Justin Trudeau’s Liberals are reviving Canada’s Section 13—a repealed "hate speech" censorship tool—while Andrew Scheer’s Conservatives remain silent, despite past opposition. Faisal Suri (AMPAC) falsely ties conservative ideas to violence, yet Christchurch shooter Brenton Tarrant rejected them. Trudeau’s "climate emergency" rhetoric mirrors media propaganda, like the CBC and Toronto Star’s alarmist framing, funded by groups like the Tides Foundation. Canada’s fossil fuel potential contrasts with U.S. energy success under Trump, now a net exporter with record-low unemployment, while Trudeau’s global missteps—from China to the Philippines garbage scandal—undermine credibility. Scheer’s lack of resistance risks normalizing censorship and unpopular policies under election pressure. [Automatically generated summary]
Hello my rebels, we've got a show today about something that's a little bit personal for me.
It's the Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
You might recall that in the year 2013, Stephen Harper repealed that.
That's the censorship provision of the Human Rights Act.
It was a big campaign.
I was part of it, Mark Stein was part of it.
Now the Liberals are looking to redo it, to undo it, to revive it.
And there's just some terrible goings on in the parliamentary committee.
But the greatest part is not that the Liberals, the worst part, it's not that the Liberals want it back.
It's that the conservatives don't seem to be fighting it.
I'll tell you more about that in a minute.
Can you just go to the rebel.media slash shows, the rebel.media slash shows, and become a premium subscriber.
It's $8 a month or $80 for the whole year.
And that basically keeps the lights on here.
That's how we pay it.
And the big bonus to you is you get the video version of this podcast.
And I want you to see the people we're talking about here.
So go to the rebel.media slash shows, $8 a month.
You also get Sheila Gunread's show and David Menzie's show.
It would be great if you did that.
All right.
Without further ado, here is a show today.
It's about section 13 of the Human Rights Act.
Tonight, Justin Trudeau moves quickly to revive the old censorship provision of the Human Rights Act that Stephen Harper repealed.
Guess which side Andrew Scheer is on?
It's June 3rd, 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 to the government is because it's my bloody right to do so.
Censorship is coming back to Canada.
Now, you knew that.
It's probably our number one topic on this show over the past year, but it's coming back in a very specific, symbolic way today.
Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the internet censorship provision of that law that was abolished when Stephen Harper was prime minister back in 2013.
That specific censorship provision is being studied by Justin Trudeau's government, and I can assure you they will revive it because not only do they obviously like censorship and they are moving on censorship in a number of fronts, but back in 2013, every single Liberal MP and every NDP MP too, except one liberal, an independent, independent-minded liberal MP from Newfoundland named Scott Sims, who actually used to be a journalist himself, so maybe he values freedom of speech.
Every single opposition MP except Scott Sims voted to save Section 13 back in 2013 when Harper repealed it.
So yeah, the Liberals are going to bring it back absolutely.
They're censoring the world in a whole lot of ways.
They don't actually need Section 13 of the Human Rights Act back.
Their most effective censorship is outsourcing it through privately pressuring social media companies to censor for them.
There's no trace of their fingerprints that way, but they want Section 13 back anyways because it comes with its own police force.
They like the bullying of it.
And they like the victory lap of this for undoing something that Harper did.
Causing Hard Feelings?00:15:41
Just a reminder of Section 13 and my own experience with it, I'll mention to you too.
It's been nearly a dozen years since a Danish newspaper published a handful of cartoons depicting the Muslim prophet Mohammed.
I won't use the word mocking Mohammed because as you can see by these 12 actual cartoons, this is the actual Elin's Post in the newspaper.
Most of them didn't mock him at all.
Some were bland, some were stylized, some mocked the newspaper itself for publishing them.
I'd say only two of these were anywhere near critical.
You see the one in the middle, yeah, that one there, that shows Muslim women in a burqa just with a slip for their eyes while the male jihadists' eyes are blacked out.
I'd say that's critical of the place of women in Islamic society, of the prevalence of Muslim violence.
And the most iconic, I think, is this one by Kurt Vestergaard of Turban in the shape of a bomb.
I'm not sure if either of those could be called mocking.
I'd say they're critical.
There's a bit of difference, but so what?
You can mock.
You can criticize, you can challenge, you can even hate a religion or its religious leaders or prophets.
If you're free, you can even hate God.
Islam is a religion.
It's a very militant religion, sometimes.
It's a very political religion, at least in many of its expressions.
Everybody mocks Scientology and its second in command, this guy.
Half of television mocks Christianity on a regular basis.
Half of Hollywood mocks Judaism.
And it's often Jews who do it.
Here's Woody Allen mocking Judaism, caricaturing it.
Criticize religion, walk it, whatever.
It's part of freedom.
You can criticize any idea in the West, communism, capitalism, environmentalism.
And the idea except Islam, it seems.
A lot of Muslim pressure groups have been invited by the liberals to argue for this censorship.
This is a list of all the witnesses invited to make the case.
Other ethnic lobby groups are on there too.
I find this odd, as I personally believe in judging people as individuals.
