Azra Levant critiques the UN’s June 26 anti-"hate speech" campaign, led by unelected Secretary-General Antonio Guterres (paid ~$300K CAD/year), which pressures governments and platforms like Facebook to censor dissent while ignoring Islamic extremist groups like ISIS or Hamas. She highlights selective framing—omitting perpetrators’ identities in atrocities such as Rwanda or Christchurch—and the OIC’s influence, including a Qatar-sponsored UN lounge. Ilhan Omar’s anti-Semitic tropes (e.g., "Jews control the world") and evasive responses to fraud allegations reveal deeper patterns of censorship targeting Western critics, raising concerns about weaponized definitions and potential election interference against figures like Trump. [Automatically generated summary]
Thank you for watching the show and my friends Sheila and David did it during my absence.
Today's show, I go through a speech by the United Nations Secretary General.
Can you name him?
I bet you can't and I'm not being mean to you.
I mean why would you?
Why would you name such an unelected unaccountable foreign person who why would you name him?
Well the answer is because he probably has more power over you than nine out of ten elected officials in your own country.
So I'm going to go through his speech on censorship.
I think it might make your hairs on your arms stand up.
Before I get there, let me encourage you to get the video version of this podcast.
It's eight bucks a month.
You can do that at the rebel.media slash shows.
And for eight bucks, you get the video version.
You get Sheila Gunreed's show, David Menzie's show, and you get the satisfaction of helping the rebels stay financially strong.
All right, folks, here's the show.
You're listening to a Rebel Media Podcast.
Tonight, the United Nations unveils its massive new project to combat hate speech, which includes speech against UN programs.
It's June 26th, and this is the Azra 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 about why I'm publishing it is because it's my bloody right to do so.
Who is this friendly looking guy?
Can you name him?
Do you know who he is?
He's got a friendly face, doesn't he?
Like a happy grandpa or something.
But seriously, do you know who he is?
Here's a hint.
He has tremendous power over you.
But you were never asked to vote for him.
You paid for his salary, by the way, almost 300 grand Canadian a year, plus an enormous benefits and expenses package worth more than a million bucks.
So who is he?
Well, he's from Portugal, so don't feel bad if you don't recognize him.
His name is Antonio Guterres.
He actually used to be the prime minister of Portugal.
It won't shock you to learn that he was the leader of the Socialist Party and actually led a global hard left-wing organization called the Socialist International, which was a major force for promoting communism in the past.
And today, he's the Secretary General of the United Nations.
Oh, and he's coming to censor you.
Now, I'm going to guess that you didn't hear about this in the Canadian Media Party.
Once upon a time, you might have heard about censorship back when the media in our country believed in freedom from government.
But in the past 10 years, they've traded in their freedom for a promise of security.
They've made a bargain.
They'll stop complaining about government intervention in what they can say and do if the government pays them.
That's what Trudeau's $600 million bailout is from.
That's what it's all about.
The watchdogs?
Well, they were getting hungry and they decided to let the passing stranger feed them in return for them stopping to bark.
They're not watchdogs now.
They're lapdogs who happily roll over for Trudeau to scratch their tummies.
So I'm going to show you a speech that this happy grandpa, Antonio Guterres, gave just a few days ago in the United Nations in New York, where he announced his global plans for censorship.
And he introduced the man who will be in charge of implementing that plan.
You know, the whole speech was pretty short.
It was only about 10 minutes long.
I'm going to show you about a dozen little moments from it with some commentary from me in between.
Canada is going full guns on this.
But I haven't seen anything about this story in the CBC or CTV or Global.
Correct me if I'm wrong, if I missed it.
Was away for a few days, as you know.
But here, watch a bit.
Watch this friendly grandpa tell you that the United Nations is going to get involved now in determining what you can or can't say.
And it's going to pressure social media companies like Facebook or YouTube or Twitter to censor you.
And if that pressure doesn't work, well, they're going to counter your speech directly.
I'm serious.
The United Nations Secretary General has announced that he will rebut and counter and fight back against political speech around the world with which it disagrees.
Odd Muslim Heroes Mentioned00:07:46
They will deem you a hater.
They will deem your speech hateful.
They will deploy their massive resources against you.
Do you think I'm exaggerating?
Well, take it from the friendly-looking grandpa who rules over you, even though you've probably never heard of him, let alone voter for him.
