Ezra Levant recounts his August 7th confrontation with Toronto protesters, who swarmed his car without charges—while he faced assault and escape allegations—highlighting systemic police inaction amid rising chaos. UK priest Calvin Robinson blames Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s divisive policies for escalating riots tied to Muslim communities, comparing it to Canada’s weaponized hate speech laws. Met Police Director Mark Rowley’s push to prosecute online dissent echoes global censorship trends, where governments conflate misinformation and disinformation to silence critics, even as Belfast protests show cross-border unity against mass migration. Levant’s case and Starmer’s crackdown reveal a pattern: authorities suppress free speech while ignoring violent mobs, deepening societal fractures under the guise of protection. [Automatically generated summary]
The driver drives away, bumping one of them, but the swarmers are not charged.
The driver is.
I'll have that for you and more.
But first, let me invite you to get Rebel News Plus because you've got to see the video to understand this.
I'm going to show you the video of this swarming several times from several angles, actually.
I'm even going to show you a swarming that happened in LA 30 years ago, the case of Reginald Denny.
If you're just shocking, I'd like you to see it.
I mean, I'll describe it to you, but I'd like you to see it.
To do that, you need to get Rebel News Plus.
It's the video version of this podcast.
Just go to rebelnewsplus.com, click subscribe, eight bucks a month.
That may not be a lot of money to you, but it's a lot of money to us because it adds up and helps us pay our bills because we get no money from Trudeau and it shows.
All right, here's today's podcast.
In Toronto, a driver is swarmed on the street with protesters.
He bumps into one as he drives away, but he's the one who gets charged, not them.
It's August 7th, and this is the Ezra Levant Show.
Shame on you, you censorious bug.
Hey, Toronto is a total crime wave city.
It's becoming a failed state.
Here's the mayor of Toronto, Olivia Chow, dancing at the Carabana.
I'm not sure if I want to see any leader, left-wing, right-wing, young, or old, dressed in that way, but Olivia Chow has decided to be the costume party equivalent of Justin Trudeau.
Hey, if it worked for him, it might work for her.
She can dance her way from party to party while the city crumbles around her.
It's funny what she has time for and what she doesn't.
She refused to go to the March with Israel, one of the oldest and long-standing Jewish events in the city.
That might be too controversial, but obviously she's up for, I think it was like a scrambled egg festival or something that she skipped it for.
But let's talk about what's really happening in the city.
There's homeless encampments under the overpasses.
There's an incredible car theft crime wave.
People are literally installing bollards.
You know what I mean?
Like those big post-retractable bollards on their own personal driveways to make it physically impossible for people to steal their cars.
It's an incredible thing to watch such an amazing city that once had the nickname Toronto the Good decline into, I don't know, it's not quite what Detroit is, but it's certainly on that path.
But I want to show you just a typical day in the life of Toronto.
In fact, the only reason this video I'm about to show you is interesting or novel is that it was captured on film from up high.
So it's actually a very interesting image.
But this sort of thing happens every single day in Toronto.
It's just not usually caught on camera.
Take a look at the video.
I'm about to show it to you.
Watch the black pickup truck.
And this is, for those who don't know Toronto, this is the major thoroughfare right down at the waterfront.
It's basically the east-west main highway in the downtown of the city.
Just take a look.
There's no sound to it.
You can see the black pickup truck is being swarmed by one person, two people, five people approach.
Then a little bit later in the video, you can see a cop come up and talk to the driver, it looks like, while another protester is in front.
And then the last second of the clip, you can see that there's another protest on this road, a Gardner Expressway, it's called.
So there was a series of road stopping protests.
The driver was swarmed at one part, sped through, stopped, and was arrested.
And we now know he was charged with the crime.
From what we understand, none of the people swarming the car were charged with a crime.
Now, that was an interesting video and got a lot of action on Twitter.
Some people called it a pro-Hamas protest.
I'm sure if you had asked people there, they would say it was.
But here's another view from street level.
This is some photographs by our friend Karima Saad, who covers a lot of street protests.
And here's a videotape.
I'll be quiet while you listen to this one a little bit.
I'm going to let it run for a couple minutes.
I want you to hear the kind of person who rules the streets in Toronto, Canada, Canada's largest city, the fourth largest city in North America.
take a listen of who your new bosses are.
No, we're going walking our way.
Off the road.
Off the road.
Off the road and in the rock.
Joe, Biller, sweetheart.
You guys are fucking around.
We're trying to keep home.
I don't want you to go back and leave and now you're telling us to stop?
Like fucking leave off your hands!
Get off your land!
I don't know.
Spoiler!
Justice for Tyler.
Justice your toilers.
Just go for toilers.
Justice for Tyler.
Just people.
Just your toiler.
Just your toil.
