Ezra Levant and Sheila Gunn Reid expose Canada’s escalating censorship under Trudeau, with Karina Gould and Ralph Goodale pushing "fake news" regulations for two years—targeting conservatives like The Rebel while ignoring left-wing violence threats against Trump. Levant criticizes Andrew Scheer’s concessions, including a $600M bailout for mainstream media, as ineffective against bias. Reid reveals redacted UN tobacco conference documents, where journalist Drew Johnson was stripped of credentials after refusing to leave, and the Canadian delegation prioritized optics over transparency, like Catherine McKenna’s Assad praise. The pair also highlight Richmond Hill’s reinstated O Canada anthem post-2016 ban, attributing the reversal to a conservative council shift, and condemn progressive councillors’ hypocrisy—calling their initial stance a "grotesque wrong" while defending their right to question the flip-flop. Free speech in Canada faces systemic threats from both government overreach and media collusion, undermining democratic 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.
Justin Trudeau's Democratic Institutions Minister, Karina Gould, recently announced a declaration in the name of electoral integrity.
Translation?
The Trudeau Liberals want more censorship carried out by the big tech companies.
Ezra Levant will explain all.
Well, he's still allowed to, that is.
And speaking of censorship, remember that UN conference on tobacco some three years ago in which members of the press are given the boot for some mysterious reason?
Well, finally, the government has provided us with the documents we requested about that inexplicably secretive conference.
Sheila Gunnread has all the goods.
And finally, letters.
We get your letters.
We get your letters every minute of every day.
And I'll share some of your responses regarding my commentary about some much-needed good news on the national anthem front, namely, after three long years, the singing of Old Canada has returned to council meetings in Richmond Hill, Ontario.
Yes, this municipality actually banned the playing of Old Canada back in 2016, but thanks to partial regime change in Richmond Hill, a modicum of sanity, not to mention patriotism, has returned.
Those are your rebels.
Now let's round them up.
The issue here is to say if someone is 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 then 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.
It's all a tad rich, isn't it, folks, that someone from the land of the Magna Carta and Speaker's Corner comes across the pond and has the utter audacity to sing the praises of censorship.
But that's the 2019 edition of the United Kingdom for you, clamping down on freedom of speech and free expression and freedom of the press.
Makes one really pine for United Kingdom classic when these principles were actually championed.
And even worse, the likes of Damien Collins receives a receptive audience by our government and even those in the opposition?
Scary.
And joining me now with more on the ongoing free speech clampdown is our very own rebel commander, Ezra Levett.
Welcome to Rebel Roundup, Ezra.
Thanks very much.
You know, I think there's a word that Brits use for guys like Mr. Collins, and I think that word is utter wanker.
Yeah.
Clamping Down on Free Speech00:02:42
You know, there's a lot of sayings they have over there, and they use some swears that I won't even say in Canada because it's just like thermonuclear swears over there.
I spent too much time in the UK.
But I don't understand why a British censor is bringing his extremist approach to eradicating dissent into our parliament.
I never really got to the bottom of that, but I didn't like it one bit.
It was so odd that a British parliamentarian was grilling an American company to bring more censorship to Canada.
And I thought, what are you doing?
You know, it's interesting.
I see some news just breaking today.
Yes.
Today, yesterday, the past couple days.
That a journalist contacted the government of Canada to ask about some shipbuilding contract or something.
And so the government of Canada called Irving, the shipbuilders, to brief them on what the journalist was doing.
So it was a journalist reporting on government things, and the Liberal government told the shipbuilder, and the shipbuilder in the past has threatened the journalist with lawsuits.
So now the Globe and Mail is squawking about this because their feelings are hurt because I think it was their reporter.
And as well they should.
But my point is, for two years now, at least, Justin Trudeau, Karina Gould, his censorship minister, Ralph Goodale, public security minister, have all been talking about their plans to rein in what they call fake news.
But of course, fake news is in the eye of the beholder.
So, I mean, I was just looking at a Wall Street Journal reporter based in Canada who was angrily retweeting Bob Fife of the Globe and Mail.
