EZRA LEVANT ｜ U.S. poised to sanction UK speech censors — could Canada be next？
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
158.48434
Summary
What s the line between needing America's help to fight for freedom, and giving up our sovereignty? Ezra LeVant takes a look at what's happening in the UK, Canada, and Canada's response to threats from the US government to censor the internet.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
Hello, my friends. I saw a very interesting story that the United States is considering
00:00:04.580
putting sanctions on British officials who are threatening to censor the internet. Could
00:00:10.460
you imagine that? Sanctions on a British bureaucrat? Well, imagine if they tried that in Canada.
00:00:17.360
Would you like that? Or would you think that's Americans butting into our business? Or do
00:00:21.420
you think that we need the help? We'll talk about it today. But first, let me invite you
00:00:25.460
to become a subscriber to what we call Rebel News Plus. That's the video version of this podcast.
00:00:30.460
Just go to rebelnewsplus.com, click subscribe. It's eight bucks a month, which we really rely on
00:00:35.460
because we don't take any money from the government. This is how we pay our bills,
00:00:39.040
rebelnewsplus.com. All right, here's today's podcast.
00:00:47.680
Tonight, what's the line between needing America's help to fight for freedom
00:00:51.580
and giving up our sovereignty? It's August 21st, and this is the Ezra LeVant Show.
00:01:11.480
I saw an amazing headline at InfoWars. I like InfoWars, and I love their founder, Alex Jones.
00:01:17.020
And this looks like hard news, not just commentary. They had a real scoop here. Let me read a bit of
00:01:22.180
it to you. You can find it on their website, of course. Headline says,
00:01:26.380
Exclusive. U.S. set to sanction key staff at U.K.'s speech regulator. Willingness of Trump admin
00:01:33.220
to sanction the U.K. over free speech is a historic development with profound implications for global
00:01:38.460
internet governance. Wow. Well, that is certainly true. The U.K. really has a strict media regulator.
00:01:45.820
It's called Ofcom, which sounds like it's right out of Orwell, isn't it? Ofcom is newspeak for
00:01:52.120
Office of Communications, which has power over traditional broadcasting like TV and radio,
00:01:57.880
as well as the internet, and even the post office, I guess. It's very heavy-handed. I've seen them
00:02:03.440
punish and censor my favorite U.K. news channel, GB News, for being too conservative. It's really weird
00:02:10.120
to see that kind of government interference. It feels very pre-internet era, like when there were a
00:02:15.260
handful of official TV channels and the entire range in points of view from A to B as opposed
00:02:20.760
to A to Z. It's like Canada's CRTC regulator. And I'd love to spell out what CRTC stands for
00:02:27.660
just to show how archaic it is. You know that stands for Canadian Radio Television and Telecommunications
00:02:35.040
Commission. I don't know what a radio television is, do you? Who knows? I wonder if they still regulate
00:02:41.260
the talkies on the silver screen or even gramophones. Where is your radio television, young man?
00:02:50.280
Anyways, like our CRTC, Ofcom is now regulating the internet, and they're using a new law over there
00:02:57.700
called the Online Safety Act. Doesn't that sound so similar to our own Online Harms Act that Trudeau
00:03:04.140
proposed? And it was vaporized when he prorogued the government. But I think that that bill is coming
00:03:10.000
back. And their Online Safety Act is being sold the same way our Online Harms Act was, which is the
00:03:17.520
same sales pitch that if you don't support government censorship of politics, you must actually be in
00:03:23.260
league with child pornographers. They had a whole campaign in the UK there where if anyone objected
00:03:30.280
to the Online Harms Act, they were accused of being pro-pedophile. I am not kidding. Here's an
00:03:37.080
example of it. That's what they said to Nigel Farage. Take a look. I see that Nigel Farage is already saying
00:03:42.320
that he's going to overturn these laws. So, you know, we have people out there who are extreme
00:03:47.120
pornographers peddling hate, peddling violence. Nigel Farage is on their side. Make no mistake about it.
00:03:55.120
If people like Jimmy Savile were alive today, he'd be perpetrating his crimes online. And Nigel Farage is
00:04:01.520
saying that he's on their side. I'm sorry. Not the side of children who are... I'm going to ask you to clarify.
00:04:06.760
Do you honestly think to say Nigel Farage is on Jimmy Savile's side?
00:04:10.900
When it comes to online activity, we have seen unfettered access of adults to children via social
00:04:16.980
media. When we put in the age verification, it stops its strange adults getting in touch with
00:04:22.040
children. So make no mistake... This is a major leap. You're going to stick to the fact that you said
00:04:26.780
that Nigel Farage is on Jimmy Savile's side. Nigel Farage is on the side of turning the clock back
00:04:31.620
to the time when strange adults, strangers, can get in touch via messaging apps with children.
