Dr. Mark Trozzi warns Ontario physicians that opposing COVID-19 mandates—lockdowns, vaccines, or treatments—risks professional discipline, despite the College of Physicians’ claims about "blatant misinformation." Bill C-10 expands CRTC’s power to censor online posts, while Heritage Minister Stephen Gilboe pushes for 24-hour social media takedowns, raising fears of private company censorship (e.g., PayPal deplatforming Rebel News). Opposition parties like the Conservatives and NDP show weak resistance, with figures like El Ann Reyes and Randall Garrison endorsing restrictions. The episode frames this as a broader assault on medical autonomy and free speech, demanding legislative rollback before dissent is silenced entirely. [Automatically generated summary]
Today I take you through a statement by Ontario's College of Physicians and Surgeons saying anyone who speaks out against the lockdowns, not just against masks or social distancing or vaccines, but against the lockdowns, could be investigated for political or professional misconduct.
It's crazy.
I'll take you through this statement.
You're not going to believe this was issued from a free country.
Before I do, let me invite you to become a Rebel News Plus subscriber, eight bucks a month.
Get the video version of the podcast.
Not just my daily show, but Sheila Gunri, David Menzies, Andrew Chapanovsk each have a weekly show.
Plus the satisfaction of knowing Rebel News will be stronger.
We need our viewers to support us because we don't take any money from Trudeau.
Just go to RebelNews.com and click subscribe and it's pretty easy.
All right, here's today's show.
Tonight, Ontario doctors are threatened with professional discipline if they dare to question pandemic policies.
That's a police state.
It's May 7th and this is the Esweral Advance Show.
Why should others go to jail when you're the biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here and you won't give them an answer.
The only thing I have to say is government about why I published it is because it's my bloody right to do so.
You've heard the age-old motto of physicians, do no harm.
Sounds pretty basic, almost too basic to even say, but of course medical mistakes are a major cause of death.
I don't just mean a botched surgery, but diagnosing something wrong or missing a diagnosis.
And of course, anyone who knows a bit about the history of medicine, I mean, knows about practices like leeches or bloodletting.
Here's a painting of a doctor applying leeches in the 18th century.
I'm going to guess that did more harm than good.
So do no harm is actually a pretty good motto for doctors, I think.
But what is harm to an individual patient?
Each patient is different.
A doctor and his patient can together come up with an understanding of what the real problem is and what the best solution is for a patient that might be completely different than for another patient.
That's what happens when a doctor's loyalty and attention are towards a patient individually rather than an aggregated mass of people.
And there you have the difference between a doctor who actually has to solve a particular patient's problems, taking into account everything about that patient, between that real practicing doctor and those doctors who call themselves doctors but are actually non-practicing doctors who may have never practiced, may have never had a patient, certainly not practiced in many years, who are really politicians or bureaucrats with an MD, or quite often not even an MD, but rather a degree in public health, whatever that is.
And that brings us to the Teresa Tams of the world, because no doctor who put his or her patient first would ever talk like 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 track people, put bracelets on their arms, have police and other setups to ensure quarantine is undertaken.
I think many doctors are conservative.
I don't just mean that politically.
I mean that in terms of do no harm.
That's why doctors are skeptical of quacks and quackery.
That's why medical doctors don't like pretend doctors or rival health ideologies like naturopathy.
There's some snobbery that comes with that, but it is true that medical doctors do have a knowledge base that is beyond merely the common sense of the common man, even when augmented by the internet.
Many doctors are conservative, but I have never heard of a public health official.
I don't even want to call them doctors any more than Dr. Seuss with a doctor or that Jill Biden is a doctor.
Sure, she's a doctor of education from the University of Delaware.
Folks, if it's an emergency on an airplane and someone says there's a heart attack, is there a doctor on the plane?
And you can't say, yeah, I'm coming to help, you probably shouldn't go around calling yourself a doctor all the time.
So public health doctors are simply bureaucrats who use their medical degrees or their PhDs as appeals to authority.
They make economic decisions or political decisions or these days police decisions completely outside the scope of medicine, but they insist you call them doctor because they're trading on the expert reputation of practicing medical doctors, as if their advice on closing parks or banning kids or having police pull over cars or banning kids hockey tournaments while permitting NHL hockey tournaments, a baldly political decision,
as if that is a medically sound decision and to criticize is to criticize medicine as opposed to what it is.
It's just a political and lobbying decision.
I'm getting a bit sick of these self-important doctators, to be honest.
I like regular doctors.
I think most people trust their own doctor.
