Ezra Levant exposes the media’s self-serving "pity party" over online harassment, citing a 2023 Carleton panel where CBC’s Catherine Tate and Public Safety Minister Marco Mendocino called for censorship laws while ignoring left-wing violence. A Pakistani-born journalist described fleeing death threats after reporting on state abuses, yet no Canadian cases matched her severity. Meanwhile, a lawsuit against Dr. Fauci reveals government-tech collusion to suppress dissent—like the Great Barrington Declaration—with emails showing urgency despite his claims of vaccine focus. Rebel News’s demonetization and mainstream media’s resistance to scrutiny suggest a coordinated effort to silence competition, undermining democratic discourse while clinging to elite control. [Automatically generated summary]
Today I take you through a panel discussion at a journalism school.
No, don't click away.
It's not that boring.
In fact, it's quite revealing.
They want to silence you.
They want to stop anyone from emailing them or writing mean tweets to them.
They're comparing their tweets to violence and rape.
It was a panel on violence, but they had no violence to describe just the violence of receiving mail from angry viewers.
It's quite something.
And of course, Trudeau had a cabinet minister there very eager to call the police on any conservative letter writers.
I'll let you see with your own eyes.
That's today's show.
But first, let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
You can see the video version of the show that way.
Go to RebelNewsPlus.com, click subscribe.
It's $8 a month.
You get my show that's on every weeknight.
Plus, we have other shows on a weekly basis.
$8 a month.
It's half the price of Netflix.
We give you a ton of interesting stuff you can't find elsewhere.
And we need the Doe to survive because we don't get any money from Trudeau.
So we need to rely on our viewers.
Thanks very much.
here's today's podcast.
Tonight, the media party throws itself a pity party and surprise.
They want to censor you.
It's December 2nd, and this is the Ezra Levant show.
Shame on you, you censorious thug.
Well, you don't get more inside Ottawa, inside baseball, media party, Laurentian elite than the Carleton University's journalism school in Ottawa.
And they had a panel discussion the other day where they were talking about threats and violence, actual violence against Canadian journalists.
Now, I don't know about threats, but I do know about violence.
Our reporters have faced more violence than all other media in the country combined.
And I say that with complete certainty because I actually don't know of a single other case of violence against any reporter in Canada in a decade.
There was a reporter for a Sikh media outlet in BC some years ago who was the subject of violence, and it was an internecine battle about Sikh issues in that community.
And in no way do I downplay the violence against him.
That was extremely real.
But I'm talking about mainstream journalists covering the news, allegedly under threat from the right.
Although when you think about the last few years, it's the Antifa and Black Lives Matter types who have been violence.
Do you know of a single journalist in Canada who has been punched, kicked, beaten, shot?
I don't.
Other than, well, half of our rebel news team.
Look at this montage.
I played this recently at our Rebel News live conferences.
This isn't even all of it.
Take a look.
Get out.
It's a public park.
Come on!
Don't touch me again, buddy.
Here are the thugs!
Shame! Shame! Shame! Shame!
Get off me!
Hey, this is assault.
I'm on a sidewalk.
What is this?
I'm on a sidewalk.
I'm on a sidewalk.
What is this?
You cannot crush me!
Not Russian working.
It's me!
Like, fuck!
Are you kidding?
Are you kidding?
So why are we getting such a tough time?
We've been through this so many times with you guys.
I need to hold my camera, man.
Hey, what's going on?
I need to hold my cam...
Hey!
The reality is, organizations... Organizations like yours... Yours... That continue to spread misinformation and disinformation... ... ...
Thank you.
I won't call it a media organization.
Your group of individuals need to take accountability for polarization that we're seeing in this country.
To see the conservatives engage in peddling rebel media conspiracy theories, the likes of CBC and the other members of the media party, they're in there, they're reporting in the warmth, but they can't even give us the opportunity to ask one bloody question on a public sidewalk.
Why the f are you here?
We're working shut down the bridge.
We want to know why.
Why don't you f off?
Here, there's for your fing membership.
There's for your rebel news.
Checking In Facility00:15:21
Go f yourself, lady.
Go f yourself.
Go f yourself.
Would you like me to turn it up?
Here you go.
Go f yourself.
If you're no friend to Native people, go f yourself.
I am Native.
Come off playing that fing card.
You.
Okay.
You're telling me I'm playing a race car?
Yeah, you are.
Get the f out of here.
Are you playing hockey here?
No, I'm just coming to check in our facility.
So I'm going to check you.
You're not supposed to be here, actually.
I'll arrest you.
Can we give a presentation?
We already spoke to Darcy Henson.
He said there should be no problem.
What are you coming?
What?
Sorry, what is that?
Sorry, why?
Now, this is an administrative penalty notice.
Oh, for what?
Yeah.
This is for shaking hands with the public?
No way.
I'm going to release you.
You go back in the protest.
You have to wear a mask.
If you don't, you're going to be defined.
You understand?
Again, like this?
No, you're going to police paper.
To jail, basically.
So yeah, if you're having a conference about journalists in Canada being roughed up, beat up, threatened, and violence, but you don't invite rebel news.
Sounds to me like you're not actually interested in violence against journalism.
You're interested in mean tweets against liberals.
Well, I wasn't there in Ottawa, but luckily they put the event on YouTube and I spent a couple hours going through it today.
It was just so long, I gave up before going straight to the end.
Listen, I suffered enough for the craft.
I don't recommend watching it.
You can find it online pretty easily, but let me take you through it.
I can't help but chuckle about this because this is the finest journalism school in the country.
Just ask them.
And their very first screen on their YouTube, they spelt the word battlefield wrong, and that made me chuckle a little bit.
They really think that they're soldiers on a battlefield.
That's a thing they came to again and again, that they are the true victims and heroes in society.
They also have a hashtag not okay, by which they mean criticizing them is not okay.
Now, the event was hosted by Alan Thompson, a former journalist who's now at the university there.
And he is, as you will quickly see, a white man.
And he spent some time apologizing for that.
And of course, an Aboriginal land territory acknowledgement.
And it went on for quite some time.
I think it was the most he had to say was basically his self-hatred and apologize for being a white guy.
Take a look.
My name is Alan Thompson.
I'm the head of Carleton's journalism program.
And on behalf of the School of Journalism and Communication, I want to thank you for taking the time to join us for this critical discussion, either in person or on YouTube.
And right off the top, I need to warn you that you're going to hear some harsh, disturbing language this evening.
There really isn't any other way to have this conversation.
Let me begin with the land acknowledgement.
We hear these more and more often these days, but I'm increasingly conscious as a fifth-generation settler and someone who is called upon to make these land acknowledgements, that they sometimes seem to be much more for the white audience to justify or maybe soothe our racial guilt instead of the original intended purpose to acknowledge and honour people and the treaty agreements and unceded lands that we occupy.
