Shaparak Shafari Zadeh, an Iranian democracy activist, fled after a 20-year prison sentence for defying forced hijab laws in the "White Wednesdays" protests, while her lawyer, Natsrin Sotude, was jailed for representing her. Meanwhile, Canadian PM Justin Trudeau faces sexual misconduct allegations—like his father Pierre’s infidelity and abuse—yet remains unchallenged despite Liberal MPs Darshan Kang and Kent Hare being expelled over similar claims. The episode contrasts Iran’s brutal repression with Western hypocrisy, questioning why Trudeau avoids accountability while Americans debate Supreme Court nominees like Brett Kavanaugh, whose conservative record could reshape key rulings. [Automatically generated summary]
Tonight, Donald Trump nominates his second Supreme Court judge, launching a vigorous national debate.
How come Canadians don't get to do that?
It's July 10th, and you're watching The Ezra LeVance Show.
Why should others go to jail when you're a biggest carbon consumer I know?
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.
Anthony Kennedy, a judge who has sat on the U.S. Supreme Court for about 30 years, announced he is retiring, and last night, Donald Trump nominated his replacement.
I do not ask about a nominee's personal opinions.
What matters is not a judge's political views, but whether they can set aside those views to do what the law and the Constitution require.
I am pleased to say that I have found, without doubt, such a person.
Tonight, it is my honor and privilege to announce that I will nominate Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the United States Supreme Court.
There he is.
There's some continuity here.
Kavanaugh actually clerked for Justice Kennedy, and he was his legal assistant.
There is no debate that Kavanaugh is a bright lawyer and a great judge for a dozen years.
He has served as an appeals court judge in Washington, D.C.
He was sworn into that position on that appeals court by Justice Kennedy, so they seem to be friends.
Kennedy himself was nominated by Ronald Reagan, but the U.S. Senate unanimously approved his appointment to the court.
That's the thing about the U.S., unlike Canada where our prime minister just makes the pick and announces it and is done.
In the U.S., the Senate gets to grill the president's nominees, and it goes hard.
Quite a few nominees don't make it.
Either a scandal in their lives is uncovered and the nominee withdraws rather than proceeding to a vote they think they'll lose, or at the very least, the public gets a read of how they will act as a Supreme Court judge.
The U.S. Senate is very powerful.
It's an independent institution, not the sad patronage appointment house we have in Canada or the House of Lords in the U.K. U.S. Senators love fighting with U.S. presidents, including senators of the president's own party.
Just think about how often John McCain, who claims to be a Republican, fights with Donald Trump.
My point is, there is no such thing as a slam dunk when it comes to nominations to the Supreme Court.
Kennedy's unanimous support was unusual, and I think those days are long gone.
Certainly they will be for Kavanaugh.
Last night before Trump announced his pick, the Democrats had a couple of hundred protesters outside the court with prefabricated signs for a variety of potential nominees that Trump could have chosen.
As in no matter what he did, no matter who he chose, they were going to protest it.
That's the age we're in now.
Some left-wing lobby groups actually sent out their pre-written attack press releases.
Look at this one here.
They forgot to fill in the blank for the nominee's name, XX, the nomination of XX.
No, you're supposed to put in the name there.
But despite the fake outrage, it serves a purpose, you know.
It forces the president to think carefully about who he's going to choose.
They generally have to have some real talent and real merit and a real track record before being nominated, and they generally have to be ideologically temperate enough to carry the Senate.
Kennedy, who was supported, sorry, appointed by Reagan, was pretty liberal for a Republican appointee.
He upheld the abortion case, Roe v. Wade, though he also ruled against partial birth abortions, which are as gruesome as they sound.
Kennedy wrote the gay marriage ruling in the States.
He supported race-based affirmative action.
He ruled that Guantanamo Bay terrorists have certain legal rights.
In other words, he's the kind of a Republican that the media loves.
I don't think Brett Kavanaugh will be that way.
Again, it's hard to separate the real facts from the prefabricated complaints from the Democrat outrage machine, but it does appear that Kavanaugh is more conservative than his mentor.
He says he stands by Roe v. Wade because as a conservative, he stands by precedent, but that doesn't mean there are no limits.
For example, last year he wrote a dissent to a D.C. circuit court ruling that an illegal immigrant teenager in detention was entitled to get an abortion.
That's a whole bundle of left-wing hot buttons right there, isn't it?
Kavanaugh said the U.S. Constitution did not grant, quote, a new right for unlawful immigrant minors in U.S. government detention to obtain immediate abortion on demand, unquote.
