Ezra Levant critiques Toronto’s lenient sentencing of Lloyd Williams—a crack dealer with prior domestic assault convictions—who received 4.5 years despite Crown recommendations of 6.5, citing Judge Andre Chamberlain’s consideration of Indigenous status and colonial trauma without evidence. He contrasts Quebec’s PQ-led push for sovereignty (30% support) with Alberta’s economic separatism, dismissed as extremist while Quebec’s identity politics go unchallenged. Police banning recordings in Ontario’s Wingham council meeting reveals deeper public distrust in institutions, fueled by media disengagement and radicalized local governance. The episode argues that lowering expectations for justice based on race or ideology risks undermining accountability entirely. [Automatically generated summary]
Say folks, if you have the misfortune of being in criminal court, but you're seeking to get a reduced sentence, well, simply claim that you are racialized and indigenous and well, Bob's your uncle.
It's Wednesday, February the 4th, 2026.
I'm David Menzies, and this is the Ezra Levant Show.
Shame on you, you censorious bug.
Consider the iconic image of Lady Justice.
To begin with, she is holding a set of scales.
The scales symbolize the careful balancing of evidence, arguments, and opposing sides in a dispute to determine truth.
Lady Justice is also brandishing a sword.
This represents the authority, power, and finality of the law, as well as the ability to punish.
And finally, there's the blindfold.
The blindfold represents impartiality and objectivity, indicating that justice is administered without fear, favor, or bias regarding wealth, power, or status.
Justice Unblindfolded00:03:55
Allow me to repeat that last sentence.
Justice is administered without fear, favor, or bias regarding wealth, power, or status.
I make mention of the iconic Lady Justice and all that she represents or is supposed to represent regarding a staggering court decision that was rendered in Toronto recently.
It is a decision that goes against everything the justice system should embrace when it comes to fairness and impartiality.
Here's the skinny, according to a story published in the National Post, headlined, quote, judge grants leniency for Toronto crack dealer because of his nine children and his race, end quote.
Here's the lead paragraph, quote, a Toronto crack cocaine dealer caught back in business three times over the course of 10 months managed to convince a judge that he deserves some leniency because putting him behind bars would mean hardship for his nine children, but not because he's addicted to the drugs he was caught peddling.
Lloyd Williams pleaded guilty in Ontario's Court of Justice to three counts of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking in what Justice Andre Chamberlain described as the deeply troubled neighborhood surrounding the intersection at Dundas and Sherbourne Streets for arrests on March 3rd, 2024, October 25, 2024, and January 4th, 2025.
Williams, who was released after each arrest, twice on bail and a third time on the promise he wear a GPS tracking device, also pleaded guilty to one count of possession of proceeds of crime over $5,000 and two counts for under that amount and failing to comply with a release order on February 15th, 2025.
The Crown recommended a six and a half year prison sentence.
Williams' lawyer argued for two years less a day in jail.
End quote.
So, folks, to recap, here's what we know about the illustrious Mr. Williams.
He has been nabbed numerous times peddling crack cocaine.
He has breached his bail conditions.
He has nine kids from multiple mothers.
The youngest child is just 10 months old.
One is 22 months old, and another is three.
Williams also has nine-year-old twins, two 10-year-olds, and a 16-year-old.
It should be noted that one of his nine-year-olds is on the autism spectrum.
You know, that's a lot of dependence.
That's a lot of responsibility.
So, thank God Williams has a stable and high-paying career as a well-drug-dealing scumbag.
Anyway, as the saying goes, what's the use of having kids if you can't exploit them?
Because here's what Judge Andre Chamberlain stated in his decision: quote: Williams states that he provides support as a father to his children and that any lengthy absence would have a significant impact on their health and well-being, end quote.
Yep, that's right.
The genetic jackhammer that is Lloyd Williams is truly father of the year material.
But seriously, how are these poor children benefiting from being raised by a drug dealer?
And come on, nine kids, multiple mothers?
Williams' Fatherly Gambit00:10:06
Seriously?
This is the height of irresponsibility and it's downright selfish.
