Ezra Levant’s April 26, 2018, show confronts Canada’s legal and political double standards, from his unchallenged carbon-heavy lifestyle despite 8,500 customers to the rushed labeling of the Toronto van attack—linked to "incel" ideology via an unconfirmed Facebook post—as alt-right terrorism. Immigration lawyer Giddy Mammon slams Trudeau’s asylum seeker policies, straining Toronto’s shelters from 459 in 2016 to 2,351 in 2018, while guest Brandon Morse condemns the NHS’s denial of life-saving treatment for Alfie Evans. Levant exposes David Suzuki’s $50–75M net worth, funded by taxpayer-backed platforms like CBC, and highlights Phelum McAlier’s lawsuit against an oil company’s $18B award, revealing systemic hypocrisy in both media and governance. [Automatically generated summary]
Tonight, no surprise, Trudeau's liberals see the Toronto attack as an opportunity to censor the internet.
It's April 26th, and you're watching The Ezra Levant Show.
Why should others go to jail when you're a biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here, and you won't give them an answer.
You come here once a year with a sign, and you feel morally superior.
The only thing I have to say to the government about why I publish it is because it's my bloody right to do so.
What did the Toronto attack this week have to do with the internet?
Well, nothing.
Or to be more accurate, we don't know yet.
We know that a suspect named Alec Manassian was arrested after ramming pedestrians on a North Toronto sidewalk.
He killed 10 and wounded many more.
Horrific.
Many people thought it was a terrorist attack, since that's the preferred methodology of ISIS these days.
Many truck attacks, van attacks in the UK, Germany, France.
One of the worst was in the city of Nice, France, when the streets were closed for a national holiday and thousands of people were lining the streets.
And a Muslim terrorist commandeered a massive truck, huge, like the size of a semi, and just kept barreling down the road on and on and on.
It was such a big truck, nothing could stop it.
He literally murdered 85 people and injured more than 400.
Imagine that, killing or injuring 500 people, just with a truck.
That's like hijacking an airline.
That's a sizable fraction of the death toll of 9-11 itself.
It happened again, smaller scale, on Westminster Bridge.
So it's an ISIS move.
But the suspect in Toronto has a name that sounds Armenian, which suggests he's not Muslim.
And from what scraps of information have been gleaned from secondhand sources, he sounds like he was socially very awkward, that he may have, in fact, had mental issues.
We know he was briefly a recruit to the Canadian Armed Forces, but he flunked out after a few weeks, which suggests a mental misfit.
And we have this Facebook page, which is allegedly his, but it has not been officially and publicly confirmed by Facebook yet or by the police.
It's alleged.
It's easy to fake a Facebook page, and given that this image first appeared on a website called Reddit that's notorious for making hoaxes and tricks and jokes, especially gallows humor in the time of crisis, I still treat this artifact with some skepticism.
I'm open to it being confirmed as legitimate by Facebook, but so far, it's only unofficial.
So I take it with a little grain of salt.
But let me read it to you, what is alleged that Manassian wrote right before he rammed all those people on the street.
According to this Facebook post, he said, Private recruit Manassian Infantry 00010 wishing to speak to Sergeant 4chan, please, C23249161.
The incel rebellion has already begun.
We will all overthrow all the Chads and Stacies.
All hail the Supreme Gentleman Elliot Roger.
Now that's gobbledygook, of course, but let me translate.
Elliot Roger was an American who four years ago went on a killing spree shooting and stabbing people, but before he did, he taped a vanity video on YouTube giving his explanation as having trouble getting attention from women.
He had various mental illnesses as well, enough to be prescribed medication, which he refused to take.
He had personal issues too, a broken family, and he took it out on strangers, stabbing and shooting them before killing himself.
So that's the Elliot Roger here.
Incel is internet slang for someone who is involuntarily celibate.
That is, someone who can't meet and relate to women, can't get a date.
When he refers to overthrowing Chads and Stacy's, those are internet nicknames for socially successful men and women.
A Chad is a guy who can get a date with a Stacy.
This is pretty obscure.
This is pretty weird.
It's sort of fantasy weirdness, too, that has become the official explanation for the attack.
There's a glee out there, of course, amongst the left that Manassian doesn't seem to be Muslim and doesn't seem to be motivated by terrorism of the usual variety.