Just take the toilet.
Justice for Tyler.
It's an unusual mix.
I think some of the masking and style is Antifa, which are paid left-wing violent gangs.
Unusual Protest Dynamics00:12:39
There's sort of some ragamuffins there too, some combination of ethnic identities, which of course is possible, but they're playing all of those cards as political cards.
You saw at one point a black protester shaming or trying to shame a black cop for daring to work for the man.
I'm sure 100 years ago, or even more recently, a black man being recruited for and serving in the police department would have been seen not only as an exhibit of equality before the law, but good news for the black community.
I mean, it's obviously that if someone is a black cop, they're going to be attentive to the needs of all communities, including black people.
But no, it's just another weapon to attack a cop with by calling him a race traitor, which is essentially what that woman was saying.
The big takeaway of this video, though, is that no one's listening to the cops.
They're basically saying, please leave the street, please.
And they don't.
And they dance around and laugh around.
No one respects the Toronto police.
And I think it's because they don't respect themselves.
Now, I think that I'm sure everyone here would say they support Hamas, even though they couldn't find Gaza on a map.
They don't know anything other than Hamas is a general way to fight the man.
So they would be for that, just like they would be, I don't know, for Greta Tunberg.
They don't understand anything about it other than it's a challenge to the system.
I think the protest was actually about this story, which involved a police shooting of a mentally unstable person.
And obviously that's of concern.
But there are ways to express the concerns without threatening people on the streets.
Here's just some more images to take a look at again from our friend Karima Saad.
Here's what Karima Saad tweeted herself.
She said, there is significant overlap between protest circuits, but this appears to be an anti-police demonstration on behalf of Tyler Maxi Coor, the red flag bearer who hit the vehicle as it nearly ran over protesters, has attended several recent events involving blocking traffic downtown.
Well, that says a lot, doesn't it?
And Karima knows because she's always covering these protests.
So he's basically part of a rental mob, probably paid.
People have to make a living somehow.
And he just goes from protest to protest.
And of course, blocking traffic typically over the last, I don't know, 300 days has been the pro-Hamas folks.
You can see, in addition to the Kafiya, he's got the red triangle hat.
That's a symbol that Hamas uses on a target.
But he's also indigenous, just a full-purpose, full-service troublemaker.
The kind of person who gets called up and said, this day you're holding this protest sign.
Tomorrow you hold this protest sign.
It's not organic.
It's bought and paid for, and it's a feature of life in a big city.
But here, let's just watch the videotape of the truck again now that we know a little bit more about what it looks like on street level.
I think it would be accurate to call these people Indigenous activists, anti-fa activists, professional protesters who just, sure, they're for Hamas because it's the latest thing.
Take a look again.
The swarm, the police stop, and then the other swarm.
Let me ask you the obvious question here.
If a driver is swarmed on the streets of Toronto or anywhere else in Canada, but Toronto in particular, a failed state where no one can reasonably rely on the police to do anything, where for the last 10 months, everyone knows that the police allows criminal gangs to patrol, to rule the streets.
They have that chant, whose streets are streets.
If they have the right politics, I mean, of course, the trucker convoy, they evicted them and invoked the Emergencies Act.
But if you have the correct politics in the eyes of the police, everyone knows the police will let criminals do crimes.
So if you were being swarmed by a gang that you know has impunity, that the police, as you could see, is literally doing nothing.
If you're in that car, should you just have to hope that they're not going to kill you?
Or can you do what you typically do on a road, which is drive away?
Even if they're trying to block them.
I've watched this video a few times, and here, let's put it up right now as I'm talking again.
He doesn't actually drive over anyone that I can see.
He bumps someone, and I'm sure it was uncomfortable, but I don't think he physically drove over anyone.
I mean, theoretically, that could kill someone.
I don't think that happened in reality.
He bumped a few people as he drove away, but he wasn't doing what I've seen on certain occasions, someone deliberately ramming them.
These people on the street were not, as you sometimes see with that British group, No More Oil or whatever, just stop oil, where they just get on the road, link arms.
They're not physically attacking cars.
They're just blocking them.
This is very different.
This driver was not trying to ram a blockade.
This driver was not trying to break through.
This driver was essentially stopped, swarmed, and decided, I don't want to wait to see how this ends.
He drove away and he was charged.
Apparently, you're not allowed to do that, but I got a few questions for you.
Is the rule the same if the driver of the vehicle is a woman?
I mean, you saw the looks of some of those protesters.
A few of them were women, but there were some very big, strong men, and it looks like they were hitting the truck with some weapons of some sort.
And it sounds like the man who was charged was a man.
But what if it was a 100-pound woman in the car, a car being swarmed by five people?
Let me go a little bit further.
What if it was a mother of a little baby in a car seat in the back?
