Fani Willis Day 3 RECAP! Trudeau's Attack on Free Speech! Glorifying Immolation & MORE! Viva Frei
|
Time
Text
Repeat the question.
Objection.
Wait for this.
Did you tell her any lies?
This is a good question.
Did I lie to Miss...
That's a simple question, Mr. Bradley.
You're a lawyer.
Did you lie to Miss Merchant when you told her facts about Mr. Wade and Miss Willis' relationship?
I didn't lie.
I was speculating.
Not that I recall.
I don't recall.
Yes or no?
No, you didn't lie to her.
You didn't lie to her.
I mentioned earlier that I speculated on some things.
I've testified to...
We were here enthralling.
I can't recall whether or not I...
I lied.
Can't recall whether or not I lied.
No.
Mr. Bradley, speculation is kind of a weaselly lawyer word.
Let's speak truth here.
There you go.
Shut up, lawyer!
Such a weaselly lawyer word.
Oh my god, there's two vivas!
Hey, Viva, how you doing?
This is really weird, actually.
I'm going to let this play for a bit.
No, no, let him answer.
Let him answer.
Lying.
whether any of it was a liar not back about the start communicating with this market you're still friends with mr. way correct What's going on here?
Am I in here?
Yeah, I'm in here.
Okay.
I don't recall if it was a lie or not.
Oh, that's me talking right now.
That's me yesterday.
I'm wearing a different shirt in case anybody thinks it's me today.
And at the time you were communicating with Ms. Merchant, you knew...
That she was talking to you in her role and capacity as an attorney in this case, correct?
Yes.
Correct.
And you knew that she was going to use that information to somehow benefit and file a motion and benefit her client, correct?
Yes.
I did not know that.
So I did not know why she was writing that.
As an attorney yourself, you are testifying here under oath that you had no idea.
What Ms. Merchant was going to do with all the details that you were giving her about Wade and Willis' relationship?
So, at the time...
So, let me just get ready to lie.
I personally believe that U.S. Americans...
That is correct.
Okay.
And did you lie to her when you told her that the relationship began before 2020?
Objection.
Absolutely.
I don't think we're going to get much out of this.
Mr. Bradley, isn't it true, the only thing that has really changed...
Well, you were speaking to Ms. Merchant.
How's everybody doing today, by the way?
While everyone trickles in, I'll refresh your memories on yesterday.
You ever said to her that I don't remember or that I'm speculating, correct?
Never.
I don't recall saying...
Well, you've looked through a whole lot of text messages.
Do you remember ever seeing any communication from you that said...
Oh, my goodness.
I don't recall.
I don't remember.
Or I'm speculating.
I don't recall.
I don't think I do.
Let me go flub through the papers.
Let's get it.
Listen to this pause.
I think I put an objection.
Through the messages that...
I don't have all the messages in front of me.
Oh, don't worry.
We'll get there in a second.
I don't recall if I ever said I don't remember.
Do you recall seeing any text messages where you replied to her or gave her details where you said, I am speculating about this detail?
No, I never used the word speculating, no.
Cajun man.
Speculation.
I'm going to get execution.
I'm going to go the incarceration.
I'll come back to that in a second.
Good afternoon, everybody.
It's afternoon in the East Coast, morning in the West Coast.
Oh, my goodness.
Oh, does everybody remember Adam Sandler's Cajun Man?
I had a false memory.
I think they call it the, not the Oppenheimer syndrome.
What is it called when you have a false memory?
Mandela, the Mandela effect.
I thought it was Opera Man that ended every sentence with a word that ended in T-I-O-N or chien.
And I thought it was, oh, it's Opera Man.
It was Cajun Man.
And speculation?
Why would you have speculated?
I do not have the information.
It's, it's, oh my goodness.
We'll do a little recap.
I did the recap yesterday.
I'm sure everybody already saw it.
I've done the live streaming of it.
Yesterday was a cool three hours.
And it was a fun three hours, but not as dynamite as we thought it could have been.
There's a debate raging on the internet now as to what Terrence Bradley said in this clip when confronted with the very text message that we were just talking about there.
So, before we get too far into the show, everybody.
We're going to start with a little recap of Fannie Willis, Nathan Wade, Terrence Bradley, and then we're going to get into some stuff.
So, a little recap on the day yesterday.
Terrence Bradley got on the stand and basically said, I do not recall speculation when I was confirming the information in your motion for disqualification.
That worked out really well.
He gets back on the stand yesterday, ordered to testify on his...
Privileged information, which they say is no longer privileged as relates to the date when Fannie Willis started fornication with Nathan Wade.
And all of a sudden he couldn't remember a damn thing and everything that he provided by way of information to Ashley Merchant was speculation.
There's a question here when he was faced with the text message where he said, when did they meet?
Oh, absolutely.
It was after they became magistrate judges or whatever.
Does he say dang under his breath?
I don't think he does, and I seem to be in the minority here.
Listen to this.
Was two pages of text messages between you and Ms. Merchant, correct?
Correct.
Now, the first page starts off by saying, Ms. Merchant, like just date, don't hire him.
Do you think it started before she hired him?
You see that?
I think I'm right.
There you go.
Right there.
Can I zoom in?
He doesn't say dang.
He doesn't say dang.
He says date.
It's confirmed that I'm right.
I don't care if I'm in the minority.
Yes, I see it.
Yes.
Okay, so.
And your response to that.
Absolutely correct.
Was absolutely correct.
I'm going to object.
Ask and answer.
Oh, quiet you.
So.
Started before she hired him.
You see that?
By saying, Miss Merchant, like just date, don't hire him.
Do you think it started before she hired him?
You see that?
Everyone's saying he says dang when confronted with his message.
Done.
So now, let me see what this was.
This came from the Charles.
Terrence Bradley said dang after he realized.
I'm not throwing shade on Charles Downs, America First, holding globalists accountable.
citizen journalist all laudable pursuits DC reporter well now I'm not so sure anymore retweets don't equally I am not throwing shade on Charles Downs because this actually came from a Fox News article.
Charles, I think it's his date.
I'll show you why in a second.
Terrence Bradley said, quote, dang, end quote, after he realized his text proved Nathan Wade and Fannie Willis were in a relationship before Willis hired Wade to get Trump.
Wade and Willis are so corrupt, Judge McAfee must fire Fannie Willis and her lover.
Her former lover.
From Trump's case.
Okay.
I'll tell you why it says...
You'll hear what he said.
Here's another one.
This is the text message.
Like just date.
Don't hire him.
I don't know what that means.
Do you think it started before she hired him?
Absolutely.
Speculation.
It started.
It.
It.
The knocking boots.
The bumping uglies.
The fornication.
The stuffing like a turkey.
Started.
When she left the DA's office and was judge in South Fulton, they met at the Municipal Court CLE Conference, Continued Legal Education Conference.
That's what I figured when he was married.
Is this accurate?
Then she goes back to the next one.
In the previous one, now you see just like date, and that's what he's saying.
That's what he's saying.
It was two pages of text messages.
Like just date.
Don't hire him.
Just like date.
Do you think it started before she hired him?
You see that?
He just says like date.
And now that we know that this is what it says, like date.
He's just reading.
He did not say dang, although I can understand how anybody and a lot of people did hear that.
So I believe I'm right.
How's everybody doing?
Did everyone get over the...
We're witnessing justice in action, or as I also like to say humorously, justice in action.
As in there's an inaction on justice because we're witnessing how systems fall apart in real time when they become politicized jokes.
And we're seeing that with the Fannie Willis prosecution.
We're seeing that with Leticia James' persecution out of New York.
It's systemic.
So yesterday, Nathan Wade...
Testified for three hours.
They tried to get him on the date of his knowledge.
Sorry, his knowledge of the date when they entered a romantic relationship as predating Fannie Willis giving Nathan Wade the first contract in November 2021.
And he said, yeah, absolutely.
It started when they were back in, you know, 2019 CLE.
Clear.
What in the hell he was doing texting back and forth to Ashley Merchant.
Not realizing he would get in doo-doo with people who can't be trusted as far as you could throw them.
Well, everyone takes their own risks in life.
And once that was disclosed, that he was the one feeding the information, confirming the information to Ashley Merchant, who was filing the motion on behalf of the defendants that Nathan Wade and Fannie Willis were persecuting, prosecuting.
Well, then it became a problem because someone sent him a message.
Not a pig's head on the front door like the expert in...
No, it wasn't the Kyle Rittenhouse case.
It was the Derek Chauvin case.
