March 2013 Archives

Like much of Europe, Cyprus’ banks are wobbly, teetering on collapse.

Cyprus is a small country of about a million people, so the money needed to prop them up was smaller than other European or American bailouts have been. It’s absurd to call 10 billion euros — about $13 billion — small, but these days politicians are used to talking in trillions.

But this time Germany, the strongest European economy and the largest bailer-outer, balked. Cyprus’ banks, they noted, weren’t really for Cypriots — they do the bulk of their business for wealthy Russians, who use Cyprus’ banks the same way other wheeler-dealers use Caribbean banks. Let’s be gentle and say it’s for “legal reasons.”

To give you an idea of the scale of it, Russian deposits in Cypriot banks total $31 billion. Cyprus’ entire annual GDP is only $25 billion. So that would be as if Americans kept $2 trillion stashed in Canadian banks.

So the European Union’s masters of the universe refused to help, unless Cyprus agreed to a shocking condition: They demanded Cyprus’ banks literally seize 10% of all of their customers’ money and use that to prop themselves up.

That is normally called theft. But in this case, it was the EU government pressuring Cyprus to do it.

Anyone and everyone who had money in a Cyprus bank account would have had 10% of their savings — 10% of their children’s college fund, 10% of their retirement nest egg, 10% of their life savings — just taken. They called it a “tax.”

It was a shock. There was a run on the banks, so the government closed the banks for a week to stop it, permitting Cypriots to withdraw just $130 a day from ATMs.

Realizing the insanity of their solution – and sensing a popular revolt – the EU and Cyprus’ government switched to a second version of insanity. They revised the terms of their heist. Now the first 100,000 euros ($130,000) in savings would be exempted. But anyone with a larger bank account could lose 30% to 40%.

You can imagine the rage from Russian millionaires — and the terror struck into the hearts of every single person, rich or poor, across Europe who lives under the increasingly powerful, unaccountable, whimsical rule of politician-bankers. Let’s call those rulers “banksters,” because after their Cyprus raid, that’s just accurate.

Remember, this theft was excused because Cyprus’ depositors weren’t really Cypriot. But after the banksters got away with this without riots, they realized they had a new, lucrative model. And so the Dutch chairman of the eurozone — the countries that use the euro — told reporters that raiding bank accounts of savers could be repeated across Europe, in places like Italy and Spain, too.

Jeroen Dijsselbloem said, “If there is a risk in a bank, our first question should be, ‘OK, what are you in the bank going to do about that? What can you do to recapitalize yourself?’ If the bank can’t do it, then we’ll talk to the shareholders and the bondholders, we’ll ask them to contribute in recapitalizing the bank, and if necessary the uninsured deposit holders.”

It all made sense until that last sentence. Of course, a bank’s shareholders should be on the hook for their own bank. But letting banks seize money that people trust them to keep in their safes? That’s like telling car mechanics that to pay their debts, they should feel free to seize any car they’re working on in their shop — as long as it’s a fancy car.

This is what has become of the European Union.

Except there’s one more detail. The two main banks in this crisis — Bank of Cyprus and Cyprus Popular Bank — have branches in other countries. And those foreign branches were not shut down this past week. Customers — like Russian gazillionaires — weren’t limited to withdrawing $130 a day. They took millions out, while ordinary Cypriots were frozen.

This isn’t just a banking disaster. It’s a democratic disaster.

And it’s a taste of what’s about to come.

This column was written for Sun News March 31 2013.

Darrell Bricker joins Ezra Levant to discuss his book The Big Shift and the new alignment of Canadian politics.

This report aired on The Source March 29 2013.

Billy Hallowell is in studio with Ezra to talk about The Blaze’s trailblazing.

This report aired on The Source March 29 2013.

Ezra exposes Justin Trudeau’s lack of substance but it doesn't matter because the leadership race is a popularity contest.

This report aired on The Source March 29 2013.

Phyllis Sutherland of Peguis First Nation explains why she blew the whistle on the financial controversies on her reserve and why she supports Bill C-27.

This report aired on The Source March 28 2013.

Ezra applauds the First Nations transparency bill as a first step towards greater accountability for First Nations

This report aired on The Source March 28 2013.

Muslims are promoting some “light beating” of women, they recommend using a miswack, a stick, to beat your wife.

This report aired on The Source March 28 2013.

Dawson Creek, BC, Mayor Mike Bernier tells Ezra why he's disgusted with the taxpayer-funded 'Pipe Trouble' video game.

This report aired on The Source March 28 2013.

