A case study in propaganda： How the left-wing media demonized Trump through photographs
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
170.23074
Summary
The colour of Trump's face has been altered to make him appear redder, redder and redder. Is this a deliberate effort to demonize and delegitimize the President, or is it just plain bad journalism?
Transcript
00:00:00.000
Hello, my Rebels. Today, boy, I tell you a story about pictures. I go through various photographs
00:00:07.620
of Donald Trump that have been doctored or that certain color filters have been added to by the
00:00:14.320
mainstream media. You can listen to the story, but boy, I wish you could see it in video,
00:00:19.040
because I take you through about three or four photographs and videos, and I talk about the
00:00:23.080
color of Trump's face. You know, that sounds funny, but his enemies say he's orange. I actually don't
00:00:30.420
think he's orange. I think just a few photographers put on an orange filter. I'm going to try and prove
00:00:35.340
that. Anyways, if you want to see the video version of this podcast, go to premium.rebelnews.com.
00:00:43.100
Sign up for the video version. It's eight bucks a month.
00:00:46.820
Uh, anyways, enjoy the podcast. I, uh, I hope it makes you curious enough that you check out the vid.
00:01:10.960
Tonight, a small case study in propaganda, how the left-wing media demonizes Trump
00:01:16.720
through photographs. It's October 3rd, and this is the Ezra LeVant Show.
00:01:23.180
Why should others go to jail when you're a biggest carbon consumer I know?
00:01:26.860
There's 8,500 customers here, and you won't give them an answer.
00:01:30.920
The only thing I have to say to the government, the wire publisher, is because it's my bloody right to do so.
00:01:42.140
Do you remember this outrageous story by Trudeau's CBC State broadcaster?
00:01:46.420
It was right after Donald Trump was inaugurated, and the CBC literally hired actors to go around
00:01:52.980
Canadian cities pretending to be racists and trying to entrap unsuspecting Canadian citizens
00:01:59.140
into saying or doing racist things in reply. It was so contrived. It was the definition
00:02:04.820
of fake news. It was a Jussie Smollett-style hoax. It goes to show you how unhateful Canada is.
00:02:12.820
The Trudeau's state broadcaster had to literally pay actors to be racist because they couldn't find
00:02:18.520
any naturally occurring racists. Just awful, unethical in every way.
00:02:23.840
By the way, they also stole our trademarked hats, make Canada great again, and tried to imply that
00:02:29.120
making Canada great again was somehow racist. We had our lawyers write to their lawyers,
00:02:33.760
and they actually apologized and agreed never to do it again, and they destroyed all their
00:02:37.640
counterfeit hats. What a bunch of thieves they are. Anyways, one of the things that always stood
00:02:42.960
out to me, and remember this was done by a consumer production show on the CBC called Marketplace,
00:02:48.580
a show that's supposed to expose fraud, not conduct fraud. One of the things that stuck
00:02:53.920
out to me was the deceptive coloring of Trump's face. Look at this. Look at how they make his face
00:03:00.540
redder and redder and redder. Take a look. We want to know if the Trump effect has come to Canada.
00:03:07.280
We want to have the wall, a great border wall. They're bringing drugs. They're rapists. A total
00:03:15.080
and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States. We don't want them in our country.
00:03:22.360
We will make America great again. Look at that. In 20 seconds, the CBC made his face redder and
00:03:32.320
redder. Look at how it was 15 seconds ago. It was normal. Maybe they made it a little bit redder
00:03:38.640
there to begin with. And then look at how red his face was 15 seconds later. That's a form of
00:03:45.280
propaganda. That's deception. It's altering an image. It's literally fake news, just like hiring
00:03:51.460
fake actors to be fake racists. I mean, if you can't find any racists in Canada other than the
00:03:56.340
racists you've hired, maybe it's not the Trump effect. Maybe it's the CBC effect. You're causing
00:04:01.980
the racism. Maybe Captain Blackface is the racist. Anyways, I've been thinking a lot about that
00:04:08.900
outrageous instance of fake news because they do that trick all the time, particularly with
00:04:14.080
Donald Trump, because he is an unusual looking man. His hair, his face, his skin color, a little bit
00:04:19.740
unusual, especially when it's matched to his personal style. Now, perhaps the CBC would say,
00:04:24.420
well, that Marketplace video, it was just for dramatic effect. It was all autistic licensed.
