Katie Hopkins, Ezra Levant, and Sheila Gunn Reid expose systemic failures: Hopkins details UK prison chaos—60% overcrowding, 20% fewer staff, and gangs trading drugs while authorities downplay violence (e.g., broken jaws misreported as minor injuries), advocating U.S.-style reforms. Levant reveals Sky News’ deceptive edits of Tommy Robinson’s interview, omitting context about grooming warnings, and criticizes media bias, crowdfunding fair coverage by international reporters. Gunn Reid uncovers Canadian hotels housing refugees with unchecked misconduct—urination in halls, Bible vandalism, and Sharia swim exclusions—suspecting profit-driven suppression of guest concerns. Their warnings highlight how prioritizing empathy over accountability risks enabling broader societal breakdowns. [Automatically generated summary]
Welcome to Rebel Roundup, ladies and gentlemen, and the rest of you, in which we look back at some of the very best commentaries of the week by your favorite Rebels.
I'm your host, David Menzies.
Well, next time you make a booking at a Canadian hotel, you might want to ask if it's housing refugees, because if the answer is yes, chances are you're not going to have a very pleasant stay.
Sheila Gunnreid will unpack the goods on this story.
and talk about the inmates running the asylum.
Katie Hopkins will weigh in on the dangerous mess that is the UK prison system.
And Rebel Commander Ezra Levant drops by to talk about how the mainstream media in the UK are taking fake news to an all-new level in their slanderous depiction of Tommy Robinson.
And finally, letters, we get your letters, we get your letters every minute of every day.
I'll share some of your responses to my commentary on how the progressives are demanding that a black actor should be Superman in the next movie, even though Soups has been white for, oh, 80 years now.
Those are your rebels.
Now let's round them up.
Now the next couple of reviews are honestly pretty frightening.
Jack from Ottawa writes, beware the hotel is full of Syrian refugees.
They were loitering everywhere, teenage boys in halls and hanging out at elevators, which made women and kids uncomfortable.
They were also taking pictures of the young girls in their bathing suits at the pool and or walking to the pool in hallway.
Toddlers, kids half naked playing in the hallways all day and all night unsupervised and will knock on your room door for toys and food.
The Syrian men also gather at doorways, entrances, and stairwells in the hotel, and not one hotel door entrance was locked.
The final straw was when a domestic dispute between a refugee man and a woman broke out in the lobby while the hotel staff ignored them.
We packed up the kids and left.
There are major security safety violations and no one should be charged a penny to stay there, nor should any children or families be there.
The public should be made aware that the hotel is housing Syrian refugees even though they are trying to hide them in the basement.
Stay away.
Do you remember the old ad slogan for Holiday Inn?
You know, the best surprise is no surprise?
Well, if you check into those hotels in Canada that are housing Justin Trudeau's refugees, you're in for a surprise, all right.
And unless you're a fan of, oh, I don't know, chaos, loud noise, and things that go bump in the night, you aren't going to like the surprises being served up by these so-called special guests.
And with more on this story, I'm joined now by the host of the gun show, Sheila Gunn Reed.
Welcome to Rebel Roundup, Sheila.
Hey, David, thanks for having me on.
Always a pleasure, my friend.
Now, Sheila, as you stated in your commentary, you're not trying to hurt anyone's business by outing the hotels that you came across.
But the thing is, guests paying for these rooms at these hotels with their own hard-earned money are not being informed about what's going on here.
So first of all, Sheila, why the secrecy?
You know what I wish I could tell you?
I've been emailing corporate offices of these hotels all week long, looking for comment.
I'm asking them all the very same questions.
I want to know if there is a policy in place to not divulge this information to guests while they're booking.
And if there is such a policy, why is there such a policy?
I'm sort of convinced that this is part of their government contract with the corporate head offices to not let the guests know ahead of time.
But I can't confirm that.
No one will even come close to getting back to me and returning any of my emails.
And like you said, I'm not interested in ruining anybody's business, especially in a Trudeau economy.
But I think consumers deserve to have this information.
And you know, Sheila, we should point out, and I found this to be a very fascinating sidebar of your superb reports on this issue, that TripAdvisor, which is all about being a consumer portal, you know, giving praise where it's warranted, raising red flags where that is due, they are now taking it upon themselves to censor reviews.
The one hotel in the Toronto area I speak of that falls into this category was the Toronto Radisson East.
And they said something in their language that because of the problems being flagged in the media, we are not posting any reviews of this.
Well, first of all, isn't that germane to being a consumer website awarding of problems at hotels?
