Ezra Levant exposes the WHO’s June 3, 2021, press release declaring unapproved COVID vaccines (AstraZeneca, J&J, Moderna, Pfizer, Sinopharm, Sinovac) safe for kids despite lacking full trials or evidence, while contradictorily urging caution. He links this shift to political influence, not science, and warns it erodes trust—especially as Canada’s Bill C-10 expands censorship under emotional pretexts like the London, Ontario, attack. Meanwhile, his Fight the Fines project defends 1,800 families against government retaliation, with 91 cases resolved, while Assaulted: Justin Trudeau’s War on Gun Owners reveals legal risks for lawful gun owners under Trudeau’s policies, illustrating how state power overrides both health and constitutional safeguards. [Automatically generated summary]
World Health Organization's Vaccine Controversy00:14:23
Hello my rebels.
Today I take you through a rather confusing press release by the World Health Organization.
I don't put a lot of stock in what they have to say ever since they repeated the Chinese propaganda that the virus doesn't spread person to person.
But they made such a stunning statement yesterday about the vaccine in kids.
I just want to take you through it line by line.
And I don't know.
I just found it just an incredible read.
It's pretty brief, so stay with us.
Before I get to that, let me pardon me, invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
That's the video version of this podcast.
Just go to rebelnews.com, click subscribe.
It's eight bucks a month.
You get my video show, Sheila Gonread, David Menzies, Andrew Chapatos.
And you get to support Rebel News because we don't take a dime from Trudeau.
All right, here's today's podcast.
Tonight, why is the World Health Organization secretly changing its advice on whether kids should get vaccinated?
It's June 23rd, and this is the Ezra Levant 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 go on is because it's my bloody right to do so.
You know, I've stopped paying a lot of attention to the World Health Organization.
I mean, they were obviously very important in the pandemic, important that is, in spreading the virus.
They were the ones who propagated the Chinese government's lie that the virus was not contagious person to person.
They're the ones who had a secret meeting at which Teresa Tam attended that they decided not to raise the alarm.
They had a vote.
And Teresa Tam won't say which way she voted at that secret meeting.
Did you know she worked for the World Health Organization for the early months of this pandemic?
I ignore her, although I suppose I hear their messages all the time because every public health official sets their compass according to the World Health Organization.
It's like their North Star.
The World Health Organization, the acronym WHO, they come out with some ruling, and it's like every public health official in every country repeats it.
I really don't know why we have hundreds of public health officers since they're really all just repeating what's said by the WHO.
That said, I heard they said something interesting about vaccinations in kids.
So the first time in months, I actually read what they said.
Now, the trouble is, if you talk about the World Health Organization the wrong way on YouTube or Twitter, you'll actually be censored.
So you have to be careful.
But the first thing you need to know, and I'm going to jump right into their explanation on vaccines, is none of the vaccines have finished the usual food and drug administration trials.
They're only authorized for emergency use, but none of them have been approved.
But here in their statement, the World Health Organization says the vaccines are safe and effective, even to Chinese ones.
Take a look.
As of the 3rd of June, 2021, WHO has evaluated that the following vaccines against COVID-19 have met the necessary criteria for safety and efficacy.
That means that they work.
AstraZeneca Oxford, Johnson ⁇ Johnson, Moderna, Pfizer BioNTech, SinoFarm, and Sinovac?
Hang on.
How does the World Health Organization evaluate and say they are safe if the drug companies themselves are not yet done testing them?
How can the World Health Organization say, no, no, no, they're safe when the drug companies themselves don't say that?
And here's another question for you.
I've heard of AstraZeneca, and actually I've heard of all of these.
The last two, they're Chinese, as you can tell by the name, Sinopharm and Sinovac.
Is the World Health Organization lying again for China again?
Because I see news reports out of countries that have taken these Chinese vaccines, and in fact, the pandemic is spreading like wildfire there.
Is this just propaganda?
Did the World Health Organization even test, or are they just doing what their Chinese boss is saying?
I don't understand the juxtaposition in this next point.
I'm just going through the World Health Organization statement.
