Ezra Levant’s May 8, 2018 episode ties free speech to Eric Schneiderman’s resignation after four women accused him of abuse—including Michelle Manning-Barish and Tanya Selvaratnam—while allies like Bill de Blasio delayed condemnation. He parallels Christine Moore’s NDP harassment claims, questioning her credibility amid suspended caucus memberships, then shifts to Trump’s Iran deal withdrawal, criticizing John Kerry’s alleged Logan Act violation while praising Trump’s distinction between Iranian people and regime. The episode also attacks Ontario’s non-binary birth certificate policy for Joshua M. Ferguson, dismissing gender theory as scientifically flawed, and warns Trudeau’s transgender prison policies could endanger inmates. Levant frames media-driven conservative concessions by Doug Ford and Jason Kenney as a betrayal of principle, contrasting Trump’s defiance while citing Barbara Kay’s balanced skepticism. The episode ends with listener letters and travel logistics, underscoring Levant’s blend of political commentary and cultural critique. [Automatically generated summary]
Tonight, another male feminist is exposed for serial sexual misconduct.
Oh, and a female feminist too.
It's May 8th, and you're watching The Ezra LeVant Show.
There's 8,500 customers here, and you won't give them an answer.
You come here once a year with a sign, and you feel morally superior.
The only thing I have to say to the government about why I publish it is because it's my bloody right to do so.
Oh, the left loved Eric Schneiderman.
Eric who, you might say?
Well, until last night, he was the attorney general for New York State, a very powerful position.
It's a place for ambitious men.
Elliot Spitzer used it for showboating lawsuits against Wall Street, catapulting himself into the governor's office until he was caught hiring prostitutes and hiding his inappropriate use of funds for that.
Funny about male feminists like Spitzer, eh?
It's almost like their very showy feminism is a deliberate strategic cover for their misogyny in real life.
That, and a way to attract women, I suppose.
Never trust a male feminist.
Trust men who protect women, who respect women, who stand up for women, who provide for women.
But when a man says, I'm a male feminist, that's the time to be careful.
I estimate that 90% of the rapists and other miscreants uncovered in the whole Me Too scandals have been Democrats and liberals and feminists, not just Democrats and liberals, but feminist pro-choice activists.
I'll never forget the Gian Gameschi, the CBC host, who used the state broadcaster as actually a machine to recruit girlfriends.
He beat women for sexual pleasure, and the CBC protected him for years.
He was a women's studies major in university.
Seriously.
Obviously.
As cover.
And to meet women.
How long?
How many?
Dozens, hundreds of times did he do that?
Just like Eric Sneiderman.
Look at this story in Elle magazine.
Elle is a women's magazine.
They have not put Melania Trump on their cover.
She's a supermodel.
She's first lady.
She's respectable and reputable in every way.
She is an immigrant who speaks five languages.
You think they might put her on the cover, but she's married to a Republican they hate.
Unlike Eric Schneiderman, they love him.
Look at this headline.
He's been pro-abortion since high school.
What high school male is a pro-abortion activist?
Well, think of Jean Gameshi, because look at the news broken by Ronan Farrell in the New Yorker magazine last night.
Look at this.
Four women accused New York's Attorney General of physical abuse.
Eric Schneiderman has raised his profile as a voice against sexual misconduct.
Now, after suing Harvey Weinstein, he faces a Me Too reckoning of his own.
Hmm.
Oh, that's right.
Schneiderman isn't just a super feminist abortion activist.
He was showily, big PR, suing Harvey Weinstein, making himself the hero of the Me Too story.
I mean, getting your women's studies degree is child's play.
Imagine being the guy prosecuting Harvey Weinstein and then secretly being a Harvey Weinstein here.
Let me quote a bit from the story.
Let me read a whole paragraph.
This is from the New Yorker, great story by Ronan Farrell.
As his prominence as a voice against sexual misconduct has risen, so too has the distress of four women with whom he has had romantic relationships or encounters.
They accuse Schneiderman of having subjected them to non-consensual physical violence.
All have been reluctant to speak out, fearing reprisal.
But two of the women, Michelle Manning-Barish and Tanya Selvaratnam, have talked to the New Yorker on the record because they feel that doing so could protect other women.
They allege that he repeatedly hit them, often after drinking, frequently in bed, and never with their consent.
Manning Barish and Selvaratnam categorized the abuse he inflicted on them as assault.
They did not report their allegations to the police at the time, but both say they eventually sought medical attention after having been slapped hard across the ear and face and also choked.
Selvaratnam says that Schneiderman warned her he could have her followed and her phones tapped, and both say that he threatened to kill them if they broke up with him.
These are prominent, credible, successful women.
They are not suing and they are not trying to shake him down.
They're not like Stormy Daniels.
They're not milking the celebrity.
They're not cashing in.
They're just fed up by the extreme hypocrisy.
And so are two more women who are still too afraid to go public in their own name.
Here's more from the story.
A third romantic, former romantic partner of Schneiderman's told Manning Barish and Selvaratnam that he also repeatedly subjected her to non-consensual physical violence, but she told them that she is too frightened of him to come forward.
The New Yorker has independently vetted the accounts that they gave of her allegations.
A fourth woman, an attorney who has held prominent positions in the New York legal community, says that Schneiderman made an advance toward her.
