Rebel News Podcast - June 24, 2021


EZRA LEVANT ｜ Why is the WHO secretly changing its advice on COVID vaccines for kids？


Episode Stats

Length

38 minutes

Words per Minute

162.70349

Word Count

6,190

Sentence Count

417

Misogynist Sentences

2

Hate Speech Sentences

6


Summary

Why is the World Health Organization secretly changing its advice on whether kids should get vaccinated? Ezra takes you through a rather confusing press release by the WHO, and explains why the drug companies themselves have not even tested the vaccines themselves. Is the WHO lying again for China?


Transcript

00:00:00.000 Hello, my rebels. Today, I take you through a rather confusing press release by the World
00:00:04.380 Health Organization. I don't put a lot of stock in what they have to say ever since they repeated
00:00:08.880 the Chinese propaganda that the virus doesn't spread person to person. But they made such a
00:00:14.540 stunning statement yesterday about the vaccine in kids. I just want to take you through it line by
00:00:19.520 line. And I don't know, I just found it just an incredible read. It's pretty brief, so stay with
00:00:26.800 us. Before I get to that, let me, pardon me, invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News+. That's
00:00:33.480 the video version of this podcast. Just go to rebelnews.com, click subscribe. It's eight bucks
00:00:38.680 a month. You get my video show, Sheila Gunn-Reed, David Manzi, Andrew Chapados, and you get to
00:00:43.900 support Rebel News because we don't take a dime from Trudeau. All right, here's today's podcast.
00:00:56.800 Tonight, why is the World Health Organization secretly changing its advice on whether kids
00:01:10.280 should get vaccinated? It's June 23rd, and this is the Ezra Levant Show.
00:01:17.240 Why should others go to jail when you're a biggest carbon consumer I know?
00:01:20.760 There's 8,500 customers here, and you won't give them an answer. The only thing I have
00:01:26.040 to say to the government of a wire publisher is because it's my bloody right to do so.
00:01:35.600 You know, I've stopped paying a lot of attention to the World Health Organization. I mean, they
00:01:42.020 were obviously very important in the pandemic. Important, that is, in spreading the virus.
00:01:47.440 They were the ones who propagated the Chinese government's lie that the virus was not contagious
00:01:53.640 person to person. They're the ones who had a secret meeting at which Teresa Tam attended
00:01:59.600 that they decided not to raise the alarm. They had a vote, and Teresa Tam won't say which way she voted
00:02:06.240 at that secret meeting. Did you know she worked for the World Health Organization for the early months
00:02:11.160 of this pandemic? I ignore her, although I suppose I hear their messages all the time.
00:02:17.140 Because every public health official sets their compass according to the World Health Organization.
00:02:23.600 It's like their North Star. The World Health Organization, the acronym WHO, they come out
00:02:29.920 with some ruling, and it's like every public health official in every country repeats it. I really don't
00:02:36.280 know why we have hundreds of public health officers since they're really all just repeating what's said
00:02:42.960 by the WHO. That said, I heard they said something interesting about vaccinations and kids. So the
00:02:51.660 first time in months, I actually read what they said. You know, the trouble is, if you talk about the
00:02:59.260 World Health Organization the wrong way on YouTube or Twitter, you'll actually be censored. So you have
00:03:05.840 to be careful. But the first thing you need to know, and I'm going to jump right into their explanation on
00:03:11.760 vaccines, is none of the vaccines have finished the usual Food and Drug Administration trials. They're only
00:03:19.380 authorized for emergency use, but none of them have been approved. But here in their statement, the World Health
00:03:26.540 Organization says the vaccines are safe and effective, even to Chinese ones. Take a look. As of the 3rd of
00:03:37.060 June 2021, WHO has evaluated that the following vaccines against COVID-19 have met the necessary criteria
00:03:45.560 for safety and efficacy. That means that they work. AstraZeneca, Oxford, Johnson & Johnson, Moderna, Pfizer,
00:03:55.160 BioNTech, Sinopharm, and Sinovac. Hang on. How does the World Health Organization evaluate and say they
00:04:06.740 are safe if the drug companies themselves are not yet done testing them? How can the World Health
00:04:14.280 Organization say, no, no, no, they're safe when the drug companies themselves don't say that? And here's
00:04:20.340 another question for you. I've heard of AstraZeneca, and actually I've heard of all of these.
00:04:24.360 The last two, they're Chinese, as you can tell by the name, Sinopharm and Sinovac. Is the World Health
00:04:34.660 Organization lying again for China again? Because I see news reports out of countries that have taken
