Ezra Levant and guests condemn Scotland’s Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill, calling it the "worst censorship law" for criminalizing speech—even without intent—based on protected traits like religion or transgender identity, with single-source evidence enough for conviction. They warn it could jail critics of Islamic extremism or cultural practices for seven years, mirroring Canada’s old Section 13 but far harsher, while also sparking police legitimacy concerns. Meanwhile, Patrick Brown, Brampton’s disgraced ex-mayor, flouted his own pandemic rules by playing unmasked pickup hockey in a taxpayer-funded rink ($1,000/day) before stricter August 1st restrictions, exposing elite hypocrisy. Both cases reveal how overreach and double standards erode trust in institutions. [Automatically generated summary]
I go deep on the world's worst censorship law being proposed for Scotland.
And if it can happen there, don't think it can't happen here.
I'll take you through it line by line.
Before I do, let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
That's the premium stuff, the video version of this podcast, plus videos by David Medzis and Sheila Gunn Reed.
It's just eight bucks a month.
That's not bad.
Get it at rebelnews.com.
Okay, here's the podcast.
Tonight, Scotland proposes to introduce the worst censorship law in the world.
It's August 10th, 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 is government.
But why publish them?
It's because it's my bloody right to do so.
Have you ever been to Scotland?
It's part of the United Kingdom.
That's the United Kingdom part.
It used to be its own kingdom.
Now it's united with England.
And there's Wales and there's Northern Ireland in there.
The thing about Scotland is that it is full of Scots.
I don't mean to shock you or alarm you, but if you're worried about Scottish people and there is some cause to worry, just don't go to Scotland.
It's full of them.
I myself am very pro-Scotland, in no small part because I just can't get enough of that accent.
And I also know that Canada is pretty much the creation of Scotland.
Everything from Sir John A. MacDonald to the city I was born in named Calgary.
I wonder if you knew that.
Here's a shot of Calgary Bay in Scotland.
Doesn't look much like Calgary, Alberta.
Scotland really built the Industrial Revolution, by the way.
James Watt, after whom we named the unit of power the Watt, pretty much started the Industrial Revolution, improving the English-made steam engine.
Another Scot named Adam Smith pretty much codified capitalism.
Of course, he didn't invent it.
He explained it and defended it.
The Scots really did build the modern world.
In fact, about 10 years ago, there was a book called that, How the Scots Invented the Modern World, the true story of how Western Europe's poorest nation created our world and everything in it.
So thank you, Scotland.
But look, don't go there if you don't like Scots.
Rule number one, okay?
Here's an interactive map of Scotland published by the Scottish government showing just how Scottish the place is.
And the answer is extremely Scottish.
This map shows the parts that are 98% or more Scottish, the parts that are 95% to 98% Scottish, and a handful of places that are less than 95% Scottish.
And those are their descriptions.
I won't go into all the demographics.
But look, apparently not everyone likes the fact that there are so bloody many Scots in Scotland.
And one person who doesn't like it one bit is a bit of a racist about it, a bit of a radical.
His name is Hamza Yousaf.
You see, he's a Scottish Muslim and he has been so hard done by, so painfully discriminated against, so reviled, that he's actually now the Minister of Justice in Scotland.
He's rich, he's powerful, he's a media darling.
But other than that, life in Scotland has been absolutely miserable for him.
I mean if you were a young white Christian Scot growing up in Pakistan, I'm sure you'd be able to become a white Christian Scottish Pakistani justice minister just as easily as Hamza Youssef did.
Absolutely.
Anyways, here's Hamza Youssef telling you just how awful a place it is.
I've been called various racial slurs over the time and I'm to say to my own disappointment when I was younger, a teenager, I never reported it.
Now I know much better and I get, I'm afraid to say, still often Islamophobic abuse or racial abuse most of it online.
But now I report it and now I see that actually from the reporting people have been charged, have been sentenced for that.
So that is one of our messages here that don't assume that nothing will happen if you report it.
Report it, people will be prosecuted because we have an absolute zero tolerance for hatred on our public transport.
I don't like people making racist insults.
I don't like that.
I just didn't know it was a crime that police prosecuted.
