Ezra Levant exposes Justin Trudeau’s government as weaponizing Bill C-11 and C-18 to censor dissent—forcing platforms like Meta to block Canadian news, while $100M Google ad subsidies may demand compliance with vague "ethics" codes targeting outlets like Rebel News. The Federal Court’s December 2023 ruling against The Labranos, fining Levant $13,000, reveals selective enforcement of election laws, ignoring pro-Trudeau books while crushing independent media. Toronto’s anti-Israel protests—featuring genocide chants ("from the river to the sea"), synagogue firebombings, and police protection—highlight systemic bias, where Trudeau’s allies face no consequences but critics risk jail or bank seizures, proving Canada’s free speech crisis is engineered, not accidental. [Automatically generated summary]
The Liberals have a sneaky new plan to censor independent journalists before the next election.
It's January 4th, 2024.
I'm Sheila Gunread, but you're watching the Ezra Levant show.
Shame on you, you censorious bug.
You know, it might be 2024, but the liberals are, of course, the same old censorious liberals.
Hell bent on using all the mechanisms of government to censor their critics and control what Canadians can see and say on the Wild West of the Internet.
Of course, I'm not just talking about Bill C-11, that's the Online Streaming Act, which will force streaming platforms, which include Twitter and Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, just to name a couple, to adjust their algorithms for, quote, discoverability.
Canadian government-approved Canadian content will be what Canadians see first.
You see, independent journalists moved away from traditional broadcast platforms to reach the viewers where they are.
And so, frightened by the effectiveness of those independent content producers, the liberal Canadian government seeks to limit their reach and silence their voices in favor of handpicked content creators.
Anybody who escaped the terrestrial bureaucracy of the Canadian Radio Television Commission, the CRTC, is now being put back under it.
What was meant for terrestrial, old-timey radio and TV is now being expanded to control the internet.
And then, of course, there's Bill C-18, because if the Liberals didn't get people like me with C-11, they're going to get us with this one.
This is the Online News Act or the Online Shakedown Act.
It forces social media companies to pay the producers of news content if a user of the social media platform shares a link.
It's like the newspaper company getting paid by the paperboy because the paperboy delivered the newspaper.
You know, it makes sense if the newspaper pays the paperboy, but Justin Trudeau flipped the script.
Because in the modern digital town square, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, they're the paperboy.
They're the vehicle for delivery.
And up until now, they've been doing the delivery for free.
As long as they retain the ability to serve the content consumer up some tasty, tasty ads.
It's a system that worked fine until independent media were able to break through the old ways of doing things to speak directly to their consumers on social media, which of course threatened the liberals.
And as a side effect, it was a shakedown to provide yet another additional subsidy to the failed mainstream media companies.
And in the end, it caused Facebook and Instagram, actually their parent company, Meta, to turn off Canadian news link sharing, which in turn saw a traffic nosedive for mainstream media companies.
And of course, a resulting ad revenue nosedive also.
People bad in business, making business decisions and getting bad results.
Who knew that's how that would work out?
But there's also one more way the liberals are making sure that you never hear how bad they really are.
And it's frankly already started.
Some of you may know that just before Christmas, we shared news with you that my boss, Ezra Levant, was found guilty of campaign finance violations for selling a book on Justin Trudeau during an election cycle when dozens of other books on Justin Trudeau were being sold.
The problem is, Ezra's book was the only one critical of Justin Trudeau.
Just take a listen to the boss explaining what happened here.
You know my book, The Labranos, What the Media Won't Tell You About Justin Trudeau's Corruption?
You know that one?
It's my best-selling book ever.
Well, I just lost in court.
Seriously, Justin Trudeau has been prosecuting me for more than four years over that book.
And I'm shocked to say he won.
The Federal Court of Canada just ordered me to pay the Trudeau government $13,000 because I published and promoted that book during the 2019 Canadian federal election.
And several times in the court ruling, the judge says, I'm lucky I wasn't prosecuted with criminal charges.
You can see the court ruling for yourself.
It's 85 pages long, but we've put it on our special website we've set up for this case, saverebelnews.com.
So the government is putting me on notice that if I write another book about Trudeau and if I publish and promote it during the next election, I could be prosecuted criminally and I could actually be jailed.