If indeed he was motivated by some sort of anger at women or women and men, as the Chads part suggests, and Elliot Roger killed both men and women.
He hated women who wouldn't sleep with him, and he hated men who were successful with women.
Well, the left prefers that narrative.
Angry men are killers, angry because they're men, not because they're Muslims or whatever.
My view is lock them up, whatever their motivation is, they're murderers.
Like I say, it's not a lot to go on because we have no official confirmation of the authenticity of the Facebook post.
I'm prepared to accept it as authentic, of course, but not based on an uncorroborated internet rumor.
But let's accept it for the purpose of debate because the political media establishment has accepted it.
I have no information that they don't.
And look at what they plan to do with that, the political media establishment.
Look at Melanie Jolie, the heritage minister.
So obviously, the question of gender equality is extremely important.
And the question also of criminal behavior is not obviously tolerated in reality and can't be tolerated online.
People's behavior must be the same online and offline.
And therefore, we call upon the web giants to make sure that they counter any form of hate speech and any form of discrimination.
Now, of course, it's important that no one should commit a crime online any more than they should commit a crime in real life.
You can commit a crime on a telephone.
You can commit a crime by post office.
The internet is not a place for outlaws.
But Alec Manassian's crime, if he is convicted, and I suspect he will be, was not an internet crime.
It was killing people with a van on a sidewalk.
And let me read again what he wrote on Facebook.
If indeed it was authentic, he wrote, Private recruit Manassian Infantry 00010 wishing to speak to Sergeant 4chan, please.
And then a number.
The incel rebellion has already begun.
We will overthrow all the Chads and Stacies.
All hail, the Supreme Gentleman Elliot Roger.
I'm sorry, writing that is not a crime.
That's weird.
That's crazy, maybe.
And it calls for a military-style uprising and salutes a murderer, but it is neither a crime in itself, nor would it possibly even reach the level of uttering a threat.
You couldn't even call it discrimination.
It was against both men and women, Chads and Stacy's.
I can't even believe I'm parsing such a nutty, weird thing that was written.
And if indeed he wrote it, and if it was in fact his motivation, then that's the fact.
And it may well show his motivation.
So it would explain his later crime.
But how on earth the statement itself could be seen as crime or even as discrimination or even as hate speech?
I don't see it.
It makes no sense.
You couldn't possibly vet every weird comment like that, so vague, so fantastical on Facebook.
I mean, there's two billion users in dozens of languages.
How could you?
You couldn't.
So what exactly is Melanie Jolie asking the web giants to do?
And it's not just her, of course.
Jolie calls on web giants to fight hate speech from incels after Van Attack.
It's a headline in iPolitics.
So I guess Jolie has tried and convicted Manassian already.
She might be prescient.
There's a lot of that trying and convicting by Trudeau cabinet ministers these days, isn't there?
Including that farmer in Saskatchewan who was acquitted by a jury, but convicted by Trudeau and his justice minister politically.
Here's Patty Hajdu, the employment minister quoted in that iPolitics story. said, from my perspective, we have to have a conversation about misogyny, about the rise in hate, and the connection to what some call the alt-right, she said.
Now, there used to be a tradition of cabinet ministers not weighing into criminal court cases before they're done, especially before the facts are heard.
I think that's wise, not just in terms of the separation of powers, the legislators, the executive, the judiciary, but it could actually prejudice the trial.
If a federal cabinet pronounces someone guilty, and they're found guilty, could that conviction be overturned because of bias or lack of fairness?
It wouldn't be the first time.
Now, that's a side point, but the main point is, look what's really going on here.
This was a horrific mass murderer.
Looks to me like they caught the guy pretty clearly.
I won't prejudge it myself.
He's still not convicted, but we all saw the video of his takedown.
And let's say for a moment that the Facebook post is not only authentic, but it really shows his motivation.
He couldn't have sex and women who spurned him, and he hated them, and he hated the men who were successful.
So do you see what the liberals have done?
They've tied that crime somehow to the alt-right.
That's what Patty Hajdu said.
Now, what's the alt-right?
Now, I understand the term, if I do.
It's white nationalism.
It's racism.
Now, Alex Manassian himself isn't typically considered white.
He's Armenian.
You can see he's slightly different skin color to get into racial taxonomy.
