Catherine McKenna leads Canada’s 126-person delegation to COP24 in Poland, promoting carbon pricing while critics mock her luxury travel—like hiring a Paris photographer—and question its $3.3M cost impact on farmers and schools. Meanwhile, Tim Cook’s push to ban "divisive ideas" sparks fears of corporate overreach, echoing Orwellian speech control, as Apple dictates acceptable discourse. Jack Buckby’s raw Paris riot footage contrasts with distant BBC coverage, highlighting media bias risks amid partisan paychecks like Lana Payne’s union-funded journalism. These moves reveal a clash between climate urgency and unchecked power, raising concerns over transparency and free expression in both policy and tech. [Automatically generated summary]
Tonight, Catherine McKenna is taking a jet to a conference against global warming.
But why is she bringing a delegation of 126 people with her?
It's December 5th, and you're watching The Ezra Levant Show.
Why should others go to jail when you're a biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here and you won't give them an answer.
You come here once a year with a sign and you feel morally superior.
The only thing I have to say to the government about why I publish it is because it's my bloody right to do so.
Catherine McKenna is our environment minister and she has a lot of great advice for people like you and me.
Now I try to avoid Wendy Mensley's weekly conspiracy theory show on the CBC.
It's kooky.
But Catherine McKenna was on there over the weekend and I just have to show you this exchange.
Take a look.
The biggest challenge as a farmer for me is going to be the carbon pricing because agriculture is pretty much the only industry where we don't get to pass on that additional cost to our operation.
So carbon pricing is going to be an extremely challenging bill for a lot of farmers to be able to deal with.
She can't raise the price of her grain or she'll be forced out of the market.
So like maybe this explains why you've got all the prairie premiers basically saying, or most of them saying, we don't want a carbon price.
How do you win over farmers like her?
Look, if anyone understands the impacts of climate change, it's farmers.
Our system will give more money back to residents of that province than they will pay and will create the incentives for innovation.
And I've seen amazing innovations in farming, for example.
Zero-till agriculture, using less water, using smart technologies, artificial intelligence to figure out how you can use less fertilizer, how you can do a better job tilling, how you can get better results.
We can all do this.
But if we don't, the impact will be dire on farms.
So that was a real farmer with a real question.
And Catherine McKenna says if she was such a smart farmer, she'd use less water or use AI, artificial intelligence, so she would know how to be a better farmer and do better things like tilling.
And maybe she'd stop using so much fertilizer because it was all said with a Kardashian affectation.
Actually, it's not really up talking, it's more a vocal fry.
Climate action makes business sense, business sense, business sense, business sense.
Ah, that Kardashian.
That's not an accent.
That's not a speech impediment.
That's someone choosing to talk that way.
Holy moly, putting aside the accent, though, is that ever a tone-deaf answer?
I think even that left-wing conspiracy theorist, Wendy Masley, was shocked by just how tone-deaf Catherine McKenna is.
A farmer is asking, how am I going to pay this new carbon tax?
And McKenna just tells her to be smarter.
Duh?
Just be smarter.
All the smart farmers are doing it.
Just use some AI, vocal fry.
I tell you, just put that little exchange they had there on TV in the prairies.
Call it your Conservative Party campaign ad, and you're done with the campaign.
Oh, and by the way, if the globe is warming, and there's been a 20-year hiatus in warming, by the way, that would be good news for Canadian farmers.
We have short growing seasons because of the cold.
The entire northern half of our country is agriculturally dead.
It's covered in permanent frost, permafrost.
Nothing at all can grow.
So yeah, I think her TED Talk, talking points about AI farming, that worked so well at her last JetSet convention, they don't really help answer practical questions from real life people.
They've been rioting in France, by the way, for weeks over their carbon tax.
That's what real life people are doing.
And they're not using AI apps on how to drive better.
I hope we don't see riots in Canada.
And if we do, I hope we don't see the police brutality in response like in Paris.