The idea that every single person of a particular ethnicity shares the same view on censorship is not only obviously false, but it's bizarre.
And it's infantilizing as it divides us.
Obviously, I know plenty of Muslims who believe in free speech.
Here's one of my favorites, a Muslim man who did dare to mock Islam or whatever.
Remember this?
I've got so sick of the Goddamn Buck Brigade.
And now, the moment somebody says, yes, I believe in free speech, but I stop listening.
You know, I believe in free speech, but people should behave themselves.
I believe in free speech, but we shouldn't upset anybody.
I believe in free speech, but let's not go too far.
The point about it is the moment you limit free speech, it's not free speech.
The point about it is that it's free.
That's a good point.
Yeah, so these Muslim lobby groups speak for all Muslims, no more than Jewish lobby groups speak for all Jews.
And until about a decade ago, Jewish lobby groups did uniformly support this same censorship.
It's funny.
Canada's hate speech laws were brought in, really, if you study the history of them, they were especially this federal hate speech law in the Ontario version.
They were brought in because of Holocaust survivors who came to Canada.
In the 60s and 70s, they were sick of a handful of kooks in Canada with no power, droning on, literally by themselves in a public park, about Jews and Nazis.
They were harmless, but they were irritating.
But life can be irritating.
We don't destroy a thousand years of the rule of law, 500 years of free speech just because someone is being distasteful to victims of the Holocaust.
And now, wouldn't you know it, the Jews brought in the law to silence Holocaust deniers?
Well, now those who hate Jews, especially Islamic extremists, are using the very laws brought in to appease the Jewish community.
They're using those laws now against the Jewish community and Jews' allies.
That's how the law was used against Mark Stein.
His name sounds Jewish, but it's not actually.
A Muslim extremist group filed a complaint against Mark Stein in the federal and Ontario and BC Human Rights Commissions, identical complaints, triple jeopardy, if you will.
And of course, I myself was prosecuted for 900 days in Alberta by a Muslim extremist for the same sort of thing.
That's the thing about the law.
What comes around goes around, or precedent, as it's called in Latin.
So, stare decisis.
So, back to Parliament.
The Liberals are obviously going to bring back this provision.
Let me read you the text of Section 13, just in case you've forgotten it.
So, you know how odious the law is, how bizarre it is.
It was illegal under Section 13 of the Human Rights Act until Stephen Harper repealed it, to publish anything that was, quote, likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt.
Likely to.
So maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't, but it isn't doing so right now, but it could in the future.
Likely to.
Likely to expose a person to hatred or contempt.
What does that even mean?
Those are feelings.
Not expose a person to a punch.
That's a real assault.
But under this law, I could say something that could cause another person to have hard feelings.
So there's no objective test.
That's the law.
It's a feelings test.
Did you say something that caused someone else to have hard feelings about another person?
Sorry, that's not quite it, because remember, the future part.
Did you publish something on the internet somewhere that could in the future be likely to cause someone to have feelings about someone else?
It will not surprise you to learn that this law had a 100% conviction rate for the first quarter century of its existence because what's the defense?
No, I didn't do anything that caused a feeling of hate.
The law says you just have to maybe in the future cause that feeling.
So it's not necessary for anything to actually happen and cause hate.
What does that mean?
Cause someone to feel a feeling?
Don't we all feel feelings all the time?
Sometimes good feelings, sometimes bad feelings?
And aren't both actually natural?
I mean, are you no longer allowed to have hard feelings about things?
You're not allowed to have the feeling of hate anymore about anything ever, even if they're hateful things.
The world has some hateful things in it.
Are we supposed to love things that are evil as much as we love things that are good?
Yeah, regulating feelings is even stupider than regulating words.
What could a possible legal defense be to this?
Truth?
Truth is a defense to a defamation lawsuit.
I said something mean about that politician, but it's true.
Okay, it's allowed.
That's a legal defense in a real court, but not here in this kangaroo court, right?
What's truth got to do with hurt feelings?
How about fair comment?
How about honest belief?
How about a religious belief?
Those are all defenses to various idea crimes found elsewhere in our law, including the criminal court.
How about not even meaning to do harm?
As you may know, to be convicted of a crime, there must be a guilty mind, a mens rea, as it's called in Latin.
So not only if you didn't do anything, but even if you didn't mean to do anything, you're trapped by Section 13 of the human rights law.
And nothing happened.
Well, you could still be guilty, guilty, guilty.
No other court would convict you, but this human rights kangaroo court would.
And it's not even a real court.
There's no proper legal procedures.
It's not run by a judge.
There's no proper disclosure, etc.
It's about 20 ways it's inferior to a real.
It's a kangaroo court.
So they're thinking of bringing that back.
And one of the pro-censorship lobbyists that they brought in to testify in support of this is someone called Faisal Khansouri.
He's a Muslim lobbyist from Alberta.
He doesn't want to just ban speech that has the wrong feelings, it sounds like.
You listen to me, you listen to this, sorry, and tell me, doesn't this sound like he actually wants to ban feelings itself?
You tell me.
The moment a freedom of speech or freedom of expression puts another group, organization, or an individual in any form of danger, it can no longer be justified as freedom of speech or expression.
