Donald Trump’s arrest—without handcuffs or a mugshot—sparked fears of judicial weaponization, with critics like Tamara Ugalene calling it "hush money" propaganda despite unsealed indictments. Jacinda Ardern resigned amid "toxic" claims, yet her pandemic-era censorship push (Christchurch Call) and dismissal of non-government sources as untrue raised concerns about targeting dissidents over extremists. Canada’s Trudeau introduced four bills (C-11, C-18, C-36, Online Harms Act), with fines up to $70K for vague "toxic" content, mirroring past CRTC suppression tactics like Sun News Network’s shutdown. The U.S.’s conservative debate, exemplified by Marjorie Taylor Greene’s unfiltered 60 Minutes appearance, contrasts sharply with Canada’s creeping authoritarianism, exposing how politicized institutions stifle free speech and erode democracy under the guise of safety. [Automatically generated summary]
Ezra Levan here at our world headquarters in the greater Toronto area.
And joining me via Skype is our friend Tamara Ugalene.
Tamara, how you doing today?
Hey, Ezra, I'm doing well.
And how about you?
Oh, I'm doing fine.
There's so much going on.
I can't even believe it.
Last I heard today is the day that Donald Trump was going to be arrested.
Now, I've had my head down doing things for a couple hours.
Has it happened?
I understand they had a negotiated arrangement that they're not going to handcuff him.
They're not going to have the photograph, you know, when you face the camera and then turn left.
Like, they're not going to do that to him.
It would be pretty much ridiculous if they did.
Everyone knows his name.
Everybody knows his face.
He's not going to run anywhere.
But I think it's the end of an era of judicial independence in the United States, the end of an era of the rule of law.
Because if they can arrest and prosecute a former president for something completely unrelated to his work as president, for really an accounting issue regarding a payment to a stripper who says, signed a statement saying, no, I didn't sleep with him and no, the money didn't come from him.
You know, even if that's false, I don't even care.
If they can prosecute a president for that, they can prosecute a president for anything.
And why wouldn't Republican DAs go after Hillary Clinton for real things like deleting tens of thousands of emails, for having a private server, for having the Clinton Foundation where they pocket tens of millions of dollars from foreign government?
Why wouldn't they go after Hunter Biden and what they find there go after Joe Biden?
Why wouldn't they go after Obama for his dealings with the Russians?
Remember when he said to Medvedev, tell Vladimir that I'll have more flexibility after the election.
I mean, why wouldn't a Republican prosecute any and every single Democrat and Democrats prosecute every Republican?
And soon we have a lawless kangaroo court America.
And not surprisingly, the Democrats started.
I'm worried that this will bring the administration of justice into disrepute, but it's also going to start an arms race of prosecuting each, the other side.
What do you think?
Yeah, I think you hit the nail on the head there, Ezra, that this is a very clear weaponization of the judicial system to really use it against any sort of political opposition.
I mean, this is the non-disclosure agreement, which is being touted in the media as hush money, right?
So it's funny the way that words can also be weaponized against political opponents, and they are very clearly doing so using the media as their sort of state-backed lapdogs.
But there are so many details and nuances here that have just been hidden from the public.
Not hidden, but they will be unsealed today, I suppose, when the indictment happens and this so-called arrest, which sounds more like it's just going to be an appearance.
And I imagine that the Democrats are pretty upset that they're not getting their mugshot.
I think that this whole debacle and spectacle was really generated to get that mugshot, to get that clickbait.
And look, we have him.
He's cuffed.
He's getting his mug shot done.
He's getting his prints.
And they're not getting that satisfaction that I think was kind of par for the course in this witch hunt, really, this political witch hunt.
They couldn't find anything else.
So here they are coming up with a bunch of misdemeanor charges, trying to have it escalated.
And still we don't have all of the details on the indictment itself.
And all of the alleged misdemeanors are really unclear.
So I guess we'll find out more, hopefully today.
I mean, this was supposed, this is going back last week and I think even prior to.
And so it's just been continually dragged on and out.
And as that happens, I think that the support for Trump just gains traction.
You know, I think that the media has cried wolf so often.
Oh, Russia gate.
We've got the proof that he was in collusion with the Russians.
Oh, his tax returns.
All we need is tax returns.
And we'll show that he broke the law.
Well, at the end of after spending, what, $100 million on the Mueller investigation, the Russiagate, there was nothing there.
They leaked or they grabbed his tax returns after he fought that for years.
There was nothing there.
How many times have they said the walls are closing in on him?
Michael Avenatti and Stormy Daniels have him on the run.
Well, actually, it's Michael Avenatti that's in jail now.
And I think it's good that he didn't get a photograph of him in handcuffs because Donald Trump's appeal to Republicans and to Americans in general is, I'm a winner.
I'm going to win so much.
You're going to be sick of winning.
We're going to win.
We're going to succeed.
I can get it done.
Having a picture of a man in handcuffs would make the Democrats squeal with delight and would send a shocking image around the world.
But it's not in Trump's interest.
I think that everyone knows that he is being vilified and picked on by the system.
And that's a problem when you see FBI agents cheering, like, you know, past FBI directors, senior FBI officers like Peter Strzok, James Comey cheering all this.
They feel good cheering it, but don't they know that half of Americans now think the FBI, the CIA, the deep state, the attorneys general, and even the police, don't they know that they no longer think of those institutions as for all Americans or neutral, but they now say, okay, so you're a cop, you're FBI, you're a DA, you are a hostile partisan enemy.
