January 24, 2019

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH: We’re taking Rachel Notley's elections commissioner to court over her illegal censorship of The Rebel

Ezra LevantRebel Commander

More crazy news today about Rachel Notley’s attempt to silence The Rebel, to clear the way for her election campaign.

WHAT HAPPENED LAST WEEK?

Last week, the Government of Alberta wrote us a bizarre letter, declaring that we here at The Rebel are legally not journalists. Because some of our work criticized Rachel Notley, the desperate, failing premier of Alberta, she says we are actually a political campaign group, and have to register with her government, and be regulated by them, like they do in Iran.

And because we won't register with the government, they propose to fine us $5,500. If we don’t comply, they can fine us up to $100,000, per story they don’t like.

They decided this at a secret trial that they didn’t even tell us about, until after we were convicted.

So, of course, we’re not going to stop criticizing Notley or her bullies and we’re not going to pay their $5,500 fine. We’re going to fight back.

HOW WE ARE FIGHTING BACK:

Our lawyer filed an appeal in a real court, first thing on the morning of Tuesday, January 22, 2019.

In fact, we’re challenging the constitutionality of this censorship law. It violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which gives everyone, even conservatives, freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

We’re asking the courts to strike down this illegal law, for everyone — even for left-wing media.

PLEASE CLICK HERE TO HELP

NOTLEY'S COMMISSIONERS RESPONSE:

It's obvious that the Notley government is in full damage control mode now that their campaign against us has gone viral and been covered in the mainstream media. But the last thing Notley wants is for a real court to review their misconduct.

So Notley’s commissioner wrote back to us just hours after we filed our appeal, asking us to call it off.

The latest letter to us reads in part:

“This is an opportunity to provide input and not the final decision as to findings and penalty. As such, there is nothing to appeal at this stage. To be perfectly clear, there has been no decision at this point.”

That's a lie.

First of all, in the original letter they sent us, after their secret hearing, the subject line is “Notice of Adverse Finding”. As in, they have made their legal decision against us, and they’re telling us about it after the fact. They convicted us. That's what "adverse finding" means.

One section of their conviction letter is called “Findings of the investigation”. In other words, there's already been an investigation into us, and it's over.

And they sat on that conviction letter and didn’t send it to us right away. Instead, they immediately contacted our billboard vendor first, and started harassing them:

"The billboard has been in contravention since November 2018…” (...) "Elections Alberta is not willing to allow the contravention to continue."

So not only does she say twice that we have been convicted, but she is acting on that already, and demanding that our business partners rip up their contracts with us. And we didn’t even know about any of this, until our vendor told us.

PLEASE CLICK HERE TO HELP

WHAT DOES THIS ALL MEAN?

It’s terrible news, but it's also great news.

It’s terrible news in that Rachel Notley’s NDP government is out of control. They’ll do anything to silence criticism as they head into an election.

But the great news is that they let their rage get the best of them. They didn’t want to wait for a fair trial. They just “knew” we were guilty. So they cut corners; they broke the law themselves — and we’ve caught them, and they know it, so they’re begging us not to appeal to a real court.

So, of course, we’re going to proceed with our appeal.

Notley has put at least seven staff on this. We have one senior lawyer, Fred Kozak, and his junior associate. So it’s seven people from the government against our two lawyers.

But I like our odds.

I really think we’re going to win this legal battle — not just for ourselves, but we’re going to get this law struck down for everybody.

But I do need your help.

I promise you, if you help cover our legal bills, I’ll fight this all the way, as hard and as smart as we can.

Please click here to donate.

At that link you can also see the conviction letter, Fred Kozak’s letter in response, our appeal, and the commissioner’s weird attempt to ask us not to appeal.

If you agree with me that we have to fight, then please help. Because it’s about to get really serious now. If you can help with $10 or $100 or even more, please do. I think Notley wants to just out-spend us — because she’s using tax dollars, and we rely 100 per cent on viewer donations.

But I believe we can win, with your help!

Please go to StandWithTheRebel.com and help us fight for freedom. Thank you.


