Ezra Levant’s legal push forced Mark Carney’s Debates Commission to reverse its exclusion of Rebel News, granting five reporters and cameramen access after initially capping them at one—despite regional divisions like Rebel Canada and Rebel Australia. Past rulings exposed the commission’s arbitrary rules, including an 11-page rejection in 2021, while $9K in fees this year underscored the fight’s cost. Levant highlights parallels to Natasha’s police assault in Montreal, possibly linked to Rebel News’ coverage, before heading to the debates, where he’ll challenge mainstream media’s blind spots. [Automatically generated summary]
What a strange legal battle we have been having quietly over the last couple of weeks.
I'm talking about our largely successful attempts to get into the leaders' debate this year.
The last two times we were banned by the liberals, but we managed to fight our way back in through the courts.
This time, we managed to, I guess, threaten a lawsuit.
And after nine letters back and forth, we actually convinced the debate commission to let us in.
I'll tell you all the details, and then we'll talk to the lawyer who did it for us, Chad Williamson.
That'll be a fun one.
But first, let me invite you to get the Rebel News Plus version of this show.
That's the video version.
It's eight bucks a month.
Not only do you get the video version, but you get the satisfaction of keeping Rebel News strong.
The whole theme of today's show is fighting against the power and the establishment.
Only the fact that we're independent could allow us to go toe-to-toe with the government like we've done.
Just go to RebelNewsPlus.com and click subscribe.
It's $8 a month.
That might not be a lot of money to you, but boy, it adds up for us.
Tonight, we snatched victory from the jaws of defeat.
I'll tell you the exciting story of how we got accredited to this year's election debates.
It's April 15th, and this is the Ezra Levant show.
Shame on you, you censorious bug.
I've got amazing news.
It started out as terrible news, and the moral of the story here is never trust a liberal.
Stay with me.
Here's the story.
Remember back in 2019, Trudeau's hand-picked Debates Commission banned Rebel News and True North from sending reporters to the election debates?
We went to court for an emergency hearing, and the judge said Trudeau had violated our constitutional rights and ordered Trudeau to let us in.
Well, Trudeau's staff spent the next two years studying that court ruling, scheming up new ways to get around it to ban our reporters from the 2021 election debates.
So we had to go back to court, and this time it was just us, but a judge once again sided with us and ordered Trudeau's people to let us in.
Oh, he hated that.
The only reason that I'm allowed to ask you this question is because today the federal court ruled that the government doesn't have the right to determine who is or is not a journalist.
This is the second election in a row that the court has been overturning your government.
Do you still insist on being able to meet that decision and why?
First of all, questions around accreditation were handled by the press gallery and the consortium of networks who have strong perspectives on quality journalism and the important information that is shared with Canadians.
The reality is, organizations, organizations like yours that continue to spread misinformation and disinformation on the science around vaccines,
around how we're going to actually get through this pandemic and be there for each other and keep our kids safe, is part of why we're seeing such unfortunate anger and lack of understanding of basic science.
And quite frankly, your, I won't call it a media organization, your group of individuals need to take accountability for some of the polarization that we're seeing in this country.
Here's where the story gets really crazy.
It's 2025 now.
There is another election underway, but Mark Carney is the prime minister, not Trudeau.
And this time, when we applied for accreditation, they said we were welcome to attend.
Huh?
In fact, they said we could send as many reporters as we liked.
16 of us had applied and 16 of us were accredited.
Well, I knew it was a trick.
I knew they must be hiding something.
I mean, they're liberals.
And it proves my point about Mark Carney.
He's Trudeau 2.0, just as evil, but smarter and harder working.
I knew there was something going on that they were hiding from us.
So we had our lawyer, Chad Williamson, press them on it.
Chad is the same lawyer who beat the Debates Commission in court in 2021.
So Chad started interrogating them in a series of letters.
And slowly but surely, he discovered their plan to block us.
Carney's debate commission said all 16 of us could attend, but they finally confessed their trick to Chad.
Only one of us would be allowed to ask questions.
The other 15 would have to sit in silence.
It was a new rule they just made up.