This is now freedom of hate, which has no place in the Akkadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, nor in any pluralistic society that we live in.
Yeah, brother, if we could just pass the Love Each Other Act of 2019, we'd all be living in a utopia.
But alas, that won't happen till Jesus comes back.
In the meantime, we just have to live with each other here and our emotions, and banning hate just won't work.
And frankly, I think that some of the more excitable parts of the Muslim community could probably use some work too, not just that guy's enemies on the internet.
But this Faisal Suri particularly linked hate with murder, and he linked murder to conservatives.
Of course he did.
And a conservative on the Justice Committee named Michael Cooper, an MP from St. Albert, he didn't like that much.
Here, listen to this three-minute interaction.
Suri makes his points, and actually he has a fairly reasonable tone of voice to him.
But listen to him specifically saying that conservatives were to blame, conservative ideas were to blame, for terrorism.
It's pretty quick, and frankly, it's not as big as point, but that stuck in the craw of Michael Cooper, conservative MP.
Here, listen to the exchange.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for having us.
My name is Fausto Khan Suri.
I'm the president of the Alberta Muslim Public Affairs Council, AMPAC.
Getting the gist of things now.
To state it quite mightily, online hate influences real-life hate.
I could be quite blunt about this.
Online hate is an actually enabler, a precursor, and a deep contributor to not just real-life hate, but to murder.
I think we've seen a lot of recent tragedies that have been happening across the world.
In June 2017, in Quebec City, mosque killer Alejandre Bissonet gunned down six Muslim men in execution style, where he came into the mosque with two guns and fired more than 800 rounds.
The evidence from Bissonet's computers showed he repeatedly sought content about anti-immigrant, alt-right, and conservative commentators, mass murderers, U.S. President Donald Trump, and about the arrival of Muslims, immigrants within Quebec.
Thank you very much.
And we'll now move to questions.
Mr. Cooper.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First of all, Mr. Suri, I take great umbrage with your defamatory comments to try to link conservatism with violent and extremist attacks.
They have no foundation, they're defamatory, and they diminish your credibility as a witness.
And let me, Mr. Chair, read into the record the statement of Brenton Tarrant, who is responsible for the Christchurch massacre.
He left a 74-page manifesto in which he stated, conservatism is corporatism in disguise.
I want no part of it.
The nation with the closest political and social values to my own is the People's Republic of China, close quote.
And I certainly wouldn't attempt to link Bernie Sanders to the individual who shot up Republican members of Congress and nearly fatally killed Congressman Scalise.
So you should be ashamed.
Now, with respect, unaccepting behavior of my reparatory witnesses at our committee, I do not, I have this speech in front of me, Mr. Chair, and there's nothing linking conservatism to that movement.
If alt-right is limited to conservatism, that's conservatives.
He's disguised and conservative commentators voter is.
To ask.
We're just going to ask everyone to who is not part of the committee to leave the room for a very brief period of time and we will have you come back in as soon as possible.
We apologize for taking away your time.
Uh, it was it important for the committee to discuss and and deal with the issue and i'm going to give the floor back to mr Cooper.
Well well, thank you, mr chair and um, while I certainly find the comments made by mr Surrey to be deeply offensive and objectionable and vehemently disagree with uh with them, I I will withdraw saying that he should be ashamed.
That was not unparliamentary, but I understand it made some other members of the committee uncomfortable.
So, in the spirit of moving forward, I withdraw those specific comments, but certainly not the rest of what I said.
Listen, I get it.
I get Michael Cooper pushing back.
I get him saying, shame on you.
I mean, the guy pretty much did blame conservatives for murder and Cooper is not only an ideological conservative but it's his party name too.
He said the witness should be ashamed of himself.
I don't know, I I don't think that witness is capable of shame.
I I might have chosen a different zinger than Cooper did.
But fair enough.
I thought it was very effective for Cooper to read into the record what the actual terrorist in New Zealand said, because Suri claimed the terrorist was a conservative.
The terrorist said very clearly that he was not.
I thought that was important and useful, but apparently not.
I mean, of course, the rest of the MPS all the liberals had a freak out.
They're not used to a conservative who actually fights back.
But Andrew Shear well, he's not a fighting back kind of conservative himself, is he?
And in fact he's the only fighting sheer seems to have done on this issue is fighting with Cooper, phoned up Cooper and fired him from the Justice Committee where he was co-chair and obviously ordered him to apologize, because he did, he said earlier this week at the Justice Committee I interpreted comments by witness Faisal Khansuri as linking mainstream conservatism with violent extremism.
In response, I quoted the words of a white supremacist, Anti-Muslim mass murderer in an ill-advised attempt to demonstrate that such acts are not linked to conservatism.
I absolutely should not have quoted these words nor named the perpetrator.
This was a mistake.
I apologize to Mr. Suri and all Canadians.
I reiterate that I unequivocally condemn all forms of racism.
I have spoken to my leader, Andrew Scheer, and we have agreed that I will no longer sit on the Justice Committee.
Yeah, that reads about as naturally as a hostage reading a message to someone to pay a ransom, didn't it?
Cooper didn't write that.