You can also contribute by cheque to support The Rebel. Please make cheques payable to The Rebel and send to:

The Rebel
PO Box 61056 Eglinton/Dufferin RO
Toronto, ON M6E 5B2 


*To contribute in a different currency, or to pay by credit card (not PayPal) please visit RebelDonations.com

* To donate Bitcoin, Litecoin, or Ethereum click here

*Donate by e-transfer using donations@therebel.media

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2019-01-27 17:26:20 -0500
Only liberalist globalist are ass kissers.. I’m not a ass kisser.. I guess that’s why my life has been nothing but a fight all time..
commented 2019-01-27 01:17:47 -0500
By the way… I read a lot Nick…
commented 2019-01-27 01:16:15 -0500
C’ mon Nick take me on…..
commented 2019-01-27 00:47:13 -0500
The only reason I’m staying in Canada is to promote Patriotic Canadians to rise up and defend their Nation as their forefathers did… Canadians deserve more than you..

Nicholas Conklin
commented 2019-01-27 00:32:12 -0500
It’s a FIXED SECOND STATE OF LAWS!!! for special individuals… DON’T Lecture me on this topic GOOFBALL!!!! Go lick your masters ass!
commented 2019-01-27 00:28:02 -0500
HRC cases are not law suits… You are correct Alberta Maga commented 19 hours ago..

They are a special “TAX” on any innocent Law abiding Citizen in Canada who has been targeted from the Trudeau liberalist globalist crime crew…
commented 2019-01-26 20:35:03 -0500
Too add to HRC cases are not law suits… You are correct Alberta Maga commented 19 hours ago..

They are a special “TAX” on any innocent Law abiding Citizen in Canada who has been targeted from the Trudeau liberalist globalist crime crew…
commented 2019-01-26 20:05:51 -0500
So, Nickie, you say that in a debate, you make a statement and the other person is to prove you wrong?

Wrong again, in a debate you try to prove that your point is correct while trying to prove the other person’s point is wrong. Assumption that your position is correct is not granted to you in a debate.

I read all the comments.

Most people do not bother to debate you because you double speak, lie and run the conversation around in circles while not addressing the other person’s rebuttal of your argument, exactly what you accuse me of doing. That is called projection, btw.

In any case, I have no interest in continuing this conversation, so make your usual “last word” insulting comment like you always do.
commented 2019-01-26 18:06:40 -0500
Around and around Nickie goes … yap, yap, yip, yap, yip, yap, yap … but no proof. Typical.
commented 2019-01-26 13:55:26 -0500
Yes, I know. That ain’t gonna happen.
commented 2019-01-26 13:54:15 -0500
Nickie said, "… he has primarily lost. It doesn’t matter if it’s a lawsuit or going before the HRC. Feel free to post all his wins. "

You are the one who made the claim, so you be a fair and thorough researcher as you claim to be and post his wins as well. I know this is asking a lot, but be honest.
commented 2019-01-26 01:49:57 -0500
Andrew and Nicholas i consider a CHE shirt to be hate speech.
commented 2019-01-26 01:48:53 -0500
John Wick funny how Nicholas left out when Ezra sued and won , he cherry picked.
commented 2019-01-26 01:48:21 -0500
John Wick HRC cases are not lawsuits.
commented 2019-01-26 01:47:03 -0500
Andrew Stephenson except they were not advertising anything and how is an article any different?
commented 2019-01-25 23:03:45 -0500
Al Peterson: “But then you believe that babies are parasites so you’re not very convincing in the rational thought department”

That doesn’t address my comment at all. If it is so unconvincing you should be able to directly refute it.
________________________________________________________________________________
Sure it addresses it. You said:
“I think Alberta is quite generous in allowing it to continue with oversight.”

I said, in effect is that due to your abysmal record of “thinking” rationally, your thoughts are irrelevant. Let me sketch it out for you:
1. You said, “I think babies are parasites”.
2. That was disproved and showed your thinking to be woefully inadequate and irrational.
3. You now spew another brilliant insight based on that same thinking.
4. So, based on your track record, I must reject your latest thinking since it is likely as poorly cogitated as your previous examples.

