Ezra Levant critiques the left’s selective outrage over The Handmaid’s Tale, ignoring real Islamic restrictions on women—like Quranic verses limiting testimony or Muhammad’s child marriages—while weaponizing Atwood’s dystopia against Christians. Quebec’s ban on chadors, niqabs, and burqas (70% public support) contrasts with media defenses of secularism, exposing double standards. Tommy Robinson’s 10-week solitary UK confinement for a Facebook video mirrors authoritarian tactics, yet British media dismisses his trial as uncontroversial while pushing narratives against free speech advocates like Levant. The episode reveals how Western institutions weaponize law and culture to silence dissent while ignoring systemic oppression elsewhere. [Automatically generated summary]
Tonight, why does the left pretend to care about the handmaid's tale coming true when it's already here and they're silent?
It's October 25th, and this is the Ezra LeVance 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.
Why does the left, especially in the United States, but I think it's percolating up here in Canada and over in the UK too, why does the left keep dressing up like characters from that dystopian feminist novel by Margaret Atwood called The Handmaid's Tale?
Again and again and again, I'm sure those costumes have been bought en masse by some George Soros leftist activist group and kept in a closet at some political action center and they're literally used every week, handed out to someone to protest something against President Donald Trump, Vice President Mike Pence, against anyone.
It's just become a symbolic way of saying, you're sexist.
You're someone who would want to make all women live as sexual slaves in a Christian theocracy.
That's what the story of the Handmaid's Tale is about.
By the way, there is no such thing.
Sexual slavery is not a Christian concept.
Actually, the opposite.
Protecting women and children, protecting the weak, is very much a Christian concept.
I'm not a Christian myself, and I don't pretend to be a scholar about the New Testament, as I have an amateur's knowledge of it, but my recollection is that Jesus actually had mercy for women.
Even women who had sinned sexually in the Bible, look it up, chapter 8 of the book of John says Jesus met a group of people who were about to stone an adulteress to death.
Maybe that means a prostitute.
And he told them, quote, he that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
That's the King James Version.
So pretty much the moral opposite of the Quran's direction to take rape slaves from a conquered people.
My point is Christianity's moral arc has been towards the protection of women.
There is no Islamic equivalent to Mary in the Quran.
There are no dominant or important female figures in the Quran.
The closest might be Muhammad's favorite wife, Aisha, whom he married when she was six and consummated that marriage when she was nine years old.
Not really comparable in terms of treatment of women, the place of women in society, is it?
And in fact, Margaret Atwood, the Canadian socialist feminist who wrote The Handmaid's Tale, she wrote it in the wake of the Iranian revolution when women were forced to wear much worse face-obscuring veils than in that novel.
Thousands of women in Iran protested against their freedoms being taken away.
Here is a picture of them.
They did not want the veil to be brought in.
They were protesting against being unpersoned.
Iran, as you can see, was quite secular under the Shah.
Look at those women.
It was now moving back in time by a thousand years.
That was the political news that was in the background as Atwood wrote her feminist book, but she lacked the courage to take on Islam.
Or maybe she, like many other leftists who hate the West, always side with the West's enemies, whether during the Cold War it was siding with the Soviets or now the Islamists.
But that's my point.
The submission and subjugation of women is not a Christian specialty.
There are occasional aberrations, but nothing as central, as doctrinal as the Quran and Sharia with its rules on everything from, for example, that women need four witnesses to accuse a man of rape or even that a woman's testimony is worth half of a man's or a woman should get a half of an inheritance as a man.
But the handmaid's tale demonizes only Christians and it has been weaponized against Donald Trump to imply we're just moments away from that dystopian sexist future, this misogynistic rape slave future here in North America.
Watch out.
If Trump gets his way, we're going to be right there.
And I'm not sure why.
I mean, Trump himself has been married three times to models every time.
He sure doesn't seem to insist on hijabs or niqabs in his real life.
And like for comparison, say, the leaders of Turkey and Pakistan, that's Imran Khan.
He's the new leader of Pakistan.
And that's his beautiful bride.
At least I think that's who that is.
I don't know.
And here's a picture of the NATO wives.
You see, second from the left there, that's Turkey's president's wife, Erdogan, on the second from the left there, wearing a hijab, another handmaid's tail type gear.
