The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast - 281. Trudeau, Travel, and “The Science”

Episode Date: August 23, 2022

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s recent covid mandates - specifically on travel bans for those who choose not to get vaccinated - have arguable basis in science, logic, and precedent. Today Dr. Jordan B Peterson sits down with five experts investigating the matter from all angles, including Rupa Subramanya, one of few Canadian journalists who dared to report an alternative perspective on the now infamous trucker protest that took place in Ottawa. Shaun Rickard and Karl Harrison, represented by lawyer Sam Presevolos, are three proud Canadians currently entangled in a lawsuit with their own government over Trudeau’s travel bans on public transport. Bruce Pardy is a Canadian writer in the field of ecology and law. He is the author of “Ecolawgic: The Logic of Ecosystems and the Rule of Law.” For Rupa Subramanya:From Common Sense: https://www.commonsense.news/p/court-documents-reveal-canadas-travelFrom the Daily Telegraph: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/08/12/tyranny-justin-trudeau-has-finally-exposed-two-brits-no-less/ For Shaun Rickard:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/therealshaunrickard/GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/shaunrickardFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/durhamdissidentYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTqlat_AqjAFCOLdpk-Z6EgRumble: https://rumble.com/TheRealShaunRickardFreedom Fund: https://www.givesendgo.com/TheCanadianLitigationAndFreedomFun For Bruce Pardy:Website: https://www.rightsprobe.org/ For Karl Harrison:Freedom & Justice: www.freedomandjustice.ca // SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL // Newsletter: https://mailchi.mp/jordanbpeterson.com/youtubesignup Donations: https://jordanbpeterson.com/donate  // COURSES // Discovering Personality: https://jordanbpeterson.com/personality Self Authoring Suite: https://selfauthoring.com Understand Myself (personality test): https://understandmyself.com  // BOOKS // Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life: https://jordanbpeterson.com/Beyond-Order 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos: https://jordanbpeterson.com/12-rules-for-life Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief: https://jordanbpeterson.com/maps-of-meaning  // LINKS // Website: https://jordanbpeterson.com Events: https://jordanbpeterson.com/events Blog: https://jordanbpeterson.com/blog Podcast: https://jordanbpeterson.com/podcast  // SOCIAL // Twitter: https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson Instagram: https://instagram.com/jordan.b.peterson Facebook: https://facebook.com/drjordanpeterson Telegram: https://t.me/DrJordanPeterson All socials: https://linktr.ee/drjordanbpeterson  #JordanPeterson #JordanBPeterson #DrJordanPeterson #DrJordanBPeterson #DailyWirePlus

Music Hi everyone. I was sent an interesting article about a week ago written by Rupa Subramania. It was sent to me by two sources, one from Barry Weiss' sub-stack, which is where it was published, and also by Rex Murphy, who's one of Canada's foremost journalists.

They were very impressed with it, the article, and thought it was important, and so I read it, and I think it is important. The article was called Court Documents Reveal. Canada's travel ban had no scientific basis. Now, it was very interesting to me that Rupa had to publish this basically in an American news channel and sort of out of the way, although Barry Weiss' sub-stack is quite popular.

And she's also had a lot of difficulty getting the story folded up in the Canadian legacy news. And it's a big story. And I put her in touch with the telegraph in the UK and they're going to publish by all appearances a variant of the story. And so it's pretty sad bloody condition, let's say, that a big Canadian news story about the treacherous deceit of our government, federal government, is unable to attract any purchase in the legacy media outlets. It's stunning in some sense. In any case, what Rupa revealed was that

the Trudeau government put in what were among the most stringent travel restrictions in the Western world as of August 13th, 2021, and claimed scientific justification for doing so. But in fact, not only was there no scientific justification whatsoever for doing so, there weren't any people who were making the decision, who were qualified to determine whether such scientific evidence actually existed. And so, despite the fact that everyone who objected was pilloried as a public menace, as well as, however, else they might be pilloried, it appears as though all of it was smoke and mirrors and sheer bloody instrumental politicking. And I heard the same thing about

operations at the provincial government levels in Canada from very reliable sources that all this so-called reliance on science was complete bloody nonsense and that what was instead happening was that governments were conducting opinion polls like mad, which is not necessarily a bad thing in itself, but often is, and ruling on that basis, driving policy on that basis, so on the basis of public fear and whim, and then passing that off as scientific. And that's pretty horrible. Or maybe it's really horrible. And that was Rupa's claim in some sense. So the story also covered a lawsuit brought against the government by a couple of plaintiffs who we have with us today, Carl Harrison and Sean Rickard, who are represented by a lawyer, and that lawyer is Sam Presvalos.

And he's here today too, so he's also going to talk, and then featured as well, commentary by Bruce Party and Bruce is a law professor at Queens University, who's been very interested in, well, let's call it rule of law by precedent, you know, good old classic English common law essentially. And so he's going to give a broader overview of the whole legal situation. So I'm going to start with some bios and then Rupa is going to come in and tell the story and weave the plaintiffs and their representative lawyer into the story. and then Bruce is going to comment and all chime in probably too much.

So first, Rupa, Subramania is a freelance columnist for the National Post, Canada, and Nicar. Her previous work has also appeared in the Wall Street Journal and Foreign Policy. She resides in Ottawa, Ontario. Bruce Party is a law professor at Queens University, and is the executive director of Wright's probe. He's a critic of legal progressiveism, social justice, and the expansive managerial state. At the front lines of the Culture War, which is raging madly inside the law, Dr. Party has taught at law schools in Canada, the US, and New Zealand.

He's one of the co-creators of the free North Declaration, a public petition, and movement to protect civil liberties in Canada from COVID-19 irrationality and overreach. Some press fellows, the representing lawyer, founded press-filos law, LLP, at 25 years of age, and serves there as managing partner. He specializes in corporate, commercial, and real estate litigation, and has successfully represented clients before the Superior Court of Justice, Divisional Court, Court of Appeal, and Federal Court of Canada. His peers ranked Mr. President of the top 100 lawyers in Toronto in 2021 in Post Magazine.

Carl Harrison, one of the plaintiffs against the federal government, has opened to operated and sold many successful restaurants, bars, and music and comedy venues. In 2011, he was named one of the top 20 most influential people in the UK hospitality trade. He has found success as a real estate investor and developer since 1987 and has been involved in the travel sector since the year 2000. He is a co-founder and co-owner of a well-known family,

holiday brand operating in the UK, France, Spain, and Ireland. He was also, it was a very interesting life. He was also co-founder and investor at Seattle Sea Wolves, a team which took the silverware in the first two seasons of Major League Rugby in the US. He's also been an occasional contributing writer for the UK satirical magazine Private Eye and has as well co-produced a series of award-winning short horror films. Last but not least, he has campaigned for reform of abusive practices in the UK pub sector. And finally, Sean Rickard is a 55-year-old entrepreneur and small business owner who resides in Pickering, Ontario.

He owns and operates a contracting business specializing in exterior aluminum and vinyl siding in Eves work on residential homes. He founded the company back in early 2013 and built it from the ground up. He's a British citizen and a permanent resident in Canada. Mr. Rickard came to Canada on a vacation to explore when he was just 20 years old and fell in love with the country. Mr. Ricard also had a fishing and outdoor TV show back in 2005 to 2007, which aired in Canada and the US on OLLN, CTV, WFN, and Global. Welcome, Rupa, Bruce, Sam, Carl, and Sean.

Thank you very much for agreeing to talk with me today. Rupa, why don't you start filling us in. Tell us about the story and then fill in the story and bring these other characters in. Okay, well thanks Jordan. Thanks for having us all here. It really is a pleasure and a real honor. So I will quickly summarize the story for our viewers and our listeners. The Trudeau government always claimed that COVID-19 policies were based on the science and the evidence. They kept telling us we're consulting the experts, the scientists, and we're following the science and the evidence. But now thanks to the civil suit brought by Karl Harrison and Sean Rickard and we've seen inside the guts of one of the key mandates of this of the federal government implemented by the federal government,

which is the vaccine mandate for travel, which proved so incredibly destructive and prevented millions of Canadians from traveling to even visit sick relatives and visiting their loved ones to board a plane or a train. You couldn't even board a train for domestic travel purposes. And so while pouring over hundreds of pages of testimony and cross-examination, thanks to the brilliant cross-examination by their attorney, Sam Cressfilos, it becomes crystal clear that the mandates were going to happen

and that the bureaucrats had to scramble to find some kind of a scientific rationale for which they weren't able to do even just a few before, just a few days before the mandate kicked in. So the question is, why did Trudeau do this? Trudeau was, if you remember, the prime minister was in a minority in the House of Commons, having lost his majority back in 2019

because of corruption and cronyism scans. And he was desperate to regain it and vaccine mandates proved to be the perfect wedge issue. And that's what everybody was saying at that time. This is the fall of 2021. Why for travel? Well, one crucial reason is that it's the only sector apart from the federal workplace which comes under the federal government's powers. It's the only sector apart from the federal workplace which comes under the federal government's powers. In other words, this was the only place where Trudeau could flex his muscles

and impose a vaccine mandate, and that's what he did. So you're a claim here, if I have it, right? Just so everyone listening knows, is that Trudeau who was struggling to maintain popularity, to maintain his government, picked a divisive wedge issue because it was a divisive wedge issue, imposed it on Canadians, and then attempt to insist that it was justified by the science.

Yeah, there was no, it's very clear, the scientific rationale is lacking, at least based on the cross examination of the key government witnesses in this case. So he risks splitting the country apart and pitting people against each other personally and socially to facilitate his government's grip on power. That's what it appears to be at this point, yeah. Okay, so sorry to interrupt. I just wanted to clarify that. So all right.

