Ezra Levante exposes the December 17th assault on journalist David Menzies by Trudeau’s bodyguards—unprovoked, despite his Rebel News credentials and cordial police interactions—while critics like David Aiken and Terry Glavin deflect blame, ignoring government-funded media’s complicity in downplaying police brutality. Levante links this to COVID policies, like Omicron-era vaccine mandates for airline staff, dismissed as irrational despite high vaccination rates, and Canada’s refusal to recognize natural immunity, unlike Germany and Austria. Guest Andrew Lawton notes natural immunity’s global acceptance but its exclusion here, hinting at pharmaceutical protectionism or control-group elimination. With public dissent met by Orwellian censorship—from Wales’ vaccine passport debates to Trudeau’s evasive tactics—Levante warns of a shrinking space for free speech under media and state collusion. [Automatically generated summary]
Today I'm going to take you through some of the reaction to our terrible news yesterday that David Menzies was beat up by the Prime Minister's bodyguards.
In particular, I'm going to look at the reaction from two media party journalists who actually not only blamed David Menzies, but claimed he liked it.
He wanted it.
He planned it.
This is part of his, I don't know, what he does, gets beat up.
It's so gross.
It's blaming the victim.
And I think there's some bizarre psychology at play.
I'll take you through it.
Before I do, let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
That's the video version of the show.
It's essential for this story so you can see what David did and didn't do and what was done to him and what wasn't.
Go to RebelNewsPlus.com, click subscribe, and there you are, eight bucks a month, half the price of Netflix and twice the value.
All right, here's today's show.
Tonight, I'm shocked but not surprised.
The media party thinks David Menzies deserved to be beat up.
It's December 17th and this is the Ezra Levance show.
Why should others go to jail when you're a biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here and you won't give them an answer.
The only thing I have to say to the government about why I publish it is because it's my bloody right to do so.
Yesterday, I showed you a videotape of our colleague, David Menzies, being beat up by Justin Trudeau's personal bodyguards.
It was completely unjustified and completely unprovoked.
David was standing on a public sidewalk, clearly identified as a journalist.
He had his microphone out with the little mic flash that said Rebel News on it.
He was accompanied by Lincoln Jay, a young journalist who had a video camera.
This was all completely normal.
And in fact, David was chatting with the police in a cordial enough way.
Trudeau's Bodyguards Beat Journalist00:02:29
He had been waiting for about an hour for Trudeau to show up.
So everyone knew exactly who he was and what he was doing.
He didn't suddenly arrive or anything.
Here, I won't show you the whole interaction, but just to recap.
The Justin Trudeau Liberals, ma'am, they're telling Canadians not to get together for Christmas Day, right?
It's too dangerous with the new variant.
And yet here they are packing in, like you said, 30 to 50 people.
Is it one law for thee and one law for me?
I have no comment on that.
I don't even know.
Excuse me, ma'am.
When's Prime Minister Trudeau showing up?
I'm not sure.
Why is he always late?
I'm not sure.
No?
Okay.
Hey, sir, where's Prime Minister Trudeau tonight?
Why is he always late?
Merry Christmas!
Hey, how you doing there?
Hey, how are ya?
Rollin' out.
Okay, that must be that.
Get out of the road.
Get out of the road.
Huh?
Look around.
I hit my car.
Huh?
Yeah.
Yeah.
You'd like to see that.
I wouldn't like to see that at all.
It needs a lot of paperwork for me.
Yeah.
Stay back.
What are you doing?
Get it.
Get off me.
Get it from me.
I can.
Hey, this is assault.
I'm on a side.
What is this?
I'm on a sidewalk.
I am on a side.
What is this?
You cannot touch me.
No Russian order.
Are You Kidding?00:16:04
Hey!
Are you kidding?
Are you kidding?
I told you.
What is this?
You can't.
Am I under arrest?
Because otherwise you have no right!
Get off of me!
Guys, relax.
Completely unprovoked.
Shocking, brutal, absolutely surreal, but too real, wasn't it?
So I showed you that yesterday, and I showed you how this was preceded by five years of Justin Trudeau and his staff demonizing rebel news, saying that we were less than we are, saying we aren't real journalists, banning us from public places, and even treating us as less than citizens.
When a federal court ordered Trudeau to allow us into the leaders' debates, twice now, he defied the spirit of that order and simply said we weren't journalists no matter what the court said, and so he refused to even talk to us.
He'll talk to Vladimir Putin.
He'll talk to China's dictator, Xi Jinping.
We'll talk to Omar Khadr, but he will not talk to us.
Do you have a chance to answer my question as Prime Minister, or are you still going to diabolise my media?
I shared my perspective on your organization this evening, I can't say anything.
It depends on who you are, thank you.
So I showed you all that, and I told you what we're going to do about it.
What would you do if you were mugged like that?
We are going to sue those three Trudeau bodyguards.
We're going to sue the RCMP that pays them and directs them.
We're going to sue the Attorney General.
In other words, we're going to sue the most powerful people in the country.