But I put nothing past McKenna and a boss, Justin Trudeau.
I mean, Trudeau specifically said the thing he likes best about China's basic dictatorship is that it can impose environmental laws.
There's a level of admiration I actually have for China because their basic dictatorship is allowing them to actually turn their economy around on a dime and say we need to go green as fast as we need to start investing in solar.
So anyways, that's Catherine McKenna.
Lots of advice for farmers to use less energy and pay more taxes.
And the taxes, by the way, will help that farmer make smarter choices, which is an insulting way of saying no one will be able to afford normal choices.
Here's a Calgary Herald story the other day about how the school board there has spent $3.3 million on Rachel Notley's carbon tax.
So they had to cancel school buses for about 400 kids.
So the carbon tax is helping those kids to make smarter choices.
I'm serious.
That is the logic here.
The whole point of carbon taxes is to punish pollution.
Funny, I thought kids going to school and school buses was a pretty good thing.
The school part, the kids part, the buses part.
But that's a bad choice, apparently.
Hey, I'm not the crazy one saying these things.
They're saying the things.
I'm just trying to drop the Kardashian accent when I say it.
It sounds even dumber.
So who is making smart energy choices this week?
Well, it's Catherine McKenna herself.
Look at this new headline.
Analysis, which countries have sent the most delegates to COP24?
COP24.
COP24 is a fancy way of saying the 24th annual UN Global Warming Conference.
COP stands for Conference of the Parties.
The parties in this case mean the countries, parties to the Global Warming Treaty.
But of course, it really is a big, lavish party, a movable feast, movable feast that actually moves from city to city each year.
It goes to some of the best tourist spots in the world.
Paris a few years back, Bali, Cancun.
I'm surprised they're having it this year in Poland, which is a pretty chilly place to have a UN conference in December.
They normally go to tourist hotspots.
Who knows?
Maybe they thought global warming would have kicked in and warmed up Poland by now.
Well, even if it is cold in Poland, that is not going to stop the jet setters who are jet-setting against jet fuel because you can blow millions of dollars, billions of dollars in any weather.
Remember, Catherine McKenna hired a Paris fashion photographer to capture just how glamorous she was at the Global Warming Conference a couple years ago.
And then naturally she blamed some civil servant for the decision when she was called out on it.
And of course the CBC did damage control for her, as you saw in that article.
So this is a vanity case, Catherine McKenna, who has 24 people working on her Twitter tweets.
Seriously.
So she's back at it now, jetting around the world, campaigning against jets.
And like I say, she's bringing 126 of her closest friends with her.
And here's the list just published by the United Nations of all the registrations so far for this little get-together.
If you can see there at the bottom right, 22,771 people, oh my God, are jetting to Poland to talk about using less energy.
And as you can see a little bit further up there, 13,898 of these people are from the countries themselves.
And then work with me down that right-hand column a bit.
6,046 of these people are from NGOs and lobby groups.
And then almost at the bottom there, it says 1,541 media.
Now, I'm not going to call them journalists because real journalists are not allowed in.
Only those who comply with the UN agenda are.
I know this because our own Sheila Gunread is going to Poland to cover this, but the UN refuses to accredit her.
And they specifically said when rejecting her accreditation application, it's because McKenna's delegation blackballed her.
The quote declined due to complaints received about the organization from government delegate to COP22.
They just come out and say it.
Catherine McKenna complains, so she's banned.
That's how it works with the UN.
They know Sheila Gunread is a critic, so they keep her out.
Of course, that's what China would do.
Imagine what that says about the media who are allowed in.
They must be so compliant.
So 22,771 people are meeting in person in luxury hotels, five-star living, limousines, the whole deal.
I'm sure they'll have lots of advice for farmers on how to reduce their carbon footprint, though.
But let's look through the list of delegates there.
I showed you the whole list.
Canada has 126 people.
Now, there's Catherine Ann Stewart, the chief negotiator.
Do you see that?