Ergo, I did refute your idea by demonstrating the poor quality of your so called thinking. I am also being as generous as the Notley government by allowing your thinking to be called such. It is thinking of a sort but just of a very poor quality.
commented 2019-01-25 22:52:20 -0500
NICHOLAS CONKLIN
I said that The Rebel isn’t as loud, but there is still hate promoted here in addition to the commenters who hate gay people, Muslims and other groups they deem to be scary.
_____________________________________________________________________________
This is your biased claim. Your opinion is not a fact. Goebbels was wrong. Stow it.
commented 2019-01-25 19:17:03 -0500
Andrew Stephenson said, “Discriminatory comments made based upon stereotypes aimed at individuals or groups of people are “hate speech”. “Disliking Muslims because they are terrorists” is both discrimination targeted at a group of people, and based on an unreasonable stereotype. Discussing the economic benefits of immigration is not, as it is demographically blind.”

Definition of Discriminatory: making or showing an unfair or prejudicial distinction between different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

Who determines what is unfair or prejudicial?
- I am not asking for a definition of those two words, but who is placed in the position of evaluating the speech as unfair or prejudicial?
-= A judge? Judges have differing opinions are rule differently on what is unfair or prejudicial because those two concepts do not have an absolute value.
-= The government? Should MPs have the final say in what is unfair or prejudicial when they vote a bill into law?
-= Should YOU, Andrew, be the one to determine unfair or prejudicial?

Look, Nicholas and Andrew, all I am saying is that “hate speech” is far more of a subjective concept that either of you treat it as.

It is obvious that YOU want the power to decide the limits on what is unfair or prejudicial, and what is abusive and threatening, but your opinions will not match other people’s opinions. What makes your opinions absolute and not someone else?
commented 2019-01-25 19:02:38 -0500
Nicholas Conklin sais, “I think Hate Speech is pretty OBJECTIVE.
Hate Speech definition:
abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation.”

- Who determines what is abusive?
-= At what point does the speech become abusive?
-= Who determines that point?

- Threatening is a bit more clear, but to what point?
-= I have seen people get threatened by Conservative opinions on policies.
-= At what point does the speech become threatening.
-= Who determines that point.

Even the Universities have groups of students that try to shut down Conservative speakers because they are threatened by their lectures.

My point is that “hate speech” is subjective. Each person has his/her point where speech becomes “hate”.

It may be clear to you, Nicholas, but is you certainty the same as everyone else’s certainty and if not then what makes your opinion absolute?

Nicholas went on to say, “Your Ward News clearly catered to this and this is why they were found guilty.”

They have not been found guilty. Only a court of law can do that. The fact that the NDP have charged them only means that the NDP “found them guilty”.

Look, Jimmy, I know you do not like the rule of law being applied to Conservatives, especially The Rebel and even more specifically Ezra, but even Conservatives deserve to be treated as innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Not your style, I know.

As for your last paragraph, all you are trying to do is get me annoyed. Not going to work.
commented 2019-01-25 18:42:56 -0500
Andrew said, “Yes, I do think union ads should also be banned or severely regulated.”

I question whether you are being honest with this statement.
commented 2019-01-25 13:29:31 -0500
Peter Netterville commented 16 hours ago
Andrew said, “Third party political advertising should be banned, particularly non-individual advertising.”

Then I guess you also think that the multi millions the Unions spent on third party advertising against Harper in 2015 should also have been banned? "

Yes, I do think union ads should also be banned or severely regulated.

“Calling something “hate speech” is so very subjective that it is impossible to define objectively without some external governing body defining what is and what is not hate speech”
Discriminatory comments made based upon stereotypes aimed at individuals or groups of people are “hate speech”. “Disliking Muslims because they are terrorists” is both discrimination targeted at a group of people, and based on an unreasonable stereotype. Discussing the economic benefits of immigration is not, as it is demographically blind.

“Alberta Maga commented 17 hours ago
Andrew how is reporting criticism advertising? All media does it. "

Pretty sure a billboard – paid political messaging – would be defined as advertising.

