Drea Humphrey’s 2023 press conference confrontation with Justin Trudeau—where bodyguards assaulted her for asking about church vandalism—mirrors broader patterns of elite suppression, like Trudeau’s 2018 Canada Summer Jobs mandate forcing businesses to align with his sexual and religious morality views, which blocked Redeemer University despite its legal victory in June 2021. Meanwhile, a Toronto Hospital study found 70% of Ontario teens aged 13–18 suffered depression under lockdowns, yet media ignored the government’s role, while Moderna co-founder Eric Rossi’s booster claims went unchallenged. These incidents reveal systemic censorship and selective enforcement, where dissenting voices—especially women journalists—face retaliation while compliant institutions escape scrutiny, exposing a culture of power over accountability. [Automatically generated summary]
I have a few things I'm going to take you through in today's podcast.
I'm going to read a few stories from CTV and Black Locks, but I'm also going to show you what happened to a reporter in BC, Drea Humphrey.
She was asking Justin Trudeau a question.
He didn't like it.
He brushed her off, and boom, as if on cue, two of Trudeau's bodyguards came.
One of them grabbed her, sort of like a ragdoll, and wrenched her away from him.
She wasn't doing anything threatening.
She wasn't blocking him.
She wasn't aggressive.
She was just asking a question he didn't like.
And he had his bodyguards throw her away.
I'm very upset by it.
We've set up a website at standwithdrea.com, and that will be at the end of today's show.
Here's today's podcast.
But before I get there, let me invite you to become a subscriber to the video version of the podcast.
We call that Rebel News Plus.
You can get that at RebelNews.com.
Just click subscribe for $8 a month.
I think it's a pretty good deal.
Here's today's podcast.
Tonight, I have three lockdown stories that are connected.
It's July 9th, and this is the Ezra Levant Show.
Why should others go to jail when you're a biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here, and you won't give them an answer.
The only thing I have to say is government goal is because it's my bloody right to do so.
Look at this story on CTV's website.
The story is called, Most Ontario Youth Experience Depression During Pandemic, early data suggests.
Wow, the pandemic causes depression, too.
I didn't know that.
I thought it only caused respiratory problems, coughs, things like that, and mainly in old people.
But this pandemic, you learn new things every day.
I'll read some more.
Preliminary research suggests the COVID-19 crisis is having sustained and significant impact on youth mental health in Ontario.
That COVID-19 again, eh?
The COVID crisis is what's hurting kids.
That's what CTV says.
Researchers at Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children released initial findings Thursday indicating that the majority of children and teenagers saw their mental health decline during the pandemic second wave.
Three times now, this story has claimed it's the pandemic that's doing this.
The early data, which has not been peer-reviewed, shows that more than half of 758 kids aged 8 to 12 reported significant symptoms of depression from February to March.
That's very young.
Kids that young should not be depressed.
The psychological toll was even more pronounced among teenagers, with 70% of 520 adolescents aged 13 to 18 reporting significant depressive symptoms.
The findings draw from the responses of roughly 1,500 parents and children in Ontario as part of a series of periodic surveys tracking youth mental health during the pandemic.
Hey, is there a word that's missing here?
We've heard pandemic, COVID, pandemic, COVID crisis, but that's not actually what these doctors said, is it?
Dr. Daphne Korzak, principal investigator of the ongoing sick kids-led study, says the research shows that Ontario's stringent lockdown measures, including extended school closures in some regions, have posed serious harms to young people that could have lasting consequences.
God it, boy, I had to read a long way through this, didn't I?
So it wasn't the virus that hurt these kids.
It wasn't the virus.
It wasn't the pandemic.
It was the lockdowns, which were 100% human caused.
No virus did that.
There are some places in the United States that never stopped schooling at all.
In much of Canada, Ontario is the worst, of course, school is by Zoom, so laptop computers.
So hopefully your family can afford that.
And hopefully you can have someone at home looking after your kids because they're not at school.
And if the kids will only be doing work on the computer, is that really likely if they're watching Zoom that all day that they're not also watching a movie or playing games or chatting with their friends?
Are they really learning?
But even that isn't it, is it?
It's living through your computer screen, going to school by staying at home looking at your screen for eight hours, and then taking some relaxation by watching Netflix on your screen for a few hours, and then saying hi to grandma on your screen for a few hours via Zoom again, and then ordering stuff from Amazon through a screen and ordering dinner and delivered through his screen.
And CTV says it's the virus that's doing that.
They're blaming the virus.
Boss Moves and Mask Rules00:04:53
Oh, but here's the good news.
It's from CTV2.
I think they're the official sponsor of the lockdown, CTV.
