Ezra Levant and Rumble sue Canada’s federal government—including Yaara Sachs—for $287K in extortion over the Rebel Live event at Downsview Park, where officials demanded exorbitant security fees despite no credible protest threats. Emails reveal collusion to "stop undesirable events," while Bill C-63’s revival under Mark Carney risks silencing dissent like Tommy Robinson’s UK imprisonment. The Canadian Constitution Foundation warns of expanding speech restrictions, from "bubble zone" laws to hate speech overreach, as judges defer to government justifications. Alberta separatists argue younger generations favor independence amid federal overreach, while Western critics blame Quebec-Ontario dominance for silencing regional voices. This legal battle exposes a broader crackdown on free expression under thinly veiled pretexts. [Automatically generated summary]
I know we do that from time to time, but we've been working on this case for almost a year.
It's when they illegally tried to de-platform us at our Rebel Live Rumble Live conference in Toronto last year.
I'll have all the details, including the lawsuit itself.
I think this is an important one.
I'll take you through the lawsuit and you'll see why.
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.
Just go to rebelnewsplus.com, click subscribe.
It's eight bucks a month.
You get the video version of this podcast, but just as importantly, you get the satisfaction of keeping Rebel News strong and independent because we take no government money and it shows.
Tonight, after nearly a year of planning, we're suing the liberal government and Yaara Sachs.
It's April 7th, and this is the Ezra Levant show.
Shame on you, you censorious bug.
Remember last year when Rebel News held a two-day conference in Toronto?
Hundreds of people came, including many who drove for hours just to be there.
We teamed up with Rumble, the free speech competitor to YouTube, who brought some of their biggest content creators, including Viva Fry, the Canadian live streamer, Glenn Greenwald, the free speech advocate, and Donald Trump Jr.
It was actually a great event, but it almost didn't happen because the Liberal government tried to cancel it.
They tried to de-platform it.
You see, the conference venue was located at Downsview Park.
That's a former Canadian military base in the Toronto area.
So the underlying real estate is still the property of the federal government.
And the Liberals, including the local member of parliament, Yaara Sachs, tried to use that fact to pressure the conference venue into ripping up their contract with us.
That's obviously illegal.
That's a kind of extortion.
We had a signed contract with the venue operator and we paid the rent in advance.
But at the last minute, the government threatened that venue operator and demanded that we spend tens of thousands of dollars on unnecessary security fees or they would shut us down.
They assumed we couldn't pay that much and they were right.
They induced a breach of contract, but they didn't count on Rumble paying the ransom and calling their bluff.
So the last minute, the conference went ahead, and all Yaara Sachs could do was rage against it on Twitter.
Well, that was last spring.
And we've spent months meticulously researching what the liberals did behind the scenes, including by filing access to information requests and interviewing key people.
So here's my news.
Earlier today, we filed a whopping $287,000 lawsuit against the federal government, including against Yaara Sachs herself, for illegally interfering with our civil rights.
You can find the lawsuit in full at stopdeplatforming.com.
I really encourage you to read it.
It's 21 pages long, but it's in plain English and it tells an outrageous story.
In addition to Ya'ara Sachs, we found six different government officials who tried illegally to interfere with our conference, like Robert Ng, who said, quote, we might attract an undesirable crowd.
Who are you to say that?
Or Andrea Thompson, who said, quote, I suppose we can't stop these undesirable events.
Really?
And Roxanne Krause, who said, quote, I love a new challenge, talking about stopping us.
Thompson wrote, quote, I'm wondering if you think there's any language within the lease agreement that would permit us to stop this event from happening.
She knew our conference was legal.
She knew what she was trying to do was illegal.
She didn't care.
She was going to find a way to stop us.
As you can see, we've got their emails plotting to violate our civil rights.
Imagine how brazen you have to be to put it in writing.
I wonder how often they've done this to other people on their enemies list too.
You really ought to read the lawsuit for yourself at stopdeplatforming.com.
That's what they tried to do to us, deplatform us.
And if you can, while you're at that website, chip in a few dollars to help us crowdfund our lawsuit.
I'm excited to say that Rumble is joining us in this lawsuit because they were illegally extorted too.