Not quite the pig's head on the former residents of the expert testifying in the trial.
This was a polite text message, telephone message, whatever.
Remember your ethics, lawyer.
Remember your ethics and shut your big trap because we know what you did.
I saw what you did.
And you're in big, big trouble with it.
And so then there was a big debate.
Oh, he can't answer any questions on those text messages that he willingly sent to...
Ashley Merchant, lawyer for the defendant or the defendants, because the information he relayed to her was information that he purportedly, allegedly, but I say falsely, wrongly acquired or did not actually acquire in the context of a solicitor-client relationship when he was representing Nathan Wade.
And so he gets the call from what he knows to be very corrupt people saying, remember your ethics.
That's sort of like...
I'm going to make you an offer you can't refuse.
Open your big trap again.
Oh, remember that sexual assault thing that we just brought up on the stand in front of the world to see?
Terrence Bradley?
Remember when we cross-examined you coming from Anna Cross and had to bring up the fact that you were booted from Nathan Wade's law firm for alleged sexual assault on an employee?
Sexual assault on an employee?
That was so egregious you allegedly confirmed that you left $20,000 in your escrow account to be paid to her?
Well, uh...
That doesn't have to stay civil forever.
That doesn't have to stay quiet forever.
You got District Attorney Fannie Willis and Special Prosecutor Nathan Wade prosecuting Trump and 18 others, including lawyers for bullshit.
We'll come after you if you help.
I mean, someone on Twitter said they have something on Terrence Bradley.
Of course they do!
And we now know what they have on Terrence Bradley.
They have the threat, the real threat, of criminal prosecution and locking his ass up.
It's like, it's there.
It's in plain sight now.
They've told us what they have on him.
They have the witnesses lined up.
So obviously they're saying to him, dude, we will put you in jail.
You better forget everything.
You better remember your speculation.
You better forget why you did this and just say you made it up, pulled it out of your butt.
So that was what happened yesterday, and it was not irrelevant.
It was not monumental.
It just wasn't the dynamite that we thought it was going to be, but it was quite interesting.
Eric Tripton, artist, brings up...
What is that instrument?
That looks like a guitar.
No, what is that?
Well, I was going to say it looks like a guitar, but...
There seems to be, like, diagonal...
Wires going there.
Is that like an electrified guitar?
Says Judge McAfee is the focus now.
A thousand percent.
If Judge McAfee doesn't come down with the right and the obvious decision, it cannot but be because he is corrupt.
It cannot be for any other reason than judicial corruption.
We have seen lawyers lie under oath.
My question is whether or not they're going to actually suffer other consequences.
We've seen lawyers lie under oath.
Fannie Wade...
I keep saying Fanny Wade and Nathan Willis.
Fanny Willis and Nathan Wade lied under oath.
Why would they have lied under oath?
You remember, by the way, this went from we don't have a relationship to we have a relationship and it's none of your business to we have a relationship but the contract was signed before it became potentially your business.
They lied on the stand which shows culpability.
Obvious culpability.
It's clear that they lied now.
There's text messages, not direct evidence, but from someone who knew, confirming.
You got Yurdy's testimony.
They were knocking boots since 2019, 2020.
November, give or take.
They lied.
Terrence Bradley told the truth and then lied about telling the truth for obvious reasons.
The threat implicit of getting your license revoked, although who the hell is going to use Nathan Bradley ever again as a lawyer?
Hell, with the dude's memory, I wouldn't use him Sure, I wouldn't use him as a babysitter.
If his memory is indeed that bad, I wouldn't use him for anything that requires the memory of a goldfish.
Nathan Bradley told the truth, then lied.
Yurdy told the truth, and begrudgingly so.
So, on Friday, what are we having now?
Oh, yeah, sorry.
So, Fanny Willis made a motion...
To exclude the cell phone information that Trump's lawyer Satow wants to admit by way of, what do they call it, amended exhibits or additional exhibit?
Fannie Willis is suggesting that that might have been criminally procured.
How did they get our cell data?
Also, it can't have additional evidence at this point.
And if they do, that they want to provide their own experts to say why this expert's not qualified.
So there's going to be a proffer between now and Friday.
As to whether or not that's going to be allowed or how it's going to be allowed or whether or not additional witnesses are going to be required in order to allow that evidence.
And thus far for Friday, the schedule is summation, closing arguments.
So that's it for the Fannie Willis update.
How was it legal for Willis to let Wade hire his two law partners?
That means Wade had a third of their paychecks as well.
Yes, Mary Williams.
They testified to that.
All three of them had contracts with Fanny Willis.
And the actual amazing thing is it came out yesterday.
It came out.
I'm saying that like a pure Canadian, eh?
It came out yesterday that Nathan, uh, not Nathan, we're getting mixed up on the names here.
Terrence Bradley, whether or not you can believe O'Dam already says this, I think you can believe.
He didn't have any relationship with Fanny Willis.
He didn't have a friendship professional.
He barely met her.
And so the question that was asked him is, how did you get that contract then?
Your contract.
I forget if it was taint review or first representation, but all three of the partners had a separate contract.
They had three contracts: taint review, which is very bizarre that the boyfriend of the prosecutor would be involved in any partnership that has taint review privileges.
That is when you review purported privilege information to determine whether or not it gets provided to the prosecutor.
Or whether or not it's privileged and confidential and should not be remitted to the prosecutor because it would unfairly prejudice the defendant.
How do you have Fannie Willis' boyfriend having any role in that even passive of splitting the revenue?
I don't know.
I think it's a conflict.
Taint review, first representation, and special prosecutor.
All three had their contracts, and all three were splitting up their contracts a third, a third, a third.
But what happened yesterday is Terrence Bradley was asked, how did you get that contract?
You didn't know her.
Nathan brought it to me.
Oh!
Nathan brought you that contract in 2021 because of his relationship to Fannie Willis.
He's that good.
She's just given him contracts to give out to his partners.
And that's a relevant fact.
This guy got a contract, and the only reason he got a contract with Fannie Willis was because of Nathan Wade's pre-existing relationship with her.
All of these contracts were the fruits of...
The fruits of...
What's the word?
Infidelity.
Improper relationships.
So that was it.
I don't know how it's legal.
And I don't know.
If justice were truly blind, IRS would be involved.
The ethics board would be involved.
And I don't know.
Potentially other people.
What do we got here?
Blaine N says, Virginia and Roger welcome Fannie and Nathan into the Love Oz hot tub.
They can share the love's secret there.
What's Virginia and Roger?
Virginia?
Who are they?
Anyhow, thank you for the super chat.
TheyLied.ca.
They highlight the NCI, the National Citizens Inquiry.
Thank you very much, I-52 Freedom.
All right, people.
For those of you who may be new to the channel, this is how it works.
My name is Viva Frye.
That's not my name.
Sorry, I don't want to be spreading disinformation.
My channel name, and as I have grown to be known, internet, aka alias, is Viva Frye.
Former Montreal litigator turned current Florida rumbler.
My real name is David Freiheit.
For anybody who thinks that that piece of information is somehow like intimidation when they put out, tweet out, David Freiheit is...
And it's a great name because it means freedom in German.
Freiheit!
We start on YouTube, the commie platform, Rumble, the free speech platform, and vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
The link to Rumble is in the pinned comment.
It's there, and I see it.
Fantastic.
And what we do, because we like to vote with our feet, vote with our eyes, and vote with our dollar, we end on YouTube, and then we carry on the stream over on Rumble, and then after the stream is over, we go over to vivabarnslaw.locals.com for an exclusive afterparty.
Viva for press secretary?
I could do that.
I mean, I'd have to shape up the way I look a little bit, maybe.
I could do that, because I can think on my feet relatively fast, relatively quickly.
And so that's it.
So on the menu for today, that was the Fannie Willis recap.
There shouldn't be any news between now and Friday, but who the hell knows?
Oh, and the digital version is Nom de Plume, or Nom de Foton.
Foton!
Nom de Plume is like the name of the feather, because that was their...
Well, I think Nom de Plume is like the author's alternative name, because they used to write with feathers back in the day.
Feather, for those who don't know, is plume en français.
And pour ce...
Uh-oh.
Hold on one second.
Let me just see something.
I've got a text here.
Let's see if this text is going to be...
Do I get into this text immediately?
Hold on.
Hold on.
Mitch McConnell to step down from Senate leadership in November.
And by the way, I think I actually saw that in the chat here.
Yeah.
So we're going to enter, on the menu for today, the Fannie Willis update.
