Ezra Levant exposes Trudeau’s cabinet ministers—David LeMetti and Marco Mendocino—discussing military tanks to crush peaceful trucker protests in 2022, mirroring Tiananmen Square tactics. Their texts reveal authoritarian overreach, despite no violence, while Justin Trudeau dismisses legal scrutiny, as seen with past violations like conflict-of-interest laws. Meanwhile, the NCLA’s Janine Yunes sues U.S. agencies for coercing tech giants to censor COVID skeptics, exposing collusion between governments and platforms. Parallels emerge in Canada’s pandemic-era crackdowns, where doctors faced pressure to medicate vaccine-hesitant patients. The episode underscores a global trend: state overreach against dissent, cloaked in bureaucracy and misinformation. [Automatically generated summary]
Today I want to focus on one text message between two Trudeau cabinet ministers, the Justice Minister and the Public Safety Minister, where they talk about deploying the Canadian military, including tanks, against peaceful trucker protesters.
It is astonishing.
That's ahead.
But first, let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
That's the video version of this podcast.
I want you to see it.
We make it in video format.
It's just $8 a month.
I do the show every weekday.
The $8 goes a long way here, you know.
That's how we pay a lot of our bills.
We don't get money from the government, unlike most Canadian media.
And we've been demonetized by YouTube.
So we really do rely on your $8.
It may not seem like a lot of money to you, but it is to us.
Please go to RebelNewsPlus.com and click subscribe.
All right.
Here's today's show.
Tonight, Trudeau's cabinet ministers calmly discussed deploying military tanks in response to the trucker convoys, November 23rd.
This is the Ezra Levant show.
Shame on you, you censorious bug.
Hey, before I go any further, let me make sure you know about Rebel News Live.
That's our day-long conference in Calgary this Saturday.
We did it in Toronto last Saturday.
It was amazing.
We had more than 750 people buy tickets.
Most of those were in person, but we also had a Zoom ticket.
You could watch the whole proceedings from home.
If you are in Calgary or indeed anywhere in Alberta, you've got to be there.
It's going to be amazing.
We've got about a dozen of the most interesting speakers.
For example, Arthur Pavlovsky, the pastor who refused to close his church and was thrown in prison for almost 50 days.
Rebel News Access Requests00:06:03
We have the trucker lawyer, Chad Williamson.
We've got so many interesting speakers.
Conrad Black from the Democracy Fund.
He's the historian for civil liberties.
He's going to be talking.
It's going to be a great day.
Light breakfast to start, a lunch.
There's so much going on.
I'll be there.
So many rebel news journalists.
Go to rebelnewslive.com to learn more.
Don't mind me making that advertising plug.
I just have to say, it was an amazing feeling being among so many friends, and I hope you can make it.
Okay, let's get back to the news today.
I think the news for the rest of the week is going to be this Trucker Commission of Inquiry.
How could it not be?
It's been police until now saying the same thing 100 times.
There was no policing requirement to bring in martial law.
Regular policing powers was more than enough.
And the obvious proof of that is the bridge between Windsor and Detroit.
The blockade there was removed peacefully in two days without martial law.
The blockade at the Coutts border between Alberta and Montana was ended peacefully without the Emergencies Act martial law.
Not a single police force in the country said they needed it or said they asked for it.
It's been interesting testimony, but it's been repetitive.
Now that's changing because we're not talking about cops who are hopefully loyal to their oath.
We're talking about politicians who are scared of being exposed as power-hungry tyrants, which they have been.
Marco Mendocino, the public safety minister, David LeMetti, the justice minister.
But in addition to their testimony, what this Commission of Inquiry is doing is producing documents, documents that the lawyers, both for the Commission and interveners like the JCCF and the Democracy Fund, these lawyers get privileged access to these documents in advance from which they can form their questions for these witnesses.
And the reason that's important, if you were just talking to the Minister of Public Safety about the Emergencies Act, you could ask general questions, but by seeing their internal records first, you could zero in on particular things.
It makes it much more useful and it's fascinating to see.
These documents are posted to the Public Commission's website.
And this document I'm going to focus on today is a text message exchange between David LeMetty, the justice minister, and Marco Mendocino, the public safety minister.
And the reason it's so fascinating is what they've said.
But an extra layer of fascinating is that we would never normally see this.
As you know, Rebel News files a lot of access to information requests with the government.
But there's a lot of exemptions in access to information requests.
One of them is that the political staff and the political communications of the prime minister's office and the cabinet ministers and MPs, that is not disclosable under an access to information request.
You cannot know what an MP is texting with his staff.
You just cannot get it.
But this is not an access to information request.
This is a subpoena by a judge in a judicial inquiry.
And you've got to hand it over.
This is very rare that you see this kind of internal chit-chat like that.
