Mark Carney’s refusal to sell $200M+ in stocks—600 companies spanning tech (Meta, Alphabet), banks, oil, and weapons—despite conflicts of interest raises transparency concerns amid his prime ministerial role. His "ethics screen" exclusion from meetings is deemed ineffective, while CHP Canada’s banned billboard ("woman: adult female") exposes LGBTQ activist influence over free speech. Legal precedents like Ward (2021) clash with perceived state censorship, mirroring broader attacks on religious groups, including Amish labeled as extremists. Carney’s actions suggest prioritizing financial ties over public duty, while Canada’s speech restrictions risk undermining democratic discourse. [Automatically generated summary]
Mark Carney's list of his conflict of interests are out, and there's 600 of them.
The guy, I don't know if he's a billionaire, but he owns hundreds and hundreds of different companies' stocks, and he refuses to get rid of them.
Even though that means he's going to have to recuse himself from so many government decisions, I don't understand it.
I'll take you through it.
I'll try and make sense of it.
But first, I want to invite you to become a subscriber to what we call Rebel News Plus.
It's the video version of this broadcast.
I'd love to show you it, not just tell you it.
And to do so, I want you to see it.
So go to RebelNewsPlus.com, click subscribe.
It's eight bucks a month.
And in addition to that great content, you keep Rebel News alive because we don't take any government money and it shows.
Tonight, is Mark Carney planning some other career after being our prime minister?
If not, why does he refuse to sell all of his stocks?
It's July 14th, and this is the Ezra Levant show.
shame on you you censorious bug mark carney's list of conflicts of interest has been published by the government It is 16 pages single-spaced.
Mark Carney's Cryptos?00:07:22
Here it is: hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of companies in which he holds significant shareholdings.
He filled out this form months ago, but it was only released now after the election.
It shows you how little we know about the man who was installed as our prime minister.
That's why the media party tried so hard to get us and other independent journalists kicked out of the leaders' debates, where we put a few questions to the party leaders.
They didn't want questions like, why do you have three passports?
Which country did you say you were resident in in your last tax return?
Are you holding any assets in offshore accounts like you set up for Brookfield when you were its chair?
Do you have any tax avoidance strategies you're using personally?
When was the last time he spoke with anyone at Brookfield?
And so obviously, why won't you sell your millions?
Or is it tens of millions?
Or is it hundreds of millions of dollars worth of stocks?
Keep scrolling through the list.
He owns shares in hundreds of companies.
And when you own a stock, unless you're like a child or doing it as a game or something, you don't just own one share.
You typically own in groups of a board lot, 100 shares or more.
A man of Carney's seniority and seriousness wouldn't mess around with a few hundred bucks here or there.
I can't believe he would go to the trouble of adding stocks to his portfolio for less than 100 grand per investment.
But again, we're not allowed to know the facts, and our morally superior journalists had more important questions to ask, like this one that they took up time in the leaders' debate for.
Est-ce que vous en achetez encore des produits américains?
Est-ce que vous achetez des fraises des États-Unis?
Vous envoyez fraises des États-Unis?
OK.
Je dois vous donner une réponse bizarre, dans un sens bizarre, parce qu'étant premier ministre, je n'achète plus des fraises et tout cela.
Quelqu'un le fait.
Good question for a limited time to put to the leaders.
What are you boycotting?
But only boycotting for Canadian, for American products, not boycotting Chinese products, even though they have a huge punitive tariff on our canola farmers.
But the real answer is, of course, you can't really separate yourself from the U.S. economy or the Chinese economy in a meaningful way.
From on the U.S. side, from high-tech products like a smartphone to online products like social media to fruits and vegetables to most of our cars, et cetera.
It's all either American or largely American.
Try buying anything at Walmart that's not from China.
So it was sort of a dumb question.
My point is, from an informational point of view, that question didn't lift any load, as opposed to something like, why do you insist on keeping hundreds of stocks, each of which puts you in a conflict of interest about that particular company?
Why are you hanging on to them?
Are you still looking around for a better gig?