00:04:29.380
They're not trying to fake you out or deceive you. It's just an artistic interpretation. Yeah, right.
00:04:35.160
On CBC Marketplace, a show dedicated to fighting against false advertising and deceptive practices.
00:04:40.800
Like I say, it was a disgrace. But how about a straight news show? Literally just a random video
00:04:45.880
on CBC News. Well, look at this picture that the CBC used as a thumbnail on a video about a Trump
00:04:52.940
meeting. Look at that picture. Is that touched up too? Now, CBC itself didn't take that picture.
00:05:01.140
A photographer with Reuters named Kevin Lamarck took it, and it was widely published by every
00:05:06.260
anti-Trump newspaper in the world. Is that really what Trump looks like? Or did they touch it up a bit?
00:05:14.240
Like the kids do on their Instagram photos. Did they make him look a bit more orange?
00:05:22.600
That's what they say. They call him the orange man. They love it as their insult. Did this
00:05:27.440
professional photographer at Reuters alter his photos to make him more orange? I mean, that's
00:05:33.500
obviously why the CBC chose that photo. Save them the trouble of altering it themselves.
00:05:38.880
Here's the link to Kevin Lamarck's entire body of work. Scroll through it. He hates Trump.
00:05:47.160
Forget about just coloring the photos. He must take hundreds of photos, or more likely just
00:05:52.080
takes a high-definition video stream and then selects the instant, the one instant, the one frame
00:05:58.720
that makes Trump look like a total idiot. That one moment where he makes a certain shape with his mouth
00:06:04.800
that we all do when we pronounce a certain thing. But if you froze it there, you'd look insane.
00:06:10.560
Like this one. Or this one. This is actually another one. Kevin Lamarck isn't doing this by accident.
00:06:19.200
If he was this bad in all his photos, he'd be fired. Reuters has him do awful photos only on this one
00:06:26.180
subject, Donald Trump, because they want to make Trump look like a blithering fool who gets his tongue
00:06:30.840
caught in his orange mouth. It's the same reason why the glamorous supermodel, Melania Trump,
00:06:37.320
who has graced the cover of every fashion magazine in the world, hasn't been on a single magazine cover
00:06:42.920
since she's been first lady, whereas the less photogenic Michelle Obama was on a new glamour mag
00:06:49.480
every month. They hate Melania, or they hate her only because of her marriage to Trump. If they do show
00:06:55.480
Melania Trump, it's always looking sad or sullen. They actually have a media narrative.
00:07:00.040
She's so unhappy. She truly feels trapped by Trump. We must save her from him. She's a beautiful woman
00:07:05.880
who always smiles. But do you really think Reuters, the company that specifically signs Kevin Lamarck
00:07:11.640
to cover Donald Trump, do you think they'd ever show her smiling to let her look pretty?
00:07:17.560
It's literally fake news. But let me show you something I just noticed now.
00:07:21.560
Trump just had a press conference with the president of Finland. Obviously, all the questions from the
00:07:27.320
American media were about the fake news scandal du jour impeachment or something, Ukraine or something.
00:07:31.640
I mean, not one in ten of those White House reporters could find Finland on a map.
00:07:35.720
Here's how I first heard of this meeting with the Finnish president.
00:07:38.920
It was in a tweet from the New York Times. This tweet.
00:07:43.320
Donald Trump responds to reporters' question about Ukraine during a meeting in the Oval Office.
00:07:48.280
Wow. He literally looks insane there. He looks like he's screaming. And the color of his face,
00:07:55.720
orange, red, pink. And his teeth are so white and his hair is so light, it serves to make the
00:08:01.080
orangeness of his face impossibly sharp. It's almost like you're looking at a negative photograph,
00:08:05.720
you know? Super white, super dark, white teeth, white hair, orange, red face. And oh, he's showering,
00:08:11.320
isn't he? And it reminded me of the other photographs, the Kevin Lamarck specials.
00:08:15.800
And I thought, I wonder if I can check what Trump really looked like before they put him through the
00:08:21.320
filter. Let me check because I think this is more fake news. This time it's not from some
00:08:26.360
losers at Justin Trudeau's CBC state broadcaster in Canada. And it's not from that weirdo Kevin
00:08:31.560
Lamarck, I don't think. The tweet, at least, is from the New York Times. Is that really what Trump
00:08:37.560
looked like? Really? At the Finland meeting? Really? Well, let's see. I'll show you some video first,
00:08:43.720
which is what I watched. Because I wanted to see if Trump really was screaming. So here's,
00:08:48.840
I don't know, 30 seconds from CNN. Not exactly Trump fans over there. What does Trump look like?