Thank you.
So please let this not be just another box to check off in our meeting agenda.
As journalists or journalists in training, we want to use this moment as a reminder to prioritize our individual commitments to challenge and dismantle white supremacist colonial mindsets, which we have internalized, both collectively and individually, in the School of Journalism itself and in the wider journalism industry in Canada.
Now, he warned us that there would be harsh and disturbing language.
I guess he wants people to know that there's some microaggressions to come.
There were people there, a lot of people wearing masks.
I listened to two hours of it and there was some mean tweets that were read, but it was incredible that journalists have to be told that there's going to be some mean words in case they want to go into the comfort room and just calm down a bit and maybe have some mental health workers.
Of course, he describes himself as a fifth generation settler.
If he really is upset, if he really feels that he's stealing someone's land, why doesn't he leave?
I mean, if you do feel guilty about it, what good does a land acknowledgement do?
How about give back the land if you really feel you stole it?
I find those land acknowledgements to be a kind of fraud.
Anyways, it's a conclusion that there is an upsurge of hate, of online abuse, especially against women journalists and racialized journalists.
They say this without any statistics.
They just say it.
Online hate and violence.
Look at that word, violence.
We are here this evening as part of an effort to grapple with the upsurge in online hate targeting journalists.
Here at Carleton, our starting point is the view that more must be done to combat the targeted online abuse increasingly suffered by journalists, especially women and racialized journalists.
A year ago, Carleton partnered with the Canadian Association of Journalists to host a roundtable on journalists and online hate.
That resulted in a call to action to our industry, government, and the broader public through a publication, Poisoned Well.
More recently, the CBC's Omira Issa dedicated a part of her Kesterton lecture at Carleton in this room to her own experience with relentless online hate and death threats.
We know online harassment affects journalists, and we have evidence to prove it.
Yeah, except for I watched this entire, well, the first two hours of this panel, and they actually didn't show any violence.
They blur hate, which is a human emotion that everyone feels.
If you never feel hate, you don't have a full personality.
They blur hate with violence.
And anyone who watches the CBC can feel their palpable hate when talking about subjects they don't like, when talking about Christians, when talking about conservatives.
Some of the most hateful things I've seen in Canada are on the CBC.
They publish others who hate Justin Trudeau and his raw hatred against those who are not vaccinated.
Should we even tolerate them?
That statement was made on a French CBC program.
There's a lot of hate in the media, but I guess their side of hate is fine.
They call people who hate them, they call that violence.
Here's another clip talking about people who are harassed or threatened.
Take a look.
The landmark Taking Care survey and report produced earlier this year by my Carleton colleague Matthew Pearson and CBC News journalist and well-being champion Dave Seglands.
That survey found that 56%, more than half of Canadian media workers reported being harassed or threatened on social media.
And 35%, more than a third, said they also experienced harassment while working in the field.
In the coming months, Professor Trish Odetlongo is coordinating a series of workshops and discussions for journalism faculty and students to build their digital security knowledge and skills.
We must incorporate these skills into the way we teach journalism.
Now, it is true that there are mean things that come through in tweets and Facebook posts and emails every day.
I have thousands of those, and I guess I deal with it in the way that social media companies tell you to deal with it, that the tech companies tell you to deal with it.
You block people.
You can block email addresses from calling, from emailing.
You can block phone numbers from calling and texting you.
On Twitter or Facebook, you can block someone from connecting with you.
I do it without even a thought.
But I think that's because I want to do journalism.
I don't want to obsess about being the victim of mean tweets.
This panel was a pity party where everyone was trying to outdo each other by how mean their tweets were that they obsess over.
They read every word, thus encouraging and empowering the mean tweets.
Now, I'm not saying that there is no such thing as a written or digital communication that rises to the level of an actual crime.
Of course there is.
You can commit a crime with a pen and paper, a death threat.
You can say it verbally.
You can utter a death threat.
It's in the criminal code, has been for years.
Simply applying it to a digital communication is a small novelty that is actually about 30 years old already.
It is already against the law to utter a death threat, whether it's by words, by radio, by CB, by walkie-talkie by cell phone, or by email.
But what we see here, at least in the two hours that I subjected myself to this video, are people who have clearly not received real death threats.
I mean, I won't deny some of the communications they received are genuinely mean, genuinely rude.
Some of them are racist and sexist, absolutely.
But none of them rise to the level of a crime.
And an underlying theme in this was to get police to criminalize what right now is just a political disagreement.
There was one other white male on the panel, Marco Mendocino, the public safety minister, and he repeatedly said he was open to using police.
I thought that was actually the most terrifying part of it.
Here, let's play the next clip.
In a moment, Joyce will introduce our platform guests, Catherine Tate, President and CEO of the CBC, Sonia Verma, editor-in-chief of Global News.
They'll both be making some opening remarks from the podium, then take some questions from Joyce and from the audience before we turn to the second part of the evening.
I'm also aware that Catherine has another commitment and may not be able to stay with us throughout the entire evening.
There will be a panel discussion involving three journalists who've had direct experience with online hate.
Joyce is going to make all the proper introductions.
And they'll be followed by another guest, Public Safety Minister, Marco Mendochino.
After they make some brief comments and have a chance to discuss, we will open the floor to questions.
So that's a bit of a roll call.
You can see who was at this panel.
They had all the diversity, every point of view from A to B. Every single person there is on Trudeau's payroll, either directly, like Catherine Tate of the CBC, or through grants like Sonia Verma of Global News, Joyce Napier CTV, Rachel Gilmore of Global, Mendocino, of course, is a cabinet minister, Erica Eiffel.
These are all people who benefit from Trudeau.
There was no independent journalists there.
There was no one who had a different point of view there.
I want to show you this next clip.
Again, it comes back to the word hate.
Hate and love are human emotions, neither of which are illegal, or at least they ought not to be.
If someone hates a journalist, if you hate the liberals, if you hate Trudeau, maybe that's not an attractive emotion, and maybe you shouldn't express it in a certain way, but hate is not the same thing as violence.
It doesn't.
And I tell you, in the two hours that I watched, there was not a single example of violence except for one from Sonia Verma that I'll come back to in a minute.
Here, take a look at this next clip.
Journalists and online hate.
So, yeah, that's hate.
That means threats.
Yep, death threats too.
Harassment, bullying.
Racist, misogynistic women are the favored targets of this hate, especially racialized women.
So think about it just for one second.
This is happening now, here in Canada.
And, you know, to many that are not here perhaps today, it is something that is a remote topic that some people talk about, but it is getting bigger and bigger and more and more dangerous.
So these kind of panels will help us all understand what is this.
