Ezra Levant warns Mark Carney’s Bill C-2 targets Canadians—not criminals—by banning $10K cash transactions and granting warrantless access to personal data, echoing past Liberal overreach like Bill C-63. Meanwhile, Tommy Robinson faces UK terrorism charges for refusing to hand over his phone password, despite no evidence of wrongdoing, while Sheila Gunnreid defends independent journalism against media monopolies and legal harassment. The episode reveals how governments weaponize laws to silence dissent under flimsy security pretexts, eroding freedoms for all. [Automatically generated summary]
That's Mark Carney's first law that he's introduced into parliament.
He wants to ban cash and spy on your internet activities.
If you think I'm kidding, I'll prove it to you by showing you the bill.
That's ahead.
But first, let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
That's the video version of this program.
I want you to see with your own eyes.
I literally take you through the bill.
I want you to see it so you believe it because I think you might think I'm making this up.
This bill is so nuts, especially the part about banning cash.
I just don't think you're going to believe me unless you see it with your own eyes.
I show you the bill.
Go to RebelNewsPlus.com, click subscribe.
It's $8 a month.
You get the video version and the satisfaction of keeping Rebel News strong.
Oh, yeah, one more thing.
Feel like Ottawa's got its boot on Alberta's neck?
Well, it's time to push back.
Join us for Rebel News Live, Saturday, June 14th at the Red Deer Curling Center.
Spend the day with Ezra Levant, me, Sheila Gunnreid, and a powerhouse lineup of freedom fighters, political thinkers, and grassroots leaders.
We're talking energy, free speech, and especially independence, and how the West can finally stop getting screwed.
This isn't just a conference.
It's a rallying cry.
Tickets are going fast.
Get yours now at donegettingscrewed.com.
Stand up, speak out, be there.
Tonight, the liberals told Trump they'd pass a law to stop cross-border smuggling, but in fact, it's a law to spy on you and me.
It's June 5th, and this is the Ezra Levant show.
shame on you you censorious bug i think the mark carney government will reintroduce trudeau's bill c63 You'll know that as the Online Harms Act.
That was the censorship law that was on its way to becoming law, at least.
It was introduced in the House of Commons, but then Trudeau prorogued Parliament when he was challenged by Christia Freeland, and that automatically canceled all unpassed legislation.
So we were saved by the bell.
But the bill can simply be reintroduced.
And as it happens, Stephen Gilbeau, the extremist who first started to draft this bill years ago when he was Trudeau's heritage minister, well, he's back in cabinet as the heritage minister again.
I mean, do you think he has had a change of heart about censorship, or do you think he's even worse?
And add to that, Mark Carney's extreme language during the campaign about censoring U.S.-based social media platforms.
He means Twitter and X mainly, but also others like Facebook.
If people say mean things, not illegal things, but mean things, Carney wants to censor it.
Take a look.
Large American online platforms have become seas of racism, misogyny, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and hate in all its forms.
And they're being used by criminals to harm our children.
My government will act.
Those things he listed there, they are not illegal or criminal.
They're just offensive, I guess.
And everyone has a different taste.
So he wants to regulate political speech by basically giving a heckler's veto to anyone who claims their feelings are hurt.
They get to silence someone.
It's not based on any criminality.
What he just said there was as extreme as anything that Justin Trudeau ever did.
So stand by for that.
I'm sure it'll come back, C63, especially now that Elon Musk is flexing his free speech and muscles.
But there are other ways for the Liberals to silence Canadians and to spy on Canadians and to basically to do all of what they did to the truckers to punish us, to do terrible things without even having a court order in their power.
I'm talking about when the Liberals simply ordered banks to freeze and seize bank accounts. of their political enemies hundreds of times.
No trial, no arrest, no court order, no hearing, no procedure, no appeal, just some political aide made an enemies list.
And next thing you know, you're at the grocery store or a gas station and your bank card isn't working because your husband protested against the Liberals too much.
That's not even the Online Harms Act.
That's what the Liberals did without any special laws three years ago.
Anyways, Mark Carney has started introducing bills.
The very first bill of a new parliament is a symbolic one.
That's the tradition.
So that was Bill C1.
