Ezra Levant exposes Bell Canada’s CTV News as "regime media," alleging $8M/year in Liberal favors while editing Pierre Polyev’s speech to mislead viewers—splicing clips to falsely tie Conservatives to dental care, not carbon taxes. Two employees were fired after admitting manipulation, but Levant dismisses apologies as performative. He contrasts Trudeau’s global spotlight with Canada’s perceived irrelevance in U.S. cities like New York, where his blackface past and policies spark mockery. Meanwhile, Code Pink’s Jody critiques U.S.-funded Gaza violence as "genocide," framing protests as a fight against imperialism while rejecting comparisons to other conflicts like Yemen or Kurdish struggles, arguing influence over Washington is the priority. Levant’s episode ties corporate media bias to political cronyism and global perceptions of Canadian leadership. [Automatically generated summary]
Boy, I, you know, I've been thinking about this Pierre Polyev quarrel with Bell Canada's CTV News channel.
And the more I think about it, the more I love it.
It's about time the Conservative fought back against the regime media.
And the word regime media applies perfectly to Bell.
It really is the corporate deep state.
I'll show you the connections and how Bell Canada really just uses CTV as their in-house lobby group.
I'll prove it to you.
That's ahead.
But first, let me invite you to become a subscriber to what we call Rebel News Plus.
That's the video version of this podcast.
I do it every weeknight.
My friend Sheila Gunner does it every week.
That's a lot of great content exclusively for Rebel News Plus.
But another reason to subscribe is it helps us because we don't get any money from Trudeau.
So, you know, it's really you, our viewers, that keep us alive.
And eight bucks a month might not sound like a lot of money to you, but it really adds up for us.
Please go to rebelnewsplus.com and click subscribe.
All right, here's today's podcast.
Tonight, finally, a politician calls the media party's bluff.
It's September 26th, and this is the Ezra Levant show.
Shame on you, you censorious bug.
Hey, the other day, CTV ran a clip that was Pierre Polyev saying a certain sentence about why he was voting non-confidence in Trudeau.
Here's the clip.
That's why we need to put forward a motion.
Yeah, except for that, that's not actually what he said.
Although it sure sounded like it, didn't it?
Because it actually was his voice.
And he actually did say those words, but he didn't say them in that sentence.
It was spliced together, literally taking a word here, a word there, and a word from here, and putting them all together and making a new video that was handcrafted by CTV.
He didn't say that.
That's why it's time to put forward a motion for a carbon tax election.
Now, that's not an accident.
I know a little bit about video editing.
It's the business I've been in for 10 years.
That is very laborious work.
It must have taken at least an hour, maybe more.
And the thing is about taking a word here and a word there from different moments in a conversation is that if you were to put it together as a video and time it just right so it sounded natural, you would see visually that that it was out of order.
So they hid those little splices by covering up his mouth or putting him out of the out of the shot so that the audio and video wouldn't be out of sync.
That was a deceptive tactic, very carefully done.
It's impossible to do that except on purpose.
It was a deep fake.
But it wasn't created by AI artificial intelligence.
It was created by CTV and their low intelligence, pro-liberal point of view.
The purpose was obvious.
It was to paint Pier Polyev as hostile to the liberal dental care program.
I don't know, to make him look heartless or something, but it's not what he said.
It was made up.
Imagine going to that effort to take a word here, a word there, a word there, put it all together, time it just right so it seems natural, and then to hide the splicings by having visual elements in the way.
And then like, who does that?
Well, CTV was caught red-handed, and they gave a dishonest apology that in China would be called an ironic apology.
I'm sorry if you were offended.
You can see it tweeted here in tiny text that's so much smaller than normal Twitter text.
And because it's an image that they tweeted, the words are not searchable because it's a picture.
They tweeted it not on the main CTV Twitter feed.
They put it on their CTV National News, which is their smallest channel, just 141,000 followers.
Instead of 430,000 followers on the main CTV account or the 2.2 million followers on the CTV News account, they put it on the smallest place they could.
And they claimed, oh, it was just a misunderstanding.
It was just out of context, that's all.
Then they had their anchor read that word for word on TV that night.
I guess he'll literally read anything put in front of him.
I suppose that is his job description.
Take a look.
