Ezra Levant examines how media and activists treat political confrontation as violence when targeting conservatives, like LUCA’s illegal immigrant activist Blanca harassing Sen. Kirsten Sinema, while excusing left-wing actions—even Biden’s normalization of it. He contrasts Canada’s censorship of dissent (e.g., Ontario’s ban on doctors criticizing COVID policies) with authoritarian regimes like China and Australia’s lockdowns, highlighting Dr. Patrick Phillips’ case over ivermectin restrictions. Legal battles against vaccine passports, led by Rebel News and the Democracy Fund, reveal growing public backlash, with unvaccinated Canadians facing job loss and segregation while businesses bear healthcare costs. As restrictions tighten, the divide sharpens, exposing mainstream media’s bias toward government-funded narratives over independent truth. [Automatically generated summary]
I want to show you an incredible video of Democrat Party activists stalking and harassing a female senator who happens to be a Democrat too, chasing her into a bathroom, hounding her, a U.S. senator, because she won't spend as much as they want her to.
It's actually incredible.
The most incredible part is that they published the video themselves.
The stalkers did, I mean.
I'll show you that and give you some thoughts on it.
Before I do, let me invite you to become a subscriber to what we call Rebel News Plus.
Just go to RebelNewsPlus.com and click subscribe.
It's $8 a month.
You get the video version of this podcast.
All right, here's today's podcast.
Tonight, when does the media say that speech is actually violence?
And when do they say that violence is actually speech?
It's October 4th, 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 about why I'm publishing it is because it's my bloody right to do so.
Look at this video.
I'm going to show it to you in a moment.
First, let me show you the form in which it was published to the world.
It was in a tweet on the social media site Twitter with a blue check mark, which means it's verified.
It's an official authoritative account approved by Twitter management.
The Twitter account belongs to something spelled LUCA, which stands for Living United for Change in Arizona.
They say they're fighting for social, racial, and economic transformation.
And here's what they posted on their official Twitter account.
We wouldn't have to resort to confronting Senator Cinema around Phoenix if she took meetings with the communities that elected her.
She's been completely inaccessible.
We're sick of the political games.
Stop playing with our lives.
Build back better.
Back the bill.
So they're talking about a United States senator from Arizona named Kirsten Sinema, who, although very woke and checking lots of politically correct boxes, she's a woman.
She's young for a senator.
She used to be in the Green Party.
She's bisexual.
I mean, that's a pretty good hand if you're playing woke poker.
But she's surprisingly independent-minded, which maybe shouldn't be so surprising.
And she doesn't really want to go along with the most aggressive spending and regulatory bill in American history.
What are they up to now?
$3.5 trillion?
Nobody tell Joe Biden what number comes after million, billion, trillion, no endellum.
So some Democratic Party activists with this front group, LUCA, they know that Senator Sinema also teaches a course at university.
She doesn't do it for the money, obviously.
She doesn't do it for the fame of the powers.
She's a senator.
She does it, I'm guessing, because she loves to teach.
She connects her with her community, with young people.
It's a form of public service.
Isn't it neat?
Well, some LUCA activists, including an illegal immigrant who is illegally in America, let me repeat, illegal.
Well, they decided to stalk her, chase her, hound her, and follow her right into the bathroom.
Watch this.
I'll be back.
Sit down, we want to talk to you real quick.
Do you want to talk to real quick?
Actually, I am heading out.
Right now is a real moment that our people need in order for us to be able to talk about what's really happening.
We need a Build Back Better Plan right now.
We knocked on door first.
We need solutions.
The Build Back Better Plan.
We have the solutions that we need.
We knocked on doors for you to get you elected.
Just how we got you elected.
We can get you out of office if you don't support what you promised us.
We need $7 million citizenship for $7 million.
We need the Delta Bed Time right now.
My name is Blanca.
I was brought here to the United States when I was three years old.
And in 2010, my grandparents both got deported because of SP 1070.
And I'm here because I definitely believe that we need this pathway to citizenship.
My grandfather passed away two weeks ago, and I was not able to go to Mexico and visit him because there is no pathway to citizenship.