So you started investigating this. Why? Well, I was actually aware of the case, but I really had no entry into it until through a mutual acquaintance. One of the applicants reached out to me and then I became aware of the case and the background and their fight

against the federal government, against the travel mandate. And then thanks to their litigation, the documents eventually became publicly available and through the federal court. Ironically, I must point this out that in response to my piece, telling the story of Sean and Carl's legal battle, the federal court in a very unusual move,

and this is what I'm told by many people that it was an extremely unusual move. They actually made it easier for the public to access the documents by tweeting about it and they made a link publicly available. And I have to say that some of the cross-examination really reads like a John Grisham novel. You've got the secretive government panel within transport

Canada, which is tasked with crafting the mandate, apart from its head, who is a career bureaucrat. She has a degree in English literature. We don't really know much about the others. There are about 20 people on this panel. And she, except she names one individual on this panel and but who seems to have some kind of a public health background when I reached out to her. She said she has a master's in science, but she refused to tell me what that was in. For all you know, it could be astrophysics,

but we don't know that. But the key point here is none of these people had a background in medicine, epidemiology, infectious diseases, virology, you name it. They were just there to provide a cover for the mandate. And you talk about Jennifer, is it Jennifer Little? It's Jennifer Little, yes. And she was the one who was in charge of this, is that correct?

Yeah, she was the director general of this group of COVID. These are all civil servants you're talking about? They're all civil servants. Okay, why did they regard it as part of their duty to provide a cover story for the These are all civil servants you're talking about? They're all civil servants. Okay, why did they regard it as part of their duty to provide a cover story for the politicking of the liberal government? I thought they had a duty to the public fundamentally. So why were they roped into this and why did they agree to it?

Well, I mean, this is something that you would have to ask them, but my guess is they were just doing their jobs, I guess. You have the secret of task force within Transport Canada, and they really had no good scientific rationale, and they were looking for one. They were scrambling for one days before literally less than 10 days before the mandate goes into effect. And including hoping that the public health agency

of Canada, P-Hack, would come up with something, which they didn't. And Jennifer Little, the bureaucrat that I referred to with the bachelor's degree in English literature, repeatedly said the decisions were made at very high levels. And these were people senior to her, and invoked cabinet confidence and refused to answer who exactly ordered the mandates. This was during cross examination. Yes, this was during cross examination. She has the right to keep that information secret if it's come from what,

from a high enough legislative source. I would guess so. This is not my area of expertise. I don't really know the law governing civil servants, but she certainly repeatedly invoked cabinet confidence when she was asked questions on who exactly ordered the mandates, making it pretty clear. I guess, I mean, one could infer from this.

The decision was taken either by the Prime Minister himself or the cabinet as a whole. And this confirms what many had suspected all along that when the Prime Minister introduced the Federal of Amanda, both for travel and for the civil service, and called a snap election two days later. August 13, he, he announces the mandates, essentially preventing millions of Canadians from boarding a plane or a train and four civil servants who have been working from home since the pandemic began. They needed to be vaccinated. And it was just one of the most bizarre things. Okay, so let me stop you there and summarize. So because this is where the plot gets particularly

thick. So not only did the Trudeau cabinet generate an unnecessary travel lockdown, depriving Canadians of one of their most fundamental civil rights, especially in a country of our size, but they did it and scrambled to find a scientific lie to justify it. And it was so far off-based from the science that they couldn't even find a suitable lie and then they magnified their error by calling it election and all of this was an instrumental attempt to gain more power on the election front because trutto was worried about being in a minority position and looking for a way to increase his grip on the prime ministership

right oh boy it's no wonder no can Canadian newspaper would publish that. That's hardly the story at all. And Jordan, if I may say this, if this really had been about saving lives, why didn't Trudeau just impose the mandates and campaign on them as a Feta-Complete? That would have been the right thing to do. Instead, he cleverly used these mandates as a wedge issue. And, unfortunately, for him, he managed to just

eke out another minority government. But in the process, he ended up dividing the country, he ended up demonizing and marginalizing millions of Canadians who were unable or unwilling for a range of different reasons to get the vaccine. Yeah, well, and a huge part of the reason they were unable or unwilling to get the vaccine was because they didn't trust the Trudeau government at all. And so there were all sorts of people in some of them, I suppose, were conspiratorial or in their inferences, but many weren't, who thought there's something fishy going on here. I don't trust this a bit. And those were all the people who were demonized as radical anti-vaxxers. We're going to turn to Carl Harrison, who's taken a, and Sean Rickard, who've taken a lawsuit

out against the Canadian government for reasons related to the story that Rupa has been telling. And so, Carl, perhaps you can start by telling us, filling us in on what you're doing and why. Yeah, thanks. Yeah, we're taking, we've made an application for judicial declaration, essentially, in the federal court in relation to the Canadian governments discriminatory mandates for requiring a vaccine as a precursor to traveling. We filed that in December to a lot of thought and consideration over previous

months separately. I mean, I came to this differently to Sean. I came to this throughout the summer months in of 2021. In April of 2021, but I was listening to the Prime Minister of Canada saying that there would be a vaccine for any Canadian that wanted one. And by the time we got to the fall, I had a man watching a man on television as the Prime Minister of Canada talking about five to seven million of his fellow Canadians as people

who were racists and misogynists and people who were taking up space, people who might not be tolerated. Which is language, I mean, I'm coming up 60 years old, I've not really heard that kind of language from a Prime Minister of many Western democracies until recently and I certainly wouldn't have expected it from a Canadian Prime Minister, but there we go. And so during the summer of 2021, the Prime Minister decided he was going to dissolve Parliament, go for an election and try to get reelected in the fall. And clearly he had, as you said earlier, identified with his advisors, whoever they are, a wedge issue, which based around people's health choices. And he thought he could polarize

the population. And he thought he could use it to his advantage. Why did you feel so strongly about this to take such dramatic action? Because obviously most Canadians, even within that five to seven million number that you described, grumbled about this, but didn't do what you did, why did you identify this is so important and why were you willing to put yourself at substantial risk financially and in terms of your time to do something about it? It's not a difficult question to answer. When you see this kind of policy implemented by governments, there are three things you can primarily do.

You can accept it, you can fight it, or you can run away. And it's a blend of those actions. And I think if you're able to fight these things, if there's something you can do, then you should. It's good citizenship. I mean, I'm a recent immigrant to Canada. I'm a Canadian citizen and a UK citizen. And I brought my family here in 2009.

And I fell in love with in Canada in the 1990s and as a recent immigrant from Europe, I feel it's a part of citizenship to stand up against these kind of issues. So running away wasn't an option for us, accepting it wasn't an option. So how can we fight it? We're not in politics. The opposition parties throughout the summer of 2021 were weak. I mean, Erinotal, I think, just demonstrate an extraordinary lack of vision and weakness throughout the summer of 2021 by seemingly going along with Trudeau rather than actually opposing him. Whilst he was opposing him, his polling was doing well and as soon as he started to go along with him, he plummeted and subsequently lost. So I thought, what can I do? I started to think about a legal action and at that

point I came across Sean who was, I saw him on Twitter, the sort of global town hall and I saw Sean there, with saying some of the same things that I was thinking and starting the process of raising money. And I reached out to Sean, I thought I could contribute from my own legal experience in the past. I thought that was something I could usefully add and I thought I could use fully add funding. I've been in business a long time, so I have some resource, I thought that was something I could usefully add and I thought I could usefully add funding. You know, I've been in business a long time, so I have some resource and I thought that's something else I can do. So I couldn't politically oppose at that point, we couldn't, we could protest, we can go and do direct action and we can protest with other people and Canadian should always protest where things are wrong and coming from the UK, we're used to protest.

I mean, it's as you know, I mean, you've been there a lot, I think, to the UK, Jordan, and protesting the UK is seen as, you know, something that definitely has to be done. So taking part in that, something we can do, and legal action, something we can do. I came together with Sean in the fall, 2021. And now let's Sean pick up there because he can explain How we came it came to work with Sam I think probably helpful

Sure Sean over to you Yeah, hi, and thank you again for having us all on and helping us get this story out as you said the Canadian legacy media essentially out, as you said, the Canadian legacy media of essentially ignored this story completely, which is mind-boggling and then also deeply disturbing. But I guess this whole process kind of came about for me, as Karl said in September when I heard this sort of disgusting divisive rhetoric coming out of our Prime Minister's mouth when he was campaigning. And the further we went along and the more this whole threat of banning the dirty, unvaccinated, or those who refuse to be injected

from getting on a plane or a train and even leaving the country just absolutely terrified me. I mean, to me, he resembled a sort of a narcissistic sociopathic tyrant, and it really troubled me. And I felt that I had to do something about it. I like to travel. I feel it's my right to travel. I'm a free man and for somebody to come along and take that away with no recourse, it was deeply disturbing for me. So I immediately started putting the feelers out there to various people.

I spoke to a couple of politicians. Most of them were useless. And eventually I spoke with somebody and I was given Sam's name. And literally in the same night, I had a conversation with one person who introduced me to Sam. Sam and I spoke and that same night I started a GoFundMe campaign on fundraising campaign

on GoFundMe and started tweeting about it. I've never used Twitter before. I had four followers and in six weeks I went to 7800 followers and during that process we were gaining a lot of traction. A lot of people's interest. And I began to realize just how this had affected, like, Calcet, six to seven million people's lives. People are unable to go and visit family,

that type of thing. And then this is before it even happened. So I got the ball rolling. I spoke with Sam. We hit it even happened. So I got the ball rolling. I spoke with Sam. We hit it off immediately. And he was as passionate about this as I was and we came up with a sort of a vague strategy of how we might do this.