Scheer's office obviously did.
Help me out.
What exactly was the problem that was identified there?
That Cooper quoted a terrorist?
He didn't quote a terrorist in support of the terrorist.
He quoted the terrorist because Suri claimed that the terrorist said he was inspired by conservatives and the terrorist himself said the opposite.
How is that not appropriate to correct?
It's right on point.
He wasn't quoting with approval or admiration.
He was quoting for accuracy, defending himself and other conservatives from being smeared by this guy.
Such weird wording there.
Oh, and I should not have named him.
Why is it like a magic spell if you say his name?
And here's Andrew Scheer, who made simultaneous tweets.
He said, I have spoken with Michael Cooper about comments he made at the Justice Committee earlier this week.
Having taken the time to review the incident, I have informed him that he will no longer sit on the Justice Committee as a consequence.
Scheer's Silence00:06:59
And reading the name and quoting the words of the Christchurch suitor, especially when directed at a Muslim witness during a parliamentary hearing, is insensitive and unacceptable.
Mr. Cooper has apologized.
I accept his apology and I consider the matter closed.
Reading the name was insensitive.
Even saying the name of someone who the Muslim lobbyist himself was just misquoted, is saying a name in public offensive in a parliamentary deliberation directed at a Muslim witness.
It was the Muslim witness who brought it up.
If it were directed at a non-Muslim witness, would it have been okay?
What on earth?
How bizarre is this?
And hang on.
Did Andrew Scheer actually think that by literally firing an MP from the committee over this non-incident, Did Andrew Scheer think it would solve a political problem?
What problem, by the way?
But of course it won't solve a problem.
It created a problem because now the world knows if you attack Scheer or his team or his staff or anyone near him, he'll panic and he'll try to appease you.
He'll literally fire the vice chair of a committee because, well, I'm not even quite sure why.
The rationale there doesn't even make sense to me, but my God is an open season on conservatives now.
And wouldn't you know it, that same Muslim lobbyist has called for Cooper to be fired from the party altogether, as if he were a good faith critic, as if he would have accepted apology, as if any leftist in history has ever been satiated with an apology, as if it doesn't just whet their appetite for more.
They know they can push Shear around, they smell blood, they know they can make him accept their narrative, hand him a script, tell him to read it, and they can actually get him to fire his staff and MPs and candidates.
He's just told the world that.
It's bizarre.
It shows he's afraid of everything.
We knew he was afraid of the CBC and other media.
He lets them bully him.
He lets them bully him into agreeing that the UN's Paris Global Warming Scheme was the bee's knees.
And so Scheer literally was pressured.
I don't know if you remember, he was pressured live on TV by Evan Solomon, doing a great job as an interviewer, pressured Andrew Scheer in real time on TV to promise to abide by the Paris Global Warming Scheme.
And Scheer caved in because he couldn't withstand the heat of a 90-second interview, and he didn't have the personal constitution to resist the narrative.
Of course not.
For a decade, he was Speaker of the House of Commons.
He never had to answer a hard question.
He never had to engage in a tough debate.
He never had to face a media scrum.
He never had a tough campaign.
He won the Conservative leadership a couple years ago without a fight.
He was everyone's second or third or fourth or fifth or sixth choice.
I think he actually only won on the 13th or 14th ballot.
The guy's never fought before, so he's scared of fighting.
He was scared on global warming.
He's scared on immigration, and he's in a sheer panic about being called an Islamophobe or whatever.
I've got news for you, buddy.
They're going to call you that no matter what you do.
You can't control what they say about you.
You can only control yourself.
Sheer is literally letting his enemies decide what he and his team says and does and what he reacts to.
It's terrifying to me because he's going to blow his 13-point lead in the polls in the course of a campaign if he doesn't grow his spine, ASAP.
I mean, can you look at this and tell me what it means?
Look at this.
He tweeted this just the other day.
I mean, seriously.
Diversity is a product of our strength.
And our strength is, and ever has been, our freedom.
What does that mean?
I didn't understand it when I heard it the first time from Justin Trudeau.
We need societies that recognize diversity as a source of strength, not as a source of weakness.
You know, we saw in Toronto a massive anti-Semitic protest over the weekend, the Al-Quds rally.
You know, we have honor murders in Canada, people being killed because they don't wear a hijab or a nikab.
I'm not sure if diversity without qualification is a strength.
I'm not sure about it, but I didn't believe it when Trudeau said it, and I don't believe it just because Andrew Scheer says it.
And I don't think it's going to turn any enemies of his into friends, is it?
Now, I agree with Scheer's other remarks in the past week that he believes in the inherent worth of every Canadian, regardless of race or religion or sex or whatever.
That was good stuff, talking about we're all children of God.
I thought that was actually a nice touch.
But that's never going to make the liberals stop saying mean things about him.
But still, it was fine.
What he said we're all equal in the eyes of God, I thought it was really nice.
But what's with the buzzwords, diversity is our strength.
What does that mean?
What does it mean to fire an MP because he was defending himself against a lie, a calumny that the New Zealand terrorist was actually conservative?
Why is that offensive?
Why is what Michael Cooper did in committee there a firing offense?