It was a secret rule that applied only to rebel news.
And if we didn't hire Chad to interrogate them, we would have walked into a trap because by the time we realized what was going on, it would have been too late to go to court.
They planned to keep all of this a secret until we showed up.
I know you might think I'm exaggerating.
I am not exaggerating.
I've posted our entire exchange of nine letters back and forth at leadersdebate.ca.
You've really got to check it out.
Chad was relentless.
16 rebels were allowed to attend, but according to the Bates Commission, 15 of us couldn't ask any questions at the press conference.
They said the rule was just one reporter per news company.
That's how they explained it.
But we know that's a lie.
I mean, the CBC has several reporters in English Canada, and then they have several reporters for Radio Canada, which is the CBC Quebec.
Newspapers have multiple reporters too.
For example, Post Media is one company, but it's permitted to bring reporters for each of its newspapers.
So they could have one from the National Post and the Ottawa Citizen and the Calgary Herald.
Now, we pointed this out.
And so the Debates Commission changed the rules again.
They said that for the CBC, they were allowed multiple questions because they had different reporters in French and in English.
Well, Bienvenues, so do we, including our star Quebec reporter, Alexa Lavoie.
Then they said that Postmedia was allowed unlimited reporters because you see they cover different regions of the country.
Well, so do we.
Drea Humphrey is in British Columbia.
Sheila Gunread is in Alberta.
David Menzies is in Ontario.
Alexa is in Quebec.
And I'm always running around somewhere.
You see what I mean?
They were making it up on the go.
Special secret rules just for rebel news.
They tried to trick us into not suing them.
So by the time we discovered all this, there would be nothing we could do about it.
But we found them out.
And just a few days ago, we told them we were done negotiating and they should get their lawyers ready because we were going back to court for a third time to get a third emergency injunction.
And that's when Carney's staff blinked.
They let us in.
They knew that if we took them to court for a third time and if their tricky rules were shown to the federal court, they would lose for a third time.
And I don't know about you, but I'm just going to guess that if the federal court saw how Carney's staff were defying not one, but two previous court rulings, well, who knows what the judges would have done to them.
So Carney's people blinked.
Wrote back to us at the last minute, calling off our lawsuit by agreeing to allow not one, not two, not three, not four, but five rebels to ask questions and for each of us to have cameramen too.
Granted, it's not the full 16 we asked for, but it still makes us the largest group of question askers at the debates.
And they only wanted us to have one question.
Like I say, amazing news.
But it started off as terrible news.
Now, there's a moral to the story here.
Number one, never trust a liberal, especially Mark Carney.
Number two, always fight for your rights.
Sometimes the other side, by the way, is more scared of you than you are of them.
I think our lawyer, Chad Williamson, scared Carney's lawyers.
Number three, be sure to tune into the leaders' debates, both the French debate tomorrow night and the English one on Thursday night, because we will be at both, because it's the question and answer scrum at the end that we're interested in.
Number four is where you come in.
We told our lawyer, Chad, to start preparing the lawsuit last week, and he put his full team on it.
We truly thought we had to go to court.
Only when we had the written letter of surrender from Carney's people did we stop the lawsuit.
But between the lawsuit preparations and the nine letters back and forth, we racked up about $9,000 in legal bills.
That's in addition to the costs of getting our whole team out to the debates, Drea from BC, Sheila from Alberta, et cetera.
We're all going to stay in an Airbnb together to save money.
Oh, I almost forgot.
We're bringing the billboard truck with us.
It's going to be fun.
It's going to be huge.
We really are going to make it our debate.
And that's only possible because of my last point: you.
We have you to help us level the playing field.
I mean, our ability to attend the debates and to ask the questions you care about rather than what the regime journalists, like those at the CBC, care about, is only possible due to your support to help us pay for our lawyers.
Not just this time, but the huge court victories in 2019 and 2021 that put us in a strong position this year.
It's insane that that work has fallen to us.
And the mainstream media hasn't even mentioned these outrageous attempts at censorship.
But then again, they don't really want Rebel News to attend either, do they?