The Attorney General, also called the Justice Minister.
He runs the largest law firm in the country, also called the Justice Department.
So we're literally going against Goliath here.
David is the plaintiff.
He's suing for $50,000.
So obviously, this isn't about the money.
It's about having a judge tell these bullies that what they're doing is unacceptable.
It's illegal.
It's morally wrong.
It's un-Canadian.
I expect the lawsuit to cost us at least $75,000.
I do it because I love David and because of my own self-respect.
If David is cut, I feel it too because he was there for me and for Rebel News.
And really, that means he was there for our viewers.
He was there for you.
That's why he was cut.
So we rolled out the video and we had a petition and we had the lawsuit that we filed yesterday.
We showed it.
We showed you this all last night and the video was shocking.
And thousands of people around the world were shocked by it.
Political commentators around the world, even Australia, the United Kingdom, America, were stunned by what they saw from Ann Coulter, Fox News's Tammy Bruce, to Breitbart.com to the UK's Lawrence Fox.
About a million people have seen the video in different versions on our different platforms.
But here at home in Canada, crickets, almost total silence, not total.
Conrad Black called it a shameful event.
Laurie Goldstein of the Sun Chain was upset by it too, as was Joe Warmington, our friends at True North, including Sue Ann Levy and Cosmo Georgia.
But that's just about it.
The only member of parliament who took a stand was John Williamson, a former journalist himself, who wrote this strong statement on Twitter.
He said, this is totally unacceptable, whether you like rebel news or loathe Ezra Lowance News Outlet.
Reporter David Menzies is not a threat.
As a former communications director to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, I'm shocked by what I watched.
These RCMP officers must be held accountable.
This cannot stand.
I appreciate that.
Out of 119 Conservative MPs, that was about it.
That's all I saw.
Tell me if I missed something.
Leslie Lewis clicked like on John's tweet.
I guess that's better than nothing.
I'm pretty sure that's it.
No comment from any other politician that I saw, certainly not from any of the other parties.
Now, I'm not looking for validation.
I know the difference between right and wrong.
I'm not even looking for help.
We'll help ourselves, and our viewers will help us crowdfund the lawsuit.
I don't need a politician to do anything for me or for David, actually.
But I do need them to do something to let the world know that this is unacceptable and un-Canadian, to let the country know, to let the RCMB know that this is not normal to happen to anyone.
I don't care about a politician coming to my aid or David's aid.
Will no one say that this was unacceptable?
Is it because they hate Rebel News so much or hate David Menzies so much?
I don't think David is particularly hateable.
I don't think Rebel News is either, by the way.
But even if that's the case, don't you think you ought to speak out against police violence against anyone, let alone against journalists?
I mean, is that actually okay what you saw?
Is that the message of the stony silence here?
I tagged the Canadian Association of Journalists, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Canadian Journalists for Free Expression, Penn Canada, Amnesty International Canada, all the so-called civil liberties groups, not a peep.
All of them stood up for Omar Cotter, the terrorist murderer.
None of them stood up for David Menzies, conservative journalist.
What does that mean?
Oh, well, why should we be special?
No civil liberties group has lifted a finger for anyone in the past two years.
But I must show you these.
I said that in my show yesterday, I predicted that most journalists would remain silent and that some would even blame the victim.
I knew I was right about the first part, but I really didn't think the second part was that likely.
I mean, come on, look at this video.
It's pretty bloody clear-cut.
Who would blame David Menzies for this?
How could you even blame him?
Look with your eyes.
Okay, well, look at this.
David Aiken, global news big shot, former colleague of mine in David Menzies at Sun News.
He asked, curious, what was the question David risked life and limb to ask?
So your former, David Aiken, so your former colleague just got beat up.
And you don't say, whoa, are you okay?
Or, whoa, this is wrong.
Or even this looks wrong.
You say, what was the question he was going to ask?
What?
How is that relevant?
What shampoo do you use?
What a disappointing answer this is going to be.
Whatever happens to be hanging around at the time.
And you say he was risking life and limb mockingly.
Now, I don't think David was risking his life, although you never know.
I think he got a kind of concussion, actually.
And I know he was bleeding.
But this is the reaction of a journalist, let alone a friend.
Who would say that?
Well, what were you going to ask?
As if you were blaming a rape victim because she wore a too short skirt.
David Aiken isn't quite the journalist he thinks he is.
If he actually watched the videos that we published, we published two videos last night and a third today.
You can see the question David Menzies would have asked because he actually asked it later.
Why is Trudeau going to a Christmas party when he's telling Canadians not to?
Okay, it's a fair question.
If you have a better question, go ahead and ask it.
But the question is irrelevant to why he was beat up, that he was beat up, because, and by David Aiken asking, well, what question were you going to ask?
That implies there's a right or a wrong answer to that, that something turns on the answer to that.
As in perhaps David's question, which he hadn't had the chance to ask yet, perhaps that was the reason that David Menzies was pummeled.
But David Aiken was just getting warmed up last night.
And he's talking to Stacey Newman here, who says, I've seen rebel news in action.