Public Distrust in Institutions00:05:23
I can't pretend that you're on my side.
Why should I be on your side?
I think this has done, I mean, who knows?
Maybe this will finish off Trump.
He already lost the last election and he's getting a little long in the truth for a run in 2024.
But hasn't the enduring damage here been damage to the institutions?
And I think it'll take a generation for people to trust those institutions again.
What do you think?
The lack of impartiality is something that we've kind of seen happen all across Democratic nations, but primarily in the West.
And it's really been heightened and highlighted by the COVID narrative and all of the nuances that have come along with that.
So snap elections, political interference, electoral interference.
All of these things are really starting to cause a groundswell of general public distrust in all levels of government, our institutions, which are supposed to be impartial and neutral, as you said.
And it's really starting to boil to a head.
And I think that this is just further evidenced by this witch hunt against Donald Trump for something that many politicians engage regularly in and are never prosecuted criminally for.
I mean, look at Justin Trudeau himself.
He's supposed to have this non-disclosure agreement with a minor.
It's called a non-disclosure agreement.
No one's ever referred to it as hush money, which, I mean, maybe it's conflated.
I don't know.
You know, I haven't seen a Trudeau non-disclosure agreement, but it's remarkable.
For example, Rose Knight, the woman Trudeau admits to sexually assaulting in Creston, B.C.
She hasn't said a word.
Is that her own choice, really?
Or was she paid a half a million dollars to sign a nondisclosure agreement?
We don't know.
And the media is not very curious.
I want to show, I mean, in the case of this New York DA, the district attorney for Manhattan, he's a hard left-wing woke progressive activist.
He sets all manner of actual criminals go.
And he prosecutes, for example, he prosecuted a shopkeeper who used a gun to defend himself against someone who shot him.
He's atrocious.
So you have embedded activists like him and James Comey, et cetera.
But then you just have woke people who were woke in college just sort of being wafted up in life.
I want to show you a video.
I've shown this before on my show.
This is the lead juror on the grand jury in Georgia because they were trying to get some indictment against Trump, too.
I'm not as familiar with how the American system works.
I went to law school in Canada.
I practiced law in Canada in the past.
We don't have this same system.
I think a DA has to convince a certain group of jurors to press charge.
I don't know how it works, but so this is a lay person, but this was the lead juror on the Georgia grand jury that was going to subpoena Trump.
I just want you to see, and by the way, it's completely illegal for her to go public and yap about it.
But look at the kind of person, and I guess they had a grand jury in New York full of these people.
Take a look at this.
This is someone who said, yep, I want to prosecute Trump, and here's why.
Take a look.
Personally, want to hear from the former president.
I wanted to hear from the former president, but honestly, I kind of wanted to subpoena the former president because I got to swear everybody in.
And so I thought it'd be really cool to get 60 seconds with President Trump of me looking at him and being like, do you solemnly swear at me getting to swear him in?
I just, I kind of just thought that would be an awesome moment.
Personally.
That is literally the head of the grand jury in Georgia.
I mean, having too much fun.
Yeah.
Someone, a tourist in the legal system, yeah.
A pawn in a partisan DA's attempt to get Trump.
Well, in New York City, they had a grand jury that said, yeah, let's go after Trump.
But that's the thing.
I think you have blue state justice and red state justice.
If you are a Republican, if you're a conservative, don't get charged in Washington, D.C. or Manhattan or Chicago or L.A. You will not get justice.
How many January 6th rioters, and we saw the imagery once they were inside the Capitol building, they were actually meanderers who were being led around by police.
How many of those people have been languishing in solitary confinement for, what, two years now?
And there's no chance of a fair trial.
They're no jury, no judge.
I think that you pump enough radicalism into law schools.
That's going to take 5, 10, 20 years to work its way through the system.
But you now have radical woke judges, let alone prosecutors.
And again, I weep for the rule of law in America.
Anyway, I want to move on from the Trump thing, Tamara, because I don't know how much news there is other than I understand that he actually did go through the process earlier today.
Gender Lie Detector Test00:03:56
And I don't propose that we attempt to give live coverage to it.
I don't think we're equipped for that.
But I did want to talk about it because I see it as a dangerous trend.
But there are other things I want to talk about.
Let's hop to the other side of the world.
Avi did a TikTok on this.
Efron, I don't know if you want to grab Avi's TikTok or if you just want to use the New Zealand Prime Minister clip that we ran.
But Abby did a great banter back and forth that you can find on his TikTok.
But I'll take whichever version.
Yeah, that's it right there.
Can you put that online?
This is just great.
This is a question that every single person knows the answer to.
I think two-year-olds know the answer to this.
So if you're 30 or 40 or 50 and you don't know the answer, it's not, you're lying.
So it becomes sort of a lie detector test.
Every single human being knows what a woman is.
So when you don't answer or say you don't know, you're not showing you're smart.
You're showing that you're a liar.
And why would you lie?
Because you are so scared of telling the truth.
It's a fascinating lie detector test.
Look at this.
And Avi does a great job here.
Take a look.
You will not believe the toughest question New Zealand's caretaker prime minister has received so far.
How do you?
and how does this government define a woman?
To be honest, Sean, that question's come slightly out of left field for me.
The well, biology, sex, gender.
People define themselves.
People define their own genders.
That doesn't really answer the question.
Let's try that again.
I'd ask again, how do you define what a woman is?
Well, I think as I've just indicated, I wasn't expecting that question, so it's not something that I've pre-formulated an answer on.