It would be tough to point to a provision in the Constitution that says otherwise, but there's a judge to say it.
That's the thing about constitutional conservatives.
They say that the Constitution actually means something, and it can't be changed with every passing political fashion.
Naturally, leftists hate that.
They're always trying to get rid of the First Amendment that protects freedom of speech, the Second Amendment that protects firearms ownership.
They're always trying to create counterfeit rights, like the right not to be offended.
Strict constructionists say, no, let's just read the Constitution how it is.
Kavanaugh looks like a conservative to me.
He's for the Second Amendment.
He objected to a D.C. court ban on rifles.
He has opposed overreach by environmental regulators.
I like the look of him.
And that's the thing about winning elections, as Barack Obama kept telling Republicans for eight years, winning and losing has consequences.
Hillary Clinton did not win.
She does not get to choose the nominees.
That's just how it is.
And the rules that the Democrats put in place during Obama's eight years in power to allow Obama greater latitude without having to bother with Republican approval in the Senate, well, all of those powers are now inherited by Trump.
Here's an ideological map of the Supreme Court compiled by the center-left news site Axios.
I like to look at that.
I look at that.
It's hard to measure and quantify ideology, but it rings true enough to me.
On the far left, you can see one of Obama's appointees, Sonia Sotomayor, a hard-left identity politics affirmative action pick.
She would say so herself.
Far left, almost alt-left.
And you can see Obama's other pick, Alana Kagan, another leftist, not even a liberal on there.
And that other lady on the far, far left is Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
She was appointed in the early 90s by Bill Clinton, and she is now 85.
Many people retire 20 years, even 30 years earlier than that.
Plenty of people think Ginsburg should retire.
She has trouble staying awake during her duties, as you can see in this unfortunate picture of a quick nap.
I'm not just talking about conservatives.
I mean, during Obama's term, liberals were begging her to retire under Obama so that Obama could nominate her replacement instead of risking, well, Trump getting her appointee successor.
She responded to those clauses saying that she didn't think that even Obama had the political power to appoint someone as liberal as she is.
So she was going to stay on as long as she possibly could.
It's pretty unlikely that she'll be able to outlast Donald Trump, especially if he gets a second term.
I mean, it's possible, but I'm not sure if America wants a 92-year-old judge.
No disrespect to anyone's great-great-grandparents.
But my point about that debate is at least, I mean, it's acutely political, right?
But that's what's so great about the U.S. system as compared to ours.
There is nothing more political than a Supreme Court judge in either country.
Because unlike a four- or eight-year presidential term, a Supreme Court judge gets to rule for 30, 40 years.
There's very little accountability once they're in.
And they get to make all the heavy decisions, gay rights, abortion, censorship, immigration.
That's why conservatives believe in a strong constitution so that judges have to interpret the law, not write their own law.
Here's Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2016 in the thick of the presidential election campaign.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the court's most outspoken justice off the bench.
But her biting remarks about Donald Trump have legal experts saying she went too far.
To the New York Times, quote, I can't imagine what the country would be with Donald Trump as our president.
She said it reminded her of something her husband Martin, who died in 2010, would have said.
Now it's time for us to move to New Zealand.
To author Joan Biskupik, he is a faker.
He says whatever comes into his head at the moment, how has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns?
Asked by the AP about a Trump victory, quote, I don't want to think about that possibility.
Trump himself calls her remarks a disgrace and says she should apologize to her colleagues, adding, I would hope that she would get off the court as soon as possible.
So don't pretend that Supreme Courts aren't political.
And don't pretend that only Republicans appoint political judges.
And don't pretend that judges suddenly turn off their partisan switch when they're appointed.
I think Kavanaugh is going to be confirmed, but it's going to be a noisy fight.
As well, it should be.
Trump is momentous, even the historic president, but it's quite possible that Kavanaugh and Trump's earlier appointee Neil Gorsuch will be just as momentous over the course of their careers.
If Trump indeed replaces Ruth Bader Ginsburg too, that could be Trump's biggest impact on America.
So yeah, of course people want to talk about guns and abortion and things like that because these people, these supremes, are the deciders.
Now compare all of that to Canada.
If you're watching my show, you're probably pretty political, but really, how many Canadian Supreme Court judges can you name?
Don't Google it.
How many can you name?
Now, our Supreme Court has a mandatory retirement age of 75.
By the way, that would immediately clear out another U.S. judge too, a liberal named Stephen Breyer.