Frankly, she looks a little bit like Hillary Clinton in that spacesuit there.
And next to her is the lovely Melania Trump.
We just don't treat women like that in the Christian West.
It's just not a thing.
Now, sometimes the Handmaid's Tale protests get it a bit wrong.
Here's a picture of Alyssa Milano, who's an aging Hollywood actress.
She was against Brett Kavanaugh and the Supreme Court nomination.
She's posing like a character from the Handmaid's Tale, but she gets it wrong.
She's got at least an hour's worth of makeup going on there.
She looks beautiful.
I mean, you can't deny it.
She's a beautiful woman by nature, but she's on the wrong side of 45, and there's no way in hell she's going to post a picture of herself for the world without a lot of makeup and maybe some airbrushing.
It would damage her career prospects to be au naturelle like all the women are on handmaid's tales.
So she's not quite doing the ultra-feminist thing right, is she?
Take a look at these.
Any Halloween store these days, you find a lot of sexy handmaid's tale costumes.
Now these ones here don't look particularly sexy, but there's other ones that are sexy because it's a joke, right?
No one thinks that having to dress like a handmaid's tale woman is really a threat here, so we can laugh about it, we can joke about it.
You don't see a lot of Halloween costumes with Muslim burqas or with hijabs, mainly because it's not funny and it's not escapist.
It's not a fantasy.
On Halloween, we dress up as a cowboy or an astronaut or a witch or a Frankenstein because those are fantasies that will never, can, never happen in real life, right?
It's escapist.
Same with a handmaid's tale sexy Halloween outfit.
It's a fantasy where you make believe for a night and it's fun.
Quebec's Niqab Dilemma00:09:21
No one thinks that wearing a hijab or a niqab or a burqa is a fantasy because we see them every day on the streets and it's very real and it's not fun or friendly at all precisely because it's not a fantasy.
It is here.
It's not escapist.
They're the ones who want to escape.
Isn't that odd?
Do you remember this picture?
Taken in Quebec five years ago?
Remember this?
Look at that.
It's hard to tell who the kids are.
Are they Muslim themselves?
I don't think so, but it's hard to tell.
Are they old stock quebecois, que bébois de suche?
Who knows?
But in Quebec, daycares are subsidized by the government, but here they seem to be following the customs of Islam, not the customs of Quebec, a place with an emphasis on the separation of church and state and mosque and state.
And so it has come to pass some five years after that photo that Quebec has elected a government in no small part on the strength of their call to ban ostentatious Islamic symbols like the hijab and the niqab and the chador from government employees.
Not banning them on the streets.
I don't know if they'd even be banned in daycares, frankly, but at least from the civil service.
I honestly don't know how many government staff in Quebec go with the full ninja look like that anyways.
I'd be surprised if it were more than a dozen.
I mean women who dress like that generally are not let out of the house by their husband slash guardian slash owner.
They're not career gals working nine to five.
No, they're sort of at home.
There might be a few of them.
So now the new Quebec government, the Coalition Avonnier Quebec, or CAC as it's known, they say they will ban those niqabs and hijabs from not hijabs, the niqabs and the burqas, or excuse me.
They're not going to just ban the little veil.
They're going to ban them from the public sector.
So now Quebecers will have the right to deal with the state in a neutral way.
I mean, that makes obvious sense to me.
It's the same reason why we have a uniform for police.
They're not allowed to wear this team or that team or this religion or that religion.
Here's today's Globe and Mail headline about it.
Quebec to prohibit government employees from wearing chador, niqab, and burqa.
To be clear, I misspoke earlier when I said they're banning hijab.
They're not banning the hijab, which is just a light scarf.
Seriously, how many people with this law actually affect?
I doubt it's 12.
Let me read the first three paragraphs from the Globe and Mail story.
Quebec's new Coalition Avonir Quebec government says it will go a step further in restricting religious symbols, prohibiting all public servants from wearing the chador, niqab, or burqa.
The ban on the garments is expected to be part of legislation that will also forbid state employees in positions of authority, including teachers, from wearing visible religious symbols.
The chador, there's a picture of it there, that lady on the story.
The chador, which is worn primarily by Muslim women from Iran, that's not true, by the way, is a cloak that covers the head and upper body, but leaves the face visible.