And when we get over to Rumble, we're going to talk about, it's, you know, when they said, when fascism comes to America, it's going to be cloaked in an American flag.
I just screwed it up because I think the word, I think cross is in there.
Bottom line, C.S. Lewis, tyranny always cloaks itself in benevolence.
And the most dangerous of all tyrants are those who terrorize you with the blessing of their own soul because, as it says, the robber baron, they may sleep, they may tire of their tyranny, but those who do it with the blessing of their own conscience will do it endlessly because they think they are Coming out of Canada, there's a bill called Bill C-63, the Online Harm Act.
And what would you expect to see in the Online Harm Act?
Well, obviously you'd expect to see amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada adding Hatred!
As a criminal offense, basically.
As defining hatred for the purposes of application in new criminal offenses that are going to be predicated on hatred.
It's the biggest load of Shi 'at that you can possibly imagine.
And then there was another thing we're going to talk about.
You know, let's do this one.
We'll do one more before we head over because it's a short story.
Excess deaths, by the way.
People do not believe your eyes.
Hold on a second.
I didn't actually check.
We're live on...
We're live on Rumble.
Mods, please protect our white male safe space.
That's a joke.
Okay, then you got this person here who keeps saying, Jim exposed 10 Hollywood pedos.
All right, dude, you do this every time.
Now you are blocked forever.
So sorry about that.
That's spam of the highest order.
Before we head on over to Rumble exclusively.
Just one story.
They'll deny it until they can no longer deny it.
It'll be like the same.
It's the fake news media.
Uh, coping mechanism.
Ignore, deny, demonize, and then normalize.
Can someone remember that?
It was ignore.
Damn it.
Ignore, demonize.
No, no, it was ignore, minimize, demonize, then rationalize.
Bam!
That's the four stages of fake news.
Remember, I mean, everybody's talking about excess death is down.
You're a conspiracy theorist.
Let's bring it up.
I'll tell you this.
Bottom line, it doesn't even matter what the reason is anymore.
It's a fact.
But let's go to a fact checker here, because they've got to...
Hey, hey, hey, hey.
I'm not signing in or anything, so get that out of there, please.
Here we go.
From Reuters, people.
Fact check!
Bet against it.
You'll be more right more often than not.
Fact check.
No evidence to link UK excess deaths.
No evidence to link UK excess deaths to COVID-19 vaccines.
Do you know what that headline implicitly confirms as a matter of fact?
There's a lot of excess death coming out of the UK.
That's what it implicitly acknowledges.
And you see how they do that, by the way.
They try to just bury the lead now.
There's no excess deaths.
Ignore it.
Alright, it's not so bad.
Alright, it's pretty bad, but you're a bigot anti-vaxxer for having suggested something which we're going to try to debunk and let's just see how we debunk it.
February 6th.
Not a very old article.
A suggestion that tens of thousands of excess deaths in the UK are linked to COVID vaccine is misleading.
Ah, it's interesting though.
Not false.
Just misleading.
The claim was made in a monologue by British television presenter Neil Oliver on GB News.
Now, I happen to know Neil Oliver, and I happen to platonically love Neil Oliver.
I mean, I don't use the word love very often.
I admire pretty much everything about Neil Oliver.
His thoughtfulness, his delivery, the fact that I, you know...
We all have different skills in life, and one of my skills is not delivering messages like Neil Oliver, but I very much respect and love the way Neil Oliver does things.
Thoughtful, eloquent.
It's intellectual poetry, is how I describe it.
I know that Neil Oliver is authentic, honest, sincere, and I know that Reuters fact-checkers are a bunch of lying bastards, period.
Sorry, that's not how Neil Oliver would say it.
They're a bunch of lying bastards.
Okay, now I'm getting mixed up between Australian, he's Scottish, he's got a beautiful accent.
Yeah, I swear.
That's it now.
That's it.
I have to accept that I've come to that point in my life.
I know that Reuters are lying pieces of rubbish, and I know that I like, trust, and love Neil Oliver intellectually and informationally.
So I'm going to go ahead and pass being prologue to the future.
I'm going to say, okay, I'm placing a little more credence on what Neil Oliver said than the spin that I know Reuters does.
Let's hear it.
In an 11-minute video posted on Facebook on January 6th that has attracted 384,000 views.
Are you jealous, Reuters?
It's funny how truth has a way of catching.
It's amazing.
Truth is like a lion.
It doesn't need protection.
Let it loose and it will defend itself.
That's Buddha.
He says that there have been more than 100,000 excess deaths in the UK since January 22 and implies a link with the rollout of the vaccines.
Oh, by the way, and by the way, people, do you notice what the bunch of scumbag POS liars royalties is?
He implies a link not with vaccines, by the way, although he might have.
The way they describe it, a link with the rollout of the COVID vaccines.
One thing is for certain.
It's happening, the excess deaths, and things also happened at the same time.
Oh, but correlation doesn't equal causation.
It didn't even say directly linked to the vaccines.
The rollout.
What might have been an issue with the rollout?
People locked down.
People isolated.
People put under stress.
And then you add to it something which we now know definitively, because even MSM is reporting on it, causes.
Adverse events of special interest at, I would say, in my humble estimation, as my opinion goes, exceptionally high rates, but at higher rates than nothing.
At higher rates than prior vaccines.
Prior vaccines, actual vaccines, not this mRNA jab.
Oliver does not source his claim for the 100,000 XXS, which are defined as the number of annual mortalities that are above the five-year average.
He's such a fake news spreader, that Neil Oliver.
It's not 100,000.
It's only 63,554, according to their source.
The best source they could find has the number in the high five digits.
I mean, they're such a bunch of assholes.
It's unbelievable.
The total number of 2022-2023, according to UK health agencies, is 72,000.
Oh, Neil, you lying scumbag.
How dare you?
How dare you say it's 100,000?
Which I'm sure, I'm sure there are sources out there.
If the best they could find, the ones that need to undermine this the most, are recognizing upwards of 75,000?
The Office of National Statistics estimates that there were 63,000 excess deaths in England and Wales between 2022 and 2023.
Over the same period, 7,500 in Scotland.
Well, add those two together, by the way.
You're up to 80,000 between the UK and Scotland.
And they dare to criticize Neil Oliver and suggest he didn't source his claim.
You sourced it for him, you dummies!
Over the same period...
Okay, I got that.
Okay, fine.
Here we go.
Hardly a month goes by without me hearing of another heart attack, another stroke, another 20-something dropping dead when no one had any reason to doubt that they were in otherwise perfect health, Oliver said in a monologue.
You know what?
I can confirm that in my experience as well.
One of my elementary school friends died in their sleep.
Everybody's asking the question.
Nobody wants to talk about it.
And then if you dare bring it up, you know, you're the a-hole.
Do I go anecdotally?
You already know my anecdotes.
I've got upwards of a dozen now.
People that I know directly or through one degree of separation being...
I don't want to identify anybody.
More and more of us say the elephant in the room when it comes to a grown-up conversation about all the unexpected dying is the suggestion of a temporal link between excess deaths and the rollout of the jabs.
That's a factually correct statement.
Whether you like it or not, Reuters, you POS liars, it's a factually correct statement.
The excess deaths coincides, line it up with the rollout.
Maybe it's other things.
Maybe they're, I don't know, I could think of other things that could also temporally match up with the rollout, but he's 100% accurate, and you've confirmed it in your fact check saying it's misleading.
Listen to this.
And what's the best source to contradict A problem that might implicate, inculpate the government?
Well, the government is clearly the best source.
However, health agency data standardized for age challenged this narrative.
For example, one ONS data show all cause deaths in England were higher among the unvaccinated than those who had received at least one dose for every month.
Oh, how are you classifying the deaths?
We don't need to go over that again.
There is no evidence COVID-19 vaccinations are linked to these estimated excess deaths.
A spokeswoman for the ONS said via email.
That's great.
That's so nice.
And then they go into their load of crap here.
Look at this.
Then they talk about how bad the waiting rooms are.
You know, it's amazing.
Okay.
Verdict.
Misleading.
There is no evidence linking COVID-19 vaccines to excess deaths in the UK.
This article.
Bull.
Shiite.
Through.
And.
Through.
Did I just close myself?
Oh, I thought I shut down the entire stream.
Link.
Enjoy it, people.
Oh, they're going to say, the unvaccinated were dying at much higher rates because we don't consider one shot to be fully vaccinated.
So if you died within two weeks to a month of your first shot, oh, guess what?