The Source team hit the streets and asked ordinary Canadians why they would vote for Justin Trudeau, the answers were less than dreamy.

This report aired on The Source March 27 2013.

Author of The Locavore's Dilemma, Pierre Desrochers, shoots down Ontario's 'buy local' food legislation.

This report aired on The Source March 27 2013.

Ezra Levant is joined by conflict of interest law expert Guy Giorno to discuss Bob Rae’s new side gig as a lobbyist for Indian bands.

This report aired on The Source March 27 2013.

Ezra Levant takes a look inside the Cyprus bailout. He doesn’t like what he sees.

This report aired on The Source March 27 2013.

Dan Gainor of Media Research Center speaks about his Blaze magazine feature on the media's jihad against Christianity and blindness to radical Islam.

This report aired on The Source March 26 2013.

MP Rob Clarke joins Ezra Levant to discuss his proposed bill to reform the outdated Indian Act.

This report aired on The Source March 26 2013.

China is a major polluter that cracks down on free speech, human rights , oppresses religious and ethnic minorities violently and has no political diversity but … Pandas! So, who cares?

This report aired on The Source March 26 2013.

The front page of the Washington Post is generally reserved for news, but Monday it ran a headline more accurately called olds: “Within mainstream environmentalist groups, diversity is lacking.”

You don’t say.

The Post gave the example of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s organization, called the Waterkeepers.

Kennedy was born into America’s most aristocratic political family and all their millions. They’re the Massachusetts elite.

Is it surprising that out of 200 waterkeepers in his club across America, only one is black?

Kennedy’s club is whiter than the wheat board.

They’re almost as white as the Klan.

That’s not news.

Environmental extremism is a rich man’s game — many minorities can’t afford the luxury of hybrid cars or solar panels.

Paying carbon taxes might not be a problem for multimillionaires like Al Gore, but they push ordinary people into energy poverty.

Which is why no Third World countries have ever signed on to binding carbon emissions reductions in United Nations treaties like the Kyoto Protocol.

It’s tantamount to racism to ask China or India not to industrialize using coal-fired power plants, after Europe and America did precisely the same thing.

The Post also quoted Tom Goldtooth from the Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN), based in Minnesota.

He said his Aboriginal activists were pretty much only called upon by white billionaires “when they need something.”

See, the real money in Canadian environmentalism — the most radical money — isn’t Canadian.

It’s from U.S. billionaires and their foundations.

So they need to camouflage it.

Take the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, out of New York. Back in 2008, they wrote a 48-page campaign plan targeting Canada’s oilsands.

They committed to a whopping $7 million yearly budget for this battle, now in its fifth year.

Page 36 of their plan couldn’t be more clear: They need to put a non-billionaire, non-New York face on their campaign.

They needed the help of groups like the IEN.

The plan was conceived and planned and funded and managed by white guys in New York.

So they made a call down to central casting to order themselves up, to quote their campaign plan, “First Nations and other legal challenges.”

See, if it were a trust fund kid like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — let alone a Rockefeller (whose family billions came from oil) — attacking Canada’s oil industry, we would laugh and run them out of town.

But billionaires are typically smarter than that.

So they hired apples — red on the outside, Rockefeller white on the inside.

They, along with other American foundations like the U.S.–based Tides Foundation, have poured millions into Indian activists, directing them against Canada’s interests.

And against their own Indian bands’ interests, too — the oilsands are the largest employers of Aboriginal people in Canada.

Only in the past year have Canadian politicians woken up to the hundreds of millions of dollars of foreign money pouring in to create fake anti-oilsands shell organizations.

The Rockefellers have been at it for five years — and their Aboriginal spokesmen-of-fortune have done such a good job playing aggrieved Indians, they should win as many Oscars as Dances With Wolves did.

This column was written for Sun News March 25 2013.

Ezra examines how a group of American billionaires are trying to bully Canada by smearing the oilsands.

This report aired on The Source March 25 2013.

Buck Sexton joins Ezra to discuss New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's anti-gun campaign.

This report aired on The Source March 25 2013.

Barbara Kay joins Ezra to discuss the growing discrimination of anglophones in Quebec.

This report aired on The Source March 25 2013.

Justin Trudeau’s campaign team claimed to have signed up 171,000 people for his leadership bid. All the Liberal party candidates signed up 294,000 members and supporters combined.

But, even after a special deadline extension, only 127,000 of them bothered to register to vote. That’s just over a one-third turnout rate.

And who knows how many will actually cast a vote — the final step. It will almost certainly be less than 100,000 people.

In a country of 34 million.