The burqa covers the entire face with mesh over the eyes, while the niqab leaves a slit for the eyes.
This is important to learn for girls in the 21st century.
This is important stuff you'll have to get to learn because it ain't a fantasy, ladies.
The handmaid's tale is a fantasy, but you need to know your burqas, hijabs, chadors, niqabs, if you want to live in Canada or Europe.
By the way, a lot of Muslim countries ban these places, but we don't have that cultural courage.
But the thing is, look, we don't wear masks in our culture because masks dehumanize a person because the face is really the essential part of a person.
Wearing a mask impedes honest, open, clear communication for one thing.
When you talk to someone, you look at each other's eyes and look at their face to understand what people mean.
Are they smiling?
Are they scowling?
To understand tone and context and honesty, body language, eye contact.
In poker, we call it a poker tell.
If someone has a tick or mannerism, if they look away when they're saying, I raise you or I call you, if they give something away.
Now, in real life, we don't even notice what we notice, but we're noticing it.
It's why we look at someone's eyes.
It's hard to look someone in the eye when you're lying, isn't it?
These are little cultural traditions, but they're rooted in our biology.
We don't believe in masks or hoods in civil society.
We properly associate masks with trickery or even criminality, at least with deception.
A mask hides.
We don't hide from each other in a high trust society like Canada.
So yeah, no masks, please.
At least not at work by teachers and daycare workers and government officials.
But what a tiny law.
I say again, it only applies to a handful of people at most.
Oh, by the way, the Globe Nail hates this law.
I didn't need to tell you that.
Of course, they hate the law.
They also hate Christianity in the public square, but they love to get Islam in the public square.
They hate Christianity in the public square, whether it's on a flag or a coat of arms or in our Constitution or the Lord's Prayer, which is being drummed out of many legislatures.
Look at this.
This is an article here in the Globe just a few days ago.
It's a Globe editorial.
By defending a crucifix, Quebec crosses the line into hypocrisy.
Let me quote a sentence from the editorial.
The crucifix, a spokesman argued, is nothing but a heritage object that is part of our history.
And as such, it should not be included in the larger argument about religious symbols in the public sphere.
So the Globe is very angry about the hypocrisy here.
Well, I'd agree with you, mate, if we were living in Saudi Arabia or Iran, but this is Canada, and indeed, the history of our country, especially the history of Quebec, is a Christian story.
Now, you can say a Judeo-Christian story if it makes you more comfy.
But Quebec is pretty Catholic.
It's hardwired into our Constitution, by the way.
I checked today.
I opened up our Constitution Act 1867 and I did a word search.
The word Catholic is in there four times.
I'm sorry, it's part of who we are.
If you don't like it, go to Saudi Arabia.
Now, others are welcome to join us here in Canada, but that does not undo who we are or what our history was, what our culture is, what our past was.
The Globe and Mail and the Trudeau liberals want that past undone.
That's why they think that crucifix is an outrage and a hypocrisy that we keep it, but the burqa must be allowed.
But thankfully, the people seem to disagree.
Let me close with a poll to show you that the crazy people here aren't you and me and the CAC government, but rather Trudeau and the Globe and Mail and the rest of the media party.
Here's the poll I'm referring to.
It asks if the niqab should be prohibited.
The niqab is the ninja one.
It should it be, there's three choices.
Prohibited, that's the red line.
Discouraged but tolerated, that's the gray line.
Or welcome.
That's the blue line.
I like those three choices, by the way.
Now look at the answers.
Nationwide, 48% say ban it.
Just ban it.
Get rid of it.
Ban it.
Another 29% nationwide say discourage it.
Only 23% say welcome.
And look at Quebec.
That's the second from the right there.
Look at that super tall bar there.
70% of Quebecers want it banned.
And another 23% want it discouraged.
That is 93% of Quebecers, by the way, which surely means that a goodly number of Muslims want it banned too.
Probably Muslim women who would really like to be able to say to their husbands or imams, sorry, I'd really like to wear a hot body bag all the time in public.
I'd really like to wear an irritating mask on my face all the time.
Really would, dear.
But it's against the law in our new country, so sorry, I can't abide by your law.
I think Muslim women desperately want this law.
