Ezra Levant highlights surging global anti-Semitism—from a Holocaust survivor burned in Colorado to a deadly attack near Washington’s Holocaust Museum—while condemning Western governments for recognizing Palestinian statehood despite Hamas’s October 7th massacres, backed by 90% of Palestinians. Israel’s Netanyahu faced UN walkouts over baseless genocide claims, exposing double standards as Israel defends civilians against Hamas terrorists. Canada’s flawed gun buyback program, rejected by Ukraine for impractical weapons like SIG handguns and AR-15s, risks disarming law-abiding citizens while failing to curb crime, with Alberta’s Danielle Smith resisting federal overreach. Levant warns Mark Carney’s government may expand firearm bans and push mandatory digital IDs, mirroring the UK, as economic struggles fuel political scapegoating, ignoring migrant welfare exploitation. [Automatically generated summary]
Tonight, dozens of foreign diplomats walk out of the United Nations when Benjamin Netanyahu speaks.
Did they ever do that to China?
It's September 26th, and this is the Ezra Levant show.
Shame on you, you censorious bug.
Anti-Semitic lies, they have consequences.
In recent months, Jews have been assaulted in Canada, Austria, or rather Australia, Britain, France, the Netherlands, and elsewhere.
Here in America, an elderly Holocaust survivor was burned to death in Colorado.
And a beautiful young couple from the Israeli embassy in Washington was brutally gunned down right in front of the Holocaust Museum there.
Thankfully, President Trump's administration is forcefully fighting the scourge of anti-Semitism, and every government here should follow its lead.
But instead, many do the opposite.
They actually reward, reward the worst anti-Semites on earth.
This week, the leaders of France, Britain, Australia, Canada, and other countries unconditionally recognized a Palestinian state.
They did so after the horrors committed by Hamas on October 7th.
Horrors praised on that day by nearly 90% of the Palestinian population.
Let me say that again.
Nearly 90% of Palestinians supported the attack on October 7th.
It's not supported only.
They celebrated it.
They danced on the rooftops.
They threw candies.
That's woes both in Gaza and in Judea, Samaria, the West Bank, as you call it.
And it's just the way they celebrated another horror, 9-11.
They danced on the rooftops.
They cheered.
They threw candy.
You know what message the leaders who recognized the Palestinian state this week sent to the Palestinians?
It's a very clear message.
Murdering Jews pays off.
Well, I have a message for these leaders.
When the most savage terrorists on earth are effusively praising your decision, you didn't do something right.
You did something wrong, horribly wrong.
Your disgraceful decision will encourage terrorism against Jews and against innocent people everywhere.
It will be a mark of shame on all of you.
Today, the Prime Minister of Israel spoke to the United Nations General Assembly, or it's more accurate to say he spoke at the General Assembly.
Many of the diplomats walked out, refusing to hear what he had to say.
That adds up.
I mean, they don't want to hear the other side of the story.
They want to hear from the pro-Hamas side, the pro-Palestinian side.
The UN is supposed to be a place where different countries can meet in a neutral way, but that's long gone.
Of course, many of the diplomats who walked out are from dictatorships.
I don't know who needs to hear this, but there is no true democracy in the entire Middle East, except for Israel.
Some of the dictatorships are benign, like the United Arab Emirates and maybe Jordan and maybe a few others, but the rest are dictatorships all the way down, where the main difference is how Islamist they are, how pro-terrorist they are.
So naturally they hate Israel.
But if you take the walker-outers at face value, they're walking out because they say Israel has committed a genocide.
A genocide is a deliberate campaign to eradicate an entire race of people.
Israel is not committing a genocide.
It's committing a war against a terrorist group that attacked it and now hides behind civilians to maximize PR damage to Israel.
In fact, the population of Gaza has increased over the course of the war.
But take it at face value, just for the purpose of debate.
That is why the diplomats walked out.
Okay.
Now, you know who really is committing a genocide or trying to?
China.
They have a massive series of concentration camps, like the Nazis did.
But they have Uyghur Muslims in it.
That's an ethnic minority in the west of China.
More than a million people.
