Ezra Levant exposes Canada’s Heritage Minister Stephen Gilbo’s post-Parliament censorship plan, targeting hate speech and political criticism while licensing platforms—echoing past bans and secret meetings with Pakistan’s Foreign Minister. Meanwhile, vaccine mandates like George Mason University’s force WHO-approved shots (e.g., China’s low-efficacy Cinebac) on staff despite rejecting natural immunity, ignoring Pfizer’s experimental warnings. Legal pushback looms, with parallels to social control tactics like masks and demonization of dissenters, revealing a pattern where public health becomes a pretext for enforcing ideological compliance. [Automatically generated summary]
Today I take you through Stephen Gilbo's proposed censorship bill.
It's not actually a bill because it hasn't been introduced yet, but it's the bones and a lot of the meat on the bones of the bill.
And it's terrifying.
It's his way of censoring any voices he doesn't like and he pretty much comes out and says it.
He's not going after crimes.
He's going after voices he doesn't like.
And he's going to boost voices he does like and smother voices he doesn't just by deeming them harmful.
I won't go through it here now, but I take you through his announcement pretty carefully line by line.
Let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus where you see the video version of this podcast.
It's $8 a month.
You also get weekly shows from Sheila Gunrid, David Menzies, and Andrew Chapatos.
But that $8 a month also allows us to stay independent.
And I tell you, this censorship project shows how necessary it is to be independent.
Pretty much 99% of the journalists in Canada are on Trudeau's payroll in one way or another, either working for the CBC or getting a media bailout for the newspapers.
I think it's important to be independent to criticize, because if you're on the take, how can you really bite the hand that feeds you?
Please help us out by feeding us.
Go to RebelNews.com, click on subscribe.
It's $8 a month.
Get the video version, but you also get to keep the Rebel strong.
Thanks.
Here's today's show.
Tonight, the liberals wait until parliament is over before revealing their plan to censor the internet.
It's July 29th, 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 to the government will buy a publisher is because it's my bloody right to do so.
Bill C-10 was a law that gave the government jurisdiction over the internet.
Bill C-36, introduced the day before Parliament closed, showed how they were making hate speech another crime or near crime in the law, as well as introducing a pre-crime law that would allow judges to sentence people to house arrests or other restrictions based on your fear of them.
That's what we knew when Parliament was sitting.
But Stephen Gilbo and the other cabinet ministers working for Justin Trudeau waited until today before revealing their master plan to censor the internet.
In terms of a piece of legislation, it's not actually a bill.
You can't issue a bill when Parliament is not sitting.
It's just an announcement, but it's the most detailed announcement I think I've ever seen that wasn't a bill.
In addition to the announcement, there's pages and pages of technical notes letting you know exactly how they plan to do it.
They waited so Parliament was not in session, so they couldn't be asked about it in question period, so they can't be studied by parliamentary committees.
But you better believe they plan on doing it.
As I've shown you before, since Stephen Gilbeau was made the Heritage Minister, censoring the Internet was literally the number two item on his job description called a mandate letter from the Prime Minister.
Number one, of course, being handing out money to the good boys and girls in the media party.
That's job one.
Job two is punishing all the others.
Stephen Gilbo is probably the worst cabinet minister other than Catherine McKenna in terms of sheer dislikability and incompetence.
Remember this when he went on CTV and accidentally spoke the truth and said, yeah, he wants to license all the news media in Canada.
Remember this?
They're recommending that content providers have to register and get a license.
So how will this work?
How are you going to regulate websites?
How are you going to register all that?
Do you buy these recommendations?
Well, I mean, one of the recommendations, so you're talking about a couple of different things here, but as far as the licensing is concerned, if you're a distributor of content in Canada, and obviously, you know, if you're a very small media organization, the requirement probably wouldn't be the same as if you're Facebook or Google.
Regulating Online Content00:14:31
So there would have to be some proportionality embedded into this.
But we would ask that they have a license.
Yes.
The reaction was very strong, and he had to walk that back, but he actually didn't change his mind.
He just thought he would make the reporters feel better.
