't feed in well because it happened yesterday.
	So on June 14th...
	There was a press conference where a number of the ministers spoke.
	The Minister of Health, the Minister of Transport, the head of the Treasury Board, the Minister of Public Safety, the Minister of...
	I don't know how they've come up with so many ministries.
	The federal government has very limited jurisdiction in our country, but that's another issue.
	Anyhow, a lot of ministers.
	And they held this live press conference.
	And I was watching it live on one screen in my office.
	If you've ever looked at a picture of my office, you'll see I have 12 screens.
	And while I was monitoring, because another lawyer was conducting the cross on some particular witness at that point, and I was watching it in real time, and they announced that they were suspending the requirements effective June 20th, that you would no longer be required to be vaccinated to get on a plane or train in Canada.
	And so at the end of the day, we usually would Excuse the witnesses.
	These were all done by Zoom.
	And we would excuse the court reporter.
	And the lawyers would talk.
	And the senior counsel came on and said, you may not have been aware because you've been in cross, but the federal government's just made an announcement.
	And that on the 20th, we're going to suspend.
	And she said, we have instructions to offer.
	That a discontinuance on a without-cost basis.
	In other words...
	I have instructions to go F yourselves.
	For people who don't understand what's going on here, they implement the measures.
	They force someone to take a lawsuit to go through weeks of deposition.
	They're paying for their own bills while the government is paying for their bills with our taxpayer dollars.
	Then they say, we've suspended the policy.
	Your lawsuit's moot.
	We'll let you withdraw without costs or whatever.
	Costs are nothing in any event.
	It's more than insult to injury because we've already had the insult to injury.
	This is a kick in the groin once you're already on the ground.
	We've abandoned the policy, which was unscientific, discriminatory, and inhumane.
	We'll let you take your lawsuit away.
	What was your response, Keith?
	Well, and they said, so we still had another about four or five days.
	We had the balance of the week.
	And then a couple of days the following week to finish up all of the six weeks of cross-examination.
	So they said, we're going to cancel the cross-examination for tomorrow.
	We said, no.
	These cross-examinations are scheduled pursuant to an order from a case management judge of the federal court.
	We will be here tomorrow morning at, you know, 8 o 'clock Mountain Time, 8 a.m.
	To conduct a cross-examination, you better present your witness.
	If you want to vary that, you're going to have to get a court order because, no, you're going to be here.
	No.
	And I said, I will see constructions, but I anticipate them being a flat no.
	So I then phoned the Honorable Brian Peckford, former Premier Peckford, and I laid out to him the circumstances and the proposal.
	And he, you know, like, You know, fold your tent and they won't see court costs against you and go away.
	And he started laughing and he kept laughing.
	Like, yeah, you think that's all it takes to make me go away and fight for charter rights?
	No.
	And he was laughing and just laughing.
	I could see him kind of gearing it out as to what they must have been thinking.
	And then I said, Mr. Premier, I said, I think I know what your instructions are, but...
	I actually need an English word.
	Can you either say yes or no?
	And he said, no.
	In other words, no, don't accept it.
	So we proceeded.
	And then they said, all right, well, if you guys aren't going away, we're going to bring a mootness.
	We're going to bring an application to strike down your case, strike it out, end it summarily on the basis that it's moot.
	That there's no longer a live issue that needs to be tried, that it's hypothetical, and so on.
	And we said, bring it on.
	So they brought their mootness application.
	In the meantime, we made them do all the work they had to do to bring that and file all the paperwork.
	And then we completed all of the affidavits.
	Or sorry, we completed all the cross-examinations.
	Then we wrote our factum.
	So our big legal argument where we summarize all the facts, the key evidence, apply it, lay out the legal principles, apply the facts to the law and argue what the results should be.
	We've done all the heavy lifting.
	And it was heavy, heavy, hard, hard legal work, intensive with a large team of lawyers that worked tirelessly and paralegals as well.
	And we got that done over the summer.
	In the meantime, We had this week scheduled that we're in right now, so today's September 22nd, for the five-day hearing where we were going to originally hear the case in its totality.
	So what the court said is, here's what we're going to do.
	We're going to schedule the Wednesday, the 21st, as a day for the mootness motion, and then...
	We'll have the full case occur October 31st, Monday, through to completing the first week of November, those five days, to hear the merits case if the mootness motion is lost.
	So yesterday was the mootness hearing in front of the federal court where the federal government lawyers stood forward and said, nothing to see here, folks.
	It's all over.
	The mandate's no longer in place.
	Therefore, it's moot.
	There's no reason to go ahead and rule on whether or not this was a violation of six million Canadians' charter rights.
	I mean, it's so outlandish on its face.
	And I don't know if there's any nominal damages or damages being requested.
	I forget in the lawsuit itself.
	But you've had the same judge from beginning to end, right?
	This is one judge assigned to the file?
	Yes, on case management.
	No, yesterday was a very senior judge with the federal court, first time we had this judge.
	Wow.
	Which to me is the problem.
	It would have been okay either way, but this was, it's a more neutral and objective way to deal with this major motion.
	Because it has an existential effect potentially to the litigation to bring in a fresh judge.
	So that's what they do.
	Okay, that's interesting.
	Because some people in the States, you get one lawyer assigned to a file.
	So every incidental motion you have goes before a judge who knows the file.
	In Quebec, Canada is totally different.
	Whoever is doing the circuit that day, so you've got to apprise them of the file.
	What was your impression?
	Because I cannot get out of my own skin on this one.
	I would be livid if the government thinks that they can...
	You know, play that whack-a-mole game.
	Oh, it's no longer now.
	Moot, academic, without objects.
	And if we decide to reimplement it in two months from now, well, too bad we didn't get that ruling that we were looking for.
	What do you think?
	The older judge, I think, is going to have less patience for this bullshit.
	Who appointed the judge, if I may ask, or if you know?
	I think, actually, I'm not certain of this, because I don't know if I'm different.
	Why I take a different approach than most lawyers, but I don't usually care who the judge is because it's what I do with them and what they do with me when I'm before them.
	I look into their eyes and I look at their body language and I try and communicate with them and I try and see what they're responding to and what reacts to them, what bothers them, what they like, what shocks them, you know, that kind of stuff.
	So I don't care because, you know...
	You never know what you're going to get, right?
	But my belief is that this judge was actually a Harper appointee.
	So we were in court yesterday.
	In advance, we file our motion argument.
	So we filed a comprehensive argument in August in opposition and set out all the legal and factual reasons why we feel that this is an important case to proceed to its full determination.