You can see a few brave ones who speak out, Calvander Corps in Ontario, very brave.
Our friend Dr. Roger Hodkinson in Alberta.
They get pounced on by their leftist authoritarian rivals.
And that hasn't stopped the ones I've just mentioned yet, but look at this, published by the largest regulator of doctors in Canada just a week ago.
Statement on public health misinformation.
There have been isolated incidents of physicians using social media to spread blatant misinformation and undermine public health measures meant to protect all of us.
In response, the college, this is the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons, released the statement below.
The statement is intended to focus on professional behavior and is not intended to stifle a healthy public debate about how to best address aspects of the pandemic.
Rather, our focus is on addressing those arguments that reject scientific evidence and seek to arouse emotions over reason.
We continue to recognize the important roles physicians can play by advocating for change in a socially accountable manner.
Okay, I'll read the statement below in a moment, but can you please tell me before I read the next part, which is the misinformation here?
Saying that a mask works or saying that a mask doesn't work?
I'm just using that as an example.
Do you see my point?
The facts have been changing, so say the experts.
Teresa Tem's favorite line when caught flip-flopping is, the science is evolving.
I've got to remember to use that excuse myself.
Why didn't you take out the garbage?
Well, the science is evolving on the best time of day to take a.
But seriously, the amount of junk science pumped out by official sources over the last 14 months is so crazy.
Take the vaccines.
The drug companies themselves say that certain vaccines need a booster shot within a certain short period of time.
I don't know if that's accurate or not, but that's what the drug companies say, and that's what they've tested.
The interval between the first dose and the second dose is what they put through their trials.
But then, because Trudeau has so royally bungled vaccine procurement, the governments of Canada and the provinces have extended the interval way, way, way beyond what the drug companies recommended or even tested.
The drug companies have, in fact, put up press releases saying, we can't vouch for what you're doing there.
Because Trudeau and the provinces wanted more people to get the first dose rather than wait until people got the second dose because to follow the prescription as the drug companies have advised would mean even fewer people in Canada getting their jab.
So again, which version is the College of Physicians and Surgeons calling misinformation, the official drug company point of view or Trudeau's point of view?
I'm just wondering.
Okay, here's the official statement.
The college is aware.
and concerned about the increase of misinformation circulating on social media and other platforms regarding physicians who are publicly contradicting public health orders and recommendations.
Oh, right.
So they're now banned from contradicting politicians and bureaucrats.
That's what a health order is.
It's a political order emanating from the state, not from a doctor, affirmed by politicians, enforced with the machinery of the state.
Imagine telling doctors, and I mean real doctors, not just political foot soldiers, that you cannot contradict politicians and their orders, and even their recommendations.
What's that?
As if you have to obey someone's recommendation.
Wouldn't it be called an order if it was more than a recommendation?
Let me read more.
Physicians hold a unique position of trust within the public and have a professional responsibility to not communicate anti-vaccine, anti-masking, anti-distancing, and anti-lockdown statements and or promoting unsupported unproven treatments for COVID-19.
Okay, now what does it mean to be anti-vaccine?
What if you're against weird and unprescribed uses of the vaccine like the made-up timing that Trudeau is recommending instead of Pfizer and what they say?
Well, you know, different countries around the world have banned various vaccines at different points in time over the past few months or paused production or recalled them.
So there's a diversity of public health opinion, even amongst these deep state bureaucrats, politicians.
But Ontario's College of Physicians and Surgeons is telling its own doctors that they must obey Doug Ford and his public health bureaucrats.
Full stop.
Anti-masking.
Does that mean doctors can't tell kids with asthma not to wear a mask or children for whom masks are inappropriate?
Anti-lockdown.
Lockdown is not a medical procedure.
It's a political punishment.
It's not medicine to put a lock on the door.
And it leads to many medical harms.
That's not debatable.
People can say they'd rather have the mental depression and the suicide and the substance abuse than other harms, fine.
But to simply say you cannot be against the lockdown, I'm sorry, that's not medicine anymore.
That's not science anymore.
And that's none of the College of Physicians' damn business.
I'll read more.
Physicians must not make comments or provide advice that encourages the public to act contrary to public health orders and recommendations.
Hang on, hang on, hang on.
I said this a moment ago.
So now even recommendations must be followed without question.
Not just the laws, but the recommendations.
Recommendations from that renowned fitness and health expert, the 300-pound Doug Ford.
Got it.
I'll read more.
Physicians who put the public at risk may face an investigation by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario and disciplinary action when warranted.
Yeah.
You know, there's nothing more gross than doctors in league with a police state.
