Ezra Levant critiques ECOS’s poll linking vaccine skepticism to pro-Putin views, noting unvaccinated Canadians are 12x more likely to justify Russia’s invasion while dismissing the survey’s bias—Frank Graves’ Liberal ties and aggressive war-related questions. He contrasts this with media censorship of pandemic skeptics and election fraud claims, calling transgender ideology a "cult" triggering institutional fear, like Twitter’s Babylon Bee suppression. A dying father’s hospital denied unvaccinated siblings visits despite negative tests, sparking outrage; Chloe Newton-John condemned the policy, urging reform at change the cruelrule.com. Levant’s argument reveals systemic distrust of dissenters, whether on vaccines or free speech, exposing a broader culture war clash over authority and compassion. [Automatically generated summary]
I want to take you through a very interesting opinion poll commissioned by the left-wing pollster called ECOS.
But they have an interesting observation.
People who are skeptical of vaccines are also skeptical of the Russia-Ukraine war.
Is it an attempt to smear anti-vaxxers as Putin's people?
Or does it go to something deeper in people's skepticism and how maybe we're all too gullible?
I'll take you through it at some length.
Before I do, let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
Just go to RebelNewsPlus.com, $8 a month.
You get the video version of this podcast 20 times a month.
Plus, every week we have four other weekly shows.
That's a lot of content for $8.
And you know what?
That $8 allows us to stay strong and independent and not take a dollar from Trudeau.
All right, here's today's podcast.
Tonight, a curious opinion poll shows an important divide in society.
Which side are you on?
It's March 23rd, 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 one answer.
The only thing I have to say is government.
But why?
It's because it's my bloody right to do so.
I saw an opinion poll in the Toronto Star the other day.
It was meant, I'm sure, to embarrass people like me and maybe like you.
It was a sort of weaponized poll, I think, but I don't mind it because I think there's some truth in it, just not in the way that maybe the star in the pollster meant it.
Conducted by a liberal polling firm named ECOS, run by Frank Graves.
The story is headlined, how vaccination status might predict views on the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
New poll indicates that vaccine refusers are much more sympathetic to Russia.
Isn't that odd?
Huh.
You know, a few months ago, another poll taken by another liberal-linked polling company called Abacus.
I mean, are there any conservative polling companies?
I don't even know.
Abacus said that the typical vaccine hesitant person in Canada was actually a 42-year-old mum in Ontario who votes liberal.
I'll come back to that Abacus poll later, maybe, but let's focus on the new poll in the star.
Unvaccinated Canadians are about 12 times more likely than those who received three doses to believe Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine was justified, according to a new survey by national polling forum ECOS.
Three doses.
That right away makes me want to make a joke, only three doses, because of course, Pfizer's CEO is out pitching a fourth dose, did you know?
You've mentioned you are close to filing with the FDA for a fourth dose.
Tell us about where the latest on that stands, what the data show.
I think we are going to submit to FDA a significant package of data about the need for a fourth dose, and they need to make their own conclusions, of course, and NCDC also to see it.
Clearly, there is a need in an environment of Omicron to boost the immune response.
I don't think that we would be in need in Delta.
I was thinking always that after the third dose, we will need annual revaccinations.
With Omicron, the situation is more challenging, so we may need the fourth dose.
But that's something that FDA needs to decide and the CDC needs to recommend.
The same is with every other country.
Many countries already started recommending a fourth dose.
And we will see how the authorities here will think about it.
Do the data that you have suggest a fourth dose may be needed for everybody or perhaps just certain populations, the elderly or more vulnerable?
I think the data will show that the immune protection against Omicron is very good after three doses when it comes against hospitalization or deaths.
Not as good, but pretty good also against infections.
But hospitalization, this is very good, the third dose.
But doesn't last long.
After three, four months, it starts waning.
That's Omicron Arabic.
And clearly, the risk when you have waning immune responses is higher for people that they have high AIDS, they are older, or they have underlying conditions, but the immune responses are waning for all.
So if I got him right, he's saying your vaccination dose only works for three or four months.
Guys, I'm not sure if that can be called a vaccine if you've got to take three or four shots of it every year.
Vaxers, Oligarchs, and Hypothetical Sanctions00:15:08
But hey, the CEO needs a new yacht.
Anyways, back to the story.
The poll found 26% of those who are identified as unvaccinated agreed the Russian invasion is justified, with another 35% not offering an opinion.
This compared to only 2% of surveyed Canadians who said they had three doses of the COVID-19 vaccine and who supported the attack and 4% who offered no view.
At first glance, it's a strange question to ask, isn't it?
There is no connection.
I mean, why not do a poll correlating vaccination status with, I don't know, whether you prefer Star Wars or Star Trek better, something completely unconnected.
It's a non-sequitur.
It doesn't follow, except it's immediately obvious what the political goal of the story and the poll is in the star, right?
Why are they doing this poll?
We got a glimpse of it when the truckers were in Ottawa and the media party let her rip.
I do ask that because, you know, given Canada's support of Ukraine in this current crisis with Russia, I don't know if it's far-fetched to ask, but there is concern that Russian actors could be continuing to fuel things as this protest grows, but perhaps even instigating it from the outset.
Well, again, I'm going to defer to our partners in the public safety, the trained officials and experts in that area.
These aren't real people, these truckers.
They aren't good Canadians who simply have a different opinion from the establishment.
These are bad faith actors.
They might even be spies.
They're in service of a foreign leader.
I mean, I actually have this memory when I was a child.
I don't know why it stuck with me, but there was a former CBC journalist, their chief correspondent, actually, Nolton Nash was his name, who was asked why he kept interviewing a Soviet spokesman.
I think it was this guy, Vladimir Posner.
Posner grew up in America, so he speaks perfect English and he understands American thinking and American culture.
He moved back to the Soviet Union, became one of communism's most effective propagandists in the West during the Cold War.
Anyhow, I remember as a young child, can you believe it?
Nolton Nash was asked why he interviewed Posner, this propaganda, so much.
And this was during the Cold War, remember, nuclear mutually assured destruction, proxy wars everywhere from Vietnam to Afghanistan and Nicaragua.
Why was Nolton Nash giving so much airtime?
And why was he so gentle with him too?
Nash answered snidely, and I've remembered this since I was a child.
Well, maybe we wouldn't interview him so much if he hadn't had so much to say or something like that.
We're interviewing because he has a lot to say.
That's not a reason.