I mean, that's what Carney has done before.
He was at the Bank of Canada, and that wasn't enough for him.
So he went to the Bank of England.
And that wasn't enough for him.
So he went to the United Nations and the World Economic Forum.
And at the same time, he became the chairman of Brookfield.
So you can imagine how he used that.
Imagine being a boss at the World Economic Forum in the UN while running Brookfield.
Imagine how he feathered his own nest.
But even that wasn't enough.
So now he's come to Canada.
And in a few months, he's been installed as prime minister, first in a party vote, a party nomination, conducted 100% online, which you can read is vulnerable to hacking, where literally the majority of votes were disqualified.
So he becomes prime minister in a murky deal.
And weeks later, it's confirmed in a national election with 43% support.
And we don't know a thing about him, do we?
And even now we don't, now that he's been in office for a while, he doesn't really like spending time in Ottawa.
Why does he own all those stocks, though?
Why does he refuse to sell them?
If we know what they are, surely he knows what they are.
And everyone in his staff and all his MPs know what they are.
And he's not going to forget that he was the chairman of Brookfield.
So why doesn't he give it up?
Everyone in his whole team, all the MPs, all his staff, know what they're supposed to do.
Do not offend the boss.
Do not financially harm the boss.
He is a walking conflict of interest times 600.
You know, I'm not naturally against billionaires.
I'm not a communist.
Sometimes billionaires become rich because they've actually done something valuable for an enormous amount of people who happily pay them.
Elon Musk would be an example of that.
He's just done so many things that people like, they're happy to pay.
There's a billionaire named David Sachs who helped start PayPal with Elon Musk and other super smart guys like Peter Thiel.
David Sachs has since invested in other winners like SpaceX.
He's more than a billionaire.
And Trump asked this guy, David Sachs, to be his cryptocurrency czar to help modernize U.S. policy towards high-tech finance and things like that to make sure that China didn't get too far ahead to make sure prosperity and growth and freedom would continue, not regulation, which was sort of the Democrat way.
So Sachs agreed to serve the government.
And he did something that I just think is amazing.
Maybe it's obvious, but he sold all of his own crypto before he took the job.
More than $200 million worth of cryptocurrency just in the past few months alone.
That would have made him tens of millions of dollars of lost growth.
But he sold it all before he took the job.
And that's not all.
He went further.
He sold all of his shares in what were related at all to artificial intelligence or AI.
Why would he do that?
Because he decided that he had made a lot of money in his life, probably more than he'd ever need, and it was time to serve his country.
And he had really strong views about how that should be done and how to improve cryptocurrency and how to improve America and improve the world.
At least how he thinks that should be done.
He thought it was a higher calling.
I think, I mean, maybe I'm naive, but a guy who sells hundreds of millions of dollars worth of stock and crypto so he has no conflicts of interest, that sort of sounds noble.
And he didn't want anyone to be able to say that his advice or decisions were for his own personal benefit.
So he just sold it and he goes in with clean hands.
I think that's incredible leadership right there.
I mean, even if you disagree with what David Sachs does, and I really don't have a strong understanding of what he's going to do, would you agree with me that he is morally trustworthy, even if his judgment is wrong in the end?
So back to Mark Carney.
Why would he do the exact opposite?
Why would he keep literally hundreds of different companies' stocks?
Complying with Ethics?00:05:37
And don't tell me that there's a blind trust or a screen.
We all know what he owned and what his company, Brookfield, owned that he chaired.
That's not even the point.
The point is, why?
Why?
Why is he doing this?
Why is he insisting on this?
And remember the one time the CBC actually asked him about this, my weight loss challenge competitor, Rosemary Barton.
Carney attacked her personally when she asked about this stuff.
Remember that?
The rules say that those assets should be publicly disclosed within 120 days, which means you'll campaign in a coming federal election, most likely within the next 120 days, and are serving as prime minister now, with Canadians not being aware of what potential conflicts of interest we saw in the world.
What possible conflict would you have?
Stephanie, I'm complying with the rules.