Oh, but wait, there's more.
Williams identifies as being both black and Mi'kmaq.
So, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
You ask?
Race and skin color should be irrelevant in a court of law, right?
Well, not in 2026, not in Canada, apparently, not when a woke judge is on the bench.
At this point, the story gets a tad surreal.
You see, Williams was unable to actually prove that he is a Mi'kmaq native.
Oh, but never mind.
He gave it the good old college try.
And indeed, Judge Chamberlain said he was, quote, satisfied Williams has established a connection to Indigenous ancestry, end quote.
Forgive me, folks, because I remain in a state of profound confusion right now.
Williams could not, I repeat, he could not prove he was Indigenous.
Yet the judge seems to be saying that since Williams identifies as being Indigenous, well then, who are we to say otherwise?
Holy Elizabeth Warren, Batman.
Then again, society is infested with men, their penises still attached, claiming to be chicks.
And to call BS on that scam is tantamount to committing a hate crime in Canada these days.
Predictably, Judge Chamberlain delivered a sanctimonious sermon for everyone in the courtroom to hear.
Here goes, quote, it is not unusual for Indigenous people who have struggled under the yoke of colonialism in this country and its intergenerational impact to have lost connections to their roots and community.
Further, markers of the effects of intergenerational trauma, including poverty, familial addiction, struggles with education and mental health, and overrepresentation within the criminal justice and child welfare system, are often present when Indigenous identity is confirmed.
Again, with the colonialism.
And sorry to be such a nitpicker here, folks, but I want to remind everyone, including Judge Chamberlain himself, that Williams could not confirm that he was Indigenous.
But again, never mind.
Still, when did courtrooms turn into classrooms teaching revisionist history?
I thought a court of law was all about evidence and facts.
Apparently, not these days.
It's about how you feel, I guess.
Indeed, based on the Lloyd Williams case, if you're a black crack dealer with nine kids, all you have to say is, I'm a Mic Mac, pinky swear.
And that's good enough.
Well, at least it's good enough for Judge Chamberlain because Chamberlain also had this to say: quote, Williams deserves consideration for the reduced moral blameworthiness associated with these challenges, end quote.
Again, I'm somewhat unclear what the judge is saying here regarding those challenges.
Is Williams challenged because he is black?
Is he challenged because he is indigenous?
Well, maybe.
Is he challenged because he has a fast-paced and high-stress career as a crack cocaine dealer?
Or maybe his challenge results in juggling the schedules of all those nine kids he has, you know, getting them all to soccer and hockey practice and whatnot.
Forget about a minivan.
I hope Williams has access to a mini bus, assuming that the guy has a driver's license, that is.
The lawyer for Williams argued: quote, there are two legal considerations that should mitigate his sentence, bringing it down to an upper reformatory range.
Namely, the impact and harm a lengthy prison sentence will have on his family.
And secondly, that Mr. Williams is addicted to the very drugs he sells.
And as an addict trafficker, he is entitled to significant mitigation, end quote.
Folks, I'm not making this up.
Are we living in the bizarro Superman world in which irresponsibility and criminality are rewarded, not condemned?
And by all accounts, the attorney for Mr. Williams delivered this statement with a straight face.
Consider that Williams is not only a drug dealer, but a drug addict too.
Yeah, that's exactly the sort of father I want to see heading up a household with nine young children.
In any event, Chamberlain sentenced Williams, who shockers already has a long criminal history to just four and a half years in prison, which means by my calculation, he'll be out of the joint in about two years.
Oh, I would be negligent if I did not report that in 2021 and in 2024, part of that long criminal record entailed Williams being convicted of serious domestic assault charges, including assault by choking.
Forgive me for being a tad insensitive here, but can we cut to the chase?
Which is to say, why wasn't this reprobate not occupying a prison cell going back to the odious crime he committed in 2021 or in 2024?
Yet the judge recognized, quote, that his further incarceration will have a negative impact on Williams' family, end quote.
I have a headache right now or is my brain melting.