Is she supposed to just stay there and do nothing while the car is swarmed and police do nothing as they've shown that's their approach to things?
What crimes are drivers now supposed to abide?
I mean, I could think of something very minor, a protester keying a car.
You know, that's the phrase of someone takes a key and just scratches the paint in the metal on your car.
Mischief vandalism probably costs you a thousand bucks, depending on how fancy your car is.
Do you have to accept your car being keyed?
Do you have to accept your window being smashed?
Do you have to accept being assaulted, being punched or spat at even?
Do you have to accept being pulled out of your car and beaten on the street?
Do you have to accept being killed?
Like, I would just like to know the answer.
If police are charging a man for driving away, not recklessly, not taking the initiative, but as a response to being attacked, what was he supposed to endure, given that you just saw the police were doing nothing about this?
What level, I got a question for you, a different question.
Let me flip it around.
I mentioned the dancing fool that's the mayor of Toronto.
What level of violence, keying the car, smashing the window, assault, what level of violence and criminality, oh, let's say, wouldn't the mayor's own security detail accept if it were happening to the mayor?
Would they allow the mayor to be swarmed with impunity, would they?
Would they allow someone to smash the mayor's car?
How far would they go?
Or is it two-tier policing here in Canada also?
Hey, by the way, and I'm trying to find out more.
If anyone knows the contact information for this driver, I'd like to learn a little bit more.
But really, I think I'd like to crowdfund his lawyer.
And I'd like to know, as part of his trial, why the police didn't lay charges against the people who swarmed him?
If anyone knows the info of the man, just have them email me at ezra at rebelnews.com.
You know, we crowdfund lawyers.
How about instead of scapegoating this clearly terrified individual?
I'm going to go out on a limb here.
How about we actually enforce the law and stop thugs and gangs from threatening people on the street?
I mean, I know that's hard.
And tolerating a crime wave is sort of the brand of Toronto now, including the police chief Myron Demkew.
And I mean, that's the thing.
I put yourself in his shoes.
For 10 months, he's allowed Hamas gangs to rule the streets.
It might even seem unfair if he started to enforce the law against these Indigenous folks.
What advice do you think the Toronto police would have for moms or seniors or even for those awful white men?
What advice would the Toronto Police have for anyone of any race or sex or age who was stopped on the road by masked thugs who were swarming the car, some with sticks?
What advice would they have?
I'm going to go out on another limb and guess that the police advice would be roll down the window and gently hand them your car keys.
I say that is likely their advice because that's exactly the advice they gave earlier.
Remember this?
There's also updated advice for all vehicle owners.
A message echoed by Toronto police speaking at an Etobicoke safety meeting last month.
Constable Marco Ricciardi had a new message for vehicle owners who keep their fobs in Faraday pouches.
To prevent the possibility of being attacked in your home, leave your fobs at your front door because they're breaking into your home to steal your car.
They don't want anything else.
A lot of them that they're arresting have guns on them and they're not toy guns.
They're real guns.
They're loaded.
Now, you wouldn't know it if you're under 45, but about 30 years ago, there were terrible race riots in the city of Los Angeles.
And a truck driver who just had the bad luck of driving through town at the moment the riots were kicking off was named Reginald Denny.
Now, that's a name that probably doesn't mean anything to someone under 45 years old.
But Reginald Denny drove in the wrong place at the wrong time, and he got pulled out of his truck cab on the streets, and he was beaten almost to death.
It was a shocking moment, and it just happened to be underneath a news helicopter that was covering it live.
And this was long before the internet, long before social media.
This is when everyone genuinely did watch CNN.
It was the way to get breaking news from around the world.
It was, on the one hand, riveting television.
It was a breakthrough for news, but it was a horrific view of a near murder that millions of people saw and were terrified by.
I think that we were maybe five minutes away from a Reginald Denny moment there on Toronto's streets.
I don't know if the people who swarmed the vehicle would have beaten him near to death, would have used a brick to smash his head.
I don't know.
We don't know because the man made the decision to drive away.
If he had made the decision to stay, I have no doubt that his car would have been smashed, and maybe he would have too.
He probably made the decision in the split second of the moment that things could get bad very, very bad.
And if he drove away and hopefully didn't kill anyone in driving away, whatever the consequences were would likely be less than what that street mob would put upon him.
I think he made the right decision.
What would you do?
What would you do?
This is an unusual event in that it was caught on camera.
I'm sure that there are more crimes every day that are not caught on camera that have a similar feeling to them.
The street protest here apparently is because of a mentally unstable person being shot by police.
And obviously that's terrible.
And the massive increase in drug addictions in our streets, driven in part by Trudeau's forced legalization of hard drugs, is part of the blame.
But it's a little bit different when one lone deranged drug addict acts out in violence.