They do crazy things like forcing them to eat pork, having the religion beaten out of them, basically trying to replace their belief in Islam with their belief in Chinese communism.
A United Kingdom expert panel really has declared it a genocide, but it's so hard to stand up to China, and they're so rich and so powerful, and they're the biggest counterweight to the hated United States.
So no criticism for them.
Never a walkout, never a boycott.
Any boycott of Chinese athletes, any blacklisting of Chinese businesses?
Just kidding.
Of course not.
But here in Canada, look at this.
Advocacy group calls on Canada soccer to refuse to host World Cup if Israel plays.
And UN experts have also pushed FIFA and UEFA to suspend the nation from their respective competitions.
Oh, UN experts have, eh?
They're experts in soccer.
Let me read just a little bit more.
They haven't yet qualified, but Israel could be facing other challenges, making it to the 2026 FIFA World Cup.
A Canadian independent human rights group, do you believe they're independent, has joined the growing calls to suspend Israeli soccer teams from international play over the war in Gaza?
Just Peace Advocates, a Toronto-based Palestinian solidarity organization.
Hang on, I thought you said they were independent a moment ago, and now you're acknowledging they're on the Palestinian side.
They sent a letter this week calling on Canada soccer to publicly demand the suspension of the Israeli Football Association and to refuse to host next summer's World Cup if Israel remains part of it.
The letter is signed by some 270 academics, legal experts, journalists, and advocates.
Journalists, they sound like the most objective journalists around.
And to think they say rebel news is too opinionated.
The whole thing sounds a bit like Jackie Robinson is reverse, you know, the first black pro-baseball player.
Except for they're doing it in reverse, they're purging the Jews from soccer.
Israel isn't even qualified yet, but they need to be purged.
These people are obsessed.
But then there's this, it's even crazier.
European Eurovision body to hold vote on Israel's participation.
Now, Eurovision is a song contest with notoriously awful songs.
Every country in Europe participates, and it's like a giant America's Got Talent.
There's voting.
Israel has traditionally participated too.
Just for the flavor of the music, here is Ireland's entry from last year.
I won't inflict the whole thing on you.
Yeah, that's lovely.
Here's the Israeli contestant last year with a song about resilience to terrorism.
Take a look for a minute.
Life is no game, but it's ours.
Why?
The time goes wild.
Every day I'm losing my mind.
Holding on in this mysterious ride.
The singer, Eden Golan, had to practice singing with people shouting at her.
If I understand correctly, the Eurovision production actually played a pre-recorded version because they knew so many people in the crowd would be shouting and shrieking at her.
They seem like really nice people.
Nonetheless, she came in second in the whole contest.
And I say again, it's based on ordinary people voting in every country.
Ordinary people voting by the thousands.
So the official people, the independent human rights experts, may not like her, but ordinary people, ordinary Europeans voted for her.
She actually came in second.
I find that very reassuring.
Now, this year, the Israeli candidate is Yuval Raphael.
She survived the Hamas attacks on the Nova Music Festival.
If you know, October 7th, there was this big dance party.
That's where a lot of the young people were kidnapped.
Criminal Bail Proceedings00:06:13
She hid in a bomb shelter with about 50 other people.
She literally hid under a pile of bodies for eight hours and was one of only 11 survivors rescued there.
So yeah, it's pretty crappy to shout at her, but she's faced worse, hasn't she?
But that satanic girl from Ireland is tickety-boo.
This is madness.
It feels like a mania, literally.
It's not just anti-Israel.
It's anti-Jewish.
When visibly Jewish people get attacked on the streets in Canada, when schools and synagogues get attacked in Canada, it's not a foreign country that's being attacked.
It's Jews who are Canadian.
I think this makes most people deeply uncomfortable what's going on.
Most Canadians, at least.
But I think the worst thing about it is how enthusiastic the Canadian government is in all of these boycotts and the official moments of hatred.
And it's because Trudeau and now Kearney see the millions of anti-Semites we have imported into our country.
And the liberals aren't going to let their votes go to waste, are they?
And if the cost is a few Jews, well, that's a price they're willing to pay.
Stay with us for more.
