Ezra Levant slams Justin Trudeau’s $2,000+ PCR testing quarantine for international arrivals at four airports as unnecessary and opaque, comparing it to early pandemic inaction on China flights. Heritage Minister Stephen Gilbeau’s new online hate speech regulator—justified by the 2017 Quebec City mosque attack—faces backlash as a censorship overreach, with Levant calling it akin to the War Measures Act. Meanwhile, Bad News co-host Ben Weingarten argues corporate media and "woke capital" colluded against Trump while enabling Biden’s potential Harris transition. Rebel News’s Fight the Fiance project unites Quebecers against civil liberties erosion, proving Canada’s slide into authoritarianism knows no borders. [Automatically generated summary]
I have an update on two disasters for civil liberties in Canada today.
But I end with a little bit of hope for civil liberties in La Belle-Provence.
That's next.
But first, let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
It's just eight bucks a month.
You get the video version of the show.
Go to rebelnews.com and click subscribe.
It's eight bucks.
We need to dough to keep paying the bills.
And I think it's better TV than you get on, say, Netflix.
Okay, thanks, everybody.
Tonight, another day, another loss of civil liberties in Canada.
It's January 29th, 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 of why I was because it's my bloody right to do so.
Hello, another very busy day at Rebel News.
Obviously, the news keeps coming.
We are in a time of a lot of news, and that is not a good thing.
It is not a good thing because the news is overwhelmingly bad and it's getting worse.
Those who thought that the year 2020 was the worst and 2021 would get better.
No, I think it's the opposite.
In 2020, there was genuine confusion and fear about the pandemic.
In 2021, we know better.
We know that it primarily, overwhelmingly, in fact, affects only the very elderly and the very sick.
And so, to justify the continued existence of lockdowns, the continued power of social media companies and continuing borrowing and spending power of politicians, I fear that the diminution of our civil liberties will actually accelerate.
We saw that today in two ways, and I'm going to show you that today.
New Quarantine Protections00:15:32
First, came Justin Trudeau making a strange announcement out of the blue that anyone coming back to Canada at one of four airports, Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, Montreal, from an international place, now has to quarantine in a federal quarantine facility.
They're transforming hotels into these if they have the virus.
Take a look, listen to him himself.
Starting next week, all international passenger flights must land only at the following four airports: Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, and Montreal.
In addition to the pre-boarding test we already acquire, as soon as possible in the coming weeks, we will be introducing mandatory PCR testing at the airport for people returning to Canada.
Travelers will then have to wait for up to three days at an approved hotel for their test results at their own expense, which is expected to be more than $2,000.
Those with negative test results will then be able to quarantine at home under significantly increased surveillance and enforcement.
Those with positive tests will be immediately required to quarantine in designated government facilities to make sure they're not carrying variants of potential concern.
We will also, in the coming weeks, be requiring non-essential travelers to show a negative test before entry at the land border with the U.S.
And we're working to stand up additional testing requirements for land travel.
So I don't understand.
If people take the quick virus test, the quick test, are you sick?
And it turns out they're healthy, why would they still have to quarantine for two weeks?
Can you help me with that one?
So you're adding a new layer of a mandatory test for everyone landing.
So that's a new burden, a new invasion, and a new cost.
But there's no upside for passing that test.
Why would you do that if there's no upside for finding out that someone's not sick?
Why are you insisting that people still quarantine if they are healthy and you know they're healthy?
But the other part is weird too.
If people arrive and they have the virus, or so says a test, to make them go to a federal facility, now, is that like a jail?
Do they have to stay there?
How will they eat?
What happens if they have to take care of kids?
And even more bizarre, that three-day stay will cost, I don't know if we even have all the details, $2,000 for the three-day stay at a federal facility and who will guard it and when does this apply?
And are these liberal hoteliers?
And there's so many questions.
What if you're disabled?
What if you need special care?
There's so many unknown things.
And all I'm thinking of is why now?
Why weren't any strictures put in place from flights from China almost a year ago?
You might recall in the early days of the pandemic, we sent our reporter, David Menzies, to Toronto Pearson Airport almost every day.
And there were flights arriving from China every day.
No one was being tested.
No one is being screened.
It was an honor system just saying, no, I didn't come.
I don't feel sick.
And I didn't come from Wuhan.
It was insane.
Why are we doing this now?
Well, we're doing it now to keep you in a state of fear.