And the first thing was obviously was to start raising some money. And through that process on Twitter, I started getting messages from people like you do. As you follow as grow, people start sending you messages. Some help for some not, some supportive, some not. And I got a couple of messages from Carl and I was kind of fielding through all these messages and so on. And eventually, you sent me something that's sort of resonated with me.

And I found out he was in British Columbia. And so I messaged him back a couple of times. We spoke to each other through direct message. And then we arranged, eventually arranged to have a Zoom call with Sam. That's the first time that all three of us spoke as a group. And Carl very kindly at that time, again, his passionate and his mealware about putting a stop to this tyranny.

And I used that word lightly, but that's exactly the way we perceived it. Why did you two have enough confidence to go ahead with this? Now, I mean, at that point, people who were opposing the vaccine say, so I'd like to know why it bothered you so much. What the vaccine mandate meant to you personally? But then why you were able to presume

that you knew well enough better to risk bringing a lawsuit against the Canadian government. Did you have support from your family? I mean, obviously, no, you didn't have support from your family. You had support from each other. Who supported you? Why did you have enough confidence to do this?

It's a very good question. And I, to be honest, to this day, I don't know why I did this. I was just very angry and I felt somebody needed to do something. The politicians weren't even speaking up. There's Karl pointed out, you know, Aaron or Toul, I mean, what a wet blanket he ended up with. Just a complete rollover.

They saw these atrocities and I'll call them that going on and nobody spoke up, nobody said a thing. So I felt that I don't know why. I just felt the, I felt compelled to do something. How helpful was it, how helpful was it to have Sean to talk to about it? I mean, now there's two of you in not one, and so that's twice as many people. It was that, it was huge difference. I mean, we've been a support group for one

another since day one. We've lost, we've all made, and just to clarify, we've all made huge sacrifices. We've all lost friends throughout this process. You know, certain family members begin to think you're a bit crazy, but we've always had each other and we were so in line and it was like it was meant to be set this the other day and Rupert showed. You just said something very terrible there, you know, as far as I'm concerned, that you lost friends and you were subject to the disruption of your familial cohesion. And so one of the things Rupa pointed to in the beginning part of this conversation was the fact that Trudeau found a divisive wedge issue

and exploited it for his own purposes. And so what does that mean? We want to make that concrete because that's just abstract. Yeah, well, it means that your friends turn your back on you or vice versa and that now you're at the throats of your family members. And that's how civil society decays. And so the story here, and this is why it's so absolutely appalling that the Canadian legacy media won't pick it up, is that Trudeau was willing to sow that kind of personal level

discord to say nothing of the utter economic and financial catastrophe that the policies produced to do nothing but not even really managed to cement his grip on power. I think it's quite possible that the Trudeau and the government in doing what they've done have very badly misread the numbers, if nothing else. I think they may be thought that people fell into one of two camps, either they would be people that would be pro mandates or people that would be against them. I think it's much more nuanced than that, and certainly in my experience of doing this exercise has been that whilst, yeah, okay, I've lost a couple of friends, but I've got a lot of family support for doing this and a lot of support from people locally and some surprising

people. And I think there's an element of a lot of folks who disagree with it sort of going along with it, keeping their head down, that's sort of an element of Canadian politeness or that sort of. And I think that's a challenge going forward for Canada. As Canada, perhaps, I mean, maybe Trudeau's done as all the favor by pushing Canada towards the end of what some might see as a political adolescence. Well, I was thinking when Trudeau called the truckers, misogynists and bigots and said

that they were fomenting a rebellion in Ottawa. Let's say financed by a mega Republicans of all the preposterous things. I thought, because I was down in the States when that was happening, talking to Americans, telling them that this was the story. And they were like open jawed in amazement, including the Democrats,

that anyone would ever possibly believe that. And then I thought, well, you better give the devil his due. Why would Canadians be willing to fall for that, let's say? And then I thought, well, here's the story, man. It's like for 150 years, 150 odd years, we've really been able to events a reasonable trust in our political institutions, all three political parties from right to left, governed with some degree of credibility and decency and predictability. And then the legacy media did their job being responsible critics.

And I say you could even say that of the CBC for many years. And the education system was reliable. And the legal system wasn't taken over by DEI warriors and so forth. And so, and now all that's, or a lot of that is changed. And so now Canadians were being asked by their Prime Minister to accept one of two stories. Either the truckers, for example, were misogynists and bigots hell bent on destabilizing Canadian democracy, or you could no longer trust the government in a fundamental sense, or the legacy media, and God only knows how much of the education system and the courts.

And so in some sense, for a sensible and conservative people, the logical choice there was to, well, assume the lesser devil and think that the truckers and the anti-vaxxers, so-called and so forth, were, you know, a fringe misogynist and bigot group and that everything in the background was really running as it should be, but as Rupa's story indicates, and as I said, I heard exactly the same story several months ago from high-level consultants to provincial governments across Canada, that they were doing the same thing, ruling by whole, post-hawk, justifying it by science. All right, so Sam, you got involved in this. So tell us your story and flesh out

what's been happening on the legal front and where this is gonna go. And I wanna return to Carl too about the funding issue after that. Sure, so good afternoon and things as well for having me on the podcast. This is very much tyrannoma for me. I'm not a constitutional lawyer.

I never saw myself getting involved in a constitutional case of this magnitude. And I think I've said before elsewhere that constitutional law was my lowest mark ever in school and here I am at the forefront of this challenge. I think like my clients, like Karl and Sean, I also felt compelled to do something. If you see there's problematic trend happening and you have a means to affect some sort of a change, and you do nothing about it, I think, in your own way you're contributing to the problem. And everyone has a different threshold of getting involved,

and quite frankly, my threshold, I sort of crossed that threshold, that the mandatory hotel quarantine, which is a policy that I never would have imagined ever witnessing in a Western democracy, the idea that somebody would have to quarantine pending a result of a virus that, by frankly, we've seen in some iteration before was frankly disturbing to me. And that's really what propelled me. And I was very fortunate to get connected with Sean. And then again, with Carl and it's true.

You know, Sean, Carl and I, in many ways, have become our own little family and we've been very fortunate to be supportive one another and what has been extremely grueling seven, eight months. This case really started the Christmas Eve. I suppose you made it a present to the government and we're still in the midst of it. And here we are in August and we're you know just today I'm submitting my final materials to the court for the application. So it's been an extraordinary process and we've learned as you've come to learn very extraordinary things along the way.

Well, can you just, for no one listening knows how a case like this proceeds? So could you walk us through the basis for the case, the nature of your challenge, how the government lawyers are resisting this and then and lay out the story, the nature of your challenge, how the government lawyers are resisting this, and then, and lay out the story of the court battle and where it's headed. Sure, so fundamentally, there's sort of two ways

in which negation proceeds through the court system. The one way is an action. And an action is sort of what most people come to know in like TV courtroom dramas, where you have a judge and you have a witness, and there's this idea that people are yelling and cross-examining and they're getting evidence orally which is what we call view of Oce evidence. That's not what's happening here. This is proceeding by way of an application.

And an application is largely a paper-based record. So what happens is people put an evidence to the court and they do that by way of an affidavit and you can think of an affidavit as a story. And you get stories from the applicants like Sean and Carl about how the mandates have been fringed their charter rights. And you also get stories. I'll just call them a little bit more informally from experts who talk about the science

and different policy considerations. And then each site has to do that. So both sites have to produce their evidentiary record, which is, as I mentioned, exclusively done by paper. And then what happens is we participate in what is called the cross-examination. In an action, the cross-examination is done live in front of a judge, and the judge is there

to assess the credibility of the witnesses and weigh testimony. In an application, which is what we are doing, that is done with privately in a boardroom, with a court reporter, and there's endless hours of cross-examination, based on what people have said in their affidavits, their story. And so a lot of the evidence that Rupa's referring to came out in the process of that cross-examination, because as you know, our system, our justice system is premise on the adversarial context, and the idea that if competing evidence is tested, the truth lies somewhere and the truth will come out.

And we spent May and June, literally two months, just exclusively in cross-examination. We then take the affidavit records and we take the cross-examination transcripts, we file that with the port, and then we appear to hearing. And in that hearing, we make reference to the evidence both in the affidavits

and the expert reports and also in the cross-examination transcripts. And it's just submissions from lawyers in front of a judge. Okay, so what's the nature of the challenge? The government put in these mandates and they were mandated and required. And you're objecting to that. What exactly is the objection and why are you even vaguely allowed to do this, let's say? Well, I should hope we're allowed to do this. There else we have a much larger constitutional crisis than I currently think we do, but first and foremost, there is a primafasci in Frenchmen of Sean, Carl, and those can aid into or not vaccinated. A primafasci in Frenchmen of their section 6 charter, which is the right of mobility. And I think it's one of the most fundamental rights that we have in the Charter. It goes to the very essence of what it means to live a dignified existence, the notion

that a man or woman can get up and move about their country and leave their country at their will. And that's been a directly engaged in this Charter Challenge. And in a context, quite frankly, that I've never seen before. A lot of the sex in six cases deal with issues like extradition, deportation. I've never seen a case like this that a government policy and reference to public health mandate has had the effect

of preventing their own citizens from moving between provinces or from leaving their country. In fact, I can tell you right now, I have not found a case like this other than a case in Newfoundland in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. And the second thing which I think is also very novel here is the government has effectively created Sophie's choice, right? They're asking Canadians to do a little bit of horse trading with their charter rights.

