Ezra Levant highlights JN vs. CG, a February 25 Ontario ruling where Justice Alex Pazaratz sided with a mother’s vaccine safety concerns over stigmatizing her as "anti-vaxx" or linked to the PPC, granting her control despite no parent offering professional medical evidence. Levant ties this to Canada’s broader civil liberties crisis—lockdown fines, firings like Pastor Arthur Pavlovsky’s imprisonment—and the trucker convoy protests, which exposed institutional hypocrisy and media bias, from FBI entrapment fears to Trudeau’s controversial Emergencies Act invocation against peaceful protesters. Veterans call it unconstitutional, comparing it to past government failures, while convoyreport.com tracks dissent amid lingering emergency laws across provinces. [Automatically generated summary]
Today I take you through a court case, which is the first piece of common sense I've seen from any judge in Canada on the lockdown and the pandemics and the vaccine mandates.
First I've seen in two years.
It's a very minor ruling.
It's a family court ruling.
Obviously, it's not minor to that family.
But by minor, I mean it doesn't change the world for millions or tens of millions of us, but it is the first little ray of hope of sanity returning to our checks and balances in this country.
I'll read about half the ruling to you.
That's on today's show.
Let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
That's the video version of these podcasts.
You get mine every day plus four other shows a week.
It's a lot of content for just eight bucks a month, really two bucks a week.
It's, I think it's a great deal.
And you're not going to find it anywhere else.
Plus, we rely on your dough because we don't get any money from Justin Trudeau, unlike most media.
So it really helps us keep the lights on.
Just go to RebelNewsPlus.com and click subscribe.
All right, here's today's show.
Tonight, the first tiny court case to go towards freedom, not lockdown mania.
It's February 25th, and this is the Ezra Levant show.
Why should others go to jail when you're a biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here, and you won't give them an answer.
The only thing I have to say is government of why I'm hoping is because it's my bloody right to do so.
I saw this court ruling this week.
It's not a constitutional case.
It's not a challenge to the lockdowns.
It's not a grievance against an employer forcing a vaccine mandate on a union.
It's the most ordinary, dreary court case there is.
Family law, which is code for divorce court.
And, of course, the worst divorce proceedings are those involving kids.
Just misery all around, misery where only the lawyers profit.
And misery attracts misery.
Imagine how many divorce cases involving children have been weaponized by the lockdowns, masks, vaccine shots, so much more to argue about.
The most bitter disagreements have been made worse because of the strife we're in.
And so it was in this case called JN versus CG.
Those are the initials of the parents kept anonymous for the sake of the kids.
Here's a court ruling.
It was a case heard exactly a week ago, and the ruling was issued on Tuesday, which is a pretty quick turnaround.
It was written by Justice Alex Pazaratz of the Ontario Superior Court.
I'm going to read from it at length because the judge writes in a way that I would rather quote directly rather than to summarize and restate.
Most judges don't write like this, Judge.
You'll see what I mean.
Let me start literally with the first sentence.
When did it become illegal to ask questions, especially in the courtroom?
And when did it become unfashionable for judges to receive answers, especially when children's lives were at stake?
How do we lower our guard and let the words unacceptable beliefs get paired together?
You know who said that?
That's what Justin Trudeau said the other day.
I don't know if you recognize those.
The way through this pandemic is by getting everyone vaccinated.
And the overwhelming majority, close to 90% of Canadians, have done exactly that.
The small fringe minority of people who are on their way to Ottawa or who are holding unacceptable views that they're expressing do not represent the views of Canadians who have been there for each other,
who know that following the science and stepping up to protect each other is the best way to continue to ensure our freedoms, our rights, our values as a country.
In a democracy on the scales of justice, should judges sit back as the concept of judicial notice gets hijacked from a rule of evidence to a substitute for evidence?
And is, this is my favorite part, is misinformation even a real word?
Or has it become a crass, self-serving tool to preempt scrutiny and discredit your opponent, to delegitimize questions and strategically avoid giving answers?
Blanket denials are almost never acceptable in our adversarial system.
Each party always has the onus to prove their case, and yet misinformation has crept into court lexicon, a childish but sinister way of saying, you're so wrong, I don't even have to explain why you're wrong.
It's an incredible ruling, would you agree?
What does any of this have to do with family law?
Sadly, these days, it has everything to do with family court.