It's ugly.
They provoke, provoke, provoke.
They are neither credible nor ethical.
Having said that, we should be shown what precipitated the manhandling of this reporter to assure ourselves that we do, in fact, have a free press in Canada.
So that's some senior editor somewhere.
And she has about 50 words of smearing us before acknowledging, yikes, that David actually was manhandled.
And it does, in fact, suggest we don't have a free press.
So she's worried.
She hates us, but she's worried.
There was no provoke, provoke, provoke, or unethical conduct.
In fact, the only unethical conduct here is people smearing David without even bothering to watch.
But take a look.
Roll now.
Okay, that must be that.
Get out of the road.
Get out of the road.
Huh?
Look around.
I hit my car.
Yeah.
You'd like to see that.
I wouldn't like to see that at all.
It needs a lot of paperwork for me.
Yeah.
Stay back.
What are you doing?
Get the kid off me.
Hey, I can.
Hey, this is assault.
I'm on a side.
I'm on a sidewalk.
Okay, so forget the smears by that editor who, frankly, I've never heard of.
Put aside the smears.
She actually did say that it looked bloody awful.
But not David Aiken.
He was trying to turn her around on this.
He said, Google David Menzies and arrest.
This is how he pays his bills.
What?
So David Aiken is saying that David Menzies wanted this for profit?
That this is what David Menzies does for money?
That David Menzies expected this, wanted this, planned this, provoked this?
And by the way, David Aiken is still suggesting that David Menzies was arrested.
Menzies was not arrested.
He was mugged by the police, not arrested by them, not charged by them.
I'll show you another tweet here.
Another journalist, Alan Fryer, chimed in and said to David Aiken, shouldn't matter, David.
This should not happen in Canada.
So Alan Fryer is saying, it doesn't matter what David Menzies was going to ask, but Aiken doubles down.
He says, like I said, I'm curious.
The only journalist in scare quotes I've seen treated this way in 20 years of covering political leaders is Menzies.
It's his shtick fundraising theater.
He gets arrested all the time.
Well, I say again that he wasn't arrested last night, and a better journalist would have known that than David Aiken.
Because David Menzies was doing nothing wrong.
He was standing on a sidewalk.
But it's a lie.
David Menzies has paid his salary.
His salary is fixed.
It doesn't depend on crowdfunding campaigns or how police treat him if he's arrested or not.
David Menzies does not even know, none of our journalists know how our crowdfunding campaigns go financially or if there's even enough money to come in to cover any legal fees.
That's just not the province of our reporters.
But look at David Aiken's proof.
He said, David is attacked again and again.
So obviously, that's proof that he's wrong.
I mean, people wouldn't be attacking him if he wasn't wrong.
Obviously, it's proof that David Menzies is wrong.
Not that the police are brutal or Trudeau is brutal.
And again, he says, you'll think.
And then there's a little smiley face.
As I've been saying, Google David Menzies in arrest.
This is his business model.
You wicked defamer, David Aiken.
He's laughing, smiley face, at David Menzies for being beat up.
That this is his business model, being beat up.
How did David profit from this?
As if he went there to be attacked, as if anyone would have or could have expected such violence.
Look again.
Look again.
Why would David Aiken say those things?
Why is he looking at a clear video of a man being mugged, unprovoked?
And why is he laughing at him and mocking him and claiming he's doing it for profit?
I just don't even understand that profit part.
Is David getting paid for having been beaten up?
What on earth is it?
What's going on?
I think it's because David Aiken's worldview is that the Trudeau liberals are fine.
Everything is fine.
The way the government treats the media is fine.
And such a shocking, inconvenient fact as this mugging of David Menzies, if David Aiken looks at it on its own terms and accepts that it's real, then David Aiken's world comes tumbling down.
And David Aiken's belief system that Justin Trudeau is a gentle, noble, woke leader, these two things cannot be reconciled.
So David Aiken has chosen to throw out the inconvenient fact and to disbelieve his lying eyes about what happened because the alternative is too terrifying to think that Justin Trudeau is in fact a bit of a thug and his entourage of bodyguards actually did beat the living daylights out of a 59-year-old journalist with two artificial hips.
It's just too much for David Aiken to process.
So he throws out the fact that would damage his theory and his obsession with David making money off it.
I signed David's paycheck.
And I can assure you that David's paycheck is a salary that is consistent whether he's attacked or not.
I should give him some sort of danger pay, I suppose.
But what a wicked lie that David Menzies schemed this, scheme being attacked on purpose.
David Aiken's obsession with money, which is so strange, is, I think, a little bit Freudian.
David Aiken's Dilemma00:11:17
Because here at Rebel News, we don't take a dime from Justin Trudeau.
You know that.
We're one of the handful of companies in Canada that runs a news organization without taking money from Trudeau.
David Aiken was a journalist.
It goes from news outlet to news outlet.
All of them are on the take in one way or the other from Trudeau's media bailouts, media funds of this sort and that sort.
