Canada’s Liberal government, led by Minister Karina Gould, is accelerating election censorship—collaborating with tech firms to suppress "disinformation" while deleting past tweets like her call to illegally block Alberta’s oil pipeline. Like the UK’s suppression of Tommy Robinson (40K votes despite bans) or U.S. Democrats’ elite-driven policies (e.g., Seattle’s charter school restrictions), this mirrors a global trend where establishment parties weaponize platforms against populist dissent, from demonetizing Breitbart to silencing Trudeau critics. Free speech and fair journalism are under siege as tech and media act as partisan enforcers, rewriting democratic norms before Canada’s next vote. [Automatically generated summary]
Today I show you how the censorship we saw in the United Kingdom is coming to Canada a lot faster than I thought.
It's from Karina Gould, who's the just as extreme as Catherine McKenna, but less irritating, so she's more effective.
I show you the quote digital election charter she's brought in.
It's actually a terrifying document.
Hey, before you get to that, can you please consider becoming a premium subscriber to the Rebel?
Go to the rebel.media slash shows.
And for $8 a month, or $80 for the year, you get to be a premium subscriber.
You get to see the videos.
And I show a video clip today of some Brit who for some weird reason was asking questions in our parliament.
I don't get it.
Demanding censorship.
You've got to see that video.
So you get access to the video version of this podcast as well as Sheila Gunread's show and David Menzy's show.
And of course, it keeps our lights on, so I appreciate that.
All right, without further ado, here's today's show.
You're listening to a Rebel Media Podcast.
Tonight, the Liberals make their move against Canadian citizens who dare to speak out on Facebook.
It's May 28th, 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 won't give them an answer.
The only thing I have to say is government about why I publish them is because it's my bloody right to do so.
The last piece of the censorship machine fell into place in Canada yesterday.
Karina Gould is Justin Trudeau's point man on the file.
Censorship In Action00:15:24
Her official title is Minister of Democratic Institutions, but that's quite Orwellian since the bulk of her work seems to be to weaken democratic institutions and make them subject to political meddling.
Yesterday she announced that she managed to persuade high-tech companies to censor the internet in the upcoming federal election.
She announced this declaration of electoral integrity, but of course that has nothing to do with electoral integrity.
There's nothing in there, for example, about demanding proof for voters that they're Canadian citizens.
You don't even have to show ID anymore to vote in Canada.
There's nothing in there about stopping third-party interest groups from meddling as more than 100 did in the last election, including foreign-based Soros front group Avaz.org.
There's nothing in there about Unifor, the conservative-hating union being in charge of doling out $600 million to Canadian reporters in the bailout.
No, it's all about cracking down on what they call disinformation and fake news.
But of course, that's a matter of political opinion.
That's the essence of political opinion, actually.
Two people can look at the same fact and disagree about it.
It's called politics.
Two people can hear the same speech, and one is convinced, but the other is unconvinced.
Convinced he heard a liar.
An election is when each of us are given the power to choose who's fake and who's real.
It's not for one of the politicians in a contest to make that decision for us, but that's just exactly what happened.
Gould is just as extremist as Catherine McKenna is.
Here's a tweet from her, for example, that she recently deleted, where she calls for British Columbia to illegally block Alberta's oil sands pipeline, saying it should be landlocked and left in the ground.
That's just as kooky as Catherine McKenna, but it's a rare stylistic departure for Karina Gould.
See, Catherine McKenna is shouting all the time, and she has this childish affectation.
She talks like a Kardashian for some reason.
I don't know.
It's not an accent.
It's like a version of baby talk.
You ever meet people who talk like that?
That's Catherine McKenna.
And McKenna just really shows bad personal judgment all the time.
I don't know if you saw this over the weekend.
Catherine McKenna went to a pub in Newfoundland.
Good idea.
I mean, if you go to Newfoundland, you've got to do that, right?
But she brought her own camera crew with her.
And she got a little drunk.
And she thought as a drinker in the bar, she'd record a little bit of a speech on video.
And her staff actually went along with this and published it.
I want to show you just a short excerpt from her drunken speech in St. John's pub.
But you know, I actually gave them some real advice.
I said that if you actually say it louder, we've learned in the House of Commons.
If you repeat it, if you say it louder, if that is your talking point, people will totally believe it.
Yeah, friends don't let friends record videos drunk.
McKenna has 24 communications staff who work on her tweets.
Apparently, not one of them had the courage to tell the boss that maybe drunk tweeting from a bar is a little bit unseemly.
Anyways, Karina Gould is an extremist like McKenna, but she's much more quiet about it and seems to drink less.
She's smarter in that way than McKenna.
And another thing about Gould is that she's managed to co-opt her Conservative Party critic, a Calgary Conservative MP named Stephanie Kusi.
I think Catherine McKenna's shouting and her shallow juvenile talking points and insulting people, calling them deniers, just generally being a female version of shallow Justin Trudeau, but without the charm, to be candid.
I think it put conservatives on the back foot.
So I think conservatives naturally don't like old yeller, as I call it, Catherine McKenna.
