David Menzies critiques Justin Trudeau’s selective apologies—publicly condemning historical injustices like residential schools ($27B settlement) and the 1864 Chilcotin War hangings but dodging accountability for pressuring Jody Wilson-Raybould in the SNC-Lavalin scandal or his 2000 groping incident, where he offered no sincere regret. Mark Moreno argues the Green New Deal’s $94T cost and reliance on UN climate models fail to curb temperatures meaningfully, while its radical roots—plagiarized from 1960s environmentalism—prioritize socialism over practicality, exposing hypocrisy like AOC’s SUV and Sanders’ private flights. Ezra Levant’s UK trial censorship highlights a troubling shift toward stifling free speech, contrasting sharply with Canada’s open justice tradition, raising questions about global press freedom standards. [Automatically generated summary]
You're listening to a free audio-only recording of the Ezra Levent Show.
On today's show, I interview Mark Moreno of climatepot.com and we talk about the so-called Green New Deal.
And my monologue is on Justin's inability to actually make a personal apology to just about anybody.
Now, if you like listening to this podcast, then you would love watching it.
But in order to watch, you need to be a subscriber to premium content.
That's what we call our long-format TV style shows on The Rebel.
Subscribers get access to watching Ezra's Daily Show as well as all the other great TV style shows too.
It's only $8 a month to subscribe, or you can subscribe annually and get two months free.
And just for podcast listeners, you can save an extra 10% on a new premium membership by using the coupon code podcast when you subscribe.
Just go to therebel.media slash shows to become a member.
And please leave a five-star review on this podcast and subscribe in iTunes or wherever you listen to your podcast.
Those reviews are a great way to support the Rebel without having to spend a dime.
And now, enjoy this free audio-only version of the Ezra Levent Show.
Justin's Perverse Apologies00:09:55
Tonight, Justin Trudeau loves to apologize, but why is it never for his own actions?
We'll show you how Trudeau's tears look like they belong to a crocodile.
It's March 13th.
I'm David Menzies, and this is the Ezra Event 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.
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.
When it comes to Justin Trudeau and his immoral and unethical and perhaps even illegal conduct pertaining to the way he incessantly pressured ex-Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould, well, you know what?
I think Elton John really nailed it way back in 1976 when he recorded this little diddy.
Sorry seems to be the hardest word.
Yeah, for Justin Trudeau, sorry really does seem to be the hardest word, doesn't it?
In fact, this two-syllable word seems to be missing from his vocabulary.
Actually, that's not completely true.
To clarify, I'm not saying Trudeau is completely incapable of saying sorry.
In fact, back in 2017, or in other words, barely two years into his mandate as prime minister, it seemed that not a month went by without Justin Trudeau offering up an apology to someone or some group.
At the time, I dubbed this initiative the Justin Trudeau Apology Palooza Tour, in which the PM crisscrossed Canada endlessly saying, sorry, sorry, sorry, and producing enough tears to fill a Mr. Turtle swimming pool.
Here's a brief excerpt.
On apologizing to the Aboriginals of Newfoundland and Labrador for the residential school system.
We are sorry.
On being reunited with a Syrian refugee one year later.
So my memories at that moment went back to my Syria before war, our life, our happiness there.
Apologizing to lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transsexuals, and queers for discriminatory policies.
Wow, look at that last one.
Standing O from all the liberal trained seals.
By the way, there's been several more apologies of this nature uttered by Trudeau since 2017, of course.
But I think the jump the sharknado moment on the Apology Tour happened when Justin apologized for the hanging of six native chiefs who were executed in British Columbia upon the conclusion of the Chilcotin War.
Yet, check out the timeline.
The Chilcotin War was fought in 1864.
That was a full three years before Canada came into being.
As for British Columbia, BC didn't join Confederation until 1871.
So if these hangings did indeed constitute a war crime, it was not something the government of Canada was complicit in because as previously noted, there was no such thing as the Dominion of Canada and British Columbia, as the name would imply, was still under British colonial rule, meaning that if anyone should be saying sorry for this incident right now, it's either Theresa May or Queen Elizabeth and good luck making that happen.
