Sheila Gunn Reed and Rebel News sue Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault and former Minister Catherine McKenna, alleging Charter violations by blocking their access to taxpayer-funded Twitter accounts—Guilbeault overseeing CRTC/CBC media policies despite his mandate to engage journalists. The lawsuit follows McKenna’s ban of Gunn Reed from UN climate conferences after complaints about her coverage. Meanwhile, Defense Chief Jonathan Vance faces sexual misconduct allegations involving junior officers, with Trudeau’s government accused of inaction due to political convenience, mirroring past scandals like WE Charity and SNC-Lavalin. The episode ties censorship and leadership failures to broader systemic hypocrisy under Trudeau’s administration, demanding accountability through legal action. [Automatically generated summary]
I know that's not very sexy, but the video version of it, I'll show you the document.
The document is a lawsuit.
Sheila Gunn Reed, Rebel News, and me personally are suing Catherine McKenna and Stephen Gilbo.
We're suing them in federal court.
In fact, we filed a lawsuit a few weeks ago.
I just haven't had a chance to tell you about it.
I'm going to take you through it.
I think you're going to like it.
I think we're going to win.
So that's ahead.
Do me a favor and become a subscriber to what we call Rebel News Plus.
It's the video version of this podcast.
You get my show, Sheila Gunn Reed's show, David Menzie's show, Andrew Chapato's show, and the satisfaction of helping us fight against government corruption or government censorship.
You can't really do that if you're taking money from Trudeau, can you?
So I think this is our time.
So just do that at rebelnews.com and click subscribe.
Okay, here's today's podcast.
Tonight, we're suing Catherine McKenna and Stephen Gilbeau.
I'll take you through the lawsuit.
It's April 28th, 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 hoping is because it's my bloody right to do so.
We're suing Catherine McKenna and Stephen Gilbo.
We're suing the government, and I'll tell you why.
Stop and think about how important it is to get information from the government.
I mean, just think about your taxes.
Well, what's the deadline?
What are the rules?
What are the special rules for the pandemic?
Or think about all the government rules around getting a job or losing a job.
Or just think about all the rules about garbage pickup on your street.
What can go in which bin, what days the pickup are, etc.
You could apply this for any conceivable activity regulated by government.
I mean, don't get me started on the bizarre, unscientific, punitive, and ever-changing rules about the pandemic.
I think we all hate rules a bit, but we need to know what the rules are, even the dumb ones, and especially the ones that really impact our lives.
I mean, I don't plan on being a beekeeper, so I won't study those rules, but I'm in the media business, so those are pretty important to me.
But now imagine if the government officials in charge of my industry, an industry that you care about, had banned me from receiving news and updates and announcements and information from that government department.
I'm banned.
Just me.
Not the whole world, just me.
Because I am.
I am specifically blocked from following the official government Twitter account of the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
As you'll know, that's the Ministry of Media Bailouts and the Ministry of Censorship.
I'm not kidding, those are literally the first and second items on the minister's job description in his official mandate letter from Trudeau.
This government department, more than any other, affects how we operate at Rebel News and indeed if we can even still exist.
As we showed you last week, Gilbo has personally threatened to come after anyone who even taunts him.
We've seen too many examples of public officials retreating from public service due to the hateful online content targeted towards themselves or even their families.
Gilbo says he might even go so far as to use the, quote, nuclear option, banning entire websites.
Could we envision having blocking orders?
I mean, maybe it's not, you know, it would likely be a last result nuclear bomb in a toolbox of mechanism for regulators.
So wouldn't you say I have to pay pretty close attention to this guy?
But I can't because he has blocked me, banned me.
I can't go there.
When you go to his Twitter account, you see this.
But when I go there, I see this.
Even though he specifically says it's a government account, I guess I have to pay for it through my taxes.
I just can't read the news.
But just me.
Sorry, if it was his personal account, that's fine.
I don't care if it was his family account, like a Facebook page where he shares his home movies or his dogs or whatever.
That's fine.
But I'm talking about his government account, which means it's not really his account, is it?
It's ours.
It's for all Canadian taxpayers, really, and all people he seeks to regulate and censor.
So I have an interest in learning what he plans to do as a minister, but I also have the right to clap back at him online because, of course, he's a bit of a bully himself.
For someone who says he doesn't believe in taunting people, he's pretty vicious.