It's terrible, terrible for him and terrible for the population that's victimized.
UK's Civil War Flames00:15:21
It's different between that and organized political violence, which is what that protest was, and what we're seeing now in the United Kingdom's civil war.
More on that civil war in a moment with Calvin Robinson.
I'm riveted by the United Kingdom.
As you know, I've been traveling there ever since our association with the troublemaker Tommy Robinson about seven or eight years ago when he briefly worked with Rebel News.
Well, we've kept in touch.
As you know, when he was arrested a few years ago and jailed, we helped crowdfund his legal defense.
And we've been interested in his attempt to build a sort of counterculture movement.
When I say counterculture, it's odd to say that patriotism and pro-British symbols and to defend British history and to call that counterculture.
But these days it certainly is when all the establishment are either woke or frankly Islamist and the combination of the two.
Tommy Robinson had a huge march on June the 1st and then again on July 27th and our reporter Alexa Lavoie attended both of them and they were distinguished.
The chief quality besides their theme of patriotism and stopping mass immigration was how peaceful they were, how well-behaved they were.
And so it was no surprise thereafter that Tommy was arrested under the Terrorism Act, even though he had committed no terrorism.
But that act allows police to arrest people without a warrant and to question them without them having the traditional right of not to incriminate themselves.
Under the Terrorism Act, you can be detained, I think it's for six hours, and asked any question, and you're forced to reply, not to reply, is a crime that's typically used in a ticking time bomb style situation where you've caught a terrorist mastermind.
Where is the bomb?
You've got to let us know.
They used that to pick up Tommy Robinson.
And strangely, most of the questions were, what's your purpose for these meetings?
What's this movement about?
It was just picking his brain about his political protest plans.
Very strange.
Well, fast forward a week or two and the United Kingdom is in flames, not because of anything Tommy Robinson said.
Rather, he warned about what was coming, which is the ghettoization of sectarian groups.
That's how Nigel Farage would describe Muslim groups that have not fully integrated.
There have been riots, sparked by a few peculiar incidents, including the horrific slaughter of three young girls attending a Taylor Swift party.
The country is in flames.
And instead of trying to douse the flames and lower the temperature, the Labor Prime Minister Kirstarmer has used it to heighten the temperature, to blame Indigenous British people, calling them far-right, and to only blame them instead of Muslim riots, and to only offer sympathy to the Muslim side of some of these battles, not to the British community that itself has many wounds.
It's terrifying.
But today, things took a particular turn for the worse.
And joining us now to talk about it is our friend Calvin Robinson, who's been on the show before.
He's a priest and a broadcaster.
You can follow him at CalvinRobinson.com and on Twitter.
Calvin, great to see you again.
Do you think I summed up recent events?
I mean, I did a whole show on it this week, but I talked about the child welfare services going after the gypsy kids and then the horrific stabbings, the Manchester airport incident.
All of these things sort of combined, I'd say the UK is having sort of its George Floyd riot moment, would you?
Yes, it feels like we're having a lot of civil unrest that could potentially lead up to a civil war.
Something is brewing.
The country has been under a malaise for the last few months, but now that's sparked into something more malevolent.
And it's been stirred up by the people who should be helping solve it.
Our politicians, our mainstream media, the entire establishment seems to be riling up the ordinary British folk and actually making us the enemy.
I don't know why.
I don't know what the motivation is.
But all I see is more upset, more hurt, more aggression.
And it's going to turn violent, more violence than it already has been.
Yeah, I don't understand it.
I mean, I would have thought it was a time for Kirstarmer, the new prime minister, to call for unity, to call for peace, to use soothing tones, to talk about building a harmonious society.
But he did the opposite.
It felt like Joe Biden's sort of rageful speech he gave a few months ago where he talked about MAGA extremists.
It really sounded partly like a campaign speech and partly like, ha ha, I'm going to trump this up into a UK January 6th insurrection moment and do two things.
I'm going to arrest hundreds of my political enemies.
I'm going to terrify thousands more.
And I'm going to use it basically to pre-label any criticism of mass migration as not just racism, which they've been saying for years, but terrorism.
I think what we saw was Kirstarmer opportunistically looking to say, huh, people are mad and some people are violent.
I can use this to my advantage.
I'm going to go after all my enemies now, January 6th style.
That's how it looked to me on this side of the ocean.
Does that ring any bells for you, or do you think something else is afoot?
I mean, that's one way of reading it.
I just read it as incompetence.
I think Sir Keir Starmer is a very weak individual.
He's not a very good leader.
He's an insecure man.
And I don't think he knows how to address this situation.
I don't know if he knows how to read the situation in order to address it, actually.
And you're right that when he came out, his speech wasn't unifying.
He addressed certain demographics in a very different way to address other demographics.