Given that Williams has this nasty little habit of committing physical domestic assault, including, you know, choking, I would argue that Williams being separated from his several spouses and several children would be a very positive thing indeed, but no.
In any event, what have we learned here regarding the odious case of Lloyd Williams?
Well, I think it is this.
Should one ever end up in a criminal court, you might just want to play the race card, especially since these days you apparently do not have to actually prove that you are racialized.
Also, claim that you're addicted to illegal substances and make sure you have multiple dependents, or at least, you know, say you do.
And presto, if you have someone like Chamberlain on the bench, you will most likely get a reduced sentence.
By the way, the Williams case is by no means a one-off.
The unholy trinity of diversity, equity, and inclusion has been embraced in other court decisions of late.
Here's a headline from December 9th, 2025, quote, Inuit man gets reduced sentence for attempted murder due to his indigenous status and mental illness, end quote.
And here's another Whopper headline from January 3rd, 2025, quote, prison sentence cut in half for men who identifies as Métis, end quote.
And again, folks, the devil is in the details, isn't it?
The sentence reduction was due to a man identifying as Métis, which means he might not actually be Métis.
By the way, I'm currently identifying as Miss America.
Where's my bouquet?
But seriously, folks, in the final analysis, isn't giving racialized offenders, i.e. non-white people, a get-out-of-jail free card inherently racist?
Which is to say, the underlining mindset seems to be because you are black or brown or indigenous or et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, then society can't possibly hold you to the same standard as Caucasians.
I believe this is what's called the racism of low expectations.
And when you think about it, that's really just another form of bigotry.
Bottom line, this idea of race and indigenous status being used as a means of gaming the system to get a reduced prison sentence, even when caught committing a very serious crime, is both despicable and disturbing.
Wokeness and political correctness and DEI has no place in a court of law.
But in Canada, this appears to be increasingly par for the course.
This nonsense has to end.
Judges should not be biased due to identity politics.
Finally, allow me to harken back to that iconic rendering of Lady Justice.
As previously noted, she dons a blindfold to guarantee that justice is administered without fear, favor, or bias regarding wealth, power, or status.
PQ as Vote Refuge?00:15:10
Alas, as the saying goes, that was then and this is now, because in 2026 Canada, Lady Justice isn't wearing a blindfold anymore.
Rather, she's sporting a pair of X-ray glasses.
Everyone, I'm Alexa Lavoie with Rebel News, and today we are tackling a topic that's steering debate once more in Quebec.
The real prospect of another sovereignty referendum.
The Parti Québécois is leading in the polls, heading to the next provincial election, keeping the independence question alive in many minds.
Yet, support for actually voting yes to sovereignty remains low.
Recent surveys show it dipping as slow as 30% with clear majorities still firmly opposed.
What makes this conversation especially compelling?
We are examining the growing Alberta independence movement through a pure Quebec lens and doing it with a guest who is a committed Quebec sovereigntist, but one who rejects the current path being pushed by the Parti Québécois.
Joining me is Joey Obey, podcaster and sharp voice on the Yanni Frank podcast, delivering straight shooting takes on politics and economics.
Now, let's listen what he has to say.
So, Joey, you are an outspoken conservative and you defend your ideas, notably through the podcast Yanni Frank.
How do you see the upcoming election, especially with two new party leaders who seems to turn into a center-right?
Yeah, center-right is pretty much the new like virtue-signaling buzzword, politically speaking, in Quebec these last few months, which doesn't mean anything anymore.
It's no longer like a political specification, so to speak.
It's like racism or phobia of any kind or racist.
It's become part of this category.
Pretty much now, the only qualification for being center-right is being anything but Quebec Solidaire, which is the really like really left-leaning political party here in Quebec.
For the next election, provincial election in Quebec, I'll say everything is possible at this point.
And that's what's actually both funny and at the same time exciting about it, because we always say like politics is a two-edged blade.
You have the negative and the positive, but right now everything is possible.
We know that Charles Milliard is going to be crowned leader of the PLQ because Marie Roua, the other candidate, doesn't seem to finish his death from the last campaign, so he probably won't be able to run even if he really, really, really wants to.