I'm not sure what we're negotiating.
Do you?
Do you know what we're negotiating?
Apparently, we're ready to negotiate something.
We're told that these UN treaties are non-binding.
So why are we going there?
What are we doing?
What are we negotiating about?
What are we going to get in return for what are we going to give up?
Are these real negotiators?
Like the kind Donald Trump used in the NAFTA renegotiations or in Donald Trump's negotiations with China?
That would be pretty amazing if we even had negotiators like that.
Or are they more Trudeau-style negotiators?
Like the ones Trudeau used in his negotiations with Bombardier?
I have a guess of what kind they are.
Did you even know we were going to Poland to negotiate something?
I honestly didn't know that.
I didn't know there was a negotiation.
But I guess we are.
And look at this.
I mentioned you had Catherine Stewart, the chief negotiator.
And then just look through the list of delegates here.
There's Ms. Christina Luisa Paradiso, the deputy chief negotiator.
And then there's Mr. Elias Aberisk, who's with negotiation, he's a negotiations manager.
How big a negotiation team is this?
What's going on here?
Well, we'll take a look.
Mr. Gregoire Albert Baribo, negotiator, mitigation policy analyst.
Oh.
And then there's Mr. Jeffrey Brower, negotiator, response measures.
And then there's Ms. Elizabeth Bush, negotiator, climate science.
And then there's Ms. Lydia Caveson, negotiator, climate finance.
And then there's Ms. Kimberly Cretchen, negotiator, adaptation.
And then there's Ms. Sherry Hain, negotiator, greenhouse gas inventories.
And then there's Mr. Richard Lawrence Keegan, negotiator, indigenous engagement.
If you're counting, we're at 10 negotiators so far.
Oh, I am not done.
Okay, let me read quickly.
I'm not going to read you all 126 names.
I just want to show you what luxury living, six-figure salaries, international travel, offer a make-up, fake, cause, junk science looks like.
In other words, this is what your carbon tax is going to pay for.
All these extremely important people, they're going to talk about ways to wring more money out of your wallet to talk more about ringing more ways to wring money out of your wallet.
Here's Martin Lajoie.
He's a negotiator.
Markets.
I don't even know what that means.
Here's Mr. Adam Freeban, negotiator, climate finance, economic advisor.
Mr. Patrick Spicer, negotiator, global stock take Talanoa dialogue.
I know you don't know what that means.
Mr. Stefan Wesch, negotiator, markets.
That is 16 negotiators.
That is more than we had negotiating NAFTA, which really is a thing.
We've got 16 people flying to this UN Conference to Negotiation.
Now, I've been in some negotiations in my life.
Nothing as big as a foreign treaty.
But I don't know how you even have 16 people negotiating anything.
How do you even have 16 people involved?
And that doesn't include this woman, Miss Patricia Fuller, Ambassador for Climate Change.
And of course, she has an assistant, Miss Joanna Dafoe, advisor to the Ambassador for Climate Change.
That's just the negotiations unit of just the federal government.
I'll get into a little bit more of who they sent later.
But remember, provinces send people to these junkets too.
There are more than a dozen very, very important people from the government of Quebec going, and I'm not even including Bloch Qui Bucois MPs from the federal parliament that are going.
Now, the block really isn't even a thing anymore.
They don't like Canada anyways, but sure, they'll take a free trip to Europe with the Canadian delegation, maybe stop off in Paris along the way.
It's not just the provinces too, Indian bands.
Now, what gets me is that Canada's Indian bands have real problems.
Unemployment, a huge one.
Lack of jobs.
Social dysfunction, a huge one.
Crime, substance abuse.
And they actually have real environmental problems too, especially drinking water, clean drinking water.
But so many Indian bands and fancy chiefs love JED sending to these conferences too.
I mean, really, is the 24th annual meeting of the Global Warming Mafia really the best way to spend five grand in airfare and five grand in hotels for any one chief to get over to Poland for a party?
