Ezra Levant critiques CBC’s ombudsman Jack Nagler for exposing the network’s double standards: journalists avoid calling Hamas "terrorists" despite Canada’s official designation while smearing conservatives—MP Cheryl Gallant, Alberta’s Devin Drieshen, and outlets like The Toronto Sun—as "far-right conspiracy theorists." He ties this to Facebook’s fact-checking privileges for CBC during the 2021 election and Bill C-11’s algorithm manipulation risks, contrasting Rebel News’ fact-based approach. In Israel, Avi Yamini reports on Gaza border chaos, including drone strikes, while Jerusalem’s pro-Hamas protests vanish due to police crackdowns like a pizza shop demolition. Levant dismisses Maxime Bernier’s silence on foreign threats as politically shortsighted, urging focus on immigration or anti-terrorism instead. The episode reveals how media bias distorts public discourse, even amid real-world crises. [Automatically generated summary]
Today's show, we're going to talk about the CBC rebuking itself for labeling its enemies far-right conspiracy theorists.
It's quite something.
We'll also have an update from the streets of Israel, where our reporter Avi Yamini is covering the war.
And finally, a lengthy letter from Maxime Bernier that touches on our show yesterday.
That's all I had.
But first, let me invite you to become a video subscriber to Rebel News.
We call it Rebel News Plus.
You get the video version of this podcast, which is so important, especially for our coverage of Israel, because it's so visual.
You got to see it to understand it.
Go to RebelNewsPlus.com, click subscribe, eight bucks a month.
You get my show every night and other goodies.
And really do it to support us too, because we don't take money from Trudeau and its shows.
So we rely on that eight bucks a month.
Go to RebelNewsPlus.com.
All right, here's today's program.
Tonight, the CBC's own ombudsman criticizes their journalists for smearing conservatives as far-right conspiracy theorists.
It's October 13th, and this is the Ezra Levant show.
Shame on you, you censorious bug.
We hear a lot about the phrase misinformation, disinformation, fact checkers.
You almost always hear those words from governments or government-affiliated media.
That's another way of saying we are the arbiters of what's right.
You aren't.
And if we have a difference of opinion, you're the one who's wrong.
And it's science because we fact-check you.
It's been such a revelation for those who didn't know, or a confirmation for those who did know to watch the government-affiliated government-bailed-out media commit the most disinformation about the war in the Middle East.
For example, they refuse to say the word terrorist when describing the Hamas terrorist group.
But it's not a matter of opinion.
They do terrorist things.
It is their modus operandi.
But more to the point, they are legally designated a terrorist group on the official list published by the government of Canada.
That list is there for a reason, because if something is deemed a terrorist organization, the criminal code applies to certain support for it.
If you fundraise, if you support in other ways, if you travel to help them, those are all crimes that only apply to registered listed terrorist groups like Hamas.
Isn't it funny then?
And that's the one group they won't say it about.
They also, and this is in a CBC memo instructing their reporters not to say terrorist, they won't say that Gaza, from where Hamas launches its attacks on Israel, Gaza was deoccupied by Israel in 2005.
It's been almost 20 years since the last Israelis set foot there.
Not only did they move all the Israeli citizens out, they literally dug up the graveyards to remove the remains of the Jews in the cemetery back to Israel because they knew Hamas would desecrate it.
There is not a single Jew in Gaza.
It's what Hitler would call Judenrine, Jew clean, Jew free.
And yet instead of turning it into their own Arabian version of, well, I don't know, Arabia is Dubai, instead of a Dubai or a Singapore or a Hong Kong.
I mean, think about it, a city of 2 million on the Mediterranean coast near Israel, across the sea from Greece, Italy.
Instead of turning that into an amazing place, they turn it into a terrorist base camp.
The CBC will not let reporters let you know that.
I saw this incredible phrasing in a series of CBC headlines, tweets, and articles.
They said that some people, quote, died in the conflict as if they were just using that passive anonymous voice.