Here, let's start with the first clip.
Excellencies, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for being here today to mark the launch of the United Nations Strategy and Plan of Action on hate speech.
This strategy and plan of action are brand new, but they are rooted in our oldest commitments: respect for human rights without discrimination based on race, sex, language, or religion, in a thread running through the United Nations Charter.
When the Charter was drafted, the world had just witnessed genocide on an industrial scale.
Hate speech had sown the seeds, building on millennia of scapegoating and discrimination against the Jews and culminating in the Holocaust.
75 years on, we are in danger of forgetting this lesson.
Around the world, we see a groundswell of xenophobia, racism, and intolerance, violent misogyny, and also anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim hatred.
And in some places, Christian communities are attacked.
Well, now that starts off a little bit promising or inoffensive, I guess.
I mean, I'm against the violence of the Holocaust.
I'm Jewish myself.
But the thing is, the Holocaust wasn't done by words.
There have been mean words said against Jews for thousands of years, as Guterres himself pointed out.
The problem is in Nazi Germany is not the mean words.
In fact, as countries went in the world, it certainly wasn't the worst.
It was that in Germany, real laws were changed so that violence against Jews was permitted.
The Jews had the laws taken away from them.
In fact, violence was and anti-Semitism became required by law.
That was the problem in Germany.
In fact, as you may know, the Weimar Republic itself had hate speech laws, and Hitler and his Nazis were charged under those laws.
It didn't stop them.
Okay, let's keep watching.
Hateful and distracting views are enabled and amplified exponentially through digital technology, often targeting women, minorities, and the most vulnerable.
Extremists gather online and radicalize new recruits.
In both liberal democracies and authoritarian regimes, some political leaders are bringing the hate-fooled ideas and language of these groups into the mainstream, normalizing them, coarsening the public discourse, and weakening the social fabric.
Okay, just a reminder: the United Nations is not a country.
He's not a prime minister or a president.
The UN is not a legitimate government with its own mind and its own mandate because it's just a meeting place for the 200 or so legitimate countries with their own minds.
It's a meeting place.
It has no natural jurisdiction or mandate other than what the 200 countries behind it agree to.
But he seems to have views of his own on individual politicians in individual countries.
And in fact, he seems to suggest, even in liberal democracies, he specifically said that.
He suggests that even in liberal democracies, elected officials or maybe even the countries themselves are illegitimate and that their politics are hateful and obviously therefore in need of remedy.
He's saying that.
Now, do you think he's talking about Iran, a country that actually does call for the Holocaust-like annihilation of America, of Israel and America?
Both.
Do you think he's talking about China, which foments hostility against, let's say, the Tibetans or Uyghur Muslims?
Do you think he's talking about Venezuela's brutal dictator, Nicolas Maduro?
Of course not.
Now, even if he were, I don't think it would be his proper place.
Who cares what some unelected, unaccountable bureaucrat diplomat has to say about any of those dictators?
I'm more interested in what elected leaders like Trump or even Trudeau have to say about that.
I suppose those elected leaders could have a vote at the UN to condemn a foreign country or leader, but that's the point.
They would be on the record.
Who on earth is this guy to simply declare himself king of the world?
Now, he started off by talking about Jews in the Holocaust, but that's pretty much over.
This isn't about Jews or the Holocaust.
In his speech, he's done with that because his speech was so clearly about banning words that criticize Islam.
Here, listen to the three examples here.
Over the past 75 years, hate speech has been a precursor to atrocity crimes, including genocide, from Rwanda to Bosnia to Cambodia.
More recently, it has been strongly linked with violence and killings in several regions of the world, including Sri Lanka, New Zealand, and here in the United States.
Governments and technology companies alike are struggling to prevent and respond to orchestrated online hate.
Again, he says speech is a precursor to violence.
The opposite is often true.
In fact, people can vent their grievances and frustrations like a safety valve.
Get their concerns aired.
Maybe even have their concerns addressed.
Maybe participate in a public debate.
Maybe change some minds.
Change the system or maybe have their own minds changed.
But at least they'll know they were heard.
I put it to you that it's the absence of free speech that's the precursor to violence because people with deep grievances feel they have no other alternative.
But he comes back to those three examples again.
Here, take a look at that.
He really emphasizes this.
Take a look.