I don't think the alt-right would call him white.
I don't know his religion.
I don't know if it's even possible for him to be alt-right, but his ideology, again, with all the caveats, if that was him who did the murders, if that was him on the Facebook page, if that was his motivation.
What does being mad about not having a relationship have to do with white nationalism and being alt-right?
Elliot Roger wasn't white either, by the way.
His mom was Malaysian.
His stepmom was Moroccan.
This isn't a race thing.
This isn't a conservative thing.
This is a sexual frustration thing, maybe.
In Rogers' case, it was a mental illness thing.
Looks like that could be the case with Manassian too.
But so what, right?
I mean, never let a crisis go to waste.
That's the left-wing rule.
The liberal cabinet has all agreed this was a right-wing terrorist attack, alt-right, to use their catch-all phrase.
And so they're demanding the web giants, Facebook, Google, YouTube, Twitter, they all have to stop it.
But you can't stop people who feel snubbed in a relationship.
That's all of us, surely, at one point or another in our lives.
You can't stop people from moaning or complaining about their relationships.
That's half the chatter on social media for young people.
You can't ban that.
Even if you would have seen Manassian's alleged post a week ago, you'd say, okay, it's a bit kooky, a bit obscure, a little bit emotional, but that's it.
There's literally no way you could censor every emotional woe or every lamentation about a date gone wrong.
You couldn't.
And of course, that is not what Melanie Jolie wants to do or Patty Haju.
Their goal is to use this mass murder as proof that they need the power to censor their opposition, but their normal, natural, mainstream, mentally healthy of political opponents.
Trudeau's Immigration Dilemma00:12:15
It's exactly what Justin Trudeau himself told Facebook a few months ago.
You censor political news we don't like before the next election or we'll punish you.
It's got nothing to do with what happened in the North Toronto Street.
It's got nothing to do with stopping actual crimes.
It's got nothing to do with emotionally bent men.
It's got everything to do with censoring their political opponents and labeling any political dissident, any political dissent, as alt-right and hate speech, and then banning it as if it's a criminal act.
That's what's going on here.
By the way, with the total unanimous support of the liberal media.
Stay with us for more.
We invested significantly in ensuring that we have a robust immigration system that is able to handle asylum seekers and irregular arrivals.
We will continue to make sure that Canada is a strong and open country that applies the rules of its immigration system.
Well, that last part is certainly debatable, applies the rules of the immigration system.
One of the rules is called the Safe Third Party Agreement with the United States, which says, as a matter of fact and law, you cannot be a refugee if you come from each other's country.
I mean, Canada and the United States, we have no refugees from our countries.
In fact, the flood of asylum seekers just walking across the border from the United States has caused a bit of a crisis.
There was a Quebec Parti Québécois MNA member of their National Assembly who actually called for the building of a border fence between Quebec and New York, if you can believe it, echoing Donald Trump himself.
And just today, John Torrey, the mayor of Toronto, has put out a desperate press release saying Toronto itself cannot handle any more of Trudeau's asylum seekers.
According to this press release, the number of refugees in Toronto's shelter system has increased from 459 in 2016 to 2,351 today.
And Trudeau said he's going to jack that number up quite surely by bussing in asylum seekers from Quebec to Toronto because Quebec says it's at its breaking point.
One last thing before I introduce our guest.
This all came from a tweet, Justin Trudeau tweeting a sub-tweet, as they call it, a countering, counter-messaging Donald Trump last January when Trump brought in his executive order about open borders.
Justin Trudeau responded by saying, to those fleeing persecution, terror, and war, Canadians will welcome you regardless of your faith.
Diversity is our strength.
A quarter of a million people liked that.
165,000 retweeted that.
And since that time, we've had more than 50,000 people simply walk across the border.
Joining us now to talk about how to square these circles and rectangles is our friend Giddy Mammon, a longtime refugee and immigration lawyer.
Giddy, great to see you again.
It's quite something when John Torrey literally counts the number of asylum seekers in homeless shelters in Toronto.
It's quadrupled in the last two years.
It's going to go up some more.
Does anyone in the immigration department care about John Torrey's homeless shelters, or is that just his problem?
Well, they're going to have to care because there is a big hole in the fence in Canada at our border, and the government simply refuses to close that hole in the fence because it would contradict the persona that our prime minister is trying to project.
