David Menzies hosts Rebel Roundup with Ezra Levant, who slams UK courts for silencing journalists like himself during the Tommy Robinson trial—banning live-tweeting opinions even after evidence emerged—while noting police harassment via Section 35 orders. Kian Bextey exposes Trudeau’s Liberals blocking Jody Wilson-Raybould’s testimony over SNC-Lavalin’s "9,000 Quebec jobs" claim, ignoring ethical scandals like alleged prostitution ties to Gaddafi’s son. Amanda Head contrasts Michael Jackson’s posthumous scrutiny with Brian Singer’s ongoing Hollywood protection, citing Leaving Neverland’s consistent accounts of bed-sharing and questioning industry hypocrisy. The episode underscores systemic double standards in justice and media accountability. [Automatically generated summary]
Welcome to Rebel Roundup, ladies and gentlemen, and the rest of you, in which we look back at some of the very best commentaries of the week by your favorite rebels.
I'm your host, David Menzies.
Ezra Levant is just back from the UK where he was covering the latest Tommy Robinson trial, a trial in which Ezra himself became part of the story.
And what a story.
As the dumpster fire known as Lav Scam continues to blaze, Justin's loyal liberal minions are touring the Dominion trying to cause distractions to make us all forget about this scandal.
And it should go without saying that those who sexually prey on minors should be locked up, shunned, and vilified.
And that's typically the case.
But they do things kind of differently in Hollywood.
Apparently, perverts are tolerated in Tinseltown as long as they're making money for the studios.
Amanda Head shall explain all.
And finally, your letters.
We get your letters every minute of every day.
And I'll share some of your responses regarding our mission to Ottawa on Monday, in which we delivered some very stern messages to the Trudeau Liberals via our Jumbotron-equipped truck.
Oh, what a day that was.
Those are your rebels.
let's round them up.
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, 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 kind of 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.
It's your court.
Welcome to the increasingly Orwellian United Kingdom, a realm in which there are so many severe restrictions when it comes to press freedom and freedom of speech and freedom of expression that it is almost hard to believe that this nation was indeed the birthplace of the Magna Carta some eight centuries ago.
Indeed, forget about Speaker's Corner these days.
The authorities are lecturing both the populace and the press on what they can and cannot say.
And what's worse is that too many Britons, it seems, are surrendering their rights and freedoms without putting up much of a fuss.
How profoundly sad is that?
And with Moore on his trip across the pond to not so jolly old England to cover the latest Tommy Robinson trial is our very own rebel commander Ezra Levant.
Welcome to Rebel Roundup, Ezra.
Thanks very much, David.
Ezra, you've done it again.
You went to cover a story and you became part of the story.
Well, you know what?
I have live tweeted from courts before.
I've been doing it even before Twitter was around.
I remember I covered a Human Rights Commission case with Mark Stein.
I'd say that's about 10 years ago now.
That was even before Twitter was a company.
So I've been doing this, going to courts and writing contemporaneous reports for a decade.
Last year, I live tweeted from both the Royal Courts of Justice and the Old Bailey in the UK.
So I've been doing this probably half a dozen times.
So this, okay, I'll just do it again.
So I went to this court in Peterborough.
They pronounced a little bit to say Peterborough.
That's right.
And I just started doing what I do, which is try and type as quickly as I can, as accurately as I can, what's going on, because they don't allow cameras in the court.
And occasionally, if there's something that's just so absurd, I'll note it and I'll mock it or point it out or I'll give my opinion on it.
But my main job is just to type as fast as I can.
I should tell you that in the three days I was over there, I'd have to check the exact stats, but I had over 12 million views of my tweets.
It's a lot of people following it.
But three times the judge stopped everything and said, rein in your tweets.
In fact, the third time, it was almost like she had a hearing.
It wasn't a hearing, but there was no one else in the court.
It was the judge, me, the two lawyers, the usher and the clerk.
Now, it was not a hearing.
I was not being held in contempt.
But the judge said, Mr. Levant, you know, you can't give your opinion.
Yeah, and this is the key thing, is it wasn't to rein in your tweets or your coverage based on anything erroneous, based on intimidating a witness, nothing like that.
It was this fact that you can't apparently cover a UK trial while it's happening by giving opinions.