Later, he told eager reporters at a Canada 2020 conference that indeed he plans to regulate the internet.
And get this?
One of the things he wants to crack down on the hardest was anyone criticizing politicians.
That, he said, was a top priority.
Get a look at this.
We've seen too many examples of public officials retreating from public service due to the hateful online content targeted towards themselves or even their families.
Seriously, I don't know if you know, but in terms of how we protect speech, there's commercial speech, which has some protection.
There's religious speech, but the speech that actually gets the most protection in our society is political speech to criticize the government.
You can understand why.
Because without it, all our other freedoms could wash away.
That's what Stephen Gilbo hates the most.
And he says that if he doesn't get his way, if people don't bend the knee and stop criticizing politicians, well, he might go to the nuclear option.
Listen to him say that.
Could we envision having blocking orders?
I mean, that's maybe.
It's not, you know, it would likely be a last resolve nuclear bomb in a toolbox of mechanism for a regulator.
Well, the nuclear option was dropped today.
There's one more thing I want to play you from that Stephen Gilbo video, because it also came true today.
It's a very Orwellian doublethink way of talking.
Of course, freedom of the press helps the most marginalized.
If you already have power and have money and are in a position of authority, you don't actually need free speech.
You've got the stuff.
But the more marginalized you are, the more you rely on free speech.
Think about Martin Luther King when he took on the entire establishment in the civil rights movement in the 60s.
He had nothing other than the power of speech.
The suffragette movement, nothing but the power of speech.
The movement to stop the slave trade.
It did not have the power or the money.
It had the free speech.
But according to Stephen Gilbo, Justin Trudeau's errand boy on this project, in order to have free speech, you have to censor people.
You have to silence some people, he believes, in order to allow his friends to speak.
That's the other thing he said at that conference.
By not acting, we are, in fact, not ensuring a great number of Canadians freedom of expression and freedom of speech because they can't express themselves on these platforms in a safe manner and the way they have a right to.
Well, that was all weeks ago, and I've been showing you this and talking to you about this for months at Rebel News.
Well, today was the day they did it.
Like I say, waiting until Parliament was over so there's no question period.
And do you really think that the media party that eats out of his hand $600 million a year in bailouts, do you really think they're going to ask him tough questions?
So here's a press release called Creating a Safe, Inclusive, and Open Online Environment from Canadian Heritage.
You know, that's very Orwellian in itself, like calling the Ministry of Propaganda the Ministry of Truth.
It's not going to be any more safe.
In fact, it's going to be dangerous if you have any dissonant ideas.
It's not more open.
Every tool in this toolbox is about welding people's mouths shut.
And it's certainly not inclusive.
It's only inclusive if you're a friend of the government, not if you're a critic.
I'll read the entire press release to you and I'll talk to you more about it.
The government of Canada is committed to taking concrete action to combat serious forms of harmful online content, specifically hate speech, terrorist content, content that incites violence, child sexual exploitation content, and the non-consensual distribution of intimate images.
Isn't that an interesting combination of ideas?
Because I think there was four ideas, three of them.
Obviously, 99.9% of Canadians would agree.
Crimes inciting violence?
There ought to be a law.
In fact, there is.
That's already against the law.
And whether you incite violence in real life or on the radio or on TV or in a print newspaper or through a telegram or through the internets, it's all against the law.
That's already covered.
Same thing with terrorism.
Terrorism is already against the law.
And our criminal code was brought up to speed up to date after 9-11.
There are many specific crimes in the criminal code that touch upon supporting terrorists even online.
That's already handled.
Same thing with child sex trafficking, revenge porn.
That's something that can be treated without censoring the entire internet in general.
That's something that ought to be done, and I believe is done already in some jurisdictions.
But look what they hid amongst those.
Everyone agrees in banning revenge porn and child exploitation and terrorism and such.
We all agree with that.
I know we do, because those are already laws.
But in the middle of there, they have offensive speech, hate speech, speech that causes harm.