In Christchurch, people ferried the injured to hospital in their own cars before ambulances could reach them.
In Sri Lanka, the Muslim Council called on the faithful to help the Christian brothers and sisters affected by the Easter Sunday bombings.
In Pittsburgh, members of the Muslim community organized to help the victims and survivors of the United States' worst anti-Semitic attack.
We all need to do better at looking out for each other.
And this strategy sets out how we, the United Nations, can play our part.
But those three examples there, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, and the USA.
In the first one, an extremely rare terrorist attack by a non-Muslim against Muslims.
The second, a Muslim terrorist attack on Catholics in Sri Lanka.
Much more common, a daily occurrence, actually, so common that we only really hear the news about the spectacular jihad attacks.
But did you notice that even in that case, Guterres didn't mention that the mass murderers, the terrorists in Sri Lanka, were Muslim.
He didn't say that.
He said some of the heroes were Muslim.
Is that really the essence of the Sri Lanka attacks?
It was a Muslim terrorist group attacking Christians on Easter.
And Guterres' big takeaway is that Islam was the hero there.
And the same thing in Pittsburgh.
Nothing to do with Muslims.
A non-Jew attacked Jews in a synagogue.
All right, terrible.
And the UN's big takeaway is that the that the Muslims were the h heroes of that story.
I'm not saying there weren't righteous Muslims who helped out in these cases, but is that the chief salient characteristic of all three of those attacks?
An attack on Muslim, an attack on Jews, an attack on Christians, but in every case the victim or the hero is Muslim, never a perpetrator, only the victim and the hero.
Isn't that odd, given that we're living in the era of a global jihad?
And isn't that odd, given that we're talking about hate speech, which is not just prevalent in the Muslim world.
UN's Propaganda Machine00:14:02
It's the norm.
It's ubiquitous.
It's assumed.
Isn't it odd that in a speech about censorship and hate speech, Islam, which is a doctrine that has within it the idea of the jihad, that contains within the Quran a justification for violence, at least according to a dozen terrorist groups from ISIS to Al-Qaeda to Hamas to the Taliban who rely on the Quran's verses for the authority, that's the one religion that specifically is excused from the censorship project.
How did that happen?
Well, easy.
We're dealing with the UN here.
The largest voting bloc in the UN, at least since the end of the Cold War, is the Saudi-led 57-country Organization for Islamic Cooperation.
57 countries.
It's enormously powerful.
When I visited the UN building itself, look at this.
Can you believe that?
They splash.
This is sponsored by Qatar.
The Arab countries splash their cash around so crazy in the UN, it makes Trudeau look like an amateur.
Qatar sponsored, I mean, they sponsor ISIS.
They paid for this luxury lounge right on the main floor of the UN building, right along the Hudson River.
It's like a luxury condo on the most prime piece of real estate in New York, and Qatar just paid for it at the UN, which really means they're just buying the UN as they buy so much else, like the soccer World Cup to ads everywhere, you know, ISIS.
So yeah, that's why.
Let's watch some more.
As new channels for hate speech are reaching wider audiences than ever at lightning speed, we all, the United Nations, governments, technology companies, educational institutions, need to step up our response.
The United Nations Strategy and Plan of Action we are launching today is an ambitious program to coordinate efforts across the UN system to identify, prevent, and confront hate speech using all the means in our power.
Use all the means in the UN's power to combat hate speech.
The UN has 44,000 staff around the world.
Can you believe it?
They have an annual budget of more than $5 billion U.S.
They have an enormous propaganda machine.
Most of the world's media just repeat what the UN says.
And all of this will be deployed to their censorship project.
But look at this.
Look at this.
Distinguished delegates, the United Nations system-wide strategy and plan of action has two overriding objectives.
First, it aims to enhance our efforts to address the root causes of hate speech in line with my prevention vision.
These root causes include violence, marginalization, discrimination, poverty, exclusion, inequality, lack of basic education, and weak-stake institutions.
We are addressing many of these issues as we support governments in implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
What on earth does that mean?
Look at the root causes of hate speech?
Hate, of course, is an emotion.
It usually comes from some sense of grievance, real or perceived.
Someone feels that something is wrong in the world and has some theory of why it's wrong and what should be done, and they're upset that the world is unjust.
They could be wrong, but that's how they feel.
That's what hate is.
That's what hate speech is, and it could come from any possible thing.