He had no compunction about implying that I'm a Nazi, even though he surely knows how outrageous that is to say to a Jew.
So he can smear me on Twitter, but I can't reply to him.
I can't respond to him.
I can't even see what he says.
That's what it means to be blocked.
I can't see what he says about me, about our company, Rebel News, about our industry, about our government, about our laws, even though it's a government account.
And the same thing goes for our chief reporter, Sheila Gunn Reed.
In her case, she is personally blocked by a very vengeful Catherine McKenna, the former environment minister who actually not only banned Sheila, blocked her, same thing, but more.
I'll get to that in a minute.
The reason it's particularly important is because Sheila reports on McKenna's scandals.
That's a public service, of course, to the country.
Sheila is the number one critic of McKenna.
So McKenna obviously wants to cut off Sheila from knowing what McKenna's up to.
But it's not just a war of words.
Here was what I meant before.
McKenna is vicious.
She's got a vendetta.
And she took an extreme approach against Sheila.
You know, Sheila goes to those United Nations Global Warming Conferences every year to report on them for us.
Well, McKenna told the United Nations to ban Sheila, not to let her in.
McKenna told them that.
How do we know about this?
Because the UN told us.
They accredited us one year, but then after McKenna complained, the UN banned us for asking questions McKenna didn't like.
Sorry, you can't do that.
You can't ban Canadian citizens and taxpayers from having access to government services, at least not in Canada.
Put the UN aside for a moment.
Banning Sheila Gunn Reed from having access to critical information about the government, just because you're a liberal with a thin skin and you're a censor and you have an irrational hatred for rebel news.
It just doesn't work that way in a democracy.
Two generations ago, the Premier of Quebec named Maurice Duplessis, who was a bit authoritarian, he hated this one particular restaurateur named Naroncarelli because he was the owner of a restaurant and he just happened to post bail for Jehovah's Witnesses who were arrested by police.
And Duplessis hated Jehovah's Witnesses.
And so he's really mad at this restaurant guy for posting bail.
So he ordered this restaurant lose its liquor license.
So you can't do that.
You can't run the government like it's your personal property, like you can use it for purposes of vengeance.
You just can't.
It's not legal.
That went all the way to the Supreme Court.
If Gilbo or McKenna don't want to read what Sheila or I have to say, that's fine.
You know, there's even a function on Twitter called Mute where we can still read them, but they don't have to read what we say.
But they didn't use that because they actually want to suppress us, to hurt us, to ban us, like Du Plessis did.
Well, we're going to court.
You can see our lawsuit in full at twitterlawsuit.ca.
Let's go through a bit of a now.
I want you to go read the whole thing in twitterlawsuit.ca, but you can see it here.
Federal courts between Rebel News Network, Ezra Levan, and Sheila Gunn, applicants, and Canada, Stephen Gilbo and Catherine McKenna, and the Attorney General of Canada, the respondents.
That's how you style a lawsuit.
And then right at the beginning of the lawsuit, here's our summary of what it's about.
This is for the judge.
This is an application for orders declaring that the respondents, Stephen Gilbo and Catherine McKenna, violated the constitutional rights under Section 2B of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in blocking access to official government Twitter accounts and thereby limiting the applicant's ability to, among other things, access and communicate important information, participate in public debate, and express views on matters of public concern.
And here's what we're asking for from the court.
The applicants make application for A, an order declaring that Gilbo has violated the constitutional rights of the applicants, Rebel News and Ezra Levant, under Section 2B of the Charter, and blocking Mr. Levant's access to his official Twitter account and thereby limiting Rebel News and Mr. Levant's ability to, among other things, access and communicate important information, participate in public debate, and express views on matter of public opinion.
B, exact same thing for Sheila Gunnread, so I won't read through it, but it's the same language for Sheila, who was banned by Catherine McKenna.
D, sorry, C, an order directing the respondents to unblock us from their official Twitter accounts and to refrain from further blocking for so long as they hold elected public office.
That's important.
I don't care what they do on their home accounts.
D, the costs of this application, if opposed.
That is, if they are actually going to fight this and we win, they shouldn't fight this, they should have to pay our costs.
And E, such other relief as counsel may advise and this honorable court deems just.
Skepticism Of Trudeau00:12:57
So you can see there's a little bit of legalese, and I translated some of the Latin, but that's pretty simple, isn't it?