You cannot simultaneously exercise your right to travel while also exercising your section seven right to protect your bodily autonomy. What do I mean by that? You need to make a decision. You are either going to get on a plane and get vaccinated or you are not going to get vaccinated and you're going to forfeit your right to use federally regulated transportation system. I think that's actually constitutionally unprecedented. I've never seen a scenario where a government policy has created such a direct conflict, such that it coerces you to choose one over the other.

And let's be clear about that. Sean and Karl were coerced into not traveling because they wanted to protect their decision-making over what is an inherently private choice, i.e. vaccination. And so both of those issues are very much engaged on this basis that we've brought this application. Okay, and so what's the government counterclaim? Now hypothetically, the emergency was such that the science indicated that the government could suspend Canadian charter rights. Okay, what kind of evidence do you need?

When can you suspend rights? And when you suspend rights, by what principles are you allowed to suspend them? Well, we were on a quest to answer a lot of those questions. As you know, obviously, no right is absolute. And if the government has a compelling objective such that they may need to infringe a charter right, they are entitled to do so if they come to the table with the right type of evidence, right? There is a reverse onus. I mean, once my clients show that their rights have been breached, the government then has to go to court and convince the court that they're justified in doing so. And that's where this fight is really happening.

What is the justification? What is so compelling about the risk of the unvaccinated flying that you believe it is permissible in our democratic society to force unvaccinated people into making the decision that I just described. And I can tell you that having been living this case for the last seven months, the approach the government has seemed to take is the casual application of general scientific principles to the transportation sector. They reason that because vaccination is generally good and desirable, everybody should do it. Because it provides some sort of a transient benefit,

you should do it, it's generally desirable, it's good for public health policies, and we're going to use means available to us to encourage and incentivize that behavior. Well, there's a difference between, there's a difference between should and must, let's say, not least. And then, of course, we have the problem Rupa pointed out, which was the scientific evidence for the utility of the travel ban itself was apparently entirely lacking. So at the moment, and I don't know how this is playing out in court, but in the context

of this conversation and other conversations I've had that are similar, the evidence, legal and scientific on the government. And let's also say moral, shall we? On the government side seems pretty, well, how about we call it appallingly and unprecedentedly weak? Well, it's interesting that you used the word morality there because I actually, in cross examinations, I did ask, well, the individual who's responsible for the development of the policy, whether

there is an ethical consideration behind the vaccine mandate. And the answer is that there is not, which is astounding because there's actually an ethical frame, now that it gets better, there is actually an ethical frame work available by the government online that is supposedly used to guide ethical decision making in the context of the pandemic. So that wasn't used either. No. No. So if we tried to give the devil as do and so I'll speak as a critic of Rupa here. Her claim fundamentally is that this was nothing but blatant, cynical,

narcissistic, uh, politicking of the lowest order. And we might say, well, no, that's probably an oversimplification. There must have been some other justification generated, like in good faith and then also post-hawk as at least as a cover-up, but essentially in some sense, what you seem to be saying is that you uncovered very little evidence of any of that in the cross-examinations. So even as a scam, it wasn't a very good one. There is evidence that vaccines can help protect the gains developing severe outcomes and death.

The question is, how compelling is that evidence? How long does that protection actually last? But the bigger question is how compelling is that evidence, how long does that protection actually last? But the bigger question is why does that matter in the context of the transportation system? When you're talking about the fact that travel contributes 1% or less by the government's own data, it's a COVID-19 transmission. And somehow this is the targeted industry that we're going to focus on and impose a vaccination requirement as a precondition for travel. Why isn't anyone comparing that to the general epidemiological situation in the community? And here's a surprise for you. Nobody did that.

Nobody looked to compare what's the positivity like in different settings in the general community because if you're not traveling, where are you? You're at home, you're in the supermarket, you're watching soccer, you're watching a basketball game, all of which by the way you can do it without being vaccinated, but you can't travel, which is also one of the safest places to be. I mean, we have an expert, who has testified that the,

and this is public knowledge, I mean, the filtration system and modern aircrafts are better than the filtration systems and operating groups. OK, so you just dropped two bombshells there, right? Not that there haven't been any other drop during this conversation, but two. I'm going to highlight them.

The first is that by the government's own admission, travel was a vector for the transmission of less than 1% of the virus. So, now we're talking at best about a 1% probability of contracting a disease that has something approximating a 2% mortality rate, if that, and that's particularly true only for people who are extremely ill or extremely elderly, who have other compromising health conditions. So it's a negligible risk of a negligible risk, but that justifies charter rights suspension. And then you said something, equally appalling, which was that anyone with any sense would have rank ordered transmission risks across all the possible, let's say across the range

of 95% of the social interactions and activities that Canadians engage in. We would have rank-ordered that in terms of danger. One of the things we would have found out by the way is that locking people up together was probably a dangerous thing to do rather than a good thing to do. But in any case, that's what you do at the policy level, right? Here's the dangers, rank-ordered. Let's knock them off from the top down. But you said, none of that happened either. There was no methodology for doing a comparative analysis. And that's reminiscent to me of the fact that we locked down everybody at home and we blew apart the supply chain. We never did any analysis whatsoever to find out if the economic consequences that were going to be

more devastating, physically, psychologically, and in the long term than the epidemic itself. And they certainly, they're going to end up being far more devastating than the epidemic, I think, by all evidence generated to date. So Bruce, maybe we'll turn over to you for a bit, to get a bit of an overview. And then I'm going to go back to, to, to, to, to, um, to talk about the funding situation. And we'll go back to Rupa. Bruce, to talk about the funding situation and we'll go back to Rupa. Bruce, two questions come to mind for me right away. The first is, if the government, let's say it more clearly, if the Mandarin's in the Trudeau cabinet violated the charter for the purposes of their instrumental politics. How serious is that offense in legal terms? And what is the recourse? Right, well, let's back up just a step. Before

you get to the charter, even, there's a principle in governance, which is this, governments can't just create any policies that they like. There's a difference between the government and the legislature. Anything a government does in terms of making rules, it has to have authorization to do in a statute that the legislature has passed. And in this case, in the case of the airline mandate, we're talking about the Aeronautics Act. Now, the Aeronautics Act gives to cabinet

and the minister of transportation the power to make all kinds of rules about all kinds of things that deal with flight, with the airline industry. But that's not an open-ended discretion. The fact of the matter is that governments make policies that are politically motivated all the time. And they're allowed to do that as long as they can fit them within the authority

that they have in A statute. But the problem for the government in this respect is this, that the rationale that they've given, if they've given one at all, does not fit within the authority that the Aeronautic Act gives. So in other words, the minister is allowed to create interim orders that have to do with the safety of the airline industry, of the passengers, of the crew and so on. And the premise of a vaccine mandate is that if you have the vaccine, then you won't get infected.

And if you don't have the vaccine, then you won't get infected. And if you don't have the vaccine, then you will get infected. But in the case of this vaccine, that has really never been the case. It was it was pretended to be early on, but that has never been really the official claim, at least from the manufacturers of this vaccine. So if you don't have that excuse, if the vaccine will not prevent infection, then what else do you have? So is there okay? So there's two issues here then, I think that you just delineated. One is that correct me if I'm wrong, that it isn't obvious that the Trudeau cabinet had the proper governmental authority to impose this mandate because it exceeded the purview of what would be generally

mandate because it exceeded the purview of what would be generally acceptable practice on the legislative front. So it was an overreach of power, independent of the fact that it violated the charter. Have I got that right? Just put aside the charter first, sure. You're just on the basis of pure authority and the way government works. We have separation of powers, yes, governments and legislators. Now I know for the most people, those two things will look like the same thing because the same people are heading both of these branches. You know, the prime minister sits in the House of Commons and the cabinet does as well, and they seem to run the show in the legislature, but there are two different things. And the legislature must

pass a statute that gives the authority to the executive branch, which is what the cabinet heads to make certain rules. Now, those, that authority is limited according to its terms. And those terms, in this case are, you can make rules about safety. But the problem is that if you don't have the prevention of infection as one of the characteristics of the vaccine, then the next question is, well, okay, but then what's the safety thing you're doing? Well, Rupa and the plaintiffs and their representative lawyer have already made the claim that the evidence on the safety front, not only wasn't there to begin with, but couldn't even be scrounged up post-hawk. So that seems absurd on the safety front not only wasn't there to begin with but couldn't even

be scrounged up post-hawks. So that seems absurd on the face of it. Well, right. So if I may, so I mean, what Rupert's article was about and what the Sand Cross examination managed to achieve was essentially an admission that there wasn't really any solid scientific recommendation from the health and science people to the transport people that this ought to be done. Should I, I think I think the cross-admination was very well done and it might be interesting just to just to read you a very short sentence from Jennifer Little that Rippling was talking about in his examination, right? So the question was, are there any emails, any briefs and reports from health Canada

or public health recommending the implementation of a mandatory vaccination policy for travel. After a long pause, the answer was this, I do not recall a document from the Public Health Agency or Health Canada to Transport Canada recommending that Transport Canada take this approach. In other words, there was no solid written recommendation to do this. And that sounds clear enough so that it's not even a matter of opinion. Right, because we can always bandy about the objection that's opinion. Rupa, you have a comment. Yeah, just to quickly jump in here, Jordan, just picking up from what Bruce was saying,

that the damning email exchange that I mentioned in my story, it's about a senior transport candidate official who is emailing his counterpart at P-Hack and asking this individual, look, the mandate's going to be going into going into effect in a few days. We need some scientific rationale, some scientific evidence as soon as possible. He doesn't hear from this individual for a few days. Now it's like literally where

the clock is ticking and he presses her and he says, we need something fairly quick, so please could you get something to us soon. And she eventually responds to him, and it's just generic homilies about how vaccines are good for you, you should get vaccinated, and we believe that vaccines prevent severe disease and so on and so forth. The question is, what does this have to do with the transportation sector?