It’s embarrassing to the Liberal party, but especially so for Trudeau, who boasted of connecting with young people and ran a fashionable but content-free campaign.

Trudeau’s people never tired of pointing out the number of his followers on Twitter — 195,000 — as if he was a Hollywood B-list celebrity, proving he still has “buzz.”

But apparently clicking “Like” on a Facebook page isn’t the indication of commitment Trudeau and his party hoped it was.

Even worse, an analysis done by reporter Joan Bryden shows that of the 127,000 Liberals who actually did register, 60% of them are over 50 years old.

Only 8% are 25 or under — the students, graduates and young families Trudeau claimed was his base.

No, his base is aging baby-boomers who are trying in vain to recapture some of that 1960s magic Trudeau’s dad had.

This wasn’t supposed to happen. Trudeaumania was essential, because it was all that Trudeau offered. His was not a campaign of ideas, nor of experience — the man has little of either. But a mystical connection with young people, and that sense of cool, was supposed to make up for all that. Just like Obama did.

Except it didn’t work here.

Worse than that, it flopped. Only 127,000 people registered amongst all the Liberals combined? Last year’s NDP leadership race had 131,000 registered voters.

Boring men like Thomas Mulcair and Brian Topp created more of a mania than Trudeau did. And the NDP caucus is far younger than the Liberal rump that remains in Parliament.

There is the obvious lesson here: Don’t believe the consensus media’s hype. It was unanimous on Parliament Hill that Trudeau was a saviour.

Sorry, that wasn’t reporting. That was wishing.

Another lesson is that Canadians actually value substance. Whatever one thinks of Stephen Harper or Mulcair or Topp, they are men of accomplishment and ideas. The last allegedly sexy Liberal leader — Michael Ignatieff — was an electoral disaster, too.

Another lesson is that slacktivism is not civic engagement. In fact, it’s a placebo — a way people can pretend to have done their civic duty, to excuse them from actually doing something valuable, like joining a community group, going to a town hall meeting, or going to a real polling station to mark an X.

Justin Trudeau didn’t inspire young people to get involved for any idea; he anesthetized them, telling them symbolism and style was enough. After all, it was enough for him, right?

The prescription is not to make voting emptier and easier, as Marc Mayrand, Canada’s eccentric chief electoral officer, proposes.

In 2011, Mayrand wrote he “is committed to seeking approval for a test of Internet voting in a byelection held after 2013.”

Why? I mean, other than empire building, budget growing and legacy buffing? Is it important that someone who doesn’t care, and chooses not to care, can click “Like” on their smartphone while they’re surfing cat videos on YouTube, and we call that “voting”?

Justin Trudeau would benefit from it. And so would China’s People’s Liberation Army, which has the world’s most aggressive hackers, like the infamous Unit 61398 in Shanghai.

China hacked Nortel for industrial sabotage. They hacked into the Pentagon’s computers, despite billions of dollars in security. Last week, North Korean hackers shut down three South Korean TV stations.

But Mayrand, like Trudeau, values fashion above all.

This column was written for Sun News March 24 2013.

Ezra Levant explores the dismal returns for the Liberal party on Trudeau-mania.

This report aired on The Source March 22 2013.

Michelle Minton, founder of Human Achievement Hour, debunks the dim-witted idea of Earth Hour.

This report aired on The Source March 22 2013.

Tom Brodbeck joins Ezra to discuss the disconnect reporting of how Canadians view the death penalty.

This report aired on The Source March 22 2013.

Minister Jason Kenney sets the record straight on Canada’s foreign policy.

This report aired on The Source March 21 2013.

A conservative Senator thinks Canada should send our troops into Syria’s civil war, Ezra Levant thinks this a dangerous idea.

This report aired on The Source March 21 2013.

Candice Malcolm of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation explains why taxpayer money is going to an anti-pipeline video game.

This report aired on The Source March 21 2013.

MP Stephen Woodworth joins Ezra to discuss his experience of getting shut down by Waterloo's campus censors.

This report aired on The Source March 19 2013.

Ezra Levant investigates the shocking revelations that Canadians are some of the biggest contributors to sex trade in the socialist regime of Cuba.

This report aired on The Source March 19 2013.

Ezra exposes the backroom deal cooked up by the British government to censor the press.

This report aired on The Source March 19 2013.

I host the most controversial news show in Canada, The Source.

If there's some politically correct sacred cow out there, it's my job to barbecue it. From exposing David Suzuki's outrageous speaking fees to taking a run at corrupt Indian chiefs, I do it with gusto every day. I try to be entertaining as well as informative, using drama and sarcasm, and the occasional dance moves. And I always make sure to poke the most fun at myself - including reading gems from my hate mail every day.

