Ezra Levant’s October 5 update reveals Canada’s government allegedly delaying refugee hearings—like a 2030-dated notice for a Montreal claimant—to exploit welfare while undermining the Safe Third Country Agreement, a treaty barring claims after entering the U.S. Cases include a Texas sex offender fleeing bond and a wealthy Syrian businessman, Hassan al-Qantar, stranded in Malaysia yet sponsored in Whistler. The speaker ties this to "fake" protests, like 2017’s Kavanaugh hearings, where Trump and Breitbart claimed paid mobs incited chaos, while citing Jordan Hunt’s violent rhetoric against opponents labeled "Nazis." They argue laws depend on moral citizens, warning of societal decay fueled by leftist elites and social media, and promote their upcoming Thanksgiving show and Shakedown-aligned ally Chris Austin. [Automatically generated summary]
Tonight, a fake immigrant who illegally walked across the border will face an immigration hearing now in the year 2030.
I wish I were joking.
It's October 5th, and this is 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.
Did you see my interview with Giddy Mammon, the immigration lawyer, last week?
He describes what happens to those fake refugees who are just walking across the border illegally from the United States.
And yes, it is illegal.
It's not irregular.
Irregular is what happens if you don't eat enough fiber.
Illegal is what happens when you break the law.
Do you see that big sign there that says, stop, arrété?
That's at the unguarded border between Canada and the United States.
In this case, it's the end of Wroxham Road.
It's Quebec on one side and New York on the other side.
Do you see, it says, stop?
And then do you see right underneath, it says, it is illegal to cross the border here or any place other than a port of Andrew.
Do you see that?
Yeah, it doesn't say irregular.
That's a euphemism.
Euphemism comes from the Greek language.
It means using a word that sounds nicer than a thing actually is.
So a euphemism is itself actually a euphemism for a lie, isn't it?
It's just a lie to say that these folks are irregular.
They are not just crossing illegally, but it's illegal to claim you're a refugee if you're coming from America.
Here is something called the Safe Third Country Agreement.
It is a treaty between Canada and the United States.
In a nutshell, it says you can't be in Canada and try to claim refugee status in the United States.
And you can't be in the United States and try to claim refugee status in Canada, as in both countries recognize that if you're in the other country, you're safe already, guys.
You literally cannot be a refugee fleeing New York.
You literally cannot be a refugee fleeing from Quebec because there's nothing to flee from.
It's just not true.
It's not true in common sense.
It's not true factually.
And the treaty makes it clear it's not true in law.
So are you surprised at all that Trudeau has his staff go through all the government websites?
Did you see this story the other day?
Trudeau's staff are going through the government websites and changing the word illegal to the word irregular.
The only thing surprising about that is that the CBC actually reported it.
But not only have tens of thousands of people just walked across from New York State claiming to be refugees, including many who had already applied to be refugees in the U.S. and were rejected there, and many in the U.S. who were worried they were about to be deported by Donald Trump, so they came up here knowing they'd have a better chance under Trudeau than under Trump.
But actual criminals are coming up here too.
Same reason they know Trudeau is soft on crime.
Of course he is.
Look at this headline here.
Registered sex offender slipped into Canada through illegal Quebec crossing.
At least they said illegal this time, eh?
He slipped, guys.
It's so slippery there.
It's like you got all these banana peels and then the ball bearings and it's like oily.
It's so slippy.
Let me read a little bit from it.
A registered sex offender from Texas is in custody in Canada after slipping through a well-known illegal border crossing in Quebec.
Guys, it's so slippery.
Addisania Prince pleaded guilty to child pornography charges February 23rd in Houston.
He was out on bond, awaiting sentencing on May 10th, but instead fled to Canada.
Hey guys, he slipped.
Look, it can happen to anybody.
Careful out there, guys.
It's slippery.
No, he did not slip.
He strode.
He walked with his head held high.
And like all illegals, he wasn't turned back.
He was welcomed.
Look at these, the cops, so helpful, so helpful.
Yeah, can I give you a hand?
I'll carry your bags for you.
They give him free food.
You know, welcome to Canada.
In some ways, I don't know what's worse, letting in a convicted criminal like that or letting in get this.
An actual American citizen seeking refugee status.
I think that's what this story means.
I've read it twice.
Let me quote.
Refugee claimant guilty of assault for spitting on immigration officer.
Incident happened at BC border crossing involving Ronald Dawson.
