Ezra Levant warns Canada’s daily 5,000-immigrant influx—like Iranian official Mahdi Nasiri’s entry despite bans or Sikh militants advocating for Punjab independence—risks erasing its culture and values, with weak background checks failing to screen hostile arrivals like Fairus al-Najim chanting "death to America" near the U.S. Consulate. Liberal senators, including Yuan Pao Wu, even probe "Jewish war crimes," while universities like UBC under Santa Ono cancel debates over ideological safety concerns, ignoring Charter protections. Parallels to Zoran Mam Danny’s U.S. citizenship and Trump’s digital services tax threat highlight systemic failures: unchecked immigration and censorship risks undermining national identity and free speech, demanding urgent reform. [Automatically generated summary]
In today's show, I'll take you through five related news stories that have one thing in common: mass immigration.
I'll tell you what the news is and maybe one thing we can do about it that I learned in the UK.
But first, let me invite you to become a subscriber to what we call Rebel News Plus.
It's the video version of this podcast.
Just go to rebelnewsplus.com, click subscribe.
It's eight bucks a month and you get the video version plus the satisfaction of keeping Rebel News strong.
Tonight, is it time to freeze immigration?
It's June 27th, and this is the Ezra Levant show.
Shame on you, you censorious bug.
I saw a bunch of news stories this morning that caused me some stress, and they were all part of the same theme.
Can you guess what it is here?
Or the five stories?
I'll just mention really quickly, all from today.
I'll basically just read you the headlines.
Story number one: Iranian officials are banned from Canada, but this former regime member landed in April.
Mahdi Nasiri let the world know he was on his way to Canada in April.
The former high-profile Iranian official posted a series of farewell photos, including a goodbye hug on Instagram for his more than 250,000 followers and everyone else to see.
It's story number one from the CBC.
Story number two: self-identified Gazan Canadians are organizing countrywide encampment stop protests outside immigration offices and Parliament Hill.
They're demanding that Ottawa accept family members of Palestinians already living in Canada.
They're demanding that.
That's from Juno News.
Here's story number three: a video going viral on Canadian social media shows Fairus al-Najim chanting common Islamic Republic phrases in Persian, glorifying the Supreme Leader Ali Khomeini and chanting death to America in front of the U.S. Consulate in Toronto.
Al-Najim is the founder and head of Canadian Defenders for Human Rights Organization, an NGO that has taken pro-Islamic Republic stances publicly, such as lobbying the Canadian government during a committee hearing to remove the terrorist designation from the Iran-backed Hezbollah group in Lebanon.
A couple more stories.
Story number four, Liberal appointee senator Yuan Pao Wu, he's very, very pro-China, as you may know, served notice of a motion to, quote, examine the risks to Canada and Canadians of complicity in alleged war crimes committed by Jews.
Oath of Allegiance00:09:40
Wu was among 11 liberal appointees, a 10th of the Senate, to sign positions accusing Israel of genocide.
We urge senators to do more.
And then story number five, Canada's spy agency is warning that a small but militant group of Sikhs are using the country as a base for promoting, fundraising, and planning violence in India in support of an independent homeland in Punjab.
A caution some see as a sign of shifting policies towards New Delhi.
Are you exhausted from those stories?
Well, there's no rest for you yet.
Every single day, seven days a week, Mark Carney is bringing in another 5,000 people to this country, 5,000 a day, overwhelmingly from third world countries, almost none of whom have true background checks.
You know, we don't do in-person immigration meetings anymore.
You literally don't have to see anyone.
It's all online.
Used to be a thing that you had to be interviewed.
That's long gone.
Sort of the opposite now.
It's as if the government is deliberately choosing to bring in the most antagonistic people possible.
Stephen Miller, who's Donald Trump's deputy chief of staff, who focuses mainly on immigration, says that hostile immigrants, that is, people who have not broken the law yet, but simply people who actively say they hate America, should not be allowed in.