But Karina Gould, she's managed to turn her conservative critic into a fangirl.
I showed you this clip from a few months ago.
Gould had just announced a five-person secret internet censorship panel, and the Conservative Party, Stephanie Kusi, her only complaint was that it didn't go far enough, fast enough, but that Gould was looking just fabulous.
Remember this?
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
And Minister, always lovely to see you.
I love that necklace, by the way.
That's just beautiful.
Also, I want to say that I really enjoyed your speech yesterday at the AI.
And you know what?
It was very informal.
And I think you should go with that format more when you come even to committees because you do it so well.
So I just wanted to compliment you on that.
Yeah, when do we get the opposition part of the opposition?
So anyways, yesterday was the Declaration of Electoral Integrity by Karina Gould.
But a few months ago, when that panel was there, they were talking about censorship.
Just a reminder, when Gould was asked what sort of things her five-man secret panel would censor, she gave the example of something called Macron leaks.
That was when embarrassing campaign documents from Emmanuel Macron were leaked to the public about a week or two before the election, and they were extremely embarrassing.
They were real documents.
They weren't fake.
But the media was somehow barred from reporting on them.
That's unfree.
I guess that's how they roll in France.
But that's specifically the example that Gould used of what she would censor here.
We looked at allied countries and like-minded countries around the world to see what mechanisms they had and have in place.
And what stuck out for me was the French example of the Conseil d'État that weighed in when there was a leak from the Macron campaign to basically say this is a threat against our democracy.
And they advised the media not to report on it.
That's a step further than what this is anticipating.
We tried to come up with something that would fit within the Canadian context.
The Conseil d'État in France has been around for a very long time.
But she came back to that example again when she was asked again about it.
So which is it?
If something was ever leaked embarrassing about Justin Trudeau, it sounds like that's exactly what this five-man committee of Karina Gould would censor.
She pretty much just said so.
That was her analogy, and she came back to that analogy again.
We showed you, and I showed you this before, but no one else ever shows it to you, 18 months ago, how Justin Trudeau started to threaten Facebook to silence his critics for him, specifically mentioning the election campaign.
He said it was all about stopping fake news, he said.
But of course, one man's fake news is the other man's truth.
What starts out as a conspiracy theory may in fact be proven to be a conspiracy fact.
I could think of 100 examples, but the most obvious is how Justin Trudeau called the report of his firing of Jody Wilson-Rabel to be fake news, when in fact it was just the truth that he didn't like to hear.
The allegations in the Globe story this morning are false.
Neither the current nor the previous Attorney General was ever directed by me or by anyone in my office.
Yeah, that's a lie, as we later learned.
It's amazing what we learned from the Jody Wilson-Rabel See 11I matter.
First, once the first string was pulled out of the tapestry, so much unraveled, we later learned that Trudeau was also pushing to have an innocent man sent to prison, Vice Admiral Mark Norman.
It would have looked insane to say that a few months ago.
It was just a theory at first that Mark Norman was framed, but now that's exactly what we know happened.
My point is, that's exactly what Karina Gould and Justin Trudeau will now censor, what they call fake news, which is simply news they don't like.
This has been percolating for a while, but it started to move very quickly now.
Those committee hearings were a few months ago, the ones I showed you, and earlier this month, Trudeau met in Paris with Emmanuel Macron and the shell-shocked New Zealand PM, Jacinda Ardern, and signed on to her internet censorship manifesto.
It's so unnatural.
Her calls to punish people for saying things she doesn't like.
She's prosecuting people.
Did you know this for simply uploading a copy of the video of the shooting in New Zealand?
Now, that was a terrible terrorist attack, but she's prosecuting people and seeking 14-year prison terms just for uploading the video of him.
I wonder if it has anything to do with news reports that she is deeply compromised with ties to China's Communist Party.
I know that sounds crazy.
That's fake news, you might say.
Or you could note that it was actually published in the leading newspaper in New Zealand.
I wonder how long it'll be before that is unpublishable, too.
That's fake news.
Today, all the big tech companies were paraded through Parliament, and all of them were bashed by MPs, but they were being bashed for not censoring enough.
No one was there pressing for them to censor less, certainly not the Conservatives.
Not that I saw, at least.
Here's an example from Parliament.
And just for your information, Donald Trump recently tweeted this video.
Pelosi stammers through news conference.
It's actually a great tweet.
But the left want to censor him from doing that.
So they say the video was altered, but it's not actually.
It's just edited as all videos are, including the one I'm recording right now.
But get this.
Here you have Canadians, and there were some Brits in our House of Commons for some reason, too, lusting to censor the U.S. president.
Imagine what they would do to you, mere you.
Take a look.
Deceptive information, deliberately and maliciously spread through the tools created by social media companies, are a harm to democracy.
And that these deceptions, this disinformation is used to undermine senior politicians and public figures, public institutions, and to undermine the political process.
With that in mind, could Facebook explain why it's decided not to remove the video of Nancy Pelosi that prevents a distorted impression of her in order to undermine her public reputation?