I'm complying with the rules in advance.
Are you saying you are not open to any conflict of interest?
Yes.
Look inside yourself, Rosemary.
I mean, you start from a prior of conflict and ill will.
I have served in the private sector.
I have stood up for Canada.
I have left my roles in the private sector at a time of crisis for our country.
I'm complying with all the rules.
Your line of questioning is trying to invent new rules.
I'm complying with the rules that Parliament has laid out and the responsibilities of ethics, Commissioner.
And I will continue to comply with those rules.
I'll give her credit.
That was the one time she actually asked a critical question.
Now, the Liberals have set up what they call an ethics screen.
What a joke that is.
What is an ethics screen, you ask?
So there's supposed to be a senior staffer that whenever an issue arises that Carney has a stake in, because he refuses to sell his stocks, that staffer is supposed to take him out of any meetings and make sure he doesn't engage in the decisions about them.
Really?
He's got hundreds of companies in every possible walk of life.
It's actually shocking.
In fact, going through the list, the most surprising thing, actually, it's not surprising at all, is how few Canadian companies are in there.
I found a few.
He simply doesn't believe in investing in Canada.
Personally, that is.
As you know, his last corporate act as chairman of Brookfield was to move their head office from Toronto to New York City.
Is Mark Carney by any chance planning to move to New York in four years or eight years?
And if not, why on earth is he keeping those stocks?
Why is he doing it anyways?
Why doesn't he do the ethical thing like David Sachs did and sell his stocks?
And even put aside the ethics, which you have to do with liberals.
How on earth can he possibly run a country if he is conflicted on pretty much every single industry there is?
Tech companies, social media companies, Altria, the tobacco company, Amazon, Airbnb, American Airlines, American Express, Amgen, Aon.
These are huge companies.
And boy, he sure loves the United States.
No elbows up for him in his private life.
Apple, Archer Daniel Midlands, that's a GMO company.
AT ⁇ T, that's the phone company.
You don't think he's going to have some rulings that affect telephone or cable competition in Canada?
BAE, Baker Hughes, weapons manufacturers.
Same thing.
You don't think he's going to deal with something like acquiring a new fighter jet for Canada that touches on these companies?
Why won't he just sell them?
Bank of America, he has a bunch of American banks.
Why won't he sell them?
Donald Trump has specifically said giving access to American banks to sell mortgages in Canada is something he demands.
How can Mark Carney make a decision when he owns stock in those banks?
Why is he putting himself in a conflict?
Berkshire Hathaway, but of course, I'm roughly going alphabetically.
BlackRock, Boeing, Booz Allen, another military staffing company, works for the CIA.
That's actually where Edward Snowden was.
Drug companies like Bristol, Myers-Squibb.
Now, there are some oil companies in there.
I saw one of them, Canadian Natural, the American company Chevron, chemical company Selenese.
It's sort of hard for me to understand how he can be such a big green activist for us, but personally, he loves oil companies.
I don't quite get that.
He's even got Chipotle in there.
Banks, insurance companies, Cigna, Citigroup.
I'm just reading out a few of the ones that I recognize, and I'm only in the Cs.
He's got 600 of these.
Tech companies like Coinbase and Comcast, ConocoPhillips, another big American oil company, Costco.
You name it, it's on there if it's an American company.
He owns Meta.
That's the company that owns Facebook and Instagram.
He owns Alphabet.
That's the mother company that owns Google and YouTube.
You know, the Liberals went out of their way to really go after both of these in their Online Harms Act, which he says he's going to bring back in.
The Liberals want to tax these companies with an internet tax.
They've talked about that.
They're already shaking down Google for $100 million a year for favored journalists.
Facebook refused to go along with that.
How can a prime minister that has holdings in each of those companies be a part of the decision?
Online Harms Act Controversy00:15:58
And don't we need the prime minister to be the decider?
Are you going to let Stephen Gilbo, the heritage minister, be the decider?
But really, why won't he just sell them?
What on earth is wrong with him?
Why doesn't he put Canada first?
He's rich enough.
