David Menzies critiques Alberta’s $23,000 fine and "compelled speech" sanctions against Pastor Artur Pavlowski for defying COVID-19 disclaimers, calling it Soviet-style censorship while noting silence from civil liberties groups. He mocks Ontario’s Halloween guidelines—whispering trick-or-treaters, creative masks—and listener outrage over Dr. Kieran Moore’s six-figure-funded rules, comparing them to bureaucratic overreach. Meanwhile, DC Comics’ bisexual Superman and other "woke" comic changes spark debate: Menzies dismisses them as Marxist psyops, while Chapinos argues they’re publicity stunts. The episode frames these controversies as clashes between free speech, corporate virtue signaling, and perceived government absurdity. [Automatically generated summary]
Hello Rebels, you're listening to a free audio only recording of my show Rebel Roundup.
Now if you like listening to this podcast then you would love watching it.
But in order to watch you need to be a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
That's what we call our long format TV style shows here on The Rebel.
Subscribers get access to watching my weekly show as well as other great TV style shows too.
It's only $8 a month to subscribe or you can subscribe annually and get two months free.
And just for podcast listeners, you can also save an extra 10% on a new premium membership by using the coupon code podcast when you subscribe.
Just go to RebelNewsPlus.com to become a member.
And please leave a five-star review on this podcast and subscribe in iTunes or wherever you listen to podcasts.
Those reviews are a great way to support Rebel News without spending a dime.
And now, enjoy this free audio-only version of my show.
Welcome to Rebel Roundup, ladies and gentlemen, and the rest of you, in which we look back at some of the very best commentaries of the week by your favorite rebels.
I'm your host, David Menzies.
Well, Pastor Archer Pavlowski had his day in court on Wednesday and the sentencing, well, it was downright disturbing.
First, there was the $23,000 in fines, but even more unnerving was that Pastor Art was ordered by Justice Adam Germain to give equal time to the government narrative whenever and wherever Pastor Art voices his personal opinions about the pandemic.
Pastor's Legal Struggle00:15:24
Say, are we still living in a Commonwealth democracy in 2021 or the Soviet Union of yesteryear?
And hey, look, up in the sky, it's a bird, it's a plane, it's bisexual Superman.
Would you believe gay Superman?
Holy gender, Bender Batman, what's going on in the DC universe?
Adam Chapados weighs in on the most recent reimagining of the Man of Steel.
And letters, we get your letters, we get them every minute of every day, and you had plenty to say about Ontario's chief medical officer of health, Dr. Kieran Moore, who recently released the province's official rules for Halloween.
As expected, those guidelines are completely absurd.
Those are your rebels.
Now let's round them up.
The sanctions announced by Justice Adam Germain do not include imprisonment for Pastor Arthur Pavlowski or his brother, David.
They do include significant financial fines as well as an obligation to perform some community service work not associated with street church.
Additionally and most problematically, both David and Arthur will be under probation, David for 12 months and Arthur for 18 months.
And the contents of the probation, while some of it is fairly standard, includes some problematic and apparently targeted attacks on their ministries and capacities as pastor.
First and foremost, Pastor Arthur Pavlowski is forbidden from travel outside of Alberta.
This a seeming response to the fact that he has been touring the United States and bringing quite a bit of attention to his mistreatment at the hand of government authorities.
Furthermore, and again, most troublingly certainly, is the fact that Pastor Arter and David Poblowski have been instructed to basically provide a verbal statement that has been prescripted discussing masks, vaccines, and COVID-19 in a manner that is approved by the government following any public comments they make.
This has to be fleshed out.
And once we have the written ruling, we can explore this at length.
But this amounts to compelled speech sanctions mandating that they follow up any statement with a pre-approved addendum clarifying that their opinion is not necessarily that of the governments.
This is extremely problematic.
So Pastor Archer, we have the ruling not going to jail, but as you said, they've fundamentally attempted to undermine your capacity as a pastor.
Clearly, this is better than going to jail, but how do you feel about the overall attack on your role as a pastor?
No, I'm going to jail.
I mean, there's no question about that.
They just did it in such a way to show that they are merciful.
I am never going to obey those orders.
Never.
There is no way because for me to lie to people, to open my mouth with a lie, it goes against the reason I'm alive.
So like I said, murder me.
It's better for me than to take my ability to preach the truth.
I'm a pastor.