Whereas in North America, we read about trial coverage all the time where it's opinionated journalism 24-7.
Well, there were three things that happened.
First of all, we all watched the footage of the police.
Just to tell our viewers who don't know what we're talking about, Tommy Robinson went to watch a soccer game, they call it football over there, with his kids.
It was sort of like a kids' day.
He took the kids out to a festival or something.
Then they watched a match.
Then they went to a restaurant.
The kids were in and out, and they played outside, and Tommy was inside.
So it was a family day for Tommy.
His kids were in and out.
That's the pub culture in the UK.
There's families in pubs.
It's not like a nightclub here in America.
But Tommy wasn't drinking.
He was drinking water only.
And he was there with his kids.
So obviously he's very kidsy, kids-friendly.
And suddenly at 6.30 p.m., when they're watching a match on TV, a cop comes in and says to Tommy, get out of the pub right now.
And Tommy says, why would I do wrong?
And the cop says, just get out.
And Tommy said, I'm with my family.
I'm not drinking.
I'm no problem.
What are you doing?
And the cop just says, don't argue with me or I'll arrest you.
Tommy complies, goes out, and then they say, oh, that's not enough.
You've got to get out of the city now.
So they frog march him down to the railway station and they follow him videotaping him and his kids.
And his kids start to cry.
And it devolves.
So Tommy's suing the police for harassment.
So anyway, that's the background.
So the trial, Tommy was suing the cops.
So I see the cops and we watched this awful footage of them abusing Tommy's kids.
And I said, do you have any regrets?
I said, as a journalist.
And they ran into the court, these cops, three big cops.
Any one of them could break me like that.
Like, I'm not exactly the toughest guy around, David, I admit it.
So I just, they ran into the court and they complained to the judge.
And the judge said, stop intimidating the police.
Based on a question like that.
Yeah, I swear to God, the judge said, stop intimidating the police.
Unbelievable.
And then I tweeted a bit, and the judge said, stop having an opinion.
I said, opinion journalism is a form of journalism.
And she said, you cannot express an opinion until after I issue my verdict.
I said, even, does this apply even when I'm not in the court?
She said, yes.
I said, does it apply even after the evidence is done?
Yes.
So I'm blown away by this, but I made the decision I'm not going to fight it because I don't, first of all, I don't want to be held in contempt of court.
If I am going to fight that issue, I'll fight it on a time and manner of my choosing.
And finally, this isn't my rodeo.
This isn't my party.
It's Tommy's trial.
I don't need to sideline it or whatever.
I was there to report on Tommy's trial, not to create a trial of my own.
But I found it extremely depressing that that's the state of journalism in the UK.
The judge was fine with it.
Both lawyers were fine with it, by the way.
Not just the cops' lawyers.
Tommy Robbins' lawyer was completely in sync with the judge on this.
And Ezra.
And the press seemed to be this.
I was sitting next to a pretty good guy from the local paper named Freddie.
I said, Freddie, what do you make of this?
He said, I said, Freddie, surely you have some opinions.
Oh, I just sort of write like a stenographer.
So I should have said, well, Freddie, you get probably better pay and better pension if you just become a court stenographer.
I'm not even mad at Freddie.
I'm just stunned that the whole place.
Oh, we just do what we're told around here, maybe.
Did Freddie complain to the judge, too?
No, Freddie.
Freddie was, he was my seatmate, and I'd give him, he put up with me the whole time.
And I gently made fun of him.
He was a good, I'm joking, right?
His name is Freddie Lynn.
He was with the local paper and obviously a liberal, but I think he did a pretty fair job.
And I would just sort of, I was, I mean, the guy was sitting right next to me, so I said, Freddie, is this how it goes?
That's how it goes in the UK.
But actually, that's not quite true.
Because when Tommy Robinson himself is on trial, which has happened a fair bit lately, the media don't rein in their opinions until the verdict is rendered.
They all rush to give their verdict.
When he's playing defense.
Yeah, when he's in jeopardy, when he's the bad guy.
So it's, I think, first of all, they don't believe in free speech over there much or anymore.
They used to.
And I think, second of all, they're blind to their own double standards.