And when you think about it, it's sort of obvious and basic and natural.
I always compare immigration to a country to immigration to your home.
As in, you have family members in your home and they have some rights there.
You pretty much have to put up with them no matter what, at least until they're grown up.
But if you have guests over to your house for dinner, let's say, well, they come under certain conditions that you can revoke at any time.
Let's say there's a house at your guest for dinner.
If he's rude and hateful, you can kick him out for any reason or no reason in a way that you wouldn't, say, kick out your own child.
But you can kick out a guest from your house, even if they're just rude, for example, or even if you're just tired.
Why wouldn't we eject people who come to Canada to actively hate us, undermine us, destroy us, even before they act on their threats and do something illegal?
Here's what the Canadian citizenship oath says.
It's been changed recently to include Aboriginal politics.
But listen to the last sentence.
Let me read to you from the official Government of Canada page.
I swear or affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles III, King of Canada, his heirs and successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada, including the Constitution, which recognizes and affirms the Aboriginal and treaty rights of First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples, and fulfill my duties as a Canadian citizen.
I'm not sure why that treaty rights language is in there.
That doesn't apply to individual citizens.
It's a treaty between an Indian band, typically a century ago, and the Queen, as it was at the time.
I'm not sure what that has to do with ordinary citizens.
But look at that last line: fulfill my duties as a Canadian citizen.
Hey, before I forget, do you remember when David Menzies went to an al-Qud stay, that's the anti-Semitic Iranian rally they have every year?
And he met someone who said, I didn't say the oath out loud, and you didn't make me.
I tricked you.
Remember that guy?
Let me just give you a little throwback to that.
So, would you like to see Sharia law in Canada replace Canadian law?
At some point, it will.
You know, because we have families, we are making babies.
You're not, your population is going down the slump.
Right?
And by 2060, by 2060, according to Pew Research Institute, your research, by 2060, Muslims will be the biggest religious group the world over.
What are you going to do then?
Actually, go up posterior.
Like I said, I have met several Muslims who left Islamic nations and have horror and are horrified and are horrified to see those elements of those countries following them over to Canada and the United States.
What would you say to them?
You know, Muslims that want to live a secular lifestyle.
You should go to your queen and tell her to change the laws.
Change the laws to what, sir?
To Sharia law?
No, change the laws to not allow any more Muslims to come to Canada.
Like if you are bothered by Muslims, because we owe our allegiance and our loyalty first and foremost to our religion, not to the queen, to be honest.
When I went for my so-called oath, I was silent.
I didn't say anything.
It was your responsibility to make sure you got it out of me.
So when I didn't say anything, I'm not liable to any.
Yeah, so don't you think we should find that guy who boasted that he didn't say the oath and kick him out?
Like, wouldn't you?
But those duties that you have to swear to fulfill, what are those duties?
Does anyone ever tell what those duties are to migrants or to the rest of us?
So new citizens are swearing to do those duties.
But if those new immigrants don't know what those duties are, is it a meaningful promise?
What are those duties?
To obey the law, probably.
To pay your taxes, probably.
Don't steal, don't cheat your way into the country, don't lie that you're a refugee when you clearly are not.
I don't know.
Maybe we should listen.
They don't have to be legal duties.
They could be just civic duties.
Do your civic duties.
Things that aren't required by law that make you a good citizen.
Contributing in some way to the broader society.
Learning about Canada, our history and culture, and respect it and assimilate to it.
And I don't know, respect Remembrance Day and the moment of silent where a poppy, I mean, even something as simple as giving blood, why wouldn't you do that as a civic duty?
Maybe serve formally in some way.
I mean, I suppose the highest peak of that would be to serve in the armed forces.
You don't have to.
It's not a legal duty, but if you can, what a way of showing your civic duty and your loyalty to this country.
Maybe volunteer in the community in some way.
How about this?
Don't bring your quarrels from your home country here, which is the unifying thread of those five stories I mentioned earlier.
