Ezra Levant condemns the United Church of Canada for hosting a July 13, 2024, event honoring PFLP spokesman Gassen Canafani—a terrorist linked to the 1972 Laud Airport massacre killing 26 civilians—while its website omits Christian references. The church canceled only after pressure from the Jewish Defense League, not mainstream groups, raising concerns about anti-Semitism normalization amid Canada’s unvetted immigration surge, particularly from Muslim-majority countries. With nearly 50,000 undocumented migrants entering Quebec since 2022 and just 723 deported, Levant ties the issue to Justin Trudeau’s political reliance on immigrant votes while avoiding backlash from Quebec’s liberal base, where policies like the burka ban reflect tensions over federal immigration strains. The episode warns of Canada’s potential slide into UK-style progressive complicity with radical Islam, questioning whether mainstream institutions now prioritize ideological alliances over democratic values. [Automatically generated summary]
Today I talk about the United Church in Canada, which I suppose they have a lot of Unite, but they don't have a lot of church left in them.
They were going to have a party for a Muslim terrorist murderer.
They're going to celebrate his life.
I'll tell you a little bit more about that.
Before I do, can you do me a favor and go to the rebel.media slash shows and become a subscriber of our premium content.
It's $8 a month or $80 a year, but you get a discount if you use the coupon code Podcast.
And not only do you get the video version of it, I want to show you the website of this church.
So I'd like you to see it, not just hear it.
But you get access to other shows, including Sheila Gunreads and David Menzies.
So go to the rebel.media slash shows and become a member.
All right, here's today's show.
Tonight, why did the United Church of Canada let a terrorist support group host an event on their premises?
It's July 8th, and this is the Ezra Levant Show.
Why should others go to jail when you're a 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.
A major United Church in downtown Toronto agreed to let their facility be used to celebrate a Muslim terrorist.
I'm not exaggerating or embellishing or giving my opinion.
For this news, I couldn't rely on Trudeau's CBC state broadcaster.
I had to learn about it from the foreign media, which of course is more independent.
I have to learn a lot of things about Canada from the foreign media.
That's what happens when Justin Trudeau rents out Canadian journalists for $600 million in a media bailout.
You just can't trust them to tell you the real news anymore.
So here's what the Jerusalem Post reports.
They said, B'nai Brith Canada slams church for assisting event honoring PFLP terrorists.
Churches should be places of peace, not places where violence and or terror are glorified.
B'nai Brith, of course, refers to a Jewish service group.
It's sort of like the Jewish Rotary Club.
And let me read a little bit from the story for you.
B'nai Brith Canada has condemned a decision by Toronto's Trinity St. Paul's United Church to provide a space for an event that honors Gassen Canafani, a designated popular front for the liberation of Palestine terrorists.
The event being hosted by the Palestinian youth movement on July 13 is listed as the Gassen Canafani Resistance Arts Scholarship Launch.
Here, see for yourself, this is the Canadian government's official list of banned terrorist entities.
Scroll down a bit, you can see the PFLP right on there, same as the Taliban or al-Qaeda.
So let me read about this exciting event.
According to PYM's Facebook invitation, the event will be an evening of spoken word, music, and food to celebrate the artistic and cultural contributions of Palestinians in the diaspora and showcase the winners of the Gassen Canafani Resistance Art Scholarship in this year's anthology entitled, We Feel a Country in Our Bones.
Canafani and the PFLP were responsible for the Laud Airport massacre in May 1972 that left 26 civilians dead, including a Canadian, 17 Christian pilgrims from Puerto Rico, and eight Israelis and injured 80 others.
At the time of the terror attack, Canafani was a spokesman for the terrorist group.
So a massacre of 26 people, wounding 80 more, killing Jews and Christians, even a Canadian.
It would be bad enough if this were hosted in a mosque, of course, but it wouldn't be as surprising.
But for this to be hosted in one of Toronto's most prominent downtown churches, well, that's my point, isn't it?
For the first time in my life, I'm actually worried about the normalization of anti-Semitism in Canada.
I don't think it's ever been a real problem in Canada.
I'm in Toronto, a city that has had three Jewish mayors in the past 50 years.
Montreal, Winnipeg, Edmonton, all the Jewish mayors.
I think that's a good test, because a mayor is sort of the closest, most intimate political office.
You really need to be known around town and win on your own name and reputation, as opposed to just being on a party ticket nationally or provincially where people just vote for a party, or let alone being appointed to the Supreme Court or wherever where Jews have long been disproportionate.