I know what speech that's a crime is, uttering a death threat and citing violence, but what they've done here, and you'll see this all the way through, is they've buried their real purpose, harmful speech, non-illegal speech, not criminal speech, just speech they don't like, speech that makes fun of politicians, speech that maybe drowns out their political enemies.
They've buried that amongst the terrorism and the child pornography.
So if you dare to oppose this, they'll surely say, what, are you against terrorism laws?
Actually, it's Trudeau that's against terrorism laws.
He gave a big fat apology and $10.5 million to a terrorist called Omar Connor.
That's beside the point.
Let me read some more.
Today, the Honorable Stephen Gilbeau, Minister of Canadian Heritage, alongside the Honorable Bill Blair, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, and the Honorable David Lametty, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, launched a public consultation on a proposed approach for promoting a safe, inclusive, and open online environment.
The proposal has been informed by extensive work led by the government over the last year on the issue of online harm.
Inclusive, eh?
Only an Orwellian censor would describe cutting things down and shutting mouths as inclusive.
It reflects targeted engagement with communities that experience inequitable outcomes or treatment, including victims of hate speech and organizations combating child sexual exploitation.
The proposal also draws on insights from civil society and advocacy groups from across Canada and on approaches taken by Canada's international partners.
Targeted engagement.
What does that mean?
That means they spoke to lobby groups, including lobby groups that they funded to get the green light for their censorship plans.
Inequitable outcomes.
By that, they mean people who they don't think that they're being listened to enough and that people should stop listening to others.
For example, if there's a YouTube channel that only has a few thousand viewers, but let's say, oh, I don't know, Rebel News with 1.5 million subscribers.
Well, that's inequitable and it's not inclusive enough.
You heard Stephen Gilbo.
He says in order to prop up his friends, he's going to have to squash his enemies a bit.
I think the most troubling part there is he refers to international partners.
By that, I think they mean foreign censors.
Even, as you know, two years ago, when Canada co-sponsored a media freedom conference in London, Christy Freeland attended and had a secret meeting with the foreign minister of Pakistan.
It wasn't on her itinerary.
She didn't tell any Western media about it.
It was only when that foreign minister of Pakistan boasted about it and published the pictures that we knew.
Is that an example about the foreign and international partners that Trudeau is listening to when it comes to censorship?
I'll read some more.
The government aims to present a new legislative and regulatory framework this fall with rules to make social media platforms and other online services more accountable and transparent in combating harmful online content.
This framework would also contemplate the role of law enforcement and security and intelligence agencies in addressing the real-world impacts of online harm.
These proposals aim to support inclusive online participation and protect public safety while protecting the freedom of expression and privacy of Canadians online.
Again, they talked about terrorism and child pornography so that you would say, yes, I agree with this.
But now that we're into it, they're talking about inclusive participation.
They're talking about regulating things that are not crimes.
If you want to regulate terrorism, do so.
And the good news is, we did so 20 years ago.
If you want to regulate revenge porn or child exploitation, do so.
And indeed, we do.
But that's not what this law is about.
I'll continue.
Seeking public input on the complex and technical elements of regulating harmful online content is an important step in establishing this framework.
Notice how they use the word harmful, not illegal.
They've already banned the illegal stuff.
That's why it's called illegal.
Harmful is just stuff that Stephen Gilbeau doesn't like, like insults.
He told us.
I'll read some more.
More specifically, the government's proposed regulatory framework would define the types of harmful content to be regulated, establish which entities would be subject to the new rules, set out new rules and obligations for regulated entities, and create new regulatory bodies to administer the new framework.
In the weeks ahead, the government will also hold roundtable discussions to have focused conversations on aspects of the law enforcement and national security proposals.
Yeah, it'll be fascinating to see who is invited.
Like they're going to have targeted meetings with their friends who will tell them exactly what they want to hear.
In fact, I predict that most of the people who are consulted are people that the Liberal Party pays through government grants to tow their line.
It's just an echo chamber.
I don't think there will be many true civil libertarians allowed at these events because, first of all, there aren't very many true civil libertarians allowed in Canada anymore at all.
And second of all, this government doesn't really consult.