You didn't go down as a vaccine death.
You went down as a unvaccinated, if it's COVID, COVID death.
Mother effers.
I mean, this thing is, once you understand the game, there is no point in listening to them try to explain it away because I could, Steel man?
Or I could scoundrelize their defenses.
Yeah, that's right.
Well, technically, more deaths among the unvaccinated because you're not considered fully vaccinated until you get two shots.
And if you die after your first one, we don't consider that a jab death because there's no correlation.
So we just mark that one down as an unvaccinated death.
And if you happen to test positive for COVID using a PCR test, which by some expert accounts yields...
False positives at an exceedingly high rate.
Well, then we don't put that down as a jab death.
We put that down as a COVID death and an unvaxxed COVID death at that.
Mother effers.
Okay.
I'm seeing more and more people going missing than being found deceased and no foul play suspected.
I-52 Freedom.
I haven't seen people going missing.
In fact, I don't know if this is referring to people dying suddenly or people getting...
Becoming the victims of other stuff.
Okay, then we're going to do this here.
The guitar image was a scalloped fretboard.
Alexander Schabrilski, do you expect me to know what that means?
I've got to Google a scalloped fretboard.
It sounds delicious.
Hold on one second.
What is a scalloped fretboard?
On a scalloped neck, the fretboard is sanded to a concave shape between each of the frets.
The fretboard is sanded to a concave shape.
This increases clearance and reduces friction between fingers and fretboard, making bends and lead techniques quicker and easier.
And that might be something good for my fat fingers.
I've never been a particularly good guitar player because look at these pudgy sausages.
I did, however, play piano relatively well.
I won Le Concours Vincent d 'Indy with a Bach.
What was it?
Not a prelude.
It was one of those...
Invenciones.
I forget which one it was.
Okay, done.
We're going to go over to the free speech platform right now.
Link to Rumble.
But before we do that, because I want to, there's one Rumble rant to bring up before we end on YouTube.
And I'll give everyone the link to locals as well if you want to come directly there.
It is...
I don't think that happened.
My favorite scene...
Ooh, that's me talking now in the background.
Hold on.
There we go.
I still don't know why Nathan Wade was standing up staring at him intensely, only to then leave the courtroom when he became certain.
That Terrence was going to play ball.
So bye-bye, Mitch.
Hit the road, Mitch.
And don't you come back, you...
Okay, I'm joking.
So link to...
Hold on.
Copy.
Link to Rumble.
Link to...
Rumble.
Yeah, Rhonda McDow...
Whatever her name is, the RNC chair, out as well.
It's amazing.
Clearing house.
Out with the old, incompetent, corrupt, and hopefully in with the new.
Intimidation from Wade, says Maureen Brown.
I tend to agree.
All right, and Locals is over here.
There's a meme in there from Janus TR, and it's a Mr. Potato Head.
It says, Bad news, soldier.
You're being transferred to a MASH unit.
Bada bing, bada boom.
All right, come on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com if you want to support what we do there.
And that's it.
Betty is trolling.
Betty is Trudeau trolling.
You and mocking you for leaving Canada.
Who's Betty?
Betty S. Who's Betty S?
Hold on.
Vladstein, can you put that link in the chat before we end on Rumble?
Before we end on YouTube?
Betty S. is your next booster lady.
Put the link to the tweet in there so we can have a look at it.
Oh, we'll talk about it.
Why people are going to leave Canada.
It's an amazing thing.
They expect you to sit there and not just...
Deal with the abuse, but finance the abuse.
But put the link, Vladstein, if you can.
Don't put it by way of Super Chat.
Just link the tweet in the chat and I'll grab it and we'll open it up on the other side of free speech.
Oh, make fun of me for leaving Canada.
I'll pay 50% tax so that the government can actually demonize me.
What's the word I'm looking for?
Betty's in the comments section saying jabs are good for you.
Oh, okay.
Well, I don't care.
All right.
We're ending on YouTube.
Come on over to Rumble.
Viva Farah on Rumble.
Viva Farah on Twitter.
And vivabarneslaw.locals.com on Locals.
And we're going to talk about this new bill that has passed its first reading.
I forget exactly the process.
There's like several readings and then it's got to go get approved by the Senate before it receives royal assent.
And hopefully there's enough pushback.
To have this piece of trash of a law shredded and burnt in that order.
Okay, ending on YouTube.
Come on over to Rumble.
Boom.
Alright, people.
It's an amazing thing.
They give absolutely paradoxical names to that which is supposed to reflect what the header is, but in its body it actually is totally different.
Like, you always have these...
Terrorist organizations that call themselves the People's Liberators.
You have these totally fascistic, corrupt regimes that always go by the People's Democracy or the Democratic Republic of whatever when it's totally not Democratic or Republic.
This was called the Online Harm, the Online Harms Act.
And I'll bring it up and I'm gonna have to go to my phone to get the footnotes.
It's, I mean, it's, it's possibly the most outrageous piece of garbage you've Here we go.
I'm going to bring this up here.
Get this out of here.
Bill C-63.
You know, I never realized that the C in the bills coming out of Canada stood for communism.
I didn't realize that.
This is Bill Communism 63. An act to enact the Online Harms Act.
Keep saying the word act, man.
An act to enact the Online Harm Act to amend the criminal code.
The Canadian Human Rights Act, an act respecting the mandatory reporting of internet child pornography by persons who provide an internet service and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts.
Just for the sake of it.
How many times the word acts?
517.
What's amazing about it is just everything else that they're amending.
First of all, the question that I've been asking, and I'll ask it through and through, is...
What current laws do not exist that would necessitate additional laws to cover?
It seems to me that there's already strong laws in Canada against child pornography.
Very strong.
Such that even the essence of this act, which I don't think many people would disagree with, you know, make the internet safe for kids.
Won't someone please think of the children?
This has nothing to do with children.
This has to do with...
Won't someone please think of the adults so that we can shut them up forever?
Listen to this.
Oh, it's very, very small writing.
And I've highlighted some, you know, the great parts.
I've highlighted what I think are the important sections, and I'll put together a straight, you know, separate car vlog or office vlog later.
But let's just have some fun going over the rubbish in real time.
Recommendation.
Is this the preamble?
Her Excellency the Governor General recommends to the House of Commons the appropriation of public revenue under the circumstances in a manner for the purposes set out in this measure.
Summary.
Oh, that's the summary.
Forget that part it goes through.
Okay, we might have to.
Part one of this act.
The Online Harm Act, whose purpose is to, among other things, listen to this, promote online safety of persons in Canada, nobody can disagree with that, reduce harms caused to persons in Canada as a result of harmful content online, and ensure that the operators of social media services, in respect of which that Act applies, are transparent and accountable with respect to their duties under the Act.
This is where...
We want to see the algorithms.
We want to know how YouTube is suppressing.
And then you realize why the government can't do it.
There's an objective that we all could get behind here.
How are they controlling algorithms?
How are they suppressing information?
How are they censoring users?
Then the government goes ahead and gets involved and says, yeah, we should also define hatred while we're at it and amend the criminal code to make advocating for or promoting genocide...
A punishment that can be punished by life in prison.
So you got four parts of it.
Part one.
Part two amends the criminal code.
So we're down here.
Look at this.
And we're going to get to this in a bit.
Part two amends the criminal code to, among other things, A, create a hate crime offense of committing an offense under the act.
So violate the act, it's a hate crime offense or any other act that is motivated by hatred based on certain factors.
It becomes a crime if it's motivated by hatred.
I have difficulty imagining thinking of a crime that's not really underlined by some form of hatred.
I think there are a great many, like murder, hatred, hatred of the person.
Or the hatred of the fact that they have money and you don't.
Or the hatred of the fact that they have nicer shoes.
It's very difficult to think of like assault.
Not being motivated by hatred, but being motivated by love.
It's a tough thing to think about.
Create a recognizance to keep the peace relating to the hate propaganda and hate crime.
To me, I know that they set up a commission.
We'll get to it.
It's the new Ministry of Truth.
Define hatred for the purposes of the new offense and the hate propaganda offenses.
I mean, this is not out of Orwell's 1984.
This is out of Bill C-63 in 2024 out of Canada.
Define hatred for the purposes of the new offense and increase maximum sentences for hate propaganda offenses.
Then you've got Part 3, Amend the Human Rights Act.
And Part 4, What do we got here?
Internet child pornography.
I thought we already had laws for that.
Part 5 contains a coordinating amendment.
Okay, so now what I'm going to do is I'm going to take this out and just...