How is it preventing transmission? How is it doing, how is it specific to the travel sector? That's the question. And I will also tell you one more thing that I couldn't get into my story. Again, this goes back to Jennifer Little. She's asked about the implementation of the mandate. And she says, look, had we implemented this mandate when 50%

of eligible Canadians had been vaccinated, it would have created to use her own words, chaos in the system. If this were really about public policy, public health policy, shouldn't vaccination have been, that should have been the primary consideration. But what they do is they wait till 80% of Canadians have been vaccinated, where a high number of high percentage of Canadians are vaccinated to implement a vaccine mandate, which is just extraordinary. So, and I agree, I just to finish off this thought to go back to this idea that the rationale, let's just give them the benefit of the doubt. Let's say that the

actual health-based scientific rationale is, as Rippo leads to, that vaccines are generally a good thing, and that having a vaccine mandate will incentivize people to get a vaccine when they wouldn't otherwise do so. That is, it's not about being on the plane, it's about the fact that people who want to be on a plane will have to get back. Okay, here's the problem. If that's the rationale, that is not about the safety of air travel.

And that means that is not an order authorized under the act. Yeah, so that's a legal issue. Well, the moral issue might be, well, if you have to use compulsion, then maybe that's a sign that your policy is ill-formulated. And also, I would say from an epidemiological perspective, or an psychological perspective, in order for that argument to be credible,

you'd have to have documentation showing that if you added compulsion to the vaccination process, that that would actually produce less resistance to the vaccine rather than more. And that evidence would be very hard to come by because there's a certain number of people that as soon as you force them to do anything, even if it's in their own good, for their own good, even if that's documented, the mere fact that you're forcing them is going to convince them to tell you to go to hell, and I'm for one, very happy that there is a minority of people like that. So that, the evidence that I don't think there's any good evidence for the use of compulsion in public

health, or at least there's no evidence suggesting that policy based on compulsion shouldn't be regarded as inferior to policy based on rational dialogue and, and let's say, positive motivation and consensus, which is a much better grounds for what would you say, the consent of the government, how about that? So, can we turn Bruce to the charter issue then? Have you elaborated out on the first one enough? Well, sure. So, as Sam alluded to, this weighing up of rationales will take place under section one analysis, and you'll get the section one only after the breach of the charter right in this case section six has been established. And so I would say in this case I mean this cross-domination is group terrific for the purpose of that section one analysis.

Okay, tell us about tell us what a section one analysis means. Right, so a section one analysis basically says section one says, you know, all of the rights and freedoms in in the charter are are subject to reasonable limits. If the government can can demonstrate that the infringement of the right is justified in a free and democratic society, then we're going to say, okay, and in order to show that it's justified, the government has to show that the problem that they were trying to solve is serious enough that it justified these measures, that they chose a proportional way of doing so, that it caused an infringement as little as as as little as possible under the circumstances and so on.

So to Sam's point, that charter rights and freedoms are not absolutely, and of course, they're not. Section one, over time, has shown to be a pretty large gate wide enough for the government to drive a truck through sometimes. Yeah, truck, yeah. Right. Well, Brian Pekfer, a former premier of Canada, and one of the founders of the charter has vociferously objected to the government's use of Section 1, saying that he knows perfectly well as a consequence of discussing the issue with the people who designed the charter to begin with back in the 1980s, that none of them intended that Section 1 be used in a circumstance as trivial and uncertain as this one. Right, but so to give the courts in this particular moment the benefit of the doubt, that's not

actually what Section 1 says. I mean, if Section 1 had been intended to apply only in the most extreme existential emergency situation, it could have worked that way if that is what it had said. But the way it is worded is at least possible to interpret section one as giving, you know, pretty loose and goofy leeway for figuring out whether or not it's justified in any particular case.

Yeah, well, maybe section one needs to be revisited in a really serious manner. Listen, the whole charter needs to be revisited. But unfortunately, we have created now such an ownerless, amending formula that that becomes almost politically impossible to do. And even if it wasn't, I'm afraid that the political circumstances right now is such that if you opened up the Trader and the Constitution, you would have a good constituency size constituency on the other side trying to make things worse from our point of view. Right. So, okay, so let's talk about the courts momentarily. So, Bruce, I know you have some concerns about the politicization of courts in Canada, the

politicization of the legal enterprise and the judiciary, and you're certainly not alone in that. Do you have any faith that this case can receive a fair trial? Oh, I would like to think so. Sure. Yes. Listen, we have, we have a lot of good judges in this country, a lot of very fine jurists with terrific legal minds. And yes, we have seen signs of, of what I would say, ideological bias. For example, this is going to give you one small example at his first press conference when he became the chief justice of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Wagner held a press conference. And he was asked by a reporter if he agreed that the Supreme Court of Canada was the most progressive in the world. And he agreed with the statement and he said it was

he was very proud of that fact. The most progressive court in the world in a progressive country, which is the way things ought to be. Now, that is an expression of an ideological preference. And that's not what neutrality is supposed to mean inside a courtroom. But on the other hand, we have good judges who are able to carry out what I believe to be the proper judicial role. We saw it, for example, a short time ago when on in her bail review, for the bail review of Tamara Leach, Supreme Court Justice reviewed the facts and the law in a meticulous and careful and proper way and set her out on bail because that was

the right decision. Okay, so if a judge is acting properly, tell me if I've got this right. First of all, under the English common law system and its variance, let's say that operating Canada, a judge is supposed to take the current circumstances of polity and individuality and social change into account, but fundamentally remain within the framework evolved as a consequence of president and previous law. And so every decision is supposed to be tied back to a network of previous decisions even though there has to be some transformation, let's say, on the edges.

So how the reasonable way of looking at it? See, well, yes, exactly so. So one way it's been put is that the, we have a common law system, right? So there's going to be some evolution over time. But the way they put it is, it's supposed to be evolution and not revolution. You're not supposed to have the law being sort of handed down

by the courts. The law-making role handed down by the courts. The law-making role is that of the legislature, not the court. Not the courts, yes. Well, and we've seen some decay of that in Canada as legislatures have abandoned their duty and left difficult decisions to a more activist judiciary. Really? This is a very bad thing. Okay. All right.

But you think, in this case, at least, all right. So, but you think, you think in this case at least, and perhaps in most court proceedings in Canada, that the judiciary is sufficiently intact so that a ruling on a case like this could be trusted. Well, you see, it's impossible to tell, because you don't know, who are you gonna get or what's gonna happen. So, the track record during COVID hasn't been all that great,

because what one thing that courts have demonstrated is not to every single judge, but as a pattern is on an unwavering commitment to the government's COVID narrative. So far as to allow some judges to take judicial notice, as to allow some judges to take judicial notice. For example, the safety and benefit of the vaccine and the risk of the virus without any evidence. And so it's not their block or white one way or the other.

And okay, okay. Sam, Sam, Carl, Sean, do you guys feel that you've been through this now for about eight or nine months? Do you feel that as you've observed the wheels of justice grinding slowly forward that you, that your sense of justice has been served? I know the outcome hasn't occurred yet, but how are you feeling about the process? I think it did, early or on. It seems sort of, this is just my opinion of course, but it seems sort of deteriorated

a little bit in the last few months, but I don't know, just the attitude, I'll probably let Sam speak to this more, but like early on, we, the government are famous, just to get this out there for throwing us curveboards. Right off the bat, they tried, they filed a motion out of the blue, and we wondered why they didn't want to cross examiners, and then we found out a few days later why, is they filed a motion to have our affidavits struck.

So, and I'll let Sam explain that a little bit better to you. So, these are difficult cases for obvious reasons, and I also think they're difficult cases in the social political climate that they happen in. But I'm confident that with the record that we've produced, with the approach that we've produced, with the approach that we've taken, which is a very no nonsense, nitty gritty, pay attention to details,

be very thorough approach. I think we have a quite frankly very good shot at winning and I have faith that we will get a fair and impartial hearing before the federal court. And I think to a large extent, we are, and we have been in this case very resilient. And you have to be. I mean, there are some cross-examination transgresses,

where I have probably had to spend close to an hour to get an answer. And it wears you out, right? It's the first time ever. And I'm frequently in the commercial list with big players trying to resolve multi-million dollar litigation disputes. I can tell you, the government is way more resilient.

Trying to get a straight answer, trying to get a sense of what's happening, why it happened, why it happened, and who was involved. It's a tough process, but I think like anything else, if you do your homework and you're prepared and you're willing to, you know, take difficult steps, I mean, we have brought so many interim motions to ensure that, procedurally, this moved in a way that we thought was fair and appropriate. It extracts a big sacrifice from you and it's a very resource intensive process, but I'm very confident that the commitment I'm very confident the commitment

we've made and the dedication we've made is going to yield a good result for us. Okay, well that's very heartening to hear, you know, because your story basically is that this is very difficult and it requires painstaking effort but if you do it properly, it's still a fair game and thank God for that. And so maybe I could ask you guys too, if you wouldn't mind. Let's go to the funding side of this. How much has this action cost? And let's look at that two ways. There's the outright costs, right? So let's say the legal costs.

But then there's also the costs in terms of time and involvement because Sean, you and Carl must have been spending untold hours on this, I would think, on a daily basis. And so there's a huge personal cost there. So Carl, yeah. on this, I would think, on a daily basis. And so there's a huge personal cost there. So, Carl, yeah, let's, what's happening on the funding front? How much is this cost and what has it cost you and Sean personally? Well, I mean, actions like this are always going to cost, you know, at least hundreds of thousands of dollars, right. That's the reality of it. If you lose and suffer adverse costs awards, then worse again. It's going to be an expensive action.