They've agreed to cover half the lawsuit, but we have to cover the other half.
If you can help, please go to stopstopdeeplatforming.com.
And I promise I'll post the government's defense at that same website too when they find it.
I'd like to see how they try and justify what they did.
I mean, one of the things they told us last year was that the Toronto police were warning them that there was going to be protests against us.
So we needed to pay for that extra security.
But in fact, we have written proof that the police told them there was no evidence of a counter protest to our event at all.
None.
They lied.
Yeah, I know, big shock, right?
I'd really like you to read our lawsuit to see what the liberals and the government tried to do to us and to imagine what they'll do if they win again.
They'll go even harder after their political opponents.
Remember, they weren't just coming from me and Rumble and Rebel News.
They were targeting a private sector event venue operator too, simply because he let conservatives use his facility.
They terrified him.
They terrorized him.
That's what they do to anyone who gets in their way.
Read the lawsuit at stopdeplatforming.com.
Paragraph 57 of the lawsuit is where we outline how they violated our charter rights, including freedom of expression.
Paragraph 61 talks about misfeasance in public office.
That's where you misuse the powers of the government for your own improper purposes.
There's a breach of fiduciary duty and negligence and conspiracy.
You can actually see the conspiracy at work.
Inducing breach of contract, obviously, and intentional interference with economic relations.
Now, no normal person could afford to fight back.
I mean, the event venue operator is just glad to be out of the hostage situation that he was in because the liberals didn't like us.
You can be sure he'll never let us run from him again.
He didn't sign up to be bullied by the government, but we're built a little bit differently, and so is Rumble.
They joined the lawsuit because they're about freedom of speech.
And they're appalled that the Canadian government acted a bit more like the North Korean government.
They're covering half the bill, but we're on the hook for the other half.
Now, the smart thing would be to walk away and lick our wounds.
I mean, after all, the conference did proceed and it was a great success, thanks to Rumble paying the ransom.
But we can't let these malicious bullies get away with this.
Not against us, not against Rubble, not against the venue operator they blackmailed, and not against the countless other people the government surely bullies and cancels and deplatforms all the time now.
This is about setting a precedent.
This lawsuit is setting a precedent and sending a message that you cannot use the neutral non-partisan government to attack your personal political enemies.
You're not allowed to do that.
If you agree with our decision to fight back, go to stopdeplatforming.com.
Read the lawsuit.
And if you agree with it, help us to cover our half of the legal fees.
I know the government is going to hire the most expensive law firm in Canada to fight back.
That's what they always do.
But when you see the outrageous things these bullies actually put in writing, you'll know we have a real chance to win and to set a precedent for freedom for every Canadian.
Go to stopdeeplatforming.com.
Thanks.
One of the largest issues for me, and I think for a large number of Canadians last year, was Bill C-63, otherwise known as the Online Harms Act.
And it had been a project of the Liberal government for actually many years.
It was Stephen Gilbo when he was Heritage Minister the first time who proposed it.
And then it went through various ministers and it never really got off the ground, but it was moving through Parliament.
And the NDP and the Block Aboard said they were going to support it.
This would have created three new censorship bureaucracies.
It would have empowered the Canadian Human Rights Commission to go after hurt words the same way that they did to me some 20-odd years ago.
So we were lucky when Justin Trudeau dissolved Parliament, proroguing it.
That immediately canceled all pending legislation.
So C63 right now is dead.
It does not exist anymore.
But I am increasingly worried that if Mark Carney wins the election, he will reintroduce that.
Parliamentary Proroguing00:02:28
And I base that on his statements that he supports wokeism.
Remember this?
There is a fever gripping America.
And while it rages, Canadians will remain resolute and true to our values.
While America engages in a war on woke, Canadians will continue to value inclusiveness.
And his treatment of reporters.
And I'm not just whining about the fact that, for example, they kicked David Benzies out of a parking lot.
Did you see that?
Sir, did they tell you why we are persona non-grata?
They just told me you cannot be here.
And no reason given.
Security.
Okay.
Thank you, sir.
I appreciate that.
So, yes, I did.
But, sir, all right.
We're done with this.
Okay, so where do you want me to go?
Just on the other side of fence.
You just cannot be here.
