Ezra LeVant critiques Conservatives for failing to act on Chinese Communist Party (CCP) corruption in their ranks, spotlighting Senator Victor Oh’s controversial proposal to fundraise against critics—a move he calls hypocritical. LeVant demands Pierre Poilievr expel Oh, citing $600K+ checks to Liberal MPs Han Dong and Alexander Trudeau via the Trudeau Foundation, while praising Poilievr’s push for a foreign influence registry. Globally, Ireland’s proposed hate speech bill risks criminalizing private content without intent or truth as defenses, despite 73% public opposition. LeVant contrasts this with Canada’s media’s selective scrutiny of Justin Trudeau’s alleged misconduct, suggesting systemic bias. The episode underscores the urgency of exposing foreign interference and defending free speech, questioning whether Conservatives can truly lead the charge. [Automatically generated summary]
But every once in a while, we have to keep our Conservative Party friends in line.
We've got to hold them to account because if we don't, who will?
I mean, listen, the media party will criticize conservatives all day long, but it's bad faith criticism.
When we have a criticism of conservatives, people say, hang on, what's going on there?
And I think they pay attention because they regard us as keepers of the flame.
Today we have a petition for you to be delivered to Pierre Polyev.
I'll tell you why, because there's something wrong in the party that he can fix.
I'll tell you more about that later.
But first, let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
That's the video version of this podcast.
Just go to RebelNewsPlus.com, click subscribe, eight bucks a month.
That might not be a lot of dough to you, but it really adds up for us.
That's how we pay our bills here.
I would be so grateful if you became a subscriber because you know we will never take money from Trudeau.
That's the only way we can stay independent.
Rebelnewsplus.com.
All right, here's today's podcast.
Tonight, the liberals have their Chinese Communist Party infiltrators.
But what about the Conservatives?
It's June 27th, and this is The Ezra LeVant Show.
You censorious thug!
For months, we've had devastating revelations of the depths of the Chinese Communist Party's influence in Canadian politics.
Victor Oh Must Go00:12:13
The corruption is throughout the Liberal Party.
It's not just liberal MPs like Han Dong and liberal senators like Yuan Pao Wu.
It goes all the way up to the Trudeau family themselves.
Justin Trudeau's brother, Alexander Trudeau, personally accepted a six-figure check from the Chinese government to the Trudeau Foundation.
Absolute corruption, and it goes straight to the top.
The whole country, including the normally liberal-friendly media, have been appalled by Trudeau's corruption and their gross attempts to cover it up, first by hiring a close family friend, David Johnston, to cover it up, only to learn that Johnson himself was utterly compromised by China.
There have been some really awful moments, like when this liberal MP tried to attack an honest journalist for reporting on the corruption.
Cooper, to you now.
On March 22nd, you published an article with the headline, Liberal MP Han Dong secretly advised Chinese diplomat in 2021 to delay freeing the two Michaels.
Do you stand by this headline?
I don't write the headlines, but I stand by the story.
I know that Global News stands by the story, and there is a legal procedure underway, and the story speaks for itself, and the statement of defense speaks for itself.
The story stands.
Thank you.
So despite the fact that the article used the term allegedly at least about 10 times, you chose to frame the headline or the newspaper chose to frame the headline excluding that language in the headline.
Was that done on purpose?
I said at the outset I won't speak to editorial processes or legal procedures, but I can assure the honorable member that legal vetting and editorial vetting of these stories is extremely rigorous.
Thank you.
That's all I'll say.
Why didn't you include allegedly in the headline, Mr. Cooper?
Sorry?
Why did you not include allegedly in the headline?
This is a matter for editorial procedures and legal vetting procedures.
Okay.
Did you review the transcript from the supposed conversation between MP Dong and the Consulate General?
I told the member, the honorable member at the outset that I'm not going to speak to editorial processes, identification of sources, or legal procedures around this story.
And I'll repeat it again and again.
Thank you.
And will you table the supposed transcript that we've learned from the Right Honorable David Johnson's report does exist?
If you have or haven't reviewed that, I understand you won't talk about it.
Will you table that with this committee, the transcript, please?
I didn't prepare any materials around that question.
And I'll stand, as I told the honorable member, I'm not going to speak to.
So gross.
Justin Trudeau is even worse, of course.
His security advisor says her top priority is hunting down the whistleblower who leaked the news about the Chinese spying.
She's not too concerned about the Chinese corruption itself.
It's the whistleblower who told the media about it that Trudeau wants to get.