Between Chad's legal wrangling, the half-drafted lawsuit, our travel costs, and our Airbnb, I estimate that we will need $12,000 to cover our debate costs.
Could I please ask you for a personal favor to chip in?
It was a David versus Goliath battle just to get in.
And once we're in, it'll still be a David versus Goliath battle to push aside the regime journalists who will physically try to block us from getting to the microphones.
They did that before.
And then it'll be a third David versus Goliath battle to actually put questions to Mark Carney and Jagmeet Singh and Pierre Polyev too.
But I promise you, we will ask questions that no one else in the media will.
If you can help us, please go to leadersdebate.ca.
Check out our nine letters back and forth.
And if you like what we're doing and believe it's increasing freedom for everyone, please support us.
The website again is called leadersdebate.ca.
And look, Rebel News and one other independent media outlook were fighting in court back in 2019.
By 2021, it was just us by ourselves.
But our victory allowed all other independent media to attend.
Do you remember that?
And our victory this time, too, will redound to the benefit of everyone.
In other words, Rebel News fights for our reporters and our viewers, you bet.
But the benefits of our fights and the precedents we set benefit every journalist in the country, whether they admit it or not.
So please help me cover the $12,000 in legal costs here.
The $9,000 in legal fees, the $3,000 to bring our whole team and that lovely truck to the debates.
And one last thing.
You really got to read the full exchange of letters between Chad and Carney's people.
Do yourself a favor.
I mean, there's nine of them, but they're only about a page or two each.
Go to leadersdebate.ca and you'll see what Mark Carney's people finally cried, uncle, when Chad was after him.
We'll be posting our videos about the debate there too.
Thanks for your support, and we'll see you at the debates.
And joining us now to talk about it is our friend Chad Williamson, the lawyer.
who got Mark Carney's debate commission to finally blink.
Hey, Chad, thanks for joining us via Skype.
I just took everybody through the back and forth.
It was like a ping-pong match, nine letters going back and forth.
And at the same time, we were preparing to go to court because, you know, who knows if they were negotiating in good faith or bad faith.
But in the end, they did blink.
I mean, unless there's another trick awaiting us, we will have five question askers in there, which is probably more than any other media company.
Yeah, I mean, when the 2021 debates, Ezra, were just one of the craziest things that I heard.
I mean, you know, after we got the injunction to, I mean, I never thought that we were actually going to win that one.
Once we got the injunction, I thought, well, you know, they're going to show up and there might be a couple questions here or there.
But rebels were relentless.
And what my biggest takeaway from it was just how angry Justin Trudeau seemed that there was someone there that was actually putting tough questions to him.
So this year, we were prepared again.
And I've been calling all my buddies and letting them know that this is Rebels' hat trick, right?
I mean, we schooled them in 2019.
We schooled them in 2021.
And when you told us to send them a letter, you know, way back in March saying, hey, don't mess with Rebels journalists for the upcoming debates.
You got schooled twice.
Don't make it a hat trick.
It's kind of like Ezra telling a bully, you know, like we brought a lawyer and he's got a bigger stick.
So like, and I mean, this was another shocking result, right?
I mean, all of a sudden, you know, and I mean, again, I'm happy to go through the chronology.
It's kind of an interesting story.
I think it was just a flurry of communication back and forth.
I think the further that we got into the process, and I sent you a message on this, it was like we were peeling an onion.
And the more that we peeled, the more it started to stink.
And then they smelled it.
And I think that's what I think that's what won the day on this one.
You know, a lot of people say, I'll sue you.
I'll take you to court.
But when push comes to shove, they don't.
Because first of all, suing is expensive.
It's quite risky.
I mean, you often lose and you're outgunned.
I mean, there's another saying, you know, you can't fight City Hall.
And what that means is the government has got all the angles covered and they have unlimited resources.
I mean, the Debates Commission has spent literally millions of dollars.
And it feels like they're obsessed with Rebel News.
Like it really is targeting us.
Suing Is Expensive00:03:22
And I think the fact that we beat them in 2019, that we beat them in 2021, they know that we're not faking it when we say we'll see you in court.
And they know at least twice now, judges have agreed with us.