Last night in a report on this broadcast, we presented a comment by the official opposition leader Pierre Polyev that was taken out of context.
It left viewers with the impression the conservative non-confidence motion was to defeat the liberals' dental care program.
In fact, the conservatives have made it clear the motion is based on a long list of issues with the liberal government, including the carbon tax.
A misunderstanding during the editing process resulted in this misrepresentation.
We unreservedly apologize to Mr. Polyev and the Conservative Party of Canada.
We regret this report went to air in the manner it did.
How would that have happened on CTV's flagship news broadcast program?
I mean, it's not a tiny show.
They have a lot of staff, unlike independent journalists.
That must have been ordered by a boss because it's so unusual.
No journalist would do that as a matter of course.
That's just a strange thing to do.
It must have been ordered by a boss, supervised by a boss.
And there must have been many hands and eyes on it to get the different footage, to make the edits.
Oh, I'm sure that half a dozen people were involved.
There was no misunderstanding here.
In fact, they understood the assignment perfectly.
No possible way this could have come about other than deliberately.
I'd like to know, either from Omar Sacchadino or anyone else at CTV, what is the alleged misunderstanding?
What was misunderstood?
What were the instructions and who misunderstood whom?
I'd like to know, is there any proof of this misunderstanding or is that just a lie that CTV's press department came up with, their PR department?
And by the way, are there any consequences to this lie?
That's CTV, but CBC, Tweedledee and Tweedledum, CBC comes to the aid of their CTV cousins.
Take a look at this video.
This guy's name is David Cochran.
He's famous for taking a free poutine from Justin Trudeau during a campaign a few years ago.
I mean, if a politician gives you a gift, you say thank you and you put it down and you don't take it.
You don't take it and eat it like David Cochran.
What a weirdo.
Take a look at his clip.
They've admitted the mistake.
It was a, they said basically human error and incompetence, or like, you know, that happens in this business, right?
I'm not saying CTV News is incompetent, but we all make mistakes in this business and we apologize for it.
And they published it and their chief anchor said it on the show.
But to have them, to demand that they apologize for the malicious nature of the editing, to admit to a malicious intent here, that's a demand that's difficult for news agency to accept.
I'm not sure that we should wave it away as just a mistake, because this is not a misattribution.
It's not even taking part of the same sentence and applying it in a different context.
This is taking a full paragraph, a variety of sentences that Pierre Polyev said, taking bits and pieces from each sentence to craft a new sentence.
That is journalistic malpractice.
Okay, so just, and I'm not defending this, I'm explaining this.
The sentence that Pierre Polyev said is, that's why it's time to put forward a motion for a carbon tax election.
For whatever reason, they spliced together different things he said in that scrum to create the sentence.
That's why we need to put forward a motion.
Now, it's not like it was changed to him saying something outrageous.
It's not a sentence he uttered.
It does not say it's about a carbon tax election.
And in the way it was presented in the story, it makes it sound like he wants an election to stop dental care.
Correct.
So I get why they feel they're taken out of context.
And CTV admitted to that and apologized for it.
But the suggestion from Mr. Polyev's tweets that the Bell Canada corporate suite is somehow weaponizing its news agency to get favorable treatment by the Trudeau government is a lie.
I don't think that they're feeling that they've been taken out of context.
They were taken out of context.
Absolutely.
And when you are the fifth estate, you are in the accountability game, just the same as politicians are.
And a quick apology the same day for something that is so egregious that action to be taken is not going to be enough when we're talking about the table stakes of not favorable coverage, fair and balanced coverage.
And that's all conservatives are asking for.
They're asking for fair coverage.
They're not asking for glowing reviews.
They just want the facts to be reported as they are.
So I don't think that it is delving into conspiracy theory.
We had three separate sentences.
A Frankenstein sentence emerge as a result.
That deserves to be called out.
And I think that should be called out regardless of who says it in the House of Commons or which journalistic entity makes such a bad decision.
Human error?
Mistake?
Is it a mistake?
Kate Harrison, the Conservative pundit, explained it pretty well.
But there he was, David Cochran, a government journalist, the CBC State broadcaster, doing the heavy lifting for fake news.
The Conservatives feel like they were taken out of context.
No, brother, they actually were taken out of context.
And CTV actually admits that.
You're defending CTV even more than they're defending themselves.