And you did a good job by explaining how that persona came to be with that infamous tweet.
He basically rolled out the red carpet for anyone who wants to come to Canada.
So it's now very difficult for him to backtrack and to close the hole in the fence, but that's exactly what needs to be done.
So I don't think we need to be concerned with just John Torrey.
This is inevitable.
If you're going to allow people to come in every single day, those numbers are going to grow.
And that's what we're seeing.
I don't think anyone should be surprised by that.
You know, I saw other news recently this week in Ontario.
A major regional hospital was coming up with policies for how to treat patients in hallways.
So they no longer regard stashing patients in the hallway as an anomaly to be, you know, remedied.
But that's a new permanent solution in overcrowded Ontario hospitals is here's the rules for treating patients in the hallway.
I got to imagine that situations like that are going to increase.
If we basically say to the world, come one, come all, you've got a great chance of beating the law.
Even if you lose your application for refugee status, it'll be many years before that happens.
Come here.
And now we have Ahmed Hassan, the immigration minister, saying that catastrophic illness is now no longer a barrier to immigration.
These are all PR statements that he and Trudeau are saying, but it's the cities and the provinces that have to cover the cost, whether it's homeless shelters or hospitals.
I don't know how this can continue, Giddy.
Well, I don't know either.
I mean, the real question here is when the government is going to decide that enough is enough.
You're absolutely right.
The federal government is entitled to set immigration policy, but social services under our Constitution, health and social services is a provincial matter.
So the provinces are picking up a significant portion of the tab here.
Quebec looks like they've had enough.
And at the beginning, they seem to be very open-minded, let's say, of new potential immigrants coming to their province.
But I think they're at their breaking point right now.
And the idea to just simply spread the damage around the country, i.e. to Ontario, is insane.
The Safe Third Country Agreement has been talked about a lot and has been described as some sort of a barrier to solving this problem.
It is not a barrier whatsoever.
The Safe Third Country Agreement was simply designed to make sure that a person cannot make a claim both in Canada and the United States.
They have to make their claim at the first stop.
So what is happening here is we're just simply seeing a government that refuses to do what every government is supposed to do, which is to enforce the border.
If people want to make a refugee claim, they can just go to a regular port of entry.
And if they qualify, they'll be processed.
And if they don't qualify, they will not be processed.
But the idea that we have some sort of international obligation to leave a big hole in the fence is crazy and has absolutely no foundation in law.
It's interesting to me that Justin Trudeau, whose own riding is in Quebec, and I think a lot of his re-election strategy is counting on Quebec because he sees both Jagmeet Singh and Andrew Scheer as non-Quebecers who with poor French language skills, who are culturally non-Quebecois.
So I think to put a partisan layer on it, Trudeau is counting on Quebec to get him re-elected.
And you mentioned Quebec's at the breaking point.
I think you're right.
It's amazing to me that Trudeau is saying, well, just shove them over to Toronto.
They'll take it.
We won't give them any money along with it, but we are clearly playing favorites.
We will respect the reluctance or the budgetary restraint in Quebec, and Toronto can just handle it.
And soon that's going to be Doug Ford's problem anyway.
Like, it's just so transparent to me that Justin Trudeau is favoring Quebec questions and skepticism and say, oh, Toronto, whatever, dump them there.
I mean, it's really quite something that he's just so brazenly bussing Quebec's problem into Ontario.
I find that odd.
Well, there's a couple of layers to this, Ezra.
First of all, the fact that somebody enters Canada through a hole in the fence in Quebec does not mean that he's stuck in Quebec.
The very next minute, he can go to Vancouver, he can go to Winnipeg, he can go to anywhere he wants, Halifax.
The fact is, before this arrangement that is being proposed by our prime minister, that they come to Ontario, before he invites them here, you should know that they were already coming here.
People who are making refugee claims in Quebec were not necessarily interested or intending to remain in Quebec.
Like much of Canadian, of the Canadian immigrants, the immigrants to Canada, many of them who are destined to a particular province eventually end up in Ontario.
Typically, about 40, 45% of all immigration to Canada ends up in Ontario one way or the other.
So it's not a Quebec problem, and we don't need Justin Trudeau's invitation for them to come here.
They were coming already.
So this idea that he can control where people end up when they're coming in uncontrolled is ridiculous.