Well, I was slightly surprised, but I shouldn't have been earlier this week when Pierre Pauly of the leader of the opposition went after Gary and Andesangari.
That's the public safety minister, for a solid 10 minutes straight in question period.
So bad that Ananda Sangeri started repeating his scripted answers again and again till he was finally saved by an intervention of the slightly but not much smarter justice minister.
The reason that Ananda Sangeri was on his feet was that he was recorded talking to a tenant.
You see, Ananda Sangri isn't just an MP, he's not just the minister in charge of public safety.
That's a huge portfolio.
Everything from border to spies to terrorist groups, like it's to prisons.
It's a huge job, but apparently, like half the liberal cabinet, he's an entrepreneur, by which I mean he owns a bunch of residential properties and he goes around collecting rents.
That's one of the reasons why the liberals obviously love high housing prices.
So he, you know, I would feel pretty busy if I was the public safety minister, but apparently Gary has higher priorities.
So he was talking with a tenant.
And for 20 minutes, this tenant, who was obviously a law-abiding gun owner, was and by the way, this was brought up by Gary Ananda Sangri.
It was not brought up by the tenant.
Recording Gary, I'm just going to say Gary because it's last time it's hard to say.
Saying, look, this gun buyback is just for show.
It's stupid policy.
Don't worry about it.
If you get in trouble, you're a buddy of mine.
So I'll make sure your bail is covered.
Like he was just crazy and good on his tenant for recording him.
Here's just a couple of minutes of that to remind you how crazy it was.
These guys, I have to say, for control police policies, these guys are caught, right?
Might spend a couple days in jail, get a bail here, and out they go.
But you're taking stuff away from people that aren't called.
Listen, it's voluntary.
That's the only thing.
So what's the third option?
So I deactivate, I turn them in.
What's the third option?
Third option is you don't do either.
And what does that mean?
Then it's up to the local police.
Then what's that meeting become?
Yeah.
What's that?
A criminal.
If police enforce it, yes.
Well, of course, the police are going to enforce it.
Because you're going to mandate.
Well, it's not in the criminal.
It's there.
It's already written in the terrible code.
So you're basically saying is if I don't deactivate or return them at a loss, I'm going to be in your case.
What are your losses you tell me out personally?
It's not the point of Gary said.
You think may have done better.
I mean, it's being rolled out.
Anyway, look, I'll tell you: if I were to redo this from the beginning, like, I'm picking up where it was left off, right?
But you have the power.
That's a rollback.
But this is the mandate I was given by Carney to complete this.
You guys look like fools roll ahead and like stepping back.
And not revisit this.
Sure.
That's my objective, right?
Just to put an end to this and move on with other additional criminal justice tools, including on bail, including on increasing penalties for people who have illegal and unlicensed firearms.
So really good things that we're already going to be doing.
But this is not new.
This has been happening.
I kept over that.
I'll tell you.
Going forward, it'll be a different approach.
This is completing something that was started five years ago that, you know, but as the minister, you could sit down with Mark and say, listen, we need to address these.
We've had all these conversations.
Like I've had for the last four months, it's been like constant, constant discussions on this to see what's next, right?
And the conclusion is: let's finish this because we committed to it in the campaign.
Like campaign promises have always been broken in the past.
I know.
So, why must you go through this one?
There is, look, just saying, Sean, you know, Quebec, for example, is in a very different place in Ontario, right?
It's federal.
It's not Quebec is in a different place than other parts of Canada, right?
And this is something that very much is a big, big, big deal for many of the Quebec electorate that voter for us.
And that's one of the things.
That's a bigger thing than it looks.
First of all, it makes Gary Anandisangri look very questionable about his judgment.
Liberals' Gun Policy Flap00:14:38
This is a guy who the RCMP have already flagged as a security risk.
He's not allowed to deal with any files involving the Tamil Tigers as a terrorist group because he's affiliated with them.
That's insane.
It would be like having a Hell's Angels member, the head of public safety, only in Canada.
This just adds doubt to his competence.
But see, the conservatives don't understand that Ananda Sangri's value to the liberals has nothing to do with his brains.
It's his voting block.
That's what they want.