I seem to have lost myself here.
I'm going to take this out and we're just going to take up some of the classic stuff here because you won't believe what's actually in it.
I'm not going to go through the whole thing.
It creates a commission.
Let me just pull that one up, the highlighted one here.
Ministry of Truth.
Here we go.
Here we go.
I say like the Ministry of Truth.
It's history.
Orwell wasn't predicting the future.
He was summarizing the past, a past that he had lived through and the past that does its cycles throughout the history of humankind because humans today are not much different than they were 5,000 years ago.
They might have different technologies to implement their desires for full control, but they have the same basic human desires for good and for bad.
Part three.
It's not in order, but part three.
What did I say here?
I had a funny tweet with this.
Ah, yes, the Ministry of Truth has come to Canada, but they call it the Digital Safety Office of Canada to be ranted about imminently.
The Digital Safety Office of Canada.
The Digital Safety Office of Canada is established.
I mean, it is the Ministry of Truth.
You just don't call it the Ministry of Truth.
Oh, that would be ridiculous.
We can't call it the Ministry of Truth.
People would laugh at us.
We can't call it the Ministry of Government Propaganda because nobody would accept it.
So like, you know, with Lisa's massive tax grab or the temporary refund adjustments, they call this the Digital Safety Office of Canada.
They've created another bureaucracy that can go ahead and carry out government wishes and government, I won't say oppression, but government censorship.
The office's mandate is to support the commission and the ombudsman in the fulfillment of their mandates, the exercise of their powers, and the performance of their duties and functions.
They create an office.
They create an ombudsman.
They just appoint government workers who have been so good at doing everything.
We're living through a period right now where the government literally Went from spending $80,000 on the Arrive Can app.
That was the budget.
Does everybody know this, by the way?
I didn't talk about this because too many things were happening.
The Canadian government initially budgeted $80,000 to develop the Arrive Can app.
That piece of shit app that told me that I had to quarantine my 12-year-old healthy daughter because she was unvaccinated.
It wasn't actually the app that said it.
It was the...
Filthy bureaucrat of the government who called me up on my cell phone and said, we have on record that you entered Canada on a given date and that you entered with an unvaccinated traveler and that she has to quarantine.
And I didn't say, go fuck yourself.
But my goodness, was I thinking it?
I didn't say it because I wanted to record the conversation, as I did.
It's on my YouTube channel.
There was a purpose for this.
I'm talking about, you know, what could go wrong when the government gets its hands involved in things?
An ombudsman, an office, bureaucrats.
The government budgeted $80,000 for that Arrive Can app out of Canada.
Does everybody know what it cost, ultimately?
I mean, some of you who do know, don't spoil it.
Let me go to the chat.
Does everybody know what it cost?
Just take a wild guess.
They budgeted $80,000.
What was the final cost of the Arrive Can app that...
Didn't even work.
60 million Canadian dollars.
I mean, it's so preposterously egregious.
It's so insanely idiotic.
It's so wildly emblematic of government corruption, government incompetence, government tyranny, government abuse.
And there's still dipshits out in Canada saying, no, no, no, this is a good law.
What could possibly go wrong?
We should trust Trudeau with this.
$80,000 budgeted.
$60 million spent.
And I couldn't believe the number that I was hearing.
They kept saying, I must be hearing something wrong.
It doesn't make $6 million?
Maybe $16 million?
$60 million.
And I hope I didn't get it wrong.
Yeah, $60 million.
Plus, by the way.
Oh, now they're going to investigate.
And Justin Trudeau, that scumbag POS that he has, he comes out and says, there will be consequences.
You!
You need to suffer the consequences of your incompetent, corrupt tyranny.
You're the one, but the buck doesn't start with you and you kick it down the street.
It ends with you.
Oh my God, no, there'll be consequences.
Oh, and they're going to throw two civil servants under the bus.
So yeah, that government is now in charge of establishing...
What was it called?
I forgot the name of it already.
Uh-oh.
Hey, where did I go?
Hold on.
I seem to have...
Disappeared myself.
What was it called?
The Office of...
The Digital Safety Office of Canada.
The DSOC.
There's a joke in here somewhere.
DSOC.
Or if you go backwards, it's COSD.
Whatever.
The Digital Safety Office of Canada.
You're going to have bureaucrats and an ombudsman determining who gets to say what on the internet.
And the fines under this new piece of legislation, proposed legislation.
Wild!
Like, we're going to get to life in prison.
For the online platforms who don't comply with certain provisions of the law, 6% of their global revenue or $10 million, whichever is greater.
I don't want to make a mistake.
It was 6 million either of their global gross revenue or net.
Either way, 6% of revenue, and I'm fairly certain it was global.
Chad, just clarify that detail for me.
Or $10 million, whichever is greater.
For individuals who don't comply or who violate the act, $70,000 up to.
Don't worry, they'll never get there.
They'll never get there.
They were just issuing $1,600 fines for not social distancing outside during COVID when there was no law to require it.
Holy shit.
So they've established the Ministry of Truth.
Okay.
Then...
Let's see how they go.
And they're going to define hatred, right?
Yes, yes.
We must define hatred.
Listen to this.
This is the proposal.
And they had tried this before, and I think the bill died the last time they tried to define hatred under the criminal code.
So this is part of the act, and this is part of the act that proposes the amendments to the criminal code.
And it provides, paragraph 4, subsection 319.7 of the act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order to the criminal code.
Hatred means, listen to this, how do you define if an act was performed with hatred under this act, under the criminal code?
Hatred means the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike.
I'm going to read that.
Three times in a row.
Not five.
There's an old expression, you know, say it five times in a row to really understand how utterly insane something is.
Hatred means the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike.
L 'héin.
Hatred means the emotion.
It involves detestation and vilification, but it goes a step beyond just a mere disdain or dislike.
So you can still...
Commit an act with disdain or dislike, and that wouldn't be hatred, that wouldn't be a hate crime under the law.
But if we come to the determination that it was actually, it wasn't disdain, it was detestation, and it wasn't dislike, it was vilification, you're going to jail for a long time, buddy.
Clarification.
Clarification!
My dog trying to bust down a door.
For greater certainty, the communication of a statement does not incite or promote hatred for the purposes of this section.
Solely because it discredits, humiliates, hurts, or offends.
I like that word, solely.
That is to suggest that it can discredit, humiliate, hurt, and offend, but if it also was done with detestation or vilification, then it can be hatred.
The judge would have to come to the conclusion that the only thing that happened is discrediting your humiliation, hurts, or offend.
That's one hell of a carve out.
I feel so much safer right now that this law is not going to be grotesquely weaponized and abused.
Hatred means the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger, that is more bad than disdain or dislike.
There was some idiot in our government, and not just one idiot, a group of idiots, a gaggle of idiots, sitting around a table saying, how do we define hatred?
So that it's going to be criminally enforceable.
That's the best they could do.
A bunch of idiots trying to staple an egg to a wall.
They didn't realize you had to freeze the egg first.
That's a riddle.
I just solved the riddle right there.
So that's that.
Trying to define hatred.
You guys are like a bunch of like...
Lower order animals sitting around trying to do something that can't be done.
There's a reason you can't define hatred for criminal purposes.
You can define harassment.
You can define threats.
Threatening to cause bodily harm.
Threatening to take someone's life.
Threatening to damage someone's reputation.
Threatening to release private details for the purposes of soliciting money.
These things can be defined.
Hatred?
Who did it?
Who did it?
Was he a liberal?
Okay, so that was just disdain and dislike.
Oh, who did it, a conservative?
Well, that was hatred and vilification.
Detestation and vilification.
Here we go.
See, truth social 1991 USA now.
Now you're going to be banned forever.
And how many accounts do they keep setting up?
Jules Verne said, like Viva said, you cannot define hatred in the court of law.
Good luck.
Hatred.
It's not a fact, and it's not even a state of being.
It's a state of reading someone else's being.
It's a fundamentally subjective term that means different things to different people.
First of all, also, I hate Justin Trudeau.
I know that I should not have hatred for other humans, but I genuinely hate Justin Trudeau.
Okay, well, he's not a protected group.
Oh, hold on, I had a funny tweet.
I had a funny tweet that, you know...
I say the...
It's a funny tweet that idiots, people who lack senses of humor, or people who don't want to understand will pretend not to understand it.
Yeah, this is it.
It's actually...
I just say it's genius.
And it's like, it's a Babylon Bee article.
You know, it's a Babylon Bee headline today.