How many Canadian Supreme Court judges can he name?
No checking.
Have you ever heard of Clement Gascon?
How about Andromash Karakatanis?
Have you ever heard of her?
How about Malcolm Rowe?
No?
How about Michael Moldaver?
Have you heard of these people?
Why not?
Do you not think it's important?
Do you not think that they are political and powerful and have as many opinions on things as Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, even if they're smarter than her and keep their opinions to themselves?
But that's the thing.
Why do they get to keep their opinions to themselves in Canada?
I don't mean their opinions about Stephen Harper or Justin Trudeau.
But I think we ought to know their opinions about things like our Constitution, boring but important things.
I would like to know the opinions of our Canadian judges on their views of provincial rights, let's say, about the carbon tax, about putting pipelines through.
Or less boring things like their views on the constitutionality of affirmative action and race-based laws, something the Trudeau's justice minister is now pushing, something provided for in our Constitution in Section 15.2 of the Charter.
I would like to know the views of our judges about free speech, as opposed to this new wave of censorship against hate speech.
I'd like to know the views of our judges on Aboriginal rights.
Do they believe that there is some special inherent Indigenous right?
Or do they believe in equal rights?
How about the notwithstanding clause?
Do these judges believe it could or should be used?
A lot of questions, and we've never had answers.
Stephen Harper started a tradition of having a brief ceremonial meeting of his Supreme Court nominees before a very careful parliamentary committee that asked a few gentle questions of his choices.
And that was it.
There was no vote, no nothing.
It was all for show.
Sorry, that is not enough.
Why can't we Canadians know something about the people who are remaking Canada in their own image and can for 20 years?
And frankly, why didn't Stephen Harper, who actually made eight different appointments to the Supreme Court over his term, two of whom retired, why didn't he do what Trump is doing, what Trudeau is doing, what every liberal prime minister has ever done?
Why didn't Stephen Harper put truly conservative judges on the bench?
There was no Senate hearing to stop it.
I can say that of all of Harper's choices, maybe three of them can be called conservative.
Why didn't he care?
Why did he appoint judges who were in their 60s already, instead of their 50s or even their 40s?
Why did he just hand that branch of government over to the left?
And why is it that we can't dare to criticize our Canadian judges?
Why does the rest of the entire Canadian establishment treat our Supreme Court judges like some sort of untouchable high priests?
Do you doubt that each of them are as political as Ruth Bader Ginsburg?
Watching Trump appoint Kavanaugh, I'm jealous, not just of a president who is unafraid to make a truly conservative choice, but of an entire system that treats the court like what it is.
It's just another branch of government people.
It is not infallible.
And at the end of the day, it must serve its people.
And at least during the nomination process, it has to act like it.
I think our own Supreme Court could use a dose of that accountability.
Don't you?
Stay with us for more.
Welcome back.
Well, joining us now is one of our best America watchers because he's an American.
His name is Joel Pollock, and he is the senior editor-at-large at Breitbart.com.
Joel, it's great to see you again.
You've been watching this Trump nomination of Brett Kavanaugh.
Give me your thoughts first on the candidate, and then I'd like to ask you about the Democrat reaction.
Well, he's an excellent candidate.
He certainly acquitted himself very well at the ceremony at the White House.
He laid down a judicial philosophy which is firmly in line with conservative opinion.
He believes judges should not make the law.
They should merely interpret the law according to the original meaning of the text, especially as regards the Constitution.
And that is where the conservative movement is.
That's the consensus position.
The other interesting thing is that Kavanaugh has a long history of association with the Bush family.
The Bush is, of course, quite hostile to Donald Trump.
So it's a bit of an olive branch from the Trump White House to his Republican predecessors, whom he often criticizes.
And in that sense, it's a unifying pick as well.
So politically as well as judicially, a very solid pick.
Very interesting.
One thing that I saw, I think it was Joe Scarborough said, that Republican judges tend to creep left over time.
And I think there's some truth to it.
Maybe even to Anthony Kennedy, who Kavanaugh is set to replace.
This fellow, Kavanaugh, looks pretty serious, though.
It looks like he's pretty ideologically firm.
Is that a general phenomenon that judges move to the left over time and they become Washingtonified?
Solid Pick for the Court00:10:38
What's your take on this guy's constancy?
Well, it certainly has been a phenomenon in the past.
Whether that continues, maybe in some doubt.
The Republicans have gotten their act together and used a conservative legal organization, the Federalist Society, to vet their nominees.