My point is, Canada is Jew-friendly, not just in the elite circles of this country, but in the grassroots.
There have never been pogroms in Canada.
I think it's just about the friendliest place in the world to be a Jew.
I mean, this guy, look at this good egg.
Harry Viner, he was elected mayor of Medicine Hat, Alberta, in 1952 and re-elected again and again.
What a country.
I'm aware of the fact that there has been some forms of discrimination in the past.
For example, until the 1960s, McGill University had a maximum quota for the number of Jews who could apply to certain faculties.
That's fancy McGill, which was once an elite institution.
I should stay, I should say, that same sort of racial cap or racial quota system.
It happens now in both Canada and the United States.
Now it's affirmative action for certain racial groups and a hard maximum cap on Asian students like they did to the Jews.
So what's happening now at Harvard in 2019 is about the worst that happened in Canada 50 years ago.
Anyways, the new anti-Semitism that I have never seen before in my life is stoked by Muslim extremists being imported to our country who have not been de-radicalized before being permitted to come here.
In fact, we make no inquiries at all about the ideological or belief systems of our immigrants today.
We do some cursory criminal background checks on migrants, I think, as if there is a reliable central police registry for criminals in failed states like Somalia or Syria.
What a laugh.
But even if someone has not committed a crime, let alone terrorism, if they generally hate Jews, as is the norm in many Muslim cultures, why are we surprised when that age-old hatred is transplanted here?
Did you think mass immigration from Muslim countries, unvetted for hatred, would only result in, what, a lot of shawarma shops?
Do you think that would be the only cultural gift brought to us?
But like in the UK, the sheer numbers of anti-Semitic Muslims has come to the attention of leftist radicals.
Over there in the UK, Jeremy Corbyn and other deep leftists never really much like Jews.
So the fact that Corbyn's own inherent anti-Semitism is no longer a matter of embarrassment now, but rather a ticket to massive political support from many Muslims, that means that Jeremy Corbyn can be open about what was once a prejudice he had to keep hidden.
Gays and Islamophobia Scandals00:07:42
I mean, for God's sakes, look at this.
The man literally posed in front of a Hezbollah terrorist flag.
You can make out that there's a machine gun on it.
You can see that.
There is an exodus of Jews from the Labour Party right now.
MPs are quitting.
Members are quitting.
But for every Jew that leaves, a dozen Muslims join.
Corbyn doesn't care.
He thinks it's great advertising.
He's done the math.
Here's an official report by the UK government.
Look at those stats.
There are about 330,000 Jews in the UK.
And there are about 3.3 million Muslims, almost exactly 10 times the number.
Corbyn can count.
He likes these anti-Semitism scandals in his party.
They're not scandals.
Free advertising for him.
That's the United Kingdom, as I always say.
It's my personal dystopian time machine where I can see our future in a few years.
I'm quite sure that Corbyn and the left would never indulge their anti-Semitism were it not for the changing demographics of their country.
It's being unlocked in the left in their alliance with radical Islam.
Well, same here in Canada.
I mean, check out the church in question, the Trinity St. Paul's Church.
Here's their website.
Let me save you the time.
There are 1,600 words on the main page of the website, I counted.
And I spent some time reading it and doing searches for words.
I should tell you, the words Jesus and Christ do not appear on this page at all.
The word climate does appear several times.
That gives you an idea of what this church is about.
The church is led by Sherry De Novo, a former left-wing politician.
No surprise.
I don't know if you can make it out.
It's sort of faint here.
Her biography, as you can see right here on the page, actually has nothing to do with theology or her education or experience as a religious minister.
It's her experience as a gay rights activist.
And if you scroll down to the very next section, still nothing on Christianity or Jesus, but you can see it's about climate justice, about global warming.
They're talking about divesting from oil and gas.
Scroll down a little more, and you can see their urgent warning about, you see that on the left-hand side there?
About a climate crisis, declare a climate crisis.
And just a little bit lower down, I know you wouldn't believe me if I didn't show you.
So do you see that there?
I'm sorry I missed the event, but on, you know, I guess my calendar was busy or something, but on May 26th, they had a blessing of the bicycles.
I am not even kidding.
I am not even kidding.
They bless the bicycles.
I'm not sure why you need the United Church, you know, if you already have the NDP or the Green Party.
I mean, really, what's the difference?
I guess maybe the church gets a better tax receipt if they call themselves a church than just the NDP.
But hey, who might have judged their religion?