If you need to pre-formulate an answer to what a woman is, you should be running a country.
Try attending kindergarten.
Not kindergarten in today's schools, though.
They are teaching them that, you know, gender is this social construct and we have to denounce the stereotypes of them.
If you go to kindergarten here in certain provinces in Canada, you may not be taught the difference between a man and a woman and what constitutes a woman.
And I don't think that it is a biologist that needs to define a woman.
Like you said, Ezra, anyone can define what a woman is and it's an adult female.
We have various physical, et cetera, differences than men.
And the refusal to acknowledge that is just absolutely absurd.
Every day, I can't believe that we are here and that we have people, as Avi said, running a country who is too afraid to simply define what a woman is.
Yeah.
You know, you're so right.
Here I am.
I'm 51.
So I'm laughing.
Ha ha.
Everyone knows what, but you are so right.
That would be like saying everyone knows who Jimmy Carson was.
No, not if you're under 40.
Oh, well, everyone knows Benny Hill.
No, not if you're under 50.
You know, so here I am laughing about it.
And Matt Walsh of the Daily Wire, who's done important work on this, he's got to be late 40s.
Regurgitated Truths00:03:05
If you are in school today, it wouldn't be a lie detector test.
It would be a memorization test.
Can you regurgitate the baffle gab that your teachers told you about what a woman is?
Chris Hipkins, the new New Zealand prime minister, he looks like he's around 40, would you say?
So he knows and he's lying.
But you are exactly right.
If you were to ask high school kids or college kids, they would not give, they probably would know, but they would be so terrified of giving the wrong answer, they would just regurgitate what the teachers told them.
And that's if the teachers would tell them at all.
The curriculums have been so radicalized by these diversity, inclusion, radical social justice warriors, because that's what they are.
For some school boards, I've been searching out who the policy advisors are on a lot of the curriculum that's been coming down the pike in the last few years, and mainly in Ontario, because that's where I'm located.
But a lot of these diversity, equity, inclusion advisors self-describe themselves as social justice activists.
They're not even hiding their political leanings.
And these are the people who are advising entire school boards on policy, how to institute human resources, change checks and balances, bring in what are called supplementary materials.
So we see a lot of very highly sexualized, even at times pornographic content materials being readily accessible to children in elementary school in their libraries, in our public libraries.
This is going, you know, the politicization of school.
And, you know, as we just talked about with Trump, the politicization of the judicial system, this is becoming a slippery slope of lack of neutrality, lack of impartiality, and people with clear political agendas are infiltrating and arguably have been for decades, these systems and undermining that very neutrality that used to garner the trust of the public.
They are no longer institutions that we can say, oh, you know, that's where you go to learn your ABCs and your 123s.
No, that's where you can also go to learn radical ideologies that are based on theories instead of actual facts, as the facts, like learning ABCs and 123s, are completely disregarded for preference to this one-sided narrative under this umbrella of being inclusive and tolerant.
And as we see more and more protests and public, sort of the silent majority, as I like to call them, coming forward and denouncing many of these trends, these people who claim to be inclusive and tolerant are in fact the exact opposite, right?
It's like Antifa being anti-fascism, when in fact they use fascism to just silence any of their opponents and anyone who may disagree with them.
I want to whip through a few more news stories.
Jacinda Ardern's Legacy00:16:11
I mentioned that Chris Hipkins, because he's at least the acting prime minister of New Zealand.
There have been two young World Economic Forum leaders who have recently exited politics.
And I think the world is a better place for her.
One is Jacinda Ardern, the former prime minister of New Zealand.
You just saw her successor there, Who Can't Define a Woman.
Jacinda Ardern was absolutely atrocious.
She probably had the most brutal lockdown in the Western world.
I don't think we properly covered it because New Zealand really became a bit of a hermit kingdom.
You couldn't get in or out.
They were extremely censorious.
You might know they kept our reporter, Avi Amini, out of the country.
Like they literally banned foreign reporters from reporting on how bad things were.
So that's Jacinda Ardern.
I've got something to say about what she's up to next in a moment.
But I want to show you One of the worst leaders in the world was another World Economic Forum acolyte named Sanna Marin, if I'm pronouncing that right.
And she was the prime minister of Finland, and she just got booted with the biggest boot you ever did see.
She was the worst.
She was not woke like AOC.
She was much more controlled.
She was just a pure World Economic Forum Davos robot and just trounced in the last election, completely thrown out.
I want to show you how I'll always remember her as an empty-headed, irresponsible, drunk raver.
And I'm not saying you can't have fun in life if you're over 30, or you can't have fun in life if you're a prime minister.
I am saying that if you're a serious person who, for example, is voting to ally your country with NATO, I don't know how wise it is for Finland to give up decades of neutrality and join NATO when it's right next to Russia.
I don't know if that's wise.
I don't know enough about the subject.
I know that Finland has been invaded in the past by Russia.
And by the way, they fought Russia very boldly.
But I feel like this woman is not only reckless and unserious, but open to blackmail.
Take a look.
Here's one of many videos of her just at a rave.
Take a look at this.
And that's just one party.
And again, I'm not saying you can't have fun.
She's 37 years old, so maybe it's time to grow up when you're almost on the wrong side of 40.
And she's an attractive young woman hitting the nightclubs, going to raves in private residences.
There's other, I won't get into all the party videos for her.
And this is not my way of saying I don't like people having fun or I don't like parties.