And I think you go back to that.
If they had decided to fight us and gone back to the federal court again, I think there's a real chances that the judges would have been furious with them.
Yeah.
And I think that's why, I mean, we had expected this.
And, you know, obviously we've been doing work with Rebel News for a very long time now.
And we expected this to happen.
We thought, well, you know, they couldn't get us in 2019.
They couldn't keep us out in 2021.
We really thought that they might have been able to keep us out in 2021.
But they've, you know, I mean, since they've had years to prep a brand new criteria by which they could try to exclude Rebel from the debate.
So when we sent that letter, Ezra, I remember having a chat with you.
And again, I hope I'm not getting into solicitor Klein's stuff, but you said, hey, we got to be ready for this.
And further to your point that, you know, Rebel really does walk, you know, walk the talk.
You know, we had started preparing submissions and started, I mean, because when they boxed us out in 2021, we literally had five days to get into court and get a federal court injunction.
So we just didn't want to be put under such tremendous pressure.
It costs more money when you're under the gun.
So when you said, hey, well, let's send them a letter early, give them an opportunity to either accredit us and let us in, or at least give us the heads up that we're going to get boxed out.
And we got a reply from them on April 4th.
And this is kind of like, I call it kind of like their weak flex, right?
So the commissioner, who's a guy by the name of Mr. Cormier, he basically says, hey, well, you know, we'd love to accredit Rebel, which was a shock to me.
And I think I was startled at first.
You know what?
It's like that scene in any movie.
It's quiet, too quiet.
Like you know it's a trap.
You know that they're a battle-hardened political bully force.
They're a war room for with one purpose, stop Rebel news.
You know that when they say, sure, yeah, we've had a change of heart, complete change of heart, complete 180 degrees.
We see the error of our ways.
Come on in, all of you is like, you've got to be pretty, you know, you got to be pretty gullible to think, oh, that was an easy battle.
No, no, no, it was a trap.
Well, I was, it was so funny because when I got it, it was, I, I mean, it was, it was late at night.
I was out for dinner, um, you know, and I got, I, I got the reply.
And of course, I sent it to you without even reading it.
And I started, I, you know, I just kind of skimmed it and I said, oh, I mean, they're going to accredit Rebel.
This is something.
It's like you said, it's, you know, this is a trap.
It totally was a trap.
And buried in that letter was just a little nugget where essentially he said, we're going to let you in, but capacity's tight, so don't get comfy.
Yeah.
And then he mentions this mysterious policy that they're relying on.
And it sounds like a secret handshake that Rebel didn't quite get.
That's exactly.
Mysterious Policy Gating00:03:40
And then, and, and then you and I both, we had a chat over the phone, and we thought, wait a second, capacity limits.
Well, it sounds like the Leadership Debates Commission is trying to gatekeep the cool kids' table.
Yeah.
And so we had to think about it.
And we fired back another message.
And we said, hey, well, wait a second here.
You're saying that, you know, there's all these different media organizations that are getting in.
And one of the points that we thought is, well, you know, they've said that a media organization is someone who engages in journalism and or somebody who comments on social, political, or cultural policy.
And we obviously meet that definition.
But really, is a media organization just one division or one office or one newspaper?
What if they're owned by a large company like Post Media?
And when we start getting into capacity issues, well, so what?
Does CBC only get one guy or girl in the whole scrum?
And of course, this is the biggest thing: we want to ask questions again, right?
But what I think is so important is Rebel's 2 million viewers.
They're not here for crumbs.
We want to be able to ask questions.
And Rebel represents a significant portion of the Canadian population who needs to have their voices heard during this election.
So, you know, does Rebel only get one crumb from the table when CBC's having the whole feast and we get left when what's over?
So we wrote another letter and we basically demanded fairness and said, hey, you got to define what a media organization is.
And it's kind of like the Leadership Debates Commission gave CBC a VIP pass and handed Rebel like a bus ticket to nowhere, basically.
You know, and here's the thing.
And I've been fighting for accreditation for really 10 years or almost 10 years now.
And it always comes down to the same thing.