I say again the new Quebec law would only apply to government workers, so even it doesn't comply with the wishes of the people as shown in this poll.
But that's the news.
A Quebec politician did what the media party told him not to do.
The CAC stood up, however, timidly for Canada's cultural and historical identity, at least in a tiny way, a symbolic way.
And that party won a majority.
And polls say, I just showed them to you, he would do even better by showing even more backbone, doesn't it?
72% of Ontarians think it should be prohibited or discouraged too, by the way.
78% of Albertans.
I wonder who will be the next politician in Canada who realizes the obvious fact, simply respecting Canada's traditions of the separation of mosque and state and the equality of men and women, while that is hateful to the media party, will give you huge support on election today.
I mean, on that day, on election day, the editorial writers at the Globe and Mail have just one vote, don't they?
You can bet it's a he.
You can bet it's a he writing that.
It's always male feminists who are happy to see Muslim women kept in bags.
Stay with us, Moorhead.
Donald Trump's Rhetoric Weaponized00:12:22
There is a lot of false equivalence that goes on in these discussions when we say, well, you know, both sides need to tone down their rhetoric.
This is not a both sides issue.
This is a Donald Trump issue.
Donald Trump has weaponized politics with names attached.
And every one of those people, individuals who this person tried or people tried to attack, those people have been named by Donald Trump over and over.
But to ignore his rhetoric, I mean, you could match up, line for line, his rally speeches with every single one of those names that you just listed.
This is his rhetoric that has created this moment in time.
And to ignore that is to ignore a huge component of what's going on here.
He calls reporters the enemy of the American people.
And yet he said it's the media's fault for their kind of reporting that media organizations have been doing.
Well, there you have it.
Before any evidence is in, the media party has decided that some alleged bomb threats made to CNN, the Obamas, and the Clintons, and also George Soros, I might add, are the fault of Donald Trump.
It's amazing when there's an attacker who shouts, Ala Akbar, the media says, do not rush to judgment.
But there, the judgment was clear.
Donald Trump had this to say about these purported threats.
In these times, we have to unify.
We have to come together and send one very clear, strong, unmistakable message that acts or threats of political violence of any kind have no place in the United States of America.
Pretty clear and categorical statement there while joining us now via Skype is our friend Joel Pollack, the senior editor-at-large at Breitbart.com.
Joel, great to see you again.
What's the latest?
I see now that the New York Times is reporting that these are not actual bombs, but they're fake bombs designed to look like bombs to get, I don't know, people scared, get media attention, but they're not actually bombs.
Is that the latest?
We don't know.
That's speculation from the New York Times.
It's possible that some of the devices are fake.
It's possible that others are real.
We had Bernie Carrick, the former New York City police commissioner, on our radio show last night who said he thought the first device that was sent to the home of George Soros may have been real because they blew it up.
But we don't know.
Some of them appear not to have been designed to go off at all, so it just remains to be seen.
We don't have all the facts yet.
Now, look, I think it's quite telling that all of these happened at the same time.
Perhaps it's the same person.
I mean, we know that a Unibomber, who was a leftist as well, environmental extremist, sent out his at the same time.
I don't want to be a conspiracy theorist, and I don't want to downplay this just because the media coverage of it is embarrassing or could be embarrassing to Republicans.
So I don't want to indulge in paranoia or conspiracies.
But is it a possibility, or should we at least be skeptical as to whether or not this is a, as they say, a false flag operation designed to take the wind out of the sails of the Republicans who have recently been campaigning against the mob and violence of the left by saying, look, there's violence by the right against the left.
What do you think of that scenario?
I think it's unlikely.
I think it's probably somebody who is unhinged, but it's more likely than not somebody who empathizes with the right.
Although, when you look at people who have these extreme views, it doesn't really matter whether they're on the right or the left.
They often go back and forth between the right and the left.
They often share views or flip views depending on who's in power.
People are attracted to extreme rhetoric for psychological reasons and not necessarily for political reasons.
I don't think that Republicans have anything in common with somebody who behaves this way, nor do I think Democrats have anything in common with someone who shows up at a baseball field and shoots a bunch of Republican legislators.
The vast majority, in fact, I could say almost the entire population of the United States is prepared to have vociferous political debates without resorting to violence.