Because don't think for a second most of these people aren't flying first class.
Here, I'll just read a few.
Ms. Cluane Adamek, Regional Chief, Assembly of First Nations.
Mr. Robert Bertrand, National Chief, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.
Is this really the most important thing for their bands?
But this isn't just about chiefs.
Oh, they need a lot of technical experts.
I mean, what's the number one issue affecting Aboriginal women these days?
Well, I'm told endlessly that it's the missing and murdered women's fall.
And maybe that's true.
Yeah, but not when there's a free trip to Europe involved.
Here's Mr. Adam Jordan Tyler Bond.
He's a technical expert at the Native Women's Association of Canada.
And look at this.
Here's Miss Francine Don Joe.
She's the president of the Native Women's Association of Canada.
And here's Mr. Graham Reid, senior advisor, Assembly of First Nations.
And here's Miss Melissa Sernagoy, Senior Policy Advisor, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.
By the way, are there ever any junior policy advisors?
Does everybody get to call themselves senior?
Actually, I bet there are junior policy advisors and assistant junior policy advisors.
I bet there are thousands of these people.
Unifor's Political Agenda00:15:25
Look at this one.
Mr. William Neil Gooden, Minister of Housing and Property Management, Manitoba Métis Federation, Métis National Council.
Really?
So you're in charge of housing for Aboriginal people.
That is a very real issue.
That is a very important job.
It's a crisis in some cities.
It really is.
And on reserves, especially.
But this guy puts everything less important aside.
To get on a jet, to go to Poland for the big global warming party?
How will anything he does in Poland help housing for a single Métis person in Manitoba?
That is a mystery, people.
But hey, if everyone else is pigging out in Poland, why should the Métis be left out?
Now, I mentioned how vain Catherine McKenna is.
I mentioned how she hired that Paris fashion photographer to show how glamorous she is.
So gross.
Well, instead of hiring out fashion photographers and that, they just put them on payroll.
Here's Mr. Christian Melbouf-Connelly, manager, social media, Environment and Climate Change Canada.
He's the manager of social media for McKenna because she's like Kardashian, really.
Except I don't think Kim Kardashian has a whole team of 24 people working her Twitter account.
I think Kim Kardashian is a more responsible businesswoman than that.
But hey, she's using her own money.
Catherine McKenna is using your money.
Oh, by the way, the union propagandists, they're out in force too.
The anti-oil unions like Unifor, Miss Sari Hanella Saarinen, National Health, Safety and Environment Director for Unifor.
And the teachers' unions, Mr. Earl Burt, treasurer, Ontario Secondary School Teachers Federation.
Not sure why union dues are being spent to send a treasurer of a teachers' union on a junket, but hey, it's a party, and they're part of the government.
And why shouldn't they be pigging out soon?
I didn't even mention it, but Cup W, the Postal Workers Union, is going, they've got a big strike in Canada, but don't let that get in the way of a party, man.
Just go party.
CUP W is on strike, go party.
I mean, really, when you think global warming, you think, what do the postal workers have to say, don't you?
There's so many hangers on.
There are little youth delegates.
Maybe they'll help with the negotiation.
I mean, they really couldn't be worse than Trudeau's government negotiating.
I mean, look at how we got taken for a ride by Donald Trump.
But really, they're just junior propagandists who will pump global warming message tracks into their schools and universities back home.
I'm sure they will be shocked by the profligacy of the UN Convention, the luxury, the wealth, the overconsumption.
But I think they'll quickly make a decision.
Either stand by their true principles, their ideals, reduce, reuse, recycle, smaller carbon footprint, live modestly, or they'll go full Suzuki.
They'll learn to say all of those things, reduce, reuse, recycle, save our planet.
But they'll make a mental reservation, it's called.
They'll make a psychological, emotional exception for themselves because they're part of the anointed elite.
I mean, I think that zombie, Catherine McKenna, with her talking points, I think she really does believe that farm girl from the prairie should reduce her carbon footprint by one puff and should use less water.