They're all really mad that Justin Trudeau is manhandling the media like this.
To which I say, what, did you only think the rebel would be devoured by this?
Did you only think that they would come for us and let everyone else go?
Did they not realize that when they signed up for their $600 million media bailout that they would have to abide this?
I mean, how naive isn't even the word, how easily rented and bought off are these mainstream media journalists who for two years have actively ignored this government oversight of the media.
It's supposed to be the other way around.
Journalists and free citizens are supposed to hold the government to account.
But for two years, Justin Trudeau and Karina Gould and Ralph Goodale have been talking about holding journalists to account, as if the government is more trustworthy than citizen reporters.
Why are they surprised that this is happening to them?
I mean, wake up, guys.
Mainstream Media's Betrayal00:05:28
It's astonishing.
And given what the Trudeau Liberals have done to us here, or have tried to do, I mean, I hearken back again to the days when you put out the superb Western Standard.
You were the publisher.
You had the guts to publish the Muhammad cartoon.
And back then, we're going back, you know, some 14 years or so, there was a significant critical mass of media that came the bat for you.
I mean, they wouldn't publish it themselves.
They didn't have that intestinal fortitude.
But they, you know, actually said something.
Today, it's kind of like every man for himself.
And in the context of this particular debate, I'm having real trouble connecting the dots.
Collins, he seemingly imagines himself as a knight in shining armor coming to the rescue of the damsel in distress, Nancy Pelosi, who's a Democrat in the United States.
And allegedly upset, or sorry, upset about a video that's allegedly being slowed down to make her appear inebriated.
Like, how does he have skin in this game in the first place?
Well, I mean, the idea that, and Catherine McKenna put up some teary-eyed tweets yesterday about how there's some mean people on the internet saying some mean things.
There are billions of people on the internet.
There are trillions.
There's probably a trillion internet comments out there, many of them anonymous.
Imagine trolling through the internet, finding some random insult, reading it on TV, and saying, we've got to crack down on this kind of bullying.
You are a powerful cabinet minister.
Nancy Pelosi is the most powerful woman in America.
The fact that, and by the way, that Nancy Pelosi video was not altered, at least the one that Donald Trump tweeted.
But even if it was, you're demanding that the most powerful woman in America who has not only personal power, but political power and wealth and private jets, and she's third in line to the presidency, if I'm not mistaken.
You're saying, and you're angry about it, that someone has the audacity to be mean to her by making a satirical video?
I mean, who the hell are you?
I think we have to be meaner to our politicians, and if they don't like it, then get out of office.
Yeah, and the perverse irony here is a Brit in Canada talking about an American situation.
Talk about forward meddling.
But, you know, Ezra, you made the very good point, I thought, that satire is protected.
Pranks are protected.
In other words, even if this was an altered video, so what?
I grew up reading Mad Magazine.
In the days before the internet, we had the supermarket tabloid world, the weekly world news.
I mean, my favorite headline, Statue of Elvis found on Mars.
There was no like Warren Commission to shut down the fake news of that day.
So what is the dynamic now that is causing this censorship fetish?
First of all, there is a problem with fake news, and it's the conspiracy theories that the mainstream media says are true.
The Russia collusion conspiracy theory that dominated American news for two years.
The bizarre theory of man-made global warming, and part two of that, that if you pay more in taxes, it's going to change the weather.
I'm sorry, that's a kind of conspiracy theory.
At least it's junk science and junk economics.
No one credible thinks that if we pay Justin Trudeau's carbon tax, it's going to change the weather.
So if you want to get rid of junk science, let's start with it where it is.
But by the way, we have the right to be wrong.
We have the right to be wrong on purpose.
If someone's actually breaking a law, prosecute them.
But I consume a range of news, half of it from enemies or opponents, because I want to know what they're thinking.
And a lot of it is humorous or just, ah, look at that, or like whatever.
The idea that we all have to be up to some fuss budget standards, and he's only ever concerned about criticism from the right.