Before we continue that way, sir, before we continue, I need him to interview Karima for a second.
You cannot interview anybody on this property, sir.
Lee, I'm afraid I can't because Karima registration and you're on the property.
Okay, all right.
And I really don't want to do that.
I'm not using these things.
No, I'm not that kind of guy.
Oh, no, sir.
I'm not trying to cause trouble for you, but is it not a fair question to ask, why am I not here?
I mean, I'm here for a job.
I have one job.
If there's people on the list of undesirables that are not supposed to be in there, they don't come in.
Okay.
That's it.
Well, I was never going to go in the building, sir.
They can't be on here.
This is owned by the building.
All right.
Everybody in this line has to be permitted to be here by the building.
All right.
If you don't have a registration.
Well, we're going to leave.
You show me your license.
I'll show you my license.
The Gazappo is on standby.
Don't want to get into trouble with them.
Have a good day.
But also, very neutral, just the facts reporters like Karima Saj.
She was kicked out too.
You know who I'm talking about?
Why did they say to you?
So before I had a chance to speak with anyone or show anyone any documentation, I was told that I wasn't getting it.
I thought you on the top stairs provided.
Well, I was really trying to assert my right to speak to someone to understand why I'm a police.
We were told, I was told by the security that I was an undesirable.
Did they use that word?
Did they call you an undesirable?
You know what?
They spared me that particular indignity.
But I certainly got that impression.
I am worried, and I know that there are more acute and urgent things to worry about.
Free Speech Backsliding00:15:30
Bread and butter issues, pocketbook issues, the tariffs, the cost of living, of course.
But I'm also deeply worried about the state of freedom of speech in Canada, but not just in Canada, around the world.
I just saw a news story out of the United Kingdom by the Times of London, perhaps the most reputable broadsheet in that city, that on average, the United Kingdom arrests 30 people every day for saying something on social media.
30 people a day.
I don't even think that Vladimir Putin's Russia keeps up that pace, and they're twice as large.
Joining us now to talk about this very issue is the author of a new article in the National Post called Free Speech is Backsliding Across Europe.
It must be an election issue here.
I'm talking about Christine Van Gogh.
She's the litigation director at the Canadian Constitution Foundation and the author of a new book called Free Speech in Canada.
What a pleasure to have Christine back on the show.
Good to see you again.
Boy, you're in the fight.
So give me an update on what the CCF, that's different from the JCCF we sometimes talk to.
Tell me about the CCF, the Canadian Constitution Foundation, and what you guys are doing to fight for free speech.
Yeah, thanks so much for having me on, NATRA.
The Canadian Constitution Foundation is a nonpartisan legal charity.
We're a national charity.
We have done a lot of public interest litigation on the issue of free speech and on broadly issues of constitutional law and fundamental freedoms in Canada.
Some of your viewers might know us because we're one of the organizations that brought the legal challenge to Justin Trudeau's invocation of the Emergencies Act against the 2022 Freedom Convoy.
That was a, when he used that piece of legislation, it shut down protests that were nonviolent and largely peaceful, although highly disruptive.
That is, in its core, an act of censorship.
We also have been challenging what are referred to as bubble zone laws across Canada.
These are laws that prohibit protests in specific areas.
So I just got back from Calgary recently where we were challenging a bubble zone law in that city that prohibits not just protests near libraries and recreation centers and community centers generally.
It prohibits them on the basis of the content of the protests.
So this is a law that says you can protest, you know, the climate extinction or you can have a labor strike in front of a library, but you cannot protest something like Drag Story Hour.
The law would actually also probably prohibit protests about foreign conflicts, about supervised injection sites and all kinds of things that are on this government prohibited list of topics to protest.
And once the government's deciding what you can and cannot protest, you don't have a right to protest at all.
That's a great point.
It's a content-based restriction.
Can I ask, because we helped crowdfund for a pastor named Derek Reimer, who was kicked out of a drag queen story hour.
He was protesting.
It sounds like it's the same law that you're challenging.
It is, I believe it's the same law, but it's a separate lawsuit.
So there is a case that's still proceeding at the Court of Appeal now called Heather and Calgary that involves a man named Larry Heather, who was also charged under this same law.