And if we have the opportunity to pass it right now, then we need to do it because there's millions of undocumented people just like me who share the same story or even worse things that happen to them because of SB 1070 and because of anti-immigrant legislation.
And this is the opportunity to pass it right now.
And we need to hold you accountable to what you told us, what you promised us that you were going to pass when we knocked on doors for you.
It's not right.
I'm a survivor.
I'm a survivor of human trafficking.
And it's because of the lack of worker protections that we don't have in the gig economy.
I need you to stand like workers, lots of people who are liable to me who became homeless and yeah, that's a crime.
That's literally a crime, by the way.
Let me show you the Arizona law, revised statutes, Title 13, Criminal Code.
Let me read from the bill.
Here's what it says.
It is unlawful for any person to knowingly photograph, videotape, film, digitally record, or by any other means secretly view with or without a device another person without that person's consent under either of the following circumstances.
One, in a restroom, bathroom, locker room, bedroom, or other location where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and the person is urinating, defecating, dressing, undressing, nude, or involved in sexual incourse.
Okay.
Sorry to be so blunt.
I'm just reading from the wording of the law.
Chasing someone into a bathroom while they're going to the bathroom when they have a reasonable expectation of privacy and don't consent.
I'm sorry, that's stalking, that's harassing, that's breaking the law.
Here's another view of that.
Will you support the Build Back Better so that we can have just solutions that we need for immigration, labor?
Build back better, back the bill.
By the way, they've been doing this to her for days.
I'm surprised they haven't physically battered her yet.
Here's the same Build Back Better Democrat active operatives, excuse me, going after another Democratic senator who isn't left-wing enough for them.
His name is Joe Manchin.
He's a Democrat senator from West Virginia.
And by the way, when he's in Washington, D.C., he lives on a houseboat.
He has a boat.
He apparently paid $220,000 for it, which I can tell you is much cheaper than a condo in D.C.
And he's a Democrat, mind you, but because he represents West Virginia and not a hard left-wing state, he's not quite as enthused by Joe Biden's bill.
And so take a look at this.
Senator Manchin!
Senator Manchin!
Your constituents are here!
Your constituents are here!
Your constituents are here from West Virginia!
Your constituents are here from West Virginia!
Will you please come talk to us?
Now, they were at least polite and didn't come onto his boat.
I'm guessing they know a bit about Joe Manchin and didn't dare break the laws of piracy and storm his boat.
I'll cut federal spending and I'll repeal the bad parts of Obamacare.
I sue DPA and I'll take dead aim at the cap and trade bill because it's bad for West Virginia.
They're only brave enough to assault women, not armed men.
Hey, imagine if instead of Democrat activists and illegal immigrants chasing a woman into a bathroom and filming her, imagine if it were, oh, I don't know, a kid in a MAGA hat, Make America Great Again, hat, the Trump hat, chasing not a Democrat senator who's a moderate, but chasing, let's say, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, chasing her into a bathroom, filming her, terrorizing her, harassing her.
What do you think the media would have said or done in that case?
Well, here's what Joe Biden had to say on the subject.
I don't think they're appropriate tactics, but it happens to everybody.
The only people it doesn't happen to are people who have Secret Service stand around.
So it's part of the process, yes.
Hang on, that was part of the process.
It happens to people all the time, doesn't it?
It's just part of the process to chase women into bathrooms and film them?
Yeah, no.
You know, you had a few dozen protesters meandering around an empty Capitol building, and they've been in solitary confinement for nine months, and that attack was called the worst attack on America since 9-11.
Threats of Harassment Process00:02:23
But stalking a woman by herself into a bathroom and blocking her way, that's part of the process.
Of course it is, because they're Biden's shock troops.
He loves them.
He's not going to deport that illegal alien who committed the crime.
I doubt they'll be prosecuted.
So threats of violence or intimidation at the very least, that's just part of the process to the Democrats.
But people sending journalists mean comments, I want to read that to you.
That's a five-alarm fire.
Depends on who the target is, right?
Here's the latest from blacklocks.ca, where journalism groups are not getting together to fight Trudeau's censorship plans.
They're getting together to help sell his censorship plans to the public for him.