And then she just flips a mental switch and goes on a luxury trip with 126 friends.
And she never compares her words and her deeds.
And if she ever did, she'd have a morally important excuse, which is, well, I'm just so important.
And I have to do this.
And stop with your racist questions.
There are others on on this list of 126 piggies.
There are lobbyists, there are environmental activists, they're often the same person.
They always manage to feather their own nest, don't they?
The whole thing is gross.
But the grossest is this.
Every single one of these people, every single one, is working to destroy Alberta's oil and gas industry.
And yes, don't kid yourself, Ontario's auto industry, too.
126 destroyers on your dime.
So the next time you hear Catherine McKenna or Justin Trudeau making some remarks about the middle class and jobs, why not ask them why 126 Canadian jet-setters went to Poland to campaign against Canada's heartland industries?
And be ready for a lot of vocal fry in response.
Stay with us for more.
Welcome back.
Well, what if I told you that the local political columnist in your daily newspaper also happened to be a paid lobbyist for, I don't know, some corporate interest group.
I don't know, the petroleum producers or General Motors, let's say.
And that they would write articles that they believed in, but maybe it just also happened to be what they were paid to promote on behalf of the lobby group that employed them.
You'd probably say, well, I would want a disclosure that this pro-GM editorial was written by a staffer of GM or this person calling for, I don't know, war in the Middle East works for an arms dealer.
Those may sound like dramatic hypothetical scenarios, but I think it's an analogy to what's happening in the city of St. John's, Newfoundland, with one of their columnists.
Well, here to explain the conflict of interest and how it goes straight to the heart of media independence is our friend Andrew Lawton, a fellow of the True North Initiative and the boss of AndrewLawton.ca.
Great to see you again, Andrew.
Nice to have you back on the show.
Thank you, Ezra.
Always a pleasure.
I tried out an analogy a moment ago, and I don't know if it worked, but my point is, if someone tells you something, that's one thing.
But if they're selling you something, there's got to be a disclaimer that they're sort of on the make here.
Tell us a little bit about a journalist in St. John's named Lana Payne, and tell our viewers why, even if they're not from St. John's, Newfoundland, they should care.
Yeah, well, actually, what got me started on the story that I ultimately uncovered here was investigating Unifor, which, as I'm sure your viewers know, declared war against Andrew Scheer a few weeks ago.
A bunch of their political action team members called themselves the resistance to Andrew Scheer and vowed at all costs to defeat Andrew Scheer and the Conservatives in next year's election.
And that in and of itself, I think, is a labor union's prerogative, like any other organization, to have a perspective and to want to act on it.
Why it was so concerning for me with Unifor is that Unifor is the largest union in Canada.
It's also the largest Union for journalists and representatives of the media in Canada.
And this announcement that Unifor was the resistance to Andrew Scheer came just one week before journalists in Canada were the beneficiaries of that $600 million media bailout.
So I was already seeing some stories that were creating this idea that perhaps some journalists, not all, are going to be in a position where they could be beholden.
to forces other than their own integrity and ethics.
And you fast forward to a couple of days ago and I uncovered that one of the members of the core Unifor political action team, so not just a low-ranking Unifor member, but one of the seven or eight people that are actually driving their efforts to defeat the conservatives is a regular columnist with the St. John's Telegram, a large newspaper, I think the largest newspaper in Newfoundland and one of the largest in the Maritimes.
And to be fair, I don't have any issues with a columnist taking a pro-Justin Trudeau stance or an anti-conservative stance.
I think that's to be expected.
What I do have an issue with is her doing so while she's also collecting a paycheck, presumably, from Unifor, which has a very specific goal, and that is to defeat the conservatives.
And this would be, I think your analogies were very spot on.
It would also be the same, in my view, of someone being a political candidate and at the same time as running for office, writing columns to give people their analysis on politics.
Yeah, yeah, you're right.