And of course, it's where the real stuff is.
An official memo is written thinking, well, this may well be seen by either many people in private or in public.
An official memo is probably written with the help of professional staff.
But a text message between a couple of cabinet ministers, they're going to speak very plainly.
They'll say things that they never in a million years would imagine to be showed in public.
Well, let me show you this text message exchange between LeMetti and Mendocino.
You need to get the police to move.
Oh, I didn't know that politicians directed the police.
At least they're not supposed to in a democracy.
And the Canadian armed forces, if necessary.
Oh, really?
So we deploy our military against peaceful domestic citizens, our military that's trained to kill enemy soldiers designed to fight foreign governments.
We're going to deploy that against bouncy castles and hot tubs, are we?
Against men, women, and children, are we?
Completely peaceful.
Order the cops to intervene.
Order the army to intervene.
Too many people are being seriously, adversely impacted by what is an occupation.
I'm getting out as soon as I can.
What a courageous man, our Justice Minister.
He's so courageous.
He's panicking, and he's going to flee the city, so bravely run away.
People are looking to us, you, for leadership and not stupid people.
People like Carney, Cath, my team.
Oh, they're the smartest.
Carney, I take it that's Mark Carney.
Mark Carney, formerly the head of the Bank of England, Mark Carney now works for the United Nations.
Mark Carney has no standing.
He's not a Canadian official at all.
He's not an elected official.
He's not a cabinet minister.
He's not a judge.
He's just some politician.
He's some globalist who works for, frankly, the UN.
Who cares what he says?
What does the Canadian Constitution say about freedom of speech?
Who cares that some globalist who doesn't have any roots in Canada, who's flying around the world working for the UN, who cares what he says?
And Kath, is that Catherine McKenna?
Is that what Le Meni thinks is a smart person?
And in response, Mendocino says, how many tanks are you asking for?
I just want to ask Anita, that's Anita Anand, the defense minister, how many we've got on hand.
I reckon one will do.
Yeah, because, of course, you probably wouldn't shoot a tank in Ottawa.
It would blow things up.
Justin Trudeau's Censorship Controversy00:12:24
You would, if you really, if you really seriously deployed a tank, you would probably do it in the manner of Tiananmen Square, where they used the tanks to simply drive on their peaceful democracy protesters.
Remember this terrifying image from Tiananmen Square, where they gathered to protest for democracy outside their parliament buildings.
It's not really a parliament.
They don't have democratically elected legislators in China, but it's the communist headquarters.
That's where the democracy activists were, and they deployed the tanks to crush them, to drive over them.
That's what Marco Mendocino and David Le Meni were talking about.
You know, when people tell you who they are, it's best to listen to them.
When he was running for office before he was even an MP, Justin Trudeau went to a fundraising event and they asked him, what country do you most admire?
Without missing a beat, he said China, and he explained it wasn't for their language or their culture or their history or their food or any of that.
It was for their basic dictatorship.
Here's that clip.
There's a level of admiration I actually have for China because their basic dictatorship is allowing them to actually turn their economy around on a dime and say we need to go green as fast as we need to start investing in solar.
I mean, there is a flexibility that I know Stephen Harper must dream about of having a dictatorship that he could do everything he wanted.
And just in case you didn't think he meant it, when the tyrant Fidel Castro died, well, there was a loving eulogy made for him, the mass murderer, by Justin Trudeau.
Remember that?
The fact is, Fidel Castro had a deep and lasting impact on the Cuban people.
He certainly was a polarizing figure, and there certainly were significant concerns around human rights.
That's something that I'm open about and that I've highlighted.
But on the passing of his death, I expressed a statement that highlighted the deep connection between the people of Canada and the people of Cuba.
And at the same time, Canadians know that I always talk about human rights, including here yesterday, including with Raul Castro two weeks ago, including wherever I go around the world.
I believe in positive, constructive engagement in the world, and that means being open and direct in our assessments, in our challenges, in our points of disagreement, while at the same time being consistent with the kind of respect that Canadians expect from their prime minister.
Yeah, so it's no surprise that that's the same idea, the same ideology that infects the whole cabinet.
You know, I remember, I'm old enough to remember, that there was a liberal attack ad deployed against the Conservatives.
It was laughable at the time.
Remember this one saying if you vote for Conservatives, there will be soldiers in our streets in Canada.
Remember this one?
Stephen Harper actually announced he wants to increase military presence in our cities.
Canadian cities.
Soldiers with guns in our cities in Canada.
We did not make this up.
Choose your Canada.
Yeah, no, it wasn't conservatives who did that.
It was the liberals who were talking about rolling out tanks.
And of course, Christy Freeland, who was musing about having soldiers dressing up as police falsely.
and going out as police.