Al Peterson: “But then you believe that babies are parasites so you’re not very convincing in the rational thought department”

That doesn’t address my comment at all. If it is so unconvincing you should be able to directly refute it.

"
How about Nickolas prove that his statement is true since he stated the lie in the first place"

Deflection. You should be able to independently defend your own argument. (and he has, subsequently, provided supporting information, so your turn!)
commented 2019-01-25 13:15:03 -0500
Any bets that Baby Doc Trudeau isn’t watching this very closely? Well, puppet master Butts has a team watching this as Dumber than a Rock Prime Moron Trudeau does’t have the brains to this there might be something wrong with Notley and her government’s actions.

Like I say, Justin inherited his mother’s looks and Fidel’s politics.
commented 2019-01-25 13:04:06 -0500
What? Star Chamber trials aren’t legal? You mean Notley and friends are running scared and sent out a hitman (in a way)?
commented 2019-01-25 10:08:21 -0500
Peter,

I think Hate Speech is pretty OBJECTIVE.

Hate Speech definition:

abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation.

Your Ward News clearly catered to this and this is why they were found guilty.

What you are really trying to say is that you agree with some hate speech, so in your mind it isn’t hate speech at all, but the truth in your bigoted, homophobic brain.
commented 2019-01-25 10:02:54 -0500
Al,

The hammer is falling tomorrow for sure. You will finally be exposed as a Rebel sheep who can’t do his own research and think for himself.
commented 2019-01-25 10:01:06 -0500
Al,

While he no longer works he because he got a better offer (but Ezra wishes he stayed) and is now a pariah – here you go:

We Watched Gavin McInnes’s Full Anti-Semitic Rant So You Don’t Have To

https://www.canadalandshow.com/rebel-media-star-gavin-mcinnes-has-theories-on-jews/

https://pressprogress.ca/rebel_media_host_holocaust_video_praised_by_nazis_former_ku_klux_klan_grand_wizard/

I said that The Rebel isn’t as loud, but there is still hate promoted here in addition to the commenters who hate gay people, Muslims and other groups they deem to be scary.
commented 2019-01-25 08:10:31 -0500
Time will tell who is in the right; the NDP government or The Rebel.

But ask yourselves this question:
“Why is the NDP government so eager to shut down The Rebel?”

The answer that first pops into your head indicates your level of prejudice for/against Rebel Media and ultimately says more about you that it does about Rebel Media.
commented 2019-01-25 07:46:49 -0500
The problem with claiming someone promotes hate is proving what was said is really hate speech.

Who is it that defines hate speech?
1. the person who hears the words?
- very subjective and changing
2. the person who says the words?
- also subjective and different for each individual
3. some outside observer?
- which observer, one person, a group, which group, the mob, which mob?

Is there a governing body that defines hate terms/phrases?

If hate is defined by the hearer, then anything that is said in any context whatsoever could be considered hate speech by anyone at any time no matter when it was spoken/written.

So people say, “Oh, well it is obviously that is hate speech!”
- to whom is is obvious? What makes it obvious? By what standard do we judge that it is obviously hate speech?

People in general cannot agree on what is good and right concerning big issue such as border walls, immigration, the amount to tax the people, and other big issues, so how are we all to agree on “Oh, well it is obviously that is hate speech!”

Calling something “hate speech” is so very subjective that it is impossible to define objectively without some external governing body defining what is and what is not hate speech.

So, who is it that is allowed to define what is hate speech, Nicholas Conklin and his SJW type, the government, mob rule?

Who should we trust to define what is and what is not hate speech?
commented 2019-01-25 02:44:44 -0500
Fight them as far as you have to in order to stop the dictatorial NDP….they are a blight on Alberta. All my voting life I voted NDP but after Notley and the NDP Leap Manifesto I will never again cast a ballot in favour of any NDP member and never ever a Liberal. I’m on The Rebel’s team with my donation! The fight against Notley is against their tyranny and compounded lies and failures. Justice and freedom for Alberta and Albertans!