Let me read some of it to you.
This is from Blacklocks.
CBC leads advocacy study.
The CBC and five subsidized press associations pledged to advocate for initiatives to reduce, if not prevent, online harm, according to a network statement.
The advocacy comes ahead of internet censorship bills by Heritage Minister Stephen Legault, including a proposal to block websites and appoint a chief censor called the Digital Safety Commissioner.
Safety, I love that part.
We think industry-wide data will help us to advocate for initiatives to reduce, if not prevent, online harm.
Claude Gallipo, CBC executive vice president, wrote in the statement.
The network said it was commissioning a complaint-driven survey to document allegations of hurtful internet content.
Questions included, how often have you experienced any of the following as a result of the work you do in the field of journalism or media?
Threats or harassment online, social media emails, websites, etc.
Threats of harassment by phone, threats of harassment in person, physically attacked.
The survey also asked, do you feel the frequency of harassment has changed over the past two years?
And who should be held responsible for protecting journalists from online harm?
Social media platforms, employers, journalism associations, government.
Now let me stop for a minute and say I'm not for harassing people.
I'm against harassing people.
I'm against being attacked.
I'm against physical attacks.
But can you recall a single journalist in Canada being attacked in the last, I don't know, 10 years?
Anyone?
Anyone at the CBC or CTV or Global or the Toronto Star or The Sun or the National Post?
Can you remember a single journalist being attacked?
Physicians Banned from Advice00:06:22
I can.
Us here at Rebel News, by the government mainly.
Here's the Toronto Police attacking us for peacefully doing our job, reporting on protests.
Here's the Montreal police doing the same.
And they call us Jew Media, media shouif, just to add a little whiff of fascism to it.
And here's the Australian police attacking our Avi Amini.
And here's an Antiva protester attacking our David Menzies in Peterborough.
And here's Sheila Gunread being attacked by an NDP activist at a women's march in Edmonton.
I could show you many more videos.
I mean, here's a recent one: police stealing our Tamarman's hard drive in Quebec and threatening to arrest him if he didn't hand it over.
Not a word from the CBC or the five official media organizations on any of that.
Not a word from the Canadian Association of Journalists.
They're too busy asking police to arrest Maxime Bernier for saying mean things about them.
But mean tweets, mean emails, that's the stuff they want to censor.
Violence against Christian cinema is speech.
And speech is violence.
Depends on who you are.
Stay with us for a minute.
Welcome back.
Well, you know, the doctor's motto, the Hippocratic Oath, it goes back millennia, actually, do no harm.
There's another aphorism that you'll hear from doctors.
Get a second opinion.
May I get a second opinion?
I'd like another opinion.
Because two doctors, seeing the same set of facts and talking to the patient, may come up with another point of view.
It's not something to be discouraged.
It's something to be encouraged because each patient has different needs.
How different treating individual patients than treating the mass as if we're ants in an ant colony?
That's the difference between a doctor with patients and a quote public health doctor who's treating the body politic at large.
Many of the people you see on TV, Dr. Teresa Tam, for example, are really bureaucrats and politicians who haven't seen a patient in years or even decades, but they have an MD behind their name, so that gives them an authoritativeness to make diagnoses and prescriptions for society at large.
Well, what happens if there's an individual doctor who sees an individual patient and comes to the conclusion based on his own judgment and experience and the questions asked that maybe the public health prescription is not appropriate for a particular client?
Well, we have precious few of those doctors in Canada.
Those that do pop up are being singled out by the colleges of physicians and surgeons, the regulators for that profession, and threatened even with the loss of their livelihoods.
One such doctor is named Dr. Patrick Phillips.
He's an emergency room doctor in Eastern Ontario, and he joins us now via Skype.
Dr. Phillips, a pleasure to have you with us.
Thanks for being here.
Thank you for having me on, Ezra.
Well, I think many institutions have failed over the last year and a half.
There's no opposition party in the country that opposes the lockdowns.
There's really no mainstream media that does.
No judges have struck it down in any meaningful way.
But I think one of the greatest failures, if I may, are the colleges of physicians and surgeons who have, rather than advocating for patients, have advocated for the government against the patients and against any doctors and told them to shut up.