That's what I do.
I preach the truth.
And I tell people real science.
I hang around for four months with the real doctors, real biologists, biologists, real scientists.
And I know that what they're doing here in Canada is wrong, it's evil.
And people expect their pastors, the clergymen, to speak the truth.
And this judge is effectively taking away my ability to tell the truth to the public.
I cannot and I will never obey that kind of ruling.
And we know we've seen charter rights violated from the get-go.
Compelled speech is the type of stuff we see in the Soviet Union forcing you to add an appendix from the government, a footnote to every comment you make publicly as a pastor, is ridiculous.
So we will be appealing that.
Do you have any words out there for people as we move forward with your legal battle in light of this ruling and what your plan is moving forward?
Well, I am in this situation because of you.
You didn't stand up where there was a time to stand up.
Canadians, rise up, stand up.
Pastors, why are you not coming to my aid?
Why are you obeying the rules of the tyrants and not obeying the commandments of Jesus Christ?
I do not understand.
It's beyond me.
If people will rise up, it's over for the villains.
If people will stand up for the rights, the tyrants will have no foothold.
Well, if this outrageous ruling by Justice Adam Germain doesn't get people who are fans of democracy, justice, and free speech to stand up, then I reckon nothing will.
Imagine that.
This judge wants a pastor to promote government propaganda whenever or wherever he chooses to speak about the pandemic.
This is the kind of court ruling you might have seen in the dark old days of the Soviet Union.
As for Canada, surely this is a deeply disturbing precedent and one that is almost beyond belief.
And joining me now is the man who's been covering the Pastor Pavlowski saga from day one, and that would be Adam Seuss.
How you doing there, Adam?
Wonderful.
Thanks so much for having me.
Great.
Great coverage, Adam, as always.
Adam, I have to be honest, given the judge's rhetoric prior to sentencing, I was truly expecting him to throw the book at Pastor Art.
I was expecting a multi-year jail sentence.
That didn't happen.
And while nobody wants to be jailed, I have to be honest, these free speech restrictions might even be worse than a prison sentence when it comes to someone like Arthur.
What do you say, my friend?
Well, you know, it's really interesting.
I don't know if you're watching the live stream of our coverage from the courthouse, but I actually said a few times because I had the sneaking suspicion that he may be laying out this heavy case and stating that imprisonment was entirely justified in a similar fashion to the fact that before he determined that the Pavlovskys,
Chris Scott, and everyone else basically who were under this umbrella ruling were guilty of contempt of court, he seemed to be providing a lot of commentary on how there was reasonable grounds to suggest that they shouldn't be found guilty in contempt of court.
After laying all that out and applauding Sarah Miller for exceptional work, he basically came out with a guilty and on all counts ruling.
Based on that experience last time, when he was laying it on so thick and saying prison is entirely justifiable, I had this sort of sneaking suspicion in the back of my mind that he's saying this for political purposes to basically say that the government did no wrong,
that AHS did no wrong, but he knew from a legal precedent that throwing someone in jail for, again, he's already spent three days in jail, but throwing someone in jail for an extended period of time, again, with one contempt case, one instance, not repeated instances, would lose on appeal immediately.
So I think he tried to do the most punishment that he could without sending him to jail.
But on that one hand, it does seem like a victory in that there wasn't a jail sentence, but it is good news, bad news.
And the bad news is exactly this.
It's the fact that they've basically undermined his capacity as a pastor.
And they've basically tagged on him this Twitter or Facebook style warning that everywhere Pastor Arthur goes, he has to say COVID information and provide a little disclaimer from the government.
You are entirely right in suggesting that is communist era politics.
When I spoke with Sarah Miller, I asked her if there's any precedent of a court ruling where a pastor or a person who speaks publicly was ordered to, after every public statement, add a little addendum or footnote providing official government data to contradict their own positions.
You know, but Adam, even so, do you think Justice Germain has painted himself into a corner?
I mean, I'm not a lawyer, but by that I mean he has laid out the law to him, i.e., when you speak publicly, whether it's in the public square or on social media, you have to give a corresponding amount of time to the AHS or government narrative regarding the pandemic.
We know Arthur is not going to do that.
So if he doesn't do that, and maybe he's already not done that, that would be, I guess, what, contempt of court.
So now the justice is back in the position of either fining him or sentencing him to jail again.