Oh, it sounds like we're getting the best people, aren't we?
It sounds like the perfect guy for Trudeau's immigration policy, but he's not someone fleeing a Trump deportation order because he can't be deported because he's a citizen.
He's not someone who just flew in from Nigeria to JFK Airport in New York and then took a cab up to the border.
Here, the newspaper quotes the judge in Canada, Nathan Smith.
Mr. Dawson is a citizen of the United States, and that frankly is all that I know about him because he has declined to make any submissions on this sentence hearing, said Smith.
Although I ordered a pre-sentence report, he declined to cooperate with or speak to the probation officer.
Dawson has been in custody awaiting trial for seven months.
He was sentenced to six months behind bars, meaning he would normally have been free to go.
However, Smith noted Dawson is still in custody on an immigration hold while his refugee claim is being processed.
Hey guys, he's American.
He's not even someone coming in from a bad place passing through America.
The safe third-party agreement would stop that, or it should.
He's an American.
There are no refugees from America.
But we're so stupid up here, we will take anyone under Trudeau.
Here's Trudeau's state broadcaster making the case for some foreigner stuck in an airport in Malaysia.
Look at this.
Syrian refugee stranded in airport for seven months, arrested by Malaysian authorities.
Group from Whistler, B.C. have been fighting to bring Hassan al-Qantar to Canada.
But he's not a refugee.
Turkish airlines refused to let him get on their flight.
I'd like to hear the whole story behind that, wouldn't you?
But he's apparently a successful businessman who spent years in United Arab Emirates, Dubai kind of thing, Abu Dhabi.
Let me read from this weird propaganda story in Trudeau's state broadcaster.
A Syrian man who has been living in the transit area of Kuala Lumpur Airport since March has been arrested by Malaysian authorities.
Hassan al-Qantar, 36, became stranded in the airport when he was turned away from a Turkish airlines flight in March, causing him to overstay his Malaysian visa.
Since then, a group of Canadians in Whistler, B.C. has been trying to sponsor his application to come to Canada and publicly lobbying Ahmed Hassan, Canada's Minister of Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship.
Al-Kantar, who is from Dama, Syria, worked as an insurance marketing manager in the United Arab Emirates from 2006 to 2017.
He was arrested on Monday, Malaysia's New Straits Times newspaper reported.
So just to be clear, in case you missed it, there is no connection to Canada.
He is not from Syria, or at least he hasn't been in a dozen years.
He missed the whole civil war.
He's obviously well off.
He's a marketing manager in Dubai.
And you just know that Trudeau's going to take him because Trudeau takes anyone in the whole world, at least if they're Muslim, it seems.
Syria is safer now, by the way.
Syrian refugees are streaming home, at least the ones living in places like Lebanon and Jordan.
They're going back now.
The war is over.
And that is a good thing.
Why would we bring this guy to Whistler?
Other than the virtue signal?
How about we just buy him a ticket to Dubai?
And why doesn't he buy his own ticket to Dubai?
Or how about going back to Syria?
I mean, I get it.
Syria's a crappy place.
If you're Canadian, it's a crappy place.
I wouldn't want to go there.
But if you're Syrian, it's your country.
Even though this guy hasn't lived there in a dozen years, go home and rebuild your country.
What a joke.
But if you think that's a joke, and if you think letting an American citizen apply for refugee status is a joke after he spits on our border guard, if you think taking in convicted U.S. criminals is a bad joke, it's slippery though, guys.
Well, here's the biggest laugh of your day.
It's from the leading French language newspaper in Quebec, published by our friends at Quebecor.
It's the Journal de Montréal.
Let me read it in French for a second.
Demandeur d'Acile, Résoir une convocation pour, 2030.
All right, forgive me, my French.
I won't say anything more in French.
In English, that means a demander of asylum receives his hearing summons for the year 2030, 2030.
As in, he has to come back to court, which will then decide if he's a refugee or not.
Spoiler alert, he's not.
But he's allowed just to kick back in Canada on welfare and free housing, maybe one of Trudeau's refugee camps and hotels, for 12 years.
Let me put the article through Google Translate to save you my painful French.
This is a machine translation.
It's not perfect, but it's understandable.
Let me read it.
I'll mop up a little bit of the clunky translations, but this is accurately what it says.
It says, a refugee claimant from Montreal has been summoned to a hearing for his asylum application, the date of which has been set in 12 years.