They put together focus groups, or more likely, just defenders who will repeat their talking points and say, yeah, we support this censorship because it's about inclusion.
I'll read some more.
This includes how the regulatory framework can be structured to require the removal of serious forms of harmful online content, facilitate the investigation of potential criminal activity online, and disrupt threats to public safety and national security, all while supporting victims and protecting Canadians' privacy and charter rights.
Well, this reminds me a little bit about what they're doing south of the border, and I don't think it's a coincidence either.
I think we know that for years the Liberal Party of Canada has had Democratic Party operatives helping to run their campaign, something that if the Conservatives ever did with Republicans would be an endless scandal in the media.
I think it's pretty much take it for granted that the Liberals and the Democrats in the states work together.
In the States, they're focusing on censorship.
They're inquiry into the events of January 6th, which is the great meandering when people broke into the Capitol building and then just sort of wandered around and put their feet up on desks.
That's an attempt to redefine anyone who supported Donald Trump as a domestic violent extremist.
As I said on the show this week, I don't support break and enter or trespass or vandalism or mischief.
But the only person murdered that day was Ashley Babbitt, a protester who happened to be a military veteran.
Brian Sicknick, the officer who the media claimed died that day, according to the coroner's office, died later from natural causes.
But yet that event is being trumped up into basically a 9-11 domestically to give a justification for the FBI and others to go after anyone conservative to demonize half the country.
I fear that that's the battle plan for Justin Trudeau and the Liberals.
You heard Stephen Gilbo himself.
This is about people who criticize politicians.
He said so.
And you can see here that they're talking about harms now.
They're not talking about crimes.
I'm all in favor of hunting crime in every form, whether it's on a ship at sea or a real-world building or on the internet.
The criminal code, luckily, applies to all of these, but that's not what this is about.
I'll read some more.
The government welcomes all comments, perspectives, and evidence concerning these issues and potential options.
Submissions will help inform the incoming legislation.
No, they don't.
I know that they don't.
They ban us.
They specifically ban rebel news from press conferences.
Stephen Gilbo has personally banned me from following him on Twitter.
In fact, we launched a lawsuit against him because he was banning me from getting official government releases on his Twitter account, and he's hiring lawyers to fight that.
That pettiness and that targeting his political disagreers rather than targeting criminals gives the game away.
Stephen Gilbo is not interested in fighting terrorism.
He himself is a convicted criminal who engaged in a little bit of eco-terrorism himself.
Stephen Gilbo doesn't care about terrorism.
He's a criminal.
He cares about silencing people like Rebel News.
Canadians and stakeholders have until September 25 to submit their comments.
Click here to participate.
Starting a Petition Against Censorship00:06:30
We will.
In fact, we've already started analyzing the massive document that was attached to this press release, all the different regulators, the role that CSIS, our spy agency, will play.
I think they're going to try and do the same thing they're doing in the States to turn the anti-terrorism infrastructure of the country that's designed to protect us against another 9-11 or another shooting as al-Qaeda did and ISIS did on our parliament.
I think they're trying to turn the anti-terrorism machinery towards domestic conservatives.
I think that's pretty clear.
We will make submissions on this.
We're going to put together the best we can.
I'm certain it'll be ignored.
They've already said they're going to have specific targeted meetings with their friends.
But we'll go through the motions anyways.
We have to.
It'll also be an education for us of how bad this bill is and a preparation for when this bill is introduced and then becomes law.
I promise you right now, the rebel news will fight this in court all the way to the Supreme Court.
This is the bill we've been warning you about for pretty much a year, or even more really, since the Liberal Party banned us from even reporting on the national debates.
Stephen Gilbo, Justin Trudeau, and the rest of their thin-skinned cry bullies always say they're harmed by our questions and they want to silence us and censor us.
And the rest of the civil libertarians haven't been there and the progressive conservatives or the CPC as it's now called.
Well, here's Aaron O'Toole's hand-picked critic for Heritage.
His name is Alain Reyes.
Here he is in Parliament talking about this very thing, talking about Stephen Gilbo's plans to regulate the internet, Facebook, YouTube.
Take a listen.