They later made a fake correction, claiming the only reason they said that, because all the facts were not out yet, but that's a lie.
I saw yesterday, Global News, British Columbia, said that today was Hamas's, quote, day of action.
But Hamas never said that.
I went back and I re-watched the announcement translated from Arabic that Hamas made.
And today indeed was a day, depending on how you translate it, a day of rage or a day of jihad.
But Global News changed that.
It wasn't an accident.
They literally changed it to day of action because it sounds less terroristy than what they actually said.
I say again, these journalists who were the first to call you factually wrong, first to fact check you to say you're a conspiracy theorist, that you're trading in misinformation, which is mistaken information, or disinformation, which is saying things incorrectly on purpose.
They are the ones who did that.
It is not an accident to change a translation.
It's not an accident to order everyone in your company not to use the word terrorist.
That is dictionary definition, disinformation.
Here's an interesting tweet I saw.
The CBC does call some people terrorists.
They love calling the proud boys terrorists.
I don't think the proud boys have, I think they had one meeting in Canada.
It's just a bunch of good boys who like drinking beer.
They haven't engaged in terrorism.
But the CBC will call them terrorists.
They'll certainly call the January 6th meanderers terrorists, but not actual terrorists.
Which brings me to a story I saw the other day in Blacklocks.
You know what Blacklocks is.
It's one of the few independent media companies left in this country.
Like us, they don't take any money from Trudeau.
Here's their headline: drop the labels.
CBC told, oh, told by whom?
The CBC should rethink news coverage that disparages cabinet critics as extreme or disreputable.
Warns the network ombudsman.
The advisory follows a 2021 attempt by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to act as a political fact checker.
I will take this opportunity to stress to programmers at CBC they assume a great responsibility when they choose to use terms such as misinformation and disinformation in their stories, wrote ombudsman Jack Nagler.
When they do so, they had better be right, because if it turns out down the road, the information proved to be correct, they can do great damage to their reputation, unquote.
Well, that's the thing.
They don't care.
They know that's their mission.
They are on a mission for their paymaster, Justin Trudeau, and their own ideology.
Damage to their reputation.
What do they care?
They get paid whether or not they have a reputation.
They take $1.5 billion a year from our tax dollars.
I'll keep going.
CBC News should reconsider use of the term far-right in stories, added Nagler.
Simple presentation of facts is preferable, so, quote, readers can judge for themselves who is reasonable and who is extreme rather than declaring it for them.
Wouldn't that be something if the CBC let you make up your own mind?
Labels should be employed with great caution, Nagler wrote in a notice, theory or conspiracy theory.
Sometimes it would be safer to say there is no evidence for something rather than proclaiming it to be false.
Yep, I think that's right.
The Ombudsman's comments followed complaints over an August 2022 story by CBC Montreal reporter Jonathan Mompetty.
The online article was headlined, Canada's convoy movement waved the Dutch flag.
Then conspiracy theories swirled about fertilizer and bugs.
It purported to document, quote, deliberate attempts to sow confusion about government policies by far-right media and conservative politicians.
I'll just read a little bit more.
The article named Conservative MP Cheryl Gallant, Alberta Transport Minister Devin Drieshen, the Toronto Sun, the Western Standard, Rebel News Network, Farmers Forum, and the website Countersignal.
Look at this.
None were asked for comment.
Quote, didn't the CBC have an obligation to go interview people who support the Convoy? wrote Ombudsman Nagler.
Oh my God, if he keeps talking like that, I think he's going to get fired.
The notice on labels followed Facebook Canada's naming of CBC News as a fact checker during the 2021 election.
The network's French language service, Radio Canada, was to comment on the integrity of other media's campaign coverage.
Do you get that?
So the CBC would decide whether or not a story would get promoted or hidden on Facebook.
They got paid to do that.
Quote, when a fact checker rates a piece of content as false, we significantly reduce its distribution so that fewer people can see it, Facebook wrote in its 2021 Canadian Election Integrity Initiative.