In fact, that's how Donald Trump secured the support of many conservatives in the Republican primary in 2016 was by striking a deal with the Federalist Society to appoint judges on their recommendation.
And the Federalist Society has compiled this list of judges with the idea that these are the kind of people who would not become a Justice David Souter, who would not swing toward the middle like Justice Anthony Kennedy.
These are people whose commitment to conservative legal principles is not in doubt.
And so while the court does tend to pull justices in a leftward direction, the purpose of this list compiled by Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society is to make sure that doesn't happen.
So there's more confidence now that whoever Trump picks will remain a conservative jurist for decades and not do as others have done and become more liberal as time goes by.
Yeah.
And even if they do, of course, you can't put that on Trump.
I mean, Trump is the person who chooses them.
It is remarkable.
I mean, Trump has many things in his varied career that give him first-hand experience, but choosing judges is not one of them.
For him to trust the Federalist Society, such a conservative group, is actually a bit of a miracle.
Let me put a thesis to you, and you tell me if you agree.
I put it to you, Joel, that Donald Trump's two Supreme Court picks and many of his other lower court picks, and there's been a great number, have actually been more conservative than the judicial picks by George W. Bush or any that would likely have happened under John McCain or Mitt Romney, let alone Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush.
I guess what I'm saying is because of this interesting deal with the Federalist Society, Trump's picks are more conservative than any president since Reagan.
Yes, that's true.
I think that Reagan certainly hit home runs with Scalia and with Sandra Day O'Connor, although she was a little bit more to the left.
And Trump's exceeding that.
I mean, Reagan also picked Kennedy, who became the swing vote and really on the liberal side of the spectrum on social issues.
So Trump has been able to pick more conservative judges than Reagan has done.
And he's had a sweeping impact on the federal judiciary beyond the Supreme Court, also at the appellate level, at the district court level.
So we're going to be feeling the effects of the Trump nominees for quite some time.
It's a reminder that what was at stake in 2016 was so much greater than the politics and policies of the moment that that victory in 2016 is going to resonate for generations, potentially, in the American political system because those Trump appointees are going to be there for life.
And in many cases, that's three or four decades.
So it's really an achievement.
And not just the depth of conservative ideological thought on the bench, but the sheer number of judges he's appointed.
Yeah.
You know, Trump is in his early 70s.
He will probably be with us for another 15 years, let's say.
But these judges, I mean, this judge, Kavanaugh, is in his early 50s.
Another one of the contenders, Amy Barrett, I think is her name, is 46.
These are people who could theoretically be on the bench past the year 2050.
So it's an incredibly important thing.
I can't help but think, Joel, and I bet you do too.
Imagine if Hillary Clinton were the president.
Imagine the appointees we would be seeing now.
And the exact opposite, the politicization, the alt-left control of the judiciary would be complete.
It's amazing how close things came to that, isn't it?
I mean, imagine if Hillary were the president.
What kind of names would we be looking at now?
Well, aside from thinking about names, I mean, they simply would have made sure that the judges that a Clinton administration would have appointed would have reshaped constitutional interpretation perhaps irreversibly.
The United States would have ceased to be unique.
Our Constitution would have ceased to be a unique foundation.
We would have basically gravitated toward the democratic socialism of Europe.
We would have abandoned many of our liberties, many of our principles.
The Second Amendment would have been in danger.
The separation of powers would have faded in favor of executive control.
So there's all sorts of things that we avoided as well as gained by voting for Donald Trump in 2016.
Yeah, the Second Amendment, and I put it to you, Joel, the First Amendment would be at risk also.
I see the ACLU is basically walking away from their defense of free speech.
I think that would be accelerated by Hillary Clinton.
Thank God that didn't happen.
I want to ask you about Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
She's now 85, and I just, in an earlier segment, played a clip of her, some of her most partisan anti-Trump comments.
I think she really left behind the dignity of the court and engaged in partisan snipes at Trump.
Even if he would have lost, it would have been inappropriate, I think.
She's hanging on with her fingernails.
She doesn't want to give up her seat.
That's a quirk of the American system that the appointments are to life, not to 75 or some predetermined age.
Do you think it's likely that she will, in fact, retire under Trump's presidency and he will make a third appointment?
Well, the conventional wisdom is she's only leaving the Supreme Court feet first, as they say.
We wish her the best, long life, and so forth, but certainly it's a dilemma for conservatives who are not seeing many other opportunities.
Breyer is the other one, Stephen Breyer, determined to hold on.