So the big question to me is, will this justice double down when it comes to the actual enforcement of this mandate?
Because I would argue, Adam, it's only a matter of time.
Yeah.
Well, the two potential outlets or the two potential thoughts on this are, one, and this is optimistic and I don't necessarily believe it, but it is the thought that perhaps he thought he could sort of silence him and just kind of put him by the wayside, not throw him into jail.
He literally mentioned that he didn't want to allow Pastor Arthur to become a martyr of sorts in prison.
So it's very much political, but maybe the thought was, well, maybe we waylay him and stick him to the outside.
I think that's naive, to be honest, because we know Pastor Archer Pavlowski will not be silenced and he will not be adding little footnotes or addendums.
I think what they are likely to do and what is probably what you're suggesting is be like, see, this is yet another case of contempt, and now we're justified with more severe punishments.
But what they don't realize they're doing by trying to thread this needle and have the best of both worlds.
What they're doing is continuing to provide a growing platform and make international parties more and more aware that this is clearly political and that he's being targeted.
They've set up this ridiculous thing.
This compelled speech mandate is by every metric that I understand, and I'm not a lawyer, but it's illegal.
You can't force someone, it's against their fundamental rights as a Canadian, to have to say something after every public statement.
It's ridiculous.
If there was ever any doubt whether or not this was political, Justice Adam Germain's extended comments before he gave his ruling, just basically stipulating nothing to do with the contempt of court case, but restating government talking points on COVID, finalize that conclusively, and then to cement it entirely.
His ruling where Pastor Archer isn't allowed to tour and speak.
He's not allowed to leave the province.
And then worse still, Pastor Archer is subjected to these probation terms that are virtually unprecedented, where he's fundamentally being stifled as a pastor.
It sets in stone that this was a political ruling, not a legal ruling.
Oh, 100%, Adam.
It was definitely a political ruling.
But by the same token, do you think that Justice Germain is experiencing some buyer's remorse?
Because he didn't want to put Pastor Art in jail to further continue on the martyr narrative.
But I would suggest what he did with this, you know, curbing of his free speech is even worse, even more noteworthy, even more enraging to the world community that cares about freedom of speech.
I'm just wondering if we had Justice Germaine's ear in a private conversation.
He's saying, yikes, I think I blew it with this ruling.
And it very much resembles, and this furthers the narrative that this is political.
It resembles Jason Kenny's management of the COVID-19 situation from the beginning.
He's attempting to play both sides of the conversation.
And instead of committing to one platform, whether that be opening or moving towards restrictions, he's trying to keep everyone happy.
They're more concerned about public polls than a logical course of action moving forward.
This initiative by Justice Germain was, I think, a horribly failed attempt to thread that needle.
And I can tell you almost conclusively that there is an element of buyer's remorse, or at least some second thought, because as court was wrapping up yesterday, Sarah Miller mentioned in court, and we'll get the transcripts to make sure that we have this accurately.
We will share that with our viewers, of course.
But Sarah Miller basically said that all the cases of precedent that she cited, or a large number of them, Justice Germain didn't even mention in his final ruling.
And he said something to the effect of, well, I'm only human.
The written ruling was actually supposed to come out this morning.
And obviously the written ruling would be virtually ready to go at the time it was read by Justice Germain, maybe some minor tweaks.
They've delayed it until tomorrow.
So I suspect, I mean, I don't know if this is legal.
I'm not a lawyer, but a ruling that should be out in written form and presented this morning has been delayed by 24 hours.
I don't know if tweaks are being made or if there's amendments being made because of all the criticism and backlash that has come his way.
But I would certainly love to get my hands on that original written ruling as it stood when it was read by Justice Germain.
Indeed, can't wait for that, Adam.
And Sarah Miller, who has been doing incredible work, she described the judge's ruling as bizarre.
And make no mistake, that's quite harsh for a lawyer to call a judge's ruling bizarre, isn't it, Adam?
Oh, entirely.
And I mean, Sarah Miller is a well-respected lawyer, something of a legal prodigy.
Sheila and I often joke that she was born in a lab to fight for freedom, to fight in court for freedom.
But I mean, she's in incredibly good standing and is well-respected.
And for something to be so outlandish and his comments to be so out there that Sarah Miller is left kind of scratching her head saying, this is bizarre.
It says something significant.
This is not simply a matter of Pastor Archer Povlowski is our guy and therefore we don't like this ruling.