When she rebuffed him, he slapped her across the face with such force that it left a mark that lingered the next day.
She recalls screaming in surprise and pain and beginning to cry and says that she felt frightened.
She is asked to remain unidentified, but shared a photograph of the injury with the New Yorker.
I got a question for her.
Is there any male feminist who is not an abuser?
Seriously, actually, I think it's the other way around.
Is there any abuser who hasn't yet figured out that it's smart to call yourself a male feminist?
I don't think this young games she started off as a male feminist and became an abuser.
I think he gamed the system and decided to be a feminist as cover and for access to women.
I think that's the case for these liberal Democrat feminists.
They figured out being a liberal Democrat feminist was the place to be, like a molester deciding to join the Boy Scouts or to sign up to work for the TSA to grope people at an airport.
If you doubt my theory, listen to what some of the victim's friends told her, again from the story.
After the former girlfriend ended the relationship, she told several friends about the abuse.
A number of them advised her to keep the story to herself, arguing that Schneiderman was too valuable a politician for the Democrats to lose.
So it works, doesn't it?
Schneiderman knows these liberal feminists better than they know themselves.
He was absolutely right in his calculation.
Other women, friends, I say again, the victim called them her friends.
Her friends literally thought she should take one for the team.
She should be assaulted, punched, I don't know, raped, whatever, because Schneiderman was politically too valuable to their ideology.
Come on, girl, every time he punches you, just think of the good you're doing politically by not sending him to jail.
Those are her friends?
Do you doubt Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy and Charlie Rose and Matt Lauer and Harvey Weinstein and all the rest of them said exactly the same thing?
Oh, and it's still happening.
Last night when this shocking story broke, and I encourage you to read it in full in the New Yorker online, it truly is excellent journalism.
Ronan Farrow, who has broken so many of these Me Too stories, is meticulous and he's persuasive.
He's got the mind of a prosecutor.
So last night, there were a few hours when Schneiderman thought he could maybe ride this one out, I guess.
New York's governor, also a Democrat, said he thought Schneiderman should resign.
He put that out there.
But New York's hard left-wing mayor, Bill de Blasio, he wouldn't say that.
Here's a New York City Hall journalist quoting him.
Mayor de Blasio says he does not think it's appropriate to comment on the bombshell Eric Schneiderman story in The New Yorker.
Really?
Not appropriate to comment on four very credible, detailed accusations of sexual assault, choking, other violence.
Oh, I didn't mention this part.
It's from one of the women.
That's her.
That's Tanya Selveratnam.
She recalls sometimes he'd tell me to call him master, and he'd slap me until I did.
Selveratinam, who was born in Sri Lanka, has dark skin, and she recalls that he started calling me his brown slave and demanding that I repeat that I was his property.
So he's racist.
He has slave master fantasies.
He beats women.
He makes them call him master.
This was in the story in The New Yorker that was public, but Bill de Blasio still didn't want to comment because it was a political ally of his.
Well, this morning, here's the CNN story.
So this is more than 12 hours after the original.
The shocking downfall of Eric Schneiderman won't help Trump for long.
I'm sorry, what does this have to do with Trump, you kooks?
I mean, yes, of course, Schneiderman was an anti-Trump extremist, of course.
And that's the point.
That's why that victim's friends told her to shut up and take the abuse because Schneiderman was so important to the anti-Trump cause.
And CNN is like those girlfriends.
Come on, guys.
It's all about Trump.
No, no, it's not, actually.
I read through that CNN story.
It wasn't until the seventh paragraph that Schneiderman was identified as a Democrat.
Of course, I mean, you know that if a politician is in a scandal and they don't tell you his party affiliation in the headline, you know he's a Democrat.
It's just the iron law of the media party.
But now let me tell you a story from Canada, because I said I had a story about a female feminist too.
This one, Christine Moore, an NDP member of parliament from Quebec.
Moore keeps complaining about sexual harassment wherever she goes.
She was into Me Too before it was a thing.
Except it seems to be a bit fuzzy with her.
I mean, first of all, she's not weak.
She's not a desperate would-be actress with a huge power imbalance to a Harvey Weinstein producer.
She's not a weak girlfriend to a New York attorney general who threatens to wiretap her or punch her.
I mean, this woman, Christine Moore, is a member of Parliament.
She's wealthy.
She's powerful in a way, with access to much more power.
But she kept getting into girl trouble, would you call it?
Here's a Toronto Star article about an NDP member of parliament who had sex with a liberal member of parliament named Massimo Passetti, and then after the fact said she didn't like it very much.
It wasn't explicitly consensual and got that MP, that Liberal MP, that man, kicked out of Parliament.
I'm going to read a fair bit of this story because it's just so insane.
This is from the Toronto Star.
The Francophone MP from Quebec told the star she knew Passetti from a sports league, and they would often join other members for drinks after games.
One night in March, while returning from the bar after a game, the MP recalled she agreed to join Passetti for a drink in his hotel room.
I was sitting on one of the chairs at the side of the room.
We were talking a little bit, and at one point he said, just come to sit beside me, tapping his bed at the same time.
She said she declined and then excused herself to the bathroom where she thought about what she should do next because he had made it clear he wanted more from her than friendship.
I just thought I should leave.
Just drink my glass quickly and say, I think I better go.