In any event, I'm sure you've noticed something of a theme here when it comes to a Trudopian apology.
Namely, every time he stages a grandiose mea culpa complete with waterworks, he is apologizing for the sins of other people that were carried out a long time ago in a dominion far, far away.
Justin's apologies are never for something Justin Trudeau himself has done in the here and now.
The most recent example being his thuggish conduct with Miss Wilson Raybold.
And lest we forget when the story surfaced about an incident in the year 2000 in which Justin groped a young female reporter at a BC music festival, well, our first feminist prime minister couldn't be bothered to apologize for that indecency either.
Indeed, Chatelaine magazine last year asked the PM if he had any regrets about how he handled his response to the groping given that Trudeau's initial statement was, quote, I am confident that I did not act inappropriately, end quote.
Well, here's what he had to say to Chatelaine by way of clarification.
And yes, I say the word clarification with tongue firmly planted in cheek, given that rarely have I come across such a heap and helpin' a bizarre baffle gab.
No, we have to recognize that we are all in an evolving context.
We are figuring out how to deal with these things in new and better ways than we were ever able to in the past.
I am very aware that I am part of a larger conversation that really isn't easy.
From the very beginning, in dealing with this, I wanted to make sure that I left room in the conversation to not shut down or diminish what the woman in this situation had experienced and recognize that people can experience the same interaction very differently and legitimately.
I'm obviously thinking very deeply about how we continue to model both support and respect for people who come forward and share their stories while being thoughtful about how we move forward as individuals and lessons learned.
⁇ End quote.
Huh.
Let me put that statement into our universal translation machine and see what it means in English.
We can't do it.
If we keep this speed, we'll blow up any minute now.
Fascinating.
Yet, the gist of what I think Justin was trying to say was this.
First, He doesn't regret his handsy behavior.
And secondly, in retrospect, this incident makes for a learning opportunity.
Oh, no, no, no, not for Justin, mind you, but rather for all of us.
Forget about an apology.
That's chutzbah to the nth degree.
But what does it say about the character of this man that he is so adroit at apologizing for the actions of others, yet incapable of taking responsibility for his own egregious actions?
Look, I'm no psychiatrist, folks, but I think this speaks to ego and privilege and entitlement.
Justin Trudeau is a trust fund baby born with the proverbial silver spoon wedged firmly in his mouth.
You know, I wonder if Pierre and Margaret ever compelled their little superboy to utter a single sincere apology whilst little Justin was growing up.
But there is some perverse irony at play here.
If Justin's self-entitlement is indeed preventing him from making a personal apology, then this is ultimately a self-defeating strategy.
That's because the public is indeed very forgiving.
But the caveat is that you have to be honest and sincere rather than evasive.
As the old post-Watergate chestnut goes, it's not the crime, it's the cover-up.
Indeed, I don't know why so many entities, be they political parties or manufacturing companies, have forgotten the lessons learned from the tainted Tylenol saga of 1982.
That's when some maniac in the Chicago area tainted Tylenol tablets with cyanide, resulting in the deaths of seven people.
Now, at the time, many analysts wrote off Tylenol as a dead brand given the toxic publicity.
Yet the parent company of Tylenol, Johnson ⁇ Johnson, they rewrote the book on damage control and crisis management by being proactive.
At enormous cost, the company undertook a global recall of its Tylenol tablets, even though the problem was only confined to the Chicago area.
Eventually, tamper-proof packaging was developed, something that we now take for granted, but the company also apologized for the deaths, even though it was in no way responsible.
The public came to look upon Johnson ⁇ Johnson as a victim too.
The word Tylenol could have become synonymous with poison, but instead, most people probably don't know that this tragedy ever happened.
In fact, Tylenol's market share is greater today than it was in 1982.