They say it was out of context.
And here's ABC saying, well, maybe they feel like they were.
It's funny, though, CTV, they do these sorts of things a lot.
Just a few weeks ago, CTV forgot, whoopsies, misunderstanding.
They forgot to show the Conservative candidate in the recent Montreal by-election.
Oh, well, you know, it's so easy to forget these things.
This was first exposed by the press secretary for Pierre Polyev, Sebastian Skamsky, who showed that the words were cut and pasted together, meticulously showing where they actually came from.
And then he did something which I think is sort of amazing.
Instead of just whining about it, Skamsky announced a boycott.
From now on, every single part of the Conservative Party will simply boycott not just CTV, but also its owner, Bell Canada, and very importantly, Bell Canada lobbyists.
He specifically talks about the executives of Bell Canada.
Now, I have had the opportunity on several occasions to read the annual report of Bell Canada, which owns CTV.
Bell Canada is called BCE, Bell Canada Enterprises, and it really is one of Canada's largest companies.
It's almost like a public utility because it's so regulated and gets so many favors from the Trudeau government.
It is owned by private shareholders, but it is sort of like a bank or an airline in the way that it is, there's really no seeing where the company ends and the government begins.
Now, I read the entire document, and you can find it very quickly online.
Just Google BCE Canada annual report.
And you can see their annual report, which I just read again today.
There is a single mention of CTV News in the entire document.
I'll read it to you.
It's only one sentence long.
CTB News is a member of the Trust Project, a global network of news organizations that affirms a strong commitment to transparency, accuracy, inclusion, and fairness.
Of course, every word of that is a lie, of course.
We just showed that they do the opposite of all those things.
But that's the only mention of CTV News in the entire report.
And the reason for that is because it is a tiny part of the business.
Bell Canada, their main business is internet and cell phones, which are extremely regulated.
They depend on favorable rulings from the federal government's regulator, which is hand-picked appointees chosen by Justin Trudeau.
So you're BCE, your Bell Canada Enterprises, you've got satellites, you've got cell phones, you've got cable, all hyper-regulated, and you have tens of billions of dollars at stake there.
And then you have this little teeny tiny rounding error called CTV News.
CTV News is very important to you and me as news consumers, but it is not important to Bell Canada as a source of revenue.
It's a money loser, of course.
But why?
Why is CTV so important to Bell?
And why is Pier Polyev singling out Bell and their executives?
In fact, this isn't the first occasion.
I mean, I mentioned before the annual report.
Just give me this.
I went through it today.
Racial wokeism, climate, wokeism, ESG, DEI.
You have to get through more than a dozen pages of their Marxist claptrap, their UN terminology, their World Economic Forum BS, before you even get to their annual report.
And if that's not a warning about what Bell Canada is, well, you should be warned.
There's dozens of pages of this.
If you actually get through all their political crap, they're not doing that great.
I mean, they did make money.
It's pretty tough to lose money when you're essentially a regulated public utility like they are, but earnings are weak.
They're down over the past year from $2.9 billion to $2.3 billion.
That's still a lot of money.
Their earnings per share are falling as well.
How do you lose money when you basically have a public utility monopoly and when the government is blocking any foreign competition?
And that is how to understand CTV.
Here's my point.
Bell Canada Enterprises cares so little about CTV as a business or as an editorial product.
It has one sentence in an entire annual report.
It is not a news company.
It is a lobby firm.
It's not a real business.
It's not a moneymaker.
Its purpose is to appease the politicians and to give things that politicians value so that when the politicians regulate Bell, you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.
Pierre Polyev knows what's up.
You take a look at this.
Wow, one of Canada's biggest and oldest companies, Bell, downgraded to one level above junk bond status.
No wonder their network CTV pushes such pro-liberal news.
Bell Needs Bailout00:11:13
They need lots of federal regulatory assistance.
My prediction, Bell will need a bailout from the Liberals one day.
That's it.
He's got it.
He's cracked the code.
It's exactly what it's about.
It's the only reason the Bell even keeps CTV News around, even though it's such a money loser, is precisely because it pleases Trudeau.
Trudeau, sure, he takes money, but he can get money from the Chinese government or someone else.
What CTV can give Justin Trudeau that no one else can is headlines.
They are still the largest TV broadcast in the country.