00:04:41.780 these Chinese vaccines, and in fact the pandemic is spreading like wildfire there. Is this just
00:04:50.080 propaganda? Did the World Health Organization even test, or are they just doing what their
00:04:54.120 Chinese boss is saying? I don't understand the juxtaposition in this next point. I'm just going
00:05:00.520 through the World Health Organization statement. They say you should talk to a doctor about being
00:05:07.000 at risk for side effects. I think that's a good idea. But only if supplies are limited in your area.
00:05:15.780 What does this supply of a vaccine have to do with whether or not they're safe for you to take?
00:05:20.840 Let me read it. If supplies are limited in your area, discuss your situation with your health care
00:05:26.140 provider if you have a compromised immune system, are pregnant, have a history of severe allergies,
00:05:31.620 particularly to a vaccine, or any of the ingredients in the vaccine, or are severely frail.
00:05:37.720 I think those are all good things to talk to your doctor about. But why does that only apply if
00:05:43.100 supplies are limited in your area? Should you not be worried about these side effects? It's really
00:05:50.580 weird to me. I want to raise one more question about consulting with your doctor and asking questions.
00:05:55.320 I think those are good things to ask your doctor. If you've got a severe allergy, you should check if
00:06:00.240 you're allergic to the ingredients in the vaccines. But is that question, are you allergic to the
00:06:06.380 ingredients in the vaccines? Is that question really being asked by children as young as 12 years old,
00:06:13.900 who in Canada, in many jurisdictions, are allowed to consent to a vaccine without their parents even
00:06:20.000 knowing about it? Does a 12-year-old know to ask all these questions about the ingredients of the
00:06:26.380 vaccine? And would the vaccinator know the answers? In some cases, it might be a very sophisticated
00:06:32.160 doctor who has studied these things, or a nurse who is very familiar with them. But in many cases,
00:06:37.420 the people giving you the jab are not particularly experts in vaccines. They might not even be doctors
00:06:43.760 or nurses. Are they able to answer questions about the ingredients in the vaccine? Do they even know the
00:06:52.520 answer? And is it meaningful consent to be jabbed if you don't know the question, if you don't get the
00:06:59.060 answer? And if it's a child? This next part is confusing too. The World Health Organization says
00:07:05.700 COVID is milder in children, so it's not urgent to vaccinate them. And we know that's true.
00:07:14.700 But then the World Health Organization says there's not enough evidence to recommend kids get the shot.
00:07:20.660 Well, so which is it? Should kids get it, but just less urgently than older people? Or should kids,
00:07:28.320 not get it at all? How do you choose? Let me quote from the actual report. Children and adolescents
00:07:36.720 tend to have milder disease compared to adults. So unless they are part of a group at higher risk
00:07:42.640 of severe COVID-19, it's less urgent to vaccinate them than older people, those with chronic health
00:07:49.280 conditions and health workers. So they're saying, don't give it to them first. But look at that very
00:07:53.200 next sentence. More evidence is needed on the use of the different COVID-19 vaccines in children to be
00:07:59.520 able to make general recommendations on vaccinating children against COVID-19. I agree with that. But
00:08:04.660 wasn't the very first thing we read that they've evaluated these and said they're safe? They said
00:08:10.240 they're safe and now they're saying we don't have evidence that they're safe. We don't have evidence
00:08:13.560 we should advise it, except for if supplies are out. Like, I don't even understand. This is not an
00:08:20.580 internally consistent document. But look at that. After all that, this is, I think, a terrifying part.
00:08:26.840 After all of this, the World Health Organization says even once you're fully vaccinated,
00:08:32.120 you should still wear a mask. You should still keep one meter, three feet apart from anyone.
00:08:41.180 And if you're inside with someone, wear a mask and open the window. I haven't even heard that one
00:08:48.180 before. Is this really meant to persuade people to get the shot? Look at that. Even after you're
00:08:53.680 vaccinated, keep taking precautions. Keep at least one meter away from others. Wear a mask, especially in
00:08:59.860 crowded, closed, and poorly ventilated settings. Clean your hands frequently. Cover any cough or
00:09:04.480 sneeze in your bent elbow. When indoors with others, ensure good ventilation. Doing it protects
00:09:09.680 us all. I've just never heard that open the window thing. But if it protects us all,
00:09:15.700 and here's the crazy part that might get me suspended if I say this on Twitter or YouTube,