But when I walked back to my chair, when I passed beside the bed, he grabbed me and I froze after that, she said.
I was afraid that things would get worse, she added, explaining that she had been sexually assaulted when she was a teenager and the similarity between the two situations made her feel unable to act.
She said she did not want to go into more details of what happened next, but described it as sex without explicit consent.
Okay, so she went to a man's hotel room at night for a drink.
But it wasn't consensual, really?
Here's a detail added by the CBC to the story.
During a confidential meeting with the Liberal and NDP whips, multiple sources have told the Canadian press that the woman acknowledged she did not explicitly say no to Passetti and that she provided a condom.
In the interview, she refused to comment on those details.
So it was sexual assault, but she actually never said no, and she's the one who brought the condom, and she went to his hotel room.
Now, for some reason, this female NDP MP from Quebec, there are a few female NDP MPs from Quebec, but not that many.
She insisted the journalists not name her, though she had no problem naming Passetti and having him thrown by the Liberal government and his life ruined.
And it's not clear because of this weird journalistic decision to keep her identity secret, but I think it was another young woman, NDP MP, who got another Liberal MP named Scott Andrews kicked out too, also for a date gone wrong with her.
Here's from the same star story.
According to the sources, the incident involving Andrews allegedly started at a social event on Parliament Hill.
They say Andrews, the woman involved in the allegations against him and Passetti, went from the event to Passetti's office where they drank some wine.
Eventually Passetti left, leaving Andrews and the woman alone.
According to sources, the woman alleges that Andrews followed her home, forced his way through her door, pushed her against a wall, groped her, and ground his pelvis against her.
She ordered him to leave.
He did.
Afterwards, sources say the woman alleges that Andrews repeatedly verbally harassed her, calling her a hock teaser.
Andrews has denied any misconduct, but sources say he has not yet given a detailed rebuttal to the woman's complaint.
This is written so bizarrely to keep the accuser's names secret, but not the accused's names secret.
Female feminists and male feminists on both sides, I think they're all pretty broken, don't you?
And most of them are married, by the way, to other people.
And now there's news this week, just today, actually pardon me, news earlier this week, that Christine Moore has accused her fellow NDP member of parliament, Aaron Ware, of sexual harassment, but of other people, not of her.
And now he's been suspended too.
That is three members of parliament down because of accusations by female NDP MPs from Quebec.
What, that's 1% of all our elected federal legislators.
That's impressive.
Female MPs Accused00:06:21
Now, I want to be clear, the real journalists of the star and the CBC are keeping the name of the NDP MP who had encounters with the Liberal MPs, keeping the name of the woman confidential.
But I see reports online that it's indeed the same Christine Moore.
And I wrote to her today to ask her to confirm that it was indeed her with Massimo Passetti.
And then I phoned her office and I spoke with her media spokesman.
Now, he wouldn't answer the questions.
He told me to write another note to another email address, and so I did.
Still no answer.
I will let you know if I get an answer.
And you see, the reason I mention Christine Moore and bring up the allegations that she was the same NDP MP from Quebec who made the allegations against Passetti, and we know she made the allegations against Ware, is because of this truly remarkable story in the CBC of all places by one of the few independent thinkers over there.
His name is Neil MacDonald.
It's an incredible, insane story, and until today, it was relegated to the gossip websites.
Look at this.
Jagmeet Singh says he always believes survivors.
Well, here's another one.
NDP MP Christine Moore, who alleged improper conduct by a fellow MP, is facing troubling accusations herself.
It doesn't really tell you what's in the story, does it?
I think the CBC is really shy about the content of it.
Every word in the story is crazy.
But let me read some highlights.
This is from Neil MacDonald in the CBC.
Glenn Kirkland was a combat soldier in Afghanistan with Princess Paticia's Canadian Light Infantry when a Taliban ambush in 2008 killed three of his comrades and very nearly killed him.
He was maimed, his pancreas smashed, his vision and hearing impaired, and his mind badly injured.
To this day, shrapnel he took in the rocket attack works its way to the skin's surface.
He began a daily regime of drugs, including antidepressants, powerful opioid painkillers, insulin and antibiotics, and was still taking them in early June 2013 when the House of Commons Standing Committee on Defense summoned him, against the wishes of the military, to testify about his treatment by the military following his injuries.
What has this got to do with sexual harassment and Christine Moore, right?
I mean, he's a soldier, served bravely, took a lot of pain for our country.
Well, look at this, and look at Christine Moore.
Here she makes her entrance.
Ready?
By the time he finished testifying, he told me recently, so this is Neil McDonald speaking, he was weeping.
It was an emotional speech about all my friends dying around me and me trying to crawl out of fire and how disappointed I am, and I am teary-eyed and talking about my father, and I'm still standing there long after this emotional thing is done.
As the committee dispersed, committee member Christine Moore handed him her card asking him to come to her office for further discussions.
A few hours later, he did, not knowing quite what to expect.
Quote, you have to realize what an elected MP is to a grunt soldier, he said.
Really?
So what did this MP want with him?
Well, let me read some more.
I mean, Christine Moore says the Canadian military is a hotbed of sexual harassment, right?
I mean, look at this headline in the star also.
MP Christine Moore faced military harassment firsthand.
So everywhere this woman goes, she is so unlucky in love, isn't she?
People sure take advantage of her a lot, eh?