They do the most diabolical things.
Public health doctors are suspect to begin with, but those who say real medical doctors with real patients have to shut up and do as politicians say, do as politicians recommend, can't speak out against a police lockdown.
Why, those are the worst tyrants.
I wouldn't compare them to what doctors did under Nazi Germany because that's just too far.
That's too many degrees worse than where we are.
And I don't want to casually compare people to the Nazis, but you can see the ultimate destination of when doctors subvert their own judgment and knowledge and morality and their patients' care to whatever recommendations of the government is.
Just so you know, any doctor who is investigated or charged by these creeps, go to fightthefines.com and we will give you a free lawyer to fight them.
Government Censors?00:15:16
Hey, welcome back.
Well, for months, we've been talking about a looming threat of the Liberal government regulating the internet.
Actually, for years, if you look at Heritage Minister Stephen Gilbo's mandate letter, that's his job description officially handed to him by Trudeau.
Point number one is for Gilbo to push money out to different news, media, and cultural organizations.
We know that, the CBC and the media bailouts.
But point number two, literally the second priority in Gilbo's job description, his mandate letter, as it's called, is to bring in sharp censorship of comments on the internet.
I'm talking about Facebook posts, Twitter tweets, YouTube comments.
In fact, the job description itself prescribes that this takedown has to happen within 24 hours and that the penalties should be financially severe.
Not a lot of wiggle room there.
Well, Gilbo has been slow walking this, but here it comes now, first in Bill C-10 and a follow-up legislation that has not yet been tabled.
Incredibly, there seems to be some resistance, not just from the normally timid opposition, but even from professors, from the media.
It's quite incredible.
Still, Trudeau and Gilbo seem to be holding the line.
They want to censor the internet, and they know they got to do it before the next election.
Jordi Snauvia Skype is our friend Andrew Lawton from the Andrew Lawton Show at tnc.news.
Great to see you again, Andrew.
Likewise, here while we're still unregulated.
Yeah, well, I mean, we're regulated by big tech.
I thought it was very creepy the other day when Facebook said their Supreme Court, I think that was actually the language they used, Facebook's Supreme Court upheld its decision to ban Donald Trump for life.
I didn't know that Facebook had a Supreme Court and that it's buying.
Well, they had their own impeachment process, too.
Yeah, they've impeached him, convicted him, and now he's lost the appeal to the Supreme Court.
Amazing that these big tech companies are in so many ways operating like pseudo-states with the amount of power they have now.
Yeah, but of course, like, say, courts in China or North Korea, they may have the simulation of a court, but there is only an autocrat who decides.
Like if Xi Jinping has an opinion, the Chinese Supreme Court will just do it.
Mark Zuckerberg will just do what he wants.
It really is an autocracy.
It's funny that they are appropriating the language of the state.
They are bigger than many states, but let's talk about Canada because Bill C-10, and there's a second bill on its way, as you may know, that Gilbo is terrifying in.
But let's talk about C-10.
Tell me some of the battles in Parliament.
It's refreshing to see Parliament actually stand up to Trudeau for once.
Give us an update on that.
Yeah, so, I mean, the simplest way to describe it is that we have a regulatory body, the Canadian Radio, Television, and Telecommunications Commission, that regulates TV stations and radio stations.
And Minister Gilbo says, well, their whole purpose is not to regulate content.
No, but it is to regulate who is permitted to operate as a radio station, as a television station, and as a telecommunications provider.
And the reason for that is based on infrastructure.
There's only so much bandwidth, so to speak.
They could call it telecom spectrum.
Government has been the one that distributes these things to companies.
What they want to do now is extend the definition of these terrestrial media to include the internet and not just the infrastructure of the internet, but the actual content that goes out over the web.
And that's why C10 is so dangerous because it's starting to regulate now who can publish content as though it was just distributing a license to occupy a particular series of call letters or a particular frequency on an AM or FM dial.
And originally, the government put in this exemption that said this is not going to apply to user-generated content, to videos that you post online, to things that I might tweet, to cat memes or something like that.
But the reality is that anything that regulates who can be a publisher is inherently going to regulate what can be published.
And Minister Gilbo has talked in the past about the possibility of requiring licenses.
He said that news outlets will be exempt from it.
But then we also know, you and I personally know this, Ezra, the government right now has a very different definition of what a journalist is and what a news outlet is than what a normal person would approach that with.
So I believe wholeheartedly that Rebel, that True North, that other competitors and colleagues we have are going to become regulated by C10, even though the government's trying to claim that it's only going after these big players like Facebook and Google.