They say you should talk to a doctor about being at risk for side effects.
I think that's a good idea.
But only if supplies are limited in your area?
What does this supply of a vaccine have to do with whether or not they're safe for you to take?
Let me read it.
If supplies are limited in your area, discuss your situation with your healthcare provider if you have a compromised immune system, are pregnant, have a history of severe allergies, particularly to a vaccine, or any of the ingredients in the vaccine, or are severely frail.
I think those are all good things to talk to your doctor about, but why does that only apply if supplies are limited in your area?
Should you not be worried about these side effects?
It's really weird to me.
I want to raise one more question about consulting with your doctor and asking, well, I think those are good things to ask your doctor.
If you've got a severe allergy, you should check.
If you're allergic to the ingredients in the vaccines, but is that question, are you allergic to the ingredients in the vaccines?
Is that question really being asked by children as young as 12 years old who in Canada, in many jurisdictions, are allowed to consent to a vaccine without their parents even knowing about it?
Does a 12-year-old know to ask all these questions about the ingredients of the vaccine?
And would the vaccinator know the answers?
In some cases, it might be a very sophisticated doctor who has studied these things or a nurse who is very familiar with them.
But in many cases, the people giving you the jab are not particularly experts in vaccines.
They might not even be doctors or nurses.
Are they able to answer questions about the ingredients in the vaccine?
Do they even know the answer?
And is it meaningful consent to be jabbed if you don't know the question, if you don't get the answer, and if it's a child?
This next part is confusing too.
The World Health Organization says COVID is milder in children, so it's not urgent to vaccinate them.
And we know that's true.
But then the World Health Organization says there's not enough evidence to recommend kids get the shot.
Well, so which is it?
Should kids get it, but just less urgently than older people?
Or should kids not get it at all?
How do you choose?
Let me quote from the actual report.
Children and adolescents tend to have milder disease compared to adults.
So unless they are part of a group at higher risk of severe COVID-19, it's less urgent to vaccinate them than older people, those with chronic health conditions and health workers.
So they're saying, don't give it to them first.
But look at that very next sentence.
More evidence is needed on the use of the different COVID-19 vaccines in children to be able to make general recommendations on vaccinating children against COVID-19.
I agree with that.
But wasn't the very first thing we read that they've evaluated these and said they're safe?
They said they're safe and now they're saying we don't have evidence that they're safe.
We don't have evidence we should advise it, except for if supplies are up.
Like, I don't even understand this is not an internally consistent document, but look at that.
After all that, this is, I think, a terrifying part.
After all of this, the World Health Organization says, even once you're fully vaccinated, you should still wear a mask.
You should still keep one meter three feet apart from anyone.
And if you're inside with someone, wear a mask and open the window.
I haven't even heard that one before.
Is this really meant to persuade people to get the shot?
Look at that.
Even after you're vaccinated, keep taking precautions.
Keep at least one meter away from others.
Wear a mask, especially in crowded, close and poorly ventilated settings.
Clean your hands frequently.
Cover any cough or sneeze in your bent elbow.
When indoors with others, ensure good ventilation.
Doing it protects us all.
I've just never heard that open the window thing, but if it protects us all, and here's the crazy part that might get me suspended if I say this on Twitter or YouTube.
The version I've just been reading to you, and I've shown you the primary document on the World Health Organization website, that's what's on the website now.
You can go there to WHO.int.
That's short for international.
You can see for yourself.
But in the last 48 hours, they changed their message.
A day and a half ago, it specifically said, quote, children should not be vaccinated for the moment.
What?
That's what it says.
What changed in the last 36 hours?
Was it the science that changed or the politics?
You can see for yourself.
Who should get vaccinated?
The COVID-19 vaccines are safe for most people 18 years and older.
And then lower down, children should not be vaccinated at the moment.
Now, even that at the moment thing is really weird.
What does that mean?
It's not safe now, but just wait a moment.
It's going to become safe in a moment.
How do you know?
What are you expecting to happen?