Guys, I've got to tell you, I am writing another book about Trudeau right now, and I am going to have it out in time for the next election, which is why I need to appeal this court ruling.
But not just for me, for the sake of freedom in Canada for everyone.
This has never happened before in Canadian history.
No other author that I've heard of, that I know of, has ever been prosecuted by Elections Canada for publishing and promoting a book that is critical of a politician.
And there's a reason for that.
The Elections Act specifically exempts books and the promotion of books from prosecution.
See, Elections Canada claims that my book, The Labranos, was illegal as if it were some campaign donation or something, and that I had to register with the government and tell them my business plans and disclose my finances to them and have them approve everything in advance like a political party would have to do.
But of course, that's not the law.
The Elections Act specifically exempts newspaper editorials and speeches and letters and news and things like that.
And it exempts books and the promotion of books.
Let me quote Section 21B of the Elections Act.
The law does not cover the distribution of a book or the promotion of the sale of a book for no less than its commercial value if the book was planned to be made available to the public regardless of whether there was to be an election.
Well, the book was sold on Amazon for $14, which is its fair commercial value.
And of course, we would have published the book whether or not there was an election.
We just timed it for the election like every other book about the election published by everyone else.
There were 24 books published about Trudeau during that election, mine, and then 23 books that were pro-Trudeau.
All were published at the same time, right before the election.
But mine was the only book they investigated and prosecuted for four full years now.
It's outrageous.
Like, when else would you sell a book about how bad Justin Trudeau is at government, except when Justin Trudeau wants to form the next one?
I mean, that's why everybody else is selling their books at the exact same time, except their books were talking about how great Justin Trudeau is at government.
They were pumping the tires of Justin Trudeau.
So last election cycle, an independent journalist writes a book critical of Justin Trudeau, and he's found guilty of breaking the law and publishing an illegal book.
Got it?
Fast forward to the upcoming election cycle, the one that the liberals are poised to lose catastrophically save for some act of God, natural disaster, pandemic, or extreme conservative idiocy.
And the last one, you know, is a potential, considering conservatives are great at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Now, not only are the books illegal, if they're critical of Justin Trudeau, but reporting critical things of Justin Trudeau might just become illegal too.
And the liberals are doing it by offloading it to the broadcast regulator, the CRTC, just like they did with Bill C-11.
Look at this from Blacklocks just today.
Federal regulators may draft a pre-election code of conduct for newsrooms.
Cabinet yesterday wrote in a legal notice.
The Department of Heritage said under Bill C-18, the Online News Act already in effect, newsrooms are subject to CRTC guidance on ethics.
The CRTC may regulate the following areas, the department wrote in a regulatory impact analysis statement: creation of a code of conduct and a complaint process pertaining to how groups of eligible news businesses are to be structured and their conduct under the Act.
Parliament last June passed the Online News Act that compels Google to pay Canadian newsrooms $100 million from yearly ad revenues generated by linked stories.
The Act took effect December 19th, but it will take several months to implement.
A little notice section of the Act, clause 271B4, states newsrooms that apply for Google money must demonstrate compliance with a code of ethics.
The term was not defined.
I bet it wasn't.
Canada has no nationally recognized code of newsroom ethics.
Advocacy groups have proposed that any CRTC code include mandatory corrections of news stories deemed inaccurate.
The National Council of Canadian Muslims in a May 10th submission to the Senate Committee said current practices are insufficient.
Existing kinds of mechanisms that have been put in place to offer remedies to people to correct errors and attempt to have balanced coverage or content about an issue when there is legitimate disagreement about things are just not working, said the representative from the National Council of Canadian Muslims.
So do you see what's happening here?
Newsrooms are struggling because Justin Trudeau tried to regulate social media companies to signal boost people he likes and to subsidize his friends.
And in turn, Meta turned off link sharing, which caused the newsrooms to struggle and be even more desperate.
The liberals created scarcity.
Now they've got the solution to the scarcity.
All you have to do is do what they say.
Now, if these failing media companies want some of that sweet Google money to make up for the traffic and ad revenue shortfall caused by Justin Trudeau's shakedown, the news companies need to comply with the government code of conduct for journalists.
The government is going to make sure that Canadians are fully indoctrinated into the liberal way of thinking, even if it means the liberals have to censor, smother, or bribe the entire mainstream media along the way.