Yet, clearly, Justin Trudeau is no Johnson ⁇ Johnson. In fact, he and his freelance pit bulls such as Sheila Copps have gone on the offensive to absolve the government of any responsibility pertaining to LAV scam, further placing the blame on Jodie Wilson-Raybold, even though polls indicate that most Canadians believe that Ms. Wilson Raybold acted with integrity. As for today,
as the LAV scam dumpster fire morphs into something that resembles the Hagersville Tire fire, where, pray tell, is our fearless leader? Well, he's taken some more personal days off, you see. No, really. Oh, sure,
Green New Deal Scam?00:15:13
he's got cabinet ministers touring the country, creating distractions, or I mean, making announcements from everything pertaining to climate change to women's liberation. But Trudeau himself is apparently on a Florida beach working on his 10. Indeed,
how are Justin loves taking personal days off? I mean, last June alone, he took off seven personal days. That prompted someone to actually launch a website entitled, Is Justin Trudeau on Vacation.ca. And maybe this knee-jerk reaction of running away speaks to Justin's immaturity and entitlement. A leader,
a true leader, deals with a crisis head-on. He does not employ an ostrich strategy of burying his hand in the sand. Hey, maybe Justin thinks that when he returns to Ottawa for March break, all the trouble swirling around the SNC Lavalin affair will be gone and forgotten. If that's the case, then not only is Justin Trudeau incapable of personally apologizing,
but he's downright delusional as well. That today is not just a big day for us as a delegation,
us as a party, us as a movement, but this is a big day for activists all over the country and for frontline communities all over the country. Climate change, climate change and our environmental challenges are one of the biggest existential threats to our way of life. Oh, but of course, that was Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,
who is the poster child currently pushing the Democrats' grandiose climate change policy known as the Green New Deal. It aims to tackle carbon emissions and move the United States to green energy schemes generated by wind and solar power. The plan also calls for every existing building in the USA to be retrofitted in order to achieve better energy efficiency. So what's not to love? Well,
how about the fact that the goals proposed by the Green New Deal are likely unattainable? Oh, and then there's the off-the-lot sticker price of this scheme, which will be in the trillions of dollars. Yes, trillions with a T. And joining me now on a boondoggle that will hopefully never get off the ground is Mark Moreno of climate.com. Welcome to the Ezra Event Show, Mark. Thank you,
David. Happy to be here today. Always a pleasure. Okay, so Ms. Ocasio-Cortez likens the Green New Deal to the U.S. space program of 50 years ago, that this is somehow an example of American exceptionalism. I'm going to wager you have a differing viewpoint, Mark. So what do you think is the single biggest fatal flaw of this crazy scheme? Well, first of all, she said we need global warming as a threat that affects our way of life. Well,
the greatest existential threat to our way of life would be the Green New Deal if it passed. The biggest problem is with the Green New Deal is even if we face the climate catastrophe that the left claims we do, and you believe Al Gore, you believe everything the United Nations has said, using their own science and their own models, climatologists actually ran the numbers through the EPA models, which are based on UN climate scenarios. And in 100 years,
even if the Green New Deal were fully implemented, you wouldn't be able to tell the temperature difference. In other words, if we faced a climate catastrophe, the Green New Deal would do squat. So right off the bat, it fails a simple cost-benefit analysis. That's number one. Number two, it's plagiarism. It's the same series of solutions that they proposed beginning in the 1960s, the radical environmental movement with overpopulation fares, John Holden. And those solutions are wealth redistribution, sovereignty-limiting treaties,
and central planning, essentially. And I go through my book and the politically incorrect guide to climate change and show the same solutions, but they were proposed for different environmental scares. So all global warming is,
is the latest environmental scare that they're doing the latest solutions are. And again, nothing to do with climate. This is guaranteed education, guaranteed incomes, all sorts of just social engineering stuff they've thrown in the mix. And it's one of the greatest boondoggles,
but take it seriously because every Democratic candidate who goes up against Donald Trump is going to embrace the Green New Deal. And if Donald Trump is defeated, the Green New Deal will likely become law in America. Wow, that is truly scary. And Mark, I should point out to our viewers, it's not just you as the lone voice in the wilderness debunking the goals or the anticipated goals of the Green New Deal. I came across a quote from Dr. John Christie,