Last summer, I talked about a grave problem in Ontario - a 400-person crime ring, all recent immigrants from Romania, busted by Durham Regional Police. I let it rip against crime and immigration fraud, and for the most part it was just a pretty good rant, the kind I love to do, poking fun at the gypsies who had been arrested, and even poking fun at myself as a Jew.

There were some criticisms after that show, but I dismissed them as coming from the usual soft-on-crime liberals and grievance groups. But when I look at some of the words I used in that show - like "the gypsies have gypped us" - I must admit that I did more than just attack a crime or immigration fraud problem. I attacked a particular group, and painted them all with the same brush. And to those I hurt, I'm sorry.

As a Canadian citizen and a journalist, I enjoy freedom of speech. Without that right, we would not be a democracy.

But as someone who seeks to influence the public debate, I have to think about the words I choose. It's just wrong to slur a group of people. I made the moral mistake of judging people collectively.

I owe a duty to my employer, who has allowed me to be the freest journalist in Canada, and has defended me against every attempt to silence me. I owe a duty to my viewers to give them the most thoughtful arguments I can. And I owe it to my own philosophy of liberty to judge people as individuals.

As the philosopher Ayn Rand explained, the problem with stereotyping is that it's "the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man's genetic lineage... that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors."

There's nothing wrong with going after a criminal gang.

But it's wrong to brand an entire community with a broad brush - I wouldn't like it as a Jew, and the whole point of my crusade against the Indian Act is to free ordinary Indians from the corrupt chiefs who rule them. I am an anti-racism activist.

I remain concerned about immigration fraud and crime gangs, but I can be better in the way I express those concerns.

The Source is a show about ideas. I want my words to spur debate. When my show is finished on any given day, I want viewers to discuss these matters at the dinner table and write their MP's.

I don't apologize simply for the sake of being consistent in my views. I regret having made these statements and I'm hopeful that those remarks will serve as an example of what not to do when commenting on social issues. I have the privilege of commenting regularly in this forum and I'm committed to doing so responsibly.

This column was written for Sun TV March 18 2013.

American conservative magazine National Review has put Stephen Harper on its cover, calling Canada the best governed country in North America.

This report aired on The Source March 18 2013.

Immigration lawyer Richard Kurland and Ezra Levant examine why Thomas Mulcair is calling on the federal government to allow a man who shot a Chicago police officer to return.

This report aired on The Source March 19 2013.

Ezra Levant sets the record straight on collective judgement.

This report aired on The Source March 18 2013.

Last Wednesday night, a pro-life student club at the University of Waterloo invited a local MP to speak.

Within minutes, a small group of other students stormed the front of the room, screaming abuse at the guest speaker, taking over the podium and grinding the event to a halt.

All under the watchful eyes of campus police.

They just stood there.

Actually, that’s not quite right, they did intervene. They told the speaker — Stephen Woodworth — that for his own safety he’d better leave.

They didn’t take steps to protect his safety. They didn’t remove the screaming trespassers, or even just ask them politely and quietly to stop. They just stood there, as a campus club was physically barred from holding a peaceful event.

Welcome to free speech on Canadian campuses, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s abominable censorship ruling in the William Whatcott case.

The Waterloo spectacle of semi-coherent extremists — including one beta male, dressed in a giant vagina costume — is easily found on YouTube, and it’s quite something to behold.

Giant Vagina Man was screaming in Woodworth’s face, saying, “Who do you think you are, trying to impose your views, your bigotry?”

They teach sexual studies at Waterloo, but they obviously don’t teach irony anymore.

Giant Vagina Man was a screaming interrupter who refused to let a contrary view be heard — yet he said Woodworth was the one imposing his views.

An extra layer of irony is that Giant Vagina Man probably doesn’t even know what Woodworth’s ideas are, since he didn’t allow the MP to speak them. That’s pretty much the dictionary definition of bigotry — hating someone, abusing them, screaming at them, silencing them — based on an ignorant prejudice.

Hopefully there will be another level of irony: This rude freak will probably never again get that close to a vagina in the rest of his college career, if the gods of dating are just.

University of Waterloo is starting to earn a reputation for closed-mindedness.

Its student body evidently feels ill-equipped to handle ideas they don’t agree with, and prefers to physically silence opponents than to engage or even ignore them.

They did this to the great Christie Blatchford, a columnist and author of Helpless, a book about just this sort of bullying — and police cowardice — at Caledonia, Ont.