Ours was a judicial review.
So it actually would be a broader precedent if it was decided as a judicial review.
But only part of the judicial review proceeded and we will likely be intervening in Mr. Heather's appeal.
So lots of moving parts, lots of technical litigation stuff.
I don't want to bore your viewers with, but at its core, these are laws that prohibit the ability of regular citizens to protest the action of their government, which is fundamental to democracy.
Right.
Wow.
Thank you.
I mean, I think I understand the detail you referred to.
There's a lot of different ways you can fight a different law, but challenging its constitutionality is perhaps the most important.
Let me get back to your article in the National Post.
I look at Europe and I think that free speech is in retreat in just about every country there.
I really can't think of one where it's getting stronger.
I think the UK is appalling.
I have some skin in the game there.
I'm friends with Tommy Robinson, who is a journalist activist who's serving 18 months in prison.
He'll be let out in nine, but nine months of solitary for violating a don't publish order on one of his videos.
I find that astonishing.
I see in Ireland and Scotland, they're either bringing in or have brought in their version of the Online Harms Act.
France, you know, I think they actually were banning Rumble, the whole platform.
Anyway, I won't go on, but I really see free speeches in retreat across Europe.
I think it was retreating in America too.
Maybe it's coming back a bit.
What's your analysis of the state of freedom in the world?
So I actually don't agree that free speech is in a good situation in the United States either.
I think it's actually backsliding everywhere.
The reason I say it's not great in America is the recent decisions by the Trump administration to issue these executive orders targeting some law firms.
I also don't agree with some of the action on some of the deportations of college students on the basis of the content of their speech alone.
Now, there are some details that we don't have, but Ezra, I think your viewers might be familiar with one particular case of a student from Columbia who has a green card.
It seems like there's a lot going on in his particular case.
His name's Mahmoud.
And, you know, if he's being deported as a green card holder on the content of his speech alone, that would be a violation of America's very strong protections for freedom of expression.
Now, I'm not defending the content of his speech.
I think the content of Mahmoud Khalil's speech is actually abhorrent and disgusting.
But that's how you know someone is a real defender of freedom of expression if they're willing to defend the right of someone to express speech that they disagree with.
So I think that free speech is backsliding across the world.
And we're sort of at this inflection point globally where I think Canada has a decision to make.
Are we going to be a country that is a beacon, an example to the world of protections of freedom of speech, freedom of expression, or are we going to be yet another cautionary tale to the world?
I would like to become an example of how allowing for robust debate about all kinds of different issues, including issues that we might disagree on, allows for the flourishing of society, that we allow for freedom of expression.
I'd like to have a government that keeps that really precious, vital right that has been core to Western democracies for so long, that protects that instead of backslides like the rest of the world has.
And I think that that's something that Canadians should think about when they vote for their next government.
I hear what you're saying about Mahmoud Khalil.
I have a, I guess the one asterisk I'd put there, and I just, I hear what you're saying, but I think if you're a foreign, a foreigner who's in Canada or the United States as a guest, a privilege, not a right.
So you're not, you're not a citizen.
You weren't born here.
You haven't naturalized here.
You came here under a specific invitation.
You're allowed to come and study at our university.
You're allowed to be a temporary foreign worker.
And instead, you go to these Hamas hate marches.
And in the case of Khalil, I think there's some information that perhaps he yeah.
So what I'd say about Khalil's case is that he, there's things that are still unknown.
What we, what it's, I mean, if he is, um, if he lied on his application to obtain that green card, totally different story.
I think it also depends on exactly what his activities were.
It does seem like he was distributing Hamas propaganda.
I think the question is, what is the actual rationale for the deportation?
And based on reporting from reporting from the free press, what the free press, Barry Weiss's outlet has said, is that it seems to be on the content of the speech alone.
If that's the only reason, that's not acceptable for a green card holder.
For someone with different immigration status, perhaps a different result.
For a green card holder, if it's just the content, not good enough.
But there might be more to the case that we don't know yet.
And as I said, disagree with his speech.
Right.
You know, I don't know the intricacies of U.S. immigration law.
I guess all I'm saying is foreigners, in my view, have no rights in our country.
It's all privileges.
