Ezra Levant slams Justin Trudeau and Rachel Notley for ignoring a U.S. lawsuit against ExxonMobil, alleging $30B in carbon-cost mispricing tied to Alberta’s oil sands—despite their own policies shielding the industry. Yasmin Mohammed, author of The Girl Who Would Not Submit, condemns Western feminism’s embrace of hijabs and niqabs as complicity with oppression, while Levant speculates Margaret Atwood’s dystopian focus on Christianity over Islam reflects elite self-hatred or anti-capitalist bias. The episode ties oil sands attacks to broader leftist trends, from legalized niqabs in courts to environmental extremism, questioning why Canadian leaders stay silent. Rebel Live’s Calgary event (Nov 10) will confront these issues head-on with free speech advocates and political figures like Maxine Bernier and Katie Hopkins. [Automatically generated summary]
Tonight, Democrats smear the oil sands again, this time with a nuisance lawsuit.
But don't count on Justin Trudeau or Rachel Notley to defend us.
It's October 26, and this is the Ezra Levant 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'm publishing is because it's my bloody right to do so.
Justin Trudeau loves the U.S. Democrats.
I mean, he loved going down to the White House when Barack Obama was in power and they overlapped.
He didn't bother bringing Canada's trade minister or our energy minister with him to the party, but he brought all of his personal friends.
And if you can believe it, he brought his mother and his in-laws and all his Liberal Party fundraising friends, because in many ways, Barack Obama was sort of shallow like Trudeau, all about style, not about substance.
He loved celebrities too.
They both loved taking selfies.
Remember this whole video here, the selfie stick?
And when Hillary Clinton ran for office, same thing.
Trudeau, like the rest of the world, just assumed Hillary Clinton would win.
It wasn't just shallow relations, though.
Senior personnel from the Democratic Party came to Canada in 2015 to take senior positions in Justin Trudeau's Ottawa campaign team.
If a Canadian conservative ever brought up top Republican, say Steve Bannon, to run a Canadian campaign, it would be all the media up here talked about.
But when Democrats bring in their senior guns, well, it's called clever and savvy.
But my point is this, Justin Trudeau and his liberals love the U.S. Democrats.
And they've never, not once, ever spoken out against a policy that is central to Democrats these days, and that is opposing Canada's oil sand.
When Hillary Clinton first looked at the Keystone XL pipeline, it made obvious sense.
She was the Secretary of State at the time.
Because Canadian oil would replace Venezuelan oil imports to the U.S.
It was obviously environmentally superior than shipping oil by train.
It helped relieve the pipeline shortage in the U.S. Bakken geographical region in North Dakota.
So she said she was inclined to support it.
But as you can see by this chart here, over the years of delay, she realized which way the wind was blowing.
In the U.S. Democrats, the party was colonized by environmental extremists, just like Trudeau let Gerald Butts, an anti-oil sands lobbyist, colonize Canada's Liberal Party.
I mean, remember this, I've shown you this before.
Here's Gerald Butts just before he ran Trudeau's campaign talking about oil.
We think that the oil sands have been expanded too rapidly without a serious plan for environmental remediation in the first place.
So that's why we don't think it's up to us to decide whether there should be another route for a pipeline.
Because the real alternative is not an alternative route.
It's an alternative economy.
So that's the Canadian side.
And on the U.S. side, there's a big U.S. Democrat named Tom Steyer out of San Francisco who has poured tens of millions of dollars into the Democrats, supporting various candidates in return for a promise from them to demonize Canada's oil sands oil.
Steyer had come to Mayflower to gather ammunition for what may be the biggest fight of his life, trying to stop the Keystone XL pipeline from being built.
It would stretch from the Canadian tar sands across the U.S. to refineries on the Gulf.
It's not going to the United States.
The true argument is that it's going to be more oil, not from the Middle East.
That is true.
But it doesn't mean there's more oil to the United States, not from the Middle East.
It just means there's more oil, not from the Middle East, in the world market.
Steyer said the bigger climate issue is how the tar sand oil is recovered from the Canadian tundra.
This is a gigantic mining operation in the middle of nowhere.
They want to take production by 2025, more than double it.
And your job is to make sure that never comes out of the ground.