So yeah, fixing the underlying grievances is the way to stop people from hating, but you can't do that.
That's utopia.
That's only the Garden of Eden or heaven.
You can't make the world perfect, which is why, unfortunately, hate is a natural human emotion.
It's not an illness or disease to be cured.
It's okay to feel hate from time to time.
Just do your best to transform that emotion into energy to do something positive.
Change the world, change yourself, whatever.
Don't get violent.
Just saying you're going to fix every underlying grievance in the world.
Well, yeah, good luck with that, especially since any two people can have mutually exclusive grievances and hates.
I mentioned a lot of terrorist groups.
Their grievance is that the world does not live under Sharia law, does not have the Quran as the only source of legitimacy.
They want to end civil nation states and replace it with a religious caliphate.
And ISIS actually did that for a while.
So you can't reconcile those grievances with the grievances of the rest of the world that would hate living under Sharia law.
You can't solve it, folks, at least not immediately, top-down, with a UN program, especially one that's dominated by the 57 Muslim countries at the UN, which brings me to the next clip.
Take a look.
But this new strategy goes further, recommending a coordinated response, including efforts to identify those who engage in hate speech and those who are best placed to challenge it.
The strategy promotes education as a preventive tool that can raise awareness and bring about a shared sense of common purpose to address the seeds of hatred.
Can you tell me what common purpose the 200 countries of the world have?
Tell me a common purpose.
You can't find a common purpose in all of humanity other than in the most generic, meaningless statements.
We all want to be happy.
We all want to succeed.
At that Trudeau level of vacuity, but once you start getting into any details, we just disagree.
Not just countries disagreeing with each other, but disagreements within countries, within cities, within families.
It's life.
Democracy and free speech are a way of dealing with things, compromising.
Censorship is the opposite, which is why none of this makes sense.
Take a look at this.
The second overriding objective is to enable the United Nations to respond effectively to the impact of hate speech on societies.
The recommendations include convening individuals and groups with opposing views, working with traditional and social media platforms, engaging in advocacy, and developing guidance for communications to counter hate speech trends and campaigns.
While digital technology has provided new areas in which hate speech can thrive, it can also help to monitor activity, target our response, and build support for counter-narratives.
So they're going to convene debates of opposing views.
So is China or Iran, where opposition political views are banned, are they suddenly going to let the UN convene a debate there?
No, don't be ridiculous.
Because this isn't about targeting real tyrants like that.
It's about censorship of the West.
He said liberal democracies in his first minute.
He specifically is worried about people who criticize Islam.
Working with social media companies, as he said, that means pressuring them to censor on the UN's behalf.
Monitoring activity, that's a nice way of saying the UN's going to spy on you probably with the help of those same tech companies.
Build counter narratives.
What does that mean?
That means they will denounce people they disagree with.
That's what that means.
They'll fight you, smear you, denounce you, you, as if that's what the UN was built for.
The UN won't denounce Iran, the country, or China, the country.
China actually has a built-in veto at the UN Security Council, just like Russia does.
The UN doesn't have the courage to take on China or Russia, but they'll denounce you, a person, a website, a blogger, a citizen with a Facebook page.
But mainly they'll pressure tech companies to do it for them.
It's much cleaner that way.
New forms of self-policing by social media platforms and the commitments included in the Christchurch call are another welcome development.
Yeah, that's already started.
The self-censorship by media companies already started.
Twitter, for example, obeys the censorship demands of the government of Pakistan.
I myself have had tweets deleted by Twitter who send me an email saying that they're acting at the request of the Pakistan government.
A Muslim extremist government, a hotbed of terrorism, is censoring now.
Look at this.
Our action plan goes beyond New York.
It includes ways in which country teams and missions around the world can take action to defend the truth and counter hate speech.
What does that mean the UN is going to defend the truth?
Do you think the UN knows what the truth is, has a monopoly on the truth?
Do you think that even a democratically elected, legitimate government anywhere could say that, could tell you what the truth is truthfully, and be counted on to do that?
If you wouldn't trust an elected politician to be the arbiter of what's true in your own country to be able to define what is true and what is false, why would you let an unelected group of diplomats dominated by 57 Muslim countries do that?
Is the truth the truth according to the Quran?
I want to know because that's the focus here, the truth.
But just for a minute, to debate it on his own terms, can the truth be hateful too?