There's not a media outlet in the UK that didn't have a very strong opinion on Tommy's case while it was afoot.
And there was no judge saying, you stop blogging about Tommy.
You stop blogging about Tommy.
There's no judge doing that.
But the first time a blogger blogs about Tommy or tweets about Tommy sympathetically, oh, oi, Mike, where's the journalism license?
And the thing is, I'm not even kidding.
There was a moment where they cleared out the public members of the court and said only the press remains.
Okay.
And then they said, well, again, so do the press have special rights that ordinary citizens don't?
And then they said, okay, take out your journalism cards or licenses.
I don't think they use the word license.
And all the journalism.
Okay, here's my license.
I'm allowed to be here.
And they said to me, where's your license?
Oi, Mike.
You have a lot to say.
Where's your license, Mike?
And I say, you know, I come from Canada.
We're not the freest place in the world, but you don't need a license to be a journalist in Canada.
Oh, I'll tell that to the judge.
So this usher goes to the judge and says, and so the judge comes back in and talks to the various people and says, I understand you don't have licenses in Canada.
I'll take your word for that or something like that.
What kind of a people is comfortable requiring journalists to have licenses?
I understand why you would want a doctor to have a license.
You don't want a quack doing surgery he doesn't know how to do.
I understand why you'd probably want some sort of licensing for accountants, pharmacists, lawyers.
Like there are some real professions out there.
I think nursing, you probably want some standards.
Even a vet, but a veterinarian.
But journalism is just writing down.
Look at the word journalism.
What happened today?
Jour, journalism.
I'm journalizing.
I'm running a journal.
I saw something, I'm writing it down.
There's no special profession.
Journalism, a journalist is someone who does journalism.
In this day and age, Ezra, the term citizen journalist has come to fruition with social media.
And they hated that I was doing citizen journalism there, and I wasn't bending the knee.
And by the way, going back to the trial, Ezra, what I found very profound, and God forbid I'm going to utter an opinion here.
Maybe I'll get into trouble in the UK.
But you mentioned that there was a PC Mason with the other city's police force.
That was the fans from the other city coming into the town to play football.
And this guy is a special constable that monitors the behavior of those football fans.
And he actually said when he was asked if Tommy Robinson was a risk, he said no, which goes completely against the testimony of the cops who arrested him and frog-marched him to the train station, as you said.
How do you think that's going to play out?
How big of a factor is that?
Well, you and here are in Canada today, and we're talking a couple hours before your show goes live to the internet.
Right now, literally as we speak, the judge in the UK is releasing her judgment.
So I don't actually know how it's going to go.
She probably will be talking for another hour, so I don't have that information on me yet.
But it was very interesting to learn how they police football games.
That's what they call soccer over there.
And the teams are very loyal and very cohesive.
They're fan base.
So Tommy's from Luton, and Luton Town football team, when it travels, Luton police travel with it because they know all the Luton fans and who might get drunk and who might cause trouble and who doesn't.
So away teams, when they're visiting, like the visiting team, they bring cops with them who are specialists on the football beat.
And the away team and the home team, a cop from each police force, police together.
So they call them spotters.
And they have this special legal order.
It's called a Section 35.
You can hit someone with it and force them to leave if there's a risk that they might do something wrong.
That's what they threatened Tommy with in the pub that day, but he was not doing anything wrong.
He was not drunk.
He was there.
By the way, the pub manager, the landlady, came up to the cops and said, what are you doing?
And that's on camera.
So I think I don't want to guess how it's going to go because literally in half an hour we'll find out.
But I'm not optimistic.
And I think that the whole system over there has gone so far down the road towards authoritarianism.
My own small experience fighting for my right to have an opinion.
Like, imagine being told you cannot express an opinion on anything in this trial until I say so, says the judge.
That's so un-Canadian to me.
I thought we had a bad here.
It is bad over there.
Oh, yeah.
Justin Trudeau's Political Calculus00:12:13
Ezra, Mr. Producer is telling me in my ear, we've got to wrap it here.
There was so much more, but I'll tell you, thanks for your excellent coverage.
It was absolutely superb.
And folks, please go online, watch Ezra's reports.
It is amazing.