There's certainly some extrajudicial considerations in what Justice Germain presented that should be garnering the attention of civil liberties unions and organizations and groups, lawyers across this country.
I certainly hope that the Alberta Court of Queensbench is looking at this because this is, by every metric, bizarre.
And bizarre is not a word you want to hear when you're discussing court rulings.
And one last question before we wrap, Adam.
When it comes to, since you mentioned civil liberties unions, has the Canadian Civil Liberties Association weighed in on this yet?
It has been mums the word shockingly.
And I mean, it goes beyond that.
It seems that there is just a societal collaboration willingness to cover this up.
Civil liberties unions have not said a thing.
Mark my words, if these were the exact same circumstances and the exact same words were being spoken and it was any other religious group, civil liberties groups would be all over this.
They simply are not.
The other thing that we noticed that was so absolutely jarring is there was probably about 100 people outside of the court at 9 a.m. on a Wednesday on a very cold day.
Comic Book Controversy00:15:00
City TV and numerous news outlets they're building is literally like you could throw a tennis ball and hit it.
It is at the end of the block.
They didn't say, oh, wait, there's a massive protest outside.
What's going on?
This is an international story and the groups that are supposed to be fighting for civil liberties, particularly religious civil liberties, and the organizations that are supposed to be covering the news, even a block away, can't be bothered to come out and cover this international news.
It's truly troubling.
And, you know, I'm glad we'll end it on that, Adam, because that's what's perversely ironic about this case.
As you know, back in the 1930s, the premier, Bible Bill Aberhart, as he was called, he was on a g-hat against the media then, the newspapers, who would dare write criticism.
He was demanding that the government side be presented.
And the Edmonton Journal did such great work.
They actually won a well-deserved Pulitzer Prize.
Well, this judge is kind of doing what Bible Bill did back in the 1930s, but the silence from the media watchdogs, which of course are more like lapdogs these days, it's deafening.
They're not interested in a Pulitzer Prize exposing an abuse of the state.
They are simpatico with shutting down free speech, aren't they?
They certainly are.
And you know what?
They can be the lapdogs.
I'm happy to take that Pulitzer for responsible journalism.
I'm sure you are too.
That would be wonderful.
Well, Adam, you've been doing great work on this file since day one, and there are certainly more chapters to be written.
And you're the right man to do the writing because, hey, let's face it, the lapdogs, they're not interested.
Nothing to see here.
Thank you so much for a great report, my friend.
Thanks so much.
Appreciate it.
And that was Adam Seuss in Calgary.
Keep it here, folks.
More of Rebel Roundup to come right after this.
Superman is going by in a move that has everyone asking, well, why?
Australian DC comic book writer for Superman has a new reimagining for Superman's son, Jonathan Kent, that is.
And he's a social justice superhero.
But is this just a marketing psyop?
Well, you tell me.
Tom Taylor appeared on CNN this week to let everyone know that it would be a waste if Superman was just another straight white guy this time around.
Well, what does Superman, what should Superman represent today?
A new Superman, if you're going to make a new Superman, what should that look like?
And it struck me as it would be a real opportunity lost if we had another, we had Clark Kent replaced by another straight white Sega.
So here was an opportunity to create a Superman who could represent a whole new group of people.
Damn Superman, saving people and being white, you monster.
I'm kind of suspicious that Taylor is trolling though, and just had the idea, well, what's the most ridiculous thing I can put into the comic to get people's attention and trigger people on the right wing?
Consider that the writer also discussed the new Superman is going to have to tackle tough issues like refugees and climate change.
And I think that was one that we had to leap on.
And we'll be addressing modern day issues like.
Like the climate crisis, like refugees.
John in the last issue has just been arrested attending a protest trying to stop the refoulement of asylum seekers.
Not that I planned on buying a Superman comic book anytime soon, but this might be a genius marketing ploy by this writer.
A young Superman kissing a Japanese boy with pink hair just screams endless talk show segments about the impacts this could have on society.
This is ridiculous.
You can't change Superman, the right wing will say.
Conservatives are so intolerant.
How can they accept this, the left wing will say.
All the sources will be outraged and therefore everybody wins.
You have a writer in a rainbow Superman shirt saying it's a waste to have a straight white Superman and then puts him in protest for illegal immigrants.
This is like a boomer's worst nightmare come true.