That's an excuse.
It's an insult to the questioner.
It's a laugh, really.
Every propagandist has a lot to say, endless amounts to say, actually.
Endless propaganda to normalize the Soviet dictatorship, to normalize in the West to pretend that Soviet Russia was a paradise and that the free West was morally corrupt.
The CBC loved doing it.
So did Pierre Trudeau, of course, who visited the Soviet Union with his boys and declared Siberia the land of the future.
It's quite something to see that the same CBC that was in league with Russian propagandists is now calling everyone a Russian spy when they literally platformed a Russian spy.
Just incredible.
But back to the Red Star, I mean the Toronto Star.
ECOS president Frank Graves said vaccination status strongly predicts views on the war, from seizing the property of Russian oligarchs to providing non-military aid to Ukraine.
In each case, a vast majority of vaccinated Canadians agreed with measures to help Ukraine and oppose Russia, a view held by only a small minority of unvaccinated people.
Tor Star was granted access to results of the ECOS data that show a correlation between vaccination status and attitudes towards a host of political issues, including the war in Ukraine.
Now, just a reminder who Frank Graves and ECOS are, in case you've forgotten, he gets enormous grants, contracts rather, polling business from the Liberal government.
Always has.
He's a reminder of what he thinks of conservatives.
You know, a few years back, he denounced members of the Conservative Party as racist and homophobic.
He's not exactly neutral, which is something you would probably want in a pollster.
But not that he just hates conservatives.
He actually gave secret advice to the Liberal Party.
I mean, I guess I give advice to parties every day, but I do it publicly.
You know what I'm saying?
Frank Graves was giving private strategic consultations to the Liberal Party.
He's a player in the political game.
He's not a neutral observer.
So always know that ECOS and Frank Graves are just liberal activists.
But still, let me tell you what these liberal activists claim in their poll.
Let me show you the chart, which I thought was pretty interesting.
You can see it on the screen here now.
Take a look.
Let's keep that up there for a little bit and I'll read through it.
Look at the questions they asked.
Do you want tougher sanctions on Russia?
86% of the triple vax people say yes.
Only 13% of unvaxxed people do.
I wonder what the double vax would say or if they're considered unvaxed now.
Seize assets of the oligarchs.
85% of the vax say yes.
13% of the unvaxed.
That's quite a difference.
Cut off shipments, oil shipments from Russia.
Well, I'm unvaxed, and I agree that we should cut off oil from Russia, replace it with ethical oil from the oil sands.
81% of vaccinated people do too, but how many of those people are opposed to pipelines from the oil sands instead?
I'm guessing most of them.
The next one is quite something.
52% of vaccinated people believe in giving fighter jets to Ukraine compared to 15% of unvaxed people.
Now, that's not even a thing.
Canada has a few dozen CF-18 fighter jets.
We took delivery of the first ones in early 1983.
So they are almost 40 years old.
We bought a few used ones from Australia more recently when they upgraded their Air Force to modern F-35.
So I'm not sure how they would do in a war against the Russian Air Force.
I don't know, maybe they do okay.
But the Ukrainian Air Force does not fly F-18s.
They fly old Russian jets.
So they've never flown on CF-18s.
They've never trained on CF-18s.
The ground crews have never worked on CF-18s.
It would literally take years for Ukrainians to learn how to integrate a new jet into their Air Force.
The whole thing is a weird hypothetical scenario.
It's impossible, really.
But still, 52% of vax takers are really excited about it.
Only 15% of unvaxx people are.
30% of vaxxers actually want us to go to war in Ukraine against Russia.
And look at the next line.
52% of the Canadians who are unvaxxed say that Canada shouldn't do any of these things.
Only 2% of vax people say Canadians shouldn't do any of these things.
That actually is a stunning divide, isn't it?
Now, I note that the liberal pollster Frank Graves of the liberal polling firm ECOS didn't seem to ask any non-belligerent options.
Like, would you think Canada should mediate peace talks?
Which other countries like Belarus and Turkey have done.
I think Israel is trying to do that.
So that would be a constructive thing that's not violent.
That's often how wars are ended with peace talks.
That wasn't an option that Frank Graves to put to people.
There was no humanitarian aid option.
Or even revving up our own oil sands to displace Russian oil, not just their exports to Canada, but what if Canada exported oil and gas to the world?
Our imports from Russia are modest, but if we could relieve Europe, especially Germany, from reliance on Russia, that would be something we could really do to help.
It was a carefully selected list of options, all of which involved hostility towards Russia, much of which was fantastical or unrealistic, like the Jets part, and most of which Trudeau himself would never do in any event, or would be pointless.
I mean, sure, we have sanctions on lots of Russian oligarchs.
I'm just not sure that any Russian oligarchs have ever put money in the Royal Bank or Scotiabank or sailed their mega yachts up the St. Lawrence River.
I think it's a combination of wishful thinking and virtue signaling and demonizing an enemy who, by the way, may in fact be a demon.
But I just want to point out that what the options had in common here, they were all aggressive.
Whereas the one thing the anti-vaxxers agreed on is don't fight.
They're not saying they're pro-Putin.
They're just saying don't do all those hostile things, especially the ones that might start World War III.
Three, because it's not our fight.
That's not pro-Putin.
That's isolationist, you could call it.
By the way, I wonder what those same vaxers and anti-vaxxers would say about sanctions against Chinese oligarchs for a number of reasons, from their crimes against humanity to their industrial espionage to taking Canadians hostage to their role in the virus labs in Wuhan to their concentration camps for Uyghurs.
Just curious.
Graves in the star says these unvaxed people can't be correct.
He says they can't have a legitimate point of view.
He explains these answers by saying they're just dumb.
Let me quote.
The study concludes the results point to the highly corrosive influences of disinformation.
This is definitely a new and bluntly insidious force that is contributing to polarization and disinformation and poor decision making.
And it doesn't seem to be going away.
Things are getting worse, said Graves.
I don't think this is because those people had an ingrained sympathy to the Russians.
They're reading this online.
They're consuming this from the same sources that we're giving them the anti-vax stuff.
Got it.
So anyone who disagrees with the Toronto Star is just stupid, that's the only option.
Disinformation.
We're all too easily tricked.
Pfizer is pitching the fourth dose of a vaccine that doesn't really vaccinate, but you're still calling the skeptics the kooky ones?
All right.
The entire province of Quebec, may I remind you, was put under a lengthy prison-style curfew for health reasons.