And it's just not the way it actually works.
You know, that's a good reminder.
And of course, the folks who would want to stay in Quebec are likely those who would be French-speaking naturally.
And that may be the Haitian wave that was departing the United States.
Remember, these are people who are coming from the U.S. Some have just come immediately to the U.S., but some have been there for years and are just self-deporting before Trump boots them out, thinking they have better bets up here.
I detect in Justin Trudeau and his immigration Ahmed Hassan not a scintilla, not a jot, not an iota of sober second thought or hesitation that the track they're on is incorrect.
I see in immigration polling, Canadians are fed up or skeptical.
We hear that from the Partique Beaucois.
We're even hearing it from John Torrey, but not even a flicker in the federal liberties.
Is there any sense that they're on the wrong track or are they just damn the torpedoes here?
I know as a fact they understand they're on the wrong track.
The problem is they don't know how to reverse what is going to become one of the most expensive tweets in Canadian history.
They just don't know how to reverse that.
Remember, he came in, the context was the United States was on a track of very negative attitudes towards immigration and refugees.
It's clear that he wanted to contrast his campaign from that.
He also did that to distinguish his immigration plan for Syrian refugees against the conservative and the NDP plan when he was seeking election.
And he then reinforced it with this tweet.
It was one of the most remarkable tweets, but the problem is he can't seem to find a way to backtrack.
And the question is, how much pain is Justin Trudeau prepared to expose this country to before he says, you know what, maybe that wasn't a wise move.
Let's do what is the obvious solution and just enforce that border.
Justin Trudeau's Dilemma00:09:51
And that's the end of it.
Yeah, you're right.
That is about saving face.
And in fact, I think back the last two and a half years, I don't recall Justin Trudeau swallowing his pride.
I think to him, not blinking is a political imperative.
We'll have to see.
I like your phrase, the most expensive tweet in Canadian history.
Giddy, it's always good to catch up with you.
Thanks for your straight talk.
Thank you for having me.
All right.
What a pleasure.
That's Giddy Mammon.
As you know, he is one of Canada's leading experts in immigration and refugee law and has practiced both for many years.
Stay with us.
More ahead on The Rebel.
Welcome back.
Well, there is a terrible case of child abuse going on in the United Kingdom.
I'm not talking about the industrial-scale rape gangs of young girls at the hands of Pakistani Muslim migrants.
I'm talking about child abuse of a young boy named Alfie Evans, who has a neurological disorder.
The child abuse is not at the hands of his parents or at the hands of any strangers.
Rather, it's at the hands of the UK government itself and their government health care system called the NHS.
They will not give Alfie the treatment he needs or he wants.
They have basically sentenced him to die.
But worse than that, they refuse to discharge him from the hospital to allow his parents to take him to medical treatment in another jurisdiction, such as in Italy, where a hospital has been waiting for him.
The Pope himself has called for him to be freed.
The hospital in the UK has actually ordered that life support be turned off of Alfie and told his parents he would die within hours.
It's been several days.
His father has stayed at the hospital, literally giving the child mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to keep him alive.
The government hospital will not let him go.
Joining us now to talk about this via Skype is Brandon Morse, a writer with Red State.
Brandon, did I accurately summarize the facts of this horrific case?
I'll admit, I have tried not to read about it because it makes me so emotional.
I actually well up when I think about it, that this is being done by the government, and we all see it happening in real time.
And the child is a prisoner and they won't let him out.
I've tried not to over indulge in this story, to over-read it, because I find it so heart-wrenching.
Did I get it accurately?
Yeah.
You did get it accurately, actually.
It's hard to actually use hyperbole when it comes to this story because he is actually a prisoner.
And the doctors, and this is not hyperbole either, despite the fact that it sounds so horrendous, but this is just how horrendous the story is.
The doctors were literally going to torture him to death.
He was going to die of his own pain.
They figured that that was going to be the more humane thing to do.
And so instead of allowing his parents to take him somewhere where he would receive palliative care or an experimental treatment that might help him, they decided that his life was worth ending because A, he's disabled, and B, they figured he was on his way out the door anyway.
Why prolong the inevitable, they said.
First off, I'd like to know where their crystal ball is kept and how they're going to figure out that, you know, is this kid's going to die anyway at some point in time?