But when you are the prime minister of a country that is joining NATO, that is bellicose towards Russia, that's implementing a very strident globalist agenda, maybe come across as serious.
I think, I wonder how many Finns kicked her out and put in place instead a conservative leading government, partly in response to her total lack of seriousness.
And I don't think it's enough for a young woman to say, oh, you're just against me having fun or you're just against me being a young woman.
I don't think so.
Golden Meyer and Deera Gandhi, Benazir Bhutto, Margaret Thatcher, I suppose they weren't 37.
Well, actually, let me check.
How old was Margaret Thatcher when she was first elected?
She was born in 1925, Margaret Thatcher.
Let me write that.
I'm going to do some quick math here.
And she was in office as PM in 1979.
So, okay, so she was 54 when she became PM.
But she was a leader of the Conservative Party in 1975, so she was 50.
And where was she?
An MP. Member of Parliament 1959.
So she was 25 plus 9.
She was 34 when she first became an MP.
Sorry for the math.
By the time Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, she was in her 50s.
The United Kingdom is a very serious country, a nuclear country.
If I'm not mistaken, it's on the Security Council of the United Nations.
It's part of the Five Eyes Alliance.
It's an incredibly important trading country.
It's an economic powerhouse.
Of course, it's a former empire in the Commonwealth.
So to become the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is a much larger achievement than becoming the Prime Minister of Finland, a country of 5 million people.
I mean, London itself is twice the size of Finland.
But I don't think Margaret Thatcher was hit in the raves.
I think because she was so deeply gripped by the demands and the responsibility of leading the United Kingdom.
Yeah, it's not just...
Go ahead.
Well, I was just going to say, it's not just a lack of seriousness.
It's about upholding professionalism and being that a public leader, right?
You're trying to lead a nation, especially through some tumultuous times.
So I'm relieved to hear that Finland's taken that sway, that they are doing away with this woke nonsense that is more focused on having fun and being unserious and lacking that professionalism that's needed to be a reputable leader.
No one had any good, you know, there's not great historical context there for leaders that took to partying while very primarily delegating their duties or neglecting their professional duties.
I mean, I just, I think the media party loved it.
The World Economic Reform Forum loved it.
I think ideological fellow travelers liked it.
And I think feminists said, yes, slay queen.
But I just don't know if that's a serious, if that's how the head of a NATO country should be in heavy times of war.
I don't know.
Jacinda Ardern is also out, and she quit.
She wasn't thrown out by voters.
I think she was about to be thrown out.
She is just as bad as Santa Marin, in some ways worse.
New Zealand, I mentioned Finland's got about 5.5 million people in it.
New Zealand is, let me just check the population of New Zealand.
It can't be much bigger.
In fact, it's a little bit smaller.
So being the prime minister of New Zealand is like being the mayor of Toronto.
Looks like there's about 5 million souls in New Zealand.
So Jacinda Ardern and Santa Marin were prime ministers of countries, but if they were in North America, it would be like the mayor of a big city.
And I'm not downplaying it.
I mean, it's an important job in that country, and you do have a seat at the table of nations.
In the case of New Zealand, they're part of the Five Eyes Alliance.
They have a brave past militarily, but I think they've marginalized themselves by getting into China's orbit.
Jacinda Ardern quit before she was fired.
Like Santa Marin, she was the darling of the World Economic Forum.
When she was young, she was the president of the International Union of Socialist Youth.
So she was like a young pioneer.
And I think she really wreaked havoc on her own country in a lot of ways, extremely authoritarian.
So she is out, but I see the news, and Efron, I don't know if you have it there, that she is now.
I'm reading from a CTV story.
I'll pop that in Slack if you want to put it on the screen.
I just grabbed a random story.
Here's the story.
Jacinda Ardern to begin new role combating online extremism.
I'm just reading the CTV version from the Associated Press.
It's probably the exact same story you've got on the screen there.
Jacinda Ardern, who stepped down as New Zealand's prime minister in January, will begin an unpaid role this month combating online extremism.
I just put it in Slack, the version I'm quoting from.
New Zealand Prime Minister Chris Hipkins, who took over as leader from Ardern, announced Tuesday he'd appointed Ardern as special envoy for the Christchurch Call.
That's the name of their censorship project.
Hipkins and Ardern would begin the part-time, said Ardern would begin the part-time role this month, right after she leaves parliament, and that she declined to accept any pay.
He said the role would be reviewed at the end of the year.
Ardern launched the Christchurch Call with French President Emmanuel Macron in 2019, two months after a white supremacist gunman killed 51 people at two mosques in the New Zealand city of Christchurch.
The gunman live streamed the slaughter for 17 minutes on Facebook before the video was taken down.
Christ Church Call's goal is to eliminate terrorist and violent extremist content online.
More than 50 countries have since signed up to the Christchurch Call, including the United States, Britain, Germany, and South Korea.
Tech companies to sign up, include Facebook, parent company Meta, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, YouTube, Zoom, and Twitter.
Now, let me stop right there.
If the Christchurch Call, if this censorship project was truly as described by the Associated Press here, who on earth could possibly oppose it?
I just read it to you.
Christchurch Call's goal is to eliminate terrorist and violent extremist content online.
Well, who could possibly be against that?
Do you think that that's all it is?
Do you think that's really all it is?
I'm on the Christchurch call.
Go to ChristchurchCall.com and then click about and then click text.
Do you want me to put that in the slack for you?
Supporters of the Christchurch Call have made 25 commitments, they say.
Oh, I thought it was just about one thing.