Here's the story.
Moderna co-founder says COVID-19 booster shots will almost certainly be needed.
And you can trust him.
The co-founder of Moderna says a regular booster shot will almost certainly be needed to increase protection against COVID-19.
Plus, he almost certainly needs another yacht.
Oh, sorry, that wasn't in the story.
Canadian stem cell biologist Eric Rossi told CTV News Channel on Wednesday that the body's immune system is primed by vaccination or primary infection.
However, that immunity wanes over time if those systems are not challenged.
I think boosters are most likely going to be in the cards, and evidence is pointing towards that.
So this is the evidence emerging out of Israel that a booster is almost certainly the way, Rossi said.
So that Dr. Rossi, he's the boss of Moderna.
I presume he's one of the nine new pharmaceutical billionaires that have been minted because of the vaccines.
Congratulations.
And the CTV just publishes his wish list that people will have to take not one, not two, but now three doses and more boosters, they're called.
That's a good one.
Can you imagine any other industry, any other billionaire who's selling something, let alone an experimental medication, being given just a straight-up stenographic boost like that?
Just, hey, this billionaire says buy more of his stuff.
And let's just tell our viewers that and pretend it's not an ad.
Let's just not be skeptics.
That's too journalistic-y.
But as always, Teresa Tam is the most irritating and the most telling.
This one is about submission and political ideology and never forget who your real bosses are.
This is a story from Blacklocks again.
Candidates must be masked.
Candidates in an expected COVID election must campaign with masks on.
Canada's chief public health officer said yesterday.
Dr. Teresa Tam said even candidates who are fully vaccinated must be masked in the company of strangers.
Oh, I didn't know she was our boss.
But I guess a working definition of being a boss is when you give orders, do people follow your orders?
If so, I guess you're a boss.
Even if you're actually just an obscure, quirky bureaucrat who hasn't had a real patient in years and no one ever heard of you until last year and no one ever voted for you.
But if you act like a boss and Trudeau obeys and the media obeys, I guess you're a boss.
I encourage all political campaigners and their teams to follow those rules and get vaccinated, Tam told reporters.
Canada has never held a general election in a pandemic.
Oh, okay.
Follow the rules, but what rules are those?
You're outside, door knocking, campaign events.
You have to wear a mask?
Whose rules are those?
Is it safe to do this right now? asked the reporter.
I have no say on the timing of any election, replied Tam.
Oh, but you know she wishes she did.
Obviously, there's guidance provided to how to reduce your risk in terms of wearing a mask, she said.
Even if you are vaccinated and you don't know who else is around, whether the people you are encountering are vaccinated or not, then the most prudent, precautionary thing to do is wear a mask and make sure there are some distancing measures.
Hang on.
If vaccines work, why do you need to wear a mask and distance?
Come to think of it, if masking scenes work, why do you need a vaccine passport?
And actually, if vaccines don't work, why do you need a vaccine passport?
Teresa Tam has nothing to say about elections, but she wants to.
She knows this.
Masks are indeed a flag, proof that you believe, that you obey, that you want to signal to others what group you're in, the mask party, the lockdown party.
Trudeau takes off his mask when he wants to, including when he was just overseas with world leaders at the G7.
That's a super spreader event.
He's double vaxxed, of course, but now that he's on the campaign trail, he's wearing his mask again outdoors.
Why?
Why?
To show that he's part of the elite team, the A team, the inside team, the team that's in charge, the team that can lock you down, the team that can force you to wear one mask or two masks, take one or two or three vaccine shots and keep changing the rules of the game, keep dangling a freedom date in front of you.
But oh, shucks, we have this new variant, you know.
So sorry, we have to delay your freedom again.
Yeah, things aren't going to get any better, are they?
And Trudeau's going to get another majority, isn't he?
Stay with us for more.
Political Purity Test Redux00:15:18
Well, remember a few years ago when Justin Trudeau decided to add a political purity test to anyone seeking a summer jobs student grant?
Let me explain what I mean.
The federal government claims it wants to help kids get summer jobs, and to do so, they would provide grants for the kind of jobs you'd expect kids to do over the summer, including, for example, being a camp counselor, that sort of thing.
But all of a sudden, if you were a business applying for a grant, you had to sign something called an attestation that you agreed with Justin Trudeau on his particular brand of sexual and religious morality.
You had to support his views on things like being pro-choice and things like gay marriage.
In other words, you could not get money for a completely unrelated thing.
You could not get money to hire a student unless you swore in writing that you agreed with Trudeau on moral questions.
By the way, you don't have to agree with Trudeau on moral questions.