Maybe when it's finished its trials, its experiments, its tests, maybe not in a moment, but maybe in several years we'll know.
What is it?
It's not safe just in the moment.
Just wait a moment.
What?
And you're saying this about all the vaccines, including the two Chinese ones.
I don't even get it.
More evidence is needed.
Where will that more evidence come from?
I think it was Alex Berenson who caught this stealth edit.
He's someone I follow on Twitter.
He's skeptical, but he's not a conspiracy theorist.
All he does is look at official documents and say, are you serious?
I want to know who rewrote the World Health Organization's COVID vaccine recommendations after getting caught being honest and saying kids shouldn't take it for a moment.
Who did?
Was it a scientist?
Was it a politician?
Was it China?
I guess what I would say is the World Health Organization hasn't changed a bit.
It's still running propaganda for China.
And more importantly, it's running propaganda for the public health industrial complex.
How is this whole gong show supposed to build public trust and undo public skepticism?
I think that there were people who love the mask and love the lockdown and see it as being part of an in-group and they like to brag on Twitter they were the first in their neighborhood to get a shot.
Those folks love the vaccine, not particularly for any health reasons, but it shows what team they're on.
But there's a lot of people out there who are skeptical about the vaccines.
And when they hear things like this, that recommendations against kids using them have been changed for obviously political reasons, that skepticism only grows.
And what does it mean to be told, even once you're fully vaccinated, still wear a mask, still be three feet away from people, still open a window when you're in a small place with someone?
I thought that the argument or the sales pitch from the pharmaceutical companies was get a jab and it'll set you free, not get a jab and you're now in this world of half measures, like not six feet apart, but three feet apart.
You know, I saw news out of a major hospital in the States.
More than 150 staff at the hospital were fired or quit because they were required to take a vaccine.
Now, this isn't some hospital in some terrible places, it's a first-rate hospital in a first-rate medical system.
150-plus people said, I will not get jabbed.
And so they lost their job over it, either quit or were fired.
These folks probably know more about health care and the practice of COVID medicine than anyone in some ivory tower.
They're actually with the sick people every day.
They see the vaccines, they see the treatments.
They know more than me.
I just read things, but they're actually dealing with people.
Some might be doctors, some might be nurses, some might be support staff.
But over 150 at one hospital say, not only am I saying no to the jab, I'm so adamant about it that I will lose my job over it rather than taking it.
What do they know that we don't know?
And do you really think stealth editing advice like the World Health Organization is going to build public trust?
And to the social media companies, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, do you think it builds public trust when even having the discussion that we're having here is enough to get you kicked off those platforms?
Government Regulates Censorship00:08:56
Stay with us.
More happy.
Welcome back.
Well, if you were to judge by the subjects that Justin Trudeau and his cabinet ministers put the most energy into, you'd think that the problems in Canada have nothing to do with, oh, I don't know, lack of pipelines or lack of jobs or inflation.
You would think that all this government cares about is taking down statues of John A. MacDonald of racism and running public service announcements against Canadians for being so racist and for censoring.
I mean, you would think that this government is obsessed by being woke and attacking all critics as racist, and you'd be right.
And one of these subjects that this government has put more energy into than anything else is a censorship and government regulation bill that was rammed through the House of Commons this week.
It's called C10.
It'll amend how the CRTC regulator deals with the internet.
It'll start to deal with the internet the same way it's dealt with traditional TV and radio companies and all the regulation that is attendant therewith.
Joining us now to talk about it is our friend Andrew Lawton from TNC.news and the Andrew Lawton Show.
Great to see you, Andrew.
As always, my pleasure, Ezra.
Thank you.
I tell you, the amount of energy they put into this censorship bill, the amount of battles they fought, the effort they put to ram it through Parliament, I just think if they had put that towards something constructive, something to make us more prosperous or more happy or more peaceful, they could have done amazing things.
But that's not as important to them as censoring their enemies.
Yeah, and you know what?
I've often said that Bill C-10 is a one-two punch.
It's part one of a one-two punch.
The second part that we've learned about from the National Post this week, which is a bill that will go after what the liberal government says is hate speech.