First, I want to be clear that we are taking action against that video.
I want you to answer the question as to why you, unlike YouTube, are not taking this film down.
It is our policy to inform people when we have information that may be false on the platform so that they can make their own decisions about that content.
the video is allowed to remain and that video being there is far more powerful than any legal disclaimer that may be written underneath it or over it.
And why won't you say that films that are clearly fake and are independently verified as being fake that are there to deceive people about some of the most senior politicians in your country, why wouldn't you take them down?
We have taken the approach to inform people that it is fake so that they can actually understand why that video is on the platform and what other independent parties have considered this to be.
They have considered it to be false.
And now they see this as on our platform if they go to share it.
So all these questions, I think they're very fair questions, but it allows people to make their own decision and allows them to tell others that it is false.
The issue here is to say if someone's making a film or slowing down a film or manipulating a film to try and create the false impression that a senior public figure is not fit for office, that that is an attempt to undermine them and the office that they hold.
Now I think this is not a question of opinion.
This is not a question of free speech.
This is a question of people manipulating content in order to undermine public figures.
And my concern is, is that to leave that sort of content up there where it's undisputably fake, undisputably false and distorted, to allow permission for this content to be shared and promoted to other users is irresponsible.
And YouTube have removed this content and I don't understand why Facebook don't do the same.
First of all, I think it's really gross that a censor from the United Kingdom is allowed to sit in Canada's parliament like that, don't you?
I mean, we know how bad the UK is.
Keep your crap on that side of the Atlantic, please.
The second thing is he's a liar.
That footage is not manipulated.
It was edited, which was visibly apparent.
It had all of her speech impediments and slurs and misspeaking put together in what we call a supercut, but it was not fake.
He's a liar.
And that's my view.
Now, someone else who hates Donald Trump might say, no, it was fake.
Well, we're allowed to have a difference of opinion.
Just because some pompous Pratt flies over here from the UK and says it's not true, and it's resolutely not true.
Yeah, no, you're a politician and a liar too.
And I, as a citizen, can make the choice.
And you know what?
Even if it is fake, I'm allowed to see fake things.
I'm allowed to see satire.
I'm allowed to see pranks or impersonations.
That's half of comedy and satire.
There was not one voice for free speech today.
Because these are all powerful people.
Liberals, conservatives, and whatever these Brits are doing in our parliament.
See, the Liberals have the people they want to shut up.
But I guess so do the Conservatives and certainly the New Democrats.
They love shutting people up.
Conservatives want to shut up people who like to talk about things that are too conservative for them.
For example, they don't like criticism of immigration.
They don't like criticism of political Islam.
They don't like talking about how trans rights have gone nuts.
They don't like talking about abortion.
So yeah, there's a lot of things Conservatives don't want to talk about.
They have censorship in their blood too.
All politicians do of every stripe.
It's part of being a politician, I think.
Is that why Andrew Scheer's Conservatives and Stephanie Kusi haven't pushed back on this whole fake news censorship thing?
Is that why that prat from the UK was allowed to come over here and abuse our parliament?
Like having a Brit tell an American to censor in Canada.
How gross is that?
I noticed that Andrew Scheer no longer seems to object to the $600 million media bailout.
He just objects to one of the people doling it out, Jerry Diaz of Uniform.
I noticed that Andrew Scheer no longer proposes to privatize the CBC.
He actually wants them to do more Canadian coverage.
So yeah, no one seems to be an advocate for mere citizens and their freedoms, not even the Conservative Party.
So look at Gould's announcement.
This was her announcement yesterday.
Let me read.
However, these platforms have also been used to spread disinformation in an attempt to undermine free and fair elections and core democratic institutions and aggravate, aggravate existing societal tensions.
So the government is now telling Facebook and Google that they have to eliminate fake news, even though sometimes they're calling something fake news as fake.
And they're not allowed to publish anything that might cause societal tension, which is just another way of saying a vigorous debate in which we're all allowed to vigorously disagree.
Now an election is how we resolve tensions.
We vote on things, and that's how we resolve disputes.
But Karina Gould is worried about that.
She doesn't want there to be any tensions out there, any fake news out there, especially about her boss.
There's too much tension about her boss.
Best to silence it and call it fake.
Or this, let me quote.
Platforms, that's what they call the social media companies, and the government of Canada will work with civil society, educational institutions, and or other institutions to support efforts aimed at improving critical thinking, digital literacy, and cybersecurity practices to promote digital resilience across society.
Do you think that Justin Trudeau and his partisan government will actually help you improve your critical thinking?
I highly doubt it.
YouTube's Ban on Tommy Robinson00:03:56
Look, as you know, I just got back to Canada yesterday from the United Kingdom where I was covering the election campaign of Tommy Robinson, who was running for the European Parliament.
He lost his election, and there's a number of reasons why.
The main reason I think is that Nigel Farage created a new party just a few weeks ago, the Brexit party, and it stormed the gates, perfectly capturing the mood of the country.
It stormed the gates.
I suspect they absorbed a lot of disaffected voters who would otherwise have voted for Tommy.