He'll get super rich in cash the day he sells it.
Why won't he sell his stocks?
Is it vanity?
Is it greed?
Is it some sense that he's above criticism?
He really has taken so little in his life, so little criticism, so little sparring, so little questioning.
You don't get questioned when you're at the World Economic Forum or the UN or the chair of Brookfield.
The C's part before you.
Everyone says yes, sir.
I don't think he's used to being challenged on things.
Is he above all this?
Like Leona Helmsley said that laws are just for the little people?
Astonishingly, Donald Trump slapped Canada with a 35% tariff the other day, and Mark Carney refused to cut short his vacation.
Is that the same thing going on?
I mean, he's above all this.
He's not going to change his lifestyle to accommodate us.
I mean, he's worked so very hard to be prime minister.
What?
Have they even had 10 days of parliamentary sittings this year?
I mean, His Majesty hasn't come back yet.
I guess we'll be learning about Mark Carney the hard way, won't we?
Stay with us.
More ahead.
Hey, look at this.
It looks like a meme, the kind of thing that you find on Facebook or Twitter or TikTok.
It's actually a proposed billboard for public transit in the Ontario city of Hamilton.
It couldn't be plainer.
In fact, if I were a critic, I'd say it's boring.
It's a picture of a woman with the word that says woman, an adult female.
And then the tagline of the proposed advertiser, bringing respect for life and truth to Canadian politics, CHP Canada.
That stands for the Christian Heritage Party of Canada.
But really the operative words, there's only four of them, woman, colon, and adult female.
It couldn't be more basic.
It's dictionary definition.
In fact, it was asked of Mark Carney in the French language leaders debate, and he answered it, obviously, even though one of his own kids is trans, he says a woman, there are only two as sexes.
Not only has the city of Hamilton banned this ad, but a court upheld the ban.
The matter is now moving forward to the Court of Appeal, but today we are delighted to talk to Leah Malusis, one of the lawyers acting for the Christian Heritage Party.
She joins me now in studio.
Leah, great to meet you.
Great to meet you too.
Thank you for having me.
It's my pleasure.
It's such a simple ad.
I mean, you really couldn't even take a single word out of it.
There's only four words in it and a picture of someone who's obviously a woman.
The Christian Heritage Party, they just went through the normal route and said, we'd like to buy a billboard or this is on a bus, I presume.
Tell me what happened.
Yeah, so originally they were working with the city of Hamilton's agent, Outfront Media, and Outfront engaged in the standard conversation.
They discussed pricing, and then CHP sent in the image.
And all that Outfront said was that this violated ad standards code, the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards, which doesn't apply to political advertising.
So from the very beginning, the premise of the rejection was the application of this code that is not applicable to political parties and political advertisement.
But when CHP pushed it further, they didn't get any further response.
So it was only at that point it was then escalated to the city directly, and the city then undertook a review.
They didn't engage in consultation with CHP.
But after the decision, when the decision was released, we found out that they did engage in consultation, but on a selective, exclusive basis, only with the LGBTQ community.
And so they then changed the basis for the rejection.
It was no longer about alleged violations of the advertising standards code.
Now suddenly it was about lack of safety and lack of safety.
Yes, yes.
This idea that it would create an unwelcoming transit system.
You know, that's incredible.
A lot of things have been done in the name of safety.
We don't have to look any further back than COVID.
Of course, if I recall the French Revolution, they called it the Committee for Public Safety.
That's the way it would lop off people's heads with guillotine.
Now, you said that they consulted with the LGBT2Q plus community.
I think they only would have consulted with the activists, because I really don't think that most gay people in Canada would object to this.
I really don't think that the weaponized transgenderism is reflective of most gay people in Canada.
It sounds like they've actually been colonized by radical activists.
And you, your client, the Christian Heritage Party, really, you made the application.
And they had this whole system in which your party was not involved.
And then they sort of said to you, this risks safety.
Like you really were kept out of the whole process.
Yeah, so we didn't find out that there was a consultation until the final decision had already been made.
The city consulted with its own advisor.