00:09:00.280
Well, the whistleblower was very inaccurate. The whistleblower started this whole thing by writing
00:09:04.920
a report on the conversation I had with the president of Ukraine. And the conversation was
00:09:11.560
perfect. It couldn't have been nicer. I saw Rick Scott. I saw many of the senators talking about
00:09:15.880
it. Many of the congressmen talking about it. Not a thing wrong. Unless you heard the Adam Schiff
00:09:22.680
version where he made up my conversation. He actually made it up. It should be criminal. It
00:09:26.920
should be treasonous. He made it up. Every word of it made up and read to Congress as though I said it.
00:09:34.280
And I'll tell you what. He should be forced to resign from Congress. Adam Schiff. He's a low life. He should be
00:09:40.520
forced to resign. Oh, so he wasn't screaming at all. He was mad, I think. But he was
00:09:46.360
in complete control. He was emphatic, maybe. But he was just being himself. And every
00:09:50.520
once in a while, he sort of grimaced just for a second in between phrases. He does that as a
00:09:54.920
mannerism. I think that's one of the split-second moments the photographer grabs to make it look like
00:09:59.880
he was screaming. It wasn't. It's sort of like how he punctuates his phrases. And the color. His hair
00:10:06.040
isn't white anymore, is it? It's blonde. His face is slightly orange in hue. I'll grant you that.
00:10:13.160
But it's not the bright orange and pink chromatic colors of that New York Times picture.
00:10:19.000
I think they whitened his teeth and his hair and reddened his face for the shocking contrast.
00:10:23.560
Look at that New York Times tweet again. Sorry, that's fake. That's doctored. That's
00:10:28.280
that's what the kids do on the Instagram filters to make themselves look funny.
00:10:31.240
Okay, well, maybe CNN got it wrong. Let's check with a pretty objective presidential chronicle,
00:10:44.680
saying he has the duty to report corruption, President says Biden's son is corrupt, and Biden
00:10:48.840
is corrupt, and I'd rather run against Biden than almost any of those candidates. I think Biden has
00:10:53.000
never been a smart guy, and he's less smart now than he ever was since Trump. So Noller,
00:10:57.640
as you can see, is reporting what Trump said, and it's accurate. He doesn't imply Trump was screaming,
00:11:02.360
because Trump wasn't. And look at that photo. Blonde hair. I think that's a normal colored face.
00:11:09.560
At least nothing you'd say is insane. Like the New York Times photo makes you do. Like that old CBC
00:11:18.120
Kevin Lamarck photo makes you do. Here's the Washington Post video feed just for comparison.
00:11:22.920
Here, let's watch 30 seconds of this. I won the case. I didn't see one story that I won that case.
00:11:29.080
Not one story. From the fake news. I didn't see Steve write it. I didn't see you write it.
00:11:34.920
I didn't see anybody write it. So let me just tell you, just to finish. Nancy Pelosi and Shifty Shift,
00:11:43.560
who should resign, in disgrace, by the way, and Jerry Nadler and all of them,
00:11:49.560
it's a disgrace what's going on. And we should be focused on making America great again and keeping
00:11:55.080
America great. You can see those split-second facial tics that Trump does. Like this is for
00:12:00.920
a second the ones that the newspapers grab to make it look like he's shouting like a gorilla. He's not
00:12:05.000
shouting. There are his physical punctuation marks between his comments. But again, my main point is the
00:12:10.200
color here. Trump's normal, normal hair, normal face, normal teeth in this Washington Post video.
00:12:17.960
Washington Post hates Trump, and that's fine. It's a legitimate point of view, fair point of view.
00:12:23.080
But my friends, this photo that the New York Times published, I think it's actually a Reuters photo.