Now, the Conservative Party has done pretty well on this issue.
Here, take a listen.
But unfortunately, there's no common sense in Justin Trudeau's Ottawa.
We see today that his ski buddy, cottage neighbor, family friend, and member of the Beijing-financed Trudeau Foundation came out and did exactly what I predicted, help Trudeau cover up the influence by Beijing in our democracy.
We know that Beijing interfered in two elections to help Trudeau win.
We know that Beijing gave $140,000 to the Trudeau Foundation with the express purpose of buying the love and the loyalty of Justin Trudeau.
And we know that Trudeau has been briefed on these matters for years and done absolutely nothing about it except try to keep it quiet and call names anyone, name call anyone who spoke out about it.
And then in order to further sweep the matter under the rug, he put his friend, his ski buddy, his cottage neighbor, and Trudeau Foundation member, David Johnston, in charge of today's whitewash attempt.
Conservatives are not buying it.
We need a full public inquiry to get to the bottom of Beijing's interference in our democracy.
And that's what I will deliver when I am Prime Minister.
There will be a full public inquiry into this mess.
And in the meantime, we will continue to push for a real foreign influence registry that exposes anyone who does paid work on behalf of a foreign dictatorship to manipulate our politics.
It's just common sense.
Let's bring it home.
Let's bring home control of our democracy back into the hands of the Canadian.
All right, but here's the thing: the Chinese Communist Party doesn't just target the liberals, they target conservatives too.
About a dozen years ago, a conservative member of parliament named Bob Deckert had an affair with a Chinese spy who was working for the state broadcaster, Xinhua.
But get a load of this guy, a conservative senator named Victor Oh.
Senator Victor Oh says Chinese Canadians need to fundraise to sue messy reporters.
Seriously, let me read a little bit here.
A Canadian senator said he wants Chinese Canadians to set up a national foundation that would focus on raising money to fund lawsuits against messy reporters and politicians who try to smear the community.
Holy cow.
Well, let me read just one more sentence.
A video of conservative Senator Victor Oh making the remarks was uploaded to the social media platform WeChat on June 5th, showing him addressing a group at what was described as the Montreal Chinese Community United Center.
The Canadian press obtained the video which showed Oh saying in Mandarin that, quote, we need to raise money to cover the costs for people affected by all of these unreasonable reporters who try to smear Chinese and discredit Chinese.
But did you catch that one part?
Not the part about hunting down reporters who uncover Chinese Communist Party corruption.
The part about him being a conservative.
As in he sits in Pierre Polyev's Conservative Party in good standing.
He's not a liberal.
Why is this allowed to happen?
For months, Pierre Polyev himself has been pounding away at Trudeau and the liberals and the whole crooked Trudeau family and all the corrupt liberal MPs and senators.
And Polyev was actually brilliant at going after David Johnson, hired by Trudeau to handle the cover-up.
I mean, get a load of this.
David Johnson is a ski buddy, chalet neighbor, family friend, and member of the Trudeau Foundation.
He has no business in this job because it is a fake job that he is incapable of doing impartially.
None of his recommendations can be taken seriously because he's in a conflict of interest.
And frankly, it's incredible that he didn't even mention the Trudeau Foundation in his report, even though publicly available intelligence showed that the dictatorship in Beijing had given money to the Trudeau Foundation for the express purpose of buying the love and loyalty of Justin Trudeau, the Prime Minister of Canada.
Now, Johnson's part of the Trudeau Foundation, so of course he wouldn't want to investigate himself.
But frankly, that's why he should have recused himself.
Pierre Polyev was in sync with the spirit of the times.
Canadians are sick of selling out to China.
They're sick of the corruption.
Canadians are especially sick of politicians and businesses who sell out to Communist China.
And yet this whole time, a pro-Chinese Communist Party senator is on Polyev's Conservative Party team.
Now, senators are appointed, and unless he's convicted of a serious crime, he will be in the Senate till he turns 75, which is actually next year.
Polyev didn't appoint Senator Victor Oh.
Stephen Harper did that for whatever reason.
But Pierre Polyev controls who is in his Conservative Party caucus, who's in the party at all.
How can Pierre Polyev mock David Johnson and Handong and the rest of the Chinese Communist Party assets, but then smile and shake Victor Oh's hand and be fine with all the things he said and his plans to sue reporters for uncovering Chinese Communist Party influence?
How bizarre.
A sitting senator threatening to silence Canadian reporters, that's very Chinese Communist Party of him, isn't it?