How long did this whole consultation over forwards take, by the way?
Well, it's unclear.
We don't have any information about what questions were asked, what the feedback was.
We only have the city's summary.
But you're right, the ad just says woman and adult female.
It doesn't say biological.
It doesn't say genetic.
It is rather vague and subject to interpretation.
Theoretically, it could even include trans.
I mean, it's just such a simple thing.
Was this during the election itself?
This was just prior to the election.
So this was taking place in 2023.
But because of this decision, it meant that this advertisement could not be put up in time for the election.
So how did this get into the court?
So the Christian Heritage Party, upon receiving the decision, brought a judicial review to the divisional court.
And that process, the hearing took place the end of October 2024.
And we got a decision in about 15 days.
And the divisional court upheld the decision.
It just deferred to the city, essentially.
It said that the decision was reasonable, that the city had weighed the various competing interests.
It had considered the rights of transgender individuals versus freedom of expression for CHP.
Do we know that they weighed freedom of expression?
Was that proven in the hearing?
So the decision itself references freedom of expression.
But I think one of the comments that we've made in our submissions now to the Ontario Court of Appeal is just because the city referenced it doesn't actually show that there was a depth of engagement.
The protection for political speech in particular in Canada is very, very robust.
You know, we've lost a few battles in judicial reviews as well, and for the same reason, which is that the judges just defer to the local experts.
And I think that there's a trend in Canadian law not to overturn expert bodies, but there's so many of these agencies and boards and commissions, and they're not really expert.
They're just, in fact, they're very susceptible to being infiltrated by activists.
And I don't say that in a nefarious way.
It's just who's going to be involved in reviewing ads on a bus shelter.
Obviously, it's going to be activists.
And to defer to them on constitutional matters is insane.
I mean, that ad is so plain.
There's no safety issues there.
And for a judge to say, well, might be sketchy to me, but the experts at Hamilton Bus Company say it's a safety threat.
So I'm really worried about that deference.
So you've filed an appeal to that ruling, and do we know how long it takes to get before the Court of Appeal?
So first you need permission from the Ontario Court of Appeal.
They don't have to take every appeal just on spec.
They don't.
And so you need to show essentially that you have a case.
And in this instance, they have granted permission.
I would hope so.
And so that is not itself conclusive, but it does suggest that the Ontario Court of Appeal looks at the divisional court's decision, has some concerns, and we raised a number of them in our written materials, which were just filed last week.
I think everyone should have the same freedom of expression, freedom of the press.
And I don't believe that political parties should have a higher standing.
I'm frustrated by some of the censorship in this country and some of the limits imposed by Elections Canada.
But that said, a political party should have tremendous freedom of expression.
I should too, as a regular guy.
But to tell a political party, you may not run this ad, there's nothing obscene about the ad.
There's nothing criminal about the ad.
You're paying for the ad.
You are a registered party.
You're not some banned terrorist group, but we had an expert who doesn't like it.
Like that is, and I think what's important here is it's a public institution.
You know, if it were a private newspaper, I wouldn't be so fussed by it.
People can do with their own property what they wish.
But for the city of Hamilton, which is a large city, to ban a party.
Now, the Christian Heritage Party doesn't win any seats, but it's a form.
It's as legitimate a political party as the Green Party, as the People's Party.
Well, and if the city of Hamilton can do this to the Christian Heritage Party, then it raises questions about which other political parties it can do this to.
And the important fact here is that they didn't raise an issue with the image, and they didn't raise an issue with any of the words, which they actually acknowledged were a basic dictionary definition.
What they said was they actually went to CHP's website and took issues with CHP's views explicitly.
And so the issue here is that they don't want these ideas to be shared at all.
And it really, I think, is very patronizing and dictatorial for a state body to decide what views its voters can and cannot be exposed to.
You know, and we all know which way political correctness is going in this country.
I don't know if an ad promoting, if it was a Muslim Heritage Party, if they would be as corrected by the LGBT lobby as a Christian Heritage Party.
But you raised a good point.