	One of the things that we relied on, myself and the other lawyers, there's four of us lawyers who argued the case yesterday, me on behalf of Peckford and the other applicants that the Justice Center represents there, and then Sam Provelis for Mr. Harrison and Mr. Ricard, etc., is when that press conference occurred on June 14th, each minister said, this mandate...
	To require Canadians to be vaccinated to travel is only suspended.
	The Minister of Health said we will not hesitate to bring it back in the fall.
	The official press release starts off, the headline is suspension of travel vaccine mandate.
	The first word is suspension.
	The word...
	Suspend or its derivations appears seven times in a page and a half press release.
	Suspend.
	Okay?
	So what the lawyers for the Crown argued is...
	I'll read it.
	This is from the actual...
	It's reversed.
	This is the actual...
	You can see all my little crib notes from trial.
	Paragraph 41. So this is what the Attorney General's lawyers said to the court about these public statements of Honourable Ministers of the Crown who are members of the Governor General Council, which is Cabinet, okay?
	This is what Canadians are supposed to think of these people.
	This is their representation, the government's lawyers' representations to the courts.
	And in this sentence, applicants is me and Peckford.
	Although the applicants may place undue focus on the semantics used during the political press conferences announcing the vaccine mandates were being suspended, this is not a legal characterization.
	It's public messaging.
	I was like, what?
	So what I emphasized before the judge yesterday, It's like I just did a minute ago.
	These are ministers of the crown.
	These are the people who have the lawmaking function, the executive powers, to issue these orders with the signature of their ministerial title.
	And I said to the judge, my friends, and just for those of you who watch legal proceedings, they're like, Why does that lawyer keep bragging about the fact that that guy opposites his friend?
	Like, I don't care they golf together.
	Why does he keep saying that?
	It's a requirement.
	They're not my friends usually.
	Often I don't like them at all.
	I heard Karimji saying it over and over again when prosecuting Tamara Lish.
	My friend over there.
	Yeah, yeah.
	It's court protocol.
	They ain't friends and they know.
	So we say my friend.
	Oh, just by the way, I got roasted on Twitter last night.
	There's like, oh, Wilson's a masker.
	Oh, guys, I hate masks.
	Like I was walking through an airport today and I had no masks on and people would come up.
	You have to put a mask on.
	I just smile and nod like I was Russian or something.
	It just kept walking.
	I had to wear the mask when I wasn't on my feet, so I had to walk up to the podium with a mask on, and it was live-streamed to 4,000 people.
	So I was like, oh, Wilson's a masker.
	I'm not a masker, and the other lawyers are not my friends, okay?
	Just to clear the record here.
	And just as a little interesting legal trivia, I have those funny initials behind my name, which I notice I now have to change.
	QC, Queen's Council, now King's Council.
	Someone asked that in the chat.
	He said, I'm not joking.
	Does he have to change it to KC?
	And now I understand.
	And I'm digressing, but my youngest said to me, 17, I love these guys that keep you so humble.
	He says, Dad, it kind of sounds like KFC.
	And I said, well, it could be worse.
	If you were older, you'd maybe be thinking like KC and the Sunshine Band.
	So I guess we'll have to do that.
	But the tradition is...
	When I'm speaking and the lawyer goes to refer to me, they're not supposed to call me their friend.
	They're supposed to call me their learned friend because I have a KC.
	Anyway, I don't make them do that.
	That's fine.
	So that's a little trivia.
	But what I said to the court was, the judge, as I said, you know, my friend from the Attorney General is trying to suggest to you, and I guess to Canadians, That when honourable ministers of the Crown make public statements at official press conferences, we're to humour them.
	And we're not to treat them as serious.
	And we're not to treat them as representations that we can rely on.
	Outrageous.
	You know, it was really tone deaf that they would sort of throw their ministers under the bus to say.
	So why it was relevant is a case can be moot.
	If it's about things that are now settled and in the past, right?
	That's one of the criteria.
	And our whole point was, it's only suspended.
	And they've said over and over again, repeatedly, each of these ministers, that they won't hesitate to bring it back.
	They use the word suspension or its derivation seven times.
	The official press release leads with the word suspension.
	So that was one of our arguments, is that this could come back.
	So then it's a technical argument, but the higher level argument, one of the other arguments they made was, and this was interesting because it seemed to be working, and I think I deconstructed it.
	It was this idea that, well, if they do come back, Your Honor, they said, It'll be based on different facts.
	And, you know, the exhaustive and comprehensive review process that the minister uses to bring and implement these rules will be re-established and it'll be...
	So I called BS on that.
	Like, I pointed to the documents that were the source of this and it was a ministerial briefing note.
	Oh, well, Keith, just look at here.
	Boarding flights and trains in Canada.
	The vaccination requirements...
	Are suspended.
	Suspended.
	Right.
	Not repealed.
	Not revoked.
	Not ended.
	Not declared unconstitutional by a court.
	Suspended.
	No harm, no foul.
	Go on with your lives, you peasants.
	Yeah.
	And so I made the argument.
	This is a little bit complex, but I think I can probably do it.
	I was able to do it yesterday.
	And it's this.
	I said, okay.
	You know, my friend is emphasizing that there's no jurisprudential value.
	This isn't going to contribute to the jurisprudence.
	It's not going to contribute to the case law.
	It's not going to have any value because it's based on something from the past and the facts may be different in the future.
	And so I kind of did the clear...
	Let's clear the table for a minute, you know, Your Honor.
	And let's think about this.
	How does our common law system...
	Well, it's based on the, unlike the civil code that you have in Quebec, the common law system, the British common law system, is based on the principle of starry diseases, precedent, right?
	So like cases should be decided alike.
	Past similar decisions should inform the court in the decision they make on a future case.
	So I said, what do we do?
	So I said, is it a matter of precision?
	I said, Your Honor, is it a matter of precision?
	Because my friends keep suggesting that maybe it is.
	It's a matter of precision.
	I said, it's clearly not.
	Because when do you ever get two cases that are precisely the same?
	At a minimum, the names are going to be different and the dates are going to be different, even if they both involve a black Dodge truck and a transmission that didn't work, right?
	Like, cases are never perfectly the same.
	So what we do as lawyers is we look for similar cases.
	And I said, Your Honor, you will have had lawyers before you with enthusiasm say to you, Your Honor, this case here is on all fours with my case before you.
	And she kind of smirked and nodded her head.
	Yeah, like I've heard that before.
	Or you'll hear us lawyers say, this case is on point, Your Honor, right?
	Or we'll say, as you've heard already a number of times today, this case is distinguishable.
	It's different.
	So I said, in fact, the law is about the art of nuance.
	It's about the art of nuance.
	It's the art of subtlety.
	And we look to the elements of a past case and we say, how many of them are similar to the present case?
	And then we try and fit them together.