When Blatchford was invited to campus to talk about the book, screaming students — calling her a neo-Nazi — stormed the stage and stopped the speech.

Storming a speech and shutting it down, while calling a peaceful journalist a Nazi? They must not teach history at Waterloo, either.

Universities are supposed to be places where students can encounter a wide range of ideas, and challenge them, and be challenged in return. It’s not just about learning particular subjects.

It’s also about learning how to deal with people and ideas you disagree with in a civil manner.

Alas, the debate-silencers can claim their share of role models. Campus police didn’t stop them; the university administration didn’t stop them. And our own Supreme Court just ruled the government can silence someone if they say something “likely to expose a person to hatred or contempt.”

When all of polite, educated society says it’s OK to silence someone who hurts your feelings, don’t be surprised if students follow their example.

There is no counterfeit right not to be offended. A good university education does just that — offends, tests, expands, reforms.

When Blatchford was shouted down, the university claimed it was outraged, and apologized to her.

They obviously didn’t mean it, for their campus security simply replayed everything again last week.

Just a final thought: Do you think universities would accept a left-wing speaker, like David Suzuki, being shouted down by his opponents?

Don’t be silly — Tasers would be sparking, and police would be filling paddy wagons.

This column was written for the Sun News Network March 17 2008.

Student radicals at the University of Waterloo stormed a stage to disrupt and silence a Canadian MP who was invited to speak to group of students.

This report aired on The Source March 15 2013.

John Carpay of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms joins Ezra to discuss the problem of free speech being threatened on campuses across Canada.

This report aired on The Source March 15 2013.

Former Congressman Allen West joins Ezra Levant to discuss his efforts to keep America exceptional and the backlash of being a minority conservative in America.

This report aired on The Source March 15 2013.

Ken Green on Fraser Institute's new report that explores Canada's potential to become an energy superpower.

This report aired on The Source March 14 2013.

Ezra Levant says the leader of The Saskatchewan NDP has the worst job in Canadian politics.

This report aired on The Source March 14 2013.

Editor in Chief of Breitbart.com, Joel Pollak, on why Americans shouldn't stop asking for answers in the aftermath of Benghazi and the important role of rebel journalism.

This report aired on The Source March 14 2013.

Ottawa lawyer Paul Beaudry discusses his experiences traveling in the North Korea.

This report aired on The Source March 14 2013.

Alberta eyes BC's cell phone seizure ideas on distracted driving.

This report aired on The Source March 13 2013.

Pamela Geller joins Ezra Levant to discuss her anti-Jihad ads in San Francisco.

This report aired on The Source March 13 2013.

Thomas Mulcair is bashing the Canadian Keystone Pipeline in the US, Ezra thinks this is betraying Canada’s interests

This report aired on The Source March 13 2013.

Ezra responds to Preston Manning’s advice that conservatives keep their mouths shut.

This report aired on The Source March 12 2013.

Simon Kent joins Ezra Levant to chat about his exclusive interview with eco-pirate Paul Watson.

This report aired on The Source March 12 2013.

Ezra and Monte Solberg debate the right way to go green.

This report aired on The Source March 12 2013.

Ezra remembers free speech hero Doug Christie.

This report aired on The Source March 12 2013.

At his annual convention in Ottawa, Preston Manning called for conservatives to become environmentalists. He said it was the key to winning elections.

“Conservatives are generally considered to be weak or disinterested on the environment ­— the issue of greatest concern to many of our children and grandchildren,” he said.

Prescribing environmentalism as a path to government seems unusual in the wake of Stephen Harper’s third successive election win, each time with a greater percentage of the vote. Stephane Dion’s Green Shift, which made the environment a campaign centerpiece, was a disaster.

Those anecdotes have statistical basis. Before the last election, the Historica-Dominion Institute surveyed 831 Canadians between the ages of 18 and 24, asking them to list their top issue of concern.

Thirty-five percent listed their standard of living and another 18% said the recession — that’s 53% for economic issues, which are the strong suit of conservatives.

Then came health care at 14%, then democracy and worries about affording kids. Only 4.7% of young Canadians — fewer than one in 20 — said the environment was their top issue. And while Elizabeth May won her own seat in 2011, the Green Party’s national vote plunged from 6.8% in 2008, down to just 3.9%.

It’s a trend in the U.S., too. The Pew Centre asked Americans to rank their top 22 issues for Congress and the president. Economy was number one, jobs ranked second, terrorism was third. Global warming was dead last ­— in 22nd place

Ever since the Great Recession of 2008, real people just don’t have the economic luxury to solve mystical problems, like “climate change.”