It's obviously subconscious in David Aiken's own mind that he can never be a true journalist if he's taking money from Trudeau.
That's got to weigh on his mind.
The fact that he is paid by Trudeau and he covers Trudeau and he doesn't disclose that essential conflict of interest.
So he projects his own subconscious conflict onto David Menzies as if David Menzies is out there trying to please or appease some master.
The beauty of running Rebel News when we're crowdfunded by thousands of individuals, average size of a gift, 50 bucks, is that there's no boss.
There's no sacred cow.
There's no someone you're not allowed to take on.
And if you doubt me, look at how we take on conservatives.
From Aaron O'Toole to my old friend Jason Kenney.
There's no sacred cows when you work at Rebel News.
But David Aiken has to be careful.
He doesn't offend his ultimate paymaster, Justin Trudeau.
And so he's projecting his obsession with selling out onto David Menzies.
And he's thinking, well, the only way this makes sense is as a stunt that David Menzies somehow planned to be mugged by these cops.
What a disgrace.
It wasn't just David Aiken.
Terry Glavin, a self-declared human rights journalist.
Seriously, that's his whole shtick.
That's his whole thing.
He tweeted this.
He said, in response to Larry Solomon saying this is unacceptable, he said, except you have to sit through a fundraising ad for Levant's show before the evidence in scared quotes is shown.
And it consists of video appearing to show cops being perhaps unnecessarily and maybe unintentionally rough with a guy, really.
So perhaps unnecessary, or maybe it was necessary.
Maybe it had to be necessary.
Perhaps it was unintentional.
Perhaps it was just a mistake.
Perhaps they kept beating him by mistake, by mistake.
And it's just, and the evidence of your eyes, like David Aiken, Terry Glavin, who's just got the perfect perch in society.
He gets to tell you how noble and righteous he is.
His specialty is talking about human rights in other countries, in Hong Kong or in Tibet or in the Uyghur part of China or in Kurdistan.
Terry Glavin is excellent when talking about human rights in other countries, and he writes for media in Canada that are Trudeau bailouts.
Same thing there.
He can't bring himself to look at police brutality against journalists in his own country because he's on the payroll of Justin Trudeau through the media bailouts, and because it would just survive in a, he can't survive without his belief system that Trudeau is noble and everything's fine.
I think there's one more layer about Terry Glavin, who writes all these very earnest columns about civil liberties and human rights in foreign lands from his den.
Whereas we are sending our reporters to these places.
We sent twice reporters to Hong Kong to cover the uprising there.
Twice we sent reporters to Iraq, to Kurdistan.
The things that Terry Glavin likes to talk about were actually doing it.
Those are a couple of examples I want to bring to your attention.
Other than the few journalists I named, the vast majority of journalists in Canada were silent.
And Terry Glavin and the wicked David Aiken thought they would accuse David Menzies of constructing this, I don't know, of being in some sort of trick with Trudeau's bodyguards to get beaten up.
You know what that's called?
That's called a conspiracy theory.
David Aiken sees Justin Trudeau's bodyguards beat up David Menzies.
And instead of looking at those facts, he cooks up a bizarre conspiracy theory that David Menzies planned it, profited from it, and he fudges other facts, like saying he was, quote, arrested.
He was not arrested, David Aiken, and that's why this was so gross.
We will defend David Menzies.
We will raise money from our viewers because we don't take it from Justin Trudeau.
They're not just disgraces as journalists, David Aiken and Terry Glavin.
I think they're disgraces as people.
Stay with us for a moment.
Well, if you define a vaccine as a mild dose of an illness that you deliberately take so that your body develops an antibody and protects you from the real bad thing, you could say that the Omicron variety of the COVID-19 virus is a de facto vaccine.
Now, that's sort of cheating because it's catching the disease itself.
But it's so mild compared to other forms that there are so few hospitalizations.
And last I checked in the entire world, just one recorded death.
You could say it's tantamount to catching a cold.
And yet this terrifying wave of Omicron has stampeded the public health deep state and their political puppets into declaring lockdowns of the strangest varieties.
I saw one Canadian public health officer issue an order that waiters, waitresses, and bartenders must now wear goggles, swimming goggles, or other protective eyewear, like a welder maybe, to work.
That's the madness we're in.
I think they do it because they love the lockdowns.
They want perpetual lockdowns.
But one of the new utterances from the public health deep state is: stop traveling, cancel your plans, no Christmas vacations.
Here to join us to talk about that is our friend Andrew Lawton, whose new essay is called, Screw the Travel Advisory.
I'm headed for the border.
And Andrew Johnson, Andrew, peaked to see you.
I don't think there's any science behind this one.
It may be true that the Omicron variety is spreading like wildfire, but it's really nothing more than the cold.
I'm not saying that to be a disinformation guy.
I'm just saying, what do you call it when literally 99.999% of people don't get sick enough to go to the hospital.
They're just sick for a day or so, like a cold.
I just think that's not anything to be terrified of.
Maybe I'm wrong.
No, and I should say that essay you mentioned is from my new sub stack.
