Ezra Levant slams Toronto City Hall’s 2033-deadline, race-exclusive homeless shelter, mocking its 22-page anti-racism guidelines (with a 4-page glossary) while dismissing Loretta Ramadin’s stats—31% of Toronto’s homeless are Black, despite only 9% of the city’s population—as outdated. He compares race verification to Nazi or apartheid-era classifications, calling Toronto "Canada’s most racist city." Meanwhile, Levant and Mr. X—a 320K-subscriber YouTuber—expose CBC’s alleged bad-faith takedowns, including pressuring YouTube to remove channels over AI-generated content, leaving creators like Mr. X locked out of the platform entirely. Levant warns this reflects a systematic war on free speech, where mainstream media weaponizes policies against conservative voices, echoing Rebel News’ 8-year demonetization for Trump support—a move he claims indirectly boosted Mark Carney’s political ambitions. [Automatically generated summary]
If you're homeless, there is going to be a new homeless shelter in Canada, but only if you are of a specific race.
I've got a few questions for you.
Like, how do they check?
I'll share with you all the details, 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 content and the satisfaction of keeping Rebel News strong and independent.
We take no government money and it shows.
Oh, yeah, one more thing.
Hey there, Rebel News listeners.
Do you have a business or cause that you want to promote to the tens of thousands of regular Rebel News viewers?
Now's your chance.
Whether it's ads on podcasts like this one, videos, our website, or even our digital billboard truck, Rebel News has your advertising needs covered.
It's easy to get started.
Just head over to rebelnews.com/slash advertise.
That's rebelnews.com/slash advertise.
Fill out our form and find out how Rebel News can help spread your message today.
Don't wait.
Advertise with Rebel News, reach freedom-loving patriots, and support our independent journalism.
Tonight, the government plans to open a racist homeless shelter.
I'll tell you all about it.
It's May 29th, and this is the Edge Levant Show.
Shame on you, you sensorial bug.
I was born in the 1970s and I was taught that it was wrong to judge people by the color of their skin.
In fact, Martin Luther King Jr. talked about judging people by the content of their character.
Instead, I don't know if you've heard his I Have a Dream speech, but it really was wonderful.
Here's my favorite part of it: I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creeds.
We all these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal.
I have a dream that one day only the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day, even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream.
My poor little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
I have a dream.
Martin Luther King didn't talk about replacing white supremacy with black supremacy.
He talked about equality and friendship, even amongst the children of former slaves and former slave owners, not to punish the children of the slave owners, but to be friends with them.
I think it was Abraham Lincoln who said, Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?
So, yeah, that's what I grew up believing.
That's what I was taught.
I think it's true.
Canada, especially, we weren't a country of slavery.
We didn't have the history of the U.S. South that Martin Luther King was talking about.
It was easy to get along up here.
There wasn't unfinished business, so to speak.
And if you didn't try to right a wrong by committing the equal but opposite wrong, I mean, that's really what I think a lot of modern racism is.
Don't you think that that was part of the message?
Martin Luther King Jr. was obviously angry about the world, but he was dreaming about a world of forgiveness and peace.
So that speech was in 1963.
He was assassinated in 1968.
The civil rights movement had a bitter half of it.
It had black supremacists.
It had the Malcolm X reactionaries, but it also had more success than I think anyone could have imagined.
Let me skip ahead to the point.
Barack Obama was elected and then re-elected.
I mean, it's almost unthinkable that that would have happened just 50 years earlier.
He even won some southern states, former slave states, North Carolina, Virginia, which was the seat of the Confederacy.
But actually, I think it was Barack Obama and the entire woke movement around him that took what should have been that final healing moment and taught people to divide and politicize.
Again, Obama could have been a great unifier.
I mean, he technically himself was half black and half white.
He was proof of unity.
But instead, he went full identity politics.
He countenanced the rise of the Black Lives Matter rioters and a dozen other social pathogens that I think have actually caused racism to rise since his election, not decline as you might have thought it would.
There's nothing more racist than DEI.
And it's the vengeance kind of racism that's so opposite of what Martin Luther King called for.
Why Identity Politics Divides00:10:29
DEI tells us to remember our differences, not to look at what unites us.
Now, so much of what I've just said is a U.S. story.