Of course, the thing about soldiers is, like I say, they're trained to kill foreign enemies.
They're not trained to be law enforcement officers using the least force possible, understanding civil liberties, how to arrest someone, how not to, using their discretion.
To make a soldier a policeman makes no sense at all, other than, I suppose, both you would hope would be fit, you know, strong individuals who know how to use a weapon.
But after that, the similarities are completely missing.
Imagine sending the military in to crush a peaceful protest.
This is what they're talking about.
The weird thing is that it's only against peaceful protesters that they hate.
There are peaceful protesters in Canada all the time, and sometimes they're not so peaceful.
Black Lives Matter.
A couple years ago, the railway blockades, those were violating property, and had the trains been derailed by the blockades, it would have caused death.
There was no call for soldiers in the streets or tanks back then, because those were protesters on Trudeau's side.
The craziest thing, and I think it's a way to understand liberals, is they project what they are onto you.
In this case, they were saying that the truckers were extreme, but they were the ones talking about fleeing the city.
And how many tanks do we have?
They were saying the truckers were violent.
They were not.
They were the ones preaching violence.
I mentioned this the other day.
There were thousands of people in Ottawa, thousands of protesters, thousands of police.
Only one person was shot during the Ottawa convoy.
And it was our reporter, Alexa Lavois.
Remember this terrible clip?
Hey, can I ask you a question?
What are the odds that of all the thousands of people in Ottawa who were shot, that it just happened to be a rebel news reporter?
What are the odds of that?
But like I say, the liberals project things onto you.
They say you're violent when they shoot you.
They say that you take foreign funding from, oh, say, Vladimir Putin.
Remember when the CBC state broadcaster said Putin was behind the truckers?
Remember this?
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.
Yeah, that's called projection.
As we recently learned, it was the Liberal Party who was being financed by the government of China, something that Trudeau doesn't want to talk about right now.
Pierre Trudeau brought in martial law, too.
At least in his case, it was in response to an actual terrorist group, the FLQ, a separatist movement that was detonating bombs, kidnapping people, even committed murder.
But Pierre Trudeau, when he invoked martial law, he didn't stop there.
His RCMB burnt down barns belonging to his political enemies.
Hundreds of people were arrested, not for terrorism, but for opposing Trudeau.
I think Justin Trudeau learned that from his father.
They project these liberals.
To them, they talk about the charter, but it means nothing when it comes to limiting their own misconduct.
Everything the liberals accuse you of doing is really a psychological projection of themselves.
Justin Trudeau says you're a racist.
He's the one who dressed up in blackface so many times he lost count.
He's the one who says he's the feminist and you're the sexist.
But he was the one who basically confessed to sexually assaulting Rose Knight.
But, hey, she just experienced it differently.
You know what's so fascinating about this tank revelation?
If it were a conservative who said this, it would be a resignation.
It would be non-stop charges of fascism and political violence and extremism.
This will be laughed off.
Oh, they were just bantering.
They didn't mean it in a private exchange that they never thought would be seen public.
The regime media back in February was carrying Trudeau's water, saying Putin was behind it, and they're doing that again now.
This is an incredible text message.
But you can only imagine what is behind the redactions and the blackouts in the text that they won't release.
Oh, well, we're almost done the Trucker Commission of Inquiry.
And by the way, if you're not going to TruckerCommission.com, you're missing out.
What will the judge do?
The judge doesn't have the power to jail anyone here.
It's really a fact-finding inquiry.
I think that the judge just has to find that this Emergencies Act invocation of martial law was not legally justified.
Remember the test.
That there is a danger to Canadian citizens or sovereignty so grave that it is a true public emergency that cannot be solved with other laws.
I don't think there's any way that the facts so far can justify it.
But so what?
So he says that Trudeau had no basis.
So he says this was a gross political power grab.
So what?
Trudeau's already as much as said he doesn't care what the judge says.
Remember this?
The inquiry that starts today, 65 witnesses over 30 days.
You know, when it's all wrapped up, and the commissioner, if he finds that there was no justification for the federal government to invoke the Emergencies Act, should there be consequences for the federal government, including your resignation?
But we knew from the very beginning that invoking the Emergencies Act is a big step.
It had never been done before.
Given these unprecedented illegal protests, we needed to take action.
We took it in a way that was measured, that was responsible, that was time-limited, and we knew full well that there needed to be a public inquiry.
Canadians need that level of transparency and accountability, and that's why we launched this inquiry.
That's why I'm so happy to be that I offered from the beginning to be part of appearing at this commission.
And we're going to make sure that Canadians see the situation we were facing and how the tools we used were appropriate.
If it's found that there was no justification for it, again, what should the consequences be for that?
I think the important thing is for Canadians to understand the situation we were in and the choices we make.