And then we explain who we are a little bit.
I'll skip over that because you know who we are.
And we explain Gilbo a little bit.
Let me read what we say about him.
Gilbo oversees the Department of Canadian Heritage, an umbrella organization that has one of the largest portfolios in the Canadian federal government.
In addition to the Department of Canadian Heritage, which is charged with the development of laws and policies, the Canadian Heritage Portfolio comprises organizations active in the fields of arts, culture, heritage preservation, and conservation, as well as human rights.
The portfolio oversees media organizations and tribunals, including the Canadian Radio, Television, and Telecommunications Commission and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
And it's involved in distributing massive bailout funds to media organizations.
Now, I mentioned the mandate letter before.
Here's some more from it, as is relevant to this lawsuit.
The Prime Minister's 7-12-2019 mandate letter to Minister Gilbo emphasizes the importance of Canada's media and Minister Gilbeau's engagement with same as follows.
So this is his job description.
Canada's media and your engagement with them in a professional and timely manner are essential.
The Parliamentary Press Gallery, indeed all journalists in Canada and abroad, ask necessary questions and contribute in an important way to the democratic process.
So that was his job description given to him by the Trudeau.
The Prime Minister's January 15th, 2021 mandate letter to Minister Gilbo reiterated the importance of journalists and his role as follows.
Now more than ever, Canadians are relying on journalists and journalism for accurate and timely news, especially in the face of concerning spread of misinformation.
I expect you to foster a professional and respectful relationship with journalists to ensure that Canadians have the information they need to keep themselves and their families safe.
12.
Minister Gilbeau has repeatedly emphasized his commitment to press freedom and the importance of media to Canada's democratic stability.
Ha ha!
So does he mean it?
That's really what we're coming down to here.
Or is it all just a lie?
And here's why it's important to me.
Here's a reason we have standing to sue, amongst others.
Ready?
Canadian media, including the applicants, are under the auspices of Minister Gilbo, the cabinet minister responsible for the laws, regulations, and policies in respect to Canadian arts, culture, and press.
We also note this.
Minister Gilbo has a long record of public animus towards the applicants.
Yeah, he bet he does.
He hates us.
He called us Nazis.
Then we talk a bit about Catherine McKenna.
Same way.
Minister McKenna is the Member of Parliament for Ottawa Centre, Ontario.
Minister McKenna was appointed Minister of Environment and Climate Change in November 2015.
And in November 2019, he was appointed as Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, which is responsible for national infrastructure, working directly with provincial, territorial, and municipal governments, as well as Indigenous communities.
The Prime Minister's mandate letter to Minister McKenna stated the importance of journalists in her role as follows.
Now more than ever, Canadians are relying on journalists and journalists.
So same quote to McKenna that he gave to Gilbo.
But is she doing it?
No, she's not.
She banned us from reporting at the UN.
Now I'm not going to read this whole thing to you.
You can see it for yourself at twitterlawsuit.ca.
Check it out.
But here's one point we say, we make it in different ways.
The government says they love free speech and journalists, so do they really mean it?
Look at this.
The Honourable Christia Freeland, then Minister of Foreign Affairs, stated the following at the inaugural Global Conference for Media Freedom in July 19th.
I was A. Rashila, by the way.
We need to defend our independent press even, and perhaps especially when it criticizes us as a central institution of democracy, we need to fight for the open society against the closed one.
We need to fight for the complexity of democratic truth rather than the beguiling simplicity of authoritarian rhetoric.
That is what we have done at this conference and what we have committed to doing with our like-minded partners in the days ahead.
Wow, that sounds pretty good.
I wish we could get some of it in reality.
Here's what we argue.
Twitter is the modern public square, but they have banned us from it.
Let me read just a little bit.
I'm almost through it.
The respondents' Twitter accounts are presented and operated as official government accounts and are used as official government communication channels for official purposes.
The public presentation of the respondents' Twitter accounts bear all the trappings of official state-run accounts and the content is public in nature.
Content and interactions are carefully considered, developed, prepared, reviewed, and approved by government staff in consultation with the respondents.
I like these three points.
Let me just zip through them.
The respondents also use their accounts to retweet tweets from federal officials, institutions, and services, and other elected officials.
The responses also use their accounts to retweet or respond to tweets from members of the public on issues of public concern or regarding the policies or political stances taken by themselves and other elected officials or candidates.