And the reason this is so important, and I said this months ago, is that Bill C-10 laid a regulatory framework to start penalizing people that publish offending content as defined by this new bill that we haven't yet seen in much detail.
And why that's so dangerous is because the government has already, through C-10, if it gets through the Senate, and I hope it doesn't before the parliament rises for the summer, they've created a system where people that want to post videos on YouTube, maybe they want to be TikTok or Instagram influencers, maybe they want to maintain a blog.
All of a sudden, that is under the regulatory purview of the government.
And as much as they like to say, oh, we're not going after content, wait till you see the next bill.
Yeah.
Well, and that's the thing.
I just saw that headline.
We'll show it on the screen.
I absolutely believe it.
I had some role, a small role, along with Mark Stein, in repealing Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
You might recall that almost 20 years ago now, I mean, it's 15 years, at a little magazine I had called the Western Standard, we published the Danish cartoons of Mohammed.
And that got me sucked into this whole human rights censorship business.
I fought back.
Mark Stein fought back.
We tried to turn public opinion around.
And because Stephen Harper had a majority government, wouldn't you know it, we actually managed to get the government to support a private member's bill to repeal Section 13.
And just for those who don't know what that section is, it banned, it made it an offense to publish anything, quote, likely to expose a person to hatred or contempt.
So it was a future tense crime.
You publish something that's likely to make him have hard feelings about her.
So it was an anti-feelings crime.
There was no due process.
And you didn't even have to prove anything happened.
It's just it might in the future.
You publish something which might cause him to be mad at her.
It was a ridiculous law.
We got it repealed.
The liberals want to bring it back.
Not just bring it back, but bring back a supercharged version of it.
One of the big changes in the way people communicate online from 2006, 7, 8 until now is that the internet has been consolidated in a lot of ways.
The independent blogs are less common.
Most people's online speech is funneled through a YouTube, a Facebook, and all of these other platforms.
And why this bill, as we know it now, is going to be worse than Section 13 is because it will give the government basically the mandate of demanding social media companies take down content.
So the only thing that I think is worse than government censorship is government censorship with a state agent in big tech companies, which already are prone to censorship.
And they're going to have 24 hours to zap whatever content the federal government says is offending.
And there are two problems with this.
Number one, the social media companies who don't want to deal with Canadian bureaucrats will just say, Yeah, you want us to take it down, we'll take it down.
The other issue is that social media companies that already want to censor content will use this law as an excuse and say, Oh, well, we've had to draft a hate speech policy to conform with Canadian law.
And whatever you may think of Mark Zuckerberg or Jack Dorsey or all these tech guys, you know what?
Your grievance if they take down your content is with them.
Well, when the government has put a policy in place that these people are complying with, you can't appeal that censorship to the government still.
Your grievance is still with them, but they have this other policy to blame.
So, what this bill will do is still go after online speech, but it will do it in a way that makes big tech companies state enforcers of government speech codes.
And this will not end well for anyone.
Yeah, it's outsourcing censorship.
I mean, by the way, every day at 12 noon, we do a live stream on four different platforms.
One of them is YouTube.
We're weaning ourselves off YouTube because we know they're going to cancel us one day.
But in the live chat, so we'll live stream.
You know, I'm chatting in real time, I'm talking vocally, but in a little box next to the video screen is people typing their messages like a ticker tape.
And most of the comments are published, but YouTube has a sophisticated, well-developed AI, artificial intelligence, that has been taught what words are bad, what phrases are bad.
And so, if I'm logged into our account, as I see those chats scroll by, I'd say about a quarter of them are automatically suspended by the machine, by the robot, by the AI, and they're put in gray italics and there's a little button that says confirm or delete or something like that.
So, I can override them, but if I don't touch them, and there's hundreds of these going by, I don't even have time to read them.
The machine automatically censors them before anyone even reads them, before anyone even complains about them.
And they censor the strangest words.
Like I saw today, they censored the word moron.
Now, moron's not a nice thing, but you can still use the word moron, you know, in polite company if you use it the right way, or maybe you don't want to be polite.