But it all ends up in us talking about a comic book that probably 500 people would have bought otherwise.
So what do you guys think?
Psyop attempt to emasculate yet another manly character?
Considered by many, but spoken by few.
Look, up in the sky, it's a bird.
It's a plane.
It's a, huh, just what is it that is being depicted upon the pages of the most recent Superman comic book these days?
After all, I don't want to commit the uber crime of misgendering somebody, even a fictional comic book character, because that sort of stuff is unforgivable in our cancel culture.
And joining me now for this latest reimagining of a DC superhero is Andrew Chapinos.
How you doing, my friend?
I'm doing well.
That's a great introduction, David Menzies.
Who knows what we're looking at as it flies by?
Well, you know what?
Who knows what we're looking at and who knows what to believe?
You know, Andrew, I think being in this business for as long as I am, you kind of develop an internal BS detector.
And yet when I was watching that writer during the CNN interview that you had as part of your report, I don't know if he's sincere or if he's taking the piss out of us.
What are your thoughts on that?
That's what I gather, David, is that he knows exactly what he's doing.
He's not dedicated to this social justice point of view in the comic.
Some people have got to know that this is not what comic fans are looking for, even if they are maybe paid to bring in a social justice point of view like this.
But he's wearing the Superman Rainbow Pride shirt.
He's saying all the buzzwords like Black Lives Matter and refugees, and he's making out white male, you know, we can't waste this on another cis white male sort of thing.
So he's going, he's checking off all the boxes, and it doesn't seem sincere, as you note.
Yeah, but I hope he's doing this tongue-in-cheek.
But, you know, these days, it's hard to tell parody from reality, Andrew.
And you're right, that one quote, that's what got my antenna quivering.
It would be an opportunity lost if we had Clark Kent replaced by another straight white savior.
When I go to a comic book, Andrew, I'm looking for escapism.
I'm not looking for critical race theory via a graphic novel.
How often are you looking to escape, David?
Oh, these days?
Just about every hour.
Well, I think it's, for lack of a better term, a psyop, David Menzies.
We've got this easily spoken about on conservative media where we're going, can you believe they're changing this character to another social justice left-wing trope?
And on the left-wing, they're saying, can we believe that the conservatives can't accept just somebody because they're gay and because it's a comic book that's changing and wants to be inclusive and represent different people?
It's got both sides talking about it.
And I think it's just one of those things where it's a news story that can get passed around and get everybody clicks.
I don't think there's a lot of energy behind it otherwise because I don't know how many people are buying the copy of this issue without this publicity.
There's you, there's Kevin Smith, and I'm not sure who else.
Yeah, well, I don't think I'm going to be buying it.
I think I'm in the camp of Dean Kane.
I was reading in the paper today.
He's speaking out, and good for him.
Probably it's going to end his career once and for all.
But he says something profound.
This would have been, you know, edgy and out there maybe 20 years ago.
Not so much now.
I mean, we've already got, I think, a gay robin, a gay Captain America.
You know, Thor has been transformed into a female.
The list goes on.
But what Dean Kane said, and I thought this was very profound, what would have been really edgy would have been to have this Superman go to defend the rights of gay people in Iran, in Afghanistan.
But you know, DC or any other comic publisher, they're not going to touch that with the proverbial 10-foot pole, are they?
Well, TV Superman also said that it would have been an edgier thing to do 20, 30 years ago, which is completely true.
Now, I was watching a debate yesterday with the great Michael Knowles from Daily Wire, and he was talking to a guy, and it's sort of the same deal here, where I'm seeing somebody I know debate somebody I've never heard of who has a million followers, let's say.
Because it's so easy for someone to come out here and say, you know, progressive this and refugees that, and get all this attention and get all these viewers.
It's no new ideas here.
The idea that we're changing a superhero to be more progressive and, you know, inclusive of people is nothing clever about it, David.
And that's why it's so sad to see how easily people fall for this sort of stuff.
If it was 25 years ago, you would say, you know, that's commendable.
They're trying to spread a different message.
Maybe it had an agenda behind it back then.
I don't know.
You'd have to ask me before I was born, I guess.
But, you know, nowadays, this is not something that I say, you know what, good on them.
This is very unique and clever.
But, you know, that's the thing, though, Andrew.