We didn't enter into using the Emergencies Act lightly.
We used it with a sense of it was the necessary tool at the time.
We used it in a way that was measured and proportionate.
And we're really pleased that the Commission is going to be able to hear from all these witnesses.
And that was why I offered to appear.
Of course he's not going to resign.
Justin Trudeau's been convicted of breaking more laws than any other prime minister in Canadian history.
I'm referring to the conflict of interest laws, taking $100,000 bribes from lobbyists, for example, at a free vacation on Billionaire Island in the Bahamas.
He laughs about that.
When he's caught sexually assaulting Rose Knight, he says it's an opportunity for us all to reflect on how to be better feminists.
And when he is convicted or denounced or found to have done so by this judge, which I think will happen, he'll laugh about it.
And the media party that he finances, well, they'll laugh right along with him.
Stay with us for more.
Censorship's Complex Contracting00:11:21
Well, social media censorship is always in the news.
And of course, Elon Musk's privatization, his purchase of Twitter has thrust those issues to the fore once more.
As you know, he has reinstated some conservative, almost all of them have been conservative.
I don't know any liberals who were suspended.
He's reinstated conservative accounts on Twitter, including Donald Trump, who has not yet used his, but a lot of other people, including James Lindsay, with whom we spoke yesterday, have been reinstated.
And it shines a light on the murky world of contracting out censorship.
What I mean by that is government not passing a law or a regulation or sending a cop to censor someone, but rather quietly behind the scenes in an email or a phone call, big government calling big tech and giving a list of undesirables that then the tech companies censor, all of it under the radar, none of it appealable, none of it transparent, as is normally the case with government interactions.
Well, there is a case afoot right now in the United States dealing with the White House, and in particular, the former press secretary, Jen Saki, directing social media companies to suspend or throttle the government's blacklist of pundits.
And this lawsuit is taking place in the state of Louisiana.
And the lawyer for the plaintiffs is our friend Janine Yunes.
And she joins us now from Washington where she's with the new Civil Library Alliance.
Janine, did I properly sum up the case?
I don't think I really summed it up well.
Welcome.
First of all, welcome.
Great to see you again.
Give me a one-minute background or to fix any errors I made there.
You're suing because the government in league with big tech silenced a bunch of people, especially COVID skeptics.
Am I right?
That's more or less it.
I'll correct a couple of things.
First of all, I wouldn't say that Jen Saki is the main defendant.
She was the main person of interest in the hearing that took place on Friday, I believe we'll get to later.
But we're suing a lot of people, including the president himself, DHS, CDC, a lot of agencies that were clearly involved in this censorship.
And what we're arguing isn't just that the tech companies were working with the social media, sorry, the government was working with the social media companies, telling them who and what to censor, which it was, but we're arguing that they were really coercing the companies to do that, which makes it, I think in both cases, it's a First Amendment violation, but I think that makes it a clearer First Amendment violation when the government is threatening tech companies with negative consequences if they don't censor according to its directives.
Wow, that's stunning.
Now, I have always had the prejudice that tech companies typically are leftist center.
So there wouldn't be a lot of arm twisting necessary to silence people traditionally called conservative or reactionary.
And of course, for some weird reason, and I know you personally found it odd that liberals and people who in the past have said, my body, my choice, were suddenly not just pro-vaccine, but pro-vaccine mandate.
So, but for whatever reason, I think the left said we are going to get behind vaccine mandates.
The reason I mentioned this is it's surprising to me that the government would have to force or pressure or coerce big tech to do what I think some of them would have naturally done.
Can you tell us a little bit more about that?
What is your theory?
Or I don't know if you have evidence or if there's something you can point to.
What is it that and how did the government threaten big tech?
Because I would have thought big tech loved to do this.
Well, you know, I think especially Twitter is sort of sort of considered a free speech haven or has been for a long time.
And I think that the company sort of profits from that.
I mean, if you go to the places like Gab or Getter, which are sort of now right-wing hubs or the Mastodon is now the left-wing, it's pretty boring because it's sort of an echo chamber of people talking to each other, I think, who all agree.
Whereas when you go to Twitter, it's interesting because you're engaging with your opponents.
And so I think that is actually a profitable, a profitable business model.
And so Twitter was not really censoring based on viewpoint for most of its existence.
So the reason that we know that the federal government has been behind a lot of especially the COVID-19 censorship of views that oppose the governments is that, first of all, they made public statements.
So the president himself, through his press secretary, Saki as well, and the Surgeon General, Vivik Murthy, the Alejandro Mayorkas, who's the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, they said that social media companies aren't doing enough to censor dangerous and for misinformation about COVID, like those who question the vaccines, the efficacy, safety, those who think maybe not everybody needs to get them, those who question the efficacy of masks,
those who think the harms of lockdowns are greater than the benefits.