Can you tell us what happened to you when you dared to give your professional advice that was at odds to the government's advice?
Yeah, so this is quite a troubling issue that's come up in Ontario.
And it started, I think, last year when Public Health became very adamant about their policies and they're not to be questioned.
Surprisingly, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario came out with a very stark statement on April 30th stating that physicians are banned from giving any advice to patients or the public that could be construed as anti-vaccine, anti-distancing, anti-masking, or promoting what they call unfounded treatments.
And this is unheard of.
It's unprecedented.
The medical community is very used to having free and open debate around scientific issues, around treatments, because treatment recommendations change from time to time.
It happens all the time.
You think of aspirin.
We used to tell everybody to take an aspirin to prevent heart attacks, and now we've figured out that has made you more likely to die because we didn't take into account the risk of bleeding.
Only certain people should take aspirin.
But that's just one example of a dogma that was always just construed as common sense advice that should never be questioned, and it's been shown to be wrong.
So when it comes to COVID-19, it's even more egregious because this is an area, this is a disease, in fact, that's completely new.
And so that science has been developing rapidly.
But even more so, that like the whole scientific community of the world, because it's such a crisis, has kind of come together and created more scientific evidence on one disease, I think, than we've ever seen in history in such a short time.
And so I started to follow some of that science.
I started to see not only some of the harms of the lockdowns and that the science wasn't backing up any of the benefits of these lockdowns, but I started to follow some of the science on treatments for COVID-19.
One of them being vitamin D, which drastically reduces mortality and hospitalization, and then ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, all of which in multiple randomized control trials have been shown to reduce mortality in COVID-19.
Randomized Trials Revealed00:10:05
And so, like I said, seeing some of these lockdowns, harms in my patients, including this cancer diagnosis, suicidal children, I knew that I needed to speak out.
And so I decided to put it on the line and to follow my oath to put patients first, to share my medical knowledge, and to speak freely as all physicians should, to give informed consent to the public and my patients.
And the college did not like that.
They accused me of spreading misinformation and of being incompetent in my social media statements.
So yeah, they've launched an investigation.
It's been since I think February is when they started.
And just recently, they've come together to put restrictions on my practice and to make allegations against me that have yet to be proven in the tribunal.
Although the tribunal is run by the CPSO.
I understand that some of those restrictions include forbidding you from making certain prescriptions, such as ivermectin, and forbidding you from writing any medical exemptions for people.
Is that correct?
That's correct.
Now, but here's what I don't understand.
If you haven't had a hearing yet, I mean, if you haven't been put on trial within the College of Physicians and Surgeons, where accusations are put to you and you have a chance to reply and you can make your case, you can say, well, look at these studies and look at these clinical trials and look at these other jurisdictions.
If so far all it is is political complaints, and maybe they'll be upheld, but so far they haven't had their day in court, how can they stop you from prescribing medicine just based on an accusation?
Yeah, so they do have the right to be able to put preliminary restrictions prior to the trial.
They think that it's you're a risk to patient safety.
So I agree it's overkill, but they do have the ability to do that prior to the trial.
That's incredible.
You know, you said one of the things that they're banning doctors from talking about is criticizing public policy orders like social distancing.
I don't know if you saw this, but Scott Gottlieb, former FDA commissioner, now I understand, I think he's actually on the board of Pfizer.
He admitted just the other day that the whole six feet social distancing thing, no one knows where it came from.
Everyone just repeated it.
And I know in other jurisdictions around the world, it's one and a half meters, or some places it's one meter, so that's three feet, four and a half feet, six feet.
Like, according to Scott Gottlieb, the former FDA commissioner, that was just all made up.
Yeah.
You know, so much of what was implemented by public health throughout this pandemic were things that were just made up.
And actually, a lot of them actually contradicted well-known scientific studies that some of these measures were not helpful or could actually be harmful, such as wearing masks for people who are asymptomatic.
There were studies prior to COVID that showed that actually cloth masks enhance the spread of influenza.
And that was a randomized control trial.
And so that's why you saw Fauci and others saying, no, there's no evidence this works, and it might actually be harmful.