So he pointed the blame and said it's all down to right-wing thugs.
Now, I haven't seen many right-wing thugs.
I'm sure there are some, but I haven't seen many of them.
What I have seen is a lot of Mohammedans with machetes and planks of wood, beating up white Brits, damaging cars, private property, pubs, vandalizing, and they're not being treated in the same way that the Brits are being treated when they get angry.
And everyone is getting angry.
It's everyone against everyone right now.
But what's important, notice that the Prime Minister gets up on his pedestal and says, I'm going to protect the Muslim communities.
I'm going to provide more funding for security for the mosques.
In fact, Elon Musk made a good point when he said, why not protect all communities?
Why not be unifying?
Because he's not.
He's dividing us.
And that's further causing trouble because there are Brits that feel like the Mohammedans are receiving special treatment.
And then the Mohammedans are feeling that they are the ones who are oppressed and need special attention.
And so everyone is being kind of divided and set against each other when the prime minister's job should be to get up on the pedestal and say, we are all British, no matter our skin colour, no matter our religion, no matter where our parents come from, we all unite under the union flag, under the monarchy, and we should be coming together.
Let's end the violence, let's end the protests, and let's mourn as a country the losses of these three innocent girls that were murdered.
Let's come together and grieve.
But he hasn't done that.
He's stoking the flames.
Why?
I mean, you paint a picture of why it may be, but I honestly just think he's an incompetent, weak man.
You know what?
Obviously, I don't know the UK as well as you do.
You live there, you live it every day.
But I want to put to you a different observation and interpretation of Kirstarmer, put by my fellow Anglophile, Will Chamberlain.
And he tweeted the other day, and I didn't understand it at first.
He said, Kirstarmer is a left-wing Ron DeSantis.
And I thought, what?
What does that even mean?
Ron DeSantis is conservatism.
No, what Will was getting at is that Keir Starmer knows how to use the levers of power, knows how to use the tools of government.
He is a former chief prosecutor.
He was a smart lawyer at a senior law firm.
And what Will was saying is he's extremely effective and dangerous.
And watch how he uses this to absolutely batter conservative elements in the country, anti-immigration elements.
This was Will's way of saying, you might hate Keir Starmer, but he's not dopey like Joe Biden.
He's not just about showiness.
He's stake, not sizzle.
So Will Chamberlain has a grudging respect and fear for Kirstarmer.
I don't think he would call Kirstarmer incompetent.
Now, listen, Will's a Yank.
What does he know?
But I saw that and I thought, you know what?
Kirstarmer knows.
He's prosecuted mass riots before.
And he's instructed prosecutors to review thousands of videotapes.
And look, they're emptying it.
They announced they're going to empty out the prisons of half their violent criminals.
I think they're making way.
I think there's going to be hundreds of prosecutions.
Listen, I just react to that.
I'm not necessarily challenging your interpretation.
I'm more scared because what Will Chamberlain said made me think, oh my God, this is a terrifying enemy we have.
He's boring outwardly, but he's terrifying.
If that's the case, then that is terrifying because that makes him a tyrant.
And we have separation in this country of our judiciary, our legislative.
So our parliamentarians shouldn't be telling our judges what to do or our police force what to do.
They should be entirely separate.
But it seems that that's not the case because the people that Keir Starmer points a finger at and calls far-right thugs, those are the people who are being rushed through the judicial system.
They're being arrested, they're prosecuted and sent off to prison straight away.
Whereas people from the Manchester situation or from Hare Hills or other people are not getting through the system.
And in fact, he came out of one of the first things he said when he got into power a month ago was that prisons are full.
He said there are only 700 places in all the prisons in the United Kingdom.
We're going to start letting people out early.
So maybe your friend Will Chamberlain is right.
Maybe what he's doing is emptying the prisons in order to put the right ring people in.
It's probably about political opponents in.
I hope that's not the case.
But then when I hear the person who does his former job now, the chief prosecutor now, when I hear him this week saying that people who retweet things are also committing a crime and they should be very much aware of that, that it's just as much, it's just as bad as inciting violence.
It's just as bad as being out there and rioting yourself.
It's like, okay, so they're looking at people who are saying things that they don't like, but not just saying things, retweeting things that they don't like, and they're coming for them.
Just astonishing.
I mean, listen, I'm not an expert in British law, and I don't pass myself off as one, but I know that the commonalities between British law and Canadian law, there's a tremendous number of commonalities.
In fact, over here, we often look to British law.
It's not binding, but it's persuasive in some cases, at least the high courts.
We have a common legacy, let me put it that way.
And in criminal law, intention or mala fides, actus, there's the actus reus, which is the illegal act, but then there's what they call the mens rea, the mental element.