00:04:37.700
We have now asked to age verify the age in which people can have access to online content
00:04:45.220
so we can protect children from unwanted, dangerous content and also those messaging services where
00:04:52.400
people can get access directly to it. Nigel Farage wants to turn the clock right back when all of
00:04:57.660
that. Oh, I have absolutely no doubt about it. People are perpetrating more crime online,
00:05:02.720
more danger to children online. And Nigel Farage has said he wants to overturn every single one of
00:05:08.160
the laws that keeps children safe in our country. It's an interesting extrapolation, but we've got
00:05:14.900
your views on it. Yeah, I don't think that worked. I think that actually really backfired on them
00:05:18.620
because everyone saw it was just a smear. Same tactic used here in Canada. The Online Harms Act in the UK
00:05:24.720
did have some anti-child pornography elements into it, many of which are already in law,
00:05:29.560
just like the Online Safety Act, their Online Harms Act. They both had that. But I think that
00:05:35.840
was a distraction, a misdirection, so they could sneak political censorship into it like a stowaway.
00:05:42.900
Just today, for example, a young mother named Lucy Connolly was released from prison in the UK.
00:05:49.780
She had been sentenced to 31 months in prison for an intemperate tweet. She said something like,
00:05:57.100
they can burn down those migrant hotels for all I care. I mean, it's not a nice thing to say,
00:06:01.820
and she quickly realized that, and she deleted that. And she obviously didn't mean for someone to
00:06:06.760
actually go and do that. It was not an incitement to violence. No one was incited by it. It didn't
00:06:12.340
happen. It was just a woman who was frustrated with the mass murder of British girls that had just
00:06:18.260
happened at the hands of a, actually a son of migrants. 31 months in prison for a mother,
00:06:25.120
first time offender. That's more time in prison than many actual rapists in the UK get.
00:06:31.080
That's what I mean by internet censorship. That's the kind of thing that the Online
00:06:34.120
Safety Act over there, or the Online Harms Act over here would do. They are further down the road
00:06:39.820
in the UK than we are here in Canada. And you can't just put this on the Labour government over
00:06:43.820
there, by the way. The Labour government has been in office for 13 months. It's atrocious.
00:06:48.860
But the so-called Conservative Party, they were in office for 14 years before that. They were the
00:06:54.200
ones who actually wrote and passed this law, just like they were the ones who presided over
00:06:59.480
mass immigration for 14 years. So you can't just say left-wing, can you?
00:07:04.680
Anyways, it's worse than ever. All sorts of political conversations are being mass
00:07:09.260
censored in the UK, especially anything touching on illegal migrants, smuggling of migrants across
00:07:15.640
English Channel, refugees, bogus refugees, refugee hotels. In other words, the most important news in
00:07:21.740
the UK right now is banned in the UK by Ofcom and this censorship law. You know, 30 people a day
00:07:30.080
are being arrested for mean social media tweets. 30 a day in the UK. Now that has caught the interest
00:07:38.220
of the United States government for a variety of reasons. I mean, Americans do like freedom.
00:07:43.920
Another reason is that most social media companies in the world are American companies.
00:07:48.580
YouTube, Google, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, WhatsApp, Twitter, they're all American.
00:07:53.800
So if those platforms are being censored overseas, it's an American company that's being limited.
00:08:00.520
Donald Trump and his team have a special hatred for social media censorship,
00:08:03.860
since that is what was used so brazenly against him and other Republicans in the run-up to the 2020
00:08:09.080
elections. It's one of the reasons he became good friends with Elon Musk, who bought Twitter.
00:08:14.720
Even though they're a bit estranged now, Trump's commitment to free speech endures.
00:08:19.400
Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance have mentioned freedom of speech several times to Europeans,
00:08:24.940
especially in the UK, and the Europeans do not like it, which tells me it's a very good thing.
00:08:29.700
Here's J.D. Vance in his first European speech, speaking in Munich, warning them about losing
00:08:37.720
And unfortunately, when I look at Europe today, it's sometimes not so clear what happened to some of
00:08:44.620
the Cold War's winners. I look to Brussels, where EU commissars warn citizens that they intend to shut
00:08:52.840
down social media during times of civil unrest. The moment they spot what they've judged to be,
00:08:58.780
quote, hateful content. Or to this very country, where police have carried out raids against
00:09:05.660
citizens suspected of posting anti-feminist comments online as part of, quote, combating
00:09:11.920
misogyny on the Internet, a day of action. I look to Sweden, where two weeks ago the government
00:09:18.440
convicted a Christian activist for participating in Koran burnings that resulted in his friend's
00:09:25.240
murder. And as the judge in his case chillingly noted, Sweden's laws to supposedly protect free
00:09:32.640
expression do not, in fact, grant, and I'm quoting, a free pass to do or say anything without risking
00:09:41.380
offending the group that holds that belief. And perhaps most concerningly, I look to our very dear
00:09:48.620
friends, the United Kingdom, where the backslide away from conscience rights has placed the basic
00:09:53.660
liberties of religious Britons, in particular, in the crosshairs. A little over two years ago,
00:09:59.800
the British government charged Adam Smith Connor, a 51-year-old physiotherapist and an army veteran,
00:10:06.220
with the heinous crime of standing 50 meters from an abortion clinic and silently praying for three
00:10:14.520
minutes. Not obstructing anyone, not interacting with anyone, just silently praying on his own.