And that was the real science.
The science didn't change in March of 2020.
The policy changed.
And much of it contradicted well-known science around these issues.
But yeah, I agree.
Social distancing as well has not been shown to be effective.
In fact, we know that COVID-19 is airborne.
It forms in clouds.
It goes out the sides of masks.
And so it's stagnant air and lack of ventilation that often leads to the spread.
Although immune compromise, such as vitamin D deficiency, age, hypertension, diabetes, all those things are what make you actually most prone to getching COVID.
You know, there are actually a range of opinions, medical opinions, public health opinions.
Much of it is just BS because so little of this has been tried.
But I see online there are lots of Twitter doctors.
There's a lot of TV doctors.
And I don't mean people pretending to be doctors.
I mean real doctors who they're having the time of their lives being on TV, being asked their opinion, whereas before no one ever paid them attention.
Now they're the heroes of our age.
And I see that it feels like there's almost an arms race to who could be the most apocalyptic, who could be the most absurd with their recommendations.
I see doctors masking their own children at home, let alone masking children anywhere.
So here's my question for you.
You have been sanctioned without even a hearing, banned from issuing certain prescriptions, banned from giving your own patients a medical exemption, even if they desperately need one.
But other doctors are out there cooking up crazy ideas on the other side.
You need a triple mask.
Need a vax and a mask and a booster and at home like just absurd.
And I haven't seen the College OF Physicians AND Surgeons ever knock those celebrity doctors for being absolute fear mongers, panic mongers and frankly, coming up with homemade remedies that have never been tested before.
Do you know of any doctor in Canada or, for that matter, the United States or Europe, who has been censured by the College OF Physicians AND Surgeons in their jurisdiction for being too alarmist, too extremist, or even just for being extreme in general and causing panic?
No.
In fact, what I find actually most egregious in this is one of the most fundamental principles of medical ethics, and I mean it's drilled into you in medical school.
Every year we have classes on it once a week, professional competencies.
And number one principle is patient autonomy.
Patients' choices over their own health care.
No physician ever forces medical treatment on a patient or coerces them or lures them in by some other means to get such as ice cream into any kind of medical treatment.
That's considered unethical and that's our number one duty.
And what we're seeing is a lot of these TV doctors, along with public health, are violating the most basic principles of medical ethics that these colleges were created to enforce.
And so when we see doctors who are encouraging vaccine passports, encouraging people to get fired for not complying with some medical treatment, this is what these colleges were created for.
It was to remove that kind of danger, that medical assault that's happening on patients.
I can't tell you how many patients I've seen coming in with vaccine injuries or just getting vaccinated in general and tell me they were crying getting it because they were told they were going to lose their job if they didn't get it.
And they knew they didn't want it.
They weren't willing to accept the risks, but they were coerced.
This is what colleges were created for.
This is the most egregious form of medical malpractice in my mind.
And that's what our college is actually encouraging.
They're coming after doctors who are trying to protect patients from coercion.
Because we have no business ever, even with a 100% safe and effective vaccine or a 100% safe and effective treatment to force a patient into that or even participate in that coercion.
If you look at the College of Physicians consent to treatment policy, they actually forbid any doctor from providing a medical treatment if they have reason to believe that that patient is being coerced by a third party.
So it's not just your physician can't coerce you, but no physician can give a treatment if you're being coerced by somebody else.
And so the college, in my opinion, they're failing egregiously in their duty to protect patients from medical assault.
Yeah, when you mentioned ice cream, I know that's not a random thing.
The city of Toronto and other jurisdictions were saying, hey, kids, like literally free hugs, you know, free ice cream.
They actually had a free ice cream day for children as young as 12 who don't need their parental consent to get the jab.
That's shocking to me.
And you're right.
You know, oh, it's completely your choice to get vaxed.
You'll just be fired from your job, kicked out from your university, banned from any normal social life.
It is absolutely duress.
You know, there's a philosopher and a physicist named Richard Feynman.
He's passed away now, but he really popularized science in the 60s and 70s, and he had a saying that science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts.