But Manning said he wanted to do environmentalism differently, to use conservative policy tools to achieve green goals. Fair enough, that’s what private property is, actually. It’s why your backyard is immaculate but the side of a public highway is littered. But then Manning said his free market tools would be deployed to a list of issues “including global warming, proliferation of plastics, urban sprawl and the loss of biodiversity.”

But those problems are not problems to conservatives.

No true conservative would have the hubris to think we can alter the Earth’s climate by carpooling or turning down the thermostat or trading imaginary carbon “credits.” Let’s excuse that goal as a PR concession by Manning.

But how about the proliferation of plastics? Is plastic ­— one of the most miraculous inventions, in everything from our cellphones to credit cards to sandwich bags to artificial hearts — a problem to be solved? Even the anti-technology terrorist, the Unabomber, used plastic jugs at his shed in the forest.

Or urban sprawl — a derogatory term for detached houses with backyards. Since when do conservatives want to solve the “problem” of the suburbs? Aren’t suburbs the solution — an affordable, safe, family-friendly way to live? What conservative has ever condemned buying a house, especially in a vast country like ours?

And biodiversity? That’s a vague, benevolent-sounding phrase, but it’s also a new UN treaty that would put millions of acres of Canada off limits to Canadians. Seventeen percent of Canadian lakes, rivers and wetland areas — any place where a puddle forms ­ would be legally off limits to ranching, farming, fishing or any development. As would 10% of our coastline.

In 1997, Preston Manning led the charge against the Kyoto Protocol, with a brilliant speech in Parliament against junk science and UN treaties. What on earth happened since then?

This column was written for Sun News March 12 2013.

Ezra debunks Preston Manning’s comments on green conservatism.

This report aired on The Source March 11 2013.

Bob Rae, the Member of Parliament from Toronto Centre and the interim leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, wants a second job.

According to news reports, Rae told a private meeting of the Liberal caucus that he wants to take on a private, paying client: Ontario's Indian chiefs. He wants to be their negotiator, pitted against the government of Ontario and mining companies, to extract maximum royalties for the chiefs.

As the word royalty suggests, those are rents payable to the Queen - in practice, to the government. Indian bands are not entitled to royalties under their treaties, or under the Constitution.

Bob Rae wants to change that and he wants to get in on the action.

He wants to lobby the government, while being part of the machinery of government. (Rae is asking the ethics commissioner if he can remain an MP while serving as the chiefs' negotiator, both paid positions.)

To be clear: He is not proposing to weigh in on these matters, to pursue the public interest for all Canadians, or even for those who live in Toronto Centre. This has nothing to do with them - no mines are planned for downtown Toronto.

It's actually the opposite of representing citizens or taxpayers. Because every dollar Rae negotiates for his new clients will be one dollar less that goes to the government, and of course those mining companies.

If you are having trouble understanding just how astoundingly corrupt this is, imagine if Rae wanted to do the same thing he's proposing now - be a negotiator for one side in a mining royalties dispute - but he wanted to represent Canada's biggest mining companies. Against the government and against the Indian chiefs. For big bucks. While sitting as an MP.

Rae is proposing to sell his time, his influence, his connections, his public profile, to enrich his clients: Indian chiefs. Like Theresa Spence, the appalling chief who has run the Attawapiskat reserve into the ground.

Rae and Spence became chums during her TV reality show about her pretend hunger strike back in January. In fact, Rae helped craft Spence's list of 13 legally absurd demands that she issued to the prime minister, the governor general, the Queen and the United Nations.

These demands contained the legal fiction that Indian bands were sovereign "nations" on the same legal, constitutional and sovereign footing as the government of Canada. It also demanded more mining payments to Indian chiefs.

When Rae was approving these policy statements as an MP and the Liberal leader, did he already have his plan to work, as a hired gun, for these same chiefs?

It's a real question - that was just six weeks ago.

Rae owes Canadians an immediate and complete disclosure of how long he has been in communications with the Indian chiefs, and with which chiefs, about working for them.

Has he been paid yet? How much have they offered him? Is he going to be paid on commission?

Were his potential employers the same chiefs he had photo ops with, in his position as the Liberal leader and MP?

Who else knew about this? And why did we only find out about this now - through a leak from the Liberal caucus meeting? Why has he still not spoken publicly about it?

We cannot trust Bob Rae on Indian affairs anymore. Or mining. Or taxation. Or the Constitution.

Neither can the Liberal MPs and senators who take their direction from him.

Is he giving his genuine political view, in the best interests of his citizens? Or is he tailoring his views, towards his private financial interest as a future negotiator for Indian chiefs against mining companies?