Can our haters, especially in government, can they craft a policy that targets rebel news, but doesn't also screen out their own team?
And 10 years I've been in this business, and I have yet to see a policy that can push us out but keep them in.
Are we Canadian-owned?
Of course we are.
I own Rebel News.
Do we do independent journalism?
Of course we do.
I'd say we're the most independent because we actually don't take any money from the government.
Not that any's offered.
Like there is, do we, you know, criticize every party?
Yes, we do.
Like, I'm trying to think of, are we political?
Sure.
So is everyone.
You tell me the Toronto Star, like they actually have hardwired into their bylaws something called the Atkinson principles.
Google it.
You'll see that the Toronto Star, by its very corporate structure, must be a hard left-wing.
In fact, they believe in the nationalization of the means of production.
Like they're actually, if you take their bylaws seriously, they're a communist newspaper.
I don't know if I would go that far, but I would say they're certainly socialists.
My point is, anything you try to use to keep Rebel news out, you're going to get some of their friends.
I remember in the case you represented us in in 2021, when the government said the CBC is not political.
I think the judge, if I remember, Judge Heenahan, I think she actually made a public comment scoffing at that.
You know, I think she said something like, says you or something.
Like, there's no way you can craft a policy to keep Rebel News out without also kicking out the CBC or the Toronto Star, et cetera.
Guys and Their Shenanigans00:09:28
And by the way, I don't want them kicked out.
I just want to be able to go in the main door, not the servants' entrance.
Well, what's so funny is that they have enlisted one of the largest law firms in the country.
And, you know, I would guess maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars.
I don't know if you remember in 2021, I think there was nine lawyers on the other side involved in that case.
And on my side, it was just myself and one of my associates.
So, I mean, it was really, really unfair.
They had two years to prepare.
They dumped the rejection on us on the Thursday, I think, right before, you know, I think the, wasn't the debate on Tuesday or Wednesday or something?
Like, we had five days.
They had two years.
And it's kind of like, you know, trying to get the circle through the square, right?
I mean, it's so tough.
You know, I think during the 2021, well, you know, Rebels engaged in editorialism.
Okay.
Well, I mean, what paper doesn't have an editorial section, right?
So when we started to, when we, when we went back and forth with this Courme fellow, you know, he said, well, we're going to let you in, but there's, but there's capacity issues, right?
And we're going, well, what's the capacity?
And who are you going to let in?
On what basis?
How do you define media organization?
Then they keep talking about a media room and a press room.
And they haven't defined any of that.
So we're kind of saying, well, what is the press room?
And it's about time you just started giving us numbers.
How many people can fit into this room?
How many are you going to let it?
It's so clear that he had this, like that he just had this plan to let us in and then just to shenanigans us.
And I'm so glad we caught it.
By the way, there's still a chance there will be shenanigans tomorrow.
I mean, these folks, their whole purpose is to keep us.
Let me say something you mentioned earlier.
Like we surprised them by winning in court in 2019.
And then it happened again in 2021.
So what did they do in those two years?
They read extremely carefully that first court ruling and they said, well, what did the judge object to?
The judge objected to the fact that this debates commission didn't have clear public rules, that we were rejected in like a one-line rejection, and that the person who rejected us was not even working for the government.
It was just some guy.
So, okay, they spent two years fixing those things.
So instead of having no rules, they had a huge amount of rules.
Instead of giving us a one-line rejection letter, I think it was 11 pages long that they had written long in advance.
I mean, and instead of having some guy send us the email, it was some guy, like they fixed all the things that the judge in 2019 was angry about.
So they must be, they spent a lot of money reverse engineering their decision.
You see what I mean?
They said, okay, the judge said we did these things wrong.
Let's get them right.
And we'll do it such a good job that there's no way they can win.
Well, they lost again in 2021.
And then they spent time, they thought, okay, we can't reverse engineer out of this one.
Let's just have sort of like a secret trapdoor that they'll fall in when they come in.
Anyways, I mean, I'm feeling good.
I hope I'm still smiling like this tomorrow because who knows?
Maybe there's like a double super secret plan to kick us out, but I'm feeling pretty good right now, at least.