As in the whole point of science, what distinguishes it from faith, where you believe based on the authority of God, science is based on criticizing the experts, knowing that they don't know everything, and challenging, challenging, challenging, always trying to disprove a hypothesis.
And I don't think that these colleges, I think they have turned into a priesthood, not a science collaboration.
Experts' Ignorance00:04:06
That's my view.
What do you think?
Yeah, absolutely.
I mean, again, I find it so crazy how everything's been turned upside down.
I mean, I don't know where other doctors went to med school, but when I learned about medical evidence and we learned how to critically appraise studies and the evidence for medical recommendations, we learned at the very bottom of that rung is expert opinion, right?
Like, only in the absence of any other evidence do we base our medical practice on expert opinion.
And what we have now for COVID, for these public health measures, we actually have a ton of evidence, tons of peer-reviewed scientific studies, randomized control trials.
And yet still, doctors and patients are all encouraged to follow the experts when the experts are contradicting the best available evidence that we have around ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, showing that masks don't work, and the Dan mask study, among many others.
So yeah, I fully agree.
It's almost like a religion where you have to blindly follow the leader, despite the fact that the leader is contradicting the scientific evidence.
Well, do you have a hearing date scheduled?
Do we know when your case will be no?
No.
No, not yet.
Well, maybe they want it that way.
Maybe they want to have the defamation of you and the slurs against you, but to delay as far as possible your chance to respond.
And by the way, your response, you would be able to marshal your information and probably dispute theirs.
My guess is they want things just the way they are.
You've been denormalized.
You've been deplatformed, canceled, really.
And as far as they're concerned, if they have your hearing in 2025, that suits them just fine.
Yeah, likely.
Yeah, I don't know what their plans are for me, but yes.
Well, let me say this, and I'm certainly not going to press you to make a decision on air, but let me tell you that we have actually defended more than 2,000 Canadians who have received some kind of hassle or ticket or fine or prosecution over the last year and a half because of the lockdowns.
And your case is very important.
In fact, I'd say it's more important that most of the cases we deal with are a nuisance or a hassle, and they're $1,000.
So that's enough to really tip a family into financial jeopardy.
But to actually shut up and shut down a doctor who expresses an alternative point of view, and by the way, of course, they are affecting your livelihood.
I think your case could be one of the most important.
So let me just extend to you an offer of pro bono.
Well, we'll pay for.
We crowdfund top-notch lawyers, and we actually have a lawyer in-house who is a lawyer and a former nurse and knows health law inside out.
Feel free to be in touch with us at a later date.
We would be delighted to give you outstanding representation at no cost to you.
Our viewers would be happy to crowdfund it.
So you don't need to answer me now, but you can think about it, and we will be there for you if you need this legal help.
Yeah, we'll definitely take that into consideration.
All right.
Well, listen, it's a pleasure to meet you.
And I wish you strength, and I hope that you fight back, not just because of your particular point of view, but the very fact that whatever your point of view is, that it's being censored.
That is not science, and that's definitely not medicine.
It's nice to meet you, and I wish you good luck.
Definitely.
Thank you so much, Edward.
All right, my pleasure.
There you have Dr. Patrick Phillips, an emergency department doctor, who joined us from Engelhart, Ontario.
Stay with us.
Welcome back.
Here are letters from the last show on Friday.
Vaccine Passports: Losing Freedom?00:10:36
Wise Owl says, Glad to hear the Liberals being referred to as a regime, which they have totally become.
Yeah, I think they are.
I mean, Justin Trudeau does not really respect the courts or the democratic process.
Moments after the federal court allowed us into the leaders debate, he says, no, whatever the court says, you're not journalists to me.
Well, there is a thing called the rule of law body.
We'll have to keep reminding them.
Paul Hicks says, Canada or Communist China.
I wasn't sure where you were talking about at first.
Has your prime minister been taking lessons from Chinese state security or what?
Well, you know, it's even worse in Australia.
There's that one premier of the state of Victoria who went to China and signed a secret treaty with the Chinese, wouldn't disclose it to voters.
It had to be disallowed by the prime minister there.
He's the one with the most brutal lockdowns in Australia.
His name is Dan Andrews.
He's in the state of Victoria, Australia.