We notify people who try to share the content or previously shared it that the information is false.
And we apply a warning label that links to the fact checker's article disproving the claim, unquote.
So the CBC can censor their competition.
Translation, Trudeau's CBC, Trudeau's state broadcaster can censor his critics.
I'll read a little more.
Catherine Tate, CEO of the CBC in 2019 testimony at the Commons Heritage Committee, described the Crown broadcaster as a beacon for truth in a stormy sea of disinformation.
Quote, how do we protect and defend our citizenry from this unbelievable tsunami of disinformation?
In a sense, we become a beacon for truth, said Tate.
We need the public to feel safe that we are a beacon for that truth.
You know, every once in a while, I don't get it a lot now, but sometimes people say, Ezra, you should change the name of Rebel News.
I don't like Rebel.
Sounds wrong.
You should go for Truth News.
You know, I appreciate people trying to help us out.
We're not changing our name.
I'll just give you the short answer there.
But the longer answer is, look, if you got to say you're the truth news, that suggests that you aren't.
It's like Justin Trudeau professing he's such a feminist.
Yeah, most people who respect women don't go around telling everybody how much they respect women.
It's probably him just getting out in front of his disrespect for them.
But more to the point, I don't believe that we have a monopoly on truth.
We like to tell the other side of the story and we have a motto, follow the facts wherever they lead.
But I'm not saying that every single thing we say is correct.
We make corrections from time to time and a lot of the things we say are a point of view that we think is reasonable, but other people can hold an other reasonable or even an unreasonable point of view.
I would never call our company truth news because I don't think I'm audacious enough to think that we are the only ones with the truth.
But that is what the CBC just said.
The CEO said, we are a beacon of truth.
That beacon of truth that's being lying to you for the past week refuses to call Hamas terrorists and covers up disinformation-wise the truth of how Canadian murder victims of the terrorist group were killed.
You know, it reminds me of one of Trudeau's buddies, Jacinda Ardern.
Do you remember her early in the pandemic saying she's your one source of truth?
Remember this atrocious clip?
We will share with you the most up-to-date information 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.
COVID-19.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.
Yeah, just unbelievable.
Gee, I can't imagine why New Zealanders got sick of her.
Here's the story that the Ombudsman was criticizing originally.
It's still on the website, which is incredible.
It has not been corrected.
It has not been taken down.
What's the point of an ombudsman trashing a piece of journalism saying it's absolutely unethical?
And then the CBC thing, thanks very much for your opinion.
We're just going to keep it.
Thank you very little.
Let me read a little bit of it because Rebel News makes an appearance.
Canada's convoy movement waved the Dutch flag.
Then conspiracy theories swirled about fertilizer and bugs.
Now, right away, you know that those are not conspiracy theories.
If you watch our show, you know that there is a war on nitrogen.
It's so bizarre.
It's like they're trying to take elements out of the periodic table.
You just can't.
I mean, they have a war on carbon, which is bizarre.
They want a war on nitrogen.
Trudeau says so.
And Holland has proceeded down that route.
Let me get right into the article here.
Far right media, conservative politicians stoking misinformation about an early plan to cut emissions.
Far right.
Hey, I got a question for you.
Have you ever, I mean, think back.
You've been watching the CBC for a while, likely.
Have you ever heard them call anyone far left?
And by the way, who's to say we're far right?
What does that mean these days?
If you ask me what we stand for, we stand for civil liberties and privacy and peace.
Is that far right?
Let me read a little bit of a passage from it to you.
This is a little bit down in the story.
Soon after, far-right media outlets in Canada seized on the Dutch protests to promote conspiracy theories that reinforced anti-government ideologies.
Many of these sites had already been sowing misinformation about food supply issues.
So no facts are given.
They're calling conservatives far right.
They're saying they've sown conspiracy theories.
No evidence given in that.
They're just telling you.
The Western Standard, a conservative publication based in Calgary, amplified in July a conspiracy theory that claimed fires were being deliberately set at farms around the world to make populations more dependent on governments.
