Ezra Levant warns Bill C-36 turns Canada’s internet into a "Communist China-style" tool for Justin Trudeau, redefining "hatred" as criminalizable emotion while exempting actions like humiliation. Section 810.2 lets judges impose pre-crime conditions—DNA tests, house arrest—based on fear alone, mirroring Minority Report’s dystopia. Scotland’s Hamza Youssef, despite his own success, dodges scrutiny under similar laws, while critics like Ahmed Hassan face risks. Anonymous complainants and no due process fuel abuse, from silencing victims to inheritance disputes. The bill’s secretive, fear-based framework could weaponize speech against rivals, eroding free expression without evidence of actual harm. [Automatically generated summary]
I want to talk about the worst censorship law in the world called Bill C36.
I've studied censorship laws for more than a decade.
You might remember in 2005, it's a long time ago now, I published the Danish cartoons of Mohammed in a magazine called the Western Standard.
I published them to show what the fuss was about, not as an editorial endorsement.
I didn't put them on the cover.
They were on the inside.
I was talking about the news.
You know, over 200 people were killed in riots, purportedly in response to those cartoons.
They were big news.
And it was even bigger news.
Can you call them up on Wikipedia?
I want to show people.
It was even bigger news when you look at the cartoons, how bland, boring, normal they are.
As I said at the time, the daily editorial cartoon in any big city newspaper in Canada, that's about the level of, whoa, you know, I mean, some of them didn't even make sense.
And that's an important part of the story because you can imagine there are some things that are super gross, super blasphemous, super insulting, sexual, violent, whatever, obscene, that would make someone say, oh, what are you doing?
Even if it's not blasphemous, it's just obscene and crude.
It's not the case with these Danish cartoons.
There's 12 of them.
I think the thing they have in common is they're pretty boring.
I won't get into it.
I wrote a whole book about it called Shakedown.
But there was like an offer by a newspaper called the Jillins Post and he wrote to the Editorial Cartoonist Association of Denmark and basically said, I'll pay you 50 bucks for a cartoon about Mohammed to show we're still free.
And only 12 people took him up on it.
And they obviously just dashed it off.
A number of them, their cartoon actually mocked the newspaper for trying to be provocative.
One of them looks stylized.
Well, I'm not sure what, is everything okay on that side there?
Yeah.
I wouldn't mind showing, I don't want to spend a lot of time on this, but I'm just telling you my credentials for studying censorship.
I have been in the censorship battles.
Yeah, thanks.
Now, can you zoom in?
I just want to show how banal these are.
You can zoom in.
No problem.
So the one on the top left, it's the editor of the Julen's Post holding like a stick man.
And the one on the bottom left is a student named Mohamed.
Yeah, don't worry.
Yeah.
And then the one on the top middle there where the turban is a bomb, that's the edgiest one there is.
The one to the left of it looks like some stylized logo or something.
Scroll down a little bit.
I think that one on the left said, stop, stop, we're running out of virgins.
The one on the right is just a guy in the desert.
There is one on the left there that shows women in a burqa and a guy with his eyes blacked out.
There's sort of a symmetry there.
That's a little edgy commentary, but that's it.
So these are the cartoons.
That's it.
So they weren't obscene.
They weren't sexual.
That's what they were.
And the reason we showed, I think, eight out of the 12 of them in our Western Standard magazine was not because we particularly agreed with the artistic expression, not because they were particularly good cartoons.
As you can see, a lot of them were pretty slap-dash.
But rather because if you weren't shown what the riots were all about, you would reasonably be left to assume they must have been horrific.
It must have been horrific for 200 people to get murdered over these cartoons.
No.
And there's several layers of a story here.
Layers that there were protests and riots against these cartoons.
That's a story.
But that the rest of the Western media wouldn't show the cartoons because they were obviously afraid of riots, etc.
That's a story.
And the compounding effect that had, an ordinary person would say, oh, well, they must be really bad.
That's because the media wouldn't show.
The media shows everything.
Is there any pornography that the media doesn't show?
Is there any obscenity the media doesn't show?
For them not to show these planted in the minds of people.
They must be really bad.
So I was caught up under the censorship law of the time when I published eight of those 12 cartoons and I had my battles and I studied censorship around the world as a response.
Regulating the Internet: Canada's New Law00:05:11
And to this day, we fight censorship at rebel news, usually in the form of government censorship, but more recently in the form of big tech censorship.
So this has actually been a file of mine, an interest of mine, for more than 15 years.
I should tell you, I didn't choose it.
It chooses me.
Bill C-36 is the worst censorship law I've ever seen in my life.
Let's go through it.
Why don't we do that?
Just to explain, the House of Commons, there's two houses of our parliament.
There's a House of Commons, where people elect their MPs, and then there's the Senate appointed by the Prime Minister.
The House of Commons just passed Bill C10.
It's an amendment to the Broadcasting Act, and it basically takes over the Internet under government regulation.
That's the one takeaway.
There are other details of it, but the main bad news in C10 is that Justin Trudeau will now regulate the Internet in Canada with the powers that the Communist Party regulates the Internet in Communist China.
He'll have the ability to boost or de-boost things.
He has the ability to take money.
I suppose he always had the ability to block.
So it's sort of a scene setter.
It's setting the rules of the game.
That's C-10.
And that's passed the House of Commons.
And I think it'll pass the Senate.
I hear some brave senators saying they're going to slow it down.
I don't know how you're going to do that when Trudeau has a majority there.
So C-10 irritated people because their imaginations made them say, well, I'm worried Trudeau will abuse these powers.
But C-10's passed.
So that ship has sailed, at least in the House of Commons.
And then the day after it passes, ta-da, surprise, Bill C-36 is introduced.
They waited until Parliament approved giving Trudeau control of the Internet.
He didn't really say all the things he wanted to do.
He just said, trust me.
The day after C-10 is approved in the House of Commons, C-36 is dropped.
And I don't know if you saw my monologue.
I think it was last night.
C-36 is the worst censorship law in the world, and I'm going to prove that to you now.
Do you have that bill?
Do you have the PDF version of it?
All right.
So, what I'm showing you is, as you can see, first reading, he introduced it on Wednesday night.
Bill C-36, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act, and to make related amendments to another act, hate propaganda, hate crimes, and hate speech.
So, you'll see this is actually half English and half French, because, of course, in Parliament, everything is done bilingually.
I should tell you that you can, I'm just going to check to make sure this is the case before I say it.
Stop C36, which is our website.
If you want to read this in full, I think it's on, yeah, it is.
So, if you're curious, it's a 26-page PDF, but, yeah, it's right there.
Scroll down a little bit.
Yeah, it's right there.
So, if you want to read it, that's where to find it.
Stop C36.com.
Okay, thanks very much.