However, you try and do it. The cost of the work that a lawyer has to do is going to be in there, the cost of working with expert witnesses, and as the intensity of the case builds and more motions are submitted, then of course the cost bills. Now anybody who's had the unfortunate pleasure of seeing government in the past, and those that one government tactic in the same way as many larger, aggressive litigants is to try and drown the smaller guy in costs. Okay, well, so we have an answer to one earlier question, which is, well, why don't more people stand up? And the answer to that is, well, because it's unbelievably expensive, and it consumes

your whole life. And so first of all, that means most people literally cannot do it. They don't have the time because they don't have the excess resources in some sense that allows for the time. I'm not suggesting you guys were sitting around on your laurels, but you at least had the financial, acumen, and resources to make something like this vaguely possible. And that would put you in a small percentage of people

to begin with. And then you'd have to be willing to do it. And then you'd have to find the right lawyer. And then you'd have to be able to withstand eight months of, well, and that's a lot of trouble on the personal and the, and the judicial and the cognitive front. So it's a very difficult undertaking. How have you funded it so far and what's been the story on that front?

It's been a mix of two things. It's been a mix of personal funding and also some helpful donors that have offered to come forward. But the majority of it ultimately is, in our case, is going to be personal funding at this time. And I think the funding of these cases is a very interesting aspect in itself. And I think the structure of the organizations that do this work in Canada is something that's worth discussing. From my perspective, I don't see the freedoms guaranteed

by the charter should be political, but there's seems to be a tendency that organizations perhaps more to the right of centre are left with the battle of fighting for them. And I find that curious because the loss of freedoms affects everybody in Canada wherever you sit in the political spectrum. So we have in Canada a small group of organizations that take on this kind of work and they rely on lots and lots of small donors, occasionally large donors, perhaps just in the centre for constitutional freedoms, Canadian constitutional foundation and some recent new entrants such as the democracy fund and so on and so forth. And indeed we're putting together

a charitable foundation which will be up and running shortly called the Institute for Freedom and Justice, which we're hoping to fund in slightly different way. So it can take on two issues, one being key areas of litigation in relation to this kind of constitutional challenge. And equally as importantly, and I think is supporting people who want to provide additional education to Canadians regarding the freedoms that should be protected by the Charter in the first place. And to a few people know about the Charter and about the content. And in fact, I'd say one more thing, Jordan and I can. We were talking about Section 1 earlier, and Bruce and I have had one or two conversations

over time about this. And I've been fishing around from the start, trying to find out where section one even came from. And what I found was that it was very difficult to find anybody who knew. And I asked some people that we asked some people that you'd know, I mean, you know, we asked Preston Manning, for example,

and he was really interested in this. And he said, that's a great question. I've no idea. I asked Brian Pekford, Brian and I have had some emails about this and Brian doesn't really know where Section 1 comes from. I mean, you know, it's there, but who wrote it? Who drafted it? I don't know. Section 33, we know, has a connection to Peter Loheed, but where does section one come from? And I've been grubbing around trying to find out why I've had people in the parliamentary library looking at this. Suppose it was a concession to Quebec claims for sovereignty? No, I don't think so. I think that's more, I think that's more, basically 33 is interesting because that was put forward from what I can see connected with Peter Lohyd, and then

Pietro Doe seemed to want a sunset clause in there, and that seemed to be the concession. But Section 33, as Salta, you're just in the plight and mobility rights in the charter. And, but Section 1, the best I can think and I can find out so far is I think you have to look to the mid 1970s and possibly the International Covenant on civil and political rights, which is binding on Canada But if you read that carefully, the section one could possibly be an attempt at a sweep up clause to catch some of the issues that arise out of that document and at the time of the timing some of the issues that arise out of that document. And at the time of the timing, 1982, that would seem to fit that some consideration

after the ICCPR came in. Well, that's a great mystery, you know, the fact that the biggest set of possible restrictions on our most fundamental rights is based on a clause whose authorship is unclear and whose intent is unspecified. Sean, do you have anything else to say on the funding front before we return to Rupa? I'd like to take this opportunity to,

I mean, early on, as I said, I started to go fund me. We close that down with the Freedom Convoy run into problems and go fund me sort of stuck a knife in the back, so to speak. So I shut it down and I moved it over to give Sen Go. But I just quickly wanted to say thank you to all of the, we have supporters on social media and so on that have supported us through give Sen Go. And I wanted to thank everybody that donated thus far. Is that still operating? Yes, it is.

The GiveSend Go, it's the Canadian Freedom litigation fund. So if people want to donate to your cause, it's the Canadian Freedom litigation fund at GiveSend Go. That's correct. Yes. And also that'll be funding another case that will be running is funding an application and a junction against arrive can and the quarantine. Oh yes, there's a good idea. So yes, so so everyone who's listening, some of you are going to be

thinking, well, what can I do about this? And well, there is something you can do. There's two lawsuits pending. They're both going to be very expensive. I'm sure many of you who are watching this are somewhat perturbed and annoyed. Let's say about that bloody arrived canap, which is a complete disaster and an unnecessary addition to the passports, which we also can't get. So, Rupa, one thing we might derive from this conversation, especially in relationship to Carl's last comments, was that if the press was doing its damn job, then maybe private

citizens wouldn't have to be taken on the government. So now you have this story, it's a red-hot story, as far as I can tell. It's a blazing-hot story. And you can't get people to publish it in Canada in the mainstream journals or newspapers. And this is even the case, get, despite the fact that you're actually a columnist for the national post. And the national post is a conservative newspaper.

I have some associations with it. They'll publish my work fairly frequently. And I've had a good working relationship with them, but like, why are no Canadian newspapers of note? We won't even talk about the TV stations, but especially not the CBC. But why are no Canadian newspapers of note picking this up? And why in the world do you have to deal with the Englishmen instead? And the telegraph, let's say, that'll be better for the story anyways, but it's still appalling.

And so tell us about your experience with this. Yeah, it's a great question, Jordan. I, you know, I'd worked with Barry Wise and Peter Savodnik, my editor, before when I wrote a piece on the Truckers' Protests back in February. And it, you know, I had a great impact, I think. It was an important contribution at that time to dent.

What I felt was an incredibly corrosive narrative that had been in place at that time, which characterized the protesters as white supremacists, racists, and bigots, and so on, and so forth. Now, you were with the truckers, weren't you? You actually went there like a journalist, sort of. Yeah, I live in the area, and I really went out of curiosity. I just wanted to see what this was

about. On the first day, that first weekend, I spent about 10, 8, 10 hours in the freezing cold. It was one of the coldest days of the winter at that time. And I walked everywhere and I was pleasantly surprised. In fact, it was a very, it felt like Canada Day and I even everywhere and I was pleasantly surprised. In fact, it felt like Canada Day, and I even tweeted about it and said, it feels like Canada Day in the winter. And I was immediately criticized for it, for romanticizing what was supposed to be and would be insurrection.

And I just didn't get that impression at all. I met some of the nicest people and I spent two weeks or three weeks during the course of the protest, speaking to everybody, the truckers, the protesters, anybody who wanted to chat with me, I managed to have a conversation with them. Sometimes these were long conversations.

I would be up till two, three in the morning speaking to people. And then I wrote this piece for Barry Wise's sub-stack at that time. And she reached out to me and she's she'd seen my tweets and she wanted me to do something for them. I really enjoyed their professionalism. I and my piece had a great impact. And I wanted to continue that relationship with them. So for me, it was not necessarily, is it Canadian media versus someone else? I just really just enjoyed the experience,

the learning experience that I, and I just wanted to continue to learn by, through working with them. But having said that, your question is a good one. Why isn't anybody in the mainstream media picking this up? Why is it that no one wants to talk about it? There hasn't even been an acknowledgement of the piece so far.

I haven't even been trolled by anybody, by any of the mainstream commentators for writing this piece. There has been literally no response. It's silence, it's looking the other way. They're talking about everything else under the sun. And it's extraordinary. And I don't quite know what to make of it.

Well, I think it turns back to something we talked about earlier. I think that the bitter pill that Canadians are being asked to swallow is so large that they're choking on it. And I can understand that. You can have some sympathy for that. You know, I mean, some of us, Bruce and I, for example, and I know Bruce quite well, we've been observing this sort of thing, developing for like eight years, something like that, or longer than that. Longer than that. Longer than that. What a while, yeah.

How long? How long? Ten years? How long? I literally at least a decade in concrete terms, but it's been, I think it's been in development for decades. Yes, yes, yes. Well, it's sort of gone like this, right? It's been accelerating. But I think most people, and most people don't think about political issues that often, and that's because they're busy with their lives, and they also don't know what to believe, or who to believe, and that's because they're busy with their lives. And they also don't know what to believe or who to believe, and that certainly needs scrambled

now. And so I think that's why your story, this is what's stunned me so much about the continual scandalous behavior of the liberals. I don't think that people can process it because my sense of it, looking at it, is that every week, and that was certainly the case earlier this year, particularly, especially when the Emergency Act was brought about every week, something so scandalous is produced by the federal government that under normal conditions, it would immediately produce the disillusion of a reasonable parliamentary government.