Desperate governments, down 10 points, do very desperate things.
Stay with us.
boss Ezra Levant joins us after the break to discuss this new code of conduct being handed down to journalists.
As I said in the monologue today, the liberals are doing it completely backwards.
They started with the stick by destroying the financial viability of the remaining mainstream media through their attacks on Meta and Google, their shakedown, basically.
And now they're coming in with the stick of a code of conduct for journalists if those journalists want a piece of the remaining shakedown money from Google.
So joining me now is actually the boss, Ezra Levant, to discuss what this means for independent media, but also for mainstream media, because they're the ones really struggling with this.
Yeah, thanks very much, Sheila.
And thanks for covering the show for me.
To be very candid, we don't yet know what this code of conduct means because they haven't written it.
They haven't said who's going to write it.
They haven't said whether it's going to be mandatory or not.
They just said it's coming.
But I think we can assume the worst based on their conduct under Justin Trudeau's eight-year regime.
These are the people who, for example, nationalized the election debates and then banned rebel news.
And in the first instance, they banned True North and they banned Keynes Beck's Youth Counter Signal.
So they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt in terms of freedom of speech.
They banned us from election debates.
They banned us from the press galleries.
They prosecuted the Labranos, my best-selling book, claiming that it was an election ad, even though 23 other books were published about Trudeau during the exact same time.
They were just pro-Trudeau.
So those are three proof points that this Trudeau government uses regulation to silence the voices they hate.
And so I can predict right now, without any more information other than knowing they're just going to do it, I can predict right now that they will craft their code of conduct specifically in a way to try to silence rebel news.
Maybe they're going to go after some other independent journalists too.
But oh, I didn't even mention the other thing, the QCJO, qualified Canadian journalism organization.
That's their news license that they banned rebel news from as well.
So that's four things they've done to attack rebel news using the law, because they don't seem to be able to persuade people not to follow rebel news or persuade people that we're wrong.
So they're using the law.
And you make a good point, which is if this were happening 20 or 30 years ago, there would be a complete unanimity amongst publishers and broadcasters that this is a terrible idea.
And I remember, because I remember studying how the press would fight for free speech when I was in law school.
And typically they would set up something they would call it a consortium.
They would ask every newspaper or every broadcaster to chip in $1,000.
And they would hire one top gun civil liberties lawyer who would go to court and say, Your Honor, I'm here representing basically the entire industry.
I'm representing 10 newspapers and five TV and radio stations.
And here is what we're really worried about for free speech.
And the courts would really listen actually to those lawyers because they knew that this represented, these were the people for free speech.
When was the last time the Toronto Star, the Globe and Mail, the National Post, the Toronto Sun, CBC, CTV, Global News, et cetera, went to court for free speech?
I can't remember it.
Journalists As Guardians00:14:52
When was it?
But forget going to court.
That takes money and initially.
When was the time they even spoke out against it?
And so what we're going to see, Sheila, I predict is a code of conduct that gives them enough wiggle room that they can basically ban anyone they want.
Right now, I know how they're going to come at us.
They're going to say, oh, rebel news, you advocate for things too much.
Oh, really?
Do we advocate for COVID vaccines?
Do we advocate for the theory of man-made global warming in net zero?
Do we advocate for bans on firearms?
Do we advocate for all of these things that the Toronto Star and the CBC advocate for every single day?
So what I'm saying is they're going to try and differentiate us on a principled basis.
They're going to try and craft this code of conduct in a way that blocks us, but they're not going to be able to.
And the reason I know that, Sheila, is because that's what they tried in 2021 to keep us out of the leaders' debates.
They had this very lengthy rule book.
And we went to the judge and said, judge, they can't stop us claiming we are too opinionated, but let the Toronto Star in, but let the CBC in.
And the judge agreed, but they're going to do it anyways.
And they're going to force us to go to court.
And we're going to have no allies.
But that's our role these days.
I tell you, 50% of what we do is journalism, but 50% is fighting for the freedom to do journalism.
It's upside down times.
It's very sad.
Yeah.
And the liberals are doing something very crafty and very cagey and doing their best to keep their hands clean.
They're offloading this like they did with Bill C-11 onto the CRTC.