I don't even think they use that word religion.
It's too, you know, religious.
But my point in showing you how woke they are, especially how gay-friendly they are, is surely they know that the punishment for homosexuality in Islam is death.
Surely they know that.
And that's not just some ancient dry text.
That's how it rolls today.
Surely they know that today, gays are routinely killed throughout the Muslim world, hanged in places like Iran, stoned in places like Afghanistan, regularly murdered in honor killings by their own family.
Even in slightly more modern places like the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, there are hundreds of gay Palestinians, you know, who flee into Israel.
They live in Tel Aviv as gay refugees, literally in fear of their lives if they go back to the West Bank.
You might recall, I don't know if you know this, but we actually broadcast a documentary on the subject of gay Palestinians who are in Tel Aviv.
The documentary is called Shuns.
We actually had the world premiere on YouTube.
Very interesting video.
My point is, obviously, Muslim terrorists, they kill gays.
Actually, they don't even call that terrorism over there.
That's just Sharia law.
That's just honor killings.
It's not even normal terrorism.
That's entire countries over there.
And the gayest church in Canada says, hey guys, no problem.
Yeah, rent out our room to celebrate an Islamic terrorist murderer.
Fill your boots.
I don't get it.
Why?
I mean, at least Jeremy Corbyn gets votes out of it, but what's Trinity St. Paul's United Church excuse?
Do they think these Muslim extremists are going to convert and join the church, maybe get gay married in the church?
I don't even see the math there.
Other than the United Church maybe sees Islamists as a temporary ally to help them destroy and undermine the traditions of the West, including Christian traditions, by the way.
Do they think a Sharia-compliant Canada will be gentle with their own causes?
Gay rights, feminism, transgenderism, climatism.
Now, literally halfway through when I was writing this commentary, I got an email from the Jewish Defense League, actually, that under pressure, the United Church buckled and canceled the booking just today, apparently, but only after pressure, and not from mainstream groups.
I didn't see any MPs or blue chip lobby groups complaining.
The neighborhood is a little bit conservative, and they raised a fuss.
And that email was from the JDL, the Jewish Defense League.
They're a little bit tougher.
They remind me of, you know, in New York City, they have the Guardian Angels.
It was a group that formed in the 70s and 80s when that city was full of crime and the politicians and police wouldn't do anything about it.
They just sort of citizen patrols.
I think that's what the JDL are like.
That's what we have here.
The fancy people, the official people, well, they don't want to make a fuss about it.
The opposite.
They're only too happy to rent out rooms to terrorists for celebrations.
Now, Justin Trudeau has himself said there's literally no mosque in Canada that is too extreme for him to campaign in.
He is completely unrepentant.
He can do the math.
And I think it's creeping into Andrew Scheer's Conservative Party, too.
That guy on the left there with the beard but no mustache, that's Omar Subedar.
His claim to fame is teaching Muslim men here in Canada the proper way to beat their wives.
He has this whole sermon on wife beating.
I'm not kidding.
We've done shows on that before, as you know.
But unfortunately, Andrew Scheer has no time for other sorts of Muslims, like our friend Salim Mansoor, who is a thoughtful, moderate Muslim professor who speaks out against jihadist extremism.
Yeah, the United Church is terrible.
It calls for boycotts of Israel along with boycotting fossil fuels.
And it was happy to give a room in its own facility to celebrate a terrorist murderer who killed not just Jews, but Christian pilgrims too.
That church has finally been shamed into canceling their booking this time.
But it won't be long before we get to the tipping point where the United Kingdom is now, where the sheer number of anti-Semites is just so large and their social acceptance is so great that, yeah, they'll have their terrorist celebrations any bloody place they please and our country's Jeremy Corbyns will be only too happy to pose in front of terrorist flags here too.
Stay with us for a moment.
Welcome back.
Quebec's Immigration Dilemma00:14:19
Well, immigration is back in the news big time.
I put it to you, it never really left the news.
You might recall a few months ago when the Liberal Party of Canada's Ontario caucus had their strategic retreat.
Their number one issue they said they were spontaneously asked about on the Hustings was immigration.
In the United States, it's the same too.
Alexandre Ocasio-Cortez went to a photo op at an immigration detention facility that was widely circulated and then widely panned when it appeared there was no one there other than Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and her coterie of photographers.
Well, what about here in Canada?
What is the latest with the surge of undocumented illegal immigrants simply walking across the border from New York State into Quebec at Wroxham Road?