If this writer is being sincere, as opposed to being facetious, the idea that we don't want another straight white savior, the idea that you're straight white male, again, I think it plays into this whole critical race theory that we see even appearing in elementary school.
And I think it does everybody a disservice.
The idea that if you're white, male, straight, you are privileged and you'll always be privileged and you have a lot of apologizing to do forever.
And if you're a visible minority, you can never amount to anything because all the cards are stacked against you, even though there's so much evidence to prove, you know, at least in the Western world, that is not the case.
Again, I think it's almost, if this guy's serious about this, and I tend to think he might be, part of the indoctrination of progressivism, Marxism, that's how I feel.
I think that maybe the audience does want another straight white savior.
This guy's Australian.
He's printing something that's predominantly going to be read in the United States, another white country.
I'd like to see the demographics of their audience at DC Comics.
If they find that the Superman comic book is predominantly read by bisexual young boys or Japanese gay boys with pink hair, David Menzies, then maybe this is the right turn for them.
And, you know, they're appealing to the right audience.
Now, I would like to consider the fact that maybe, just maybe, people like Superman, just the way he is, but maybe they're hiding under the guise of, oh, it's Superman's son.
We're not actually changing anything.
But, you know, I think in this day and age, Andrew, in terms of the corporations that we have and their commitment to wokeism and virtue signaling, they will sacrifice their audience in order to virtue signal and be seen as woke.
I think of the next issue of Playboy, understand, is going to have a guy on the cover.
Well, of course.
I mean, talk about not knowing your audience.
Who do they think is buying Playboy magazines?
Well, then that makes me think then this move by Playboy has to be just a social justice move to get more attention because I thought they canceled printing Playboy issues.
So what are they having a ceremonial issue here?
Oh, no, they canceled the idea of nude models, and I predicted that was going to last maybe three issues, which I think it just about did, right?
And then they brought back, you know, the bunnies, and now it's a guy on the cover.
I mean, it's Playboy, not Playgirl.
You know what I'm saying?
Well, it's about time we had a man on Playboy, David Menzies.
I don't know who you are or what this show is about, but I think it's very progressive and very proper.
It's about time to have a naked man in Playboy.
I don't know about you.
Well, who am I to downplay your preferences on who you want on the cover of Playboy magazine?
But the other element, too, is maybe this is just a gimmick.
You alluded to this earlier, Andrew.
It's about selling comics by, you know, the fact that they've done this.
Look at all the millions of dollars of free publicity this Superman comic has.
Here we are talking about it.
It's just like when they did things like back in the early 90s when they killed Superman, you know, reams of publicity the world over.
And, you know, but then again, I think of what DC did five years ago.
In 2016, they came out with Chinese Superman, named New Superman, of course.
And I think the motivation was money.
In other words, if just 1% of the people of China buy New Superman, Chinese Superman, that will be the biggest selling comic book of all time.
Well, it only lasted 24 issues and it was canceled.
So maybe that's what we're going to see here.
Maybe the marketplace is going to vote with its wallets and they go, you know what?
I'm not so much into a, is it a bisexual Superman with a pink-haired Japanese?
And he's a reporter.
So they've got even the mainstream media journalists in there.
Mainstream media journalists' true dream is to have a hot young Superman come and swoop them up in their arms and they're all tangled in their pink hair and they're talking about Black Lives Matter.
Unbelievable.
Well, Andrew, it was a great commentary.
I guess time will tell if this is a gag.
You know, if it is a gag, they should go all in.
They should forget about Brainiac and Luther as the arch nemesis.
Maybe they should come up with a Supreme Spirit unicorn or something like that, you know, and just make it an all-out gong show and be more like Not Brand Ech, the parody Marvel comic from the 1960s, which I'm sure you remember well.
Of course I do.
And the new enemies in this are obviously going to be polo t-shirts and frat boys or something.
There you go.
This is the young gay man's mortal enemies.
Right.
Well, thank you very much, Andrew.
And there you go, folks.
Maybe you love the idea of a new and improved bisexual Superman.
Maybe it's your own personal kryptonite.
Let's see how this rendition of Superman sells in the weeks and months to come.
Keep it here for more of Rebel Roundup.
PPE Masks for Trick or Treat00:07:19
Okay, folks, step one in creating our Uber safe Halloween mask is, of course, using PPE masks.
You know, the kind of which Dr. Frankenstein, I mean, Dr. Fauci originally advised us against wearing.