Immigration Stéphane Hanfield was so shocked when he saw the letter of invitation from one of his clients that he published part of it on Facebook.
It states that the claimant must go to the Immigration and Refugee Board at Complex Guy Favreau in Montreal on January 1st, 2030.
There is a public servant who sleeps on the switch because on the one hand, January 1 is a holiday, and on the other hand, waiting times for a hearing are 12 to 18 months.
Certainly not 12 years old, says Hanfield, who points out that he may be retired himself in 2030.
Ha!
So if this fake refugee actually shows up on January 1st, 2030, of course the ops can be closed.
No problem.
They'll just probably ask him to come back for the next available slot 12 years after that in the year 2042.
Or maybe his children or grandchildren can come back then.
And by the way, he's lawfully allowed to be in Canada under Trudeau until then.
Now the Journal de Montréal says the whole thing may be not fake, but a deliberate lie told by the Trudeau government.
Let me read this part.
This is interesting.
According to the lawyer, in addition to the possible error of an immigration, refugee, and citizen Canada officer, it could be that January 1st, 2030 is in fact a fictitious date, a method that the department has used in the past.
Really?
What does that mean?
For example, during the massive arrival of Haitians in 2017, all court dates were set for June 1, 2018.
Of course, it was impossible for the court to hear everyone that day, but it allowed to enter a date in the system, said Hanfield.
So they're not even serious.
They're not even going to have these hearings, is what I'm detecting.
It's a fake bureaucracy, just like we have a fake border with a fake sign saying don't come in.
The police aren't doing their job, so why should the Immigration and Refugee Board do their jobs?
The only people who have to do their jobs is you and me.
Because someone's got to do their jobs, because someone's got to pay the taxes to pay for these tens of thousands of refugees who will be here forever.
Stay with us for more.
They're saying, if you couldn't hear them, the system is corrupt.
And that's why we disrupt.
That was a scene from the United States Senate today where professional protesters were coming to jam the gears of democracy.
And frankly, the most succinct report and the most accurate report from all of Capitol Hill came not from a reporter, but rather from the President of the United States himself, who tweeted thusly.
He said, the very rude elevator screamers are paid professionals, only looking to make senators look bad.
Don't fall for it.
Also, look at all the professionally made identical signs paid for by Soros and others.
These are not signs made in the basement from love.
Troublemakers.
Isn't that the truth?
And in case you doubt him, let me show, and this was filmed by my friendly acquaintance, Jeff GC, on his own phone, one of these professional organizers doing a bizarre Occupy Wall Street style call and response instruction giving for these same protesters.
Just take a look at this.
Summoned to vote.
Yes, summon to vote.
Let's go watch the vote.
Let's go watch the vote.
Offices that we wish to communicate with.
And offices they wish to communicate with.
I am going to go to Heidi Neitkamp's office.
I am going to go to Heidi Neitkamp's office.
That is so weird, but that is the style of the alt-left.
They have a leader, teacher, camp counselor, whatever, who says something and they all repeat it back like cult members.
That was them getting their instructions before going to protest.
Well, what exactly happened today?
What were they protesting?
Did it have the desired effect?
One man who has been following the Senate, and by the way, if you haven't figured it out, we're talking about the confirmation hearings for the proposed Supreme Court of the United States Justice, Brett Kavanaugh, joining us now via Skype from Chicago.
Kavanaugh's Impact on Debate00:14:04
He's Joel Pollock, Senior Editor-at-Large of Breitbart.com.
Toe, great to see you.
Good to be with you as well.
You are in Chicago, which is the home of the alt-left going back more than a century.
The radical left has deep roots in Chicago, deep roots on campuses, but that Chicago-style activism, that campus-style crazy, is fully deployed in the Capitol buildings, I think for the first time ever.
Yes.
Well, the president was actually commenting after Senator Charles Grassley, who's the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, had made a statement in response to a question on a television news program.
He was asked whether he thinks some of the protesters are paid, and he said he was partial to that view because he had seen many other people who said so, and in fact, he's correct.
The original elevator screamer, as Trump later called her, was a woman who had not complained previously about a sexual assault, but that day after the hearing announced that she had been a victim and cornered Jeff Clake in an elevator, holding the door open so he couldn't leave.
She happens to be the leader of a George Soros-funded organization in New York.
So in that sense, it was true.