And the minister is here to tell us how do we counter it.
The minister is here to tell us how to fix it.
You know, Marco Mendocino was the weakest cabinet minister who appeared at the public order inquiry into the emergencies commission.
It was not only his answers were slippery and vague, but the documents were about this one document where his own staff were revealed to be writing reports and sharing them with others in the government and not even bothering to pass it by Mendocino himself.
Even his own staff knew he was not a decision maker, knew he was not a decider or a thinker or influential.
They ignored him and they laughed at him.
He was sent to the commission as an empty suit.
And it just is perfect that of all the people who could have attended on behalf of the government, it's Mendocino.
But he's going to be there to tell them how to fix it.
Why would you call the government in to fix a problem that the media has with credibility?
Because the reason that people are angry at the media, there's a lot of reasons, and I'm sure I don't know all of them.
But one big one is that people don't trust the media anymore.
And a reason for that is that so many media are on the government payroll.
So if you're trying to win back trust, if you're trying to stop people from clapping back at you on social media, and one of the knocks on you is that you're in the pocket of Trudeau financially and politically, how is inviting a chummy public safety minister going to disabuse anyone of the notion that you are in full collusion with Trudeau?
Anyway, Catherine Tate flew in from her home in New York City.
I find that just absolutely amazing that the head of the CBC can live in New York and commute.
Fiercely Independent Journalism00:07:31
She says that the internet is the worst place, and she praises the panel as being diverse.
Is this a diverse panel?
Here, take a look.
Reporters Without Borders found that an overwhelming majority of journalists agreed that the internet was the most dangerous place for journalists.
Nearly half of women journalists said they self-censored to avoid exposing themselves to violence.
Another 21% had resigned or were considering not renewing their contracts.
All news organizations, and you've got us pretty well, a lot of us represented here tonight, in Canada, across Canada, and around the world, have been alarmed by the galloping increase in vitriolic online harm that targets disproportionately, as Joyce has said, women, women of color, and racialized journalists.
You know, they're emphasizing that women are the victims.
Well, actually, studies show that men are as much the victims of harassment online as women are.
But they're trying to fit this in their critical theory that it's about women and about minorities.
Here's the truth.
Everyone and anyone on social media can be harassed.
I think the most criticized and harassed man on social media right now is Elon Musk.
I want to show you one more statement from Catherine Tate where she says that the people on this panel are fiercely independent, that they're strong and they're free.
Do we have a fiercely independent and strong free press?
Take a look.
We know that the sole purpose of this vile form of harassment is to silence these voices, to silence these journalists, and in so doing, to undermine the foundational pillar in our open societies, in our democracies.
So I'm here tonight to say to all of you, stay the course.
I know that may seem contradictory.
We need fiercely independent, outspoken journalists more than ever before.
journalists who speak truth to power, journalists who reflect a wide range of voices and perspectives.
Without a strong, free, and diverse press, democracies cannot function.
So we worked together with the Toronto Star, CTV News, Global, La Presse, APTN, the Canadian Association of Journalists, and others to develop a newsroom guide for managing online harm.
I urge you all to take a look at it.
It's available on hashtag not okay.
And the idea was to at least, and this, by the way, this isn't written by CBC, this is written by a collective, so I don't know how many pens were in it, but a lot.
And the idea was to provide advice on what to do before, during, and after incidents of online harassment or abuse.
And basically, we've had to adapt many of the same practices that we've used when we send journalists overseas to war zones or when we send them to natural disasters.
This is a really important point.
Social media can be as dangerous an environment as hostile physical environments.
We take precautions when we send reporters to Ukraine, and we need to take precautions when our people, our journalists, are similarly exposed to danger in the digital world.
She talks about working with the Toronto Star on harassment issues.
Really?
Well, I think they would know.
Do you remember that astonishing, world-famous front-page cover photo they did in the Toronto Star, where they had threats and demonization of the unvaxxed, people calling for the unvaxed to be banned from hospitals, people laughing at the unvaxxed dying?
That was the front page of the Toronto Star.
And that's who the CBC is partnering with to fight back against harassment.
Well, I guess they do know about harassment, but that one line, that this is as serious as war.
And they keep coming back to that.
Look at this clip, where they compare being a journalist to a soldier with post-traumatic stress disorder, comparing themselves as victims and as heroes.
Take a look at this.
We know from the preliminary findings that journalists who are harassed online have significantly more symptoms of anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic distress.
Post-traumatic stress.
Take a moment to consider that.
For journalists today, the battlefield is everywhere.
Oh, this next one was just incredible.
Imagine comparing people on social media criticizing you.
Imagine comparing this as a problem online tantamount to child pornography.
You know, child pornography involves the actual rape of children.
And these journalists say that the actual rape of children is comparable to what they face every day as journalists by having mean tweets.
Seriously, how dare they?
We're encouraging police across the country to treat online abuse the same way they treat child pornography as a cybercrime that crosses police jurisdictions and so requires a coordinated response.
Take a look at this next clip, how society needs to change.
Everyone in society needs to change.
We have to look at talking back to powerful people like journalists and politicians.
We have to compare that with drunk driving and human trafficking.
Again, prostituting and raping women is comparable to daring to speak out against powerful journalists.
Take a look.
Society will need to change to ensure that this behavior is simply deemed unacceptable.
just as human trafficking and drunk driving are.
This will require a huge shift in societal attitude and behavior.
And I do believe that attitudes about online harassment can shift.
The more we all talk about it, the more we flag it as an issue.
Oh, and of course, we need penalties.
We need the government to weigh in.
Just incredible.
Take a look.
But there must be penalties also for those who refuse to stop.
And that's why we need legislation to ensure online safety.
So we'll be working with other media colleagues, many of whom are here tonight, but across the country, to better support and protect our journalists.
Because until you are safe, we will not stop talking about this.
We simply cannot afford to lose your voices.
Now, I mentioned earlier that in the entire two hours that I watched this panel, there was not a single incidence of violence described, which is quite something, given that the panel was supposedly about violence.
If they would invited anyone from the Rebel, myself, David Menzies, Alexa Lavois, really half a dozen of our team, we would have told them about actual violence towards us.
But they did manage to get a story about violence, but it was not on social media.
A Story of Survival00:04:03
It's a story of one of the speakers here, Ms. Verma from Global News.
She was at the Global Mail at the time, and she was in Egypt, in Cairo, in Tahrir Square, 11 years ago.
You might recall terrible things happened there.
It was rallies and protests and riots against the government.
There were protests going on for months, in fact.
Terrible things happened there.
Women who were uncovered were molested.
A terrible thing happened to Lara Logan, the 60 Minutes reporter.
Here's a quick clip about that.