And so what if there's chatter in the media?
I think that's all the more reason to post these reviews.
What is prompting TripAdvisor to censor these reviews, Sheila?
Well, according to TripAdvisor, they use that sort of corporate PC culture speak due to the extraordinary circumstances or something to that effect highlighted in the media.
They're not taking any new reviews for the Toronto Radisson East.
Isn't that what TripAdvisor is all about, though?
Aren't they supposed to be this place where instead of my family going and looking at some slick marketing materials about a hotel produced by the hotel itself, TripAdvisor allows me the ability to actually find out the opinions of people who've actually stayed there?
And now TripAdvisor is telling people, and we got this from a tipster, that if you have a review of that hotel, you need to post it at a later date because they're not posting any reviews right now.
So, and like I said in my video, I understand why TripAdvisor would do something like this, but I completely disagree with it.
We all know that Yelp and TripAdvisor, sometimes they can be weaponized by disgruntled employees or people with an agenda, but that's on TripAdvisor then to make sure the reviews are real as opposed to fake ones like the ones we've caught the government planting.
But they're not doing that.
Instead, they're just censoring everything right across the board.
And Sheila, let's talk about that.
This is a very important point that you came across.
Government bureaucrats trying to gin the good reviews by planting essentially fake positive experience reviews on TripAdvisor.
What in the world is going on with that one?
Yeah, we found that one out a couple weeks ago when I did my first refugee investigation into their behaviors in the hotels.
The hotel management were emailing their contacts in the federal government complaining about the bad TripAdvisor reviews they were getting because of all the mayhem being caused in their hotels by the refugees.
So the bureaucrats, their solution to this wasn't send in more monitors into the hotel to get a handle on the refugees, send in increased security, whatever they needed to do.
Instead, what they were doing is planting fake good reviews on TripAdvisor to offset the bad reviews.
So the solution from the federal government was basically to mislead the Canadian public before they spent their hard-earned money in these hotels.
And you, when you're going through these trip advisory reviews, you can see like a million bad reviews and then all of a sudden in the middle of it all, there's this one glowing review about the service and you know, you just know that's a fake one.
It's astounding and meanwhile the bureaucrats are on the taxpayer dime too, so we're paying for fake news.
Sheila, and by the way, in case people haven't seen some of your superb reports, the problems at these hotels They're not insignificant.
You came across reports of people urinating in the hallways, vandalizing Bibles for whatever reason, assaulting or harassing female maid staff, instilling Sharia swimming times so the men are separate from the woman.
This is really disturbing to me, Sheila.
And I'm not trying to malign everyone from Syria, but is there really a cultural divide here?
Or did we just really have bad luck in terms of importing some really bad apples into this country?
I think it's six of one, half a dozen of another, with a little bit of government ineptitude thrown into the mix.
I did find some hotels where there were pretty well-behaved refugees, as in there were no bad trip advisor reviews related to the refugees.
There were bad trip advisor reviews, don't get me wrong, but they weren't related to the refugees.
So I would hope that those refugees in those hotels had really good government monitors looking out for them, helping them with the cultural divide and the culture shock.
But a lot of these hotels had some really terrible, poorly behaved people showing up in them and causing absolute mayhem.
And a lot of the things that I saw in those other reports, those government documents, are being bolstered in these trip advisor reviews.
For example, I found people complaining about the Sharia swim times and how the pools were closed to non-refugee guests when they had paid extra to use a hotel water park.
And I found two separate complaints from parents on TripAdvisor complaining that refugee men were photographing their daughters on their way to the swimming pool in their bathing suits and one girl was as young as 10.
So some of this is cultural, some of this is just bad behavior, and some of this is the government not doing their job to make sure that these refugees are appropriately acclimated to Canadian culture.
You know, Sheila, here's what I think is a big question on this whole issue, and it's this.
What is in it for the hotels to sign on to such a program?
I mean, are they getting overcompensated by the government for the rooms to put up with the aggravation, if you will?
Or do you think that they were trying to do, I don't know, maybe virtue signaling, they were trying to give back, and they simply didn't realize what they were getting into?
I think a lot of this is consistent income into the hotels.
I don't know the rates that they were charging.
We're going to file access to information requests to try to find out what some of these contract rates were, especially for hotels that normally sit half empty.
If they can fill half of them up with committed government-contracted refugees, it makes economic sense for some of these hotels that are in decline to do that, to basically turn themselves into a hostel.