There are other organizations funded by Soros and other Democratic donors who work with him that were all over Capitol Hill today and throughout the week.
So strictly speaking, it's true.
Now, whether it had the effect intended is another story.
We actually think that it may have pushed Susan Collins and Jeff Flake more firmly onto the side of voting for Brett Kavanaugh.
Lisa Murkowski, the Republican from Alaska, broke with her party.
But the antics of the left-wing protesters seem to have convinced Susan Collins and Jeff Flake and others, perhaps, that they could not allow the mob to rule the country.
And so those protests had a very negative effect with or without the president's tweet on the goal of stopping Brett Kavanaugh.
The left really lost its marbles, and I think there were consequences.
You know, it's very interesting.
I think this whole thing has been a massacre.
I think, was it the Senator Lindsay, I just forgot his last name, I'm sorry, Lindsey Graham, who said maybe we ought to throw him in water, and if he drowns, he's innocent, and if he floats, he's a witch.
Like he made, like, it's been so absurd the process in the Senate.
But that was bad enough.
That was brutal and dishonest enough.
But this pussy hat style, women's march style, Occupy Wall Street craze is such a mob scene that I think that I think it scared Main Street America.
What do you think of that, Joel?
Well, it still is.
I mean, just moments ago, after Collins finished her speech, first of all, while she was speaking, her office was occupied by left-wing protesters.
And before she started speaking in the Senate gallery, they were shouting at her, which is illegal.
You cannot voice opinions for or against anything or anyone from the Senate gallery.
But right after she finished, Senator Joe Manchin, a Democrat who broke with his party to vote to move the process along and announced that he would vote for Kavanaugh.
He was trying to give interviews to reporters in the hallway, and his voice was drowned out by people chanting shame, shame, over and over again.
That was broadcast on live television.
People are watching this at home beside themselves with the idea that these professional activists are basically able to commandeer the country and have a louder voice than everybody else because they're willing to break the law.
They're willing to occupy Senate offices.
They're willing to threaten.
Some of the tweets that came out after Collins' speech said that they're going to follow her everywhere she goes for the rest of her life.
I mean, this sort of behavior is out there, and it's scaring voters.
And that's one of the reasons you're seeing Republican enthusiasm now surging in the polls.
Before, Democrats were motivated to vote mostly because out of dislike of Trump, and Republicans were somewhat complacent or undecided.
The most recent polls are showing us that Republican voters are suddenly as excited to vote as Democrats because they're alarmed at the behavior they've seen during the Brett Kavanaugh debate.
So that's the effect of what they're doing, but they can't help themselves.
The mob runs the Democratic Party.
They just keep doing it.
Yeah, you know, it really is the campus-style insanity.
I remember the riots in Berkeley when Milo Yiannopoulos wanted to speak there.
And it was so shocking to see riots and antifa violence.
And even in Canada, just a couple of days ago, some casual violence against a young lady at a pro-life silent protest on the street, just some leftist did a roundhouse kick to her.
Just this casual violence is only one inch further than these mobs.
I mean, the shooting of Steve Scalise, the beating of Rand Paul.
I think that middle Americans, and I'm a Canadian, but I feel, I get the same feeling that there is a madness on the other side, that they are going to use every single inch they have to verbally shout at people, but maybe one in a hundred of them will go further and punch or kick or, God forbid, shoot.
All of that is possible.
And certainly if we had seen conservatives thronging the halls of Capitol Hill to stop a Democratic president from nominating someone to the Supreme Court, you'd be hearing all kinds of things about violent extremism.
They would even probably have called it a coup because to try to use that kind of pressure to control the government, and remember our legislator is, our legislature is part of the government just as much as the president, that's a coup.
And the media would have described it as such.
Instead, I think they empathized with the protesters and allowed this to happen.
I think the pressure people feel on this doesn't need to be violent for it to have a really powerful effect.
It means people are less likely to say publicly that they support Kavanaugh or support the president.
But what we're also seeing is that privately voters are becoming really upset by it.
And as long as they still believe in the secret ballot, many of them are going to go to the polls and vote against what they've seen the Democrats do on television.
Well, that's a very good point.
When mild-mannered centrist Republicans or conservative-leaning Democrats, you mentioned Joe Manchin from West Virginia, West Virginia, very pro-I think it's the most pro-Trump state in the Union, if my memory serves.
So he said he's going to vote for Kavanaugh.