And the vast majority are prepared to have vociferous political debates without even being nasty to each other.
I mean, the phenomenon of people being divisive is really a minority phenomenon.
And the tiny, tiny proportion of people who engage in violence is just really, really small.
They get disproportionate media coverage.
That's partly because violence is sensational and graphic, but it's also because the media tend to justify one kind of violence and attack another.
The media are on the left, and we have seen in recent weeks they've tried to defend left-wing mobs that have attacked the Supreme Court, that have attacked Republican legislators.
They're inclined to defend those people because they think their cause is just.
But the media do not represent everybody in the United States.
The media are also a small minority view, largely on the left, almost entirely on the left.
And I don't think that you can draw a direct line between any politician, any political rhetoric even, and what this person did.
They may have been inspired by politics, but that doesn't make anybody in the political world responsible for what this person did.
Yeah.
I'm going to show you two columns published by the same New York Times columnist three days apart.
It's by Charles Blow, who is a down-the-line Democrat.
So here's a column he wrote on October 21st.
Count me among the mob, if it means people who stand in opposition to Trump's degradation of the country.
So this is a reaction to the Republicans really emphasizing the increasing radicalism, extremism, and even stepping into violence.
So that's on October 21, Charles Blow, the New York Times, count me among the mob.
And then look at Charles Blow three days later.
Rhetoric, mobs, and terror, the explosive devices, were released into a toxic atmosphere created by Trump.
So I guess the official Democratic talking points changed in the course of those 72 hours.
But Joel, would you agree with me that Donald Trump did not create the climate of division and partisanship?
But probably more likely he was a reaction to it.
If John McCain and Mitt Romney couldn't win in the battlefield of modern American politics, it took a Trump to play the game and win it.
That's my thesis.
What would you say to that?
Right.
The idea that you could be civil and still push back against the media's onslaught without being nasty, without throwing some elbows, is a nice idea.
It just lacks any actual examples.
And the problem we have is that only Trump has succeeded in defeating the media, and he has done it by giving them their own medicine.
The idea that Republicans can triumph by taking the moral high ground has so much evidence against it.
I'm not saying it's impossible.
I would like it to be true.
But we saw what happened when Mitt Romney decided to play it cool with Barack Obama when Obama went after him in that second presidential debate and claimed he had called the Benghazi terror attack a terror attack, and he hadn't.
And the moderator intervened on Obama's behalf, and the crowd cheered for Obama, even though they weren't supposed to cheer at a presidential debate because they were stacked with his supporters.
Everything is stacked against Republicans having a fair share.
In fact, as long as I've been voting, every time Republicans have won a major election, they've gone into the election being declared underdogs by the media, being declared unlikely to win by the media.
So when you're a Republican, you have no confidence that you're ever going to win when you're about to win.
You have no confidence you're going to be treated fairly at all.
There's no one who has shown Republicans how to win in any other way.
So I'm prepared to say that Donald Trump's method is not the best.
However, it's the only one that seems to have worked.
It puts America in a difficult position, puts Trump supporters in a difficult position because some of us would like him to use more measured tones, but it's impossible to say whether that would work or not because it never has in the past.
I want to ask you one last thing.
And I don't want to engage in conspiracy theories and calling things a false flag operation.
It's a rather intricate theory.
I mean, Occam's razor says the simplest answer is often the best.
This was some kook trying to scare the Clintons or whatever.
But the reason I say that, and I'm sorry to go back on this, but let me just tell you something that's on my mind, Joel, and we'll end on this because I know your time today is very pressed.
There have been dozens of allegations of violence and physical attacks and threats made against Trump supporters regarding, you know, someone who says, I was attacked in a hate crime by a Trump supporter.
I had this swastika drawn on my car.
I had this noose.
I'm a black person.
I had this noose left on my dorm by some Trump supporter.
If you Google hoaxes for hate crimes, you will find dozens of examples in America and many up here in Canada too, including the notorious hijab hoax where an 11-year-old girl claims she was attacked by an Asian man, cutting her hijab with scissors.
And my point is, those hoaxes have grown tiresome, but the same motivation for those hoaxes, it's just even more hyperbole if they're a bomb threat.
That's the reason I would give any credence to the notion that this is a political gambit.