So perhaps Tommy wouldn't have won in any event.
But I think the real point, the bigger point, and I made it in my show yesterday, was that no one can win if they're silenced by big tech these days.
Tommy used to have one of the biggest Facebook pages in the whole of the UK, next only to Theresa May, the disgraced prime minister, and Jeremy Corbyn, the disgraced leader of the opposition and the head of the Labour Party.
So they just turned him off.
They just deleted him.
They didn't have a trial to do that.
There was no appeal.
They just turned him off.
Same with Twitter.
YouTube didn't completely delete him.
They just made it so when you search for his name on YouTube or any of his videos, they don't show up in the search engine.
Imagine that.
They just made him disappear like he was a rumor, like he never existed.
I don't think this was done by the big tech companies on their own.
I think this was specifically done at the demand of the British political class, including that nitwit you just saw earlier.
Here's the deputy leader of the Labour Party in the UK, Tom Watson, specifically writing a letter to YouTube demanding that Tommy Robinson be silenced.
It couldn't be more clear than that.
It wasn't just the Labour Party, by the way, though they led the charge.
The Conservatives hate Tommy Robinson too, because he talks about uncomfortable subjects that they'd rather leave alone.
Just watch for a couple minutes this parliamentary committee in the UK where MPs of every party take turns screeching at YouTube for not banning him.
And spoiler alert, not too long after this, they did in fact ban him in the manner I described above.
Despite the fact that videos of Tommy Robinson were cited as part of the online radicalization of Darren Osborne in this Finsbury Park court case, YouTube continues to promote them videos.
What have you got to say about that?
We are working to make sure that videos that promote hate or promote violence, if they violate our policies, are removed from the platform.
If they walk right up to the line, we have also, at the encouragement of this committee, developed a new enforcement mechanism to limit the features that these have.
They should not be appearing in our recommendation engine.
If they are, I will take this back to our team and see what the problem is.
Okay, but they are.
I mean, they are appearing.
They are in my recommended timeline at the moment.
because I've been searching on my iPad for national action videos, I as a result have the first two videos recommended to me by YouTube when I just click on, as I've just done with this afternoon, I click onto YouTube, the first two recommendations are Tommy Robinson videos.
So the Tommy Robinson that was identified as part of the Finsbury Park online radicalization process, that's what YouTube's recommended.
I've not searched for it.
YouTube has recommended that to me.
Doesn't that cause you some serious alarm?
See, they're stupid because they're saying censor him, censor him, censor him in public.
Karina Gould, like I say, is slightly less stupid than Trudeau or Catherine McKenna.
So she does her censor him, censor him, censor him when the cameras aren't running.
So yeah, imagine a political candidate like Tommy Robinson who's banned from Twitter and Facebook and YouTube and Google and financial instruments too like PayPal and Stripe.
How could he possibly campaign?
By going door to door, I guess.
And he did get 40,000 votes that way, but you can't win.
Not in 2019, not when you're silenced.
And your opponents spend relentless against you.
As Tommy pointed out yesterday, it's not just he couldn't speak positively about himself.
He couldn't reply to the wall of hate directed against him.
Hope Not Hate, which is a Soros-backed campaign group, smeared him with a massive campaign and they boasted about it in the Manchester Guardian today.
Liberal Elites and Trade Wars00:13:15
I'm not against rough and tumble politics like that, by the way.
But is it a fair election when one candidate cannot reply?
The Soros campaign was mainly done through brochures and Facebook ads.
But like I say, Facebook banned Tommy and the Royal Mail, the British Post Office, refused to deliver his brochures.
I suppose Tommy could have simply spoken to the mainstream media and hoped they would pass on his side of the story.
But of course, they're deeply against him too.
And so it's no surprise that when our student reporter, Jessica, went to the streets of Manchester just to ask random people about Tommy, most of them just regurgitated their hatred for him, even though not one of them could actually say what he had done wrong.
Here's a sample.
Yeah, I've heard about him.
I've not been voting for him, that's for sure.
And why wouldn't you be voting for him?
I don't believe in his politics, that particular party at all.
In fact, quite the opposite.
I'm a strong remainer.
I'm a liberal by nature.
So I'll hardly be voting for someone like that.
Do you think it's racist to criticize Islam?
He's very racist.
He's very racist.
Should it not be allowed in the UK?
No, he's not allowed.
He needs to fix himself.
He needs to become as a human.
That's what is it about.
What have you heard about him?
About his list election, I haven't heard a lot, but I'm not a big fan of his or his policies.
I think he's a bit of a bigot, to be honest.
And what makes him a bigot?
He's just incredibly racist, isn't he?
His policies are very far right.
They're not in line with the way that I think.
I like to think about things from a much more liberal point of view.
And can you give me an example of something like a racist policy or something that he said?
No, not on these current ones, no.
Yeah, that goes on for quite a while in that vein.
I mean, look, if someone is unperson and there's a wall of denigration of him, how can you possibly win?
This whole move, exactly, is now coming to Canada.
I always say we'll be five years behind.