who heads up the Huntsville Department of Atmospheric Studies. And much like you said, if the United States disappeared from the planet right now, the effect of global temperatures would only be about a tenth of a degree by 2100. So, I mean, it seems like such an enormous investment, such a massive undertaking for such little results. And I'm just wondering, I think you might have alluded to it in your answer just now,
but what is the unspoken strategy of this Green New Deal, given that the science simply isn't there to make the case? Oh, the unspoken strategy is very simple. They want these same agenda items, and they've wanted them since the 1960s, particularly the modern Democratic Party. They tried it with George McGovern. They lost 49 states in 1972, the guaranteed income, the socialist plan. They tried again hard with Walter Mondel in 1984,
and I can't remember. I think that was a 49-state defeat as well against Ronald Reagan by the most liberal candidate. And then they've been proposing this stuff. I mean, this is all a recycle from UN. So the actual goal here is to put a global warming face on socialism. In other words,
if you are so afraid that you're going to lose your home, your house, that you're going to be underwater, that a hurricane is going to hit you, that your house is going to be destroyed by tornadoes, you may be willing to jump at a Green New Deal without looking at the merits or what's behind it or the economics because you want to save yourself from global warming. And the whole premise of the Green New Deal is we don't have time to debate. We only have 11 years,
don't you know, for the United Nations, so we're all dead. And so that's why we must do this now. Forget the details. Let's just pass the Green New Deal. That's the unstated assumption. And you know, Mark, it's very odd when they point to examples in the world to bolster the goals of the Green New Deal or the proposed goals. One country that always gets mentioned is Germany. Look at all their investment in solar,
in wind power. But what they don't tell you is that compared to neighboring France, which is heavily reliant on nuclear power, Germans pay about double for their electricity than France does. So that's not much of a deal in my book. No, it's not. And you have the same problem in the UK where you have senior citizens. They look at the death patterns. And because of rising energy costs from the so-called their own version, the European Green New Deal, essentially,
with all these mandates and restrictions on carbon-based energy and mandates on renewables, so to speak, you have a higher percentage of seniors dying in the winter. And then you mentioned France. Well, interestingly enough, France had a good system until President Macron came in, completely embraced the United Nations Paris climate treaty. And then they started raising energy costs. Then you had the yellow vest protesters come out. And Macron now, by the way,
didn't learn a thing. He just flew to a climate conference in Africa to talk about essentially doubling down on climate goals and everything else. But Europe is our future. More stagnant economic growth, much higher energy costs,
much more central planning. And that's always been. We had the healthcare debate with President Obama. We were always looking toward Europe. We always want to follow Europe. We're the only Neanderthals out there. It's actually using North Korea and the U.S. are the two Neanderthals that aren't signed on to the U.N.-Paris Agreement. We need the Green New Deal. This is what they do. And essentially,
the Green New Deal has nothing to do with climate. It's not green. It's not new. And it's not any kind of deal. It's a raw deal because A, even again, and it's very important to mention this. It's not that it would affect temperatures a tenth of a degree or not notice. That's only if you accept their science. And there's no reason to ever accept their science. We don't know what the temperature is going to be 100 years from now. We have solar cycles. You have hundreds of factors. But if you buy the CO2 control knob theory,
there's still no effect. And that's an important point and distinction to make. And that's why this whole thing is a fraud from beginning to end. And you alluded to the cost. One estimate was $94 trillion. But they don't care about the cost because this is about changing lifestyles. And, you know, from everything from what we eat to how we eat to how we travel. Interestingly enough, she wants to have high-speed train travel to get rid of airline travel. Well, just this week in Germany of all places,
their climate advisor proposed banning internal flights in Germany, making people only use the train because the climate can't handle it. And they're going to not only that, but they want to limit to like two flights a year as a phase in. So this is our future. It's going to have masterminds, so to speak, bureaucrats controlling everything that they deem is correct for the planet. And we are going to be their little guinea pigs, controlled our thermostats, our appliances, our train travel, our car travel,