00:10:22.360
After British law enforcement spotted him and demanded to know what he was praying for,
00:10:27.100
Adam replied simply, it was on behalf of the unborn son he and his former girlfriend had aborted years
00:10:33.920
before. Now, the officers were not moved. Adam was found guilty of breaking the government's new
00:10:41.300
buffer zones law, which criminalizes silent prayer and other actions that could influence a person's
00:10:46.700
decision within 200 meters of an abortion facility. He was sentenced to pay thousands of pounds in
00:10:52.980
legal costs to the prosecution. Now, I wish I could say that this was a fluke, a one-off, crazy example of
00:10:59.460
a badly written law being enacted against a single person. But no, this last October, just a few months
00:11:06.660
ago, the Scottish government began distributing letters to citizens whose houses lay within so-called
00:11:12.000
safe access zones, warning them that even private prayer within their own homes may amount to breaking
00:11:19.440
the law. Naturally, the government urged readers to report any fellow citizens suspected guilty of
00:11:26.900
thought crime. In Britain and across Europe, free speech, I fear, is in retreat.
00:11:33.320
And here they are again, when Keir Starmer, the British Prime Minister...
00:11:37.660
We discussed the importance of free speech today.
00:11:40.760
Well, free speech is very important. I don't know if you're referring to any place in particular,
00:11:44.840
perhaps they are, but we've had free speech for a very, very long time here, so we're very proud
00:11:51.740
Starmer's choice of words is pretty interesting when he talks about free speech. He always says the UK
00:11:56.540
has a great history of free speech. Yes, it certainly does, but we're more concerned about the present
00:12:02.400
and the future, aren't we? A few weeks ago, a congressional delegation, so not the president,
00:12:08.500
but elected congressman, went over to the UK to raise these issues directly with the government.
00:12:13.500
I think they went to Ireland also. That's sort of amazing. It's almost like an intervention with
00:12:19.240
a friend that's off track, isn't it? And just the other day, the social media company Reddit,
00:12:24.740
based in the United States, sent a scorching letter to Ofcom saying they do not have offices or
00:12:31.020
operations in the UK. So Ofcom's threats of censorship and fines and even arrests or other
00:12:38.180
punishments will be resisted in US courts, but it was a letter widely circulated to US political
00:12:45.020
leaders too. A showdown is coming. What I mean by that is Reddit was saying to the UK, if you try to
00:12:49.880
censor an American company, you will feel political pain. All right, so back to the Infowars scoop. Let me
00:12:56.300
read a little bit from the story. A senior official at the US State Department is set to sanction key
00:13:02.260
personnel of the UK's main regulator of internet broadcast and telecoms, Ofcom, for infringing on
00:13:08.400
US citizens and US companies, according to Ofcom Watch founder and chairman Norman Richmond.
00:13:15.240
Gab and BitChute, two American platforms known for their unfiltered content, faced a stark choice
00:13:20.940
under Ofcom's enforcement of the Online Safety Act. In April 2025, both announced their withdrawal from
00:13:27.700
the UK, refusing to comply with what they labeled government censorship. Quote, the very first line
00:13:33.760
of sanctions that the American administration is looking at is actually imposing travel sanctions
00:13:38.580
and economic sanctions against individuals in the UK government who were involved in enforcing the
00:13:44.160
censorship. Richmond told this writer, Infowars, in an exclusive interview.