Because when society demonizes and punishes anyone who disagrees or even dares to ask really important questions, the resulting polarization, disrespect, and simmering anger can have devastating consequences for the mothers, fathers, and children I deal with on a daily basis.
It's becoming harder for family court judges to turn enemies into friends when governments are so recklessly turning friends into enemies.
Governments are.
The motion before me is a typical and frightening example of how far we are drifting from cherished values.
Wow.
Now I'm going to keep reading if you don't mind.
There's so much here I don't want to miss a word.
I can't read you the whole ruling.
So now the judge summarized the case.
The father wants two children ages 12 and 10 to receive COVID vaccinations.
The mother is opposed.
Now answer honestly.
Did the previous paragraph give you enough information to form an opinion about how this case should turn out?
It's a clever question from the judge, isn't it?
You don't normally see clever questions in court rulings.
Judges try to give clever answers, but he's making a point, I think.
We're all weary.
We all wish COVID would just go away, but pandemic fatigue is no excuse for shortcuts and lowering our standards.
We all have to guard against the unconscious bias of thinking, why won't these people just do what the government tells them to do?
I can't believe this guy's a judge.
Surprised he wasn't thrown off the bench yet.
We have to decide on the basis of the best interests of each particular child in each particular fact situation.
We have to rely on and insist upon evidence.
So I'm going to skip ahead.
Just FYI, the family came to some agreement last fall about a few things, and one of the kids decided to get vaxxed and both parents agreed to it.
But the littler kids, well, the mom was skeptical in part because they both got the virus and recovered from it naturally so they have natural immunity.
Let me read a little bit more from the ruling.
Soon after the party signed minutes in October 2021, the older child, CBG, elected to be vaccinated.
Both parents supported his decision.
He's had two shots and the parents agree he has exhibited no adverse effects.
The mother insists the father is misrepresenting her position.
She is not opposed to vaccines.
She's offended by the pejorative term anti-vaxxers.
She has always ensured that the three children received all their regular immunizations.
She says she's open-minded to vaccinating both younger children if safety concerns can be better addressed.
But she says her extensive research has left her with well-founded concerns that the potential benefit of the current COVID vaccines for LEG and MDG, those are two younger kids, is outweighed by the serious potential risks.
She says there are too many unknowns, and she worries that once children are vaxed, they can't be unvaxxed.
The mother notes that both children have already had COVID with minimal symptoms and they have recovered completely.
She refers to medical research which says that since they have already recovered from COVID, the children now have greater protection from future infection.
Well, we know that's true.
Both parents agree LEG and MDG, those are the kids, are in excellent health with no special medical needs or vulnerabilities.
Neither parent provided any evidence from a medical profession about any potential positive or negative considerations with respect to these children receiving COVID vaccines.
The mother's evidence focused entirely on the medical and scientific issues.
Okay.
Now here is the part of the ruling that I think is very interesting, at least to me.
In contrast, the father focused extensively on labeling and discrediting the mother as a person in a dismissive attempt to argue that her views aren't worthy of consideration.
This odious trend is rapidly corrupting modern social discourse.
Ridicule and stigmatize your opponent as a person rather than dealing with the ideas they want to talk about.
Seems to be working for politicians, but is this really something we want to tolerate in a court system where potential conduct and beliefs are irrelevant except as they impact on the parents' ability to meet the needs of a child?
It's talking about cancel culture.
For example, the father's affidavits included the following.
I am aware that the applicant has political affiliations with the People's Party of Canada.
The applicant is entitled to her personal beliefs and ideologies, but I am very fearful that it is having a direct negative impact on the children, especially when it comes to this vaccine issue.
I searched the applicant's recent Facebook postings and was alarmed to see just how involved the applicant is at perpetuating COVID-related conspiracy theories and vaccine hesitancy.
He attached a collection of some of the applicants' Facebook postings, which I believe are indicative of her personal views.
The applicant is a self-proclaimed PPC founding member.
In my opinion, she is openly promoting very dangerous beliefs.
Surely, these thoughts and feelings are also being promoted in her household, which is where LEG and MDG primarily reside.
I looked up what the PPC stance is on the COVID-19 vaccine and was not surprised to read under its website's facts section that lockdowns, mask mandates, school closures, and other authoritarian sanitary measures have not had any noticeable effect on the course of the pandemic.
