Ezra Levant and John Carpey expose the secret Musqueam Agreement signed on February 20th, 2026, which they argue grants Aboriginal title to 1,500 members over land inhabited by two million British Columbians. They condemn this race-based law as a third-order government that violates the Constitution Act 1867 and undermines private property rights in major cities like Vancouver and Surrey. Criticizing the undemocratic, Star Chamber-like negotiations and hypocritical land acknowledgments, they highlight legal challenges against censorship bans while warning of new bills C2, C8, and C9, suggesting these actions threaten constitutional freedoms and democratic processes across Canada. [Automatically generated summary]
Today's show, I think if you're a British Columbian, it is a much must-see, must-watch show.
If you're anywhere else in the country, this is an early warning.
It's a distant early warning alarm of what could be coming your way.
We're going to talk about something called the Musqueam Agreement.
It is a race-based law in British Columbia signed between the federal government and the Musqueam Band, which is a band of about 1,500 Indians who now have Aboriginal title over the land lived in by millions of British Columbians.
Can they charge rent?
Can they evict them?
It's terrifying to read the actual text of the deal.
We'll get into it with John Carpey.
But first, let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
It's a video version of this podcast.
You get the video content, which I think is sort of awesome, but also you support Rebel News because we don't take government money and this is how we pay our bills.
One more thing.
Are you wondering how you can support your favorite independent news outlet while also sharing your opinions in a unique way?
Head over to RevenueStore.com and check out our merch.
We have got incredible t-shirts, hoodies, mugs, and winter gear.
We ship internationally.
And if you use the code Alex10, you will get 10% off your order.
go and take a look today tonight have you heard of the musqueam treaty in bc where an indian band now controls aboriginal title over two million british colombians homes We'll tell you the details.
It's March 10th, and this is the Ezra Levant show.
Shame on you, you censorious boobug.
You know, a long time ago, I knew Alan Borovoi.
He...
He was the leader of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and he was a caricature of a free speech activist.
He was a, just happened to be Jewish and gay and ultra-liberal, but he really was so dedicated to freedom of speech for anyone, including people who were, just to pick an example, anti-Jewish or anti-gay.
He lived the creed, which is freedom of speech is something you need to give your opponents if you want it for yourself.
And he was the last leader of the left-wing Canadian Civil Liberties Association who actually went to bat for the freedom of people he disagreed with.
After he left the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, they had a series of leaders, and then for a while they didn't.
They sort of went on holiday during the COVID time.
And I think the Canadian Civil Liberties Association has done very little.
for civil liberties in more than five years, probably closer to 10 years.
And they're coasting on their reputation, which is such a shame.
Because I wish Alan Borvoy had been leading that organization through the crisis of the COVID times and through our current crisis of censorship.
Instead, they're coasting on their reputation and they're acting as a placebo.
What I mean by that is that people can say, oh, if it were a problem, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association would be ringing the alarm and they're not, so everything's fine.
It's the problem with so many legacy institutions.
They were once fine.
They were once on mission and on purpose, but now they're mere husks of their former self.
And that is the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
And there are a suite of so-called civil liberties groups that are in the same boat.
One of the worst is something called Canadian Journalists for Free Expression, CJFE.
And they are the opposite, in fact.
You know, that's one of Richard Conquest's laws, an organization is soon captured by its enemies.
And it's full of censors.
And the Canadian Association of Journalists, same thing.
If you look at them, they're no longer about press freedom.
They are about only one thing, which is getting maximum government grants.
And so you look around and all the Guardians, the watchdogs have turned into lapdogs because they've been bought off.
And I say that very bluntly.
The average journalist in this country receives more than $29,000 a year in subsidies for his publisher from the Liberal government.
And that's set to increase, by the way.
So you look around and you say, does anyone care about these things?
Because I do.
And for so many people, the answer has become our guest today.
His name is John Carpet.
He's the executive director of the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms.
And for more than 10 years, he has been filling the void left by the retreat of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and other left-wing groups who simply refuse to fight the government.