I think that in his own heart he would support Kavanaugh, but also he wants to be reelected.
When mild-mannered, thoughtful people like Manchin and Collins say, I'm going to support Kavanaugh, and they are threatened with a lifetime of harassment, I think that severely normal people say, oh my God, they would do the same to me if I made the mistake of a wrong Facebook quote or a wrong tweet or if I said something at a PTA meeting, I would be isolated and attacked in the same way.
I think people can start to imagine how they would be unpersoned and mobbed if they engaged in wrongthink too.
I think people are scared.
There's almost a Maoist group denunciation cultishness to it.
That call and response, Joel, that felt like a cult.
Yeah, and you mentioned campuses.
The protests we're seeing are very similar to protests on college campus.
The entire process was actually right out of college campuses in terms of the way Kavanaugh was supposed to be guilty before any proof or corroborating evidence was presented.
That's what goes on on campus today, where in many places, all the accuser has to do is show a preponderance of evidence, just slightly more likely than not that something happened.
In many cases, it's just an accuser's word against the accused.
But we have this sort of sham judicial process going on quietly on campuses all the time, and suddenly it was blown out for the entire nation to see.
And I think people were upset by it.
There are moves by the Trump administration to stop campuses from doing that, but that's what took over the country for the last two weeks.
And I think people are reacting negatively to it.
It's very interesting.
Let's talk for a second about what's going on in the official processes of the Senate.
Most of our viewers, Joel, are Canadian, and we don't have nominations and vettings and confirmations as you do in the states.
The prime minister can unilaterally make an appointment, and that's that.
There's no advice and consent needed from our Senate, which itself is appointed.
But if I understand correctly, what happened today is the Republicans in the full Senate put forward a motion to close off debate.
Is that correct?
You call it a cloture?
Is that what's called?
We call it closure up here.
And so that's setting the procedural schedule for an actual substantive vote on Kavanaugh this weekend.
Is that correct?
Yes.
Once they invoke cloture, they have to vote on the final passage of the motion, in this case, the motion to confirm within 30 hours.
They can't do it until that 30-hour mark is reached, but within 30 hours, they can do it.
Or after the 30 hours, they have the vote.
So it's a way of closing debate.
The term filibuster comes from a process of keeping the debate open.
But thanks to Democrats taking advantage of their temporary majority several years ago, there is no longer a filibuster on judicial nominees.
So the Democrats could not stop that poacher vote from passing by simple majority.
And now we will see a vote tomorrow afternoon, Saturday afternoon, on the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh.
And it looks like he will win that by one or two votes.
Now, we all saw Senator Flake, and what's in a name, I tell you, he's flip-flopped so much here.
He was the one caught in the elevator, as you mentioned, and screamed at by a Soros employee.
And that had the effect of having him at least temporarily change his mind.
Has he returned to the Republican fold?
Will he be supporting Brett Kavanaugh?
And if he has flipped back, was it the excesses of the last 24 hours that made him do so?
I think some of it was the excesses.
He is supporting Kavanaugh.
I think the other part was that he got what he wanted.
He wanted the FBI investigation, and the FBI investigated, and they found there was no corroborating evidence, and that was it.
I think he would look foolish if he voted no after getting exactly the investigation he had asked for.
And I think he's basically bound by the fact that they stopped the entire business of the country for him.
So I think if he then voted no and if the investigation turned up nothing, I think it would look very bad.
And I think he has plans for a political future.
He may want to run against Trump from the center as an alternative Republican candidate, maybe even as an independent, in 2020.
And I think he knows that if he defeated Kavanaugh's nomination, he would not get the support he needs.
Very interesting.
Is Kavanaugh himself?
I mean, I've never seen anything like this.
I don't think any American has either.
What was interesting to me was that Kavanaugh answered more questions, both orally and in writing, than every single previous Supreme Court nominee since America was founded combined.
He answered more questions than all of the others combined.
He met every possible test, seven FBI investigations over his career, because, of course, he had other previous lower court appointments.
Will he be able to be a judge now?
I mean, what they put him through, I guess maybe if he's vindicated, if he wins, he can calm down, take a short getaway with his family and get down to work.
But is he, what does it mean now that he's being toxified by all the sludge thrown at him by the left?
I don't even know what it means.
I mean, Clarence Thomas has basically been silent on the bench ever since he was appointed.
He's been an outstanding judge.
He's been silent, but that's his demeanor, his personality.