Well, and I think that's what's so funny, right?
As we kept peeling back the layers and asking more questions that weren't outlined in the original accreditation materials, you know, they started kind of saying, well, we've decided that CBC and Radio Canada, as well as Postmedia and all their newspapers, they're all independent news organizations.
But Rebel is just one news organization, despite the fact that we've got an Ontario division, we've got Rebel Canada, Rebel Australia, we've got the Prairies, you know, Sheila's helping out there, and then we've got Drea out rocking the West Coast division.
Rebel's really got a whole schwack of divisions too.
So if you're going to apply this, you know, this kind of bizarre distinction between post-media and all their papers and then say, well, Rebel's just one organization.
I kind of thought, you know, five divisions and one voice, you know, like the Leadership Debates Commission's math is almost as bad as a Trudeau budget, right?
So we go back at them and we say, okay, look, we've got, you know, we're not, if we're one outfit and all these other guys get multiple other ones because reasons.
But you've claimed that there's in an earlier letter, you said there's no, no, no cap to the amount of people that can go on the scrum.
But then later he says, well, the room's only got 135 people and 60 plus are in.
I'm kind of thinking, oh my God, like the math is still drunk on this.
So on April 10th, we send one final demand letter, Ezra, and we basically say, five divisions, we want all of them in.
We want one reporter and one journalist for each of the five divisions.
The same as the same as you're giving to everybody else by admission.
We want that by basically two o'clock on the 11th, or we're going to go ahead with the injunction.
And that was on the Fridays.
We called out their sham rules, the trapdoor, the secret criteria.
And the biggest thing was this capacity circus where the numbers didn't add up.
And now we're seeing all this capriciousness and arbitrariness.
You know, this affects the charter rights of 2 million people right before an election.
And we sent a letter so spicy, Ezra, and I'm sure people can see this online.
I think it's a masterpiece.
We have made a lot of people.
You did a great job.
I think you exhausted them, frankly.
I think by the time, like it went back and forth nine times, I counted.
And all nine, we put all nine letters at leadersdebate.ca.
I think that they thought they could hornswoggle you.
I think they knew they couldn't hornswoggle the courts.
I feel pretty good about it.
This is what I said in my monologue earlier.
We had one other journalistic organization with us in 2019 that was True North.
By 2021, we were by ourselves and we're by ourselves again today.
And we've incurred all these costs and this burden.
And it's benefited us, absolutely.
But it's also benefited everyone else because our trailblazing for freedom is the reason why Western Standard and Juno and Counter Signal and Epoch Times and all the other independent media, which I love, by the way, I support and subscribe to all of those that I've just listed.
I'm not jealous, even though we're friendly competitors.
I think Canada is so much better with this many citizen journalists.
But rebel news is always there in court with the fight.
And maybe it's because I'm a former lawyer.
It's maybe because I have less of an aversion to conflict.
I think it's mainly because of our supporters.
They support this kind of thing.
I mean, it is not cheap to litigate.
Between 2019, 2021, and this year, the amount we spent in litigation is, I'd have to check those past years, but it's probably not unadjacent to 100 grand.
The other guys didn't, and that's okay.
There's smaller shops.
But when we go in to fight, we're fighting for everybody, and not just my friends.
We're fighting for left-wing media's freedom of speech, too.
I don't believe in freedom of speech only for right-wingers.
So I don't know.
I feel pretty good about this.
I hope I'm not eating my words tomorrow when we get there.
I hope there's not some, you know, last-minute test or something.
But, Chad, I appreciate your help.
And once again, I want people to go to read the exchange.
Chad's letters are very excellent.
They're very easy to understand, like they're in plain English.
And they're fun to see, and you can see his personality in them.
And that's all at leadersdebate.ca.
So have a good read.
And next time I talk to you, I'll be in Montreal.
That's right to you, Chad.
Now, if people don't have the time to read the ball, I just want to summarize.
We basically said, hey, look, if you mess with Rebel, you mess with Canada's voice, and we don't play nice when we come at you.