Nearly three months ago, our Lara Logan was beaten and sexually assaulted by a mob in Cairo, Egypt, while covering the celebrations after Hosni Mubarak stepped down as president.
Now, for the first time, she's speaking publicly about the attack, which she says was merciless.
In a 60-minutes interview, Lara tells Scott Pelley she thought she would die.
Our camera battery went down.
And we had to stop for a moment.
And suddenly, Baja looks at me and says, we've got to get out of here.
Baja is not happy here.
He's Egyptian.
He speaks Arabic and he can hear what the crowd is saying.
He understands what no one else in the crew understands.
That's right.
I thought, not only am I going to die here, but it's going to be just a torturous death that's going to go on forever and ever and ever.
When I thought, I'm going to die here, and my next thought was, I can't believe I just let them kill me.
That that was as much fight as I had, that I just gave in and I gave up on my children so easily.
How could you do that?
How could you do that?
I thought you were stronger than that.
Well, thank God that didn't happen to the speaker from the Globe and Mail, Ms. Verma, who's now at Global News.
She was not raped, thank God, but she was physically assaulted.
Listen to her describe what she went through when she encountered a mob of men on the streets who didn't like the fact that she was uncovered.
They swarmed her, surrounded her, and bruised her, beat her up, until a janitor nearby grabbed her and her Globe Mail colleague and pulled them into an apartment.
This is a terrible story that could have been horrendous as it was for Lara Logan.
I was gripped by this story, but the whole time I was thinking, We're talking about violence in Canada on social media.
And the only story you have is violence in Egypt 11 years ago from a physical mob.
Take a look.
And all of a sudden, I was completely surrounded by these men who were grabbing me and pushing me, grabbing my notebook, grabbing my pen, pulling Patrick Martin, my colleague, away from me.
I felt totally alone, totally overwhelmed, and totally powerless.
And it was an incredibly scary feeling.
My whole body was covered in bruises that I hadn't felt at the time, but were there and lasted a few days until they healed.
I'm telling this story because I think that I was able to sort of get away from that very scary situation, that very scary crowd.
I look at my colleagues right now who are the topic and the subject and the target of online hate, and I feel that they don't have that safety anywhere.
I feel like every day in my job right now as editor-in-chief of Global News, I see incredibly violent messages come through our email filter systems that are forwarded to me by Rachel, by others, every day that are just as damaging and I think just as wounding as what I experienced at that time.
Violent Messages in News00:03:30
So what's the solution?
Well, everyone in the room here has the same solution.
Not the solution to actually being groped by man in Tahrir Square, but the solution to the non-crimes and the non-violence in Canada.
The solution was for law enforcement, for police to stop the hate.
Take a look.
We're not in a position to protect our journalists from this hate.
And that's why I think the conversation has to be a bigger conversation.
It has to be something that's talked about at a policy level, at a law enforcement level.
We don't have the tools to actually go after these people.
I just have to end with this one last clip from Ms. Verma of Global News.
She says that Global News, unlike citizen journalists, is not biased.
They're not biased people.
They are fact-based.
Here, take a look.
As you all know, we're governed by principles.
We have something at Global News called the JPMP, right?
So that sort of governs the fact that our news is unbiased.
It's fact-based.
There's accountability there that we have to ourselves.
There's accountability to our audiences.
With some of the social media platforms, those same obligations simply aren't there.
Oh, you bet.
Let me give you an example of one of their star journalists, David Aiken, heckling Pierre Polyev in a fact-based, non-violent way.
Remember this?
Thank you very much.
I appreciate it.
I appreciate your presence here today.
Before I begin, let me just say that.
Thank you very much.
I'm being heckled here by the...
Thank you very much for your congratulations.
Thank you very much for your questions.
I'm going to begin my remarks now.
Justin Trudeau is out of touch and Canadians are out of money.
The cost of government is driving up the cost of living.
A half a trillion dollars of inflationary deficits have bid up the cost of the goods we buy and the interest that Canadians pay.
The cost for workers and businesses to produce the goods that we buy.
On top of that, Trudeau proposes yet more spending to bid up costs even further.
more he spends, the more things cost.
It is just inflation.
Their homes and to buy a home in the very first place.
The reason that we have basically a liberal heckler who snuck in here today to Global News.
I'm the chief political force right in that organization.
Are you going to let me know?
You name a member of me from the guy who actually reported first on the prime minister breaking the law.
Are you going to ask a question?
See?
I've actually never seen you heckling the prime minister before.
Ask Minister Baird back to the point.
You're going to take some questions at the end of his statement.
Yes, I'll be taking two questions at the very end.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
So I'm going to start my statement again.
Yeah.
Fact-based and unbiased.
They started talking about, there were some strange questions coming from the audience about how to stop ordinary people from saying mean things.
Bravery Amid Abuse00:07:43
And Catherine Tate, the New York-based boss of the CBC, boasted about eliminating the comment section on the websites on the CBC, simply banning people from making comments.
That was how they handled comments they didn't like.
But incredibly, that's just what we see on the outside.
They offer medical, sorry, mental health support for CBCers who feel microaggressed because of the comment section because people clapping back.
Take a look at this.
We're just a lot smarter about, you know, there used to be a comment section on CBC website where people could correct typos or make comments about our content.
And all sorts of vile stuff was coming in through that door.
So we closed that door.
You know, and we're kind of, it's like a little whack-a-mole, but we're constantly looking.
We've put some resources against security.
So we now have people who are like Dave Seglands who are working on helping our journalists through the process when they're attacked, providing mental health support.
There was another reporter who joined via Zoom.
I didn't quite catch where she was from.
The journalists who ran the thing didn't do, they didn't put her name up.
It wasn't very easy to understand.
But I understood that she was originally from Pakistan.
And she starts off by saying that one of the reasons she fled Pakistan was because of a violent assault.
And that's terrible to hear.
And I know Pakistan can be a dangerous place.
But then she said the same exact thing here happened in Canada.
Take a look.
SAFE has now become an alien word to me.
I can't remember what SAFE looks or feels like, which is ironic because safety is what I came to this country for.
I left Pakistan after my reporting on human rights abuses and state complicity led to a horrific organized online hate campaign against me.
Just like it did here.
I was doxxed.
I was vilified, assaulted by misogynistic, ethnophobic, violent abuse.
Just like here.
The police didn't believe me.
They didn't help me.
Just like here.
Was she really subject to a violent assault in Canada?
Maybe.
She didn't give details of it.
Was she attacked in Canada like she was back in Pakistan?
I think I would have heard about it.
I mean, maybe not.
Or is she using the word attack, violent attack, to mean mean tweets?
There was another guest, another reporter named Erica Eiffel, and there's Mark Mendocino and the CTV and Global and CBC.
It was all the big shots.