So they're saying, oh, it's not us that's coming up with this stuff.
It's the CRTC.
They're an arm's length bureaucracy.
But as conservative senator Pamela Wallen, a former journalist herself points out, that she is fully aware that there's almost daily contact between the leadership and the CRTC and directly into the prime minister's office.
So this isn't just some bureaucrats and tall foreheads in a corner office coming up with this stuff.
This is censorship coming directly out of the prime minister's office.
Oh, exactly.
I mean, and it was the same way with the Election Debates Commission.
Trudeau stacked it with his buddies.
The crooked Xi Jinping ally, David Johnston, ran the thing.
He's personal family friends with Trudeau.
He also appointed Craig Kielberger, the crooked we charity guy.
So Trudeau stuffs these boards and commissions with his personal friends, like literally personal family friends.
They get paid huge commissions and salaries to do it.
And they know that their job is on the media side, kill rebel news.
And I don't know what they'll do to Western Standard and Counter Signal and True North.
They'll probably try and rough them up also, but it really is an attack on rebel news.
They really have a vendetta towards us.
This isn't my speculation or my paranoia.
They say these things.
I mean, I remember when we finally busted our way in to the leaders' debates, having had to run to the federal court on an emergency basis.
And we had great questions from Tamara Ugolini and from Alexa Lavois.
And, you know, the ink wasn't even yet dry on the ruling by the federal court that we were indeed allowed to be there.
And Trudeau said, no, no, I disagree with the court.
I don't care what the court says.
You guys aren't even real journalists.
Remember this clip, Sheila?
Take a look.
The only reason that I'm allowed to ask you this question is because today the federal court ruled that the government doesn't have the right to determine who is or is not a journalist.
This is the second election in a row that the court has been overturning your government.
Do you still insist on being able to make that decision and won?
First of all, questions around accreditation were handled by the press gallery and the consortium of networks who have strong perspectives on quality journalism and the important information that is shared with Canadians.
The reality is, organizations, organizations like yours, that continue to spread misinformation and disinformation on the science around vaccines,
around how we're going to actually get through this pandemic and be there for each other and keep our kids safe, is part of why we're seeing such unfortunate anger and lack of understanding of basic science.
And quite frankly, your, I won't call it a media organization, your group of individuals need to take accountability for some of the polarization that we're seeing in this country.
And I think Canadians are cluing into the fact that there is a really important decision we take about the kind of country we want to see.
And I salute all extraordinary, hardworking journalists that put science and facts at the heart of what they do and ask me tough questions every day, but make sure that they are educating and informing Canadians from a broad range of perspectives, which is the last thing that you guys do.
So, I mean, look, what's so disappointing, I mean, Trudeau is going to be Trudeau.
He operates through bribes.
He does so personally.
He personally operates through bribes.
And I think he understands that his tribe works on bribes.
So they, like you say, Karen and Stick, they have hundreds of millions of dollars in bailout money for their friends in the media.
They have sticks and bats for their enemies.
But where are the so-called watchdogs?
Where is the Canadian Association of Journalists?
Where is the Canadian Journalists for Free Expression?
That's a lobby group.
Where is Penn Canada?
Where is the Canadian Civil Liberties Association?
Where is Amnesty International?
These all used to stand up for freedom of speech in the press, but they're silent.
And I think it's because their members are completely on the take.
I used to be a little bit involved with the Canadian Association of Journalists.
And they've completely transformed themselves into a money-grubbing lobbying machine.
They're very active, Sheila.
Just they don't care about freedom of the press.
They care about extracting, wringing out maximum taxpayer benefit from Trudeau.
So of course they're not going to bite the head that feeds.
It's really a sad thing to see.
And I think you're going to see more and more scoops being broken by the New York Post and the Daily Mail of London.
And the reason I say that is because pretty much every single Canadian journalist is compromised.
And I'm not saying that they all go out.
I mean, there's some good journalism in this country.
I won't deny it.
But pretty much anything that really hits too hard will be blocked by a senior editor who says, oh, yeah, no, we just take a different approach.
It's not even, I mean, there are still some journalists who are hardworking, honest journalists, but most of the blocking will come at a senior level where a publisher and editor says, we're just not going to risk it.
And so, I mean, think back a couple elections ago when it was revealed that all the blackface photos were revealed.