But we don't see it in the bill.
There's nothing in this bill that allows for the regulation of social media or platforms like YouTube.
And it's clear.
We would have liked to have seen this in the bill.
The minister even says we have to find a way of preventing hate speech, conspiracy theories, and fake news that's shared.
But right now in the bill, unfortunately, we won't even be able to amend it in that aspect and because it's simply absent from the bill.
Yeah, he's the opposition critic, but he's not opposing and he's not criticizing other than saying he wished the government would go farther.
I'm actually quite worried that the Conservative Party of Canada and Aaron O'Toole and Alan Reyes might not even oppose this.
They're too worried about being told that they're sympathetic with domestic violent extremists or whatever.
The wording of this, it's not a bill, it's a pre-bill.
The wording of it is designed so if you oppose it, people will say, oh, what are you sympathetic to terrorism?
What, are you sympathetic to child exploitation?
No.
It's the free speech you buried in the middle of it that I'm worried about.
They attach a technical paper for more study, they say.
I've started to study it.
It's a massive thing.
I'll read a little bit.
Technical paper.
The aim of this discussion paper is to present a proposed framework for an act of parliament.
It reflects one of several possible approaches.
The paper does not imply approval by any party of the approaches or concepts in it.
Any eventual act may be supplemented by regulations made under the act.
Well, of course it reflects the work of this government.
Of course, it was published by Stephen Gilbo, and it's a result of his two-year project to come up with a censorship plan.
Of course, this reflects the liberal view, and they want it talked about, and they want it talked about when they're in control of the conversation, which is why they did it outside of parliament.
I promise you, this will be our largest fight of the year.
Now, we're still battling on the lockdown issue.
As you know, we have over 2,000 cases that fight the fines.
That's very important.
But this, I think, is them coming to kill us.
And our friends at True North and the Postmillennial and Spencer Fernando and anyone else who doesn't toe the line.
There's two ways with Justin Trudeau.
Either he pays you, like the CBC or the post-media bailout, or he bans you.
There's nothing in between.
We're starting a petition at stopthecensorship.ca, stopthecensorship.ca.
If you sign up there, I'll send you a copy of our submissions to the government.
I know they'll be ignored by the government, but I hope that they inform the world what's going on in Canada.
And we'll surely sue as soon as this is law.
But they're really not waiting, are they?
We know what they're going to do.
They're coming to silence us, but they're coming to silence you too.
Stay with us for more.
Welcome back.
Well, where is the old Civil Liberties Alliance?
I'm talking about 60s-style liberals and leftists who maybe had a splash of anarchy in them, but what you could count on them for was a robust defense of freedom of speech.
I remember, I mean, I wasn't around yet in the 60s, but I know that the ACLU, the American Civil Liberties Union, would often make a point of sending a black or Jewish lawyer to defend Klansmen or neo-Nazis, making the point that obviously they disagreed with their client, but they understood you have to fight the fight for free speech in the first ditch, not the last ditch.
Where is that old Civil Liberties Alliance of the Left?
I think it's gone.
Certainly here in Canada, where the Canadian Civil Liberties Association has been sleeping soundly through the last 18 months of the greatest infringement of civil liberties since Canada was born.
So too in the United States, where the ACLU seems more concerned with trans rights than the rights of all Americans, including trans people, during the lockdown.
Well, I'm pleased to say that to replace that old Civil Liberties Alliance, there's something actually called the new Civil Liberties Alliance, and they care very much about civil liberties regardless of your race or gender or background.
It's all about freedom.
Pfizer's Voluntary Dilemma00:11:21
And you know one of their lawyers, we've talked to her before.
Her name is Janine Eunice, and she comes to us now via Skype from Washington, where she is the lead lawyer suing or threatening to sue a university for forced vaccinations.
Janine, great to see you again.
It's great to be back, Ezra.
Well, thank you.
I have in my hands a press release that you guys put out last week called NCLA, that's you guys, the new Civil Liberties Alliance, tells George Mason University that its forced vaccination policy violates constitutional rights and medical ethics.
I've never seen a policy quite as abusive as this.