Well, look, from my point of view, I'm not a scientist.
The scientists say it would be devastatingly terrible for the 7 billion people on the earth if it does.
Yeah, so that's Tom Steyer, the number one donor to the Democrats.
He actually donates even more than George Soros, who also gives a lot of money to the Democrats, but he prefers to give directly to environmental lobby groups, street gangs, you know.
So my point is, Trudeau has colonized the Canadian Liberal Party with environmentalists the same way Steyer and Soros have colonized the Democrats.
And they all made the Canadian oil sands their number one enemy.
And neither Justin Trudeau nor Rachel Notley has said a hard word when Barack Obama killed the Keystone XL pipeline shortly after Trudeau was elected because they hated the pipeline too.
Here's Rachel Notley.
Our position on the Keystone was that if we ship unprocessed bitumen to Texas, according to this government and to the American government, we will give tens of thousands of Alberta jobs to Texas, not to Albertans.
And that's not what Albertans want to see.
So yeah, Canadian Liberals and NDPers united with U.S. Democrats to demonize and tax Alberta and Saskatchewan oil and to keep OPEC oil flowing just fine.
Not a word from any of them against that.
Then Donald Trump happened.
What a surprise.
And one of the very first things he did was reverse the Obama-Clinton blockade of the Keystone XL pipeline.
And it's a good thing he did because Trump seems to be the only leader around these days who can get a pipeline bill.
Trudeau sure can't.
Notley sure can't.
Trump, well, he's doing it.
But that brings us to the news of the day.
Here's the story in the Financial Post.
Let me read the headline, Exxon sued in the United States for allegedly lowballing Alberta oil sands carbon costs.
Let me read some of the story to you.
A lawsuit filed this week in the U.S. court says ExxonMobil has dramatically underestimated the risks its oil sands assets face from efforts to reduce carbon emissions.
The lawsuit filed after a three-year investigation by the New York Attorney General's office charges that Exxon deliberately lowballed by $30 billion the carbon costs faced by 14 different Alberta oil sands operations it runs through its subsidiary Imperial Oil.
So just to be clear, this is not a real lawsuit by investors who think Exxon did something wrong.
Exxon is America's largest oil company.
It is rigorously managed, scrutinized, audited, governed, controlled.
It is not a rogue company cheating investors.
This is a political lawsuit by a bunch of left-wing attorneys general who all are trying to run for governor or senator or even president in the Democratic Party of today, where you each have to outdo each other hating oil and gas.
Not any oil and gas, not OPEC, oil and gas, oil sands.
So it's really Tom Steyer's people pulling a stunt.
Let me read some more from the story in the Financial Post.
The legal action is a civil suit arguing Exxon defrauded investors by disguising its carbon liabilities.
None of its statements has been proven in court and a statement of defense has not yet been filed.
So these left-wingers are trying to force through a lawsuit the recognition of a fairy tale that carbon dioxide is costly and Exxon is lying when it doesn't agree that carbon taxes are good and oil is bad.
It's so weird.
It's not even a real lawsuit.
It's really a first-year university debating club resolution, but with the resources of various departments of justice backing it up.
Let me read just a little bit more.
These baseless allegations are a product of closed-door lobbying by special interests, political opportunism, and the attorney general's inability to admit that a three-year investigation has uncovered no wrongdoing, the company said.
Yeah, I mean, let me translate.
If you are an attorney general, and in New York, that is often the stepping stone to running for governor, you need to fundraise like crazy.
You need to raise millions.
And Tom Steyer has been waving around tens of millions of dollars to Democrats anywhere who will fight the Keystone Excel pipeline.
So let me read just one more line.
I think this is the last quote from the story.
The lawsuit alleges Exxon has for years told investors it was accounting for risks such as increasing carbon taxes and other regulatory measures meant to reduce oil demand and fight climate change.
However, Exxon has proceeded using much lower estimates of such risks called proxy costs, the claim says.
So it's not a real lawsuit.
It's saying if the whole world were to bring in punitive carbon taxes and if everyone would stop using oil because of it and if under these carbon taxes Exxon wasn't able to get an exemption and if it was all shut down then they could face higher costs than they're letting on.