But look, the thing about being a conservative is you have to have standards and you have to follow them yourself.
Liberals make a virtue out of hypocrisy.
Liberals break their own rules all the time.
It's part of the liberal identity, but conservatives have to stand for something.
It's part of being conservative.
And you cannot criticize Justin Trudeau on Monday and David Johnston on Tuesday and Handong on Wednesday and UN Pow Woo on Thursday, but then shake hands with Senator Victor Oh on Friday.
You just can't if you're a conservative.
Pierre Polyev has to kick Victor Oh out of the Conservative Party.
I know that means the Conservatives won't have his vote in the Senate, but look, the Conservatives are massively outnumbered in the Senate anyways.
They lose every vote every time already.
So it's not like it's going to make a difference.
But what makes a difference is that Polyev has to show he doesn't stand for the kind of bullying and corruption that Victor Oh has come to represent.
If you agree that Victor Oh has got to go Sign our new petition at kickhimout.ca.
We'll personally deliver that petition to the Conservative Party.
They simply have to kick out Victor Oh as a signal that they mean what they say about Chinese Communist Party interference and as a signal to the many Chinese Canadians who have been bullied by the Chinese dictatorship, even bullied here in Canada, including by diplomats at the Chinese embassy.
The Conservatives need to show that not everyone in the establishment is compromised.
Not everyone has been bought off by Beijing.
Let Justin Trudeau woo the Chinese Communist Party vote.
And there is that vote in Canada.
Let Trudeau have it.
And it is, you know, who knows, maybe hundreds of thousands of voters.
But let Pierre Polyev be the party of Chinese democracy activists and Hong Kong and Tibetan and Uyghur freedom activists.
And more importantly, the party of Canadians, regardless of race or ethnicity, the party that stands up to bullies, both foreign and domestic.
Go to www.kickhimout.ca.
Just because liberals are hypocrites doesn't mean conservatives should be too.
Go to kickhimout.ca.
Well, Canada is not the only place where free speech is under attack.
In fact, it's under attack around the world, including in places that should know better, places that have centuries of traditions of freedom of speech.
Free Speech Under Attack00:11:06
I think of Canada, of course.
I think of the United Kingdom, the United States, despite their First Amendment, New Zealand, particularly harsh free speech lockdowns, if you will.
And as you saw the other day in my broadcast, Ireland, home of so many writers and poets, home of so much comedy, including offensive comedy.
Could you imagine the Irish without free speech?
It's unthinkable, but it is being thought as a bill before the Irish Parliament right now, as I described, that would ban hurt feelings and insults and even the possession of some digital asset like a meme or an email or an online joke.
Merely possessing something insulting could be a crime in Ireland.
Joining us now to talk about this is Alex Sheridan, the director of Free Speech Ireland.
He joins us now.
Alex, what a pleasure to meet you.
Could it really be that the land of so much comedy and culture and criticism and humor and the limerick, for goodness sakes, could it be that Ireland is ending its glorious history of free speech?
Have I got it wrong from this side of the pond?
No, it's actually probably one of the most draconian hate speech bills, which has been proposed.
Yes, within Europe or indeed the West, this new hate speech legislation will even criminalize the mere possession of hateful content.
This could be a meme on your phone.
This could be a book that you have in your house.
This could be even a message or a diary that you're writing to yourself.
And even if you do not communicate any of these ideas or material or talks to anyone, you can still be prosecuted and imprisoned for up to two years.
And the onus will be on yourself to prove that you had no intention to spread or communicate that material.
Alex, here in Canada and in other jurisdictions too, it's probably the same in Ireland.
To be convicted of a crime, you have to have the mental element, mens rea, as they say in Latin, the guilty conscience.
So this law, and I read the law, I went through it in great detail on the show the other day.
It feels like it's not even the kind of law that is Irish at all.
The fact that merely possessing something on your phone or your computer, even if you don't have a guilty mind, even if you don't mean to hurt anyone, the fact that it could future tense, it is likely to cause some offense, even if you didn't mean for that to happen.
That's how my reading of the law looks.
It removes a guilty conscience.
Am I wrong?
You're not wrong.
It even goes even a step further than that.
So it deals a lot with a thing called incitement to hatred.
And one section of the bill also says that even if you were successful in inciting hatred or not, you are still guilty of an offense.
So you could say something, you may not mean it.
You may offend nobody, but the fact that you said it, you can still be prosecuted.