But I'm not an expert in U.S. immigration.
But I understand the point you're making.
And I think you're right.
You have to take those hard cases.
I mean, I know from personal experience.
I think of myself.
I think of Mark Stein.
I think of other people in Canada who've been put through the Human Rights Commission.
And they're not going after the friendliest people.
They're going after the prickly ones, the cactuses, the ones who say offensive things.
By definition, that's who's going to be the cases.
So you have to be able to put up with some rough and tumble if you're in the free speech defending business.
I absolutely accept what you're saying.
Hey, tell me a little bit about your book called Free Speech in Canada.
And I'd like to, we'll show it on the screen here.
And you tell me it's available on Amazon.
Give me a little bit of info.
What is that book about?
Was it a diagnosis?
It was a prescription.
Tell me about free speech in Canada.
Yeah, so this is the book, Free Speech in Canada.
It came out in November.
It's about the origins of the right to freedom of expression, the ancient roots dating back to Socrates and the Magna Carta, the invention of the printing press, but then going through all of the modern issues with freedom of speech, including things like hate speech, including legislation like C63, the return of the civil remedy for hate speech.
We talk about how municipalities can actually be one of the greatest offenders of our right to freedom of expression.
A lot of us don't think about our municipal politicians a lot, but it's actually these local busy bodies who interfere with our right to free speech quite a bit.
We talk about free speech in the digital age, and we talk about an interesting intersection between property rights and freedom of expression.
And it's just a fascinating look at the right and its origins and how it applies in Canada.
It's a short read, sort of an introduction to the right for Canadians.
And I really want to emphasize just how important this right is, how important it is for us to defend the rights of expression, even if the people who are expressing ideas that they, even if we don't agree with them.
Because if you don't have the right to say something people disagree with, you don't have the right at all.
I mean, no one is going to try to shut down unobjectionable speech.
It's only speech that is, you know, controversial or objectionable that people will try to silence and censor.
You know, I remember when the hate speech law went to the Supreme Court of Canada the first time, I think it was in 1990, if I'm not mistaken, and it was upheld against some old crank who was handing out leaflets.
And, you know, this was in the pre-internet age.
And I think it was a 5-4 ruling.
And, you know, the Supreme Court Justice Beverly McLaughlin at the time, if I'm, I don't know if she was chief back then, she said, oh, this won't go further.
Only than the most extreme cases.
We have a lot of protections.
Yeah, right.
Here we are 35 years later.
And I think that the concept of hate speech and hate speech isn't free speech.
And that's toxic speech.
And that's like, I just think this whole industry has muddied the waters.
And I think if that case, I think the courts have moved towards censorship.
I think academia has moved hard towards censorship.
Can you give me a little twinkle of hope?
Is there a court ruling you can point to?
Is there a judge you can point to?
Is there a development you can point to in Canada that's a source of some optimism?
Because I'm, I mean, I grant you the finding that the Emergencies Act invocation was illegal, that was very important.
That is sort of a free speechy thing, a little bit.
But is there actually a pure speech ruling where freedom of speech pushed back censorship that we can hang on to for hope?
So I think the cases that you're referring to, the older ones, you're either referring to Zundel or to Kiegstra.
Zundel was a notorious Holocaust denier, and Kiegstra was a notorious anti-Semite.
In that decision, Justice McLaughlin was actually in the dissent, and she at the time was quite the big proponent for freedom of expression.
And Canada has upheld these hate speech prohibitions, criminal prohibitions on hate speech.
And this is different from the United States.
Now, I was critical of the United States for backsliding, but the United States actually has no criminal prohibitions on hate speech.
And I think that that is a better situation because we should counter hateful rhetoric and hateful speech with better speech to explain why these concepts are wrong.
There's an excellent book about this by Nadine Strawson.
She's the former executive director of the ACLU in the United States, an organization that itself has done some backsliding.
But when Nadine was in charge, really staunch experts and defenders of free speech in that country.
Now, in Canada, I don't know that I have a good case for you that should is a beacon of hope.
The Emergencies Act was a good outcome because that case is a free speech case.
It's about the right to protest.
So that was a positive outcome.
The problem is our Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of expression, but subject to reasonable limits.