And they're under a lot of pressure from the left to stay in those seats as long as possible, at least for the next 18 months.
Remember that when Trump runs for re-election in 2020, Democrats will insist that he not be able to appoint the Supreme Court justice following on the rule that Mitch McConnell followed in blocking Merrick Garland from being appointed in 2016.
So unless she retires in the next 18 months, and I don't think she will, then I think Republicans are going to have to wait until a second Donald Trump term to see any change on the court that would shift it in a 6-3 or even 7-2 conservative direction.
What could be interesting is to see the ideological splits that emerge within a conservative court.
There's no guarantee that all of the justices in a conservative majority will always think the same way.
So that could be another debate to have at a later time.
But as far as Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer are concerned, they're going to be around for a while, as will Elena Kagan and Sonia Sodomayor, although they're much younger.
The four liberal justices are going to cling to those seats with everything they have.
That's the conventional wisdom.
Ginsburg is very old.
Breyer's almost 80.
They probably would prefer to enjoy their retirements, but they do care about their principles.
They want to be seen as heroes by their colleagues and friends.
And so they're going to hang in there as long as they possibly can.
Yeah, I got two quick questions.
I know you got to run, Joel, but let me ask you, is there a way?
I mean, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, I don't know about her mental health.
I know that she's, there's pictures of her falling asleep at public events.
I hope she's not falling asleep while she's hearing cases.
Is there a mechanism by which a judge could be taken from the bench if she is not physically and mentally has the capacity?
I mean, you want judges to be sharp.
And I'm not saying that you can't be sharp at 85.
And you don't even have to be as sharp as you were at 55 if you're still a brilliant judge.
But is there some mechanism?
I mean, in Canada, we have senators appointed to age 75.
And there were some senators who were literally infirm, and their nurses were voting for them.
Is there some mechanism that if these judges deteriorate, that they could be pulled out of the court just because they're not well?
Not really.
Constitutionally, they can stay in for life.
And that's just true of the federal bench, by the way.
There are states that have some limits.
But look, it's going to be especially hard to remove justices on the Supreme Court where there are eight other justices who presumably could fill in and do the job.
So it's an interesting question.
I think there are mechanisms to impeach a judge, but whether to remove them for infirmity, I don't think that's something that's likely to happen.
It's not a question I believe we've faced in recent memory.
Most judges would simply be encouraged to retire.
But you ask a good question, and we may be debating that fairly soon.
One last question, and thanks for your time.
I know you got to run.
I think that one of the heroes of conservative court appointments, one of the heroes of all time is Justice Clarence Thomas, who was nominated and put through what he called a high-tech lynching.
It was so clearly a smear attempt because to appoint a black Republican would break the log jam.
He's been so consistently conservative, and he's been so maligned by the left, but I think he kept the flame going.
Give me a, I mean, I was just looking at the judges on the bench.
Give me a few words before you go on Justice Clarence Thomas.
Well, he remains one of the conservative standard-bearers on the Supreme Court and in America in general.
It looks like Brett Kavanaugh is actually quite close to Justice Thomas in terms of his own legal philosophy based on his judicial record.
There's an organization that actually measures the conservatism of judges, and I think Kavanaugh is actually second only to Thomas in the whole federal judiciary.
So Thomas has continued to have a strong impact.
He's openly opposed to Roe versus Wade, the decision that granted a federal right to an abortion.
So he's very, very important.
He's very sharp.
His decisions are powerful.
He will be there for a while still.
No one expects him to retire soon, but should he do so under a Trump presidency, he would probably be replaced by someone just as conservative.
Well, Joel, it's great to talk to you.
It's very exciting to watch the American process of selecting judges.
And as a Canadian who has to abide by the unilateral appointments done by our prime minister in secret, I got to say we're a little bit jealous of your process and the checks and balances.
Confessions and Cover-ups00:12:05
And that's one of the reasons why America is such a strong country.
So thanks for joining us today to talk about that.
Thank you.
All right.
There you have it.
Joel Pollack is the senior editor-at-large at Breitbart.com.
And he joins us by his Skype.
Stay with us.
more ahead on The Rebel.
I'm out yapping.
Forever, forever.
We're living to be together.
That is a song by Shakira, a Latin American dancing and singing sensation.
But the dancer there was a Persian girl in Iran, a teenager named Ma'edehojabari.
If I'm pronouncing her name correctly, she's a bit of a star on Instagram.
It would be unremarkable in America where thousands, hundreds, millions of young girls take selfies and in this case, a little dancing selfie video.