Unfortunately, no facts are actually provided.
He attached a copy of the PPC's COVID policy taken from its website.
I'm alarmed that the children are being exposed to the applicant's unsupportive views on the issue of the pandemic, and in particular, the efficacy of the available and government-recommended vaccines.
The applicant's anti-vaccination stance is much more severe than that of a regular concerned parent who is unsure whether or not she wants the children to receive a relatively new vaccine.
Rather, the applicant is leading the charge, attending anti-vaccine rallies, and refusing to follow COVID protocols.
He attaches a Facebook posting of a mother not wearing a mask in a crowd of 10,000 people at a rally.
He makes other references to the mother's Facebook account and attaches numerous pictures of her social media pages.
He attaches photographs of PPC leader Maxine Bernier addressing an audience.
Well, that ought to decide any divorce case right there.
If you have a picture of Maxine Bernier, it makes sense to me.
So a political attack on his ex-wife based on her political beliefs, disagreeing with his political beliefs.
So we hear.
Maybe he doesn't agree.
He's just using it as a weapon.
And here's what the judge said.
Where to begin?
A, how is any of this relevant?
B, have we reached a stage where parental rights are going to be decided based on what political party you belong to?
Yeah, I think we're there already, Judge.
C, is being seen with Maxine Bernier, or anyone for that matter, the kiss of death as far as your court case is concerned.
Yeah, I think we're at that point, Judge.
D, can you simply utter the words conspiracy theorist and do a mic drop?
E, if you allege that someone is openly promoting very dangerous beliefs, shouldn't you provide a few details?
A bit of proof maybe?
F.
And if you presume that a parent believes things they shouldn't believe, can you go one step further and also presume that the parent must be poisoning their children's minds with these horrible unspecified ideas?
Surely these thoughts and feelings are also being promoted in her household.
G, the father criticizes the mother for doing something she didn't say.
He presumes she doubts the effectiveness of school closures and then criticizes her for providing no evidence.
But on this motion, she didn't raise the issue.
And back in 2020, she was the one who wanted to keep the children out of school and he fought unsuccessfully for them to attend.
As with other allegations, the father provides no evidence of his own and fails to address the fact that vigorous community debate led to school closures being abandoned.
H. How far are we willing to take guilt by association?
If you visit a website, read a book, or attend a meeting, are you permanently tarnished by something someone else wrote or said?
At what point do the thought police move in?
Oh, Judge, we're there.
We're there a long time ago.
I.
And really, how fine is the line between vaccine hesitancy and not taking any chances with your kid?
All of the case law says judges have to act with the utmost caution and consider all relevant evidence in determining the best interests of the child.
How can we then impose a lesser standard on a demonstrably excellent parent?
It is of little consequence that an individual litigant chooses to advance such dubious and offensive arguments.
Even though the father may not admit it, this is still a free country and people can say what they want, including him.
I'm not going to read the whole thing.
That would be just ridiculous, but it really is a riveting discussion.
The judge then discusses other cases where children were being fought over by parents with different points of view in the vaccine in divorce court.
And in some of those cases, the kids were forced against their own will to have the jab.
How terrible is that?
Here's what this judge had to say about that.
To simplify matters, the mother does not deny the authenticity or integrity of the website information submitted by the father.
It's mostly statements by the government of Canada and the Canadian Pediatric Society recommending that children should receive COVID vaccinations.
Judge's Unusual Ruling00:04:19
These are the same types of downloads which courts have considered in other recent COVID vaccine cases.
The mother doesn't deny that these are reputable organizations, nor does she deny the statements and information have been prepared by qualified persons in a responsible, professional manner.
She doesn't deny that the father has accurately presented one side of the story.
All she asks is that the court equally consider the other side of the story, that the court allow both sides of the story to be equally presented, tested, and considered before making an irreversible decision for her children.
Evidence on both sides of the story.
We're in deep trouble if those become antiquated concepts.
Yeah, judge.
Yeah, we are.
In almost all cases with COVID vaccinations have been ordered, the court has made a finding that on the face of it, the internet materials presented by the objecting parent have been grossly deficient, unreliable, and at times dubious.
This lack of an equally credible counterpoint to government recommendations may well have been determinative in those earlier cases.
In other words, the government, the courts choose who to believe or not.