And it just happens one week after another, and I don't think people can, and then the media covers it very badly, but I don't think people can believe it. Plus, of course, the CBC, for example, is 100% in the hip-pocket of the Liberals, not least as a consequence of the $1.2 billion a year subsidy, which enables them to report no news to no viewers. And so I think that's this wall of ignorance that you're running into. You said, it's got to be something like that, Rupa, because why at least aren't the progressives hassling you, let's say? Even that's not happening. No, I'm just being attacked by a bunch of bots, a bunch of nameless trolls who are going around calling me

a Russian agent, I've been called a seditionist. That these, no, first of all, they said the documents didn't even exist and that I was making it all up. And then the federal court sends out a tweet a couple of days later saying, given the interest in this case, we're actually making these documents more easily available to the public. So that shut them up. But then they've had to move to something else that I was some,

you know, a Russian agent or, you know, I'm lying about this and I'm... I think you've just, I think you've just internalized your oppression. That's my sense of the situation. So, in any case, you haven't been able to promote this story in any of the normative channels. I mean, Barry Weiss's sub-stack is not a minor league operation. It's very influential. So, that's definitely something. But it's definitely outside the normative structure of media discourse, particularly in Canada. And I think it's quite striking that the telegraph

has at least opened up an invitation to you to continue this kind of investigative work. And that isn't happening in Canada. It's like, why are newspapers not willing to jump on a hot story? Well, this is extraordinary, Jordan. So I was speaking to a journalist and she told me that newsrooms

are just don't have the money anymore. They just don't have the resources to put together a bunch of people. And I said, wait a second. The way, yeah, I said wait a second. I'm a freelance columnist. I did this entirely on my own. I read through over 1,000 pages I read through over a thousand pages of transcripts

over a few days. I spent, you know, I was up late into the night working through them and thinking about the, you know, how I could frame this story. If I can do it, you can do it. You can so easily do it. You know, you just need one other person maybe, you know, to work with you.

I just don't buy this excuse at all. Initially, I wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt. They've only now discovered the documents. Let them go through it and maybe they will eventually get to it. It's now been more than a week since the story broke. It's been about three weeks since the documents have been out. And it's just extraordinary that no one's really touched it. I will also point this out to you that it's even the independent

media, the independent media, which constantly rails against the mainstream media, rightly so, even they haven't gone to town on this story. And I can't figure out why. What exactly is going on? Okay, well, we're all trying to figure out what's going on. That's for sure. Rupa wrote this story for everyone who's listening, just so we remember what we're doing here. Rupa wrote a story about a week ago

and she published with Barry Weiss. Court documents reveal Canada's travel ban had no scientific basis. And so that's quite the headline. And so I read that and thought, well, this probably needs to be talked about. And so you referred to Bruce, party, who's a constitutional lawyer and to Carl Harrison and Sean Rickard, who've taken out a court case

against the Canadian government and their legal counsel, Sam Presphilos, and we've walked through the story. And so, what are you hoping to have happen? That's another thing I'd like to know. Yeah, no good question. I guess the most important thing for me right now, and well for all of us, is a group, and anybody who's following along for the ride, is that this case be heard. Right now, they filed a mootness motion against this, as you know, because the travel ban has been suspended,

hasn't been revoked, been suspended, and they've made it quite clear that they can bring it back at any time that they so choose. And the Attorney General of Canada has filed a mootness motion against this. So on September 19th, we are all heading down to Ottawa for public hearing. We just, uh, Sam's actually in the process of filing all of our final submissions and everything. Just to fight that battle before we even get to our end gate, which is the, uh, the hearing

in late October. So to me, um, you know, all the support has been absolutely amazing and we hope that continues. Okay, well let's stop with that again. So I want you to say again, exactly what the listeners and viewers can do to help you continue this battle. So they can go to give send go, that's give send go and what are they looking up?

They're looking at the Canadian Freedom litigation fund. Canadian Freedom litigation fund. Okay, so if those of you who are watching find this compelling and you'd like to do something about the fact that your rights are being abrogated by a government hellbent on instrumental partial tyranny, then there's something you can do. You can send some money. They can also find me on social media. My name will be on the screen here somewhere in the bottom notes. And yeah, we'll be more than happy to have people follow along and support

us. And I really appreciate what you've done, Jordan, in getting this story out. There's many people. Well, it's so, I think it's a privilege. I look at this and I think, well, unless I'm completely out of my mind and lots of people think I am, this is like the hottest news story that's hit Canada in 15 years. And I get to tell everybody about it. So why is that not a good deal apart from the fact that it's utterly horrible and contemptible and appalling and pathetic and weaselly and deceitful and instrumental and, uh, and, and what, you're, you're,

you're, you're, you're, you're, you're, you're, you're, you're right on the money. Oh, man, it's something, man. What a world. Carl. Yeah, I mean, I, I co-shore this comment that, that, that, you know, when you start these actions, you want them to be heard. And this is so important in that regard. It's such an enormous matter of public interest. And it has huge ramifications and repercussions and risks if a Canadian government can get away with this kind of behavior where it makes routine health choices, coercive people to make routine health choices, coerces people to make routine health choices in order for them to take part in normal aspects

of Canadian society, and to exercise the sort of freedoms that everybody would expect in a modern liberal democracy in the West. And that's hugely important to get it heard. I'm sure Sam can say something about the how the issues with the moodness motion and that comes up I think on September 19th or 21st, as Sean has said. And if we if we're successful in persuading the court that this

matter isn't moved and should be heard, then there's a five-day hearing in Ottawa, public hearing in person in, in the federal court from October the 31st. And that's an opportunity for the media to actually find the engage with, as you say, perhaps the biggest story in Canada in a decade about how the government has behaved around this particular issue. And what possible grounds could they find it moot?

I'll let Sam deal with the detail, but it's actually, I'll say this, right? I'll say this, because I found this, this isn't really a the detail, but it's actually, I'll say this, right? I'll say this, because I found this, this isn't really a legal point, but it's curious I found. I find it odd that the attorney general of Canada is saying to the Canadian people, please ignore my cabinet colleagues. Please ignore Mr Algabra. Please ignore Mr. Guclough, when they say to you in a formal public statement that these measures have been suspended and we've got every intention of bringing them back in the fall if we feel like it. And David Lamedtty, the Attorney General of Canada, is saying, please

ignore these guys. They happen to be my cabinet colleagues and one of them happens to run the transport ministry and one of them happens to run the Ministry of Health, but please ignore them. Take no notice because they haven't been suspended. These measures have been lifted for good and that's why the issue is moot. And clearly it's not. That's not moot at all. A mootness in Canada, something Sam can come on to. Peculiar here, not the same in the UK, not the same in the US. This is an issue which can be repeated in the short term and is worthy of review. Well, you'd think even if it's even if it's moot now, which it isn't, that doesn't mean

that there's not something to be said about what happened. So what happened is unconscionable. All right, Sam, over to you. Well, mootness is a funny thing, especially in the context of a pandemic. Mootness in the context of a pandemic is a very different consideration, I think, than moodness ordinarily. And I'll give you a very concrete example of that. A couple of months ago, before the interior court of appeal, I was doing a constitutional challenge on the restrictions on outdoor gathering. As you know, being outdoors, one of the safest place,

probably the safest place to be with the COVID-19 pandemic. And at the time I had filed my materials for appeal, there were still restrictions outdoor. By the time the Attorney General gave me their responding materials, the restrictions were lifted. Several months later, the restrictions were back in. And a couple of weeks before they hearing the restrictions had been repealed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed it as moot. And so you're left in this very unfortunate and precarious and quite unpredictable situation of timing. And it's, I don't agree that the issue of timing, especially in the context of a very fluid pandemic where the government has demonstrated its willingness to turn on and off various and quite frankly recycle through various different public health measures, timing shouldn't play a role in this. This is not mood in the sense of,

you know, the government that a core in another area has already made a decision, has already said this is unconstitutional. This is moodness in the context of very fluid public health measures. And so regardless of whether or not those public health measures are activated, and that's what I'm going to say, because we all know they can be activated and reactivated at the whim of cabinet, right? Regardless of whether they're presently activated, the manner in which these decisions are being made and the tools that are available in the context of a public health crisis are critical. We've established a very dangerous precedent

here because God only knows what's going to happen. For example, when the next serious flu comes around because it's going to be indistinguishable in many ways from the mortality rate say of COVID by all of evidence, especially if it's a serious flu and it's likely to be because we haven't had one for a while. And so why wouldn't we go down the same road immediately? Because I think that's probably what we'll do. So, okay, Sam, anything else to say more generally about the situation? What's going to happen over the next couple of months as far as you can tell? And what are you hoping will happen? Well, obviously, I'm hoping that as Sean

and Arla alluded to, I'm hoping that we succeed in our Mootness Motion, which is going to be heard in September, not with the federal court. I think we have very cogent reasons why the matter deserves. It's the end court and to be heard and decided on the evidentiary record that we have spent, the better part of a year and significant resources and investing so that the truth can come out. But more broadly, there's two statements I'd like to make to everyone who's gonna be watching

and listening to this segment. The first one is, our case is not political. Even though we make a lot of reference to the liberal government, it's actually not political. And the reason why I'm saying this because democracy should not not political. Even though we make a lot of reference to the liberal government, it's actually not political. And the reason why I'm saying that is because democracy should not be political. Transparency and the decision-making of the people that we have trusted to govern us,

according to a basic set of immutable principles that are frankly based on decency and liberty, that's not a political thing. Well, it's not as if, just to point this out, it's not as if the conservative governments at the provincial level haven't done not a political thing. Well, it's not as if, just to point this out, it's not as if the conservative governments at the provincial level haven't done exactly the same thing. It's not as if Aaron O'Toole didn't roll over instantly when these sorts of things came along.