Sorry to bore you with my tiny bit of Latin, but my point is you need to, for something to be a crime, there has to be a criminal intention.
It's the difference between accidentally brushing up against someone on the street and purposefully hitting them.
Listen to this head of public prosecution say that merely retweeting something, even if, you know, with, we don't even know if there's hate in your heart, it's a hate crime just to click that retweet button.
Listen to the man himself.
The offense of incitement to racial hatred involves publishing or distributing material which is insulting or abusive, which is intended to or likely to start racial hatred.
So if you retweet that, then you're republishing that and then potentially you're committing that offence.
And we do have dedicated police officers who are scouring social media.
Their job is to look for this material and then follow up with identification arrests and so forth.
So it's a really, really serious, people might think they're not doing anything harmful.
They are and the consequences will be visited upon them.
I think the fact that he says so so calmly, that there are countless officials in the UK going through so like creeping and stalking your social media and and one of those words was, he said, not just creating hatred but quote, being insulting.
So if you are intentionally insulting, or go ahead yeah, I mean or insulting someone in a way likely to cause offense literally anyone in the world could be caught by that offence is now a crime in this country unfortunately, the problem is a retweet is not an endorsement.
Retweeting something does not mean I agree with it.
It means I'm showing my audience it.
I might be retweeting it to say, look at this fool, look at this clown, look at what they're saying, but according to the, the DPP, that means I'm also perpetrating the exact same crime that the original tweeter is, which is offence.
Offence is a crime.
And who is going to arrest us for causing offence?
Police officers, who are sitting there scouring the internet.
Now, you can't get a police officer to help you if you get mugged, if you get stabbed.
You can't get a police officer to help you if you get burgled.
But if you tweet something or no no no, if you retweet something, you can get arrested.
Now, what does that say about the state of our society when actual real life bodily, physical crimes are not prosecuted not, people aren't arrested, but online hate speech, as they call it, is a crime and you are arrested for it.
It just goes to show what they're afraid of.
And actually this week we've seen on our mainstream media all across the board, every single day, the question they've been asking.
And you know when they ask the question, it's because they want a specific answer.
They've been asking the question, should social media be banned over temporary period to save people, to say, to make places safe, like a temporary situation to make us safe?
When we've heard, when have we heard that before Ezra, two weeks to flatten the curve oh, we have to extend it.
I know the exact, I know the exact argument.
Here's a clip I saw earlier today, oh, just a temporary, just until we get through this little spot of bother here.
Take a look at this.
I think so.
I think so.
I think we should stop it.
Um, it's only a temporary measure in order to limit um, the spread of inflammatory information, misinformation as well, across the the United Kingdom at this point and uh it.
But this I think we should focus in keeping people safe and communities safe as well.
So my point is to stop it.
You're exactly right, Calvin.
This idea oh, it's just a temporary suspension of your civil liberties.
We've seen that.
That temporary turn into two years, that's if you, if you say to the government that in an emergency they can withdraw your civil liberties, you can be guaranteed you're going to have a perpetual emergency.
Let me show you something even more astonishing, because I think I was mentioning this to you right before we turn on the cameras.
For those who remember, Calvin came with Rebel NEWS to the World Economic Forum, um in Davos Switzerland, a couple years ago.
It was wonderful to hang out with him in that frosty place.
Rape Gangs and Free Speech00:10:52
You might recall, Calvin and I had sort of a walking interview with Greta Tunberg which I thought was very illustr, very illuminating, and Calvin did a great job.
You got to be careful when you're scrumming a 20 year old who looks 14.
That you and Calvin did a great job anyways um, Last year at Davos, the number one thing I heard from the fancy delegates was we've got to stop Trump.
But the number two thing very close behind was we have to stop Elon Musk in order to stop Trump, because by taking the censorship off of Twitter, all sorts of things are being talked about by ordinary people that are off the approved narrative.
And look at this.
This is what a scrum of the head of the Metropolitan Police, which is what they call the main police department in London.
Mark Rowley is his name.
And listen to the second question.
It's about a minute and a half this clip.
The second question is specifically about Elon Musk, because Elon Musk is chiming in with a debate.
He used your phrase two-tier cure.
He's talked about the Rotherham rape gangs.
He's talking about things that have been covered up by the dominant narrative for years.
And I think there's a personal hatred amongst the establishment towards Elon Musk more than any other social media because he's the freest.
Look at the head of the London police being asked, what do you do about Elon Musk?
Now, he doesn't use the word Elon Musk in reply, but he's pretty clear.
Take a look at this one-minute clip.
So we'll throw the full force of the law at offenders, whether that's charging people with assaults, violent disorder, riot, and if terrorism offensive are appropriate.
I know that Director of Public Prosecutions has said he's prepared to consider that.
We will throw the full force of the law at people.