I mean, if liberal or radical or Marxist busy bodies can censor conservative views, can conservatives censor left-wing views?
And I don't think, I think by definition, conservatives are not as censorious.
I think this is an important case.
I'm glad the Ontario Court of Appeal is hearing it.
I'm actually, I don't, I mean, all courts in Canada, I think, are moving away from freedom of speech, but I have a tiny bit of hope because this is, the facts are so clear here.
The message was not radical.
It was not hateful.
It was not complex.
Four words and a simple image by a political party.
It's like there's no complicating factors.
There's no disqualifying factor.
One of the things about free speech cases in Canada is you're often dealing with a real troublemaker who's really hard to stomach, who says things that are so offensive but legal.
Like that's often the front line is so far down the road.
Like do I don't know if you know the famous case, I refer to it all the time.
In the 60s and 70s, of course, the draft in the United States, the military draft conscription was very controversial.
And someone went into a courthouse in California with F-U-C-K the draft right on his shirt.
And he was arrested and charged and went all the way up to the Supreme Court of the United States who ruled in his favor and said that using those particular words was essential for him to express himself.
If he said, excuse me, sir, I disagree with the draft, it would not be the same as saying F the draft.
And like that's a hard case.
Like to say someone should be able to sit in a court with an F the draft shirt on.
Whoa, that's your First Amendment home.
You know, that's, I think, the high watermark of freedom of expression in America.
But this is nowhere near that.
No, not at all.
But it's important for viewers to understand that in Canada, there are actually robust protections for not just freedom of expression generally, but political expression in particular.
And we've had some incredible cases recently from the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, one back in 2021 called the Ward decision from the Supreme Court, where they specifically said there isn't a right not to be offended.
And in that case, it was speech that was directly.
Is that the comedian out there?
Yes, targeting someone on the basis of disability.
Very painful.
I know that case.
So that was just one vote.
That was, I think, four to five.
It was a 5-4 decision, yeah.
So just for our viewers, we've talked about this before.
It's a comedian in Quebec who does comedy in English and in French, and he made fun of this severely disabled kid who sings, and he mocked him.
And like, it was rough.
It was really, really rough comedy.
And he won.
But it was 5-4.
And the way society is going, I know that in about five minutes from now, it would be four to five the other way.
Wouldn't you agree?
I think it is difficult to know sometimes.
Another case.
The Ward case was a good one.
Is there another one you know?
So one of the points we've made in our materials is that the divisional court and the city didn't engage with any of the binding precedent.
So the Harper case is one that was specifically about political expression.
I think that was a 2004.
Then there's the Ward case.
There's the recent Bracken decisions from the Ontario Court of Appeal where actually drawing on the American case, this was an individual who had FUCK Mexico on a sign and was holding it.
And I think also China as well.
And he was holding this in a public park.
So, you know, there are young children who are seeing this language.
It was very offensive.
But we had some incredible decisions from the Ontario Court of Appeal saying that these are public forum.
We expect individuals to have a degree of tolerance.
There should be a threshold of difficult speech that they are able to tolerate in a free and democratic society.
And I think ultimately this comes down to, in these facts, I would respectfully submit that it is not, it is never okay for a state body with its own political bias to censor the political ad of a political party on a policy discussion.
That is a vibrant and fraught discussion these days.
And so I think regardless of what people might think about the Christian Heritage Party or about this issue, we need to trust that in a free and democratic society, people are capable of hearing views, engaging with them respectfully, and then voting according to their beliefs.
Yeah, you know, Canada is an international laggard in this issue.
The tyranny of the LGBTQ2SL plus, oh my God, it all, the tyranny of that political reign of terror continues.
In America, it's been burst.
I mean, Trump's executive orders.
I see the University of Pennsylvania is now apologizing to all the women who were denied their trophies because some man entered in their sport.
They're stripping the awards from the men.
In the United Kingdom, their highest court ruled there are only two sexes, which is sort of astonishing given how far down the road the UK was.