So if it's political, it's not partisan. Right, right, right, right. And I think that's, but you're right, and that's probably a better way to put it. It should not be a partisan issue, because today you might be on one side of the vaccine debate. And tomorrow you'll find yourself on the different side of a wholly separate debate. And you hope that as a citizen of a democratic country, the government is going

to show you a basic level of respect and decency and dignity. And the second thing that I wanted to mention is, you know, it's very important that in the times of crises like now, in a pandemic and an unprecedented pandemic in recent history, we need to remind ourselves that this should never serve as a carte blanche for the government to do whatever it wants. Yeah. Circumstances of uncertainty, the absence of evidence is not evidence, you know,

that anything should and can be done. And we must remain vigilant now more than ever. And we need to refer back to the principles that we know are true. And as the evidentiary record will show, the government had principles, principles that were developed in the context of influenza, influenza pandemic.

And we need to avail ourselves of those principles. You know, we don't throw them outside the window, which seems by a large measure was done here. I really want to thank Sean and Carl, two people who made extraordinary sacrifices, as you've mentioned earlier. I can't imagine the toll this has had on their personal and private life. I know I speak with them more often than I speak with my fiancee. So I can't imagine what that has resulted on the home front. And you know, it's Canadians like Sean and like Carl, who are taking their civic duties seriously.

And it's because of the work that they have really undertaken in this case that millions of Canadians and hopefully people around the world are going to see what's going on here and we'll learn and be better because of it. Well, let's hope that's the plan. Bruce, we'll turn to you and then we'll let Rupert wrap up, I think. So what have you got to say from the overview perspective? Well, first let me say my hat's off to these gents for having this stuff to do this. It takes a lot of courage and determination, so good on you. Let's not fail to acknowledge how dangerous this story and this development is to a lot

of people, to a lot of institutions. This is a threat. It's a threat, both to the COVID narrative, but it's also a threat in a bigger sense because we have a seem to have in this country a prevailing belief that governments are benevolent and act in our interests all the time. Now, sometimes that may make mistakes and you might prefer one color to the other color. But essentially there's a belief in the good faith of governments to do their best and to do the right thing. And stories like this threaten that belief. They put into place the possibility that that is not true, that instead we're being played by our own

governments. And that's probably why I think the political class is so resistant to this and similar stories, because it does represent a kind of threat to the foundation of what we think we're about as a country and as a culture. You know, in some ways, our biggest liability as a population is our disbelief, our disbelief, our inclination to not believe facts when they threaten the furniture in our heads, and you would know more about this in major. Yeah, well, it's no wonder, you know, because the sorts of things,

the principles that you're describing. So you imagine that here's a rule, is the more fundamental a principle is, the more other principles depend on it. And then each of those principles encapsulates a lot of chaos. And so when you're asked to, and chaos produces anxiety and desperation and disunity and conflict, it's real and it's deadly, psychologically and socially.

And so when you're asked to revisit your faith in a fundamental presupposition, which is, well, accounting for human error, the government is acting in good faith, because that's what's being questioned here. Well, no, they're not. Okay, well, how many snakes have you just left, left out of the closet? And the question is, well, hopefully not all of them, but we don't really know.

And it's a reasonable response to say, I'm not going to believe that without exceptional evidence. But the problem is, is that Rupa and the gentleman that we've been talking to have showed that there's every reason to believe that this happens to be the case. And so it's no wonder it's taking Canadians a long time to swallow this. It's a large and bitter pill. So, but not as large and bitter as the pill, we will all be required to swallow

if we don't wake up to what's happening. And so, that, yeah. Okay, and so Bruce, if the government has, in fact, exceeded their political mandate, their moral political mandate, and if they have violated the charter, in at least this instance, and I would say many, many others,

then what should that imply and what recourse is there apart from at the voting booth? Well, the voting booth becomes very important in this. I mean, what you're essentially, what you essentially need is a cultural change on the part of a critical mass of people who say, you know what? No. This is not okay. And we will not go along with this now and the next time

this happens, which is going to be very soon, unless you have that kind of critical mass, you're not going to see changes in the behavior of the press, of the government, maybe the courts, all our institutions, all our institutions in spite of themselves are influenced by popular opinion. They deny it, but that doesn't make it not true. Well, you know, as I've been going around on my tour, one of the things I've sort of added is a suggestion to people for what it's worth, but I've talked to, I don't know how many people,

60, 200,000 people, I guess, in the last four months. One of the things I've tried to suggest to people is that they pick up their civic duty a bit. It's like, look, and again, those of you who are listening and watching and thinking, there's nothing I can do. It's like, yes, you can. You can join a political party. You can join the conservatives. You could join the liberals. You could join the NDP, although I don't know why you would, because they just look like liberals to me. And I don't think you should join the liberals. But in any case, you could do all of that.

And then, and that's not nothing. And and you could get involved and you could start to move the political landscape in accordance with your own needs and wants and become more articulate doing so and learn to play a role in the political process and if you don't Then what's happening is going to continue to happen because we do have a system where happening is going to continue to happen. Because we do have a system where sovereignty in here is in the people.

And that means if the people abdicate their civic responsibility, then the delusional and terrified instrumental tyrants will have their way. People should not underestimate the effect that they can have on their own and in small groups. I mean, that's what these three guys are doing on their own, for example.. I mean, that's what these three guys are doing on their own.

For example, but we have more people doing more things in the way you're describing. The change would be significant. Yeah, so if you're listening and watching it, you're not a member of a Canadian political party, then you got to ask yourself, you know, what right do you have to your outrage? So because you're not pulling your weight, man. And if you're not in any civic institution at all, you're not in a church, you're not in a business organization, you're not on a sports team, you're not engaged actively in the civic discussion, then it's no wonder that you're being blown by the wind every way because,

well, that's this position you've left yourself in. And so when you join, when you join these places, don't just go along. You're there to change the course. Yeah, well, and to learn, you know, if you're young, you think, well, what can I do? It's like, well, first of all, you can volunteer, you can learn to serve the people who have a little bit more authority than you. And you will learn doing that. And if you're good at it, you'll rise up the ranks unbelievably quickly. Because one thing you can say because people have abdicated their political responsibility is that there's kind of a responsibility void there.

And so if you're halfway is competent and willing to put in some time and effort, the rewards can be in commensurate in relationship to the effort. So okay, Rupa, maybe you can just walk us through what you hope to have happen next, what you think should happen. Yeah, well, I can't really talk Bruce, but I'll try my best, Jordan. Just to sum up this story for your viewers and listeners, basically this government appeared to have made this policy by firing from the hip without any recourse

to a scientific rationale. We know this rationale was probably concocted on the flight after the policy decision had been made. And it's also interesting that the Trudeau government announced this vaccine mandate in the lead-up to an election as it proved to be an important wedge issue for him to get reelected even though they lost the popular vote in the end and they only got a minority government. Basically, what is unfortunate about all of this is that sound public policy was held hostage to politics with the government, with the Trudeau government pushing these divisive vaccine mandates in the few areas where they had jurisdiction,

which is namely the travel sector and the federal workforce. Also, I would like to point out that it's odd. It's incredibly odd that Trudeau would promise vaccine mandates as part of an election campaign, rather than just simply implement them as a country serving prime minister. If this was indeed about public health policy. Why would you have to make it a campaign issue?

It really is bizarre. And you would ask me earlier, at the beginning of the show, about civil servants citing cabinet confidentiality. And I've been thinking about this exactly why should something like a public health mandate? Why is it so confidential? Why is a rationale for a public health mandate? Why should it be so confidential?

And this is a very puzzling question. And for me, it raises a disturbing possibility that there really was no rationale at all. And in the end, the emperor has no clothes. And I think going forward, I really, you know, I very much agree with what Bruce was saying and would you said, change is going to have to come in some form or the other. I, the trucker's protest, I think, moved, moved the needle or the dial a little bit, and I know a lot of people came around and started asking these questions. Certainly polls right now show that

were previously 70% of those poll supported vaccine mandates right now. That number stands at 20%. So people are starting to rethink mandates. They're starting to ask these questions. They're starting to ask questions of their elected officials. They're asking, hey, you told us with vaccination, we'd go back to our lives. But yet, we're still facing restrictions. We're still looking at mass mandates.

What is going on? I would also like to point out to the fact that the booster uptake in this country has been pretty low compared to most other places. And that shows that people are starting to have a rethink. If the boosters are not preventing transmission, what is the point in me getting it? And so perhaps why should a 20-year-old get a booster? What's the point in me getting it? And, and you know, so perhaps, why should a

20 year old get a booster? What's the point in that? Maybe it makes sense for some of us? Or a child. Yeah, or a child for that matter. So I think people are starting to ask questions. We may not necessarily see the kind of outrage that we would like to see. But I do think that changes certainly happening. Well, maybe, maybe we'll get lucky and we'll see change instead of outrage. And maybe that's a more Canadian way of doing things. We're slow to wake up, but maybe when we wake up,

we will move in the right direction. Absolutely. That is my hope as well. Yeah. All right. Well, I've been talking today to Rupa Subramania, Bruce Party, Sam Presphilos, Carl Harrison, and Sean Rickard. They're all in their own way attempting to bring some clarity to what's a very murky and dismal situation, let's say, with hopefully some light shining in the distance. And so, appreciate you very much, all of you, for being willing to participate in this

conversation, and for all the diligent work that you've done and the sacrifices that you've made. I'm going to continue my talk with Rupa, over at the Daily Wire Plus, where we go behind the scenes a bit and look at the details of her career and her life and what's put her in a position that she's able to do the sorts of things that we talked about today. in her life and what's put her in a position that she's able to do the sorts of things that we talked about today. Hello everyone. I would encourage you to continue listening to my conversation with my guest on dailywireplus.com.