And we watch so much U.S. TV and U.S. movies and even rap videos.
We think that their story is our story because we read so much about it.
We see so much about it, the story of race and gangs and slavery and discrimination.
Not really.
I mean, obviously, we weren't perfect, but we were the destination for the Underground Railway of runaway slaves.
We were the free place.
You'll remember that it was the British Empire, of which Canada was a part until 1867.
That was what effectively ended slavery, first ended the slave trade, and then ended slavery itself.
Canada benefited from that.
We never had slavery.
So please help me understand this, as published in the Toronto Sun newspaper.
Great story, by the way, very well researched, and I'm glad they published it.
The headline is this: Black-mandated homeless shelter on way, City Hall confirms.
Toronto officials are taking applications until Friday for City Council's new black-mandated shelter, where everyone from employees to the homeless could be excluded on the basis of race.
Oh, that's lovely.
Going out on a line here, non-black people will still be deeply involved by having to pay for all this.
So don't worry, if you're not black and worried, you'll be shut out.
You'll still be included.
Your taxes will, at least.
Let me keep reading.
City Hall has also decreed that experience in running a shelter is not a requirement for those submitting applications.
Oh, really?
Well, what could possibly go wrong?
Quote, the city shelter and support services division says the new shelter will help make Toronto services reflective of the diversity of the city, but offered no specifics as to where it would go or when it might open.
Diversity, eh?
I thought diversity meant variety, not just one race.
It might be clearer to understand if someone had proposed a whites-only homeless shelter.
Would anyone call that diversity?
But no one is that racist, except this is exactly the same thing.
I'll keep reading.
A city document says shelter services is developing, quote, at least one black mandated shelter by 2033, unquote.
2033, that's eight years from that.
It takes eight years to build a homeless shelter.
Eight years?
The whole Second World War wasn't even six years.
Of course, it takes eight years.
You see, there's so many important people who are in the poverty industry.
And of course, we have to go through their processes and their consultations.
You see, a lot of very important people have to have very important meetings for which they're all paid.
It's not actually about homeless people, it's about people who profit off homeless people.
That's very different.
I'd even put the mayor of Toronto in that.
Despite her dressing up for Carabana here, she's actually not black herself.
And I guess she would be banned from the homeless shelter if things don't turn out well for her.
Let me keep reading.
That document, a set of guidelines for prospective applicants for the shelter contract, says the intention is, quote, to provide opportunities for black mandated nonprofits, also referred to as B3, the document says.
I'm so stupid.
I thought the purpose of a homeless shelter was to help the homeless.
I didn't know that they were saying the quiet part out loud, just being a scheme to enrich people in the poverty industry.
That's what they're saying.
It's not actually about the homeless, it's about actually getting the money into the right people's hands-the contractors, people, the consultants.
All right, I'll skip ahead in the story.
They say the guidelines document is 22 pages long and includes a four-page glossary of terms such as anti-racism, diaspora, interpersonal racism, and my favorite, structural racism.
The section on providing financial details, meanwhile, consists of two short paragraphs.
This is a great report by the Sun.
I love that this proposal had a four-page glossary.
I'm sure that will be very helpful and comforting for homeless people who are turned away for being the wrong race.
They can look up all these DEI ideas.
Oh, and the good news is there are more racial set-asides coming.
Quote, the BE3's shelter competition follows a similar process for an indigenous shelter, which could move to construction as soon as this year.
Got it.
You know, words like ghetto and reserve can have a negative connotation.
They're often slums.
They're often hopeless places.
They're places of grievance.
It's shocking, but not surprising that the city of Toronto is actually turning those into pluses.
They want to build ghettos and reserves in their homeless system.
I thought that we all had agreed, left and right, that Indian reserves and the Indian Act were terribly racist.
Well, that's sort of hot right now, as you can see.
I love this part of the story.
City Hall declined to make anyone available to the Toronto Sun for an interview about the new shelter.
In a statement, Loretta Ramadin, shelter services planning director, told the Sun is, quote, important to ensure community services are reflective of the diversity in our city.
Got it.
So only black people equals diversity.
Black individuals are overrepresented among people experiencing homelessness, Ramadan said, citing a 2021 study that found they make up 9% of Toronto as a whole, but 31% of its homeless population.