And we're doing it now because Justin Trudeau has absolutely bungled the one job he has, which is to distribute vaccines to the provinces.
Now, I'm skeptical of vaccines.
I think that now that we know that the disease is not, it's a 99% plus recovery rate for people under 70, I'm less in panic to get a vaccine.
And the idea of rushing a vaccine to market makes me a little nervous.
I'm glad I'm under 70 and healthy because I don't have to think too much about it.
But for those who want the reassurance of the vaccine, those who choose it, those who feel they have to have it, we're all waiting for Justin Trudeau, and he bungled it.
He's far behind the United States, the United Kingdom, far behind other jurisdictions.
And that was really his only job.
You know, for weeks, he never even got his calls returned by these vaccine makers.
I think that part of Trudeau's shock and awe announcement today of really penitentiaries, but you're staying in a hotel.
Like, are you in jail?
Can you leave?
We know so little.
It was obviously hatched so quickly as a PR move, not a real policy move.
But while that was happening, another terrifying thing was happening that I'm afraid will be under the radar.
I think Justin Trudeau is appalling at his talk about mandatory detention centers and having to stay there even if you're, I mean, we don't even know all the details yet.
It reminded me of what Teresa Tam said in that National Film Board documentary a few years back.
Remember this?
I think the public has to know this is one of the worst case scenarios in terms of an infectious disease outbreak in that their cooperation is sought.
If there are people who are non-compliant, there are definitely laws and public health powers that can quarantine people in mandatory settings.
It's potential you could trap people, put bracelets on their arms, have police and other setups to ensure quarantine is undertaken.
Yeah, that was supposed to be some hypothetical situation that's coming true.
But while that was happening, as I think, a distraction and more conditioning us to think of, oh, yeah, he's in the quarantine jail, he's in the quarantine jail, something else was happening under the radar.
In Parliament, Stephen Gilbeau, the heritage minister, was announcing his plans for a new official censor.
He called it a new regulator.
And it became quickly clear that he chose today because it's the anniversary of when that mosque in Quebec City was attacked by a mass shooter who murdered people who were there at prayer.
That's why Stephen Gilbo was in parliament today.
And that was his peg, his news peg, to announce that he is going to censor the internet.
Here, take a little bit of a listen to that.
I am joining you from Montreal on the traditional territory of the Mohawk and other Odyssey Sani peoples.
Avant comment before I begin.
I would like to highlight that four days ago, four years ago today, a shooter attacked a mosque in Quebec.
Canadians remember this violent act today.
During the pandemic, we saw that digital platforms are more than ever at the heart of communications between Canadians and are keeping us connected and informed.
Unfortunately, some internet users are also exploiting these platforms maliciously to spread hate, racism, and child pornography.
There is currently illegal content being uploaded and shared online to the detriment of Canadians and our society.
This is simply unacceptable.
So I heard that and my spider senses started tingling.
I said, this is exactly what he's been working towards for months, is what we did our show about the other day.
And then I thought, who is the conservative critic again?
I can't really remember.
I can't really remember.
Okay, it's this guy.
So here's the big moment.
You've got Stephen Gilbeau in Parliament saying he's going to bring in a new regulator to regulate speech, especially what he calls hurtful speech, people who have political opinions he says are dangerous.
And what does the conservative critic have to say?
Well, can you make any sense of this?
Looking into the relationship between your government and Facebook, we're referring to an email that was sent.
It led to some confusion, and people are wondering about that.
So today I'm sure we'll be able to clarify the situation.
Since you're here, Mr. Minister, I would like to take the time to make a comment about the last time you were at our committee on November 5th when you asked a simple question, or rather,
we asked you how you did the calculation at your department regarding $830 million of supplementary additional investments by 2022.
Today, your senior officials are with you again.
Here we're talking about information that you shared publicly, even on the Quebec talk show, Tout le monde en parle.
However, when I have met with major stakeholders in TV and digital sectors, everyone seemed to be confused about how your calculation was done.
After November, we did not hear back from your department.
And we tabled a resolution, which was unanimously accepted in the House, including by your Liberal colleagues, to gain access to that information.
As you know, we on our committee are working on a study.
And I feel that this information is extremely important.
First, so that we can trust that we have access to all relevant information surrounding that project.
Next week marks three months since you were asked about that calculation.
And I want to ask you today if it is possible for us to have those details now.
What was he talking about?