The media and the government promoted it, total cheerleading, but it recently emerged that there was no medical basis for a curfew, never has been in the history of mankind.
All the health experts who were asked said there was no justification.
They told the public health officer this, told him they couldn't back up his political curfew with any medical reasons, but they launched it anyways.
And you're saying the skeptics were the misinformed ones?
You know, yesterday we played a short fun clip from me 10 years ago at an eco-protest.
I don't know if you saw that.
Where the protesters had no clue about anything.
They were just told to show up, so they did, and they were handed their placards to carry.
They probably didn't even read it, no clue.
That one gal who was there specifically to protest me, but when I came up to her, she didn't recognize me when I spoke with her.
That rent-a-ma professional protesters do what they're told.
That is truly disinformation.
They don't know what they're doing.
But you go to any anti-vaccine mandate rally in this country.
There's no one like that.
You ask someone, why are you here?
They will talk your ear off for an hour.
They've read more studies, watched more videos, listened to different sources, read more journalism than anyone.
But hey, if it makes you feel better to call them uninformed and stupid, well, fill your boots.
You're the Toronto Star.
Unvaccinated Canadians are also more likely to have a profound distrust of government, science, and professional health experts, Graves said, and are more likely to support the protest convoy that occupied Ottawa for nearly a month.
Now that, I think that's true.
Distrust of government.
Is there any institution that has failed more in the past two years than government?
Well, the media, of course, but in Canada, the media are government-funded.
Science?
Well, sure, science being the word that politicians have stolen to apply to their politics.
Science has some sort of shield against asking questions.
Science is about questions.
It comes from the Greek word to know, to investigate, to the scientific process, experimenting.
There's no end in science, by the way.
There's no unquestionable thing in science.
If you can't question it, it's not science anymore.
It's something else.
I don't know, politics, ideology, faith, whatever.
Superstition.
Anthony Fauci is the worst.
He actually says that criticizing him is tantamount to criticizing science itself.
And that's so dangerous.
So stop doing it.
I mean, anybody who's looking at this carefully realizes that there's a distinct anti-science flavor to this.
So if they get up and criticize science, nobody's going to know what they're talking about.
But if they get up and really aim their bullets at Tony Fauci, well, people could recognize there's a person there, so it's easy to criticize.
But they're really criticizing science because I represent science.
That's dangerous.
To me, that's more dangerous than the slings and the arrows that get thrown at me.
And if you damage science, you are doing something very detrimental to society long after I leave.
Imagine saying you represent science.
You're its only interpreter on earth.
That right there is anti-scientific, unscientific.
But also imagine saying that the scientific consensus cannot withstand criticism.
I'll let the ghost of Galileo know that.
Back to the Toronto Star and their ECOS poll.
Put aside the conclusions they came to, likely before they even did the poll.
Pandora Papers Revelations00:06:11
Unvaxed people are dumb brutes who aren't good like us.
Put aside their pathetic explanation and their russophobia, but look at what I presume is accurate data.
Unvaccinated people are skeptical of government and government solutions, and they're willing to stand up against the crowd.
I think that's right.
Remember when we talked about this before, August Landmester, the one German who wasn't Siegheiling?
Who amongst us would have been able to fight the peer pressure and not Siegheil go against the grain?
Precious few.
It's so hard.
It's so hard to go against the grain at the best of times.
But now imagine if you're threatened that you'll be fired from your job or kicked out of university in your last year before you get your degree, denied the right to go to a restaurant or store, denied the right to fly or take a train.
Very hard.
So it is actually true, I think, if you are a person who can resist all that, all the propaganda, all the peer pressure, all the influencers bought by tax dollars, all the demonization, if you can face that without bending, you're probably going to have those same qualities when you face other observations, decisions, other issues,
especially if the same people who have abused you and lied to you for the past two years are now asking you to trust them on the new thing, whatever the new thing is.
I mean, just a few weeks ago, Justin Trudeau and Christia Freeland put our country under a form of martial law.
They seized bank accounts without legal process.
They put hundreds of paramilitary-style police in the streets.
They even shot one of our reporters in the leg.
And then we're supposed to suddenly believe Trudeau when he transforms himself into a civil rights advocate, criticizing Putin for doing similar things.
Yeah.
Christia Freeland, whose own grandfather was a Nazi, by the way, accused the truckers of being Nazis.
So did Trudeau and his new ally, Jagmeet Singh.
The truckers weren't Nazis, of course.
But we have learned that Christia Freeland and Trudeau and Singh support the Adzo battalion, who actually are Nazis.
They say so.
They actually have an army.
Sorry, was I supposed to forget them lying and demonizing me just a few weeks ago and now embrace Trudeau and company as honest and fair dealers now?
I know how Trudeau and his liberals despise and disparage the military.
We all know that.
Am I supposed to suddenly believe that they're serious about anything military?
I was prepared to be killed in action.
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.
I note that the ECOS poll didn't actually ask people if they liked or disliked Putin or liked or disliked the invasion, or maybe it did ask that, but the star didn't publish those parts.
I don't like Putin, and I don't like the invasion.
I just don't think we should go to war over it here in Canada.
I suspect many other skeptics feel the same way.
Let me leave you with one fact.
It's from the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project.
They're a registered American charity.
They're a globalist NGO.
Here's a little bit of information about them if you're curious as to who they are.
Just so you know, they're funded in large part by the U.S. government, the UK government, and also some left-wing globalist groups like the Rockefeller Brothers and George Soros.
So it's all right there on their website, just so you know who they are.
This is not some right-wing group.
And look at the front-page story today.
You can see they're against Putin.
Sanctioning an oligarch is not so easy.
Why the money trail of Alisher Usmanov, one of Russia's wealthiest men, is difficult to follow.
So you can see they're very tough on Russia.
But look at this story from the same group just a few months ago.
Just a few months ago.
Pandora papers reveal offshore holdings of Ukrainian president and his inner circle.
Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky rode to power on pledges to clean up the Eastern European country, but the Pandora papers reveal he and his closed circle were the beneficiaries of a network of offshore companies, including some that owned expensive London property.
It's an extremely detailed report in a corruption by Zelensky and his oligarch friends.
What?
You thought only Putin had corrupt oligarch friends?
I'll read more.
The documents show that Zelensky and his partners in a television production company called Kvartol 95 set up a network of offshore firms dating back to at least 2012, the year the company began making regular content for TV stations owned by Ihor Kolomoyski, an oligarch dogged by allegations of multi-billion dollar fraud.