The need has only grown amid an unprecedented surge of refu claimants in the city in the years since, she said.
Well, I think she's on to something about the refugee claimants.
I don't believe those stats.
If she's quoting stats from 2021, maybe they were accurate back then.
And of course, Indigenous people are even more overrepresented amongst the homeless in Canada.
But look at those stats four years ago.
And by the way, shame on the city for shutting down homeless shelters using COVID as an excuse.
But as anyone who has stepped outside in any Canadian city or town knows, Justin Trudeau has added literally 5 million migrants to our country in the last couple of years, some of whom are getting by economically, but many of whom are now in dire straits.
I'd like to see the 2025 stats of who is in our homeless shelters, including breaking it down by what country they're citizens of.
How many foreigners who came here to be temporary foreign workers or international students are in our homeless shelters instead?
But I have a few other questions.
I have some practical questions.
How black do you have to be to use a black-only homeless shelter?
Real question.
If you're half black, does that count?
Is that enough?
I mean, Barack Obama was half black.
His mom was white.
How about if you're a quarter black or an eighth?
Or is it like that funny meme from Family Guy where they have a swatch of different colors that you have to check your skin against?
This sounds like a goofy question or a joke, but it's not.
It's a real question.
It's actually a legal question.
Who gets a government benefit and who gets a government punishment and who does not?
Those are legal questions.
And both of being homeless and staying there and the real purpose of this, which is to slosh around the government money to the poverty industry, it all turns on race.
So I say again, how black do you have to be?
To get a contract, let's just cut out the homelessness part.
To get a contract, how black do you have to be?
During the slavery era in the U.S. South, they developed racist nomenclature in the law.
I don't even want to say the words in this context, but they had to.
They called someone who was a quarter black the word quadroon and someone who was one-eighth black, they used the word octoroon.
What an insane word.
I hate the fact that I'm saying these words, but that's, I think we have to call it out.
That's historically what these words were for, judging who had rights and who did not.
Imagine categorizing your population like that, but you had to.
Otherwise, how could you know who to discriminate against and who not to?
By the way, the Nazis did the same thing, and the South Africans did the same thing.
If you have a racist regime, you need to be able to determine who's what race.
And you have to handle, as the Nazis called it, mixlings or mishlings.
If you were half Jewish, obviously you were killed.
But if you were one-eighth Jewish, they wouldn't kill you, but you certainly wouldn't be allowed to join the SS.
What are the rules in Toronto?
I want to know.
And who are drafting the rules?
Are they relying on, I don't know, U.S. slave precedents?
Are they relying on South African apartheid precedents?
Are they dipping into the Nazi precedence?
Where are they getting their rules from?
Because they have to have rules.
If I showed up today and said I'm black, they need to have some system of saying, yes, you are.
No, you're not.
And that means they have to do the same thing the Nazis, the apartheid, and the slavers did.
Can you be half black?
Can you be a quarter black?
Can you be an eighth black?
How do you prove it?
If you're 70 years old and you claim that one of your grandparents was black, that would make you a quarter black.
How do you prove it if your black grandparent passed away 25 years or 50 years ago and even longer if you claim you're one-eighth black?
Is there going to be some sort of DNA test that they're going to do?
Like some COVID jab, they stick something in your nose, get some DNA, and do a test on you.
Is that where we're going with all this?
What if you, what's the word everyone's using now?
What if you identify that Rachel Dolezal did?
Same way so many failed men in sports simply identify, they declare that they're women now, and then they go on a crush it playing against actual women in sports.
Those are called trans women.
Can you be trans black?
And if your answer is no, but you believe in transgenderism, can you give me a coherent reason why trans black is not a thing, but trans women are?
Here's one: if you're a black migrant who has just arrived in Canada, you're not a citizen, you've never paid taxes here, you have no roots here, you just got off an airplane, but you're black.
Views and Watched00:14:33
Do you have priority in this homeless shelter as against, say, an Aboriginal Canadian homeless person whose family predates every settler and migrant?
That's a real question because so many urban Indians are poor and homeless.
Why are other people getting ahead in line because of race?
Welcome to DEI Gone full circle.
Toronto is perhaps the most racist city in Canada.
And it starts at the top, doesn't it?