The respondents' Twitter accounts are a public forum for the expression of views on public matters by the respondents and others who wish to comment or express their opinions to others who read the respondents' tweets on matters of public concern.
Okay.
Now here is really why we're suing.
Take a look.
Violating the applicant's free expression.
Minister Gilbo blocked Mr. Levant from viewing, interacting with, or responding to his tweets.
Minister McKenna blocked Ms. Gunn from viewing, interacting with, or responding to her tweets.
And this.
The respondents' Twitter accounts are a public digital space where individuals can express and disseminate their views on public matters.
And the respondents' actions to prohibit the applicant's access to their respective Twitter accounts infringes the applicant's right to freedom of expression as protected by Section 2B.
Because we can't get into this national discussion, let alone find out what the rules are.
So what do you think?
I think we have to start pushing back against the censors.
They're too comfortable banning and canceling and silencing.
They're on the precipice of doing much more, as you know.
And Gilbo and McKenna are the most vicious censors out there.
If you want to read this whole lawsuit, go to twitterlawsuit.ca.
I think I'm going to put up a couple of affidavits there too because the case is really starting to move.
And if you think this lawsuit is a good idea, just to push back at this censorship, which is like the nose in the tent, like here they come.
Feel free to chip in there to help us cover the cost of this litigation.
Obviously, we're up against the unlimited resources of the government.
We just got a letter from the Attorney General saying they intend to fight like hell.
Trudeau will spare no expense to destroy us.
So we are going to fight.
I think we'll win.
I think we've got a real chance.
What do you think?
Go to twitterlawsuit.ca It seems like the list of people who knew about concerns about General Vance in your government is growing longer.
We had Minister Sajin, his chief of staff, senior advisor in your office.
And now we're hearing that your closest advisor, Katie Telford, knew.
Should she have told you about these concerns about the top soldier in our military?
When an allegation, a complaint concerning General Vance was brought forward to the minister, he forwarded to the appropriate authorities at the PCO to follow up on it.
It is not appropriate for politicians to be the ones following up on these.
The minister, my office, knew there was a complaint against General Vance.
Nobody knew that it was a Me Too complaint.
We did not have information on what was the nature of that complaint.
I don't know about you, but I simply do not believe him, especially when he uses that voice he uses.
I feel like he's, I don't know, saying that Jody Wilson Raybold lied in the Globe and Mail lied about the story that was in, of course, proved completely true about corruption.
That's Trudeau on the defensive.
And I don't believe a word of it.
And I would ask you to compare Trudeau's treatment of Vice Admiral Mark Norman, who Trudeau regarded as a political enemy, who he had falsely prosecuted for criminal offenses until a judge finally threw it out as just too absurd.
Compare the treatment of a political enemy with a political ally, Jonathan General Jonathan Vance.
Do you really believe that the most feminist prime minister in Canadian history did not know the charges against him?
Well, I don't know what to think myself.
I'm just skeptical of anything Justin Trudeau says, but joining us now to talk about this as someone who knows the system and knows the culture better than most.
I'm talking about our friend T. Lee Humphrey, founder of Veterans for the Conservative Party, and he's with James International Security Consulting Lee.
It's great to see you again.
It's been too long.
Thanks for taking the time to be with us today.
Well, I appreciate you, Colin, Ashley.
Well, help me work through this because I'm always loath to jump on a criticism of the armed forces because I think it's beat up too easily.
I think it's criticized too easily.
Charges of sexism or racism ought to be taken seriously, but I think with the military, it's a punching bag.
So I don't want to pile on, but it seems like there really is smoke and fire here.
Am I right?
Yeah, you're absolutely right.
You know, politicians love, as you say, to use the Canadian Armed Forces as a punching bag.
You know, a huge number of journalists from the mainstream media love to pile on and amplify incidents and turn them into, you know, huge, huge things when they're frequently not.
But this is, and it's a story as old as time where senior officers get away with committing sexual misconduct.
They get away with all kinds of things when the junior ranks and junior officers are held to a very different standard.
And I think we're seeing this play out at the highest possible levels at this point.
Can you give our viewers a bit of a factual update?
I've read about this, but I don't know what to believe.
Do we yet know the exact details of the allegations?
Well, there's two sets of allegations against General Vance.