What a pleasure to spend the course of today's show with my personal friend and a bit of a role model for me, a man who fights for freedom every day, John Carpe.
John, great to see you again.
He is so glad to be with you and with your viewers and listeners, Ezra.
Well, I would say that there's in a Venn diagram, if you know what I mean, there's a real overlap between if this circle is rebel news supporters and this circle is Justice Center supporters, I think they pretty much overlap because if you're watching rebel news, you care about civil liberties.
One of the things that you take on that I know left-wing or progressive civil libertarians do not is equality before the law based on race and sex.
And one of the things that has disturbed me very much in recent months, and our reporter Drea Humphrey has done some great work on this, is how race has started to become a real factor in hard-nosed law like property rights.
Can you sell your house if it's near an Indian reserve or it has indigenous claims against it?
Can you tell me what the heck is going on in British Columbia with the Musqueam Agreement?
That's the name of an Indian band out there.
What is going on?
And are we lurching back to a race-based society that we all thought we left after the 1960s, maybe?
Well, racism is a growing problem in Canada in the sense that you get agreements like this rights recognition agreement that was signed in secret on February 20th, 2026, between the federal government and the Musqueam Indian Band of Vancouver, which has approximately 1,500 members.
And so this rights recognition agreement says expressly that the Musqueam have Aboriginal title over Vancouver, Burnaby, New Westminster, Richmond, North Vancouver, West Vancouver, parts of Coquitlam, parts of Surrey, parts of Delta.
You've got more than 2 million Canadians there of various ethnicities, lots of Chinese Canadians, Canadians of East Indian descent, Dutch, German, Jewish, various different Aboriginal ethnic groups.
You've got 2 million people there.
1,500 Musqueam have legal title.
And the chief has said publicly, don't worry, we're not coming for your private property.
We're not going to charge you rent, which sounds wonderful, but the agreement itself says that the Musqueam have Aboriginal title.
And the Supreme Court of Canada has been very clear on this, that that means actual ownership of the land itself.
It's not merely an interest in land.
So this is this.
You can't ignore what the agreement says and just hope that, you know, this non-binding promise of, don't worry, we're not coming after your property rights.
We'll never be charging you rent.
That's not a binding promise at all.
What matters is the rights recognition agreement that has been signed by the federal government and the Musqueam.
Now, about 90 seconds ago, you used a word.
I was going to jump in, but I wanted to let you finish your sentence.
Said, signed in secret.
Now, I know that business deals can be signed in secret as long as the parties involved know what's going on, and you can have secrets as a person.
But the idea that a government would sign a secret agreement, as in keeping it secret from the voters, keeping it secret from taxpayers, keeping it secret from landowners, that sounds pretty fishy to me.
I don't understand what that means.
What do you mean?
What was signed in secret?
Who was involved?
How did they keep the secret?
How did the secret get out?
Can anything be done about this?
The idea of secret laws or secret hearings is un-Canadian to me.
Am I wrong?
You're not wrong.
It's part of the democratic process that matters of public interest.
Okay, so my neighbor and I could have a secret agreement about who's going to be responsible for picking up the apples that are falling off of his tree that's got a branch on my property, whatever.
It depends who it pertains to, who it applies to.
There's probably billions of different secret agreements in place between private parties that only affect those private parties.
That's fine.
But when it's government, when you're talking about recognizing Aboriginal title of the Musqueam over lands where 2 million Canadians live, that is a matter of public interest.
And separate and apart from whether the agreement is even a good agreement or a bad one.
I think it's a terrible agreement.
But good or terrible, this is impacting millions of people.
How can you negotiate in secret?
And that's exactly what the federal government has done.
They've negotiated this in secret.
The federal government kept it a secret.
The Musqueam kept it a secret.
They signed it on February 20th.
And then after it's signed, now it's been announced.
The federal government doesn't even post the actual agreement.
Last time I checked, the federal government did not have the actual agreement posted.
They had these quotes about how wonderful it was.