You're allowed in Canada under the Charter of Rights to have any opinion you like.
Now, you're not allowed to discriminate in Canada, but you can hold any view you like.
Justin Trudeau, however, said otherwise, and he made a rule that if you didn't swear that you agreed with him, you wouldn't get the DOE.
Well, one university that applied for such DOE is called Redeemer University, as the name suggests.
They have a Christian point of view.
They're based in Greater Hamilton, Ontario, and they applied for grants for about 10 kids.
They were rejected.
They were told to fill out a form with more information.
They did.
They were rejected again.
And they sued.
And incredibly, they won.
Not only did they win, the judge slammed the federal government for their bigotry and did something I have very rarely seen.
They awarded Redeemer University their full legal costs down to the penny of the cost of challenging the ruling.
Joining us now via Skype is the interim president of Redeemer University, Dr. David Zietzman.
Dr. Zietzman, welcome to the program and congratulations.
I would have thought this court victory at the federal court a couple weeks ago by Mr. Justice Richard Mosley would have been national news.
Maybe it's against the narrative of the establishment media because I haven't seen it widely covered.
I think that this is an enormous victory.
How do you feel about it?
Yeah, certainly we're very pleased with the ruling that the court provided.
We have certainly seen news in our neck of the woods.
The CBC here has covered it and Global News, I did an interview with them as well.
So it certainly received some traction, at least in our area.
And we're glad that Canadians are talking about this a little bit.
We think it's an important step for recognizing the charter rights of faith-based institutions like Redeemer University.
Well, I'm very glad that it has received coverage, even if just on a local basis.
Can I ask you, did you think that media coverage was fair or at least fair enough?
I think generally you're always, you know, you'd always prefer to have the media cover your institution the exact way you want it.
But overall, I can say the issues have been covered in generally a fair way.
Well, that's good to hear, and that's a little bit remarkable in itself.
I want to read to you from Justice Mosley's ruling, paragraph 40, because I think this really shines a light on it.
And Doctor, I'm going to rely on you to correct me if I'm misunderstanding this.
So you basically said, well, we're going to appeal our rejection.
They sent you basically a demand for more info, but they didn't really pay attention to it according to the ruling.
Just some bureaucrat did a little Google search.
Well, let me read how the judge put it.
This is from paragraph 40.
Quote, what appears to have happened is that the program officer reviewing the application did a cursory search of the internet for information about Redeemer's policies and practices, turned up a few pages about its faith-based approach to education, and submitted them to the escalation committee as evidence of Redeemer's ineligibility.
The missing information letter was not, in my view, a genuine attempt to seek clarification or further information from the applicant, as the letter did not address the real concerns held by the respondent.
Those concerns related to the undoubtedly sincere beliefs of the applicant's community regarding the nature of marriage.
Most importantly, the respondent, the respondents of the government here, failed to give the applicant, that's you guys, an opportunity to demonstrate how those beliefs did not result in discriminatory practices.
Sending the letter was simply going through the motions to appear to be fair, not an exercise in fairness itself.
So if I'm reading that correctly, and Dr. Zietzman, you correct me if I'm not.
The court said that they were just asking you to fill out forms and they weren't even really paying attention.
As soon as they saw that you guys were believing Christians, that you had a faith-based approach to education, they knew they weren't going to give you the dough, even though you do not discriminate.
You do not treat people illegally or poorly.
They just saw Christian, they saw faith-based, and they just threw it out.
They knew the fix was in.
That's my reading of Justice Mosley's ruling.
Is that how you take it?
Yeah, I think that's approximately correct, Ezra.
This goes back to 2018 as well, when Redeemer University uh submitted application but did not check the attestation that that was required during that year, and that court case is still before the courts.
Um in 2019, while the government backed away from that attestation um, they uh gave an indication that uh workplaces had to to demonstrate, um you know, that they were free from discrimination and harassment and, as you said, our understanding is, someone elevated us to high risk because of something they'd found on on the internet, referring to Redeemer, and they informed us and asked us actually for for more information.
So, to be fair to the government, they asked us to provide information that demonstrated that we create a workplace free from discrimination and harassment, and so Redeemer undertook to do that.
In fact, we provided extensive information, including our anti-discrimination policies.
It is at that point that the government appeared to have already made up its mind, and we were informed later that that we had been rejected because we did not provide a workplace free of harassment or discrimination, but there was no basis given to us for that allegation when, in fact, Redeemer has never been found to have committed an act of discrimination or harassment.
Certainly, we're not perfect no organization is, but but we've never been found uh, liable for for any act of harassment or discrimination.