Yeah.
You know, to say that you're only regulating a platform doesn't really mean anything.
YouTube, as you can see in the name YouTube, it's user-generated.
It's you that are creating the content.
So there's really nothing to YouTube other than the creative work of millions of different users.
To say you're regulating YouTube but not its users just doesn't make any sense.
That's like saying I'm regulating the stage at the theater, but not what's on you.
There's nothing to regulate without the people.
And I should say that the Liberals have been playing games.
They made amendments and then in reaction to the backlash, they made other amendments.
Let me read you a line from the National Post Anya Caradelia, who's actually been pretty good at covering this stuff, I have to admit.
She reached out to Canada's leading expert on this, Michael Geist.
He's a professor at the University of Ottawa, who I wouldn't call him left-wing or right-wing.
He's just really skeptical of censorship.
And he says that under the latest amendments by the Liberal MP, Julie DeBrusson, quote, user-generated content is still considered a program that the CRTC has the authority to regulate.
So they're treating not just my show and your show that we call shows.
Like you say, a Twitter tweet, a Facebook, they're calling that a program as if it was like a Howard Stern radio interview that they have to crack down on or, you know, some sex or violence that they have to make sure doesn't come on till 8 p.m. at night.
They will literally treat you, me, grandma, grandpa, whoever uses the internet as if we're a TV show and regulate us the same way.
Obviously, it's impossible.
You have millions of pieces of content, impossible to regulate at all, Andrew.
So they'll just regulate the things that bug them.
They'll just go after the political critics that bother them.
That's what is so obviously going to happen in my mind.
Yeah, and you alluded to this earlier in the interview.
And I know we're talking about C10, but I think one of the profound failings in the conservatives right now in a lot of the media coverage has been not linking Bill C10 with this other bill that's coming out.
And I've called this a one-two punch on censorship.
Everyone's focused on the one.
No one's focused on the two.
And that is a bill that Minister Gilbo has promised that will regulate online so-called hate speech or online so-called harms.
Now, people that are old enough will remember more than a decade ago when people like you, our friend Mark Stein, staked huge amounts of political capital, of money, of time to fight what was then called Bill Sections 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
This was a section that made it an offense to communicate so-called hateful content on the internet.
Well, the Liberals did a huge consultation process in which they came up with a report that said we need to bring this back, but bring it back in a way that gives it more power and more authority to go after content posted on social media.
And the reason why that's relevant to C10 is because what C10 does is lays the regulatory framework for all of the areas that government can crack down on.
And then this other bill will sneak in through the middle and start regulating the type of content.
And all of a sudden, the government has made it so that your online posts on Twitter, on Facebook, on TikTok, on YouTube, on a cooking blog are all subject to government regulation on a definition of hate speech that has still never been defined.
Yeah.
You know, it's funny because at a Canada 2020, that's the Liberal Party's sort of think tank.
So it really is a creature of the Liberals.
Gilbo, talking to the same reporter, Anya Caradelia, said that one of the things he wants to stop is private citizens being able to taunt politicians.
Now, I think that taunting, like an insult, I think that's what it is.
Taunting is a kind of insult.
You know, we want to be polite where appropriate, but it shouldn't be allowed against the law to taunt a politician.
In fact, if there's anyone, you should taunt.
It's a politician.
That's what we do in a democracy.
We don't take up weapons and arms and revolution.
We taunt people.
We debate people.
We criticize people.
But that is exactly what Gilbo says he wants to crack down on.
He specifically says criticism of politicians here.
Take a look at this clip from when he said that to Canada 2020.
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.
There he is.
I mean, I tell you, Andrew, once upon a time, the media held the government to account.
Now the government wants to hold the media to account.
I think the government has quite enough power already.
Thank you.
Yeah, and remember that Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Google, whatever you think about these companies, they do not want to deal with these pesky regulations in a country that, in the grand scheme of things, is relatively insignificant as far as the user base is concerned.
So my concern is that I think we've talked about this before, by regulating content, government is basically deputizing these companies to be censors.
And it's a lot easier for them to just say when they get their annual report or their weekly or daily report from government of, you know, here's all the offending content to just zap it all instead of going down this process of, ooh, does this really meet the criterion?
Is this really hateful?
Is this harmful?
And so on.
And one thing that Minister Gilbo did say previously, and it was to French media, did not get a lot of pickup in English media, was that his definition of hate speech in this bill will be similar to the Watcott Supreme Court decision.
Now, this is something that I'm assuming by your noise there, you're very familiar with, Ezra, and a lot of your listeners may.