	To convince you that you should follow the precedent of that other case.
	The key point is it's not about precision.
	It's not about black and white.
	And it's not about it lining up perfectly.
	And the most common thing about this mandate is the restriction on travel.
	The variable has been the degrees of variance of the virus.
	So there's more than enough here that if you rule on, if we have the full trial.
	And there's a determination made on whether what the government did.
	It will provide value.
	It will provide value to the courts.
	It will provide value to the litigants.
	And it will provide value to millions of Canadians who need to understand whether their charter rights are violated.
	I mean, Keith, it's just logically.
	Yes, no two cases are ever the same, but precedent serves as an indication for future cases.
	If the court comes out here and says...
	It was unconstitutional because there was an absence of scientific justification.
	If you're going to violate this charter right, which is one of the ones that is not subject to the notwithstanding clause, here are the criteria.
	Let's set out an Oaks test for the violation of Section 6 so that they can apply that in the future to any future lifting of the suspension or re-implementation.
	That's how it works.
	It's a terrible argument.
	I mean, it's just terrible on its face from the government.
	And the second thing, Keith, am I not wrong, though?
	If the court comes to the conclusion that there was a charter violation, well, it does open the door for damages or not?
	Or some nominal damages?
	We didn't plead damages, but we could come back, as could all Canadians, right?
	And all kinds of people.
	Yes, the short answer is yes.
	There's broader legal consequences to such a ruling, as there should be.
	It shouldn't be consequence-free.
	So the law is supposed to have a consequence when you don't follow it.
	But let me talk about a couple of other really important things that happened yesterday that get to the nub of things that are at the core of what bothers so many of us about what's been happening in our country.
	I talked about the role of the courts and the role of the charter.
	And there was a moment that I made a statement, and I'm not going to be able to repeat it here because it was so complex in how I did it.
	I can't even remember how I did it.
	But I had to get a concept across that was super sensitive without saying it.
	And I did because I watched how the judge reacted to me.
	And I'll try.
	I might be able to do it.
	And I'm really tired just so you know what I'm going to try.
	I talked about...
	The elements of living in a civil society and the importance of the rule of law and that how in a civil society we resolve, actually I can do it, how we resolve disputes peacefully is through the courts, through engaging lawyers and having courts rule on important issues that are in dispute.
	And what happens If we block that institution, or if that institution isn't available to Canadians, to have that adjudication made, what options does that leave Canadians?
	When I used the word, in explaining this, I did it in a slightly different order, and I used the word peaceful, I noticed the judge kind of like, ooh, yeah, like, what else is there, guys?
	And that's...
	Got to be avoided at every and all cost, always.
	You didn't pull a Trudeau and say, do we tolerate these politicians?
	No, but what I did say, the sleight of hand or the skill of the lawyers from the Attorney General was they talked about the mandate to be vaccinated to travel as being legislation.
	And I said, Your Honor, let's be clear.
	That is not an accurate description.
	The Aeronautics Act is legislation that they used.
	Section 6.41 of the Act is legislation that they used.
	But that section was enacted decades ago and not for the purposes of this pandemic.
	So I said...
	When my friend uses the term legislation, we immediately imagine, you know, introductory bill, you know, first reading, second reading, third reading, over to the Senate, blah, blah, blah, royal assent, proclamation becomes law.
	And it's open debate before the open parliament with opposition parties, the public watching and everything.
	That's not what happened.
	This wasn't an act of the legislative branch.
	It wasn't an act of the...
	Of the judicial branch, right?
	It was an act of the executive branch.
	This was a ministerial order.
	It's a piece of paper the minister signed.
	It wasn't even a cabinet order.
	He didn't even have to convince his cabinet colleagues.
	The minister of transportation merely signed an order.
	It was an executive order that stripped over six million Canadians.
	Of their fundamental right of mobility and prevented them from being at the sides of the bedside of dying loved ones, etc.
	You're making me angry, Keith.
	What you're saying now is people don't really appreciate it.
	I mean, I think they called it an order in council.
	It's an order, but it's a ministerial government speak.
	It's a ministerial OC.
	It's a ministerial order.
	No, it's an MO.
	It's not even MOC.
	It's an MO.
	It's a ministerial order.
	So, in fact, the minister could have his deputy sign it.
	And the one that's still in force, requiring the Rive Can app and all that stuff, is signed by the deputy.
	It's not even signed by the minister.
	So, this whole notion that there is some legislative process going on here is bunk.
	And I pointed to it, and they didn't try and touch it in their redirect or their reply because it was obvious that I'd killed that one, that point, driven that point home.
	So it's the ease with which they can bring it in, the absence of a check and balance.
	So then I talked about, I closed at a very high level.
	I wish I could remember what I did, but I can't because I was so focused on reading the judge and trying to relate with her.
	I talked about the three-legged stool falling over and the three elements of a democracy in a civil society, the separation of powers, the three elements being the legislative branch, the executive branch, and the judicial branch.
	And we need all three to have a safe, functioning, healthy democracy, civil society.
	And if the millions of Canadians who have been harmed by this policy, by this ministerial order, this executive action, don't have access to the courts, we risk the stool falling over.
	You really did just piss me off with that because people say, well, it's the law.
	None of this went through the legislative process.
	It didn't go through public speech and debate.
	It didn't go through evidentiary hearings.
	It didn't go through readings.
	It didn't go through the sober afterthought of the Senate.
	Some dictator sitting at his desk said, I think we'll require vaccination or 14-day quarantines for people entering Canada.
	Yeah, let's do that.
	With the same degree of ease and the same lack of oversight, that Trudeau...
	Maybe even less than when he signed that order in council banning 1,500 firearms.
	I think this model will just shelve right now.
	I think these Canadians, they'll stay home or they'll go to 14-day quarantine and they'll come back.
	Stroke of a pen, no science, no nothing, evidenced by the fact that the people you deposed didn't have one iota of a good answer for the crap that someone else authorized.
	How long until you get a decision?
	Well, I got to throw one more in there and I apologize for making you angry, but it's important that this truth come out, right?
	Is not only was it the case, all of the things you just said and that I've explained earlier about how this came to be, is that if you look at exhibits, I'll find it here, but if you look at a couple of the exhibits from Little, You'll send me the link for this afterwards, Keith.
	I'll post the link.
	And people, bear in mind, it's going to be a link to the court site, so you're going to have to go through all of the individual exhibits.
	It's not going to be individual exhibit links, but I'll get it up.
	Yeah, and it'll be laid out pretty good.
	They've got a pretty good database in there, and it's a lot of documents.
	But go to Jennifer Little's affidavit.
	Little, Waddell, and Larenko are really rich territory.
	At least the transcripts are, for sure.