Yeah, that's a pretty hypothetical situation.
But of course Exxon actually did manage to get a serious exemption as all big companies did from Rachel Notley's carbon tax.
All big emitters did.
And now Justin Trudeau and Catherine McKenna are promising the same thing for their carbon tax and Donald Trump is removing taxes.
Look, carbon taxes always only tax little people.
The big guys can lobby their way out of it.
The big corporations are in touch.
So Exxon is probably pretty accurate with their predictions.
And look, if they're not, so their stock price will sink.
And if shareholders are angry at their executives, they'll vote them out at their shareholders meeting, whatever.
So the company's shareholders right now have already priced in all the information.
They think it's accurate.
If they don't, they would sell their shares or short their stock.
Just Tom Sire, Tom Steyer says carbon dioxide is deadly and Justin Trudeau and Catherine McKenna call carbon dioxide pollution.
It doesn't mean we're going to die.
It doesn't mean it's true.
Some might even point out that Tom Steyer himself made his millions in coal and oil.
So I don't think he actually believes what he's saying.
But there you have it.
It's just a bunch of loser Democrats abusing their positions as attorneys general, abusing taxpayer resources to file nuisance suits.
Here's a hint.
Here's a hint.
Look at this.
Look at that photo there.
If you're a group of Democratic attorneys general and you're having a serious press conference about a lawsuit, you're probably not going to invite Al Gore because that's sort of the tip off.
This is about extremist politics, not the law, not science.
And by the way, hold that on the screen for a second there.
That fell out the mic.
That's the former Attorney General in New York who was thrown out because of a Me Too allegation.
These are a bunch of crooked demons, let's be honest.
This story here is actually from two years ago when Schneiderman and the other attorneys general sued not only Exxon, but they actually sued, get this, a pro-energy think tank called the Competitive Enterprise Institute for what?
For daring to disagree with the theory of man-made global warming.
Seriously, that's all the Competitive Enterprise Institute does.
It's not an oil company.
It's a think tank.
It's really just people with opinions.
But those left-wing Democrats sued them.
So it's a junk science lawsuit.
It's a sham gimmick lawsuit.
But even if it wasn't, where's our side?
I mean, where's the Canadian side?
Where are the defenders of the oil science?
Not the defenders of Exxon.
They're big boys.
I think they can handle themselves.
I think they're smarter than Trudeau and Notley.
I think they probably have as many lawyers as Trudeau and Notley.
Talk about the oil sands itself.
Who's defending that?
Because this lawsuit isn't really about the law.
I mean, come on.
It's about politics and PR.
Alcorrh?
Come on.
So, where's our side of the PR, of the politics?
Where are our defenders in not in the court of law, in the court of public opinion?
Where's our side?
Here's what I mean.
When Canada's pampered Quebec dairy cartel, the millionaires who convinced the federal government to jack up prices of milk and cheese and yogurt for all of us, when that industry is faced with the possibility that it might have to lower its artificially high prices, because Donald Trump wants to be able to sell American dairy in Canada, which would lower prices for all of us, well, Andrew Scheer and Justin Trudeau trip over each other to promise the moon to these Quebec dairy millionaires.
Okay, fine.
I'm not talking about giving money away.
I'm just saying to morally come to the defense of the oil sand, where are Scheer and Trudeau and Notley to defend Alberta's oil sands, not to defend some artificial privilege, but to simply defend Canada's reputation, Alberta's reputation, our ethical oil at all.
Where's Notley?
Why isn't she flying down to Manhattan to rebut these lies?
Where is Trudeau?
Why isn't he going down to New York?
He loves going to New York.
He loves going down to the schmooze, work his magic on his Democrat friends.
I mean, they love going to the States on taxpayers' expense.
But they haven't even issued a statement from their offices.
They haven't even made a tweet about this.
The answer is because none of them actually care about the oil sands.
They actually, if you press them, don't like the oil sands.
They both actually hate it, I think.
Neither has moved the pipelines forward an inch.
Both want to carbon tax it to death.
Justin Trudeau bought the existing Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline and overpaid by about a billion dollars just to shut the company up from complaining about how its expansion is being stopped.
When the federal court just ruled against the Trans Mountain and delayed its construction by years, Trudeau said he won't even appeal that ruling.