00:09:21.240 the version I've just been reading to you and I've shown you the primary document on the World
00:09:26.880 Health Organization website, that's what's on the website now. You can go there to who.int.
00:09:33.860 That's short for international. You can see it for yourself. But in the last 48 hours,
00:09:40.200 they changed their message. A day and a half ago, it specifically said, quote,
00:09:47.040 children should not be vaccinated for the moment. What? That's what it says. What changed in the last,
00:09:56.860 36 hours? Was it the science that changed or the politics? You can see for yourself. Who should get
00:10:03.820 vaccinated? The COVID-19 vaccines are safe for most people 18 years and older. And then lower down,
00:10:12.500 children should not be vaccinated at the moment. Now, even that at the moment thing is really weird.
00:10:20.400 What does that mean? It's not safe now, but just wait a moment. It's going to become safe in a moment.
00:10:24.500 How do you know? What are you expecting to happen? Maybe when it's finished its trials,
00:10:31.740 its experiments, its tests, maybe not in a moment, but maybe in several years we'll know.
00:10:36.880 What does that mean? It's not safe just in the moment. Just wait a moment. What? And you're saying
00:10:41.180 this about all the vaccines, including the two Chinese ones. I don't even get it. More evidence is
00:10:48.560 needed. Where will that more evidence come from? I think it was Alex Berenson who caught this stealth
00:10:54.220 edit. He's someone I follow on Twitter. He's skeptical, but he's not a conspiracy theorist. All he does
00:11:02.780 is look at official documents and say, are you serious? I want to know who rewrote the World Health
00:11:10.300 Organization's COVID vaccine recommendations after getting caught being honest and saying,
00:11:16.000 kids shouldn't take it for a moment. Who did? Was it a scientist? Was it a politician? Was it China?
00:11:24.980 I guess what I would say is the World Health Organization hasn't changed a bit. It's still
00:11:31.780 running propaganda for China. And more importantly, it's running propaganda for the public health
00:11:37.600 industrial complex. How is this whole gong show supposed to build public trust and undo public
00:11:45.960 skepticism? I think that there were people who love the mask and love the lockdown and see it as a
00:11:53.120 being part of an in-group and they like to brag on Twitter. They were the first in their neighborhood
00:11:57.760 to get a shot. Those folks love the vaccine, not particularly for any health reasons, but it shows
00:12:03.020 what team they're on. But there's a lot of people out there who are skeptical about the vaccines.
00:12:09.200 And when they hear things like this, that recommendations against kids using them have
00:12:13.980 been changed for obviously political reasons, that skepticism only grows. And what does it mean
00:12:18.880 to be told even once you're fully vaccinated, still wear a mask, still be three feet away from
00:12:24.980 people, still open a window when you're in a small place with someone? I thought that the argument
00:12:31.980 or the sales pitch from the pharmaceutical companies was get a jab and it'll set you free,
00:12:38.160 not get a jab and you're now in this world of half measures, like not six feet apart, but three feet
00:12:43.820 apart. You know, I saw news out of a major hospital in the States, more than 150 staff at the hospital
00:12:55.940 were fired or quit because they were required to take a vaccine. Now this isn't some hospital in some
00:13:04.420 terrible places. This is a first rate hospital in a first rate medical system. 150 plus people said,
00:13:13.120 I will not get jabbed. And so they lost their job over it, either quit or were fired. These folks
00:13:21.900 probably know more about healthcare and the practice of COVID medicine than anyone in some
00:13:29.520 ivory tower. They're actually with the sick people every day. They see the vaccines, they see the
00:13:34.520 treatments. They know more than me. I just read things, but they're actually dealing with people.
00:13:40.760 Some might be doctors, some might be nurses, some might be support staff, but over 150 at one hospital
00:13:48.320 say, not only am I saying no to the jab, I'm so adamant about it that I will lose my job over it
00:13:56.380 rather than taking it. What do they know that we don't know? And do you really think stealth editing
00:14:05.040 advice like the World Health Organization is going to build public trust? And to the social media
00:14:11.760 companies, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, do you think it builds public trust when even having the discussion
00:14:17.740 that we're having here is enough to get you kicked off those platforms? Stay with us. More happy.
00:14:36.020 Welcome back. Well, if you were to judge by the subjects that Justin Trudeau and his cabinet