	But Little's, Jennifer Little's affidavit and its exhibits are spectacular in a very terrible way.
	Because when you piece the timeline together, it became pretty clear that the Prime Minister decided, you know, maybe with Gerald Butt's help, that the way forward was, you know, the politics of division.
	Get Canadians fighting amongst themselves so they don't notice the failings and the incompetency on a gross scale of the Trudeau Liberals and their cabinet ministers, which I call equivalent to a high school council, but they probably function better than these guys even do.
	But what's in there is you can see this almost panic between the deputy and assistant deputy minister and other key officials where they're saying, you know, we've got to get this...
	New mandate in place.
	Like, obviously, Trudeau's told them to make it happen.
	And they don't have a rationale for it.
	And they even say, like, we need to come up with a rationale really quickly.
	Read their emails.
	And why they put those in, I'm still astounded.
	I'm glad they did.
	Thank goodness.
	But they were struggling.
	This was a political decision by the PMO's office to divide Canadians as a political survival strategy.
	For a very unpopular Prime Minister.
	And millions of Canadians were tormented and harmed by his manipulative aspirations.
	So fascinating, in a disturbing way, the evidence that's come out.
	So we made the pitch that we're ready to go.
	We have done all of the extremely hard work.
	Our compendium of evidence is 15,000 pages.
	I kid you not.
	And it was sitting beside the judge.
	It's so large, we prepared it, my team at the Justice Center.
	Incredible paralegals.
	Day and night.
	Literally day and night.
	We got a request last week that due to staff shortages at the federal court, they don't have the capability of printing it.
	Could we produce two copies?
	So paralegals worked through the weekend, day and night, and we had them couriered, and they arrived, and they were sitting up beside the judge, so tall that it was almost as tall as her.
	It was symbolic.
	And so I said, all the work's been done.
	All we have to do...
	Go ahead.
	Sorry.
	No, I was going to say, all the work's been done.
	All that has to be done now is have a judge hear it and render a decision.
	That might scare a judge off.
	No, a judge might say, geez, I don't want to go through this.
	I don't want to make a decision based on this.
	Well, they don't have to read this.
	It's moved.
	It's moved.
	Right?
	Yeah.
	No, I get it.
	It wouldn't be scary.
	I would be scared if I was a judge.
	But as you know, how it works is they don't have to read all 15,000 pages.
	We tell them which pages are important and we want them to look at.
	Right?
	So there might be something that's 200 pages long, a transcript, and there might only be two pages in there that was important evidence, right?
	We have to disclose everything.
	So anyhow, so the real important pitch we made was that all the heavy lifting's been done.
	This case is unprecedented.
	In terms of its scale of charter breach.
	Unprecedented.
	And the courts have a critical role in our democracy.
	They're there to, as a check and balance, the overreach for legislative action and executive action.
	It's in the public interest.
	It will undermine the confidence in the institutions of our democracy if this case does not get heard.
	And we urged the court to hear it.
	Other counsel made incredible, both very highly technical and accurate legal arguments on the case law.
	Sam Perez Velas did a terrific job on that, as did other counsel, Samuel Beauchamp and Nabil Nehem.
	I just mispronounced his last name, but he'll probably forgive me and make me buy him a beer, which I will do.
	But Nabil did a phenomenally emotional job.
	He's a lawyer, but he was self-represented.
	And he was an immigrant.
	And he lived in countries, he mentioned Palestine, and other places where he was not able to leave.
	And how he never thought when he came to Canada he would find himself in that same situation.
	And he talked about the breakdown of the social contract and other incredibly moving points.
	So we're hoping that the court will rule that it is not moot, that it is in the public interest for us to proceed on the 31st of October for a full hearing.
	I'm about 50-50 right now.
	The court may just say, nah.
	Come back if they lift the suspension.
	You've got to start over again.
	Keith, you don't need to convince me.
	I'm enraged because it's a cheap tactic.
	It doesn't even fit the grounds for mootness because one of the exceptions to mootness is if there's a risk of recurrence.
	It's an obvious risk of recurrence, but it's the idea that they can play this game.
	Force private citizens to go through all of this.
	And when I said the court costs would be minimal, I sort of did depreciate.
	A month of depositions, that's at least $1,000, $2,000 a day.
	Copies, stenographer, and whatever.
	So the court costs are going to be...
	It's offensive on its face.
	If it gets dismissed for mootness, that'll be a black pill for me.
	If it gets authorized to go to trial...
	Okay, no black pill, no white pill.
	If it gets dismissed on the mayor, it's black pill.
	So we've got two roads to a black pill here, only one to a white pill.
	And by the way, someone had asked if CBC Global News is going to cover this.
	I was Googling.
	I was trying to see.
	Nobody covered this from yesterday that I saw.
	Nothing.
	Nothing.
	Except it didn't happen.
	There's nothing to see here.
	It only affected 6 million Canadians.
	I mean...
	They want to defund the CDC anyhow.
	I have done far lesser cases many times where I have come out of the courthouse to the gaggle of reporters and all the guys with their big TV cameras and the microphones coming out and getting the huddle and Mr. Wilson this and Mr. Wilson that.
	Not a single one.
	And nothing.
	Zero news coverage.
	It's like...
	Premier Peckford doesn't exist.
	It's like this case doesn't exist.
	I've done some interviews lately, some of it because of the public inquiry, for the Freedom Truckers who I'm representing and have to go back to Ottawa for seven weeks, and we talked about that in another program, and we should.
	You know, it's so absolutely...
	Oh, what I was going to say.
	I've spent like two hours with a reporter on an interview and I know they wrote a story and it got to the editorial desk.
	It's like, nope, that will piss off our paymaster.
	We're not doing that story.
	The media is so extremely controlled right now by their desperation for money and they're in a death spiral because, you know...
	More and more people are tuning out and not paying for it because they see its propaganda.
	So they become more desperate for the money, the only money they're getting.
	We know Global News said they're on their, you know, went bent knee to the government here last week and said they're in their last gasps of financial health, of life.
	And so they don't dare say anything negative about the government.
	We're in a dark, this is dangerous stuff.
	Well, luckily, I'm not dependent on the government for any subsidies.
	I'm dependent on the government not to shut me down.
	So long as I can continue to succeed on my own merits.
	You're not in Canada anymore.
	Things look like they might be turning around, but people are asking.
	I'm not a citizen here yet.
	I'm still a Canadian citizen.
	I'm here on a visa.
	It has a finite time frame.
	My plan is not to...
	We had an opportunity here with Rumble and it's working out.
	Rumble is the free speech platform.
	But yeah, don't expect CBC, CTV News to cover this.
	And when Justin Trudeau makes the joke, you know, $600 million can buy you some good headlines.