Great story by the sun.
Stay with us for more.
I saw the most outrageous headline the other day on the CBC.
It was so gross.
I think they were popping champagne bottles.
I mean, they treated it as an amazing victory.
No one inside that corporation told them how bad it looked.
Here was the headline that they have since changed.
The headline was, How We Shut Down One of Canada's Biggest News Content Farms.
So just in case you're wondering, the we is the CBC, and a content farm really is a negative word for a news site.
The CBC did a news story about themselves.
And the central part of the story was not reporting on this content farm that you could make up your own mind if you liked it or not.
The central part of the story, it was even part of their headline, was victory for CBC, silencing and shutting down arrivals.
So, so gross.
They've since changed their headline.
Someone has told them how bad it looked.
The new headline is this Canadian content farm topped the politics charts on YouTube before it was taken down.
But in a way, that's not honest, is it?
Because it doesn't disclose that the CBC had it take it down.
So I'm not sure which headline is worse.
The old one, which was honest and boastful and censorious, or the new one that downplays and I'd say even hides their own culpability.
Never trust the CBC.
And we're not going to trust the CBC now, even though we are going to talk to the man behind the news site.
Now, we're taking two precautions.
And this was a promise we made.
We're not going to say his name.
We're not going to show his face.
We're going to blur his face.
And we're going to very slightly garble his voice.
And the reason for this is that we don't want him to be fired.
He has a job.
This is something he did as a personal project.
And this gentleman, and I'm not going to say his name, is worried that the CBC will come after him.
The CBC may yet come after him.
They've destroyed his business and they want to destroy him.
Joining us now is Mr. X, who lives, I'll just say, in Atlantic, Canada.
Mr. X, thank you for joining us today.
Thank you for having me and for giving me a voice to just be able to tell Canadians what the CBC is doing with all of our heart-earned money that they get over $1.5 billion every year.
And instead of, you know, reporting on things that are relevant to Canadians, they decide to go after business owners and creators and shot us down because we were having more views than they do.
Yeah, I think that's what it was.
That jealousy comes through.
I'm going to read a little bit from the CBC story.
I'm going to read a bit and I'm going to ask you for your reaction.
So this is how they said it.
Like I say, they've tweaked the headline already.
Here's the story.
And by the way, they had one, two, three, four reporters on this story.
This was the most important story in Canada, according to the CBC.
They put four reporters and a number of editors on it.
A YouTube account that was the most popular Canada-based news and politics channel during much of the 2025 federal election has been taken down by YouTube following inquiries from CBC News's visual investigations team and Radio Canada's Décrypteurs.
Real Talk Politics regularly published confrontational, partisan video clips about politics that have been watched by millions of people.
Well, that's the nature about politics, it is partisan and it is sometimes confrontational.
Mr. X, why don't you describe your YouTube page?
They're saying it was controversial and partisan.
My first reaction is, who cares?
That's what an election is.
What's your reaction to this accusation by the CBC?
I wonder if the CBC has ever watched their own content.
I know not many people do, but I figured at least they would watch it because that's what they do.
My reaction to that is that it makes absolutely no sense.
I was just hosting a YouTube channel, a very successful one as well, just pointing out things that were wrong and highlighting how my values align more with being a conservative and just I wanted to share my ideas with the world.
I added original commentary to every single video, gave it my own touch, edited, and they decided that that wasn't good enough and decided to reach out to YouTube to try and get it taken down, as they mentioned later in the article, just because I was getting more views.
Something else I wanted to mention is they clearly do not understand how YouTube or the internet works because they were saying that I was getting all of these views in Canada, but my channel was international.
If anything, I was a Canadian entrepreneur selling a service, making money, paying taxes, and they decided to shut me down just because they didn't like my political views.
Yeah.
I think that if you were liberal-leaning, they would have praised you and celebrated you.
Now, you told me just before we turned the cameras on that when the CBC first reached out to you, they were deceptive.
They were trying to coax you into a conversation with them.
And they, well, I'll just say it, they lied.
They made it sound like they were going to praise you as a success story.
Why don't you tell our viewers the kind of things the CBC said to you to trick you into engaging with them?
Yeah, so pretty much they were emailing me multiple times throughout this entire process.