This is perhaps the greatest censorship of Canadians since the War Measures Act 50 years ago.
There were censors in Quebec newspapers during the War Measures Act.
I think this is the greatest censorship since then, probably even bigger than that.
This is probably the largest act of censorship since the Second World War.
A whole new position?
A regulator for censoring?
Did you even understand what the Conservative was saying?
Well, there was another question.
This was put by a Liberal MP.
And you can see she's reading.
And it doesn't even matter what her name is because they're all interchangeable.
She's reading from a prepared script.
So she has a question pre-written for her.
And Gilbo has an answer pre-written for him.
Take a look at this exchange.
Thank you, Minister, for being with us today.
As you explained in your speech, four years ago today, six people lost their lives.
So tonight there will be a prayer held at the Quebec City Mosque.
I extend my condolences to all families affected.
Xenophobia and Islamophobia motivated this attack.
The attacker had been radicalized using social media.
We know that Canadians are often exposed to hateful, extremist, or even radicalizing content on digital platforms.
In your mandate letter, regulating or regulating digital platforms is included.
I would like for you to give us an update on the essential work the government is carrying out to protect Canadians online.
Thank you very much for the question.
We have discovered something.
And to that end, on Fedio Canada's website this morning, there was an article about radicalization on online platforms.
In particular, the attacker from January 29th, four years ago.
Our initiative is a joint initiative between a number of departments, including Heritage Canada, the Justice Department, Public Safety, and the Innovation Department.
We're working together to table a new bill, which will define a regulatory framework on hate speech, but also on child pornography and content that incites people to violence.
Currently, we see that few countries in the world have tackled this problem.
Some have.
We are having meetings in the public service and at government levels with those countries that are acting to see what they are doing and see how we can adapt their approaches to the Canadian reality.
Recently, I had a conversation with Australia's e-safety commissioner to understand how they implemented their program, which things we should be cautious about.
For example, there are concerns surrounding freedom of expression, which has been an important part of Canadian laws over history.
So we will look at how to reproduce the same framework in the physical world, in the virtual world.
Thank you very much, Mr. Minister, for all this work that you are carrying out day in, day out to better protect Canadians on digital platforms.
So this whole thing was a stage-managed exercise to announce to the world, while Trudeau's off distracting with some, you know, quarantine prisons, that Gilbeau is bringing in a new office of censorship.
And it was all crafted, the messaging, the timing of the day, the softball questions.
And the conservative critic was like he was in another conversation, like he was in another planet.
Leaked Leverage: Biden's Dignified Fall?00:17:20
It was not like he was in charge of criticizing for the official opposition on behalf of every conservative voter and indeed every voter of every stripe who cares about our fundamental freedoms of free speech.
He just didn't talk about it.
are dangerous days.
Welcome back.
Well, if you were with us on the evening of the U.S. presidential election, you'll remember our key commentator that night was our friend Ben Weingarten of the Federalist.
And there were moments that night where I allowed my heart to hope when the results in key states, whether it was Georgia or Pennsylvania, showed that Donald Trump was set to win.
And then strange things started to happen, including vote counting being stopped, huge caches of votes being found.
You're not allowed to talk about that or you'll be deplatformed by the social media companies.
But that was the last time we had a long chat with Ben.
We've talked to him a couple times since, but I'm delighted to say that Ben has a new show and the pilot episode was just released.
He calls his show Bad News.
And I'm depressed just hearing the title, but joining us now via Skype is Bad News Benjamin.
Ben, how you doing?
Ezra, I'm well.
And while I know it sort of has a negative connotation to it, I promise it'll be entertaining, enjoyable.
And if the world is burning down around us, at least we'll be able to have a few laughs about it.
Well, I want to say thanks again for you staying up super late with us that night on election night.
And there was that moment.
I remember we looked at how betting futures were looking and how the stock market was looking.
There was maybe an hour there where things looked like he might pull it off, but alas.
Now, I think that bad news is sort of a pun, isn't it?
You're not saying, hey, guys, I've got bad news.
Is it more a media criticism?
You're calling the mainstream media, oh, that news?
No, no, no, that's bad.
You can't rely on it.
It's another way of saying like unreliable news or the news itself, the news media is bad.
Am I right in understanding the hidden meaning in your new show's title?
Yeah, it's at least a double entendre, maybe a triple entendre.