The offshores were also used by Zelensky associates to purchase and own three prime properties in the center of London.
I'm not going to read more of it.
And by the way, I'm not saying being a kleptocrat makes Zelensky the wrong man to lead Ukraine.
I don't know.
I don't know if there are any good guys waiting in the wings over there.
I just don't know.
But don't pretend he's a saint.
Can you do me that one favor?
Banning his political rivals, banning media that doesn't parrot him.
I think if you're a dissident, if you're a skeptic, if you realize you've been lied to and bullied and gaslit for two years, you sort of know what to look for now.
Obedient Skeptics00:04:31
And if you see stories like these out of the corner of your eye, you don't brush them off and then just repeat what you heard on the CBC.
Zelensky and Putin are at war with each other.
That's all I know for sure.
I'll accept that Putin is atrocious, though I can understand why he maybe doesn't want U.S. military bases right next to his borders in the same way that America's Monroe Doctrine made Americans root out the missiles that the Soviets were putting in their backyard in Cuba.
On Friday, day four of the crisis, low-level reconnaissance aircraft over Cuba brought back ominous new evidence.
The photos revealed a site for a much longer-range Soviet missile, which could hit 98% of the U.S. mainland.
Soviet technicians were working round the clock, pressing to get the missiles operational before they were discovered.
Faced with this new evidence, Kennedy felt forced to act.
That day, he secretly ordered the armed forces to prepare for action and the Navy to impose a blockade, a line beyond which ships carrying arms would not be allowed.
It was a plan McNamara had analyzed with Roswell Gilpatrick.
I took the part of the Soviet planner.
McNamara took the part of the U.S. planner, and we sort of, we just wargamed each other there on the back of the envelope at our lunch table.
And what we essentially came up with was this idea of a naval blockade and downplaying it so we weren't going to, unless we had to, seize or fire at Soviet vessels, but to show in as many ways we could, including mobilizing forces, moving forces around overtly,
that we were very serious about this installation of medium-range missiles in Cuba.
I accept that there is a coronavirus, obviously.
I don't deny that it exists.
I wonder where it came from, and I think Fauci himself is hiding the facts from us.
I think he might have been involved with his gain of function research in China.
We see now that so many statistics were inflated, that the claims that we're all at risk, it really isn't true, that only the old and the fat and the sick are at risk.
There's so many things from the unscientific six-foot separation rule.
There's so many pandemic profiteers.
I mean, look at this story here.
It's incredible.
I see a liberal cabinet minister's husband getting in on fat coronavirus contracts.
I see the obedient courts.
I see colleges of physicians and surgeons brutalizing any dissident doctors or nurses and then claiming, because they've silenced those doctors, that, oh, medicine is unanimous on this.
I see all that.
I see all that.
And so how can I not see the same things in the Ukraine and Russia story?
I don't deny that there is a coronavirus, and I don't deny that Vladimir Putin is an authoritarian ruler, a former KGB agent, an imperialist, a warmonger.
I don't deny any of that.
But Frank Graves and Ecos and the Star didn't ask that, did they?
They asked if we were ready to go to war militarily or economically.
I mean, if you're not, you're probably some Russian agent, right?
No.
I don't think the real story in this poll is how dissident and skeptical unvaccinated people are.
But I agree that it is an important fact.
I think the more important fact, and the scarier one in this poll, is that so many people are not skeptical.
Is that so many people are gullible and peer-pressurable and obedient and just go along to get along?
The same people that triple vaxed themselves, that forced masks onto their own young kids, that cheered along, they're ready and up to cheering for the next thing, whatever the next thing is, whatever Trudeau and social media tells them to do on any given day, that's the news here.
Just how obedient and compliant so many Canadians have become.
Stay with us for more.
Obedient And Compliant Canadians00:10:34
Well, yesterday in our talk with James Lindsay, we talked about how few people in the creative industries, movies, comedy, singing, music, are conservative, or maybe at least they're afraid to reveal themselves.
Maybe that's, maybe country music is the one exception, but even in sports, wokeism is the way.
There is one very bright exception to that darkness, and it's the Babylon Bee, which I have to say is the funniest website on the internet.
It has a Christian flavor, but most of the jokes, I think, are for anyone, for anyone who follows politics and follows social media.
I used to follow The Onion, which was another satirical site, but I think they stopped being funny a decade ago.
I don't know quite why, but the Babylon Bee has been crushing it.
And you know they're having an impact in the broader society when, and this is, I'm not making this up, when their jokes are fact-checked, including ridiculous, absurd jokes.
The official fact-checkers get right on it to tell you people, no, that's not true.
They're fact-checking jokes, which shows you the importance of what Andrew Breitbart said: culture.
Politics is downstream from culture.
If you can get people laughing, if you can get people, normal people talking about something, that's going to have an effect in the polls.
People know that, and that's why the Babylon Bee has been targeted.
Now, they had a hilarious joke the other day.
They named Rachel Levine the Babylon Bee's man of the year.
And the big joke, of course, is that Rachel Levine was born a man, but transitioned and now goes by Rachel Levine, has long hair and has become an admiral in the United States government, believe it or not.
It was a joke.
Transgenderism, of course, being an issue since Will or Leah Thomas crushed the girls in the NCAA competition.
A joke on a satirical website?
Well, it was considered hateful by Twitter, which not only deleted that joke, but suspended the entire account of the Babylon Bee.
And joining us now to talk about that is their managing editor down there, Joel Berry, who joins us now.
Via Skype, Joel, I'm thrilled to talk to you, and I admire the Babylon Bee so very much.
I have to tell you, I mainly did follow it on Twitter.
That's where I saw the headlines, which were often enough to get me laughing, and I would click through.
Tell me how this all went down, and tell me your reaction to it.
What's the company doing?
You guys haven't been the knee.
You haven't apologized or groveled.
That's very rare.
Yeah.
Well, you know, in one sense, we kind of feel like this has been a long time coming.
You know, we have always kind of had a long-running joke when it comes to trans ideology.
And we've told a lot of jokes about it.
This one, for one reason or another, whether it's because it's in the news or it's a hot topic right now, because of people like Leah Thomas and Rachel Levine, Twitter informed us that we'd be locked out of our Twitter account unless we admitted that we had involved ourselves in hate speech and take the tweet down ourselves.