And the first email that Nora, who's the lady that's on the video, sent me, was, hello, we're writing an article on successful Canadian content creators.
We would like to get your position on real-time politics.
As it seems, it's been one of the most successful accounts in Canada.
Actually, it ranked number two amongst Canadian accountants for the highest numbers of views.
And yeah, we want to ask you how you understood the algorithm and just share your story with the rest of the world.
So they were making it seem like they were making a story about a successful creator and they wanted me to share how I understood the YouTube algorithm and why I was getting more views than them.
Yeah.
Well, let me read just a little bit more because again, jealousy here shines through.
And you're right to mention they get $1.5 billion.
You do this as an afterwork hobby.
And the fact that you were cleaning their clock, and you beat us too, by the way, I salute you.
If you're looking for work, we'd love to have you because you got that magic touch.
I look at you with some admiration and thinking, wow, how does he do it?
The CBC looks at you and says, how do we destroy him?
Let me read a little bit more from their story.
They say the channel racked up almost 70 million views from April 3rd to April 30th, according to data from viewstats.com.
It's currently the third most viewed Canada-based news and politics channel over the last three months.
You say it's in second place.
I believe you.
And then here is their condemnation of you.
It's just one example of what experts, oh, I love these experts, refer to as the content or engagement farming phenomenon in which individuals or organizations tailor their content to tap into the algorithm of the platform and boost their popularity.
Now, I don't understand what's wrong with that.
That is every editor's job, not just on the internet, but, you know, one of the funnest jobs in journalism is writing the front page headline, especially in the sun.
You're trying to think, well, what's funny or provocative or is there a pun I can use?
You know, boost, you know, tap into the algorithm of the platform and boost their popularity.
That is what every single writer, publisher, author, YouTuber in the world does.
There's nothing nefarious about trying to get people to watch your stuff.
And they don't actually say anything you've done wrong.
I mean, it's a very long article, but I think you've nailed it.
I think they're just furious that someone has beat them and that someone doesn't have $1.5 billion and that that someone is maybe a little bit on the conservative side.
What do you think?
I couldn't agree more.
I was actually talking to my friends and I was like, well, not everyone gets a lot of government money and they can afford to not get any views.
And what I would say as well is if they learn how the algorithm works, maybe their videos would have more than 10,000 views.
Yeah, you'd think that they have enough staff for that.
I'm going to keep reading a little bit more because it just shows, I think you're right when you say they don't understand the internet.
This story shows that they just, it's almost like they're making a story about how little they know about the internet.
It's a particular form of a content farm, right?
Because a content farm can take many different forms, said Paris Marx, a Canadian-based technology expert and host of the podcast Tech Won't Save Us.
These channels seem to be using political content in particular and what they feel is going to drive engagement, he said.
Marks noted that the political content farms could be both left or right-leaning.
So far, I'm thinking, so what?
I just don't understand how this is an issue.
And I don't understand how the CBC nominates itself to be the censor.
I just, I mean, here's something that really bugs them.
You know, sometimes a guy like Ben Shapiro or Charlie Kirk or Stephen Crowder will go into a hostile place and engage in a debate.
Like Charlie Kirk is really famous for going on university campuses.
And Stephen Crowder is really famous for setting up a booth that says, you know, convince me I'm wrong or something.
And these guys have debates and they get pretty good at debating.
And one of the ways that people have headlines is he crushed them or something.
And it's sort of, you know, it's a fun headline.
They really hate that.
Let me read from the CBC.
Short form videos on the YouTube channel often featured a conservative figure as they quote, humiliate, destroy, or humble a liberal one.
The approximately one minute long videos feature what seems to be an AI voiceover and include some edits and images to illustrate what is being discussed.
One of the recent videos was entitled Canada's Corrupt Woke Government.
Again, I'm waiting for the news here.
I'm waiting for the problem.
On TikTok, everyone uses AI voices.
You just sort of type it in, and there's a few voices you can choose from.
It's sort of a fun TikTok thing.
Literally, it's normal.
Most TikTok users do it.
I'm trying to see the problem here.
I think they just don't know.
I think they're just still using AOL.com or something or GeoCities.
I think they have no bloody clue about the internet and they're scared of it and they're scared of you and they wanted to smash you.