I've never seen this kind of censorship concern about wildness on the left.
Never.
I mean, at any given time, you can type into a search engine on Twitter, for example, assassinate Donald Trump.
You can try right now.
Oh, yeah.
And you will see hundreds of leftists who say assassinate Donald Trump, and they're just fine.
And we've had people on our camera say that very statement.
And by the way, I don't think that that in itself is a crime unless it's imminent and credible.
I don't think those are like a magic spell that you say assassinate Donald Trump, that you should go poof to prison.
I mean, I don't think it's a good thing to say.
And I think if you're actually genuinely exhorting people, but there's a few steps between saying that and actually conspiring to or threatening to commit a crime.
I think anyone who says assassinate the president should probably get a phone call or a visit from a secret service agent to check.
But these are the folks who would censor you for a joke, for a meme, for putting up a video of Nancy Pelosi in their own words.
So they'll censor you for not saying, not using someone's pronouns, he, her, g, and jur.
I mean, you'll get kicked off Twitter for that.
But outright calls to violence, hey, no problem.
Scheer's Backpedaling On CBC Funding00:15:52
And you know, what I find disturbing too, Ezra, in terms of the Canadian media landscape, I think the Trudeau liberals are using both the carrot and the stick.
The stick is, you better get your act straight or we're going to have a new censorship ministry that polices you.
The carrot, of course, is the $600 million slush fund that they're going to dole out.
And what I'm a little disturbed by, and you alluded to this in your video, Ezra, was that Scheer seems to be taking back what he was originally talking about in terms of not going through with the fund, defunding a part of the CBC.
But that's kind of gone up in the ether.
What's the unspoken story here?
Yeah, well, I mean, look, Andrew Scheer is not the most courageous man.
Although he may have personal convictions, he'd never say them publicly.
He's easily bullied by the CBC.
When he ran for leader, he said a whole bunch of things about free speech that were immediately evaporated.
He deleted his campaign promises, his leadership campaign promises.
He said he would privatize the CBC.
Now he says he wants the CBC to do more Canadian journalism.
He is not against this media fund, or at least he made some noises about it, but now he just wants to change the people who are doling it out.
I think he's taking the approach, which will not work for him, by the way, that if he is a lighter version of the liberals, maybe the CBC will love him.
They will not love him.
They will attack him just as viciously as they attacked Jason Kenney when he ran for Premier of Alberta or Doug Ford when he ran for Premier of Ontario.
They will slaughter Andrew Scheer.
Now, I still think Andrew Scheer will win the next election, but his attempts to morally buy off the media party by conceding all these arguments to them, it's not going to stop them from bashing him.
I think part of our job here at the Rebel, obviously we want Andrew Scheer to be the prime minister and not Justin Trudeau.
But an important part of our job is to keep him conservative.
There's no point in having Andrew Scheer be a prime minister if he's just a, I mean, I suppose he would be a less corrupt version of Justin Trudeau.
No one could be more corrupt.
But that's not enough.
I mean, you'll remember that one of the first things Andrew Scheer did when he became leader of the party was he whipped his entire caucus to support the Paris scheme of the United Nations for global warming.
What?
So you've just thrown away 20 years of conservative and Canadian alliance and reform party policy because you think that's going to stop the liberals from bashing you?
Now he's recanted on that.
But that showed his moral weakness that he was, it was actually when he was in an interview with Evan Solomon and Evan asked him a trickly question.
He said, oh yeah, we'll meet our Paris obligations.
Just to get him through the temporary discomfort of an interview, he actually changed his party policy in real time in an interview.
That's not a strong-willed man.
And it's a useful remote, and I'm bashing Scheer a bit here, when of course the problem is Justin Trudeau.
But if Andrew Scheer wins and doesn't have the courage of his convictions, what's the point?
Remember, Andrew Scheer spent 10 years almost as Speaker of the House, where he never took a stand.
He was the compromiser.
He was the let's split things in the middle.
He never had to fight a tough campaign.
Other than his first win as an MP, he sailed to victory, so he never had a tough fight in his life.