Why do I put that bill there?
Because I want to tell you, it's not that daunting a read.
I said it was 26 pages, but the first thing you'll notice is that half it's in French.
So, it's really like 13 pages.
And the second thing you'll notice if you scroll through it there is there's a lot of white space, right?
And like a little summary there and table of contents.
So, there's actually only 20, like a big blank page there.
There's actually only 20 pages of stuff, half of which is French.
So, it's 10 pages.
Can you read 10 pages of legalese?
Sure, you can.
Let's do it together.
Can you scroll up a little bit?
So, a little bit more.
Yeah, so this is the beginning.
Can you pump it up one more font size?
We can lose some of the French.
Yeah, perfect.
Her Majesty, buy-in with the advice and consent of the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows.
So, the first thing this bill does is it amends the criminal code.
It adds section, it adds something to section 810.2.
And then it adds this definition.
So, when it says sections 319.7 of the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order.
So, it's just, as you saw in the title of the Act, this law changes two other laws.
It changes the criminal code and it changes the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Defining Hate?00:11:16
So, the first change, the first substantive change, is it defines the word hatred.
And you've got to do that if you're going to ban something, if you're going to ban hate, you've got to define it.
So, imagine this is a definition of what they're trying to ban.
Hatred means the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than dislike or disdain.
That's sort of an odd definition.
Let me see what Webster's definition of hatred is.
I'm just curious what language they use: extreme dislike or disgust, ill will or resentment, prejudiced hostility or animosity, intense hostility and aversion.
Oh, you know, I'm going to read you from Merriam-Webster.
Their first definition is my favorite.
Ready?
Intense hostility and aversion, usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury.
I think they nailed it.
Intense hostility and aversion.
So it's not just a little bit.
It's hostility.
Aversion.
I don't want it.
Usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of, it's so true, isn't it?
I'm afraid of something.
I hate that spider.
Anger.
I'm so mad at you.
I hate you.
Or sense of injury.
That's the most important one.
I sometimes call that grievance.
I hate this system.
I hate the way that is.
I hate this part of society.
There's something wrong.
I have a sense of urgency, sorry, injury, pardon me, or injustice.
I think that's very perceptive.
The one thing I find odd, go back to the law if you please, is that they acknowledge right in the very first sentence there that they are banning a human emotion.
For all the gentlemen watching, let's just talk about banning emotions.
Let's say you're getting into a real argument with your missus.
Does it work to say, calm down?
Does that often work?
Does that often work to say, don't be so upset?
Justin, do you have any success with that?
Does that maybe sometimes make it like putting a lid on a pressure cooker?
Does that make it maybe just a teeny tiny bit worse sometimes, a little bit?
Yeah, I mean, I think if someone's mad and instead of addressing what they're mad about, and you can reject it, you could say, you're wrong because, or you can say, you're right because, or how can we, so there's a lot of ways to be a grown-up.
I don't know all of them.
But if your response is, don't be mad, I think that makes people mad.
And if your response to someone who has a natural human emotion is to say, well, we're just turn off the emotion, will you?
I don't think that works unless you deal with the underlying grievance.
Anyway, can you put the law back up?
We'll go through it.
I'm going to speed up.
So they define hatred, but then it's really weird.
They say for greater certainty, the communication of a statement does not incite or promote hatred for the purposes of this section solely because it discredits, humiliates, hurts, or offends.
What?
So if you have an emotion of detestation that is stronger than dislike, that's hate.
But it can humiliate, discredit, hurt, and offend you and not be hate.
What?
Would you know how to apply this rule?
Do you think a jury, if you said to a jury, you got 12 ordinary people, hey guys, convict him if he detests or vilifies someone stronger than a dislike.
But don't convict him solely because he discredits, humiliates, hurts, and offends through his emotion or word.
Like what?
So what am I supposed to do?
So it's good if he humiliates you, but if it's bad, if he detests you.
How does that work?
Take it down for that.
So now detesting, that's like a sense of disgust or anger, but it's internal.
I detest that.
I detest Escargot.
I detest that movie.
All right, you're not doing anything about it.
You're just really, you're talking about yourself, right?
When you say, I hate that, you're actually describing yourself.
Now, maybe people say, well, you're a really good guy, so if you hate it, maybe I should too.
But if you say, I hate, you know, Escargot, I don't know why I chose that example.
Okay, so now I know what you like and what you don't like, but I can probably come up with my own opinion as to whether or not I like Escargot.
I hate Escargot.
Okay, calm down.
Don't order it then.
So that's illegal.
But if you discredit, humiliates, hurt, or what were the other words?
Injure or something, that's not, yeah, discredit, humiliate, hurt, or offend.
That's okay.
That's a lot different.
Don't eat Escargot.
It's terrible for you.
Humiliate.
Look at how gross that Escargot is.
Don't eat it.
Like, I'm trying to show you the difference between I hate something and, which is banned, and the humiliation, discredit.
Like, why?
I don't get it.
You can't have the emotion internally that you hate Escargot, but you're allowed to discredit it and humiliate it.
Maybe I'm using a dumb example of the snails, but this law already, we're in the first paragraph, and I don't know how ordinary people are going to make sense of it.
And I don't think you can, because who on earth thought it was a good idea to criminalize, and we're in the criminal code here.
We're talking about the criminal code now.
Remember, they're changing two different laws, the criminal code and the Human Rights Act.
Who thinks it's a good idea to criminalize feelings?
They call it an emotion.
Like, they're not pretending hate is something tangible, like particles in the air.
You know, we're going to regulate the amount of parts per million of hate, the amount of parts per million of salt or something, or carbon dioxide.
They're trying to regulate an emotion.
How do they know?
Who do they think they are?
Oh, honey, don't be mad.
You're just mad.
Yeah, now I'm matter.
Can you think of any other laws that regulate feelings?
I don't think there are any.
Laws, like there's laws against uttering a death threat.
Everyone knows that.
You can't utter a death threat.
Now, the law has a high standard.
It has to be a credible death threat.
It has to be, someone has to really be in apprehension of fear that it's going to happen to them.
It has to be credible and imminent.
You can't just say, oh, I'm going to kill you.
I mean, especially if you say it as a joke and everyone knows you're joined, I'm going to kill you.
That's not a death threat, right?
But it's your feeling isn't being regulated there.
Your threat to the other person is what's being regulated, and there's an objective test to it.
I can't think of any other laws that regulate feelings.
I just can't.
Do you think that's going to work out well?
That would be like telling the Mrs. We have a contract now.
You have to like me.
You can't hate me.
Deal?
Sign here.
You signed the agreement.
You have to like me.
It doesn't work that way.
Isn't that what a marriage contract is?