	It can also buy you some no headlines.
	Oh man, Keith.
	Okay, so we will do a follow-up on the Truckers Convoy.
	And I know you had an out at 5.30.
	You got to everything you wanted to mention, right?
	Yeah, I think I misspoke earlier in my fatigue.
	It was the phase three trial that they hadn't completed.
	I think I said phase two on why it's experimental, the vaccine.
	It's the phase three that is being completed on millions of people.
	If someone writes, oh, Wilson got that wrong.
	Yeah, I did.
	I meant to say phase three.
	But it was the last phase that hasn't been completed.
	And it would bother me if I didn't correct myself on that.
	I would make my...
	Emphasize that while I'm working for phenomenally reduced hourly rates, as I talked about when you and I had a long talk back in March when I got back from Ottawa representing the truckers, my participation in these important cases is funded by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms.
	As you know, they're running a tremendous amount of cases on all kinds of things from truckers to doctors and nurses to veterans, teachers, university students, and we could always use funding support.
	There's a heavy burn rate, as you can imagine, from what I've just described.
	At no point this process was expedited.
	We filed on January 31st in this Peckford case.
	There was never a gap.
	It was like, what's the least number of days to the next step?
	You know, disclosure of affidavits.
	What's the next least number of days to cross examinations?
	No gap.
	What's the least number of days we could possibly need to cross examine?
	Oh, six weeks.
	Okay, they will be scheduled every day for six weeks.
	And they were.
	What's the least number of days possible to complete the records and file our factum?
	We did.
	In other words, from January to now is as fast as you can do it on a case of this scale and complexity and consequence.
	So the whole idea that, oh, we can just restart from scratch if the new mandate comes in on October 15th is offensive.
	I won't do it.
	It's bullcrap.
	They know it's bullcrap and they bank on it because it's like the constitutional challenges in the states for the election.
	It takes so long to get it to court.
	They know the next time it happens, they'll do the exact same thing.
	They'll drop it after nine months and they'll say, come back to court if it happens again.
	Right now it's moot.
	It's a tactic that you can only do when you're doing it with other people's money and they're doing it with our taxpayer dollars.
	I'll go further.
	It's an abusive process.
	It's an abusive process.
	It's utilizing a process in a manner to avoid it from being litigated.
	If they wanted to do this in a more fair and honest and democratic way, they would actually make this rule through the legislature.
	They would do it through open parliament.
	They'd say, let's pass the COVID Response Act, which includes a travel mandate, and debate it in open parliament.
	Right?
	But no, it's a ministerial order done in the back room or anywhere.
	The minister can literally do it right now wherever he is.
	I think they did it on the corners of the napkins after an evening of drinking and singing Bohemian Rhapsody is how idiotic some of these measures were.
	No, no.
	They did it on that after the Prime Minister was angry because he got booed and heckled.
	This was, we remember, the evidence is clear that came out when you piece it all together.
	Remember what he said in French, right?
	Misogynist, racist, taking up space, and do we tolerate these people?
	And that was his wedge issue.
	The evidence was the emails between the deputy ministers, insisting deputy minister, where's our rationale?
	We've got to implement this right away.
	Miss Little.
	Talking about how it's the strictest requirement in the developed world, the conscious decision to exclude compassionate travel as an exemption and all of these things.
	This was all deliberate.
	And we've got to keep fighting for the truth to come out.
	We've got to keep fighting.
	And I'm going to keep fighting.
	And everybody on my team is going to keep fighting.
	And I know Premier Peckford is going to keep fighting to ensure that the charter is respected and followed.
	Phenomenal.
	Keith, we do it again?
	Oh, absolutely.
	Okay, awesome.
	I'm going to continue going for a few more minutes.
	I know you had to get out, so I don't want to keep you longer, and I'll touch up on some other stories.
	But Keith, thank you for everything that you're doing.
	I mean, people say it's work.
	First of all, thank you, because there's not many lawyers doing it.
	I know the crap you're taking because of what you're doing and because of the people for whom you're doing it.
	Not everybody can deal with it.
	I'm not sure that I can deal with it, but Keith, you are a hero.
	So keep it up.
	Peckford's a hero.
	The people fighting.
	The people fighting for the rights that some Canadians don't even know they need to protect because it doesn't stop here if we don't make it stop here.
	They'll know by the time it's too late.
	But Keith, we'll be in touch and you'll come back on and we'll talk about the trucker stuff as there's developments in that.
	And when there's a decision in this, you'll let me know.
	Absolutely.
	And it could be, we don't know, of course, as you know, Eviva, that's how it works.
	They don't, you know, the judge will make her decision when she does.
	Our calculation is the longer, the more days that go by before the decision comes out, the better it is.
	Because the easy decision to write is, oh, it's moot, you're done.
	Strike, your claim struck.
	The more difficult decision is to, for her consequential decision, is to say, no, it needs to go to a full hearing.
	There's a possibility she'll say, I've actually decided.
	The trial judge, the judge hearing the merits hearing is the one who needs to decide this and punt it up.
	That recently happened in another case.
	But my general gut is, and that of the other lawyers, is we'll know within the next 10 to 14 days we'll have a decision and I'll let you know.
	I'll email it to you and make myself available.
	Perfect.
	Thank you very much.
	Thank you.
	All right.
	Have a good night.
	All right.
	I'm going to take my leave.
	Thank you.
	Bye now.
	All right.
	See you soon.
	People, let's move it over to Rumble real quick.
	I didn't want to interrupt that interview by going to Rumble.
	Go to Rumble now because we're going to have a few stories.
	I've got a little bit of time left before the evening event, so we're going to make the most of it.
	Oh, now you can see the wonderful door right there and the door stopper right here.
	And the light.
	No, the light there.
	Go over to the Rumbles and we're going to talk about the massive prosthetic boobs.
	Yeah, the world has gone crazy.
	Give you 30 seconds to go over there and I'm going to pull up some stuff in the backdrop.
	Leaving YouTube, going exclusive to Rumble now.
	And by the way, I think there's going to be an exclusive live stream tonight from the floor of the party, of the event.
	Because there's going to be some people there.
	I think Dave Rubin's going to be there.
	I'm not sure if Russell Brand is going to be there.
	But a number of the people who have announced exclusive deals with Rumble as well are going to be there tonight.
	So head over to the Rumbles.
	As I stop on YouTube, I will remove it on YouTube and continue it on Rumble now.
	I think we're alone now.
	Every time.
	Let me just get back to my screen so I can make sure that I can see myself.
	That's amazing.
	That's amazing.
	And you see the chicanery that is played with the court system.
	Oh yeah, let's enact an unconstitutional charter violation.