We revealed that.
That was a whistleblower in Vancouver who shopped this around.
The CBC, CTV Global, already had it.
They already had it, but they didn't publish it.
So it went to a major U.S. magazine.
How pitiful is that that we have to go outside our own country to get someone who cares?
But the reason for that was CBC Global CTV, they don't want to bite the hand of fiends.
So we're lucky in that the hand that feeds us is our crowdfunder supporters, average gift, 58 bucks.
If our average gift was 58,000 or 58 million because we were taking it from Trudeau, it would be very difficult for us to criticize Trudeau.
That's why we don't want to take Trudeau's wife, not that it would ever be offered, but we can't.
How could a human being criticize someone who's paying their bills?
It makes no sense.
And so working journalists have allowed themselves to be put in a position of moral hazard.
It's a moral hazard to be paid by Trudeau.
And you're going to see, you know, who's going to write this code of conduct, Sheila?
Journalists.
Oh, Journal.
Yeah.
And I just want to say that.
And also.
Sorry to interrupt, but there's also the fake consultations that the liberals love to do.
You see this all the time on gun bans.
They consort with all manner of feminists, worrywarts, and inner city activists, and they never actually talk to the people affected by the gun ban.
They're doing the same thing here.
In Senate testimony, they had the National Council of Canadian Muslims.
They wanted a more effective approach to corrections to news articles, meaning they want the state to force corrections in the news articles, which is exactly something we saw here in Alberta under the Aberhart government in the 30s with the Accurate News and Information Act.
And that was overturned.
And the Edmonton Journal won a Pulitzer Prize for that.
I wonder, by the way, how former journalist Paula Simons of the Edmonton Journal, now a liberal senator, how she'll advocate or object to this new set of regulations.
That's a great question.
Pamela Wallins, a former journalist on TV, but you're correct that that Alberta senator, whose name I just forgot, she was particularly memorable.
Paula Simons, thank you.
She's not a particularly memorable columnist.
But I remember, though, that she did criticize the Senate.
She mocked the Senate until she was appointed to it.
So we know from her life story that she can be bribed.
Now, the weird thing is senators, once they're in there, they're in there for life, or at least till 75.
So they should be more bold than they ever been in their whole life.
Like once you've hit the Senate jackbox, unless you do something absolutely atrocious, you're there till you're 75.
You can't be fired.
Maybe you can be kicked out of a party by Trudeau, but they all have this fake independent liberal center thing going on.
So Paula Simons should be, this should be her shining moment of freedom of the press.
I haven't seen a word from her, maybe because she's going to be the one tapped to write it.
It wouldn't surprise me if Trudeau asked her to write it.
Yeah, you're right to point out that it was the Muslim Brotherhood-linked National Council of Canadian Muslims, basically a front group for Amas in Canada that's demanding corrections.
Imagine that.
the government demanding corrections from journalists as opposed to journalists holding the government to account.
It used to be that journalists held the government to account.
They want to flip that on their head.
No, no, no.
Now the government will tell you what's true or not.
And the fact that the establishment just shrugs and says, yeah, okay, well, whatever it takes, can I get my money now?
This is going to be a problem.
I don't know what the courts are going to do.
I mean, a couple of weeks ago, I lost in federal court.
I was quite sure, Sheila, I was really sure that the Libranos would have been legal.
And the reason is, first of all, we consulted a lawyer in advance.
And he said, look, as long as your book, like the promotion of the book says, just buy the book, you're fine.
But the courts and Elections Canada hated that cover.
They mentioned the cover eight times in the court ruling.
Elections Canada was obsessed with the cover.
And the cover was all that was in the book ad.
You know, you put up that huge banner on the side of the highway.
It was just the cover of the book with the words, buy the book.
And the court said, no, no, that was actually a campaign ad.
And what's the big deal?
You just have to register.
What's the big deal?
And I was surprised by that.
And that was actually a Harper appointee.
That judge was not a liberal judge.
That was a judge put there by Stephen Arper.
So here we are.
And, you know, people say, well, the book technically has not been banned.
It's correct.
You can still buy that book on Amazon, but we cannot advertise that book during the election.
It's an election book.
We can't advertise it during the election.
And we can't, apparently, say either show the cover or the title.