And what was the political math there?
That throwing Cooper to the wolves will somehow make those wolves not hungry anymore?
The Liberals will stop calling you names now?
Now, in a way, who cares about the word salad, diversity is our strength?
And in a way, who cares about Michael Cooper?
He's obviously a politician who's decided that he would accept this humiliating apology and demotion in order to remain a conservative MP.
I really don't care about him.
He's made his choice, in a way.
What I do care about here is freedom of speech and Section 13.
I haven't seen the Conservatives say a word against it, have you?
Other than Michael Cooper in his questions and committee, but he's gone now.
I haven't seen Andrew Scheer or his Justice Critically Serate.
I haven't seen them say a word against it.
If I've missed it, let me know.
I haven't seen Andrew Scheer or his democracy critic, Stephanie Kusi, say a word against Trudeau's other plans to ban fake news from Facebook.
I haven't seen Scheer talk about free speech or censorship at all in recent months.
Have you?
I think this new censorship rule will be rammed through without any opposition because I think Andrew Scheer believes that if he just stays quiet and doesn't make a fuss, he'll sail into victory this fall.
He's got a 13-point lead in the polls after all.
Yeah, Andrew Scheer is about to have his first real campaign of his life, not just as leader, but ever really.
He's going to be beaten so brutally by the press and by surrogates, he won't know what hits him.
The entire Unifor bail-up media, the entire CBC propaganda arm, 100 foreign-funded third-party campaign groups, every environmental group, they're going to beat him black and blue.
And his grassroots allies, well, they, they will be censored on Facebook as fake news.
And I think there is a 51% chance that we'll be shut down here at the Rebel Tomb.
Yeah, if Andrew Scheer thinks that just smiling, that smile and saying diversity is our strength, is going to win the election, I think he's wrong.
And I think worse than that, letting his enemies make him fire his own loyal soldiers.
Well, I think we've just seen a quick glimpse at a dire weakness that I'm sure his enemies have noted and will exploit mercilessly.
Stay with us.
Saying Emergency Means Something00:15:58
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.
Well, that drunk tweet video, seriously, she was in a bar in St. John's.
That was not leaked to the media by some conservative bargoer who happened to see her.
That was actually published on purpose by McKenna's communications staff.
And not one of the 24 people on her communications team thought, yeah, boss, publishing a drunk tweet of you from a bar is probably not the best, especially when you're saying you just shout, shout, shout till people hear you.
Well, needless to say, after a few days, they took down the drunk tweet, but not before it was preserved for all time.
Take this as a cautionary tale, kids.
The internet is forever.
Anyways, one of the new lines that they're shouting louder and louder is that it's no longer global warming.
It hasn't been called that for years.
It's no longer even climate change because people say, so what?
Climate change is all the time or maybe it's not even changing.
Their new phrase is climate crisis, climate emergency, climate breakdown, and the braver souls call it climate apocalypse.
This isn't, I wish I was joking.
This is the new official line of the influential left-wing Guardian newspaper in the UK.
Now, what the UK does and what a private newspaper does, I suppose, is their own business.
But now, the CBC, Trudeau's state broadcaster, and of course it was the CBC senior CBC liberal Mark Critsch who was in that drunk bar with Catherine McKenna.
Mark Critch, the CBC has adopted the same vocabulary.
They will now use the hyper-political vocabulary of climate crisis and climate breakdown.
That's not a factual observation.
That's an interpretation.
That's a political view that the CBC will now normalize as the truth.
And if Catherine McKenna's right, if they just keep shouting it, maybe one day you'll believe them.
Joining us now via Skype from the Washington, D.C. area is our friend Mark Morano, the boss of climatepot.com.
Mark, it's not global warming.
It's not climate change.
It's now a climate crisis.
How do you feel about that?
Well, what's interesting about this is the words climate crisis or climate emergency, they were left to the venue of the hardcore climate activists a decade or so ago.
I remember Barbara Streisand actually called it a climate emergency.
And we had a lot of fun.
When I worked in the United States Senate was for Senator Inhoff, he would put up that and laugh that some Hollywood celebrity was calling global warming a climate emergency.
Al Gore has referred to the climate crisis.
But you were absolutely right, Ezra.
These were the words of the activists, of the base, of the campaigners, not the words of the media.
Now, the media, which went from global warming to climate change, and actually under President Obama, they tried to, his science czar, John Holdren, called it global climate disruption.
But they have now succeeded in getting the organs of the state, the mainstream media, to follow suit, and this will have an impact.
Imagine now, you're not a climate denier.
You are a climate emergency denier.
You're a climate crisis denier.
It's incredible.
It's incredible and it's powerful, especially on young people.
This will resonate.
If their parents don't tell them any different about the news and they think that the mainstream media is actual news and not activism, this will have an impact on these poor kids.
Yeah, I mean, to call something a crisis or a breakdown or an emergency, I mean, there are some legal definitions of an emergency.
For example, under some state of emergency legislation, if a governor or a president, and we have similar laws in Canada, declares a state of emergency, it's a technical meaning that allows them to circumvent certain rules or deploy certain firefighters or aid without going through the normal processes.