The first was an inappropriate email he sent to a corporal who is now a reservist lieutenant, where he had been requested to provide some career advice and instead suggested that the two take a trip to a nude beach, if you will, a clothing-free environment where they could discuss her career in great detail.
And then there's a second allegation, which is far more out there in that we know a great deal of detail.
And that is that he had a long-running, sometimes affair, sometimes he was single, but a sexual relationship with a young junior officer while he, being a senior officer, at times was not only in her chain of command, but was having influence either positively or negatively over her career.
And that, you know, is a huge no-no in the Canadian forces.
There are relationships between juniors and seniors.
It happens all the time.
But there can be no interaction career-wise.
In other words, you don't want somebody senior either using sex or obtaining sex by promising career-enhancing moves or by punishing someone by hurting their career if they don't engage in a sexual relationship.
And it's very, very clear Vance over a period of more than a decade did that and fathered two children with the woman, which he's denied.
Defense Minister's Scandal00:09:35
That was the allegation I read, and I thought that's a heck of a thing.
You know, I just simply don't believe most male feminists.
Whenever someone says they're a male feminist, I think, well, who says that?
And it's typically someone like, oh, I don't know, Harvey Weinstein or someone who wants to, or Jean Gameshi, who actually got a degree in women's studies in college.
I think that they say they're a male feminist to preempt people saying, well, hang on, aren't you a bit of a bit of a letch yourself?
Aren't you a bit of a Lothario?
And when Justin Trudeau says he's a male feminist, I think it's to cover up for things like when he groped Rose Knight in Creston, BC that time.
But people often overcompensate for it.
I think that's what it's overcompensating and it's trying to beat you to the punch.
And so I could, that couldn't be me because I'm a male feminist.
But Trudeau and his chief of staff, Katie Telper, claim that their feminism has imbued the entire government.
In fact, in their latest budget, the word gender appears more than 700 times.
So these are the folks who say they really, really, really, really care.
And I think they knew, but just didn't care because it was politically inconvenient for them to fix the problem.
I think they knew about it, but didn't act.
Is there any evidence to back up my thesis?
Yeah, I think there is.
I think one of your peers at the Globe and Mail got some emails that showed directly that the prime minister's office, Katie Talford specifically, received emails suggesting this was sexual misconduct.
So the idea that Trudeau is now claiming that nobody in his office knew it was a Me Too issue seems moot.
But, you know, Trudeau's inclination, like a five-year-old, when you ask them to, if they brush their teeth before bed, to automatically lie, well, I guess it served him well.
I mean, he did it the day the WE scan or the SNC Lavalin scandal broke.
He did it all through the WE scandal, and now he's doing it again.
So, you know, it's almost like he wants to set Katie Talford up as the fall person and then jump to her rescue as the hero, which is something a fake male feminist would want to do.
Yeah.
Well, here's an exchange from a few weeks ago in Parliament between the conservative defense critic and the liberal defense minister Hajit Sajan here.
Take a quick look at this.
I've read the National Defense Act.
You know, I've been on this behalf for quite some time, and I understand how the department works and what your responsibilities are, and that you're failing to do it.
So again, you know, you talk about not wanting to do any information, but we know that PCO did get this information.
So who did you tell about the allegations of sexual misconduct against General Vance after that meeting on March the 1st?
As I stated, I didn't accept the information from the Ombudsman, but however, the advice that he said that I did not, he came for advice, I gave him it, they did advice, exactly who we needed to go to.
And to make sure and to make sure, and to make sure, I went back to my office, got in touch with my chief of staff to making sure that the appropriate authorities in this case, PCO, was informed of this.
And in his own testimony, it was confirmed that they followed up with him immediately on this matter.
You know, I tell you, Lee, I wish that I could love the defense minister regardless of the party, because I want to love the soldiers and the troops.
And I want to love the institution, and I want a defense minister that even if I'm on a different political team than him, I can still respect him and admire him as a soldier.
And Harjit Sajjan used to be a soldier, of course, and now he's the politician.
But just like I can't really take anything Trudeau says seriously, especially when he does this voice with Harjit Sajjan, we know he sometimes embroiders the truth.
He talked about his role in Afghanistan.
He exaggerated it.
I wish I could take him at face value.
I really want to.
I just don't know if I can.