And as Ezra points out, really one of the saddest things is that this is a nation that 80 years ago stood up against the Nazis, fought for the rights and freedoms that we have today, and for whatever reason, seem so complicit in taking the knee, as Ezra says, to give up those rights and freedoms or at least have them severely curtailed.
I don't know what the future has in store for the UK as this goes on, but thankfully there are fighters like Tommy Robinson and Ezra LeBan standing up for those rights and freedoms.
More of Rebel Roundup to come right after this.
The Liberals have used every parliamentary tactic in the book to stop Jody Wilson-Raybould from finishing her testimony at the Justice and Human Rights Committee.
You could hear the pleas and the disgust from the opposition members of the Justice Committee as partisan hack Liberal Anthony House fathers slit the throat of the final attempt to have Jodie Wilson-Raybold respond to the spin and the rhetoric from top liberal bureaucrats like Gerald Butts.
It's clear that the Liberals are doing everything that they can to stop Canadians from hearing anything more about the SNC scandal that Justin Trudeau so desperately wants covered up before the election.
At a distraction announcement in Calgary, Minister Champagne took questions from the media where I was able to ask him if he thinks Jodie Wilson-Raybold should be allowed to return to committee to testify.
Here's his response.
Can you tell me, do you think that Jodie Raybold Wilson should be allowed to go testify in committee again, given that others have been allowed to return?
Well, I would say that for now, I think we have been able to listen to a number of witnesses.
What I take away from these testimony is that the Prime Minister and his words and action always stayed within the bound of what was legal, that every member of his staff understood there was a line not to be crossed.
In the most recent testimony, what I take away is that the Prime Minister had the 9,000 jobs in mind.
Two-thirds of them are across Canada, one-third in Quebec, that he had done in mind, and that at the end, what Gerald Butts was looking for and other staffers was to get a second opinion.
Well, don't know about you, folks, but last time I saw so much spin occurring, it was during a four-player game of battling tops.
Which is to say, so much for Justin Trudeau's 2015 promises of sunny ways and transparency and claims that this bunch of liberals, well, they weren't going to be like, you know, the other guys.
Indeed, as Justin works on his tan lines and builds sand castles on some Floridian beach, his hapless foot soldiers are out on the hustings trying to convince Canadians that everything about the SNC Lavalin affair is not scandalous.
But unless you're a die-hard liberal supporter or you just recently underwent a lobotomy, very few are buying what these guys are selling.
And with more on that raging lav scam dumpster fire that refuses to go away is our Calgary-based rebel, Kian Beckstay.
Welcome to Rebel Roundup, Kian.
Hi, thanks for having me.
Always a pleasure.
Now, so Kian, that interview you did with Francois-Philippe Champagne, it was downright painful to watch.
Just looking at his body language and his facial expressions, it's clear to me, at least, that not even Minister Champagne believes a word of what he's saying.
So if that's the case, what makes him think that anyone else is buying this rubbish?
Well, I don't think anyone is.
And the evidence on social media speaks for itself.
People are interested to hear what Jodie Wilson-Raybold has to say.
Even if they disagree with her politics, they want to know what Justin Trudeau said in those days, what Justin Trudeau and top liberal bureaucrats like Gerald Butts and Michael Wernick said in those days where she had her testimony restricted, which was after she stepped down from cabinet.
People are interested, and the fact that Justin Trudeau is using his henchmen in that committee to stop her from speaking tells us that there's some stuff to figure out still, or else they would be fine with her speaking.
So it might do more harm than good to do what they're doing here.
And you know, Kian, I think you nailed it there.
And I mean, you rhetorically asked in your commentary, what exactly is Justin Trudeau hiding?
And I mean, given what Jodi Wilson-Raybold has already said and how damning it was, at least from an ethical and moral perspective, I'll throw it out to you.
What do you think is being covered up?
What do you think that she has that could be even more damaging than what she's already stated?
That's a good question.
I think that the most damaging thing that could come out of this is more evidence that Justin Trudeau was using this with personal partisan politics in mind.
So, and we heard brief glimpses of that when they were talking about 9,000 jobs.
And, oh, but Justin Trudeau's riding is in Quebec, and they should consider that in their decision.
I think that more political decision-making when it comes to this delayed prosecution would be the worst thing for Trudeau, for sure.