So they have gone on record saying that companies aren't doing enough to censor them and that they will be held accountable with legal consequences if they don't do more.
So that's obvious.
I mean, that's a threat.
And that's not allowed under the First Amendment.
But we've also been permitted to get discovery in this case by the judge.
He found that that was enough to allow us to get internal documents, internal communications between the tech companies and the government.
And that has sort of substantiated our position because there are emails there saying things like, for instance, you have Jen Easterly from DHS texting another CSAS, CISAS, a sub-agency in DHS, texting another CESA employee, although he went to work at Microsoft, not clear if he was at Microsoft at the time about this problem of misinformation.
And then he says, yeah, we've really got to overcome tech companies' hesitation to work with the government.
And then you have the Surgeon General texting a very high up person at Facebook that Facebook isn't doing enough to censor misinformation.
And then the Facebook employee is saying, we're feeling really aggrieved.
We don't want to be accused of killing people.
And then a week later, okay, we removed the disinformation dozen pursuant to your request.
We've escalated our censorship policies.
So it's very clear that they're responding to these threats.
Wow.
Now, did you get these internal documents from the government, from the tech companies, or from both?
Both.
The judge ordered the government to turn over documents that contain various search terms in between various individuals that we named based on the information we had.
And then in a sort of rare move, he ordered discovery on the third parties.
And actually, that was quite interesting because the government had clearly not been entirely forthcoming about the number of officials and agencies that were involved in this.
We learned it was a vaster censorship enterprise of the federal government than we had previously thought because of the information that tech companies gave us.
Yeah, I mean, that's the thing is you're relying on the honesty and the ethics and the technical skill of the government to turn over relevant documents.
They might honestly do a search incorrectly, or they might just choose not to disclose the most embarrassing things.
If you have a second, if you have the second party in a conversation, it's more likely you'll get all the info.
That's very interesting.
So this hearing is in Louisiana.
Is that right?
How did Louisiana get jurisdiction here?
Is that important or was it just, could it mean any state?
So one of the plaintiffs that I'm representing lives in Louisiana.
So the lawsuit was brought by the Missouri's, sorry, the Attorneys General of Missouri and Louisiana.
And then NCLA and I are representing private plaintiffs, one of whom lives in Louisiana.
So that allows for it to be filed there.
That area of the Fifth Circuit, you might have judges that would tend to be more favorable than some other places in the country.
Well, you know what?
It used to be that freedom of speech was a liberal value, left-wing value.
So your statement there that judges there might be more favorable.
I don't even know if that means they're liberal or conservative, because traditionally, I remember growing up, and it was the left that really, really was on guard for free speech.
Now, let me come back to Jen Sacke, because you've clarified that she is not the center of things, but she is perhaps, I recall that she was one of the people ringing the alarm about too much free speech in social media.
She said she did not want to come and be deposed.
She didn't want to be subpoenaed.
I'm not sure the legal vocabulary that would apply to Louisiana.
In this case, the judge said, well, you've got to come.
And sure, it's an inconvenience, but it's an inconvenience for anyone.
Come and answer questions.
Is that right?
So she tried to evade this, but a judge said, no, you come and answer?
It's close.
It's a little bit complicated.
So the federal rules of civil procedure in the United States say that you cannot require a witness to go more than 100 miles to be deposed.
So even though this case is in Louisiana, because she lives in Virginia, she was going to be deposed in Virginia.
And you can move to quash the subpoena.
That's get rid of this subpoena or order saying that you have to be deposed in the jurisdiction where you're going to be deposed, which the government did.
It was sort of a clever move because they wanted to get a second bite at the apple, essentially.
They hoped to draw a favorable judge who would second guess the Louisiana judge's opinion.
So we had a hearing on that this past Friday, and it didn't go for the government the way they wanted.
The judge did not like their contentions that she was sort of, her time was too precious.
The judge noted that she claimed it was an undue burden, but she couldn't point to anything specific.
I mean, it's a burden to anybody.
Nobody wants to sit and be deposed for eight hours.
And he noted, he also noted the allegations were serious.
He sort of implied that he thought there was enough evidence in the record to substantiate them.
But ultimately, what he did was he sent it back to Louisiana.
He said, that judge knows the case.
Then you shouldn't get a second bite at the apple.
And so he sent it back.
And then the Louisiana judge, you know, did not, he did not quash the subpoena.
So she has to be deposed now.
Got it.
So the Virginia judge, which was going to be, I guess you could call that forum shopping, perhaps she thought she would have a more sympathetic judge in Virginia, but he wasn't buying.
And he said, no, no, you're not getting an escape route.
And so that sounds like it was a bit of good luck.