There have been kids that were born that doctors said are absolutely going to die and survived anyway.
But even so, let's say that he is destined to die.
The fact alone that the parents were not allowed to take him away in order to receive help that would have at least been less painful for him on his way out, To at least give his parents some time to come to terms with it, to help them get through the process while he, in great care, passed away peacefully without pain.
It is disgusting to me that the British government, in their attempt to make the NHS look infallible, kept this kid there alive, kept this kid off of any kind of help in order to let him starve.
and suffocate to death, just so that they could be proven right.
It's disgusting to me.
I hardly have the words.
You know, I'm having trouble even speaking clearly because I don't want to get too emotional, but this is so appalling to me.
Let me show you a tweet from the Pope himself.
If we can put that on the screen, moved by the prayers and immense solidarity shown little Alfie Evans, I renew my appeal that the suffering of his parents may be heard and that their desire to seek new forms of treatment may be granted.
I understand that Alfie Evans was given an honorary citizenship or something in Italy so that he could travel there directly.
I understand a private airplane was ready for him.
The Pope himself succeeded.
And yet the NHS will not release him and yet has taken them off.
I mean, they basically said he's going to die in three hours.
He's been alive for a couple of days.
He's a 23.
For three days.
He's just under two years old, this boy.
So they're wrong.
We know they're wrong.
Their diagnosis is obviously wrong.
Their predictions are obviously wrong.
They thought he would die by now.
He hasn't.
And yet they will not let him out.
I can't believe this is even happening.
Well, let's look at why it's happening, though.
Kira Davis wrote a very good article on Red State about this, and I couldn't have put it better.
Essentially, what's going on right now is that the NHS, and this is what I'm referring back to what I said just earlier, the NHS needs to be infallible.
The NHS needs to prove that they are the best when it comes to health care, that the socialized medicine system actually works.
It's proving right now that it does not work, but they need it to work so badly.
If Alfie was able to go to Rome to receive that care and for any reason he got better, then the British people would then know that there are massive flaws in their supposedly perfect system and they would go elsewhere to seek treatment.
Now, the problem with socialized health care is that you need people within the system to make it work.
There has to be, a socialized medicine is a vampire.
There needs to be people there for it to feed off of.
If more and more people are leaving that system, trying to go find somewhere else to get their care, then the system collapses.
The NHS is afraid of Alfie right now.
He is their worst nightmare at this moment in time.
They're doing everything that they possibly can, not to end his suffering because they're caring.
They're trying to end his suffering as fast as possible because the moment that Alfie dies, they can take a breather.
It's sick, and it's sad, but that's the truth about socialized medicine.
We have socialized medicine in Canada as well.
I've never heard of a case quite as horrific as this, literally keeping the child a prisoner.
I should say that if this were happening in a private home, if it were the parents who were denying their child treatment, denying him even remedial pain relief, they would be arrested for child abuse.
They would be prosecuted for dereliction.
I find it horrific.
I saw a commentator on Twitter.
I can't remember who, but I remember the message.
It seems like a stretch, but actually it clicked with me immediately.
He was an American who said, the reason I don't give up my firearms is because if I had a two-year-old boy, I would put him on that plane, and if I needed to use my firearm to do it, I would do it.
He said it more elegantly than that, but I understood in that moment what he meant.
Because imagine being so powerful.
Eric Erickson, by the way.
Imagine, pardon me?
It was Eric Erickson, by the way.
Oh, is that who?
I believe I was.
I guess I saw someone else say something similar.
The point being, Americans who love the Second Amendment often say it's to protect against tyranny.
And, you know, the first American Revolution was fought because of the, was won because of the right to bear arms.
And I think in 2018, many of us think, well, if tyranny would come back, it would look like Stalin, or it would look like a foreign invasion.
It would look like something out of red dawn, that old movie.
It would be dressed in a military uniform.
It would say, fascism, as opposed to the soft creep of tyranny through bureaucracies, through rules, and in this case, even through doctors and nurses.
That's what the Second Amendment is about.
When some bureaucrat says, you will not take your dying son out of this place just because Rule 17 sub 3.
And that is, that is tyranny.
Last word to you.
No, yes, absolutely.
I'm sorry, I'm not even speaking clearly.
I'm so mad and sad.
Last word to you, Brendan.