00:13:49.280
I'm slightly skeptical about the travel, but maybe not. I mean, they have banned the out of control
00:13:56.300
Brazilian drudge Alexandre de Mouraix from traveling to America. Back to the story. The move follows a
00:14:03.140
March 2025 meeting in London where American diplomats delivered a stark warning. Backed by President Trump's
00:14:09.160
executive orders, the administration targets Ofcom's enforcement of the Online Safety Act, a law Richmond
00:14:14.780
calls a censorship weapon aimed at American free speech. I'm almost done. I'll just read a little
00:14:19.520
more. The confrontation stems from Ofcom's aggressive stance under the act, which imposes fines of up to
00:14:26.420
18 million pounds or 10% of a company's global revenue. In severe cases, it can block services in the UK
00:14:32.380
or jail offenders for up to two years. This March, Ofcom notified major US social media platforms of their
00:14:40.460
obligations prompting a swift US response. I won't read the whole thing. See it for yourself. But imagine
00:14:46.620
if these fancy pants British regulators would be banned from visiting the US. I'm not so sure about
00:14:52.580
if they really would have financial sanctions, but holy moly, imagine if they were not allowed to use
00:15:00.100
Western credit cards or the swift system or any US banks. I mean, you cannot use, you cannot send
00:15:07.060
an e-transfer, you cannot use a North American credit card for anything to do in Russia. Imagine
00:15:12.840
if that kind of punishment were put on the censors. It's not quite the sanctions put on Vladimir Putin
00:15:20.380
or Nicolas Maduro, where their money is seized and they're forbidden from banking. Although maybe I don't
00:15:26.340
know what is alluded to there by their source. But imagine if it was just travel, just which I think
00:15:31.880
would be perhaps more plausible. Imagine the fancy pants who could no longer go to New York or LA or
00:15:37.460
Florida or Disneyland or wherever they want to go. And everyone likes to visit the US. Even people who
00:15:42.860
hate the US like to visit the US. It's such an amazing country. But even if those bureaucrats can
00:15:48.540
do without visiting the US, imagine the humiliation and denormalization to be banned from traveling to
00:15:55.740
America for violating civil liberties. I suppose some hardcore leftists would wear that as a badge of
00:16:01.280
honor. But I doubt that most would. I doubt they would want the publicity at all either. By the way,
00:16:06.600
most bureaucrats thrive in the darkness, don't they? They don't want their names being known.
00:16:12.660
Now, I'm interested in America and I'm interested in the UK. And this is very interesting news to me,
00:16:17.340
but I live in Canada and Canada is my home. So I wonder, could the United States take a similar
00:16:23.700
interest in our freedom of speech and lack thereof? I don't want Canada to be a plaything for foreign
00:16:30.820
politicians or foreign oligarchs. Although even as I say those words, I realize that our prime
00:16:36.800
minister is exactly that, a foreign oligarch, three passports, lives in London, just came back to rule
00:16:43.100
us. So yeah, we are being run by a foreign oligarch. In so many ways, we have hollowed out
00:16:48.540
our own country and become a branch plant. I mean, those automakers in Ontario, Ford, Honda, Toyota,
00:16:53.980
those are not Canadian brands. Much of the oil patch is owned by Americans. We already are at
00:17:00.200
the mercy of foreign commerce. But that's nothing compared to our most important measure of
00:17:04.980
sovereignty, our own borders, our national defense, our control of our territory. We have demeaned
00:17:10.480
ourselves. We've called ourselves genociders of Indigenous people. We've opened the borders to
00:17:16.820
millions of people who don't know us, and many of whom hate us. What is Canada now but an easy touch
00:17:23.800
for immigration, especially given that Trump is deporting millions? And do you remember that
00:17:29.600
Chinese hot air spy balloon? You know, it drifted over Canada first before the U.S. shot it down over
00:17:36.640
their territory. We couldn't. We can't defend ourselves against even a hot air balloon. We were
00:17:43.340
completely beholden to the U.S. We're just lucky they're so nice about it. So yeah, I wish we could
00:17:50.340
solve the censorship problem in Canada on our own. But our courts don't seem to agree. Our parliament
00:17:55.400
doesn't seem to agree. Our media doesn't seem to agree. They're all happy with a layer of censorship.