So it has a technical meaning, and if it were to be abused, a court could rule them in and say, no, that's not an emergency.
You're abusing those powers.
So there is actually something that is legally called an emergency.
But this seems to be absolute dictionary definition, boy who cries wolf.
Saying something that is not an emergency is an emergency.
It's as close to political fraud.
I don't believe there's such a thing as political fraud.
But it's downright propaganda.
It's embarrassing to me that prominent media like Canada's state broadcaster are just so willing to let themselves be used as repeaters of political propaganda.
I suppose I should say I'm not surprised anymore, but even this is surprising to me.
Yeah, I mean, it surprised me even when the UK Guardian, it started a few years back.
CNN refused to have on any climate skeptics.
MSNBC did.
And then the LA Times said no letters to the editors from anyone dissenting on global warming.
We're not going to print it.
NBC News has come out and done it.
CBS News compared skeptics.
They're lead anchor to Holocaust deniers.
So in that vein, this is just the natural progression.
In the U.S., you know, a governor or a mayor can declare a state of emergency in the aftermath of a big tornado or a hurricane or a flood, a natural disaster.
And that actually makes sense.
A locally affected area, a state, a city, a county that's massively affected, houses destroyed, travel, disruption, electricity.
That is a state of emergency.
You can understand that.
But they're now trying to say that the entire state of our climate is an emergency, and they're saying it for the express political reason of carbon taxes and UN treaties and other regulations.
This is pure, absolute fraudulent propaganda.
Now, there's propaganda and then there's fraudulent propaganda.
This is fraudulent.
I mean, this is from beginning to end.
Not only is there no climate crisis, and certainly Canada wouldn't be under the implant.
You know, you guys could probably use a little warming, as many Canadians have told me over the years.
It's incredible that it's gotten this far, but you also are telling us what's probably coming to the U.S. We're probably less than a year away from the New York Times and the Washington Post and the major CNN and everyone else following suit with this kind of language because words mean things.
And this is meant to scare people and propagandize them.
Yeah, you know what?
You mentioned how it scares kids.
You're so right on that.
You and I have talked a couple times about that teenager, Greta Tunberg, who personally has been a mental illness.
She's had mental illness, she's had clinical depression, she had suicidal thoughts, and her parents and her PR managers sent her out to spread these extremely depressing suicidal thoughts.
We only have a few years to live.
Kids, there's no point in even going to school.
We're all going to die.
If you tell a child that we are in a crisis emergency breakdown, what's a kid to know different, especially if her own parents are telling her that?
I find that deeply troubling.
I want to switch gears to go ahead and give me your thoughts on that.
And then I got one more.
It's a lie.
A kid is told an emergency is a car accident, a fire, a school, you know, where you have a fire drill, you practice for emergencies.
The word emergency ceases to have its meaning if every day of your life you're living in an emergency.
That's the policies of a dictator declaring a police state where every day everyone's got to be on guard and you can usurp natural day-to-day powers.
If that's where they're going with this, they're trying to get legislation that wouldn't otherwise stand a chance in hell of passing by declaring it a climate emergency.
You're so right.
There's one more thing I've noticed, and I pay close attention to the language because, I mean, as Catherine McKenna says, she repeats it often enough.
And if you don't listen to her the first time, she'll repeat it and just shout it, even shouting it drunken from a bar.
The Toronto Star, which is the largest newspaper in Canada by circulation, they absolutely have absorbed this language and are repeating it.
I don't know if you know this, Mark, but the Toronto Star has directly taken money from the Tides Foundation to run climate stories.
So they're not even pretending to be neutral anymore, but they use this language.
They talk about an intense sense of emergency.
And the purpose of the emergency, I just want to read you this language and get your response to it, is to shift Canada's entire economy to battle climate change.
And that's similar language to Catherine McKenna.
Combat climate change, battle climate change.
They never say stop climate change.
They don't even say slow down climate change, let alone reverse climate change, because even they can't look at the camera with a straight face and say, if you pay my carbon tax, we will change the weather.
So it's all about the action of battling climate change.
Keep busy, keep active, keep paying those taxes, keep having these regulations.
We're never going to change the weather, but it's the struggle that counts, and it's your sacrifice that counts.
This is a perpetual battle against a perpetual emergency.
We will never win it.
We're not even foolish enough to say that, but pay your taxes anyways.
Battling climate change.
It's the verb there that's crazy to me.
It is.
And this is what their goal has been.
It's a perpetual, it's what a lot of the liberals and anti-war activists accuse the Bush, Cheney, and Pentagon of after 9-11, the perpetual war state.
Except they're actually doing it with climate.
They're trying to now make this just a chronic, permanent, long-term emergency.
And what's funny about this, if you go back to 2015 when they signed the UN-Paris Agreement, they actually declared that we've done it.
We've come together.
We've saved the world.
John Kerry signed the treaty with his granddaughter on his lap for future generations.
They patted themselves on the back, huge celebrations in the UN.
Now you fast forward four years later and they're saying, we're all going to die.
We have tipping points again.
We need to act.
The UN-Paris Agreement was woefully inadequate.