Anyways, back to this soldier who gave emotional testimony, and then Christine Moore came over and gave him her business card and said, hey, come back to my office.
Let me read the rest.
Okay, this is the last I'm going to read from the story.
Kirkland says when he arrived at Moore's office, she offered him gin and persisted even after he told her he was taking antidepressants and painkillers and was not supposed to be drinking.
She's a nurse, he says, and I thought I was, I suppose, if she's a nurse and says it's okay, it is.
There were a few more drinks, and it became clear Moore's intentions went beyond a professional interest in his case.
That night, he says, she followed him back to his hotel, where he says she spent the night.
Look, I'm not crying rape, says Kirkland, who is now a realtor in Brandon.
I don't like to think of myself as a survivor.
I prefer Thriver.
But what she did was inappropriate.
Was I a willing participant?
I guess it depends on your definition of willing.
There was a power imbalance.
There was a level of authority there.
I'm sorry, that's a predator.
I really think the analogy would be if a female rape victim gave emotional testimony to Parliament and then a male MP invited her over to his office, plied her with drinks, and then followed her back to her hotel and had sex with her that night.
I think that really is the analogy here.
How many times has this member of parliament, Christine Moore, done this?
Well, I asked her in an email.
I'll let you know if she ever asks, ever answers me.
Oh, by the way, here's Christine Moore with her baby.
Look at that.
That's a lovely Huffington Post headline.
I mean, she's just the toast of the town.
Christine Moore and her daughter have made Parliament a better place for families.
Do you think that's true?
Do you think she's made Parliament Hill a better place for families?
Or is she actually a bit of a female version of Jian Gomeshi, a female version of Eric Schneiderman?
Except she doesn't hit anyone with her fists.
She has sex with them and sometimes after cries sexual assault.
And it just keeps on happening.
Today the NDP kicked her out of caucus, so I guess that's the fourth MP who's fallen.
Eric Schneiderman and Christine Moore.
Two sides of the same feminist coin.
Deal's Sunset Provisions00:10:45
Stay with us for more.
The deal's sunset provisions are totally unacceptable.
If I allowed this deal to that we cannot prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb under the decaying and rotten structure of the current agreement.
The Iran deal is defective at its core.
If we do nothing, we know exactly what will happen.
In just a short period of time, the world's leading state sponsor of terror will be on the cusp of acquiring the world's most dangerous weapons.
Therefore, I am announcing today that the United States will withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal.
There you have it, U.S. President Donald Trump doing what he had hinted he would do earlier, which is withdraw from the Obama nuclear deal, a deal that was not a treaty.
It was never approved of by the Senate, which is a constitutional requirement for a formal American treaty.
In fact, many Democrats were uneasy with the deal that saw over $100 billion in sanctions relief to Iran, basically an enormous cash injection into their economy, including more than a billion dollars flown in cash on pallets to Iran under Obama.
Well, Donald Trump has upended that, and joining us now, ViceGuide, to talk about this momentous change is our friend John Cardillo, host of Off the Cuff.
Hey, great to see you again, John.
This is an amazing, amazing pivot away from the Obama years undoing really the central foreign policy effort of Obama.
Yeah, this was one of the strongest speeches, strongest statements I've ever seen from any sitting U.S. president.
He was very forceful.
He was very definitive.
He was very succinct.
It was only a 15 to 20 minute speech.
But more importantly, at the end, and this is what has the globalists, the leftists going crazy, he spoke to the Iranian people and drew a critical distinction between the Iranian people and the hardline Muslim regime in Iran.
The Iranian people are by and large very pro-West, especially those who are baby boomers or those who are their kids.
They grew up post, pre-the Islamic Revolution.
And so they have fond memories of America.
They have fond memories of Western Europe.
Trump understands that.
And that was a nuance that the left thought they might be able to jump on him.
I strongly feel that they thought he would leave that out.
And after the speech, they could say, see, he put all Iranians into that same bucket, but he didn't.
And if you noticed at the end, there was something very, very telling that happened at the end when he was walking out.
That camera shot that hung for a few seconds on Vice President Mike Pence and John Bolton.
And that sent a very loud and clear message to the globalists, to the Democrats, to the Obama administration, and John Kerry that, hey, this is the Trump, Pompeo, Bolton, and Pence policy.
The Obama days are over.
Yeah, it's a very important point.
I'm so glad you raised it.
We have tried to keep an eye on the Iran people's rebellion.
It received a lot of worldwide attention right before New Year's, and then it sort of faded, but we know it's been going on in a slow simmer.
I can only imagine this will be very encouraging.
Hey, John, I'm glad you mentioned John Kerry, the former Secretary of State, because there was a shocking report in the Boston Globe, his hometown newspaper, that in recent weeks he was engaging in a parallel form of shuttle diplomacy with very senior officials in Iran, bizarrely contrary to official American foreign policy, without any direction, oversight, or instruction or permission from the Trump administration.
He was trying to save the deal, undermine Trump's attempts.
I mean, just very odd.
Can you tell us a little bit of facts about John Kerry's attempt to thwart today's announcement and if it might even break a U.S. law called the Logan Act?
Yeah, so I had actually profiled this quite extensively on my show Off the Cuff Declassified.
As soon as Kerry started doing it, I spoke about it quite a bit yesterday as well.