You know, you make me think way back, I don't know, about 20 years ago or so almost when I ran briefly for Parliament in Calgary Southwest for the old party, the Canadian Alliance.
I was writing for local newspapers, but once I threw my hat in the ring, they said, all right, you're a candidate now, and we can't really let you pretend to be a neutral objective voice because you have a very specific political interest.
We showed that tweet you mentioned where Unifor declared itself to be the resistance.
Put that back up just for one second.
I wanted to, that lady, second from the right, that is the columnist in question.
So she's not just some shop steward, you know, low-down middle manager in the union.
She is someone who self-identified as the, quote, resistance, Andrew Scheer's worst nightmare.
We have one more image I'd like to show with you, also showing the same.
Here she is.
Another Unifor tweet.
It just says, it's never too soon to start planning for the 2019 federal election.
Unifor's election planning team is hard at work to develop our strategy.
And then if we zoom in there, you can see her, and that's her on the left.
And again, free country, be as partisan as you want.
I think that this probably doesn't reflect all Unifor dues paying members.
But how can someone who is a partisan campaign activist have a normal byline in a newspaper pretending to be, oh, it's just me.
Yeah, I'm just the girl next door just saying it, calling it like I see it.
No, you are a senior captain of Unifor's anti-conservative strategy.
It's really, you broke this news.
You did a very good job of it, Andrew.
Have you heard anything back from the editor or publisher of the St. John's Telegram?
Has any media ethics boss said, oh, maybe he's got a point?
Has anyone in the industry said, maybe we have a problem here?
No, nothing from that perspective.
But I will say I've had a number of Unifor members that have reached out that are, as you suggested, actually quite frustrated that this is what their union is doing.
They're interested in securing their jobs and having an economic climate to keep working.
They don't want to get into this political fistfight that Jerry Dyas and his team, including Ms. Payne, have started.
You know, I will say something here, Ezra, that I think is important.
This is not an issue with her being opinionated.
You know, I ran as a progressive conservative candidate in the election.
So understandably, people may read a column I'm writing and wonder, you know, is he writing this from the perspective of Andrew Lawton, the small C Conservative, or Andrew Lawton, the partisan.
And I've always been very clear that I will criticize my own party, if you can even say that is the case.
And I wouldn't say that I represent any party right now, but I've criticized the Federal Conservative Party, I've criticized the Provincial Conservative Party, and I've criticized the People's Party of Canada.
And Lana Payne may well be in that same boat where she's prepared to give credit where it's due and take aim at her own side.
But I don't think that is the case when she is part of this core strategic team that Unifor has assembled, and she is supposedly going to be offering her analysis on politics.
And you have to wonder if this fits into the strategy, not just for her, but also for the other 12,000 members of Unifor that are in the media industry, more than any other contingent from that industry in Canada, that are now on one hand supposed to be reporting the truth about what's happening in the elections, but on the other hand are being told by their union, this is what we're saying, this is what we're doing, this is our strategy, this is our goal.
And let me tell you, Ezra, when I was knocking on doors in my campaign, I heard from a number of people when I was at their doorstep saying, oh yeah, I got an email from my union telling me to do this.
So we know this is how unions behave in elections.
The problem is that that information is not just going to frontline workers, it's going to the people that are supposedly communicating the impartial and unbiased truth of what's happening in politics to the masses.
Yeah, I mean, Unifor is a very big union.
It ranges.
You mentioned it covers the media.
I've also personally seen the Unifor office in Fort McMurray.
So obviously oil and gas workers, obviously more on the conservative side of things, and certainly on the pro-oil and gas side.
And of course, GM Oshawa, Oshawa votes conservative federally year after year.
So I have no doubt that some Unifor members are anti-conservative, but I think that not only does this not represent all Unifor members, I think it actually erodes confidence in all journalists.
Let me give you a quick example.
I mean, we both are friends with David Aiken.
He's a pretty good guy.
We worked with him at Sun News.