Now, I don't want to go down the road of speculation or conspiracy theory, but I guess I wanted to tell you my rationale for being at least skeptical and wanting to wait for the facts to come in before laying this at the feet of any Republican, because we've seen so many other false accusations against other Republicans, false accusations against Brett Kavanaugh, that he was a gang rapist, which would be a capital offense.
So I think that is one of the weapons of the Democrats these days.
Last word to you, Joel.
There are hoaxes.
This may or may not fall into that category.
We don't know.
I will say this.
Early last year, there were dozens, maybe even hundreds of hoax bomb threats phoned into Jewish community centers around the country, and the left made a meal of it and blamed Trump's election for prompting this wave of anti-Semitism, this violence, this terrorism.
It turned out to be a Jewish-American Israeli teenager hoaxing Jewish community centers from Israel.
And that doesn't mean there aren't anti-Semitic threats, but this was a hoax done by a disturbed teenager in his basement or his parents' basement.
And I don't know if he was in a physical basement, but whatever.
He was in his parents' home.
And the organizations that had ginned up all of this fear and loathing for the Republicans and for Trump did not back away.
They still continued to press the case that there was this wave of anti-Semitic violence and it was all Trump's fault, which basically gives people permission to hate Trump supporters, to demonize Trump supporters, maybe even to attack Trump supporters.
There's never been an apology for that.
And I think that what the media and the activists and the Democrats have done together is create a scenario where if you're a Trump supporter, you're presumed guilty.
And that has led some people to do crazy things.
So I think everybody needs to take a step back, but the media definitely need to own this.
Stand Up For Tommy00:09:57
They need to own their role in creating this environment as much as anybody else.
Yeah.
Well, that's a very wise reminder, and thank you for that.
I was embarrassed, frankly.
I mean, I shouldn't be embarrassed by reason of ethnicity that it was a fellow Jew calling in false flag threats to Jewish community centers.
But I did find it somewhat embarrassing because anti-Semitism is real in the world, and to have it cheapened by a hoax irritated me.
And that's something to keep in mind when we see these bomb threats today, because we know that false flag operations, however insane they sound, they do exist and they have been used against Trump.
Joel, it's great to see you again.
Thanks for your wise and sober words, as always.
Thank you.
All right, there you have it.
Joel Pollack, the senior editor-at-large at breitbart.com.
Stay with us.
more ahead on that.
Hey, welcome back.
I was in the United Kingdom, as you know.
I did my show on Monday explaining why I was going, and I'm grateful to my friends for covering for me when I was away.
I'm back now.
And just to give you a minute on that, because I know a lot of Canadians care about the Tommy Robinson case, not because they have a particular connection to Tommy, although he worked for us for a year, but because they see it as a canary in the coal mine on so many issues, freedom of speech, Islamification, things of that sort, the politicization of the police and the courts.
So Tommy Robinson was set to have his hearing for contempt of court.
The judge punted it over to the Attorney General.
I won't get into the technicalities of it.
The court hearing was very brief, but on the street outside were at least 2,000 people rallying in Tommy's support.
It was unbelievable.
As you may know, I brought along with me four or five journalists that, I say four or five, because there were four we brought, and I encouraged another one to come on its own.
Because I'm sick of the media party in the UK.
They're actually far worse than our media party here in Canada, if you can believe it.
And I want to show you, can I leave today by showing you two excerpts from the little rally that was outside the courthouse?
There was a little stage, and there were some speeches, and Tommy came out and he read his witness statement.
You can find that on a YouTube page.
But I want to start by showing you my short speech.
It's only about four minutes.
Can you watch it?
Because I want to show you something afterwards by Andrew Lawton that's even better.
Here's my four and a half minutes or so of comments from the stage in front of 2,000 Tommy supporters outside the court.
Take a look.
You know, I've been calling Tommy the last lion of Britain.
As I look around your beautiful city of London, I see many lions.
At first I thought it was just the statues at Trafalgar Square or outside Buckingham Palace at Queen Victoria's Memorial.
And I thought maybe Tommy is the last.
But as I look across the thousands of faces here, that the media party will count only in the hundreds.
As I look at the thousands of faces here, I know that there are lion cubs being born.