He's almost begging to do it, actually.
It's kind of depressing.
On the Partique Bécoir, we have Paul Saint-Pierre-Plamordon, which is well implemented.
He's technically the oldest leader so far in terms of mandate inside his own party, so that's going to be him.
Eric Juème with the Quebec Conservative Party is going to be there, obviously.
He's going to change, we're not going to change leadership before the election.
As part of the CAG, the Qualisomnères Québec, the living government, it all depends.
We have Christine Frechette and Bernard Renville.
And I say from both perspectives, we have two different vision, I think.
Even if Monsieur Drenville has pretty much copy-paste the entire program from the PCQ the last weekend, even though he's always been like an outspoken social democrat left-leaning Quebec politician, now he's supposedly center-right and does a huge critic of the Madeleine Québecois of the Providence States and the nanny states of Quebec.
He wants to challenge the high instances of the unions.
He wants to get more private in healthcare.
He wants to also get maybe like more private sector and more private collaboration within public school system and stuff like that.
I hope not a lot of people believe him since I prefer someone who's always had those ideas from the beginning.
It's always been like part of their true conviction instead of someone who just changed the ideas because you understand which way the wind turn and the wind is blowing.
So yeah, we'll see.
And from Christian, from Christine Frechette's perspective, she's definitely from the outspoken conservative commentators.
She's most certainly the establishment candidate.
Martin Casquinen, the former Chef de Cabinet, cabinet secretary of François Premier François Legault, he has his full support and so far she has more NPs to her side than Bernard Réville.
Of course the members will have to vote, so we'll see.
She seems like to be a more corporatist, beige, you know, like gray like establishment candidate.
Like I'm not against, I'm not in favor, I'm in between, you know what I'm saying?
And Bernard Réville seems to have more approach of a center-right approach with maybe like a touch of Quebec-like nationalism from his PQ pass.
So we'll see.
But one of my questions is, how do you explain the fact that the PQ is mainly leading in the polls?
Their first promise is to lead a referendum on Quebec sovereignty.
But when we look at the poll for a potential referendum and the appetite of the people is as low as what 30%, how do you explain that?
I mean, for almost three years now, the PQ has been like kind of a vote refuge for many Quebec electors, mainly like a parking spot because of the really down in the polls and the CAC, like the appreciation of the Legault government has been downspiral since the end of the pandemic.
He went from the most like premier, provincial premier in the country to almost the lowest ones right now.
And it seems to be more sort of a grudge, like anti-Legau vote.
So they looked at the other parties.
And since the Quebec Liberal Party has been mostly reduced to Montreal-centric English community party with almost no vote and almost no circumscription from the francophone vote, the electorate went from the CAC in 2018 and in 2022 now goes back to their whole habits, which is the blue against the red.
So it's the Patriot Québecois, which has a very charismatic leader and a talented and a talented one.
I won't say otherwise for Paul Saint-Pierre Plamodon.
But at the same time, I think the Quebec people, I mean, Quebec electorate, the part of it at least, doesn't really understand what a vote for the PQ is.
Their main logic is, yeah, we'll vote for him to get rid of Legault and govern Quebec, but if he pulls up his referendum on sovereignty, we'll just vote against it.
Yes, but you could do that, but at the same time, there's consequences by saying no a third time.
Like in 1980, we got the constitution in Canada brought back from England and Pierre Trudeau, Justin's father, signed it without Quebec's signature.
In 1995, after the last, almost almost the win of Quebec in 1995, we got the law for referendum clarity.
And Quebec lost a lot of power in these following years.
And it's been like, even culturally, like inside the people, there's been like a scar that never truly healed for us after that time.
And now it's like opening the scars all over again, opening the wound and let it faster for another time, just for old time's sake.
And to be fair, I'm not against the idea of independence as principle.
I consider myself one of the right-wing person economically.
I think the ultimate expression of freedom, of liberty, which is my principal value, is the emancipation of one's people to independence, pretty much.
But right now, especially since the CAC government came along, we have a deficit of almost like 14 billion in debt.