I couldn't agree more.
And also, I know you're kind of blurry.
My voice used to make sure they stopped coming after me.
But as you can hear me talking now, I don't know if you had an opportunity to watch one of the videos before the channel was taken down, but it is my voice.
Like, it's not a general AI.
Like, I optimize it using AI because we're in the age of AI, so why wouldn't I make it sound better?
Like, again, I don't have a billion dollars to buy a studio, so it sounds professional.
So I do the best I can with tools I have at my disposal.
And something else I wanted to mention, it's funny you mentioned Charlie, you mentioned Ben.
So same as you, like, I'm more conservative, and I feel it's good to share those values to make sure that younger people get interested in politics.
Yes, I'm more on the conservative side, but if you're a liberal and you don't want to watch the channel, for one, you don't have to, but for two, at least it's going to get you interested.
What I wanted to do was get more younger Canadians interested in the political discourse is to make sure people were more engaged because no one is watching the CBC.
I watched it over the election.
None of my friends were interested in what was happening.
And it was one of the most important elections of our lifetime.
And well, we saw what happened.
So that's something I just wanted to have a popular channel that got younger people interested in politics.
And also, funny enough, I made a video about you.
They really didn't like that too when they arrested you wrongly for just exercising your right.
And that video got like 3 million views.
So I'm assuming that one they didn't like it as much either.
Now, I have in front of me the latest version of the CBC story.
So I know they've made some changes to it.
So I'm going to have to compare this to an older version.
Induced Breach of Contract00:13:05
They're trying to downplay their censorship.
Here's how they have revised their story.
Like I say, they revised the headline to be less boastful, but it's less honest now.
Here's what they're saying now.
CBC News had initially reached out to YouTube for comment on Real Talk politics and the company's policies around content farms and included an example of a video published by Retail Politics that featured an AI-altered Ronald Reagan telling a joke.
So it's got nothing to do with the Canadian election.
The joke, which appears to have originated in the mid-2000s, was never told in public by Reagan.
The video adapts footage from the former U.S. final address with an AI voiceover.
It was posted by Real Talk Politics and several other accounts seen by CBC News.
Real Talk Politics told CBC News they were not aware the Reagan video was AI generated, having found the clip elsewhere on YouTube without an AI label.
So yeah, that's what happens.
I mean, these things happen.
I know our new minister of AI, his name is Evan Solomon.
He literally retweeted a doctored picture of a campaign bus that I think had the word retard on it.
I'm sorry to say it.
I think that's the word.
So yeah, people can retweet things online that someone else made.
The CBC is lying when they say, oh, we're just curious what your policies are.
I've seen this a million times.
When journalists call up a platform and say, do you have something to say about someone breaking your rules?
They're really saying, take it down or we're going to attack the platform itself.
It's a kind of bullying.
It's kind of mob mentality.
They couldn't find anything you were doing that was wrong.
Nothing you were doing that was outside the norm.
They found some Reagan joke.
And that's how they got you taken down, looks like.
Is that what it was or was there something else?
That was exactly it.
I want to make a few points here.
So for one, kind of addressing that issue about the AI.
YouTube's own policy says that when the creator doesn't label it, YouTube has mechanisms in place to label it.
And if it's just a one-case scenario, Billies label it and it doesn't even warn the strike or warning.
You're on YouTube, you know how they operate.
And if you do it repeatedly without labeling it as AI, that's when they start taking some action.
So this was the first video, the only video out of 300 that had AI generated.
That's the one thing.
Second thing, I saw that video on at least 10 different channels.
10 different channels, non-haded label, because usually they have to label it.
And then I went back, they took my channel down, but what happened to those channels?
YouTube used auto-label it as AI.
So why didn't they do that to me?
The CBC doesn't say they complained about any other channels.
They say they saw it on other channels, but they didn't complain about those other channels.
It's clear it was a bad faith complaint against you.
Let me ask you this.
Have you appealed this?
Have you objected to YouTube?
It's so clear to me what happened.
They were threatened by CBC.
CBC is even trying to doctor their own article.
That's unethical.
They're hiding what they did.
They're changing words in their article to hide the fact that they took down a conservative site.
YouTube was obviously pressured.
YouTube doesn't know you.
You're not a big guy.