Can the truth be hate speech?
I mean, the truth can cause us to have feelings of hate, or the truth can be spoken with your mouth when hate is in your heart.
But what does one actually have to do with another?
If the UN is now defining what is or isn't true, are they just automatically deciding that everything else they don't think is true is hate?
I think they are.
Next clip.
United Nations agencies and offices have pledged to enhance their cooperation based on the commitment set out in the strategy.
And I've also asked them to prepare their own plans aligned with this strategy and in coordination with my special envoy for the prevention of genocides.
So this is just the warm-up here.
This is just the appetizer.
Other plans are coming too.
And somehow you tweeting something about Justin Trudeau or Brexit or Donald Trump is linked to genocide.
I guess it's easier to take you on than to take on China and Tibet or Turkey for its real genocide of Armenians.
What's the genocide guy got to do with censorship?
But that special envoy, who is he?
He's this guy, Adam Adiang.
I know you've never heard of him.
He's from Senegal.
Yeah, not exactly the crucible of free speech.
Here's a quote from Freedom House, an NGO that monitors freedom around the world.
Here's what they have to say about Senegal.
In June 2017, the National Assembly passed a new press code that had been debated for eight years.
The move was met with concern from press freedom advocates under the code, criminal defamation laws remain in place.
The punishments for violations were increased.
The government can ban foreign news sources, and press outlets can be shut down without the approval of a judge.
The new press code also allows the government to block access to internet content deemed contrary to morality.
So, yeah, it's not quite as oppressive as China or Iran, but pretty bad.
The country gets two out of four for press freedom.
I think this guy is actually the perfect fit for this UN censorship project, don't you?
Just a little bit more.
Take a look at this.
Addressing hate speech should never be confused with suppressing freedom of expression.
United Nations supports all human rights, including the freedom to seek, receive, and spread information and ideas of all kinds set out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Addressing hate speech does not mean limiting or prohibiting freedom of speech.
It means keeping hate speech from escalating into something more dangerous, particularly incitement to discrimination, hostility, and violence, which is prohibited under international law.
We should treat it like any other malicious act by Condemning it unconditionally, refusing to amplify it, countering it with the truth, and encouraging the perpetrators to change their behavior.
So, you've just heard his definition of free speech.
Oh my God.
So, he's going to enforce freedom of expression by leaning on social media companies, by calling people he doesn't like perpetrators who need to be denounced, by countering private voices, by smothering, attacking, denouncing, denormalizing opposing views.
We have already tasted this.
The UN has barred us here at the Rebel from attending UN conferences as journalists.
That's what they mean.
That's just their starting point before they unleashed all this.
Again, you won't see hate speech from the left countered.
You won't see Islamic hate speech countered, radical sermons in mosques countered.
This is about stopping criticism of the philosophy, the religion called Islam.
Take a look.
Hate speech may have gained a foothold, but it is now on notice, and we will never stop confronting it.
As we see time and again, people everywhere value their common humanity and want to help each other out in a crisis.
In Christchurch, people ferried the injured to hospital in their own cars before ambulances could reach them.
In Sri Lanka, the Muslim Council called on the faithful to help the Christian brothers and sisters affected by the Easter Sunday bombings.
In Pittsburgh, members of the Muslim community organized to help the victims and survivors of the United States' worst anti-Semitic attack.
He comes back to that.
He's come back to that several times.
All Muslim examples.
Look, but I appreciate this honesty from Adam Adienk.
He admits, his genocide guy, he was up next in the speech, he admits that the UN has no definition of hate speech.
And that's why they're so excited.
That's why they love it so much.
They can make it anything they want to make it at any given moment.
Take a look at him.
This has not been an easy task, especially considering that hate speech is a very gray area for which no international legal definition exists.
However, UN entities in their respective mandates and programs, in one way or another, have been working to address this growing concern.
I guess they have some sort of definition, though.
If you disagree with the UN or its programs, that's hate speech.
The United Nations strategy and plan of action on hate speech embodies the United Nations pledge to address hate speech that challenges United Nations values, mandates, and programs.
Asking The Hard Questions00:10:44
Did you hear that?
You challenge the United Nations values, mandates, or programs.
My friends, this is all getting faster, isn't it?
Censorship from Trudeau, censorship from the tech companies in Silicon Valley, censorship from the United Nations, and no journalists around anywhere to fight back, at least not in Canada.