Yeah, I think maybe it's more like five months.
Stay with us for more.
Thank you, Donald, and good evening, everyone.
Well, the last time I was here was on the 11th of April.
I'm sorry, it's been a long time.
And the reason is that on the 12th of April, I launched a brand new political party.
It was called the Brexit Party.
You may have noticed that last night it managed to take 32% of the national vote across the country and be the leading party.
In fact, the biggest party in terms of MEPs from across the whole of the European Union.
So, yeah, I'm in a pretty jolly mood.
But what I want to debate today is what have we learned from those European election results?
And I'll perhaps kick this off by saying the first thing I've learned is that in the modern world, politics can change incredibly quickly.
Well, there you have it.
Nigel Farage, he's an interesting character, like so many British politicians are.
He's not just the leader of a political party.
He's got a radio talk show gig, and he is the clear victor of the election results.
I was over there in Manchester, as you know.
My focus was primarily on our personal friend, Tommy Robinson, who is also a free speech advocate and a warner of the risks of Islamification.
But there are other points of view as well, including, well, what does this possibly mean for the United States?
And in particular, for Nigel Farage's personal friend, Donald Trump.
Well, joining us now from the Los Angeles area is our friend Joel Pollack, senior editor-at-large at Breitbart.com.
Joel, great to see you.
You've got a very interesting article.
It's the American perspective on Trump.
Brexit party win also a victory for Trump.
You make four persuasive arguments.
Tell our readers why you think Donald Trump won on Sunday night too.
Well, first of all, Trump is a close ally of Nigel Farage, who you heard there on that audio from his radio show.
And the two of them campaigned together in 2016.
Farage actually spoke to a Trump campaign rally.
Farage, of course, was the driving force behind the original Brexit referendum.
His UK Independence Party, which he's no longer a part of, had pushed for a separation from the European Union for many years.
And when Brexit happened, Trump said his election would be like Brexit, essentially a vote for American national sovereignty.
So Farage and Trump are allies.
More than that, the foreign policy of the United States is pro-Brexit in the sense that the Trump administration welcomes Britain's separation from the European Union, arguing that EU trade rules are unfair.
And Trump has essentially promised Britain that once it leaves the European Union, the United States will seek a free trade deal with Britain.
So it's a win in that sense, but it's also a win because the revolt of the British electorate in the elections last week shows that there's a political price to be paid by parties that don't fulfill the mandates of their voters.
And Trump was elected on specific policies that Republicans continue to oppose.
That is to say, Republicans in Washington, Republican establishment leaders in Washington.
The wall on the southern border with Mexico and trade, improvement in trade through diplomatic means, through pressure, through trade, tariffs And things like that, but essentially a reworking of America's trade relations with the rest of the world.
So these two issues, trade and immigration, have fueled Trump's political rise, and yet the Republican establishment in Washington is very reluctant to implement those policies, particularly on immigration.
And the Brexit vote is a reminder that even a party as strong as the Conservatives in Britain can be laid low, essentially, if they fail to implement the populist agenda that they are charged with carrying out.
So Theresa May saw her party fall to fifth place, its worst result in almost 200 years, because she basically tried everything she could do not to implement Brexit in much the same way that Senate leaders and before them the House Republican leaders who've now been ousted, they tried everything they could do not to implement Trump's policies.
Now, some policies they agreed with, like tax cuts, that's come along very nicely.
But on enforcing immigration law and building a border wall and reworking American trade policy, they have not been very enthusiastic.
And some of the Trump supporters argued that's why Republicans lost Congress in 2018.
So it's a reminder that the Trump agenda is the agenda that the American electorate wants to see implemented.
Now, there's the other half of the electorate who doesn't want to see that implemented.
They're also frustrated with standard Democratic Party politics.
That's why they're moving so far to the left and embracing democratic socialism, essentially, in much the same way that the Remain position has become the opposition in the UK, so much so that the second place party in the European parliamentary elections was the Liberal Democratic Party, which is a small fringe third party, now the second biggest party in Britain, at least on the strength of its result last week.
And they had a platform that was focused on the Remain position in the EU.
It was beaten by the Brexit position, but essentially they told Remain voters, we are the party that will represent your interests.
So you're seeing a polarization, not so much because Americans are becoming more radical in one direction or another, but because the political establishment on both sides is reluctant to implement the will of the people.
There's a rebellion in both countries against the establishment.
That's what Trump represents.
And that's why the Brexit victory in the UK a few days ago is a big plus for Trump going into 2020.
He can say, this is the agenda I'm running on because this is what I was elected to do.
I've done as much of it as I can do.
You need to elect more leaders who will come with me to Washington and finish the job.
Yeah.
You make one other point in your article that I thought was good, is that in all of these populist nationalists versus the elites battles, the conventional wisdom seems to get it wrong.
Got it wrong with Brexit three years ago, got it wrong with Trump three years ago, got it wrong just in recent weeks with Netanyahu in Israel, with Scott Morrison in Australia.
I think I'm probably missing an election in there somewhere.