My problem with that is that paying customers, paying Canadians, saving their hard-earned money, their after-tax dollars that the government didn't take from them, to spend on these hotels to have themselves be completely blindsided by the fact that they're staying in a refugee camp.
I'll try to find out that information.
The information from the federal government sort of trickles in towards us, but we'll try to find out the motivations for all of this.
Fantastic.
And one last question, Sheila.
Moving forward, you're still on this file.
Can you give us a sneak peek about what your future report, in addition to the rates being paid to these hotels, what the direction of your next report will be on this whole business of these hotels housing refugees?
Right now, my focus is on the hotels in Ontario, but we know that these refugees ended up in hotels all across the country.
And so my next mission is to find out the other parts of the country where the refugees went-Montreal, Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver, and see if we can bring some transparency to the consumer there.
Fantastic.
Well, Sheila, I urge our viewers to check out your reports thus far.
They've all been fantastic.
Tons of great information there.
And thank you for staying on top of this file.
It's very important.
Thanks, David.
You got it.
That was Sheila Gunnreed from Alberta, folks.
And keep it here.
More of Rebel Roundup to come right after this.
Battle in Paranoia City00:12:43
In the last 24 hours in HMP Long Lartin, known as Paranoia City, by the prison community, a battle has been raging between inmates and officers.
Six officers have serious injuries.
Two have fractured jaws.
One has a broken arm.
And authorities initially reported there were minor injuries dealt with at scene.
And this failure to be honest about the reality of our prisons is part of the problem.
In January 2018, inspectors considered the prison stable and well controlled.
Were they visually impaired?
Earlier this year, the female governor of HMP Long Lautin was smashed in the face in an unprovoked attack.
A year ago, 81 prisoners attacked officers, forcing them to retreat.
I'm told by a former inmate, I genuinely feel sorry for any prison officer now.
They can't win.
The ratios are against them.
In my prison, there were 30 of us to one of them, and we knew it.
Prison staff have been cut by about 20%.
Key frontline roles are down by more than 6,000 officers in the UK.
And meanwhile, the number of prisoners has rocketed.
In England and Wales, the number's at nearly 90,000 inmates.
We're headed for another Strangeways, an almighty riot where prisoners take complete control of a prison, destroy the place, and prison officers pay the ultimate price.
The prison's minister promised a £10 million spend to curb the violence in jails and says he will quit if things don't improve, as if that's going to make a difference or his tiny political career matters.
Our prisons need a military-grade intervention, American-style prison labour, drugs out, religious nutters quarantined, and staff firmly back in control.
If we can waste half a million pounds on the fraudsters of the Grenfell fire or 14 billion on foreign aid, we can afford to spend to save our prison officers.
Well, talk about the inmates running the asylum.
British prisons are becoming ever more overcrowded while prisoners are becoming ever more emboldened to act out violently.
Yet the politicians and the bureaucrats pretend there's nothing to see here, folks.
Meanwhile, those prison guards who have to oversee society's worst of the worst are being thrown under the penal system bus.
What a crime indeed.
And with more on this story, I'm joined now by Katie Hopkins, the host of the always fascinating Hopkins World.
Welcome to Rebel Roundup, Katie.
Thank you so much, David.
I appreciate it.
And yes, what you say is absolutely correct.
The British prison system is effectively falling apart.
And what I've had today off the back of the reporting I've been doing on the British prison system is a lot of prison officers emailing me saying they know they can't speak out.
They know they can't say anything because they'll lose their jobs, but they feel that they need to do something, say something before someone gets killed.
And essentially, there's been a huge rise in our prison populations, about 90,000 now people in prison.
And there's been huge cuts in the prison officers.
And drugs are essentially the main currency now.
And the gangs are in control.
And Katie, as you stated in your commentary, the prison staff has been cut by a whopping 20%.
And yet the prison population continues to increase.
You don't have to be a Harvard MBA grad to connect the dots here.
What are they thinking in cutting back?
Because this literally is a matter of life and death for the people on the front lines, is it not?
It absolutely is.
And I think one of the most alarming things that you would recognize, you know, I recognize is when you hear the authorities failing to acknowledge when things are going wrong.
So just this week, we had an incident where three prison officers were attacked.
They were set upon in a prison where there has been an attack in the past.
And the authorities said there were minor injuries that were dealt with at the scene, you know, dismissing it.
Oh, very, nothing much happened.
Actually, what happened was there was a huge riot.
Two prison officers had their jaws broken and one prison officer had their arm broken.
So very different to what the authorities were reporting.
And this is what prison officers face on a daily basis when they go on shift.
More and more prisoners spending more and more time locks in their cells, frustrations growing.