Maybe Pakistan and Scotland have more in common than I thought.
But it's a bit weird because for a fellow who hates racism so much, Hamza Youssef is pretty racist.
Listen to this, Rant.
When the most senior positions in Scotland are filled almost exclusively by those who are white, take my portfolio alone.
The Lord President, white.
The Lord Justice Clerk, white.
Every High Court Judge, white.
The Lord Advocate, white.
The Solicitor General, white.
The Chief Constable, white.
Every Deputy Chief Constable, white.
Every Assistant Chief Constable, white.
The head of the Law Society, white.
The head of the Faculty of Advocates, white.
Every prison governor, white.
And not just Justice.
The Chief Medical Officer, white.
The Chief Nursing Officer, white.
The Chief Veterinary Officer, white.
The Chief Social Work Advisor, white.
Almost every trade union in this country headed by people who are white.
In the Scottish Government, every Director General is white.
Every chair of every public body is white.
All right, okay.
Thanks.
We get it.
You judge people based on their skin colour.
That's called racism.
And you really, really, really don't like white people.
All right.
Message received.
You just don't usually hear it said that plainly.
Now, it's true, Scotland is chock full of Scots.
It's just like Pakistan is full of Pakistanis.
Not sure how it would go over, shoe on the other foot, if you stood up in the Pakistani parliament, if there is such a place, and denounced Pakistan for having just so many Pakistanis.
Anyway, so we have a son of privilege, a powerful, successful man who just hates the chief characteristic of Scotland.
It's so bloody Scottish.
Okay, got it, good to know.
A bigot as a justice minister.
How's that going to work?
Well, it will go very poorly.
Let me show you what I think is the worst censorship law I have ever read.
Although because I only speak English, I haven't read Pakistan's censorship laws, so they might be worse.
Maybe Hamza Yosef can tell us.
But look at this.
It's his bill.
He proudly introduced it this spring.
His name is on it.
He took advantage of the pandemic to grab even more power for himself.
The law is called Hate Crime and Public Order Scotland Bill.
The long title of the bill is even more dramatic.
An act of the Scottish Parliament to make provision about the aggravation of offences by prejudice.
To make provision about offences relating to stirring up hatred against a group of persons.
To abolish the common law offence of blasphemy and for connected purposes.
Oh, all right.
Sure is a long bill.
There are a lot of rules in it.
The first part of the law makes it an extra crime to commit an existing crime if you have ill will in your heart.
So it's a thought crime, piggybacking on a real crime.
If you punch someone in the face, if you stab someone, that's obviously a real crime.
Hamza Yusuf's new crime is whatever you're feeling or thinking or saying while you do it.
So if Hamza Youssef were to, I don't know, say punch you in the face, that would obviously be assault.
But if he were to give that anti-white speech and then punch you in the face, that would be an additional crime.
That would be an aggravating factor.
Let me read the law.
An offense is aggravated by prejudice.
If whether or not there is a specific victim in the offense, the offense is motivated wholly or partly by malice and ill will towards a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to a characteristic mentioned in subsection two.
And here's the list of characteristics they have.
They are age, disability, race, color, nationality, including citizenship, or ethnic or national origins.
So his racist, anti-white speech would be covered.
D, religion, or in the case of a social or cultural group, perceived religious affiliation.
E, sexual orientation.
F, transgender identity.
G, variations in sex characteristics.
Who knows what that means.
Just to be clear, if you hate someone for other reasons, though, it doesn't count as a hate crime.
I'll read the section that says so.
It is immaterial whether or not the offender's malice and ill will is also based to any extent on any other factor.
Oh, and just one more thing.
Take a look at this.
Evidence from a single source is sufficient to prove that an offense is aggravated by prejudice.
So if you made a tweet about how racist and hateful Scots are, like Hamza Yusuf did, and then a month later you punch a Scot in the face, that's a hate crime.
Even if you didn't say or do anything racist when you punched them, let's say you were drunk at a bar.
But if you had a tweet from like a month before, tough luck, mate, you're a hate criminal now.
I'm using Hamza Youssef as the example here because he's such a weird and brazen and unrepentant bigot.