But here, this judge says, what if the objecting parents presents evidence which potentially raises some serious questions or doubts about the necessity, benefits, or potential harm of COVID vaccine for children?
Clearly, we shouldn't be too quick to embrace the naysayers, but should we banish them without hearing from them?
Should we stifle and forbid a reasonable opportunity to present and test evidence and make submissions?
There are obvious public policy reasons to avoid recklessly undermining confidence in public health measures, but that has to be weighed against our unbridled obligation to leave no stone unturned when it comes to protecting children.
For example, the mother presented a detailed fact sheet from Pfizer.
This isn't one of the fringe websites dismissed in the other cases.
It's Pfizer, the people who make the vaccine.
And one of the things that judges leans on is the authoritativeness of the cases relied on by the mom.
I'll read some more.
Several of the earlier decisions requiring children to be vaccinated have noted that the evidence presented by the objecting parent was not reliable because the author's credentials were either non-established or non-existent.
But in this case, none of the materials presented by the mother are from fringe organizations or dubious authors.
To the contrary, the mother quotes extensively from leaders in the medical and scientific community.
I thought the next point showed some humanity from the judge, which is very rare these days.
In a complex, important, and emotional case like this, it is important to remember the court's mandate.
I am not being asked to make a scientific determination.
I'm being asked to make a parenting determination.
I'm not being asked to decide whether vaccines are good or bad.
I am not being asked to decide if either parent is good or bad.
My task is to determine which parent is to have decision-making authority over LEG and MDG, the kids, with respect to the very specific and narrow issue of COVID vaccinations.
Each parent has clearly identified how they would exercise such decision-making authority.
The judge gives the decision-making authority to the mom, who had parenting roles post-divorce anyways.
Now, look at, so that's how the judge ruled.
But look at the PS from the judge at the end.
Post-script.
It's irrelevant to my decision, and it's none of anyone's business, but I am fully vaccinated, my choice.
I mention this because I'm acutely aware of how polarized the world has become.
We should all return to discussing the issues rather than making presumptions about one another.
I read about half this ruling to you.
I just thought it was interesting.
I don't think this will be overturned on appeal because family law is so fact-based, and I don't think the ruling here is so patently wrong that a higher court were overturning it.
But I have to say, this is literally the first judge in Canada to consider a pandemic lockdown, forced vaccine issue, and not join the hysterical screaming and denunciation of people who are dissident minorities.
Compare him to the judges who have, for example, thrown Pastor Arthur Pavlovsky into prison, who have banned him from even speaking in public in ways that contradict the government.
People On The Side Of The Road00:10:47
Churches physically seized by police.
People being fined tens of thousands of dollars for merely disagreeing.
Millions of Canadians banned from flying or taking the train just for not being vaxed, even if they are naturally immune.
Countless people being fired for the same reason.
I wonder if this judge will be overturned just for that reason, that he's insufficiently furious and insufficiently intolerant of the mom who disagrees with the majority.
He probably wouldn't destroy businesses or seize bank accounts like the government has done.
Will he be able to hold on to his position as a judge?
Will they kick him out as a judge?
Happened before.
I'm happy to see this case.
It's too bad that only applies to one family and we don't even know who they are.
But maybe it's a small sign that even our courts are starting to realize that they've been part of an atrocious restriction on our civil liberties for far too long.
And maybe it's time for them to walk back from the abuses of the government.
I wonder if the trucker rebellion had anything to do with this.
Speaking of trucker rebellion, stay with us for more on the American trucker convoy.
I'm Jeremy Lafredo on assignment for Rebel News in Kingman, Arizona, where the U.S. trucker convoy arrived last night.
They departed 300 miles east of here in Adelanto, California, and arrived around sundown.
They're set to leave Kingman, Arizona in about two hours.
You can see the sun's coming up.
The truckers are waking up before their 300-mile stretch to New Mexico east.
All the trucks behind me are brand new.
You can tell that the truckers have grown exponentially since leaving California.
This grew overnight.
I mean, there was half the trucks here last night, so there's a lot of support.
We're bigger on semis, we're bigger on campers, and we're bigger on cars.
As far as the convoy and how big it's gotten, I started in California.
It was amazing.
The amount of support and people, I mean, it just you emotionally break down.
I've done it two, three times, and it's heart-wrenching.
We need to get rid of these mandates.