There's something called a safe third country agreement by which Canada and the United States say, well, if someone's coming from the other one of our countries, by definition, they can't be a refugee.
Well, that has not been followed.
And in fact, close to 50,000 people have simply walked across that border in the last couple of years.
But we have some news on that.
The first piece of news is that the number of illegals who have been deported is shockingly low.
According to one document, the Canadian Border Services Agency removed just 723 people over a two-year period.
As I said, 50,000 have walked across.
And we have another piece of news about the plan by the Liberal government to redistribute where these migrants are being housed.
Joining us now to correct my errors and help us understand things is our friend Giddy Mammon, a long-time immigration and refugee lawyer at Mammon, Sandalook, and Kingwell.
Giddy, great to see you again.
We rely on you to bring your expertise and, frankly, to correct us when we're wrong, because I get revved up about this issue and I know you have tremendous experience.
We look to you as the authoritative expert.
Well, thank you, Ezra.
I'm happy to be here.
Well, thank you for that.
Let's talk about the first question, which is how many of these walk across the border folks have been deported or sent home.
According to the latest stats I've seen, just 723 people out of the 50,000 have been sent home since 2017.
What do you think that means?
Well, it just underscores how much work this refugee movement, how much it takes to process one of these cases.
You've got 50,000 people.
Two years later, only 723 have gone through the process.
Imagine how many years it's going to take to clear this group of people that we have right now, assuming not one person more comes.
But of course, that's just not an assumption that you can make.
We're going to continue to see people at what levels will depend on what's happening in the United States and what happens in our upcoming election.
But we are already about, you know, 49,000 behind two years later.
So somebody has to figure out what we're going to do.
It looks like to me the only solution is to hire a lot more full-time, permanent border officers to process this and more refugee judges, more hearing officers, or else these waiting periods are just going to get to the point where you cannot send them home because they've been here for so long that they deserve to remain here on humanitarian grounds,
even though their refugee claims may have not been successful.
But something has to happen because obviously 700 out of 50,000 is not a very, it doesn't show us that this is a very effective system at all.
You know, Giddy, a lot of factors go into any election result, but I think it's pretty clear that the government of Quebec won in part by its statements on immigration, that they want to reduce their number of immigrants by 20%.
And they also took a parallel approach on burqas and other religious manifestations in the civil service.
I think those two issues are linked.
And I think that it's very interesting that Justin Trudeau has not demonized the Premier of Quebec in the same way he would probably characterize someone in a different province for similar points of view.
I guess my question is this.
Do you think that Justin Trudeau is what do you think his approach is to public reaction to the open borders approach, especially there at Wroxham Road?
He seems to be fairly careful about criticizing Quebecers who are mad about it, but he calls anyone in the rest of the country, well, he usually calls them xenophobic or Islamophobic.
That's my observation.
What do you think?
I think it's, you know, I hate to sound so cynical, but it's all about the politics.
I think Justin Trudeau maybe meant well.
I'm not so sure, but he obviously tried to outdo the Conservatives and the NDP when he made promises of landing 25,000 people in a couple of months, which is unheard of.
So I give him a little bit of credit for some humanitarian feelings that he might have had.
A lot of it had to go to wanting to win the election against Stephen Harper.
The ban in Quebec, in my view, is a terrible idea.
I don't think people should be required to shed their religious garb because they're working for the government.
But that's something that I expect, I would normally expect someone like Justin Trudeau to come out very forcefully against.
I haven't heard that.
I haven't heard him criticize the government of Quebec one bit over this thing.
Maybe he has.
I just don't know about it.
But it underscores the fact that he is behaving in a very political way.
On the one hand, he wants the immigrant vote.
On the other hand, he cannot afford to alienate a very strong liberal base in Quebec.
And so I think what he's doing is sucking and blowing at the same time.
You know, he wants to be friendly with the ethnic communities, but he doesn't want to take on Quebec when they're being very unfriendly to those ethnic communities.
Unfortunately, the immigration portfolio is a very, very highly politicized portfolio.
It's very difficult for politicians to remain principled on this and to talk common sense all the time because there's so many emotions wrapped up in immigration.
My theory is that this Quebec ban on religious symbols in the public service is a desperate reaction to the open borders, especially not just the Syrian wave that came over three, four years ago, but this Wroxham Road.
I mean, it's sort of laughable that someone from the United States, I mean, I think it strikes so many Canadians as unbelievable, as incredible, that you could be coming from America and pleading refugee status.