And we had, of course, considered fake news as one potential show, but I think this captures really the entirety of it, which is that it's not just the substance of what our betters in the corporate media are portraying, but it is actually, as well, their sort of malign ends.
And I think sort of the meta-narrative, at least that from my perspective that governs the show, and my co-host Emily Jashinsky has her own view on this as well.
My view is that the corporate media has essentially become the communications arm of the ruling class.
It is part of the ruling class.
It's not adversarial to it.
It's an accessory of it.
It doesn't question the powerful.
It has become the mouthpiece for the powerful.
And so what we hope to do with this show is to expose it every single day.
I think you're exactly right.
I mean, I often noted that one of the most beautiful women in the world, Melania Trump, never was on a single cover of a women's magazine, a fashion magazine.
Michelle Obama, and I'm not going to criticize her looks, but she was on the cover of dozens, maybe hundreds of women's magazines, fashions magazines.
But not Melania, an actual model.
There was an obvious tactic of taking, let's say, 100 photographs of Melania and capturing the one where she wasn't smiling.
So at the very least, it made her less attractive.
And at most, it would imply, oh, she's not happy with Donald Trump either.
And I mention all that because that kind of coverage, which we had for four years, has been replaced with absolute hagiographies, absolute fangirl, fanboy love letters.
It's just incredible.
And I think they're counting on most people not to notice the 180-degree change.
Yeah, and in the process, I think they're really discrediting themselves for anyone who goes in with eyes open and looks at the media.
And I grant, rightfully so, the American people overwhelmingly do not trust the media with writ large with good reason.
And it's in no small part because this is a media that remembers said that the only scandal in the Obama administration was the fact that he wore a tan suit to a press conference once.
They're simply, on one level, they're unserious.
On another level, they are deathly serious about protecting and preserving the power of the people whose narratives they spin and propagate to the world.
They want to maintain access to the powerful.
They want to be accepted at all the cool cocktail parties in D.C., New York, LA, and around the country.
But ultimately, the American people suffer it as they foist effectively these information operations on us that are all about, again, keeping the powerful in power.
There was a time where there truly was at least some percentage of the media that was adversarial.
And of course, there are always self-interested people in media who are not going to pursue hard-hitting stories.
They're just going to try to curry favor with those in the political class and the business world and beyond.
But now, everyone is on the same team.
And as a consequence, truth really does die.
Democracy really does die in darkness, as the Washington Post likes to tell us.
But they've been engaging in projection over it for the last four years.
What we're seeing right now is real state media.
You're right.
You know, I'm not, what's Joe Biden?
Joe Biden is 78, if I'm not mistaken.
I'm 48, so he's got 30 years on me.
And I find myself sometimes pausing for one second before we're calling a name that, you know, probably 10 years ago, I wouldn't have had a second's pause.
And I mentioned that because we all get old and we all get a little bit more forgetful.
But I remember when Donald Trump would host one two-hour-long press conferences, especially in the early days of the pandemic, he would seriously stand there for an hour or 90 minutes fielding questions from the most adversarial, like he kept calling on his haters.
It's not like, I mean, he expressed his antipathy towards them, but he never stopped calling on Jim Acosta of CNN, for example.
He just never stopped.
And the point I'm making now is he always called them by name, or at least quite often.
There was no doubt that Trump was fully in command of his faculties, and he would remember the names of at least the leading lights.
One tiny change that I think shows so much is that Joe Biden is not the one calling the reporters by name.
He has an assistant there, a staffer, who calls them by name.
And I really think, Ben, it's because Joe Biden doesn't remember the names.
Maybe he doesn't even remember who they are at all.
Now, maybe I'm focusing on a tiny minute point, but just like the Millennia Trump Was Never On a Magazine cover, talking about a press aide calling people by name shows that we have a president of a much lower cognitive level.
His staff are covering it up and the media are going along with it.
There was a question the other day about Biden and Putin, and Biden's answer was chippy and chirpy and angry.
If Trump would have had such an answer, it would have never been accepted for a heartbeat.
You can see it in the little things as much as the big things.
When does the Russian collusion investigation get started when it comes to Joe and Hunter and the rest of the Merry Biden corrupt band?
I think that your point is very well taken, that sometimes these little insights have very big, substantive significance.
And you simply have to ask the question, look, at every single turn in the Biden so-called quote-unquote campaign, and I say that because it was essentially like a 19th century campaign run from his porch, except just in his basement via Zoom, at every point it has been a hermetically sealed campaigner and then president-elect and now president.