And of course, they become the victims and the targets of attack.
And it seems very different to the American system where I think prison officers are much more in control.
Oh, indeed.
And, you know, when we look at what is going to be done, you mentioned Katie, the prisons minister in the UK.
He pledged £10 million.
I don't know where that £10 million is going.
And so what is that money going to solve in this case?
Well, you know, he just plucked a figure from the sky that might sound a press release, if you ask me.
I mean, I said plucked from the sky.
I could have chosen another orifice that he plucked that from.
Essentially, what he's going to be doing is a kind of pilot scheme in some prisons to try and control the amount of violence.
And what he said was, if I don't get prison violence down, I'm going to resign from my job.
You know, and I can tell you, prison officers working inside those prisons couldn't give a stuff what some bureaucrat in a suit says about resigning his job.
You know, these guys face a battering on a daily basis.
I had a mum email me earlier, Sarah, her name is.
You know, she has fecal matter, human waste, thrown at her on a daily basis.
Her husband was just came home.
He was just beaten up.
They both work as prison officers.
Is that not right?
And when our prisoners go into prison, they don't just receive, you know, a new outfit and a new cell.
They also receive guidelines, advice.
I have it printed somewhere.
I'll get it for you.
That tells them how to take drugs safe Whilst inside the prison.
I'll get to repeat that.
Oh, Katie, can you repeat that sentence?
We just lost you for about 30 seconds there.
Yeah, no worries.
I thought we had, okay, no worries.
So here we go.
And when our prisoners go inside the prison, they don't just receive, you know, their prison outfit, their cell, and their bag, their kit bag.
They also receive printed instructions on how to take drugs safely whilst inside jail.
You know, it doesn't sound like much of an incarceration facility, but Katie, when you point out that disgusting anecdote of prisoners throwing fecal matter at people, when they do something like that, are they not thrown in the hole, put into solitary?
I mean, what is the crime and punishment angle here once they are in jail?
It's almost as if, David, you know, that idea that we have to kind of empathize with victims.
You know, we have to feel sorry for those who are criminals.
You know, we have to empathize that they may have had a tough life.
It's very much that attitude seems to be pervasive in terms of the leadership of these prisons.
So there's this idea that we have to be respectful of these criminals and they've had a difficult time.
That's why they're throwing human feces at prison officers.
You know, there was an example I was just given of a gentleman in a prison and he was told that he was going to have to share his cell because there were two beds in that cell.
He said, if you put someone in here with me, I will kill them within 24 hours.
And of course, rather than make that happen, they changed him across and moved him to a single cell.
So it's very much the case that in prisons, the gangs are in charge, drugs are commonplace, and prison officers are really taking a battering.
And I think it has to be said that I imagine very soon we will face another catastrophic prison riot.
And I believe this time police officers will be killed.
Well, I'll tell you something, Katie.
The madness of Huggathug is spreading to this country.
This week, it's been from Page News.
We've had a serial killer move to a psychiatric facility that isn't even secure.
It's not a prison at all.
And we've had a child killer move to a native healing lodge, which resembles a Motel 6 more than it does a prison complete with kitchenette and a lounge.
It's absolutely disgraceful.
But to show our viewers how incredibly off the charts things have gone insane in the UK prison system, we were mentioning off air that story from a couple months ago that there are actually drones flying into prisons to deliver drugs and cell phones to the prisoners.
And it's like a regular postal delivery almost.
And the authorities are shrugging, oh, well, we know what you're going to do about it.
Well, they have guns, don't they?
Can't they shoot these things out of the sky?
So you have a very kind of American attitude, David.
Remember, I'm an NRA member as well, so I'm all about guns.
But in the UK, of course, we're the opposite of that.
So we don't believe anyone should be touched with anything more than maybe a fly swat.
We equip our prison officers and our police with nothing more than a, you know, can of Clorex and some antiseptic wipes and tell them to get on with their job.
You know, these drones are flying into prisons, carrying the drug loads.
The drugs are ordered by cell phones, mobile phones, which the prisoners have.
There's a special brand of cell phone that is particularly designed so that it can't be seen passing through prison scanners.
I mean, prisoners really have got the whole thing sewn up.
They've got this down to a T and it's an industry inside of there.
And really, prison officers are incapable of doing anything about it.
But also, prison officers are very much under attack.
And I think that's the really worrying thing is not only are they under attack, but they feel that they can't speak out about it.
And that's the big silencing that's happening everywhere.