	Policy, order and council, ministerial order, whatever.
	Let's pretend it's law.
	Let's call it a law, even though it didn't go through any of the legislative process.
	It was enacted by virtue of a ministerial order, which itself was codified in a law, so therefore that which is implemented by way of a ministerial order or order and council, as provided for under a piece of legislation, is itself legislation?
	Not quite.
	Let's do that.
	Let's make private citizens sue.
	Let's drag them through nine months of litigation, four weeks of depositions.
	Then let's rescind, suspend the policy and claim they don't have a case anymore and, you know, go back to the drawing board.
	It's too bad.
	So sad.
	We'll let you leave with costs.
	That'll be for the taxpayers.
	Is Keith gone?
	Keith's gone.
	Bullshit.
	That's what it is.
	It's steaming hot bullshit.
	Sorry.
	If you don't laugh...
	At some point, you're going to cry.
	Okay.
	But let me see.
	I'll touch the American stuff tomorrow.
	I don't really think there's much of a point.
	No, we're going to do some American stuff.
	I forgot what I brought up in the back.
	Here, people.
	Let's look at this.
	Apparently, the school is saying it will be illegal.
	It'll be illegal.
	To criticize the trans teacher with huge prosthetic breasts, as it's claimed, disturbed students are skipping her.
	It would be illegal.
	What do they mean by that?
	It's not clickbait.
	It's not clickbait, people.
	At some point, the world goes so upside down, topsy-turvy, that clickbait becomes law.
	The Halton District School Board said it would be against the Ontario Human Rights Code to criticize Oakville Trafalgar High School teacher.
	The transgender teacher went viral over the weekend when the picture emerged.
	Okay, we know the entire story.
	Let's just go take a look at the law.
	Because you will recall, Jordan Peterson said, you know, some Bill C-16.
	Would lead to compelled speech.
	Well, now it seems that the Ontario Human Rights Code is going to lead to the preclusion from criticizing what I believe in this particular case, not all cases, this particular case, to be gender mockery.
	What does the law say?
	Where is the link to the code?
	It was recently amended.
	I believe I covered this once upon a time recently.
	What did I just do here?
	People, let's just do a little control F. Gender.
	Here we go.
	Look at this.
	When was this amended?
	Oh, look at that.
	It was amended in 20...
	No, that was not when it was amended.
	When did this become...
	I forget.
	This was recently...
	I don't remember.
	I don't know when this was amended to add this.
	Anyhow, someone else will figure that out.
	Freedom from discrimination.
	This is from the Human Rights Code of Ontario.
	Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1999.
	Oh, here, I think here we go.
	So it looks like it was amended recently, it looks like.
	But don't quote me on that.
	Here.
	Services.
	Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods, and facilities.
	Without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression.
	Now note this talks about equal treatment with respect to services, facilities.
	Without discrimination.
	Harassment and accommodation.
	Also not exactly on point, but this is what they're talking about.
	Every person who occupies accommodation has a right to freedom from harassment by the landlord or agent.
	Yeah, this is...
	Okay.
	And it's all in here.
	Sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression.
	Gender expression, here we go.
	Accommodations, harassment of accommodations, contracts.
	Every person having a legal capacity, having legal capacity has a right to contract on equal terms without discrimination of race.
	Yeah, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression.
	It's in there.
	So you know exactly...
	I hope I didn't just shut myself down.
	Did I?
	No, I'm here.
	So you know what they're getting at when that member of the board says, can't do it.
	We can't do anything to stop this because the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal will sentence us to civil penalties, like that restaurant in Buenos Aires, I think, in British Columbia.
	Tens of thousands of dollars because the employees allegedly misgendered a staff member.
	Another British Columbia decision when some police allegedly misgendered, but I think they did a little more than that, to a transgender individual that they were arresting.
	Jordan Peterson talking about Bill C-16, which provided for gender identity as an aggravating factor, among other amendments to the criminal code, would lead to compelled speech.
	Well, this is going to lead to compelled tolerance of what I think in this particular case is not a sincere expression of gender identity.
	If I'm reading into the situation.
	Let's see what's going on in the chat.
	In Rumble.
	There was a Rumble rant.
	A Rumble rant.
	Re-love you vocabulary, sir.
	It's entertaining.
	That is W-X-A-X-R-X-D.
	Ward.
	Ironically enough, Mike Ward.
	A Quebec comedian who was sentenced by the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal initially to pay $43,000 for violating the human rights of a child celebrity, Jeremy Gabriel, had to go to the Supreme Court to have that one overturned.
	So when they say, you know, the argument is there.
	You can't say, hey, teacher, could you wear slightly smaller prosthetic breasts?
	Could you wear prosthetic breasts without massive erect nipples?
	That's discrimination.
	You're making me feel uncomfortable in my gender expression and gender identity.
	Forget about whether or not the 14-year-old kids feel comfortable.
	This is when one person's rights to, I believe, exercise their rights not in good faith, to make a mockery of those who actually just want to exercise their rights in good faith, trump the rights of students to feel safe, comfortable, and undistracted in their education environment.
	Okay, whatever.
	Listen to this.
	This is coming out of the States, people.
	Stacey Abrams.
	The people who say follow the science.
	Are we looking at the same thing?
	The people who say follow the science, listen to this gem.
	There is no such thing as a heartbeat in six weeks.
	It is a manufactured sound designed to convince people that men have the right to take control of a woman's body.
	There is no such thing.
	There is no such thing as a heartbeat at six weeks.
	Wait.
	It is a manufactured sound.
	It is a manufactured sound, presumably because it comes out of a machine.
	Designed to convince people that men have the right to take control of a woman's body.
	Designed to...
	I forget that second half of absolute idiocy.
	That's the attribution of motivation.
	Set that aside.
	The statement of fact is the dumbest statement of fact ever.
	But, by the way, this has nothing to do with how you feel about the whole abortion issue.
	Pro-choice, whether or not you think 16 weeks is too early, forget it.
	It doesn't matter.
	Position on abortion, irrelevant.
	There's a heartbeat at 16 weeks, give or take.
	There's a point at which there's a heartbeat.
	Stacy, Dr. Abrams, every now and again it happens that that which is there is very difficult to detect with our own ears and our own eyes, and it requires machines to manufacture the noises to let us know that things are there.
	Much like I have a bone in my hand and I can't see it, but if I wanted to see what that bone looked like, if that bone were broken...
	I'd go to an x-ray machine which would manufacture an image that I can't see that does not actually exist to the eye so that I could see it.
	Confirming a reality, not fabricating one.
	Obvious joke.
	Obvious meme.
	The Supreme Court Justice can't define a woman, but Stacey Abrams is coming out and telling us that a heartbeat doesn't exist.