So when CTV gives something to Trudeau that he feels good about, Trudeau can return the favor with regulatory favors.
Here's another quote from Pierre Polyev.
It has an image of Trudeau claiming he's pissed off at Bell for laying off hundreds of journalists.
Polyev says, if you're so pissed off at Bell for the layoffs, why don't you demand Bell give back the government handout you gave them to save media jobs?
Isn't that the truth?
He's mocking Trudeau as Trudeau deserves to be mocked.
In this case, he's referring to the CEO of Bell getting $13 million.
Let me read that.
How does the CEO of Bell get $13 million the year before the company gets downgraded to one level above junk bond status?
This is the crony capitalism of the Trudeau state-run economy.
Politicians protect big oligopolies against competition.
Those oligopolies use their media arms to give politicians glowing coverage.
That is exactly how to think about it.
This is a much bigger battle than just some unethical journalists.
Don't think for a second that some video editor misunderstood something, or even that Omar Satchadina, the talking puppet, misunderstood.
They weren't even involved in this decision.
This was a Bell corporate instruction to their PR department called CTV to do a favor for Trudeau.
And it backfired on them.
And now look at Pierre Polyev.
He's taking on the corporate deep state.
In Canada, big businesses like banks and airlines and media are hyper-regulated to the point where they're effectively government departments.
Big business plus big government, plus big tech.
They're all friends with each other.
In Japan, they would call that a karitsu.
They're all invested in each other, but they're friends with each other, but not friends with you.
If you're wondering what I mean by that, take away the regulatory bribery and corruption.
We have the highest cell phone prices in the world.
Did you know that?
By far the highest cell phone prices in the world and terrible customer service.
And if you think it's bad now, if you think it's bad with Trudeau in power, wait for when Mark Carney runs for the liberal leadership.
He is from this world, but add an extra zero to the billions he's used to dealing with.
But I'm excited about Pierre Polyev punching back and saying to his entire team, no one talks to CTV, not to their reporters, and not to the puppet masters of Bell Canada.
I don't think CTV is used to fighting like this.
They're certainly not used to playing defense.
They're just used to throwing darts at conservatives.
And I know Bell Canada sure isn't used to the scrutiny here.
I'm here for it.
I'm loving every second of it.
By the way, while Pierre Polyev is at it, taking on the corporate deep state, maybe he can take on loblaws for their bread price fixing.
They got away scot-free for that.
I think they need a public prosecution.
Just before we were going to go to air tonight, breaking news.
CTV came out with a second, more groveling apology where they say they sincerely and unreservedly apologize and actually use words like altering a video clip, manipulating it for a particular story, actions that violate our editorial standards are unacceptable.
They claim two people were fired from CTV News, but they don't say who.
Take it or leave it if you like.
This is their second attempt at an excuse.
Yesterday's was full of lies.
Whether or not they're telling the truth now is uncertain.
What is certain is that Pierre Polyev has cracked their code.
CTV doesn't answer for itself.
It answers for Bell Media.
And when Bell Media was threatened to be cut off, they panicked.
Hi, everybody.
Ezra Levant here from Rebel News.
I'm in Times Square, New York City.
I'm here because Justin Trudeau is in town.
He went to the United Nations to give a speech, but hundreds of seats were empty.
I think there were only about a dozen people there.
Take a look.
Then he went on the Colbert show, and it was a snooze fest.
It just wasn't funny at all.
And so I thought I would ask actual people in New York City.
New Yorkers, Americans from other places, and even foreigners who will talk to me, do you know who Justin Trudeau even is?
I'm going to show them this picture and say, if you can tell me who this is, I'll give you a dollar.
And if they really need a hint, I'll show them this.
I'll see if that jogs their memory.
So what do New Yorkers say when I say name this man?
Let's find out.
Tell me who this is and I'll give you a buck.
That's a politician.
You bet.
Does he look familiar?
He looks like an asshole.
I think you're right, you.
Oh, yeah, that is the old Williams Williams Smith.
You don't know who this is?
Macron.
Macron?
No, good guess, though.
Do you know who it is?
Trudeau.
Good for you, yeah.
Do you know who that is?
I have no idea.
It's Justin Trudeau.
Yeah, good for you.
Here's the end.
Here's your dollar.