No, no, a marriage contract, if it, you know, maybe you've heard it, for better or for worse, in sickness or in health.
So death to us parts.
So the traditional marriage contract, if you can call it that, specifically says you're married even if you don't like each other.
Would you agree with me on that?
At least that traditional phrase in sickness in this health for better, you know, that's saying you can't just quit when your feelings change.
That's what that says, I think.
I don't think you can make a contract for feelings.
And by the way, how would you even check?
People can lie.
What a weird law this is.
Let's go through it faster.
I'm sorry I went on that little escargot tangent, but I'm just trying to point out how weird it is to define hate in a complicated way and how weird it is to try and legislate emotions.
That's really weird.
But let's go through this.
I'm sorry, I got to be faster if I'm going to get through the start of 1220.
Look at this.
This is the crazy part.
This isn't even censorship.
The censorship part comes later.
This, I think, is the most terrifying law I've ever seen.
Ever.
In any free country.
And frankly, if you showed me this law in China, I'd say, yeah, that's one of the things that makes China awful.
So this is a proposed amendment to the criminal code.
It's a new section.
This is a new section in the criminal code called fear of hate propaganda offense or hate crime.
So now they're talking about another emotion called fear.
A person may, with the Attorney General's consent, lay an information before a provincial court judge if the person fears on reasonable grounds that another person will commit an offense under section 318 or 319.
So those are hate offenses.
By the way, they're not assaults.
They're like hate propaganda, like saying mean things.
Or an offense under subsection 434.
That's mischief.
Or an offense motivated by bias, prejudice, or hate based on race, national, or ethnic origin, language, color, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, gender, identity, or expression, or any other similar factor.
So there's other things similar.
Restraining Orders and Gender Expression00:14:28
So just to remind you, for those of you who aren't woke, gender identity is what you say you are.
Gender expression is what you sort of try and show that you are.
So you can have a gender identity.
You can look like, remember in South Park when Randy Machuman Savage, do you know what I'm talking about?
Can you play like a minute of that or 30 seconds of that?
We won't put up too much of it because we want to respect copyright laws, but South Park is so funny.
So they have the strongest woman contest, and it's all these really athletic women.
And then Randy the Machuman Savage, wrestling icon from 20 years ago, shows up in his beard, talking.
Yeah, let's take a look.
I'll show you.
Ready?
Oh, yeah, I'm ready, David.
There are just so many amazing women athletes out here today.
It makes me so proud.
Now, this is the first year that a trans woman is in the competition.
How do you feel about that?
Amazing.
I feel honored to be a part of history.
I have a lot of incredible trans friends who are athletes, and so we're all inspired.
This woman's competing.
Uh-huh.
And have you actually ever met Heather Swanson?
No, I've never competed against her before.
No.
She's not exactly your average trans athlete.
Well, what is an average trans athlete?
Honestly, I find that kind of bigoted, David.
Okay.
Heather Swanson is actually joining us now.
Ms. Swanson, how does it feel to be competing today?
I can't tell you how free I feel now that I've started identifying as a woman.
Now that I can compete as female, I'm ready to smash the other girls.
And is it correct you just started identifying as female two weeks ago?
I'm not here to talk about my transition.
I'm here to kick some f ⁇ ing ass.
Let me tell you something, Dingleberry.
David Perry.
I'm going to roll up the other women here.
I'm gonna smoke them.
I am the strongest woman this state has ever seen.
Any words for the challenger and Miss Woman?
Good luck, Heather.
luck is for dudes well with that let's get right is that not spot on Welcome to the Tokyo Olympics, by the way, where Laurel Hubbard will be in the role of Randy the Macho Man Savage.
And I think Laurel Hubbard's going to win.
And good for, what's the phrase?
Good for her, right?
That's gender identity.
Randy the Macho Man Savage there identifies as a woman.
He's not expressing himself.
He didn't bother to shave, but he's identifying as a woman.
So let's go back to the law.
I wanted to show you that because that's if someone believes that you're going to say something really mean, that's Section A, or commit an offense motivated by any of those things there, if you are afraid of that, so it hasn't happened, but you're just afraid.
Remember this is regulating fear now.
We were regulating hate.
Now let's regulate fear.
What can you do?
Well, the next section says, the provincial court judge who receives an information may cause the parties to appear before a provincial court judge.
If the provincial court judge, before whom the parties appear, is satisfied by the evidence adduced that the informant has reasonable grounds for the fear.
So it's your fear that determines my freedom.
It's your fear that determines what will happen to me.
I haven't done anything.
It's your fear that now determines what happens.
The judge may order that the defendant, oh, you're a defendant now.
Now, you haven't done anything wrong.
You haven't been charged with a crime.
You haven't committed a crime.
You haven't been caught in the crime.
You haven't been convicted of a crime.
But if someone is afraid that you may commit a crime, but only if it's one of those trans crimes or biased crimes they're talking about, like you can't do this for any other person.
You can't do this for someone you're afraid is going to commit murder.
That's specifically not mentioned there.
You can't do this for someone who you think is going to kidnap you or rob you or even shoplift from you.
This only applies to biased crimes against Randy the Macho Man Savage or other people like that.
This judge can sentence them based on your fear level.
Let me just say it one more time if I'm not clear enough.
If you're afraid of someone, but they have not done anything to you.
They've committed no crime.
They've not threatened to commit a crime.
They have not done the crime.
They have not been caught in a crime.
They have no criminal record.
They are just someone you're afraid of.
You can go and get a judge to do the following things to them.
Now, again, only if you're afraid that they'll be like a racist or something or anti-trans, not if they'll do a real crime like murder.
Can you put that back up?
Let's scroll through a little bit.
Here's what the judge can do.
Conditions in the recognizance.
The provincial court judge may add any reasonable conditions to the recognizance.
Recognizance is like bail.
It's like a promise.
The judge considers desirable to secure the good conduct of the defendant, including conditions that, let's read some of these, require the defendant to wear an electronic monitoring device.
Require the defendant to return to and remain at their place of residence at specified times.
That's called house arrest.
Require the defendant to abstain from the consumption of drugs or alcohol.
Require the defendant to provide, for the purpose of analysis, a sample of a bodily substance.
Pee in a jar.
Give you DNA.
Give some blood.
Wow.
Require the defendant to provide bodily substance on a regular interval.
Really?
Because I'm afraid of you.
I can get a judge to order you to give blood samples every week.
Got it.
F is terrifying.
Prohibit the defendant from communicating directly or indirectly with any person identified in the recognizance or refrain from going to any place specified in the recognizance except in accordance with the conditions specified in the recognizance.
So this isn't just a restraining order.
I think I've told you the story of how I, the very first thing I did as a lawyer was to get a restraining order for a woman who was scared of her ex, who was actually in prison.
That's the first time I actually been in prison.