He just spent $4.5 billion to not build a pipeline, not to build the pipeline.
And Rachel Notley's all fine with his tomb.
The answer is so obvious, I can't even believe I've taken 10 minutes to tell it to you.
Rachel Notley and Justin Trudeau just don't have a problem with this anti-oil sands lawsuit by their U.S. Democrat friends.
I'm just wondering why Jason Kenney and Andrew Scheer are silent too.
Stay with us for more.
Think about it yourself.
How would you feel if you were told that in order for you to go to heaven, this is what you needed to wear?
Why Faces Matter00:15:47
That in order for you to please your God, this is what you need to wear.
Even if you choose to wear it because you want to go to heaven and you don't want to burn in hell, you're not really given much of a choice, are you?
You know, we have to make sure that we understand that that's the mindset of the women that are wearing it, okay?
And it is our responsibility in this kind of society that we're living in today to speak up against those kinds of barbaric, misogynist, modesty culture ideals.
That is Yasmeen Mohammed, who used to wear a full face obscuring niqab, talking about the niqab, the burqa, the chador, various varieties of a garment that only women are asked to wear in Islam, and especially in the case of the chador and the niqab, to totally obliterate the face of the woman who was compelled. to wear it.
This is in the news again because of course the new government of Quebec, which is ruled by the upstart Coalition Avenir de Québec party, has made one of their priorities banning the burqa in the public service.
Just to be clear, they're not going to ban the burqa in the streets.
Only for those who work in the government, both front lines dealing with staff and behind the scenes, are not going to be allowed to wear ostentatious religious gear like that.
Joining us now to talk about this news is the lady you saw speaking on Twitter a moment ago, Yasmin Mohamed, who joins us now.
ViceCube, great to see you again, Yasmin.
Welcome back to the show.
Thank you so much, Ezra.
Thanks for having me.
Well, it's a pleasure.
And of course, it's nice to talk with you, to hear what you say.
You're a thoughtful person.
But it's also nice to see your face.
Because when you talk to someone, you look at their face.
You look at their eyes.
You look at their facial expressions.
Are they smiling?
Are they winking?
Are they scrunching their nose?
I mean, so much of the context, so much of the feeling and tone in our communication, you have to see someone's face.
Someone could say the same word, and if they're winking or blinking or smiling or scowling, it has totally different meaning.
When you take away someone's face, you can't even understand them, or at least you can't understand them well.
What do you think of that?
I totally agree with you.
In fact, research shows that almost 90% of communication is nonverbal.
So, you know, even though when I was completely covered in black, you could hear my words.
You could hear the things I was saying, but we weren't really communicating effectively.
And you say it's nice to see my face.
It's really nice to be able to show my face and to be able to interact with society as an equal, as opposed to being erased, being hidden behind this garb and feeling like I'm a ghost, just walking amongst people and I can see them and they can't see me.
And it's really horrible for the person that wears this portable sensory deprivation chamber.
Yeah, that's exactly what it is.
Now, the niqab has a little slit for the eyes, but the chador, if I'm getting my terminology right, it's sort of got a mesh in front.
So you can't even really see through it.
It would be like a really thick screen.
Yeah.
Sorry, go ahead.
You were going to say?
I was going to say, I wore the, these are just different styles.
So there's Afghani style and there's Iranian and there's Arab.
And the kind that I wore was the Saudi Arabian style.
So it was actually a black cloth covering my face entirely.
So there is no bit of skin showing at all, not even like my eyes.
Really?
Not even a tiny slit for your eyes.
No.
That is absolutely dehumanizing.
Absolutely dehumanizing.
Just a thinner fabric over my eyes, but it's not like I could see properly.
It's not like I had peripheral vision.
It was still totally obstructing every single one of my five senses.
You know, we all understand intuitively.
It's so intuitive.
We don't even think about it.
It's so natural that when we talk to someone, if they're not making eye contact, just for example, well, why?
If they're looking at you, but then they look away when they say something, is it because they're telling a fib?
I mean, eye contact is so important.
Are they paying attention?
Are they daydreaming?
It's the windows to the soul.
Pardon me.
It's the windows to the soul.