And I've seen half a dozen attempts at vaccine passports.
Why don't you tell us what George Mason University threatened its staff and students with?
So George Mason's policy is laid out in three separate documents.
There was an email that came out on June 28th and then another one on July 22nd and then there was a website.
And they're not all exactly the same, but they've given no indication that one overrides the other.
So we're assuming they're all operative.
So students are mandated to get the vaccine.
They allow religious and medical exemptions, but if you get one of those, you have to socially distance and mask and subject yourself to constant testing.
So it's obviously quite punitive.
It makes the life of the student who has the exemption fairly miserable.
Faculty and staff are not, you know, they're not saying it's a mandate.
They're saying you're encouraged to get the vaccine.
But again, if you don't get it, you have to physically distance, wear a mask, subject yourself to testing.
You can seek a remote option.
So, obviously, for professors, this really interferes with their ability to perform their job effectively.
You can't be as effective if you're wearing a mask, if you can't take students to lunch, if you can't hold office hours, all of which are part of the social distancing and masking requirements.
And to make matters worse, you have to upload proof of your vaccination status.
They say proof of vaccination status, but obviously, you can't upload proof that you haven't gotten the vaccine.
So, they're saying, you know, proof that you have got it into an online portal.
And if you don't, you're ineligible for merit pay increases.
And if you don't comply with the policies, you're subject to disciplinary action, which includes termination of employment and or possible unpaid leave.
So, although it's not a mandate, technically, it's effectively a mandate.
Yeah, I mean, to denormalize, marginalize, denounce, segregate, and make people wear a scarlet letter or a mask.
What's so interesting is that your client, who's actually a law school professor there, and I used to know George Mason University some years ago, as a real liberty kind of think tank, at least that's what I remember it as.
Maybe they messed with the wrong guy because the Scalia School of Law, I mean, that should tell you that they care about freedom.
Professor Todd Zawicki, if I'm saying his name right, he had the COVID virus naturally, so he has a natural immunity to it.
Sounds like that's not cutting any ice.
They want him to take the injection anyways, even though it has real risks as outlined by the drug companies themselves.
They're not respecting or exempting him, even though he's got natural immunity, am I right?
It doesn't appear that they're going to.
We sent a letter requesting that they do so.
I believe that Professor Zixwicki had brought this up with them before, and they indicated that they were not going to acknowledge or recognize his natural immunity as equivalent to vaccine immunity, which is absurd.
We have, as we established through a few declarations that we attached to the letter, natural immunity is as good or better as the most effective vaccines.
It's far better than some of the vaccines that GMU accepts, actually.
So GMU is accepting any WHO-approved vaccine, which includes the Chinese Cinebac vaccine, which has a very low efficacy rate.
The Johnson and Johnson is somewhere between 66 and I think 83, 85% effective, whereas natural immunity is in the high 90s in terms of efficacy.
And it looks as though Pfizer just came out with a study showing that after six months, immunity, sorry, that's not Pfizer.
There was a study from Israel showing that immunity from the Pfizer vaccine wanes significantly after about six months.
So it still reduces symptoms, but you can be infected, which means that you can spread it.
Whereas natural immunity doesn't appear to have that.
So this is completely irrational, arbitrary, and makes no sense whatsoever.
Yeah.
On my show, I went through the entire, I think it was seven-page Pfizer statement about their vaccine and all the different caveats and footnotes and warnings.
And words like experimental kept coming up.
There's also a line in there I thought was interesting.
Pfizer themselves say, if you don't take this vaccine, it should not alter any other medical treatment you receive.
It was a very interesting document.
I'm sure it was written for reasons of legal liability.
Pfizer is not as cheerleading, at least in its official documents, about the Pfizer vaccine as every politician and bureaucrat seems to be.
They can't emphasize enough the risks.
They can't emphasize enough that, for example, it hasn't been tested when you mix and match vaccines, which is what many Canadians have had done.
I read that Pfizer warning, seven-page warning.
Another thing is, I'm certain that no other person, like one in a million people actually read the seven-page warning before they're injected.