I'll give you a dollar if you can tell me who this is.
Do you know who it is?
For a dollar?
Who is this?
Okay.
Okay.
One dollar.
Who is this?
One dollar.
For one dollar.
No no English.
Hi, guys.
I'll give you a dollar if you can tell me who this is.
I haven't got a clue.
You do?
Here's your dollar.
You got it right.
Don't know who that is?
No.
No?
Do you know who that is?
Who is this guy, first of all?
An awful, sad excuse for a leader for Canada.
Do you know who he is?
Prime Minister Canada.
Come and get your dollar.
For $1, who's this?
Omari, this is the President of Canada.
Oh, yeah, what's his name?
Good for you.
There's your dollar.
Do you know who that is?
No?
All right.
How do you know who he is?
He's our prime minister.
Oh, you're from Canada?
Yeah.
Okay, well, are you just tourists down here?
That's how you know.
Yes, yes.
I'm offering people $1 if they can identify who this person is.
You don't know who that is?
Who's this?
Here's your dollar.
For $1, who's this guy?
$1.
Do you know who this is for a dollar?
The president of Canada.
What's his name?
Trudeau.
Here's your dollar.
If you can tell me who this is, I'll give you a buck.
I don't know.
Sorry.
Justin Trudeau.
For $1, who's this?
Trudeau.
For $1, who's this?
How do you know?
I'm Canadian.
Here you go.
$1, tell me who this is.
Oh, I can't tell you, mate.
Sorry.
For $1, can you tell me who this is?
I'll give you a hint.
He's a politician.
I don't know who it is.
Who's this guy?
For $1?
Who's this?
I don't know.
Fair enough.
I'll give you a hint.
You've got good intuition.
Yeah, I can tell he's a day old.
I'll give you a hint.
This is what he looks like when he's dressed up.
Here's what he looks like when he's going out.
Does that ring a bell at all?
I forgot his name.
Do you ever hear about Trudeau or follow him at all?
Seems to do a good job.
Do you know anything about Trudeau?
Nice looking fellow.
He was using blackface.
What do you think of that?
Oh, I remember he did that, yes.
Yeah, what do you think of that?
A bit daft.
What's that?
What has he done that you disagree with?
Well, first thing.
So, I'm a lawyer.
So, I know the overreach that happened in the truck.
He's in the West.
We're getting over-regulated.
Is that ring a bell now?
That's Justin Trudeau, the Prime Minister of Canada.
What do you think of that?
Oh, wow.
He dresses up like that.
What do you think of that?
Probably because he's the three kings.
He's dressed for that.
Oh, my God.
You did a pretty good job already.
Of what?
Good job of what?
Well, he's the prime minister from the last 10 years.
Yeah, so that's one thing.
So he must be good because he's in office.
Surely he's done something good.
He's done something recently, has done some dental free for all.
Are you worried about civil liberties back home in the UK?
I think it has to just really look down to a really, really fair point that I'm going to open this, you know, for a good position where he never had these hustles.
If that doesn't happen, then I'll fight fair for the society.
I don't know.
Does that help?
No.
No.
It doesn't help.
The Canadian president is right.
Castro is his last name.
Dead guy.
He's wearing blackface here.
Did that ring a bell?
Oh, yeah.
That's the guy.
They are making fun of black people.
Let's relax.
I'm remembering that.
I'm a liberal style.
Are you a fan or not really?
Your critic?
If you can't say something nice, don't say it at all.
For you, you're very polite.
That's a very Canadian thing to do.
Very Canadian.
All right.
Nice to meet you.
That's yours.
I'm sorry.
I lost the guy.
Love one of your kids.
Thank you, man.
God, it's still a very red on.
That's what he looks like when he's dressed up.
Oh, dear.
There you go.
Type guys.
Sorry.
That's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada.
Hey guys.
All right.
Cheers, guys.
Oh, what are you all public in your year?
That's great.
Are you Canadian or American?
American.
And I've heard him speak.
It's awful.
And why are you so passionate about this?
Because he doesn't give a shit about his own country.
It's sad.
He's in New York today.
What do you think of that?
There's awful people in New York every day.
My biggest outfits like this are very, I'm going to say constitutional or even secret right to exist.
We need other voices.
If you had to describe him in one word, Jihaban Adjinson, handsome.