I went into the prison, maximum security, to serve a restraining order, which is weird.
The guy's in prison, but I went into prison to serve a restraining order on a prisoner on behalf of his wife.
And I remember it was the first time I ever drafted a restraining order in my life.
Justin, it was very specific.
It was, don't come within X number of yards of this woman, or maybe her residence in there too.
But it was like, don't come within, it was about the woman.
Don't bug her.
Don't come within a certain range of her.
Don't contact her.
Like it was like that prisoner who was in jail, so it's weird.
Why would you serve?
Well, because he was going to get out.
He can go anywhere he wants, but not that woman.
But what we see here, it's not limited to the defendant, is it?
To the person who's afraid, right?
A judge can say, you can't talk to members of your political party.
You can't talk to your family.
You can't talk to your employees.
Like I'm thinking of myself in this case because I know this law was written with conservative political activists in mind.
So imagine someone goes to court and says, Your Honor, I'm afraid of Ezra Levant.
And my lawyer would be there and say, well, Ezra Levant's never been charged with a crime, let alone convicted of a crime.
You know, go away.
And then this activist, let's call him Randy Montreman Savage, would say, no, no, no, I don't have to prove that he's done anything.
I don't have to prove he's done a crime because I'm afraid of him.
Can you order him to take a weekly blood test just to mess him up?
Can you put him under house arrest so he can't go into the office?
And can you make it so he can't even work?
He can't talk to his employees.
He can't, theoretically, even talk to his lawyers.
Like that's banning someone from communicating with anyone.
I got a restraining order for a young woman banning someone from talking to her.
Some guy who was a threat to her had to prove it to a judge.
The judge says, all right, I'll sign it.
And by the way, if you've ever seen a restraining order granted ex parte like that, at the bottom of it, it says, if you disagree with this restraining order, come back to court and we'll hear your side.
So restraining orders are an unusual document because they're often given in an emergency circumstance, but they allow the person who's being restrained to say, Your Honor, I don't even know what you're talking about.
Let me, can I tell you my side of the story?
Restraining orders have that built into them, not this.
Crazy.
I think there's a few more parts there.
Oh, of course, they have the right to seize your weapons, including crossbows, bows and arrows, ammunition, lawful firearms, whatever.
And yeah, so and then scroll down.
I think that's the last of it.
Is that the last of that?
a little bit further down yeah these are just all sort of housekeeping changing the sections restriction bodily substances um may not be pretty yeah okay samples Let me just read that.
I didn't read that before.
Samples of bodily substances referred to may not be taken, analyzed, stored, handled, or destroyed.
And the records of the result of the analysis of the samples may not be protected or destroyed except in accordance with the designations and specifications made under subsection one.
All right.
so the judge can do anything he wants with your blood samples.
Oh, and to hold that as evidence.
You scroll up just a little bit there.
The Attorney General of a province or the Minister of Justice of a Territory or a person authorized shall cause all samples of bodily substances provided under Section 810 to be destroyed within the period prescribed by regulation unless the samples are reasonably expected to be used as evidence.
So it can be used as evidence against you.
And you have to give these samples.
That's really creepy.
This is in a speech.
This isn't a censorship bill, Justin.
Prohibition of use of bodily substance.
There's so much here about DNA.
I've just, it's crazy.
This is a censorship bill.
Page after page about what they can do with your blood and urine and DNA.
They can take your DNA.
And you didn't even have to do a crime.
List of conditions are replaced by the following.
Keep the peace.
Abstain from possessing a firearm, crossbow, prohibitive weapon.
Participates in a treatment program.
Oh.
Wears an electronic monitoring device.
Remain within a specified geographic area.
Returns to and remains at their place of residence.
Abstains from the consumption of drugs and alcohol.
This is a censorship law.
This reminds me of what they did to Britney Spears.
You following that at all?
We should do a story on that.
And then they make some amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act as well.
Scroll down a bit.
Okay, so that's the first chunk of this law.
Actually, I think that's the longest part of the law, isn't it?
It's the most sections.
What page are you on on the PDF there?
Okay, so you're halfway through.
So let's pause for a second.
Take it down, please.
So half of this law, we haven't even got to the Canadian Human Rights Act part, have we?
This is the criminal code.
Any person can go to a judge and say, I'm afraid of him.
Can you lock him up?
Now, you can't do that for a murderer, a drug dealer, a gang member, a shoplifter, or a rapist, or a stalker.
You can only do that if someone is a, well, not, I was going to say a hate criminal, but that's not true because they don't have to have committed the crime yet.
If someone's a hate criminal making one of these emotion crimes that we've read about, then they're charged and convicted and they have a trial for one of these hate crimes.
And I don't believe that you should criminalize feelings.
I don't think that's practical.
I don't think that's reasonable.
I don't think that is what our justice system is about.
I think that's contrary to law.
Fear of Future Crimes00:06:18
Frankly, I think it's a violation of your freedom of conscience.
I think you should be able to have whatever thoughts in your mind you want.
What you act on, if it affects others, can be regulated.
But I think you should be able to have whatever ideas you want.
In fact, that's the very first section in our fundamental freedom section of our Constitution, freedom of thought, conscience, and belief.
It's even before freedom of speech.
You have the right to what's in your head.
But this law allows any activist, any extremist, any anti-foot type, any woke professor to go to court and say, I'm afraid of him.
It's called fear.
The section is called fear, right?
It's the very first word in it.
Not it happened.
Not I was attacked, so I'm afraid, but I'm afraid I will be attacked.
That's called a pre-crime.
Can we get just a little bit of minority report trailer?
I think that movie's from the 90s.
An amazing movie.
I think it's based on a Philip K. Dick novel.
The Department of Pre-Crime, they had three sort of weird psychics, very weird, who would try and predict the future.
And they would predict a crime, and then they would dispatch the police, the Department of Pre-Crime, to go in and arrest the killer right before they kill someone.
And they call them pre-cogs, pre-cognitives or pre-cogs, going from memory.
And the three of them would normally agree, but sometimes they would disagree.
One of them would say, no, no, I have a minority report.
The two of you think he's going to do it.
I don't think he's going to do it.
That's where the title of the movie comes from.
I haven't watched it in a long time, but I think I should go watch it.
Here's just a little bit about Minority Report, which was brilliant.
It was a dystopian future, robots, AI, all that stuff, very ahead of its time.
But of course, the most terrifying thing is not the technology.
It's the idea that you can be arrested for something you didn't do yet.
Take a look.
Okay, Jad, what's coming?
Double homicide.
One male, one female.
Killers male, white, 40s.
Set up a perimeter until we're on route.
I'm placing you under arrest for the future murder of Sarah Marks.
Give the man his hand.
The future can be seen.