The cost of life is especially not only in Quebec, but also across Canada.
The housing market has been a total nightmare for young people from my age and from the younger generation to actually afford a home.
And there's like a generational clash between two generations, the baby boomers mostly, 60 years plus.
And I'm not saying every one of the baby boomers, like mostly, if you see the statistics, but most of them seem to have a great time.
They don't think, like, contrary to what, for example, Pierre Prolier said, that Canada is broken.
Because, of course, their house value has increased like four, five, six to seven times in the last couple of years.
But the down effect from this is, of course, the young people can't afford a home.
So now there's young people who want a more conservative leaning government, more fiscally responsible.
And the baby boomers want more security, want more laws, want more restrictions.
They are afraid of Trump.
Fear has engulfed them in many cases.
That's why they elected Mark Carney and gave the Liberals in Ottawa a fifth mandate consecutively.
So yeah, we'll see.
And pretty much for the next election, I'll say everything is possible, including referendum.
But at the same time, yeah, they need to think twice before even thinking voting for the PQ.
Because you say it yourself, you are the kind of person that you will want Quebec to be a country, but you're not adhering to the vision of the PQ at this moment.
Yeah, because, I mean, I'm not the only one.
There's other who are sovereignists or independentists at heart that the approach of the referendum has never been, has always been the only possibility.
Some of them will just make an independence declaration and wait for the backing up from France and other countries, something like that.
Some will mean a total vote.
Some want other methods.
And also because the quote-unquote coalition that the Partique Bécois says he wants to create doesn't seem to be quite a coalition, pretty much.
Of course, there's been a lot more engoume.
I don't know what's the word in English.
It does mean like some kind of trend.
Of course, independence seems to be more.
I mean, from the media's perspective, it seems to be more on the rise, but from the statistic, it doesn't move.
Like, there's not like a huge amount, maybe like a slight increase in young people's vote in favor of sovereignty.
But at the same time, we don't see it quite enough in the perspective.
And from the Partique Bécois perspective, in terms of coalition, they say they want to unite people from the right, people from the left, people at the center to unite to get for the only one goal, which is independence.
But so far, even them, they were the first to start this I'm center-right kind of mentality with Alex Boissonot, which was their candidate in the by-election of Artabascale Rab, which was a former far-left activist who went to the Samé des Méricines almost 20 years ago and got arrested.
He didn't kill anybody, but he passed some time in prison, at least in detention, and was plotting to pretty much breach the perimeter in that conference and maybe protest and attack some people.
Of course, that didn't happen, and we're pretty glad for that.
But at the same time, he said he's changed.
He said he's now center-right.
But every time you heard him speak, he's always have this kind of left-leaning tangent about him.
He's quoting like from the IRS, which is like a left-wing economic think tank from Montreal.
He's been like there's like several like media posts from many years, from like seven to ten years ago, who was apparently making his change from far left to center, which was like defending the Hugo Chavez government in Venezuela.
He was praising Fidel Castro when he died.
So there's a lot of questions to understand.
If someone is center-left or center-right or whatever, there's a political encompass for it.
But for now, we just need to take their words at face value.
We don't ask any questions.
And that's a real problem.
And for now, and every so far, every, because for those who don't know, there's been several by-election, like a record number in the last couple of years in Quebec.
There's been in Terbon, there's now right now in Chicoutimi, there's been one, I said, in Artabasco, there's been one in Jean Talon in Quebec City.
And almost all the candidate that the Quepartsque Bécois put it there for their election, and they won all of them so far, has been mostly social democrat left-wing people.
Mostly, maybe they're more right, it's like in France with the Rassemble Manacionale, maybe they're more right-leaning in terms of social policies, more on the nationalistic side, perhaps.
And I will not think otherwise.
But globally speaking, there's classic PQ social democrat left-leaning, like Quebec interventionism, interventionist people.
So in terms of coalition of truly right-wing or economically right-wing people, I'm still waiting to see.
And it's not because you're critics about immigration that make you automatically a right-wing or center-right?