So their solution to past emergency no longer applies.
So all this is, is to just keep ramping it up, ramping it up, declaring more emergencies, declaring more solutions, patting themselves on the back briefly, and then saying that nothing was done and we need to do more.
It's a cycle, and I just can't believe that otherwise intelligent people can't see through it across the country.
And I'm talking about voters and the political middle, because they're ultimately going to hold the key, both in Canada and the U.S. and in many other countries, to the future of this policy.
And you just hope that they can see through such absolute crap tactics.
Yeah.
Listen, I want to shift gears a little bit.
I did a story the other day on how the senior official in charge of fossil fuels in America.
And I, first of all, I love the fact that his title includes the words fossil fuels because that's anathema in places like Canada that are global warming, climate change, whatever.
But it was a great press release that talked about freedom molecules and freedom gasping exported from Texas and Louisiana in LNG.
I think it was from Texas, Port Freeport, Texas.
There's now an LNG tanker that's going to Europe.
And I read that story and we did a little show on it.
I was just thrilled.
It's amazing how fast America has become a net exporter of energy.
And it's on all fronts, oil, coal, gas.
I never thought it would happen in my lifetime.
I thought America would be perpetually a net importer of energy because it looked that way as recently as five, ten years ago.
Give us an update on what this means for the U.S. economy.
And this is going to make me very jealous to hear your answer, Mark, because that should have been Canada.
We have more oil and gas.
We have more oil than America.
We don't have more gas, but we have a lot of gas and we have a lot of coal.
Tell me how great it is down there in terms of the jobs, the economy, the exports, the growth.
Just make me and my congress jealous.
It has literally defied all predictions, expectations, wildest dreams so far.
Even not Mario Cuomo, but Cuomo's son on CNN has actually said this is the strongest economy in like 50 years since they've been keeping unemployment statistics in the late 1960s.
Not only is unemployment the lowest it's ever been, but black, Hispanic unemployment has been the lowest.
Labor unions that normally have literally endorsed President Obama and President and Hillary Clinton wished to be president have met with President Trump in the White House supporting these energy initiatives.
They've come out now.
I'm thinking of the Labor's International Union who supported the Canadian pipelines, who supported all sorts of energy extraction because that's what makes America work at the especially at the blue collar level, at the minority level, at the lower income level.
This is absolutely the greatest increase we've seen in any president since at least the 1960s, nothing's come close.
And President Trump coming in and just ravaging President Obama's environmental regulations at the EPA and his crippling of coal, oil, gas, has just unleashed it in a way that even he couldn't have expected.
So America is just cruising along at a very great problem is it could all be undone quickly because the next president, including Joe Biden, they're going to come in, but at least what Obama did, but looks to be much, much worse if they win in 2020.
And they can do this all through executive order now because the EPA can regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant.
That hasn't changed.
And we can get back in the UN agreement and start stifling our energy.
But for right now, this is like the clouds have cleared and the sun is shining on America energy independence and energy economy.
And it's an incredible thing to see.
You know what?
And I wish that we could say those same things in Canada.
We should be saying them between the oil sands and LNG and shipping oil and gas to Asia.
That should be us.
But we elected a substitute drama teacher.
I got one last question for you.
And this is really goes.
I mean, 10 years ago, I wrote a book called Ethical Oil, and I wrote a follow-up called fracking called Groundswell.
And I made the case that it's great for Canada, great for the United States, but it's also great for countries around the world that would much rather buy their oil and gas from Canada, from the United States, instead of from Gazprom, Vladimir Putin's controlled gas company, or any OPEC country.
And so it's not just great for Americans and great for Canadians, but India, for example, they're a huge buyer of oil from Iran, or they have been historically.
India's going to buy oil no matter what.
They may as well buy it from us rather than from Iran.
Even China, even though it's in a trade war and a moral war against Canada and the U.S., I would rather, well, I don't know if they're a reliable customer, but Korea, Japan, Taiwan, India, Europe, I'd rather they bought our oil and gas than buy it from Russia and OPEC.
And I just really think America is helping the world, not just itself.
Do you see what I'm saying about freeing American allies from Gazprom or OPEC?
I do, and you're right.
America's Global Energy Role00:04:06
It's actually a great phrase, ethical oil and ethical energy.
The United States has some of the strictest environmental regulations.
So any energy we produce here is going to be clean, efficient.
And actually, there's been research recently on carbon taxes, to take an example.
The more the West, the industrialized West, Europe, Canada, the United States, tax carbon and increases taxes on CO2 or passes widespread carbon taxes, it means one thing, period, according to these new economic analysis.
The emissions will go up more because all you're doing is sending all that energy extraction and processing to countries that don't have the environmental technology, infrastructure, and regulations that we in the West here do.
So if you think, oh, well, let's cripple the U.S. economy, let's cripple our energy, let's cripple Canada, let's go after Europe, let's keep shutting down Germany and Europe, all you're doing is harming Mother Earth, to use their phrase.
And that's empirical data.