That is censored, so that is so far beyond the law.
That's so far more invasive than any hate speech law or crime.
I'm just giving one example: there's hundreds of words like that.
I think the word flat earth was banned today.
So, my point, Andrew, is that big tech is already so Orwellian, so censorious, and it's all robots, it's not even people, that the idea that the government would be even stricter-that's terrifying to me.
It is, and I mean, I laid out the two scenarios: big tech companies will go along with this because they don't want to deal with the fight in a country that's relatively insignificant in their grand scheme of operations, or they'll use this as political cover, if you will, for censorship they already want to impose.
And I should say, True North, where I do my show, we are in, I believe right now we're on day five of a seven-day suspension.
I won't say the name of the person I interviewed because I don't want you to get suspended by association, but he makes pillows in the United States, and he's a good friend of Donald Trump.
So, I did an interview with him months ago, and last week, YouTube decided, you know what, we've canceled him, and now we're going to come after you for talking to him.
YouTube's War on Free Speech00:09:43
And off goes our entire operation.
So, these things are increasingly common.
But if this were to happen under the liberals bill, I'd be forced to wonder: oh, wait, was this YouTube that did this?
Or is this because of the federal government?
Can I apply for judicial review?
Can I sue over this?
I mean, these are questions that basically result in an answer that explains how buck passing is taking place at the hands of the government here.
And I just have to say, Ezra, you downplay your role, but you played a very pivotal role in the repeal of Section 13.
You literally wrote the book on this, and Shakedown I still have in my library.
And Mark Stein and lots of others did tremendously good work here.
And people forget how important that fight was.
It seems like a lifetime ago.
And I would remind people, this was repealed in 2013.
It took Stephen Harper being in power for seven years, seven years before this law was repealed.
The prosecution of Mark Stein for America Alone took place during a conservative reign.
And I know that was the BC Human Rights Tribunal that ended up going towards.
But these things happen with a conservative government in power.
So the importance of standing up and not letting this become a thing that needs to be repealed is so critical.
Yeah, you know what?
It is.
I remember that battle.
It was very hard to move the machinery of the legislature to get something repealed.
I couldn't believe how hard it was, but it was a victory.
The liberals want to undo that victory.
Here's the difference.
I remember that cartoon kerfuffle and when I was prosecuting, when Mark Stein was prosecuted, I remember my book.
That was, like you say, a dozen years ago plus.
I had the support of more than 90% of what I now call the media party.
I just did.
I did more than 100 interviews about publishing those cartoons, and I can count, there were exactly two instances of journalists, both who worked for the CBC, who weren't on my side.
But even other CBC journalists were on my side.
It was almost unanimous in the media that I should have the right to publish those things, even if people didn't agree with them.
Now, today, it would be 90% the other way around.
In fact, all the big newspapers in this country are on the newspaper bailout.
They love this regulation of big tech because Trudeau has promised to wring out Facebook and ring out Google and throw a few crumbs at these old dying newspapers.
So just a couple of weeks ago, the front page of all the major newspapers in Canada had a pro-regulation letter on the front page.
So the reason I'm telling you this story is in the course of a decade or a dozen years, the media went from pro-freedom to pro-censorship and from being independent to actually lobbying for regulating the internet.
So we are alone now, you and me and a handful of independents, because all the big boys have been co-opted.
That's another scary development.
It is.
And one of the big, I think, points of this is that there was a principled stand from people in the media when this all reared its head 15 years ago or so, because they realized, as Margaret Atwood realizes, as Selman Rushdie realizes, that when one person's free speech is threatened, everyone's free speech is threatened.
But the reason so much of the mainstream media has been completely silent on Bill C-10 is because they only care about their freedoms.
They only care about their protection.
So once Stephen Gilbo said, oh, yeah, yeah, the mainstream news media, they're going to be protected from this.
The media said, okay, we're fine.
We can move on.
And it wasn't just the media.
I remember there were some principled liberals who were standing up for free speech back in the day.