And then it's the law tomorrow.
Is this it?
Yeah.
Yeah, this is it.
Here we go.
Boom!
Justin Trudeau criminalizes hate speech against protected groups.
Because that's all.
It's not hatred against an individual.
It's protected groups.
Jews, gays, trans, blacks, Muslims, whatever.
It's protected groups.
Justin Trudeau criminalizes hate speech against protected groups.
Justin Trudeau comes out as gay or trans.
Justin Trudeau can no longer be criticized without it constituting, quote, hate speech.
Checkmate, bitches.
And yes...
I was using bitches in the non-gender-based term because it was required for proper delivery of that joke.
And that is a Babylon Bee tweet today, and it's reality tomorrow.
There are a bunch of trans politicians.
There are a bunch of gay politicians.
There are a bunch of Jewish politicians.
If I criticize them, if I express disdain and vilification for them as politicians...
Well, you said it's because they were a politician.
I said you did it because they were Jewish or black or Muslim or gay or trans or whatever.
It's not even one jump away.
And then I won't pick on the guy who says, and remember kids, he's a lawyer.
Let that sink in.
Yeah, I'm a lawyer.
Or I am a lawyer.
I'm just not a practicing lawyer anymore.
You don't have to be a lawyer to understand how these bullshit laws are going to get politically weaponized for tyrannical purposes.
I mean, Justin Trudeau is the latest example.
I wouldn't trust Pierre Poilier with this.
Sorry, I got an itch on my nose.
And then let's get into the one other thing, which is the highlight of the highlights.
Oh, here we go, here we go.
Anyone who advocates for genocide.
This is the amending of the criminal code, people.
Let me make sure we're looking at the same thing.
And we are.
Amendments to the Act.
Paragraph...
I love this.
I love this.
Criminal Code.
This is where they want to amend the Criminal Code.
Paragraph A of the definition of offense in Section 3 is amended by adding the following.
Offense motivated by hatred.
So they want to amend the Criminal Code to add this as an aggravating factor.
To a slew of offenses.
I don't know what's on that particular section.
Alright, so there was a, you know, okay.
An offense motivated by hatred.
Okay, well now we've amended that section.
Now we've got to define hatred under the criminal code.
We've done that.
We've done that.
We just did that before.
But here, listen to this.
Listen to this.
Advocating genocide.
People can't...
Every person who advocates or promotes genocide...
Advocates genocide.
What does that mean?
Promotes genocide.
Every person who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offense and liable to imprisonment for life.
Now, some people are oversimplifying it and saying if it's just a mere hate crime or you commit a crime that is deemed to be motivated by hatred, you get sentenced to life.
No.
There's other aggravating factors for that, but it's not.
No, this is specifically...
I'll steel man it.
I'll steel man Turto's bullshit law.
This is only for genocide.
So if you advocate or promote genocide, that's the only one.
Don't worry, people.
They're not going to use this anymore.
I got three questions.
What does advocate mean?
What does promote mean?
And what does genocide mean?
And I'm not trying to be glib and I'm not trying to be too cute for school or whatever the hell it is.
What is meant by genocide?
Are we going to go to the UN definition there?
The very broad one that, you know, displacing, changing language as qualifying, constituting genocide?
If you say everybody in a specific region should not be speaking, hey, everyone in Quebec should be speaking French.
Is that genocide?
Are you advocating genocide against Anglo-Quebecers?
Myself?
Jail for life?
Everyone in Quebec should be speaking French.
I've heard a lot of separatists say that.
Under the very broad definition of genocide, which can involve suppressing linguistic rights, that's genocide.
Some other ones, which are hot topics.
From the river to the sea.
Anyone who advocates or promotes genocide is subject to life in prison.
How are they going to define genocide?
From the river to the sea.
There are people who believe that that is a call for genocide.
Life in prison?
There are people who say that if you say Israel has the right to exist, that's genocidal.
Zionism is genocidal.
So if you say you're a Zionist, some people are going to say, that's genocide.
By saying you're a Zionist, you are promoting or advocating for genocide.
It's okay to be white.
There are people who believe that this is calling for those who are not to be white to be displaced.
Stop funding Ukraine.
If we get to the point where people say, well, Russia is committing genocide in Ukraine, Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, and you call on your politicians to implement policy that does not support opposing that, are you advocating or promoting genocide?
If you make an argument for the fact that Russia might have some historical, linguistic, cultural claim to the Donbass region in Ukraine, are you promoting genocide?
It's so...
F-ing insane.
It's so f-ing insane, and it's insane because it is not required to solve whatever problem they purport to exist now.
It's simply not required for it.
Now, I happen to have picked the bigger brain, or the brain of someone who I think...
I greatly respect what Michael Geist has to say, even...
I don't know where he stands politically.
He lives in Canada.
I believe he lives in Ottawa.
So I think he's a lawyer, and I believe he's an Ottawa lawyer.
And so he's under the regime and does not have the linguistic freedoms that I have, to say what I think.
But I don't know where he stands politically, but he's a smart guy, and I tend to respect what he says.
He put out a piece yesterday, I'm going to share it with everybody, where he basically says, the majority of this bill has nothing to do with online harm.
It has to do with amending a bunch of other laws that should not be amended, especially for this purpose.
I won't go through the entire thing because you should read it.
Having spent virtually the entire day yesterday talking to the media about Bill C-63, one thing has become increasingly clear.
The Criminal Code and Human Rights Act provisions found in the Online Targets Act should be removed.
In my initial post, I identified the provisions as one of three red flags warning that...
They, quote, feature penalties that go as high as life in prison and open the door to a tidal wave of speech-related complaints.
Bear in mind, people, I think that's all we need to see.
It's a good piece.
I'm going to give it to everybody so you can read it.
What they're trying to do right now is effectively legislate what they couldn't get away with in the Mike Ward persecution.
Link to Geist article.
For those of you who don't remember this, Remember, Michael Ward, stand-up comic.
Funny guy.
I interviewed him, actually.
He was fined by one of those commie tribunals that were set up to enforce the provisions of the Quebec Human Rights Act.
This is a stand-up comic.
I mean, everybody has to know this story already, unless there's a lot of new people on the channel.
Michael Ward is a French-Canadian stand-up comic.
He made jokes about les vaches sacrées, the sacred cows of Quebec.
People who you could not make fun of without getting into big trouble.
Hey, he ended up being the punchline of his own joke.
And he made fun of Celine Dion in a bit.
And at the time was a 16-year-old kid named Jérémy Gabriel.
Jérémy Gabriel suffered from a disease or a condition called Treacher Collins Syndrome.
His head was a little misshapen.
I think he was deaf, so he had hearing aids.
And the kid wasn't just a kid with a...
Am I going to get in trouble for that?
Disability?
We can still use that word?
Kid wasn't just someone with a diagnosed condition.
He became famous because he sang for the Pope.
And I'm not saying this to me.
His voice was terrible.
Everybody knew his voice was terrible.
It was an inspirational story because here's a kid with Treacher Collins Syndrome getting to sing for the Pope.
It was kind of cute.
He's sort of like a Macaulay Culkin kid.
Terrible voice, but it was inspirational.
Mike Ward did a bit on his late-night show on the internet, I might mix up some of the details, but it doesn't really matter, where this kid had become a celebrity, a big celebrity by this point, singing for the Pope, television, doing the rounds, and Mike Ward's bit was, I thought the kid was terminally ill, and it was a make-a-wish thing, and not, you know, that the kid was going to live forever, you know, and then he makes some joke about the kid, you know, trying to drown the kid in the pool, and he's still alive.
Tasteless, maybe, but tasteful comedy is not...
Particularly funny for the most part.
The kid filed a human rights complaint and won.
Not only did he win it, his mother also won.
And then it was like a $75,000 aggregate judgment.
$45,000 to the kid, $30,000 to the mother.
And Mike Ward appealed it.
And then the Superior Court, who looked it over, overturned it in part but affirmed it in part.
I think they overturned the part about his mother because his mother had no...
No relation whatsoever to the Human Rights Act.
And the lower court affirmed it.
And it went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.
And I'm fairly certain it was 5-4 where they said, no, this is not what the Human Rights Act was intended to restrict.
So Mike Ward, by the skin of his teeth, after a decade of litigation, I believe?
A long time.
Hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Supreme Court says, no, you don't criminalize and you don't get to civilly fine people for making jokes, especially about celebrities, even if they happen to be kids.
The Online Harm Act is trying to now ratify by way of legislation what they couldn't get away with in the Michael Ward prosecution.