They know what I know.
There are now just two classes of journalists left in this country: those funded by the government or those banned by the government.
Most Canadian journalists have made their choice, haven't they?
Which might explain why they didn't show you the preceding videos, let alone raise the law about it.
Stay with us for more.
Hey, welcome back.
Well, I was away for a week taking a bit of a break.
It's great to be back, and we've got a very busy season coming up ahead.
Sure, it's the summertime, but before you know it, Labor Day is going to be here, and of course, the federal election.
Well, one of the fellows on our team who's been flying around stinging liberal MPs like a bee is our friend Kian Bexty, who happens to be at our world headquarters here in Toronto today.
Kia, great to see you again.
Welcome.
Good to see you too.
Well, you've been flying all over the place, and you've been doing some great videos scrumming politicians and just asking them questions that the mainstream media doesn't.
You called it a game show one time.
You're just going to ask questions the mainstream media won't.
It's amazing to me that no one does that to candidates on the left.
Right-wingers get scrummed all the time, but not left-wingers.
Well, and I find that when you do it like this, when you ask some questions, well, first off, I do it mainly because they won't let me into the press conferences.
But also, it's a unique opportunity to get really candid responses, responses that aren't scripted by the Jerry Butzes of the world.
So when you see Selena Chavez freaking out at me, you really see the real side of her.
Yeah, and I think, and I'll show that clip.
In fact, let's just show that clip right now.
I'll come right back.
There's something I want to say about it here.
Take a look at this.
This was just last week or 10 days ago in Ottawa.
Take a look.
Do you forgive Justin Trudeau for yelling at you?
I decide what I decide to do when I decide to do it.
Do you forgive him?
I decide what I decide to do and when I decide to do it.
Why can't you tell me?
We could do this all day.
Until he gets your office.
No, you could keep going.
You could keep going.
I really have nothing good to say to the rebel.
So I'm not sure why you're entertaining this line of questioning, but just wondering if you forgive someone who verbally assaulted you.
Anyways, how are you done?
Thanks for chatting with you.
Are you done?
Oh, the big guys here are you done.
I mean, I can keep coming.
Did you just call me a pussy?
All right, I did.
Kean, what I think we saw there was not just that she is a little bit crazy.
And I always thought that Justin Trudeau truly did mishandle her, mistreat her.
That could be true, but now I realize maybe there's another side of the story.
I think she's a little cuckoo.
And I certainly can see that she's quick to anger, quick to profanity.
It took you like 90 seconds to get under her skin just asking a legit question.
I don't think in her four years as an MP, she has ever been asked a probing question at all.
Yeah, I don't, well, I don't think so either.
If you just go on Twitter or Google and look her up, you can't see any sort of candid or really any reporter asking her significant questions until she came to the spotlight when she started tweeting about Maxine Bernier and saying he was a racist.
But even then, I mean, the questions put to her were very gentle.
Now, you've been doing a lot of great work scrumming Canadian politicians, but this morning, you were in Washington, D.C. going after a congresswoman that I think a lot of Canadians have heard of.
I mean, there's hundreds and hundreds of Congressmen and women, and I don't think most Canadians know most of them.
But an interesting and I think odious Congresswoman is Ilhan Omar from Minnesota.
Let's start with a clip of you asking her some questions about a week ago.
Let's take a look at that.
Tiny, could you tell me, do you agree with AOC that ICE is running concentration camps on the border?
There are camps and people are being concentrated.
This is very simple.
I don't even know why this is a controversial thing for her to say.
We have to really truthfully speak about what's taking place.
And this is why it's really important for us to abolish ICE and make sure that we have an agency that is accountable to the people, that is dealing with the situation in a humane way.
There's no way that we can allow for kids to be caged in this country and children to be separated from their families and people being terrorized in their communities.
Is it fair to communicate?
We have to make sure that we are calling it out and I am 100% without she was pretty chatty there.
I mean you had asked her about Alexandra Acacia-Cortez comparing U.S. immigration detention facilities to the concentration camp.
This Somali extremist loved that comparison.
Oh, absolutely.
She said, and I didn't quite understand her logic.
She said, people are being concentrated and they're in camps, therefore it's a concentration camp.
She illustrating a terrible understanding of what the Holocaust was.
And that's at best.