But of course, in real life, he would never be charged with these hate crimes.
Of course not.
Just like here in Canada, we have human rights commissions, but there has never been a single case of a Muslim extremist, not even a full-fledged terrorist, who has ever been charged under Canada's hate speech provisions.
Never even a hate preacher at a hate mosque.
Not even the murderer Omar Cotter, who specifically killed his victim, Sergeant Christopher Spear, for political and religious reasons.
So these hate speech, hate crime laws, they're only for use against, you know, Scots and people who look like them.
So if you have a tweet out there that's mean to someone based of any long list of reasons that I read earlier, you're already guilty because as the law says, it doesn't have to be contemporaneous with your real crime, and you just have to do it once.
So you're guilty in advance, and so you get a greater sentence because it aggravates your real crime.
So let's call it the Instagram law or the Facebook law.
If you have ever said anything anywhere, even in jest, in an old Facebook or Instagram post, you're done, mate.
It's already over.
You're on the hook for a hate crime in the future.
You just have to be nicked.
But look at this next part.
It has nothing to do with real crimes like punching or stabbing people.
Those are real crimes.
This next part invents a new crime, the crime of hurt feelings.
Or as they call it, offenses of stirring up hatred.
Now hatred is a human emotion.
Love and hate, contempt or respect, these are natural feelings.
If you don't feel some of them at any particular time in your life, you don't have a normal personality.
They're not actions, by the way.
We can't really control what feelings we feel.
If we could, we would just pass the Love Each Other Act and everything would be fine.
We can't control what feelings we feel, but we can control what we do about our feelings.
So it's okay to hate something or love something.
It's what you do about it that counts.
You can be a Minister of Justice of Scotland who hates white people.
You can't really turn that into a crime because it's not a crime, but this law makes hateful feelings a crime.
Feelings.
Here, look.
Offenses of stirring up hatred.
A person commits an offense if the person behaves in a threatening, abusive, or insulting manner, or communicates threatening, abusive, and insulting material to another person.
And either in doing so, the person intends to stir up hatred against a group of persons, based on the group being defined by reference to race, color, nationality, including citizenship, or ethnic or national origins, or as a result, it is likely that hatred will be stirred up against such a group.
Now, threats are already covered in the law, right?
If they're threats of crimes, like uttering a death threat, that's already a crime.
That's already covered.
But how about that extra part there, insults?
That was specially added.
Insults are now a crime.
As if, you know, example, if you denounce Scots for being too white, that's insulting.
But I guess that's illegal now if it stirs up hatred.
What does that mean?
Have you ever watched that movie, Schindler's List about the Holocaust?
You can't really watch that movie without hating Germans just a little bit.
I'm sorry, it's a feeling.
I just watched Tom Hanks' new drama Greyhound.
Same thing, just a tiny bit, just for a moment.
I know it was a brutal war, and it was just the Nazis, not all Germans, but I know that.
That's my brain talking.
But this law governs.
And there's this moment in that movie, Greyhound, where the U-boat commander mocks the Americans and says he's going to kill them.
And you get a flicker of anger.
That's an emotion.
You'd have to have a heart of stone not to feel that way just for a second.
It's an emotional response.
It stirred up hatred.
Those movies are crimes now.
You didn't act on it.
It's a work of fiction about a war 80 years ago.
I obviously have no hatred for Germans.
But for that flicker of a moment, that movie stirred up hatred just for a moment.
And look at the wording of the law.
It only has to cover things that are, it only has to be likely that hatred will be stirred up against such a group.
So it doesn't even have to be certain that feelings would be stirred up.
It just might happen.
Maybe, maybe not.
You can't even defend against that.
And by the way, justifiable hatred, like in a war against an enemy, that's not defensible in this law.
You can't even say, Your Honor, this is a really weird law, a law against creating feelings.
But the good news is nobody had illegal feelings here because the law doesn't require that.
The law just says that hate criminals only have to maybe cause the feeling, likely to cause the feeling.
Weird Feelings Law00:10:58
So just because you didn't actually stir up any hard feelings, as if creating emotions is a crime in itself, just because you didn't actually do it doesn't mean you're not guilty because it could have happened.