And my theory about that Burka ban is that it's the only thing Quebecers feel like they could do because the feds control the border.
They're not enforcing it.
So what can Quebecers who are furious about this do?
Well, maybe they can try some backdoor way of pushing back the tide.
I think that if we had strong borders and a lawful process that screened out bogus applicants, I think Canadians would feel a lot warmer to minorities who are newcomers.
I just think, frankly, Trudeau's showy generosity to everyone in the world has backfired by creating anger towards those newcomers.
I think it's being counterproductive.
He miscalculated very badly.
He had no idea, absolutely no idea what he was doing when he sent out that tweet saying that we welcome everybody.
I was talking about the point of view of Justin Trudeau.
Now that you raised the point of Quebec's point of view, I agree with you.
Remember, when people used to come across the border into Quebec a couple years ago, the Quebec people were thrilled.
The government was thrilled.
They're getting all these immigrants coming to Quebec, and that's exactly what they wanted.
Until they realized what social strain there was going to be on the Quebec government on social services in Quebec.
And you're right.
They now are in a position where they've taken a welcoming approach.
Now I think that approach is a lot colder.
That welcome is a lot colder.
And maybe you're right.
Maybe this ban is designed to tell people who are coming through Wroxham Road: look, we've kind of had enough, and we just don't need any more of you folks.
You may be right on that, but I remember very distinctly as at the beginning of this thing, they were delighted to receive so much attention in Quebec until they realized on the one hand how many people were coming, and on the other hand, how many were just using Quebec as a roadway to the 401, where most of them come to Ontario, into Toronto, after having used Quebec as an entry point.
So I think maybe there is some truth to what you're saying about this ban and its origin.
Well, I mean, I'm more sympathetic to the Burkha ban than you are.
I believe in the separation of mosque and state, certainly for the full face obscuring.
Oh, yeah, that's a different issue.
The full face thing is a whole different issue.
Go ahead, sorry.
You make your point.
Sorry.
Yeah, I don't think that somebody who wears a kipa, somebody who covers their hair, should be, for religious reasons, should be told that they can't work for the government.
They can't represent people fairly.
I think that's going way too far.
But that's what they've decided.
I guess that'll have to be tested in the courts eventually, and we'll see who got it right.
Let me ask you about one more news story, and I see this in global news, but I know it's reported elsewhere as well.
The feds have quietly stopped their attempt to spread out those border crossers from Wroxham Road.
Quebec really objected that they were being, you know, that their social services were taxed.
And so the federal government basically said, well, we'll ship them to Toronto.
And then Toronto's mayor said, whoa, what are you doing?
And Rob Ford, the Doug Ford government, excuse me, said the same thing.
So I see that Trudeau was going to try to relocate these migrants to further afield, but only five families, grand total, only five families agreed to leave Toronto or Montreal for smaller centers.
They just don't want to live in North Bay.
They want to live with the other ethnic communities in Montreal or Toronto.
What do you make of that?
Other than the fact that obviously people, once they're in Canada, if they're not in a detention facility, they're free to move around.
What do you think this is going to mean for social services in those two crowded cities, Montreal and Toronto?
They're going to have to get a federal check for the costs.
When this program was announced, I was laughing because it was so ridiculous.
I've been dealing with immigrants for over 30 years.
And immigrants go with their families and their communities and the jobs.
That's what they follow.
If they're not in detention, they've got to put food on the table.
They need help from their family and they want to feel like they haven't abandoned their home altogether.
And they want to be close to their ethnic community.
Quite frankly, when they announced it, I thought that the outcome would be abysmal.
But I didn't realize it would be this abysmal that only five families took advantage of a suggestion to relocate to somewhere that they didn't, you know, presumably want to stay.
And I'll make you a bet that of those five families, very few of them had any family in Canada and very few opportunities that they could take advantage of that the places that were suggested could offer as well for whatever unusual reasons.
But people will generally need to go to either Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, where the jobs are plenty and so where they can start feeding their families very quickly.
That's the way it works.
And no matter how much you try to shuffle back and forth, it's not going to help.
Well, Giddy, we always enjoy having you on the show because, as I mentioned, you have a big heart.
You've practiced in this field for so long.
You have put your brains and your energies to bringing legitimate refugees to Canada.
So no one can say you're a hard-hearted guy, but you've got a hard head and a soft heart, and that's the right combination.
And I always look up to you for the way you carefully balance your point of view.