The Tamil Tigers is not a negative, it's a positive because they want those votes, just like they want the pro-Hamas votes.
Anyways, my point is that the Liberals had a bad week in terms of firearm policy because their own boss of it admitted the whole thing was fake and stupid and just done for political machinations to police certain constituencies in Quebec.
That was then.
But only a few days later, we have amazing news, I think.
And there's actually a few things I want to talk about.
I'm not a firearms expert in the same way that my dear friend Sheila Gunn Reed is, but I'm lucky today to be joined by Daniel Fritter, who is a firearms expert.
He's an expert in his own right.
He's also a journalist.
He writes for CalibreMag.ca and he joins us now via Zoom.
Daniel, great to see you again.
Thanks for coming back on the show.
Thanks for having me.
It's my pleasure.
You know, I remember a few months ago when the government was expanding the list of firearms it was going to seize.
And it's got so many different variants.
It's got hundreds and hundreds, but they keep coming up with obscure new variations so they can make it look like they're seizing more guns.
But they tried this wrinkle.
They said, we're not just doing it to make Canada safer.
We're going to give these guns to Ukraine because they need the weapons.
And I was thinking, you don't take a little plink, blink, blinker, you don't take an antique, you don't take a gun that you use for scaring away, I don't know, a coyote from your farm.
That's not what you use when you're fighting against Russian armored personnel carriers.
It was the stupidest idea I ever heard, but oh, the media loved it so perfectly.
Daniel, what's the news on that?
It turns out that the Liberals finally come to the same conclusion.
It's a stupid idea.
Tell us a little more.
So apparently, the Ukrainian forces basically told the Canadian government that they have very little interest in acquiring any of the firearms that would potentially be seized, which is not surprising because, like you kind of intimate, that announcement that was made way back was both laughable and offensive for two alternative reasons.
Laughable because the firearms that they were considering sending to Ukraine, it was reported by, I believe, David Pugliesi, if I'm getting his last name correct, that there was a specific subset of firearms that they were looking at seizing, including, and this is where things get a bit weird, SIG handguns, which are not on the list of guns in the buyback.
You can still own a handgun.
They haven't been banned.
If you own them, you get to keep them.
Cold Canada AR-15s, which are a semi-automatic version of a rifle made by the same people that make our military's rifles.
But then the DND stipulated that they would only be transferring new firearms to the Ukrainian forces.
And Colt Canada has not released any civilian AR-15s for some time now.
And it was other guns like anti-tank missile launchers.
That no one who owns one of those in Canada is going to be affected by the ban because the only people that own a javelin missile launcher are basically the military or people who work for companies that service them for the military.
So none of them would be seized.
So obviously, I think what ended up happening was it seemed like a good idea from probably a more junior person unfamiliar with this stuff floated through to DND who said, well, we can't use any used guns because we can't guarantee their quality and whatnot.
They got through to the Ukrainians and said, well, if we can get guns, we will.
But then eventually it trickled down to, so we're not going to get anything.
And the Ukrainians obviously announced that.
It seems like the wheels are basically coming off this thing in real time from the leaked audio from Mr. Ananda Sangri to this now.
The former promises are just kind of unraveling.
And we're seeing more and more people realize that the entire program from stem to stern is misguided at best to use the minister's own language.
Potentially far more offensive than that, because, like I said, although laughable that we would ever send guns to the Ukraine from civilian gun safes where you're seizing 22 caliber rim fire rifles, it's also somewhat offensive as a gun owner to think that the government was seemingly somewhat on my behalf negotiating the expropriation of my private property to a foreign military is where that gets a bit okay,
it stops being funny now and starts being insanely disrespectful to me, a Canadian citizen, a voter, a taxpayer, a licensed gun owner who has jumped through all the hoops to own these things, that they would be already talking with foreign officials about which specific guns I may own that they might be interested in getting for free at the expense of my tax dollars again.
That's not funny.
That's offensive.
And I think that was one of the things that when that story came up in the media, I wished had come up more of the this is inappropriate.
Like you cannot, if this was any other sort of property, imagine them saying we're going to seize your F-350 and send it over to a war zone.