Those commitments, including its censorship.
Now, obviously, I'm against terrorism.
think terrorism should be censored.
I'm doing this in real time here.
You know what?
I should have prepared.
I just thought of this as we go.
But let me tell you, it is much more than just against terrorism.
If it was against terrorism, it would be open and shut.
It would already be done by now.
What it is against is political dissidents and contrarians.
It was really the precursor to what is these days called misinformation and disinformation.
Things that would pick people against the establishment narrative.
If the Christchurch Call were truly just about shutting down terrorism, you wouldn't need the former president of the International Socialist Youth to lead it.
It would be led by Interpol.
It would be led by police, by the New York Police Department and other anti-terrorist groups.
That's not what it's about.
You don't have the most censorious authoritarian prime minister of New Zealand going to do a policing job.
She's doing a word policing job.
And I'm sorry I couldn't find it faster as I was scrolling through it on the internet.
So, yeah, Jacinda Ardern, she wrecked New Zealand, got out before they threw her out.
And now she seeks to evangelize the world with her censorship.
Justin Trudeau doesn't need any lessons from her, though, Jamara, does he?
I think he's well on the way to censor Canadians on his own, with or without the Christchurch call.
That's right.
Actually, I think I pulled up a point here on the Christchurch call.
And one part, they say they want to develop effective interventions based on trusted information sharing about the effects of algorithmic and other processes to redirect users from what they say are terrorists and violent extremist content.
And so, again, this is all open to their interpretation and their definition of what that means and what those words really constitute and what they are.
Just recently, I listened to almost three full days of testimony at the National Citizens Inquiry this past weekend in Toronto.
It was part two, I suppose, of I think about a seven-part process where the inquiry, which is citizen-led and citizen-funded, will travel across the country to hear testimonies from citizens negatively affected by COVID-related mandates and restrictions.
One of the testimonies was by seasoned veteran journalist Rodney Palmer, former CBC CTV News.
He worked very heavily in the mainstream, investigative journalist, many foreign missions, including covering the SARS epidemic in, oh, I can't remember where exactly.
I think it may have been China, but anyway, don't quote me on that.
And he shared a really compelling testimony about how the CBC, so in Canada, our state broadcaster essentially was what they've been turned into, how they have been part of this trusted news initiative.
And it's a collective agreement between governments and their state broadcasters.
And they really focus on propaganda instead of news gathering, right?
So it's no longer about gathering facts and data and independent experts, but it's rather about towing the line of whatever the government and throughout the COVID narrative, what public health wanted you to believe.
And so it's about trust and garnering trust, not about truth.
And he, for anyone who's interested, you could go back and find his testimony.
And I think they've clipped it down to be an individual video on their Rumble channel, the National Citizens Inquiry.
Very interesting stuff.
And so this is clearly what Christchurch Call is engaging in here is this trusted news initiative where they're more vested in making sure that you just trust what they say verbatim based on their experts and what they want you to believe rather than following the facts and gathering news wherever it may lead you.
Source Truth Disputes00:08:10
You know, Sorry, keep going.
No, yeah, well, and I was just going to say, and that's what Justin Trudeau is instituting.
The Liberals have, you know, put forward Bill C-18, Bill C-11, that keeps, in the case of Bill C-11, is going back and forth between the Senate and the House of Commons because they can't agree on what the reasonable limitations are on user-generated content.
And so what Justin Trudeau is trying to do through the use of, again, weaponization of legislation and the process by which we're supposed to engage in our democratic process, we're going to see sweeping censorship of online platforms.
And specifically here at Rebel News, a lot of what we do contradicts what the mainstream would have you believe and what that state broadcaster has been engaging in over the past, I mean, several years.
And so they're doing this work now as a trusted news initiative.
And the governments are allowing this reign of censorship to infiltrate our online content, what we can access, produce, and otherwise find online will all be defined by whatever the government says is right or wrong thing or wrong speech.
Let me show you some of the things.
I did a whole monologue on the Christchurch call and I'll have to dig it up because at least the way it's being implemented in Canada, it goes into political dissonance, not terrorists, but people who simply politically disagree with Trudeau.
And Trudeau's a big booster of it.
I just put into the Slack, Efron, a couple of clips to show you where Jacinda Ardern is coming from when it comes to speech.
One of the most astonishing things she said.
Yeah, let's start with this clip.
This is one I just thought I'd show.
People said, oh, she was driven out of office by misogyny.
No, no.
She quit because she was atrociously unpopular because of how she abused New Zealanders.
Take a listen to this.
I remain absolutely clear and I really want to reinforce.
I did not leave because I felt that I was being given too much of a hard time.
And yet the woman who did this in 2020, the only PM to win a majority government under MMP, could also read the room.
And two years after this remarkable victory, the room was turning.
Sitting in the back of my mind was this question and belief that perhaps my departure might bring the tempo, the heat, the friction that had come into politics, that it might take it down a pig.
And if it did, that would be good for New Zealand.
I remain absolutely.
So I think nothing became her in office like the leaving of it.
I think the two things she said there were actually laudatory.
The first is she said, no, I wasn't hounded out of there.
I didn't leave.
The media said, oh, she was hounded up because of misogyny.
She said, no.
And then the second thing she did say is, you know what?
I was becoming a bit toxic.
I was becoming a bit radioactive.
And me leaving would probably be good for New Zealand.
That's the most honest that woman's ever been in her life.
Now, she got over that brief spade of humility, and now she's going to be the envoy to the world bringing censorship around the globe.