Bill C2 is always the first substantive bill, the meaningful bill.
And what is the first thing, the most important thing that Mark Carney wanted to get done?
He just introduced C2 this week.
Well, it's a doozy.
Here's a copy of the front of the bill.
It's called an act respecting certain measures relating to the security of the border between Canada and the United States and respecting other related security measures.
Well, that sounds pretty good.
I mean, it's embarrassing that Canada had to be shamed into border security by a foreign leader complaining about the drugs and terrorists just walking across the border, but that's where we are, I guess.
But let me ask you a question and give me an answer from your gut.
Do you think the Liberals would actually make a law that secures the borders and stops terrorists and drugs?
Or do you think they would actually plant little surprises buried in the 140 pages of Dan's legalese in this bill that actually undermine our freedom and safety, not make us safer or freer?
I mean, based on what you know about the moral character of our government, which of those two paths do you think they chose?
It's a huge bill that tries to do so much, which is why it's perfect for burying little surprises in it.
The super short summary of it itself is five pages long.
Some of it makes sense on the face of it, just like C63.
They talked about stopping revenge pornography and child pornography.
So you'd say, oh, that's a good idea, but then they hid the political censorship.
This bill does the same thing.
Let me read something that sounds on the face of it like not a bad idea.
This is from the short summary of the beginning of the law.
Part one amends the Customs Act to provide the Canada Border Services Agency with facilities free of charge for carrying out any purpose related to the administration or enforcement of that act and other acts of parliament and to provide officers of that agency with access at certain locations to goods destined for export.
It also includes transitional provisions.
So that's all about stopping the cars that are being stolen every day in big cities and then shipped off to Africa and the Middle East.
Okay, so you're letting border services agencies into export terminals.
Sounds like a good idea.
It's sort of actually crazy that that isn't the case now.
So searching for things at the border makes sense.
Here's part two.
There's 14 parts.
I'm not going to read all of them.
Don't worry.
I'm just showing you how they're hiding horrendous things in parts of a bill that are good.
Part two amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to create a new temporary accelerated scheduling pathway that allows the Minister of Health to add precursor chemicals to Schedule 5 of that act.
It also makes related amendments to the Control, Drugs and Substances Act, police enforcement regulations, and precursor control regulations.
You can probably guess what that means.
It makes sense to me basically stopping the ingredients for illegal drugs, not just the ingredients themselves.
Okay, that sounds pretty good.
But let me skip ahead to part four, though.
It amends the Canada Post Corporation Act to permit the demand, seizure, detention, or retention of anything in the course of post, only in accordance with an act of parliament.
It also amends that act to expand the Canada Post Corporation's authority to open mail in circumstances to include the authority to open letters.
Okay, hang on, what?
What again?
This is a border bill.
I was told this was the bill Donald Trump demanded.
Does that just mean what I think it means?
The government can just open up your mail without a search warrant now.
Why, yes?
Let's go to the full text of the bill.
It's in a strange order.
It's written sort of in not in what I would think would be a logical order, but I want to read it to you.
You can see for yourself.
The first thing they say is you can only open someone's mail by following these rules.
So at least they're saying not everyone can open all mail all the time.
They say nothing in the course of post, that's a fancy way of saying something moving through Canada Post, is subject to demand, seizure, detention, or retention, except in accordance with an act of parliament.
Okay, thanks very little.
So you're saying only Parliament can snoop in our mail.
Then they say you have to tell Canada Post, if you're a cop, that you took mail from them.
You got to let them know within 60 days that you just stole it.
Let me read.
If mail is demanded, seized, detained, or retained, or in accordance with an act of parliament other than the Act or the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, notice of the demand, seizure, detention, or retention must be given in writing to the corporation within 60 days after the demand, seizure, detention, or retention, unless the mail has, before the end of the period,
been delivered to the addressee of the mail or returned to the corporation.
So they're saying if you're a cop and you take something from the mail, you've got 60 days before you have to let Canada Post know you just took it out of the mail, but you don't even have to let them know if you put it back in the mail and it goes to its final destination.
Sorry, what's that going to do with the border again?
I'll just read a little bit more.
They say you cannot get in trouble for opening someone's mail this way.
You just can't.