So instead of just deleting the tweet themselves and saying, okay, we deleted this tweet and here's why, they're requiring us to do that and acknowledge it was wrong.
And well, we decided we're not going to do that.
You know, the truth is the truth.
You know, we are just a bunch of goofballs telling jokes, but our satire is meant to point to the truth and we're not willing to compromise on that.
So we decided we're not going to take the tweet down.
And it did kind of have a domino effect.
So our editor-in-chief, Kyle Mann, he also got suspended for a tweet that said, maybe Twitter will let us back on if we throw a few thousand Uyghur Muslims in a concentration camp.
They suspended him for that tweet.
And then our founder, Adam Ford, got suspended as well.
Our owner, Seth Dylan, he's still on, but we feel like it's only a matter of time.
So it has kind of been this cascade, this domino effect.
And it's really, you know, what we're dealing with here is a cult ideology.
We're dealing with religious people who have constructed a worldview that doesn't hold up under scrutiny, whether that be moral scrutiny, scientific scrutiny, or logical questioning.
It doesn't hold up under any of those things.
So the only way that that worldview is going to survive is through force.
And so, you know, for a lot of reasons we could talk about all day, this ideology has kind of crept into the institutions, the media, universities, corporations.
And there's a lot of fear.
There's a lot of fear at the top.
And they bow to these interests and this ideology.
And after a while, we knew it was going to come and burn us at the B, and eventually it did.
Why do you think that Twitter and other media platforms are so white hot on transgenderism?
I mean, there are a lot of soft spots out there, sensitive issues in Silicon Valley censors.
For example, they've been all over the pandemic and any skeptics of the official narrative of the lockdowns, they really hit hard on that.
If you say that Trump's election in 2020 was, the fact that he lost was somehow due to widespread fraud, that'll get you nuked on YouTube.
We simply played a 30-second clip of Trump as president, and we were taken off YouTube for a week, if I recall.
So those things are hot, but nothing comes close to the absolute intolerance by the left for any jokes about transgenderism.
If you quote, misgender someone, like say a boy's a girl or a girl's a boy, if you quote, dead name someone, like it's it's more brutal than all those other issues.
And believe me, I know about other censorship issues.
I've been fighting my whole life.
Why is transgenderism so acute to them?
It's a good question.
I think it goes back to kind of what I said about it being a cult or a religion.
It is so, the worldview itself is so core to how human beings define themselves, how they see themselves in the world.
It speaks to a human being's innate worth and dignity.
Where does our dignity come from?
Where does the worth of a human being come from?
I mean, these are like fundamental questions of the universe that human beings have been arguing about for thousands of years.
And so there's a lot of emotion around it.
There's a lot of passion around issues like this.
And what we're dealing with in the trans movement, it seems, I don't know, it seems to be a very small minority of very loud people who are very well organized.
And it would seem that a lot of the people at the top either placate this group to protect themselves so that they can, you know, there's a lot of talk right now about, you know, woke Inc, you know,
woke corporatism and how corporate entities are using this as kind of a shield to show forth virtue to the world so that people won't bother them while they use slave labor in China and treat their workers terribly and do all kinds of shady business things.
So it's just kind of like this perfect storm of corporate interests, you know, a worldview movement that is gaining steam, you know, a cultural movement that is in a lot of ways trying to replace religion, trying to replace Christianity and traditional values.
And it's kind of all coming together in this kind of this one moment over this one question.
What is a man?
You know, how do you define a man and a woman?
And that seems to have been the breaking point for a lot of people on both sides of the issues.
And there's no budging on it.
You know, you make me want to show a little video clip from the confirmation hearings of Joe Biden's proposed next Supreme Court justice, who has asked a very simple question, a question that a three-year-old can't answer.
What's a woman?
Let me just show you that clip.
And her answer, it's not honest.
She knows what a woman is.
She can answer it accurately.
She can answer it politically.
She refused to answer because she knows it's a mad question.
Here, take a quick look.
Can you provide a definition for the word woman?
Can I provide a definition?
No.
Yeah.
I can't.
You can't?
Not in this context.
I'm not a biologist.
If a justice on the Supreme Court, if she's confirmed, cannot tell you what a woman is.
That shows you how terrifying this issue is or how powerful.
Or who knows?
Maybe she's on a different side of the issue.
But you would think such a basic question is answerable by someone who seeks to be on the Supreme Court.
I don't know.
I've just never seen anything like it.
Yeah, it is a bizarre phenomenon to see a worldview that is probably only held by 10% of the population to see the other 90% that don't believe in this stuff going along with it, just kind of going through the motions, saying the right words, whether to protect themselves or because they're too scared.
Powerful Supreme Court Question00:15:19
It's a wild thing to see.
And part of why we decided to do what we did at the Bee and not taking down our tweet is we hope, we feel that, you know, courage is contagious.
You know, if you are willing to stand up, we hope that there are other people who are willing to stand up as well.
And then, you know, as those numbers grow, you can't ignore us anymore.
You know, I think that's been a, you guys at Rebel Media in Canada have been a great example of that.
The courage that you've shown in your journalism has been a huge inspiration to me personally here as I've written jokes for the B.
I love watching you guys.
So I feel the more people are willing to just speak the simple truth, Captain Picard, there are four lights.
Hopefully more people will catch on to that and be willing to do the same.
Your allusion to there are four lights, I think that's rooted even deeper in George Orwell's 1984, like to deny what your own eyes see.
How many fingers am I holding up?
You know it's two.
I know it's two.
I know that you know and you know that I know.
But I am going to make you say it's three just to show that I can bend your mind to it and that you will actually come to believe it or at least to disassociate yourself.
And I think that's what it is.
And that's why they make you delete it.
They didn't delete your tweet because, you know, that doesn't prove anything.
They're powerful.
They own the platform.
You don't.
But to make you accept that that's wrong, that's hateful.
And for you to censor yourself, it's bloody brilliant in a way.
It's like one of those Maoist struggle sessions where you have to confess.
And of course, you have an enormous Twitter.
How many followers are there on the Babylon B account?
About one and a half million currently.
I mean, just to build that up, the effort and labor and cost and time and the goodwill and the moral capital you've built up, like that's a million and a half people who, I mean, it's taken years.
And you, so you're famous.
If you were a quiet, private person, it would still be odious because you would know that you called yourself a liar, a hater, a thought criminal.
But they want you to bend the knee so that your 1.5 million followers know that you know and see that you self-denounce.