And it's what we all see, I think, and what your viewers will totally understand, this sense that people can no longer say anything because they will lose their job.
It's astonishing.
You'll have prisoners breaking prison guards' jaws, throwing fecal matter, and we turn a blind eye to that.
You have an employee raise the alarm, you're going to be fired.
Katie, one last question.
You come up with a three-pronged solution to restoring order, namely, have American-style prison labor put into effect, get the drugs out of these facilities, and of course, put the religious nutters, as you adroitly call them, into quarantine.
I think that's a hat-trick in my book.
Here's the question, though.
Is there any political will to bring that kind of common sense into the British penal system?
There isn't a political will to bring common sense just yet.
But I think when we do have, I think it will take a riot.
So it will take what we would say is the next Strange Ways.
The Strange Ways riot was this kind of thing of folklore where prisoners went absolutely crazy and vandalized the whole prison.
It will take another Strange Ways.
It will take the death of prison officers, probably multiple prison officers, and then we will see something happen.
But I think we really need much more of a military scale intervention.
We need these prisoners out there grafting like the Americans do with their prisoners.
And we need an ability to isolate the Islamic extremists, which are running those prisons.
I don't see that coming yet.
We are much more in a stage where we are respecting people's rights, you know, respecting the right of the prisoner to be absolutely abhorrent.
But in my dream world, of course, all of these things would happen overnight.
But you imagine after the riot, after prison officers are killed, then we will see change happen.
Ah, so it's the Islamists who are the religious nutters.
I thought you were talking about radicalized Mormons or something, Katie.
Thank you so much.
Thank you so much for clearing up that point.
Sky News Scare Tactics00:05:11
Katie, great commentary.
Sorry, go ahead.
Oh, no, no problem at all.
Yeah, it is always those lovely, you know, Mormons.
It's always the Sikhs or the Hindus.
It's never the Islamic extremists.
Oh, no, they just want to chop my head off, but they're really good guys underneath it all.
You got it.
Katie, a great commentary, and thank you so much for joining me on Rebel Roundup.
Thank you very much, David.
Have a great show.
You got it.
And that was Katie Hopkins, ladies and gentlemen.
Keep it here at Rebel Roundup.
More to come right after this.
Did you see what Sky News did to Tommy Robinson last week?
They interviewed him and then they edited the clip unethically to make it look like he said something that he didn't.
And then they put their lie, their fake news, right in their headline.
Here's what Tommy actually said.
This was filmed by Tommy's friend who was standing there in the studio with him.
They were talking about how to teach young kids to be street smart, not to be caught by these child rape gangs.
Watch for 30 seconds.
Now, if you go to Holland, they actually created an educational video to be shown in schools to warn children about these crimes.
When they tried to show that in Britain in 2007, the British establishment would not allow that video to be shown because, like you, just go, ooh, it would incite racial hatred.
So because of people...
It is being a slight fear to suggest that, when you also know that there are, like the group in Bristol, white paedophiles.
Do you know what?
I'll be honest with you.
I don't care if it incites fear so long as it educates the children and prevents them being raped.
So Tommy says he's not concerned if that Dutch movie designed to scare young girls away from sex traffickers, you know, scares them.
He's not afraid of that.
That's sort of the point of the movie.
But here's what Sky News actually broadcast.
But I put it to him that as with terrorism, his opinions on grooming gangs risked demonizing an entire community.
Do you know what?
I'll be honest with you.
I don't care if it incites fear so long as it educates the children and prevents them being raped.
Do you really want to leave this interview with the thought that you're happy to instill fear of a community of 3.8 million people?
Did you see that?
They cut and pasted two different comments by Tommy together and they deleted the part about the Dutch film.
And look at their headline.
They say, Tommy Robinson, I don't care if I incite fear of Muslims.
But he didn't say that.
His mouth did not make those words.
He said he didn't care if the Dutch educational film to scare girls scared girls.
Well, they say the camera never lies, but as you just saw, folks, that old chestnut, it's not entirely true now, is it?
Because with some selective slicing and dicing in the editing room, a journalist with a not-so-hidden agenda can indeed make an interview subject seemingly say something that he never actually said.
And joining me now with more on this disgraceful smear job on Tommy Robinson by Sky News and others in the UK media party is our very own Rebel Commander Ezra Levant.
Welcome to Rebel Roundup.
My pleasure.
Thank you.
Now, Ezra, I think what Sky News did goes beyond fake news.
I think what they did is actually actionable.
Put on your lawyer hat.
Tell me, does Tommy have a case for slander or defamation or libel here?
I think he does.