The column, which was shared more than 450 times on Facebook to accounts totaling 136,000 followers, suggested that global plot was the real reason behind Ottawa's decision to help fund a cricket processing plant in London, Ontario, even though the facility mostly produces pet food.
Let's stop there.
We've done stories on that same thing.
World Economic Forum Disinformation00:05:08
Hey guys, don't worry about the fact that they are making insect food for humans because mostly it's for pets.
So if you say it's a food plant for people, that's a conspiracy theory because a lot of it's for your pets.
No, that's not, that doesn't make it a conspiracy theory.
It is an interesting fact that not all the food is for people, but it's not a conspiracy theory.
Let me read a little bit more.
I mean, my point there is that there's no fact-checking here.
It's just opinion.
They're wrong.
It's a conspiracy theory.
But again, what is the Western standard?
I know those guys pretty well.
How are they far right?
Or hang on, are they far right or are they conservative?
Because they said a bunch of far-right media and then they called them conservative.
Are they saying conservative equals far right?
Anyway, I'll read some more from this bizarre article that in itself is disinformation.
In the days that followed, Canada's far-right media pushed more disinformation to their readers.
Rebel News, for instance, claimed the Dutch government had pandered to the radical demands of the World Economic Forum.
Okay, of course we said that.
And then look at what they did, echoing a popular conspiracy theory that maintains the Swiss think tank is secretly forcing governments around the world to adopt left-wing policies.
Hang on, hang on, hang on.
I have never said that in my life.
You've heard me talk about the World Economic Forum a hundred times.
I don't see the...
How would they even force?
Like, what does that even mean?
But you'll notice we didn't say that.
We said the government is pandering to them.
That means doing things that they want that they shouldn't.
As in the Canadian government, the Dutch government are doing things the World Economic Forum likes.
You know what the word pandering means.
I didn't say the World Economic Forum is forcing that.
So you see what he said.
He said, we echo a conspiracy theory of forcing, but we didn't echo is to repeat it.
We didn't repeat it.
He's lying.
His fact check is factually inaccurate.
I'll keep reading.
Another far-right publication, The Countersignal, recirculated the comments of a former far-right Dutch politician.
Boy, he's laid in a lot of people far right with no proof, no evidence.
He's just saying it, and you've got to believe it.
Who falsely claimed the goal of the Dutch climate plan was to confiscate the farmers' land and then give it to immigrants.
Well, how do you know what the goal is?
Different people can have different goals.
That's a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact.
And we never echoed or repeated or agreed with any of these weird claims.
I can't speak for the counter signal of the Western Standard.
But that line about the World Economic Forum secretly forcing people, that is disinformation from the CBC.
You know, this is called a straw man argument.
Have you ever heard that logical fallacy?
We did not repeat a conspiracy theory.
We didn't.
So they said we echoed one, which is not true, echoing is repeating.
They just put in what they sort of wished we could say, wished we had said, so they could rebut us, but we didn't say it.
They couldn't rebut what we said.
We said they're pandering.
They couldn't rebut that.
That's true, or at least it's an opinion.
So they put a straw man argument.
Oh, this is sort of like that other thing that I saw somewhere that they're secretly forcing you.
That's a straw man argument.
Oh, and by the way, the leader of Holland, Mark Rutte, is a World Economic Forum member.
And by the way, Klaus Schwab boasts about penetrating the cabinets.
Remember this clip?
We are very proud of now as a young generation like Prime Minister Trudeau, president of Argentina and so on, so that we penetrate the cabinets.
The idea that the CBC would fact-check anyone is a laugh.
I mean, they call proud boys terrorists, but call Hamas militants at worst.
That's the era we're in right now.
And I believe that in the next election, fact-checking will be the way that Justin Trudeau, not just Facebook, but Justin Trudeau orders internet sites like ours to be downranked, to be hidden.
I've told you before about C-11, which is now law.