00:14:42.580 ministers put the most energy into, you'd think that the problems in Canada have nothing to do with,
00:14:49.040 oh, I don't know, lack of pipelines or lack of jobs or inflation. You would think that all this
00:14:56.300 government cares about is taking down statues of John A. MacDonald, of racism and running public
00:15:04.340 service announcements against Canadians for being so racist and for censoring. I mean, you would think
00:15:10.980 that this government is obsessed by being woke and attacking all critics as racist and you'd be
00:15:17.940 right. And one of these subjects that this government has put more energy into than anything else is a
00:15:24.760 censorship and government regulation bill that was rammed through the House of Commons this week.
00:15:30.900 It's called C10. It'll amend how the CRTC regulator deals with the internet. It'll start to deal with the internet the same way it's dealt with traditional TV and radio companies and all the regulation that is attendant therewith.
00:15:48.620 Joining us now to talk about it is our friend Andrew Lawton from TNC.news and the Andrew Lawton Show. Great to see you, Andrew.
00:15:55.520 Andrew. As always, my pleasure, Ezra. Thank you. I tell you, the amount of energy they put into this
00:16:01.560 censorship bill, the amount of battles they fought, the effort they put to ram it through Parliament.
00:16:08.060 I just think if they had put that towards something constructive, something to make us more prosperous or more
00:16:13.960 happy or more peaceful, they could have done amazing things. But that's not as important to them as censoring their enemies.
00:16:19.780 Yeah. And you know what? I've often said that Bill C10 is a one-two punch. It's part one of a one-two punch.
00:16:28.220 The second part that we've learned about from the National Post this week, which is a bill
00:16:32.520 that will go after what the Liberal government says is hate speech. And the reason this is so important,
00:16:39.580 and I said this months ago, is that Bill C10 laid a regulatory framework to start penalizing people
00:16:46.460 that publish offending content as defined by this new bill that we haven't yet seen in much detail.
00:16:53.820 And why that's so dangerous is because the government has already, through C10, if it gets
00:16:57.840 through the Senate, and I hope it doesn't, before the Parliament rises for the summer, they've created
00:17:02.820 a system where people that want to post videos on YouTube, maybe they want to be TikTok or Instagram
00:17:08.400 influencers, maybe they want to maintain a blog, all of a sudden that is under the regulatory purview of
00:17:13.800 the government. And as much as they like to say, oh, we're not going after content, wait till you see
00:17:18.380 the next bill.
00:17:19.420 Yeah. Well, and that's the thing. I just saw that headline. We'll show it on the screen. I absolutely
00:17:23.620 believe it. I had some role, a small role, along with Mark Stein, in repealing Section 13 of the
00:17:32.320 Canadian Human Rights Act. You might recall that almost 20 years ago now, I mean, it's 15 years,
00:17:39.100 at a little magazine I had called The Western Standard, we published the Danish cartoons of Mohammed.
00:17:43.380 And that got me sucked into this whole human rights censorship business. I fought back,
00:17:50.000 Mark Stein fought back, we tried to turn public opinion around. And because Stephen Harper had a
00:17:55.160 majority government, when you know it, we actually managed to get the government to support a private
00:18:00.780 members bill to repeal Section 13. And just for those who don't know what that section is,
00:18:05.480 it banned, it made it an offense to publish anything, quote, likely to expose a person to hatred or
00:18:15.200 contempt. So it was a future tense crime, you publish something that's likely to make him have
00:18:22.500 hard feelings about her. So it was an anti-feelings crime, there was no due process, and you didn't even
00:18:29.860 have to prove anything happened. It's just it might in the future, you publish something which might
00:18:34.160 cause him to be mad at her. It was a ridiculous law, we got it repealed, the liberals want to bring
00:18:40.500 it back. Not just bring it back, but bring back a supercharged version of it. One of the big changes
00:18:48.140 in the way people communicate online from 2006, 7, 8 until now, is that the internet has been
00:18:55.280 consolidated in a lot of ways. The independent blogs are less common. Most people's online speech
00:19:01.040 is funneled through a YouTube, a Facebook, and all of these other platforms. And why this bill,
00:19:07.860 as we know it now, is going to be worse than Section 13, is because it will give the government
00:19:14.120 basically the mandate of demanding social media companies take down content. So the only thing that