Subject to Section 41.1, His Majesty in Right of Canada, any servant or agent or mandatory of someone who's mandated of the Majesty and the corporation are not liable to any person for any claim arising from a demand, seizure, detention, etc.
So they're saying, hey, guys, a lot of bad things are going to happen and you can't do anything about it.
You cannot sue us for rifling through your mail.
Then they change the burden of proof.
Now, of course, police can open mail right now with a court order.
They can go into your house with a court order.
It's called a search warrant.
But they change the burden of proof to having reasonable grounds to suspect.
So they let an ordinary cop do it.
If the cop says, well, you know, I'm a pretty reasonable guy, and I think there's something fishy going on.
So no search warrant, no judge, no two sides of the story in court.
Just, are you reasonably worried?
Let me read that for you.
The corporation may open any mail if it has reasonable grounds to suspect.
And then it cuts that off because that was just the wording that was changed.
You can see it now does not require a search warrant, only reasonable suspicion.
Just Christia Freeland maybe phoning up some cop to seize the mail of some enemy, the way she sees the bank accounts of the truckers.
They learn nothing from that.
Actually, they did learn, they learned they can get away with it.
And who is Mark Carney's new right-hand man in all this?
His new principal secretary, but David Lehmetti, the crooked former justice minister who approved of the illegal search and seizures of the truckers.
So whose mail will be opened?
Reasonable Suspicion Rules00:10:35
Again, what's it got to do with borders?
A terrorist mail, a drug dealer's mail?
But like I say, that can be done right now with a search warrant.
How about my mail?
How about the mail of conservative opposition MPs?
How about donors to the Conservative Party?
Can their mail be opened?
How about mail that's legally privileged?
So when a lawyer writes something confidential to a client about a court case, who's in charge of this?
Why, the same crooks who were in charge of the greatest civil liberties bonfire in Canadian history during the pandemic.
They want to search and seize your mail now because they're suspicious of you.
They have reasonable grounds to suspect you're up to something.
And of course, they are suspicious of you because you are suspicious of them.
Now, if you would like them, if you would just like them, then they would like you too.
It's basically an enemies list they have.
It's got nothing to do with border security.
Where was the word border in any of that?
And everything to do with going after their enemies.
But then look at this.
Again, this is from the summary of the law near the front again.
Part 11 amends the proceeds of crime, money laundering, and terrorist financing act to prohibit certain entities from accepting cash deposits from third parties and certain persons or entities from accepting cash payments, donations, or deposits of $10,000 or more.
It also makes a related amendment to the proceeds of crime and terrorism financing administrative monetary penalties regulations.
That's a mouthful, but let me translate.
You can't use cash anymore if it's more than 10 grand.
Even if it's totally legitimate.
Here, let's go to the text.
Let's read it for yourself.
Look at the bill yourself.
Section 136.
The act is amended by adding the following after section 77.4: Offense.
Cash payments, donations or deposits of $10,000 or more.
Every person or entity, that could mean a company or could mean a church, that is engaged in a business, a profession, or the solicitation of charitable financial donations from the public commits an offense if the person or entity accepts a cash payment, donation, or deposit of $10,000 or more in a single transaction or in a prescribed series of related transactions that total $10,000 or more.
Now, I've never had $10,000 cash in my pocket, but I could imagine moments when that could happen to very ordinary people.
I mean, not everyone uses credit cards, whether it's people playing bingo, for example, or a laundromat that gets paid in bills and coins or restaurants or a bar.
I'm just picking examples.
You think of your own.
There's a car wash I go to, paid cash.
I mean, a church that passes a donation plate.
There are many, there are endless completely legitimate reasons to have $10,000 on you.
And by the way, those are $10,000 Canadian mini dollars.
It doesn't go as far as it used to go.
It's not illegal to have $10,000, but now it will be, even if it's totally legit, you can't pay for things like that.
Sorry, this is a border control law.
Who says this is, who says it's wrong to use cash?
And on what basis do they regulate you?
They won't regulate the border, but they're coming for you if you use $10,000 in cash.
If you're a drug dealer, I get it.
If you're a terrorist, I get it.
But that's not what the proposed law says, is it?