And that's a poetic phrase, but it's true.
It's why we have the right to face our accusers in court.
That's another thing.
If you're giving testimony in court and you can't see someone's face, are they shaking?
Are they quivering?
Do they have a facial tick, like a poker tail when they start to lie?
It's talking to someone behind a mask is so counter to human nature.
It's got nothing to do with race or religion or nationality.
It just, as humans, we look at each other's face.
The face, it reflects so much about our attitude, about our body, even.
The idea that you would just say to a woman, you can't show your face, everyone's got to know in their bones that's wrong.
You'd think.
Well, I mean, we've talked before about your own journey.
We talked before about how, and I don't propose to get into the details of the now, but I would encourage our viewers to go back.
And you've come on the show before we did an extended interview about your own personal story about how you were in a marriage with actually a terrorist, incredibly, and how he kept you basically in a cage.
And I would, in fact, we'll put a link to that other interview at the bottom of this page so people can see it.
But I want to talk about where you are now, because you have become a champion for women who were still wearing that one-person body bag.
Can I read the headline of your latest essay on this subject, which is published on a commentary website called Marion West?
Let me just read the title of it and we'll show it for our viewers if they want to find it and read it in detail.
It's an excellent title.
It's Feminists of the West.
Women are hurting in the Middle East.
And isn't that, doesn't that get straight to it?
Here in the West, feminists are worried about man spreading on a subway, fellas who take up too much room.
People are worried about mansplinning and guys always have the remote control and that, that, compared to the real feminist crises of the world, which are in the East.
Am I right?
Absolutely.
Yeah.
What I'm saying in that article is really I'm asking all of these feminists that are interested in human rights and are interested in women's equality to imagine that they could reach back 200 years or so to suffragettes, to women that were fighting for their basic freedoms.
And I want them to know that those women exist today, that there are women in Saudi Arabia today that are forced to cover their face.
And what those women are doing now is they're trying to fight back.
They are a very small minority, but they are trying to fight back.
And so what they'll do is they'll post videos on Twitter of themselves burning their niqab, which is the face covering.
And in Iran, they are forced to cover their hair.
So they'll tie a hijab at the end of a stick and they'll just wave it in the street in resistance to this law.
And those women are being arrested.
And in Iraq, women are being killed.
In Pakistan, women are being killed.
Killed for what?
For posting pictures of themselves online with their faces uncovered and with their hair uncovered.
So these women exist that just want their basic freedoms.
And instead of the people over here joining hands with those freedom fighters and helping them and supporting them in their fight against this oppression, we end up doing the exact opposite in the West.
Marks and Spencer, a department store in the United Kingdom, is selling hijabs for three-year-old girls.
Oh my God.
Yeah.
You're so right.
Yeah, you're right.
I mean, it's reached a tipping point, and now a hijab is almost treated like a feminist accoutrement.
It's cool to wear a hijab.
You know, I want to disagree very slightly with one thing you said.
You said if we could talk to suffragettes a century ago, obviously there's a comparison in that women in the West, even here in Canada, did not have full equality.
They didn't have the right to vote until about a century ago.
And that was wrong, and I'm glad it's changed.
But women had most other freedoms.
Then they could walk in the streets.
They could drive a car.
They could own property.
I grant you there were some limits.
But it's much worse than just going back in time a century.
This is going back in time a millennium.
I mean, the women in Saudi Arabia and Iran and these other places, frankly, the fact that they must hide their face is a small humiliation and punishment compared to, for example, the outrageous laws dealing with, I'm sorry to bring it up, but rape, is that it takes four witnesses to condemn a man, that a man's testimony double that of a woman.
I mean, the niqab, the chador, the burqa is awful, but it is one of a suite of horrific challenges.
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to go down that tangent, but the analogy is far, far worse than just a young woman in Canada in 1905, let's say.
You're right, but there is no other comparison in the West.
So what I'm trying to say is that these huge, there are big fights that we could be fighting right now.
There are bigger fights than trying to figure out if air conditioning is sexist or not.
Like these women want big fights, but they don't know where to look because most of those big fights have already been won in the West.
And if they haven't been won, then there are already people working on them and willing to help women that are trying to make themselves equal members of society.
But my point here is that these women are acting like they want equality and they want freedom for women.
But instead of helping the women that are fighting for their freedoms, they are hindering them.
Because when you put a hijab on Barbie, who is supposed to be an icon of femininity and feminism, when you put a hijab in gap ads, when you put a hijab on every flat surface, what you're doing is you are supporting the conservative fundamentalist Muslims that these brave women are fighting against and losing their lives to fight against these oppressive regimes.
And then us here in the West, where we should be supporting these women, we're actively supporting their oppressors.
You know, I think there's an obvious reason why.
And I think it's feminists, especially white liberal feminists, are brave when it comes to taking on white male oppressors, except for there's just not that many white male oppressors, as you say.
I mean, if you're going after man spreading or air conditioning is sexist because guys like to be cooler than gals or whatever the thesis is, that's easy.
But to take on Muslim men who are abusing Muslim women, that's my view, is that it's a gender apartheid culture where men put women in these one-person body bags.
That is terrifying to a white liberal woman who is terrified of being called racist, who's terrified of being racist, terrified of being ethnocentric, terrified of, there's a lot of things that scare these white liberal feminist women.
And so they'll just go, you know, argue over trivia in the West rather than stand in solidarity with Iran, Saudi Arabia, and these other countries.
I think they just don't want to be called racist and they lack the courage that they should have.
That's my view.
I think you're absolutely correct.
And everything that you've said, like how terrified they would be and how much courage it requires, that's true for the women over there too.
In fact, it's more true for the women over there because they could actually be killed for it.
So if you're here in the free West and you want to call yourself a feminist, but you're too scared to take on feminist fights, then I don't know if you should be calling yourself a feminist.
That's a great point.
I mean, really, what's the worst that could happen to you?
Someone falsely calls you racist, and you can say, no, I'm not racist.
I support Muslim women.
I support women of color, if you want to use that phrase.
I mean, what's the worst thing that would happen to you if you're a liberal white feminist in Brooklyn, New York, who says, I support women in Iran and Saudi Arabia?
What's the worst that could happen?
Someone calls you a mean name on Twitter, but that's the level of lack of commitment.
It's incredible.
I want to ask you, though, and I appreciate your time.
It's great to see you again and to see your face and to see your eyes.
Since we've last, since we spoke to you last time, you have had some success in making allies and making a coalition.
And it looks to me, at least as an outsider who follows you, that you're making allies and that maybe you're having a bit of an impact and your story is being heard.
Can you give our viewers, especially those who watched that first sort of autobiography interview we did with you, can you tell us what you've been up to lately and if there's any projects you're working on?
I'll mention your book in a second, but can you tell me what else you've been up to?
Because I know this has really become a cause for you.
Yeah, I've been very lucky.
I was just recently invited to Harvard to speak for the Students for Liberty.
And I have now I have a partnership with Women's March for All, who are the women's march group that started up to counter the other women's march group that had a hijab and a sharia supporting Islamist leading their women's march.
So obviously that was problematic.
So a new women's march has started up and I'm partnered with them.
And yeah, I've been very lucky that there are a lot of people that, like you said at the beginning of this interview, you have to just know that these things are wrong.
I mean, I'm not saying anything that is outrageous or out of the ordinary.
These are normal human being reactions.
Of course, when you see somebody covered in a black cloth, you know that that must not be good for the person that's hidden inside of there.
And it's not good for the rest of society either.
I mean, for all of the reasons you mentioned, but then also safety concerns as well.
So in the Muslim world, what is very common is there are a lot of thefts and rapes and kidnappings and even a suicide bombing done by people wearing niqab and trying to hide their identity.
Safety Concerns00:05:00
Incredible.
Well, I'm very glad to, I did not know there was something called the Women's March for All.
And I'm delighted to learn that it's in counter position to Linda Sarseur, who was part of the first women's march.
And our viewers will know that we've been following that file when she came to Canada a few weeks ago.
So I'm delighted that you're involved.
I'm going to keep my eyes peeled for what Women's March for All does because I'm very curious.
I'm thrilled that you're at Harvard.
I also seem to recall you were doing some things with Ayan Her CLE, who's also just outstanding.