Yeah, and truth is not a defense here, if I read the law properly.
And I want to be careful because I'm not an Irish lawyer.
I went to law school in Canada.
I have a lot of experience with Canadian censorship, but I'm relying on you, Alex, to tell me if I'm wrong.
Truth is not a defense.
Is that correct?
Well, the onus will be on you.
So truth can be a defense just so long as they accept that you are telling the truth.
So, for example, like, how are you meant to explain to somebody that you had no intention to communicate an idea or a means that you had on your body?
What I mean by truth as a defense is you can say something incredibly insulting that if it's true, like sometimes the truth is hurtful.
Sometimes the truth is insulting.
If you say something that's true, it may well be offensive or even hateful.
But I mean, I know in Canada, I was prosecuted under a hate speech law in the province of Alberta.
And truth was not a defense.
I published the Danish cartoons of Mohammed.
This was over a dozen years ago now.
Truth and fair comment were not defenses.
That's what I mean by truth as a defense.
If you say something awful or offensive, but it was a true statement, is that legal in Ireland?
It may actually be illegal.
So the bill is currently being debated in our upper house, the Irish Senate.
And even one of the government senators, a few of them have actually broken ranks on this, brought up the Charlie Ebdo cartoons.
So cartoons which would have been considered highly offensive to Muslims, but resulted in violent acts towards the cartoonists.
That was brought up as a point of consternation and worry, concern that this actually might open up Argus to prosecution under the bill.
Not just that.
You've had multiple senators, multiple politicians who've been in opposition very worried about any gender critical ideas, any ideas to do with maybe the criticism of immigration and believing that they actually might be open to prosecution on the bill if they were to mention such things outside of the parliament where they'd have parliamentary privilege.
The same would go for anyone who isn't a politician, and they wouldn't have the same brass neck or courage to speak up in the same way that somebody who's an elected legislator would.
I saw a brief excerpt of a speech by, I believe it was a Green Party politician in Ireland who said, quite incredible, we'll play a clip of it now who basically said, every law infringes on your freedom and we're just doing that here.
It's for the common good.
Here let me play a clip of that.
This was such an astonishing world view.
Um, that government exists to reduce your freedom.
I suppose in some ways there's some truth to it.
But she was embracing that as as a feature, not as a bug here.
Take a look at this when you think about it.
All law, all legislation is about the restriction of freedom.
That's exactly what we're doing here is we are restricting freedom, but we're doing it for the common good.
You will see throughout our constitution, yes, you have rights, but they are restricted for the common good.
Everything needs to be balanced.
And if your views on other people's identities go to make their lives unsafe, insecure, and cause them such deep discomfort that they cannot live in peace, then I believe that it is our job as legislators to restrict those freedoms for the common good.
Please tell me that this is not desired or demanded by the Irish people.
Please tell me that these politicians are just imposing their own view.
I saw some news coverage that suggested that Irish people aren't clamoring for this.
These are just politicians taking advantage.
What's the truth?
Have the Irish people given up their love for freedom?
The truth is, no.
Actually, there is an overwhelming majority of Irish people who are still in favor of free speech.
Now, I actually attended a meeting there recently in London with multiple free speech activists from all around the world discussing on how we might fight these censorship bills, such as coming in in Canada, coming into Germany, Brazil.
And when we communicated to the other activists that in Ireland, actually, the overwhelming majority of people are against this stuff.
People from Germany or even Australia were actually quite astounded, saying, well, there's actually a cultural issue back home where we don't think the majority of people support free speech.
In Ireland, we recently had a public consultation, which was to see if the people wanted to bring in such hate speech laws as started by the government.
73% of responses said, no, we don't want hate speech laws.
What's more, in 2018, 65% of the Irish people voted to remove the blasphemy laws from our legislation, which made it illegal to criticize God.
This shows that the Irish people have no appetite for restrictions on speech.
And what's more, last week debated in the Irish Senate, we have five different senators say that this is the most correspondence, whether by mail, phone call, or email, they've received over a single legislative topic in their entire career.
We had one extra senator who's been there for 30 years who said that this is the second most, the first being mother baby homes, which was a era-defining issue.
So hundreds and hundreds, if not thousands, of emails that they're getting each.
This is not a popular issue in Ireland.
But unfortunately, the Irish government looks like it wants to dig its heels in and it does not want to look weak after proposing this legislation, so they may not back down.
Alex, it's great to talk with you.
Unfortunately, we have a bit of a rough internet connection.