There's nothing more wicked than a jailhouse confession, self-denunciation.
Oh, I agree.
And you mentioned Mao.
You're exactly right.
It goes back all the way to this ideology, this neo-Marxist ideology.
We saw it in Soviet Russia.
We saw it in Mao's China.
This idea, it's really an anti-human idea, this idea that there is no such thing as free will.
There is no such thing as the human soul.
It's a materialist ideology.
This idea that human beings are hackable.
If we get the right people up at the top, the experts who can just kind of make society work how it should, we can hack the populace to do what they're supposed to do, to believe what they're supposed to believe and say what they're supposed to say.
And we saw how that failed so catastrophically in these places in China and Russia.
But I feel like the West really just kind of hasn't had their own reckoning with this ideology yet, like we did with, say, fascism, Nazism.
It's mind-boggling to me to see that it's still alive and well, and we're still participating in this kind of this cultural pressure, this charade to conform.
You know, Orwell talked about a telescreen.
It was a big TV that was always on in your room.
You could turn it down, but you could never turn it off.
And Big Brother was on it, and it could see you.
That was very prescient.
It's amazing what he foresaw writing that book more than 70 years ago.
I wonder what he would make of the fact that we're all plugged in willingly.
So we take our telescreens everywhere.
And it's not just visual.
It's everything we see.
It's everything we write.
It's everything we shop.
It's our credit card.
It's our bank statement.
In Canada, if you donated to the truckers, your bank accounts were seized.
And all of that happened because of the matrix, the internet.
I don't know if George Orwell had the imagination of a single network that, like a panopticon, that saw everything, knew everything.
In fact, it knows, in some ways, it knows you better than you know yourself because you don't remember every single thing you ever saw, heard, said, wrote, bought.
You just can't remember it all, but the system can.
It's there in your database.
And so the Chinese social credit system, which I think this is sort of akin to or a cousin of, I wonder what Orwell would have thought if he thought it would be beatable at all.
I don't know.
So you talk about past fascisms and communisms and the communist revolution in China, the cultural revolution.
None of those totalitarians had the internet as an as to use your Star Wars analogy, a tricorder, like an everything machine.
The everything machine, which we can't break away from.
We've got such a habit.
The everything machine is enslaving us, and it's very easy.
Yeah, it almost has become a bit of a combination between 1984 and Huxley's Brave New World, where we have these things that are monitoring us and controlling us, but we are also addicted to them.
And we also really enjoy them and they give us pleasure.
So it's this kind of this weird meshing of these two dystopias that we've seen.
I wonder often where this will go.
I get asked that a lot.
Where do you think this is going to end up?
It could very well get a lot worse before it gets better.
But I think, you know, even if we end up in a society that is under complete control, that is completely electronic.
Our bank accounts are electronic.
government can switch us off just by flipping the switch.
There is something encouraging to me and hopeful to me, knowing that the human soul, the human spirit is real, that we do have free will and that ideas cannot be destroyed.
They don't live in the internet.
They don't live on a cloud server somewhere.
They live within each one of us.
And I think that this wokeness, this ideology that has kind of taken over our culture right now, it is self-defeating.
And it will ultimately be defeated.
I'm hopeful for that.
The only question is how much damage will it do in the meantime?
Yeah, well, I sure hope you're right.
Listen, you're very generous with your time, and it sure is nice to meet you.
I have one last question for you, and it's the most depressing question of them all.
And maybe you have an answer.
There are conservative-oriented or free speech-oriented alternatives in social media.
Getter might be one example, Truth Social, Trump's Project.
On the video side, there's rumble.com.
And some of these are explicit.
And then there's Gab and Parlor.
There's a lot of them.
But the thing is, I don't think a lot of liberals are on them, or a lot of undecided, or a lot of normal people, so to speak.
So the Babylon Bee, if it was on these other social media, which I'm sure you are, you're talking to people who are already awake to the issues that you're parodying or satirizing.
Whereas the wonderful nature of you being on Twitter is that someone might have their eyes opened by your jokes or might come over.
And that's how I feel about Rebel News.
I despise the censorship of YouTube, and we don't put everything on there because we know we would be deleted in a moment.
But I want to stay on there as long as possible because there are millions, billions of people who might see the light.
I don't want to just talk to people who are already believers.
I want to talk to normal people, and I want to bring ideas to them new.
I mean, it's like the old saying, you make peace with your enemies, not with your friends.
You win people over who don't know you, who agree with you.
That's why I don't want to be pushed off the mainstream social media, even though I despise YouTube and Google and Twitter and Facebook.
I hate them.
But I don't want to leave them because everyone else is there.
I don't just want to go into the ghetto and talk to, quote, my people.
How do you feel about that?
That's the one downside.
I admire your principled nature.
I admire that you won't self-denounce, of course.
But I also am deeply sad that 1.5 million followers of yours, I don't know how many of those will move over.
And even if they all move over, you're losing access to half a billion other users.
Yeah, no, I really feel that.
And my motivations are yours as well.
The cool thing about our worldview is that when people hear it, they're converted.
I remember in the early days of YouTube, before it was all suppressed and shadow banned everywhere, conservative clips, Ben Shapiro debating, Ben Shapiro destroys clips would go viral.
And my friends were getting won over by these things.
They would hear the ideas and they would say, wow, I've never heard that before.
It makes sense.
So our ideas can win if we're heard.
And so I agree.
We need to fight for our right to be on these platforms.
We can't be relegated to the ghetto.
have to be in the marketplace of ideas talking with people who don't agree with us.
That's extremely important.
I think in terms of our decision to not delete the tweet, we're trying to think long term here.
And we're hoping that this decision, you know, and we have other things going on in the background, but we're hoping this decision leads to a more fundamental change, a more fundamental shift, whether that be legal action or policy change at places like Twitter and Facebook to allow for more diverse opinions to be shared.
And so our long-term goal is not to be gone from Twitter forever.
We are hoping that this leads us eventually being brought back on Twitter, yet free to say what we want to say.
I sure hope so.
And I know that your team met and talked with Elon Musk, who is one of the world's richest men who could buy Twitter outright if he wanted to.
But I think the problem is that half the staff at Twitter, if he tried to impose a free speech rule that used to be there, they would quit or sabotage it.
That'll be okay.
But listen, I wish you good luck.
It's great to meet you.
Please pass on our moral support and our best wishes to the entire team at Babylon Bee.