And, you know, Kian, you mentioned again that number, 9,000 jobs.
And we read and hear and see that number over and over.
9,000 jobs, 9,000 jobs.
Has anyone put this to a means test?
I mean, just last week in Toronto on a local radio station, I heard a liberal spin doctor being interviewed, and the host asked him that very question.
How do we know it's 9,000 jobs?
And the answer was astonishing.
He said, well, whether it's 9,000 jobs or 5,000 jobs, it's a significant number of jobs.
Now, wait a minute.
You just almost have the number to 5,000 from 9,000.
So, Kian, I really want to know who came up with that number and has it been fact-checked?
I don't know who came up with that number.
And I almost guarantee you it hasn't been fact-checked because, well, there's a few things there.
First off, they're not supposed to use that as a consideration with deferred prosecutions.
It's the law.
They're just not supposed to.
And when they keep saying that over and over and over again, it shows how out of touch they are with their own laws.
Secondly, if you go and watch that interview that I did with Champaign, he says, and he changed the talking point.
You could tell that the PMO sent him his talking points for when he came to Alberta because it wasn't 9,000 jobs anymore.
It was, as you know, there was 9,000 jobs on the line.
Two-thirds of them were not even in Quebec.
They're across the country.
So, you know, they're trying to make it sound like it's this real national issue, right?
When it's not.
It's a couple thousand jobs that wouldn't even necessarily be lost.
And those jobs shouldn't even be in consideration when they're making delayed prosecution agreements.
And you can tell that they're using this.
They're using this as a tool for their election to make it sound like they're standing up for Canadians.
But that couldn't be farther from the truth.
And we know that for a fact, because Justice Rio couldn't care less when he puts oil science workers out of jobs, both upstream and downstream in Alberta.
It's sad, really, how he's using this as an excuse.
You know what?
I think you hit two nails on the head right there, Kian.
First of all, when it comes to the law, the law is the law.
You can't operate under the law in terms of the ends, justify the means, i.e. turn a blind eye to this because there's many jobs at stake, whatever that number is.
And secondly, as you just said, Mr. Champagne, who is the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, he seems very concerned about these alleged 9,000 jobs.
Two-thirds that he pointed out to you were outside Quebec.
See, so it's not just a Quebec issue.
But where are the liberals when it comes to what's happening in the oil patch?
It's a greater number than 9,000 jobs at stake.
And it's pipeline paralysis by their own inaction that's causing the Alberta economy to tank.
Where is this minister of infrastructure when it comes to the jobs and the well-being of Albertans?
Well, it's clear that there's two tiers of workers here in Canada.
There's Quebec workers and people that can benefit Trudeau politically.
And then there's workers who, even if a couple of them started voting for the Liberals, Justin Trudeau still wouldn't care about them because he's just so diametrically opposed to Alberta being successful.
And you can tell in every action that this government takes, from purchasing out a pipeline to the carbon tax, it's clear that he doesn't care about Alberta being successful anymore.
And with Alberta's success comes Canada's success, but it just doesn't click for him.
And you know, Kian, and that's the thing, isn't it?
I mean, I don't want to sound too cynical here, but the West is a write-off for the Liberal Party of Canada.
Part of their power base, and it was always thus, is Quebec.
And so when we're talking about job preservation, let's not kid the kidders, as I say down at the Kearney.
This is about preserving liberal MP jobs in Quebec, even more so than SNC Lavalin jobs in Quebec.
Yeah, I mean, you know what?
I have very little sympathy for SNC.
They bought prostitutes for a dictator's son.
Like, how out of touch?
Like, I don't understand how Trudeau can morally stand up for this company, regardless of how many jobs are on the line.
You don't see oil sands companies doing that here in Alberta, but SNC does it.
No, it's not a big deal.
There's a couple of jobs on the line.
And you're right.
It is all political for the Liberals.
The election is going to be fought in Quebec, and that's a problem with our Confederation: that elections are fought and won in Quebec and the rest of the country be damned.
And you know, and you bring up a very interesting point there, too, in terms of the hypocrisy factor, Kian.
That like circus sidebar story to this whole scandal, that SNC Lavalin put up, what was it, $30,000, I think, to procure prostitutes for Gaddafi's son while in Canada.
First of all, I'm really interested to find out how much surface $30,000 in prostitution gets you these days.
I mean, it seems like an enormous number.
But the point I'm trying to make here is this is a prime minister who declares himself a feminist.
And much of the feminist narrative is that, you know, prostitution, that's kind of a form of human trafficking.
And, you know, it's something that women who are desperate, you know, engage in.
So where is our feminist prime minister when it comes to kowtowing to a country, to a company rather, that facilitates this kind of behavior?
Oh, you're right.
Prostitution, it facilitates human trafficking, drug trafficking.
It is a very, very bad industry to be involved in.
And for some reason, Trudeau's morals just take a rain check on this one because political jobs are at stake.
I mean, it's pathetic.
It's amazing.
Well, Kian, we'll see how this plays out.
I think we have to wrap it here.
I think one of the most fascinating things is the fact that Ms. Wilson-Raybalt has indicated that she's still going to run as a liberal.
And I'm just wondering if Justin Trudeau is going to sign her nomination papers so that she does not sign her nomination papers to prevent that from happening.
Brian Singer's Shadow00:09:59
But time will tell.
This story has legs, as they say.
And thank you again for another excellent commentary.
Thank you so much for having me.
Take care.
And that was Kian Bexti in Calgary.
Keep it here, folks.
More of Rubble Roundup to come after this.
It's been alleged for years, dating back to the early 90s, that Michael Jackson serially abused and sexually assaulted countless young boys, including the two men in the recent HBO documentary, who, by the way, have testified in defense of Michael Jackson in the past.
If you watch any of the past footage of Michael Jackson's court appearances, court proceedings, and even reactions around the globe when it was announced that Michael Jackson had died, it is clearly evident that he still has many supporters worldwide, but specifically in Hollywood, celebrities to a large degree tend to stand up for their own.
Case in point, Brian Singer, one of the most prolific and profitable directors in the industry.
But there have been numerous allegations over the years accusing Singer of everything from ludaks with underage boys to rape.
The stories consisted mainly of gossip among people in the know until December of 2017 when a man named Cesar Sanchez Guzman filed a lawsuit against Singer, alleging that Singer had raped him in 2003.
Not long after that, the singer's former boyfriend, Brett Skopek, spoke in an interview about a life of drugs and orgies with the director.
So why the sudden urge to condemn Jackson?
Even Oprah did a post-interview with the two men from the documentary.
And why no condemnation for Brian Singer?
Well, to me, it comes down to an ability to still get their pound of flesh out of Singer.
His latest film, Bohemian Rhapsody, won two Golden Globes, four Oscars for best male lead, best sound mixing, best sound editing, and best film editing.
It made $700 million in two months.
So you could say that studio execs and anyone who works with him has a financial stake in protecting his reputation.
It should go without saying that pedophilia and rape are insidious, but it would seem that when it comes to Hollyweird, there's a sliding scale when it comes to sex crimes and the condemnation of certain alleged sexual predators.
For example, in the aftermath of the documentary Leaving Neverland, it seems almost fashionable now for people to condemn Michael Jackson and to stop playing his music.
Then again, Mr. Jackson has been dead for almost a decade, so there are no more platinum records being written by this artist.
Meanwhile, as allegations continue to mount regarding Brian Singer, there's considerably less outrage towards this director.
After all, Mr. Singer's movies make mega moolah for the studios.
And joining me now to further discuss this double standard is our LA-based Hollywood conservative, Amanda Head.
Welcome to Rebel Roundup, Amanda.
Thank you.
Good to see you.
Always a pleasure.
So Amanda, I guess it just goes to show yet again that in the entertainment industry, as always, the biggest star is the almighty dollar sign, isn't it?
Yes, absolutely.
I mean, again, we see that consistency is not something that reigns supreme in Hollywood.
Beyond Harvey Weinstein and Michael Jackson and all of these people who have ultimately suffered in their career because of these types of allegations, there are people in Hollywood like Brian Singer who still, for the most part, just skate by.
Now, I think that the reason is Jackson is dead.
And with the exception of doing, you know, tribute documentaries and shows and airing his music, there's not a whole lot more money that you can milk out of the guy.
Brian Singer, on the other hand, obviously his latest film, Bohemian Rhapsody, Rami Malik, the lead, won the Oscar for that, but it also won three Oscars for best sound editing, best sound mixing, and best film editing.
So this is a guy who is pretty prolific and very profitable in Hollywood.
And I think that that's why you don't hear a lot of celebrities speaking out about him because they still feel like they can get their pound of flesh out of him.
You know, and we should state too, Amanda, that nothing in terms of both these individuals and several others have been proven in a court of law.
But having said that, I mean, the allegations seem quite damning.
And I find it very curious.
You mentioned your commentary, there's a group of primarily Michael Jackson fans that have been raising money to carry out a poster campaign on London double-decker buses proclaiming Michael Jackson's innocence.
I think the line they use is that facts don't lie, people do.
And I found that perversely humorous, Amanda, because, well, you guys are people behind this campaign of what I consider to be misinformation.
So in other words, you're kind of damning yourself because you people are behind these so-called facts.
What's your take on that?
Well, you know, I criticize Hollywood for their lack of consistency.
So I always try to utilize some journalistic integrity and consistency.
It's true that there are no tangible or physical videos of Michael Jackson sexually assaulting any of these kids.
That's true.
Now, in the case of Brian Singer, there is a guy who is suing him.
And obviously there has been litigation in the past regarding Michael Jackson.
But you have, in the documentary, it has interviews with two different guys who prior to this documentary never collaborated on their story.
But they both have similar stories that kind of line up with each other and line up with things that we do see on film, which is Michael Jackson kind of playing musical chairs with various young boys.
You know, one of them will be in his life for a little while and then they will cycle out and Macaulay Colkin will come in.
And then James Safe Chuck will come in.
And so it's this cycle that you don't necessarily see the abuse on tape or any tangible evidence like that.
But when you have so many people coming out and saying this, I think that it proves the case.
And Amanda, as far as I'm concerned, I agree that this isn't tangible proof beyond a doubt, but Michael Jackson, when he was live, did admit to this, the idea of him as a mature adult male sharing a bed with young boys.
And I can tell you, presumably as a mature adult male myself, some people might disagree with that.
The very idea of getting into the bed with a minor, like even just to lie there in TV, especially to those you're not even related to, is so far beyond the pale.
I don't think the vast majority of law-abiding people on the planet would ever think of such a thing.
No, and you know, the fallout of this, what's really unfortunate is, for instance, my fiancé, he loves kids.
Like he just, he's one of those people, unlike myself, who just instantly has a connection with kids.
Kids love him.
He loves playing ball with them.
He loves, you know, rough housing with them.
And one of his best friends, who has been his best friend for decades, she has two sons and Ryan is the godfather of one of them.
And he's very, very close with them.
But Ryan, as he and I were watching this documentary, he said, you know what worries me about this is that when Jane watches this, you know, who knows what's going to cross her mind if she's going to start to question those types of familial relationships.
And that's the unfortunate fallout from this.
And, you know, I feel for the mothers of Wade Robson and James Safechuck.
And in the documentary, they talk about how, you know, they feel like they failed their sons.
And I hate to be harsh, but they did.
I agree.
I can understand why they put their boys in such a position.
But, you know, getting back to the Hollywood angle as a whole, Amanda, I mean, it really, to me, it comes across as a very weird place.
And I think a pinnacle of weirdness was hit in regard to the sexual abuse file a few years ago.
I can't remember if it was the Oscars or the Golden Globes, but somebody had made a speech referencing Roman Polanski, who has been a fugitive from U.S. justice since 1978 for drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl.
And after his name was mentioned, there was a quasi-standing ovation.
Some people were getting up and clapping.
And I guess it all I can think of is that are there people in that town or people the world over for that matter, Amanda, that they're able to separate the art from the artist?
Like Roman Polonski's movies are brilliant, but Roman Polanski is a certified creep.
Yeah.
Yes, to answer your question, I think that 99% of Hollywood is very skilled at compartmentalizing those things.
To them, they feel like they can support the art without supporting the artist.
Now, I don't feel that way.
For me, if there is an artist who I disagree with who I think has done egregious things in their life, I don't buy their music.