But, well, even in the UK on Brexit, I think that here in Canada, people say, oh, we're immune to this kind of national populism.
But no, I think that people are sick of these elites revising what we're allowed to talk about.
And in the UK, they went further than that.
They defied the will of voters.
It was one thing to legitimately argue to remain in the UK and not Brexit.
Fine.
But when you lose an election, as they did in the referendum 2016, to then play games with it and delay and find ways to not live out the mandate given to you by the people, that feels like the analogy in America, Joel, is to impeach Trump.
Look, you lost the election, that's fine.
But if you want to try and diligentize Trump and impeach Trump and have a Mueller investigation into Trump, you're really not going after Trump.
You're going after the democracy itself.
And I think that's what happened in the UK last week, is that voters smacked back fake leavers who were obfuscating and smacked back remainers as undemocratic.
I think there was an anger there because elites were trying to undo the will of the people.
Right.
I think that's true.
You see the Never Trump faction represented by formerly respected, widely respected commentators like Bill Crystal saying they prefer the deep state to democracy.
And that's exactly right.
They're basically doing the same as Theresa May's faction of the conservatives was doing.
That is to say, trying to stay in power without implementing the agenda that brought conservatives to power.
They want power for themselves.
They don't necessarily want it for the people.
And look, the same exists on the left.
I think labor voters are fed up with Jeremy Corbyn and labor.
The ongoing scandal of Jeremy Corbyn's anti-Semitism is something that makes Labor Party voters feel dirty when it comes to election time.
They would prefer a cleaner version of left-wing politics, and the Liberal Democrats are giving that to them because they're not as tainted by sort of anti-Israel hatred becoming anti-Semitism as you've seen with Jeremy Corbyn and some of his allies.
So there's really a search for parties that will be responsive to people.
I'm not sure that the Democrats in the United States have come up with that yet because they're still pitching their ideas to, if you want to call them this, the liberal gentry.
In other words, kind of elite progressive opinion that has actually hurt working class Americans.
There was a great article recently in National Review, which pointed out that Seattle's new progressive policies basically defend the privileged and largely white elite of the city at the expense of the working class and black parts of the city.
But these same Democrats who favor these policies think of themselves as such great non-racists and such great progressive crusaders for racial justice.
They might have a Black Lives Matter sign on their front lawn, for example, but they've made charter schools more difficult for black people to gain access to, and they've made the cost of buying property almost impossible for working class black residents to achieve.
So there's this pattern still of Democrats pitching themselves to an elite.
Now, some people say they might as well embrace that.
I mean, if you're going to defend some of these elitist policies, then go for it.
That was one of the conclusions after the Brexit vote last week.
One of the strategists for Remain said, labor may as well become a Remain party.
You know, forget about trying to appeal to the working class voters who like Brexit.
Just go for Remain.
Just be a party of Washington, be a party of London, which voted for the Liberal Democrats.
Be a party for the elite.
Push these policies there better.
And that's where the Democrats still are in terms of where their candidates are.
Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, they're out there talking about how the economy doesn't work for working class Americans, but it actually does.
And the policies they're implementing might make them feel better about themselves, but would actually halt the economic growth, stop the job creation, and stop the upward mobility of Americans who benefited from Trump's economy.
So there's a realignment starting to happen, not yet as fully on the Democratic side in the United States, but we'll see.
The one thing we do know is that voters continue to rebel against these progressive elites in the media and in politics, and the elites refuse to give up.
So that remains the political fault line right now.
Social Media Blame Game00:06:56
And Trump is on the wrong side of that line as far as the media is concerned.
They're obviously going after him.
They are on the side of the Democrats and the left.
We'll see where the electorate lies next year.
One last question for you, Joel.
I agree with your analysis of the EU, the election and the different parties over there.
But one of the things that I focused on, because we were interested in the candidacy of one of our former employees, Tommy Robinson, and he was attacked with milkshakes.
That became a thing, just like in the U.S., hard left, punch a Nazi became a thing in 2017.
In this election, milkshake a Nazi.
But of course, they call Nazis anyone they don't like.
So they milkshaked.
They threw a milkshake on Tommy Robinson.
They threw a milkshake on Nigel Farage.
So you had this, and that's not a deadly violence, but there could be a rock in a milkshake.
They could be acid.
It is still an assault.
So the normalization and the celebration of the milkshake assaults by the media party was a real phenomenon in this election.
And then especially in the case of our friend Tommy, the censorship.
Facebook and Twitter deleted Tommy's platform of a million followers.
Halfway through the campaign, Tommy Robinson's credit card processor of his campaign announced that they were cutting him off in the middle of the campaign.
These kind of deplatforming of social media and the normalization of violence, I see them in the UK targeting the nationalist populist parties.
Do you see any worry about that coming to America in the 2020 election?
Sure.
I mean, the deplatforming going on at social media companies, the way that big tech companies are changing their algorithms to suppress conservative news or suppress articles shared by conservatives, it could end up being the decisive factor in 2020.
And it's something of massive concern.