Look at how broad this hate speech is, hate feelings law is.
The ways in which a person may communicate material to another person are by A, displaying, publishing, or distributing the material.
B, giving, sending, showing, or playing the material to another person.
C, making the material available to another person in any other way.
So I think that covers everything.
Hey, take a look at this crazy video I found on YouTube.
Guilty, you're guilty.
You showed someone, you made it available to someone.
You're guilty of a hate crime.
And what's the sentence for this feelings crime?
So you commit a feelings crime, this likely to make someone have feelings crime.
Look at this.
A person who commits an offense under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both, or on conviction on indictment, to prison for a term not exceeding seven years or a fine or both.
Now I've been following rape gang trials in the UK for years.
And most of the mass rapists there, they get just a few years in jail because raping girls, especially Muslim rape gangs who explicitly say they have a religious motivation for targeting white girls.
In the UK, that's obviously not as serious as sharing a mean post on Facebook.
So bizarrely, this law treats feelings crimes worse than actual rape.
I want to show you one other weird thing about this law.
It specifically targets plays as in theatrical productions.
I don't know why.
I don't get it.
What kind of weirdo passes special laws censoring plays?
The Lord President, white.
The Lord Justice Clerk, white.
Every High Court judge, white.
The Lord Advocate, white.
The Solicitor General, white.
The Chief Constable, white.
Oh, right.
That's the kind of weirdo that passes laws censoring plays.
Are plays a problem in Scotland?
You know, you write a play, you hire actors, you get some financing, you find a stage, you get your costumes, you build your set.
Is that really the nexus of hate crimes in Scotland?
There's a plague of hate crimes sweeping through Scotland, and its center is the thespians of Edinburgh.
Let me read the law.
This section applies where, A, an offense under Section 3 is committed during a public performance of a play by a person who is a performer in the play.
So it's targeting actors?
And it goes on at great lengths about censoring plays?
What?
But it goes further.
You're not going to believe this.
You know that it's against the law to be in possession of child pornography, right?
And that makes sense because a crime was actually committed in the creation of that pornography.
A child was raped.
So it's not only the perpetuation of the crime, it's evidence of a crime that was already committed.
I agree, obviously, with the criminalization of possession of child porn, which is the rape of children.
But Hamza Youssef's law copies the language of possession of child pornography and applies it to anything politically controversial, anything politically insulting.
I kid you not, take a look, go through this with me.
A person commits an offense if the person has possession of threatening or abusive material with a view to communicating the material to another person, and either the person intends in doing so to stir up hatred against a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to a characteristic mentioned in subsection 3, or it is likely that if the material were communicated, hatred would be stirred up against such a group.
So anything mean or insulting or causing hurt feelings or likely to cause hurt feelings, that's a crime to merely possess it on your laptop.
You don't have to publish it.
You saw that subsection two.
If it is likely that if the material were communicated, hatred would be stirred up.
So you didn't even have to share it.
You just possessed it.
It didn't cause hard feelings.
It couldn't cause hard feelings.
He didn't show it to anyone.
And even if you did show it to someone and it didn't cause hard feelings, well, maybe it could, likely to, you'd still be guilty, guilty of a crime, same penalty up to seven years just for possession.
Drugs legalize those.
Porn, but bad feelings, you'll go to prison.
I'm only halfway through this law.
I can't even believe it.
Can you tell that Hamza Yousaf, can you tell that he sorta hates Scotland?
Why would you destroy one of the freest, most, you know, free places in the world with a law like this, a totalitarian law that makes every citizen guilty in advance.
If you've ever said anything anywhere, mean or even in jest, you're already a hate criminal.
You just have to be charged now.
You would only write such a law if you hated Scotland.
In the Scottish government, every director general is white.
Every chair of every public body is white.
I think we found the source of the hateful feelings.
Look, I'm not going to quote the whole law.
It keeps going.
Here's a quick definition of protected things.
You can't criticize pretty much everything.
A disability is a physical or mental impairment of any kind.
So if you were to call Hamza Youssef an idiot, a fool, don't do that, mate.
That's making fun of his mental state as a hate crime.