And the reason is they put forward a false fact about him.
They attributed words to him that he did not say.
And they did so deceptively through editing trickery.
It wasn't inadvertent.
It wasn't accidental.
They edited out what he meant, rearranged it, and put a false headline to change what he meant.
So it looks like Tommy said, I love making people afraid of Muslims.
No.
He said in specific reference to a film that was trying to scare young Dutch girls into being street smart.
Yes.
The whole point of this movie was to scare teenage girls in Holland away from sex traffickers and child exploiters.
So the purpose is to scare these girls.
Tommy said, yeah, well, that's the purpose of that.
And they twisted that to make it say like Tommy himself personally tries to make people afraid of Muslims, which is a defamatory twist.
And I don't know why, frankly, Tommy gave Sky News a sit-down interview.
They have been abusive to him.
They've lied about him forever.
And yes, we have one more instance of proof of it now, but I think this has done damage to him.
I think Tommy's base now knows of this trickery because Tommy did a video about it himself.
But I think that I don't think that Sky News should be able to get away with that.
Free Speech in London00:08:49
That's my own view.
This was not an accident.
This was not a mistake.
You don't go in and cut and paste and splice film together and then write a false headline by accident.
You know, a spelling error happens by accident.
Audio being muffled is an accident.
Rearranging what someone says, someone you hate, to make them look bad, that's not an accident.
That's a stitch-up, as they say in London.
I love that term.
And as the old saying goes, Ezra, you're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.
I mean, this strikes me really personally.
And I'll tell you why.
When I went to the Ryerson School of Journalism for three years in the early 80s, if we, in a lab assignment, tried to pull this on anybody, our professors, they would have taken us to the woodshed.
You'd get a failing grade.
You'd get a stern lecture.
Most of them were ex-journalists themselves.
It's appalling to me to think that there are people in the mainstream media that are actually on this kind of a propaganda witch hunt where they're not, this is not journalism anymore.
Well, you know, I was at Tommy's last trial on September 27th, I think it was, in London.
And it was a very brief hearing.
I was there.
Gavin McInnes, our alumnus, was there.
And eight journalists from the British Media Party, from the mainstream media there.
And I thought, wow, eight of them.
That's a lot.
And they were all there.
And then the hearing was very brief.
And then we all went outside and Tommy sort of held court in the hallway of the court and talked to them for about 15 minutes, really briefed them carefully on things.
And then I was so surprised, he gave all of these newspapers his personal cell phone, which, I mean, maybe that's not dramatic, but I was quite surprised he did.
And he answered their questions, and he was not mean-spirited or rude or any way.
He was so earnest.
And I just knew, I thought, look at Tommy trying so hard to tell the truth.
And every one of them walked out of there, ignored everything he said, and stuck a knife in and twisted.
And I thought, they're not even journalists.
Why pretend they're journalists?
They are activists embedded in the press corps.
And that's why I cooked up the idea.
I was talking to Tommy about this.
And I said, well, we've got to bring in some real journalists to London.
Because I don't know any real journalists in London.
There's some good people.
I mean, there's Breitbart London, but for some reason they haven't covered this trial.
There's a handful of others.
So I was talking to Tommy.
I said, look, I've been crowdfunding my trips to go out to London.
We have a website called TommyTrial.com, and folks have paid for me to go out four times.
They like the reportage.
I said, well, it's just me against this like eight to one, right?
So we set up a website called realreporters.uk.
And what I said to our viewers is, I can't do this by myself.
I mean, I'm going to keep going.
But let's get reporters from Washington, from California, from anywhere around the world.
So we have talked to six different reporters who have expressed interest, and four of them have signed up already to go to London to cover Tommy's trial.
And I'm not paying them a fee.
I'm just paying their flight, their hotel accommodation, cab fare, and $100 in lunch money.
And those four that we speak of, Ezra, Cassandra Fairbanks, Andrew Lawton, Tarek Vata, Candace Malcolm, these are all excellent journalists.
And how is the campaign coming along?
Because I think, you know, it is amazing that a Canadian media outlet like ourselves has to ferry over some reporters, some journalists, commentators that are going to actually deliver the truth.
Because the UK, which I thought had a very vibrant, competitive journalistic industry, they're all simpatico on going after Tommy inexplicably.
Yeah.
Before I knew about this Tommy case, I would have said the most competitive media in the English language is in London.
You have the broadsheets, you have the tabloids, you have the Fleet Street Gutter Press, you've got the wild, you know, they're very competitive, I would have thought.