00:19:20.680 I think is worse than government censorship is government censorship with a state agent in big
00:19:27.440 tech companies, which already are prone to censorship. And they're going to have 24 hours
00:19:32.160 to zap whatever content the federal government says is offending. And there are two problems with
00:19:36.760 this. Number one, the social media companies who don't want to deal with Canadian bureaucrats
00:19:41.360 will just say, yeah, you want us to take it down, we'll take it down. The other issue is that social
00:19:46.600 media companies that already want to censor content will use this law as an excuse and say,
00:19:52.720 oh, well, we've had to draft a hate speech policy to conform with Canadian law. And whatever you may
00:19:59.000 think of Mark Zuckerberg or Jack Dorsey or all these tech guys, you know what, your grievance if they
00:20:05.280 take down your content is with them. Well, when the government has put a policy in place that these
00:20:11.160 people are complying with, you can't appeal that censorship to the government still. Your grievance is still
00:20:16.320 with them, but they have this other policy to blame. So what this bill will do is still go after
00:20:21.780 online speech, but it will do it in a way that makes big tech companies state enforcers of government
00:20:28.160 speech codes. And this will not end well for anyone. Yeah, it's outsourcing censorship. I mean,
00:20:33.520 by the way, every day at 12 noon, we do a live stream on four different platforms. One of them is
00:20:39.320 YouTube. We're weaning ourselves off YouTube because we know they're going to cancel us one day.
00:20:43.900 But in the live chat, so we're live stream, you know, I'm chatting in real time. I'm talking
00:20:49.960 vocally, but in a little box next to the video screen is people typing their messages like a
00:20:56.140 ticker tape. And most of the comments are published. But YouTube has a sophisticated,
00:21:04.240 well-developed AI, artificial intelligence, that has been taught what words are bad,
00:21:11.500 what phrases are bad. And so if I'm logged into our account, as I see those chats scroll by,
00:21:18.600 I'd say about a quarter of them are automatically suspended by the machine, by the robot, by the AI.
00:21:27.980 And they're put in gray italics and there's a little button that says confirm or delete or
00:21:33.820 something like that. So I can override them. But if I don't touch them and there's hundreds of these
00:21:39.100 going by, I don't even have time to read them. The machine automatically censors them before anyone
00:21:44.980 even reads them, before anyone even complains about them. And they censor the strangest words.
00:21:51.940 Like I saw today, they censored the word moron. Now, moron is not a nice thing, but you can still
00:21:58.060 use the word moron, you know, in polite company if you use it the right way. Or maybe you don't want to
00:22:05.000 be polite. That is censored. So that is so far beyond the law. That's so far more invasive than any
00:22:12.680 hate speech law or crime. I'm just giving one example. There's hundreds of words like that.
00:22:17.680 I think the word flat earth was banned today. So my point, Andrew, is that big tech is already so
00:22:26.600 Orwellian, so censorious, and it's all robots. It's not even people. But the idea that the government
00:22:32.700 would be even stricter, that's terrifying to me. It is. And I mean, I laid out the two scenarios.
00:22:40.880 Big tech companies will go along with this because they don't want to deal with the fight
00:22:44.140 in a country that's relatively insignificant in their grand scheme of operations. Or they'll use
00:22:49.620 this as political cover, if you will, for censorship they already want to impose. And I should say,
00:22:54.720 True North, where I do my show, we are in, I believe right now we're on day five of a seven-day
00:23:00.760 suspension. I won't say the name of the person I interviewed, because I don't want you to get
00:23:05.040 suspended by association. But he makes pillows in the United States. And he's a good friend of
00:23:10.580 Donald Trump's. I did an interview with him months ago. And last week, YouTube decided,
00:23:15.720 you know what, we've canceled him. And now we're going to come after you for talking to him.
00:23:19.800 And off goes our entire operation. So these things are increasingly common. But if this were to happen
00:23:25.520 under the Liberals bill, I'd be forced to wonder, oh, wait, was this YouTube that did this? Or is this
00:23:30.400 because of the federal government? Can I apply for judicial review? Can I sue over this? I mean,
00:23:35.300 these are questions that basically result in an answer that explains how buck passing is taking
00:23:41.880 place at the hands of the government here. And I just have to say, Ezra, you downplay your role,
00:23:46.640 but you played a very pivotal role in the repeal of Section 13. You literally wrote the book on this,