But it was, I think it was Global News has a link where you could actually read the agreement and you have to scroll through it.
You can't even do a cut and paste.
You know, that just sounds so unconventional.
It sounds like it undoes the rights of people who were kept in the dark.
I would imagine had such a process been done in the light of day, other people would have come forward and said, well, we have some interests that ought to be heard at least or taken into account.
When something's done in a sneaky way, there's very, I'm trying to think like in courts, for example, sometimes there's a publication ban.
It's usually done to protect a minor child or someone whose identity would otherwise be improperly smeared.
I suppose there are some secret treaties that have to do with military secrets, but there's a public interest in keeping them secret from foreign bad guys.
But I can't think of, I mean, you might know the phrase star chamber.
It was a secret court in medieval England that was finally abandoned, and it is now the star chamber.
It's considered a nickname for any unfair, procedurally biased thing.
You must, if you had a negotiation between the federal government and the Musqueam Band, which obviously would have had first-rate lawyers retained for them, there were likely 100 or more people involved in this between the two sides, probably many more, who were involved in some way.
And for all of them to say, no, no, this is fine.
We're going to do this on the lowdown, and then we're going to have a surprise ambush telling people about it.
I just can't believe 100 people went along with it.
I'm not saying, I mean, it's impressive that 100 people kept a secret, but, you know, it's just such an impressive feat.
But that not one of the 100 said, you know, I think what we're doing is wrong, or what we're doing is right, but we're doing it the wrong way.
And I'm just, you know, my spider senses are tingling here.
Like, John, tell us some of the parts of the agreement that you've read.
Like, I hear what you're saying, that the actual agreement is not being officially published.
Tell me some of the things in it.
Hypocritical Virtue Signaling00:15:56
You've told me the big headline, which is two million people in British Columbia now have doubt over whether or not they own their land.
Tell me some of the details in the agreement.
The other big problem is that it creates a race-based third order of government, and it says that there shall be a Musqueam government that's going to govern this vast area of, again, Vancouver, Burnaby and U.S., Richmond, Delta, the North Shore, et cetera.
You're going to have this Musqueam Aboriginal government, a third-level third order of government that is going to have jurisdiction along with the federal and provincial governments.
Now, this is contrary to our Constitution because the Constitution Act 1867 used to be the British North America Act, but it says it gives all powers in Canada are divided between the federal government and the provinces.
And it says that Indians and lands reserved for Indians is under the jurisdiction of the federal government.
So, and you've got, yes, we have municipal government, but that's under provincial jurisdiction, and it's not a separate level of government with its own constitutional status.
So, you've got this creation where The Musqueam Indian Band is going to have a say in what goes on in Vancouver, along with the federal and provincial governments.
But even if that was not contrary to our constitution, I think it's horribly foolish to create a level of government based on race that only the Musqueam can appoint people to that level of government or vote for them or whatever.
It's a recipe for disaster, for strife, for conflict, for division.
Once you start to have rights based on race, then it's a recipe for disaster.
And what you're doing is you're creating racism in actually an area that's fairly harmonious.
You know, lower mainland BC, people of all different backgrounds.
And yes, there's some tensions there.
I'm not downplaying that, but to say that there is now a racial clause for who owns the land.
And I mean, I believe that most British Columbians and most Canadians want to ameliorate conditions of poverty and marginalization of Aboriginal people.
Of course.
I think our laws have done the opposite, by the way.
But you want to stir up anti-Indigenous feeling, then you tell 2 million people, especially people who came to Canada who are immigrant, have a very particular way, they can say even more than anyone else, we didn't harm anyone, and the people who suddenly have the rights to our property were not harmed.
So people who didn't do anything wrong are paying the price to people who had nothing wrong done to them.
And it's all based on race.
I can't think of a worse thing for race relations than that.
No, it's we've come, you know, we're 180-degree reversal from our opposition in the 1950s, 60s, 70s, 1980s.
Canada was a leader in fighting against apartheid in South Africa.