And I'm worried that he doesn't know how to stand firm in a hurricane.
He doesn't lean into the wind.
Enough to talk about Andrew Scheer.
Obviously, the problem, the urgent problem here is the Liberals.
And I think we're going to see a test.
Look, it's not even six months to the next election, David.
And for two years, the Liberals have said they're coming for our censorship.
They threaten Facebook.
They are doing these deals with Jacinda Ardern of New Zealand to ban everything.
Kevin Chan, the head of policy at Facebook, former Liberal Party, former Liberal Party staffer.
So who do you think they're going to censor?
I don't know much about the media landscape in Quebec, but in English Canada, who do you think they mean to censor?
I don't want to answer that.
Well, it's a rebel.
And so they're passing all these laws, they're having all these regulations, they're leaning on all these social media companies to go after whom?
I mean, it's not just my vanity.
I think they want to kill us.
So right now you and I are talking, and this show will go to air and whatever.
But I believe there is a seriously, serious likelihood, perhaps even a probability, that in the next six months we will be deplatformed either by a tech company doing the bidding of Justin Trudeau or some government action.
I believe the threat to our existence has never been greater because Justin Trudeau's political peril has never been greater.
He will kill us if he can.
I have the similar fear, but I think I speak for our more than 1.2 million YouTube subscribers that we all hope you're wrong and it's maybe there's going to be regime change.
Maybe there's going to be something that prevents that from happening because that's disgraceful and disgusting.
One last, we've gone over time, Ezra, but I got to wrap up with one last question.
I think this is perversely ironic.
And again, another Canadian-UK connection.
In July, there's going to be a press freedom censorship conference.
I can hardly wait to see what these censored cheerleaders are going to say at a censorship-free press conference.
Do you think we're going to be allowed to cover that?
Well, I've applied to go, and so is Sheila Gunread.
And we have written to them several times, and they've acknowledged receipt of our applications, but they have not yet granted us entry.
So this is a joint government of Canada, government of UK meeting about censorship.
And I got to say, it looks like they are censoring who can come to their conference about censorship.
They said it's an open conference.
That's what they said publicly.
So we applied.
And they keep saying, oh, yeah, yeah, okay, we have your application.
We have your application.
We have your application.
They have not granted us access yet.
Do you really think they will?
They hate us and they can't control their emotions.
And I think they will censor us from their censorship conference.
And I also think the Justin Journos cashing in the $600 million bailout from Trudeau, I think they're not going to, I don't think they're going to care.
I think they're going to be, yeah, good.
The Rebel's gone.
They're paid senographers.
Ezra, a pleasure is always fantastic.
And folks, there you have it.
I mean, you know, we have a government.
If you recall, Justin Trudeau on election night victory.
Remember, all about transparency and sunny waste.
Sunny waste has turned into slimy ways.
It's a disgrace.
Keep it here.
more of rebel roundup to come right after this three years ago we sent a rebel team to india The team was there to cover the United Nations Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.
It's a big, expensive, nanny state conference.
On November 7th, 2016, the World Health Organization passed a motion at that conference to restrict all the journalists from the remainder of the quote-unquote public meeting on tobacco control.
And not one member of the 180 nations attending the conference objected to banning the media from the conference floor.
And that included Canada.
The very next day on November 8th, a journalist from the Daily Caller named Drew Johnson said to hell with this.
And he entered the conference hall and sat down in one of the now empty chairs that were designated for members of the media.
So Johnson was forcibly thrown out and was stripped of his media credentials.
We caught the whole thing on tape.
Just watch. Shameful.
But we weren't putting up with this Orwellian censorship without a fight.
We filed an access to information request and moving at the speed of government, we just received those documents.
Yeah, three years after originally requesting them.
Oh, and par for the course, some of the documents were heavily redacted.
Because when it comes to the Trudeau Liberals and the head honchos of the United Nations, oh, they just love censorship.
And with more on this latest attack on freedom of the press is the host of the gun show, Sheila Gunnread.