proposing CO2 budgets for every man, woman, and child on the planet. This is what they've been proposing for decades. That's why I laugh when people say, oh, it's a Green New Deal. No, this is the red, if you know what I'm saying, old deal that's been around for decades that they've been promoting. And this is probably the best chance they've ever had to actually institute it because the next president will embrace it. The next Democrat nominee will embrace it. And if they're elected and beat Donald Trump,
this will become law. That's terrifying. You know, the exclamation point of what you just said too, Mark, is the fact that the proviso for them wanting us to embrace a new downgraded lifestyle is do as I say, not as I do. I mean, the last time I checked, Al Gore had a carbon footprint multiple, multiple times that of the average American. So it's very hypocritical. But, you know, you mentioned the UK, and there's another interesting element about one component of the Green New Deal,
and that was the $1.4 trillion plan. I almost feel like Dr. Revol, I should say, $1.4 trillion and put my little pinky to my lips like Dr. Evil. Just for retrofitting residential buildings alone in the U.S. And some critics have pointed out the safety issue. And you mentioned the U.K.,
of course, in 2017, the tragic Grenville Tower fire that caused dozens of fatalities. Evidently, this building was retrofitted with energy-saving cladding,
and it went up like a Roman candle because of that. Again, another factor that these Democrats are not telling you about in terms of the multiple downsides of this Green New Deal. Yes, and in fact, all of these mandates, I call it one big bowl of crazy. You can't even go through and listen. Talking about retrofitting buildings, first of all, you know, this is so-called green buildings. Well,
there's actually a point in your homes where you can make them too energy efficient, if you understand what I'm saying. In other words, you want a house to breathe. You want air to recycle. You don't want windows that allow no air passage through. But besides the idea of destroying current buildings and rebuilding them green is not environmentally friendly in any way,
shape, or form. Imagine all the fossil fuel transportation just to clear out an old building. Imagine the fossil fuels necessary to do it. So the idea that they want to get rid of fossil fuels, but then rely heavily. And you mentioned the hypocrisy,
David. Not only did Akashia Cortez show up in SUV at some conference this past year. We have the photographic evidence on my website, Climate Depot. But Bernie Sanders was called out by former Hillary staffers for hundreds of thousands of dollars demanding private airplane travel in order to campaign for her in the 2016 election. So Bernie Sanders,
the father, if you will, of the Green New Deal and AOC is a big supporter of him. He wants to keep fossil fuels in the ground, but yet he can't stop using them up in the air. Did Bernie drive to the airport in his Ferrari? Last time I looked, I haven't noticed the Prancing Horse Company making any hybrids or electrical cars. Oh, Mark, you know, you've painted a very chilling picture of what could happen, you know,
the balls that would be set in motion if there is indeed regime change in your country. Let's hope that that doesn't happen and that this remains pie in the sky because this is unaffordable. And even if it goes through, as you said,
it does virtually 0.0 in terms of moving the dial when it comes to global climate change, correct? Yes, and that's, again, if you accept their science, you know, it still doesn't do anything. And so that's one of the, that's, that's the biggest thing. But going forward here, the Green New Deal, and I, and my advice to them, if I were advising them, the less specific they are, the better. Because the Green New Deal is going to just be to, it's in the eye of the beholder,
the Green New Deal ultimately to the masses, the way they look at people is the masses, is just this will save us from global warming. Don't ask questions. We need to pass this. We need to embrace this. And unfortunately, the millennial generation will accept that. And that's what good news is they usually don't vote that high a rate. So that's a good news. Well, Mark, we got to wrap it here. I wish there was a big red button in front of me, like one of the,
like that famous TV show where I could just pound it and say no deal to the Green New Deal. So my friend, thank you so much for weighing in on this important subject. No problem. Thank you,
David. You got it. And that was Mark Moreno of climatepot.com. Keep it here, folks. More of the Ezra Levant show to come right after this. Well,
Live Tweeting in Court00:11:27
thank you ever so much for watching. Tomorrow, Sheila Gunnreed takes control of the show because Ezra Levant is over in the UK covering the latest Tommy Robinson trial. And speaking of which, Here's what happened in the UK regarding Tommy today.
For the Rebel.media, I'm Ezra Levant.
I am in Peterborough.
We're not quite at the county court.
We stepped in off the street because it was so windy.