So uh, as far as we could tell, there was no basis for that allegation and and the rejection, which is what caused us inevitably to seek a judicial review uh, so we did not sue the government um, but we sought a judicial review of the decision, asking the court to determine whether we had been treated fairly in this process and furthermore, whether we had been treated in a way consistent with our charter rights of freedom, expression and conscience,
and so that was the basis for requesting the federal court to perform a, just a judicial review.
Yeah well, I mean a judicial review, of course, is a kind of a lawsuit.
You're suing to have a court uh, overturn the decision by the bureaucrat.
Um, I what stands out and I was just reading the ruling here is that they called you high risk, but they had no factual basis for it.
They said you were at high risk to discriminate, and their only reason for saying so, according to this ruling, if i'm reading it right, is because you are explicitly Christian.
I think that's a form of bigotry and frankly, the irony here, they're the ones who were discriminating.
They were.
They were saying, we're not going to give any money to discriminators.
You're not a discriminator.
They had no proof.
You're a discriminator, but they tagged you specifically because you're Christian.
That tells me that they're projecting with this whole bigotry thing.
That's my view, doctor.
Yeah, and I look, I think there's no doubt Ezra that um, they may might view this as a a case of competing rights and That creates challenges.
However, it's important that the government remain neutral and not promote one set of rights over another set of rights.
The government has a responsibility, in our view, to protect and balance all rights, not just those of one particular group.
And, you know, we understand that that's not easy, but it can't be a matter of just saying, you know, we're going to pick these rights and prioritize them and ignore the rights of others.
So, you know, rights in the charter can be subverted or weakened when a governing party shows preference for one set of rights over another.
And it can also set a dangerous precedent because governing parties change, and perhaps the next government might choose a different set of rights to prioritize or promote at the expense of others.
And so our goal here was to seek the court's intervention on principle.
We did not seek damages, nor, of course, could we seek restitution of the jobs.
That time had passed.
The summer was long gone.
But we wanted the court to weigh in on whether our charter rights have been violated.
Well, you know, it is quite a ruling.
And the fact that you were awarded your full cost, that's unusual.
I should tell you, we sue the government from time to time.
And at most, we get a fraction of our costs.
But for the judge to order every single penny of the lawsuit, like you're correct to point out, you didn't get the job money in the end.
But that is quite a stinging rebuke.
Here's what worries me about this whole thing: is that if we start allowing Justin Trudeau to make ordinary Canadian individuals, businesses, whatever, say, I agree with you on contentious issues, if we force people to swear an oath that they obey the prime minister's whims before they let them have summer jobs grants, well, why not before they give them a pension, before they're allowed to have a passport?
I mean, it's completely unrelated to the question of summer jobs.
I mean, it's almost as if you're not allowed to go to the hospital.
You're not allowed to get a welfare check.
These are things that the government does for Canadians, regardless of our ideology.
This put a litmus test between Canadians and any benefits from the state.
I don't think Trudeau is done with this.
I think this is a slap on his hand from the federal court, but I think this continues to animate a lot of his public policy.
Can I ask you, in 2020 and in 2021, did this issue come up for you as well?
We applied for Canada summer jobs both in 2020 and in 2021.
In the case of the 2020 application, we heard nothing back until we successfully received the funding in December for jobs that would have been needed in the summer, six months previous.
So obviously, unfortunately, we were unable to hire any students for the summer because we didn't hear until December.
For this summer, for summer 2021, our application was successful, but we only found out on June 17th.
And so we're probably only able to secure one student.
I mean, it's so close to the time of the program that it becomes very difficult for us to execute it.
So, you know, and we're trying to be gracious and understanding that during COVID, you know, perhaps the processing timelines and other things are more difficult.
And so we're excited to get our application together for the summer summer, for the summer 2022 program.
See, you're a New Testament guy.
You're a turn the other cheek guy.
You're a think of the best guy.
I'm more Old Testament in my thinking.
And what I see here is bigotry, having been slapped down by the federal court, is now expressing itself with a disguise of incompetence.
This government is, if there's one thing it's good at, it's spending money and throwing money out the door.
And the fact that they gave you your summer jobs grant money in December last year and this year, when the summer had begun.
I don't think that's a coincidence.
I know you're a man of good faith and, you know, give people the benefit of the doubt.
I am not as open-minded as you when it comes to assessing the motives of the government.
Listen, I wish you good luck in dealing with this bigoted government.
I think it's fair for me to call them bigoted based on what Justice Mosley discovered in his judicial review.
I think it's fair to call them incompetent with how they're messing with you.
We're now on, what, four years in a row for that.
But I appreciate you coming on the show to tell the story.