00:18:02.900
So does it prick my patriotism to have Americans come to our rescue, if they would, by sanctioning
00:18:08.060
Canadians? Yeah, I mean, part of me would say butt out. But you know what? No, I'd welcome it. Imagine
00:18:14.520
if every cabinet minister who touches the Online Harms Act or other censorship laws would be banned
00:18:20.480
from visiting the U.S. That would pack a lot more punch in Canada than it does in the U.K. I mean,
00:18:26.440
I don't know how many people in London vacation in the States, but in our Canadian parliament, oh, I think
00:18:32.220
the majority of MPs go down to the United States, Florida or Phoenix or wherever. So yeah, bring it
00:18:38.520
on. I look forward to Marco Rubio or J.D. Vance doing for our freedoms what our own political leaders
00:18:49.120
Hey, do you remember our friend Ava Chipiuk? She's a lawyer for civil liberties. We got to know her
00:19:02.800
during the pandemic lockdown and the civil liberties bonfire that ensued. She was a lawyer for individual
00:19:11.740
truckers and she was actually there, if I'm not mistaken, at the public order inquiry into the
00:19:17.720
emergencies act. She challenged the government for its imposition. As we know, it was later found to
00:19:24.700
be illegal and unconstitutional. The federal court of Canada ruled that putting Canada under a form of
00:19:31.520
martial law was unconstitutional. And in particular, Justice Mosley of the federal court focused on the
00:19:40.220
bank seizures. Imagine the scattergun shotgun approach of just getting names of individual
00:19:48.400
truckers, usually by trolling the media. Oh, the CBC named this guy, the CBC named that guy,
00:19:54.400
sending those names to banks and saying, cut off their entire family. Because of course,
00:20:00.100
many families have a joint bank account. Mom and dad share the same fund. So mom is at the grocery
00:20:05.880
store. And suddenly none of her credit cards work when she's trying to check out. It was that
00:20:10.880
invasion of banking privacy, that lack of any system that caused the emergencies act to be declared
00:20:20.260
illegal. Well, here's a wrinkle that maybe you haven't expected. Ava Chipiuk, the same lawyer,
00:20:28.600
had her own bank account most recently shut down. They said it was for questionable transactions,
00:20:35.700
but that sounds very fishy to me. And it reminds me of when Rebel News had our mortgage applications
00:20:42.060
scuppered by the Royal Bank. We were approved by the branch, but the national office said that we had a
00:20:49.140
reputational risk. Is that where we are in Canada now that a lawyer who dares challenge the government
00:20:56.060
on behalf of a client finds herself debanked? Well, I read a very interesting essay on the subject just
00:21:02.420
the other day. The headline is, Ottawa's Emergencies Act proved how quickly bank accounts can be
00:21:08.580
weaponized. And then our author, who we're going to speak with in a minute, is in Alberta. And so he
00:21:14.840
says, Alberta must act now to protect its citizens. What does he mean? Well, we'll go to the man himself.
00:21:22.780
I'm talking about Marco Navarro-Gini. He is the VP of Research with the Frontier Center
00:21:28.360
for Public Policy. Great to see you again, Marco. Thanks for taking the time. It's been a very long
00:21:33.320
time. It's great to have you back. Likewise. Thank you. It's good to be here. Now, tell me a little
00:21:38.600
bit about Ava Chipiak. We know her as a civil liberties lawyer. How did she get, how did this
00:21:45.260
whole banking thing come about? I mean, I read the story elsewhere. Did she give you any insights about
00:21:50.880
how it went down, how they banned her? Did they do what they did to us, which is sort of
00:21:56.580
not give us any info, just keep us in the dark?
00:22:01.220
She basically sent a letter which she published on X, basically letting her know that she had X number
00:22:10.140
of days to put her affairs in order because they were basically shutting her down. They didn't say
00:22:17.180
much more than that. And she hasn't really communicated much more than that because she
00:22:24.560
may potentially sue. And so she's keeping tight lipped about it.
00:22:29.340
And I understand. Now, it's tough suing a bank. It's an uphill battle.
00:22:34.520
You know, there is a notion that a bank doesn't have to do business with you because it's not a
00:22:40.240
government agency, but they're so highly regulated. They really are like a public utility in a way.
00:22:46.680
I mean, they're so heavily regulated. There's so few of them. They have such power over us as
00:22:51.560
individuals. And they're so closely in sync with the government. When Christian Freeland demanded
00:22:59.060
that the banks seize people's accounts, none of them refused. None of them said we need a legal
00:23:05.060
process. So I don't know. It's I think that she'll have a tough time suing. And I find banks in this
00:23:11.740
country very unresponsive to customers. They're more interested in what the government says.