It says every person and it even lists businesses, professions, charities.
How on earth is that necessary?
How on earth is that related to the supposed purpose of this bill?
Donald Trump didn't say, hey, crack down on Christian churches and their donation plates.
Donald Trump said, fix your border.
And Mark Carney said, okay, fix your border.
I hear open people's mail and take their money if they use cash.
Look, it's obvious what this is.
This is a war on cash.
It's a way to scare people to move off cash and use only credit cards and other online traceable forms of money so the government can look at everything you do, everyone you pay, every place you go.
If you can see what people pay for, you can see where they go and who they deal with, what everyone does with their money.
Nothing to do with immigration or border security or drugs.
Again, you can already seize the proceeds of crime right now.
This is to get people off cash and eventually, I predict, onto some sort of traceable government central bank digital currency, which is smart money, which means they can turn it off if you're spending it in a way they don't like.
You know they want to do that, especially a central banker like Mark Carney.
You know he wants to get central bank digital currency going.
And look at this from the summary of the bill.
Let's go to part 14.
Part 14 amends various acts to modernize certain provisions respecting the timely gathering and production of data and information during an investigation.
It, among other things, amends the criminal code to, among other things, facilitate access to basic information that will assist the investigation of federal offenses through an information demand or a judicial production order to persons who provide services to the public.
Clarify the response time for production orders and the ability of peace officers and public officers to receive and act on certain information that is voluntarily provided to them and on certain information that is publicly available.
And specify certain circumstances in which peace officers and public officers may obtain evidence, including subscriber information in exigent circumstances.
I'll just read a little more.
Provide and clarify authorities by which computer data may be examined.
Sorry, what's this got to do with the border again?
You know, Canada's leading internet privacy expert, Professor Michael Geist of the University of Ottawa, he wrote about this actually in the Globe Mail just today.
And he thinks it's an atrocious, it's like a poison pill.
He says, alarming privacy threats are buried in the liberal border bill.
Let me read a bit.
A border security bill tabled by the liberal government this week will have wide reach beyond the 49th parallel buried in the massability provisions to allow law enforcement to access information about internet subscribers without a warrant.
Hey, what websites are you going to?
Show the government.
No search warrant necessary.
Just there's a cop who wants to know.
The Strong Borders Act seeks to circumvent these decisions by creating a new information demand power for law enforcement that does not require court oversight.
The new power targets information about a subscriber, such as whether they use a particular internet service and if the provider has data about their usage.
The provider may also be required to disclose where and when the service was used, as well as information about any other services the subscriber used to communicate.
This is akin to law enforcement approaching a bank to demand if a particular person is a client and whether there is information about their account transactions and which branches were used by stopping short of asking for the actual account information.
And Geist continues: he says, there are obvious privacy implications here that are certain to result in a legal challenge should the bill pass in its current form.
Well, why should that stop the liberals?
I mean, the Emergencies Act was illegal and unconstitutional.
They did it anyways.
Now, again, if this was targeting after bad guys and a court looked at the evidence and said, yeah, oh, you got Osama bin Laden's successor on the run, you bet check out what he's doing on the internet.
No one would disagree.
Well, actually, this government probably would come to his defense.
But this isn't about going after the bad guys.
It's about going after everyone.
And any cop can do it.
No court oversight.
I bet those Toronto cops, you know, those ones who do the podcast saying how the Hamas attack on Israel was actually had a silver lining.
I bet they're going to use this power a lot.
Here's the official wording from the bill itself about what a cop can get.
After a phone call from, say, Christia Freeland, I mean, no need for a judge.
Here, let's read.
Subscriber information means, in relation to any client of a person who provides services to the public or any subscriber to the services of such a person, A, information that the subscriber or client provided to the person in order to receive the services, including their name, pseudonym, address, telephone number, and email address.
Identifiers assigned to the subscriber or client by the person, including account numbers, and information relating to the services provided to the subscriber client, including the types of services provided, the period during which the services were provided, and information that identifies the devices, equipment, or things used by the subscriber or client in relation to the services used.
And then there's some, there's a French version on the other side.
But here's the first part of what a cop can get.
So I just listed what they said as the information.