But in Iran, that's against the law.
And Ma'edeh has been arrested and forced to make a confession.
Joining us now via Skype from Washington, D.C. is an Iranian democracy activist we've spoken to on several occasions.
Erika Kassrei, welcome back to the show, Erica.
Well, thank you for having me, and thank you for keeping the Iranian people in the news.
Well, it's you know, we're happy to do it because we cover the news.
We care about Iranian democracy for Persian people.
And what's interesting about this is that that young lady there, I mean, she puts a real human face, a teenager dancing and having some fun in her own bedroom, a little bit of Belhi dancing or whatever.
She sings her own songs.
So relatable, I think, to people in the West.
Tell me what happened, if I'm pronouncing her name right, to Ma'ede.
What did the government do to her?
Well, unfortunately, this is how the Islamic justice system deals with the youth.
Well, with anyone who goes against Islamic law, a Sharia law.
So let me start by saying that the youth are online, and this is the only place where they're able to be self-expressive.
Instagram and Telegram are two of the major platforms that young Iranians are using today to communicate with each other and to communicate with the outside world.
Because as you know, in the streets, they have to be covered.
Women have to be covered.
Their hair has to be covered.
Their body has to be covered.
So Ma'de is an Instagram, I guess you can say kind of star.
She is a gymnast and a dancer, and she used a software called Musically to dance and make videos of herself dancing in her bedroom to be self-expressive.
And the regime has been cracking down on young people who seem to be getting a lot of traction and have a lot of followers.
If you go to her IG page, she has almost, I think it's 600,000 followers.
So they arrested her and they forced her into a confession.
I don't know if you have a clip of that.
I think we do.
It's in Persian, but she basically is forced to self-denounce.
Let's see if we can play that in the background while you...
Essentially what she's saying...
What is she saying, Erica?
Essentially, what she's saying is that, you know, some musicians gave us money so that we would, you know, dance.
You know, we would dance to promote their songs.
We would dance.
Actually, she was arrested along with two other young ladies who created these musically videos.
And they wanted us to promote their songs and their videos by dancing to them.
I mean, in the West, that's completely normal.
That's what gets me about this, Erica.
I don't think this young girl, she's just a teenager, I don't think she said a political word.
I don't think.
I mean, I went through her instrumental.
Not at all.
Not one single political iota of politics was in her videos.
This is just a young girl doing what young kids do and expressing the passion of dancing and music.
I mean, this is ridiculous.
You know, in the West, we have this show on HBO called A Handmaid's Tale and people who wear very restrictive clothing are the symbols of the misogyny of the Republic, like of Gilead, and that's a real meme in women's rights activism in America.
But taking a beautiful young teenage girl who's doing nothing wrong, who's not being obscene, I mean, she shows her tummy in some of her belly dancing videos.
That's about it.
And arresting her, seizing her, making her do a forced, tearful confession.
That is the handmaid's tale in real life.
Erica, has any leading figure in the West, any leading politician, any leading celebrity, any leading musician, stood up for Ma'edeh?
No, as a matter of fact, I think that the reason for that is because mainstream media is just not giving enough attention to cases like Ma'ede because we don't have, I don't think we really have journalists who are able to not only sort of cover the social media platforms and read Farsi or be able to really understand what's going on.
I think there should be a great shift in that.
I mean, I would love to see women's rights activists coming forward and standing up for the women of the Middle East.
I mean, frankly, right now there's been a backlash.
You're seeing this great unity among women in Iran, greater unity among women because of cases like Ma'edeh and others who've been arrested.
I mean, Ma'edeh was sentenced to four years in prison and 80 lashes for dancing.
Oh my God.
So it wasn't just the confession, prison and lashes?
Oh my God.
Four years prison sentence and 80 lashes.
This is how the Islamic justice system deals with.
Is there a reproof or has the sentence been carried out?
I don't have any information on that.
I think the case is still sort of, yeah.
Oh my.
Yeah, it's pretty unbelievable.
You know what?
That's such an outrage.
I want to talk about one other young lady, and I'm going to try and pronounce her name right.
You correct me if I'm wrong.
Shaparak Shazari Zadeh.
She was a little more political.
I don't think she's a teenager.
I think we've got an image of her taking off her hijab and waving it around.
So this is not a teenager in her bedroom dancing to Shakira's songs.
This is a young woman on the street holding up her hijab on a stick, showing her hair.
Oh my God.
Like you can see, she's not obscene in any way.