00:23:17.200
And let me throw one more thing at you. I'd love your comment on this. Mark Carney, when the lockdowns
00:23:23.520
and when martial law was imposed, he wrote an essay in the Globe and Mail. And I know you referenced this
00:23:28.480
in your op ed. He said the government should go further in a way. He called the truckers
00:23:34.040
seditionists. I mean, he absolutely supported the bank seizures and wanted the government to go
00:23:42.120
further. So this is a real risk, isn't it? It is. It is very significant. Look, let's start with
00:23:50.900
Cartney and maybe walk backwards. Cartney may be in some respects the source of the idea of including
00:23:58.320
these kinds of tactics into the Emergencies Act. We know that he's pretty tight with Christian
00:24:04.920
Freeland. You know, they Freeland is is the godmother of one of his children or some arrangement
00:24:12.240
like that. But so it's not just people who dissent, essentially. It could be anyone who has an idea that
00:24:22.960
doesn't quite fit with the government, anyone who promotes some idea that is opposed to some policy in
00:24:30.780
government. So that's bad enough. But but Cartney came out, as you pointed out, and said that essentially
00:24:38.880
people who protest government policy, namely the truckers in this case, are seditionists. He's saying that
00:24:47.120
they're traitors to to the crown and to and to Canada. And so that's in part what prompted me to
00:24:54.340
write this, because if this keeps going and he is now the chief legislator of the country and the most
00:25:01.240
powerful political figure in the country, then Canadians would have no recourse. And so it got me
00:25:08.000
thinking, well, how could Canadians under these kinds of circumstances now find ways to protect
00:25:14.140
themselves? And and that's why I started thinking about the sort of not not quite parallel system,
00:25:21.540
but there is a different kind of banking system that is regulated by provinces. And Quebec is probably
00:25:27.580
the strongest one, I would say Alberta, not too far back from that. And so in the op-ed, I urge the
00:25:34.340
Alberta government and Premier Smith to figure out ways to establish barriers against this kind of federal
00:25:41.560
abuse. Yeah, I'll talk about those in one second. But you just made me remember. I mean, I remember
00:25:47.000
seeing Mark Carney's op-ed during the trucker convoy and during emergency sector. And I didn't think
00:25:52.360
much of it. I thought, oh, some former central banker here is weighing in from the UK. I don't really
00:25:57.560
care. But I forgot that he was an advisor to the government. I forgot he was godfather to Chrystia
00:26:03.320
Freeland's or vice versa. You know, there was some family connection there. And of course, when it comes to
00:26:09.480
using banking as a weapon, who would know better than the former chief central banker of Canada,
00:26:17.480
he would know how to use finance as a weapon. I think it is very plausible that the idea to seize
00:26:24.120
and freeze bank accounts came from Mark Carney. He was writing about it. He called people seditionists
00:26:29.160
and he would have, you know, his first thoughts would be about weaponizing banking. But let's talk
00:26:34.920
about the possible solution. And it's an Alberta centric solution. I don't know if there are other
00:26:40.120
provinces where the province literally owns a bank, but that's part of the legacy of Alberta that goes
00:26:47.400
back almost 100 years during the 30 thirties, the Great Depression, when banks were failing, when banks
00:26:53.960
were not giving out loans. The Alberta government under the Social Credit Party, if my history is correct,
00:26:59.560
created a bank called the Alberta Treasury Branches. And because of that background, because of that
00:27:07.480
provenance, I think it's politically being difficult for conservative governments who might otherwise
00:27:14.520
privatize it, but it has sort of a legacy. And there are some parts of the province that really love the
00:27:19.960
ATB. And so the government itself has a bank. And I don't know if that's common. I don't know of any
00:27:27.160
other government owned banks in Canada. So if Alberta has a government owned bank, you lay out
00:27:32.920
things that that government owned bank could do to be a kind of firewall to stop Mark Carney or others
00:27:42.200
from doing that again. Why don't you give us some examples? And by the way, correct me if I've got my
00:27:46.440
ATB facts wrong, but I think I'm right. No, no, you're absolutely right. It was it was created in 1938,
00:27:53.400
essentially to protect Albertans against what was seen to be the abusive power of Laurentian banks
00:28:01.080
in in central Canada. So the parallels here are very much pertinent. Let me backtrack a bit before ATB
00:28:10.120
and say that there is a system of in Quebec, they call them the the case popular, right? They are
00:28:19.080
essentially banking coops. And in and they are all federated. And they're kind of a monolith that
00:28:25.640
are is regulated by an act of the province. And in the regulator also by something called the
00:28:32.760
Autorité de marché financier, which is a single regulator. And so they offer a formidable wall
00:28:40.360
against that kind of overreach because they're strictly regulated by the province. We don't have quite that
00:28:46.760
strong a setup in Alberta. And so I went and I looked at ATB precisely because ATB is a branch of the
00:28:54.280
provincial government. But in reality, just about any province can do that if they wished in if they have
00:29:00.920
coops and sort of that kind of parallel banking. The Alberta government, because it controls ATB, then is
00:29:08.840
uniquely positioned to to go even further a because it owns the Alberta Treasury branch and therefore can
00:29:19.080
directly order the Alberta Treasury branch never to cut off Albertans from their financial services.
00:29:27.880
But also the Alberta has something even greater than that. And it's called the Sovereignty Act, the Alberta
00:29:34.360
Sovereignty Act. And under the Sovereignty Act is actually called the Sovereignty Act within a united
00:29:40.520
Canada because, you know, we don't want to give the impression that we want to separate. Alberta can
00:29:45.400
legally refuse to enforce federal measures that directly infringe the constitutional rights of Albertans.