People would be getting very angry about the government negotiating that on their behalf.
But because it's guns, it's somehow okay.
And I think I hope Canadians are starting to realize that these discussions around guns don't limit to guns.
If the government takes this attitude around gun owners' private property, they probably have similar attitudes around private property you may own that you might think is otherwise safe.
Yeah, your comparison to an F-350 pickup truck is right on.
I mean, SUVs are always being criticized as gas guzzlers.
Oh, you got to have an electric vehicle.
You got to take your bike.
I could imagine a future liberal government saying, we're going to seize your old truck and give it to Ukraine to fight the war.
Both sides of that are atrocious.
But the idea that Ukraine is going to take, like you say, used domestic rifles and shotguns, that's an idea so stupid.
Only someone who has never held a firearm could say it.
And I'm not passing myself off as a firearm aficionado, but this must have been come up with some by some intern.
But you never know.
It could have come from a cabinet minister themselves.
My favorite question to see is when any liberal is asked, can you define an assault weapon?
I mean, just give it a go.
And they usually say, well, it looks really scary.
I think the look and feel of it is what they typically answer.
But here's why I think this is particularly useful.
It goes to the assault weapon thing.
Oh, these assault weapons, assault-style weapons, we got to get rid of them.
Well, the people who actually do use weapons for assaults, the Ukrainian military are saying, no, those are not, those are not them.
We have serious weapons of war, including, you know, you mentioned the javelin anti-tank missile.
So in a way, it's sort of a rebuttal that these were ever assault weapons in the first place, because an actual army that actually needs them saying, no, they're not just stupid all the way down.
But there's someone who I think understands firearms.
I would bet.
I mean, maybe Scott Moe of Saskatchewan knows his way around a firearm.
I sort of get the feeling that he does.
But other than maybe Scott Moe, I think that Alberta's Premier Danielle Smith probably has the most familiarity, just on a personal basis, with firearms of any premier, certainly more than any federal cabinet minister.
Can you tell me a little bit about what Danielle Smith has been saying?
Because there's a jurisdiction, there's a constitutional issue.
Who gets to regulate?
Who gets to enforce these laws?
And as you may know, provincial affairs of a local nature fall to the provincial government, matters of a local nature.
So certain things like the military, the post office, harbors, international harbors, that's the Fed's jurisdiction.
But actual enforcement or seizure of firearms, that would be provincial.
What's Danielle Smith saying about that?
Well, Danielle Smith has long maintained, actually, that Alberta does not have any intention in participating in this ban.
That's been their position for basically the last five years.
And she's leaning on both, like you said, the jurisdictional issues around policing and in very real terms, budgeting, because policing is obviously paid for by provincial budgets.
And as the custodian of Albertan taxpayer dollars, she made it very clear that she didn't want to see that money go towards this sort of thing.
In response, the federal government years ago did offer to say, well, you know what, we'll do is we'll transfer money to your provinces to pay for it, which in turn led her to go, no, that's not what we want.
I mean, if the money was there for policing, transfer it and do something more useful with it.
So instead, she created basically a licensing program where in order to seize firearms in Alberta, the Alberta government will require that those seizure agents obtain a license to do so from the Alberta government, which they basically have no intention of issuing, which is a fun inversion of the normal situation around gun ownership because everyone that has one legally has to have a license.
So it kind of makes sense that if you want to seize it from someone with a license, you should also have a license.
So it's a really smart move.
It also leans heavily on the administration of the Firearms Act as federal legislation falls to provincial authorities.
And in some cases, some provinces have hired federal staff to do so.
That's a really weird division in this particular area.
BC and Alberta, for example, both have provincial CFOs.
They are employees of the provincial government who are in charge with administrating this entire piece of legislation within the province and working with local police and whatnot to do so.
Other provinces like Ontario have a federal CFO where the actual chief firearms officer of Ontario is paid for by the federal government.
So you get into this very strange jurisdictional thing where some provinces can't do what Danielle Smith is now asking to be done because the person in charge of all of this works for the federal government sort of on behalf of the provincial people.
So it's a strange situation, but it's really cool to see.