All we have to run on are the images that they produce.
We see what they hasn't been a murder in six years.
There's nothing wrong with the system.
It is perfect.
I agree.
Murder can be stopped.
Tell me exactly what it is you're looking for.
We are arresting individuals who have broken the law.
But they will.
The fact that you prevent it from happening doesn't change the fact that it was going to happen.
The system can't be wrong.
You said something to me?
No.
You're in a lot of trouble, John.
I have a warrant in my pocket that says murder.
Don't run.
You don't have to chase me.
From 20th Century Fox.
He set me up.
He set me up.
And Drew Mark's pictures.
Who's the victim?
I've never heard of him, but I'm supposed to kill him in less than 36 hours.
It's going to hear together.
Tom Cruise.
I need your help.
Keep containing information.
I need to know how to get at it.
Film, I have to know.
I have to find out what happened to my life.
You tell me, who was it who set this up?
I don't know.
How about now?
On June 21st.
Everybody.
Hell of a movie.
Great movie.
Would you agree?
Have you seen it?
You know, there's great little vignettes of future life that are not too far away.
You know, Boston Dynamics, that robot company that makes like these robot dogs and the dancing robots and all these other robots.
They probably are inspired by this movie.
They have these little robot spiders you saw there.
And speaking of facial recognition, back then they had retina scans in that movie.
And there was this creepy scene where to escape detection, Tom Cruise replaces his eyeballs with someone else's.
And as he walks through a mall, all the store ads call out to him by name with the name of the guy whose eyeballs he has, which I think was like a Japanese name.
So it was sort of funny to see that happen with Tom Cruise.
Great movie, Dystopian.
The Department of Pre-Crime.
I haven't done anything.
We didn't say you did.
You're about to.
That's what the first half of this bill is.
The ability to put someone, your personal enemy.
You'll notice it's not prosecutors.
It's not prosecutors who can do this.
It's not police.
It's any person.
This is a weapon for activists to execute a grudge against their rivals.
If someone's committing a crime, you call the cops.
And if you're just afraid of someone, get your head examined.
You know, that's not, your fear is not a reason to arrest that guy.
Well, now it is.
And the test, you read it, is not whether or not that guy is really going to do something.
It's your fear level.
How's your fear level?
You really afraid?
Is your fear reasonable?
Is there a reasonable level of fear?
Someone has not done anything yet, but you can have them arrested, house arrest, bizarre conditions about who they can or can't see, where they can or can't go, who they can or can't communicate with.
Thought Crime Territory00:12:10
You can get blood samples, urine samples, all sorts of, on a weekly basis.
Seize anything they have, if it's a firearm, even if it's legal.
Is that right out of minority report or what?
Am I wrong on that?
You haven't done anything yet.
If someone's committing a crime, you call the cops.
This specifically is not for if anyone's done anything, but if you're afraid they will.
There are two sections in this law that show it's emotion crimes.
Your emotion of hatred is now criminalized.
And your enemy's emotion of fear is now all that's needed to throw you in jail.
Tell me if I'm wrong.
Tell me if I've misread things.
Okay, so that's the first half of the law.
Let's look at the second half of the law.
The second half of the law changes the Canadian Human Rights Act.
This is the part that Stephen Harper's government repealed in 2013.
Section 4 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is replaced by the following, a discriminatory practice.
Okay, so they're just changing.
They're just changing some little points there.
Let's skip ahead.
This is the part.
13.
The Act is amended.
This is the center of the change.
The Act is amended by adding the following after Section 12.
Communication of hate speech.
13.1.
It is a discriminatory practice to communicate or cause to be communicated hate speech by means of the internet or other means of telecommunication in a context in which the hate speech is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
Now let's just hold up there for a second because there's so much there.
It's a discriminatory practice.
Now I know what discrimination means.
If you fire someone from a job because they're black, if you kick someone out of their apartment lease because they're gay or whatever.
Discrimination is, you know, he's got a discriminating palate.
Oh, he's got discriminating taste.
That means you choose amongst things.
Illegal discrimination is when you choose amongst things on an unfair or unlawful basis.
If you fire someone because they're a girl.
So how is speech discriminatory?
I don't get it.
How?
You can't say something, you can't have an opinion.
How's that discriminatory?
Communicated by means of the internet in which the hate speech is likely to foment detestation and vilification.
So that's a fancy way of saying make someone hate.
So you can't say something if it's likely to make someone feel the feeling of hatred.
That's what this means.
Well, that's that likely to again.
That's that future tense again.
That's, have you done it?
Have you caused any hatred?
Have you caused any harm?
No, but the law doesn't require that.
The law is just a likely to offense.
Minority report, here we're Tom Cruise, Department of Pre-Crime, you're under arrest.
I didn't do anything.
I didn't say you did.
You're just likely to.
We think it will cause someone to have hard feelings about someone else.
So by the way, you'll notice that truth is not a defense.
What's truth got to do with whether or not someone has a hard feeling?
In fact, I would say that truth is the stuff that causes us to have the worst feelings when we realize the truth about ourselves or others.
The lies are often what make us feel better.
You know.
Truth is not a defense there.
What has truth got to do with whether or not you cause someone to be more likely to have hard feelings about him?
So there's sort of three people involved in this offense.
You have to say something that causes him to have bad feelings about her.
Those are the elements of the offense.
But it's all likely to.
It doesn't have to actually happen.
And that's handy because you don't have to prove anything.
And again, going back to what we talked about earlier, actual crimes, actual things done, actual, I mean, if someone kills you, shoots you, robs you, it happened.
You can prove it.
You can show the damage.
You don't have to show any damage here.
There's no victim here, necessarily.
It's all pre-crime.
What you're doing is likely to cause him to have hard feelings about him.
Well, did it?
No.
And even if it did, did that person suffer any harm?
No, because it didn't happen yet, and we don't have to prove that.
Okay, but is it true what he said?
Is it true what he said?
Doesn't matter.
What's that got to do with it?
What's truth got to do with it?
Well, is it a fair comment then?
What's that got to do with it?
Okay, well, did he tell the other side of the story also?
What's that got to do with it?
You either caused a hard feeling or you didn't.
That is a counterfeit crime.
That is not a crime to cause hard feelings.
What if someone has a deeply held religious point of view?
Every religion prefers itself to its rivals, for example.
If you, I don't know, I tell you, this could be applied.
Do you think there's a chance there might be some radical mosque, like Trudeau's favorite mosque in Montreal, the Asuna Wahhabi Mosque?
That's an extremist mosque.
The Pentagon had named it as a place where al-Qaeda was recruiting terrorists.
I've seen an old CBC documentary about just crazy, hateful stuff there.
Do you think for a second they would be charged with communicating hate speech likely to cause this person to have hard feelings about that person?