C-11 gives Trudeau's CRTC the power to order any broadcaster, even online, like YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, Instagram, the power to order them to alter the discoverability of the news.
That's the word right there in the law.
In the past, it was just Facebook who you saw that would boost or throttle posts based on the CBC's fact checks of us.
What a laugh.
But now the government itself has the power to do that under Bill C-11.
Drone Overhead, Shelter Nearby00:06:49
I used to think that in some way the government would prosecute us or try to jail us or try and get a court order against us in some way.
But I realize that's far too messy and it gives us far too many chances to beat them.
No, what I think is going to happen is under C-11 and other internet censorship laws, Justin Trudeau will simply tell YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, et cetera, to hide us just for discoverability algorithm reasons to promote trusted news sources.
He won't ban us.
He'll just make it so no one sees us.
Stay with us.
Up next, the latest from Abiyamini in Israel.
Yeah, is there another long day here in Israel?
Well, we're staying in Jerusalem because I think it's the safest place as they don't tend to target it with the rockets for a number of reasons.
One, because 40% of the population here are Arabs.
And secondly, there are a lot of sites they don't want to hit.
But we head to the south and you can feel it immediately.
It's a war zone.
It's a war zone.
And I can't believe it.
You know, for all the years that I've visited Israel, I've never seen the war zone inside the borders of Israel.
And it was evident as we were reporting, we head towards Biarim, which we tried to get in to show the world what, you know, the tragedy, the massacre that unfolded there, the aftermath of it, where people ironically went to celebrate a peace party close to the Gaza border.
I think it's only a couple of Ks from the Gaza border.
And we saw what unfolded there.
Hamas coming in with paragliders and just massacred, butchering people, hundreds of people, raping them and kidnapping him, taking him back to Gaza.
And as we got to the checkpoint to get in, you know, as we're waiting for permission, which we're still working on to actually go in there through our contacts, we interviewed a, I was interviewing a man there that's part of a civilian group that they've actually been part of the protest movement in the last couple of years, fighting the government.
And he was explaining how even though the left and right were so divided, which is this thing that we were talking about yesterday, and he's very much from the left, anti-the government, they've now taken that protest movement and they've used that to try help in their way with the on-the-ground operations of helping civilians,
helping people get out, whatever it is.
There's a whole range of things.
Most of the guys are ex-military and a lot of them are high-ranking officers.
But anyways, while he was telling me what they're doing and what they're about and the history, and suddenly we hear a loud bang and it was a drone not far, probably again, 150 meters from us.
Targeting military personnel.
Slightly shaken from the explosion, we waited a few moments until it seemed like the threat had passed and continued our interview when suddenly shooting began.
Gunfire, gunfire, gunfire, gunfire.
It's some active launching.
Gunfire.
As we were trying to figure out what was happening ahead, I noticed a drone above and bolted for the bomb shelter nearby.
It's a drone.
Go, go, go, go, go.
It's a drone.
Oh, it's a drone.
Don't try to erase it.
There's someone else.
Look at him.
Look at him.
I got it.
I got it.
Why don't you do it?
Got no video, got no video.
Got no video.
Come.
There's a drone.
There's a drone right now, it's running over us.
They're aiming, they're coming back around.
They come back around.
There we go.
They're starting to shoot it.
It seems like they managed to shoot it down.
That's the first time we've been close enough from a shelter to actually get in there in time.
But this is the situation here, and it does not look like it's settling down anytime soon.
Inside that exclusion zone, 150 meters, like I said, from where we were.
And as we were trying to figure out what was going on, and it seemed like the threat had passed, we just continued our interview and then gunfire from the same space.
And as that was unfolding, I look up and I can see a drone coming towards us.
And we head straight to the bomb shelter, which was just a couple of meters from us, which unlike yesterday, yesterday when we heard the bangs, and it's the same thing.
There's no warning.
There's no warning.
So in this case, we happened to be a couple of meters from a bomb shelter and we got straight in there, took cover, waited for it to pass.