This was a regime of racial segregation, laws that assigned housing and jobs and where you lived and where you went to school and who you went to school with, and which buses you were allowed to go on, which areas you could go into.
Everybody had to be officially classified as white, black, colored, which was mixed race, or Indian, which was like East Indian.
And it's like, what's your race?
You're one of these four races.
You're black, white, colored, or Indian, and that's going to decide where you go to school and where you're going to work, et cetera.
So this collapsed, and Canada was at the forefront of denouncing this apartheid system.
Yeah, we're doing exactly the same thing because now we have race-based rights in Canada, where if you are a member of the, if you're one of the approximately 1,500 Musqueam Indian Band members, boy, you're you're in line for getting a lot of money.
And you now get to exercise political power because there's going to be this race-based Musqueam nation, government, whatever title, is going to exercise political control along with, not single-handedly, but along with the federal and provincial governments, you're going to have this Aboriginal government is also going to be running the show in Vancouver.
It's absolutely, it's wrong, it's stupid, and it's not going to lead to reconciliation.
It's going to lead to the opposite.
Yeah, just incredible.
You know, when you refer to South Africa, I am reminded that the drafters of apartheid law actually studied Canada's Indian Act.
We came first.
And, you know, back at Sun News Days, I did a show.
I should probably try and dig it up if I can find the video, where I sort of played a game.
I had a quote and I said, is this from the Indian Act?
Is this from South Africa apartheid laws?
Or is this from actually Germany's Nuremberg laws, which had other race-based laws about how much of your blood is Jewish?
If it's a quarter, they wouldn't kill you, but you certainly wouldn't be allowed to join the SS, et cetera.
And it all comes down.
And in the U.S. South, you had these bizarre racial terms, mulatto, quadroon.
I mean, it's shocking you even say these words.
They had, because they had to determine how much blood of African American makes you white or a slave.
Like, it's insane when you start going down that road.
I think it's one of the reasons why you have every now and then you see someone revealed as what they call a pretendian, someone who pretended to be Indian to get a job as a professor or to get a government grant.
And it turns out, no, they weren't Indian at all, but they realized they could get rich that way.
And I think that there's so many things that are cooking here.
Let me ask you, and this is more of a political question.
I know Dre has been looking at this.
What does the Premier, David Eby, have to say about all this?
He supposedly, I have not followed the details closely.
He apparently was at the signing ceremony, but also hadn't read the agreement.
I suppose that's possible.
Maybe he's lying.
Maybe he's telling the truth.
Of interest, though, I'm glad you asked the question, because you would think that on An agreement that pertains to the land on which roughly half or possibly more than half of the province's population lives on this Musqueam territory.
You would think just as a matter of courtesy, as a matter of democracy, as a matter of consulting people, you would think that they would have involved the British Columbia government.
It just seems, regardless of whether it's currently under the NDP or if it's going to be under the Conservatives in the future or whatever, right?
But this is quite insane as well, that you would have the federal government sign an agreement with the Musqueam and exclude BC from the picture.
And I'm making an assumption there.
I mean, maybe they were invited and BC said, no, you know, we're not interested.
That's highly unlikely, but it's a possibility.
You know, I travel a fair bit.
So maybe once a week I rent a car and I go to Avis or budget or whatever.
And they have this little screen and you have to sign.
And before each screen, they say, this is about, are you going to bring the gas tank back full or empty?
This is about, do you need insurance?
Like, so I'm not reading every word, but the Avis or like they all do it.
They say, by the way, if you go on a toll, you, like, they give you a summary of everything you sign and you have to sign in about five.
So just to rent a car for $100, they take you through the contract and they make you look at it and they speak it to you and they make you sign it.
That's just over $100 car rental.
Here's a premier, and this is about half the land that half the population lives on.
I mean, and you're not even curious.
Like, I think he's a lawyer himself.
In fact, I think he used to be the head of the BC Civil Liberties Association, if my memory serves.
So surely he has a curiosity.
And it's not like he could say, oh, I don't understand legal gobble.
No, you're a lawyer.
You do.