And I'm going to say goodbye to you now, but I'm going to play a clip from one of the other few unwoke comedians out there.
His name is Ryan Long.
He's actually originally from Canada.
And Joel, I don't know if you know this one, but he pretended he was a video editor working for Disney.
And you mentioned that these companies that are super woke on trans issues, which is a very obscure issue in North America, often they're misdirecting you from their nasty work they're doing in China, including in Xinjiang, where the Uyghurs are in prison.
I mean, Disney literally filled their movie Mulan there and actually in their credits thanked the secret police.
Nike, you know, hires a lobbyist to stop an anti-slave labor bill.
These countries, companies are so woke in North America and so brutal overseas.
I don't know if you saw this one, Joel.
It was a, Ryan Long, the Canadian comedian, pretended to be a video editor who would cut out all the feminist scenes, gay scenes, any woke scenes from movies to make it get the approval of China's government.
And then the kicker and the joke was he would take these things he cut out of the China version and he would release them in America for Gay Pride Week to show how woke.
Anyway, I'm going to close with that clip from Ryan Long, one of the few other unwoke comedians out there.
Joel, great to see you.
All the best to your team and thanks for joining us today.
Thanks so much, Eschler.
Thanks for what you do as well.
Right on, I appreciate that.
All right, let me close by showing you this just hilarious clip by Ryan Long.
Take a look.
My name's Clark and I'm the editor who cuts out scenes from Hollywood movies for the China releases.
Clip that out.
Whether that be an LGBTQ kiss, something a little too diverse.
They would not want that.
Anything encouraging, protesting, or overtly sexual.
And once I'm able to isolate those scenes, I put them in a bin right here.
Gay scenes.
And then I'm able to use those exact sections of the films to create little promos for social media celebrating the communities we've just extracted from the China releases.
For example, I just removed all of the gay kiss scenes from Bohemian Rhapsody.
That was a big no-go for China.
Back in for the China release.
And the Star Wars lesbian kiss scene, of course.
And I was able to use both of those scenes for my Love Is Love compilation for the studio's Pride Month social.
I work with all the big studios, Disney, Paramount.
If you've ever watched a progressive scene in the movie, just know that I'm the person who removed it for audiences in China.
I'm sort of like a utility player for some of these studios.
Look on the topic of Star Wars.
Doing the graphics recently.
See, I had two different posters here.
So, what I did was I was able to isolate the black actor in the American version.
We were able to make John substantially smaller here.
And then I was also able to take that isolated photo for a We Celebrate Diversity social media post that we're working on here in America.
007 Skyfall, I got rid of some references to prostitution.
We're in talks to use some of those select clips as part of our sex workers real work campaign.
I like to think of myself as a general fixer.
Just recently, I edited out the Tiananmen Square footage from Activision's Black Ops Cold War trailer.
See, right here, we had Know Your History or Be Deemed to Repeat It.
We're doomed to just get rid of that altogether.
I'm gonna take that and use it for We Support Protests Domestically.
Post.
You know, sometimes me and the studio heads will joke around that on the editing floor it's no homo and China's homo.
Or diversity when not overseas.
It's a very complicated puzzle.
I mean, recently, America has made huge moves to support LGBTQ and diversity initiatives at home.
But it goes without saying that progress can't come at the expense of these studios' profits, so we have to tread a fine line.
You know, sometimes we're just tampering with something small, like changing the back patch and top guns so no one thinks Taiwan's a democracy, popping out a few kiss scenes in Mulan, or getting rid of a couple uncomfortable scenes in Django Unchained.
This scene was a big no in China.
And sometimes it's something massive, like changing every single Chinese flag to a North Korean flag in Red Dawn.
That was my handiwork right there.
In industries outside of Hollywood, this game can be a little simpler.
You know, Google's CEO, for example, was able to vocalize his support for protests domestically while removing any protest-related apps from the app store in China.
Proved Right00:03:06
And Nike can sort of slide under the radar with the Kaepernick thing here and the you go to jail for protesting over there.
They remove a few jerseys and it goes relatively undetected.
But in the movie business, it's a more difficult puzzle to solve.
The actors in these films have been recently very vocal over their participation in the movement.
So it's very important to those actors that we still appear to be supporting those movements here, even though they're being wiped from the films entirely abroad, thus preserving their public image domestically.
Pirates of the Caribbean, we cut a lot of stuff out.
Welcome back, your viewer mail.
Colin Crampton says, I can smell a reread of Animal Farm in the very near future.
Oh, absolutely.
You know, Animal Farm is a great book.
1984, those it's unbelievable.
Some of the language in English books were written almost a century ago, actually.
Some of the language is slightly dated, but my God, was he prescient, wasn't he?
Or, well, just terrifying.
Bruce Acheson says, What an exceptional show this was.
I'm saving the podcast of it and burning it to CD-ROM for a friend who can't afford watching much on her limited internet plan.
Moreover, I'm keeping it for future reference.
I love it when people who are denounced as cranks or conspiracy theorists are proved right.
Well, both James Lindsay and myself have been denounced as those things.
And I actually say I don't like being proved right.
You know, in impersonal things, sometimes maybe you like saying, I told you so.
You should have ordered the heart wings instead of the ribs.
I told you, you know, in trivial matters and personal matters, I told you so is a really fun thing to say.
I hate saying I told you so because odds are I was giving some apocalyptic warning that no one heeded and it came true.
I told you so.
Those are the worst words anyone could say.
John DeLong says, all isms are predicated on the non-existent of the creator, God, the great lie.
Well, that's the thing.
I think nature abhors a vacuum.
That's true in physics.
I think it's true psychologically, emotionally, spiritually.
You will believe in something.
As James Lindsay pointed out, one of the original proposed titles for Das Kapital was, or the Communist Manifesto, rather, was to call it a faith.
I think a lot of environmentalism has sort of a Gaia pagan faith elements to it.
And I mean, you will believe in something.
You will believe in some sort of a God, whether you use the phrase Mother Nature or whether you yourself have become your own God.
You will believe in something.
Everyone does.
Everyone has to.
And what have we replaced Christianity or Judaism or the old religions with in the new ones?
Well, that's our show for today.
Until tomorrow, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters to you at home, good night.
Unvaxed Siblings Banned00:09:32
Keep fighting for freedom.
And let me leave you with our video of the day from Avi Yamini.
Shocking story from down under.
Unvaxed siblings banned from visiting their dying dad.