	It's a manufacturer.
	There's no such thing as a heartbeat at six weeks.
	I mean, sure, it has a little heart, and that heart is beating.
	But I can't hear it!
	It is a manufactured sound designed to convince people that men have the right to take control of a woman's body away from her.
	Thank you.
	Stupid.
	In fact, let me take that back.
	It's not stupid.
	It's not stupid.
	It's malicious.
	They're going to redefine words, and now they're going to redefine a heartbeat.
	Oh, it's not a heartbeat if I can't hear it without a machine.
	If I need a machine to hear it, the baby doesn't have a heartbeat.
	Some might say a baby will never have a heartbeat by Stacey Abrams' definition.
	If I can't hear it with my ear, and by the way, I've had three kids.
	Like, you could feel them moving sometimes.
	You could never hear their heartbeat without the assistance of...
	A machine.
	And when you can hear it, yeah, it goes...
	Actually, that sounds like a turntable disco dance.
	No, you can hear it.
	And it's unmistakable as to what it is.
	Yeah, it's just, you know, hook up a little sound system to amplify the sound.
	Okay, and then Ward says, life-denying turd.
	Oh, I can't bring up that comment.
	I can only see it.
	Life-denying turd, says Ward.
	Yeah, no.
	If I can't see it, it doesn't exist.
	And if I can't hear it, it doesn't exist.
	Okay.
	Brilliant!
	Alright, let's go get another short clip of brilliance.
	Because it's Thursday.
	There's still time of the week.
	Let's listen to this.
	Sheer brilliance coming out of...
	I wasn't listening.
	It's not stupidity.
	It's actual malicious dishonesty.
	I wasn't listening.
	We were conversing a bit.
	Did you say that a police officer was bludgeoned to death by the crowd at the January 6th riots?
	I said a police officer was bludgeoned to death.
	I did not say at the hands of whom, Mr. Bishop?
	I wasn't listening.
	We were conversing a bit.
	I wasn't listening.
	We were by the crowd at the January 6th riots?
	I said a police officer was bludgeoned to death.
	I did not say at the hands of whom, Mr. Bishop?
	Oh, I didn't say it.
	So let me stop.
	I don't know why it cut off early that the initial clip I heard had that, what's his name, Jones?
	That parliamentarian, that member of government say on January 6th, a police officer was bludgeoned to death at the hands of the protest.
	I thought that's what I heard him say.
	So he says, oh yeah, I said he was bludgeoned to death, but I didn't say at the hands of whom.
	Okay, now we're entering the realm of malicious dishonesty.
	Who are you referring to, if you don't mind?
	I can get that information for you in a few minutes.
	I just want to make sure.
	Are you denying that at least one Capitol Police officer was murdered in the midst of what happened on January 6th?
	Yeah, I think I am.
	I understand that there were reports early on that Sicknick was struck with a fire extinguisher, and that subsequently was debunked as false.
	He died of natural causes.
	That we're not connected to the event.
	Are we talking about the same person, Sicknick, or are we talking about somebody else?
	Seriously.
	It's a genuine question.
	The medical examiner, the U.S. Capitol Police put out a report agreeing with the medical examiner.
	He can't admit he was wrong.
	Just an initial thought, and I know Mr. Roy, you too are an attorney.
	Mr. Bishop speaks often about how brilliant of an attorney he is.
	We're talking about but-for causation of Officer Sicknick's death.
	And so I would hope that you would at least concede, at a minimum, that Mr. Sicknick died as a result of what happened on January 6th.
	And I'm disappointed if you would suggest otherwise.
	I'm disappointed.
	Can you just answer the question?
	I mean, look, I don't think that's correct either, but just, was he bludgeoned to death?
	Is that because I think Ms. Demings was even looking at where a soda voce between me and her saying he was, I'm sincere as I can be.
	My understanding is that that was debunked, and Mr. Roy just read the medical examiner's information.
	Do you guys contend that he was bludgeoned to death?
	I contend that 138 Capitol and D.C. police officers were injured, and that multiple Capitol police officers died as a direct result of what happened on January 6th.
	And I hope that you...
	It's your time.
	You don't have to answer.
	I hope you can see how one would question the sincerity of such a minute...
	Can you imagine what he just did right there?
	At least concede at a minimum.
	That Mr. Sicknick died as a result of what happened on January 6th.
	And I'm disappointed if you would suggest otherwise, sir.
	I'm disappointed.
	I'm disappointed.
	I'm your parent.
	I'm disappointed in you.
	I'm disappointed that you are not repeating the lie that I just bold-faced, shamelessly said publicly.
	And I get called out on the lie.
	And then I move the goalposts on the lie.
	Then I try to mince words on the lie.
	Then I try to shame you on the lie.
	Let me let it play one more time.
	I'm just going to stop it.
	Every time there's a loser think, this is a troll.
	This is trollish behavior.
	Like when you try to argue with someone, try to pin down like an egg to a wall.
	It's like, just keep squeezing through your hands.
	Did I hear, and I think, did you say that a police officer was bludgeoned to death by the crowd at the January 6th?
	Did you make a factual statement very specific?
	A police officer was bludgeoned to death.
	What's the answer?
	I said a police officer was bludgeoned to death.
	I did not say that.
	Okay, I did say that.
	The hands of whom, Mr. Bishop?
	Okay, I did say that.
	Are you wrong?
	Here, listen to this.
	Was murdered in the midst of what happened on January 7th.
	Murdered, murdered.
	I think I am.
	I mean, here's what I...
	I understood that there were reports early on that...
	Forget it.
	We don't even need to listen to it again.
	And I'm disappointed in you.
	How dare you?
	So disappointed.
	You won't carry it?
	You're going to call me out on that lie?
	Oh, well, it was but for causation.
	You're a lawyer.
	You play with words.
	It was but for causation.
	Shameful.
	And they cannot admit that they made a mistake because they know people are still going to believe that.
	It's two years out and that guy's still spewing a lie that was debunked by anyone who was paying attention.
	Within short order, but thoroughly debunked when a medical examiner came out and said, oh yeah, forget the fire extinguisher.
	That never happened.
	By the way, no reporters or sources were fired or disciplined or whatever.
	That never happened.
	But he also seems to have died from a stroke from purely natural causes, even after people tried to tie the death of a stroke to some adverse reaction from chemical.
	He was amazed at the protest, apparently.
	Doesn't matter.
	The truth does not matter in the battle to control a narrative.
	Rewriting history is what some of the comments in the chat say.
	But shameless.
	And then to try to shame the individual who calls him out.
	I'd be disappointed if you would disagree with me on that.
	Okay, what else do we got here?
	Oh, the news in Amy Cooper, by the way.