I think that all the cabinet ministers are in say whatever it takes mode because this would puncture that fake feminism we've been talking about and everyone would know it's just another fraud.
Well, I don't think you have to worry about being upset with the or having soldiers be upset with you for not appreciating the defense minister in this case.
We stopped loving him a very long time ago when he repeatedly and purposefully lied about his service in Afghanistan to embellish his own credentials.
That's, you know, there's three things an officer can do to lose credibility immediately and never regain it again.
And lying about your accomplishments is one of those things.
That clip brings up an important point.
Regardless of whether the chief of defense staff is an appointment in council by the prime minister's office, he's also a member of the Canadian Armed Forces and subject to the code of service discipline, which falls under the National Defense Act.
And the head arbiter of the code of service discipline ultimately is the defense minister.
So nobody's asking the defense minister to investigate.
They're asking him to initiate an investigation.
The defense minister in that clip used weasel words when he said, I did not accept the allegation that the military ombudsman was presenting.
The military ombudsman went on the record again in the last 24 hours saying he read to the minister what essentially the allegation was, that he had an allegation of sexual misconduct against the chief of the defense staff.
So he didn't get the details that it was this email that I had mentioned earlier, the inappropriate email I mentioned earlier with the corporal.
He got enough information to know that the Canadian Forces National Investigative Service, commonly referred to as the CFNIS or NIS, should have been contacted immediately to investigate what the Chief of Defense Staff was accused of.
Because not only is it for the sake of the corporal, but it's for the sake of the Canadian Armed Forces.
Could the Chief of Defense Staff be blackmailed?
Well, that's an interesting point.
Blackmail, just embarrassing the entire force.
But also, you know, the same problem with Trudeau.
If fish rots from the head down, if the big boss can do this, then everyone knows, okay, well, so these rules don't really mean anything.
It's what you can get away with.
I find this very depressing.
And I don't know, there's so many crises in Canada today.
In many ways, this isn't given the importance it deserves.
I can understand the crisis, the pandemic, the lockdowns are all more pressing in our daily lives.
But I find it very sad that Trudeau, who claims to be such a male feminist, has allowed this to go on for years.
This has been going on for years.
I don't even know if there's a happy outcome here, but I really appreciate you helping us walk through the details of it, Lee.
No problem, Ezra.
All about leadership when it comes to the military.
When you have good, solid leadership, these things don't happen, and when they do happen, the people are held to account, regardless of who they are.
It is an absolute, abject failure of leadership and, as you had said, the fish rots from the head down.
Well, I think you're exactly right, the military is all about leadership.
Thank you, my friend.
Thanks for your wisdom and your inside knowledge of how things work.
And we look forward to talking to you again soon.
Sounds good.
Take care, Ezra.
Right on YouTube.
There you have it.
T. Lee Humphrey.
He's the founder of Veterans for the Conservative Party of Canada.
He also is with James International Security Consulting.
Stay with us.
more ahead.
Hey, welcome back on my show last night.
Paul writes, a hate-filled anti-hate group.
Is Team Trudeau actually using the work of Orwell as their guide?
Yeah, it's just, it was so, the crazy thing is they just admit they made it up.
Like, how do you take four months to come to that conclusion?
How do you not fire someone who lied, admits they were lying, and admits the whole thing, like, how do you not fire someone like that?
Lau writes, it's hilarious that this anti-hate group turns a blind eye to the fact that its biggest cheerleader and contributor has worn blackface so often.
He can't even remember how many times.
Four Months To Fire?00:00:49
That's a great point.
They refuse to investigate hate on the left.
That tells you all you need to know.
Willow writes, so glad to see Justin putting our tax dollars to such a worthwhile purpose.
He keeps meeting my expectations.
Yeah, yeah, me too.
Well, listen, thanks everybody for your support.
It was nice to get an apology, even though it was grudging and brief, but I think that told us a lot about the nature of our attackers, don't you?
And do check out our lawsuit against Gilbo and McKenna.
I feel like it's the right thing to do.
We have to show them that someone in this country will push back against their censorship.
You can read the whole thing at TwitterLawsuit.ca.
Take a read.
It's not that long.
There's a few technical words or Latin words or legalistic words, but I think it's pretty plain English.
I think you can get through it pretty easily.
That's our show for today.
Until tomorrow, on behalf of all of us here at Rubber World Headquarters, to you at home, good night.