He's been a solidly conservative vote.
He's probably been the most conservative of all the nine.
And you have to think that Kavanaugh is now liberated to be more conservative.
He doesn't have to impress anybody anymore because he was so badly mistreated.
He's got nothing to lose.
I think he'll be a very good justice, but he'll also be, in a sense, liberated to be a conservative justice.
And maybe that's a good point on which to leave this, which is that if you create this kind of partisan atmosphere, if you bring up these scarrous, life-destroying allegations, you actually prejudice the court against you, and you deserve to have that happen.
I think he's better than that.
I think he'll rise above.
I still think he'll be a fair justice.
And he wrote that in the Wall Street Journal today.
But I think people are complaining now that he can't be impartial or that he's going to be too partisan.
I think that that's too bad if so, because I think when you do this to someone, the court should be allowed to draw inferences against you.
And if these groups come before the court and they think that they're not going to get a fair hearing, maybe they should treat people more fairly next time.
Yeah, they came to destroy him.
18 Years To Civilize Barbarians00:06:07
Well, Joel Pollock, I'm grateful for your time.
I know you're on the road, so I appreciate you jumping us into your schedule.
Great to see you.
We'll look with great interest.
And so let me close with a 10-second question.
Is it your prediction that by this time tomorrow, Brett Kavanaugh will be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States?
Well, he'll still have to be sworn in, but yes, I think he'll show up in a rogue on Monday morning and take his place in the empty seat of former Justice Anthony Kennedy.
And we will once again have nine judges on the court, full component of judges, and things will not be back to normal, but they will be as they ought to be.
There you have it.
Joel Pollock, great to see you.
Thanks for your time.
Thank you.
All right, that's Joel Pollock.
He's the senior editor-at-large at Breitbart.com.
Stay with us.
It's more Ahead on the Rumble.
Hey, welcome back.
On my monologues yesterday about a violent far leftist named Jordan Hunt, roundhouse kicking a pro-life woman to the ground in Toronto.
Jan rights, it wasn't any sense of decency, he cried.
It was fear of being caught.
Well, you're exactly right.
He, I mean, what kind of a fool would resort to violence anyways?
You've got to be a double fool to resort to violence when you're being filmed, and a triple fool to think that in some way you're just going to knock a phone out of someone's hands without touching them in any way.
And then I guess a quadruple layer of folly would be to think that that is somehow acceptable.
But I guess the fifth layer is you've already been doing illegal and criminal things by writing on people's signs and then on our persons.
This is the dumbest guy around.
Now, I should tell you that yesterday, I told you about four times I wasn't sure if that Twitter account was legit.
Today I'm even more skeptical that it was legit because it was just too caricatured.
And I saw someone make the case online that it was a fake account.
But that doesn't change what we saw on video, did it?
And it actually didn't change how he described himself as an all-natural witch or whatever on his barbershop page.
So I'm going to say those tweets he did about how I'm going to keep kicking women till we get women's rights, those were so over the top, I think they're fake, but the rest of it was absolutely real.
And that video of the roundhouse kick was absolutely real.
Yeah, stupid, sure.
But unfortunately, that is the way the world's going in terms of political violence, isn't it?
Why do the male feminists always punch women?
I mean, why not punch a guy?
Don't punch anyone.
But if you're going to punch someone, why you punch a woman?
Why you punch a young girl?
It's the same question I would have for Deion Buse, who punched our Sheila Gunner.
Why are you doing that?
Don't punch anybody.
Ted writes, this will only get worse until we prosecute every violent attack and every incidence of incitement to violence.
It's mind-boggling that the scum who continue to incite and commit violence are not held to account for their barbaric behavior.
It must be because it is serving the interests of the leftist elites who are running our society.
Well, I think that a lot of wise people have said this in more articulate ways than I'm about to do.
But laws only work if you have a moral citizenry.
If all that's keeping your society from barbarity is laws written in a book, it ain't going to help you.
You need the law to accurately reflect the morality of the people, and you need to inculcate the people with that morality.
One way of looking at it is who has said that we have 18 years to civilize these little barbarians from the moment they're born.
We have 18 years to impart to them all our knowledge and wisdom and culture and restraint, because they're born little barbarians, aren't they?
Little babies.
They take things, they do what they want.
We have 18 years to train these folks to have some sort of moral code.
Maybe less than 18 years.