A peace officer or public officer may make a demand in Form 5.0011 to a person who provides services to the public, requiring the person to provide in the form, manner, and time specified in the demand, the following info: A, whether the person provides or has provided services to any subscriber or client, order the account identified, specified in the form.
It goes on.
It basically repeats what I just said.
Basically, you're saying, here's everything we know about our customer.
His phone number, his email address, his real name, his fake online name.
No search warrant needed.
Just a curious cop.
Yeah, so just to be clear, they're passing this in the name of border security, in the name of stopping terrorism and fentanyl.
Journalists and Family Fear00:11:51
But they literally jammed this into the end, part 14 of a 14-part bill, and it's got nothing to do with borders or terrorism or drugs.
And it has everything to do with spying on you.
And yeah, I mean, you.
They spied on millions of Canadians during COVID.
And they weaponized that during the trucker convoy.
They seized bank accounts.
This is literally Mark Carney's first bill.
Stay with me for more.
Hello, my friends.
I am in Canada today.
There's a few reasons for that, including I have an exciting interview for tomorrow that I want to be here in our head office for.
But my dear friend Sheila Gunread, our chief reporter, went to London for the latest hearing that Tommy Robinson faces, a bizarre case.
I mentioned it to you the other day.
Paparazzi have complained that Tommy is taking photos of them.
It's unbelievable.
Here's Sheila's report from the streets of London.
Sheila Gunread for Rebel News all the way from Canada in rainy London, England.
This morning, I sat down with citizen journalist and freedom fighter Tommy Robinson over breakfast, possibly his last free meal outside of prison walls, depending on how today's court hearing went.
Spoiler alert, it went well.
He's free for now.
I'll tell you more about that in another video.
But Tommy is facing new criminal harassment charges for confronting two journalists who photographed his children while he was on a private family holiday in Cyprus.
They invaded his kids' privacy.
Now he's the one on trial.
Tommy's just come off of stretch in jail for civil contempt because he published a documentary the press didn't like.
And now, with a real chance of being remanded into custody again, he took a few minutes to speak with us.
Take a listen.
Tommy, I just caught up with you in a cafe.
Could be your last meal before jail again.
Cafe than Tim Hortons.
So you Canadians, we have a full English.
Your breakfast is awful.
You know, I won't argue.
No, I won't argue.
Give us a rundown of exactly what brings you back to court today.
Brings me back to court because journalists track down where I was with my children and family on holiday.
They came, which look, they photographed us in the hotel.
But my problem was for public interest.
Why did they put pictures of my innocent family members when they're fully aware there's threats of danger and death threats against them?
Why did they give the location where we were?
That resulted from, they've done their article on the fifth.
They basically framed me as the person behind the riots when there's no evidence of that.
In fact, all the evidence is the total opposite.
I wasn't even in the country when the riot started.
I was calling for calm and peace the whole time.
But then they run a headline that basically told the world that I was instigating and organizing the riots.
Now, this happened at the same time that Kierstama's government, the Labour government, who wanted to deflect any of the public anger that's against them for their policy failures in this country, they wanted to deflect it and blame it on me and blame it on ideology and blame it on the far right.
Now, since then, so Kierstan's government says it was far right.
The Daily Mail then put me as the front page, blaming me.
Since then, there's been in-depth investigations and studies by the police.
There was no link to far right, no link to me, no links to anything.
It was just angry people in towns and cities.
And they're angry because refugees and migrants have been put into hotels.
For example, they never spoke about why people were rioting.
In Hull, which is a city where people write, a migrant left the hotel and committed an act of jihad and stabbed a British pensioner to death.
In Tamworth, a migrant left the hotel.
His name was Mohammed, and he raped a woman who was walking home.
In Great Yarmouth, a migrant left the hotel and raped a woman.
Across this country, migrants have been housed in hotels and have raped English women.
So when this boiling point comes after three young children were butchered to death, when that come, people come out in the streets with anger.
But rather than address why they're angry, I got blamed.
I got scapegoated.
That resulted in death threats against my family.
My mum and dad had to relocate from their home.
There was so much going on.
And the media have never had it turned on them.
Now, I act as a citizen journalist.
So when they've done this to me, the next day, I started doing my homework on them.