And actually, I did a speech recently, actually at a debate at University of Minnesota on this very point, showing all the factual data, showing that the more you regulate our energy in the capitalist West, the more you're going to have emissions as that energy is forced to go to places that are less efficient, less technology, and less stringent regulations and less concern, if you will, about the Earth.
You know, I bet that would have been a great debate.
And when you have another public debate like that, let us know.
Maybe we'll send a cameraman.
I think you're a very able advocate for our side of the story.
Of course, we've had you on our show probably 100 times.
I would love to see you in a battle with a well-armed lefty because I think that would be an amazing debate.
Next time you've got a debate like that one you just mentioned, let us know.
We'll send the camera.
All right.
Thank you.
I just got to testify two weeks ago to the House committee about this new UN species report, and I got to go against Bob Watson, Robert Watson, the former UNIPCC head.
And I was so vicious with him.
I just, I went through all his arguments, tipping points.
And the chair of the committee was a Democrat, interrupted my opening statement to admonish me for going after the credibility of the United Nations.
And I made sure that I went after them by name.
I actually said in my testimony, this is not an argument against the big body and these, you know, they had three representatives of the UN.
And I mentioned them by name.
You are the ones who are bastardizing science.
You are manipulating it.
You are doing it for United Nations lobbying purposes.
They went nuts.
And there would be article after article after article saying that I brought a World Wrestling Federation attitude to the hearing.
I believe it, by the way, and I'm glad you did.
We'll have to dig up that video.
Mark, listen, congratulations.
And speaking of climate crisis, I'm just admiring the gorgeous spring afternoon there in the Washington, D.C. area.
If that's a climate crisis, I'd like a helping of that.
Thanks, my friend.
Great to see you.
Thank you.
All right, take care.
That's our friend Mark Moreno from climatepot.com.
We're going to have to try and dig up that testimony on Capitol Hill.
And like I say, if he's in the debate, we're going to catch it because I'd like to see him spar with the other side.
I pity the fool who goes against our friend Mark.
All right, stay with us.
more ahead on the rebel.
Hey, welcome back on my monologue Friday about Catherine McKenna's very bad week.
Bruce writes, tonight's show was super gross.
McKenna's like fingernails on a blackboard.
The only good thing about what she and liberals are doing is alienating voters.
Yeah, I've noticed in recent days she has gone crazy on Twitter.
She's tweeting more than ever before.
It's always narcissistic.
She's always the hero of every story.
She just won't let the people take a break from her.
And I think that while that must feel good for her vanity, I don't think that's going to help the party.
If the face of the party is that shouty taxer who's just so, who we saw drunk, saying, look, I just keep shouting until people believe me.
McKenna's Narcissistic Tweets00:02:52
If that's the face of the liberals, I mean, she's in love with herself.
As you know, she hired that $6,000 fashion photographer to take pictures of her in Paris.
Yeah, I don't think the rest of us have the same high regard for her.
I think that's a bad decision for the liberals.
Norbert writes, Climate Barbie has now become garbage Barbie.
I was stunned.
I mean, that's a perfect example.
Why did she weigh in at all on this disaster of the Philippine garbage ship coming back here?
I mean, why would she say that's a terrible story?
It's literally a stinking pile of garbage.
Imagine garbage that's been sitting and fermenting for two or three years.
You would think any sane politician would just want to run away from that.
But she tweeted, anchors away.
Why?
Because she just can't stop herself.
And I love it.
Robert writes, the worst part of this is that once again, Canada is an international laughing song.
Yeah, listen, I mean, I think, as you probably know, the Philippines are the number one and number two source of immigrants to Canada.
China is the other one, either number two or number one.
And everybody knows Filipino people because there's so many in Canada.
They're so friendly.
I mean, I don't want to stereotype, but that's a friendly, happy country.
How do you get into a battle with the Philippines?
I mean, they're allies, they're friendly, they're Catholic, they're hardworking, they're industrious sins of humanity.
I mean, I know I'm engaging in an ethnic stereotype, but permit me, it's a positive ethnic stereotype.
Would you agree with me on that?
How do you get into a fight with the Philippines?
That takes great effort.
It takes a lot of cunning to turn the friendly, friendly country that loves Canada into, well, you heard Duterte threatening war against us and saying, I'll send you the garbage back.
You can eat it.
I don't care.
That takes hard work.
I mean, just ignoring things would be better.
I think it took positive effort.
Oh, my God.
How do you do that?
Let's just go through it.
You got Saudi Arabia.
You got China.
You got India.
You got Australia.
You got America laughing at us because they ate our lunch on NAFTA.
You got the Philippines.
I'm not saying these aren't tough problems.
Like, handling China is a tough problem.
But it's funny how Stephen Harper managed to control China even though he was critical of them.
And it's funny how Stephen Harper, well, on his watch, Barack Obama didn't dare cancel the Keystone XL pipeline.
It was only after the pushover Trudeau came in that Obama canceled it.
It's funny how Harper had actually better relations with China, India, Saudi Arabia, even though he was rhetorically and morally stronger with them than that loser, Justin Trudeau, who has, he's got the reverse Midas touch.
He's got like the Oscar Meyer touch.
Everything he touches turns to baloney.
Folks, that's our show for today.
Until next time, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, good night.