00:29:53.000
And so this places this kind of federal shenanigans directly in conflict with the purposes of the Alberta
00:30:04.360
Sovereignty Act. And that's why in this respect, in addition to the other tools, Alberta is probably
00:30:12.120
best positioned to fight this kind of abuses. So give me an example. Let's say, God forbid,
00:30:18.760
we would have another lockdown and there would be protesters from Alberta. And maybe it's a climate
00:30:23.400
lockdown this time. I don't know. Maybe it's some rule. You're not allowed to walk in the forest,
00:30:27.720
something insane like that, just to pick a random idea. So let's say we have a second round of this,
00:30:33.880
because I think a lot of politicians learned the wrong lessons from the lockdown. They thought it
00:30:37.880
went well. They realized what they could get away with. What would the ATB do or what would the
00:30:45.160
government of Alberta? Give us some specific examples of how they could push back at a Mark Carney
00:30:51.400
bank raid. What could they do really specifically? Let me give you an example of what something that has
00:30:59.240
happened. And then that'll probably illustrate things a little bit better. We know, for example,
00:31:05.800
that the federal government has essentially enlarged its list of weapons that they want to confiscate
00:31:13.480
from Canadians. And this happened even before the enacting of the Alberta Sovereignty Act.
00:31:25.080
The Attorney General in Jason Kenney's government issued orders to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police,
00:31:34.840
the federal police, the federal police, not to seize weapons that were lawfully procured and legally
00:31:42.840
possessed. And he cited essentially this duty that the Alberta government has to protect the property and
00:31:51.160
the rights of Canadians. So there is outside of the new act that precedent. In terms of now the banking,
00:32:01.560
for example, if the federal government issued orders on the basis of national security or emergencies or
00:32:11.560
the criminal code of Canada, there isn't really a heck of a lot that Alberta or any province could
00:32:17.240
do in the long run to stop the feds. But what it can do is take the fight to them to make it politically
00:32:24.840
unsavory and very difficult to enact that kind of abuse. So they could, for example, instruct the Alberta
00:32:31.400
Treasury branches to make sure that political neutrality is always the main issue, right? That no one,
00:32:39.560
because of their political views or religious views or any dealings that have nothing to do with
00:32:46.840
criminal issues, would prevent anybody from having the right to bank. The other one, of course,
00:32:55.720
is that Alberta could instruct the bank, namely the Alberta Treasury branch, not to do any of those sorts
00:33:05.080
of things without due process, because that's kind of part of the problem now. Remove the reputational risk
00:33:12.920
issue, which also is, as you pointed out, has happened to you as well. It should make sure that people are
00:33:21.000
notified directly when this is going to happen so that they're not just simply found with their
00:33:29.240
proverbial pants down. And they could enact a financial rights act to protect Albertans from
00:33:35.320
being denied services that otherwise would be lawful activity. The feds could do a whole bunch of things
00:33:41.880
to make their life miserable. They already do. But this is about essentially standing up to a bully.
00:33:49.240
Yeah. I mean, imagine that. Like, literally, you're in the checkout of the grocery store
00:33:54.600
and none of your cards work. Like, just imagine the humiliation, the fear. Did I miss a payment? Did
00:34:01.160
I do something wrong? Like you say, there was no notice. It was a sneak attack. There was no legal process.
00:34:07.080
There was no customer relations process. Hey, there's one thing I want to ask you, and I appreciate
00:34:11.640
your time. It's been on my mind ever since it happened a few weeks ago. The United States
00:34:17.800
president issued an executive order banning banks from using political or religious tests
00:34:24.600
for, quote, reputational risk. And they gave specific examples of how that had been done.
00:34:30.120
Christian bank customers pro-MAGA, pro-Trump, pro-firearms, like a lot of things that are
00:34:39.480
politically flavorful but not illegal at all. Banks were using those as a criterion to debank people.
00:34:46.760
It's listed right there in the executive order. And now the Trump administration has not only told
00:34:52.200
banks they can't do it, but it's authorized regulators to go to inspect banks and even go back historically.
00:34:58.520
So I think that's a pretty big deal. I don't know if that would apply to Canadian banks,
00:35:03.720
because a lot of Canadian banks do business in the States. Is that considered a different entity?
00:35:08.920
I don't know. Like the Royal Bank that debanked us. They do a lot of business in the States. You
00:35:13.640
mentioned TD Bank does. But here's the thing. Even if the US executive order doesn't apply to Canadian
00:35:18.360
banks, I think that the government of Alberta should issue a very similar directive to the ATB itself.
00:35:26.200
I don't know if ATB uses political or religious screening, but they should be ordered not to
00:35:31.960
and just have it codified. What do you think of that? Just baby steps. And maybe
00:35:36.600
Premier Smith can say, all right, we're doing this ourselves. And I challenge
00:35:40.280
the Royal Bank and Scotiabank and TD Bank and all the other banks to adopt this ethical code of conduct.
