David Menzies and Ezra Levant expose Veterans Affairs Canada’s VE Day video blunder—Nazi insignia mistakenly included in a commemorative piece narrated by Minister Lawrence Macaulay, later removed—while linking it to broader Liberal disrespect for veterans, like Captain Kim Fawcett’s denied benefits and the government’s settlements with figures like al-Qaeda-linked Omar Cotter. Menzies dismisses Macaulay’s apology as hollow, arguing systemic failures devalue military sacrifices. Meanwhile, Mark Moreno debunks UN extinction claims, accusing scientists of manipulating data—like 50,000 species daily—to push radical climate policies, and highlights hypocrisy among figures like Harrison Ford and Al Gore. The episode ties these issues to political weaponization, from censorship against journalists like Tommy Robinson (prosecuted despite prior legal rulings) to Silicon Valley’s "silent" suppression of dissent, suggesting a coordinated effort to control narratives under the guise of science and justice. [Automatically generated summary]
Tonight, Trudeau's Veterans Affairs celebrates VE Day with Nazis.
Is that really the best way to honor Canadians who paid the ultimate sacrifice?
It's May 13th.
I'm David Menzies and this is the Ezra Levant Show.
Why should others go to jail when you're the biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here and you don't give them an answer.
The only thing I have to say to the government is because it's my bloody right to do so.
A few days ago, the 74th anniversary of Victory in Europe Day, or VE Day as it is known, was marked.
This was one of the most important moments of the 20th century in which the Allies accepted the unconditional surrender of Germany.
Canadians played a huge role in World War II, just like World War I.
We punched above our weight, so to speak, when one looks at the number of casualties incurred compared to the population of the nation at the time.
So yes, VE Day is a pretty big deal, as is the commemoration of VE Day, even if most of the men who fought in that war have either passed away or are in their 90s right now.
So it is that Veterans Affairs Canada produced a video commemorating Canada's role in VE Day.
Well, that was a nice gesture.
Please take half a minute to check it out.
May the 8th marks the 74th anniversary of the Allied victory in Europe during the Second World War.
More than a million Canadian men and women served in this bitter conflict.
Of those, over 45,000 gave their lives in the defense of peace and freedom.
Today, we take time to reflect on the courage shown by the members of our armed forces more than seven decades ago, lest we forget.
I love the video's tagline, don't you?
Take a moment to remember, connect with Canadian veterans, participate in local commemorative events, share why remembrance is important to you on social media.
See, the thing is, folks, sharing this video with any Canadian veteran would be akin to spitting in their face because most of the footage you just saw didn't feature Canadian troops or even other Allied soldiers.
Rather, that footage captured German troops on the march.
Yeah, that little Nazi eagle insignia on their uniforms, that was kind of the dead giveaway.
Incredibly, Veterans Affairs Canada produced a short tribute film honoring our Canadian soldiers by showing imagery of the enemy.
Thankfully, the video has now been removed from the Veterans Affairs website, even though this idiotic infamy shall live on forever thanks to the internet.
But the question arises, how in blue hell did this horrific error, assuming it was an error that is, how did it even happen?
This video wasn't produced by some amateur AV club.
This was from the Ministry of Veterans Affairs.
It was narrated by the minister himself, Lawrence Macaulay.
And like any federal government ministry, Veterans Affairs has an entire battalion of communications people.
Everything coming out of the ministry gets vetted and fact-checked and approved and signed off on.
And yet this garbage somehow received the green light?
And even the Minister of Veteran Affairs didn't even notice?
Or did Macaulay even bother to take 30 seconds of his precious time to watch the video prior to narrating it?
I'm going to guess he didn't even bother.
After all, Macaulay has so much on his plate these days, doesn't he?
What with denying injured veterans their compensation?
I mean, Macaulay barely has time to tuck into his ham sandwich as he diligently helps the Trudeau Liberals balance the budget by, well, by telling injured vets to take a long walk off a short pier.
You know, like Captain Kim Fawcett, Fawcett lost her leg and her young child in a horrific accident.
But she was denied disability compensation by the same idiots who portrayed Nazis as Canadian soldiers.
Sorry, Captain Fawcett, you should have known better.
When you made your heartfelt plea for compensation, you should have done so while wearing a burqa.
I think the check would already be in the mail by now.
Yet, as a side note to the Fawcett affair in the department of She Who Laughs Last Laughs Longest, there may indeed be a happy ending to this sordid story.
That's because Fawcett has been nominated as the Conservative candidate in the Toronto riding of Scarborough Southwest for the upcoming federal election.
Imagine that.
A soldier who has been fighting the Canadian forces and veterans affairs for 15 years now might become this nation's next Veterans Affairs or defense minister.
Now, I'm no fortune teller when it comes to predictions, folks, but if I were Bill Blair, the Minister of Nothingness and Toronto's ex-social justice warrior police chief, I'd be subscribing to the tagline for the film The Fly right now.
You know, be afraid, be very afraid.
But let's put aside Macaulay's incompetence and lack of compassion when it comes to Veterans Affairs, because I wonder where his communications staffers were when it came to selecting clips of Nazis on the march and somehow thinking those were Canadian soldiers.
Ignorance Of The Good Guys00:09:39
Maybe their shocking ignorance speaks to a greater problem, which is to say the youngins simply can't tell you who the good guys were and who the bad guys were during that thingy that happened overseas way back when.
Because here's a not-so-fun fact for you.
Of the 13 provinces and territories, only four make Canadian history mandatory in high school.
Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, and Nova Scotia.
So when it comes to the tagline, lest we forget, well, how can one forget when they never had the knowledge passed on to them in the first place?
Then again, what do I know about the progressives running the education system in Canada these days?
Oh, sure, little Johnny and Janie can't spell cat if you were to spot them the C and the T and they can't provide an answer for what's two plus two without reaching for a calculator.
And hey, they have no idea who the Allied forces were or what they were doing in Europe and Japan decades ago.
But ask them to correctly identify the 84 genders, or is there 118 now?
Well, they have that propaganda, or I mean, information drilled into their heads as they try to self-determine if they're boys or girls or gender-fluid asexual spirit unicorns.
But to be fair, it's not just the millennials who have flunked Canadian history.
Our older and supposedly enlightened liberal leaders aren't so savvy on this file either.
Remember when daughtering John McCallum, who was recently fired as ambassador to China for screwing up that file?
Remember when he stunned millions of Canadians back in 2002?
That's when he stated that he had never heard of the country's bloodiest military debacle, the Battle of Dieppe.
And to think that McCallum was serving as Canada's Minister of Defense at the time?
But McCallum wasn't done yet with his display of ignorance in the armed forces, for this Dumkopf would later write a damage control letter to the editor to the National Post in which he compared Dieppe to Vichy.
Vichy, of course, was the capital of collaborationist France during the Nazi years.
McCallum meant to say, or let's hope he meant to say, Vimy, as in Vimy Ridge, the site of Canada's epic First World War victory.
Yeah, I know, cut the old guy some slack here.
I mean, Vichy, Vimy, they both begin with a V and end with a Y, just like vulgarity.
So really, what's the difference, eh?
No big deal.
I'm sure by now you've noticed a disturbing trend here, namely, liberals then and now don't seem to give a rodent's rectum about those Canadians who are expected to make the ultimate sacrifice when called upon to do so.
I think it goes back to Trudeau.
No, not Junior, although Justin is indeed a chip-off the old blockhead.
I speak of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, or Trudeau I, as some liberals refer to him.
Back in 1939, Pierre was old enough and capable enough to enlist in the army.
But he didn't.
He was simply too busy.
Too busy doing what you say.
Well, here's what David Fromm pointed out in a National Post column a while back.
Quote, Pierre Trudeau opted not to serve in World War II, although of age and in good health.
He traveled to Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union to participate in regime-sponsored propaganda activities.
He wrote in praise of Mao's murderous regime in China.
Trudeau lavishly admired Fidel Castro, Julius Nerere, and other third world dictators.
The Soviet dissident Andrei Amelrich scathingly recalled Trudeau's 1971 prime ministerial visit.
Trudeau visited the Siberian capital of Norilsk and lamented that Canada had never succeeded in building so large a city so far north, unaware or unconcerned that Norilsk had been built by slave labor.
End quote.
Meanwhile, when Trudeau was residing in Montreal during the Second World War, not only did he not serve his country, but he mocked it.
According to biographers Max Nemne and Monique Nemney, authors of Young Trudeau, 1919 to 1944, son of Quebec, father of Canada, young Pierre and his friend Roger Rowland played a prank in 1942 that involved dressing up in European military uniforms and riding around on their motorbikes.
Allegedly, those European military uniforms were actually German uniforms from the First World War, complete with spiked helmet.
But don't be too judgmental, folks.
Boys will be boys after all, even though Canadian boys and some of our soldiers in World War II were not that far removed from boyhood, died on European battlefields trying and succeeding to preserve our freedom in Canada, the type of freedom that would allow a future prime minister to make fun of Canada's involvement in the Second World War by taking on the persona of a dark Mr. Dress-up.
Oh, speaking of Mr. Dress-Up, that brings me to the son of Fidel, or I mean, son of Pierre, little Bollywood star wannabe Justin Trudeau himself.
Justin's handling of veterans' affairs has been, what's the word?
I think despicable covers it off.
Perhaps his lowest point on this file was that infamous statement he uttered at that town hall meeting last year in Edmonton when he took a question from frustrated veteran Brock Balaschuk.
I was prepared to be injured in the line of duty when I joined the military.
Nobody forced me to join the military.
I was prepared to be killed in action.
What I wasn't prepared for, Mr. Prime Minister, is Canada turning its back on me.
So which veteran was it that you were talking about?
Thank you for having the courage to stand here and thank you for listening to my answer.
On a couple of elements you brought up.
First of all, why are we still fighting against certain veterans groups in court?
Because they are asking for more than we are able to give right now.
Oh, sir, didn't you get the memo?
You merely put your life on the line serving Canada.
What you should have done is embrace radical Islam, kill a Canadian ally, and voila, you'd be receiving a check for $10.5 million courtesy of the Canadian taxpayer.
Oh, sure, the Trudeau Liberals didn't really want to make such a payout to the odious Omar Cotter, our homegrown al-Qaeda poster boy.
But as the spin cycle goes to fight this jihadi jackass in court would have cost the taxpayer exponentially more in legal fees.
Yeah, that's right.
When it comes to the radical Islam file, suddenly the tax and spend Trudeau Liberals miraculously re-examine themselves as fiscal conservatives.
Still, you have to wonder if Not So Little Omar is good for a 10.5 million Lano Max payout, then what sort of compensation awaits Vice Admiral Mark Norman?
After all, Mr. Norman is a decorated patriot whose only crime was doing the right thing and exposing liberal meddling regarding a naval contract.
For having the temerity to do so, he was made a scapegoat, thrown under the sub, had his reputation destroyed, and incurred hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal bills.
Or wait a minute now, maybe it is precisely because Norman is a decorated patriot that makes him the ideal candidate for being unjustly accused.
Such is Justin Trudeau's contempt for those who serve or have served.
Which brings us back to the latest light, that VE Day video featuring ratsies as Canadian soldiers.
At least in the aftermath, Minister Macaulay apologized.
Well, sort of.
Here is the Right Honourable Macaulay eating crow, looking like a ventriloquist dummy, albeit one that embodies half the enthusiasm.
Well, of course, what happened with the video is totally unacceptable, and I can assure you that the people involved and myself are truly sorry for what happened.
But it's awfully important that it does not take away from what our troops did 74 years ago this week.
Yeah, Minister, it kind of does take away from what our troops did in Europe 74 years ago.
And more so, numerous acts of slights by various Liberal governments over the past several decades take away from what our troops did in Europe 75 years ago.
The Remembrance Day tagline is lest we forget.
But for liberals, they seem to subscribe to the General Douglas MacArthur observation that old soldiers never die.
United Nations Species Scare00:15:08
They simply fade away.
Except that for liberals then and now, these surviving soldiers can't fade away quickly enough.
After all, these giants who literally put their lives on the line to serve our great dominion, well, they're asking for too much.
keep it here more to come after this last month rolling stone magazine ripped mark morano as a quack and slammed fox news for having the utter temerity to book such a quack as a guest
And even worse, Fox News actually allowed Moreno to weigh in on a United Nations species report.
Oh, mercy me.
Because naturally, the non-elected, unaccountable bureaucrats at the UN, well, they simply know better than all of us uninformed schlubs residing out in the hinterland, right?
Well, to make a defense regarding that Rolling Stone smear job, is the target of that article himself, Mr. Mark Moreno, the founder of climate.com.
Hey, Mark, welcome to the Ezra Levant Show.
Thank you very much.
Happy to be here.
Just for filling Newsweek's Rolling Stone's vision of me in Newsweek.
Well, smoking like the true mallard you are, I suppose.
But you know, the first thing I must ask you this, Mark, is Rolling Stone still publishing these days?
And if they are, whatever happened to the good old days when these cats used to write stories about rock and roll.
They used to be against the authority.
They used to be against the government-mandated consensus on the Vietnam War, on drug legalism, all that stuff.
And now they couldn't be more establishment if they tried.
They are locked step with the big media, big academia, and all their opinions and views.
It's really surprising.
Yeah, you know what?
That is an excellent point.
You know, they once were part of that counterculture, and now it's like they've drunk the Kool-Aid from the progressive elites and they've become an echo chamber.
But what exactly has their knickers in a knot regarding what you said on Fox News, Mark?
Well, what's happening here?
What I said on Fox News, by the way, was 100% accurate.
I said the United Nations has hyped up a report on species.
They've come up with finding the alleged problem, juicing it up, and torquing it up.
In Al Gore's own words, that's what Al Gore said about the UN report, climate report.
And they're putting themselves in charge of the solution.
And guess what?
The solution requires a complete transformation of our economy and society in order to save these species.
That's all I said on Fox News, that they were a self-interested lobbying organization.
And for that, they're going after me both Newsweek, Rolling Stone, and the Media Matters for America.
They are going bonkers because they want another layer besides climate.
This is an insurance policy.
If the climate solutions and scare fails, they want to immediately have the species scare ready to go.
And they're trying to say that the climate change issue is causing the species to go extinct, which is absurd.
You know, species are threatened.
Some of them are from habitat loss, not from alleged man-made climate change.
And that's where they're failing.
And by the way, the million species the UN mentioned is total nonsense.
I think there's only a few thousand that can actually identify as being threatened.
So they just extrapolate out to a million, come out and say, well, they're at risk.
And therefore, we need a radical transformation of society.
This is how the UN does science.
And Mark, the translation here, when I hear words like a radical transformation of society, that means I should be clutching my wallet in my back pocket because I think big government is going to be taking out some dore me in order to pay for this radical transformation of society.
Am I correct?
Yes, you absolutely are.
They are now, this is modeled after the climate scare.
They're going to have.
They've already had several big international meetings in Japan, all over the place.
Harrison Ford, Hollywood has been showing up for these.
And now they want a new treaty, a species treaty, if you will, to go on top of the climate agree.
We're going to have treaties on climate, treaties on species.
All of them aim not only at the radical transformation, but at every aspect of your life, from your agriculture to your transportation to your land use to your diets to your appliances, to every aspect of human endeavor.
But they basically want to erase, and they've openly stated these exact phrases.
They want to erase the Industrial Revolution.
They think it's been the most destructive thing in the world history.
Incredible.
By the way, Mark, you've mentioned two celebrity names in the last couple of minutes, Al Gore and Harrison Ford.
Now, the last I looked in terms of species, Al Gore has been very silent of late regarding the polar bear.
It was supposed to be, I guess, on death row by this time.
Actually, their population has quadrupled since he made that Cassandra prediction that they were going to go extinct.
And of course, we have Harrison Ford.
He was in Canada recently.
Harrison Ford, correct me if I'm wrong, Mark, he has a thing for flying his own airplanes, doesn't he?
That spews out a lot of carbon, doesn't it?
Yeah, I mean, Harrison Ford, Prince Charles, Leonardo Capital.
Harrison Ford is so bad.
He admitted in an interview with the UK Guardian or one of those European papers that he sometimes flies up the coast of California to get a cheeseburger.
That's the man who wants to manage everyone else's life and support these policies that do that.
And by the way, Arnold Schwarzenegger here, I'm in his home state of California.
Arnold Schwarzenegger commuted daily to the governor's mansion, whale governor, in a private jet.
He didn't want to live in the mansion because guess what?
The governor's mansion in California would have been a huge step down in terms of lifestyle carbon footprint footage.
So he decided he'll live in one of his many mansions and he'll just fly every day like you, like you'd get it, like other people would get in their Toyota or their Honda or their Chrysler and commute to work.
He just flew his private jet every day to the governor's mansion.
Wow, that's really a double whammy with Harrison Ford to fly up the coast for a hamburger because isn't that part of the problem too?
Cattle farming, all that cattle flatulence is killing us as well.
Yes, in fact, a former UN climate chief is openly saying we need to start treating meat eaters, anyone who eats hamburger steak, as the same way you treat smokers in restaurants, either get in their own section, put them out, or ban it altogether.
This is the former UN climate chief.
This is where they're going.
The Green New Deal takes square aim at meat eating.
And this is, I think, what really drives regular Canadians and in your part of the land, Americans crazy.
It's this mindset of do as I say, not as I do.
Last month, we visited a Justin Trudeau fundraiser for the Liberal Party of Canada.
And I can tell you this, for the approximately three hours he was at that restaurant doing his fundraiser, his motorcade consisted of this, a Chrysler 300, three Chevy Suburbans, two Toyota Siennas, and one Ford Expedition.
And Mark, for the hours they were there in front of that venue, the engines were running.
All of those eight vehicles were idling.
So here's a prime minister that's put a carbon tax on us.
The price of everything is going up because of it.
And yet he has an eight-vehicle motorcade of gas guzzlers running for hours on end.
I'm sorry.
I can't accept this kind of hypocrisy.
This is what they do.
I mean, this is one of the most challenging things that the former UN chief actually said he lived at 30,000 feet, going to all these exotic conferences in Bali.
But it's one of the arguments, one of the reasons they can't sell the general public.
If you are not willing to take the measures in your life to save the planet, whether it's climate or species, people just aren't buying it.
And by the way, one note, you mentioned polar bears.
Al Gore's first film in the United Nations made such a icon out of the polar bears, a poster child.
We are at or near historic population highs.
Al Gore's sequel two years ago didn't even mention polar bears.
And the United Nations Climate Report doesn't species report doesn't mention it.
You'd think if species were in danger, the big iconic polar bear would be the headline of this report.
Instead, they've dropped it like a hot potato in terms of the poster child for endangered species, because that's usually what happens when the numbers go through the roof and you have an overpopulation problem.
And you know, I find that despicable in a sense, Mark, because, you know, if they wanted to take a balanced and a nuanced position regarding what's happening to the planet, shouldn't they be like the umpire?
Call it as he sees it.
So he could have said, you know, there are some good news stories.
For example, we got it wrong with the polar bear.
I'm happy to report the population is thriving.
But they just now pretend they never made this prediction in the first place.
And I think that destroys their credibility.
It does.
But here's how they handle it, though.
They'll say it's worse than we thought for the polar bears.
You'll say, how?
It's four or five times the number record high pop.
How is it possibly worse?
Well, our predictions of 100 years from now are much worse than they were just five or 10 years ago.
The predictions are more dire.
Therefore, we need to double down our efforts.
That's how they get you.
It's called, recently they released the temperature data.
We are on a three and a half year cooling trend now on global cooling, right?
And instead of the headlines were, you know, earth temperature, not much changes, but more dire predictions for 15 years from now.
It's called a misdirection.
So if current reality fails to alarm or goes the other way, just make a scarier prediction.
And that's what the media, academia, funding, everyone will go toward.
And it works.
It works, except for the few outposts like the Rebel and other, you know, and a few other outlets that are willing to buck the trend.
But that kind of tactic works over and over with the general media.
Well, you know, Mark, I'm kind of surprised at thinking a century down the road, like you're saying, I thought from the likes of AOC, don't we only have a dozen years left on the planet unless the Green New Deal is implemented?
Yeah, my headline today at Climate Depot, she was just kidding all those gullible Republicans.
That means CNN, the New York Times, they were all kidding too in the United Nations when they were out there talking about we have 12 years to turn this around.
That means the United Nations was kidding in 1989 when they said we had 10 years.
That means the United Nations was kidding in 1982.
That means Paul Ehrlich was kidding when he said, you know, within 10 or 20 years, England won't even exist and the U.S. will be facing famines.
They make these predictions all the time, but she got such gut for that 12 years that she is literally now trying to backtrack, which is significant.
It shows you that there is a limit to how much absurd stuff they can take.
She must feel some kind of pressure from somewhere to backtrack on that.
It's amazing.
I guess Time magazine in the early 70s when they had a penguin on the front cover predicting an impending ice age, which by the next decade morphed into global warming.
And when that math didn't kind of work, and now it's that nebulous climate change, like whatever's happening, I can tell you, it looks nice and sunny where you are, Mark, but in Toronto right now, as we speak, it's 12 degrees centigrade under normal under miserable, gloomy gray skies.
I'm waiting for that global warming to kick in.
But on a serious note, isn't it true that there's been something like five mass extinctions in the history of this planet?
A mass extinction being when more than 60% of the species is wiped out virtually overnight.
And all of that occurred before Homo sapiens was around driving SUVs and riding snowmobiles and flying in planes in the first place.
So I guess what I'm saying is that there are factors beyond man-made activity, surely, that is influencing the climate and how the planet reacts, is there not?
There are.
In fact, you know, in my report at Climate Depot, which is at the top of the webpage, I go through and I interview, I had the Greenpeace co-founder, Dr. Patrick Moore, an ecologist.
I interviewed English scientists.
And they explained that the previous extinctions we had were so severe that extinction, first of all, is a natural process.
It's anti-science to try to say we're going to save every species.
Now, what they've done in order to torque up these reports, first of all, they get a few thousand species that are legitimately probably endangered or suffering, and they extrapolate it to a million or more.
And this is how they get headlines.
But it's kind of like I could just say, you know, 7 billion humans are endangered if we're hit by an asteroid.
7 billion, all humans are endangered.
Everything potentially is endangered by just about anything when you think about it that way.
But what they've done here is these are based on computer model simulations.
And I quote, there's a Harvard biologist named Edward O. Wilson, a very renowned scientist.
However, what he does is he plays to the media and he has all these theories and the media amplifies it and people love it.
He has the number of potential, but as yet undiscovered and unnamed species that may exist.
And they claim 50,000 species are going extinct every day based on computer model simulation of species that we don't know their names, but we think they're out there and we think they're going extinct.
So what Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace, says is he wants Latin names of these species.
And I actually confronted environmentalists on this and they say we can't name these species because they're microorganisms, they're bacteria, they're things that may exist.
And Patrick Moore's answer is these, he's found the missing 50,000 species, which are allegedly going extinct.
They're in the electrons of the hard drives of the computer of these species modelers that are doing it.
This is what they're passing off as hard science today.
It's a bunch of speculation, models, predictions, scary headlines.
And the big thing is this UN species report is just like the climate report.
It's actually UN bureaucrats, leaders, politicians meet with the summary of policymakers.
They make the report and then the scientists have to go back and make the supporting material agree with the politically approved summary for policymakers.
This is a political process from beginning to end.
I have all the analysis at Climate Depot.
Anyone who believes this is a big science report from the UN is literally deluded and has no clue what they're talking about.
This was not science.
This was a political report aimed at getting policy action and aimed at getting cheap headlines.
Political Process Dominates00:07:49
And it'll probably work.
That's the way our culture is today.
Well, Mark, I just have to say, don't be too harsh.
Maybe that electron on that hard drive identifies as an enzyme or something like that.
So we have to take that into consideration.
You know, we got to wrap it here.
One last point.
As I always say when it comes to climate change stories, Mark, always follow the money.
Al Gore is exponentially more wealthy today than he was when he was in the White House.
And I look at the headlines of the day, the New Democrat Party government here in Ontario, which is the official opposition.
They're calling for a declaration of a, quote, climate emergency, end quote.
That's CodeSpeak for another tax, I assume.
And on the other side of the world, I see in the paper, Aboriginals on low-lying islands in Australia are filing a human rights complaint to the UN because of carbon emissions have not been curbed.
So that's a human rights violation to them, which means CodeSpeak for give us some money to shut us up.
And what do you want to bet, my friend, they're going to get it, right?
So anyways, we could talk.
Oh, sorry, go ahead.
That's what it's all about.
The climate justice, mining justice, climate funds.
The actually UN's official said we will redistribute wealth by climate policy, and they'll be in charge of deciding where the money goes.
Central planning.
That's what it's all about.
100%.
Follow the money.
Mark, it is always a pleasure talking to you.
Thanks so much for taking some time out of your schedule and good luck with your upcoming speech.
And thank you again.
Thank you.
And keep it here.
More of the Ezra Levan show to come right after this.
Welcome back.
Now, if you're wondering where Ezra Levant is, he's in London covering what I call the never-ending story.
That would be yet another Tommy Robinson trial.
Here's Ezra with more.
For the Rebel.media, I'm Ezra Levant.
I'm standing in the streets of central London, not far away from the Old Bailey Central Criminal Courts, where tomorrow Tommy Robinson will be prosecuted yet again for contempt of court.
When I say yet again, it's not for anything new.
It's for what he did a year ago, for which he was already found in contempt and then released by the UK Court of Appeal in a unanimous ruling that said the first finding of contempt was improper, illegal.
Tommy falsely was prosecuted and falsely served 10 weeks in solitary confinement.
As you know, we crowdfunded his legal defense a year ago.
But instead of leaving good enough alone, Theresa May's Attorney General has chosen to take a second crack at it.
Now, where I come from and in the United States, that might be called double jeopardy.
I guess they don't have that here because they're taking another run at him.
You know, Tommy was the first journalist to be sentenced to prison for contempt of court since the 1940s, but I guess that's not enough punishment for Theresa May.
They want to put him back in.
It's rather incredible to me.
But just as incredible is how blasé the United Kingdom is about the whole thing.
I don't know a single member of parliament that found it odious that a journalist was imprisoned.
Even when the Court of Appeal said it was improper, I didn't hear a peep.
Only Lord Pearson of Rannick, one member of the House of Lords, spoke up.
But other than that, silence from the political class.
Actually, that's not even accurate.
Glee from the political class when Tommy was arrested.
You'd think that Reporters Without Borders or some other civil liberty types would care.
They didn't.
I didn't see a single article by any worthy pundit worrying about journalists being imprisoned.
I'm really worried about the reporting as much as the law.
And that's why I'm here in town and bringing with me eight other journalists, actually, from other jurisdictions, because I don't know of any journalists in the United Kingdom, at least in the mainstream media, who give Tommy a fair shake.
And forget about Tommy, who report accurately on these grave matters at hand.
So I brought with me journalists from Washington, D.C., including Cassandra Fairbanks of Gateway Pundit, Pardes Selet, who's running for Human Events, Andrew Lawton from London, Ontario, Canada.
We crowdfunded Avi Yamini's flight from Melbourne, Australia.
We sent a train ticket to Jordan James to come down from Manchester.
He's with the alternative news site Politicalite.
Altogether, we've got seven journalists, including Jessica Svietsonevsky, who's a young journalism student with the Rebel in Toronto, plus two cameramen.
So we're going to do our best to cover all of this.
You can find out more information about us at realreporters.uk and I'll also put my reports up there.
I'll be live tweeting from the court.
So that's what I'm doing here in town.
But I have to say, it's extremely depressing to see how little the five P professionals, as Daniel Pipes would call the establishment, the police, the prosecutors, the professors, the press, and the politicians, the 5P professionals, how little they care about what I think is as important a civil liberties case as any in this country right now.
But because Tommy has the wrong political flavor, he's a sacrificial lamb.
I should also point out, as many of you know, that Tommy Robinson is currently running for public office.
He's running to be the member of the European Parliament for Northwest England.
I think he's got a chance because of how they count the votes.
And of course, there are eight MEPs that will be elected.
Tommy could win with as few as little as 10% of the vote.
I think he's got a chance, but I don't think it's a coincidence that the Attorney General is taking him to court in the middle of that campaign.
I'm not sure what's worse, though, the kind of prosecution of Tommy that we're seeing in the courts of law by the Attorney General, or the silent censorship of Tommy by the Silicon Valley giants like Facebook, Twitter, PayPal, Instagram, things like that.
At least this outrageous attempt to nail Tommy for contempt of court, at least we can see it in action.
We can report on it.
We can appeal it.
Tommy has some sort of rights to disclosure of documents.
Not so when it's someone in the bowels of Facebook in San Francisco just pushing a button and deleting him.
I don't like any form of censorship, but at least the ones in the court we can fight against and know about, and there is some sort of restraint on them, I think.
I think the new phase of censorship, certainly the one that's come for Tommy first, but certainly he won't be the last, is the censorship done by hard left-wing activists in Silicon Valley.
And frankly, that's even more terrifying to me.
Join me tomorrow as I live tweet everything from the Old Bailey Court.
And during breaks, I will record videos.
If you want to sponsor the nine journalists that we have crowdfunded to be here, please do go to realreporters.uk.
I should tell you, no one is receiving a fee.
Everyone is flying the cheapest flight we could buy them and the cheapest accommodations.
Nothing fancier than a three-star hotel.
Everyone's here to do real honest journalism because I don't think we can trust the UK mainstream media.
All right, that's it for tonight.
I'll see you tomorrow from the Old Bailey Criminal Courts where Tommy Robinson, once again, is being prosecuted as an enemy of the state for the Rebel.media.
I'm Ezra Levan.
Now, hey, folks, if you want to help us bring you this sort of important journalism, please go to realreporters.uk.