I hope we can pick up this conversation another day because we want to hear you clearly on this and we want to learn more about it.
And we want to learn if there are other allies for free speech in Canada.
I fear that many voices that in the past would have defended free speech no longer do.
Either they're media voices that have been colonized and corrupted with government bailouts, so they just do whatever the government says now, or they're just either gone woke themselves or afraid of the woke mob.
So in Canada, which used to really embrace freedom of speech, I mean, when I was growing up, and I'm not that old, but there's very few voices now.
Let's keep in touch, Alex, and let's connect when we have a stronger internet connection because this is important.
And it's not just important to Ireland.
People around the world want to see a global resistance to this global order of censorship.
And it really is global.
You had Jacinda Ardern and France and Macron, Emmanuel Macron, and Justin Trudeau and all these other authoritarian liberals signing declarations about internet censorship.
It's a global campaign to censor grassroots people.
And I hope there's a global resistance to it, too.
And it looks like you're part of that.
Alex Sheridan, I hope we keep in touch.
Okay.
Thank you very much for having me, Ezra.
Well, it's our pleasure.
There's Alex Sheridan.
He's the director of the Free Speech Ireland, which is very much needed.
I promise we'll get back in touch with Alex when we have a stronger internet connection with him.
Stay tuned.
more ahead.
Hey, welcome back.
Your letters to me.
This is about my chat with my friend Andrew Lawton.
Grandma G67 says, if these big companies don't start downsizing and do what you're doing, they won't survive.
You actually listen to your subscribers too.
You do journalism, but these other companies don't.
Mainstream Journalist Face-to-Face00:03:27
You know, it's interesting.
I was thinking about radio in this country.
I remember growing up and talk radio was where the excitement was because you never knew who was going to call in.
And this was in the early days of cell phones, but you would get truckers, you would get people on the road, you would get people obviously calling from home also.
Talk radio was sort of the wild west, and there were some truly conservative voices there.
But I think talk radio was homogenized and bowlerized and vanillified.
Either the conservative firebrands retired or they were worried about being canceled so they sort of became woke themselves.
I think that happened to a few of them, like my old friend Charles Adler.
I think he's just gone so woke, I don't recognize him anymore.
But mainly it's the companies.
When radio stations are owned by huge mega corporations like Bell Canada, which owns CTV and a bunch of radio stations, they're not going to be controversial at all.
There's woke as they get.
So their radio hosts have to be just sort of bland and corporate.
And who wants to listen to that?
Especially now that you can listen to anything on your Spotify or however you get your podcasts.
You can do that in your car too.
So if it's not interesting, why would anyone listen to radio?
I don't know.
I'm worried about the CRTC regulating us because they might try and make us vanilla too.
Mike Trainer Music says, Andrew is an excellent speaker, rebel in True North.
We'll be around for a long time.
Well, from your mouth to God's ears, I really like Andrew.
And he's conservative, but he's got a very warm heart.
And I think he's just one of the most likable guys in the business.
And I really admire what he's doing with the folks at True North.
The Hot Mass 1979 says, I've known about Justin Trudeau's indiscretions with one of his students for a few years.
It ticks me off that parliament is just getting around to this conversation now.
No wonder Justin Trudeau is trying to protect people like Paul Bernardo.
Maybe they have a few things in common.
I think you're going too far there.
I think a lot of people have heard the rumors about Justin Trudeau at that British Columbia private school, but it's just rumors.
And you're right.
There hasn't been a proper investigation into it.
And mainly, no one in the mainstream media has had Trudeau in an interview and just put a straight up question to him.
I think they're embarrassed or shy, but they shouldn't be.
I mean, think about Bill Gates, the American super billionaire who has enormous power.
But there are still some journalists, I think of Anderson Cooper, who ask him about, for example, his affiliations with the child rapist and pedophile predator, Jeffrey Epstein.
So Bill Gates, powerful guy, Anderson Cooper, you know, mainstream journalist.
But he had the courage to put questions to Bill Gates about it.
And I think we need a mainstream journalist who has the opportunity to have a face-to-face with Trudeau, not that Trudeau can run off, but on a set and say, look, can you answer us once and for all?
Why were you let go from a private school mid-semester, which is very rare for a teacher?
There's a lot of innuendo out there.
Can you answer it?
The fact that not a single mainstream journalist would ask that question shows you how much in collusion they are with the liberals, or much worse, that they know the truth and don't want to ask about it.
But I don't think you can assume the answer to that question.