00:12:29.240
It's a lie. I mean, it's hard to imagine that a photo can lie. You know, we like that saying,
00:12:35.160
do you believe your lying eyes? Your eyes, you know, you see the truth. But your eyes can lie to you
00:12:40.760
if the picture is a lie, and it lies to you actually more effectively than any else
00:12:45.560
could lie. I mean, if someone was telling you a lie, telling you words, watching a video that was a
00:12:51.240
lie, it would not be as effective as a lie in a photograph because the lie is instant. You don't
00:12:56.760
even think about it. You don't have to pay attention and be convinced of it. A lying photograph is an instant
00:13:03.160
deception. You saw it. Trump is orange. You saw it with your own eyes. Trump is red and wild. Maybe
00:13:09.080
he's even insane. He was shouting. You saw the proof of it. Look, the words of the media party are fake
00:13:15.640
news. They're deceptive. In the case of the Canadian CBC, they outright literally did a hoax. But these photos,
00:13:22.520
they're just as bad. They're far more powerful. You just can't trust a word the mainstream media says.
00:13:31.560
And you know what? You can't even trust the photographs either. Stay with us for more.
00:13:37.800
We've created a multicultural chaos. Because the problems they see is there's blooming all over
00:13:55.880
Europe. You have no-go zones. You have rape epidemics. You have all kinds of problems. The
00:14:01.480
most that I've been told about was a young woman that was taken to a flat and she stopped counting at 36.
00:14:12.920
What? 30s? Six adults. Yeah, in one night. But what happened to left-wing feminist movements?
00:14:22.280
They seem, many of them, to be strangely silent on this issue. They do not understand that they are
00:14:28.040
taking their own graves. It's normal for these people when they think like that because it's our
00:14:37.960
religion. It's our real jihad. This is just, I don't know. I don't even know what to say. I'm speechless.
00:14:54.360
I have to warn you that it doesn't matter how you produce and how you cut this documentary.
00:15:00.040
You have to know that you will be labeled a Nazi or a racist just because you made this movie.
00:15:12.280
Well, that is a clip, various clips from the movie Killing Europe. I've, I haven't watched the whole
00:15:18.360
thing. I've skimmed it. It's a little bit of a low production value, as they say. Like I'd say,
00:15:23.800
if you went to see it in a big fancy movie theater, you'd say, oh, that felt a little homemade.
00:15:28.280
Could have used a little more editing. That's my recollection of when I watched it. But the subject
00:15:33.480
matter and even some of the personalities in it should be very familiar to Rebel viewers. Some of them
00:15:38.280
I interviewed when I myself visited Europe, including Sweden and other places. As you can see,
00:15:43.880
the main subject of it is the mass wave of Muslim immigration to Europe, both on the continent and
00:15:51.800
in the UK and how that has transformed to society. There's no doubt about it. The movie criticizes it.
00:15:57.880
Look at the title Killing Europe. But should people be able to watch that movie at all? Should Canadians
00:16:05.320
be able to pay to see it? Well, that was a matter that was before an Ontario court recently.
00:16:11.720
As a group of Canadians wanted to show that film in a public library in Ottawa, they rented the space.
00:16:21.800
They were selling tickets to people who wanted to see it until the censors deployed and de-platformed
00:16:28.600
the event, banning it. Well, the good news is there's still one or two Canadians who believe in freedom
00:16:34.120
of speech. And our old friend John Carpe of the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedom took the case
00:16:39.800
for freedom of speech and he joins us now in studio. John, good to see you again. Good to see you.
00:16:44.360
Did I properly summarize what happened in Ottawa? It was an Ottawa public library, private room rental
00:16:51.640
by a group of people. They were going to show it to a group of ticket buyers and then some Antifa
00:16:58.520
style censors basically shouted the library into submission. I don't know if the censors were as bad
00:17:04.280
as Antifa. I mean, they're non-violent as far as we know, but people said, some individuals agitated
00:17:09.960
on Facebook and social media and whatnot and said, this is anti-Muslim hate speech. And so, no platform
00:17:18.280
for hate. And they put pressure on the library. The library had signed a contract. They had agreed to
00:17:24.280
do it. And of course, as always, you know, there's no formal complaints of hate speech, criminal hate
00:17:30.280
speech. There's no complaints filed with the police and there's no prosecution for hate speech. And
00:17:35.480
it's not criminal hate speech. But people say, oh, it's hate, it's hate. And then the Ottawa library
00:17:42.120
caved into political pressure, canceled the contract. And then the two ladies, Madeline Weld and Valerie
00:17:51.560
Price Thomas, took the library to court. And we lost the first round with the court saying,
00:17:59.320
kind of sidestepping the whole issue, but saying, well, we don't really have authority to review
00:18:04.200
the decision made by the public library. So they didn't say whether the public library's decision
00:18:10.040
was right or wrong. They just said, we don't really have jurisdiction over that.
