Corporate Ledgers Show Action4Canada Raised Over $790K in 2022. Here’s How They Spent It
Documents filed by A4C give a look at the balance sheet of one of Canada’s most vocal and active Christian Nationalist and anti-2SLGBTQ+ organizations.
Ezra Levant loves calling other people liars.
Except that when Ezra Levant attacked human rights lawyer Giacomo Vigna as a liar, Justice Robert Smith of the Ontario Superior Court found in 2010 that Levant “spoke in reckless disregard of the truth” and that his allegations were malicious. (Canlii)
And when Ezra Levant attacked lawyer Khurrum Awan as a liar? Justice Wendy Matheson (former counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association) said in 2014:
 The numerous errors made by [Ezra Levant] also speak to the question of malice. Although he agreed in cross-examination that it was important to publish accurate facts, he did little or no fact-checking regarding the posts complained of, either before or after their publication. Nor did he accurately report what was taking place at the hearing. And, with one exception, when he learned that he got his facts wrong, he made no corrections.
 I find that [Ezra Levant's] dominant motive in these blog posts was ill-will, and that his repeated failure to take even basic steps to check his facts showed a reckless disregard for the truth. (CanLII)
Now Ezra Levant has accused the Canadian Anti-Hate Network (“CAHN”) of being “disinformation assets hired by Trudeau” and that CAHN hires it employees to “lie”. Not only are Ezra Levant’s statements materially incorrect; they ignore the impact that far-right news outlets may be having on terrorists.
Rebel News Network Ltd. (“Rebel News”) commenced an action against CAHN team member Ms. Simons concerning the Re-Tweet of a third-party post (“Re-Tweet”). CAHN did not post the Re-Tweet. Ms. Simons posted the tweet on her personal Twitter account at 1 pm on December 8, 2020. She deleted it at 3:28 pm, the same day.
On December 10, 2020, Ms. Simons posted this apology, “I deleted a tweet that suggested the Christchurch terrorist was incited by Rebel News to commit violence. I did not have evidence to support that and apologize to Rebel news”. The apology was live until January 17, 2021, after which time the Twitter account was deleted.
Litigation by Rebel Media
Despite the apology having been posted, Rebel Media used their money and lawyers to commence an action against Ms. Simons.
The lawyer for Rebel Media was advised of the apology and the following due diligence conducted by Ms. Simons prior to posting the Re-Tweet:
She drew on her existing expertise and knowledge and confirmed that:
While Ms. Simons reliance on these findings was reasonable at the time of posting the Re-Tweet given the legitimacy of the sources, she still issued an apology to Rebel News. Rebel News issued its own statement following the Royal Commission’s findings, stating that the ultimate recipient of the donation was another project.
Counsel for Rebel News was advised that if it did not dismiss the action against Ms. Simons, she would bring an anti-SLAPP motion. For context, Rebel News has just lost two anti-SLAPP motions brought by Al Jazeera and Brendan Demelle. It is now facing significant costs as per the judgement in Al Jazeera Media and Demelle.
Rebel News entered into a settlement agreement with Ms. Simons to dismiss the defamation against her in exchange for her reposting the apology for 90 days.
Ezra Levant therefore misleads his readers when he stated that:
While many of the above statements made by Ezra Levant could give rise to findings of defamation, they are red herrings that detract from the real issue.
As found by the New Zealand Royal Commission, a terrorist consumed and/or donated to overseas far-right organizations prior to committing a large-scale act of terrorism. The Terrorist donated $106.68 AUD to Rebel News Network Ltd. Rebel says that the ultimate recipient of the donation was another project, but does that even matter?
Rebel News and other far-right organizations must examine the impact they may be having on terrorists like the Christchurch Terrorist, Alexandre Bissonnette (Quebec Terrorist), and Darren Osborne (English Terrorist), all of whom targeted Muslims. In each case, evidence was led at the criminal trials and the Royal Inquiry that the perpetrators were exposed to Rebel News’ or its contributors’ content; much of which (especially at the time) degraded Muslims.
It is in the public interest to start a societal conversation as to the relationship between the consumption of far-right, anti-Muslim media sources and acts of terrorism. The victims of these massacres deserve, at the very least, that we study whether anti-Muslim propaganda contributes to a dangerous environment that, in turn, gives rise to mass murders.
This commentary and societal conversation are not anti-conservative. They are not pro-censorship. If you do not support the murder of innocent people, you should support trying to understand why people commit it.