And she and her exit plan didn't work.
Her escape plan didn't work.
Yeah, exactly.
Although, so now she's filing for a writ of mandamus, which is, that's the mechanism through which you appeal, sort of appeal a deposition order.
So that she's fighting, she is going to file that in the Fifth Circuit very soon.
So we'll see what happens there.
So it's pretty clear she doesn't want to answer questions.
And I can imagine because she really, I mean, she was more than just a spokesperson.
She really was tantamount to a chief of staff.
I mean, she, I think she had her fingers in more pies and wasn't just a talker.
I think she was a decider.
I think it's fairly conventional to say that Jen Saki was a superstaffer and she probably has a lot of things she knows and a lot of things she did in this file.
She wasn't just a fly on the wall.
She was a doer.
That's my theory.
That's why I think she's fighting so hard.
Well, it's interesting because she said one of the reasons it was an undue burden was that she wouldn't just have to sit for the seven hours of deposition, but that she would have to take days to prepare.
And the judge said, well, first you're saying she doesn't, you know, she doesn't know anything.
And now you're saying it takes two to three days to prepare.
She doesn't know anything.
Prepare For Revelations00:07:29
Why does it take two to three days to prepare?
Well, that's very interesting.
Gene, this is a great case.
I'm so glad you're doing it.
And I've been thinking about these things a lot because as Elon Musk goes into the company and sort of flips off the censorship switches that were flipped on, I think we're learning a lot more about how censorship worked in Twitter.
What are the companies that were targeted?
You mentioned Facebook.
Did they also target Twitter?
Did they target YouTube and Google?
Did they talk to TikTok?
Is there a list of big tech companies that are part of your lawsuit?
So, I mean, the tech companies aren't named as defendants.
So they're, you know, I wouldn't say part of the lawsuit, but the ones that we have evidence that they were in communication with extensively are Twitter, Facebook, Google, YouTube, and LinkedIn.
I don't believe that there are more at this time.
But my understanding, too, is that we asked, we could only choose five companies to get discovery from or get the communications from.
And we chose those.
So it may be that we only have those communications because we didn't ask for other companies.
So I don't know if there could be more involved.
Well, those are the big ones.
I mean, Google owns YouTube.
Facebook owns Instagram.
Twitter really is the political town square.
I think you've got the big ones there.
I'm going to be fascinated.
I'm going to have a very keen interest in what YouTube says, because, of course, we were the largest independent YouTube channel in Canada by a mile.
We never broke any of the rules.
We never got strikes.
We never engaged in profanity or violence or anything like that.
But when the pandemic set in, because we were skeptical, we weren't nutty about it.
We didn't talk about microchips planted in your brain or anything, but just general skepticism towards lockdownism.
They pummeled us.
They took away our monetization.
And it'll be very interesting.
Keep your eyes peeled if the word rebel news comes up.
I'm not even kidding because although we're based in Canada, Janine, we have a lot of viewers in the States.
And we really were skeptics of lockdownism from the beginning.
If you come across our name in those records that you get, let me know.
I'd like to see if Jen Saki or others was hunting for us.
I sure will.
Well, listen, good luck.
It's a delight to have you on the show.
It sounds like you're having some good luck, although Jen Sacchi is trying to run away again.
Give us 30 seconds on the NCLA, the new Civil Liberties Alliance.
I love the name of your law firm because it really is true.
There's a new coalition of people who care about civil liberties.
And unfortunately, some of the old coalition doesn't seem to care so much anymore.
Give me just one minute on other things that you guys are doing in the fight for freedom.
Sure.
So our core mission is fighting the administrative state, which I think is responsible for many of the civil liberties American violations that Americans experience.
Now, I have a suit right now in California on behalf of five doctors who are challenging a new law that says that permits the board, the medical board, to subject to discipline doctors who disseminate to patients misinformation about COVID.
And that can be in the form of treatment or advice.
So we're arguing that's a First Amendment violation and has a profound chilling effect because doctors don't know what departs from the scientific consensus, which that's how it's defined, anything that departs from the scientific consensus.
We are challenging the student loan forgiveness program on the grounds that the president does not have the authority as the executive to just forgive student loans en masse.
We have another great case about in Massachusetts tracking there.
There was an app that downloaded onto people's phones without their permission.
And if you tested positive for COVID or you came into contact with someone who did, it would send an alert to your phone.
So we're arguing that was an unlawful like search basically because they were tracking you without your consent.
So yeah, we have lots of really interesting cases, lots of vaccine mandate cases that are still percolating through on appeal and some of which actually haven't been decided even at the lower court level yet.
You know, it's funny, our Supreme Court of Canada has not yet heard a single case emanating from the lockdowns of the pandemic.
Can you believe that?