And I think right now it's gotten more reaction and more emails to me from people than anything else I've published in that platform because a lot of people, even those who have been dutifully going along with everything that's been asked of them, they didn't gather in Christmas 2020.
They got their vaccination.
Some of them have even been triple dosed.
They've got the vaccine passports.
They've done anything and everything that's been asked of them.
And even a lot of these people are feeling like the rug has finally been pulled out from under them.
Now, I'd say, you know, better late than never, because this is a concern that you and I and people that follow our shows have been talking about for months now.
But a lot of people, I think, now at this point are saying, okay, enough is enough.
There is zero evidence suggesting that Omicron is worthy of the panic.
Yet you've got Ontario's chief medical officer saying that we're about to face what he's already decided is the worst wave yet.
Yeah, worst.
I wonder how he measures that because it's certainly not the deadliest.
I mean, that gets us back to the taxonomy, a case, a test.
But if you have no symptoms, you know, there's a saying in medicine, cure the symptom, cure the disease.
If there's no symptom, what even is it?
I got a question for you, though.
You say that people who have dutifully followed the rules and got the double vax and all that feel like the rug is being pulled out from under them.
And they're feeling like they already followed through on their promise.
Why are they being hassled some more?
And I see, for example, Dr. Jordan Peterson, who's quite a conservative public intellectual.
He at first really went along with the vaxes.
And I think he's had, I mean, I don't know if he regrets taking the vaxes, but he's saying, I regret giving them the moral authority because I thought that by paying that Dane gauge, I'd get rid of the Dane.
I thought that they would leave me alone.
And I see that, no, they've just put me on a conveyor belt.
So I think he feels he's what you describe there.
But for every Jordan Peterson who's saying, nope, you're breaking the social contract we have, I got to think that there's someone else who said, well, I'll just wear a mask.
Well, I'll just get one jab.
Okay, well, two jabs.
Okay, like if you've shown that you're obedient one, two, three, four times, each one a little more than the last, why wouldn't you go for a fourth dose, a fifth dose, a sixth dose, another lockdown?
I mean, they're sort of conditioning obedience training you.
What do you think?
So for every Jordan Peterson, I bet there's 20 people who say, well, yep, let's just do the next thing we have to do.
I trust these people.
Well, I mean, this is the challenge.
And admittedly, I'm just going based on a feeling.
I'm just going based on a sense.
The last couple of times we've spoken at the end of it, I think both of us have just like let our depression bounce off of each other and we get profoundly pessimistic by the end of it.
But in the last week, I've started to feel a tinge of optimism just because of the volume I'm seeing of people that are finally, finally turning in some way against the doctorship, against this public health apparatchic that seems to be running the show.
And again, I can't say it's going to be fleeting.
I can't say it's a majority, but I do think there are more people in that Jordan Peterson-esque camp that you've just described than there were even a week ago.
And I don't know if it's because people are upset about being robbed of another Christmas or if it's because people are just looking at the Omicron scare and seeing that the Omicron panic is really a media-led variant of concern rather than a viral-led variant of concern.
Herd Immunity Controversy00:08:48
You know, I see that WestJet is complaining.
They're saying that this travel advisory has no scientific basis, that they were given no notice, that it's dashing their plans for recovery.
And I accept every word of that, and I agree with every word of that.
But on the other hand, I can't help but also know that WestJet, like Air Canada, enforces junk science against their own passengers and against their own staff.
They refuse to make any reasonable accommodation for their staff.
I know a case of a WestJet employee who has always worked from home, even before the pandemic.
WestJet said if they didn't get the jab, they'd be fired.
No reasonable cause.
She's already working at home.
So WestJet and Air Canada were happy to fire hundreds of flight attendants and gate agents without any reasonable accommodation.
They've set up these in-house medical desks that reject passengers' doctors' notes.
I saw a family who had a doctor who said anaphylactic shock to this, cannot take the jab, do not jab.
And Air Canada rejected that.
They have their own anti-doctor.
I don't know if they're doing this at the behest of the government.
I would guess they are since both WestJet and Air Canada have the same extremist policies.
It's just a little bit rich for WestJet to complain about junk science when they've been following the government's whimsical hard line the whole time.
I don't know, maybe you have a different view on that.
Yeah, I mean, Canadian airline employees are now getting the same service that Canadian airline passengers have been getting from these companies for the last however many years.
But the reality of this is when we take a look at all of the challenges that we're seeing here and we'll continue to see, it underscores that unscientific nature you just spoke about.
So a couple of months ago, Justin Trudeau said the only way to make sure the air is going to be safe is if we mandate vaccination to board a domestic or international flight originating in a Canadian airport.
Okay, Air Canada, WestJet, Porter, they all go along with this.
Universities are saying that the only way to ensure that the campus is safe is to make sure we have a virtually 100% vaccination rate.
So campuses are supposed to be the safest places in Canadian society right now.
Every single student, professor, teaching assistant, janitor, doesn't matter, is fully vaccinated.
So why then are schools canceling exams?