And we could hear, probably a minute or two later, forces in the fields across had, it seemed like, shot it down.
But it really brought home the fact that we're in the middle of a war zone, trying to tell the truth, trying to show the world what's happening.
But we've ordered body armor because it is scary.
I'm not going to pretend like it's not scary, especially a drone.
You know, rockets are one thing as scary as they are.
But this drone where they're obviously got a camera on there and they're looking for targets and we're right there.
I don't know if there wasn't a bomb shelter, if we would have become the next target.
Don't know.
But so we have ordered body armor, which is coming from America on Sunday.
And I urge everyone to help us, whoever's interested that likes and believes in our mission to head over to the truth about the war.com and chuck in a couple bucks to help us cover them there.
Not cheap.
It costs us thousands of dollars just to cover that side of it, which is just one of the many expenses involved in this mission.
But I think this mission is already a couple of days in, seems worth it to me.
Rockets and Drones Threaten Safety00:09:40
And this is just the beginning tomorrow.
We believe tomorrow or tomorrow night, the ground incursion into Gaza is likely to start.
So I expect things to get a lot worse.
But hopefully we'll have that little bit of protection to make ourselves and our families a little bit more comfortable with what we're doing.
But I believe what we're doing is right.
So we'll continue doing it.
We head back to Jerusalem after that.
We thought that obviously Hamas called for a day of action, which is their terminology for jihad for attacks.
It seems that their calls for some reason didn't pan out here.
There's a few theories going around.
So we actually headed to the old city of Jerusalem to see what, because usually that's where it would really kick off if it would kick off.
And I've never seen the old city of Jerusalem so quiet.
No one on the streets.
I believe that from what I understand that the groups that come, so we were expecting them to come out of Al-Aqsa Mosque and to start to begin to write.
That's traditionally what happens, but there wasn't anyone out there.
After going to the old city, I believe there's two factors that probably played a part in that.
One is the fact that the city is so quiet that anyone there is there to cause trouble and it would be quite easy for police to manage.
There were a lot of police there at the time.
It was clear that they were expecting trouble or they were preparing for the worst.
They were not willing to be taken off guard once again.
Last weekend was shocking enough.
But I also understand the other reason why they that they that people believe that it didn't actually pan, that there were no riots today is because of the heavy response over the last couple of days.
For example, whether you agree with it or not, a tactical decision was taken that a pizza shop that had made a meme mocking the kidnapped mother, they demolished the shop.
Now, it sounds authoritarian.
And like I said, whether people agree with that action or not, and it's possible in a couple of years, that person will go to the Supreme Court here when this war is all said and done.
And they may even potentially win.
But I think from what I understand, the tactical decision to do that is to send a message to those inside of Israel's border.
So you have the Israeli Arabs and you also have within the East Jerusalem, you have the Palestinians there that, like in this case, could write, could spark up another front, sending them a message that we're not messing around now.
This is not a time to open another front because we are going to come down harder than we've ever come down before.
That's our day.
We've come back here and here I am talking to you.
Tomorrow we start nice and early.
We do it all again.
And hopefully on Sunday, those vests arrive.
Again, the truthaboutthewar.com.
We're going to file all our reports there.
And I want to thank everyone that's helping us make this happen because without you, the viewers, I can't be here.
It is tough.
This is a tough gig on a regular day.
But just knowing that we have you guys at home there supporting us makes it that much easier.
So thank you.
And Ezra, until Monday, stay safe.
Well, if you want to see all of Avi's reports, go to thetruthaboutthewar.com.
And by the way, we hope to have a bulletproof vest for him and Benji over the weekend.
It was hard to find one, as you can probably imagine.
Anyways, as you know, I did my show the other day on Maxime Bernier.
I invited him to come on the show because I wanted to talk to him about these things.
But he said he didn't want to, but he sent me a private message.
And I asked him if I could read it on the show, and he said yes.
So let me read to you Maxime Bernier's response to the points I made yesterday.
He said, Hi, Ezra, I think you misunderstand my statement.