And of course, we must ask what other industries has Bob Rae been thinking of cooking up special payments from, unbeknownst to the public?

This column was written for Sun News March 10 2013.

How did oil rich Alberta end up in debt?

This report aired on The Source March 8 2013.

JD Gordon speaks with Ezra Levant about the threat of an EMP attack from North Korea.

This report aired on The Source March 8 2013.

Liberal MP Bob Rae is looking to moonlight as a lobbyist for first nations groups.

This report aired on The Source March 7 2013.

Why is former Globe and Mail editor Stephan Wicary crying of Hugo Chavez?

This report aired on The Source March 7 2013.

The skeptical environmentalist, Bjorn Lomborg, tells Ezra the truth about Golden Rice .

This report aired on The Source March 7 2013.

Ezra Levant responds to a report on Aboriginals in jail.

This report aired on The Source March 7 2013.

Latin American Policy Analyst Pablo Kleinman joins Ezra to discuss the death of Hugo Chavez.

This report aired on The Source March 6 2013.

Ezra responds to the CBC boss who blamed him instead of taking responsibility for what is going on inside the state broadcaster.

This report aired on The Source March 6 2013.

Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall speaks with Ezra about his trip to Washington to push for the Keystone Pipeline.

This report aired on The Source March 6 2013.

Kris Sims joins Ezra to investigate biased Idle No More propaganda being taught in schools.

This report aired on The Source March 5 2013.

Premier Wynne’s big plan for Ontario is undermining success.

This report aired on The Source March 5 2013.

Brian Lilley joins Ezra Levant to discuss his investigation into the possible sexual harassment and inappropriate conduct at the CBC.

This report aired on The Source March 5 2013.

Ontario MPP Jim Wilson discusses an Ontario town that is resisting wind turbines being forced on them.

This report aired on The Source March 5 2013.

The Harlem shake viral video has become political, so Ezra Levant is learning how it’s done.

This report aired on The Source March 5 2013.

This Hour has 22 Minutes, the CBC television show, broadcast a sketch imagining what the Catholic Church would be like if a Canadian was elected Pope.

They depicted a Catholic priest leading the mass, but instead of wine he used Tim Hortons coffee, and instead of the communion wafer he used Timbits.

22 Minutes is obsessed by the Catholic church. Rarely a week goes by where they don't take a run at them. But this was less abusive and funnier than normal.

MORE: CBC boss expenses $53.76 breakfast

At least funny to Shaun Majumder, the Hindu comedian who played the priest. But not quite as funny to Canada's millions of Catholics, whose faith holds that upon taking the communion, the wafer and wine literally transform into the body and blood of Christ.

You either believe it or you don't, and the CBC doesn't.

Freedom of speech tells us that if you're offended, turn the channel. Or if you're mad enough, write a stern letter, which is what Joanne McGarry of the Catholic Civil Rights League did, just as she did when the CBC ridiculed the Last Supper with Jesus' "wife" complaining he spent too much time drinking with the boys.

Question: Could you imagine the CBC mocking the tenets of another religion - oh, just to pick one at random, say, maybe, Islam?

Nothing too heavy-duty. Not the Danish cartoons of Mohammed, which led to riots around the world. Nothing sexual - the usual 22 Minutes attack on Catholics - like Mohammed's marriage to a six-year-old child bride, Aisha. No, maybe just a food joke, like the Tim Hortons skit, poking fun at the Muslim prohibition on eating pork.

Like maybe a Little Mosque where they just loved Canadian bacon, eh?

Yeah, I can't imagine it either. The CBC isn't that brave. They don't want a riot.

But as of last week, it's not just lawlessness the CBC has to worry about. It's the law, too.

Last Wednesday, the Supreme Court of Canada invented two counterfeit new rights: The right not to be offended and the human right to "self-fulfilment."

The court upheld a censorship law banning anything "likely to expose a person to hatred or contempt." Translation: If something you say causes hard feelings, that's illegal. It doesn't matter if it's true, or a joke, or fair comment.

So the most thin-skinned person in the room now has a veto over you.

In order to infringe on your freedom of speech - a real right found in our Constitution - the court invented a new right: The right to "self-fulfilment." The phrase is used no less than nine times in the court ruling (the word "feelings" appears 12 times).

This isn't a law court anymore. It's the Oprah Winfrey Show.

The court is fine with censorship for really mean comments that are "reducing the participation and self-fulfilment of individuals within the vulnerable group." The government can now "prohibit communications involving extreme feelings and strong emotions."