I want to show you a video of her early in the pandemic.
And you might think this is fake.
I assure you this is real.
It was widely reported at the time.
She said, listen to no one else, believe no one else except the government.
We are your only source of truth.
Who do you think you are?
Are you Jesus?
If Jesus Christ was standing in front of me and said, I am your only source of truth, I would say yes.
But there is no other person, place, or thing, organization, government, or authority who would say, we are your only source of truth.
In fact, by saying that she and the New Zealand politicians were your only source of truth, she proves that's a lie in itself.
The very statement that they are your only source of truth is a lie and thus proves it false and proves that she's a deceiver.
Take a listen to this, and this is the person in charge of global censorship rules.
a look daily you can trust us as a source of that information you can also trust the director general of health and the ministry of health for that information do feel free to visit at any time to clarify any rumor you may hear covid19.govt.nz Otherwise, dismiss anything else.
We will continue to be your single source of truth.
We will provide information frequently.
We will share everything we can, everything you are, else you see a grain of salt.
And so I really ask people to focus.
The most outrageous example of that appears to be this text which originated in Malaysia and has kind of become a viral hope in Australia and in New Zealand.
How irresponsible is it the people that are sharing that news of a lockdown imminent in New Zealand?
Yeah, and look, that's the kind of thing that adds to the anxiety that people feel.
So I continue to share the message.
New Zealanders must prepare, but do not panic.
Prepare.
And when you see those messages, remember that unless you hear it from us, it is not the truth.
And I really ask people, just visit covid19.govt.enz.
It has all of the up-to-date information.
And we will continue to provide everything you need to know.
Oh my God.
Dismiss anything else.
Unless you hear it from us, it is not true.
We are your single source.
We will tell you everything you need to know.
Lord thundering Jesus, Joseph, and Mary, she actually said those things.
And even there, I think there was a question there about some foreign rumor about a lockdown in New Zealand.
She said, no, If you don't hear it from us, it's not true.
Well, actually, it became true, didn't it?
They locked down extremely hard there.
Imagine the arrogance, the hubris, the God complex of someone who says, if I don't say it, it is not true.
I'm telling you in advance, whatever you hear from someone else is a lie.
Whatever you hear from me is a truth, no matter what I say, no matter what someone else says.
Imagine the audacity.
I mean, there's a Yiddish word, chutzpah, and one of the funny fake definitions of it is a man who kills his parents and then says to the judge, Judge, show mercy.
I'm an orphan.
That's an example of chutzpah.
Outrageous audacity, gall, temerity.
That's what chutzpah means.
Imagine the outrageous audacity, the temerity, the chutzpah, to say, in advance, whatever anyone else says is a lie.
In advance, whatever I will say in the future is true.
You should not listen to anyone else from me.
It's all lies.
Everything I say is true.
Dismiss anything else.
Unless you hear it from me, it's not true.
I am your single source.
Are you a cult leader?
Because unless you are Jesus himself, and that woman was the Prime Minister of New Zealand, smaller than the city of Toronto, ran that place abusively.
And the only thing about her tenure that was admirable was the way she left it.
Just outrageous.
Marjorie Taylor's Legacy00:15:15
What do you think of all that?
Have you seen that clip before, Tamara?
I have.
Yeah, you know, it was nice to have that reminder because I think that was sometime in 2020, maybe even the early months of 2021.
But that's, you know, COVID really paved the way for these governments to act this way and to be the purveyors of information.
And anything else that you hear that counteracts any of that is just blatant miss or disinformation.
And we should denounce those people.
We should silence them.
They need to be censored.
And now we're seeing in Canada our government, including, you know, even as recently as parliamentarians being briefed on the Liberals' plans to create a digital safety commission.
And this comes as the government is pushing through, as I mentioned, legislation like Bill C-18 and Bill C-11 that would see sweeping regulation of the internet, subject largely to the Canadian Radio Television Broadcasting Corporation.
And it's so ambiguously worded that even they don't know how they're going to largely enforce or withstand this type of legislation.
But this is an article that came out of Blacklocks, and they're committed to web censors.
So cabinet, in a letter to MPs, said it is committed to appointing an internet censor board called a Digital Safety Commission to police legal content, but set no deadline for the legislation.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau earlier described uncensored speech as destabilizing.
And I guess he's referring to the destabilization of our democracy that we've seen under his government, who claims to be transparent, open, and honest, and then hides behind all blacked out freedom of information requests, appoints people that are politically aligned with him to investigate himself, and a government who has the most ethics breaches out of any other prime minister in Canada's history and just says, sorry,
maybe I'll take a slap on the wrist and a couple of my MPs will resign, but I'll continue my reign of terror.
The article here goes on to say that the government of Canada is considering the creation of a new digital safety commission.
The agency would monitor internet content deemed hurtful through legal.
The government of Canada is committed to developing new rules for platforms that are backed by strong enforcement mechanisms.
So in, you know, in the sense of Bill C-11, which I imagine would probably be leaned on heavily if and when it passes, which it's very close to, very broad, heavy fines for anyone who's found to be in non-compliance with whatever the government deems as miss or disinformation or content that is hurtful or hateful or harmful.
And again, those definitions are largely ambiguously worded and open to the interpretation of the government itself.
This isn't something that you see being upheld in a free and democratic nation where you have all the information presented and accessible to you and the citizens are informed and intelligent enough to make their own informed choices and decisions and come to their own conclusions and then robustly debate and discuss them.