And then some people who I think were chosen to give the pretense of diversity, although, like I say, there was no ideological diversity.
And they only talked about mean tweets from the right.
There was no mention of violence from the left, including real violence from Antifa.
Take a look at this, talking about how all the problems on social media are from the far-right, convoy, and convoy adjacent people, white supremacists.
Take a look at that.
I think what I experience, what we experience, is a continuation of threats that have come from work that we've done on far right and the rise of the far right.
And the fact that we've gotten into how many minutes, almost an hour into this, and we haven't talked about the far right, is like a huge problem because that is the context within which this is happening, right?
These are all either convoy people or convoy adjacent people or white supremacists or something like that.
And the fact that we haven't characterized it as that kind of tells me that we have a long way to go to getting people in positions of power to really understanding what is going on.
Minister, do you understand what's going on?
I certainly have, I think, a very much more sober appreciation of the experiences that you're going through every day.
And I think I can't do anything except start by expressing the gratitude for the candor and the bravery that you show every day.
I mean, having had to crash through barriers to crack into your profession and then to then have to be inundated day in and day out with intimidation, harassment, overt racism, obviously criminal conduct.
And the fact that you still go out there and write stories, which is for the benefit of all Canadians, is I think a real testament to each and every one of you.
And so I would just begin by saying that.
Thank you for what you do.
It is important that we call it for what it is, Erica.
And I, you know, it is racist.
It is misogynistic.
It is criminal.
It is against the law.
And it is intentional that it targets disproportionately women, racialized, indigenous, and other minority communities.
I think there is no doubt in my mind that the goal is to crowd you all out and to preserve or restore some delusional sense of what the status quo was like.
Isn't it odd that all the government-funded inquiries into hate are only what they are looking for hate on the right?
I haven't seen condemnations of anti-Semitism on the left or violence on the left, anti-for-violence or Black Lives Matter.
Why is it?
How is it possible that the only social media harassment that they're discussing is from what they call the right?
Marco Mendocino was up next.
He had a few thoughts himself on Tahrir Square.
And, you know, I think, Sonia, your metaphor at the beginning of describing how you felt in Tahrir Square when you were assaulted, and you didn't even realize it because of the trauma in the moment, was very apt.
And what we are seeing online is every day at Tahrir Square, where nobody is safe.
And the trauma that that causes to professionals, journalists, who are trying to fulfill a democratically essential responsibility to tell stories from perspectives that have not historically been told.
Trauma, eh?
Talking about trauma.
How about this trauma?
Take a look at what happened to our Alexa Lavoie at the hands of the government.
There you go.
You all right?
Got truck.
Take care.
Bring her out.
Bring her out.
Come on.
Then there were some questions from the crowd, and one lady who had been wearing a mask and took it down asked a question, and she said that she was there as a counter-protester to the truckers.
And that journalist, Erica Eiffel, interrupted and said, thank you.
That took a lot of bravery.
So this lady said that the haters were convoy people, although I'm not sure how they know if the online social media haters were anonymous.
Brave Counter-Protester00:08:35
How would you know that they're your favorite enemy?
But my favorite line was Eiffel saying, good for you, just to prove that journalists are neutral and objective.
You're talking about exactly what I wanted to bring up, which Erica brought up at the far right.
And these are convoy people.
And I was an active counter-protester against the convoy up until now.
And I'm here because you're welcome.
And I'm here because I know.
Because that takes a lot of bravery.
I know about the threats to Erica, to Rachel, which is why I'm here.
I had never heard this Eiffel before, this Erica Eiffel.
And remember, this was a forum against hate.
But I guess she couldn't keep it together for long because about an hour and a half into things, she, well, I think she engaged in hateful racism.
She said she simply refuses to talk to white men and she's rather glad that the queen is dead.
Take a look at that.
Till this day, I make it a point not to, when I'm doing a story or when I'm seeking experts, I do not seek white men because I want to change what expertise looks like on television and in my stories because that's my job.
My job is not to placate power.
It's to challenge power, right?
And it is, for me, my job is to center marginalized people who do not get a voice, right?
Because I'm sorry, in traditional structures, we didn't have a voice.
And many times, we don't have a voice now.
I can give you an example.
Let's look at the queen coverage, for example, when the queen died on CBC.
They interviewed her glovemaker, but I didn't see many voices that wrote like I did who said, well, I'm glad the queen is dead.
And let me tell you why.
Because there are many of us who come from colonialist backgrounds who are sitting there being like, oh, God, do we have to do this again?
Where is this diversity of voices that we were promised two years ago after George Floyd?
I don't see it.
That's weird.
But apparently, that's the good kind of hate.
And that's not something we have to worry about in a mean tweet.
I just want to show you one more video from that lady from Pakistan originally who was joining via Zoom.
Remember that front page in the Toronto Star?
Let's put it up just one more time.
So hateful.
The Toronto Star claims these were tweets that they found or people they interviewed that they put online, although that later crumbled under close examination.
Listen to how this journalist describes those.
First of all, she says they were opinions from medical experts.
Just listen to how she describes them and flips it around that that hateful, harassing front page of the Toronto Star.
Well, that wasn't the bully.
The victim was the Toronto Star and the author of it, who were bombarded for weeks.
To this day, that haunts us.
Take a look at that.
I remember that there was an article for The Star that one of our reporters did, and it talked about, you know, people who are anti-vaccination, and then it just kind of brought together opinions from different medical experts talking about whether that's dangerous, what's the scientific data behind it.
Now, somebody did a page design in such a way where, you know, it was a design choice, and it's been clarified since it's been taken back since.
But all of the things that those medical experts and people who were talking about anti-vaccinated vaccines was put up, like the quotes were put up as a design choice.
And that journalist, the story was taken completely out of context.
That was journalists as a racialized journalist.
She was bombarded for weeks with hate, with vitriol, with the worst kind of abuse.
All of the things that was, you know, some page designers, you know, choice that were just like attributed to her, that she said all these things, that the Toronto Star is saying all these things.
Nobody read the article.
Nobody looked at the context.
And to this day, that haunts us.
The screenshot of that page design, that headline, is used every time I speak out about the hate that I'm facing.
Other colleagues, it's just used as some kind of proof that this is what these guys are saying.
There were some students there, this being a journalism school, and one student stood up and quickly showed her virtue by saying she was against Twitter.
And the irony here was too much.
She denounced Twitter and was answered by Rachel Gilmore, the TikTok journalist for Global News.
Twitter, an American company that's embracing free speech, was far worse, apparently, than TikTok, the Chinese spyware.
Take a look at this.
As journalists, how is there a way that we can decrease our reliability on platforms like this?
Like, you know, platforms that have recently undergone ownership change that have become much more toxic.
Without names.
Yeah.
It has become very toxic.