Did that Tim Hortons sketch hamper Catholics' ability to find "self-fulfilment"? Did it reduce "participation" of Catholics? Did it cause "strong feelings"?

Those are stupid questions. Those are childish questions. Those are irrelevant questions in a free country. Those questions are not to be found in our Charter of Rights. But now our Supreme Court says they are the law.

This column was written for Sun TV March 5 2013.

Ezra Levant investigates the CBC’s poor attempt to mock the Catholic Church.

This report aired on The Source March 4 2012.

Ezra speaks with Bob McLeod, Premier of the Northwest Territories, about control of resources.

This report aired on The Source March 4 2013.

Hannah Song of Liberty in North Korea joins Ezra to discuss Dennis Rodman’s clown road show to North Korea.

This report aired on The Source March 4 2013.

On Wednesday , Canada’s Supreme Court ruled that the government has the power to censor anyone who publicly says anything “likely to expose a person to hatred or contempt.”

Except that hate is a natural human emotion. It can no more be banned than love can be banned.

Bill Whatcott, a self-styled Christian evangelist, was the target of such a prosecution.

Twelve years ago, he was charged with hate speech because of his hobby: Handing out hand-scrawled flyers criticizing gay sex, and calling homosexuals “sodomites.”

Whatcott is an odd bird; when he was young, he says, he engaged in gay sex himself, and drugs too, but has since found Jesus.

He argued that, even if his flyers were “hateful” — whatever that means — as a Canadian, he has freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

Which just happen to be the first and second freedoms listed in our Charter of Rights. The counterfeit “human right not to be offended” is not.

But the Supreme Court had no time for Whatcott’s religion. It said the phrase “sodomite” was hateful, and even though that word comes from the Bible, it was illegal for Whatcott to write what he did. The courts threw out the religion defence, “allowing the dissemination of hate speech to be excused by a sincerely held belief would, in effect, provide an absolute defence and would gut the prohibition of effectiveness,” the court wrote.

And it’s right. Any government that respected freedom of religion would not be able to censor a man’s beliefs as the court just did.

But Christians are the one group in society that it’s still acceptable to discriminate against. In the 36 years these censorship laws have been on the books, only Christians have ever been prosecuted — never a Muslim, Sikh or Tamil extremist, though Canada has its fair share of those.

The court didn’t just ban hateful religious views. It banned hateful speech that was objectively, scientifically true. As in, indisputable facts, if they might cause someone to hate someone else. As the judges put it, “not all truthful statements must be free from restriction.”

We lived through a time like that once. It was called the Dark Ages. We “restricted” scientists like Galileo for daring to suggest that the Earth rotated around the Sun — a fact considered offensive in 1615. We emerged from this censorship through a period called the Enlightenment, when science and skepticism allowed us to question anything — even if feelings were hurt. Especially if they were hurt, actually.

Perhaps our Supreme Court would be so kind as to publish a list of prohibited books, like the Vatican’s infamous Index, so we know in advance what truths we are not allowed to say in Canada.

Why did the court do this? Why infringe on our freedom of speech and religion? What was so dangerous about Bill Whatcott — a goofy and harmless eccentric who has likely turned more people against his cause than to it, through his crudeness?

Let me quote the court’s excuse: “As the majority becomes desensitized by the effects of hate speech, the concern is that some members of society will demonstrate their rejection of the vulnerable group through conduct. Hate speech lays the groundwork for later, broad attacks on vulnerable groups. These attacks can range from discrimination, to ostracism, segregation, deportation, violence and, in the most extreme cases, to genocide ...”

So if we don’t stop Whatcott from handing out his flyers, we’ll be deporting and murdering gays in no time. Even though that hasn’t happened in the 12 years he’s been at it. Even though that violence is against real laws like the Criminal Code.

The court’s excuse is a bizarre fantasy, without a scintilla of evidence to suggest it could happen. But it’s also a glimpse of what the court thinks of regular Canadians: We’re all just one pamphlet away from turning into a violent mob.

Only our morally superior judges can be trusted to look at pamphlets without turning into Nazis. Mere citizens can’t be trusted with those flyers. Or the Bible. Or the wrong facts.

This column was written for Sun News March 3 2013.

Jenn Coffey blasts VP Biden & defends the rights of female gun ownership

This report aired on The Source March 1 2013.

Humberto Fontova on the demise of Latin American dictators.

This report aired on The Source March 1 2013.

Justin Trudeau endorsed the Keystone XL pipeline, but his top adviser was one of the point men against another pipeline.

This report aired on The Source March 1 2013.