They're busy doing more important things.
I'd say, I wish we had the NCLA up here in Canada.
We have a few good organizations, the Democracy Fund, which we like to support.
And of course, the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms.
Just crazy stuff up here.
Janine, you wouldn't even believe it.
The College of Physicians and Surgeons in Ontario now has advice to doctors that if they face someone who is hesitant about vaccines, that they should prescribe sedation.
They should give that person psychiatric drugs or basically give them a volume to overcome their thoughtful objection.
There's terrifying things going on here.
I'm so glad you're fighting for freedom down there, and hopefully we'll have a knock-on effect up here because things aren't quite as free as they should be in Canada.
Canada has really surprised me with this.
Yeah, well, I wish I could say we're surprised, but we're not.
Great to see you, my friend, Janine Yunes, fighting hard for freedom at the new Civil Liberties Alliance.
Keep in touch.
Look forward to your successes.
Look forward to keeping in touch.
Thank you so much, Ezra.
All right.
There you have it.
Stay with us.
your letters to me next.
Hey, welcome back.
Your letters to me.
Pizza for Life says, should that even be allowed in such short notice?
Why aren't there deadlines for this sort of thing to account for time needed to review documents?
Trudeau is the fall of Canada.
The black mark, literally and figuratively.
You're talking about the black marks, the blacked out documents that are being dumped on the commission at the last minute.
Well, what are you going to do?
You're going to throw, I mean, in a real court, this kind of misconduct by lawyers could result in some sort of consequences.
A legal pleading being struck out.
Theoretically, a lawyer being held in contempt, someone losing a lawsuit, fines being ordered or costs being ordered.
But none of that really applies here.
This judge can't throw someone in jail for contempt.
I guess he could, but really, he's time limited.
He has a few more days left.
And who's going to hold Trudeau to account?
It's a joke.
And Trudeau knows it.
Suzanne Paquette writes, Marco Mendocino can't hide how nervous he is.
He is sweating bullets and holding back tears and fears of what is coming.
Yeah, you know, I was listening to Sheila describe Marco Mendocino.
He's sort of awkward and really creepy.
And we saw in other text messages that were released that his own staff did not respect him.
His own cabinet laughed at him and simply ignored him.
They knew he was not a decision maker.
Literally, I don't know if you remember this.
His deputy minister wrote some report about this policing here, circulated to other offices, didn't even show it to Mendocino himself.
No one takes Mendocino seriously.
It's really embarrassing.
Science versus Bigotry says, just wait for the in-camera evidence.
It will probably be the way out for Trudeau.
What you're referring to is some evidence that is considered sensitive.
And so it's being shown to the judge, but without the public there.
Well, I don't think we'll ever see that in camera evidence, will we?
Migrant Hotels Crisis00:09:22
That's the whole point of it being in camera, that means in the room, closed.
Tanks in our streets.
The Liberals talked about deploying tanks against you and me.
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.
And keep fighting for freedom.
This is Callum Smiles for Rebel News just outside of Heathrow Airport, where we've come to check out multiple migrant hotels.
There are reportedly over 200 migrant hotels in the entire United Kingdom, but the ones at Heathrow have recently hit the headlines, so we thought we'd come and check them out for ourselves.
Here's the report.
Now, journalists are normally kept well away by security from these sorts of places, but I thought I'd try my luck and see what I can discover and take you on a tour of some of Britain's migrant hotels.
First up on today's tour, the Crown Plaza on Stockley Road, just a 10-minute drive from Heathrow Airport.
This has been jokingly referred to online as Little Albania because apparently it is now home to several hundred Albanians who made the illegal crossing in small boats.
It's important to remember that this is one of hundreds of hotels across the country being filled with migrants at the taxpayers' expense.
The British taxpayer is currently paying more than £6 million a day on hotels alone.
So across the country there have been local authorities up in arms saying it's not appropriate to house migrants in tourist hotspots and that's why some might think locations like this would be perfect.
It's out of the way.
It's the kind of place you wouldn't stay for long and it's a place where international residents wouldn't stand out as much.
Now the Crown Plaza Hotel is a well-known chain of hotels and this one in particular offers a great range of facilities including a fitness center, gym, conference rooms and a bar.
This all sounds rather nice but that hasn't stopped campaigners claiming the hotels aren't enough and that they are dangerous.
What I found in the hotel was very typical of what you'd expect.
The migrants are bored.
They can't work whilst their asylum claims are processed and the children aren't at school as there's no places.
And this is on a national scale.
We have a shortage of school placements, a housing crisis, an employment crisis, we're in recession and now we have an immigration crisis.
It's clearly an expensive operation.
All the migrants receive three meals a day, are given weekly spending allowances and free accommodation.