Canada Flipped?00:02:50
There's been a lot of countries around the world that have pulled back from the trans insanity, not just rhetorically speaking, but also in terms of policy.
And Canada alone continues to hurtle down the bizarre path.
And I wonder what Mark Carney will do.
I mean, his own child is trans.
And I don't know if that weighs on his own politics.
I don't know how it couldn't.
I think this Court of Appeal case that you are now destined to have will be a very important one.
And it'll be a test to see if Canada has flipped from that.
Mike Ward, was that his name?
The comedian.
I'm pessimistic, but I'm glad you're in there fighting.
How do we find out more?
And we like to crowdfund things.
I understand the Christian Heritage Party is crowdfunding the legals here.
How do people do that?
Yeah, so they can go to chp.ca and they'll be able to donate.
There are the standard rules that apply to political parties, but I would encourage people to get engaged.
This is an issue that affects everyone, regardless of our views.
What's on the line here is the ability for people, regardless of their location, to hear all political views and vote accordingly.
And I think the decision of the city in this case has created a fragmented landscape whereby the freedom of expression that you receive and benefit from changes depending on your location.
That's a problem.
And I'm hoping that the Ontario Court of Appeal will hear that concern and will make a decision that creates some clarity.
I understand that the liberal LGBT shock troops called EGAL.
It used to be, they used to, I don't know if you can believe this, but 20 years ago, EGAL, which is the gay rights lobby, actually supported freedom of speech.
Maybe because they remembered that the gay community itself was censored.
In fact, some of the key Supreme Court cases from 40 years ago were the Little Sisters Bookshop, which had gay books, and they were seized at the border in Canada.
The post was seizing their gay stuff and banning it.
So there was actually a moment in time, it's hard to believe, where there wasn't a lot of T back then, but there was LG and B, and they were against censorship.
If you can believe that, as recently as 20 years ago, now they are amongst the worst bullies around, and they are funded, absolutely funded.
You can look it up online to see all their anti-homophobia, anti-transphobia.
They receive literally millions of dollars from the liberal government to be shock troops.
It would not surprise me if they interview, intervene in your case.
They're funding a lawsuit against us here at Rebel News as well.
They are absolute bullies.
So I wish you good luck in court.
You'll need it.
Amish Faith vs. Government Censorship00:02:21
Thank you.
I appreciate that.
Thank you very much.
It's good to have you here.
Leah Melusis is a lawyer representing the Christian Heritage Party in this battle in Hamilton, and we'll keep you posted how it goes.
Stay with us.
More ahead.
Your letters to me on the Amish report.
Kevin Smith said the feds would love to see the end of the Amish way of life because they are self-sufficient.
Yeah, I also actually think that there's a bit of an anti-Christian sentiment there, too.
I said this during the lockdowns.
I saw a lot of churches prosecuted and attacked for staying open.
Didn't see any other religious temple or synagogue or mosque condemned, did you?
And I think the fact that the Amish are that way because they're following their faith, I mean, I don't really think it's a leap of logic to say, oh, the government's bullying them because they're Christian.
I just think that's sort of obvious.
Moonshadow Forest Farm says the RCMP just said that the people with traditional values are extremists.
I love how extremely awesome the Amish communities are, all tradition, no BS.
You know what?
There you go.
Doesn't that say it all?
I can't think of anyone more traditional than the Amish.
They just don't even use technology.
Patricia Riley says, Salvation Army does exemplary work in the criminal justice world, court supports, et cetera, and the Amish are exemplar citizens.
What a great story on government overreach.
Well, it was a bit of a trek.
It took us almost three hours to get out there.
And it was, you know what?
It was that food looked so delicious.
I didn't want to say the wrong thing because obviously it's going to people who are having tough times in the food bank.
But I have to say, they got whoever got that food got a real gourmet farm to fork experience.
I've bought some of those same items from the Amish before, and they're pretty delicious.
If you like natural foods, I don't know if you're near the Amish, they live in parts of Ontario, but they really do believe in sort of natural ways of growing things.
And If you're ever in Amish country, stop by one of their little fruit stands or whatever.