This is a terrible story.
All right, good night.
You're saying this is a couple of years ago and he looks happy and healthy.
Oh, we have pictures from him in December looking perfectly fine.
He was fine in Christmas.
You know, they keep telling us to listen to the experts.
I want one expert, one, to explain to me how that makes any sense.
Where being that cruel to somebody has become that easy for institutions.
How?
Why?
For what?
It feels like they're just punishing those who went against the grain.
It definitely feels like that.
Are you angry at the hospital?
Um, yes.
Yes, I am.
This truly is a heartbreaking story that everyone needs to see.
So please watch it through to the end, then head over to change the cruelrule.com to sign and share the petition to ensure that it never happens again.
My father was diagnosed with stage four lung cancer on the 6th of January early this year.
And on it was either March the 6th or 7th, he was put into palliative care.
Palliative care is where terminally ill patients are transferred for end-of-life care.
And if you look on the Olivia Newton-John Center website, they claim to work with you to meet your emotional, spiritual, and practical needs in a holistic way, promising their support extends to the family too.
Out of my family, there's 10 of us overall, and seven of them are vaccinated.
So the vaccinated part of our family, they were allowed to go see dad.
We called up to ask, you know, what does it take for an unvaccinated person to get in?
And at first off, they refused us.
So you understand, the current guidelines from the government state on their website right now.
It says hospital visitors must have at least two doses of the vaccine or show evidence of a negative rat test that is taken on the day of the visit.
The brothers should have never been banned, but for some reason, the Olivia Newton-John Palliative Care Center in the Austin Hospital has its own callous and irrational rule.
Patients who are receiving end-of-life terminal care, they would have to apply for an exemption.
That's exactly what they did.
After fighting to be able to see their dying father, the brothers received an exemption to visit him once separately in full PPE for maximum an hour after producing the negative rat test at the hospital.
Obviously, when your father is very close to passing, you know, he wants to see you and we want to see him and for them to at first refuse us and then once they gave us an exemption for only one hour and a one-off visit for the entirety of his stay, that's an unbelievable cruelty to us and dad.
Following their visit, the brothers then called the hospital to see if there was any chance that they could revisit their father before he dies within the expected month.
We came in and we had an exemption to see my father.
Now the exemption, is it just once or can we come in again?
It's a one-off for hip-hop admission.
And that was explained to your mother when I got those exemptions granted.
Can you explain why that is?
It's a hospital policy with a COVID situation.
To be honest, Dad, when I saw him, he was like, I can't believe they let you in.
Like, that was his mindset.
Like, I said, they've been so cruel to unvaccinated people.
Just it even, it's so telling when he said that.
It's like, I can't believe they even let you see me, you know, when I was dying for one hour.
So, you know, that obviously that was really heartbreaking.
I just don't understand because we take a negative rat test.
But it's still limiting the risk to both patients and staff.
So even if we have a negative rat test, we're still at risk?
Yep, they only allow that one-off.
But are we still a risk, even if we have a negative rat test?
It's what the limiting risk, and that's what the policy is of the hospital.
I have actually taken it to the executive, and I even spoke to the executive today because your mum says it's unfair, and executive has said no.
It's what the policy is, and it was explained to your mother that it is a one-off exception for the one hour, and that's what we can do.
They didn't explain the science behind it.
Pretty much the way it goes, you get a nurse, and she just speaks for the hospital, and they'll just say, you know, this isn't what I believe.
These are just the rules that I've been given.
Well, I did put the questions directly to the hospital, including why they stop unvaccinated family members from visiting dying relatives when the government's guidelines specifically permits it with a negative rat test.
And I asked them what the science is behind allowing vaccinated people to visit while banning the unvaccinated when vaccinated people can carry and spread the virus too.
We would have done any tests they required.
There's not an issue.
Like we would have taken multiple rat tests in a row because if you take about three, the percentage jumps up to a really high percent accuracy.
You're happy to do that.
Anything.
PCR tests.
So your problem is not doing this.
Are you the same?
Yeah, I'm happy to do whatever they want to give me.
I mean, my dad's dying, so like, obviously, I would be.
And that's understandable, but I just can't work it out then.
If you guys were willing to do three in a row, which they say is over 95% accuracy, then how can they stop somebody because they're unvaccinated?
What is the science behind it?
I will pose the question to them, but I'm just, I can't for the life of me figure out the science behind that.
Look, if you get the answer, you let us know because we're having a hard time trying to figure that out as well.
It's been more than two days and the hospital has yet to explain the science that allows vaccinated people to enter as many times as they wish without even a single test.
Yet bans unvaccinated loved ones from entering no matter how many tests they're willing to take.
It seems what you said, your mum called it illogical.
It seems unscientific.
If you're willing to let the other seven members of the family in as many times as they want without any tests, so they could likely be carrying the virus in.
You're happy to let them in and out without a test, but you're going to ban the unvaccinated who are willing to do three rat tests, who are willing to do a PCR test, who are willing to do whatever test you want to make sure that they're coming in clean, but you're going to stop them only because they're unvaccinated.
There's absolutely no science to explain the hospital's policy, and it's clearly designed to punish the unvaccinated in the most inhumane way possible.
I don't know how people can be so cruel to others and just be so heartless.
So look, it's tough to understand.
It sure is.
Sadly, their father passed away last weekend.
And while the hospital hasn't responded, I shared their story with Olivia Nugent-John's daughter, Chloe, who even though her mother has nothing to do with the draconian rules being implemented in the hospital, she sent back this powerful message to the brothers.
Hello, Marco and Ivan.
My name's Chloe.
I heard your story, and my heart absolutely broke for you, your family, and your father that you missed out on your last precious moments with him and that he missed out on those last precious moments with you.
Such a hard time in the world right now.
And the most important thing is love and family.
So my heart really, really broke for you that you missed that.
So I wanted you to know that you are thought of and that your story matters and that your family matters.
And I really hope that these policies are changed.
They don't make sense.
And I hope no other family has to go through what you went through.
Sending so much love and light your way.
Beautifully put.
Good honour.
I hope she inspires the hospital to also apologise and more importantly, at least from the family's perspective, encourages them to change the cruel rule.
What mum would like even more than an apology was what I previously stated was for them to change the rules so people in future don't have to experience what we did.
If this story hits you in the way it did for me, make sure to head over to change thecruelrule.com to sign and share the petition in our best attempt to stop this from happening to any other family.