There's 24-7 security who need to act as translators sometimes.
So we're in an odd situation where newly arrived immigrants are working as security guards guarding illegal migrants whilst their asylum applications are processed.
Hotels are not meant for permanent living, so the building has quickly become dirty and slum-like.
Clothing hangs from windows and there are issues with rubbish disposal and a general overcrowded mustiness throughout.
So now that we've left the Crown Plaza Hotel, just 10 minutes down the road outside of Heathrow Airport is the Atrium Hotel.
You might even recognise some of the viral footage from the Atrium Hotel, which the current guests have put on Snapchat, which showed hundreds of men loitering in the atrium car park.
This hotel has been commandeered by the UK government until April 2024 at the very earliest at the cost of the UK taxpayer.
Fortunately, just like the Crown Plaza Hotel, we managed to get inside this one and have a good look around.
Here's the footage.
Walking into the hotel, I noticed lots of migrants hanging out in the lobby talking to what appeared to be immigration staff.
The migrants can come and go freely whilst their asylum applications are processed.
So some spend the day relaxing in the hotel, whereas others freely roam the local area.
So getting into the Agent Hotel was quite easy and now we're in.
All we've seen are young men, single and bored.
The security don't really seem to be doing much, the conditions aren't, the hotel is nice, but it has become starting to look derelict.
There's rubbish across all the corridors.
We've seen a trail of blood going down the stairs.
Every single floor has security personnel at the God knows what cost of the taxpayer.
There's laundry on every floor.
We've seen mountains of laundry.
There's food.
There are bags of food outside of every door.
We don't know how much the catering here is costing, but we know they're getting three meals a day.
We've seen bags of food outside of doors.
Often the food's even going to waste.
But one thing we do know is that the government has actually commandeered this one particular hotel until April 2024 at the earliest.
So what we know is that there are hundreds of men in this building waiting for their asylum process to be completed, which could take years.
And we have more and more coming each week.
As you've seen this year alone, we've had over 40,000.
Last year it was around 20,000.
That was just the illegals we knew about.
And that's going to be costing the taxpayer an extremely high amount.
And it's only going to grow.
What I've shown you today are just two of more than 200 hotels being used to house young male migrants around the country.
On this map, it shows some of the hotels being used to house migrants that we know of.
The Daily Mail ran an article in November.
This article was interesting because it mentioned many recent incidents around the migrant hotel situation.
It mentions at the Holiday Inn in Colchester, two migrants staged a rooftop protest which was recorded on video and went viral online.
In the video, the men are shouting in Urdu the language used by Pakistanis.
There's been questions about security.
In Essex, at the four-star Great Hallingbury Manor, which has been taken over to house 50 male migrants aged under 40 from North Africa, with two staff looking after them, according to locals.
This Tudor-style property is now closed to the public because it's housing North African migrants on the taxpayers' expense.
In Rotherham, local residents have complained about the noise coming from the Holiday Inn Express, which is being used to house migrants.
Reports of loud music late into the night and groups of men playing football till all hours of the night.
One local resident called for a curfew because the migrants are disturbing the children's sleep.
The Stoke Rochford Hall, advertised as a luxurious Victorian mansion, decided to take up the lucrative government offer to house migrants and then cancel pre-booking and even cancelling people's wedding bookings according to TripAdvisor reviews.
In Waltham Forest, East London, a 39-year-old migrant was arrested on suspicion of raping a 13-year-old boy, who was then released on bail and has since disappeared.
This incident happened at a migrant hotel housing 450 migrants and 150 of them being children.
However, it's not just locals complaining with the current situation.
The migrants themselves are complaining about hotel living.
Only a few days ago, the Russ Hill Hotel near Gatwick Airport had unpleasant scenes when a large group of migrants living there were upset about their conditions and began to cause disturbances in the hotel.
In other areas, similar complaints are being made by the migrants.
In Bristol, a group of migrants living at the Holiday Inn near the airport have said they are cut off from shops, people and asylum seekers' services.
The hundred young men from Sudan, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Somalia have to take buses into the city for medical or legal appointments.
With the situation deteriorating across the country and large numbers expected to arrive in the coming months, it appears as though the British immigration system is in tatters and the government are reluctant to address the issue.
The Home Office admitted using hotels to house migrants was unacceptable and that it was a short-term solution.
But what is the long-term solution?
So today has been both eye-opening and concerning.
Eye-opening because of the sheer scale of this mass migration crisis and concerning because of the sheer scale of this mass migration crisis.
After seeing only two hotels today with lots and lots of young men, this is costing the UK taxpayer over £6 million per day in housing alone.
And that doesn't account for things like allowances, catering, security, and many other expenses.
So this has been Callum Smiles in Heathrow after seeing two hotels for Rebel News.