Yeah, for some media it is.
For some media, you can be left-wing for all the other subjects, socially, economically, and everything.
But if you criticize immigration numbers or if you say, for example, systemic racism doesn't exist, then you're automatically right-wing, which is preposterous to me.
So Quebec, when Quebec wants to push for independence, generally it's accepted and normalized.
But what we are seeing with Alberta, now we are seeing people labeling them as extremists and far-right.
And some of them are saying that there is some foreign money being involved or foreign help.
Why are we seeing such a double standard there?
I mean, you know better than me, Alexa, that's that's the Freedom Convoy method right there.
Like when they came in, they call them extremists, they call them conspiracy theorists, they talk about like aid from the United States, aid from Russia and foreign sources and everything.
And they thought they brought weapons and stuff like that.
And that's the same method that's been happening all over again.
And I think they're launching all the, they're putting all their theories to the separatist movement in Alberta because contrary to Quebec, even though it would be a great loss, the money is in Alberta.
Alberta is the money machine of the country.
If Alberta leaves, Canada is pretty much done.
What's Happening in Quebec?00:10:29
From Alberta's perspective, first of all, it seems to be more easy from your part because you have money in your pockets and you have like a huge leverage in that term.
And also you want to do it mostly for economic reasons and freedom of enterprise, freedom of expression, protect your laws and your way of life.
And Quebec is the same thing, but it's more of a cultural reason.
Because, of course, because of the periculation and the payments received from the other provinces, we've always been kind of a lower...
We have resources.
We have the potential.
I think my people have a great potential to become one of the richest countries in North America.
But at the same time, right now we've been beggars for many, many years from the other provinces to give us extra money from the federal government or from the other provinces as well.
So for us, it's more of a cultural issue in terms of our own language, our own unique culture that we want to protect and we want to pretty much keep safe.
And that's totally fine.
i totally agree with that but at the same time people people don't most people because like since the the earlier uh debates around sovereignty there's always been like two camps the yes and the no's like the blues versus the reds But at the same time, now it's more nuanced.
And we're pretty much, I don't want to make a joke, but more like in the 50 shades of gray kind of thing, you know, like there's people who would want to say yes, but at the same time, they don't trust people anymore.
Not just the Parti Québécois, but the entire political class entirely.
And they saw what's happening in Quebec economically and they don't trust the government, even though independence will give us more freedom in many aspects, but at the same time, more responsibilities.
And since the government of Quebec, even otherwise it has its own problems, they have too many more bureaucrats, they have taxed us too much, the multiculturalism, the wokeness and stuff.
I'm all against it and most Quebecers.
But at the same time, the Quebec government got its own problem in terms of ultra-centralizations.
The state have an answer for everything and needs to put their hand on everything from electricity production to the selling of alcohol and selling of marijuana and the daycare of our youth and our elderly people and many times it's monopolies.
It's not like a liberalized market.
So for many of them, it's like, okay, if we separate, even though we'll be free, but at the same time, will it be the freedom for the Quebec government to do now everything they want because Grand Pa Federal is no longer there to stop them?
Or it will be a real freedom from the Quebec people itself.
And that's the real question, I think.
And there's a huge question mark for many people that are not really sure because they think pretty much we'll be jail with our own jailers in many cases in terms of governance if we became independent.
Of course, at the same time, if I take an argument from my great friend, economist Vén Saint George Dozeaux, which is a senior economist at the Montreal Economic Institute and is also economy professor at George Mason University in Virginia, said that he's also a sovereignist, but at the same time, one of his great arguments is that because of independence, because of the new weight of responsibilities that the government of Quebec will have to do in terms of the budget,
because of the part of this debt that will inherit from Canada, because of independence, the new programs, the new frontier, the army, and all the foreign relation and everything, even the most centralized or left-leaning,
centralized government in place will have no choice but to cut deeply heavier melay style, chainsaw kind of style, cuts to maintain the government in of itself for not have to collapse, pretty much.
So the independence could force massive cut and going back to a more center in terms of governance, less centralized, more decentralization, more private sector, more liberalizing economies.