And I would encourage you to speak up with courage and strength.
As my old British friend John O'Sullivan said, it's easier to fight in the first ditch than in the last ditch.
And what I would say to you is if you don't stand with Tommy Robinson today, however hard it is, however much slander and calumny is directed at you by your own media and even your government and even some police brass, if you don't stand up now when it's hard, I guarantee it will be harder later.
I must say that back in Canada where I'm from and in America where some of my fellow real reporters have come from today, if we were to hear of a man who would have his fifth hearing, your first one in Leeds on May 25th, then the Court of Appeal hearing, then the Court of Appeal ruling, and then your hearing here last month and today, that's five.
And we know there will be a sixth and likely a seventh.
If anyone back where I come from, in the daughters of the empire, in the Commonwealth, would hear that in the mother country where the Magna Carta came from, where the rule of law was hammered out,
if we in America and Canada and Australia, Avi, thank you for making the journey, if we were to know that a man would be at five court hearings and had served 10 weeks in solitary confinement when it's against the law in Britain to serve 14 days or more because of the psychological damage.
And if we would learn that this was all because of a Facebook video that didn't disrupt the case, if this were in any country other than the United Kingdom that we heard this, if we heard that a citizen journalist was swept off the street into a police station, into a court and into prison in five hours, and that he wasn't even invited to say one word.
He wasn't even asked, guilty or not.
He didn't say one word.
If we were to hear that coming from Iran or North Korea or Venezuela, would we not say that is a political prisoner in an authoritarian state?
And so how is it that the United Kingdom, with such a history of liberty and law, can treat its own son this way?
And maybe sometimes you need voices from outside the country to say, what are you doing?
What are you doing?
And so let me close by inviting each one of you to try to be a lion in your own way.
Not to bend the knee when the media party calls you names.
They will call you names no matter what.
Try to show some courage as inspired by Tommy.
If he can do 10 months in a dungeon for his free speech, surely you can do something, a fraction of that for your own.
Well, you've heard me say that before.
I regard Tommy as the last lion, but there were 2,000 people there ready to be lion cubs.
Give them credit.
Now, I mentioned the real reporters we crowdfunded.
We just crowdfunded their flight and hotels.
We didn't pay them a fee.
They're under no editorial governance or guidance whatsoever.
I just knew that if they were honest reporters, they'd see what was going on, unlike the vendetta reporters of the UK Media Party.
Anyway, one of those, as you know, we had Candace Malcolm, we had Avi Amini from Australia, we had Cassandra Fairbanks from Washington, D.C. One of them was our friend Andrew Lawton.
And he came into the court and he sat with the rest of the media, but they didn't know who he was, right?
I mean, I'm me and they don't like me, the British media.
He had no clue who Andrew was.
So he was sitting right with them and he wasn't eavesdropping on them or anything.
They were just talking out loud inches behind him.
Take a listen to what Andrew personally witnessed them saying.
This is just a couple minutes, but take a look.
My name is Andrew Lawton.
I am from London, Ontario is Adam.
So I was in the courtroom in the front row waiting to cover Tommy Robinson.
The mainstream media did not know who I was, being the undocumented foreigner in this land.
And they were speaking a little candidly.
Would you like to hear what they say?
So where's Ezra?
My personal favorite.
And by the way, this will be quoted on my website later today with their publication name.
My personal favorite was about our friend Ezra Levant.
Quote, he needs to be arrested, they said.
Before the proceeding even started, this is what they said about Tommy.
Quote, he is in contempt of court.
There's not really any doubt.
And there was one more.
You see, one of the great members of the law enforcement who have done a lot of great work today said to them, at the time there were about 1,500 people, they said, let's just say a few hundred, quote, because we give it credit.
That's why I'm here.
Thank you.
Look, that does not surprise me.
The only thing that surprises me is how brazen they were that they would talk about it openly.
All the other journalists in on it, except for this time we had a real reporter from Canada to witness it.
Do you doubt that our Canadian media party is the same way, colluding together to marginalize conservatives they don't like?
I'm certain it's the same way.
Anyways, I showed you two clips.
There's a ton of clips.
If you want to watch more, go to TommyTrial.com.
That's where we've got all our clips on the subject.
That's it for today.
On behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters to you at home, good night.