No, instead, we see that we need sweeping censorship and online content regulation, arguably, in order for a government like this to remain in power.
Yeah.
You know, Justin Trudeau has four bills either in the House of Commons or the Senate or about to be introduced.
Four to censor the internet.
He's obsessed with it.
Like I say, he doesn't need any lessons from Jacinda Ardern.
He's got Bill C-11, which regulates the internet, gives, puts it under the control of the CRTC, Bill C-18, called the online, one's the online streaming act, the other is the online news act.
They will regulate Facebook, Google, YouTube.
Bill C-36, which was introduced and died in the last Parliament, which will be reintroduced, has fines of up to $70,000 for people who say hurty things online.
And then the final one called the Online Harms Act, which hasn't been introduced yet, but a backgrounder has been published, would, like you say, criminalize lawful but awful commentary.
I want to show you something I was referring to through Christ Church Call.
I found it, and I sent it to you in Slack there, Efron.
It's a global news story called Canada Considering Forcing Social Media Companies to Remove Extremist Content.
And this was after the Christchurch terrorist attack.
But look at the difference in wording.
So they're quoting Ralph Goodale, who was still in government at the time.
I'm just going to read it.
Let me read a bit.
I'm going to whip through this really quickly.
So this is four years ago now, three years ago.
Canada is considering whether to force social media companies to remove hateful and extremist content online.
Okay, hang on, what happened to the terrorist part?
The violent part?
When I read the Christ Church Call, it said violent terrorism.
Of course, I'm forbidding that.
But hateful and extremist, what does that mean?
This comes after a spate of terrorist attacks in New Zealand, Quebec City, etc.
We will look at that very, very carefully, said Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale.
This has been a subject of discussion among ministers at the Five Eyes meetings.
That's Canada, Australia, New Zealand, U.S., U.K. where ample discussion has been held on how we encourage the social media platforms to move quickly and efficiently to deal with toxic communications like this and that incite violence and hatred and obviously do great damage to social cohesion.
Okay, so incite violence or incite hatred, because you said this was about terrorism, and now you're just talking about hate, which is a human emotion.
If you go on, you see this elision routinely, that they throw in two things that everyone hates.
Every respectable person hates terrorism and child pornography.
So whenever you see internet censorship, they lead with, we're going to get rid of child pornography, we're going to get rid of terrorism.
And I'm like, all right, that sounds great.
But then, when you look at the details, and I won't go deeper into this story right now, you say, oh, but it includes extremist ideas, hatred, toxic.
Well, okay, what's that?
Who defines what toxic is?
Disinformation, misinformation?
Okay, whoa, You said this was about terrorism and child pornography, and I agree.
Let's ban that.
But now you're sneaking in catch-all words that cover literally everything you don't like.
You demonize anyone against you as misinformation, disinformation, hateful, bigoted, toxic.
These are just insults.
Toxic, that doesn't even have a meaning.
Like a toxic chemical, maybe I would understand, but a toxic, what does the word toxic have to do with word?
I know what terrorism is.
There's a legal definition of it.
I know what child pornography is.
There's a legal definition of it.
What is hateful communication?
Well, that's easy, actually.
It's anything that Justin Trudeau hates.
What you see there, and I was trying to prove it, and I was just doing it on the fly, is that the kind of censorship bills that Jacinda Ardern and Justin Trudeau are promoting are they're stowaways.
They're sneaking in along with the kind of censorship that I think most people would support terrorism and childborn.
They're sneaking in bands of ideas that are simply peaceful political disagreement.
And I think that's what's so nerve-wracking here.
Now, Tamir, it's 153.
We've got seven minutes more.
Got a list of interesting things to talk about.
You go ahead.
Well, we have a super chat, so we'll just get to that before we move on.
And I know I think we had to wrap up just a couple minutes early to make way for the studio space.
So keep an eye on the time.
But we have one super chat from Frasier McBurney.
Thanks, Frasier.
He gives $6.
The cops' motto is, quote, we serve and protect, end quote.
It should be, quote, we pillage and plunder.
I know because I'm a victim of them.
Thank you, Rebel News.
And so Fraser McBurney is one of our Fight the Fines clients.
I can't recall the details of his case exactly, but he was being represented for fines that he received through the COVID hysteria, likely due to gathering restrictions and the inability to protest peacefully and freely in what was once our free and democratic nation.
So thank you again, Frasier.
I see another super chat just came in from Maminka, 10 bucks.
Oh, yeah, the government will protect us, I'm sure.
Well, they call everything public safety and public health, don't they?
I mean, the things they got away with in the name of public health were just as atrocious and outrageous.
Public safety is another.
Yeah, I think that's the big front line in the battle for 2023.
You know, when Rebel News was started, we started online deliberately to avoid the CRTC regulator, which shut down Sun News.
I was on a TV channel called Sun News Network.
It was despised by the bureaucrats and politicians at the CRTC regulator.
They had the power to remove the license.
They had the power to set the amount of cable fees.
They had so much power over it.
As I watched them euthanize the Sun News Network, despite more than $20 million having to be poured into the project by a peer called Peloto, I thought, boy, will I never get involved with that again.
So we set up Rebel News online only.
Well, eight years later, Trudeau has realized that online only is where the discussion is, and he's coming to censor us.
You know, I want to show one last thing.
It's 155 Eastern, 1155 Mountain, and we do have to go really quick, but I want to show one more clip.
And there's so many things I like about this.
There's some very interesting Republicans.