Why then are schools delaying a return to in-person classes after January?
Why is the government telling people not to travel on the planes that they've purged of those dirty, unwashed masses of unvaccinated people?
So what the governments are doing here is doubling and tripling down on the same policies that by their own metrics have not yielded the outcomes they promised.
Yeah.
I got a question for you.
I have my own answer that you might not agree with, but I remember when the concept of herd immunity was first entered into the public lexicon.
I mean, it's sort of startling at first because we think of a herd of sheep or a herd of cattle.
The idea of herd immunity for people sounds a little brutal, but you get over it quickly.
And it makes sense.
Enough people are immune that it sort of stops the transmission so that those who are not immune, they're actually protected by the other folks.
And herd immunity was always considered 40%, 50%, whatever.
At least that's how the subject was introduced a year and a half ago.
Here we are almost at the two-year anniversary of the emergency.
And depending on your jurisdiction, you have vaccination rates of 80, 90.
And in some jurisdictions, they actually have 100 percent vaccination.
Gibraltar, which is a British protectorate between Spain and Morocco, is an example of that.
But the more vaccinated the world is, the harsher the policy prescriptions are.
Instead of easing up, they're getting harsher.
We talked about basically you can't fly in this country anymore if you're unvaxed.
Universities are tyrannical now.
Why are they the harshest ever, given that you literally have 80, 90 plus percent vaccination rate?
And they said herd immunity would kick in earlier.
Why are they so harsh?
Well, but this is the thing, is that whenever the projections or predictions or pledges or promises, whatever they are, have been proven wrong, they retroactively go back and change what the motivation was.
I mean, you mentioned the two-year anniversary of the emergency.
The initial plan was not to prevent anyone from getting COVID.
The initial plan was not to make sure we have no COVID in Canada.
It was to ensure that the spread of COVID transmission was taking place at a manageable pace so that we could get hospital capacity.
That was the now proverbial, and I'd say turned into a punchline of two weeks to flatten the curve.
I mean, the curve was flattened.
The curve was a straight line.
And then we've had to flatten the curve over and over again every couple of months for the last two years.
So all of the merchants of Doom, I called them in my column that you cited earlier, all of these merchants from Doom, whenever they're proven wrong, just go back and say, well, it was an abundance of caution and we didn't know what we know now.
And that seems to be true, that they just don't know anything at any point.
My theory that you might not like is that you got to eliminate the control group.
If 95, 99% of people have taken the jab in five or 10 years, if there's some long-term health impact that we don't know yet because we haven't done the long-term studies.
And by the way, the FDA has ordered these drug companies to continue to do experimental tests on them for five or six years.
So if five, 10 years from now, a side effect is discovered, if you've eliminated the control group, that is people who didn't take the vax, you've eliminated the political problem.
Although not that it matters much because, of course, governments have indemnified them.
That sounds like a conspiracy theory.
But to me, it's the only theory that fits.
It doesn't fit with herd immunity.
It just has never fit with how things have worked before.
I feel like there are so many things that do not explain themselves rationally.
We have to look for a hidden reason.
You know, the Latin phrase, cui bono, who benefits is always a good way.
And, you know, the success of big pharma, this crisis was an opportunity for them.
I'm not asking you to follow me down any rabbit hole of speculation here.
I'm not really speculating.
I'm just trying to figure out why.
Why, why, why?
Because it contradicts what they said themselves.
It doesn't make sense.
We see that the vaccines don't stop people from catching or spreading the disease, and yet they're still on that one rigid prescription.
Curiosity demands an explanation, and one is not forthcoming from the officials.
Last word to you.
Andrew, if you want to refute or rebut or give a different answer, feel free.
I'm just engaging in brainstorming here.
What the heck are they doing?
I'm trying to figure it out.
Well, they're important questions.
And listen, Ezra, I won't pretend to have the answer, but I will say that herd immunity has always been in the history of epidemiology a combination of natural immunity and immunity that you could acquire through vaccination.
That's been the effort.
And one of the reasons that the United States has had such success in staying open after reopening is because they had very high levels of naturally acquired immunity.
Now, you can look at retroactively death rates and hospitalization rates and things that the U.S. went through and have a debate about whether that was the optimal strategy.
But the U.S. has shown that natural immunity is something that exists and can actually give you relative safety and herd immunity in a community alongside vaccination rates, which in many states are lower than they are in parts of Europe and parts of most of Canada, as a matter of fact.
So, all of that is to say that that aspect of it of herd immunity has been completely taken off the table in Canada.
Even in Germany, which is mulling population-wide vaccination mandates like they're doing in Austria, even Germany, with such a strict and stringent measure on the table, still respects having recovered from COVID as being an alternative to being vaccinated if you want your vaccine passport.
Asking People's Opinions00:11:11
So, there's an aspect of this that in Canada refuses to be acknowledged.
Yeah, you know, that's such an important point.
By the way, when our reporter Alexa Lavoie put a question to Justin Trudeau directly at the leaders' debate in September, her question was precisely on why Canada doesn't recognize natural immunity from people who recover.