00:23:52.080 and Shakedown, I still have in my library. And Mark Stein and lots of others did tremendously good
00:23:57.380 work here. And people forget how important that fight was. It seems like a lifetime ago. And I
00:24:04.620 would remind people, this was repealed in 2013. It took Stephen Harper being in power for seven years,
00:24:11.340 seven years before this law was repealed. The prosecution of Mark Stein for America alone took
00:24:19.080 place during a conservative reign. And I know that was the BC Human Rights Tribunal that ended up going
00:24:24.320 towards. But these things happened with a conservative government in power. So the importance
00:24:29.180 of standing up and not letting this become a thing that needs to be repealed is so critical.
00:24:35.480 Yeah, you know what? It is. I remember that battle. It was very hard to move the machinery
00:24:42.200 of the legislature to get something repealed. I couldn't believe how hard it was, but it was a victory.
00:24:47.480 The liberals want to undo that victory. Here's the difference. I remember that cartoon kerfuffle.
00:24:55.600 And when I was prosecuted, when Mark Stein was prosecuted, I remember my book. That was,
00:24:59.500 like you say, a dozen years ago plus. I had the support of more than 90% of what I now call the
00:25:07.640 media party. I just did. I did more than 100 interviews about publishing those cartoons.
00:25:13.380 And I can count. There were exactly two instances of journalists, both who worked for the CBC,
00:25:19.460 who weren't on my side. But even other CBC journalists were on my side. It was almost
00:25:24.300 unanimous in the media that I should have the right to publish those things, even if people didn't
00:25:29.780 agree with them. Now today, it would be 90% the other way around. In fact, all the big newspapers in
00:25:38.580 this country are on the newspaper bailout. They love this regulation of big tech because
00:25:45.140 Trudeau has promised to ring out Facebook and ring out Google and throw a few crumbs at these old dying
00:25:52.120 newspapers. So just a couple of weeks ago, the front page of all the major newspapers in Canada
00:25:58.760 had a pro-regulation letter on the front page. So the reason I'm telling this story is in the course
00:26:07.440 of a decade or a dozen years, the media went from pro-freedom to pro-censorship and from being
00:26:14.520 independent to actually lobbying for regulating the internet. So we are alone now, you and me and a
00:26:22.820 handful of independents, because all the big boys have been co-opted. That's another scary
00:26:28.900 development. It is. And one of the big, I think, points of this is that there was a principled stand
00:26:35.360 from people in the media when this all reared its head 15 years ago or so, because they realized,
00:26:41.100 as Margaret Atwood realizes, as Salman Rushdie realizes, that when one person's free speech is
00:26:46.480 threatened, everyone's free speech is threatened. But the reason so much of the mainstream media has been
00:26:51.260 completely silent on Bill C-10 is because they only care about their freedoms. They only care about
00:26:58.000 their protection. So once Stephen Gilboa said, oh, yeah, yeah, the mainstream news media, they're
00:27:02.920 going to be protected from this. The media said, OK, we're fine. We can move on. And it wasn't just
00:27:07.860 the media. I remember there were some principled liberals who were standing up for free speech back
00:27:12.440 in the day. The most notable that comes to mind is former Senator Jerry Grafstein. I think he gave you
00:27:17.400 a pair of liberal cufflinks, if I'm not mistaken, at one point. And again, the liberals who are
00:27:22.580 prepared to stand up for free speech, completely absent now. Yeah. You know, that's a great point.
00:27:27.400 And there was a liberal MP named Keith Martin. He actually was originally a reform MP. He introduced
00:27:32.700 a motion for free speech, too. So there was a freedom wing. Scott Sims, who actually still sits
00:27:39.600 as an MP, was the lone liberal to vote for the repeal of Section 13. There was that was a different
00:27:45.500 time. I don't know what every journalist in the country thinks, but it doesn't matter really what
00:27:50.700 they think, because the media there are. There's only really one newspaper chain in English Canada
00:27:55.680 now. I mean, there's the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail, but all the other dailies
00:27:59.920 they're owned by Post Media, which is owned by Chatham Asset Management of New Jersey. So
00:28:06.760 they don't care about ideas. They care about money. And if they're getting a newspaper bailout
00:28:13.000 from Justin Trudeau, and now Stephen Gilboa's promising them free money from Facebook and
00:28:17.700 Google, the boys down in Chatham Asset Management in New Jersey are going to say, all right,