I don't download their music.
I don't watch their movies.
You know, I am not able to compartmentalize the characters that someone creates as an art and the character that they have as a person.
But I do think that 99% of Hollywood is able to do that.
Unfortunately, when they do do that, especially in the case of people like Roman Polanski, it just really kind of makes Hollywood even dirtier than it is.
Hey Folks: Trudeau in Jumpsuit00:04:50
100%.
Well, Amanda, we have to wrap it there.
Certainly the Michael Jackson file, that's going to turn into a lawyer's paradise in the months and years ahead.
And we'll just have to keep an eye on Brian Singer if he's able to dodge this bullet or if this does in his career, a la Kevin Spacey.
So thank you again.
It was a great commentary and thanks for weighing in.
Thank you.
And that was Amanda Head in Hollywood.
And folks, keep it here.
more of rebel roundup to come right after this hey folks don't you think justin trudeau would look absolutely fabulous and orange as in wearing an orange prison jumpsuit Well, we sure think so, which is why we're here today in the nation's capital to deliver some messages to the Trudeau Liberals via our Jumbotron equipped truck.
We're going to reiterate Jodi Wilson Raybold's claim that Trudeau pressured her to drop criminal charges against his friends.
And we plan to point out that interfering with a prosecution in any manner violates section 139 of the criminal code.
And we want to rhetorically ask our fantastic feminist prime minister why he just can't take no for an answer from woman.
And we want to lend our voice to the chorus out there demanding that the RCMP investigate this obstruction of justice.
And so it is that we'll be driving around Ottawa today going to places where the Trudeau Liberals might indeed see these messages.
Oh, and by the way, if you haven't already done so, folks, please visit our new website, jailtrudeau.com, and sign the petition.
Well, folks, you did it again.
You came through for us by helping to crowdfund our electronic billboard-equipped truck that we sent to Ottawa on Monday to deliver a pointed message to the Trudeau Liberals.
Namely, the issues surrounding LAV scam are not going away anytime soon.
Now our truck generated a ton of response, some pro and some con.
Hey, Ottawa is home to Canada's biggest government and largest bureaucracy after all.
So there are numerous people there who have swallowed copious quantities of liberal-branded Kool-Aid.
But still, we felt this mission was an enormous success in terms of reminding the Trudeau Liberals that despite all their distraction tactics of late, we're keeping a close eye on them.
And so are you, our loyal Rebel viewers.
In any event, here's what some of you had to say.
Lorne Sutheron writes, Trudeau is opening up the conversation about corrupt culture.
Yeah, by starting with himself, LOL.
Hey, Lorne, if only Justin Trudeau had the decency to come forth with a Mia Calpa or three.
But that's not the way he operates.
He's incapable of such contrition.
Oh, sure, no prime minister in Canadian history has uttered as many cheery-eyed official apologies as Justin, but those were for the transgressions of others regarding incidents that happened a long, long time ago.
Heck, Trudeau wasn't even able to man up and apologize to the reporter he groped back in 2000.
Pathetic.
Hashtag Free Tommy writes, the criminal code is not subject to interpretation.
Bingo.
When it comes to the rule of law, the ends do not justify the means, even if those ends are all about saving jobs in Quebec, be they SNC Lavalin jobs or liberal MP jobs.
XYZ writes, love that pic of Trudeau behind bars.
Yes, that pic really got quite the response.
Alas, I am indeed saddened to report that it was photoshopped.
Gray one writes, that's one cool truck.
We need this truck running across the country continuously.
Who agrees with me?
Well, Gray One, certainly liberals such as Climate Barbie wouldn't agree with you.
Forget about the messages on the truck.
Just think of that carbon footprint.
And Terry Furster writes, I am so pleased to see the results that my donation went towards.
Thank you, Rebel.
Actually, thank you for your generous donation, Terry.
Much appreciated.
And hey, folks, if you still want to kick in a buck or two to help pay for that mission, you can do so by visiting jailtrudeau.com.
We can't do this sort of journalism without your generosity, so thank you yet again.
Well, that wraps up another edition of Rebel Roundup.
Thanks so much for joining us.
See you next week.
And hey folks, never forget, without risk, there can be no glory.