And I actually went through the Logan Act.
And when you read the Logan Act, and it's not a very long law, it's only about a paragraph, paragraph and a half.
You can literally read each sentence and attribute one of those sentences to John Kerry's actions.
Now, I'm a former law enforcement guy.
You're an attorney.
The two of us would look at this, sit in a room, and say, this is probably the clearest cut statutory violation we've ever seen.
So you raise the question, capital THA.
What was John Kerry's endgame here?
Is it to preserve his non-existent and disastrous legacy?
Does he truly believe that the United States should be brought down to the level of nations like Iran?
Or is it even more sinister?
Is he doing the bidding of his globalist allies in Europe who have such tremendous financial interests at stake with Iran that he's putting those countries that he wants to be loved by before the U.S.?
Lastly, and maybe it's all of the above, is he and people like Ben Rhodes from the Obama administration, Obama himself, are they just so hateful of Donald Trump, of conservatives, of America, of America First agenda, of the America First agenda, that they would rather see this terrible deal stay in place in a nuclear Iran than give Trump and conservatives any kind of credit or satisfaction.
Yeah.
Well, you know, it's interesting that this comes hard on the heels of Donald Trump's breakthrough in the Korean Peninsula.
And again, doing things that all the fancy people, the Ben Rhodes, the John Kerry's, the Barack Obamas, the Madeline Albrights said, oh, that's impossible.
You're just a dangerous cowboy.
You're going to get us all nuked.
Well, guess what?
He, I mean, the proof's in the pudding, but so far it looks like he had a greater breakthrough than anyone.
Now this Iran revocation, I think Donald Trump has had the most effective, dramatic, clear foreign policy in recent years, and he has absolutely dismantled the Obama left.
I think it's partly vanity and narcissism on the part of Kerry and Obama.
I think it's anti-Trump, quote, resistance.
I think it's part of the deep state undermine anything Trump does.
But I think Trump, one issue at a time, is winning.
He pulled America out of the UN-Paris Agreement on global warming.
I think Donald Trump is slowly making American foreign policy his own.
And I'm thrilled to watch it.
What do you think?
Oh, absolutely.
Look, and I'm glad you brought up North Korea because he ended his Iran speech talking about North Korea.
It was sort of an, oh, by the way, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is on a plane right now to North Korea.
We've got the meeting figured out.
We have a place, a time, a date.
And that speech to Iran was really also a speech to North Korea.
If you get out of hand, if you think about cheating on any agreements, if you don't play ball with us 100% of the way, you're going to be facing the same treatment Iran is.
I think that was a very powerful statement.
And there's an old saying that's used in Asian diplomacy, to scare the monkey, you kill the chicken.
And really, by killing the chicken, the Iran deal, he's putting the fear of God into what we hope anyway, and in many respects, North Korea.
And so I think Donald Trump is far more schooled, well-versed in foreign policy than he's getting credit for.
Yeah, I think you're so right.
I want to play one more short clip from Trump.
And you're right to, there's a lot of these complicated foreign policy problems are connected to other ones.
And it's like a web.
You can't really change one piece without affecting others.
You're so right how right now Trump is using North Korea and Iran together.
But there's also countries like Saudi Arabia and Israel that are really connected here.
Let me play a quick clip of Trump talking about what he thinks would happen.
And I agree with him if Iran were permitted to get its nukes.
Take a look at this.
The deal sunset provisions are totally unacceptable.
If I allowed this deal to stand, there would soon be a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.
Everyone would want their weapons ready by the time Iran had theirs.
It's so true.
And I mean, Saudi Arabia has mused about that.
I really think this is part of a more thoughtful, comprehensive strategy than any of the fancy pants.
And by that, I mean the Ben Rhodes and the Charters.
I think it's coming together.
I mean, I think it's working.
Oh, come on.
It is working, Ezra.
Of course it is.
And I love the way you say that, the fancy pants, right?
These are the political elite.
They have to be right, but they're rarely ever right.
They seem always to be wrong.
And Yemen is a really important country to note.
Yemen is a mess, right?
Sanai Yemen is one of the most dangerous cities in the world.
It's advised that no one travels there.
So if Yemen got their hands on any kind of weaponized nuclear material, they would most definitely hit Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
The Yemenis and the Saudis hate each other.
We know that Iran, after Netanyahu's press conference, they were looking to build five warheads, each with a 10-kiloton TNT yield.
About four to five times that was we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Where do you think those warheads would have been aimed, right?
They would have been pointed at Jerusalem and Tel Aviv and probably Riyadh and maybe one Western European nation or Eastern European nation, maybe Poland, if it could reach, and another one for good measure held aside to maybe give to terrorists to put in suitcase bombs.
So this is absolutely about the survival of nations like Israel and Saudi Arabia.
And look, Israel and the United States are now once again the allies they should be.
Our embassy is opening in Jerusalem next week.
They're naming a square in the city of Jerusalem, a little park after Donald Trump.
That's driving the globalists insane.
And so, yeah, this was every bit about the survival.
And Jordan has been a very solid ally in the Middle East as well.
And they were at risk from a nuclear Iraq.
Yeah.
Well, John, it's great to catch up with you.
And I do recommend to all our viewers to check out your show where you go through the Logan Act.
That's something I think our viewers would like to see, your line-by-line analysis.