He does, I think it's with Global now.
He protested against Unifor's statement, the tweets, and I thought it was very good of him to do.
I sent him a copy of his Unifor local shop, his Union Local bylaws, which say if a quarter of the local members sign a request for a meeting, the Union Local has to have that meeting within 60 days.
And David said, I'm very angry about this politicization.
I'm pretty sure no such meeting has been called or will be called.
And here's what worries me, Andrew.
Journalists say, oh, I don't like this, but they're all going to go quiet and take the $595 million bailout from Justin Trudeau.
And they all are going to either be part of this demonize the conservatives plan that Unifor has laid out for them, or at the very least, they won't resist it.
And that momentary tut-tut, I don't like this by our friend David Aiken and others will be just that, a momentary, oh, please don't twist my rubber arm.
And then they're all going to be complicit and trust in the media is going to fall even lower.
That's my theory.
What do you think of that scenario?
Well, I think you're very right there.
And remember that unions are overwhelmingly decided and swayed by the people that have the time and interest in getting involved.
And the average person who is working in a newsroom, in a car plant, whatever, doesn't want to rise up the ranks to be the deputy vice admiral, chief associate, assistant, vice president of communicating communications for their union.
They just want to work and do their job.
And I think that the journalists that are against this will probably just send off a tweet or two, maybe roll the rise, but they're not actually going to infiltrate the union to change anything because, let's face it, that's not why they're working in the newsrooms.
The truly ethical journalists are focusing on journalism.
So I don't think the actual structure of this will change in any way.
And ultimately, people like Jerry Dias will be the ones that set the narrative and Lana Payne.
And, you know, the one thing that really started this for me is I said that most Canadians reading a newspaper or watching a TV news broadcast have no idea which newsrooms are unionized and in which unions.
Punching Hate in the Face00:04:51
And the push that I made for this was to disclose.
You know, as simple as that, when you write a political story, now that Unifor has made a political agenda known, you have to say with your byline, Unifor member.
And if you're a steward, if you're a president, whatever.
And that is the only way that readers of news and consumers will be able to maybe start questioning where is this coming from?
Is this the journalistic truth talking, or is this your loyalty to your union and its stated aims talking?
Yeah.
Yeah, you're so right.
I mean, and that's what I said right at the beginning.
If someone has a collateral interest, just disclose it.
And let the viewer decide if that's important.
And by the way, even if you are a paid lobbyist for someone, you can still have a good point.
You can still make that point.
But if you have some collateral hidden interest, you've got to disclose it.
And that, I think, I mean, part of the crisis in journalism is technological and the nature of the economics of the new industry.
But I think a lot of it is trust.
And I think this whole Unifor endorsement thing is just really another blow to the credibility of the industry that doesn't need right now.
And it's great to see you.
I enjoyed spending a day or two with you in London when we both covered the Tommy Robinson trial together.
And it's nice to see you back on the show as a panelist.
Thanks very much, Ezra.
Always a pleasure.
All right, there you have it.
Our friend Andrew Lawton joining us via Skype from London, Ontario.
He, of course, joined me in London, England for Tommy Robinson's trial.
He is a fellow with the True North Initiative.
Stay with us.
More ahead on The Rebel.
Hey, welcome back to my monologue yesterday about Apple CEO Tim Cook wanting to ban divisive ideas.
Ron writes, has Apple now become a theocratic corporation with Tim Cook as the high priest and the Apple iPhone PDF as the new Bible?
Well, look, I mean, I know it's crazy, but it's happening that the company that just makes your phone or your stereo or your watch now has an opinion about what you say and do when you're listening to the phone or the stereo or wearing the watch.
That is not normal.
That is not normal.
When you sell someone a chair, they can do whatever they want with a chair.
They can chop up the chair and burn it.
They can stand on it dangerously.
Maybe I have a warning that says, don't stand on the wheels, the chair with wheels on it.