	Amy Cooper's civil lawsuit.
	Against her former employer was tossed today.
	And by the way, no, Robert Barnes is not the attorney in this file.
	Wouldn't have changed anything in terms of my covering it.
	But Barnes was not representing Amy Cooper in her civil lawsuit against her former employer who fired her and she sued for defamation and wrongful termination damages because she said they left.
	Amy Cooper, Central Park Karen is the nickname, the woman who called the cops on an African-American man who was trying to lure her dog off because the dog was off a leash, and he's birdwatching, and apparently he has a, what's the word, a propensity?
	to recording conversations or having run-ins with people who are walking their dogs off leash in Central Park.
	And so he says, get your dog on a leash.
	And then she says, no.
	And then he admittedly says, if you're going to do what you want, I'm going to do what I want.
	And you're not going to like it.
	Come here, doggy.
	Then she calls the cops, says an African-American man is threatening me in the woods.
	And she freaks out.
	And the video goes viral after Chris Cooper, unrelated, posted to social media.
	I covered that at the time.
	I believe that...
	Amy Cooper has other mental issues that are going on that don't justify her response, but certainly explain it.
	But Chris Cooper, by the way, in the mainstream media, they say Reuters describes it as a woman who falsely accused Black word watcher loses lawsuit against an employer, ex-employer.
	She lost the lawsuit.
	The court basically said on a motion to dismiss, it's substantially true.
	They said that the incident was racialized.
	You behaved in a bad way.
	You definitely told the cops an African-American man...
	Sorry, you didn't tell the cops.
	You told the man that you were going to call the cops and say that an African-American man is harassing you or threatening you in a park.
	She lost the lawsuit.
	I think legally I can understand the rationale, but...
	Woman who falsely accused Black Birdwatcher.
	She didn't falsely accuse him of what he did.
	He admitted it.
	She racialized the incident.
	And people have to understand.
	People are saying, well, what did she do wrong?
	She just accurately said it's an African-American man.
	Here's what she said.
	She didn't call the cops and say there's an African-American man or a Black man in the park and I feel threatened.
	She told him before calling the cops.
	I'm going to call the cops and tell them that an African-American man is harassing me or assaulting me, whatever.
	So she was weaponizing race to him.
	Something is a threat.
	Because if she calls the cops and says, yeah, the man's here, he's threatening me, he's scaring me, he's black.
	That's one thing.
	She tells him, I'm going to call the cops and tell them a black man is doing it.
	That's racializing the incident.
	Because you tell the man, I'm going to call the cops.
	Okay, fine.
	You're just warning him.
	You're telling him, I'm going to call the cops.
	And this is what I'm going to tell them.
	That smells a little fishy in terms of her reaction.
	She racialized the incident, but let's not forget about Christian Cooper's posts to social media.
	This is his own admission the day it happened.
	She didn't falsely accuse him.
	This is what he said to her.
	I'll go through it.
	The dog runs her clothes.
	He needs exercise.
	All you have to do is take him to the other side of the drive, outside the ramble.
	You can let him run off the leash all you want.
	She says it's too dangerous.
	He says, quote, he wrote this.
	Look, if you're going to do what you want, I'm going to do what I want, but you're not going to like it.
	What's that?
	To the dog.
	Come here, puppy.
	I gotta tell you something.
	If I'm a woman alone in the forest, if I'm a man alone in the forest, that makes me uncomfortable.
	Whether or not this all could have been avoided if she just put her damn dog on a leash and walked away.
	Probably.
	Whether or not they're both a couple of, you know, morons looking for a fight and they found it.
	And I don't think Chris Cooper's any better off because of this.
	They found it.
	But one thing you can count on?
	Fake news going to fake news because she didn't falsely accuse him.
	That's what he said.
	I'm going to do what I want to do and you're not going to like it.
	Come here, puppy.
	That's, other than being a potential, we've covered this before, but...
	Feeding a companion pet a dog of another person is itself a statutory violation in New York?
	That seems menacing to me, but maybe I'm a little sensitive.
	All right, I think there's one more thing here that we can do before we wind up.
	What was this?
	was this That's interesting.
	What was this?
	Oh, it seems that...
	Oh, that's interesting.
	I think this had to do with the prosthetic breasts.
	When it's in incognito mode, Twitter decides that it's inappropriate.
	Well, that's ironic.
	Twitter decides it's inappropriate for Twitter for people under the age of 18, but school board decides it's...
	They can't criticize it because it would be a charter violation.
	People!
	Thank you.
	There may not be a stream on my channel tomorrow, but I think I'm going to be going live in the morning with Alexa Lavoie to talk about the provincial debates which are occurring tonight, if I'm not mistaken.
	So I'm going to try to, you know, at some point between now and tomorrow morning, I'm going to try to listen to those debates and then go live with Alexa Lavoie from Rebel News tomorrow morning, 9 o 'clock.
	I'm reading some of the chat.
	Yeah, people poison other people's dogs.
	That's why you're not allowed feeding other people's dogs.
	That was the reason for enacting that piece of regulation.
	And look, I consider that a threat.
	Especially, what kind of person would say that to someone?
	A single lone woman in the park.
	You're going to do what you want to do.
	I'm going to do what I want to do.
	And you're not going to like it.
	Okay.
	So that's it.
	That's what's going on tomorrow.
	As ever, thanks, Viva.
	Go meet people, chat, DR1872.
	It should be fun.
	Oh yeah, and I'll probably end up going live for a bit tonight.
	I've been charging my phone the entire time.
	People, thank you.
	See you tomorrow.
	Enjoy the evening.
	Be well.
	I think Keith Wilson, look, I'm telling you this.
	If the court dismisses the lawsuit because of mootness, that will be a black pill for me.
	Fingers crossed.
	Fingers crossed.
	Something in the system still works because we need it.
	So when there's news on that, I'll bring it to you.
	And thanks for having us.
	Bye-bye.
	Nature lover freedom.
	Good to see you again.
	Trump's innocence.
	Oh, my goodness.
	Yeah, that we're going to talk about Sunday.
	That lawsuit.
	I haven't read the lawsuit.
	I've only been reading articles, so we'll talk about it Sunday with Barnes.
	For sure.
	Go, everybody.
	Enjoy the evening.
	Thank you for being here.
	Snip, clip, share away, especially some of the highlights from the Keith Wilson interview.
	Do not lose faith.
	Don't trust the plan.
	You have to actively participate in changing the plan, in rewriting the directions, in writing the ship.
	But don't lose faith because that doesn't do anything.
	So keep fighting peacefully in a way that would make your parents, your children, and your pets proud, and you can never go wrong.
	Enjoy the evening, peeps.

▲