Started to talk about Trump.
Let's end with some of the politicians in the Congress.
I just want to get her name exactly right.
Marjorie Taylor Green.
Marjorie Taylor Green is a congressman from Georgia, if I'm not mistaken.
And she's really hardlined.
She's really tough.
And she's tough physically.
I've seen her do pull-ups or chin-ups.
Those are hard to do, by the way.
Like she's a tough woman.
She's tough talking.
She's very pro-Trump, very America-first.
And by the way, she doesn't care what people say about her.
She's water off a duck's back.
She's so tough.
I mean, so, anyways, she was on 60 Minutes.
And 60 Minutes is an iconic liberal show.
I think it's on CBS if Memory Serves.
I mean, some of the most liberal journalists in America, it really is like the New York Times of TV in terms of its pedigree and its reputation.
So she went on 60 Minutes and I forget the name of the the interviewer who.
Yeah, one of their longtime journalists there.
Leslie Stahl.
That's it.
First of all, kudos to Leslie Stahl and to 60 Minutes for having her on.
Maybe they thought it was going to be a turkey shoot.
Maybe they thought, this will be fine.
But they actually, to their credit, let her answer questions.
And she, you know, the worst thing conservatives do is when they're shy and afraid, and some liberal journalist says, what?
Did you really mean to say blah, blah, blah, which the person just said?
Are you serious?
Did you just say XYZ?
And the journalist just reads the emotion of, oh, I still, oh, no, no, no, I did.
You see, I didn't mean it.
That's the weak Aaron O'Toole Doug Ford conservative approach.
Whereas the Marjorie Taylor Greene approach would be, yeah, good.
Okay, good.
You heard me.
Yes, that's exactly what I believe.
And what's the journalist to say other than, what, what, what?
Watch this.
Watch this beautiful exchange between Leslie Stahl and Marjorie Taylor Greene.
And frankly, my esteem goes up for both of them, including for Leslie Stahl, for doing the interview and for letting this go to air.
Take a look.
And things she says that are over the top, like the Democrats are a party of pedophiles.
I would definitely say so.
They support grooming children.
They are not pedophiles.
Why would you say that?
Democrats support, even Joe Biden, the president himself supports children being sexualized and having transgender surgeries.
Sexualizing children is what pedophiles do to children.
100%.
Okay.
And things.
Yeah, saying, wow, okay, it's not really a rebuttal.
And I mean, that was Leslie Stahl's way of telegraphing to her base.
I don't agree with this either.
That's outrageous.
But you'll notice it's not a refutation or a rebuttal.
Some of the best appearances by conservatives on 60 Minutes are the ones that leave the interviewer speechless.
And I think maybe the interviewers say, oh, my liberals will say, wow, along with me.
But a lot of people will say, yeah, I guess that is a definition of grooming to sexualize young children.
I guess maybe that is a way of looking at them as pedophiles.
I don't know.
I mean, I give credit to 60 Minutes for actually airing that.
And one of the amazing things about the American system is that you have a wide spectrum of Republicans.
And, you know, I don't think you have the same spectrum of diversity of opinion in the Democrat side.
I think they're actually very fall in line.
Whereas you have Republican congressmen who hate Trump, some who love Trump, some who are for the war in Ukraine, some who are against it, some who are for vaccines, some who are against it.
And they can't shut them up.
Like you can't fire Marjorie Taylor Greene.
You have to beat her in a primary.
They don't have the same control over the party.
Party leaders don't have the same control.
And I think it's healthier to have a spectrum of views allowed.
And by the way, her seat, her district in Georgia is probably more conservative than a district in New York or California.
Cornerstone of Free Debate00:02:11
So I think it's great.
Last word to you, Tamara, before we sign off.
Yeah, I mean, and that's what upholding free democratic debate is the cornerstone of having a free country.
This silencing of dissidents, this suppression of information, of content, of questioning, simply just questioning what is happening here.
Is it just?
Is it right?
I think that it is a slippery slope into authoritarian abyss rather than upholding that cornerstone of free and democratic nation.
We need to engage in robust debate and leave ideas and thoughts to the public arena, bring them, and then we will debate them and decide.
The other way is, you know, we can just look to history to see how that ends up.
So thank you, Ezra, for your work on this file and ensuring that we can continue to follow the facts wherever they lead and bring independent media to our country and arguably also to the globe.
Right on.
Well, thanks for those kind words.
And it is a team effort.
And we will continue to fight for freedom.
And we will resist these four censorship bills with every ounce of effort we can.
Tamara, great to see you.
Thanks for taking the time to our viewers at home.
Thank you very much.
I'm going to go and party like Santa Marin.
I'm kidding, man.
I've got some other work I'm going to do.
I'm going to interview James Lindsay, the anti-critical race theory guy, the anti-woke guy.
I really like it.
He's so smart.
I'm going to interview him.
And we've got some great interviews.
By the way, folks, if you don't know, I have a show every night at 8 p.m. Eastern Time called the Ezra Levant Show.
And it's $8 a month.
You can go to RebelNewsPlus.com, sign up.
And every weeknight, I do a monologue.
I interview a guest.
I read my viewer mail, fan mail and hate mail.
And, you know, a lot of people get a kick out of it.
And by the way, it's an important way to support Rebel News because we don't take any money from Trudeau.
And we are completely demonetized by YouTube.
So if you're interested, go to RebelNewsPlus.com.
In any event, until next time, on behalf of Tamara and myself and all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters to you at home, goodbye.