I think that Trudeau is doing the same thing.
You'll notice that the governors and the premiers and the prime ministers in the world, the closest to communist China, are the ones with the most brutal lockdown.
Jacinda Ardern of New Zealand being one of the worst.
And those who are the freest and the most anti-communist, Rhonda Santos of Florida, for example, have the lightest lockdowns.
I don't think it's a coincidence.
And I think it explains a lot about us here in Canada.
Well, that's our show for today.
I'm going to leave you with one video.
As you know, we like to choose videos from around the rest of the rebel world because I'd just like to throw a video your way to make sure you see some of our other work.
So I'll say goodbye to you now and we'll leave you with a video.
But until next time, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters to you at home, good night.
Keep fighting for freedom.
Unvaccinated people, they're going to suffer.
I had a doctor call me and ask me when I had an appointment coming up and she said, Tim, you can't see me until you have the vaccination.
I don't have a choice because they impose it on me.
But I think it's taking our freedom away.
There are people who can't get the vaccine.
So how are they going to be protected in this vaccine world?
I still have my papers and maybe think to show up when I get in this one or anywhere.
They're being inconsiderate because they further the spread of disease.
Well, you shouldn't be worried.
You should be worried about the other guy.
You should be worried about the person who's not vaccinated, not want to have him thrown in jail or something worse, you know.
So this thing of division is the worst.
I don't think I would have a resistance to it encompassing essential services because it's just like no smoking, right?
It's a bad awakening for a democracy, I guess.
Sydney Vizard, video journalist for Rebel News.
Now, you may have recently heard about the vaccine passports that have been popping up across the country.
Recently, I got to experience these firsthand as I was traveling across the provinces from Toronto to Calgary.
And along the way, I was able to find a wide range of Canadians, from those who support the vaccine passport to those who want nothing to do with it.
And in today's report, I'm going to show you what they had to say when I asked them about the vaccine passport.
Do you support the vaccine passport?
It would be good.
No, I don't.
I think I do, sure.
I don't know if I think it's a good thing all around.
I want to be around people that are vaccinated.
Absolutely necessary.
I think they're criminal.
I am in support of it, but I think there's so many things that could go wrong with it.
Absolutely not.
I'm very much against that.
But just use it so they can track you.
And I still have my papers and everything to show up when I get in restaurant or anywhere.
It's the good thing to do.
Right now, you can't go anywhere if you don't have it.
You can't go out for dinner.
So, yes, I support it in a way if I want to have a life.
And I work for Canada, so I don't have a choice because they impose it on me.
But I think it's taking our freedom away.
So it has two sides to it.
And if you don't want to have to be held to that standard, then you can make the choice not to go to those places.
But as a participant or a patron, I don't want to have to guess whether or not you're going to put me in danger.
I understand that we need to get a hold of immunization cards, anyways.
I don't think it's really going to change that much.
But I mean, I think people should have their own choice and say on what they put in their bodies.
Yeah.
And implementing all these rules, whether people can go into restaurants and this and that.
No, it just said they're snowballing into something else.
Snowballing into what exactly?
It seems like we're already at a point where for public transit, for even using a hospital, and for a lot of people, employment is on the line if you decide not to get your vaccine.
Don't forget, Rebel News, in partnership with the registered Canadian charity, the Democracy Fund, is taking strategic lawsuits against vaccine passports.
If you think you might have a case or to help fund our fight against medical segregation, please donate at fightvaccinepassports.com.
And as the vaccine passport continues to loom over every aspect of our lives, I wanted to hear from them.
How far do they think it's going to go?
Concert venues, nightclubs, indoor dining?
Do you think it's going to get to that point where it's banks, transit, grocery stores, stuff like that?
I don't think that's.
I don't see why not.
I could see it moving that way.
I hope not.
People need food.
I don't think I would have a resistance to it encompassing essential services because it's just like no smoking.
I believe so.
I think they want to make a point.
Getting everybody vaccinated.
And they say that you won't be able to go visit relatives in the hospital if you don't have your vaccine passport.
I try not to dwell on that fact.
I haven't been vaccinated and I'm not necessarily planning on being vaccinated.