And even if you weren't a lawyer, I mean, regular people look at their mortgage.
And if they have a question, what does this mean?
They ask it.
Like, you go to a bank.
They're going to walk you through it and at least explain what the document is.
Here you have a guy who signed away the province and he says he didn't read it.
And I don't know if I believe it, but I don't think it matters because he signed away the province either way.
I think this is shocking.
You know, I have in front of me, John, your essay in the Epoch Times called Musqueam Agreement, Race-Based Laws Are Doomed to Failure.
And I didn't realize that you actually cite a few of the clauses, which I presume you got from the global news source.
Let me just read a little bit of clause H.
And I'm just quoting from your Epoch Times article here.
So, this is the preamble, clause H of the preamble that says the Musqueam protect their territory through the exercise of laws, quote, to steward, control, and limit the use of our land, seas, waters, and resources in our territory.
Musqueam people intend to restore to our own use sufficient traditional resources to enable us and our descendants to live as distinct and independent people in our own land.
So, they really are playing into this ethnic-based rights or not.
I'm just going to read one more line and then I'd like you to comment.
Clause L expressly asserts the Musqueam's quote, rights to land and our laws and legal orders.
This, they're not hiding it, like, or I guess they were hiding it.
Sorry, the language doesn't hide it.
That's why they hid it.
Because if someone, I don't care if you're white, black, brown, Sikh, Jewish, Hindu, whatever.
And by the way, there's a lot of new immigrants in BC who are suddenly saying, hang on, so I'm the wrong race, because this specifically talks about a certain racial group and their descendants.
So they get to limit the use of everyone's land, seas, water, and resources.
I can't tell you the rage that would be cooking up within me if I had taken my life savings and put it in a deposit or a down payment to buy a home.
And now I'm told I've got a boss who can control and limit the use of my property.
There would be smoke coming out of my ears like I was a smokestack.
Well, Frank, I hope that the Canadians of Chinese and East Indian and various ethnicities will publicly say, hey, this is racism.
This is garbage.
You know, I believe every ethnic group in Canada, including the various Aboriginal ethnic groups, part of being in a free country is you can celebrate your heritage.
You can be proud of your culture.
You can be proud of your language.
You can learn whatever languages you want.
You can teach non-English languages to your children.
That's all.
But to have harmony and unity and not division, you've got to say equal rights for all, special privileges for none.
We're all equal before the law.
So to the other, Aboriginals say, well, we were here first.
And to which I would say, well, so what?
I mean, the year is 2026.
We've got different Canadians, different ethnicities.
The only way to get along is if you have laws that apply equally to all Canadians, regardless of their ethnicity or race or ancestry.
It is the only way where we focus on our common humanity and not be fixated on the examples, the Nuremberg laws, the American South, apart hate, where you're looking at your skin color and saying, well, the skin color is going to play a role in what legal rights I have.
It's a recipe for disasters.
So what needs to happen, Canadians need to contact their member of parliament and say, reject racism.
Laws should be based on the principle of equal rights for all, special privileges for none.
You know, John, I'm not going to identify this school, but one of my kids goes to a school where they love their land acknowledgements.
Oh boy.
In fact, they don't say the Lord's Prayer.
They don't sing O Canada.
Occasionally they do.
But oh boy, do they treat the land acknowledgement like it's some, it's almost like they're reading from a scripture or something.
And they all stand in silence while they, John, I want to tell you, I'm the only parent.
I remain in my seat.
I'm not, I'm not, if you want to give the land back, then say so and do so.
Don't give me a land.
I mean, if you're acknowledging that your land is someone else's, well, if you really mean it, give it back.
If you don't mean it, better hush now.
Because by the way, the other side is taking you at your word.
I'm guessing that there's a few British Columbians now who thought they were so dainty.
And that's what they mean by virtue signaling.
You don't actually, you're not actually going to do something.
You just want everyone to know how progressive you are.
Now that they're coming for your house, my guess is a few British Columbians are a little less eager to stand up to a holy, holy land acknowledgement.
What do you think?