And there's been a like a compliant kind of nature towards these far-right comments, towards these hate comments.
And so I'm wondering, do you foresee a future where we can decrease our reliability on platforms like this?
Do you see that there's other ways that we can kind of network and share our work?
What do you guys think?
Rachel, what do you think about that?
Well, I think one of the inherent issues with the work that we do in the modern context is that we are communicating.
We're communicating the news with people, which means we have to find them where they are.
And that makes it really difficult when the places where you can communicate best with these with the public are also the places where you face this kind of abuse.
All right, I'm going to stop with the videos.
I apologize for subjecting you so much.
I watched this for two hours.
I just couldn't force myself to watch through the rest.
Let me sum it up for you, if you're still with me.
Everyone there was on Trudeau's payroll, either directly in cabinet, like Marco Mendocino, directly like Catherine Tate, the CBC, or getting subsidies like the women from Global and CTV.
It was an all-women panel, plus one self-hating man, and then, of course, the cabinet minister.
But it was never diverse enough.
You're never done when it comes to intersectionality because the black woman was furious about the white women not being considered enough to black women.
Well, of course, what's next is a non-binary black woman who's raging against the black woman for being blind to gender fluidity.
Once you start to judge people based on race or sex or any other characteristic other than merit, you will never be done apologizing.
I mean, I tell you, it was quite something to see the professor just self-abnegate for five minutes, and that's really all he had to say.
It's really showing you where academia is going.
There was not one second of self-reflection.
Not one second to, why have we engendered such hate?
Now, by the way, I don't promote hate.
I don't think we should express hate negatively.
I think we should transmogrify it and turn it into positive energy.
Try and do something positive with it.
Try and vent it in a healthy way, not in an unhealthy way.
I don't believe in violence.
But hate is a natural human emotion that comes from a genuine sense of grievance.
If someone has a grievance that's not being met, that grievance will not be solved by telling them to shut up.
And I think one of the reasons so many people don't trust the media and are showing their rage to the media.
I mean, I don't know who wrote those anonymous tweets, those mean tweets, but I'm guessing that some of it has to do with the perception that the media is biased, and we saw that in these clips, and that the media is in bed with the government, which they clearly are, even on this panel.
But there wasn't one second to, are we doing anything wrong?
No, it's not us.
It's our audience that's wrong.
We have to silence them.
The CBC has silenced the comment sections.
Now they want the police to silence the rest of you.
And another thing I was left with was, my God, are they drama queens?
Comparing themselves to post-traumatic stress disorder soldiers coming back from Afghanistan?
Fauci's Big Figure Deposition00:05:42
My heart goes out to that lady for her experience in Tahrir Square.
That's terrifying.
But you're seriously comparing mean tweets to physically being beaten up by a mob of men in a foreign country?
You're comparing mean tweets to child rape?
That's outrageous.
And what we see finally is the merger.
The merger of big media, global, CTV, CBC, big tech, they want the social media companies to censor everything, and big government that enforces it all.
That is what we're up against at Rebel News.
And that is why they didn't dare invite any of our real reporters to talk about the real violence against them, all of which has come from the government or from the left.
Stay with us for more.
Well, I think the personification of the government response to the pandemic, not just in the United States, but around the world, including here in Canada, has been Dr. Anthony Fauci.
He's ubiquitous.
He loves the media, and they love him.
There's a lot of unanswered questions about Dr. Fauci, and sometimes he's pinned down for a few moments in congressional hearings.
Rand Paul has given him a run for his money and promises more.
But I think the first time he really was grilled under oath by lawyers asking prickly questions, not softballs from the mainstream media,
happened last week when a number of freedom-oriented lawyers, including the Solicitor General from Missouri, deposed Dr. Fauci in his office about a very specific thing about the government of the United States trying to censor or throttle or silence voices that were skeptical of Dr. Fauci's approach, voices that one would call a second opinion, as we used to believe.
And one of our friends, Janine Eunice, a lawyer for the new Civil Liberties Alliance, well, she was part of that legal team, and she was there in the NIH headquarters in Bethesda as Dr. Fauci was deposed.
She joins us now.
Today she's in Annapolis.
Well, Janine, it's great to see you.
I hope I got that right.
It was just last week.
You were there examining or deposing would be the technical term.
Dr. Fauci, just set the scene for us a little bit.
Where was it?
What does he look like?
Who was in the room?
How many folks were there?
Tell us what it was like, the personal details.
We'll get to the substance in a minute, but that must have been quite exciting.
Yeah, it was.
So it was the day before Thanksgiving, which frankly, I don't think is an accident.
A lot of the higher level officials that we're deposing in this case keep scheduling their meetings right before major, or sorry, their depositions right before major holidays.
I think so that there aren't so many reports of them.
Let's put it that way.
So it took place at the NIH headquarters where Dr. Fauci works in a rather large conference room.
And it was a lot of, it was him and then a lot of lawyers, and a court reporter and a videographer.
So there is a video recording, a transcript that can't be released right now for various reasons, although I think the transcript will come out next week, not the video.
And then so there was me and my colleague John Becchioni from NCLA were representing private plaintiffs in the case.
The attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, who are also bringing the case on behalf of the citizens of their state, the solicitor general of Missouri, who's leading the depositions, and then two clients, one of our clients named Jill Hines and Jim Hoft and his lawyer, John Burns.
Jim Hoft founded the Gateway Pundit, and he's also, he's the only private plaintiff that's being represented by someone other than us.
And then there were about eight, I'm going to say eight lawyers for the other side for Dr. Fauci.
Really?
Eight lawyers.
I mean, I can imagine two and maybe even a couple of students or young helper routers, but eight lawyers.
Why did they have eight lawyers?
Did all eight weigh in?
Were they all representing different government agencies or does he really have eight lawyers?
I think so.
There was only one lawyer who was objecting.
He's been at almost all of the depositions, or I think all of the depositions we've done in this case.
I think it was probably interest.
Like there were more lawyers from our side present too than there have been at the other depositions because we're deposing a number of high-ranking government officials in this case.
So I think people were just interested in seeing Fauci's deposition because he's such a big figure in the COVID era.
Yeah, big figure.
I'm not sure if that's an ironic statement.
What's he like physically?
I mean, what's his comportment like?
Did he seem happy and jovial?
Was he impatient?
Was he businesslike, detached?
What was he like in person?
I mean, obviously, it's not a fun way to spend a few hours.
And by the way, how long was it?
It was, so we got seven hours to depose him.
That's what the law allows, unless the judge says otherwise.
And you take breaks.
So it's, you know, they keep careful track of the time.
So every time it breaks, the time stops.
So we were there for, I would say, almost 10 hours because you stop almost every hour.