And the long and the short of those letters is if you mess with Rebel news and if you mess with Williamson Law, you're going to get a legal wedgie.
And it's going to be very, very public.
And there's nothing better than seeing a bully get a wedgie.
I mean, I think, excuse the, you know, the metaphor, but I really think that's what happened.
And I would like to button that at the very end of our last letter, you know, we warned them.
We're watching them, right?
So we'll continue to monitor with you, Ezra.
You know, I mean, we always anticipate some shenanigans and some trickery, but this year, I really don't think that they wanted to go before the court and get a hat-trick.
I mean, that would have been great for us, but it would have been expensive.
And I just hope that you guys have some great questions prepared and that you know push your way to the front of that scrum and put questions to these politicians that they deserve.
You guys are some of the only folks other than some of the other independent media that actually put real questions that are important to Canadians to these people that are going to be running the country.
And it would be a shame if that wasn't able to happen.
So, thanks for the opportunity to, again, help you guys get a great victory.
Interesting Couple Days Ahead00:04:42
A lot of these things go kind of unseen.
And, you know, the hard work and the letters, I hope people get a chuckle out of that.
I'm sort of a sarcastic guy.
And I like to practice with a little bit of humor.
Hope that comes through in the letters.
And I hope people get a charge out of that.
And give my best to the entire team tomorrow and tell them to stay vigilant and rock and roll.
It'll be an interesting couple days.
Right on.
There you have it.
Thanks, Chad, for your work.
Folks, I really recommend to read the letters.
It's an entertaining, but also an encouraging and a substantive back and forth.
That's at leadersdebate.ca.
Stay with us.
your letters to me next.
Hey, welcome back.
Your letters to me.
Frank Zibich says that truck is showing the truth.
God be with Rebel News and independent media.
Oh, I love the Rebel truck.
And, you know, we got it, as you may know, because we try.
We've been renting billboard trucks really for a decade.
We love them.
We use them here and there.
But the problem is the truck companies who work with us very nicely said, look, we're not going to put any messages that criticize us.
Not that we don't agree with you.
It's just that our trucks and our drivers will be threatened.
Like they're literally afraid, and they just won't do it.
Their truck drivers won't drive them, not out of disagreement, just out of fear.
Can you imagine that's a state of affairs in Canada?
Well, maybe we're dumb, or maybe we're brave, or maybe we're a combination, but that's why we got the truck.
Anyhow, it's a pleasure to use that thing.
I really get a kick out of it.
Next letter is from Hugo, who says, I know Natasha.
This is referring to Natasha, the citizen journalist, who was brutally attacked by police.
use a flashback of what that was like just a couple days ago
Here's the
rest of Bruno's Hugo's letter.
She's a peaceful woman who regularly gets assaulted by pro-Palestinian agitators.
This is a disgrace.
You're exactly right.
And by the way, I saw the Journal de Montréal, which is supposedly a conservative-leaning newspaper, condemn Natasha.
And quote, the worst part of the article was they quoted the Montreal police who said that Natasha, the citizen journalist who was beat up by police, just in a brutal beating, they said that her sins were she insulted the Hamas protesters and she got close to them.
Neither of those things are crimes.
Neither of those things justify being beat up.
And if those were the rules, then surely the Hamas protesters break them too.
They insult us all the time.
Last letter from today, Diesel 13 says, how many policemen does it require to arrest a woman who was not resisting arrest?
Absolutely unnecessary use of force.
That was disgraceful.
I heard that some of the police actually thought that Natasha worked with rebel news, and that may have been animating their rage and violence.
No matter what their excuse was, it was unacceptable.
And I hope she gets some legal justice out of this.
But given that it's Montreal police, I rather doubt it.
Montreal Police Controversy00:00:26
Well, that's our show for today.
I'm actually off to Montreal now.
That's where both the French and the English language debates are.
Be sure to tune into both debates because although the French debate is in French, it'll be translated into English, and we will ask our questions afterwards on Anglais in English.
Until next time, in fact, we'll be reporting from Montreal tomorrow.
All of us here at Rebel World Headquarters.
To you at home, good night and keep fighting for freedom.