People are getting fired.
People can't get in the hospitals.
Nurses are getting fired.
So many people's lives are at danger right now.
So basically, we need to raise the word and bring into fruition that our government needs to work for us.
We don't work for them.
Well, Rebel News covered the Canadian Truckers Convoy better and more than anyone else.
There was one point in time we were in nine cities in Canada covering different aspects of the convoy.
We were embedded with it from almost its beginnings in Western Canada as it made its way east.
I believe that we helped tell an important story that was ignored at first and then, frankly, mistold deliberately by the corporate media and the government who were opposed to the convoy.
Well, the Canadian convoy has more or less ended.
It forced an issue in which Justin Trudeau brought in a form of martial law, and I think it showed a lot of weaknesses in Canada's checks and balances for democracy.
But one of the things the truckers in Canada did was inspire other trucker rebellions around the world.
Places as diverse as the Netherlands, Israel, France, and now the United States, where a trucker convoy has started in California and is deliberately making its way east to Washington, D.C.
And I'm delighted to say that we have a freelance reporter who is covering the American convoy with us, who started in LA, is now in New Mexico.
His name is Jeremy LaFredo, and he joins us now via Skype along the side of the highway.
Jeremy, nice to have you.
Thank you very much for taking up this important mission for us at Rebel News.
It's great to have you on board on this assignment.
Thanks, Ezra.
So you're in New Mexico right now.
Tell me how it started in California because it felt a little more organized than the Canadian one, which was pretty spontaneous.
Tell us a little bit about the American convoy.
Sure.
So it was planned about a week and a half in advance.
We met in California, and there was only about maybe 100 or so big rigs and a couple hundred cars.
And now three days later, we're making our way 600 miles further than where we started in New Mexico, and there's it's grown exponentially.
There's hundreds of big rigs, there's hundreds of cars.
It's growing by the day and by the night.
More people are showing up.
Now, in Canada, it took a while for this thing to become known.
And soon people started spontaneously coming to the side of the road or to overpasses to cheer it on.
I don't think that happened at first.
It took a while for the story to be told, but it really spread person to person.
It wasn't really through the mainstream media.
Has that phenomenon begun in your American convoy yet?
Do people know about it?
Are they expecting it?
Are they coming out to wave it on or cheer it on at all?
People definitely know about it.
So we are, like I said, we're 600 miles from where we started, and not one overpass did not have supporters waving American flags, waving Canadian flags, and waving that new flag that you might have seen, which is the American flag combined with the Canadian flag on one flag, which was started.
You know, everybody's cheering on Canadians.
Everyone's thanking Canadians for what they started.
Isn't that interesting?
You know what?
The idea that Canada would create a freedom movement that others, including in America, would follow, that's got to be a novelty.
I mean, I've never heard of that before.
Normally, we're more quiet, and if anything, we're followers rather than leaders when it comes to freedom.
I'm delighted to hear it.
Now, one of the things in Canada was I think there was a class divide that was exposed by it because there's certain people who I think really love the lockdowns and love the pandemic and they've never lost a day's pay.
Maybe they didn't work, but maybe they just got paid anyways.
Maybe they could work from the cottage or something via Zoom.
Whereas the working class, I mean, truckers never stopped trucking.
And in fact, not just big rig truckers, long-distance haulers, but even drivers within the city who were, you know, for DoorDash or Amazon.
Like those folks didn't take a day off.
And they often, especially in those early days when we didn't really know a lot about the virus itself, they had to show courage.
And I don't know.
I think that suddenly the pandemic has turned against these working class folks.
Anyone who's in these big unions was forced to be jabbed, even though it wasn't in the collective agreement.
I just felt like, I don't know, about six months ago, things really turned sour and there was a classism.
And I say this as a conservative guy, I normally don't talk in the language of class, but it was hard not to notice it.
And I felt like this truckers' rebellion truly was a workers' rebellion.
It felt like a general strike.
I don't know.
What are your thoughts on that?
Is there a working class nature to what's going on there in America too?
And how does that play into American politics?
You'll have to educate us because we're Canadians up here.
Of course.
So there's definitely, there's 100% a class divide in who supports the truckers and who does not support the truckers.
Most of the supporters on the overpass today were not from Albuquerque, which is the biggest city in New Mexico.
They were from the rural parts of New Mexico.
