Ezra heads to court in fight for press freedom
Trudeau's 'advisory board' overturned the CRA's initial approval of Rebel News' QCJO status.
BECOME A MEMBER
Tonight on The Ezra Levant Show, Ezra discusses his fight for press freedom at Toronto's Federal Court of Appeal.
The visit evoked memories of past Rebel News legal victories, including a 2019 win against Trudeau's election debates committee, a 2021 ruling, and a successful challenge to a G7 reporting ban.
However, the recent appeal concerned the "Qualified Canadian Journalism Organization" (QCJO) status, a designation Ezra views as a government tool to control journalism. He revealed that the CRA initially approved Rebel News for QCJO status, but Trudeau's "advisory board" overturned the decision.
Ezra described a lonely courtroom experience on Wednesday, noting the absence of other media, which he attributes to their dependence on government subsidies. He expressed sadness and a 60/40 chance of losing, questioning the government's right to define who is a journalist.
Despite the likely loss, Ezra remains committed to fighting injustices, citing past "miracle" wins and small victories, like forcing a minister to unblock Rebel News on Twitter.
The Rebel Commander criticized the current state of Canadian journalism, where organizations like the Canadian Association of Journalists are "colonized by Trudeau."
Ezra extended his criticism to Mark Carney, expressing concern about the power wielded by unelected advisory groups and the potential for political bias in media licensing. He concluded by emphasizing the importance of principled action and advocating for freedom of speech, even for opponents, to ensure fair rules for all.
COMMENTS
-
Dennis Bosco commented 2025-09-27 09:35:32 -0400Mr. Levant,
I sent this to you years ago but with this renewed attempt for government media accreditation it needs repeating.
From George Jonas National Post 2013 the first four paragraphs from the article.
" Looking at the great written constitutions of the world, one sees no guarantees for a quality press. They offer no constitutional warrant for a responsible press, a fair press or a balanced press. What the constitutions of Western-style democracies guarantee people is a free press.
It’s no oversight. While it’s possible to strive for quality, courage, balance, responsibility, intelligence, fairness and accuracy in the media, such results cannot be guaranteed. Any constitution that pretended to do so would be dishonest. Freedom comes closest to assuring qualities no one can guarantee, because freedom contains a potential for all of them
Yet whenever freedom of the press is threatened, the rationale and justification are usually “standards” and “quality.” The media, say censor wannabes, need to be regulated because they’re not fair, balanced, intelligent and accurate enough
Laws aiming to constrain or otherwise qualify freedom are promoted on the basis that they’re laws in good causes. The framers of the amendments to the American Constitution anticipated the magnetic allure of such Good Laws. They put wax in their ear like Ulysses to decline the siren song of Good Laws by employing the formula in the very first amendment: “Congress shall make no law … respecting religion … speech … and press.” Not “no bad law,” not “no unnecessary law,” not “no intrusive law.” Just no law. None whatever"
This is one of the most articulate and compelling pieces supporting a free press I’ ve ever come across. Perhaps the judges hearing your case should be given this article to review.
Dennis Bosco -
Anthony Salotti commented 2025-09-25 05:26:19 -0400Keep fighting the good fight Ezra .