Well, John, thanks for this, and we'll keep in touch.
And by the way, we've been running ads for the Rebel Live, and ticket sales are.
I can't wait.
Yeah, I can't wait.
It'll be fun to be here.
We're going to have you with your Toronto.
It's good.
It's a lot of fun.
Can't wait to get it.
Good stuff.
Well, thanks, John.
That's John Cardillo, our friend in Florida, who will be coming up to the Rebel Live on June 2nd.
Transphobic Claims in Ontario00:14:55
Stay with us.
It's more head on the Meble.
Welcome back.
Hey, have you ever looked at your birth certificate?
I don't look at mine often, but I do carry it in my wallet.
And besides when I was born and where, there's a very simple entry that says sex.
And traditionally, there's an M for male or F for female.
It says sex.
It doesn't say gender because gender is sort of a made-up political word.
Sex really comes down to X chromosome or Y chromosome.
There's no such thing as a spectrum.
It's like on or off.
And if you look, here's an image that I've taken from the Ontario government's page.
This is a sample of the official birth certificate of Ontario.
And as you can see, they don't say gender.
They say sex.
And again, it's M and F.
Well, not according to a story in the Toronto Star today.
Let me read you a story.
Headline, filmmaker receives non-binary birth certificate after legal battle with Ontario.
And as you can see, it's not a baby.
It's a grown man, even though it looks like a woman.
I call him a grown man because his name is Joshua M. Ferguson.
Can I just read a couple lines from the story and then I'm going to introduce our guest for the day.
Here's the Toronto Star's article about a grown man who has apparently won a battle with Ontario about his birth certificate that obviously happened decades ago.
Here it is.
Joshua M. Ferguson's year-long battle with the provincial government prompted a policy change that now allows people to choose between M for male, F for female, and X for non-binary designation on their birth certificate.
I won't go on further, but let me just read to you the caption under the photo of this man dressing as a woman, because this is my favorite part of this crazy story.
Joshua M. Ferguson received Ontario's first non-binary birth certificate.
Their battle with Ontario's government led to a policy change they say has practical and symbolic benefits for transgender people.
Did you see that?
It's a guy dressed as a gal, but they're not saying he or she, they're saying they.
Their battle.
That's the third person plural, as if he's a multitude.
Their battle, they say.
And I actually think that is the craziest part of the story.
Joining me now to talk about this and other related shenanigans is our friend Barbara Kay, a columnist with the National Post.
Barbara, great to see you again.
Hi, Ezra.
You know, it's just not scientific to say X is a sex.
You can, you know, gender is one of those made-up words.
There are six genders according to the Ontario Sex Ed curriculum.
There are, what, 23 or 53 genders on Facebook, according to Mark Zuckerberg.
But science is science, and there are only two sexes.
They isn't one of them.
Absolutely.
Gender is a theory.
It's a made-up theory.
There's no scientific basis for it, no evidence.
But you know, when you're a progressive, facts and statistics and evidence, this is stuff that you just make up as you go along, because if the theory is right, then you find the facts that you want to fit them.
So this idea that official government policy should be going along with this idiotic idea that your sex is something that can be that you choose to put on your birth certificate or that there is such a thing as non-binary.
That really is crazy.
There is no such thing as non-binary.
That's a totally made-up thing.
And the pronoun they is something that I would really find it very difficult to use.
For anything but a plural, meaning two people, of course.
So the government is nuts to go along with this because they're going to get themselves into a whole pile of trouble with it later on.
They'll be sorry they did this.
The government is nuts.
Until a few years ago, transgenderism was actually a form of being nuts, according to the American Psychiatric Association.
It was a word nuts.
I would say it's a problem.
It's something that it's an affliction.
It's not something you should celebrate.
Right.
I mean, I'm using the word nuts just to show it's politically nuts, but it actually was a form of mental illness that was in the code, what's that, the DSM or whatever it was called.
It was a form of mental illness.
And you don't treat someone who has that problem with disrespect or with hatred or meanness.
You try and treat them with kindness, but you don't indulge it.
As we've talked about on the show several times before, a study by various liberal and progressive and pro-transgender groups in the United States, including the American Suicide Foundation, shows that transgender men have a 50% suicide attempt rate.
And if they have undergone surgery or hormonal treatment, that rises to 55 or 60%.
60% of these men who think turning into a woman solves their problems, they try to kill themselves.
So you're right.
This is not doing anyone a favor.
These are very troubled people to begin with.
And I'm not saying that they don't believe that they are women.
They do believe it, but it's a subjective belief.
So, you know, we can be very kind and compassionate and say, I understand you hold that belief, and I'm not going to stop you from acting as a woman, presenting as a woman.
If you're an adult and you want to take the hormones, go right ahead.
But don't force me to say that you are a woman.
You're a trans woman.
You are a person, you are a male presenting as a female.
This is the reality.
So when the government starts going along with this subjective idea and actually changing sex on a certificate, then they've very far down that rabbit hole themselves.
And really, they are not fit to be called, you know, a municipal or a provincial or a federal service.
Well, it's just not true.
I mean, gender, you can say, you know, there's this funny theme of someone saying, I identify as an attack helicopter, call me attack.
I mean, you can call yourself whatever you want as a gender, but your sex remains the same.
Your DNA remains the same, what you were when you were born, and put on your birth certificate remains the same, even if the government chooses to say otherwise.