00:18:12.840
Well, I mean, listen, I don't practice law anymore, but, you know, contract's a contract.
00:18:17.880
Why would the court claim it doesn't have jurisdiction to enforce a contract?
00:18:22.120
Well, because the claim was brought as a declaration that it was for judicial review. So the claim was brought
00:18:27.640
forward, not as a breach of contract. It was brought forward as a judicial review,
00:18:32.840
because the Ottawa library is a government body. And then the court said, we don't have jurisdiction.
00:18:38.040
And the court actually said, you could sue in contract. But I think that misses the whole point.
00:18:42.280
Right. Because the big point, in my view, is that you've got a public authority, a governmental body,
00:18:49.960
and they've decided, and they don't have to do this. They could fill up all their rooms with books,
00:18:55.320
but they've decided we're going to have some rooms that are publicly as a service to the public.
00:18:59.480
We're going to have some rooms that you can rent out. And then they've injected their own personal
00:19:05.160
politics into this and said, well, you're not allowed to rent the room because you've got,
00:19:08.200
you don't have the correct political views. So you're barred from renting the room. That's a problem.
00:19:14.040
Yeah. You know, I remember in law school many, many years ago, one of the cases that we studied,
00:19:19.800
and I remember it because it was just so interesting. It was called Ron Corelli versus
00:19:23.640
Duplessis. Yes, Duplessis. And it was the Jehovah's Witness restaurant owner. And the
00:19:29.160
Premier of Quebec was very upset with him. Because he was always posting bail. All these
00:19:33.000
Jehovah's Witnesses were doing things. Street preaching. And then they're getting arrested.
00:19:36.760
And then this guy, Ron Corelli, kept posting their bail. And so Duplessis was so mad, he said,
00:19:43.240
who is this Ron Corelli? Oh, he's got a liquor license? Take away his liquor license.
00:19:48.920
And it was for that political reason. And that case, and you correct me if I'm wrong,
00:19:53.240
set the rule that if you're in government, you can't use the instruments of government
00:19:57.240
for your personal vendettas. One of the many good principles out of that case, absolutely.
00:20:03.400
It's the rule of law. So why should, if the Premier of Quebec, a mighty position,
00:20:08.760
has to be neutral in how he exercises the power of the state, why should the Ottawa Public Library
00:20:15.160
be able to get away with it? Well, they shouldn't. And I, you know, we're talking about appealing the
00:20:20.600
case. We'll be announcing a decision at some point in the near future about whether we're going to
00:20:26.680
appeal it or not. There are pros and cons and there are costs and there's risks of furthering a bad
00:20:31.320
precedent. You know, it's complicated. So we're in discussion with the clients on it right now.
00:20:36.120
Did any lawyers intervene on behalf of the, of the library? No. No. So this is not,
00:20:44.440
this is not becoming a huge national case where everyone's lining up on either side.
00:20:48.200
This was just really a case of de-platforming and censorship.
00:20:51.160
In my view, that's absolutely, it's absolutely that. De-platforming and censorship saying,
00:20:58.280
you know, I don't like, I don't like your opinion. I don't like what you're saying.
00:21:01.880
So no platform for hate. I get to censor you and I get away with it because I'm, you know, this,
00:21:08.600
this holy angel or this, this, you know, wonderful person fighting against hatred and bigotry. So
00:21:13.720
I can get away with silencing you just by calling you hateful. This is the dynamic that's at play.
00:21:18.760
And it's very, very toxic. It's, it's very bad that you can simply censor something
00:21:24.200
by calling it hateful and ending the discussion.
00:21:27.880
Hate is a human emotion. Um, it's natural. We want to control our hate. We don't want to
00:21:33.080
become violent. We don't want to direct our hated injustice.
00:21:36.040
Yeah. And we want to transform our hate to into something positive. We want to use it as fuel to
00:21:40.680
be constructive and to fix the underlying grievance. I mean, hate often comes from a feeling of injustice.
00:21:47.400
Absolutely. And if you can take that and fix the underlying grievance, you've not only fixed
00:21:54.040
a problem, but you've turned off the tap for hate. So you can't just say we're going to all love each
00:21:59.880
other. And that's the law because if you haven't fixed the underlying problem, you've just, it's
00:22:04.440
like painting, it's like putting paint over a deeply rusted metal. You might've hidden the rust.