Wow.
That's Justin Trudeau, the Prime Minister of Canada.
Oh, yeah.
What do you think of that?
Disrupting War Narratives00:03:59
That's not good.
Well, there you have it.
The vast majority of people have no clue who Justin Trudeau is.
When I showed the blackface, that did ring a bell for some people.
I'd say it was sort of lukewarm reception.
Some foreigners thought he looked dreamy.
But I encountered some Canadians down here in New York who don't have a lot of time for Trudeau and a very passionate man from the Caribbean and now the UK who has a lot to say about Trudeau's violation of civil liberties.
It was a really fun day.
To learn more about our trip to New York and the other things we've done, go to RebelFieldReports.com.
Tell me a little bit about Code Pink and what are you here to say?
Well hi, I'm Jody.
I'm from Code Pink.
I'm one of the co-founders.
And we're here, you know, smack in the middle of where UN visitors are walking because there's not really a conversation about Gaza.
And this is UN week, you know, UN climate week, but war is the greatest contributor to climate change.
We're not hearing it on any of the stages.
So we're here to bring the message, to disrupt in certain audiences, to be out in front of the UN saying war is not green.
Where's that conversation happening here?
All you hear about are like capitalist solutions to climate change, which is so hypocritical because it's capitalism and it's violence and it's greed that is driving this destruction of the planet.
I mean, I have no doubt that war is environmentally disastrous.
I remember during the Gulf War when a bunch of oil derricks were set on fire.
It was a catastrophe.
But, you know, I think some people would say, well, the human life costs on all sides is probably the more acute problem in a war.
What do you think of that?
Well, everyone knows that part, and they talk about that part.
Not enough.
Nobody talks about the fact that the lies that drove us to war, including Canada, and all those people in Canada that went to war and the monies that they spent from their tax dollars.
Which war are you referring to?
War on terror that Canada joined the United States in.
That cost almost six million lives.
So we're watching Palestine right now.
We're watching Gaza and we're horrified every day by the loss of life and the violence of war and the destruction of everything, including the planet.
Of course, that's a destruction of the planet that's quite obvious.
But, and we don't talk enough about the cost of life.
But right here, right now, in this week, they're talking about the climate.
But they're not talking about war.
War is the greatest contributor to climate change.
The numbers show that it contributes more than like 60 countries.
War.
You seem very charming, but I want to ask you some tough questions.
Is that okay?
Are you sure?
I'm sure.
Okay.
My first question is, I remember when CodePink was very strong, when you had an enormous turnout all the time, a lot of media coverage.
And that was when George W. Bush was president, and that's the global war Ontario you're talking about.
But as soon as Barack Obama and the Democrats took over and increased the number of drone strikes and basically let loose all of Libya regime change there, I couldn't help but observe that Code Pink, well, you certainly weren't as vigorous with the Democrats.
You didn't have the same numbers.
I was paying attention.
I was paying pretty close attention.
I was thinking Obama so much.
We were all that was left of the anti-war movement.
We disrupted Obama constantly.
We had the only drone program was out of Code Pink.
We had drone conferences.
Jews, Hezbollah, and Land Disputes00:10:00
We called him out on his Kill Tuesdays.
We went to Yemen.
We went to Afghanistan.
We bought drone victims to Congress to testify.
He was droning people like 3,000 a month.
We got it down to under 1,000 because of our pressure.
So yes, when Obama got in, you watched everybody go silent, but not Code Pink.
Right after he won that November, we went to Afghanistan.
I collected 4,000 signatures from women in Afghanistan that said, please don't escalate.
I hand-delivered it to him, and he tried to get rid of me.
I already called him out for the no-good war, you know, part.
And then he patted me on the shoulder as patronizingly as he does and said, oh, we're not going to fix Afghanistan anytime soon.
said, you are never going to fix Afghanistan.
Only the Afghan people can do that.
I think you're right.
What do you think of Dick Cheney endorsing Kamala Harris?
Well, I think it shows who Kamala Harris is.
She's the war-mongering president, you know.
You know, it's horrible.
To see her embrace war and then watch women talk to her is very hard to watch as a feminist.
Very hard to watch as a feminist.
And not only that, the fact that she's the vice president and hasn't done anything about a genocide, isn't even speaking out, isn't speaking against Biden around a genocide.