And the archetype, or if you wanted to describe kind of what the prototypical Biden press conference, if you can even call it that, looks like today, it's about 10 minutes of prepared remarks, five minutes of which they're actually intelligible, and the rest is sort of gobbledygook.
One person asks a question, he says, come on, man, in response, and then his team shoes everyone out of the room.
So he never takes a question.
Everything is staged, managed.
It's all prepared.
Like you said, he's not the one calling the reporters by name.
Can he handle being pushed under questioning?
Unclear.
Are they protecting him because it'd be embarrassing if he was able to go off script?
That's probably an element of it as well.
But I actually think a couple media sources have dropped the mask a little bit on this.
And I believe Politico and maybe The Hill as well have at least quoted unnamed Democratic sources who have said, look, there's real concern about can Joe Biden handle a 20-minute Rose Garden press conference and going back and forth jousting with the press.
The fact that that's even being leaked out and filtered into publications to me indicates that while Joe Biden is being treated as God incarnated today by the media, it's very clear that they are paving a path where down the road they may push him aside essentially in some sort of semi-dignified fashion.
And there's been some talk out there about the fact that if you look at the Constitution, a vice president could technically serve 10 years.
If Joe Biden served as president two years and one day and then stepped down and Kamala Harris assumed the seat, she could then run for the next two consecutive terms and potentially be president for 10 years.
So I think it's something to keep in mind as we watch the media engage in the hagiography, as you so aptly describe it.
Let's see over time how much the questions of fitness, mental acuity, health and the like start to become filter through the narratives.
I'm not saying that it's going to be the dominant part of media coverage because it's a love affair for now and for the foreseeable future.
But there's also a love affair going with Kamala Harris as well.
And so I suspect as time goes on, you'll see this transition from Biden to Harris in what he's referred to inaptly as the Harris-Biden, or maybe aptly as the Harris-Biden administration a couple of times.
Now, with Donald Trump, there were other forces resisting him.
And that's not a conspiracy theory.
I mean, so many of his senior staff picks who turned out, personnel picks, turned out to be awful.
He had to fire them.
And later on, they made it very clear they were grudging appointees who were working to slow him down, undermine him.
That was particularly true in the military and in the intelligence and the security communities.
I mean, they didn't want to withdraw troops from Afghanistan or Syria or other places around the world.
And after they were no longer serving the president, they made that crystal clear.
So there were people who were resisting Trump from within the administration or the civil service.
But as far as the actual official administration, I don't think there was any doubt that Trump was the boss.
He would sack people like it was on The Apprentice.
He would say dramatic things and take dramatic courses of action that only Trump would or could do.
He would handle those long press scrums.
And I'm not saying he would do them all perfectly, but you could tell he was engaged in the files.
It was like Stephen Harper in Canada.
The man knew the file better than anyone else in government.
So whatever else you have to say about Trump, he was in charge.
I don't think anyone believes that about Joe Biden.
He's not the master of any file.
And so my question to you is, and I'm guessing you don't know and no one knows, who's the real boss?
No one actually asked during Trump's administration, who's the real boss.
They knew it was Trump.
He had mutineers, but he was the boss.
Who's the real decider in the White House today?
I have two takes on that question.
The first is that to some extent, Joe Biden is merely a figurehead, and he was always sort of a figurehead compromise candidate who would put a quote-unquote moderate veneer on all the raft of radical leftism that you see if you just look at the Democrat platform or you look at the Biden Sanders unity agenda,
much of the language of which, by the way, has been incorporated into this flurry of initial executive actions that the Biden administration has undertaken.
But I think part of foisting Joe Biden on the American people in terms of clearing the field for him, which the Democratic establishment clearly was able to execute during the primary.
And then as we get to this point today, I think is all about the fact that basically the establishment was showing we can beat you with anyone, anytime, anywhere.
We control them.
It wouldn't matter if it was Joe Biden or any of five other figures that were in that primary or beyond.
This would be the slew of policies that would be put forth.
So part of it is he is sort of an inconsequential figure in some ways and purely a figurehead.
My second response is, personnel is policy.
And if you look at who he surrounded himself with, it's essentially all veterans of the Obama Biden administration.
It's my view that Barack Obama essentially pushed to, and it didn't have to be something that was explicit, but I think he called the Kamala Harris selection as vice president, you know, an inspired choice, an excellent choice.