You're not a big company.
You're just an ordinary guy.
So they thought, well, path of least resistance is do what the state broadcaster says.
Stay in good graces with the government.
Have you tried to appeal this?
Have you tried to talk to YouTube and say, look, it was an honest mistake about a Reagan joke.
There's nothing malicious about it.
A lot of other sites have it.
Happy to take that down.
Let me continue with my business.
Have you had any discussions with YouTube?
I have, but sadly, no action was taken from them.
It felt like I was just talking to a robot the entire time.
And the only time when I spoke to a real person was when I posted on Twitter.
The tweet started getting some traction, and they actually reached out to me.
They were like, hey, give us a seg.
We're actually going to review it.
But then they just waited a couple of days until they died out a little bit.
And they just told me, hey, we're going to uphold our decision.
You violated our terms of service, which I, again, just in case it wasn't clear before, didn't do 300 videos, verified channel 320,000 subscribers.
So YouTube partner as well, which you know, YouTube, if they meet your YouTube partner, it's because they're aware that you're not breaking any of their rules.
So it was clearly just CBC reaching out to someone because I don't even think CBC, something else that I didn't mention.
I woke up, I saw my channel had been terminated, I was freaking out.
And then I wake up and I get an email from CBC: hey, we were doing a story.
Now they changed the tone.
We were doing a story about your channel, about content farms.
And we have gotten confirmation from YouTube that it was taken down because it violated our spam policies.
Information that was not publicly available.
If you go right now and record a channel on YouTube, YouTube is not going to reach out to you and tell you, hey, we took it down because of this.
Especially if they're claiming that they told YouTube, hey, this AI video had an issue.
That's a different policy that was allegedly violated by me.
And the fact that they knew more about your own business than you did, they had information you didn't have, shows so obviously that they were the malefactors here.
And this is the definition of a bad faith article.
I think that they've gone too far here.
I think they are morally wrong.
I think they've violated their own ethics code.
I think they have misled their viewers.
I think they have pretended this was journalism.
In fact, it was Liberal Party activism.
But I think they've done one more thing.
I think they've induced a breach of contract between you and YouTube.
I think they have intentionally interfered with your economic relations.
Those phrases I've just used are legal terms.
I think that the CBC has committed what's called a tort against you, a legal wrong.
And I think that YouTube has as well.
And I don't know if you have any interest in the subject, but I'd be interested in discussing with you offline if you have any interest in taking a legal remedy here.
Because I think what we have just seen is bullying the sorts I thought YouTube had left behind once Donald Trump became president.
Donald Trump became president.
All of a sudden, the social media companies had started to talk about freedom again and relaxing censorship.
And Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk and Rumble and there was this move towards freedom.
I feel like the way you were bullied by the thugs at the government broadcaster is a flashback to the bad old days.
And I think they're only doing it to you, Mr. X, because you're a regular Joe.
And I'm guessing you don't have a lawyer, and I'm guessing you're not in a position to fight.
I mean, I don't have all the facts of your case.
I've only been talking to you for 10 minutes, but I think you were legally wronged.
I think a malicious competitor, obviously jealous, ideologically opposed, approached you in bad faith, lied to you about what they were up to, approached YouTube in bad faith.
They tried to scare and shake down YouTube, and they succeeded.
And I think that you were wronged by both parties.
That's my view.
I think the same thing.
And I've just been going over and over again what could have happened.
I reviewed every single one of the videos I had posted.
As I said, I never had an issue with YouTube.
All of my videos were monetized.
Nothing, no strike, no nothing, until the CBC started reaching out.
And it seems too, like that original email they sent me was over a month ago.
And then they never said anything.
So it feels like they were just targeting me until they could have something that would give them the ability to go to YouTube and say, hey, why is this account posting this?
Well, listen, I'm very glad to meet you.
I salute you and your smarts.
If someone says, Ezra, are you jealous of Mr. X?
I'd say, sure, but in a good way, I want to learn to be as good as him.
I want to improve rebel news.
I'm not looking to tear him down.
That's the difference between me and the CBC.
You clean both of our clocks in terms of finding ways to write headlines and to do other things with smart editing to be one of the most successful websites in the election.
I look at that and say, wow, what tips or tricks can I learn?