Then he said you should mask up and to be extra safe, two or even three masks would do the trick.
So who are we to argue with Dr. Fauci?
So let's do a triple play of PPE masks.
This one here, this is my favorite mask for obvious reasons.
Now, the second step in creating a super safe Halloween mask, well, it's these guys.
Now, I want to be very clear about something, folks.
This is not part of the actual Halloween costume.
This is more PPE.
As you can see, these are Groucho glasses.
They go back some 80 years.
Who knew that Groucho Marks was ahead of the curve?
Do you remember back in March when Mexican researchers said that if you're going to eat, take off your mask, but put a nose guard on because that could help reduce the spread of the coronavirus.
It's a very contagious disease.
It can occur on any of these three routes.
Yes, so there you have it.
These are nose guards in case I have to remove my mouth mask for a snack.
Now, to be extra careful.
As you can see, it's falling off, but we have a solution to that.
We are going to apply, folks, the modern-day miracle that is saran wrap.
Okay.
Okay, so as you can see now, folks, the nose guard is firmly in place, and this plastic is even preventing the coronavirus from escaping my pores.
So, but don't worry, we still have a few more steps yet.
For example, a plastic face shield.
Okay, so we got the three cloth masks, we got the nose guard, we got the saran wrap, and we have the plastic shield.
I think at this point, we can actually put on the Halloween mask.
I like to go as a skeleton.
Okay now there's no such thing as being too safe is there?
So I think over my skeleton mask, the actual Halloween mask, well, another facial.
Hola, I think I'm ready to trick or treat.
Um, there's just one slight problem.
I'm visually impaired right now.
I'm not sure where the door is.
Trick-or-treat.
Well, let us all thank God, or would it be Lucifer in this case, that Ontario's chief medical officer of health, Dr. Kieran Moore, has released the province's official rules for Halloween.
First rule, Dr. Karen recommends kids trick-or-treat outside as much as possible.
No, he actually said that, folks.
Trick-or-treat outside.
Secondly, trick-or-treaters should not sing or shout for their treats.
So please, kids, whisper, trick or treat, okay?
Third, homeowners should keep interactions with trick-or-treaters short and encourage them to move along after receiving their treats.
Yeah, as if homeowners in previous years would invite the small fries into the house to, oh, I don't know, have a beer or something.
And finally, Dr. Karen wants trick or treaters to wear a face covering when physical distancing cannot be maintained.
Oh, and he wants us to be creative with the aforementioned face covering.
And as you just saw, we really got creative indeed, perhaps making the safest Halloween mask on the planet.
Just one hitch I couldn't see.
And oh, there's another hitch.
I could barely breathe.
But hey, science!
In any event, you had plenty to say about how this unelected, non-accountable health bureaucrat tends to treat taxpayers like toddlers, given his absurd rules when it comes to festive occasions.
Danielle Ferros writes, I would trust a stranger on the street more than Ontario's top doctor.
You know, me too, Danielle.
I think the average stranger on the street would have more common sense than Dr. Karen.
Water bottle writes, trick or treat outside.
Jesus, how much is this guy getting paid?
Whatever it is, I know one thing for sure, it is too much.
Well, water bottle, medical health officers are typically amongst the highest paid bureaucrats in Canada.
Hefty six-figure salaries plus tons of perks and benefits and of course a nice juicy pension for life when they retire.
But it's worth it, wouldn't you say?
I mean, without Dr. Karen's advice, maybe Ontario's kids would think they were supposed to trick-or-treat indoors this year.
The Trains writes, I think I'm going to dress up as Ontario's Chief Minister of Health for Halloween.
Oh, please don't do that.
What are you trying to do?
Give the average homeowner a heart attack.
Sarah Jane's Grateful Challenge00:00:46
Sarah Jane Constantin writes, My message to the so-called medical experts, pound sand.
I'm ignoring your blatant idiocy.
I'm with you, Sarah Jane, but can you imagine those parents who take in Dr. Karen's advice and are actually grateful for such guidance?
Now, that's really scary, kids.
And Marcy Schwab writes, David, you have just proven just how ridiculous our country has become.
Well, thanks so much, Murray, but truth be told, the people in charge, well, they're making it easy for me.
Well, that wraps up another edition of Rebel Roundup.
Thanks so much for joining us.
See you next week.
And hey, folks, never forget, without risk, there can be no glory.