00:22:11.240
But, but you didn't fix the problem. I, you know what? I, this movie is a tough movie. I mean,
00:22:17.560
I didn't, I haven't watched the whole thing through, but I watched a large chunk of it.
00:22:21.960
My, my main reaction was, boy, this could have used a bit more spit and polish before it being
00:22:26.280
out there. But these people who wanted to see it, they wanted to see it. And, and I, and I have to
00:22:31.000
tell you, the censors who blocked it, they didn't change anyone's mind. If anything, I think they would
00:22:37.400
convince people that this film is powerful. It's so powerful that people want to block it.
00:22:41.960
Like there's something mysterious about something that's banned. I mean, every, every school boy who's
00:22:50.760
told he can't read some book because it's too grown up. Well, that's the only book they want
00:22:55.720
to read. You know, it adds a mystique to hate, to ban it, I think. Well, I, I saw the whole movie.
00:23:02.760
It is as biased as any other documentary. I don't think I've ever seen an unbiased documentary. When
00:23:08.200
people put together a documentary, typically they do have an opinion, a perspective, something that,
00:23:17.080
and some documentaries are better than others because they're more
00:23:20.440
honest. There's that movie, The Red Pill, for example. And the author said, you know, she went into
00:23:26.680
it, author, producer, creator, person went into it to, I guess, discover just how bad the men's rights
00:23:34.760
movement is. And over the course of time, you know, through interviewing a whole bunch of people,
00:23:40.120
she had a shift in, in, in her opinion. And at the end of the movie, she says, I no longer
00:23:45.400
call myself a feminist. Okay. So maybe that, so, but the point is this, every documentary is got some kind
00:23:53.400
of perspective or viewpoint or, or bias. And, you know, every media story has bias, even if they're
00:24:01.240
trying to be objective. This is a very negative take on the negative impact of the Muslim migrants
00:24:08.760
coming into Europe in 2015. But it is open to anybody else to argue that it's wrong, that it's biased.
00:24:17.240
Other people can produce documentaries that show the positive impact of immigration into Europe and
00:24:23.960
how positive impacts could include, you know, this, maybe it's enriched the culture or it's done this,
00:24:29.160
that, the other thing. But just to shut it down with the name calling, I think is, that's bad for
00:24:35.560
the free society. Yeah. I got a question for you, because in recent weeks, we've seen a lot more
00:24:40.280
censorship, more and more brazen all the time, I think. And there are groups that maybe 30,
00:24:47.320
40 years ago would have roused themselves. I mean, I think back to the best moments of the ACLU,
00:24:57.080
where they would send a black or a Jewish lawyer to defend Ku Klux Klan members.
00:25:04.760
Or anti-Semitic speech. Yeah. And the reason they sent the Jews and the blacks
00:25:10.520
is to make the point, obviously, we don't agree with the Klan, we're Jewish and black,
00:25:16.760
but we understand that you have to fight for freedom for everyone. And there was something
00:25:20.520
really noble about that, I thought. And in Canada, there was a moment where we had that,
00:25:25.400
when Alan Borevoy ran the Canadian Civil Liberties Union. I think he was part of that old-school,
00:25:31.080
60s mentality, civil liberties. I have not seen in five, maybe 10 years, an organization in Canada,
00:25:40.280
Penn International, Canadian Association of Journalists, Canadian Journalists for Free Expression,
00:25:49.480
Amnesty International. I have not seen any of these so-called civil liberties groups,
00:25:55.880
including ones with a focus on journalism. I just simply haven't seen one of them stand up for free
00:26:02.200
speech at all, even for leftist free speech. Can you think of one case? Like, banning movies,
00:26:10.600
and everyone's, yeah, that's so cool. It's okay. There is a good exception. In British Columbia,
00:26:16.760
the BC Civil Liberties Association has consistently defended the free speech rights of pro-lifers.
00:26:22.600
Okay, good for them. Even though the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association is avowedly
00:26:27.560
pro-choice, disagrees with the pro-life speech entirely, but says they have a right. And they
00:26:32.680
represented the Youth Protecting Youth, which was a pro-life club at the University of Victoria.