And at worst, it shows that she is just blatantly anti-Semitic.
I think she loves the idea of making the idea of a concentration camp banal.
Not only does she insult America, which she hates, but she devalues what happened in the Holocaust.
She's normalizing that and denormalizing America.
I think she knows exactly what she's doing.
Now, since then, you, that was about a week ago, you went to Minnesota and you talked to some of her constituents.
And I got to say, they look the same, they sound the same.
I think she is from a very crazy place.
Let's show a clip of that.
Here's Ilhan Omar, not her herself, but her voters.
Let's take a look at that.
Are you a supporter of Ilhan?
Yeah, I am.
Big time.
One of the things that she said is that Israel is hypnotizing the world or has hypnotized the world.
Do you agree with that statement?
We have different issues, different beliefs when it comes to Israel.
Because the world is hypnotizing about Israel.
That's what I believe.
It's not only Israel hypnotizing.
It's like the whole wide world don't see what they're doing.
So I agree on her 100%, if not more.
Everybody who's wise, who's intelligent, sees what's going on.
They are taking over, they are destroying, they are killing, and no one says anything about it.
Luckily, I'm not a politician, so nobody can blame me.
I'm a normal citizen.
You put to them some of her crazy anti-Semitic tweets about Jews controlling the world, Israel hypnotizing the world, and they said, yeah.
Yeah, I mean, they were completely on board.
Well, I didn't think as a Canadian, I didn't understand how someone like Ilan Omar could get elected, someone who hates the United States as much as she does.
But then I realized that there's this enclave of voters that she has been relying on to get her elected, and they are just as anti-Semitic as her.
Now, I'm not saying that every Somali in that community is anti-Semitic, but there was a surprising amount of people who were really concerned with whether or not I was a Jew.
You know what?
They're coming from a place.
Somalia is 99% Muslim.
They've never met a Jew.
There are no Jewish Somalis.
All they know about Jews is part of the Islamic propaganda, terrorist propaganda, maybe what their own dictatorship says, the external enemy, the eternal Jew, who's meddling with things.
And so it's not like, I don't think that Ilhan Omar has had any real life dealings with Jews until she got to Washington.
I don't think that her constituents have.
I think they just think Jews are evil.
And no one deprogrammed them before they brought tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of Somalis from Somalia to the United States or Canada.
I don't think anyone bothered to check if we're bringing in absolute kooks.
Well, I mean, there was the one person I talked to, and we should probably throw to it.
It's a video of me interviewing this man on a bench.
And I'm asking him what he thinks about Ilan Omar possibly marrying two people at the same time.
Is polygamy and bigamy a common thing for them?
that you might want to take a look at.
The Quran tells me you can marry one woman if you are efficient to manage them obviously.
Very justice to all of them.
Here we have, you can marry one woman.
In America.
And you have a lot of women and men.
Women are more than the men.
So where they can get a man?
They marry each other?
No.
The women?
Yes.
Women marry each other?
Yes.
Here.
You think women should marry each other?
No, here, here.
Yeah.
Women are more than the men.
Yeah, yeah.
Like in population.
In population.
So if one man is one woman, what about the rest of the world?
Where they can find a man?
Do you think, would you rather.
Well, we should be open, that the man should marry more than one woman.
Yeah.
So that they can cover this efficiency.
Ilhan Omar, are you a fan of her?
Do you support?
Do you support Ilhan Omar?
In which way, El Omar, she's Somali.
I have to.
Yeah.
You know, he ended that off by saying he voted for her because he was Somali or because she was Somali.
These people, they're voting on identity.
They're not voting on policy.
And it really shows how scary American politics is getting, especially in the 5th district of Minnesota.
Yeah, it's really bad there.
Well, I mean, you are here in our Toronto office today, but this morning you were scrumming Ilhan Omar for the second time, asking her about this weirdness of legally marrying her brother.
Marrying Your Brother00:02:54
I don't think they consummated the marriage.
I think it was just an immigration fraud, a tax fraud.
It was just trickery.
They come from a low-trust society, Somalia, where you lie as a matter of course because you're in a failed state.
If you don't rip off your neighbor, he's going to rip you off.
They come from an ultra-low-trust society into a high-trust society, and so they're gaming everything.
Marrying your brother is a whole other level.
Let's take a look how that went.
You just accosted her on the lawn.