And I mean, she's been so explicit as to say that they are going to throw every roadblock possible in front of this thing because she very clearly disagrees with the premise, obviously on a political level.
But I think also too has made some pretty impassioned comments about this just isn't going to work.
Alberta, this is not how you address crime.
The people with gun licenses taking their guns away.
It's a total waste of money and time.
I think that in some of the comments, I know that some people that are pro-gun control may interpret her to be somewhat dismissive, but I think that they have to look at that and think she's being dismissive of these arguments because they are worthy of being dismissed.
It shouldn't be spending all of this time even debating it is a waste of time.
We could be talking about homelessness, addiction issues, all of these other factors that play a much bigger role in criminality and the crime rate in Canada than whether or not some guy with a gun license likes to take his AR-15 to the range on the weekend.
There's another part to it.
When you disarm the best possible gun owners, law-abiding, trained, responsible, licensed people, like those are of the entire population, those are the folks you want with firearms.
If you're explicitly taking it away from them, you're basically telegraphing that you cannot defend your home.
And there's been that very notorious case, and Rebel News is a little bit involved.
We've been crowdfunding the legal defense for Jeremy McDonald that he did not use a firearm, but someone broke into his apartment with a crossbow.
McDonald had a contra-temp and bested the intruder.
And Doug Ford is prosecuting him, even though Doug Ford had a press conference saying this is outrageous.
It's his prosecutors doing it.
And I spoke briefly to Danielle Smith about this, and I hope to talk to her on camera about it.
She says it's just generally the policy of Alberta not to prosecute.
And that's a discretion that police have and that prosecutors have, that governments have.
Let me give you a quick example.
For at least a decade before Justin Trudeau decriminalized marijuana, every province in Canada had a de facto policy that they were not going to arrest or prosecute people just for mere possession of a small amount of marijuana.
If they were charging him with 10 other things, sure, they'd throw that in the bucket, but that you would never be arrested just for smoking a joint.
Maybe the cop would tell you to put it out or something.
That was, even though the law said it was against the law, it was a public policy decision not to enforce the law.
I believe that provincial governments like Alberta, and if Ontario truly were conservative, they should do it too, would simply choose, as a matter of policy, not to prosecute people who defend their homes, not to enforce these ridiculous and stupid and fake gun control laws, and just say, you know what, we've got a hundred things to do that are more important.
Once we finish with those, let's get back to this gun.
And by the way, Mark Carney used the phrase gun registry.
I think he really doesn't know what he's talking about.
He's been out of Canada for so long.
Last word to you, Daniel.
Do you think that the renewed Mark Carney, like Mark Carney is doing a lot of Trudeau things?
He's reviving them, the censorship bill.
He's overspending his foreign policy is even worse.
I get the feeling he's going to double down on guns just because the liberals always do.
But on the other hand, you have people like Danielle Smith pushing back.
What's the future look like?
Is it more freedom or less for gun owners in Canada?
I think it'll depend on an election.
And I think that I agree.
I think they're going to double down.
Actually, I've been obviously thinking about this a ton ever since the announcement and the way it's been handled since then.
I actually think they'll double down in the form of legislation.
I think that we will shortly be hearing about how this pilot program was not the raving success they were hoping for.
Gary and Andis Angery will probably be shuffled into either a Secretary of State position or somewhere else.
They will bring in current Secretary of State for Nature, Natalie Provost, to head up the public safety file.
Digital ID Pilot Fails00:05:32
Mark Carney will make an announcement saying, you know what, that wasn't the success we were hoping for, but it's a five-year-long program that we were heavily invested in already.
But it is a throwback from the Justin Trudeau era.
We're going to scrap this buyback program to begin with, and we're going to go right back to the drawing board with legislation amending the Firearms Act, seeking to take these firearms out of circulation off the streets, move them into gun ranges, allow people to keep them with a grandfathering scheme.
And they'll put this amendment out there to the Firearms Act, redefining prohibited firearms to include semi-automatic center-fire rifles with detachable magazines capable of holding more than five rounds.
They'll grandfather current owners in so that Carney can say, oh, look, we did actually hear the concerns of gun owners.