And whether you're in this country committing crimes on the streets or committing crimes from further afield online, we will come after you.
Talk to me about that because we have seen some high-profile figures whipping up the hatred.
You talked about it in there with the officers, in fact, about this being added to by online commentary.
I mean, I'm even thinking of the likes of Elon Musk getting involved.
What are you considering when it comes to dealing with people who are whipping up this kind of behavior from behind a keyboard, maybe in a different country?
Being a keyboard warrior does not make you safe from the law.
You can be guilty of offences of incitement, of stirring up racial hatred.
There are numerous terrorist offences regarding the sort of publishing of material.
All of those offences are in play if people are provoking hatred and violence on the streets.
And we'll come after those individuals just as we will physically confront on the streets the thugs and the obs who are taking, who are causing the problems for communities.
There you have it.
The question was about Elon Musk.
He didn't repeat that name in the answer.
And I suppose in some ways what he said was correct.
I mean, assault, riot, those are offences.
And I think everyone would want those things to be attacked by the police.
They haven't in many Muslim communities.
And when asked about, you know, online offences, it's true.
You can commit a crime on the internet just like you could on a telephone or with the mail.
But that loosey-goosey, did you provoke violence?
What does that mean?
By talking about the rape gangs in Rotherham, are you provoking violence?
That's what scares me, Calvin, is the language by the prosecutors of you're insulting and it is likely to cause hurt feelings.
These are not objective standards.
These are political, subjective standards that we're all guilty in advance of.
It just comes down to who's charged, don't you think?
Yeah, the reason the Pakistani Muslim rape gangs have been getting away with grooming and raping young girls all across the country is because the political class, whether it's the counselors and the police or the MPs and everyone who's been involved, has covered it up for the sake of diversity because they thought if they address it, they will inspire racial wars.
They will inspire a culture war, quite literally.
And so that tells you a lot about their way of thinking, that if addressing a problem can cause a problem, then they're going to avoid addressing the problem, which is what they're talking about here on the internet.
So if people like you or I or Elon Musk addresses the Pakistani Muslim grooming gang situation, we are inciting violence because we're potentially getting people angry about a situation that's going on.
Whereas what they should be addressing is the problem itself, which is the Pakistani Muslim rape gangs.
But this goes across the board for everything.
This past week, we've seen a lot of protests.
Some of them have turned into riots.
The people who have addressed them have been the problem, according to the mainstream media and the politicians.
But this speech by Mark Rowley was incredibly worrying for a number of reasons.
One of them is that he seems to believe his jurisdiction extends outside of the United Kingdom.
He starts talking about people who are online, further abroad or further afield.
That's outside of his bounds.
He doesn't have the remit for that.
And then he starts talking about terrorism legislation.
Well, we know that police abuse terrorism legislation, which was put in place to help them prevent terrorism, but they use it for other things because it gives them more freedom.
It gives them more freedom because it takes away our freedoms.
You talked at the top of the show, actually, about a mutual friend of ours who's been arrested recently under the terrorism legislation, not because they suspected him as being a terrorist, but because they knew they could hold him for longer.
They could do what they want.
And that's the problem with these emergency acts, these emergency bills, and this emergency legislation.
It gives too much power to people who shouldn't have it.
You know, it's you say that one of the reasons the mainstream media doesn't want to talk about it is they don't want to whip up feelings.
That's true, but I read the Rotherham Inquiry, the 1400 Girls Plus who were systemically raped again and again and again, because they were basically, well, exploited is the obvious word, but they were blackmailed and extorted into being raped day after day.
Like it's an astonishing thing that I hope we never have to come to terms with here in North America.
But it's widespread in the UK.
Finally, when the government acknowledged that it was happening, there was a commission of inquiry, and again and again, witnesses said, I didn't want to speak out because I didn't want to be called a racist because 80 plus percent of the rapists in Rotherham were Pakistani Muslim men.
All the nurses and doctors and social workers and police and politicians and journalists, all the official people saw it.
But they said again and again, if you read that commission of inquiry, you can do a find, find the word racism, find the word like a search and find.
Again and again, I didn't want someone to call me racist, so I allowed the rapes to continue.
I think that is a huge part of it.
People think they have to stand with these rioters and rapists, or else they're not being progressive enough and they'll be called far right.
Last word to you.
Yeah, so this is the message that the mainstream media and the politicians are putting across.
And this is essentially why they're talking about potentially banning social media for the temporary period, because the problem is not social media.
The problem is free speech.
And they will ban anything that allows us to communicate with each other.
The only way I've been able to keep up with the news this week is via Twitter or X, as they call it now, because the mainstream media has not been covering the events properly.
They've been incredibly biased.
You know, they blamed the EDL, for goodness sake.
The English Defence League hasn't been around since 2013.