What's the crazy thing is the caption in the Toronto Star article, I read it out, they are going along with this.
They're using the word they.
And that's not even the same as using the word she.
And you said if someone wants to present as a woman, they're born as a man, fine, you're not going to stop them.
And maybe even someone who's so compelling in their, like Dustin Hoffman and Tootsie, maybe you'd say she.
Maybe you'd say she because they're so compelling.
Well, I would say she.
I would say she.
I'd say whatever they want me to say between he and she.
You feel like a man, I'll call you he.
You feel like a woman, I'll call you she.
But don't tell me to call you they because there's no such thing as a non-binary.
That's a trend.
That's something you made up.
That's something you're doing to get attention.
But the trial is the Toronto Star, the largest newspaper in Canada by circulation, is which, you know, newspapers are in the business of opinion, but a photo caption isn't an opinion.
It's sort of a description of truth and reality.
When they are using the third person plural, they, we've gone deep, deep down.
And here's my question to you.
At one point, do the readers of the Toronto Star, if ever, say, this is crazy talk?
This is that kind of insanity that we thought was limited to campuses that Jordan Peterson warned us about, how kooky they are.
It's now in the pages of the most widely read newspaper.
It is now on the official identification documents of the largest province of Ontario.
At what point in time do we say, do people ever say, I reject this insanity, not necessarily because I disagree with it, but just because it is untrue.
It's just untrue.
No, they won't reject it.
They won't reject it because they'll be called transphobic.
And it's not going to stop until saying it allows you to say it without being called transphobic.
Right now, anybody seeing this that is even slightly on the left is going to say, oh, she's transphobic.
I mean, that's a given.
That's a given that if you don't accept the word they, if you don't accept the theory that people can be non-binary, then you are transphobic.
These are all theories.
They have no basis in evidence.
But if you say that, then you're transphobic ipso facto.
So it's like a closed circle.
And a lot of readers of the star, I'm sure, are saying this is crazy, but they're also not carezy enough to say so out loud because they don't want to be labeled transphobic.
They don't want to be swarmed on social media.
And it's too bad because that's the whole thing about society today is that people like us, Ezra, we're careerzy enough to not care if we're called transphobic.
But most people do care.
And we know we're not transphobic.
We know we're not transphobic because we not only admit that this is a thing, it's a disorder, but we're very, I feel very compassionate for these people.
I've met trans two trans women.
I've had lunch with them, delightful, because they are normal in their thinking.
In other words, they say, I don't know why I have this belief, but I don't expect people to believe that I am actually turned into a woman.
I know that I am sexually, biologically a male who has, who is presenting, identifying as a female.
And yeah, I can get along fine because that is the reality.
They're living as women.
More power to them if they're, and they happen to be men that are not suicidal.
I mean, they've made the transition.
They're living a life that is productive for them.
So I'm not transphobic.
I'm fine.
But people have to say what's real and true.
Otherwise, I don't want to have anything to do with that kind of thinking.
Yeah.
You know, I did a show a couple months back.
I can't remember if you and I spoke about this.
Justin Trudeau has ordered Corrections Canada to apply this new transgender thinking to the prison system.
And that means if someone identifies as transgender, they don't have to present.
They don't even have to get dolled up like Tootsie.
They don't have to go through the surgery or the hormonal treatment.
They just have to say, man, I feel like a woman.
And Corrections Canada has to take that into account, according to the Corrections Canada, not just for their incarceration, but who, what gender of, what sex of guards gets to surveil them or be their guards, who searches them, because of course in prisons they have strip searches.
Are you smuggling in a weapon or other contraband?
Imagine.
And the thing is, so this symbolism, it's not just a tip of the hat to Joshua M. Ferguson and his own mental frailties.
This is a policy that will now propagate through Corrections Canada.
Imagine you're some, who's in a federal prison?
The most serious of criminals, including rapists.
So let's say you are a straight heterosexual rapist convict.
And the only reason I say that is because that's who's in our federal prisons, Barbara.
And you see this new rule and you say, you know what?
I'm going to mess around with the man.
I hate the prison.
I hate the guards.
And they are stupid enough to say, the minute I just declare I'm transgender, and I don't have to do anything weird.
I don't have to cut anything off.
I don't have to go on math.
I just say, like, identify as a woman.
I don't have to present.
I don't have to show any proof.
They have to give me a female guard, female surveillance, female, you know, get me away from the guys, maybe even put me in a female prison.
Oh, and guess what?
Now I have access to more women, and I'm a convicted rapist.
And if you don't let me hang out with the women and have women guards and have a woman strip search me, you are a transphobe.
That is an absolutely real possibility.
Well, first of all, I don't even think you have to have a rapist mentality to see the advantages in a system where you could, first of all, be getting away from male rapists in the regular prisons because guys who don't want to have anything to do with sex with other men are often raped in prison.
So I can see where the advantage of living with women, even if you were just a guy who forget the sexual angle, you'd have a softer life.
You'd be treated with more kindness.
And it would be, in general, a better situation for you.
So why wouldn't you do that?
And why would you care if you were fooling them or not?
Honestly, if they're going to do this for people who honestly have these feelings, then the bottom line should be, if you are committed to a hormone program and presenting as a woman, you'll be considered.