And they were waving their flags and they were cheering on the convoy.
And as we were getting our cameras ready, someone walked out of an office building and said, What are all those people waving their flags about?
What are they yelling about?
We told them what it was about.
It was about the convoy.
The truckers are being fired if they don't get the jab, et cetera, et cetera.
And they kind of scoffed and they kept walking.
And she was walking, you know, she was wearing suit pants and she was walking out of an office building.
And just in that one interaction, you could see that you have these people who consider themselves progressive liberals scoffing at those who are working class Americans with less money than them, most likely.
I saw some of that in Canada.
I also saw an interesting thing is that in Canada, a lot of the truckers are from minority background.
For whatever reason, a lot of Canadian truckers are Indo-Canadian, including Sikh truckers.
There's also indigenous people, what in America might be called Indians or what we call Métis.
So there's a lot of truckers who are from a variety of backgrounds.
Now, they were denounced by our prime minister that he called them racist and misogynist.
And he even used the word Nazi, which seemed very at odds with the mix of people.
Trucking is a real entry-level trait or job.
If you can get that commercial driver's license, really it's open to people of, like, it really is a doorway into small business and work for new Americans.
I imagine that's how it, I think that's one of the reasons so many new Canadians are in it.
But they called them racist.
Are they, is it, is that same demonization afoot in America?
You're in the southwest.
I'm guessing there's lots of people who might be called Latino or other, other folks like that.
Can you tell me the demographics of these truckers?
Sure.
So we're in the southwest of the United States.
We're very close to Mexico, and we're also surrounded by different Indian reservations, Native American Navajo tribe.
And, you know, these people, like anyone else, they, you know, at some point needed a job and they decided, you know, I'm going to get into trucking.
So, you know, yes, you definitely see some diversity in these truckers and you see even more diversity in the people supporting the truckers.
We haven't seen any demonization from Joe Biden himself.
He hasn't acknowledged the situation.
But from the mainstream media, the New York Times, The Washington Post, BuzzFeed, MSNBC, they have all put out stories and then more stories on how these truckers have links to the far right, our extremists.
They're all white, which is bad, of course.
And, you know, it's completely different from the real story.
If only they came out here and saw who the truckers were, they would not turn on their cameras because they would be so embarrassed.
Well, one of our mottos at Rebel News is telling the other side of the story.
And the best way to do that is just flip on the camera.
And one of the things we did in the Canadian trucker convoy is we just sometimes did a live stream and that camera was on for three, four hours.
The Truckers' Symbol00:06:06
And there was, you know, there was commentary along the way, but I think people appreciated just seeing with their own eyes what was happening.
That a lot of that happened in Ottawa.
So I think just showing the fact is a great service.
So I'm really grateful to you for riding along because you're right.
If a pundit is giving commentary on the truckers from a studio in LA or a studio in Manhattan, but they haven't seen with their own eyes, they're just retelling or rehearsing a false fact.
So it's important what you're doing on the ground to actually document who's there.
Now, I got one last question for you.
One of the things that worries me is that I know that this trucker movement, I mentioned how it's spread around the world, it's become so symbolic.
And it really is a kind of natural resistance to the pandemic lockdownism and the mandatory big pharma vaccine.
So it's a symbol.
And they want to smash the symbol.
I remember a few years back, they tried to demonize the yellow vest, the Gilet Jean movement out of France.
And I think they want to do the same here because it's such a powerful, authentic, grassroots thing.
So I'm worried that there's going to be some false flag, agents, provocateurs.
And before you say, oh, Ezra, you're just being paranoid.
I know that the FBI, in some very spectacular recent cases, has done this sort of thing.
There were a half a dozen FBI agents who were actually, I know this sounds nuts, they were in a scheme to kidnap the Democratic governor of Michigan, believe it or not.
And that thankfully unraveled before it happened.
I'm quite sure that there are people who are being embedded with this trucker convoy with the goal of denormalizing them, having them say something so discrediting that it redounds to the discredit of the whole group.
Have you detected anything like that, or are you on alert for that?
Because it wouldn't surprise me if, and I'm not saying they're necessarily FBI, they might just be political operatives who are trying to muck things up.
Who knows?
Could even be the Lincoln Project.
They've done that sort of thing before.
Have you had any observations in those lines?
Well, I mean, you know, Agent Provocateur's entrapment programs is the FBI's game.