She's just showing her hair, which was lawful in Iran until the Ayatollah's revolution.
Tell me what's happened to her.
She was grabbed by the religious cops, prosecuted, sentenced, convicted, etc.
Tell me what happened to Shaparak.
So Shahfarak is one of many women who've been arrested for waving their hijab in public because of a campaign called White Wednesdays.
And on every Wednesday, a woman will go into the street, remove a white hair headscarf, and wave it in public in public defiance of forced hijab.
As you know, in an Islamic country, under Sharia law, a woman is to cover her hair as to not arouse the eyes of a man that is not her husband.
And Shafariq was one of the women who was arrested on Revolutionary Street in Tehran for doing that.
She was sentenced to 20 years in prison for this act.
20 years in prison, 20 years.
Murderers.
Correct.
And she was to serve two years of that sentence and then be on probation for 18 years.
So we do know that Shafarek has left the country before she was arraigned.
She's escaped.
We don't know exactly of her whereabouts, but she's posted a video online right now that's circulating basically saying that she's left the country because she feared for her life.
Now, mind you, she was arrested with her two-year-old son when she was arrested.
So, yeah, there's absolutely zero mercy in this regime.
I think I hear we have a copy of her video.
I'm not sure what language it is.
Let's put that up just for a second.
No, actually, I think she's we have subtitles for this one.
Okay, let's take a quick look at her video that she posted upon fleeing the country.
I don't have a civil security.
I was forced from Iran.
In the meantime, my attorney, Natsrin Sotude, is in Bazdash.
And I also heard that I had a prison for 20 years.
Because of the unrighteousness and unrighteousness that was in Iran, I was forced to return to Iran.
Unbelievable.
And her lawyer was arrested.
I mean, Nassin Sutude is a very well-known lawyer who defends the rights of many women.
And Nassin Sutude was arrested because of her willingness to support and to defend the cases of women like Ms. Shah Parai.
Well, let me ask you a question.
I mean, there's a lot of groups from Amnesty International, very well known, Reporters Without Borders, Penn International.
These are people on sort of the journalistic side.
I don't know if Ma'ede, I don't know if the journalist, but Amnesty would certainly apply.
There's other free speech and human rights groups, international women's groups.
Can you tell me if any of these NGOs have said anything in public?
Because I feel like these cases are so egregious.
Are there any allies in the West?
I know that Amnesty has, and I believe Human Rights Watch has, but I'm not aware of any other NGOs right now that have made any public statements.
Unfortunately, it's very hard to confirm the facts because obviously, as you know, there's no free speech, there's no credible journalism inside the country.
So a lot of the information that's coming out is coming out through social media and sources that are inside the country that are not actual reporters.
No Free Speech Inside00:03:56
Let me ask you one last question, and I don't want to be partisan because this is a non-partisan issue.
Whether you're on the left or on the right, whether you're a Republican or a Democrat, a conservative or a liberal, we can all stand behind the Democratic activists.
And I'm sure they're on the spectrum too, from socialist to conservative too.
But let me ask about Donald Trump, not because he's a Republican, but because he's the president of the United States.
And he has criticized Iran in various ways, including on the nuclear deal.
Do you see any indication that under Donald Trump, the United States is more seized with the issue of democracy and this democratic rebellion in Iran?
Has there been any activity from the State Department that would give you hope?
Well, let me say this again.
I know I've said this to you before on your show.
The people of Iran love Donald Trump.
I mean, I have been watching Iran for almost a decade and profiling these various social media websites.
I think that a lot of the empowerment and the activities, the protest movements that you're seeing today is an actual direct result of the words of Donald Trump supporting and empowering the Iranian people.
I'm startled to hear that.
Why?
Well, there's a hashtag storm.
We love you, Donald Trump.
We love you, Trump.
Thank you, Mr. Trump.
Because they see him as the first president that's been able to stand up to this regime, that he's not backing down.
And so, you know, it's not propaganda.
For sure, it's not propaganda.
I can tell you that the people of Iran are looking to the United States as the beacon of freedom to pave the way.
And I know that the policy of the United States right now is not for regime change, but I know that because of the words of Secretary Pompeo and Donald Trump, whether it's their tweeting, whether it's their interviews, they're not addressing the regime.
They're addressing the people and encouraging and empowering them.
And I would caution any policymaker that wants to take a particular position.
But I think that when you are speaking directly to the Iranian people, encouraging them, that speaks louder than words.
Well, that's amazing.
I had no idea.
I had no idea that that was going on on a grassroots basis.