And it's no surprise that he refused to answer and insulted her instead.
I thought it was the best question in the debate.
Andrew Lawton, great to see you again.
I want to encourage people to sign up for Andrew's newsletter.
It's through Substack, which is a great little service.
Go to andrewlawton.substack.com.
And we're subscribers, I'll tell you that.
Andrew, great to see you again.
Hey, thank you, Ezra.
All right, there you have it.
Andrew Lawton, he's with TNC.news.
Plus, he's got his own Substack newsletter.
Stay with us more ahead.
Hey, welcome back.
Your viewer feedback.
Someone with the initials WDG7 says Trudeau and his bodyguards should be convicted and imprisoned, just like any other person who commits assault.
In fact, they should be held to a higher standard.
Well, I'd be happy if they were just charged and we had a trial and let the judge hear the evidence.
What made them do that?
What was it that provoked them to do it?
And most curiously, and this is what Lincoln Jay brought up.
Lincoln, you saw him as a young, healthy guy in his 20s, fit guy.
He was a cameraman.
I don't think he was known to police.
David, 59 years old, two artificial hips, Mike Flash, very well known to police.
They're both together.
Neither of them is a threat, obviously.
Both of them were right there for an hour with the cops.
But if you were going to tackle someone as the threat, are you going for the older guy who you know?
You'd go for Lincoln.
Not that you should go for either.
The fact that they ignored Lincoln and went right after David Menzies suggests that someone said, get Menzies.
That's just, I mean, Occam's razor.
The simplest explanation is likely the right one.
The cops were there for an hour waiting with Lincoln, Jay, and David Menzies.
And only when they rolled up and someone in the car must have seen them, get David, tackle David.
I believe the order was made from the entourage in the motor case.
That's just speculation on my part.
We need a trial to get the facts.
Deb Phillips says, Lincoln handled that situation with total integrity and courage.
Bravo, young man.
Yeah, I like Lincoln.
And he kept the camera running.
And we talk about this sometimes at Rebel News.
Do you try and intervene to fix something or you just hold the camera and record it?
Well, obviously, what can you do?
If it was a private gangster mugging David, I think the right move for Lincoln would have been for him to drop the camera and save his friend.
But when police or RCMP or armed guards are tackling David, you can't intervene.
Someone said we've got to get a bodyguard for David Menzies.
You can't use a bodyguard against the cops.
It doesn't work that way.
So Lincoln did the right thing.
Keep the camera rolling.
Someone with the nickname, The Cat, came back, says, Law states it is illegal for police to block a reporter's camera.
Law states that retribution against an officer is also illegal.
This all starts at the top, Judas Trudeau.
Well, I'm going to disagree with so many parts of your letter there.
It is not illegal to block a reporter's camera, obviously.
I, you know, Judas Turdo, I don't think you're moving hearts and minds there.
It's like when people say Trudeau for treason or Trudeau is a traitor.
I say no, pump the brakes, mister.
Pump the brakes.
And here's why.
If you call him a traitor, you're implying there's an actual crime.
And some people say we have to prosecute Trudeau for what he's doing.
We do not want to criminalize political differences of opinion because who do you think is going to be the first person charged with that?
You are.
Or conservative politicians or conservative activists.
So this whole Judas Turdo, it's illegal.
What they're doing is illegal.
Citizens arrest, sue them.
That doesn't work.
It doesn't work.
And you don't want it to work because it will be used against you if you can criminalize political differences of opinion.
I've probably said this 20 times when people say, can we arrest Trudeau?
Arrest him for what?
If the guy actually commits a real crime, and there may have been a crime of corruption involved with SSNC Laval, and there may have been a crime.
Arrest him for what you can prove, but don't arrest him for simply disagreeing with him.
I think Justin Trudeau is morally, ethically, politically, financially, patriotically wrong in every possible way.
But do not criminalize what he did any more than he just tried to criminalize what David Menzies did.
Do you see my point?
Well, my friends, that's our show for today.
Until tomorrow, on behalf of all of us here at Rubble World Headquarters, see you at home.
Good night.
Keep fighting for freedom.
And let me leave you with the video of the day from our friend Lewis Brackpool's report from Cardiff.
Here's a little rebel news action from the United Kingdom.
Good night.
We're asking people's opinion on the vaccine passports.
Do you have an opinion?
Yeah, you ought to have one.
If you want to get in somewhere, have the jab.
I've had three jabs now.
I think it's great.
Have a jab.
You can do it.
You virtually do what you want, but not all the time.
Do you not think the passport might segregate society between the jabbed and unjabbed?
Not really.
This is Lewis Brackpool for Rebel News and today I'm in a very sunny central Cardiff where I'm going to be going around and asking the Welsh citizens what do they think of the vaccine passports.
Unfortunately, at the start of the report, I was having a bit of trouble trying to get someone's opinion.
We're asking people's opinions on vaccine passports.
Did you have an opinion?
No, no.
All right, then.
That's all right.
We're asking people what their opinion is on vaccine passports.