Half of the provisions are totally unnecessary for what they need.
And, you know, there's some stuff in there.
Yeah, I'd like to know what's under the hood of the algorithms.
Let's see here.
Hold on a second.
There was something about Bill C-36.
Let me just see something.
I want to remember the...
There is no obvious reason or rationale for penalties of life in prison for offenses motivated by hatred, nor the need to weaponize the human rights.
Okay.
My recollection...
Here we go.
Here we go.
This is it.
The Criminal Code and Human Rights Act change originate in Bill C-36, which was introduced in 2020.
I knew I wasn't going crazy.
On the very last day of the parliamentary session, the bill died on the order paper with an election call several weeks later and did not form a core part of either the online harms consultation or the 2022 expert panel on online harms.
The provisions simply don't fit within a legislative initiative that is premised on promoting online safety by ensuring that social media services are transparent and accountable with respect to online harms.
Further, both raise legitimate concerns regarding criminal penalties and misuse of human rights complaint system, as we have seen.
And as is the purpose, they want to legislate and ratify what Mike Ward barely escaped by the skin of his teeth.
And I'm going to say, do it, do it.
Go to the court and have the court adjudicate on whether or not that provision of law defining hatred is not void for vagueness.
Is it, what was it, is it detestation or vilification or is it just a strong dislike and disdain?
Rage.
There should be political, judicial, legal rage.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light because that is what is happening coming out of Canada under the tyrant Trudeau.
Okay, I already got to this.
Life in prison.
I mean, look, I don't...
Am I going to be accused of advocating genocide by saying that you don't deserve to go to jail for life for advocating genocide, whatever the hell that means?
Death to...
And the people who are cheering this on, yeah.
From the river to the sea, people, if you get your way, you're one step away from life in prison.
Although, hey, maybe the political tide won't swing that way.
You'll escape.
But make America great again.
That's a call to genocide.
Life in jail in Canada.
Oh, lordy, lordy, lordy.
Link to tweet.
Now, I think that's what I had for the online thing.
then we're going to get into speaking of genocide.
Hold on.
Highlight of the day.
Serious question.
Okay, yeah, yeah, there we go.
Okay.
Oh, let's just play something.
I was going to start with these videos, but I decided to start with...
I hate Trudeau.
Listen to this.
Just bear in mind everything we've just talked about for the last, I don't know, 40 minutes?
35 minutes at least on this.
Bear in mind what we were just talking about.
A guy who wants to cloak his tyranny in benevolence.
Listen to this.
Get your gag reflexes ready and enjoy.
I'm not going to talk about internal European dynamics, but I will say that in all of our democracies, in every democracy around the world, we are seeing a rising...
movements of around the world.
We are seeing rising movements of either authoritarian politics Stop!
What the hell does that mean?
Authoritarian populism.
I'm going to Google that and see if there's any defined, generally accepted concept for that.
We're seeing a rise in authoritarian...
Populism.
I can think of tyrannical democracy.
Maybe there's a way to make that jumbo shrimp make sense, or that flat mountain make sense.
Let's just keep listening and keep gagging.
Or skepticism about democracy itself.
And we all need to recommit ourselves to standing up, not just for Ukraine, but through standing up for Ukraine, to the very principles that make our countries strong and free.
It is a time where citizens cannot take their democracies for granted, need to continue to be there, to lean in, not just on being worried about their daily challenges, which are significant everywhere around the world right now, but making sure we are building peace, stability and prosperity for future generations as well.
And that means standing up unequivocally.
For the international rules-based order, standing for democracy, against authoritarianism, against illegal invasions of another country's sovereignty.
Oh my goodness, is he talking about the southern border?
Holy crap, that's bigoted.
That's genocidal talk right there, Trudeau.
That sounds an awful lot.
Oh my goodness!
Standing against an illegal invasion.
International rules-based order.
Standing for democracy, against authoritarianism, against illegal invasions of another country's sovereignty.
These are principles that are under discussion in every country around the world.
And I know that the two of us are standing unequivocally alongside so many others in favor of the peace and prosperity that ensures a better future for everyone.
I loathe that man.
If he can narrowly be called a human.
Authoritarian populism, people.
It seems that there is...
There seems to be a...
Now on DVD...
No.
Wait a minute.
What is this?
Hillsdale?
I got an ad for Hillsdale?
Wait, is this...
IGI?
I don't even know what this is.
What is authoritarian populism?
I'm not sure how reputable this source is.
Political structures and practices of seeking popularity through claims of representing the majority, yet in real terms dominating and excluding them.
Doesn't make much sense to me.
More?
The terrifying rise of authoritarian populism from the Cato Institute.
Governments described as populist are now in power in Poland, Hungary.
Mexico and Turkey.
Hold on.
Wasn't he with the...
the Polish Prime Minister in that video?
Italy and Greece are governed by multi-party populist coalitions, while populists of the left or right are partners in coalition governments in seven other European...
Venezuelan is in freefall thanks to confiscationist policies of populist government.
Brazil has an outspoken populist president, and the ongoing Trumpist takeover of the Republican Party isn't just a populist spectacle itself, it has also helped fuel a surge of left-wing populism among Democrats.
What the hell is...
I'm sorry.
It's verbal diarrhea and I can't read it anymore.
But hold on.
We're not done gagging.
We're not done gagging.
I'm gonna get one more video of Trudeau.
Oh, I just have to show who these people are.
These are the people who are telling you what to do with your life.
What to do with your tongues.
And not in the Fanny Willis way.
Gross.
Gross.
Oh, heroes.
Heroes.
You guys are goddamn heroes.
You got your guards?
I mean, this could be Kim Jong-un entering his palace for all we...
Oh my god, look at that disgusting, that disgusting face right there.
Look at this.
Because a sociopath...
Someone who doesn't actually have proper human emotions, they know how to feign them, at least superficially.
What are we supposed to do in a circumstance like this?
I'm supposed to stare at you directly in the eyes to make it look like I'm a human.
Like, yeah.
Yes, I like you.
You like me.
Yes.
Oh, yeah.
We're real people.
Oh, look at this.
We've got our armed guards, our paparazzi.
They've been fighting in the trenches.
They've been fighting in the trenches for so long.
They've got rotten feet.
They're scar-battled.
Battle-scarred.
I can't stand it.
Okay.
I do want to highlight, you know, speaking of genocide.
And calling for self-harm.
I'm not getting into the Aaron Bushnell story.
It's just an abject tragedy of a mentally unwell person.
For those of you who don't know, Aaron Bushnell was a U.S. airman.
Took his own life by way of immolation.
Setting himself on fire.
Purportedly, because he said the words in protest for free Palestine.
Set himself on fire and died.
Under ordinary circumstances, I appreciate, you know, once upon a time, I think it was a Rage Against the Machine album, had a Buddhist monk who, you know, set himself on fire because they don't believe in violence, but immolation.
There's no circumstance under which I'm going to promote or praise, suicide, full stop, period.
Immolation is not, you know, you think you have a more dignified reason for doing it?
Period.
This was a mentally ill individual.
Who took his own life in a spectacle of a manner, whether or not harboring sincere beliefs, who on earth knows?
Someone at that point in their lives who's ready to do that I don't believe is in the right state of mind to have, you know, what we'll call a rational decision-making process for doing that.
Ordinarily, in a rational universe, it would be a tragedy.
People would probably or ought to probably treat it the way they treat people who commit suicide by jumping in front of rail cars or metros.
You don't publicize it because it tends to promote other people to do the same thing.
It's a known phenomenon.
Suicide is a contagion.
Ordinarily, you know, in a normal world.
We're not living in a normal world.
We're not living in a normal world with normal players.
We're living in...
In a world where, I won't say it's an increasingly evil world, but the evil has increasingly shown itself to be evil.
Let's go to this one.
This is Cornell West.
Truth, justice, love.
Let's see Cornell West's history.
One of America's most provocative public intellectuals.
The hell is a...
I did not know that when I replied to his tweet.
This was his tweet.
I don't know what it was before the edit because it was edited.
Cornel West tweeted this.
This is the man who set himself on fire.
Let us never forget the extraordinary courage and commitment of brother Aaron Bushnell, who died.
For truth and justice.
I pray for his precious loved ones.
Let us rededicate ourselves to genuine solidarity.
This is in respect of a man who just set himself on fire and committed suicide, ostensibly for a free Palestine, if that's what he genuinely believed in.
With Palestinians undergoing genocidal attacks against attacks in real time.