Who has been out on the streets?
The Muslim Defence League, but they haven't been mentioned once.
And so this is the incredible two-tier bias that the mainstream media has, along with the two-tier bias of the policing system, put that together and we live in a tyrannical situation.
So social media through Twitter and Rumble have been outlets where we've been able to communicate with each other, let each other know what's really going on on the ground.
And this is why the establishment wants to ban Twitter and punish Elon Musk for giving us a voice.
You know, I said that was the last word, but I've just got to throw in one more thing, and it's a wonderful tweet.
Listen, misinformation is a human frailty.
We try to conclude something before we have 100% of the facts.
We make a guess.
We just have an accident.
We get something wrong.
Everyone makes mistakes.
Legacy media blame social media for having misinformation.
There's just as many mistakes in legacy media.
It's just that they're the gatekeepers of their own corrections.
One of my favorite things about Twitter, as I mentioned the other day, is something called Community Notes, where ordinary people get to fact-check even the fancy people.
And this gorgeous, gorgeous tweet by The Guardian, which is a far-left newspaper in the UK, they were saying there's no such thing as two-tier policing.
That's a right-wing trope.
And then bam, Community Notes cites about four cases where The Guardian itself has said that there's two-tier policing.
In that case, it was against minorities, against black citizens.
So, you know, yes, people get it wrong all the time.
The beauty of social media is that it corrects itself faster and it doesn't allow the disinformation spreader to veto his own corrections.
You can't get a correction in The Guardian unless the Guardian's letters to the editor boss lets you in.
But on Twitter, the world can correct an error.
I just thought that was a wonderful thing.
And I don't know if you saw that, but Calvin, that made me chuckle.
That's an important distinction that you just made that you've just inferred to in the difference between disinformation and misinformation.
So disinformation is false information that's being spread on purpose in order to cause problems.
Of course, we should prevent the spread of disinformation, but misinformation is false information that's been spread by accident, maybe not on purpose.
And we all make those mistakes.
But you'll see the mainstream media and the politicians are clamping down on misinformation because what they don't want is they don't want us spreading information that they see as false, whether it's true or false in reality.
And if we don't have the ability to spread misinformation, if we don't have the ability to get things wrong, we do not have free speech and we do not have freedom.
That's a great place to leave it.
Calvin Robinson, one of the good guys, that's for sure.
I've had the pleasure of attending church at his church in the United Kingdom.
I'm Jewish myself, but it was a beautiful thing to observe.
You can follow Calvin at his website, CalvinRobinson.com.
Take care, my friend.
Hope to talk to you again soon.
Thank you.
God bless you.
All right.
You too.
Stay with us.
more ahead.
Hey, welcome back.
Your letters to me.
Ireland's Queer Progress00:02:26
Arctic Cat says, it was heartwarming to see the British and Irish people protesting in unity.
They are all suffering from the same invasion, so they need to unite.
Yeah, I saw some really interesting images.
I think it was from a protest.
I think it might have been in Belfast, which is in Northern Ireland, which, as you may know, is part of the United Kingdom.
It's the more Protestant part of the island of Ireland.
The southern part, of course, is Catholic, and they had a civil war.
They had a rebellion and they had the troubles for years.
There are some deep rivalries there, but to see the two flags at the same protest against mass immigration, it was a startling sight to see.
I know exactly what you're talking about.
Yvonne Boudreau says, why are the pride parades held in August and not June during Pride Month?
Well, don't you know it's Pride Decade?
I'm not even kidding.
I mean, everything is Pride.
Have you watched Netflix lately?
Have you watched Disney lately?
But as I thought it was interesting, what Drea pointed out, they don't call it gay pride anymore because they're way, way past gay.
In fact, I'd say they're so far past gay.
They're anti-gay.
I think I told you that a year ago, I heard a speaker in the UK with the Gay Men's Network saying, if he were a kid today, they would have said, no, no, you're not a gay man.
You're a woman trapped in a man's body.
We got to chop you up.
He said it's a war against gay men or gay young men because each of them is being diagnosed as trans and they're being pumped full of meds and surgery.
So they're not called gay pride anymore because they're really not about gay pride.
It's all about the T and the Q, the trans extremism and general queering.
And I don't mean that in a sexual sense, although that too.
I mean that in destroying everything in the world.
When I showed you that strange combination that was protesting in the streets of Toronto that swarmed that guy's car, it was a little bit of this, a little bit of that, a little bit of Hamas, a little bit of indigenous, a little bit of black.
Let's just all get together.
Why?
What's the commonality?
Smash the state.
Fight the man.
Undermine Canada, its rule of law, its police, its system, its constitution, revolution.
That's what the T and the Q stand for.
Well, that's our show for today.
Until tomorrow, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, to you at home, good night.