The most notable that comes to mind is former Senator Jerry Grafte.
I think he gave you a pair of liberal cufflinks, if I'm not mistaken, at one point.
And again, the liberals who are prepared to stand up for free speech, completely absent now.
Yeah.
You know, that's a great point.
And there was a liberal MP named Keith Martin.
He actually was originally a reform MP.
He introduced a motion for free speech, too.
So there was a freedom wing.
Scott Sims, who actually still sits as an MP, was the lone liberal to vote for the repeal of Section 13.
That was a different time.
I don't know what every journalist in the country thinks, but it doesn't matter really what they think because the media, there's only really one newspaper chain in English Canada now.
I mean, there's the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail, but all the other dailies are owned by Post Media, which is owned by Chatham Asset Management of New Jersey.
So they don't care about ideas.
They care about money.
And if they're getting a newspaper bailout from Justin Trudeau, and now Stephen Gilbo's promising them free money from Facebook and Google, the boys down in Chatham Asset Management in New Jersey are going to say, all right, our corporate point of view is we're for this regulation because we're about making money.
And I don't know how many actual newspaper reporters in Canada oppose this regulation because their owners in New Jersey are easily bought off for the cash.
That's a dark turn of events that wasn't the way a dozen years ago, but we'll keep finding it's what we do, Andrew.
Absolutely.
And it's important.
And, you know, one of the things, if I can make a prediction here, which I don't often do, so pay attention to it, is that what the liberals are going to do is make an emotional argument for this.
And it's no coincidence, I believe, that this is coming just a couple of weeks after that horrific, horrific attack in my city of London against a Muslim family, which without any evidence, Justin Trudeau said, oh, we bet online hate was probably responsible for that.
We know the liberals are going to try to hold up examples of unpopular speech, perhaps even offensive speech, and say this is why we need to ban it.
But just remember, if you start letting censorship take place because you don't agree or like the particular speech in question and you don't want to defend it, it's not going to be long before speech that you do find valuable is targeted.
And this is why you need to move beyond what the liberals are going to do to reframe this debate, which is say, well, you know, what about this person who said this and this person?
Ignore all of that.
Free speech is free speech.
Yeah.
Well, I mean, as Alan Boravoy used to say, free speech is the gift you have to give your opponents if you want it for yourself.
Hey, listen, Andrea, we've been talking about free speech, which is important to both you and me, but you've been working on a big project for a number of months now, and it's just, we're in the final touches, so you're not quite ready to roll it out.
But why don't you give us a bit of a teaser?
You've got a new documentary series coming out called Assaulted.
Give us one minute on that, and then we'll play the trailer.
Absolutely.
I'm very excited about this.
Assaulted Justin Trudeau's war on gun owners.
This has been months in the making.
I traveled the country talking to real gun owners, sports shooters, gun business owners, people who have very real and very significant consequences they've had to contend with in the wake of Justin Trudeau's gun bans.
And, you know, when I talk about business owners, I'm talking about people that have been saddled with hundreds of thousands of dollars of inventory.
It is now illegal for them to do anything with.
I'm talking about one business whose entire company was made illegal overnight with no recourse.
Sports shooters, people competing in the Olympics who are unsure if they're going to wind up in jail because of some regulatory change.
So this is a project that's never been done in that it's showcasing the stories of the real victims of Justin Trudeau's gun control.
And it's called Assaulted, Justin Trudeau's War on Gun Owners.
Well, that's great.
Now, we've got a short trailer.
And by the way, folks can learn more at assaulted.ca, right?
Yes, assaulted.ca.
Okay, here, let's take a look at the trailer.
We are closing the market for military grade assault weapons in Canada.
It really is my identity.
It really is my culture.
And it's every bit as legitimate as anyone else's culture.
We're just regular people that go out and have this as part of our being.
We are not the problem.
The guns are not the problem, right?
It's the public's perception that has become the problem.
On one hand, I'm literally, I'm going to the Olympics.
I get to represent Canada.
It is one of the greatest privileges that I ever get to do, that I get to wear the maple leaf and represent Canada.