This is what a presidential candidate described, a man committing suicide in a horrific manner.
Extraordinary courage.
And there's going to be all steel man what people are saying out there.
Oh no, Cornell wasn't talking about his act of self-immolation.
He was talking about all of his other accomplishments in pursuit of supporting Palestinian rights.
Such as?
I don't think anybody heard of this guy until he did this.
Anybody pretending that, and I could steel man that bullshit argument as well, is a liar.
Clear, in your face, extraordinary courage and commitment to light himself on fire and take his own life in an act of self-immolation while saying, "Free Palestine." He died.
He didn't die for truth and justice.
If he wanted to fight for truth and justice and sincere support of the Free Palestinian Movement, there were other useful ways of doing it.
This is what Cornell has to say.
And my reply was short and sweet, much like me.
You're a sick fuck, Cornell.
And I have to argue with people, no, Cornell wasn't, he wasn't glamorizing suicide.
He wasn't glamorizing self-immolation.
He was, he was praising Bushnell for all of his other work, which, which, which no one knows about a few Facebook posts.
There is a legitimate Palestinian plight.
It might involve also liberating the Palestinians from the grip of Hamas.
It might also include that.
But there is a legitimate Palestinian plight.
And the way you fight for that is not by acts of barbarism against settlers, against Israelis.
It's not by acts of terrorism.
It's not by immolation and killing yourself.
There's productive ways of doing it.
But this guy, Cornel West, I have no doubt Cornel likes to see a white guy set himself on fire.
Oh, no, I wasn't celebrating the courage and commitment of committing suicide for a cause.
No, no, I was talking about all of his other great accomplishments, which I'm sure Cornel can list.
And I put out a tweet.
It's my sincere belief.
Anybody who praises this, anybody who praises an act of suicide...
Is one step away from praising or condoning an act of suicide?
Plus, it's inhumane.
What you are witnessing, in reality, is what I find to be a little bit too prevalent to one side of the political spectrum.
The willingness to abuse and exploit of the mentally unwell for political purposes.
You look at a party that is going to exploit the elderly.
With no shame, no qualms.
Use him for as long as he can, so long as it's politically profitable, even if it is, by most people's accounts and by most people's rational thought, elder abuse.
Joe Biden.
Remember when John Fetterman, after he had a stroke, going through a depression?
Democrats don't give a sweet bugger all that they're exploiting a man who's going through some mental issues.
They don't care.
We need a body.
We need to exploit this body for political purposes.
So, whatever he's going through, we don't care.
Work it.
A man who's mentally unwell to the point of setting himself on fire.
Well, we can now use this to bring awareness to our cause.
It is exploitation.
And it's disgusting.
And there's a legitimate cause under there.
And this, other than being just a horrendous, inhumane exploitation of a mentally unwell individual, does nothing to further the actual legitimate cause.
So I wanted to highlight that.
And he's running for president.
Courage, commitment.
Imagine if, like, it's just, I don't know what world we're living in sometimes.
I don't know if it was always like this.
And then I have to ask a serious question.
There's terms of service on Twitter.
You're not allowed telling someone to go do something bad to themselves.
Whether or not you think that that's an unfair infringement on freedom of speech, we're not talking about the government saying you can't say GKY to somebody, GKY to somebody.
That's not what we're talking about.
We're talking about terms of service on a platform.
It's a long-recognized one that you don't tell people to go harm themselves.
You don't celebrate it, you don't encourage it, because it is something of a social contagion.
It has been historically.
Oh, this guy gets away with it.
I mean, I don't even care.
It's like, leave it up.
I'm not calling for it to be taken down.
How is it not violative of Twitter terms of service?
I think reading the self-harm policies.
Hold on a second.
Twitter.
Self-harm policies.
Pretty sure it's a straight-up violation.
You may not promote or encourage suicide or self-harm.
Pretty sure it's a straight-up violation.
I don't care.
Leave it up.
I want the world to know who Cornel West is.
Meh.
Yeah.
That's that.
Okay.
What else is there?
No, that's it.
Okay.
People, have we done it?
I'll give everyone the government...
Hold on a second.
Let me do this.
I'll give everyone the link to the bill.
Our locals community has had it all morning.
And I'm going to go over there after this and have an after party.
Okay.
They praise him, but they vilify Ashley Babbitt, says Froggen Rigel.
Here, hold on one second.
There's a bunch of rumble rants that we're going to get to before we end this.
And I'll give everyone a link to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
Come on over afterwards.
Link to locals.
Like praising a suicide bomber, says Jackie K. It's just like we're one step.
The Overton window, by the way, when that happened, I was like, okay, the Overton window just shifted a little bit more in a way that I never thought would in my lifetime.
All right.
What do we have out here?
Kay Safel says, a.k.a.
retired analyst, Socrates chose death rather than be silenced for telling the truth.
Canada will pay the bill so anyone that disagrees with them can too.
Ginger Ninja says, Canadian, quote, safety, end quote, bill passes.
Every Canadian politician...
What is this?
Hold on a second.
Let me see what that is.
Ginger.
Ginger Ninja, the man who made this chessboard behind me.
This is a joke.
This is a joke.
Okay, I don't know what...
This is out of context, people.
I am black.
I am gay.
I am disabled.
I am a woman.
Okay, hold on.
What the hell is going on in there?
This has got to get one of the funniest all-time trying.
He got nerves of steel for not bursting out.
Okay, I don't know what that is.
Ginger, thank you for that.
And let's get back to finishing up the rumble rants.
If government can legislate hate, they can legislate all emotions.
Let me see what's going on here.
Seems like Trudeau likes trans people so much he wants them in minefields.
Oh, that's under the...
Oh!
Well, let's just...
No, we're going to save that.
We're saving that for locals.
The new budget.
Just a cool three billion bucks.
Three billion more dollars.
Finboy Slick.
To Ukraine.
We're gonna get that.
Okay, let's do that.
And we got Finboy Slick.
Trudeau...
Okay, thank you very much.
This is the link.
We're gonna open this on vivabarneslaw.locals.com for our exclusive after-party.
Trudeau gender-inclusive demining, in case you weren't aware yet.
Finboy, I was because one of my other...
Not a mole, one of my other contacts, a trusted source, sent it to me.
I'm like, it's amazing.
And Ginger Ninja says, your original quote, ignore, deny...
Demonize, moralize.
Yep, that one was better than the version I got afterwards.
My favorite scene was when Terrence did the cut-through.
Okay.
Everybody, thank you all for being here.
We're going to go over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
It's 2 o 'clock.
I put hot coffee in the freezer to make myself an iced coffee.
Will it be frozen through and through, is the question.
We'll find out.
In fact, you'll all find out if you come over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com tomorrow.
I'm going to be on Dr. Drew at 6 o 'clock-ish with Kayla Pollack, talking about her situation and her lawsuit.
Oh, shoot.
Reminds me, I've got to put together a short summary of her lawsuit for the interwebs.
And then I'm going to be on a podcast afterwards.
Let me just get the name of it right.
Cutting it close.
Well, what is the name of the podcast?
It's with, I don't want to mention anybody's name unless I'm not allowed to.
Hold on, hold on.
That's going to be tomorrow.
Tomorrow, I'll be live during the day.
I will be on the interwebs.
I can't get it fast enough now.
And then the podcast is 7.15 because I'm going to be cutting it very close from Drew.
Raising awareness for Kayla Pollack.
Actually, before we head out, let me just do this one here.
Give, send, go.
Not Luna.
Kayla Pollack.
Here, what are we at here?
She's raised the budget.
They've raised the amount to $100,000, and they're at $72,000, and thank goodness.
Everybody, if you can, I have given, and I'm doing my best to both be financially useful and awareness useful.
Kayla Pollack, this is her Give, Send, Go.
I'm going to give everybody the link, so if you have anything, and if you don't have, and if it's, I mean, appreciate times are exceedingly tough.
Share the link.
That is as useful as a donation because just get awareness for Kayla's story.
I had her on.
It's a tragedy.
It's an outrage.
It's another reason why Trudeau has saved himself a seat in hell.
They got $3 billion for Ukraine, but they don't have enough to give proper care to Canadian citizens, and they actually have the demonic audacity to suggest medical assistance in dying.
State-sanctioned murder as far as I'm concerned.
So, that's it.
If you're so inclined, get your butts on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
Locals.
And we're going to end it there, but I need to get that link one more time from Finboy.
And this is what we're talking about over there.
So come on over, and I will see everyone on the Rumble side.