And, you know, the white conservatives have now taken the place of as the terrorists that was normally occupied by Middle Eastern people.
So now that they've taken over this title, it's given federal law enforcement essentially the ability to go in and do anti-terror tactics, entrapment programs, et cetera, et cetera.
And obviously, this convoy is criticizing big pharma and the state.
And there's nothing more damaging than that right now, especially in the middle of this COVID regime that we find ourselves in.
So I definitely wouldn't be surprised if something like that happened.
And also, there's some, not embedded in the convoy, there's someone going around, not at all affiliated with the convoy, giving quotes to the media as if they are affiliated with the convoy.
No one knows which organization this person actually works for, but they're saying once we get to Washington, we are going to strangle the federal government using violence.
And the convoy does not, does not has never been about that.
And they've said that multiple times is about peace.
We just don't want to take this vaccine.
We just don't want to get fired.
So there's definitely people being embedded in the media and elsewhere that are supposed to be discrediting this convoy.
Yeah, I saw that.
I think they used a snake analogy of like strangling.
I saw that even reported up here in Canada.
So those planting those themes and denormalizing and demonizing the trucker convoy is happening down there.
I can see it.
Well, Jeremy, we're so glad you're embedded there.
I'll let you go because I know you want to catch up to the rest of the truckers.
Great to have you on with this mission, this assignment.
Jeremy Lafredo, keep it up and we'll talk to you again soon.
Thank you, guys.
All right.
There you have it.
We're covering the U.S. convoy.
Stay with us.
More ahead.
Hey, welcome back.
Your letters to me.
Wish for Freedom says, my guess is Ontario will shut down Doug Ford.
Ford is an expert of talking out of both sides of his mouth.
The Convoy for Freedom has exposed many so-called conservative politicians as nothing but tyrants.
The convoy has brought all the cockroaches out into the line.
It's amazing the effects of this convoy.
I mean, it really is incredible how it has forced so many issues.
And I think it's partly to the grassroots nature, the authentic nature of it, and partly just the complete failure of any other institution for two years.
I think the best thing this trucker convoy has done is throw out Aaron O'Toole, which I think has paved the way for Pierre Polyev to become the Conservative Party leader.
I see there's some sort of move to make Jean Jure the party leader.
Yeah, I don't think that's going anywhere, folks.
But if that's all they do, if they replace Aaron O'Toole with Pierre Polyev, I think the guy has a chance of winning.
And that could be the most important effect.
I think it's also hastened the end of heavy lockdowns in most provinces.
But I say again, the emergency legislation is either in effect or still on the books in most provinces, in all provinces, in fact, including Saskatchewan.
So we're not out of this yet.
We have to pull up the weed by its roots or it'll grow back.
Someone with a nickname, The Cat, came back, says, if fascism ever comes to America, it'll come in the name of liberalism, Ronald Reagan.
The same goes for Canada.
Oh, yeah.
I mean, it's hard, it's shocking when you think that the word liberal comes from the Latin word for freedom.
Emergencies Act Controversy00:07:46
And the freedoms that they absolutely bulldozed for their political interests are so gross.
Lawrence Johansson writes, it's incredible how the American media went nuts on Trudeau.
Nice to hear the truth for a change.
Well, I should tell you, you're selecting conservative media, Fox, Breitbart, Newsmasks, et cetera, because the media on the left viciously attacked the truckers, including CNN.
I'm going to say goodbye to you now.
We'll see you on Monday.
But I want to leave you with our video of the day.
It's veterans in Ottawa reacting to Trudeau's comments on the Freedom Convoy.
Of course, our favorite reporter, Alexa, is the journalist.
Until next time, on behalf of all of us here at Rubble World Headquarters, good night.
Keep fighting for freedom.
Has invoked the Emergencies Act to supplement provincial and territorial capacity to address the blockades and occupations.
Nobody here causing any problems.
And why is it important for you to be here?
Don't talk about shit.
My dad, my dad had a Nazi machine gun pointed in his face.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, don't touch me.
Don't touch me.
Don't touch me.
My parents' kids care for birthdays.
Yeah, but don't touch me.
I lived under dictatorship and I lived under communism.
You don't know how lucky you are to be in China.
Sorry about that.
Have a nice day.
What do you think about that?
What just happened?