I bet you a dollar.
Most people don't even know that the loyalty oath contains a promise to fulfill any duties.
And I bet you another dollar that few people could name those duties.
And I put it to you that Canada is being replaced.
That is a United Nations document that you can find by searching on Google in about 30 seconds.
It's why Zoran Ma'am Danny is likely to be the next mayor of New York, just like Olivia Chow is the mayor of Toronto.
And it's why Canada's streets sometimes look like Gaza's streets, and our news is full of quarrels and violence.
You know, I go over to the UK into Ireland a lot, and I brought back this campaign literature from when I was in the neighborhood of Runcorn and Hellsby.
Isn't that quite a British name?
So the UK Reform Party made, it looks like a little newspaper story.
Runcorn and Hellsby's voice, and you can see Nigel Farage smiling there.
It's basically a big campaign brochure.
And Runcorn and Hellsby was labor, overwhelmingly.
It was one of the safest labor seats in the entire country.
And then Nigel Farage ran his campaign.
And I just want to show you the four promises on the back.
And you tell me if you think these would work in Canada.
Number one, and really the one that mattered, freeze immigration and stop the boats.
That's how they come over there.
Stop the boats.
Freeze immigration and stop the boats.
By the way, do you think if Pierre Polyev had said that in the campaign, freeze immigration and stop the planes, probably.
The media would have squawked.
The Liberals would have squawked.
But you know who would have loved it?
I think people, including other immigrants who are saying, what are we doing, taking 2 million people a year?
I'll just read the other three points and some here.
Reverse labor's winter fuel cuts.
Scrap net zero to cut your energy bills.
Reward work and cut your taxes.
Sort of boilerplate.
I like the scrap net zero.
It would be their version of saying scrap the carbon tax.
But that first one, freeze immigration and stop the boats.
You know, literally in the last 24 hours, Naja Farage's upstart reform UK has won two local councils.
The UK is broken up a little bit differently than jurisdictionally than Canada is, but he's winning in town after town where the Labour Party used to be strong or the Conservative Party used to be strong.
Najel Farage leads the number one party in that country.
And it is because of the only thing people know about that party.
He's going to stop immigration.
And he's getting bolder and bolder.
And I put it to you, first of all, had Pierre Polyev said freeze immigration and stop the planes.
And second of all, if he does that in the future, that way he will win.
Until then, well, the mushier he is on this subject, the mushier I think his support will be.
Stay with us.
more ahead well a lot of things are done in the name of public safety Think of all the things they were done to us and got us to do during the pandemic in the name of safety, you see.
Safety First?00:12:33
It wasn't in the name of their power.
It was about keeping you safe.
That word safety has been used for centuries.
I don't know if you recall from your history classes, but the Committee of Public Safety was the name of the communist revolutionaries in France that chopped off a few heads by guillotine.
And of course, these days, the internet has to be kept safe from online harms.
In Australia, they actually call their censor the e-safety commissioner.
That word safety, it's quite something.
And I say all that because this case out of Vancouver is a doozy.
Let me read a little bit from a press release from our friends at the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms.
Court to decide if public universities must uphold freedom of expression and be liable for charter infringements.
So we'll talk about that in a moment, but let me just read a little bit of what is at stake, what caused this court case.
In 2019, the University of British Columbia canceled an understanding Antifa violence event hosted by the student-run Free Speech Club.
Get this, citing concerns about the emotional and psychological safety and security of the campus community.
They weren't worried about the actual safety of Antifa committing violence.
It was the emotional and psychological safety.
And so the government had to come in and protect people by censoring the events.
The things you can do if you promise safety.
Joining us now via Skype from Calgary is the lawyer for the Justice Center who is battling the University of British Columbia.
And we'll get him to explain the details.
Glenn Blackett joins us now.
Glenn, great to see you.
Yeah, great to see you too.
Thank you.
Boy, the things they do in the name of safety.