And don't even think of criticizing Islamic extremism.
Not if Hamza Youssef gets his way.
A group defined by reference to religion is a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief, membership of or adherence to a church or religious organization, support for the culture or traditions of a church or religious organization, participation in activities associated with such a culture or such traditions.
So you can't criticize, oh, for example, misogyny, female genital mutilation, forcing women to wear a burqa, beating women who are disobedient.
If those things are associated with a certain culture, you can't criticize them or you're a hate criminal.
Gee, I wonder if that's really what Hamza Yosef was up to here.
It goes on, including a provision that this Scottish law could be used against companies operating in other countries outside of Hamza Youssef's jurisdiction.
It gives him the right to prosecute non-Scottish internet providers.
He really does think he's king of the world.
So Hamza Yosef, who hates Scotland because it's so Scottish, wants to censor every possible thought, expression, tweet, Instagram post, anything.
Imagine in the year 2020, specifically writing that you want to censor plays and actors.
In the UK, I mean, I mean, in Pakistan, of course, they do that there.
But I'm talking about in the United Kingdom.
I'm talking about in Scotland.
This law will destroy all intellectual freedom, all jokes.
It'll destroy the most Scottish parts of Scotland.
But it'll do something else that I'm pretty sure Hamza Yosef is pretty psyched about.
It'll destroy the Scottish police who are being tasked with implementing this un-Scottish un-British law.
Don't take it from me.
Here's the Scottish Police Federation.
New hate crime bill could devastate police relationship with the Scottish public.
Proposed hate crime legislation could lead to police officers determining free speech and therefore thereby devastate the legitimacy of the police service.
And I could stop there because that really says it all, doesn't it?
The reason police work is because the citizens support the police, because the citizens believe in the police and believe they are just, because the police protect everybody and they protect our rights and freedoms.
Policing plays and Facebook pages, that's Pakistan-style stuff, not Scottish-style.
That's why the people in Pakistan hate their police, hate their government.
Is that the plan for Scotland?
I'll read a little bit more.
It's in point form from the Police Federation.
Elements of the legislation will see a significant increase in police workload and demand with a corresponding demand placed on the COPFS and courts.
The Scottish Police Federation does not support the intended provision to grant powers of search by force if necessary to members of police staff.
Concerned the bill seeks to criminalize the mere likelihood of stirring up hatred by creating an offense of threatening, abusive, or insulting behavior.
Such offense to include both speech and conduct.
This complicates the law and is, in our opinion, too vague to be implemented.
The bill, in the Police Federation's view, also sits uncomfortably with Article 6 and 7 of the Convention concerning the right to a fair trial.
This Scottish Police Federation considers that the timing of the publication of the bill, an associated consultation period in the midst of a global pandemic, is unfortunate at best.
And then it goes on with concerns about the costs and the workloads.
This bill will destroy Scotland's fundamental freedoms, and along the way, it will destroy the police.
Got to hand it to him.
It's pretty clever.
It's pretty clever.
It's almost as if the man who wrote it, you know, hates Scotland.
Well, you just know that in places with strict lockdown rules, the locker downers don't follow it themselves.
This is not speculation or a conspiracy theory.
Country by country, we see those rules being broken.
In New Zealand, in Scotland, ministers and directors of health have had to resign in scandals.
In the United Kingdom, the chief epidemiological fearmonger was scooting around town having an affair.
Patrick Brown's Illegal Hockey Party00:15:11
And of course, in Canada, Justin Trudeau, moments after announcing a ban on holiday travel for Easter, went on a holiday for Easter with his own family crossing provincial lines, no less.
I can only imagine what they're doing in Melbourne, Australia, that has literally brought in martial law, soldiers in the streets.
Well, one of the worst enforcers of this new prohibition in lockdown in Canada is the mayor of a town called Brampton.
It's a city, actually.
You might know him even if you're not from Brampton.
He's the former leader of the Progressive Conservatives of Ontario.
His name is Patrick Brown.
He was a Conservative MP before that.
And thank God he was defenestrated from his position as party leader before the election because a sex scandal broke.