I've been inside the courtroom live tweeting the case of Tommy Robinson versus the Cambridgeshire Police.
He's suing them for harassment about a spectacular incident that Tommy caught on his own cell phone a couple years ago when he was out with his kids to watch a football game in Cambridgeshire.
And he was at a Restaurant.
He'd been there all day with his KIDS.
He was watching the football game on TV, The kids were playing.
And the police came in, ordered him to leave, threatened him with arrest if they didn't.
And even when he left, they fraud, marched him to the railway station and videoed him down the way.
It's incredible.
And the only reason we know about it is because Tommy uploaded it to the internet.
Well, we had various police witnesses today, including a police officer who followed them down the road to the railway station with a handicam. Tommy made a big point about saying, where is that video footage? It will prove everything I've said,
including my own daughter, Tommy said, who ran off into the street and almost got hit by a vehicle. Well, the officer who took the handicam photo had a very interesting testimony. He said that he did not keep the footage. He was asked about it. He said that he didn't think it was newsworthy or noteworthy. It was anything to think about at all. So he deleted it and he didn't even know when he deleted it. He suggested he may have deleted it the very next day,
even though he said there are certain circumstances where such evidence has to be kept for a minimum of 28 days, or even he said, as long as 100 years. That was interesting to me. We heard a lot more about policing and how the football police are a specialized task force to go after what they call football hooligans. Basically,
fans who go from town to town following their favorite teams. They get drunk and they fight against other fans. But what we heard again and again is that the indicia by which they would arrest such a person, drunkenness, a known risk, they call such people risk supporters. Tommy didn't meet those criteria. Tommy was not drinking. It was a family day. Tommy was not labeled a risk supporter. So there was some very interesting cross-examination by Tommy's lawyer asking the police officer,
why did you arrest Tommy if he didn't meet these standards? It was very interesting. There was a surprising development today, and it was that I myself became part of the conversation in court. Not on purpose,
I can assure you. But of course, I came to Peterborough to live tweet this. That's why I'm here. I believe in justice. I believe in Tommy's suit. I believe in Tommy's a friend. Viewers crowdfunded to have me here. So I was doing what I always do,
tweet with my opinions. I did it at the Old Bailey when Tommy had his hearings there. I did it at the Royal Courts of Justice in front of no one less than the Supreme Court, sorry, the Lord Chief Justice of Great Britain and of England and Wales himself. So, I mean, I've live tweeted many times from the UK, and I thought I was doing the same thing here. But the judge specifically asked me not to tweet commentary,
just to tweet exactly what was said. I would use the word stenography. She didn't use that word, but that's what I think journalism is without commentary. It's just, okay, he said this,
she said that. And I'm doing a fair bit of that. The judge was quite adamant about it. And I apologize. I said, well, I'm sorry, I don't want to get off side with you, Your Honor. It's your judge. You're the judge. This is your court. I don't want to do anything offside. And I thought I corrected my florid language. But then after the trial,
the judge invited me back into the court. I mean, actually, one of the lawyers did. And the lawyers and the judge and the clerks were there. And the judge had another conversation with me. And she made it clear, no opinion commentary at all about the goings on in the case. not only not in the court,
but not outside the court, like not even here in this room. Not even after the trial is over, but before the judgment. So the judge said no more commentary on the case, no more characterizations of the testimony until she herself gives her ruling. Now that may come quite quickly. That may come at the end of the week. But and listen,
this is not my fight to fight. I'm used to a more robust press. I'm used to journalists having the right to call it like they see it. I mean, in Canada, we have the very famous journalist Christy Blatchford, who has an uproarious coverage of court cases,
and they're very well read. I understand from some of the Tommy's own contempt of court cases, the worry about corrupting a jury, but there's no jury in this trial. The judge also referred to intimidating witnesses. I had asked a question of some of the police officers when I saw them outside. They didn't answer me,
but that was apparently an intimidating, they felt intimidated by me. So I guess that's my way of saying that the judge said, stop doing what you're doing. Stop providing opinion commentary,