We are allowing them to keep their guns, but we are limiting their sale in the future so that we prevent going down an American gun culture path.
And they'll just basically control the timeline on that legislation into an election that I think will probably happen sooner rather than later because the economy is not getting better at a pace that I think gives them confidence in their minority mandate.
So it wouldn't surprise me if we see all this kind of unravel over the winter in preparation for some either winter or spring legislation announcements that get put on the on the back burner until the order paper or get killed off on the order paper when the writ drops, at which point they'll campaign on once again banning the same guns that they've been promising to do for six years.
Wow, that is a very specific prediction.
Well, like I said, I've given a lot of thought over the past little while.
And, you know, for those wondering why, it's Mark Carney was nowhere near this announcement.
They didn't delay it when it should have been delayed after that audio leak.
It made no sense to have Mr. Nanda Zangry step in front of a firing squad of a press corps two days later.
Mark Carney did not go in front of the media to defend this program whatsoever.
He did say he had confidence in the minister in the House of Commons, but the only people that watch question period are people that have already decided how they're going to vote.
So it doesn't really matter too much.
But he didn't get in front of media.
He's kind of stayed at arm's length from all of this.
They're launching it in an area specifically where the chief of police is the brother-in-law of a liberal MP, meaning that, you know, if no one signs up for this program, how better to guarantee that the information around registrations and signups doesn't get released other than having a family member head up the police department that's leading it.
So there's a lot of things there that kind of go, well, these coincidences start to line up.
Why would you bring on Natalie Provost, a former lobbyist as an MP?
That's a huge liability for any political party.
Well, maybe it's because you've been planning to do this and pivot from a buyback to legislation the whole time.
And how better to control how angry one of the largest gun control groups in Canada gets in front of the media than by bringing in their lobbyist into the caucus.
So a lot of this stuff makes sense when you think of that being their strategy.
Wow.
Well, we'll keep an eye on it.
And thanks for taking the time to give us the details.
And of course, Sheila Gunread is our point person on the firearms file and she cares a lot about these details too.
So I really appreciate the briefing.
We've been talking with Daniel Fritter of calibermag.ca.
Stay with us.
more ahead.
Your letters to me on Kearney of the United Nations soul venting says Trump's UN speech was 100% correct.
Canada needs to follow his lead.
This poking Trump won't end well.
Carney is deliberately destroying Canada.
You know, he's doing so many things that, I mean, I suppose you could say, well, he doesn't know how that looks.
And maybe it's by accident that it's insulting America.
Don't be so naive.
Everything a Prime Minister Dunn does is looked at from five different ways.
They have hundreds of hundreds of people in the Canadian Embassy in Washington alone.
They know exactly what they're doing.
My thesis is Carney wants to pick a fight with Trump so he has someone to blame when inevitably Canada goes into a deep recession.
Ben Photoshare says, sounds like more money laundering.
You know, you could be referring to so many things, but I think you're talking about that long baffle gab clip where Mark Carney just says, you know, we're going to catalyze and crowd in billions.
Like that, it's just three minutes of jargon.
I think you might be right.
It's just fog to hide what he's really doing.
Jordan from the county says, the UK announced the launch of digital ID today, which will be a mandatory requirement of citizens who want to be able to work.
Carney was in the audience applauding.
How long before it's launched here?
World Economic Forum 2330 agenda in full swing.
You're so right.
I was thinking of doing my show on that today.
There's these dinghies that come over from France, full of migrant men who've made their way from Africa and Asia all the way to France.
And they bypassed all those countries because they know the most generous welfare, the four-star hotels, the lenient justice system that doesn't deport you if you commit rape.
It's all across the English Channel.
So they're coming across the English Channel.
The answer is to stop the boats.
It's not to force the English to have digital ID.
That would be like if Trump said, well, we're going to, instead of closing the southern border and patrolling it and putting a fence up, we're going to require 330 million Americans to get an ID.
It's so laughable that that would be the accepted rationale.
It's obviously a lie.
And yeah, it's absolutely coming to Canada.
Well, that's our show for the day.
Until Monday, on behalf of all of us at Rebel News, to you at home, good night.