Well, a guy would have to think very seriously before he would start taking female hormones.
He'd have to really want to get out of that prison very badly, unless he actually was a trans person.
So they should make that obviously the condition.
But honestly, I honestly don't know what their meetings are like when they talk to each other and decide these things.
But I can't imagine a whole lot of smarts are being passed back and forth.
You know, this is so insane.
And I keep thinking of the children's story of the emperor who had no clothes.
All the smart people, the fancy people, the clever people, the strategic people, the people playing 3D chess think this is so, so wise and so enlightened and so fashionable.
I have no doubt whatsoever that in a generation from now, this will be seen to be some sort of mania, some sort of mass hysteria.
Pocahontas and Political Miscalculations00:05:16
And it's not just, and of course the worst of it is what's being done to children by social engineers.
Barbara, we're almost out of time, but I really appreciate you joining us on this.
You're one of the few people who's not afraid to incur the wrath of the hysterical left on this.
And I salute you for that.
And I hope the National Post continues to publish you because I can only imagine the pressure they're under to silence you.
Probably they are.
And I thank them for not sharing that with me.
Well, it's great to see you.
Thanks for your time today.
Thanks, Ezra.
All right.
There you have it.
Our friend Barbara Kay, a columnist with the National Post, and one of the very few columnists in Canada with the courage to criticize with a gentle spirit and with a kindness this transgender political ideology that has come seemingly from nowhere in the past five years.
And it is now the most orthodox dogma that you must follow or you will be cast out.
Stay with us.
more ahead on the road.
Hey, welcome back.
Lots of letters on my monologue yesterday about Doug Ford and Jason Kenney throwing conservatives under the bus.
Someone with a nickname Canadian Patriot writes, if Kenny and Ford want to gamble on infuriating their base to hopefully gain a few swing votes from the left, they are making serious political miscalculations.
Conservatives are principled people and will stay home during the next election if these so-called conservative party leaders continue to betray them.
I mean, thinking about this, I mean, obviously not a single person who was not going to vote for Doug Ford or not going to vote for Jason Kenney last week.
Obviously, not a single person has said, yeah, I really like these guys now.
I'm far left on social issues and they're the candidates for me.
No, of course not.
I don't think that was the math that Kenny and Ford did.
I think they did a different math and it was all media-centric.
They said, I would rather infuriate my own voter base, not to win new voters, but just to get the media to lay off me.
Hey, fellas, they're not going to lay off you.
Peter writes, if Jason Kenny and Doug Ford are going to root of Patrick Brown and Andrew Scheer, then conservatism is truly dead in Canada.
Saskatchewan cannot carry the conservative torch all by itself.
Well, I'm glad you mentioned Andrew Scheer.
He's done some really strange things.
He whipped his entire caucus to vote for the UN global warming scheme.
He has said he will meet that global warming scheme without a carbon tax, which he cannot, first of all, but why would he say that?
It's a goal.
And now he's just got the media talking all about that.
He is so wobbly.
I hope that's not what Doug Ford and Jason Kenny turned into.
Paul writes, Ford is winning, so he doesn't want to take any chances.
I think he would increase his support by standing tall and having the guts to speak against this political correctness.
I really think that's a big reason Donald Trump won, because he is the first person in memory just to tell the media to stuff it and just to say no to the scolding.
There's this moment, permit me to go down a tangent.
I remember when he was, I think it was in North Dakota, and he was poking at that Senator Warren from, I think, Massachusetts, who claims that Elizabeth Warren claims she's Aboriginal.
That's how she got hired from Harvard and affirmative action hire.
But she's not Aboriginal.
She lied.
So not only did she lie, but she actually took a place that an Aboriginal lawyer was supposed to have.
So Donald Trump keeps ragging her, you know, poking her and calls her Pocahontas.
And if you were to call an Aboriginal woman Pocahontas, that could be rude.
It could be an insult.
But you're calling a fake person who lies about being Aboriginal Pocahontas.
That's really funny.
That's a Manhattan insult, isn't it?
Anyway, so Trump was in, I think it was North Dakota, and he used that phrase Pocahontas.
someone in the crowd, it's actually a Canadian journalist, said, that's offensive, that's offensive.
And you know that every other politician in the history of the world would have said, oh, I'm sorry, you're right, that's offensive.
I apologize and let me retract.
Not Donald Trump.
I don't know if you remember.
We don't have that clip handy, but I'm just going down this tangent.
Trump said, oh, it's offensive to call her Pocahontas.
So you mean don't call her Pocahontas?
Okay, maybe I won't call her Pocahontas Pocahontas.
Like he just said the bait word again and I think that was his instinct.
I don't even think he thought about that.
I think Donald Trump, when someone says you can't say that, he says, well, just because you told me that, I'm going to say it five times.
I truly believe that disrespect for the media is a huge reason why Donald Trump won and continues to win because the media that thinks that Donald Trump is discreditable and from time to time he does things that make me cringe, don't they see that they're twice as discreditable?
All right, last letter is from Space Moose who writes, how about inviting Tanya to the Rebel live event?
Invitation sense.
Let's see if she comes.
Folks, that's our show for today.
I have to tell you that I'm out of town tomorrow.
I have to go to a funeral.
So my friend David Menzies will be the guest host for me.
Please join in tomorrow and I will be back on Thursday.