Another way of saying things, you know, the former Soviet Union, just as an example that comes to mind, had a constitution that parts of it, if you look at it on paper, you'd say, wow, this is a great constitution.
Whereas, for example, the United Kingdom has never had the same sort of written constitution.
Yet which place was freer?
And my whole point of saying, Ezra, what are you talking about?
Kids, you're talking about babies, you're talking about Soviet Union.
Here's my point, is the laws ought to reflect the morality of the society and ought to enforce that morality where mere custom and manner and politeness don't.
99.9% of the time, we are our own law enforcers.
We govern ourselves.
If we weren't, we would need a police state where every second person was a cop enforcing the law.
And then you need cops to enforce cops, wouldn't you?
We have self-government in 99.9% of the ways.
And only when someone breaks from that social contract does the law come in with a policeman.
And so my problem with this guy, Jordan Hunt, is that he has been taught somehow, either through our school system or through Hollywood or through political leaders or through celebrities on Twitter or through social media.
I think it's probably social media.
He has been taught that it is morally acceptable to punch or kick someone if you disagree with her and then call her a Nazi afterwards to justify yourself.
He has been taught that there is an asterisk, a footnote, an exception to the law if you really feel passionate about it.
That's the problem here, is that we no longer self-govern because someone has taught us we don't have to.
That's what I'm scared about.
On my interview with Chris Austin, the leader of the People's Alliance of New Brunswick, Liza writes, good interview with Chris Austin.
Deportation to the East00:02:23
He's another who recognizes the slide to the left of the Conservatives.
Not much difference between the two main parties.
A change is definitely bubbling up in Canada.
I'm glad to see him.
Well, I was really glad to talk with him.
And I don't think I'm telling tales out of school, but after we turned the cameras off, he said he read one of my books.
I said, which one?
I thought he was going to say ethical oil, but he said it was my book called Shakedown about free speech and civil rights and human rights commissions.
I thought, whoa, this guy's the real deal.
Jimmy writes, as an alleged affront for Trump, Israel, Russia, and a disinformation agent against Canada's interests and acting like a whiny fat, oh, there's some bad words in there, that Breitbart and the Koch brothers allegedly pay for with the lying, more bad words, Ezra self-deport.
Will Ezra self-deport?
Would the loser and alleged spy fight, deportation, or cooperate?
After all, he owes Canada.
We paid for his education and health care.
Had we deported the lying, fat little, there's so many bad words here, to the land of his dreams.
What, Disneyland?
You deported me to Disneyland again?
To the land of his dreams decades ago, would we have not been better served?
I'm going to support a bill in the House of Commons to seize assets of traitors and offer them a bus ticket south or an economy seat to the east.
How far east?
Or jail time?
Won't you sign my petition?
Jimmy, there's so much in there.
There's so much in there.
I would be open to taking, like, I don't really like bus rides that much, but I'd be open.
And when you say to the east, do you mean like Halifax East?
Or further east, like the Middle East?
Because I might be open to that, but you can't deport me, Jimmy, because I am a natural-born Canadian citizen, as was my pappy and his pappy before.
You got to go back like four generations in the Levants before you can deport someone.
And that would send me back to the Djinnie Propetrovsk in Ukraine.
And I would take a ticket there.
I've never been.
I'm curious.
You know, it was one of those dreary Stalinist cities for half a century under Soviet domination, but it's probably perked up now.
So, yeah, a little bit of fan mail just to end the week.
Swear Bucket Rules00:00:58
Jimmy, I'm glad you're writing.
It shows, don't lose that passion.
Don't lose that passion, buddy.
Don't lose that passion.
And we added out some of the worst swears.
I want to tell you we have a swear jar here in the office.
Maybe I've told you that before.
It's actually bigger than a jar.
We call it a swear bucket.
And occasionally there is some cussing that goes on here.
But we've tried to make lemonade out of lemons.
And at least for me, if I do use some bad words, I put a dollar in the swear bucket.
And there's a certain swear, if I say it, I put $2 in.
And we use that to pay for the staff Christmas get together.
So we try and do good things when there is some fussing about cussing.
That's it for today and for the weekend.
We do have a new show for you on Thanksgiving Monday, so make sure you tune in for that.
And of course, we'll have YouTube videos up all weekend and keep poking around.
If you haven't yet visited a new site I set up called RealReporters.uk, you'll see what I'm cooking up in the United Kingdom.