Unfortunately, they've been putting a lot of propaganda.
The news has been working, and our government's been working a lot to put up propaganda with the Canadian population.
And it's constant.
And people are constantly exposed to the propaganda and the false narratives.
I mean, they're affected in different ways, right?
Unfortunately, RED NEWS
still in Ottawa reporting on the ground.
And today, my concern went with the tout of veterans about the fact that Prime Minister Trudeau has invoked the Emergencies Act yesterday.
As you know, it's the first time in the history of Canada that this act had been deployed.
So let's check it out what they have to say to me about it.
And I served almost 17 years.
I'm a combat engineer and I served in Afghanistan in 2010 with the 171 CAV shadow troop.
It was actually an American unit.
So we were Canadians working with Americans in Kandahar.
My job was to basically search and find IEDs and explosives and to make holding stations safe for Afghans to vote freely, as a matter of fact.
I served three years.
I'm not a combat veteran.
I did my time, did my first hook cut out.
I was in the Air Force.
I did six years.
I served in Kosovo, Bosnia, and Afghanistan.
And also I'm a third generation veteran.
So my grandfather stood in the First World War, and my father stood in the Second World War.
I was just under 10 years in Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, based out of Winnipeg.
I would say that's completely typical of government, right?
They use the boys up, throw them away, and as Mr. Trudeau said, we asked for too much.
What I wasn't prepared for, Mr. Prime Minister, is Canada turning its back on me.
So which veteran was it that you were talking about?
Why are we still fighting against certain veterans groups in court?
Because they are asking for more than we are able to give right now.
So I'm not surprised that they're using it as a fear tactic, right?
100%.
Like, I think you're going to be hard-pressed to find any rank and file soldiers or police officers that are going to be willing to smash windows out and drag peaceful protesters out of here.
So I think it's their classic psyops, just like the ridiculous fence they put up to scare people from not coming down, not wanting to support, you know, get guys that are on the edge to leave, right?
But these guys aren't going anywhere, right?
Not until we're all free again.
I'm disappointed.
I mean, you fight for freedom, the freedom and the rights of every Canadian when you're active duty.
And now I'm just here to protect this monument.
This isn't just a monument to me.
This is the receipt of the freedom that I enjoy every day.
I'm putting a fence around it.
What is that saying?
You know, that's desecration on its own.
And what is your thought of the situation, especially with the Emergencies Act that have been deployed against protesters?
It's completely illegal.
If you read the Emergency Act, there is nowhere in it that says that it can be used for peaceful protesters.
It's for war or actual insurrection, not a peaceful gathering with bouncy castles and feeding the homeless.
And we had lowered the crime rate, you know.
So it's just classic left crazy tactics, right?
Put fear in and project their own garbage onto the other people, right?
That's what they do.
That's what they've always done.
I think it's completely absurd.
And if you look back throughout our history, when September 11th happened, no emergencies act was called.
When Corporal Nathan Cirrilla was killed right here on this monument and then the attacker went up to Parliament Hill, an emergencies act was not called and now he's in effect called an emergencies act on his own citizens and he hasn't even spoken to anybody yet.
So he can't even justify it.
It's absolutely absurd.
Well, I mean, I can speak on behalf of myself as a former soldier.
That is my worst fear to have to use violence against other Canadians.
So I'm thoroughly disappointed in his decision.
I think there's a peaceful resolution to what's going on here.
And I'll quote Prime Minister Trudeau saying dialogue is the Canadian way.
Where's the dialogue?
Where's the communication?
There is none.
I don't see the authority or the reason in the next matter because, you know, we're all 100% completely peaceful here.
Sure Steps Taken00:00:57
The crime level since we've been here has dropped 90%.
And we're feeding the poor in the streets.
We're cleaning up the streets.
They're shoveling off the sidewalks, salting it, making sure it's safe for people in around this monument.
I mean, this is our monument, War Memorial.
And, you know, it's shoveled off.
We've salted it, make sure it's safe.
Now we're manning it 24 hours a day to make sure there's nothing, you know, nobody here causing any problems.
Yeah.
So me and my colleague all across Canada, we are covering the Freedom Convoy in Alberta, Gagery, here, Errol Bit everywhere.
And if you want to see all our report, please go to convoyreport.com.
And in this website, you can as well donate to help us with our travel expense and our journalism.