Never for a second.
But by the way, if that prosecution were ever to unfold, defense of religious belief would not, what's that got to do with you caused hatred of A against B?
I don't know.
I don't know.
I think that both of these elements in this bill, the I'm afraid of you, so you go to jail, and you said something mean, and it might cause feelings.
Both of these are pre-crimes.
Both of them are so vague and frankly all-encompassing, that the only question is, since there's no defenses to the did you cause hard feelings or likely to cause, there's no defense to that.
The only question is who gets charged.
Under the old section 13 of the Act, for 30 years, not a single person was acquitted.
They had a 100% prosecution rate.
How's that possible?
Like even Saddam Hussein, even, you know, Castro, Fidel Castro, they would like let one in 100 people go just to show it's not rigged, right?
Like when Muammar Gaddafi would say, I have a 99% support in the polls.
He would never say 100% because that would look ridiculous.
99% looks pretty ridiculous, but who has a 100% conviction rate?
Well, you get a 100% conviction rate when your law convicts everybody and there's no defense.
And so the only question then is who's charged?
And the answer to that is the enemies of the regime.
That's what's going on here.
All right, let's take some chats on Rumble.
Chronic Bud.
Does the communist dictator want you to censor my thoughts now?
That will never happen.
Well, never say never.
Rumble, healthy wumble, definitely.
Minority report, definitely minority report territory.
Welcome to the land of thought crime.
Yeah.
Super U, Hammers Girl 88.
Didn't Scotland pass a similar bill?
Yes.
And I did a video on that.
Can you call up my video and the section where Hamza Youssef talks about how white Scotland is?
That's just gorgeous.
It's my favorite part.
I did a video on that.
I'm here in Toronto, Canada.
I did a video on Scotland's new hate speech law, and it got over 150,000 views, which is sort of startling to me, but it tells...
Oh, it's just under 200,000 views now.
That's incredible.
Go to the part where Hamza Youssef, the justice minister in Scotland, talks about how much he hates Scots.
It's quite something.
This is the guy passing the hate speech law, and this goes to my point.
I think Trudeau hates Canada, or at least a certain kind of Canada.
He calls Canadians racist, sexist, homophobic.
He supports tearing down statues.
He personally ordered John A. McDonald off the $10 bill.
I think he's full of hate, but he's the one passing hate speech laws to get you.
Listen to Hamza Youssef.
He's the one who passed this law in Scotland, but how is this not hate?
Take a listen.
Most senior positions in Scotland are filled almost exclusively by those who are white.
Take my portfolio alone.
The Lord President, white.
The Lord Justice Clerk, white.
Every High Court judge, white.
The Lord Advocate, white.
The Solicitor General, white.
The Chief Constable, white.
Every Deputy Chief Constable, white.
Every assistant chief constable, white.
The head of the law society, white.
The head of the faculty of advocates, white.
Every prison governor, white.
And not just justice.
The chief medical officer, white.
The chief nursing officer, white.
The chief veterinary officer, white.
The chief social work advisor, white.
Almost every trade union in this country headed by people who are white.
In the Scottish government, every director general is white.
Every chair of every public body is white.
All right, okay.
I think maybe Hamza Youssef doesn't like white people.
I don't know, just a crazy guess there.
Now, that's the thing about Scotland is it's just full of Scots.
Like, I mean, if you don't like Scottish people, don't go to Scotland.
That's just my tip to you.
Now, Hamza Youssef has a child of privilege.
I mean, he's got a law degree.
He's the justice minister.
I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have that level of success in Pakistan, but he has that success in Scotland.
And all he does is call Scots racist.
That's sort of what Ahmed Hassan does in Canada.
He was a refugee from Somalia.
We saved his life.
And all he does is call Canadians racist.
It's sort of gross.
If it's so racist, why are you here, buddy?
Like, seriously, we saved your life, and you just call us racist all day.
You're the racist one.
Would you agree with me?
Hamza Youssef there does.
Right to Face Accuser Questioned00:08:53
I mean, swap in any word there.
Jewish, Muslim, gay.
Like, imagine if he was talking about Jews in banking or Jews in the media or gays in Hollywood.
I mean, the derision and the content.
Whites.
Oh, they're all white.
Jeez.
What a bigot.
That's my point.
That's obviously racist.
Duh.
But do you think he's going to be charged under his own hate speech law?
No, no, no.
Let me read some more super chats.
Where are we here?
On Super U, AMT 60.
So you're guilty first instead of innocent until proven guilty.
How absurd.
Well, yeah.
Subiyu, freedom of expression limited by the right not to be offended.
Yeah, that's a counterfeit right.
There's no such thing as the right not to be offended.
In fact, we have the opposite.
We have something much better.
We have the right to be offended.
Well, what kind of right is that?
Well, in a lot of places, you're not allowed to be offended.
In China, you're not allowed to be offended about the government.
Here we're allowed to be offended by whatever we want.
That's different than the power to stop someone from saying something.
You got the right to be offended, sure, if that's what you want to do.
But there is no right not to be offended.
That's counterfeit.
Super U tip, two bucks from AMT 60.
Thank you.
Hyper chat from Rebecca Henderson.
I could see Bill C-36 being terrible for people who have been assaulted.
Offenders could use this to pretend they are afraid of their victims to prevent them from victim having the chance to come forward by imprisoning them before they have the chance to report.
Oh, anything's possible.
Again, from Rebecca Henderson, this bill could also be abused in families for fighting over inheritance when a family member dies.
Also, political opponents, someone competing for the same job.
This could be so easily abused, it's not even funny.
I thought the left was about prisoning people unless they don't like the person.
Freaky cat lies are for people who wait for it.
You can't handle the truth.
You know what?
I think I skipped over an important part of the bill.
We didn't finish the bill, did we?
I went on some tangent.
Can you put the bill back up?
Because you remind me of an extremely important point.
I'm sorry I left it out.
Scroll down here.
Scroll down, scroll down.
The definition of hate speech, definition, definition.
Here, here, I'm so sorry.
I forgot this.
This is so important.
This is the Human Rights Act.
Non-disclosure of identity.
The Commission may deal, this is the Human Rights Commission, may deal with a complaint in relation to a discriminatory practice described in Section 13 without disclosing to the person against whom the complaint was filed or to any other person the identity of the alleged victim, the individual or group of individuals who has filed the complaint, or any individual who has given evidence or assisted the Commission in any way in dealing with the complaint.
If the Commission considers that there is a real and substantial risk that any of those individuals will be subjected to threats, intimidation, or discrimination, which they define as mean words.
So, just in case you missed it there, it's secret.
Whoever complained against you gets to stay secret.
They can give evidence against you in secret.
You never get to know who complained.
And you can see there that the victim himself does not have to file a complaint.