And there's, unlike our Canadian media party where everyone's so very friendly, they hate each other over there.
Well, not on the case of Tommy Robinson.
They're all in it together.
And even the newspapers that claim to have a working class background, they despise Tommy and his working class supporters.
So this is a blind spot for them.
So some of the names you mentioned, I mean, Cassandra Fairbanks, a young lady in Washington, D.C. for Gateway Pundit, covers Capitol Hill for them.
That's an example of someone.
And I said to Cassandra and all the others, I said, you've got to get your editors to prove this, obviously, because we're raising the money and we're giving the money.
It's an economy-class flight, and it's a three-star hotel, so nothing too fancy, and cab fare.
And what's exciting is I've had other reporters, including as far away as South Africa and Australia, reach out and say, hey, can you bring me to?
The guy from Australia, I'm working with him right now.
I guess I'll just tell you, it's Avi Yamini, who's very active down there.
And it looks like we found a flight for less than $1,000 from Australia to London.
That's a steal.
You've got to be careful.
Australia is so expensive.
So if we can get this $1,000 flight for him, that'll add another guy.
The guy from South Africa, I want to check him out.
I mean, I want people who have a good following and a good audience and a real journalist.
And if we can crowdfund for them, I mean, I think we're going to wind up spending $10,000 or $15,000 among, if we have six or seven people to fly him in, and the guy, if we bring him in from Australia, he's going to want to spend more than two nights.
You've got to bring him in a day early so he can get over his time zones.
But I think it's worth it.
But it's not up to me, really.
It's up to our viewers.
If we crowdfund it, we'll do it.
If we can't crowdfund it, obviously we won't.
And Ezra, I think what proves your point that the mainstream media has been co-opted by activists as opposed to journalists is that you would think that when you look at Tommy Robinson, what does he stand for?
Freedom of speech, freedom of expression.
This is the oxygen of journalism.
You would think all the UK media would have a, we stand with Tommy, kind of like, you know, there was that solidarity that lasted all of 10 seconds for the Charlie Hebdo magazine when the massacre occurred there.
Yet, because they are not standing in solidarity with them, I have to assume you don't care about free speech, free expression.
Indeed, you really are on, you know, on side of limiting free speech and free expression.
You're not a journalist.
You know, free speech is a tough one.
And I say that as someone who's been on the receiving end of censorship, because the other free speech advocates out there are by definition people who are controversial.
If you're just, you know, sports or cooking or light features, no one's going to try and censor you.
But if you are being censored, odds are you said something that hurt someone's feelings or that was prickly or that was offensive to somebody.
So it's tough.
It's tough to stand up for free speech for people you don't like.
But free speech is so unique.
It's the gift you have to give to your opponents if you want it for yourself.
Absolutely.
And because that's what law is.
It's precedent.
So if you set the precedent with Tommy Robinson that you can throw a guy in jail because he did some citizen journalism you don't like, maybe you feel good because you hate Tommy Robinson.
But now you've just set a precedent.
And what happens when they apply that precedent to you?
That's why the ACLU, the American Civil Liberties Union, which is a left-wing group, traditionally supported free speech for the Ku Klux Klan.
Now they did something very interesting.
They would have these neo-Nazis, some of them literally had Nazi marches with the swastikas.
The ACLU always defended them and they would make a point of sending either a black lawyer or a Jewish lawyer as a way of showing they obviously don't support the views of their clients.
But as they say, it's easier to fight in the first ditch than the last ditch.
You have to defend the free speech for the odious Nazis.
And Tommy is not a Nazi and Tommy is not odious in my view.
But if you're someone even who thinks he is, so what?
That's where you have to fight, or you'll be on the front line tomorrow.
100%.
Ezra, thank you so much, and good luck with the campaign.
And folks, please, if you do care about free speech, free expression, and you're tired of the garbage that is being circulating around the world thanks to this cabal of eight UK journalists completely misrepresenting Tommy and what he's saying, please give whatever you can.
Superman's Race Debate00:06:04
Every dollar is appreciated.
Thank you so much.
And folks, keep it here.
More of a Rebel Roundup will come right after this.
Well, because it's 2018, apparently it's time to racially rebrand the Man of Steel.
Holy schizophrenia.
Alas Cavell is hanging up his cape and now the hunt is on for a new actor to play Superman.
Enter the dastardly Lex Luther, or I mean to say the despicable social justice warrior brigade, who are clamoring to have Superman portrayed by a black actor, even though he's being portrayed by a Caucasian since his comic book debut in 1938.