either in the court or outside the court, until the ruling is entered. And so I want to let you know is, so if you've seen my reporting over the next day and a half or two days, you'll understand why the flavor's out of it. It's vanilla, not Tabasco. I'll still continue to live tweet, but I won't give my thoughts on things, which I should tell you is very unlike me. But it was made clear to me that if I persist in giving my commentaries,
the judge would probably hold me in contempt. I mean, she didn't say as much, but that was my understanding of it. I should tell you that I have therefore decided to temporarily delete five tweets that I made. And I talked to the judge about the ones I would delete. Now I have saved an image of them,
and I may choose to put them up after the trial is done. I thought one of them was a funny joke. I understand her criticisms of the others, and it's not for me to agree or disagree. It's not my court, it's her court. It's not my country,
it's her country. I think I've learned a little bit more about the UK. I've learned a little bit more about contempt of court law in the UK. And I think there's a problem here in the UK. I think that it is not quite as free as it should be. And I think that citizens don't quite have the access to open justice that they should. But I say this as a foreigner,
a tourist here. I have no real business in the UK. I mean, we have a lot of UK supporters, but it's not for me to lead the charge for free speech in terms of what you can live tweet from a British court. I just don't think that's my fight. I think that's the fight for Brits to do. And I don't want to be the guinea pig test case. I don't want to be held in contempt,
and I don't want to be thrown in jail. I mean, obviously that wouldn't happen in this case, but it happened to Tommy. And so that's my report on the day. I don't think I gave you a particularly strong opinion on what I said in court. At least I certainly tried not to. I'm not even really giving you my opinion about what the judge said. The judge said what she said. And I said,
let me know if there's anything in particular you want me to take down. I suggested five particular tweets and I have since taken them down. There are two videos that I previously recorded that I have now taken off of YouTube until the trial is over. And I think I'll put them back when the verdict is up because I think they were useful commentary. I just find it,
frankly, a little sad to learn from this judge who surely knows where the line of free speech and where the line of deference is. There is no jury here that could have their minds altered. I,
in my heart, don't believe I was intimidating to three burly policemen because I asked them a question, but it's not for me to decide. It's not my opinion. It's a judge whose courtroom I was in. I am not a citizen. I am an interloper and surely I should defer to the local custom. If I was in Iran,
I would defer to the local custom. If I was at the Vatican, I would defer to the local custom. Those are strong cultures and customs. Here I am in the UK. I seem to have been mistaken about free speech in the UK, and so I am corrected. I'll have a lot more to say about matters once the judgment is verdict, the judgment is rendered. But until then, I should say that although my own interactions with the court really had nothing to do with Tommy's case,
they were probably the greatest eye-opener of my trip here. And I have to say, my biggest feeling is one of sadness. I was sitting next to another journalist for a local newspaper, pretty good guy, obviously doesn't share my politics. And I was just campusing with him, and I don't want to characterize what he says, but he says, yeah, here in the UK, we just pretty much write it. Well, listen, I know that there's some spectacular cases that some of the tabloids have strong opinions on,
but I just wish that the journalist who was sitting next to me was a little bit more revved up about the fact that you can't offer an opinion on a court case that's ongoing. I suppose his reaction, the lack thereof, was what really made me sad. And I'm quite certain, I haven't checked Twitter yet or other feedback, but I am quite certain that the uniform response from the mainstream media will be one of jubilation,
that I have had my wings clipped or my tongue tied. And I suppose I have, although when the verdict is out, when the judgment is out, I'll surely speak freely then. But the fact that Brits would cheer the lack of free speech for Brits,
the fact that journalists couldn't care, in fact, they were journalists waiting for me after the court. They had been tipped off that I was speaking too freely. That's the saddest part of my trip, is that Fleet Street, which to me was synonymous with the bold newspapers, that the United Kingdom, the home of the Magna Carta, of John Milton's Areopagitica, of the free speech movement,
really isn't anymore. And I'm not even mad at the judge. How could I be? It's her court. More to the point. I think she's probably accurately expressing the law. There needs to be law reform in the UK. I just don't know if anyone's up for it. Let me close by saying to my friends in Canada and the United States,