Questioning somebody, you know, is, I think the person who's doing the questioning and answering, it takes a lot of energy.
So you break a lot.
He was very, he was composed.
He's very together.
He would obviously get irritated sometimes when pressed, but he knew how to answer questions and he's he's quite on he's on the short side.
He's, I think, shorter than the internet.
Great Barrington Deposition00:15:06
I was just making fun.
Listen, I'm not the tallest guy around either.
I just, listen, after what he's done to millions of Americans and people around the world, I have no problem making the odd personal jab back at him.
I know I shouldn't.
So just to refresh the memory of our viewers, I mean, we've jumped right into the details of Anthony Fauci himself, but the purpose behind this lawsuit is that the government was secretly interfering with, directing big tech companies, and actually having sort of a veiled threat that the big tech companies had better do it, that they had better censor contrary opposition views on the pandemic, including the Great Barrington Declaration,
which was a bunch of scientists and doctors saying, whoa, we disagree with the government's heavy-handed approach.
So this was trying to get at the government secretly working with and secretly pushing big tech companies to censor other voices.
Am I right?
That's exactly right.
Yeah.
So we now, you know, the government had made public threats.
And when I say the government, specifically Joe Biden himself, Surgeon General Vivek Murphy, Biden's former press secretary, Jen Taki, they had all made statements on record saying that tech companies had better censor so-called misinformation about COVID.
And they cite misinformation as things like questioning whether masks work, you know, suggesting the vaccines don't stop transmission, questioning whether social distancing and lockdowns are a good idea.
So they had been making these threats, telling the tech companies they better censor so-called misinformation on these topics, or they would face repercussions in the form of regulation or other legal consequences.
And the tech companies have long feared repealing Section 230, which protects them from liability for content on their platforms.
So, you know, this is that's really important for the tech companies functioning because otherwise they have to sort of act as publishers if they can be held responsible for what people say.
So, you know, threatening them with repealing this is a very heavy-handed approach and had a real impact.
The companies did start censoring people for, you know, in response to this.
And that's a First Amendment violation because the government can't use private companies to accomplish what it otherwise couldn't.
And the government cannot censor people for expressing certain viewpoints.
You know, and censorship can take a number of forms.
I think it was literally just this week when Twitter announced it would stop, quote, fact-checking or fact-shaming or counter-posting on Twitter people who had alternative views on the pandemic.
This coincided with, I think, Pfizer dropping some of their ad campaign.
It just, it looks too on the nose.
There's different ways to censor.
You can throttle someone.
You can shut down or suspend their account.
You can also append to their statement an official statement that they're wrong.
In our country, Janine, I don't know if you heard about this.
A Christian pastor was given an order by a judge that anytime he said something in public or private on Facebook in a sermon and a media interview that contradicted the government line, he had to immediately take out a little statement written by the judge that basically renounced what he just said.
What I have said is, and that was later struck down by the Court of Appeal.
But that's a kind of a, imagine telling a human that they have to, they are ordered by the courts, that they have to personally renounce in a struggle session what I said was wrong.
I do not believe what I said.
Like that's an extreme version, but imagine doing that en masse to millions or billions of people using the machines of Twitter, YouTube, Google, Facebook, Instagram.
And that's what this suit's about.
That is, yeah.
And also this suit is broader than just COVID information.
So we're representing plaintiffs who were censored for COVID so-called misinformation, not really misinformation, but that's not really the point.
But the lawsuit itself actually covers also like the Hunter Biden laptop story, misinformation, quote unquote, about the 2020 election, climate change.
So there is sort of a large-scale effort by the government to censor views that depart from, you know, now the Biden administration's perspective on most of these subjects.
Are you at liberty to tell us some of the substantive questions and answer you got, or are these under some sort of confidentiality for the time being?
No, I'm able to talk about it.
So I would say Fauci was questioned extensively about his involvement in any censorship of the Great Barrington Declaration.
So the Great Barrington Declaration, which two of my clients wrote, was a short treatise.
The clients are epidemiologists from Harvard and Stanford.
And there was a third one who's not in this suit, but she's from Oxford.
And they, you know, very esteemed epidemiologists who thought that lockdowns were a really bad idea, that they would harm young people, the working class, you know, while failing to actually protect the people from COVID who needed protection, namely the older, more vulnerable people, medically vulnerable people.
So they wrote, they encapsulated their views in this treatise.
And in October of 2020, they were surprised that it was very rapidly, heavily censored on social media.
So I think Facebook took their page down.
Google, it became very hard when you search for it to find it.
Now, we know at the same time, there are emails between Fauci and Francis Collins at the NIH where Francis Collins wrote to Fauci and said this, you know, the Great Barrington Declaration needed to be, we needed to orchestrate a swift and devastating takedown of it.
And Fauci called it dangerous nonsense.
So we don't have direct evidence that they were responsible for the social media censorship, but we have this sort of circumstantial evidence and we were really trying to get to the bottom of it.
Now, there wasn't any smoking gun, which I had suspected.
I mean, Fauci's not going to admit, you know, I told Mark Zuckerberg to take down the Facebook page of the Great Barrington Declaration, and maybe he didn't.
We do know he talked to Zuckerberg, but we certainly don't have any direct evidence of that.
But he did say a number of interesting, other interesting things.
You know, the questioning sort of ended up going very, becoming much more broad.
So he did talk to the head of Facebook.
Were there any notes on that call or was it was it by phone?
No?
No, so it took place over the phone.
We know there were a couple of phone calls.
He and Zuckerberg had each other's numbers.
We know that from the discovery we obtained in this case.
And they had phone calls.
We don't know exactly what was said.
He claims he can't recall.
He can never recall anything.
That was the theme of this deposition.
I think he said he said someone counted it up.
He said, I can't recall something like 180 times or something.
And that doesn't even, they said the person who was telling me they had counted it said they weren't even counting variations.
Like, I can't quite recall or I don't remember.
So that's how he sort of deals with difficult questions.
Yeah, I wonder if that's credible.
I understand, I'm not sure where I saw this, but that he was saying, oh, come on, the idea that I, Dr. Fauci, who's responsible for a multi-billion dollar National Institutes for Health, the idea that I would be concerned by some little, what's it called again?
What's that thing called again?
Oh, the Great Barrington.
I almost forgot.
I give it so little concern when the internal emails, we've got to have a speedy and devastating rebuttal.
So he's obviously seized by it.
I mean, listen, you can be right whether you're a king or a peasant, but the fact that you said Harvard and Stanford and Oxford, these are not dummies.
These are people with reputations and pedigrees.
These are smart folks.
I'm sure it did.
I'm sure he, frankly, I'm sure he thought it was persuasive.
Otherwise, he wouldn't have cared.