Another individual or group of individuals can file a complaint against you.
So you've got professional hunter-killers going out there in secret, lodging complaints against people, and they'll never know who it is or who it was.
You've heard the phrase, the right to face your accuser.
You don't.
You don't have the right to face them.
You don't have the right to cross-examine them.
It is a secret system.
It's a star chamber.
Scroll down a bit more.
There's one more thing I want to mention.
Revocation opportunity.
Scroll, scroll, scroll.
There's a fine I want to talk about.
Oh, scroll up a little bit.
There it is.
A little bit more.
Complaint.
If at the conclusion of an inquiry, The member or panel conducting the inquiry finds that a complaint relating to a discriminatory practice described in section 13 is substantiated.
The member or panel may make one or more of only the following orders against the person found to have engaged in the discriminatory practice.
A, in order to cease the discriminatory practice and take measures to redress the practice or prevent the same from happening again.
But how do you do that when it's words?
Stop saying that.
No, no, no, seriously, stop saying that.
No, you told a defensive joke.
Stop saying it.
How?
I order you to stop telling that joke.
I'm going to say that joke again right now.
I order you to stop.
Like, how do you stop something that's someone telling a joke?
B, maybe this is how.
In order to pay compensation of not more than 20 grand to any victim personally identified in the communication, 20 grand per tweet.
It's pretty good money to be a complainant.
Remember, you can keep your identity secret.
Oh, and if that don't shut you up, in order to pay a penalty of not more than $50,000 to the receiver general.
So pay $20,000 to the secret complainer.
You'll never know who it is.
Is it your ex-wife or ex-husband, ex-boyfriend, ex-girlfriend?
Is it a rival?
Is it a neighbor who's mad at you?
Is it a disgruntled person you fired?
Is it someone who fired you?
Is it just, you know, Jonathan Yaneve?
Who is it?
Who is a vexatious litigant who gets to stay secret?
We don't have secret trials in Canada.
You know, we keep the identity of children confidential in most legal matters, especially if they're victims.
In some cases, there are witnesses that are secret, but in extremely few cases, there are some national security trials in courts that are secret for reasons, you know, you don't want to give away what your sources are.
But, you know, even in trials against mobsters, they have the right to face their accuser.
Now, afterwards, the witness may enter the witness protection program.
It's a good idea.
But there's no such thing as you can't convict a mobster, a mafia boss, with a secret witness.
The mafia boss gets to know who they are, gets to ask them questions, gets to say, oh, you!
Oh, I know why you're doing this because they're, and I'm going to ask you why you're doing this.
Were you paid to do this?
Are you working for a rival gang?
Or did police pay you?
Did police offer to let you go free?
You can imagine all the questions you would ask a witness if you knew who they were, as opposed if they were secret.
Have you ever heard of a secret witness before?
I don't think I, I don't think I ever have.
Like even in well, but they're not secret witnesses against the mobsters.
That's the point, is it's tough to testify.
You then have to go into hiding, but it's absolutely critical to know who the witness is because then you can know what their conflicts of interest are.
If someone was in there, like in the mob example, okay, are you working for a rival gang?
Are you trying to take over my job?
Oh, you're hiding the fact that you committed the murder, like whatever.
Like you could just imagine all the things that could be hidden by having a secret witness.
We don't have secret witnesses.
Because how can the person who's accused mount the defense if they don't know who the accuser is?
What do you say?
Him, your honor, I've.
He lost a bet to me, or I fired him, or I dated his ex-girlfriend, or he bumped.
I bumped into him in the car and he never forgave me, or you know, we're having a quarrel over the fence between our houses.
It's a foot too much this way and that, like you can just imagine, if you allowed people to make secret complaints against their enemies, you will get millions of secret complaints Like it's just so.
Why He's GROSSLY Untrustworthy00:08:36
So like the.
What's the worst thing about Twitter or YouTube?
It's the anonymous comments, right?
It's the worst because people when they're secret Can rightfully feel like they can get away with things that they couldn't get away with if they weren't secret Why would you have a trial like that?
That's the Twitter YouTube comment anonymous bought junk level of this law You're gonna find someone 20 grand 50 grand 70 grand you're gonna order them to stop saying something based on a secret complainer Yeah, this law is the worst law in the world.
Well, we didn't have a chance to talk about anything else, But I do want to show the front page of I think it was THE SUN, a great newspaper in the United Kingdom.
They caught their health minister, The worst health minister in the world.
I mean, I know Patty Heidu's pretty bad, but Heidu's just like a placeholder.
This, Matt Hancock, is truly one of the worst politicians in the world.
I like to say I follow politicians in Canada, the United States Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom.
That's Matt Hancock in his government office, mechan out with his top advisor, who he hired, who's also a lobbyist whose brother, it turns out, gets huge contracts from the health department there, the National Health Service.
He's married.
She's married.
He's a gross liar who can't be trusted with anything.
But the reason I think this goes from oh, it's just a private affair to extra gross is because for one year he has had the most draconian laws in the United Kingdom.
You are not allowed to hug your family.
They literally put out rules on who you can hug or not, if you can hug your grandparents or not, if you can hug people at a funeral or a wedding or not.
And he's having an affair with an aide that he hired with taxpayers money and whose brother is getting a fat contract from him.
Matt Hancock is perhaps the worst person in the world.
He's also really, really weird.
Can you just go on my Twitter feed?
There's so many examples of weirdness.
He's just there's a screw loose in that guy.
Like just this funny one from like what?
Just okay, you're just done talking in parliament and you're like what's that?
Just that's just like the.
I know that you're thinking I'm exaggerating.
There's so many weirdnesses, I know we're out of time.
There's like there's 50 examples of him being in people's personal space and him not understanding a joke and him being so like.
I think he's.
I think he's got something wrong with his brain.
I have no idea how he rose to become health minister, other than maybe because he's screwed up in the head.
He'll literally say anything he's told to say, like that is quite so.
He has no shame, he has no moral code.
Obviously, any man who will cheat on his wife and cheat on the taxpayers and cheat cheat, cheat and do all that while telling you not to hug your parents or grandparents or family or go out on dates yeah oh, this put the.
You got to put the volume up for this one.
This manifesto, such a positive, vibrant future vision for Britain.
And of course, I'm thrilled with the sheer amount of progress for the NHS, the record levels of investment for the NHS, the 40 new hospitals, 20 hospital upgrades, the extra GP appointments that we're committing to.
And there's lots more to come.
I can't wait to get on with it.
I'm now.
Obviously that's a mashup of something he really did which was creepy and someone making a joke about how creepy is.
But he's just always doing weird things, violating like he's just really bad with personal space.
I don't know if he can find it quickly like he does interviews, tv interviews, and he's standing so close to present, to the presenter, he's like physically touching them while he has this bizarre intensity.