Take a look.
Ilhan, if I could get a moment of your time, if I could get a moment of your time, could you tell me why you filed illegal tax returns in 2014 and 2015?
On the Xbox Committee?
Can you tell me definitively or not, is Ahmad Elsie your brother?
For the market?
Yeah.
Is he your brother?
In the middle of the legislative recently?
Is he your brother?
We're going to which one?
It's foreign affairs.
I'll go with you.
Can you tell me definitively, yes or no?
Is he your brother?
And why can't you answer that question?
Why did you refer to him as your child's uncle on Instagram?
And why did you lie on court documents saying that you hadn't seen him since 2011 when in fact you had been talking to him all the time on Instagram?
We're not doing ambush interviews.
This isn't an ambush.
You can send me an email.
Why are you so afraid to answer these questions?
How can anyone take you credibly on the student loan tax file when you were cheating on your taxes in 2014?
And how can you call for Donald Trump's tax filings when nobody can trust you on the file at all?
And why are you scared to answer the questions?
What are you hiding?
Trying to find the phone at the moment.
So that you can go on Instagram and talk to your brother.
I got to tell you, if someone asked me, did you marry your sister?
I'd laugh because it's just a shockingly absurd thing.
And if they said, no, seriously, did you marry your sister?
I'd say no.
Stupid question or no, what are you weird?
Like, it's just such an absurd thing, and you just answer it in one second.
There's no explanation.
There's no yes with an explanation.
It's just yes or no.
And the fact that she will not answer that is so I'm cringing watching that.
Like, just say no.
Come on, this can't be true.
Well, it's obviously true if she can't say no.
Days Ahead Of Surprises00:02:55
Yeah.
I'm at a loss for words.
She couldn't defend herself in any way whatsoever.
And you're right.
If it was false, you'd say it's false.
Yeah, well, you'd say that's a ridiculous question.
And then if you were pressed, you'd say, no, of course not.
And you'd be done with it.
It's obviously true.
Well, Sinkey, I think you're doing a great job.
It's nice to see you passing through Toronto here because you're flying around everywhere.
Tell me, do you have any other stories on your radar screen in the days ahead?
Or are they sort of a surprise?
I don't want you to give away anything if you need the element of surprise like you sort of did in Washington today.
Well, one story that is totally public is the garbage ship.
It's coming in on Saturday, fingers crossed.
I'm really excited to greet the SS McKenna in the port of Vancouver.
It depends, like, you know, you never know how fast ships are going to go.
So it could be a little bit earlier, it could be a little bit later, but we'll have to see.
There you go, the garbage ship.
And if you don't know what we're talking about, you've got to go to garbagehip.com.
It's a funny story.
Well, there you have it, Kean.
Thanks for stopping in the world headquarters today.
And I really do mean World Headquarters because you're flying around everywhere and just doing great stuff.
Thanks, Ezra.
All right.
Stay with us.
more ahead on the Rebel.
Hey, welcome back.
Well, thanks for letting me get back into it.
I don't know what you thought about my video today of the UN Secretary General basically announcing a new censorship war and his deputy, the fellow from Senegal, saying we don't have a definition of hate speech.
It's basically speech that we hate.
I think that's really what they're going to do.
I didn't see any coverage of that.
I was away for a while.
I was taking a little break, but I'm back now.
We're in for a busy season.
I really think censorship is the issue of our age, especially in Canada at this moment.
I think Trudeau wants to censor any critics.
And I think south of the border, the tech companies want to censor Trump.
I frankly don't see any of the Democratic presidential nominees looking strong against Trump.
Joe Biden, I know he leads the polls.
He looks old and wobbly and the opposite of fresh.
Bernie Sanders, I mean, if that's the best the Democrats have, I don't think they're going to win.
But I don't think they have to win if Silicon Valley will win it for them.
I think censorship is the era, the issue of our era.
And I just, just before I recorded this video, I saw a new official release by Ralph Goodale's Public Safety Department that specifically names the Rebel.
I'll probably do a video on that in the days ahead.
They name us.
They name the Rebel and say we have to be tamped down.
I'll show you that in the days ahead.
Well, it's great to be back at our world headquarters.
There's so much to talk about in the weeks and months ahead.
Thanks for joining us again.
Until next time, on behalf of all of us here at Real World Headquarters, do you at home?