So that means I won't be going anywhere.
I think it's going to be a real problem when we do international or domestic even, you know, but just for the little things to give people a sense of safety, I think that'll be good.
It depends if people lie, if it's easy to reproduce those, right?
They can't extend it to grocery stores, public transit, because people absolutely need food.
They have to get it.
Public transit, not everyone has a vehicle.
People need to get around in our society.
We're very spread out.
What was the last one, banking?
Yeah, people need access to funds as well.
They may have to modify how those are accessed, but no.
This is about threatening people.
And some people have never responded to threats in their lives.
So they're fearful and they do what they're told.
So they're going to try to do this as far as they can.
And the eggheads, in other words, lawyers, are there quietly going, well, it's not illegal.
It's not morally ethical, but it's not quite illegal.
We could challenge that.
You can't really put a passport on that because you're going to get so much outrage from everybody else too, right?
Like there are people who can't get the vaccine.
So how are they going to be protected in this vaccine world?
They're going to put it on everywhere.
They're forcing everybody.
Like even doctor, I had a doctor call me and ask me when I had an appointment coming up and she said, Tim, you can't see me until you have the vaccination.
To go at places where it's a privilege, it needs to be done that way to save everybody.
Think Australia is a good example of it is that there doesn't seem any end to the attack on personal freedoms and freedom of speech, and it's there's no good fruit coming out of it.
What's happening with vaccine?
You got to get the vaccine.
Everything will work out.
Now you have to get another vaccine.
Then you have to get a booster.
Now they're suggesting you get one every month.
You know so what's going on?
I think so.
However, we as individuals have to stand our rights and fight against this.
Now I got to be honest.
This does sound a little ominous, but what about those affected individuals, those who won't be getting the vaccine?
What's going to happen to them as the vaccine passport becomes more and more intrusive on our daily lives?
What do you think will happen to those who don't get vaccinated?
I hope nothing bad unvaccinated people.
They're going to suffer banking shopping, things like that.
They're going to get people to do it for them.
They will probably do drastic things like a protest or a march.
They will force them to get vaccinated or they lose their jobs.
They will, they will do anything possible that is unscientific and unproven just to get them vaccinated.
It's a bad awakening for a democracy.
I guess they're being inconsiderate because they further the spread of disease.
But there's six million people in Toronto that are officers of the law that are against the covet shot.
They're feeling pressured and they don't like the pressure and it should be up to you to get a shot in if you want to.
It's your body.
I don't think uh, businesses uh should uh be putting be put in their bills.
When they come down with covet and the huge expenses uh associated with that in the hospitals, they might be paralyzed at home.
Right, they might be stuck and sitting in a box somewhere and hoping they could go out.
But or maybe some of them will make the the decision who are sitting on the fence to get the vaccine.
And the smaller that minority becomes, the the less of a challenge this issue becomes to navigate for the government.
Oh, I haven't even thought about that.
Who knows what the government will do?
I really couldn't answer that question.
And if you're vaccinated, why are you so worried about somebody who's not vaccinated?
Because if the vaccine does anything well, you shouldn't be worried.
You should be worried about the other guy.
You should be worried about the person who's not vaccinated, not one having thrown her in jail or or something worse, you know.
So this thing of division is the worst.
Hey guys, thanks for watching, and if you want to show your support for those who are being marginalized by the vaccine passport, please go to fightvaccinepassports.com.
Fight vaccine passports is a new project by Rebel NEWS to help Canadian families who are being forced against their will to take the Covet 19 vaccine, and on the site of that webpage you'll find links to our no vaccine passports petition as well as our fight vaccine passports legal fund.
And remember, donations now provide you with a charitable tax receipt.
For Rebel News, I'm Sidney Fazard.
Thanks, guys.
I hope you enjoyed that.
And if you want to see more on-the-ground journalism, please go to realreporters.ca.
Show your support.
Unlike mainstream media, we don't take massive handouts from the government.
Instead, we'd rather show you what's really going on.
But to do that, we need your help.
So please show your support at realreporters.ca.
So you got people fighting against one another, and there's usually a third party that's benefiting from getting people to be in division with one another.