Well, he's reinvented himself as the crackdown mayor of Brampton.
But wouldn't you know it?
He has one law for you and another law for him and his buddies.
Take a look at this outstanding video made by our friend David Menzies.
Hi, sir.
Do you know where Patrick Brown might be?
Yeah, he hasn't showed up yet.
Oh, okay.
He does play here, though, right?
He does.
Oh, okay, man.
That confirms it.
Yeah, we can't have people just randomly coming in here.
Oh, why is that?
I see a whole bunch of hockey players playing a game, sir.
Well folks, we're getting the bums rush, but holy mackerel, I think I see Patrick Brown himself.
Hey, how you doing?
Mr. Brown, right?
David Mancy the Rebel News.
We're in a city facility?
What's that?
You're in a city facility?
Yeah.
So are you?
Yeah.
So are you playing hockey here?
No, I'm just coming to check in our facility.
So I'm going to check you.
You're not supposed to be here, actually, guys.
We were told that you play pickup here.
Mr. Brown, how come the kids in Brampton can only practice sports, but your buddies can play hockey?
So I don't know why you are harassing people in the city of Brampton, but you shouldn't be.
Oh, who's harassing who?
Your guys handed out 122 bylaw violations in one week.
Mr. Brown, why is there a hockey game going on in this arena?
I thought you're only allowed to practice sports, not play them.
And who is paying the $1,000 a day, Mr. Brown, for this rink?
Mr. Brown, are these taxpayer dollars being used for your buddies to play hockey on this rink?
Or are you paying it?
Or perhaps we'll lead Solomon.
So Mr. Brown, why is it one law for me and one law for thee in this city?
Mr. Brown, so You know what?
Patrick Brown just left and he didn't have a mask either, sir.
I'm just the operator.
I don't know who's coming on the ice.
Well, he guys, come on.
He's the chief.
I'm not leaving, sir.
This is a taxpayer-funded facility.
I have every right as a taxpayer to be here, sir.
I'm not trying to give you a hard time.
Well, I'm trying to find out why kids can't play soccer or baseball or cricket.
They can only practice.
And Mayor Patrick Brown's friends are playing a full hockey game here.
I don't know.
I have people.
Okay, then.
So if you eject us, you have to eject them.
Fair enough.
Phone the police.
You just saw we did encounter Patrick Brown.
Patrick Brown not wearing a mask, by the way, as we were told to do by the rink attendant.
And I ask you, does this look like a practice or a hockey game?
Well, I've played hockey most of my life, folks.
That's a game.
Hey, nice save, by the way.
That is no practice.
I don't see little orange pine cones on the ice, and players aren't doing figure eight drills and passing the puck around.
But this is an absolute outrage that Patrick Brown has got the ice sheet on here on the sly and he's breaking the rules of playing as opposed to practicing.
Of course, he never got a chance to get his equipment on.
He scurried away with this assistant.
And I'm wondering what bag is his, because like I said, we did see two bags being.
Oh, won't look at that.
Wearing double zero Patrick Brown.
You know what?
Technically, it's circumstantial evidence.
There might be another Patrick Brown with playing in this ice sheet that is not the mayor of Brampton.
But I don't know.
I think that's the smoking gun.
This is Patrick's gear, and he had every intention to play hockey here at this rink.
Well, you know what?
It's been a long lockout.
You can't get into Scotiabank Arena or the Edmonton rink to watch the NHL game.
So I'm just going to watch a little good old old-time hockey.
And, well, at least until the police show up.
And then they're going to charge us with what?
Doing what they're doing, congregating illegally?
Bat chance.
Let's see what happens.
Well, I encourage you to watch the entire video.
It's on our YouTube channel or elsewhere on the page, David.
Just incredible.
That look on his face when he's there in violation of the law.
Like a secret speakeasy in the prohibition.
One law for the little people, but he and his buddies can play in the city facility.
No masks, of course, other than hockey masks.
He saw you.
He panicked.
He lied.
Oh, I'm just here to inspect.
And then he walked out.
What a little liar.
Yeah, because, of course, the mayor of a major city would normally in his course of duty go around inspecting ice rinks in the month of August.
