Thread by @ezralevant

The Federal Court hearing is now live on Zoom! I'll be live-tweeting it. You can get the link to watch for yourself at LetUsReport.com.

Looks like the judge is Justice Elizabeth Heneghan: fct-cf.gc.ca/en/pages/about…

Our lawyer is Chad Williamson. williamson.law

There are literally seven lawyers representing Trudeau. Four lawyers and one student-at-law from the Debate Commission, and two lawyers from the Justice Department. They're easily into $1M fighting against us by now -- Trudeau wasting taxpayers' money.

Of course money is the least of it -- this is Trudeau just obsessed with stamping out independent media. You might recall that in 2019 he tried to ban Rebel News journalists from the debate, too. The Federal Court slapped him down hard: canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/…

What's interesting about this case is how important it is -- and how ignored it is by the mainstream media. Trudeau has banned ELEVEN Rebel News journalists. Silence from the Media Party. Imagine if Stephen Harper had banned 11 lefty journalists. Imagine the (appropriate) uproar.

In Canada, soon there will only two types of journalists: those paid by the government and those banned by the government. No-one else; no independent journalists. Just everyone on the take -- or in handcuffs.

I'm not exaggerating when I say handcuffs -- in the past 18 months our reporters have been handcuffed, jailed, physically assaulted and "banned" by police forces across Canada, including Trudeau's personal RCMP bodyguards.

We have filed a major lawsuit against the Toronto Police Service and expect to file one this week against the Montreal Police. Their excuse is that they're following orders -- and they are: orders from thin-skinned politicians who like to censor independent voices.

I'm just killing time -- I'm not sure why the hearing hasn't started; all the lawyers (and the judge and clerk) seem to be in their place, and the Zoom call is broadcaster (at least for me.)

The "special sitting" of the court is underway! It sounds like the judge herself is in Newfoundland; other lawyers are in Ottawa and Toronto; and our lawyer is in Calgary. It's truly a national event.

The judge has some comments. And her first comment is chiding the government! She says their "huge" filings have not impressed her!

Chad Williamson, our lawyer, is up first!

Chad starts by thanking the court for having such an urgent hearing. He also thanks Trudeau's lawyers for their "cordiality" towards him.

Chad is describing Rebel News to the judge -- we take strong positions on issues of public importance. He also says our viewership is "surprisingly" large -- 1.5 million YouTube subscribers, etc.

Chad refers to the 2019 election where Trudeau's hand-picked commission banned us.

Chad says he's asking the judge to give a court order allowing us to report on the debates.

Chad blames Trudeau's debates commission for the compressed/condensed hearing. (They waited till the last moment to tell us we're banned.)

Justice Heneghan breaks in and says Chad doesn't have to address the urgency of the matter. She accepts how urgent it is. (I love listening to her Newfoundland accent! I like her style! I know I shouldn't put any stock in that, but I like it anyways.)

Justice Heneghan breaks in again. She says "bias" is an aspect of procedural fairness, so she says Chad doesn't have to say a whole lot about it, if he's covering procedural fairness already.

Chad says the process was designed specifically to reject Rebel News -- just like it was in 2019.

Chad describes the 2019 rules that Trudeau used to keep us out; and is now describing the 2021 rules to keep us out. A "poison pill" written specifically just to get us.

Chad points out that Trudeau's commission banned us because we're not in the Parliamentary Press Gallery. But we're members in good standing of the Independent Press Gallery, which has similar ethical standards.

Chad points out that we're in good standing of the IPG -- but that Trudeau's commission implies we're not. How absurd -- the IPG says we are. In fact, @CandiceMalcolm swore an affidavit to that effect.

Trudeau's commission claims we're in a conflict of interest, but the other media aren't. Chad refers to Rosemary Barton and John Tasker, who literally filed a lawsuit against the Conservative Party during the last election, (and Barton is moderating the debates).

For some reason, Trudeau's commission claims that our crowdfunding is for some reason a conflict of interest. But Chad points out that other media raise funds (and in the case of the Toronto Star, they pay cash for stories, e.g. footage of the late Rob Ford.)

Trudeau's commission says that by "becoming" part of the story, we're discredited. But Chad points out that many important stories involve our journalists -- e.g. our journalists being arrested. And that's a great journalistic tradition.

Chad says, a reasonable person would see the slant against Rebel News. Chad says the commission would normally be entitled to deference by the court -- but not when it's unfair and biased.

Chad says the anti-Rebel "poison pill" rules are unfair, and the fact that Trudeau's commission is brazen about it doesn't make it acceptable.

Chad says we challenge narratives other media do not -- and that's important to a healthy democracy. He says it's irreparable harm if we're kept out of the debates. Not just for us -- but for million(s) of Canadians. He says our "tough questions" are needed.

"Let's call it what it really is: censorship".

Chad says, if we're allowed in, no harm would come to the commission. What harm would there be? But if we're kept out, grave harm would be done to us and our viewers.

Chad says keeping us out would keep journalism as an "old boys club". I think he's right. Insiders keeping out outsiders.

Chad's done his submissions. Now Justice Heneghan calls on the lawyer for Trudeau's debate commission, Ewa Krajewska.

Krajewska is on the defensive immediately. She's defending her hundreds and hundreds of pages of submissions -- the first thing that the judge says was too much.

The judge says she "gave up" last night -- Trudeau's lawyers just sent too much in. She's not impressed.

Krajewska claims we were provided procedural fairness, because they published their "poison pill" criteria, so there was no secret censorship agenda. (It was a public censorship agenda!)

Krajewska claims that because we're a "protagonist" in stories, we can't come to the debate. But then how do Rosemary Barton and John Tasker, who both personally sued the Conservative Party, be allowed in?

Krajewska says they need to "protect the public interest" by keeping us out. That's not the public interest. That's Trudeau's private interest.

The judge asks Krajewska if the commission just adopted someone else's criteria for who gets in.

The judge notices that we asked for a judicial review last time (and the government fought against it).

The judge and Trudeau's lawyer Krajewska are going back and forth about the accreditation process.

Sorry I lost the thread of tweets -- I'll do each tweet individually now.