And I contacted them and messaged them saying, you need to answer questions of why you've just endangered and located my family.
They could have wrote the article without giving the location of where we were and without photographing innocent people, like family members.
But they purposely, their motive was to cause me maximum disruption, maximum problems, maximum danger.
That was their motive.
It wasn't news.
It wasn't news and it wasn't the truth.
It was to scapegoat me into it and to endanger me.
So I then got pictures of them.
And what I asked them was, is it okay for me to come and ask you questions when you're with your family?
And I made it very clear.
I'm not going to show images of your family.
I'm not going to give away your locations.
You know, I know where you are because I found out within 24 hours where all three of them were.
I said, I've got questions to ask you on camera.
Made it clear.
I'm coming with a camera to ask you questions.
Well, that's what they've done to me.
Then I'm prosecuted when I was in jail, questioned when I was in jail.
We get a result to say I'm going to be freed from jail.
And the very next day, the police come in and issue me this court date.
The next day, it's like, it's like, it's so blatant for everyone to watch.
Now, what I believe they'll do today is try and gag me, which is what this is about.
This case may take now till 2027, from what I'm being told.
To be gagged for two years.
Be gagged for two years and gagged because I'm glad you're here.
Okay, so thank you, Ezra.
I'm glad you're here.
We've got the voice of ours.
The difference is now there's citizen journalists that come from everywhere, yeah, which is why they can't win anymore.
Because what they will do today, everybody has this, everyone has these, yeah.
What the mainstream media narrative will be today, and the headlines that will go everywhere, is Tommy Robinson causes fear of violence.
Tommy Robinson harasses journalists.
They found my family on a holiday.
This is the in another country.
In another country.
This is the second time they've done that on a holiday.
They've come into my hotel twice and took pictures of my family on a holiday.
They've caused danger to them.
They have followed extremists and live streamed the Daily Mail, the same paper, live streamed where my family lived.
The family had to move and leave their home.
Yet they're saying that I've caused them fear of violence.
Threats to kill my kids, threats to kill my family.
That I've caused them violence by saying I'm going to question you with a camera.
It's like, is this for real?
And that the sentence for this is 10 years in prison.
But they come and they give me this condition.
Today's cost five grand.
Yeah.
This is what it is.
It's financial terrorism.
There's not been, since I started speaking out in 2009, since the start of my activism, I have not had one day where I haven't faced court prosecution.
So I thought when I was coming out of prison this time, I thought, right, I'm going to get out of here.
And for the first time, I'm going to have no case.
But I told the prison officers, I guarantee you, they come and get me again.
I don't know what for.
And then literally, we got the result.
I'm sitting there and the officer comes in.
He said, police are here.
I just looked at him.
I said, I told you.
I don't know what it's for, but I told you.
And I thought they'd trump up a charge in order to remand me.
Now, who knows?
I might walk in and out.
They might say, you're remanded and put me straight in prison.
And then hold me till 2027 for trial.
But I haven't done anything.
So what was important for me was that the public see, just like they saw with the film Silence.
So right now, pinned on my ex count and on my, I've been given YouTube back.
So Tommy Robinson online, subscribe and like, yeah, share.
I made a documentary.
I think we've done pretty good.
We've done it in six days.
I haven't slept for six days.
Okay.
So, and we got a film out which details to the public, here's what they've done.
Here's how they've done it.
Have a watch.
Make your own mind up.
Have I caused them fear or have they caused my family fear?
But the problem is, it's like 2025 and I can't ask a journalist a question.
They're allowed to act as a propaganda arm for the establishment and government, harass people, persecute them, target them, humiliate them, lie about them, slander them.
And the minute you turn the camera on them, well, you'll go in jail.
That is a communist country.
It's a communist nation.
That's not free press.
Well, and the charges causing them fear.
Well, fear is an emotion.
You're causing them fear.
There's no evidence of that.
I don't make any threats.
I don't say anything.
I cause them fear.
Yeah.
Fear of violence.
So all they have to say is, oh, I was scared.
What do you think my daughter was like when she was 13 years old in a swimming pool and men were running around asking for me taking pictures?
What do you think?
Because due to this article that they put out, given our location, Muslims were making videos saying he's in this hotel.