I mean, it's preposterous.
We got this information from a tipster from Brampton.
He was tipped off by city staff who saw what was going on.
And everything he said was spot on.
The rink, the time, the fact that somebody comes to the rink before Patrick Brown does, carrying his bag and his hockey sticks.
And that's the thing.
That was what hoisted him on his own petard.
If you're here just to inspect the Earnscliff Recreation Center, why are your hockey sticks and your hockey bag with the name Patrick Brown and the number 00?
You couldn't write this stuff up right there while you're inspecting the place.
Did you forget that from last season, Patrick?
Yeah, and if he was there to inspect it, why didn't he stick around and inspect it?
None of it made sense.
It was a laughable lie.
He panicked and he thought, I'm just going to get out of there.
He sped away in his fancy Mercedes.
I wonder if his little hockey helper was on the public dime knowing Patrick Brown and what a little scammer he is.
And I say that, I mean, my God, for people outside Ontario, you've got to Google this guy.
Every possible thing you can imagine about him is true.
It's just incredible.
Imagine using your parliamentary staff or your government staff to schlep your hockey stuff around in the best of times, let alone during the pandemic.
Unbelievable.
Have you had any contact since that incident from either the government or their parks and rec department or anyone else?
Because he's clearly breaking a number of laws while enforcing those same laws on others.
Well, indeed, I have not.
As you know, Ezra, last week, I left a message at the Ernest Clef Recreation Center just as a customer, a potential customer, asking what the ice time availability was and how much it is to rent in a bar and ice.
Hasn't gotten back to me.
And that makes it worse because you talked about the public dime, some junior staffer schlepping his equipment and hockey sticks around.
My source says, and I believe this, that the operating cost for that rink in the month of August to keep that ice going is $1,000 a day.
So if they are not booking this out to anybody, if this is just for the period they were on the ice was from about 5 till 6.30, so an hour and a half.
Are you telling me that they have 24-7 ice being kept at $1,000 a day just so Patrick Brown and his rich buddies can play 90 minutes of hockey once a week and in prime time, by the way.
So I never heard back from that.
And you're right about breaking the law too.
I mean, whether you're pro-mask or anti-mask, that's not the issue.
Since July 10th, it has been mandatory to wear masks in Brampton at any of their city facilities.
As you saw, he walked in without a mask.
I had a mask on.
And so, again, like you said earlier, Ezra, one rule for thee, one rule for me.
You and I looked through the bylaws just this morning.
In fact, it's still unlawful to have full-out hockey games.
You have to have some sort of training and not just anyone.
You can't just book up an arena.
You have to be part of a league.
And this is sort of restricted training, all sorts of rules.
He just calls up as the premier, or sorry, the premier.
I keep calling him the premier.
God forbid.
God forbid.
He just calls up as the disgraced mayor.
And, you know, oh, sure, Mr. Mayor, sure, Mr. Mayor.
Yeah, we'll let you write in and all your little buddies and friends that if, and this is the same mayor who said he was going to prosecute and wanted a $100,000 fine for someone who had a house party.
So he can have his own hockey party that's explicitly against the rules.
He can attend without the mask that is explicitly against the rules.
And like I say, he's the one who has these rules.
And then when you catch him dead to rights, he lies like the coward that he is.
Because what could he possibly say?
Well, you know, and this is why he's not premier.
He was a heartbeat away, Ezra.
He threw the social conservatives under the bus.
Then he threw the fiscal conservatives under the bus by the carbon tax.
And so when there was no conservatives last under the bus, he got thrown under the bus.
But you are right.
And that speaks to the entitlement.
I mean, not only does he have a staffer bring his hockey bag and sticks there as though Patrick Brown's an NHL player, not only does he order the city to open one ice pad just for him and his skaters, but he is breaking the law.
Our lawyer, Aaron Rosenberg, went through line by line, and I believe that since August 1st, and by the way, important distinction, Patrick Brown was using this ice in the month of July.
We know that from a fact.
Since August 1st, it has the rules under stage three reopening.
You can have a league and I think they call it sub-league play.
This was not organized league play at all.
This is what's known as pickup hockey.