00:26:38.600
Okay, well, I'm very glad to be corrected on that. So they're good. But sadly, you know,
00:26:44.200
you look at the Trinity Western litigation. In 2001, when the BC Teachers College
00:26:49.800
took the same approach that the Law Societies did and said, you know, because you,
00:26:54.440
the BC Teachers College said to Trinity Western University, because you believe that gay sex is
00:27:00.520
sinful, you are not eligible or qualified to run a teacher's program to train up teachers.
00:27:08.680
That was in a nutshell, right? And then 15 years later, the Law Society say the same thing.
00:27:12.840
Because you think that gay sex is sinful, and for that reason alone, for no other reason,
00:27:17.000
you're not allowed to start a law school, even though we admit that the law school that you
00:27:21.880
propose is academically sound and meets all the professional criteria. But there, they shifted.
00:27:28.200
And 15 years ago, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association came down on the pro-freedom side
00:27:34.040
of, with Trinity Western saying, they have a right to have their teaching program. Because,
00:27:40.920
you know, if they have, they happen to think that sex outside of marriage is sinful, well,
00:27:47.000
they have that freedom. 15 years later, Civil Liberties Association came down on the side of
00:27:52.680
the Law Societies against Trinity Western University. Very disappointing.
00:27:56.280
Well, disappointing is the understatement. They-
00:27:59.640
They might still be good on free speech. You know, credit where credit's due.
00:28:03.320
Well, show me where that's the case. I accept your statement that the BC Civil Liberties Group is good.
00:28:09.560
I haven't seen a thing out of the Canadian version. Not one thing. And maybe I've missed it,
00:28:15.480
but I think I've got my finger on the pulse of free speech, at least in Toronto and nationally.
00:28:20.520
And I haven't seen that peep from them ever. If you go to their website, I mean,
00:28:25.000
let me just use the Canadian journalist for free expression. Pretty clear in their name,
00:28:29.000
what they stand for. Never are they against censorship rules that I've seen. In fact,
00:28:34.440
their last big petition was to ban Donald Trump himself from speaking in Canada when
00:28:40.440
trying to get him banned from speaking at the G7 conference. First of all-
00:28:45.400
What's that got to do with your function? But I guess if the only thing is banning speech,
00:28:52.280
your name is false advertising now. I find it deeply depressing, which is why I like talking
00:28:57.080
to you because at least it's nice to see one guy fighting back. Well, listen, thanks for keeping us
00:29:01.000
posted on this case. I'm pretty sure you can find this movie online because that's where I would
00:29:06.120
have seen it. I watched it. You can spend three,
00:29:08.440
four or five dollars and see it online. I think that's what I did. Yeah, it's called Killing Europe.
00:29:13.560
And I think everyone is fairly familiar with the story now because four years later,
00:29:18.600
we've learned so much more about that mass migration wave. I'm glad you're fighting for
00:29:22.840
free speech in Canada's capital city. Thank you. All right, there you have it, John Carpe. He's the boss
00:29:28.600
of the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedom. You can check it all out at jccf.ca. And like us,
00:29:36.840
he doesn't take a dime from government, so he depends on you, my fellow viewer and friend of John.
00:29:43.560
All right, stay with us. More Ahead on the Rebel.
00:29:54.280
Well, that's our show for today. What do you think of my thesis I made earlier?
00:29:57.720
That a photograph is actually the most powerful propaganda tool,
00:30:01.560
even more than words, even more than a video, because you have to pay attention to something
00:30:05.960
that's unfolding in words or video or reading. Photograph, you just see it in the corner of your
00:30:09.480
eye. You don't even know that you've ingested it. Trump was orange and pink and shouting. I saw it with my
00:30:16.600
own eyes. If someone said, hey, guys, Trump was orange and pink and shouting, you'd have to pay
00:30:22.360
attention. You have to think about it. You maybe or maybe wouldn't be convinced, but you see it.
00:30:26.840
It's done. It's in your mind already. I think photographs are the most powerful propaganda.
00:30:33.560
And in politics, they're used all the time. When was the last time you saw a bad
00:30:38.920
media party photo of Justin Trudeau? When was the time you saw a good media party photo of, I don't
00:30:45.560
know, Stephen Harper, the late Rob Ford? You never do. I think we have to be alert to this,
00:30:53.160
and I think the CBC is one of the worst of it. They're into hoaxes all the time.
00:30:59.080
All right. Well, that's our show for today. Until tomorrow,
00:31:01.480
on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, to you at home, good night,