It is such a privilege.
And on the other hand, I'm so devastated that I have no idea if at some point I'm going to get thrown in jail because I've missed something.
They actually pulled up.
They got out.
They had their guns drawn.
And it was pretty much, I opened the front door and they're like, you're under arrest and you need to come with us.
Well, there you go.
Can I hardly wait for the final version?
Thanks For the Kind Words00:04:16
Andrew, great to see you again.
Love your show.
Love TNC.news.
And, you know, you and Rebel, you were in court.
We were in court fighting against the debate commission ban.
And then we saw you over there in the UK on free speech battles, covering Tommy Robinson's trial, going to the Media Freedom Conference where they tried to ban us.
So you have been a battler in the censorship war for many years.
So I'm very glad you're still engaged with it because we need all the friends we can have.
And you love free speech as much as anyone.
And I'm very grateful to you for it.
So great to see you again, my friend.
Always a pleasure.
Thanks very much for the kind words.
All right, there you have it.
Andrew Lawton of the Andrew Lawton Show.
Stay with us.
Moorhead.
Hey, welcome back on my show last night on our Fight the Fines project.
RG writes, this really is so incredible and so inspiring for anyone who cares at all about justice.
Throughout the past 16 months or so, I found very little to feel hopeful about in Canada.
So thank you from the bottom of my heart.
I'm donating.
Done.
Well, thanks very much.
And it was good for me to hear it again.
I mean, I talk to Victoria every day, and I talk to the paralegals once in a while, and I get involved with some of the lawyers.
But just to stop and take half an hour and go over the whole thing and pull the camera back, so to speak, it is an impressive accomplishment.
And I don't take the credit for myself.
I mean, you saw and heard who's doing it.
It's Victoria, the paralegals.
We've got three full-time people on Fight the Fines in addition to, I don't know, I'd have to count them up, 15 or 20 lawyers across the country.
It is big.
1,800.
That sneaked up on me.
I mean, the last time I got a full update, we were at 1,200.
So far, so good.
And thanks for donating because, you know, 10, 15 new cases a day.
We will keep taking cases as long as we have donors.
And hopefully that charitable tax credit makes a difference.
Janine writes, thank you to all the lawyers and paralegals.
You're my type of hero.
Well, I enjoy the work.
Again, I'm not as immersed in it as Victoria and the others are.
But, you know, what tools do we have?
Politically, I don't see that there's a party that expresses this point of view.
I just don't.
There's a few rogue individuals like Randy Hillier and Derek Sloan and Maxime Bernier, but I don't see a party, certainly not in opposition or even in government.
I don't see media other than Rebel and a few, like there's a few voices in the National Post and a few voices in Toronto Sun, and of course our friends at True North.
But I think I've just listed them all.
Like the media is so universally on the side of the lockdowns.
There's just not a lot of institutions.
But, you know, giving individual families a lawyer feels like a good thing to do.
Soulful Living Rights, my boyfriend and I are so grateful for your help to fight our fines.
I'm looking forward to the resolution.
Well, there you go.
You know, you have 1,800 cases.
That's 1,800 families.
That's thousands of people we've touched.
Sounds like you're one of them.
I'm glad that you are grateful.
I'm glad that we're helping.
You know, we can't guarantee success.
That's in the hands of a judge.
But we have had a successful resolution in I think it was 91 cases of which the majority, it was withdrawn.
And we're going to keep fighting.
My hope is that governments just say, all right, let's just let these things lapse and let the passage of time sort of wipe them out because of the want of speedy prosecution.
But I know that's not going to be the case with all of them.
We see in Manitoba and New Brunswick and in other provinces that the government has a real vengeance.
But we'll be there.
So thank you for your very kind words.
And most importantly, thanks for the donations to the Democracy Fund.
Just to reiterate, none of that money even touches rebel news.
It goes straight to the Democracy Fund bank account.
And from the Democracy Fund, it pays the lawyers and the paralegals directly.
So money doesn't even pass through the rebel.
We're doing it because we believe in it and we think it's an important story to tell.