Land acknowledgements are hypocritical virtue signaling by people who I've never met someone or heard of someone who supports reciting land acknowledgements at public meetings, who's actually given his or her own house or lands to an Aboriginal person and said, you know what, it's stolen land.
I'm giving my house.
I'm giving my condo away to the Iroquois or the Cree or the Musqueam or whoever.
It's hypocritical virtue signaling.
It is so insincere.
And it's also racist because it suggests that certain ethnic groups, the Aboriginal ethnic groups, and I say plural, you know, it's different groups, they are somehow more special than Jewish Canadians and African Canadians and Dutch Canadians and Chinese and every other.
It's like you don't exalt one group as being extra special.
So that too is, it's political, it's hypocritical, and people need to, the Justice Center has defended people who've gotten into trouble for politely objecting to land acknowledgements.
And I would love to see us fund more cases along those lines where Canadians politely, peacefully, non-violently, object to a land acknowledgement and get in trouble.
And the Justice Center will, we'd love to have a lawyer go to the defense of that because these land acknowledgements create this political climate where you get these racist agreements like the Musqueam Agreement.
Funding Peaceful Objections00:04:08
You know, this whole Virtue Sydney reminds me of a couple of things.
I remember I went to an anti-global warming protest.
This was in the really early days of Rebel News 10 years ago.
And I bumped into some radical activists who admitted they drove there and they, which is fine.
I mean, I did too.
But they're railing against cars, but they didn't have a Tesla because they wanted other people to do the sacrificing.
They just wanted to look good.
And let me just show a super quick clip of that.
That's one of my favorite videos.
I remember it was 10 years ago.
Here's a quick clip.
No, absolutely.
I have a car.
Do you have a car?
Yes, of course I have a car.
Do you have a car yourself?
Yes, I do.
Do you have a car?
I do have a car.
We all use cars.
Don't you use a car?
Yes, I do.
Do you have a car?
I have a car, and I know where this is going.
And another thing, it reminds me of a video we did that went viral.
And again, this was almost, it was in our really early days where Canada was taking in so many Syrian migrants.
And we had a reporter go out in the street and said, do you think we should take in migrants?
And they would say, oh, yes.
And then standing a few feet away was a fellow whose name was Mohamed, who looked like a Syrian migrant.
And our reporter would say, okay, he's right here.
Would you take him?
Oh, no, Here's a quick clip of that.
And would you ever be willing to house a refugee?
Well, definitely yes, because they need a lot of help.
And also new country, new everything, weather, new, different from back home.
And yeah.
Yeah, why not?
Why not?
Everybody needs help.
And if you are able to help, for sure.
So we actually, we have Mo here with us today.
Mo is new to Canada and he is looking delighted.
Nice to meet you.
So he actually is looking for a new home.
He is new to Canada.
Would you guys be willing to house Mo?
Unfortunately, we have only one bedroom because we are living in a condo, so we have only one bedroom.
There is no more space for one person.
But there is a lot of opportunity here and for sure he will find somebody.
So I don't know why.
It just feels like the same thing, except for this, everyone has been going along with this BS for so long that now it is a signed and sealed agreement.
Let me ask you one last question.
How do you get out of it?
Like if it's a signed agreement between the Musqueam and the federal government, and I guess you're saying that EB was there, but did he sign it too, or it's only between the feds and Musqueam?
Is it possible to undo it?
I was hearing someone explain how difficult this is to undo now.
Yes and no.
It takes the political will of the current government, if it so chose.
You know, people renege on agreements.
This agreement was signed in secret.
It's got terrible provisions.
It's racist.
It undermines the private property rights of more than 2 million people in British Columbia.
It's a very, very bad thing.
So the right thing, the honorable thing to do is to say this is an agreement that should never have been signed in the first place, and we are repudiating it.
And it shouldn't actually be that difficult for the current government insofar as what they're saying is, oh, it means nothing.
It just means that we want to have some conversations.
And now they're getting into kumbaya platitudes and saying that the agreement, it doesn't really mean what it says.