This is where he is.
The threats were insane.
And the person who faces prison here is me.
They don't like citizen journalism.
They have controlled the media for as long as you any of us have lived, including our parents, and they have been able to tell you how to think about who and about who.
And those days are gone because of these.
So they don't want it and they don't want the camera turned on them.
And we'll continue to turn the camera on.
So even now, in this, I'll just say, watch my film.
It doesn't matter what they do because the monopoly that they had, they don't have anymore.
Because luckily, we can do interviews like this.
And luckily, people can find us on X thanks to Elon Musk and find us on YouTube and find us on Rumble.
One last question before we head down to the courthouse.
How's your family holding up?
How's my family?
I would have loved to have come out.
I promised myself when I was in jail that when I come out, I'm going to slow my life down and spend time with my family.
But because I come out and I know I had seven days till I was in court, I believe this is what I believe.
I believe they're going to gag me today.
I don't know that.
Yeah.
But I think their motives for these cases are always to tie me up and silence me.
So I think today they'll impose conditions.
So I didn't have a choice, but I've worked non-stop for seven days.
So I haven't really seen my family.
I'm booking clear time in with them from next week.
I've just had so much to do, which seems mad because I've been sat in a room for seven months.
And to be honest, I come out after seven months in a room and I felt weird.
All week, I felt weird.
I felt weird.
But the family, yeah.
My family have to watch that video.
Like, I just can't believe that I'm the mum being prosecuted.
There's no crime.
There's no crime.
No crime to journalism.
Yeah.
Uncontrolled journalism.
That's the problem.
We're uncontrollable.
And the process is the punishment for everybody, not you, your friend.
Spent a week on this video.
Instead of spending week with my kids in London today, bail conditions probably imposed today.
Back in court next month.
Trial, probably going up to 50, 60, 70,000 pounds.
And then when you win, because remember, you come for the anti-Semitism rally, yeah.
We come here last time and I won the court case.
That cost £40,000.
How much money did we get back?
None.
They won.
So they win.
And what it's about is the headline today.
Sorry.
What it's about is the headline today.
Yeah, we're here, but the mainstream media will all run with the same narrative and same headline, and they'll pump it across the country that I've and if you read the headline, you'll think I've terrorized these two men.
I've terrorized them, threatened them, scared them, scared their families.
No, done the total opposite.
Made it very clear to them that I'm not going to not gonna do the things that they've done.
I flew 18 hours one way to be here in London because we can't trust the media in that courtroom behind me.
They've already picked a side and they want Tommy Robinson back in his cell.
You can follow our full coverage at TommyReports.com and support independent journalism that actually tells you the truth.
For rebel news here in rainy London, I'm Sheila Gunread.
You cannot trust the mainstream media to tell you the truth, especially about Tommy Robinson.
That's why I flew all the way here to see and support our independent journalism.
Follow along at TommyReports.com.
Hey, we have a few letters on Tommy Robinson.
B-Win says, he won't want sympathy, but he gets it from me.
He looks shaken after his time in prison, but he's a hero for the normal, hard-working British man.
I really think he helped move a lot of issues forward, even his prison sentence.
During that time, a lot of things moved because he was in prison.
Someone Takes a Photo00:01:03
It's amazing to see.
Next letter.
His previous arrest on the basis that he was suspected of terrorist activities is a ridiculous nonsense and a deliberate abuse.
Well, actually, I know a little bit about that.
He's being charged under the Terrorism Act, but not for terrorism, for refusing to give the password on his cell phone to the police.
He's not accused of terrorism.
He's just, they stopped him under the Terrorism Act.
They said, show us your phone password.
He said, get a search warrant.
They said, we're charging you.
So it's not even terrorism he's been charged with.
Ian Blake says the Daily Mail should be in court, not Tommy Robinson.
Yeah, it's sort of incredible that the most rabid paparazzi in the world, like you've got to acknowledge that the paparazzi in London are the most aggressive in the world.
It's plausible to say they killed Princess Diana.
And someone takes a photo of them and they cry all the way to mama and ask the person who took a photo of them to be jailed.
Just incredible.
That's our show for today.
Until tomorrow, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, see you at home.