So I want to ask about the lawsuit in a moment, but first, just help me make sure I get all the facts.
What was this event?
So I guess this is six years ago before COVID.
Some students at UBC wanted to have an event describing the violence of the left.
That seems to be completely appropriate for a university inquiry.
It feels like the university was actually siding with Antifa.
Yeah, I would say that.
To back up a little bit, in the months prior to that cancellation, that same club, those same students had hosted a couple of events, which were provocative events or somewhat provocative events.
And some student groups had shown up, one calling itself the Students Against Bigotry.
And then also Antifa had showed up.
And there was a lot of protest verging on or tripping over into violence, banging on doors, pulling fire alarms, blocking entrances, that kind of stuff.
So they were really making a show of themselves.
The university chose not to sanction any of the students that were involved in that.
And so the event that was eventually canceled was a very relevant and timely one because it was the same group that had invited journalist Andy No from the U.S. to come and talk on the subject of Antifa violence.
So it was quite ironic that then that talk had to be canceled so that the problem of Antifa violence couldn't be better understood because Antifa violence was actually leading to this cancellation.
That's incredible.
And I forgot that Andy No was involved.
He, just for our viewers, is an outstanding journalist.
He was based in Portland before.
In fact, he was brutally, he was almost killed.
I actually attended a trial in Portland where he sued Antifa for basically gang violence against him.
It was actually, even the trial itself was shocking.
The Antifa activists in the court were clearly threatening the jury.
I'd never seen anything like it in my life.
Wow, I forgot about that connection.
So in Portland, if I may just detour for a second, one of the grossest things was how police have basically been ordered to let Antifa rule the streets.
It's almost like they're a street team of the far-left political authority.
It really is shades of 1930s Germany when the brown shirts ran around beating people up with the nod and the wink of the Nazis who hadn't gone full holocaust yet.
In Portland, the government winked, and same in other big cities, and I would say it's the same in Montreal.
Antifa gets a special pass.
I think I'm sort of shocked to hear that was done by the University of British Columbia, though.
Tell me what they said.
Where did these words safety, emotional and psychological safety, was that actually said by UBC?
Was that in some document?
Because that's an astonishing thing to say.
Yeah, yeah, it is an astonishing thing to say.
Now, they did also cite physical safety concerns, but they also cited emotional concerns, including people's sense of belonging in the community.
How about Andy Noe's sense of belonging and his ability to attend an event without getting beat up?
Right, right.
I mean, and this is the nature of inclusivity, right?
We include those who are ideologically compliant.
Yeah, I mean, it was fascinating.
They put that right in a letter.
They also, you know, I think an interesting bit of background is that when the event was booked, the group went through the same rigmarole that they had typically gone through.
The university had the same, you know, information that they had ahead of the other events in order to plan accordingly, et cetera.
What happened was an organization, which is a labor congress called the Vancouver District Labor Congress, caught wind of the fact that this was happening.
And they sent a letter to the president and or the president of the university, Santa Ono.
And in the letter, they accused Andy No of being a far-right provocateur, which is kind of hilarious.
I think that Andy No is actually more a child of the left or what the left used to be, and not a provocator as a journalist.
They find that provocative, I suppose.
Anyway, in the letter, the Vancouver Labor Congress requested or demanded that the university cancel the free speech event for the very purpose of censoring Andy No so that he couldn't speak.
And the president took that letter, turned around moments later and sent it off to the VP of students and asked one question, who approved this event?
Wow.
Wow.
Not, you know, is this safe?
So, you know, it's hard to characterize that as anything but a political choice.
And then, sure enough, a few days later, the university decided to cancel that event, including after they looked at the Students Against Bigotry social media feed, where there were A, demands that it not go ahead and statements to the effect of we must not allow this to proceed.
And so once the university saw that, you know, they understood the kind of safety concerns that they had to deal with.
And they expeditiously canceled the event.