That's the state of the law in Canada that is not healthy.
It is being targeted against conservative populist media like us.
And I don't know.
It's just sort of sad for me, having grown up studying civil liberties in Canada, watching civil liberties being fought for, realizing that the left never meant it.
But we've learned a lot of things like that recently, Sheila.
We've learned that the anti-hate groups were never really against hate, the anti-bullying groups, the anti-violence groups, they were never really against those things.
They were only really for those things as weapons to attack their opponents.
And when it's Hamas rioters in the streets forching, I mean, listen, almost 100 churches in this country have been torched or vandalized, and the anti-hate people don't give a damn.
So it's just sort of disappointing to learn that they never, none of them ever meant it when they said they were for freedom and for dissenting voices and for diversity.
They never meant, that's not what they meant by diversity.
They didn't mean diversity of opinion.
I don't know, it's sort of sad, but I am quite certain that once again, Rebel News will be in the center of that because who else, like seriously, who else do they think they're going to apply that to?
Maybe they'll take a run at the Toronto Sun.
But I think it's pretty much tailor-made to go after Rebel News and maybe some of the other independent journalists I mentioned.
Well, you know, bus, the bigger the fight, I think the better we are here at Rebel News.
We punch up.
Unblock Us At All Costs00:02:28
We win against Justin Trudeau.
And when we lose, we pick up the pieces and continue to fight.
And I think this will be the exact same thing.
Once we see what these regulations are, let's get ready to rumble.
You bet.
And, you know, we have had some wins.
I would just leave people with that thought.
I mean, we lost the Labranos fight.
I'm a little surprised by that.
We're appealing it.
And Sarah Miller, the lawyer we've hired for the PLC is pretty good.
She turned Arthur Pavlovsky's case around.
Was convicted under a pandemic law.
She appealed back to the Alberta Court of Appeal and overturned the conviction three to zero.
I don't know if that's going to happen in a Labrano's case.
It's a real uphill battle, but if anyone can do it, Sarah Miller can.
And remember those two cases where we rushed to court for the debates commission.
Last-minute hearings, we were outnumbered.
The federal government threw everything at it, and we won both of those.
And even on the Twitter stuff, suing to get cabinet ministers to unblock us.
Stephen Gilbeau, and now three other cabinet ministers, Marcy Ian, Karina Gould, and Yaira Sachs, have over the Christmas break settled.
And we don't have the paperwork for that yet, but they have agreed to unblock us.
So we do have wins.
It just, I guess, so much of the fight falls to us because there is no organization out there that's fighting for this like there was when I was growing up and reading about these things.
I remember every time there was a court case for freedom, there was a lawyer for the consortium, which is what they called it when all these TV and radio stations got together to fight for freedom.
Can you imagine that happening today?
The CBC and CTB and Global and Global Mail and Star and Sun, each chipping in a couple grand to hire a lawyer for freedom.
It's unthinkable.
It was a beautiful thing in retrospect.
Like they would get over their differences.
They would get over what competitive rivalries they had.
And they would send a lawyer to court to say, we're here for everyone.
That is so unthinkable today, mainly because the institutions I've just listed do not actually believe in freedom today.
They're just money-making ventures.
In the case of Postmedia, they're owned by a New Jersey asset management firm called Chatham.
Last Candle00:03:31
In the case of the CBC, obviously they're just a corporation owned by the government of Canada and used by Trudeau as his personal soapbook.
And in the case of CTB and Global, they are so deeply reliant on the favor of the CRTC that they do what Trudeau says, much the same as the CBC does.
And now all the newspapers are in the bailout side of things.
So there really is no one left, Sheila.
I've already listed the handful of, like, it's less than 1% of the media in Canada that is free.
And that's what's so crazy.
Trudeau does not need a code of conduct for those big media companies I just listed.
He listened because they don't offend him.
They don't engage in, quote, misconduct.
They're extremely obedient.
Why does he need this code of conduct when he's got 99% of them meeting in the palm of his hand?
Because he's obsessed by that last 1%.
And I know why.
I think of the metaphor sometimes of 100 candles in a room and you can blow out 99 of them.
But if that last candle is still lit, it's not dark.
I mean, it's dark-ish.
It's darker, but there is still light.