She doesn't understand that that would galvanize people to her.
Instead, if she just looks, well, she's, you know, the Manchurian candidate.
I want to ask you one more skeptical question, and thanks for answering them.
Those are not hard questions.
Those are my faves.
Okay, good.
I mean, I think answering challenging questions is the way to get the most interesting information.
So, you've mentioned genocide, and by that I presume you mean... Gaza.
Yes, I mean Gaza, the genocide on the people of Palestine.
And it has now moved to Lebanon.
Which exposes the colonizing, imperialistic manner of this war that has more to do with racism and colonialism and apartheid than religions which people get lost in.
So again, let me ask you the devil's advocate question.
A skeptic would say, for example, the pager attack.
Those were pagers held by Hezbollah terrorists.
Who said they were Hezbollah terrorists?
Well, I think Hezbollah.
I don't think it's the government of a country.
I think Hezbollah had a funeral and they said, these are our people and we're going to strike back.
Yeah, Hezbollah is a government of a country.
Hamas is a government of Gaza.
I don't think Hezbollah.
I think that the United States and Canada get to name them terrorists is called violence.
It's called imperialism and it's called racism.
I don't think Hezbollah.
Who kills more people than this country?
We are terrorists.
I think Martin Luther King said this is the most terrorist country in the world and it remains so.
Wow.
Well, those are some powerful thoughts.
I have one last one for you.
Powerful thoughts.
It's like, it's not a thought.
It's an observation.
I'm complimenting you.
What's happening?
I'm complimenting your enthusiasm.
So many people, and you look like you're alternative media.
So many people look at mainstream media and the lies they are fed, which we know are lies.
We watch it happen.
We watch the lies be exposed over and over and over again.
And still people ingest it and parrot it.
Can you believe being these people in Canada and America and Israel that think what we are watching in the media, alternative media, is okay, that that is okay human behavior.
That we have just watched state-sponsored terrorism, which is the blowing up of those pagers, indiscriminately killing people.
Those pagers were in the pockets of doctors.
Are you sure?
Yes, I'm very sure.
Well, Hassan Nasrallah, the head of Hezbollah, who's not the head of Lebanon, I don't think, he really said that this was a...
I'd have to Google it, but I don't think it's Nasrallah.
Okay, well.
I typed in leader of Lebanon in Google and it says Michelle Aoun and he's with the Free Patriotic Movement.
I'm just going from Google.
The president of Lebanon, Michelle Aoun, it doesn't look like he's with Hezbollah.
A governing structure of Lebanon is Hezbollah.
Like, who's delivering services to the people?
I have one last question for you, and you've been very generous with your time.
A skeptic would say, Even if you look at the worst case for the numbers of civilian casualties in Gaza, that although tragic, every civilian life loss is tragic, just in sheer numbers, it's smaller than other wars going on in the world right now, and that wars that have gone on for years, and yet where has Code Pink been on that?
For example, Turkey versus the Kurds.
We've been there.
And I just feel like that.
I'm not paying attention to that.
But where's your signs about that?
And the Turks are here, but you- Here's what we do.
I think you focused on the Jews.
No.
Oh, my God.
Well, you're not focusing on the Turks.
You're not focusing on the Libyans.
You're not focusing on the Iranians.
You're not focusing on the Saudis or the Yemenites.
We have to focus on our government.
So where is our government funding something is where we can affect.
can't affect Turkey, but we can only affect, we are U.S. citizens.
We can only affect our own government.
And by the way, on Yemen, I've been in the streets for 10 years on Yemen.
But I don't see any reference to Yemen here.
I see that you're focusing on the Jews.
The Jews?
Yeah, the Jews.
You're not talking...
I'm in the streets with Jews.
And by the way, I'm married to one, so I mean...
But you're not, you're taking on the Jews.
You're calling the Jews genociders.
You're using that language of, frankly, the Nazis against the Jews.
but I don't see any language here about Yemen, Turkey, or any of the other countries I just mentioned.
We're around Gaza right now.
And I'm saying, isn't that a coincidence?
No, because that's what our country is funding right now.
A very public genocide.
Turkey's a NATO ally of the United States.
There's an American base in Turkey.
We're just in D.C. around NATO.