Yeah, I don't blame you.
I don't blame you.
No, you are 100% correct.
And that was something that George Carlin himself had said at one point in time, that tyranny nowadays wears a smiley face.
It's the peace and love movement.
But what C.S. Lewis described them best as the moral busy bodies who do everything that they do, who oppress the people at the behest of their own conscience.
These people are unlike criminals who might be sated eventually, do so because their morality drives them to do it.
This is why you see people like people who support socialized medicine take the actions that they do against ALFI.
They truly believe that what they're doing is for the good of the people.
Obviously, this is not the case at all.
This is torturing a baby to death to save face.
Suzuki's honorary degree controversy00:03:47
Yeah.
I think when tyranny comes, it won't come from a soldier.
It'll come from teachers and nurses and social workers.
I think that's what's happening in the United Kingdom now that I think about it.
Brandon, thanks so much for your time today.
My pleasure.
All right, there you have it.
Brandon Morris from Red State.
What a horrific case.
I'm sorry I can barely speak clearly because of it.
Stay with us, Moore.
ahead on The Rebel.
Hey, welcome back on my monologue yesterday about David Suzuki.
Bruce writes, I'm glad there's pushback against Suzuki getting an honorary degree from the U of A. Let's hope Money Talks, the degree, is recalled from that hypocritical activist.
Maybe people will also switch to other institutes of higher learning for their courses.
Well, yeah, but you know, I mean, U of A serves Edmonton and other parts of Alberta, and there's some foreign students, but people are not going to switch away from studying at U of A to a different university over this.
It's not going to happen.
And I have to say, I like the fact that finally some donors are showing some self-respect and pulling their money out.
But the problem is obviously not just David Suzuki.
That's the symptom of the problem.
As I have mentioned before, I looked at the entire list of people getting honorary degrees.
Most of them are just as bad.
It's just that Suzuki is particularly inappropriate given the Trans Mountain issue and his anti-oil sands effect.
Suzuki is a symptom.
The problem is the deep, deep rot.
And it's not just at U of A.
I should say that a few decades ago, now it's a while back, Dave Suzuki got an honorary degree from the University of Calgary, too.
Robert writes, Suzuki jets around the world yapping about how we have these great big carbon footprints, yet he says nothing of his own great big carbon footprint.
He's a hypocrite of the highest order.
You're right.
You know, I remember a couple years ago at the Sun News Network.
I don't know if you ever saw my video.
We did some research.
He has four homes.
Now, I've since discovered he has a fifth one in Australia.
I got nothing against the guy being super rich.
I mean, he's got to be the 0.1% of 0.1%.
Like his Vancouver, his main point grade property alone is worth $15 million.
I'd say David Suzuki is worth $50 million, $75 million.
Like he's a serious player.
Got nothing against that.
Boy, I wish that were me.
I'm just saying, number one, he made that money off the backs of taxpayers, the CBC, the National Film Board, huge speeches to public institutions.
And number two, he's the one who's condemning capitalism while he's mastered it.
On my interview with Phelum McAlier, Ted writes, thanks for the interview with Phelum.
I'm a big fan of his.
And this new play of his he is doing is right up his usual alley, namely exposing what the leftist majority in the MSM don't want us to know, the ugly truth.
In this case, how an oil company was railroaded for $18 billion.
I look forward to your report from Frisco.
Thank you.
I would love to go down there.
I mean, I haven't booked that ticket.
I mean, it's a bit luxurious to fly to San Francisco just to see a play.
Now, I should tell you that this environmentalist lawyer of fortune has not yet collected that verdict of 18 billion or whatever the amount is.
He's appealing, appealing, suing.
In fact, the case weirdly is being heard in Canada.
An appeal is being heard here.
He's trying to enforce that order.
So he hasn't got the money, but boy, he's trying.
And it was amazing, the chutzpah, that he was filming himself, making a documentary of himself as he was going for the money.
Oil Company's $18B Appeal00:00:25
And that was a large part of his undoing because, of course, we saw the outtakes when he, the parts he was going to leave at the cutting room for this lawyer, Donziger.
The court commandeered that video and saw the shakedown.
Incredible.
Yeah, but Phelm does things in movies and in plays that almost no one else in the industry would do.
And as he told us, he's in isolation because of it, but I guess that helps him think.