You know, there's a phrase, the heckler's veto, which is you're in a public meeting, someone wants to speak, and someone just keeps shouting and shuts them down and says, oh, I'm exercising my free speech.
No, you're actually destroying someone else's.
That's sort of what ringing the fire alarm bell falsely is.
But it sounds like Antifa and this fake Students Against Bigotry group were going much further.
They were threatening violence.
And instead of doing their duty to uphold the safety of students on campus, the University of British Columbia caved in like the police in Portland do.
Now, here's an interesting thing: the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to government actors, to the federal government, provincial government, city government, or people working for the government or government policies.
It's a pretty broad shield.
And I use the word shield because it's designed to protect people from the force of the state.
Now, UBC, which receives massive support from various levels of government, claims that it doesn't have to abide by the charter, that it's immune from constitutional considerations.
It can censor the Andy nose of the world.
It can cave into violence and silence and give a heckler's veto to the thugs, claiming they're not a government institution.
I understand that's where this battle is now: is that the university has said, no, we are not bound by the charter.
We're not even pretending that we follow the charter because we don't have to.
Tell me the state of the law and what you guys are doing.
I understand you're headed to the court of appeal.
Is that correct?
That's right.
Yeah, we've already launched our appeal.
And we are now in the Court of Appeal a second time on a procedural issue.
But the state of the law in Canada is in the 1990s, the Supreme Court of Canada decided a series of cases where they determined that the charter did not apply to the universities at issue there, one of which was UBC.
And Justice La Faure, who wrote the majority of opinion in those cases, was very careful to say, which he didn't need to be careful if judges had their judicial hats on from then on, but he was very careful to say that this is based on the way universities are structured and organized today.
Meaning, if it changes in the future, then the outcome of this case changes or the outcome of this rule would change.
And the argument that we've made in BC, and I think the only time that it's really been made in any serious way, is that if you look thoroughly at the relationship now between the province and the university, there's clearly a very significant degree of governmental control over the university, including board members that are required to take training where they learn that they are accountable to the government,
including annual agreements entered into by the government in the province where the president and chair of the board of UBC agree to be accountable to the government.
And the whole system is actually even described by the province as the accountability framework.
So the province is very clear and has implemented this giant scheme to ensure that the university is accountable to them.
And you can, you know, there are hundreds of different sorts of areas in which the university must comply with provincial objectives when delivering their programs.
Our argument to the court was: okay, well, let's take the rule in those 1990 cases that if there's sufficient government control, then it becomes an order of government.
And let's apply it to the facts today.
And the problem we have is that the lower court and to some extent the Alberta, or sorry, the BC Court of Appeal in a 2016 case have basically said, it doesn't matter if the facts change.
The law is that the charter doesn't apply.
Well, I hope that you are successful, not only because I'm sympathetic to the free speech club on campus, and I despise Antifa and the fact that it has burrowed into institutions, including security institutions, whether it's in Portland, San Francisco, Montreal, or UBC.
And I think that universities are so biased, I don't think anyone would doubt that, but the way they treat certain students who you would call political dissidents, I think in some cases, absolutely would be illegal or unconstitutional if the charter applied.
Say, you know, you mentioned one thing and it got my gears in my head going.
You mentioned that the president of the university at the time was Santa Ono, and that's a very unique name.
And so it rang a bell for me.
And I know he's no longer the president.
And Santa Ono was hired by the University of Florida.
Mark Carney's Internet Tax Proposal00:05:55
He was hired.
I mean, he's moved around.
And the Florida Board of Governors, which has to approve the presidents of different universities, vetoed that and canceled that because of his extreme politics, because of his belief in extreme DEI, race-based hiring, because of his extreme views on climate activism.
So it's very interesting to me that the guy who was presiding over this was so extreme that Florida, I remember, I think it was Donald Trump Jr. said, you know, you belong at some wackadoodle California university.
Yeah, or unfortunately, UBC.
Listen, I wish you good luck.
You're not just fighting for the Free Speech Club.