For those who don't play hockey, it's just you and a bunch of guys get together like Patrick Brown and his buddies, and you pick half the side wears white sweaters, the other half wears dark sweaters.
And it's just like a friendly game of shiny hockey.
There are no linesmen, no referees, nothing like that.
You keep the score in your head, et cetera.
So he doesn't even live up to that benchmark.
And I've got to tell you, when he went running to his Mercedes SUV to get out of Dodge, Ezra, I just couldn't help but notice that even there, the SUV was taking up two parking spaces, which is the ultimate D-bag thing to do when you drive a car.
But even there, right.
He's such a little crook.
I tell you, it wouldn't surprise me if he winds up in jail one day, obviously breaking his own laws here.
There's no jail term.
And I wouldn't want anyone to go to jail for illegally breaking the mask law, illegally breaking the hockey law.
I don't think he deserves jail.
He deserves public rebuke and laughter at what a little con man he is.
Can I suggest a penalty for him, Ezra?
And this would really upset him because he loves to play his ice hockey.
And that would be the penalty that I and you and all our Rebel News staff received from the security guards that day.
We have been banned for one year from showing up at any city of Brampton recreation facility.
Now, the joke is, folks, the ticket isn't worth the paper it's written on.
But our lawyer has written to Brampton to investigate Patrick Brown.
And I'd like to see him banned.
Wouldn't that be the most perversely ironic thing to come out of this story?
Yeah.
Let me just throw one more thing at you before we go.
The fact that he has his assistant deliver his hockey gear to the rink shows an elitist entitlement, a corruption of the public purse, and like we said, breaking of the law.
But there's another reason for it too.
Because if he had his hockey bag with him in his car, at the office, people might say, oh, you're going to play hockey, are you?
So it wasn't just that he's living a luxury life on the taxpayer's dime, living a luxury life ignoring his own laws.
It's that he actively took steps to hide it from any prying eyes.
He was genuinely shocked that you made it inside his little club there.
He is a disgrace, and you did the active journalism of the week.
Congratulations.
Well, thank you so much, Ezra.
And you know what?
I think what you said earlier, this, I liken it to a speakeasy during Prohibition days when you went to this little shack to have alcohol that was against the law back then.
He got caught red-handed.
He got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.
And the final thing I want to say is, if that's true, and I have no reason not to believe it isn't, that it's $1,000 a day to maintain that ice.
Who is paying for it?
Is it Patrick Brown and his buddies, or is it the taxpayers of Brampton?
Because I can tell you this much, whatever an hour of ice costs in prime time in Brampton, say it's $200,000, $240, that ain't covering a $7,000 a bill to keep that ice per week, to keep that ice maintained.
Yeah, he was always ethically dubious.
You know, it reminds me of that scene from Casablanca.
I'm shocked, shocked that there's gambling going on in these premises.
Sir, you're winning.
Thank you.
That is Patrick Brampton.
I'm shocked that there's hockey playing in this town.
I'm shocked, sir, your hockey bag.
Oh, thank you.
And of all things, Ezra, a hockey bag with Wayne Gretzky's logo on it.
Yeah, because Patrick Brown is surely equivalent to the greatest NHL player that's ever played the game.
I tell you, what a loser.
Brampton's pain is Ontario's game again.
Scottish Hate Crime Law Controversy00:01:19
And I say to everyone in Brampton, I am so sorry, my heart goes out to you, that you have such a con man as a mayor, but please feel the gratitude of 13, 14 million other Ontarians and 37 million Canadians who say thank you for letting us dump Patrick Brown and you.
And I know it's not easy or fun, but from the rest of us, thanks for taking one for the team.
David, great workout there.
Thank you so much.
What do you think of that Scottish hate crime law?
I think it is the worst piece of legislation I have ever read in the English language in terms of censorship.
It's worse than Canada's old Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the censorship provision.
That wasn't, at least that wasn't criminal law, and at least there were no seven-year prison terms.
This is so insane, and it makes no sense until you see the racists who wrote the law.
That's my thought on it.
What do you think?
Hey, do you think that law will pass?
I don't know.
I don't know.
Well, until tomorrow, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, see you at home.