And in fact, that last one candle, the difference between 10 candles burning and five candles burning is great.
The difference between five candles burning and two candles burning is great.
But listen, and you knock it out from two candles to one candle.
It's a lot darker.
But that last candle actually makes more of a difference than any other candle before when you think about it, because that is the last candle between light and absolute darkness.
And so Trudeau, who wants to snuff out all the light of public scrutiny, that last damned candle is the one he wants to snuff out more than any of the others.
The first candle he blew out, there's 100 candles in a room.
He blows out the first candle.
It didn't even make a difference.
The first 50 candles he blew out didn't even make a difference.
But as he gets down to total darkness, it's that last day.
Why won't it go out?
Why can't I blow out that candle?
Blow it out.
That's what he thinks of rebel news.
And we will not go easily.
I'll tell you that.
Yeah, I laugh because the last time the mainstream media ever got together and worked together on something, I think it was to block us from joining a press gallery.
Yeah, you're right.
How pitiful.
Yeah.
Boss, thanks so much for, well, coming on your show.
Wait to have you back in the studio so that you can do all of this.
Right on.
Thanks, Richmond.
Thanks, boss.
Your letters to Ezra unceremoniously read by me up after the break.
Well, friends, we've come to the portion of the show where we invite your viewer feedback.
If you're a regular viewer of my show, The Gun Show, on Wednesday nights, you know that I constantly tell you that there is no rebel news without you.
And so I want to hear from you.
I want to know what you think about the work that we're doing here at Rebel News, unlike the mainstream media who just want you to shut up and give them some money, or at least have Justin Trudeau give them your money to keep producing content that you don't care about, that you don't consume.
Letters to Ezra00:03:11
I want to know what you have to say.
And so we've got some letters to Ezra.
This one is on Ezra's long-form interview with my buddy David Menzies regarding the ongoing anti-Israel protesters who are taking to the streets in a Toronto Jewish neighborhood, and they're doing it all with police protections.
Let's just think about that for a second.
They say this is anti-Israel and that there's some sort of distinction between being anti-Israel and anti-Semitic.
Then why are they protesting Jewish neighborhoods in Toronto?
Anyway, Kat Reid 4205 writes, I'm sorry that people don't understand what being a Canadian means.
We accept everyone regardless of faith, race, or orientation.
Even radicals and war criminals from every war since World War II.
This needs to stop.
Yeah, I mean, this is the government that gave a standing ovation to a Waffen-SS actual Nazi in the House of Commons.
You know, that takes some work to dig up one of those guys.
There's not very many of them alive left.
And the ones that are alive still are trying to hide from war crimes trials.
And so, of course, of course, Justin Trudeau's government is going to turn a blind eye as the Hitler Youth 2.0 march through Jewish neighborhoods in Canadian cities.
Mr. Higgles, if that is indeed your real name, right?
One-sided hate laws, government-sanctioned hate and disapproval is against the law.
Yeah, that is true that there is a difference in policing here, isn't there?
It took one planted Nazi flag to paint the entire peaceful freedom convoy as a bunch of neo-Nazis or at the very least crypto-Nazis instead of just peaceful Canadians from all walks of life who just wanted to return to normal and their charter rights respected by the government.
And yet you see slogans of genocide from the river to the sea being chanted in the streets.
Jewish schools and synagogues are being firebombed.
Jewish-owned grocery stores with no ties to Israel being victims of arson in Toronto.
You see stores being pamphleted.
And we've seen protesters, counter-protesters like Iranian refugee Salman Seema assaulted in the streets, his shoulder dislocated by these people.
Iranian Regime Backed Protests00:00:55
And we know that a lot of these protests are Iranian regime backed.
And they're the world's largest state sponsor of terror.
And yet nobody's bank accounts are being turned off.
You know, you can honk for Hamas and you're fine, but honk for freedom and no bank account and, you know, maybe even straight to jail for 50 days.
If there is not an equal application of the law, then there is no rule of law at all.
Well, everybody, that's the show for tonight.
Thank you so much for tuning in and bearing with me as I fill in in the big chair for the boss man.
Thanks to everybody who works behind the scenes at Rebel News to put together the hodgepodge pile of clips into a real show for our viewers.
And since I'm hosting, you're getting my sign off.