He is weird and gross and I think he's screwed up in the head um, I think, I think he's really really bad and I really I just have a lot of pity for his wife.
Um, I haven't seen that he's been fired yet, but he ought to be um, not just for breaking his own rules um, but for um nepotism.
He's just really gross.
I can't find any more of those videos quickly.
Yeah, you know, I'm just serving, and everything is about this latest grossness on his part, cheating on his wife, breaking his own laws.
You know what he?
Um.
There was another person uh, in the medical advisory panel who was a real fear monger, calling for hard lockdowns and um, Matt Hancock was about.
It was asked about.
He said he's got to resign for doing exactly what he did here.
Take a look at that.
Do we have that clip handy?
Can you play that one?
You bang your head on the desk.
Well, it's just, it's extraordinary and um, you know I don't understand this.
I'm speechless.
I am.
That doesn't often happen to me, Kay.
I know.
but i am i i am and you know uh mr ferguson is a professor ferguson is a is a very very eminent and impressive scientist uh And the science that he's done has been an important part of what we've listened to.
And I think that it's a, yeah, I think that he took the right decision.
You wouldn't have thought.
To resign.
Yeah, you wouldn't have thought to keep him.
It's just not, that's just not possible in these circumstances.
I found the creepy one.
I sent it to you by WhatsApp, Justin.
Look at this creepy, creepy weirdo.
a look at this like i mean the version i found there that someone put a track over but it doesn't matter It's the visuals.
He was so creepy, she could probably feel him breathing on her neck.
And she sort of stepped away.
Can you play that one more time?
You could put the funny music on it if you want.
Okay.
Jump in the rover and come over, tell your friends jump in the GF3.
I got the chronic by the tree.
I got the one you call me big.
Just, just weird.
Just a real weirdo.
No personal boundaries.
Really creepy.
Unaware of what he looks like.
Physically awkward.
Gross.
Now, listen, I think people can, you know, we all have our quirks.
I'm not mad at him for being creepy.
I'm mad at him for being a hypocrite, a liar, and the enslaver of the British Isles, telling 65 million people that they're not allowed to hug each other while he's shagging someone he hired with tax dollars and hiring her brother for a sweet contract.
He's a disgraceful husband.
She's a disgraceful wife.
Rupert's Creepy Hypocrisy00:05:29
They're also quite stupid, shagging in a government office with closed-circuit TVs.
There's no country in the world, with the exception of China, that has more closed-circuit TVs than the UK.
Matt Hancock is the worst person in the world today.
But how can Boris Johnson, who is less, like he's a funny, creepy guy, but he's still creepy?
How many affairs and mistresses has he had?
Is he really going to fire someone for the, it's like Justin Trudeau.
How can he fire Hajit Sajan?
Oh my God, I hear Justin tells me that Boris Johnson says he's apologized and the matter's closed.
Good.
Good, I say.
Let this become an albatross around the neck of that horrid Tory government.
All right.
Thought I'd thrown a little bit of talk about Matt Hancock, that creepy weirdo.
My name's Eswell Vant.
We're done for today.
I'm going to say goodbye.
Do we have, you know, I just want to say I am drinking from a Make Canada Great Again mug.
Just want to let you know.
We got some stuff on that store.
Can we take a look at the store?
Can we just take a quick look?
Because we got some new stuff.
I showed you the shirt, the David Menzies shirt.
Huge seller.
Make Canada great again.
What's that one there say?
Fauci nocho.
You know, yeah, it rolls off the tongue.
Fauci no cho.
That's a hell of a name.
Freedom isn't free.
That's a good one.
The mensoy.
Boy, it's like I'm looking in the mirror.
Save the pastors.
Happy Canada Day.
There's lots of good stuff.
Look at that.
Happy Canada.
Are you still allowed to say that?
Did I, boy, did I call it what?
Or well, COVID 1984.
There's some good stuff.
There's socialist distancing.
That's a good one.
People like that one.
Patriot, make Canada great again.
There's just the Rebel Megaphone.
Make Canada great again.
That's a good one.
Where's just the very plain one that just says Rebel?
You know what?
That, I think, I'm going to guess without knowing that that's just our bestseller, the one that just says Rebel on it.
No?
I like it.
Yeah, it's a version.
Now there's the Bitcoin one.
Scroll down a bit.
Yeah, that one on the bottom, on the right there.
Just click on that one there, on the right.
Okay, maybe a different one.
Oh, that is the Bitcoin one.
Anyway, there's some good shirts there.
The Unisex hoodie.
That's what that was.
All right, so we got some stuff, guys, is what I'm saying.
Does that include shipping?
Do those prices include shipping?
In Canada.
Yeah, in Canada, those prices include shipping.
So free shipping for t-shirts and hoodies, it says to U.S. and Canada.
Is that true?
Okay, so the United States and Canada.
That's where most of our viewers are.
We've got some viewers in the U.K.
Oh, and we have an Australia store.
It's a separate store.
Well, I don't think we have many Australians watching at this hour because it's very, very late at night.
But just go to the Australian store.
I'm curious, what's that?
RebelStore.com.au.
Is that right?
So we have a store for Australians because, I mean, you're not going to ship something to Australia from North America.
Did I get that right?
Rebel store?
Rebelnewsstore.com.au.
So what do they got down under?
Okay, we got the kangaroo one.
That's fun.
Got the COVID 1984.
What does that say?
Freedom isn't free with the Australian flag.
That's great.
You know what?
I might get some of this Australian merch.
People are going to think I'm Australian.
What do those ones say?
Oh, I stand with the Port of Burke Hotel.
We had a big win there.
We got China Dan.
That's referring to Dan Andrews, the pro-Beijing, pro-communist premier of the state of Victoria.
What's that one on the left there?
Qantas?
Quantus Spirit of Vaccine.
Qantas Spirit of Vaccine.
Yeah, because they're vaccine crazy mandatory.
Rebel, that's the shirt I'm talking about.
That one at the right there.
That's my favorite of them all.
It's the simplest of them all.
I think it's a good-looking shirt.
All right, so that's it for the day.
There's the mug.
We've got to get some of those mugs in the cafeteria here.
I think we should get...
Oh, we've got a bunch that came today?
You know what?
It's not funny.
I just said that.
I didn't know they were coming today.
All right.
Well, let's let people go.
Do you have a dog video today?
Do you have a dog video?
Yeah, we do.
Okay, I'm going to say goodbye now, everybody.
Thanks for joining us.
And is it a dog?
Is it Rupert or is it another dog?
It's not.
You know, Justin has a dog.
His name is Rupert.
I'm not trying to dox him.
Hopefully, I haven't caused a problem by doxing Rupert.