I haven't seen any Canadian Jews calling for murdering Palestinians at hate rallies.
So I'm talking about those who are bringing this conflict here, not those who aren't.
Well, my reaction is, and why didn't he say so?
Because he was conflating the murderers and the victims in his statements.
As for calling for Canada to get involved, it may not be the case now, but it doesn't take too long for this to change as we saw with Ukraine or with Iraq and Afghanistan 20 years ago.
Well, his whole arguments were saying, keep that over there, don't get involved.
I have not heard any Israeli say, hey, Canada, can you help us with troops or money or anything?
Israel's been around for about 75 years.
I don't think it ever has.
I just disagree with Maxime Bernier here.
He continues, I abhor all forms of violence against civilians, but as I tweeted, there are atrocities committed almost every day somewhere in the world, and no one in Canada comments on them or is pressuring me to show empathy and take side in a foreign conflict, even though there are surely some Canadians who came from these areas.
Okay, that's obviously true, but this is not just some run-of-the-mill moment.
This is a cataclysmic event, the scale of it, the brutality of it, and the fact that it is shaping foreign affairs and frankly causing roiling our institutions in the country.
We're seeing people come forward, the Air Canada pilot who supports Hamas terrorists, the Toronto police who support Hamas terrorists.
It's not just some foreign thing.
It's causing a crisis here in town, here in our country.
He continues, I decided several years ago I would stop commenting with thoughts and prayers or denunciations every time something horrible happens in another country, which had become a silly race to see who is the fastest to tweet in the strongest words.
I only tweet when it directly concerns Canada.
If you remember, the press ganged up on me when I said nothing after the Christchurch massacre, which Trudeau exploited for weeks to push his narrative about Islamophobia and white supremacy.
I don't see any reason to change this rule now.
My only concern is to keep Canada out of this conflict.
I don't want to be sucked into the debate about who is good, bad, really, really bad, why, and what can be done about it when there's absolutely nothing or I or even Canada can do about it.
I want to focus on Canadian issues on which I have an influence.
Why is this not a legitimate position?
I hope you understand.
I'm not asking for him to come up with a political plan for Israel and Gaza or the West Bank.
I'm telling you that the crisis is here in Canada when you have thousands of pro-Hamas people rallying, shouting intifada, which means race, you know, riots, pogrom, when they chant from the river to the sea, which means kill all Israelis.
In other places, like Sydney, Australia, they were saying death to the Jews.
I'm sure they were saying similar things at some of the hate rallies across Canada.
When you have Jewish kids being threatened in Toronto by Arab men on the street, it is very much something that should be of concern to Canadians.
And when you have universities and political leaders saying, no, that kind of violence is acceptable, then it becomes a Canadian issue, very much a Canadian issue.
By the way, if I was Maxime Bernier and if I was worried about being shoved off the map by Pierre Polyev, because Polyev is much stronger on the issues than Aaron O'Toole was, if I was Maxime Bernier, instead of saying, I don't care about these images, stop being so emotional, I would say, this is an opportunity for me to differentiate myself from Pierre Polyev by talking about immigration.
Pierre Polyev has not said that he will reduce immigration by a single number.
He has not said he will vet immigration for cultural fit.
If I was Maxime Bernier and wanted to get back in the media political action, instead of saying, oh, stop being so emotional about pictures of women being raped and murdered, how about say something practical like freeze immigration, deport foreign nationals who are at these hate rallies, prosecute support for terrorism, and generally denounce terrorist and woke ideology in our institutions?
How's that not the better move?
And by the way, I don't know if Pierre Polyev would follow on several of those.
I don't think Pierre Polyev would say, yes, we should deport.
I don't think he would say, yes, we should freeze immigration.
Don't you think that's a better battlefield for Maxime Bernier than telling people, oh, stop crying over some raped bodies?
I think he's just tone deaf on this stuff, and I don't understand what's going on.
But I wanted to read to you his reply to me since he did send it.