Welcome to Rebel Roundup, my friend.
Hey, David, thanks for having me on.
Always, always a pleasure.
So Sheila, you finally received the hefty pile of documents, some 74 pages, I believe.
What was the most eye-opening nugget in terms of the info that you were able to uncover?
It wasn't what was there, it was what wasn't there that was most eye-opening.
So going back a little bit, going back three full years, in fact, on November 7th of 2016, the UN Framework on Tobacco Control voted to eject all the media and all the observers from their tobacco conference.
And this was an important thing, an important conference because it was what came out of it was the idea that there needed to be a global, like a planetary tax charged by all governments on tobacco.
So, you know, and I'm not a smoker.
I'm not also one of those militant non-smokers.
I don't care.
But I don't like the idea of governments controlling our lives.
I don't like the idea of increased taxes.
And I don't like the idea of governments doing this in secrecy without proper scrutiny.
And Sheila, if I can- That's what happened here.
If I can just interject, you know, the failed policy motive of increasing taxes to make more money off smokers buying their tobacco, all it does, and certainly this has been the experience in provinces like Quebec and especially Ontario, is the contraband market explodes.
For pennies on the dollar, I can go to a native reserve within a short drive of Toronto and buy tobacco galore without any of the controls.
And if you further tax it through the legal convenience store channel, that's who's going to benefit.
It's not government.
It's not the legal channel.
It's the native reserves.
Well, we've just seen this with the legalization of marijuana.
The black market is booming because the local dealer doesn't charge all Justin Trudeau's taxes, right?
But going back to your original question, they ejected the media on the 7th.
On the 8th, a daily caller journalist named Drew Johnson could be my spirit animal.
He decided, the hell with this, I'm going back in.
I'm sitting where I'm going to sit, and I'm going to report.
They're not going to tax the entire world in secrecy.
And the media or the handlers at this UN conference physically dragged him out, stripped him of his media accreditation.
Luckily, the rebel was there.
We caught it all on camera.
Now, no one, no one in any of these documents from the Canadian delegation, not a single bureaucrat, expressed any sort of concern about physically removing a journalist from the media section of this International Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.
Their only concern was that we had caught it on tape and that people maybe could be watching it.
And I think that was the most offensive to me, and I loathe to use the word offensive.
But when you see now Justin Trudeau's preeming about the free press and wants to give $600 million to protect the free press, and Christy Freeland is having a joint conference with the UK later on this summer about media freedom, they didn't give a damn that they were physically removing journalists from a conference to hide the fact that they were going to tax the entire world in secret.
You know what, Sheila, that's a very important point.
I mean, it wasn't the act that upset them, but the potential exposure of the act.
And what I'm reminded by, a couple of months ago, I did a commentary on another freedom of information request we got from Ottawa, namely how that fiasco of the Canada 150 ice rink on Parliament Hill got built, that financial boondoggle.
And there was a very telling line by a bureaucrat who noticed we have to put in some more money for netting around the rink in case an errant slapshot goes out and kills a spectator, much like what happened many years ago in Columbus when a 15-year-old girl died.
But he wasn't concerned about the potential death of a child because his next line is, can you imagine the bad press we would receive on that?
I'm going, holy mackerel, that's all they care about, Sheila.
It's just the optics of a bad situation.
They don't care about a bad situation or even creating a bad situation.
Well, we see this too with Catherine McKenna and her 20 some odd media handlers when they thanked Syria in Nicaragua for joining the Paris Accord.
They actually thought that that was an appropriate tweet.
It went through the eyes of two dozen people.
It went across the minister's desk.
They tweeted it out.
And their only concern was that the French translation had to be right.
There was nobody in that office that thought, hey, you know, Assad's sort of gassing civilians and doing some really terrible human rights violations, but let's just make sure that when we pat him on the back for saying that, you know, carbon emissions are bad, let's just make sure we get the French translation right because that would be the most offensive thing we're going to do today.
It's incredible.
And Sheila, we should also mention that with this Trudeau Liberal government, there is a definite mean streak about it.