You're fighting for any student who is abused by hyper-partisan universities.
And in the case of Andy No, who suffered physical violence from it.
So good luck out there.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
All right.
We've been talking to Glenn Blackett, working for the Justice Center Fighting for Freedom at UBC.
Stay with us.
More ahead.
Hey, welcome back.
Your letters to me.
The first one is on Zoran Mam Danny.
I've had to learn how to say that name.
John says he's on par with Canadian liberals.
It's a toss-up.
Yeah, I mean, and look, in fairness to him, even though he hates America clearly, he says so as much.
He hates white people.
He hates cops.
He hates Italians.
There's a lot of things he hates.
He only became a citizen eight years ago.
I mean, it's quite something.
But in fairness, someone let him in.
He was not actually an illegal immigrant.
And if you let someone in your country, you are saying you get to do things like run for office.
Are you surprised by that?
Next letter, Prism Jim says, doesn't New York have ranked voting?
I seem to recall the current mayor overcame an early lead by his opponent because the second and third choices of other candidates went to him.
I don't know, but I do know he beat Andrew Cuomo in the primary.
He got hundreds of thousands of votes.
He has the media attention.
Now he is the endorsement of all the grand poo-bahs in the Democrat Party.
I think he's the leading candidate.
He's the one to beat.
Last letter from a lurking poster, you don't mess with the Zoran.
The Republicans are lucky he can't run for president.
The charisma of Obama, combined with the politics of Bernie Sanders, is a powerful combination.
That is true.
You are very true.
I saw a news story today that in his entire life, he's only worked for three years.
And I thought, okay, good one.
But that knock could be set against Justin Trudeau, who arguably has never worked.
I mean, he was a substitute drama teacher.
He taught snowboarding.
That didn't stop him from getting the top job.
He's got an EQ, emotional intelligence.
He attracts the socialist white left and the migrant right or left.
I don't know what you would call migrant votes.
I think he's going to be the next mayor of New York.
And don't think we're immune to that in Canada.
We are further down that path than they are in the United States.
And yet, that's our show for the day.
Until next time, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, to you at home, good night, and keep fighting for freedom.
Breaking news.
Donald Trump has just said he is canceling all trade talks with Canada.
Sort of a shocking announcement.
And his reason is that Mark Carney has said he's going to tax the internet, a digital services tax, and those taxes will fall on U.S. companies, whether it's Netflix or Twitter.
We don't know the details yet, but Donald Trump is having none of it.
And to make his point, he's saying he will cease all trade talks with Canada until Carney withdraws.
Now, that's Trump's point of view.
But look, put yourself in the shoes of an ordinary Canadian, which you are.
We don't want this digital services tax either.
We do not want an internet tax, not on Netflix, not on Facebook, not on Twitter.
And there's two reasons for that.
Number one, we don't want to pay another tax.
But even more importantly, we do not want to set the precedent that Mark Carney gets to regulate the internet.
I don't know if you remember, but in the last parliament, Justin Trudeau introduced the Online Harms Act, a vicious censorship law, the strictest in the world.
Literally, it had North Korea-style punishments in it, including life in prison.
There's no life in prison for anything in Canada.
There is in his censorship rules.
Now, that dissolved when Justin Trudeau dissolved the last parliament.
But if you look at Mark Carney's Heritage Department, they say their number one strategic priority for this year is bringing back that internet regulation.
So we've got to sign a petition against it.
And I will personally deliver the petition to Parliament Hill.
Go right now to stoptheinternettax.ca.
Stop the internet tax.ca.
There's three good reasons for it.
Number one, we got to get our trade deal back on track with the United States.
Number two, don't give Mark Carney any more tax money.
Tell him to cut his spending instead.
And number three, we've got to stop him from getting the precedent of regulating the internet.
If he taxes it today, he'll censor it tomorrow.
You've got to go to stoptheinternettax.ca, and I'll let you know when I'm dropping it off at Parliament.