We're not going to have a third order of race-based government that's going to co-govern Greater Vancouver alongside federal and provincial governments.
And it doesn't mean that the Musqueam actually have Aboriginal title, even though the agreement says that the Musqueam have Aboriginal title.
So the government's now kind of back, you know, saying, well, relax.
It's just a kumbaya, you know, it's just a declaration of love and understanding.
Ontario Lawsuit Against Municipalities00:04:25
And, you know, it doesn't really mean what it says.
To which I would say, okay, if it doesn't really mean what it says, then maybe you should just tear it up and we should go back to the drawing board.
Yeah, if it didn't mean what it says, why did you sign it in secret?
Hey, John, if you have more cases in this vein, someone punished for not doing a land acknowledgement, let us know.
But we'd love to shine a light of scrutiny on it.
And we love to follow your cases.
We are affectionate towards the Democracy Fund, which was a civil liberties project we started during COVID.
But you've been doing this for more than a decade.
You are the OG civil liberties activist in Canada and OG, as the kids say, not G-Wiz, but original gangsta, as the kids would say.
So we admire what you're doing.
And in fact, just before we go, give me a quick heads up.
Are there any interesting cases that you guys have onboarded in the last few weeks that we don't know about?
We are suing municipalities across Canada that have imposed recording bans.
This is, again, it's very anti-democratic.
It's contrary to the Charter.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Freedom of Expression Guarantee, includes the right to video record or audio record a public meeting.
And that's part of democratic accountability, democratic transparency.
And so we've had three or four different municipalities back down, North Huron, Ontario.
We're suing Springfield, Manitoba over its recording ban.
So this is one of the battles that we are currently fighting is that we are sending a legal warning letter, which usually will solve the problem.
But when necessary, we're also suing municipalities over these ridiculous anti-democratic recording bans where they will arrest you and forcibly escort you out of the city council chambers.
They'll remove you from a public meeting if you try to record these public proceedings.
So that's one of the new battles that we're fighting.
You know, I think our reporter David Menzies was covering one of those in Ontario.
In fact, I think we sent a truck, our beautiful billboard truck up there, but I know exactly what you mean.
And that's important because sometimes a little win, even if it's tiny, even if it's one millimeter, at least it's a win.
You're pushing the bad guys back even a millimeter.
And it's proof that you can.
And it's a reminder to them that they're not above the law.
Sometimes rebel news takes on tiny cases, like when we were blocked on Twitter.
And part of me said, well, is it even worth by the government, by government departments blocking us on Twitter?
I'm not talking about personal pages of politician, but I thought, is it even worth going to court?
Well, yes, because even to put them back one inch or one millimeter reminds them that they are not the bosses.
They're the public servants, not the public masters.
And so I'm glad you're doing that in the court of law.
And we do that sometimes in law also, and we do that journalistically.
So keep us posted with that.
Well, John, we've spent so much time on the muscle thing.
We're going to have to have you back because I want to talk.
It's very important to me, in fact, that we give proper time to the new censorship bills that Mark Carney has brought in.
We really went deep into Bill C63 and some of the other crazy censorship bills brought in by Trudeau.
But luckily, by happenstance, they evaporated.
They died on the order paper, as they would say, when Parliament was dissolved for the last election.
Mark Carney has brought in at least three bills, C2, 8, and 9, that have a censorship aspect.
And I haven't properly briefed myself on them.
I know a little bit about them, but maybe you and I can huddle again on TV and really go through those bills because I know our viewers would be interested.
I don't want to do it now for five minutes.
I want to do it like later for half an hour.
So, John, thanks for talking to us today about Muscream.
And let's have you back to talk about those censorship bills.
Looking forward to it, Ezra.
Have a great rest of the day.
All right, you too.
Well, there he is, John Carpe, one of Canada's leading freedom fighters.
He's been doing it for more than a decade.
Really admire what he does, and we try and support him as we can.
That's a show for the day.
Until tomorrow, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, to you at home, good night and keep fighting For freedom.