But to stay involved with that chair and use that chair to make you a better you.
That is not what we do when we buy a chair.
And I'm sorry, it doesn't apply when you buy a phone or a stereo or whatever the tech industry is selling us.
It just is not.
That is not.
And where's the media, by the way?
I think because they think tech is cool and they see the money, I think they shut up and they go along with it.
I find it strange.
Peter writes, on the surface, if you don't think about it too much, Tim Cook's speech about being against hate seems okay.
Who wouldn't want to be against hate?
But who decides what is hate and what is not?
So many social justice warriors call anything they disagree with hate.
You know, you're exactly right.
It reminds me of, remember we showed that guy at some awards show, punch some people in the face.
We got to punch hate in the face.
Like, he just was oblivious to how he looked and sat in the contradictions there.
That whole punch a Nazi thing that really got rolling in 2017, it turned from if you spot a Nazi, punch him in the face, to if you punch someone in the face, call them a Nazi to justify it.
So anti-hate laws or hate speech, what does that mean?
I think it just means it's any speech that a liberal hates.
Not hateful speech.
You know, is Louis Farrakhan hateful?
Some people actually thought that Martin Luther King Jr. was hateful.
And I'm sure he hated the structures and the status quo there was.
He expressed it in a nonviolent, peaceful, affirmative, constructive way.
I'm sure he was motivated by love, but I'm sure he was also motivated by hate.
We can't get in the business of controlling human emotions.
That's what they tried in Orwell's 19th.
You've got to read that book again.
From the telescreens to the two minutes of hate, to the Ministry of Truth, to the Ministry of Peace.
You've got to read the book again.
You know what?
I'm going to take my own medicine.
I'm going to read that book again.
I've read that book four times.
It's been too long since I've read it last.
If you want to know what 1984 is about, it is actually about language.
It is about newspeak more than anything else.
Read it again.
Let's talk about it.
You know what?
Too Much Foreign Affairs00:02:12
I'll read it and I'll come back.
I'll do a show on it.
On my interview with Jack Buckby, Keith writes, I viewed both BBC and Sky News coverage of the Paris riots, and Jack's coverage beat them both.
They were using long lenses and zooming in from a distance.
Well, Jack was right there on the front line.
Yeah, isn't that the truth?
I saw lots of shots from far away and up high.
I really didn't see any other footage like Jack's right in the thick of it.
He was right there at the Arctic Triomphe, which is a very imposing place, and it's a huge traffic circle.
When things are normal in Paris, I don't know, I don't have a map in my mind, but there's got to be at least six, like a radius, a sundial.
You got the Arctic Triomphe, you got a circular road around it, and you have, I think, six roads emanating out of it like sunbeams.
It is a major hub, and it's an enormous edifice.
Did you know that a daredevil once took an airplane and flew it through the Arctic Triomphe?
That's a fact.
That's a fact.
It's enormous.
And the whole place was shut down.
And Jack was right in it with Martina, filming everything.
That was some of the most exciting journalism we've ever had, in my view.
I'm glad you liked it.
Some people say, hey, too much foreign affairs.
Too much foreign affairs.
Well, you know what?
I know that people get their foreign affairs through the CBC, through CNN, whatever.
And I know people were hearing about these protests.
I know people were hearing about the migrant caravan in Mexico.
So I got to tell you, if you're against the foreign travel, you're not going to like what I'm about to say because we're sending Sheila Gunn Reed to the Global Warming Conference in Poland.
We're sending David Menzies to the UN Migration Compact Conference in Morocco, unless they literally physically kick him out.
And I think I might go back to London for Tommy's Brexit rally.
So we're going to do some of that because you know what?
These are important things that Canadians follow.
And yeah, we're covering the Canadian beat too.
We've got a lot of Canadian news going on all the time.
So that's what's coming up in the days and weeks ahead.
I'm glad you liked Jack's coverage.
Folks, that's it for the show today.
Until tomorrow, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters to you at home, good night.