And before we turn the cameras on, you said that your new book will be out in 2019 called The Girl Who Would Not Submit.
I think that's a great title.
Now, of course, submit.
That's actually one of the proper definitions of the word Islam, right?
Does that mean submission in Arabic?
Absolutely.
Yep, you're correct.
So that's a little bit of a sort of a hint in there for people that are in the know that, yeah, that's what it is.
Islam is the girl who would not submit.
Well, we certainly look forward to that.
And when that book is ready for us to promote, when it's on Amazon or another website that we can tell our viewers about, I know you're still putting the finishing touches on it with your publisher.
Let us know because that is very interesting to us.
And I know a lot of our viewers really started to wake up to these subjects when we started to work with Rahil Raza at the Sun News Network.
She's amazing.
And I look forward to working with you to get the word out about your project.
So congrats on what you've been up to.
Great to see you again.
Thanks for weighing in on the burqa and these other things.
And let's not let so much time pass till we have you back on the show again.
Thank you so much, Ezra.
Talk to you soon.
All right, what a pleasure.
There you have a Yasmin Mohammed.
Follow her on Twitter.
And of course, when her book is ready, we'll let you know about that.
And if we see other op-eds by her, we'll also take the opportunity to bring her back.
Stay with us.
More ahead on The Rebel.
Hey, welcome back on my monologue yesterday about the left pretending to care about the handmaid's tale coming true.
Well, Dawn writes, Atwood admitted she actually based her dystopian novel on the Iranian theocracy.
What she didn't say, but what can easily be surmised, is that she did not have the courage to criticize Islam.
So she went the coward's route and opted to criticize Christianity instead.
Margaret Atwood, our hero.
You know, I thought about that quite a bit, and I've talked about this in earlier shows here and at the Sun News Network.
In 1984, which is 1985, around then, which is when Atwood wrote this, I don't think that was when you were afraid to criticize Islam.
I don't think the Salmon Rushdie thing was for a couple years, for example.
So I don't think fear of radical Islam was a big deal in the West in the mid-80s.
I mean, yeah, there was terrorism in Libya and Lebanon and things like that.
And some airplanes were hijacked, but it wasn't a domestic threat.
Really, Muslim terrorism in North America was pretty much unheard of.
So I don't think it was fear of Islam.
And I don't even think it was fear of being called Islamophobic.
That word hadn't even been coined yet.
I think it was more hatred, a self-hatred.
Just the same way all the leftist elites backed the Soviets in the Cold War against their own country.
I think Margaret Atward backed Iran or the other against their own country.
I don't think Margaret Atwood really understood Islam other than it put women in bags.
I don't think she was afraid of Islam.
It was too alien and too far away.
I think it was just, like the Soviets, a threat to capitalist, free Western Christian America.
And she knew she hated that, so she'd back whoever the rival was.
That's my theory.
Liza writes, if I wanted to see women covered and oppressed this way, I would live in Islamic country.
Canon must not give an inch to Sharia.
Well, I think we've given more than an inch already.
Would you not say?
Not as much as in the United Kingdom or Europe, but I think we've given more than an inch.
Today we talked with Yasmin Muhammad.
By the way, as you know, there have been lawsuits successful that women are allowed to wear full-face obscuring niqabs in citizenship court.
And there have been attempts to have it allowed in regular court too.
I tell you one thing.
If I was on trial as a criminal accused, God forbid may it never happen, And some accuser was wearing a full face obscuring niqab, and she was the accuser, and I couldn't look my accuser in the eye, and the judge couldn't look my accuser in the eye when I was being accused of a crime by someone wearing a mask, I would walk right out of that court.
Industrial Dislocation00:02:58
I would walk right out of that court.
May it never happen.
On the interview with Joel Paul, Kem writes, you reference the unit bomber as an environmental extremist and leftist.
I just wanted to push back a bit on your assertion.
He was certainly motivated by the destruction of the environment, especially being triggered by his favorite spot in nature being destroyed by industry.
But if you read into his manifesto, it's apparently clear he was not motivated by any left-wing ideology, but in fact, his critic of society was against leftism.
Okay, well, I haven't read the Unit Bombers rants at length.
So I just don't know what to make of your criticism, but I'm happy to air it.