This is section one of the charter.
And it seems like increasingly judges are willing to impose those limits and take at face value whatever rationale the government wants to put forward for limiting speech without really considering the larger consequences of eroding this core foundational right.
You know, I just remembered the name of that case from 1990 was John Ross Taylor.
And he was on the different case.
It was my mistake.
Right to Protest Under Threat00:04:38
I didn't remember the name till now.
And, you know, I just think of, and it was Chief Justice Dixon, it was a 4-3 ruling.
And, you know, they say, oh, we're just taking a baby step into censorship.
This will never be abused.
This will never be common.
And I'm just really worried about that.
But I'm really glad you guys at the CCF are fighting back.
Tell me your website for our viewers who want to learn more.
What's the best way to learn to go to your website and poke around?
So our website is theccf.ca.
We're a charity, so we issue tax receipts for any donations.
And we also have a YouTube channel.
If you search the CCF or the Canadian Constitution Foundation on YouTube, I provide regular video updates about all of our ongoing cases and about other interesting developments in constitutional law in Canada.
So check us out.
We have a lot to offer and a lot of takes on freedom of expression, as well as other constitutional issues like division of power, freedom of religion, things like that.
Well, I'm really glad you're out there fighting, and we need far more.
I just talked to Lisa Bildie the other day, who created the Free Speech Union of Canada.
I'm really glad she set that up.
It's great to know that the JCC, sorry, the CCF is doing good work.
The Democracy Fund, the JCCF, we're starting to get a little bit of a community, which is good because I think some of the traditional defenders of freedom of speech have been lacking.
I feel like the Canadian Civil Liberties Union Association rather has basically taken a 10-year holiday.
They haven't been at the leading edge.
I'm glad you guys are amongst those filling the gap.
We've been talking with Christine Van Guy, the litigation director of the CCF.
Her book is called Free Speech in Canada, and I'll be sure to pick that up on Amazon.
Thanks for taking the time, Christine.
Thank you.
All right, there you have it.
Stay with us.
More ahead.
Hey, welcome back.
Your letters to me about Alberta separatism.
Frank 5D says, notice how the older people want to leave the most.
They know that Alberta and Ottawa's relationship will never get better.
You know, it's interesting.
I've seen polls showing the opposite, actually, that young people are the most open to leaving.
I suppose it depends.
But what I would say in general is that the mainstream media is not doing a good job covering this story because most media are based in Toronto or Ottawa or Montreal.
They don't understand the West.
They don't really like the West.
They don't listen to the West.
I think of CTV's at-issue, sorry, CBC's at-issue panel that's got Rosemary Barton based in Ottawa, Andrew Coyne from Toronto, Althea Raj from Ottawa, and Chantalibert from Montreal.
So no voices outside that little triangle.
The entire political spectrum from A to B, you know, they just, it's the stalest, most boring conventional wisdom of the so-called Laurentian elite.
I'm not saying that people in Toronto should become Western separatists, but they should have some source of news that at least treats Albertans with enough respect to hear them out.
Ed Bernier says, I want a divorce.
Even if we get a conservative government, we can expect the same abuse in eight years.
We can be our own captain, chart our own destiny, and be so wealthy and successful.
I think you're right.
I think that's what Alberta would be like if it were independent.
And I think Saskatchewan would probably join pretty quickly.
And if you had 7 million people in a new country, that's a respectable country, especially with the amount of oil and uranium and other things like that in there.
I just think that getting there would be an astonishingly difficult thing to do because every single establishment enterprise from the media to the banks to the lawyers to the courts would be against it.
But it's possible.
I mean, Quebec came within half a percent of winning.
Gil Schiller says, I live in BC, retired, and I absolutely see the need for not only Alberta, but all the Western provinces need to go our own way.
This Quebec and Ontario ruling Canada has to end.
China truly is ruling Canada with the help of the Liberal Party.
You know, again, it's very different in the West.
And I don't know, the earlier letter about Pierre Polyev granting a reprieve, there's some truth to that.
I mean, Stephen Harper was, I think, a pretty good prime minister, and he was quite good for the West.
But as soon as he was gone, in came the problems.
Well, that's our show for today.
Until next time, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, to you at home, good night.