00:28:24.700 our corporate point of view is we're for this regulation because we're about making money.
00:28:29.260 And I don't know how many actual newspaper reporters in Canada oppose this regulation because
00:28:34.580 their owners in New Jersey are easily bought off for the cash. That's a dark turn of events
00:28:40.640 that wasn't the way a dozen years ago. But we'll keep finding it's what we do, Andrew.
00:28:46.160 Absolutely. And it's important. And, you know, one of the things that I can make a prediction
00:28:49.940 here, which I don't often do, so pay attention to it, is that what the liberals are going to do
00:28:56.260 is make an emotional argument for this. And it's no coincidence, I believe, that this is coming
00:29:02.520 just a couple of weeks after that horrific, horrific attack in my city of London against
00:29:07.100 a Muslim family, which without any evidence, Justin Trudeau said, oh, we bet online hate was
00:29:11.160 probably responsible for that. We know the liberals are going to try to hold up examples
00:29:15.840 of unpopular speech, perhaps even offensive speech, and say this is why we need to ban it.
00:29:21.220 But just remember, if you start letting censorship take place because you don't agree or like the
00:29:26.580 particular speech in question and you don't want to defend it, it's not going to be long before
00:29:31.200 speech that you do find valuable is targeted. And this is why you need to move beyond what
00:29:36.740 the liberals are going to do to reframe this debate, which is say, well, you know, what
00:29:39.980 about this person who said this and this? Ignore all of that. Free speech is free speech.
00:29:45.620 Yeah. Well, I mean, as Alan Borovoi used to say, free speech is the gift you have to give
00:29:51.060 your opponents if you want it for yourself. Hey, listen, Andrew, we've been talking about
00:29:56.180 free speech, which is important to both you and me, but you've been working on a big project
00:30:00.020 for a number of months now. And it's just we're on the final touches. So you're not quite ready
00:30:05.480 to roll it out. But why don't you give us a bit of a teaser? You've got a new documentary series
00:30:10.800 coming out called Assaulted. Give us one minute on that and then we'll play the trailer.
00:30:16.000 Absolutely. So I'm very excited about this. Assaulted, Justin Trudeau's war on gun owners.
00:30:21.400 This has been months in the making. I travel the country talking to real gun owners, sports
00:30:26.800 shooters, gun business owners, people who have very real and very significant consequences
00:30:34.380 they've had to contend with in the wake of Justin Trudeau's gun bans. And, you know, when
00:30:38.940 I talk about business owners, I'm talking about people that have been saddled with hundreds
00:30:42.580 of thousands of dollars of inventory. It is now illegal for them to do anything with.
00:30:47.020 I'm talking about one business whose entire company was made illegal overnight with no recourse.
00:30:52.420 Sports shooters, people competing in the Olympics who are unsure if they're going to wind up
00:30:57.600 in jail because of some regulatory change. So this is a project that's never been done
00:31:02.900 in that it's showcasing the stories of the real victims of Justin Trudeau's gun control.
00:31:08.840 And it's called Assaulted, Justin Trudeau's war on gun owners.
00:31:12.080 Well, that's great. Now, we've got a short trailer. And by the way, folks can learn more
00:31:15.540 at Assaulted.ca, right?
00:31:18.000 Yes, Assaulted.ca.
00:31:19.240 OK, here, let's take a look at the trailer.
00:31:22.420 We are closing the market for military-grade assault weapons in Canada.
00:31:35.560 It really is my identity. It really is my culture. And it's every bit as legitimate as anyone else's culture.
00:31:43.280 We're just regular people that go out and have this as part of our being.
00:31:55.080 We are not the problem. The guns are not the problem, right?
00:31:58.620 It's the public's perception that has become the problem.
00:32:06.400 On one hand, I'm literally, I'm going to the Olympics, I get to represent Canada.
00:32:10.080 It is one of the greatest privileges that I ever get to do, that I get to wear the maple leaf
00:32:14.840 and represent Canada. It is such a privilege.
00:32:17.680 And on the other hand, I'm so devastated that I have no idea if at some point I'm going to get thrown in jail
00:32:23.340 because I've missed, I've missed something.
00:32:30.680 They actually pulled up, they got out, they had their guns drawn,
00:32:34.800 and it was pretty much, I opened the front door and they're like,
00:32:37.820 you're under arrest and you need to come with us.
00:33:00.660 Well, there you go. Can I hardly wait for the final version?
00:33:03.400 Andrew, great to see you again. Love your show. Love TNC.news.
00:33:08.740 And, you know, you and Rebel, you were in court, we were in court fighting against the debate commission ban.