00:35:47.960
Like, I think, why shouldn't the province of Alberta demand that the CEOs sign a pledge
00:35:55.720
to remove political and religious bigotry from their lending? I mean, why not? And by the way,
00:36:00.520
I think that would be wildly popular. Everyone hates the banks and a lot of the time for good reason.
00:36:05.320
Yeah, that's absolutely correct. Yeah, the presidential order came on August the 7th. So
00:36:13.640
literally two weeks from today, two weeks ago. And it's called the Guaranteeing Fair
00:36:19.080
Banking for All Americans. So, you know, it kind of gives you a flavor of it. I also don't know
00:36:25.880
exactly how it would apply to Canadian banks who operate in the United States. The Toronto Dominion Bank,
00:36:31.480
the Royal Bank, they have a wide presence in the United States. But ultimately, yeah,
00:36:40.520
it probably doesn't exonerate them either because they're foreign banks. What is interesting about
00:36:46.280
the presidential order for Canada and in application even to Canadian banks is that it makes it clear
00:36:54.040
that there is an affirmation that financial access is now a kind of a civil liberty, not a privilege.
00:37:01.480
You know, not something that is dependent on the largesse of the state, but it must be exercised
00:37:07.560
as part of your citizenship. And so it recognizes also because Eva Chipiuk is not the only case.
00:37:15.000
I learned from a tweet that Tamara Leach put out that the Alberta Treasury branch denied her even
00:37:22.360
the right, not the right, but she was not allowed even to make an appointment to open an account.
00:37:28.840
So the ATB itself, the government bank itself, well, then it certainly does need that kind of code
00:37:35.320
of ethics. Isn't that very interesting? Absolutely. Very interesting.
00:37:39.640
And so Trump is also recognizing what what many of us see that that bureaucracies weaponize
00:37:47.240
these kinds of financial services and they weaponize language like reputational risk.
00:37:52.040
Right. Because, you know, what what exactly does that mean? They get to fill it in a way the way they
00:37:59.800
please. It also highlights the importance that the state has a duty to protect the finances of its
00:38:07.480
citizens, not abuse them. Right. And so there is a policy shift here in the United States
00:38:12.600
that that that is inspiring, that could inspire more Canadians. It certainly has sort of given me
00:38:19.640
food for thought about how Alberta should do the same. Wow. You've given me a lot. And I did see that
00:38:26.040
tweet by Tamara Leach and I forgot about it. So she actually wasn't even allowed to have a meeting
00:38:32.280
with Alberta Treasury branches. I tell you, if Bible Bill Aberhart were around,
00:38:36.600
he would say, what has the ATB become? It was standing up for Albertans.
00:38:43.560
Yeah. Very interesting. Well, listen, it's great to catch up with you. We've been talking with Marco
00:38:47.800
Navarro Gini. He's the vice president of research for the Frontier Center. What's the best website we
00:38:52.760
can see your stuff? Our website is fcpp.org. And you can find out. Got it. Dot org. Excellent. Well,
00:39:02.520
thank you so much for this. Lots of food for thought. And hopefully some of this will see
00:39:07.080
some action. I'm going to think some more about Tamara Leach's case. She's so compelling. She was
00:39:12.200
victimized once by Ottawa. She should not be victimized again by the Alberta Treasury branches.
00:39:18.680
Great to see you, Marco. And folks, stay with us. There's more ahead. We'll talk to you again soon.
00:39:33.480
Hey, welcome back. Your letters to me. Betty DeRoche says, it was also Doug Ford who was responsible
00:39:39.960
for the idea to jail Tamara Leach and Chris Barber for eight years. This is ridiculous.
00:39:45.160
Yeah. You know, I don't think Doug Ford can have it both ways. Some would say he shouldn't talk about
00:39:52.040
court cases before judges at all. And there's a lot of truth to that. You don't want political
00:39:56.200
interference. But he was saying, oh, this guy's got the right to defend himself, castle laws.
00:40:01.240
So he's weighing in. He's pretending to weigh in on the side of the homeowner,
00:40:06.600
but it is his police, his prosecutors, and in many cases, his judges who are doing all this.
00:40:13.080
It's a bit of chutzpah on his part to pretend he's not deeply involved.
00:40:18.840
Jason Uren says, they're criminals. They're over here illegally. Says everything you need to know.
00:40:24.680
If you're talking about illegal migrants, you're exactly right. The moment they come into the country,
00:40:29.960
they break the law. How can you take them at face value on anything after that?
00:40:35.080
Well, that's our show for today. Until tomorrow, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World
00:40:39.320
Headquarters, to you at home, good night, and keep fighting for freedom.
00:40:51.320
Yeah, I'm gonna hear you, I'm gonna listen to that.