For example, the Charlottesville controversy over the president's comments in 2017, the false version of his comments is everywhere, and everybody believes it, and you can share it and complain about it, talk about it on social media.
If you try to correct the fake news in the media, your post won't be shared.
It'll be demonetized.
It'll be suppressed.
There's definitely an uneven playing field on social media because the social media companies were blamed for Trump winning in the first place, which is ridiculous, but they've been blamed for allowing fake news and Russian box and whatever.
And so they're determined to make sure he doesn't win.
Also, many of their employees are hardcore left-wing, as we saw from the leaked Google videos where basically senior executives at this publicly traded company were consoling their employees on Trump's win.
They are determined to see a Democrat take the White House for personal ideological reasons, and they are going to make sure that their work assists in that effort.
I think it's impossible to trust these companies.
And there are many signs that what they're doing is essentially rigging the election for Democrats in 2020.
Now, that could be stopped perhaps.
And it's worth noting that despite the ongoing efforts to do this, conservative parties have continued to win around the world.
So maybe they're not that powerful, but in the United States, certainly they have a big role to play in our politics.
And we see that happening.
And we see this sort of legitimation of assaults on conservatives.
I think some CBS news anchors were laughing about the milkshake phenomenon you described.
So we definitely have a lot of work to do in this country before we understand what fair journalism is about, what a level playing field is about, and what the role of social media companies really ought to be.
Joel, let me close with this.
My monologue today was about a new censorship plan announced just yesterday by Canada's Minister of Democratic Institutions.
Of course, that's her title, but she's undermining those democratic institutions.
She has twisted the arm of social media companies to delete what she calls fake news.
And the idea that government, a party, would direct Facebook on what to delete and what not is deeply worrying.
I believe that in the English Canada, in Quebec, they have a bit of a different phenomenon.
But I believe, Joel, that in English Canada, the rebel is who they have in mind.
We're really the only conservative outlet.
We're online only, so that's clearly who they're talking about.
They've taken a run at us before.
The Prime Minister himself, Justin Trudeau, has named and attacked us in parliaments, as have other of his cabinet ministers.
I guess my point is, Joel, if they knock us off the internet with some fake, trumped-up deplatforming excuse, will you get your friends down there to help raise a ruckus to save us?
Because what I've observed with Tommy is once you've been unpersoned, you can't even get the word out.
So I guess this is my request in advance for when they come to silence us, please light a candle for us because I don't know if anyone in this country will.
Well, of course, the fakest news of all, there are no consequences for the fake news of the Russia scandal, the Russia hoax, or the fake news that Trump had no chance of winning or any number of other things.
I mean, there's a great example today.
Some journalists applied for a Freedom of Information Act release of government documents about President Donald Trump's trip to Europe a couple of years ago.
Remember, he was supposed to visit a cemetery to commemorate the dead in the First World War.
So he was going to, I think it was on Veterans Day or Memorial Day or something, he was going to be part of a World War I commemoration.
And he did not go because his helicopter, we were told, could not fly in the heavy rain.
Well, the left and the media went to town.
Trump is unpatriotic, dereliction of duty.
He has no respect for the troops, blah, blah, blah.
So the documents came out today, and in fact, they proved that the Navy ordered Trump's helicopter grounded because of the weather conditions.
You can't have the president of the United States at risk of a crash.
Remember what happened to the president of Poland a few years ago when they were visiting a military or a war crime memorial in Russia.
He crashed and his entire government essentially died on a plane because they flew in bad weather.
So Trump was grounded by the Navy and that turns out to be 100% true.
What the Trump administration said was 100% true.
And everything the media said and all the pundits, nobody's apologizing today and withdrawing, retracting.
Nobody's doing any of that.
They are fake news because they are committed to a narrative that is fake, which is that the country never really elected Trump and that he doesn't love the country.
That's basically what they believe.
It's a political narrative.
They are essentially propagandists for the Democratic Party.
They're never deplatformed.
They're never taken offline.
And, you know, how do you start policing fake news when the essence of the mainstream is fake?
Censored Future Views00:05:02
So, yes, we'll definitely be in your corner for that one.
Well, thank you because I know I'm sounding apocalyptic, but I have this phrase, and maybe I'm using it too much, Joel.
Whenever I visit the UK, I call it my personal dystopian time machine because I feel like I see what's coming to us in five years.
And I realize that the most frustrating place in the world to be is someone who can see a future that he believes will be dark, but cannot raise the alarm because no one will listen.
I think that's the greatest frustration in the world.
I feel like we are going towards that censored future.
And perhaps it's because I myself am worried that we will be targeted by it.
But I find it very difficult to raise the alarm because of the nature of censorship.
When a voice is gone, it cannot protest for itself.
Perhaps I'm too dark on this.
Do you think they're coming for you and Reitbart.com?
Of course they are.
I mean, all of these people would love to see us out of business.
They make it their top priority to try to harass us and frame us in various ways.