I learned so much from you, and I know I'm gushing here, but we're really grateful that you come on the show to help us out with these things.
Well, thank you very much for having me, Ezra.
I think it's important for the Canadian public to understand what's going on because we do want to help refugees.
I think all of us want to help refugees.
But if we go down the wrong road and we turn off the Canadian public by handling it wrong, they're going to shut the gates.
And that's what we see in Europe right now where there's a backlash against accepting more refugees.
And unfortunately, when you have that attitude, people die.
People don't get to where they need to go and they don't get the protection they need.
Tommy's Prison Likelihood00:04:46
And I don't want that to happen here in Canada at all.
Giddy, great to see you again.
Thanks very much for your time and wisdom.
Thank you very much.
All right, there you have it.
Giddy Mammon is a longtime immigration and refugee lawyer with the firm Mammon, Sandaluk, and Kingwell.
Stay with us.
More ahead on The Rebel.
Hey, welcome back on the Tommy Robinson verdict in our Real Reporters videos.
Paul writes, this was a political trial.
And if imprisoned, Tommy Robinson will be a political prisoner.
Yeah, I'm going back to the UK to cover his sentencing.
And while I'm there, I'm actually going to attend a Canada-UK joint government conference on media freedom.
It's the same days.
Can you believe that?
The conference is the 10th and the 11th of July.
Tommy's sentencing is the 11th of July.
If you had like an irony Geiger counter, you would go, bing, bbbb, bing, bbbb, bing, bbbb, bing, bbbb, bing, bb, bibb, bib, bib, b, it's just too much irony.
Literally the day that Christy Freeland and her UK counterpart are having a 1,000-per celebration of themselves and how wonderful they are in media freedom, that very day, Tommy Robinson is being thrown into the clink.
Oh, and you know he's going back to prison.
I'll bet you a dollar.
Terry writes, the reason Tommy is being persecuted is that he dared to speak out against Muslim rape gangs.
In England, no one is allowed to taunt Muslims.
This is an application of Sharia law.
Well, it sure looks that way.
I mean, in the court, I sat there in the court and on Thursday and Friday last week, I watched the exact moments outside that court in Leeds last year where Tommy approached some of the rape gang accused as they were going in to be convicted.
And all he said was, how are you feeling about your verdict today?
He didn't say you're guilty.
He didn't swear at them.
He didn't touch them.
He didn't block them.
The entire interaction was 10 seconds, maybe, 30 seconds most.
Usually they just swore back at him.
And that was one of the grounds upon which he was convicted.
Every interesting trial has journalists asking questions like that and tougher.
I think that if there's no good explanation of why Tommy's case is different, we have to assume that the changing variable is the religion of the underlying accused.
Tell me what else is different.
I don't see it.
I think you're right.
I think there's one uncriticizable cultural fact here.
Gatty writes, I'm just wondering if there's a plan for what his supporters can do now that it looks like he's going to prison.
Will we be able to donate money, send him emails?
Will the rebels still follow Tommy closely while he's in prison so that we know he's okay?
I'm hoping you will publish another follow-up video to let everyone know what they can do to help.
That's a good point, Katie.
As you know, last year when Tommy was thrown in jail so unexpectedly, we stepped in to fill the gap as volunteers.
I talked to his family.
I got their permission.
And I actually did not speak with Tommy until he got out of prison.
I sent him emails into jail, but he couldn't send back.
So I was operating sort of blind.
I had to go ahead of his family.
But it wasn't until he was released that I actually spoke with him since he left our company earlier that year.
This time it's different.
Obviously, this time he knows what's happening.
It's not ambushing him on a matter of hours.
You know what, I'm going to, like I say, I'm going back to the UK this week, so maybe I'll ask him about that.
We stepped in because it was an emergency.
No one else was helping.
No one else knew what to do.
I don't want to step on his toes.
I'm not looking to meddle.
I'm not looking to foist myself upon him.
I sort of foisted myself on this situation a year ago because no one was doing it.
Tommy may have other plans, and I should find those out.
I should say that if he is in prison, and I think that's quite likely, he will likely be imprisoned as a civil prisoner, not a criminal prisoner, which means he may have certain more rights.
But you know what?
Given what a stitch-up the whole thing has been, it wouldn't surprise me if they threw him back in solitary confinement and said, it's for your own safety, mate.
That's really what they did to him last time.
Dark days for freedom, and what an irony that the Free Speech Conference is literally the same day.
I'll be over there along with Sheila Gunread, and we'll give you our best reporting every day.