You're much better behaved than me, Doctor, and that's why you're the president of a university, and I'm just a troublemaker over here.
But I wish you good luck, and I'm really glad you suited.
There's a lesson in there to stand up for your rights, and I'm glad you did.
Yeah, like we really believe that, you know, it's important that Canada as a diverse nation has a diverse and pluralistic set of post-secondary institutions.
Faith-based universities like Redeemer offer incredible degrees are an important part of the fabric of Canadian society.
So, you know, we want to continue to fight for those principles and to have a diverse post-secondary sector.
That includes faith-based institutions like Redeemer University.
I agree.
Thank you very much for having me today.
Yeah, well, it's my pleasure.
And I'm familiar with your lawyer, Albertos Polozagopoulos, and he is a great fighter for freedom.
So it's great to see him notch up a win.
Thanks, Doctor.
Great to have you on the show today.
Thank you very much.
Have a good day.
You too.
All right, there you have it.
Dr. David Zietzmann, much more polite man than me.
He's the interim president of Redeemer University.
A huge win in federal court, but just as troubling as what they did to him there was what they did in the subsequent years, don't you think?
Strong Women, Polite Assault00:04:23
Stay with us, Maureen.
Hello, my friends and sisters.
Instead of reading you mail today, I'd like to show you a new video I just made.
It's called standwithdrea.com.
I'm referring to Drea Humphrey.
I don't know if you know this, but she got assaulted, I think is the word, by one of the Prime Minister's bodyguards.
Here, take a look at this.
I'll say goodbye to you now, but check out this video we put up at standwithdrea.com.
I'm furious, but I need your help.
Our Vancouver reporter, Drea Humphrey, was physically manhandled by Justin Trudeau's personal bodyguards for simply asking questions Trudeau didn't like.
Take a look for yourself.
You talked about Canada's last wrongs, the past things they haven't done right.
When will you speak out about the 20 vandalized churches?
They're burning churches and vandalizing them, and you're not calling it a hate crime.
That makes me sick.
Drea is an accomplished journalist, a registered member of the Independent Press Gallery.
She was invited to attend Trudeau's campaign press conferences in British Columbia this week during his pre-election swing through the province.
She asked Trudeau about the wave of arson targeting churches across Canada, especially in BC.
Now, Trudeau refused to take her questions and walked away from the podium to pose for selfies with the public.
That's more his speed.
Drea politely walked beside him, asking her questions again.
She was never threatening or abusive.
She never blocked his path.
She never posed any physical danger to Trudeau whatsoever.
She was simply asking him questions he didn't like.
Trudeau brushed her off and a squad of Trudeau's RCMP bodyguards immediately swooped in, physically grabbed her and pulled her away from asking her questions like she was a ragdoll or something.
This shocking interaction was caught on video.
There's no denying it.
This is simply unacceptable.
in a liberal democracy, but it fits with Trudeau's growing reputation as a thin-skinned politician who can't stand criticism, especially from strong women.
Just ask Jody Wilson-Raybold.
Trudeau prefers to call on hand-picked journalists that he can control, usually CBC state reporters or journalists from bailout newspapers.
Calling in armed bodyguards to physically assault Drea is a new low, even for Trudeau.
Please help us fight back.
Go to standwithdrea.com to sign our petition to Trudeau, telling him to call off his bullies and stop ordering the RCMP to assault journalists.
And at that same page, you can read our complaint letter to the RCMP Complaints Commission, drafted by our general counsel.
We're not simply going to let this slide.
I know that in Trudeau's male feminist world, you get to assault women you don't like and then brush it off.
Often a man experiences an interaction as being benign or not inappropriate, and a woman, particularly in a professional context, can experience it differently.
Yeah, that's not going to happen here.
If this is how Trudeau behaves now, you know it's only going to get worse during the stress of the campaign when he doesn't like more questions.
We've got to nip this in the bud.
Sign our petition now at standwithdrea.com.
And if you can help us cover the cost of our lawyer's intervention, please do.
You know, Drea is too polite to say it herself, but I really think that Trudeau has a problem with strong women.
Whether it's Jane Philpott, Jody Wilson-Raybold, Selena Saeser, Chavann, he really seems to hate it when a woman questions him, especially a woman of color.
Imagine the national outcry of Trudeau and a CBC reporter assaulted this way.
But of course, that would never happen because a CBC reporter would never ask Trudeau a real question, so he would never lose his temper this way and give into his rage.
Please go to standwithdrea.com to sign our petition and chip into our legal complaint against Trudeau's bodyguards.
And one more thing.
You can be sure having Trudeau's tough guys push her around isn't going to stop Drea from being Vancouver's most effective independent reporter.