And it gives me a flicker of hope.
And I hope that the cases of, especially of Moeda, who is such an innocent young girl who has nothing to do with politics, to be arrested, tried, convicted, sentenced for dancing, forced to make a tearful televised apology, I find that so shocking.
And if there's any genuine, authentic love for freedom and human rights in the expressive communities in Hollywood, in New York, in London, I hope that that pricks them to action.
And we'll do our small part and spread the word about this.
Erica, it's a pleasure to talk with you.
I hope that we can.
Thank you, Ezra.
I appreciate you having on your show again.
I just want to remind everyone who's listening and watching to take your freedom very seriously.
There are people living in the world that wish they could live in your shoes, so especially women, women who just don't have any idea what a privilege it is to live in a free and a democratic society.
Well said, and I wish every woman in the West would take that to heart.
And I'm so grateful that you are fighting for the women of Iran and other places.
Thank you, Erica.
Thank you, sir.
Trudeau's Grope Gate Revisited00:04:00
All right.
Well, that's Erica Kassreyi, an Iran democracy activist who joined us via Skype from Washington, D.C. Very interesting, very troubling stories, but also a glimmer of hope behind it all.
Stay with us.
More ahead on the Rebel.
Hey, welcome back on my monologue yesterday about Trubo's grope gate.
Tammy writes, the Liberal Party of Canada has a serious sexual misconduct problem.
As leader, he needs to face the consequences.
It was only five months ago when he gave CBC that interview and he confirmed the rules apply to him as well.
No expiration date on bad behavior.
You're so right.
And you know, I was thinking he was in Calgary for the stampede the other day.
And there's two liberal MPs from Calgary.
One is named Darshan King, and the other is named Kent Hare.
And both of them were ejected for sexual misconduct.
Darshan Kang is out of the party and Kent Hare is out of cabinet and there's Trudeau.
What a mess.
What a mess.
But if Darshan Kane is kicked out of caucus and Canter's kicked out of cabinet, why is Justin Trudeau, I mean, let me say this about Canter.
It's a little uncomfortable to say, but he's quadriplegic.
He can't just grab a reporter's tush like Trudeau did.
Why is Canter kicked out for some lascivious words?
But Trudeau gets to stay in after he's grabbing everyone's tush.
Liza writes, if it was nothing, why doesn't Justin just tell us where he put his hand?
Well, exactly right.
He's just talking about his perspective and her perspective, and everyone gets their own perspective.
No, no, only one thing actually happened, and he has yet to describe it.
Paula writes, in all my years, I've never seen such a sleazy politician.
I don't think his old man was as corrupt and slimy, but I could be wrong.
In any event, this would be a good time to pressure Trudeau into stepping down or at least call another election, call an election.
Either way, Trudeau has to go.
Well, Pierre Trudeau was just as slimy.
I can tell you that.
He was absolutely unfaithful to his wife, Margaret, and I know this sounds shocking to say it, but it's on the public record.
He physically beat her so badly, he gave her a black eye.
She was no role model either, too.
And I don't want to get into that.
We'll do a show on it one day.
But Trudeau Sr. was awful.
And sometimes I think about the kind of role models that Justin Trudeau had for what a mom is like and what a dad is like.
And I think it's a shock that he's as normal as he is.
But I don't think he's as normal as he presents.
I actually think he's a lifelong groper, I'm not going to use the word predator necessarily because I don't think it's, I don't think because of his good looks and his money and his last name, I don't think he has to be like a Gian Gomeschi.
I don't think he smashes women in the face like his friend Gian Gameshi did.
I think he just assumes that every woman is going to fall for him because he's handsome, he's rich, and he has a famous last name, and everyone always has bent the knee to the Trudeau's.
So I don't think he's a beater like Gian Gameshi, his friend.
I don't think he's a Harvey Weinstein who's a rapist.
But I think that Justin Trudeau just assumed every woman would like to be touched by him.
And some would want a lot more than that.
I think his whole feminist shtick is just that.
I think it's a preemptive cover to distract and dissuade free people from looking at him for who he is.
Same reason Gian Gameshi got that women's studies degree.
We'll see.
We'll see.
I see rumors online that the CBC is sitting on at least two other stories of a similar vein.
They're the state broadcaster.
They're not going to lead with it.
The CBC was one of the last journalistic media in Canada to run with this grope story.
Look, they get paid by Trudeau.
They're not going to bite the hand that feeds them.
That's it for the show today.
Until tomorrow, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, good night.