A government journalist for the CBC looks at that and says, wow, how do I kill it?
That's the difference between real journalists like you and me and government journalists like the CBC.
And I think this should not be the end of it.
I'm going to see if I can be in touch with you privately.
And maybe we can talk a little bit here because I think you've been wronged.
And I think, by the way, to say the obvious, 70 million people seemed to like what you were doing.
And they've had their rights violated too.
The CBC has decided that they are not allowed to have an alternative point of view.
I think they have an interest here, too.
So it's a pleasure to talk with you.
If you don't mind, I'm going to give you a phone call after this interview.
And maybe we can talk about the possibility of not having this end here, but maybe of having some sort of fight back.
Absolutely.
Thank you so much for using your platform to help us all small creators.
Actually, how I was about to give up, but I have a network of other Canadian YouTubers like Clyde Do something.
He's the person that reached out to me originally, made a video about it and encouraged me.
Used to go on Twitter.
Probably one of the few social media networks where you can actually say whatever you want as long as you're not damaging anyone, which is what freedom of speech should be.
And it seemed like the movement and people started showing interest because it's just not right.
Like today, and this is what I've said over and over again.
Today it happened to me, but tomorrow it could happen to you or anyone else just because the CBC doesn't agree with you.
They reach out to YouTube and then they bully you out of the internet.
Like you never existed.
Something else I wanted to mention too.
I feel like I'm being treated like if I was a terrorist.
Literally, something else that YouTube did, they shut down my girlfriend's account because it was on my phone.
They shut down my email.
They shut down my personal account.
Really?
All of them were terminated because they violated their community guidelines.
So because they were related to my phone or my IP, I don't know what it was, but they were all shut down.
So now I can't even watch YouTube.
Oh, wow.
That is shocking.
That is shocking.
Well, Mr. X, thank you for being so candid and open with our viewers.
I think this story should not end here.
I think that you have been wronged.
I know it feels like you're David versus Goliath.
You're a regular guy.
Young guy, you have a day job.
This was sort of a hobby and you did a good job at it.
And then it's like Goliath.
It's like David versus Goliath.
And Goliath crushes you by threatening your social media platform.
That just doesn't sit right with me.
And I don't think it sits right with our viewers.
Let me be in touch with you and let's see if we can have a different ending to this story.
Nice to talk with you today.
Thanks for spending time with us.
Thank you so much for having me.
All right, our pleasure.
There you have it.
We're calling him Mr. X because he cannot have his identity revealed.
But hopefully this is not the end of the story.
Stay with us.
Your letters to me next.
Your letters to me on the Trump administration visa restrictions for foreigners violating Americans' free speech.
Tough Pill to Swallow00:01:55
Crazy Trout Catcher says, fantastic.
Starmer won't be crossing the Atlantic then.
You're talking about Keir Starmer in the UK.
Oh, I'd be careful if I was him or Francis Macron, certainly people in Brazil.
Patrick Wood says, anything that affects Canadians negatively is blamed on tariffs instead of reckless liberal policies and immigration.
Yeah, I'm not even sure what tariffs are in place right now, either way, but I sure know two things.
The liberals are lying about it for political gain, and grocery stores like Loblaws are lying about it so they can raise your prices.
Jay Bling says, no, Trump didn't hurt Polyev's campaign.
Polyev and his staff hurt Polyev's campaign.
Don't say you're Trump's biggest fan in Canada because you aren't.
Trump created an issue that broke to Mark Carney's advantage.
I think that's just a fact.
And as for saying whether or not I'm Canada's biggest fan of Trump, I'm not saying that I can't be beat, but Rebel News is the only media company that endorsed Trump in 2016, 2020, and 2024.
We endorsed him in the presidential primaries in 2015, and we paid the price for it.
We were demonetized by YouTube for eight years, literally losing millions of dollars.
They took us down to zero because we made a video of a Trump tweet.
I tell you, that is why we were demonetized.
That's what they said.
So there may be people who in their hearts are more Trumpy than us, but I think we bled for it more than anyone.
And that's why it's so tough.
It's a tough pill to swallow to know that Donald Trump, really, let's get down to it.
His tweets and video comments changed the landscape enough to allow Mark Carney to win.
And it's something I'll be very sad about for a long time.