We were just in the streets in D.C.
It's like you can't take it all on at once.
If you want to be effective in your messaging, you need to speak to one thing at a time.
How do you engage people in learning without focusing?
And by the way, it's not Jews, it's Zionists.
And what's the difference between a Jew and a Zionist?
A lot.
I don't know the difference.
Zion is Mount Zion.
It's basically saying not all Italians are for Italy.
I think pretty much all of them are like what would you wouldn't be for.
Pretty much all Italians are for Italy.
If there was an Italian who said, no, I'm Italian, but I don't believe in Italy, you'd say that doesn't make any sense.
I'm telling you that Zionism is the core of Judaism.
You need to get some education.
I went to Jewish school until I was in grade 3.
Okay, so Zionism was a creation of imperialism.
It was actually mentioned in the Bible.
That's where the word comes from.
It's not the Zionism being practiced right now.
Zionism believes in the Jewish homeland in in the land of the Bible The Zionism that is being practiced right now is an imperialist project in Israel is not if that is your religion.
I'm sorry for you Well, thanks for your pity, but how can it...
I actually have... I've actually studied...
was in a relationship with a rabbi that is Zionism has nothing to do with the values of being Jewish and if you It's a Jewish home.
You need to go back and study.
So whose land is it?
Who predates the Jews there?
The land belongs, all the land belongs to the people.
The fact that we separate it and pretend to own it is its own crime and disease.
But just in terms of first and right, first.
You're going to include the land.
The land is given to the people.
We are all the people.
What are we?
Separating ourselves from each other?
That doesn't work.
The Jews were there for...
I'm a peace activist.
The Jews were there for millennia before Islam was even created.
So how can Jews be imperialists in their own country?
You know, Native Americans were here for millennia too.
Is it, we're gonna give this to the, the, I'd love to give this to the Native Americans if you're for that.
I don't believe you would because you haven't done anything in that regard.
I have done that.
What have you done?
I've given my land to the Native Americans.
I think you're making things up now.
No, you want to go check it out?
No, really.
Okay.
What do you think about some of the mottos I've heard chanted at Columbia and in Canada?
From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.
What do you think of that chant?
I think that is the dream that the Israelis will become Jewish and practice their religion and that everyone in the land of Palestine will be free.
I don't think that's what it means.
I think it means to remove the Jews from Israel.
I don't think that's what it means.
And how about there is only one solution, Intifada Revolution.
What do you think that means?
I don't know what.
You don't know what Intifada means?
You're a peace activist.
You're here protesting against Israel.
Do you know what Intifada means in the sense in Islam?
And what does it mean?
It's an internal practice.
I don't think it is.
I think you're confusing that with jihad.
Am I a Muslim here?
No.
I really feel like this is my personality.
Okay.
I'm more schooled in being Jewish than being Muslim, so I'm not, I can't really talk about it.
Yeah, no worries.
Listen, I really appreciate you being generous with your time, and I disagree with pretty much everything you said, but you said it with passion and belief, and you said it nonviolently, and so I guess points for that.
Canada Much?00:01:31
Thank you.
Nice to meet you.
I went down to New York just for the day.
I went there in the morning, came back in the afternoon, had a great plane ticket, so it wasn't expensive.
It's always exciting to go down there, which is why Justin Trudeau prefers it to pretty much any Canadian city other than Toronto, Ottawa, and Montreal.
He goes to those three cities more than he goes to New York, but he goes to New York much more than he goes to, say, boring, conservative places like Calgary or Edmonton.
I don't think New York thinks about Canada a lot, even though there's probably a quarter million Canadians there.
I was in Times Square, which is a lot of tourists, I grant you, but I don't think ordinary Americans really think about Canada that much.
I don't know if American leaders think about Canada that much.
I mean, they used to, but Canada's not a serious player in anything anymore, from economics to military to diplomatic matters.
We're just not at the front line.
We've had a guy who shows his fancy socks as a party joke, and people sort of chuckle and say, yeah, they're there, go sit at the kids' table.
I think that was the idea behind my streeters, going out to people and saying, do you know who this is?
Just to show that Trudeau thinks he's a big shot and his traveling gaggle of Canadian media fawn over him wherever he is.
But I think he could walk down the street in New York City and most people wouldn't even know who he was.