I mean, BuzzFeed, a couple days ago, blamed us and Ben Shapiro for an anti-Semitic attack on a synagogue because in the anti-Semite neo-Nazis defense lawyer's submission to the court, they blamed his 17-year-old wife who said that she had been reading conservative news on the internet, and that somehow made him paint a swastika on a synagogue and set something on fire in the courtyard.
I mean, it's so ridiculous.
I'm sitting here, you know, with my Jewish head covering here, my kippah, my yarmuk on my head.
I write about how Jews should arm themselves and take advantage of the Second Amendment.
I write articles about shooting targets of Hitler, and somehow I'm supposed to be inspiring anti-Semitism by essentially encouraging Jews to make sure that the next anti-Semite who enters a synagogue has his head blown off.
I'm supposedly encouraging anti-Semitism.
I mean, it's ridiculous, but that's what BuzzFeed is doing.
And BuzzFeed is still treated as a mainstream news organization because they have a lot of traffic.
Even though they got the Russia collusion story wrong, they've got so many other stories wrong.
They're not going after Tony Robbins over something that happened 30 or 40 years ago in some ridiculous allegations.
They're a tabloid news site that exists to bring down other people.
And they're making this ridiculous claim, but they're never demonetized or taken off of platforms.
I mean, it's totally ridiculous.
It is an ongoing problem here.
And, you know, look, we deal with it just by keep on, you know, we do what we do.
We also have to be careful.
I mean, that's the reality.
We are living in an unfree environment at the moment.
You have to police what you say.
And it's not because the government is coming after you, but it is because these large tech companies and the large mainstream media organizations essentially function like governments in how they can control the flow of information.
They have massive power that government really has never had before.
And you have to be careful.
We haven't figured out a way yet to hold them accountable.
So until we do, you have to be subtle in what you say.
I mean, I've learned from others.
You notice when I talked about Charlottesville, I didn't mention certain words because my worry is that if I say certain words on this broadcast, your broadcast will be demonetized on YouTube.
Because that's what they're doing now.
Friends who've discussed this particular Charlottesville incident have found that once they say certain words, the video is demonetized.
So you have to be careful.
I don't say political things on Facebook anymore.
That's partly because I don't want to offend my friends and relatives, not all of whom agree with me on politics, but also because Facebook does try to suppress conservative political speech.
So I say my political views on Twitter, but when I do say them on Twitter, I don't swear.
Now, that's just to be polite.
I like to be polite.
I think it's better.
But if I were as strident in my views, if I were as openly strident in public as sometimes I feel privately, I'd get kicked off of Twitter, no problem, very quickly, because they are suppressing even ordinary views that are scientific.
I mean, there was leading psychologist who'd done research into transgenderism.
He was kicked off of Twitter for reporting some scientific conclusions he had made.
On Instagram, I just follow people who post beautiful images, and I post images of flowers and food and things like that.
You have to almost specialize in terms of your social media output.
You really can't be political on all these platforms because they do suppress political speech in some ways.
And so you have to be careful.
And that's the reality.
So it is something we'll struggle with.
But in the meantime, we have to be careful so that we don't get demonetized or silenced in advance of the, I suppose, coming battle, which hopefully will decide the future of this media.
Yeah.
You know, just give me 30 seconds to give you this anecdote.
We've published over 12,000 videos since we started four and a half years ago.
And the four words that I detect demonetize our videos in various combinations are Trudeau, feminist, ISIS or terrorist, and transgender.
Those four concepts.
You're not going to make any money off this video.
Be Careful on Social Media00:02:15
Yeah.
I mean, so if you could, if there was a story about Trudeau saying he's a feminist in the face of a transsexual ISIS terrorist, you're not going to make a penny off that.
It'll probably be deleted.
So no stories about transgender ISIS feminists and Trudeau, please.
I'm joking around, but only a little bit.
Joel, it's great to see you.
Thanks for your point of view.
Nice to see you again.
Take care.
All right, there you have it.
Joel Pollack, the senior editor-at-large for Breitbart.com.
Stay with us.
My final thoughts are next.
Hey, welcome back.
On my show yesterday about Tommy Robinson and the European parliamentary elections.
Liza writes, how can we expect fair elections anywhere anymore with social media and corrupt politicians calling the shots?
Yeah, well, we just saw the test run, the prototype in the UK.
I think it's coming to Canada now.
Lou writes a letter.
It's lengthy.
I'm going to read as much of it as I can.
What happened to Tommy Robinson getting deleted from Facebook, Instagram, and financial services on the internet is bad enough.
This is censorship.
The election was undemocratic with the police and government taking sides, but it's much worse.
The deplatforming of Robinson on social media is a way of canceling the very existence and meaning of the person.
It strikes at the heart of who we are and what it means to exist.
It's like getting murdered by social media.
The individual is dead and out of the way.
One ceases to be.
This is wrong, unjust, and inhumane.
It's time to regulate a level playing field for all social media.
You know, I think there's some truth there.
It's hard to believe that in a few short years, less than a decade, so much of our lives are connected that way and to simply erase a person's entire history.
Like I say, if you type Tommy Robinson into the YouTube search engine, he's there.
But you will not find it unless you know the exact precise URL.