00:33:16.040 And then we saw you over there in the UK on free speech battles covering Tommy Robinson's trial,
00:33:21.960 going to the Media Freedom Conference where they tried to ban us.
00:33:25.220 So you have been a battler in the censorship war for many years.
00:33:32.580 So I'm very glad you're still engaged with it because we need all the friends we can have.
00:33:37.100 And you love free speech as much as anyone.
00:33:40.500 And I'm very grateful to you for it.
00:33:42.540 So great to see you again, my friend.
00:33:44.180 Always a pleasure. Thanks very much for the kind words.
00:33:46.420 All right. There you have it. Andrew Lawton of The Andrew Lawton Show.
00:33:49.220 Stay with us. More Andrew.
00:33:50.220 Hey, welcome back on my show last night on our Fight the Fines project.
00:34:04.740 R.G. writes,
00:34:05.320 Well, thanks very much. And it was good for me to hear it again.
00:34:19.900 I mean, I talk to Victoria every day and I talk to the paralegals once in a while and I get involved with some of the lawyers.
00:34:25.360 But just to stop and take half an hour and go over the whole thing and pull the camera back, so to speak,
00:34:31.880 it is an impressive accomplishment.
00:34:33.960 And I don't take the credit for myself.
00:34:35.580 I mean, you saw and heard who's doing it.
00:34:37.740 It's Victoria, the paralegals.
00:34:39.600 We've got three full-time people on Fight the Fines in addition to, I don't know,
00:34:43.940 I'd have to count them up, 15 or 20 lawyers across the country.
00:34:47.000 It is big.
00:34:47.840 1,800.
00:34:49.320 That sneaked up on me.
00:34:50.680 I mean, the last time I got a full update, we were at 1,200.
00:34:54.360 So far, so good.
00:34:55.480 And thanks for donating because, you know, 10, 15 new cases a day.
00:35:01.700 We will keep taking cases as long as we have donors.
00:35:05.680 And hopefully that charitable tax credit makes a difference.
00:35:09.540 Janine writes,
00:35:10.120 Thank you to all the lawyers and paralegals.
00:35:12.340 You're my type of hero.
00:35:13.740 Well, I enjoy the work.
00:35:16.340 Again, I'm not as immersed in it as Victoria and the others are.
00:35:19.840 But, you know, what tools do we have?
00:35:24.020 Politically, I don't see that there's a party that expresses this point of view.
00:35:27.400 I just don't.
00:35:28.200 There's a few rogue individuals like Randy Hillier and Derek Sloan and Maxime Bernier.
00:35:33.460 But I don't see a party, certainly not in opposition or even in government.
00:35:37.620 I don't see media other than Rebel and a few, like there's a few voices in the National
00:35:43.120 Post and a few voices in the Toronto Sun and, of course, our friends at True North.
00:35:47.020 But I think I've just listed them all, like the media is so universally on the side of
00:35:51.340 the lockdowns.
00:35:52.700 There's just not a lot of institutions.
00:35:54.420 But, you know, giving individual families a lawyer feels like a good thing to do.
00:36:01.440 Soulful Living writes,
00:36:02.280 My boyfriend and I are so grateful for your help to fight our fines.
00:36:05.820 I'm looking forward to the resolution.
00:36:07.320 Well, there you go.
00:36:09.060 You know, you have 1,800 cases.
00:36:12.020 That's 1,800 families.
00:36:13.740 That's thousands of people we've touched.
00:36:16.440 Sounds like you're one of them.
00:36:17.960 I'm glad that you are grateful.
00:36:20.840 I'm glad that we're helping.
00:36:22.880 You know, we can't guarantee success.
00:36:25.800 That's in the hands of a judge.
00:36:27.560 But we have had a successful resolution.
00:36:30.120 And I think it was 91 cases of which the majority, it was withdrawn.
00:36:34.160 And we're going to keep fighting.
00:36:35.200 My hope is that governments just say, all right, let's just let these things lapse and
00:36:41.420 let the passage of time sort of wipe them out because of the want of a speedy prosecution.
00:36:46.980 But I know that's not going to be the case with all of them.
00:36:49.440 We see in Manitoba and New Brunswick and in other provinces that the government has a
00:36:55.340 real vengeance.
00:36:56.620 But we'll be there.
00:36:57.640 So thank you for your very kind words.
00:36:59.160 And most importantly, thanks for the donations to the Democracy Fund.
00:37:02.700 And just to reiterate, none of that money even touches Rebel News.
00:37:05.820 It goes straight to the Democracy Fund bank account.
00:37:08.740 And from the Democracy Fund, it pays the lawyers and the paralegals directly.
00:37:12.200 So money doesn't even pass through the Rebel.
00:37:13.840 We're doing it because we believe in it.
00:37:15.420 And we think it's an important story to tell.
00:37:18.080 That's our story for today.
00:37:19.400 That's our report.
00:37:20.600 Until tomorrow, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, to you at home,
00:37:24.140 good night and keep fighting for freedom.
00:37:32.700 We'll be right back.