I know that there is a kind of sentimental anti-industry philosophy.
Roger Scruton has a little bit of it.
J.R.R. Tolkien has some of it.
You can see it in The Lord of the Rings.
He laments the passing of the nature and, you know, the big trees were allies and the smoggy mines were the enemies.
It goes all the way back to Ned Ludd and Luddism and the psychological cultural crisis brought about by the Industrial Revolution, where people were dislocated.
You had hundreds of people doing menial tasks.
And then a machine would come along and do what 100 people used to do.
And they were uprooted.
And some of these craftsmen had been, you know, I mean, the loom, the mechanical loom.
How many generations, how many centuries did craftsmen make things by hand one at a time?
And then a machine comes along and improves the economy and creates prosperity and plenty.
And now it's not just the aristocracy who can afford socks and everyone else has like one pair of socks.
Now everyone could have a pair of socks.
That's wonderful for prosperity and lifting us all out of sheer poverty, but it's very dislocating to people who were replaced by machines.
And of course it happened the same on the farms.
And, you know, so yeah, there has been a kind of sentimental conservatist Luddism.
And you can feel it even now.
I mean, look, I am a bit, I'm not a Luddite when it comes to technology.
A Luddite implies someone who refuses to use it.
But I also acknowledge, even today, as our traditional customs of privacy and alone time are being destroyed by the technology of our era.
And I find it dislocating, and maybe you do too.
Well, imagine what it was like in the Industrial Revolution.
You know, there's a point in time, let me close on this, on this letter.
I got one more letter.
When the British Army had more soldiers deployed to protecting factories that were being torched and destroyed by Luddites than they had to defending against Napoleon.
It was like a countrywide riot.
What do you think of that factoid?
Voice for the Silent Majority00:02:36
All right, Mike writes, I want to say how thankful and supportive I am of the whole rebel team.
You guys are a voice for the silent majority.
My idea for a 10-minute blurb would be on the shootings and attacks on our service members and society in the last year or two and the common occurrence on race and religion we keep seeing on the daily, the location of these crimes and recurring and whether or not they are born Canadian citizens.
I trust your journalism more than anything else these days.
I'll be honest with you, I don't know exactly what you're referring to.
Maybe you're talking about the crime spree, the shooting, stabbing spree in Toronto.
I think that might be what you mean.
And yeah, I think we could do more coverage of that.
I mean, we have limited people resources, but it's a good idea.
So I think that's what you mean there.
I thought at first you were referring to some of our coverage in the United Kingdom, which we were almost alone on that.
We brought some reporters along with us, this time Candace Malcolm, Andrew Lawton, Avi Yamini from Australia, Cassandra Fairbanks from Washington, D.C.
So I feel like the Rebel led the charge there.
And I know that's the United Kingdom.
People say you've got to focus more on Canada.
And I agree, but occasionally there are huge stories overseas that impact us.
And in this case, are a premonition of what's to come for us if we don't change our course.
By the way, if you want to see more from the UK, go to TommyTrial.com.
That's where all my reports are.
Well, that's the end of a very busy week.
It felt like a successful week.
I know I was away for two days, but thanks to my colleagues for filling in for me.
I have no plans to go anywhere just yet, but I should tell you, if you are in Alberta or close to it, why not go to therebelive.com, therebelive.com.
Because on Saturday, November 10th, we're all coming to Calgary.
We've done the Rebel Live in Toronto a few times.
It's been great.
We're going to have about 500 folks, maybe more.
I don't know how many the building can hold.
We got keynote speakers on a range of subjects, the oil sands, Notley, Lindsey Shepard on free speech.
We invited both Andrew Scheer and Maxine Bernier to come give a talk.
Bernier's accepted.
Haven't heard back yet from Scheer.
I'm pessimistic.
But why don't you come on down and say hi?
We'll have Sheila Gunread.
Sorry, Andrew.
Oh, you know what?
I want to tell you a sneak preview.
We haven't announced this yet.
Are you ready?
It's a secret.
Katie Hopkins is coming.
Whoa.
Yeah.
We haven't even announced that yet.
You're the first to learn.
Until Monday, keep watching our videos on the YouTube side.
On behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, to you at home, good night.