This is an experimental med that is not done being tested.
For example, they treat pregnant women or breastfeeding women.
They say we just don't know.
So how can a school, especially a school that's supposed to know law, command its staff and students, you must take this, even if you've got immunity, when Pfizer itself says, no, This is voluntary.
It's extraordinary, Ezra.
I mean, and as I think we've discussed before, in the U.S., these are authorized under a statute known as the Emergency Use Authorization Statute.
I don't know if there's an equivalent in Canada.
That statute is quite clear.
It says that recipients should be offered the option to refuse the treatment, that they must be informed of the risks and benefits.
Everybody is acting as though that doesn't exist.
In fact, the Office of Legal Counsel at the DOJ, which advises the president, just issued a memo saying something like, well, it might appear that it shouldn't be able to be mandated, but we think it's clear that it should be able to.
They've used a very contorted or twisted interpretation of the statute that makes no sense.
It's not based on a plain reading of the statute at all.
And it's clear to me this is all political.
You know, there's this thrive to vaccinate everyone, vaccinate everyone.
Why, I don't understand.
It doesn't make any logical sense, particularly when you're talking about people who have a natural immunity.
But also, you know, applies to a lot of people who are younger, healthy, and might make a decision or assessment that the risk to them outweighs the benefit.
Yeah, I mean, what's interesting to me is when some of these Olympic athletes who are probably healthier and fitter than 99.99% of the world, I mean, these people are the absolute best of us in terms of physical stamina and fitness.
The percentage of the regular 20-somethings who get sick or gravely sick or die in that age group is so close to zero it's hard to measure, let alone these, you know, fine athletic specimens.
It's shocking to me that anyone would expect that they would take an experimental drug whose side effects are known, but we don't know the full extent of them.
The drug's still being tested.
Why would a perfectly healthy Olympian inject himself with that med?
I just, I find that this is no longer about medicine or science.
It's about obedience, about indicating which team you're on, about being able to hector other people.
It gives you a leg up so you can be in the in-group.
I think masks were to soften us up.
Masks softened us up.
Obedience conditioning.
And now the vax.
And then we're already hearing boosters and annual shots.
I mean, it's not, you know, we heard of double masking.
Now there's double and triple vaccine.
I'm deeply worried about this, and I just don't even understand it.
I don't understand it if it's a public health thing.
I absolutely do understand it if it's a social control thing.
Then it makes sense.
Yes, it's the only way it makes sense.
And, you know, you mentioned masks and now the vaccine.
I mean, we also had at the very beginning it was shaming people for not socially distancing appropriately or not following those rules.
So it's just been a long attempt to shame people, to socially control them and to create these in-and-out groups, as you mentioned, and to demonize people and to blame them.
The fact is that this disease can't be controlled or solved by the government.
It can't be solved by people, but we're trying to blame people and demonize them for their choices.
Yeah, I mean, I was reading Jordan Schachtel.
He had a clever tweet today.
He said it went from, hey, everybody, the vaccine will save us to convince your neighbors to get a vaccine.
Come on, just coax them to you, bloody unvaccinated people, you're the reason we're still sick.
Like that, that sure escalated quickly.
We talked about in-groups and out-groups and lockdownism as an ideology or really more a superstition.
I saw something interesting yesterday.
An enormous union, which I think we could probably safely say is a pro-Democrat, pro-Biden union, the postal workers.
They said they're not for mandatory vax.
Joe Biden has said that he wants everyone who works for the government to be vaxed.
Postal workers said no, thanks.
I'm going to find that an interesting one to follow because, you know, it's one thing for the Zoom class of society, folks who can, you know, work from home, never lost a day's pay.
They think this is a, you know, sort of a fun emergency because it doesn't cost them anything, but they get to be very dramatic.
That's one world.
But, you know, if you're a door-to-door blue-collar postal worker, you probably are from a different world and you don't want to be injected.
I wonder if there's any other demographic groups that have political clout.
I've heard that visible minorities, for example, including black Americans, have a lower vaccination rate, and they would be disproportionately penalized in any vax passport system.