So for him to suddenly say and confirm if this is true, oh, I didn't trouble myself with such trivial matters.
I was busy saving the world.
I didn't have time for this.
What's that called again?
Is that what it was like?
That was more or less a good paraphrase.
He said there were two.
One was, I'm too busy running.
I have a very busy day job running a $6 billion institute.
I don't have time to worry about, I didn't have time to be worried about things like the Great Barrington Declaration.
And then there was, I was too busy developing a vaccine that saved millions of lives to be concerned about what happens on social media.
So he claims he has no, he doesn't really know how social media works.
He's not on it.
You know, so that whenever he was questioned about social media, that was what he said.
You know, I didn't know that he developed these vaccines.
Well, the guy should get a Nobel Prize.
He just, is there nothing that Anthony Fauci can't do?
So let me ask you, in Canada, when we have depositions or examinations or whatever they're called, sometimes if the person being asked questions doesn't have the information at hand, they give an undertaking to either get the information later or provide documents later.
Did that apply here?
Did Fauci say, okay, well, I'll look this up and get back to you?
Does that happen in these depositions?
No.
No.
I mean, it could, but it didn't happen here.
He has too busy of a day to have time for that sort of thing.
Of course, of course.
The lawsuits for the little people.
So we have one side of the debate.
We have the Fauci side, the government side.
Will we ever hear from the Zuckerberg side and from the Twitter side of the other side of these phone calls?
It wouldn't surprise me that notes were taken, if not by Zuckerberg himself, that maybe someone one notch lower on the org chart.
Like I'm sure Zuckerberg and Fauci talked a few times, but then they delegated an errand to a chief of staff, to a, I don't know, to an assistant to do whatever the real work was to be done.
It wouldn't surprise me that there are some records, if not on the Fauci side, on the Facebook side.
I mean, if you're interacting with the government, and by the way, if there are hundreds of millions of dollars in grants for ads for social media, I mean, there was a lot of money behind propaganda and censorship, whether from the vaccine companies or from the government.
I bet there is a paper trail in these companies.
Will you or have you had access to that?
So we haven't had access to internal communications between tech employees, which we would like.
What I will say is that the question this case really presents is whether the tech companies were working with the government voluntarily or whether they were doing it solely because they felt coerced by the threats I mentioned earlier.
In my opinion, either of those scenarios is a First Amendment violation.
When the government and private companies are working together to censor certain viewpoints, that's a First Amendment violation.
Now, if it's because of coercion, it's really the government who's to blame and the government who's responsible for the First Amendment violation.
But if the companies are doing this voluntarily, then they're effectively state actors.
And so if they were coerced, they may want to start revealing information to that effect so that they can't be held responsible.
Because I think if you have like a bigger account like Alex Berenson's, you know, he, for people who don't know, he was suspended by Twitter.
It was clearly at the behest of the government.
He got internal documents that showed that where they were saying, you know, the White House is demanding we kick him off.
We're feeling a lot of pressure.
And then a couple of days later, weeks later, he's kicked off.
Even though, you know, they're saying we don't think he's violated anything.
And he had been told specifically he wasn't violating anything.
So he actually got, he sued Twitter and he's getting monetary damages for that because he made a lot of money off of his Twitter account.
So I think for large accounts who are kicked off who can show that they suffer financial losses, if it's this theory of coordination and collusion rather than coercion, the tech companies themselves are on the hook.
So they have a motivation to blame it on the government.
So that might be a reason that we would get access.
Very interesting.
So what's next?
You've examined or deposed Fauci.
Are there any other officials yet to be examined?
And what's next in the lawsuit?
So yeah, there are other depositions.
Actually, it was on, I believe, Thursday, Elvis Chan from the FBI was deposed.
He was the FBI agent who apparently was responsible for suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story on social media.
Wow.
That was a very interesting deposition, which I wasn't able to watch a lot of.
It was over Zoom because I couldn't go to San Francisco.
But I think you'll hear more about that later.
But we have some others coming up.
The most interesting ones are Surgeon General Vivek Murthy and Press Secretary Jennifer Saki.
They are fighting those at a higher court in the Fifth Circuit, but they're currently scheduled for December, various dates in December.
And so we'll see if those go forward.
In any event, once the depositions wrap up, we should have a hearing on the preliminary injunction.
We're still in the preliminary injunction phase of this case and then hopefully get a decision from the judge.
And I believe it will be a favorable one given the evidence that we've uncovered.
Wow.
I think Jen Sacchi, and I remember when we spoke about that a week or two ago, I think she is the key person.
I really think that she was more than just a press secretary.
I think she was a strategist.
I think she was a doer, a kind of executive.
And it's no wonder that she's fighting so hard to avoid this.
Well, this is very exciting.
Congratulations to you.
I look forward to it.
Please do come back to give us an update on Jen Sacchi or just as this lawsuit moves forward.
I think it will have some ramifications in Canada, too.
We're treated like a 51st state in many ways.
I mean, we're about the same size as California.
And I think our government is so eager to please not just the tech companies, but Joe Biden, too.
I bet there was a, and I know that we here at Rebel News have been censored.
We were demonetized, not for showing any violence or obscenity or anything like that.
We were demonetized for politics.
Wouldn't surprise me if it was a phone call from Trudeau.
We might find that out one day.
Anyways, for now, I can only speculate, but maybe we'll see what's revealed in your law.
So you keep it up, Janine.
It's great to catch up with you.
Thank you so much.
It was great to catch up.
Right on.
There you have a Janine Eunice.
She's a lawyer with the new Civil Liberties Alliance taking on the big tech, big government censorship project.
Stay with us.
More ahead.
Well, I hope I wasn't too jumbled up on those clips from the journalism panel in Ottawa.
Losing Monopoly Power00:01:20
It was very poorly attended.
I followed along.
There was a reporter from True North there that was live tweeting it.
And then I watched two hours of their live stream today.
I think what's interesting is they're raging against ordinary people talking back to them.
And they always have because they're losing their monopoly power.
They think journalism should be a guild, an elite club.
In fact, when we've applied to join the parliamentary press gallery, they've refused us.
Well, all right.
Or our viewers came to us instead of them.
We had more viewers at Rebel News during the trucker convoy than the media party did.
And they're losing ordinary readers, too, just because they refuse to engage in the participative conversation about democracy.
It started with talk radio, call-in radio in the 80s and 90s.
People felt great that they could finally talk back to journalists.
Then the internet, of course, exploded it, and citizen journalists and smartphones.
I think what we see here is an old media guard, even though some of them are young, they want an old system that rigs the rules.
They want to shut down their competitors and they want to shut up their viewers.
The terrifying thing, of course, is that the Liberal Party will go along with it.
I just hope that independent citizen journalists and our independent viewers are resilient enough to resist this.