Just last year, back in December, you were banned from the UN Climate Change Conference in Poland.
I was banned from covering the conference in Morocco, another UN conference on migration.
And earlier this month was frog marched out of World Press Freedom Day announcement by Maryam Monsef because I was asking impolite questions.
This government claims are all about transparency and sunny ways and full disclosure.
But it's the precise opposite, Sheila.
They are acting literally like a dictator would in some tinpot countries across the pond.
Well, just the fact that it took three years to get our hands on these documents, they're just kicking the can down the road.
I think, though, it's even more than just that the liberal government has a mean streak.
That's a definite thing.
Hard Questions Avoided00:03:50
But look at how they're reacting when they have one journalist asking hard questions.
And they're not even hard questions.
They're not even confrontational questions.
You have a certain affable style about you.
I'll give you that.
But, you know, they go into protection mode, dictator mode, fear mode when they get one tough question or even just one reasonable question.
So I think it speaks to the failure of the rest of the media that they feel like they can walk past all the other journalists with complete impunity because they know all those liberal sycophantic journalists are not going to ask them a single tough question.
Happy David Menzies shows up on the scene and they go into lockdown.
I think that says a lot about the mainstream media.
It's incredible, yeah, because you would have thought at the World Press Freedom Day press conference.
It would have been nice if my brothers and sisters in the mainstream media said, hey, wait a minute, this is wrong, especially on this day.
Not a peep.
The trained SEAL stenographers just minded their own business and played along.
Sheila, you know, we probably have to wrap it here.
One last question.
I think it's in July.
You alluded to it a little earlier.
There's going to be some UK-Canadian anti-censorship conference.
Here's where we really put what they say and what they do to the test.
I believe you're going to apply for credentials to go cover that conference.
Are they actually going to deny you from covering a censorship conference?
Because talk about irony to the power of infinity.
You know, what do you think is going to happen come July when it comes to you covering that conference?
I think it's about even money on whether or not they're going to deny me or whether or not they're going to let me in.
But I will tell you, I'm going anyway, and I'll make a big stink about it.
And I'll embarrass the liberals on an international scale by going there and being denied the ability to report at their stupid press freedom conference.
But the reason I say it's probably even money is Catherine McKenna, my Muse climate Barbie, she produced a video last night that shows, or I guess it would have been Wednesday night, that I feature prominently in it when she's reading her meme tweets.
And so I bet they're just malicious enough to think that they can survive an international embarrassment.
Wow.
Well, wear that as a badge of honor, Sheila.
And just to wrap, let me say this.
This is how stupid they are when it comes to their vindictiveness.
When they ban you from covering a UN conference and they ban me from covering a similar UN conference in Africa, the thing is, is that we don't go home with nothing.
We do the sidebar stories such as exposing six-figure luxury cars and SUVs idling in parking lots waiting for their UN diplomats to come in because God forbid they don't get full heat or full air conditioning in a nanosecond of entering that vehicle.
And these stories, I think, demonstrate the hypocrisy of what these people are all about rather than letting us into a conference, which I'm sure is such a snooze fest of bureaucraties.
But anyway, Sheila, good luck at the censorship conference.
You can't lose.
It's win-win whether you get in or get kicked out.
And I know all our viewers will be looking forward to that report.
Voting Against O Canada00:07:13
Great, David.
Thanks.
Have a great weekend.
You too, my friend.
And folks, keep it here.
more of Rebel Roundup to come right after this.
Oh, hey, Karen.
Do you have a few minutes?
I'm just here to do a story on the anthem being reinstated.
Okay, because you voted against the playing of O Canada originally, didn't you?
I'm busy.
Okay.
Why did you change your vote, though?
I mean, why in 2016?
I'm busy working now.
That was Karen Silovitz.
I have to make sure I pronounce that name correctly.
If that name rings a bell, folks, it should.
Check out this video footage of Karen leaving a voicemail to a stage 4 cancer survivor.