Do we have any opinions?
I just got ignored.
All right, then.
Sorry to trouble you.
We're asking people's opinion.
It's only on vaccine passports.
Probably a pro-segregationist.
We're asking people's opinion on vaccine passports.
Did you?
I don't really have an opinion after.
No?
Okay.
All right, no worries.
We're going around asking people their opinion on vaccine passports.
Did you have an opinion on it?
No.
No?
No?
Alright then.
Have a nice day.
Hello lads.
Sorry to trouble you.
Oh.
Dinner.
Dinner.
Okay, fair enough.
First dinner, then a conversation.
That's fine by me.
What I've found when I'm going to ask people about the vaccine passports, there's a bit of a reluctancy.
Very strange.
But then, it didn't take long for the pro-vaccine passporters to come out.
What do you think of the vaccine passports that have been rolled out in Wales?
I think they're a good idea.
Okay.
Because they do show the people that have had the vaccine and then it just makes it a bit safer for everyone.
Do you think people like Mark Drakeford should practice what they preach?
We are in Wales today.
Everything we do has an impact on the virus and every contact we have counts.
I feel like if you're telling other people to do something, you should probably do it yourself.
Yeah, I haven't looked into it too much though, so I can't say for certain.
Might invite you to his Christmas party, you never know.
What's your view on the vaccine passports?
Well, to be fair, mate, I don't see it's an issue.
If we all got vaccines, have a passport.
Could be electronic, it's modern era.
It could be cardboard, because it's, you know, it can fit in your wallet.
What's it gonna hurt to have a passport?
Sorry to trouble you guys.
We're going around asking people's opinion on vaccine passports.
Did you guys have an opinion on it?
No, not really.
I'm happy to have one if everyone else has to have one.
Okay.
Do you not think it might create a division between people who are jabbed and unjabbed?
No, not really.
I've had to use one for like Reading Festival and that.
So we've already had to use them and it was just a sort of like, you know, you know everyone's got the vaccine.
They're all user now, aren't they?
Yeah.
Just sort of way of the world now, isn't it?
So pro-segregation then between jabbed and unjabbed?
No, I don't think it'll cause much of a segregation to be honest.
I mean I think everyone's entitled to their own opinions and they can do what they want with their body.
You know everything's sort of your own freedom and that.
They have to have a passport.
Yeah that's the issue now.
They have to have a passport.
Hello lads, sorry to trouble you.
We're going around asking people what their opinion is on the vaccine passports.
Yeah get them.
Everyone's a gab.
Let them out.
Yeah?
Yeah big fan.
Do you not think it would segregate society a bit more?
Yeah okay.
Right okay.
Well fair enough.
They like segregation then.
So are you for or against it?
I can't work out.
I'd say I'm for it, only for the sake of keeping everyone safe.
But I'm not for all the all the protests and everything.
I don't like people who do that.
Right, okay.
You don't like people utilising their free speech?
No.
We're asking people's opinion on the vaccine passports.
Do you have an opinion?
Yeah, you ought to have one.
If you want to get in somewhere, have the jab.
I've had three jabs now.
I think it's great.
Have a jab.
You can do it.
Virtually do what you want, but not all the time.
Do you not think the passport might segregate society between the jabbed and unjabbed?
Not really, no.
Vaccine passports, yes, no?
I'm vaccinated.
I don't mind, to be honest.
It doesn't affect me too much, because I'm vaccinated.
Do you think that the passports might segregate society between the jabbed and unjabbed?
Hopefully.
Hopefully.
Get vaccinated.
It's quite scary because when I go to approach someone and ask them, they're either a bit reluctant to give their opinion.
It's almost like a sensitive subject.
Or they're very pro-segregation without understanding the consequences.
Hmm.
And then shortly after, finally, this happened.
We're asking people about their opinion on passports.
Vaccine passports?
Ah!
Finally!
There we go.
Finally, someone that's against them.
Do you think that maybe the vaccine passports could segregate society between the unjabbed and the jabbed?
it would but a lot of people are going to lose out on especially restaurants and pubs and all that they'll lose out on money on business you know so that'll be a disaster for Wales.
Can't just keep them lock people in their houses for the rest of their lives.
So the idea of vaccine passports at the pub, does that terrify you?
Vaccine Passports Divide Opinions00:01:06
Yes definitely.
Because I spend a lot of time in the pub.
It's against people freedom and choice.
There we go.
Fantastic.
So after being in central Cardiff today for most of the afternoon it's fair to say that a lot of people find the subject of vaccine passports quite a sensitive one.
Although off camera, dozens of people are actually very pro-choice and anti-vaccine passports, which is very, very surprising.
I think the main message today is that we're moving way more towards an Orwellian society with censorship on social media and not being able to speak your mind in public to people.
So this has been Lewis Brackpool reporting in central Cardiff for Rebel News.
I'm not going to lie, I've been out in the rain for several hours now.
So if you enjoy my honest work, man on the street journalism, you can now support me at ukreporters.com and give whatever you can.