You know, I especially love the inflammatory headline in Vice, quote, Superman shouldn't be white, end quote.
Still waiting for that follow-up story, you know, Black Panther shouldn't be black.
I won't hold my breath on that one.
Now, the deck to the vice piece is especially ludicrous, namely, quote, because it never completely made sense to begin with, end quote.
Yeah, it never made sense for Superman to be white.
What the hell?
Let's follow the convoluted logic here.
The author notes that Superman's original creators, Joe Schuster and Jerry Siegel, were both children of Jewish immigrants, and they allegedly embraced a goal that was not to just create some pale, Christianized hero.
By the way, the writer spells Christianized with a lowercase C, which I find very revealing.
Anyway, according to this writer, the idea was to create a Hebrew like Moses that would have been labeled a foreigner in his time within an American context.
Superman's characterization was an ideal wrapped in a possibility that anyone could become something great in America.
But given Schuster and Siegel's own experience with prejudice in the 1930s, I mean, we're talking about a timeframe here in which Nazi Germany was in power, pursuing the goal of cleansing Jews from the planet.
Jews were indeed the persecuted underdogs some 80 years ago.
And as Caucasians themselves, why wouldn't Schuster and Siegel depict their superhero creation in their own image?
It actually made perfect sense.
To parado phrase being repeated at an ever-increasing frequency these days, why do the progressives always have to try to ruin everything?
As the usual suspects campaign for the next James Bond actor to be female, they're also craving a black actor to play Superman.
Yet, why do iconic characters have to be reimagined along race and gender lines?
Why not introduce new black and female characters or revamp the good ones that already exist?
Yeah, I know.
What a concept.
In any event, here's what some of you had to say about the idea of a black actor playing the man of steel in the next cinematic outing.
Wendell writes, I had a whole fight with some individuals about this.
I'm black, and this makes no sense at all.
Quite frankly, it's pandering identity politics, SJW nonsense at its finest.
Well, thanks, Wendell.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
And how revealing.
I mean, if even some black people are against this rebranding idea, why are we going down this racialized road to begin with?
And Bobby Jenkins writes, then make Lex Luther Mexican.
Well, not a chance, Bobby.
Luther is a villain, and it is very PC to have white guys depict bad guys.
Big Nasty writes, and Howard the Duck should be a Canadian goose.
Ha!
What a blast from the past.
You know, Big Nasty, back in 1976, I actually wore a Howard the Duck for president badge.
Of course, Jimmy Carter got elected that year.
The worst thing I can say about his presidency is that Howard the Duck or a Canadian goose would have made a better commander-in-chief.
And Scott Brose writes, that's so stupid.
Superman should be played by an actor no taller than three feet.
Don't be so close-minded.
Or it should be a chimpanzee as Superman, as Superman is non-inclusive towards the other great apes of our planet.
Well, Scott, please don't ask me how I know this, but there's already a super chimpanzee in the DC universe.
He's named Beppo.
His first appearance was in Superboy No. 76 in 1959.
He joined a cast of other Kryptonian super animals such as Crypto the Super Dog and Streaky the Super Cat and Comet the Super Horse, all of whom went on to form the Legion of Super Pets.
I know, I have no life.
And Pleds writes, cultural appropriation.
Uh-uh-uh, Pleds, not so fast.
As we've seen so many times regarding other issues, according to the SJW set, whites borrowing from other races is cultural appropriation.
Other races borrowing from white culture is cultural appreciation.
Capisch?
And James Levesque writes, it really did never make much sense.
I mean, what are the odds that an alien from another planet looks exactly like a human being?
Yeah, it's a pretty big coincidence, James, but I'll tell you what never made sense to me.
How was it that Superman was able to conceal his identity simply by donning a pair of eyeglasses?
I mean, one moment it's, hi, Superman.
The next second it's, hey, where did Superman go?
Kent, how did you get here?
I mean, really?
And Vinucius writes, correction, super person champion of peoplekind starring Justin Trudeau, a drama teacher disguising himself as Prime Minister of Canada.
Living in the Bizarro World00:00:36
Yes, Vinucius, it sounds like a great script for a tragedy, except for the fact that we're already living this comedy of errors every day.
And Yuretha Grundel writes, won't sell, it will flop like the new Ghostbusters, remember?
Bingo, but as the Tinseltown twits love to virtue signal these days, they'll do it, even if the movie tanks.
Talk about living in the bizarro world.
Well, that wraps up another edition of Rebel Roundup, folks.
Thanks so much for joining us.
And hey, see you next week.
And never forget, without risk, there can be no glory.