So that's the bet.
Some people trust it, some don't, some are in between.
So yeah, that's pretty complicated.
I want to hear your thoughts on Alberta's separatism and also like the possible impact that this movement can have on Quebec.
Well, I'm going to repeat a little bit what I said in French, that we see that the separatist movement in Quebec and in Alberta goes up when we have a centralist party in Ottawa.
And that's the problem right now with the federal liberals.
Every time you have a liberal government in Ottawa, and especially when they're very close to the NDP, they're both centralist parties that are feeding the separatist movement in Quebec and in Alberta.
The best way to make sure we have a united Canada is to decentralize, is to listen to people like Daniel Smith, Alberta's Premier, and the Quebec Conservatives.
And it's to have a very decentralist agenda for our provinces and our regions.
Do you think that Quebec should prepare for potential impacts seemingly from Alberta separation?
Because we have a lot of social program and we need the equalization money in order to pay those programs.
Even though Alberta is not separating, there will be an impact because they will have a leverage to deal with the equalization payment.
Do you think Quebec should prepare this themselves?
Yes, but at the same time, I mean, everything could happen pretty much.
It could be that the referendum could go majorly yes or majorly no.
At both times, I think it could give some leverage to Daniel Smith to get some concession from Ottawa, depending on what's happening with the pipeline, maybe like more sovereignty laws and no pushback from certain federal programs, perhaps.
But yeah, I think it's the best thing to do for Quebec, but at the same time, I don't think we have our eyes on what's in front of us right now.
We are too occupied with what's happening with our own elections.
We have what many call as the dome around our own province sometimes, except when Ottawa is speaking to us or Trump, mostly news.
The rest seems to be pretty much irrelevant to our own mainstream media.
So even the Quebec people, except those who inform themselves inside other alternative media or podcasts like mine or media like yours, they don't get a full picture and that's such a shame.
The best idea should probably prepare, but at the same time, there's like a huge amount of pretty much unknown that's in front of us.
So we can prepare for the worst or the best, but at the same time, you know, pretty much everything could happen.
Well, folks, on Groundhog Day, cameraman Lincoln Jay and I ventured up to Wingham, Ontario.
We were there to attend a council meeting put on by the township of North Huron.
And well, the reason is, talk about censorious thuggery.
This council will not allow its proceedings to be videotaped or even allow for audio taping.
And the question arises: why?
This is a public council meeting taking place in the Dominion of Canada, not the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
So what gives?
Well, as expected, tons of feedback as a result of that video, which saw two constituents, Buck and Brad, actually frog-marched out of the council meeting by the Ontario provincial police.
It was crazy.
Some of the letters include, Dustbagger writes, one of the most corrupt areas of Ontario.
I was there for a couple of years and it's atrocious.
Well, I got to be honest, we were only there for a couple of hours, but what we saw, we did not like.
At the end of the day, what this council is doing is unconstitutional.
I suggest they drop the no recording bylaw, but they probably won't.
So I guess they're going to have to learn the hard way in a court of law.
Evelyn Gott, 2056, writes, these town councillors seem to forget who they are working for and who is paying their salaries and perks.
Oh, I totally agree.
And really, if there's nothing to hide in these council meetings, why ban recording?
It makes no sense.
Unless, of course, there is something to hide.
And finally, Richard B., 1280, writes, the Marxist land acknowledgements speak volumes over the past few years.
Several of the Wingham councillors seem to have been involved in some highly questionable business dealings, and they should be investigated for that.
Also, why do so many people in this country continually vote for trashy politicians?
Well, I can't speak to your first point, but as for why people continually vote for the worst of the worst, I would say a lack of engagement in the political process.
Maybe they're spending too much time watching Netflix and not enough time investigating the news.
And by investigating the news, I don't mean taking your news from the mainstream media, the bought and paid for train seals at CBC, CTV, Global, et cetera.
I mean independent media.
That's the only answer I have because it makes no sense to me to continually reward bad behavior.
Well, folks, that wraps up tonight's show of the Ezra Event Show.