If you in any way name your event, which does not have my sponsorship or my authority, as the Ward 5 music jam at Archibald's on Sunday night, I will take legal action against both of you and your company.
This is not a joke.
There is going to be serious problems that you are both going to have to deal with legally.
Nobody does this.
It is just not done.
Oh, Mr. West.
Hi.
I'm just here to interview Carmen Perelli and some other counselors, but it's about the O Canada issue.
But you showed up.
Oh, just a very quick question.
You voted against O Canada originally.
Well, there's David West, folks.
He originally voted against the playing of O Canada.
Funny thing, too, he also voted against the name of a street being changed to Banshee Lane to honor the Air Cadets and the Royal Canadian Air Force.
Funny that.
Why is it that they were totally against O Canada opening up a council meeting in a Canadian town and in 2019, oh, it's okay now.
I guess in 2019, they saw that we had the votes, that there were enough rational thinkers on council that it was going to pass.
I guess they didn't want to feel alone.
So I guess what Carmine's saying, Greg, is that they hopped on the bandwagon.
Remember that old tagline for Red Rose Tea?
Only in Canada, you say?
Pity.
Well, indeed, only in Canada could leftist city councillors actually consider the playing of O Canada before the beginning of a council meeting in a town situated in Canada as being offensive.
It's astounding, but true nevertheless, simply because our anthem has the word God in it, some brain-dead counselors thought O Canada might prove to be offensive to, oh, I don't know, an assortment of atheists, a smattering of Satanists.
Only in Canada indeed.
But the good news, folks, is that thanks to partial regime change, i.e. because there are now more right-of-center counselors on city council, sanity has returned to Richmond Hill.
And yes, that golden oldie known as O Canada, it's once again being played prior to council meetings.
Thank God.
Here's what some of you had to say about an embarrassing anthem debacle that never should have occurred in the first place.
Zero percent writes, Greg and Carmine, great pair of guys with hearts of gold.
These guys actually uphold the public trust, unlike those insects in bodysuits hiding in their offices.
Hey, wait a second, 0%.
Didn't a certain scientist in a 1986 David Cronenberg horror flick have something to say about politicians and bugs?
And whatever you do, kids, don't forget to put on your 3D glasses.
Insects don't have politics.
They're very brutal.
No compassion.
No compromise.
We can't trust the insect.
I'd like to become the first insect politician.
Kitty Galore XXX writes, Greg Barrows is the man.
Yes to O Canada.
True patriots.
Let's keep it Canadian.
Don't you just love some of the councillors' open door policies and then they get up and slam it onto your face?
Maybe some of the city of Richmond Hill city councillors are on sorrow's payroll.
They're so progressively libtard.
God and Canadian hating.
Indeed, Kitty Galore, how else can you interpret those people who vote for a ban of O Canada for three years other than those folks having a not-so-subtle loathing for Canada and all that this great dominion stands for?
Perhaps Mayor Barrow and David West and Karen Selvitz would prefer this as an anthem.
They're not even a real country anyway.
Mary Hildreth writes, they banned the anthem and you didn't like it and I imagine you went after them for it.
Now they fix that and unbanned it and instead of being happy you just go after them again for the thing they just fixed.
You know you bitch about it when the left goes after somebody for saying something they don't like and then when the person apologizes they don't let it go.
They just keep on and then you do the very same thing.
Okay Mary, a few points here by way of clarification.
It wasn't just little me who didn't like the removal of O Canada.
It was the vast majority of people in Richmond Hill, including veterans, who spoke out passionately against this.
Banning the anthem never should have happened.
It's our national anthem for Pete's sake.
And yes, I am delighted that a grotesque wrong has been righted.
When you say I go after them, I assume you mean my attempt to interview counselors Silovitz and West only to have doors shut in my face.
All I was trying to do was ask them the following.
Why did you, and the mayor for that matter, vote against O Canada in 2016, but you all flip-flopped in 2019?
What changed in the last three years that made you all do a 180?
I think that is a perfectly fair question that deserves an answer rather than so much pouting.
Well, that wraps 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.