I think it was always Obama's push to get Kamala Harris on that ticket.
I think the fact that Biden is surrounded by Obama veterans speaks volumes.
And I do believe that this is essentially a continuation of his White House.
You know, I think that's right.
I don't think Joe Biden was an important or effective vice president.
I don't think he ever had the trust or the love of Barack Obama.
I think there's lots of apocryphal and off the record and some on the record reports that Obama sort of sneered at and laughed at Joe Biden, but kept him around because he was that goofy guy with that smile and say, come on, no malarkey.
So I think that Obama never respected Biden.
He waited till the last possible moment to say, yeah, I'm for Biden, like he wasn't an earlier booster.
I think that Joe Biden was a figurehead even as VP.
And I think that really nothing has changed other than he's a figurehead president.
I think you're so right.
It's the same administration as it was in the Obama years.
They've just moved the figurehead guy up a notch, but nothing's really changed.
I think that's, I think you nailed it.
I appreciate that.
And it's a great point that Obama never really wanted to support Biden until he absolutely had to at the end.
And I think one other point that's worth making is Biden is being portrayed as sort of a return to normalcy.
But look, I think that the political establishment has been in command to the maximum extent possible perpetually.
And that's not in any way to talk down about what President Trump was able to accomplish because he accomplished an incredible amount of elements of his agenda in spite of the fact that, as you noted, he was essentially sabotaged and undermined at every turn.
And there's really a small coterie of people in government who actually agreed with most of his agenda and actually helped him execute it.
But I think the entire time, the establishment, what I would call now the ruling class, because it really extends beyond just a political illiot to now woke capital and corporate media and beyond.
Ultimately, really, they've been in power the whole time.
They just did not have the top job, but they did everything they possibly could to destroy the man who had the top job.
And now they're fully back in power.
And that's, there's sort of a depressing aspect to it because it means that the administrative state essentially really runs the show.
Congress essentially is involved in political theater and non-entities.
And essentially, you don't really have consent of the governed.
And that's one of the disasters about the fact that the president didn't really have a second term to more fully implement his agenda.
Launching French Fight Finances00:03:08
I think you're right.
There you have it, Ben Weingarten, who has a new show called Bad News, along with his co-host, Emily Jashinsky.
Great to see you again, Ben.
Thanks for being here.
Thanks for having me.
All right.
There you have it.
with us for more.
My friends, I do want to tell you one more thing about what we've been working on.
And I spent half the day speaking en français, and I think you're going to get a kick out of it.
You know we have a very strong Fight the Fiance program throughout Canada.
And we've done some in Australia and the United Kingdom.
I'm not ready to play you the video today.
I will be on Monday.
But we spent the day making a video en français because we are about to expand our Fight the Fiance project to Quebec.
And as I said, en français.
Well, let me read that part, if I may.
Don't mind me.
I practiced.
Maisi nous vonon on éda des jeans dom d'autre paill, nous somm ausi à chourément en mesur des des nonfrères et sur de Québec.
My French is pretty rough.
It's sort of Preston Manning French.
What that means is, surely, if we will help people in other countries, like Australia and the United Kingdom, surely when it comes to civil liberties, we can help our brothers and sisters in Quebec.
And so I'm very excited to tell you, our super subscribers, that we are about to launch, and I recorded it en francais today, we are about to launch a French language Fight the Fiance project with lawyers who speak French in the great province of Quebec that has the brutal curfew and the brutal lockdowns.
My friends, we will help them.
And I think it'll be a wonderful moment of national unity.
I don't care what language you speak, what race you are, what religion you are.
I don't care anything other than you believe in freedom and you have an innate right to be free.
And I think this will be a wonderful opportunity for a Toronto guy born in Alberta to work with people in Quebec.
And I'm counting on all our rebel viewers around Canada and the world to get into the spirit of helping other people with civil liberties.
I hope it works.
Anyways, you'll see.
I don't want to tell you the website right now because we're still tinkering with it, but we've got a French language website too.
All right.
Well, I'm interested in your thoughts on that, but also the rest of the bad news that we've had for Civil Liberties today, both Trudeau sending people to quarantine jails, and of course the big one, Stephen Gilbo announcing the end of internet freedom and the Conservative MP really asking where he is and what time it is.
My friends, that's the show for today.
I'm sorry it was a little bit truncated, but boy, we have a lot of things afoot until Monday.
On behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, do you at home?