This is a Supreme Court decision in which the Supreme Court found that something can be true and still be hateful, that truth is not a defense against a criticism of hate speech.
This is the basis on which the federal government plans to rest its definition of hate in a sweeping bill that will regulate internet speech.
That's terrifying.
Thank you for the reminder of that.
And the idea of outsourcing censorship to the private sector.
I mean, I'm not sure if you saw that, Andrew, but just in the last few days, PayPal, without explanation or notice or appeal, just yanked their credit card processing for us, which is an enormous loss.
We don't know who complained.
We don't know what the complaint was.
We don't know what we allegedly did wrong.
We don't know what the rule we allegedly broke was.
There's no transparency, no appeal, no process, no rule of law, no basic administrative fairness.
Even the worst government regulators, like the Human Rights Commissions that I've been before, they at least say, well, here's what someone said about you.
And do you have a side of the story?
And they at least have a pretend judge, even if he's not particularly unbiased.
So even the worst government regulator is better than the absolute silence of PayPal just nuking us or what I joked about earlier, Facebook's Supreme Court.
And that's what worries me, is that Stephen Gilbo and Justin Trudeau have learned something.
Don't censor through the government because then you have to muck around with that Charter of Rights.
Delegate it to your friends in big tech.
And by the way, they are all friends.
The head of Facebook, senior people in all the tech companies did come from the Liberal Party, just like in the states that came from the Democrat Party.
Have your friends in social media just quietly delete your enemies.
Don't fuss around in the courts.
No one will even know what happened.
That's, to me, the terrifying future.
And we had a little taste of that with PayPal.
Last word to you.
Do you think that this is going to go through?
I mean, it's fun to see the newspapers and this one law professor, Michael Geis, speak out against it.
That's more than normally happens.
But do you think that's enough to stop the liberal lust for censorship?
Well, I hope so.
And I mean, it's not a confidence motion.
The NDP could vote against this without risking toppling the government and going into an election the NDP just is not ready for.
The hate speech bill, I'm less confident about not passing because I was in on those committee meetings when parliamentarians were grilling witnesses.
And I remember just one notable example when Lindsey Shepard, John Robson, and Mark Stein were testifying.
Randall Garrison, who is an NDP member of the committee, went his entire seven minutes that he had for questioning without asking a single question.
He filibustered because he himself on this committee that was assessing speech regulations didn't want to platform people with whom he disagreed.
So I don't have faith that opposition parties, with the exception of the conservatives, who cannot alone defeat legislation, are actually concerned with free speech more broadly.
I feel they might on C10, but once it gets into the specifics of online hate speech, we've seen where their hands are in the past.
Yeah.
And as we showed the other day, even El Ann Reyes, the Conservative Party critic on this file, as recently as November, was calling for Gilbo to censor Harder.
And he was the one who actually suggested YouTube.
It was quite shocking.
Andrew, great to see you again.
Keep up the fight.
You guys at TNC.news are one of the few independent news organizations.
And therefore, you're one of the few groups that can stand up against government censorship.
You keep at it, my friend.
Thank you so much.
All right, there you have it.
Andrew Lawton of the Andrew Lawton Show.
You got to support those guys.
I mean, seriously, you can count on one hand's fingers the number of independent media in this country.
And God forbid, Andrew's voice is silenced or the other independent voices.
stay with us more ahead.
Lily Writes: Finds Alternatives00:01:14
Hey, welcome back on PayPal, cutting us off.
A.A. Smith writes, regardless of your opinion of Rebel news, this is just wrong.
Yeah, imagine a bank shutting you down without notice on a Friday night.
And if they can do that to PayPal, which in some jurisdictions is considered a bank and some it's not, why can't they do that to your savings account, your checking account, your phone line, your table account?
I mean, what's the difference?
Lily writes, I do a lot of business with PayPal too, but I can find a different service.
People have always criticized PayPal to me.
I just said, well, just use it because we use it.
It's so easy.
It's ubiquitous.
Well, I see what they mean now.
Bruce writes, what if all of us Rebel supporters closed our PayPal accounts en masse?
I plan to close my account.
Yeah, I mean, they are so big.
They're a $300 billion company.
I don't know if they're going to notice it, but maybe if you close your account and send them an email explaining why, maybe that'll get their attention.
Let me tell you one thing.
It's going to take more than some deplatforming from PayPal to shut us down.
That I promise you.
Well, that's our show for the day, and that's it for the week.
And I appreciate your loyalty and your support for us.
And I promise you, in return, we'll keep fighting until the last day.