We've heard the phrase systemic racism.
You didn't mean to be racist, but the system has that effect.
I wonder if there's going to be any hope that these traditional Democrat groups, whether it's union workers or black Americans, might be some sort of counterweight that liberty-loving political people on the right just don't get any traction.
Vaccination Rates and Racism00:03:18
I wouldn't hold my breath.
My friends and I have tried making that point a little bit on Twitter and various other places, and it doesn't seem to get any traction because the vaccination rates for minorities and especially poor minorities in New York City and other places is much lower.
So we're pointing to the fact that they're being excluded at much higher rates, but nobody seems to care.
The desire to politicize this virus, to politicize this issue and to politicize the management is just overwriting everything.
Last question, just back to the lawsuit that the NCLA is looking at.
Have you actually filed the lawsuit or have you just sent demand letters to the university?
The fact that they put up their policy and then yanked it down within hours tells us that they knew they phrased it wrong.
I bet there's a lot of interesting behind-the-scenes correspondence that could come out in some sort of document discovery.
I think they have dirty hands and they should walk away.
Have they responded to you?
Have you actually filed a lawsuit or are you just sort of sending them a warning shot so far?
So far, it's just a warning shot.
I haven't received a response to my letter yet, which we sent last Wednesday.
So we will keep you posted.
We're prepared to protect Professor Zukzwicki's constitutional rights, and I'll be happy to speak again as things develop, if they develop.
Yeah, well, thank you for that.
And just to tell our Canadian viewers, who are most of our viewers, besides our petition at novaxpassports.ca, we are looking for a test case for our civil liberties project up here.
And what's so interesting about this case is that Professor Zawicki is a very sympathetic client in that he has natural immunity already.
And the institution is very odious in that they're so punitive and bullying.
That's the kind of fact pattern we're looking for up here in Canada.
A sympathetic plaintiff who, for medical or religious reasons, ought to be exempt, and an odious defendant, ideally a government agency that's bound by the Charter of Rights.
So if you know someone in that position, send them to us.
We are looking for a test case.
Send that to legal at RebelNews.com.
Janine Yunus, great to see you again.
Congratulations.
Hopefully the new Civil Liberties Alliance will fill the void left by the hiding old Civil Liberties Alliance.
Thanks for being with us.
All right, great to see you.
There you have it.
Stay with us.
more ahead.
Hey, welcome back on my show last night on vaccine passports.
Bruce writes, I won't get the jab because I won't be able to sue the companies and governments for bad side effects.
Yeah, I mean, it's incredible how the lessons of thalidomide, that was the medication for pregnant moms who had morning sickness and it caused their babies to be born limbless, terrible, terrible consequences.
That totally changed the pharmacy business.
It required all sorts of tests in advance.
And it was very, it brought in all sorts of ethics rules for who you could test drugs on.
Thalidomide's Legacy00:01:22
Well, they're testing these drugs on the whole world, aren't they?
Maybe in the end, it'll be found that this vaccine is really effective and not dangerous.
But so far, I'm not sure how effective it is.
It looks like the effectiveness wears off after a number of weeks.
And it looks like it has had more side effects than every other vaccine reported combined.
I'm not saying that people should not take the vaccine.
I'm just saying we need more information.
And if you're under 50 or even under 60, really, and if you're healthy, just the math doesn't add up.
CK writes, I don't understand.
The vaccines save you from either getting COVID or passing it on to others.
Why does everyone have to have the experimental gene therapy they were calling a vaccination, but resembles no other vaccine in history?
Well, that's the thing.
I think I showed you that Kathy Kucinowski went out and did some streeters in Toronto.
And some people said, I would never invite anyone who's not double vaxed like me over for dinner.
Well, hang on.
If you're double vaxed, aren't you saved harmless from it?
I don't know.
I think there's a lot of disinformation and misinformation.
Big pharmacies never had a better than it would never be more profitable.
But mainly, as I said to Janine today, I just don't think this is about health.
I think it's about using health as an excuse for government control.
That's very different, isn't it?
That's our show for today.
Until tomorrow, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, to you at home.