Rebel News Podcast - EZRA LEVANT ｜ U.S. poised to sanction UK speech censors — could Canada be next？

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.

00:00:59.580 Shame on you, you censorious bug.

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, 1.00

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 1.00

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 1.00

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. 1.00

00:08:29.700 Here's J.D. Vance in his first European speech, speaking in Munich, warning them about losing

00:08:36.580 their values.

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

00:11:49.740 about that.

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 0.69

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 1.00

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 1.00

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 0.92

00:16:43.100 us. So yeah, we are being run by a foreign oligarch. In so many ways, we have hollowed out 1.00

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 0.98

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 1.00

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

00:18:46.620 won't. Stay with us for more.

00:18:49.120 Hey, do you remember our friend Ava Chipiuk? She's a lawyer for civil liberties. We got to know her 0.74

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, 0.98

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 0.75

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 0.79

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 0.97

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 0.87

00:38:32.280 with Alberta Treasury branches. I tell you, if Bible Bill Aberhart were around, 0.84

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. 0.90

00:40:24.680 If you're talking about illegal migrants, you're exactly right. The moment they come into the country, 1.00

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.

00:40:59.800 Camera, coming back to you.

Rebel News Podcast - August 22, 2025

EZRA LEVANT ｜ U.S. poised to sanction UK speech censors — could Canada be next？

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript