Justin Trudeau’s $595 million slush fund for "trusted" journalists—like CBC, Postmedia, and CTV—exposes systemic media bias, with outlets like The Rebel and Blacklocks Reporter refusing grants to avoid ideological control. Critics, including former CBC journalist Natalie Clancy and columnist Barbara Kay, highlight how funding rewards compliance (e.g., attacking Conservatives) while erasing objective language, like the Toronto Star’s misleading "transgender woman" headline masking a biological man’s assault. The plan mirrors historical state media manipulation, from Orwell’s Newspeak to Nazi-era boycotts, and risks normalizing censorship under the guise of "ethics," with Trudeau’s allies pushing legal attacks on dissenting voices—undermining press freedom entirely. [Automatically generated summary]
Tonight, Trudeau sets up a $595 million slush fund for journalists, but only journalists he trusts.
It's November 22nd, 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 of why I publish it is because it's my bloody right to do so.
We knew it was coming, but no one knew it would be this big.
Justin Trudeau has announced that he's setting up a $595 million slush fund for journalists, but only for journalists that he trusts.
That's really the word.
Let me quote from the Globe and Mail.
The government said the package will aim to help trusted news organizations.
Trusted to do what?
Trusted to go easy on Trudeau, trusted to ignore news stories.
Trudeau doesn't like trusted.
Trusted by whom?
Trusted by the public to follow the truth no matter where it leads, or trusted by Trudeau and his staff not to follow the truth if it would cause problems.
Well, pretty obvious.
$595 million, though, that is a shocking amount for journalists and for their millionaire and billionaire owners.
At least Bombardier actually makes something.
Airplanes and trains.
Seriously, taxpayers now have to subsidize every whining social justice warrior on Twitter.
Remember this.
First of all, why are we still fighting against certain veterans groups in court?
Because they are asking for more than we are able to give right now.
Yeah, those veterans are asking for too much.
Maybe those veterans should start a left-wing newspaper, and then Trudeau would find hundreds of millions of dollars for them.
Now, this is unsurprising.
The major journalism union has been campaigning for this for months.
Just a few weeks ago, they pledged their trustworthiness to Trudeau, saying they would be a trustworthy ally to him to attack Andrew Scheer and the conservatives.
That lady center right there, that's Lana Payne, a columnist for the St. John's Telegram.
So, yeah, the media party, they can be trusted.
Not by you, not by readers.
They're trusted by Justin Trudeau.
They promised to deliver him.
You saw it.
And so he delivered for them.
Here's Unifor's tweet celebrating their deal with Trudeau.
Their journalist union bosses are already enforcing the new rules.
Everyone just shut up, take Trudeau's money, and be trustworthy, okay?
Here's Natalie Clancy, a CBC alumna.
She's mad at Paul Wells, a left-wing journalist who already takes government subsidies, both from McLean's magazine and CBC.
But he tweeted that he's against government subsidies while taking government subsidies, but he likes to be very loud about how he doesn't like it.
One bit, people, I'm taking this money, but I sure don't like it.
Well, even that fake opposition from Paul Wells was too much for Clancy, who said this.
She said, I could not disagree with Paul Wells more.
No one is putting politicians in charge of journalism.
The idea is to give our newsrooms a chance to survive people.
But in fact, Trudeau is in charge of journalism.
He said so.
He will only give money to those he trusts.
And newsrooms have no right to survive any more than Bombardier does.
Giving money to Bombardier buys you some votes, I guess, but it doesn't damage democracy.
But giving money to journalists to tip the scales in political elections, all this talk about meddling in elections and interference, Russia, whatever.
They would never dream of dumping $595 million into an election cycle less than a year before the vote.
That trusted part, Trudeau has said he'll appoint his hand-picked journalistic friends to be gatekeepers for all that cash.
That's got to be the most powerful patronage appointment in Canada, wouldn't you say?
You know, recently, Paula Simons from the Edmonton Journal was appointed to the Senate by Trudeau.
Here she is a couple of years back saying the Senate is tainted and corrupted by decades of hack patronage appointments, liberal and Tory, it's a mess.
But then Trudeau offered her a Senate seat as a reward for her years of left-wing journalism.
And obviously she took it.
I mean, of course she did.
But that's probably the last we'll hear from Paula Simons other than some boring speeches and lots of travel and entertainment expenses she'll foist on us.
She really has no power or influence.
But imagine if instead she had been appointed as one of the gatekeepers of this $595 million jackpot.
Well, they would command the world.
Imagine the invitations they'd get to galas and parties and free trips and to speak on panels.
Imagine the lobbyists who will descend on them with promises or threats or bribes or whatever.
And of course they will be immune from the lobbyist registry, I'm sure.
Imagine the power of journalists commanding other journalists.
Jump through my hoops.
Do what I say.
Agree with me.
Or you're not trustworthy enough to get millions of dollars.
They're going to be instant millionaires, by the way, these gatekeepers.
This is insane.
And if you're a lefty having trouble understanding any of this, just do the mental exercise of pretending that, say, Doug Ford set up a $595 million trust fund for journalists himself and appointed a journalist friend of his to dole it out, but only to the people he trusts.
I don't know, maybe he'd choose my old friend Corey Tanike, Doug Ford's former campaign staffer and former boss of Sun News Network.
Or heck, why not appoint me?
I mean, my point is, leftists would freak out, and rightly so.
But with Justin Trudeau, I mean, look, these journalists were already pretty compliant with Trudeau without the cash.
They're just ideologically pro-liberal.
Now they're positively obedient with their union bosses whipping them into compliance.
Here's Stephen Maher, who published literally hundreds of fake news stories about Stephen Harper stealing an election through robocalls.
Remember that whole fake news incident?
Elections Canada refuted that conspiracy theory, by the way, but it didn't stop Maher from doing his liberal duty.
And look what he says now about all this cash.
Look what he says.
He says, journalists ought to campaign for Trudeau, comparing them to any other lobby group that campaigns.
He said, I think Unifor should have a voice in political debates along with the Business Council of Canada, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, etc.
I don't know why this is controversial.
I don't have to agree with all their views or any of them to think that.
Now, there's a certain honesty here, a journalist comparing journalists to lobbyists.
That's honest, because they are lobbyists.
Now, normally they don't admit it publicly like that, but Maher's never hidden his stripes.
Trouble is when lobby groups publish an op-ed in the newspaper, it's labeled an op-ed and their conflict of interest is revealed.
It said this is a lobbyist for oil or for the environment or whatever cause.
The problem with journalists like Maher is that they're lobbyists too, as he admits, but they pretend their views are just factual news reports, not opinions.
And when was the last time you saw a journalist disclose on the air or in their byline that they donate through their own union dues to attack conservatives?
Never.
and now that they take money from Trudeau.
That won't be disclosed in their articles.
Here's my old friend from the Sun News Network, David Aiken.
He made a fuss on Twitter about not liking this new contract between the union and Trudeau.
But when I pressed him about whether he has actually requested a union meeting on the subject, which is his right as a dues paying union member, he just said, oh, well, you know, these things take time.
Well, actually, not a lot of time.
I read the Unifor Union local bylaws, and if just one quarter of the journalists in his local request a meeting, they have to have one within a few weeks.
He wouldn't tell me if he actually made such a request.
I don't think he has.
And if he did, I doubt that his colleagues would vote against any of this free cash.
They want to pretend that they're independent and idealistic.
That's what their self-image demands.
But at the end of the day, they're for sale.
And even if there were a few journalists having their doubts about renting themselves out to Trudeau, well, their bosses put that to bed.
Here's Paul Godfrey, the president of Post Media, which includes the National Post and most big city dailies in Canada, the Vancouver, Sun, Vancouver Province, Calgary Herald, Imagine Journal, Saskatoon Star, Phoenix, Reginald Leader Post, et cetera, Montreal Gazette.
Just look at this loving headline in the post.
$600 million in federal funding for media's turning point, a turning point in the plight of newspapers in Canada.
Mourneau said the government wants to create, protect the vital role that independent news media play in our democracy and in our communities.
Yeah, that's not a headline from the National Post that we all know and love.
That's a headline in the new National Post that's talking like Bombardier talks when it gets free money.
Let me quote Paul Godfrey, who said in this article, Paul Godfrey, the CEO of Postmedia, which publishes the National Post and daily broadsheets in many of Canada's largest cities, said the tax credit could be looked upon as a turning point in the plight of newspapers in Canada.
I tip my hat to the Prime Minister and the finance minister.
They deserve a lot of credit, said Godfrey.
Everyone in journalism should be doing a victory lap around their building right now.
I love you.
Oh, I just added that last part.
It came naturally.
So just in case any post-media journalists didn't know how they were supposed to feel about this, their boss just told them they love it.
They love Trudeau.
Now, I got to tell you, very candidly, I know Paul Godfrey a little bit, and I really like him, actually, in large part because he is so honest.
He's never said that the National Post is about great journalism.
In fact, not too long ago, he admitted its quality was just, and I'm quoting here, he said, the National Post is not unacceptable.
That's the highest praise he could muster for what they publish every day.
I love that.
He knows his job.
His job is about getting money for his shareholders, or really, his bondholders, some hedge funds from New York City.
Nothing else.
That's what he's paid to do.
And if that means praising Justin Trudeau, he'll do it.
For free money, that's his job description.
So let's sum up here.
The CBC is already in the tank for Trudeau.
They get $1.5 billion a year of tax money, and that ensures their compliance.
But again, they're journalists, so they're naturally leftist anyways, but the money seals the deal.
Another $595 million now, which sounds insane, but it's less than half what Trudeau gives the CBC.
And he just effectively nationalized every other private sector media company in Canada.
That's a small price to pay to lock up the next election next year.
I see a few pretend attempts to protest by Paul Wells and Andrew Coyne, both of whom take money from the CBC already.
And I saw Matt Gurney, of course, but they'll all fall into line.
And I get it because they value their jobs more than they value being ideologically pure.
I don't blame them, especially if they have a young family to feed.
But I just don't ever want to hear them criticizing, well, anyone ever about fiscal responsibility or editorial independence, ever.
No more bombardier editorials in the National Post.
or McLean's or really anywhere.
It would just be too much.
The irony would explode, don't you think?
Which is what Trudeau's counting on here.
It's not even that these journalists now have a personal favor to repay Trudeau.
I mean, that's there.
But by taking free government money, they have undermined fatally their own moral authority to ever talk like conservatives again, to ever criticize government spending again.
That's actually what makes them so trustworthy in the eyes of Trudeau.
Not that they've done a secret deal or a not-so-secret deal like Unifor has.
It's that they've just destroyed their own soul, their own credibility.
So how could they ever fight with any spirit anymore?
Can you ever see the National Post criticizing big spending ever again?
You saw that headline they ran today.
So yesterday was a huge victory day for Justin Trudeau and for the billionaires who own most Canadian media.
They'll be pocketing most of this subsidy.
But what was on Justin Trudeau's small mind?
Well, us here at the Rebel, seriously, the only media company that he talked about in Parliament yesterday was Tiny Little Us.
It was in an answer to a question put from the Conservatives about open borders, mass immigration.
Nothing to do with the Rebel.
But maybe it did have something to do with the Rebel, because listen to this answer from Trudeau.
Mr. Speaker, the world is seeing unprecedented levels of men, women, and children displaced by war and by persecution.
Our government is proud to have taken a leadership role on the Global Compact.
This is the first time the international community has worked together to develop a comprehensive set of principles to better manage this phenomenon.
It is disappointing to see the Conservatives engage in peddling rebel media conspiracy theories.
I watched the question.
It was by Michelle Rampel.
It was just about policy issues.
She didn't mention the rebel.
No one mentioned the rebel.
But boy, it's on his mind, isn't it?
And not just his mind, I think he was reading from a prepared script.
We're living rent-free in the minds of the liberals, aren't they?
They're Obsessed With Us00:08:30
I think they're obsessed with us.
Why?
Well, because we are the one group in Canada that he cannot buy.
And if you thought it was just a coincidence, well, last night, Gerald Butz, Trudeau's handler, he tweeted about us too.
He calls us Nazis all the time or whatever.
He tweets about us all the time.
He's obsessed with us, but why?
I mean, seriously, why are they obsessed with us?
They already run the CBC, which is bigger than all other Canadian news media combined.
They just rented out every other private media outlet in Canada.
They now control, directly or indirectly, 99% of all the media in this country.
That's how many are going to take money from Trudeau in one way or the other.
Only as long as they're trustworthy, so they will be trustworthy.
So why on earth would he be so obsessed with us?
Well, you heard Trudeau.
In that particular question there, we're the only news organization reporting the other side of the story.
In that particular case, he was talking about mass, out-of-control, illegal immigration.
On other things, too, like the theory of man-made global warming, like, I don't know, civil rights for Christians in Canada, like being pro-Israel or pro-America, like opposing Trudeau's soft-on-terrorism stances, his love for Omar Cotter, that sort of thing.
If it weren't for us here at the Rebel, it would be 100% unanimity, not just 99%.
But that is why he hates us.
In fact, the more that the other media sell out to him, the more aware he is that we are the last holdout, the more conspicuous is the fact that we will not bend the knee.
That's why he is angrier and angrier and angrier at us because we just won't shut up.
And so it's not just the carrot of the $595 million.
That was enough to buy off everyone else, but not us.
You can't buy us.
So now he's going to bring out the stick.
The stick.
Legal bans, too.
Here's Harjit Sajjan, Trudeau's cabinet minister, defense minister, talking about banning what he calls fake news.
Now that's quite audacious, coming from the biggest fake news guy around.
He's the one, you recall, who falsely claimed to be the architect of NATO's Afghan war strategy, and he later admitted he lied about it, a bit of stolen valor there.
But put aside his own fake news.
What he really means is he wants to ban the points of view he doesn't like.
That's what he means by fake news.
And what he really means is that last, last journalistic holdout that won't take the cash.
It's not a coincidence.
It's not a one-off.
Look at this.
This is from Hedi Fry.
Best way to ensure more fact than fake news is to support journalism.
A profession with a code of ethics and under law must produce verifiable and accountable news.
Hang on, so we've got to be accountable under law to her.
A bit crazy from the MP who, if you recall, falsely stood up in Parliament and claimed that there were crosses burning, KKK style, in British Columbia.
Remember that?
What a liar.
But still, she, the fake news queen, wants to ban news she disagrees with.
So under Trudeau, there will only be two kinds of news.
The kind Trudeau and Harjit Sajan and Hedi Fry Trust and subsidize.
And the kind of news that's banned.
Oh, and if you're asking, not a peep against any of this from the Canadian Association of Journalists or Penn Canada or Reporters Without Borders or the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
Are you kidding?
Not at all, because they fundamentally agree with it and they hate the rebel for the same reason Justin Trudeau does.
I should point out that there is one little news organization that has said the same sort of thing as us.
Here's a statement.
Let me read it to you.
A statement from Blacklocks Reporter.
We will neither solicit nor accept Canadian heritage media grants and have always named and shamed those who do.
That's great.
That's called Black Locks Reporter.
It's an online small group of reporters.
They're pretty tiny.
That's not an insult.
That's just a fact about them.
They're great.
In fact, I think I'm going to sign up and be a subscriber just to support them based on what they said there.
But I have just now listed for you the only other independent news agency in this country.
That said, there's no one else.
Everyone else is for sale or for rent, whatever.
Sorry, it's true.
But not us.
You can't buy us.
We're paid only by our viewers in little crowdfunding dribs and drabs and by you, our premium subscribers who pay $8 a month.
Thank you.
Our average donor is about $65.
That's it.
Not $565 million.
We just wouldn't take Trudeau's money.
We couldn't.
You can't call yourself a rebel and be paid by the government.
That would be about as nonsensical as saying you're a punk rock band or an edgy comedian who works for the government.
That's why CBC comedians are so painfully unfunny.
It just doesn't work to be a government comedian.
Now, this whole development is bad news for us here at the Rebel in some ways.
We're going to be attacked even worse than before.
All that talk about fake news and banning people, that's really coming for us and pretty much us alone.
And the hatred and marginalization of us by the mainstream media who hate the fact that we're calling them out.
We're embarrassing them by dissenting.
Well, obviously, hating the rebel is a necessary condition for them to get paid by Trudeau.
It's part of whether or not he can trust you, right?
If you don't hate the rebel, how could Trudeau trust you?
So it's going to get tougher for us and for you as a viewer and for your fellow citizens.
Isn't that proof, though, that the rebel is needed more than ever?
Imagine, God forbid, if we were to fail.
There would literally be no one else in the country telling the other side of the story.
That's what made Trudeau so mad in question period: that there was one voice telling the other side of the story, a single voice.
Now, we don't need $595 million to live, but $595,000 would be great.
We'd pay off some of our bills, spruce up the website a bit, hire another couple reporters, cover the 2019 federal election properly, maybe even spend a little bit of money advertising that we exist.
If you want to do something constructive and productive to fight back against Trudeau's slush fund, may I suggest doing that?
Go to youcan'buyus.com.
That's our message to Trudeau.
It's our answer to Trudeau.
Go to youcan'tbuyus.com and help chip in.
I mean, Justin Trudeau just forced you and every other Canadian to give money to our competitors.
Where do you think they found the $595 million from?
Between this bailout and the CBC, that's more than $2 billion.
That's about $250 per family in Canada.
He's just taking that from you every year, $250 from your family, to give to his journalists that he trusts.
$250.
Would you consider going to youcan'buyus.com and making a voluntary donation so we can provide the other side of the story?
We need to survive.
We need to thrive.
We need to grow.
Somebody has to speak truth to power.
And right now, I'm afraid it has to be us.
Stay with us for more.
Welcome back.
Transgender Rights Controversy00:12:13
I saw a story the other day in the Toronto Star, and every word in it, including a and the, is bizarre.
This is not fiction.
This is news in the year 2018.
I want to read this story to you.
I'll read the headline and then the first few sentences, and then I'll call in a guest to comment on it with me.
The story, as you can see, is called Transgender Woman Gets 18-month sentence for sexually assaulting daughter.
By the way, before I read any of it to you, do you think transgender woman is factually accurate?
Do you think the facts of the story will sustain that headline?
Well, let me read it to you and you can find out here.
Let's start reading.
A Quebec City transgender parent who sexually assaulted her young daughter will be serving a sentence in a women's jail after undergoing a sex change between the time of the crime and the conviction.
The transgender woman, who cannot be named to protect the victim's identity, was sentenced to 18 months Monday for sexual assaults carried out when she was still a man.
The 33-year-old, the victim's biological father, had pleaded guilty to crimes that took place in 2013 when the girl was just three.
This is in the last quote here.
The accused was separated from the girl's mother at the time and was in the months following the assaults.
She underwent a sex change.
I'll stop reading.
I think that's enough for you to get the story.
Let's call on our guest Barbara Kay, a columnist for the National Post, to join us via Skype to talk about this.
Barbara, of course, I'm furious at the underlying facts of the story.
I'm furious at a sexual assault, let alone of a child, let alone against one's own child.
In my mind, an 18-month sentence for sexually assaulting a child, let alone your child, is a laugh.
It's a trifle.
Of course, he'll be out in a matter of months under our parole laws.
I'm outraged by the crime.
I'm outraged by the lenient sentence.
But there's so many more layers here, including that he is being sent to serve his sentence in a women's prison.
And then finally, the cherry on top of the icing, on top of the cake, is that the Toronto Star calls him a her.
Now they lapse into saying, was her father, because otherwise the story makes no sense.
But this is the lowest our culture has sunk in quite a long while.
I can't even remember anything like it.
That's my view.
Let me hand it over to you before I start ranting even more.
No, I share your horror at this story, and I agree with you.
I don't know how satire stays in business anymore because this is the kind of story in your wildest dreams you would never expect to see written up with a straight face and the pronouns he, her.
This is what happens when you insist that language follow the feelings or the beliefs in people's minds and you redefine objective facts and you call something that used to mean one thing by another name.
Then you're forced to follow up with action that befits the new definition.
So if this person, this man, this biological man, has told everybody and he's assuming that he, you know, he is a woman because he feels like a woman or maybe because he, who knows why, then suddenly he's a woman who assaulted his daughter with his, I assume with his penis.
You know, this kind of muddle-headed thinking is what got us into this mess.
This man, this biological man, is a very sick individual.
And by the way, it used to be, he's getting a sex change operation.
Used to be the days when if you wanted a sex change operation, you had to go through some serious psychological assessment.
They didn't just do anybody that came to the door.
They weeded out those that they thought were afflicted with psychological serious problems And that they were not truly dysphoric, but that this was a function of other problems.
Sounds to me like this biological man has other problems besides wanting to be a woman.
So, yeah, it's a horrible story.
It is not a serious sentence.
It should be much longer.
And I worry about the women that in the prison, that this biological man, who I suppose after he's had a sex change operation, they'll stop calling him a biological man, but he still will be, only one without male genitalia.
And I worry about the women in that prison.
We already know it's happened in England that a trans woman still with male genitalia did assault women in prison when in a woman's prison.
We're in a terrible situation because we have committed to believing, to creating laws and to denying reality on the basis of some people's psychological affliction.
Yeah, I can think of four reasons why this criminal would want to serve time in a women's prison instead of a men's prison.
The first reason, and it's the least important, and I give it no weight, is because he thinks she's a woman now.
That's the reason he is going there.
The second reason is that child predators, child molesters, pedophiles often don't do well in a prison.
The general population of the prison, even though they're all guilty of some other crime, they have some innate morality.
And people who sexually assault children are outside even the moral norms of a prison.
So he might well be attacked in some form of vigilante justice in a men's prison, but less likely in a women's prison.
The third reason is that I've never been inside a women's prison.
I've been inside a men's prison, not as a prisoner, of course.
I would imagine that a women's prison, especially in Quebec, especially for a custodial sentence of just a few months, is not a pleasant place, but certainly less punitive than a men's prison.
We've seen that with some of these healing lodges and whatnot.
Women's prisons are generally more hospitable.
And the fourth and darkest reason that you've alluded to is if you're a sexual predator, if you're a rapist, and the government says, yes, we'll allow you to be in an institution with hundreds of women who are trapped, well, what self-respecting rapist wouldn't say, sign me up.
Those are four reasons.
Each one of them is awful, but all of them will be satisfied.
Yeah, the real, you know, this child that was assaulted is the victim of this particular biological man.
But in general, the real victims of this entire movement which has forced, compelled people to redefine words.
For example, the word woman now means a human being with a vagina, or it means a human being with a penis.
I mean, that is basically what has happened to the word woman.
And therefore, the word woman has erased the unique biological category that women have fought so hard, you know, to have rights as women.
And now they are seeing these rights erased in order to accommodate a very small percentage of biological males who have a female vision of themselves.
And so now we're forced to call these trans women women and to insist that they actually, you know, air quotes, are women.
But as a result, that gives them legal rights.
And here we have an example of it.
And it puts women at risk.
I understand, you know, I am not a radical feminist by any means, or I don't even call myself a feminist.
But I am totally on the side of those feminists who are screaming bloody murder because their own category of human being has been superseded by the needs or the wishes or the rights of biological men.
You know, I just read a story, I think it was out in Vancouver, of some lesbians being kicked out of a LGBT parade because the trans men were upset that these lesbians did not call them women.
Imagine that.
Lesbians kicked out of a lesbian parade because some guys said, you say it, say I'm a woman, say it.
You have to say it.
And they demand that because that's the affirmation they're craving.
You know what's crazy?
And I did a monologue on this a few months ago.
Corrections Canada now has an official policy promulgated from the Trudeau cabinet that if you are a trans man who is now in a women's prison, you can insist that your strip searches be done by a woman guard.
Did you know that, Barbara?
No, I didn't.
Because of course, in prisons, you're searched from time to time for contraband, for weapons, just being taken into the prison, you are subject to an invasive search that's part of security.
It's just how it is.
And under Corrections Canada's guidelines, a man can insist that that search be done by a woman.
Where are the rights of the prison guards, by the way?
You could ask that.
I think, look, rights often conflict, and you have to decide, you know, there's such a thing as the rights of the majority rights as well as minority rights.
This is a very tiny minority we're talking about.
But if we had not, look, if we had insisted that the words, that words mean what they say they mean, then we'd have a category called women, and we'd have a category called trans women.
They exist, but they are a category all their own.
And that way you could say trans women can have their own units in prisons.
We'll set up special units for trans women.
But trans women, for example, cannot be counselors in a rape crisis center because only women or a rape crisis center.
I'm not saying men don't get raped, but that's another shelter.
That's another kind of shelter.
But in rape crisis shelters for women, trans women may not serve as counselors.
There was a case out in BC pursued by a trans woman who's very insistent that trans women should have the right to become counselors to real women after they've been raped.
That's just exactly what a rape victim needs is to have a biological male giving her counsel.
So these are the kind of situations we'll see more and more of because our government was too supine to insist when they put gender expression rights into a bill to define.
They're not very good on definition.
They're very good on vague theories and they like to look good.
The optics look good.
But gender expression is a weasel word.
Ungood Gender Expression00:05:26
We don't know what it means and we're finding out that it means bad things as well as good things.
Yeah, you know, I'm familiar with that rape crisis shelter in Vancouver.
It's called Vancouver Rape Relief.
And the man in question, a six-foot-something former pilot, demanded access to the actual shelter itself.
And this went all the way up to the Court of Appeal.
Let me just take a little tangent there because you reminded me of this horrific story.
And actual rape victims were forced to take the stand in court and say, had that big man been waiting there in the rape relief shelter, I would literally have turned around and gone back onto the street rather than take shelter.
He was so terrifying to the women, and yet he insisted he had this counterfeit human right to be a male counselor in a rape shelter.
And that was more than 10 years ago, by the way.
It's even nuttier now.
You know, Barbara, we all talk about Orwell, and we say Orwellian, but maybe we all need to refresh ourselves.
I remember when I read the, I've read the book 1984 probably three times.
I should read it again.
The last time I read it, it was clear to me that the story was actually about newspeak.
That's the new invented, engineered language that was replacing English.
And one of its great qualities, according to the dictatorship, was that it had so few words.
It took out so many adjectives and adverbs and so many shades of gray.
You just had good and you had ungood.
Ungood.
And you had plus good.
Yeah.
Yeah, double plus good, double plus ungood.
And they would say, well, that's a feature.
This language is so wonderful.
It only has a few hundred words.
But the effect was you couldn't express things.
And there's this one beautiful passage.
It's been 10 years since I've read it last.
And it was, they said the Declaration of Independence could not be articulated in newspeak.
It would just be swallowed up in the word crime think.
I'm going from memory here.
It's been 10 years.
1984 was about authority and tyranny, but it actually, from the very first sentence, you know, the clock struck 13, working in the Ministry of Truth, literally changing old newspapers, revising history by cutting out articles that were no longer convenient and replacing them, and then doing it again, and you can never actually remember what the first one was.
That's what 1984 was about.
And when you have the Toronto Star actually writing a headline, transgender woman gets 18-month sentence for sexually assaulting daughter, and it's not till you dig in that you realize it was a man who assaulted his own daughter.
That is actually what George Orwell warned us about.
Yes, indeed.
No, listen, I don't have a problem with the word trans woman because it identifies to me that this is a biological man who believes he is a woman and desires to live his life presenting as a woman.
I have no problem with that, and I have no problem with calling that person she and her.
I have no problem with it at all.
But I do have a problem with being compelled to call a trans woman woman.
I am a woman.
That person has nothing in common with me except the belief that he has something in common with me.
So I'm not buying this.
And the minute you buy that the word woman can mean either a biological man or a biological woman, the word woman has been erased.
The category of women has been erased.
And we are subject to the whims and the declared rights of biological men, very few, but very, very aggressive.
The activists, I'm not talking about, I happen to know some trans women, delightful people just living their lives.
It's their, and they admit they don't know what their dysphoria is all about, but this is a thing that makes them happy.
Fine, live your life.
But the activists, some of them are so aggressive and hateful.
It seems to me they hate women.
They really hate women.
That's what comes across to me when they say, call me a woman, call me a woman.
That's not asking for a right.
That's bullying, controlling.
In fact, it's toxic masculinity is what it is.
Yeah, you're so right.
That's an interesting observation.
Barbara, it's always a pleasure to talk with you.
So few Canadians are willing to speak about this publicly because, as you say, the bullying comes down.
There is no bullying like transgender bullying.
I mean, it's tough to take on radical Islam.
You get called an Islamophobe.
It's tough to take on political correctness.
You called a right-wing bigot.
But there is nothing as swift and sharp as the establishment slapping back anyone who dares to challenge this new ideology of transgenderism.
Yeah, it's pretty ferocious.
I've never seen anything like it.
It's pretty ferocious.
Yeah.
Well, thanks for being brave.
It's always a pleasure to have you.
Tough To Take On Political Correctness00:03:25
Thanks so much.
Thanks, Ezra.
There you have it, Barbara Kaye, a columnist with the National Post and one of the courageous voices on this prickly issue.
Stay with us.
More ahead on The Rebel.
Hey, welcome back to my monologue yesterday about the murder of Jamal Khashoggi.
Keith writes, when this story first broke three or four weeks ago, the UK press and TV were telling it with the full emphasis that this guy was a good guy, nothing more than a journalist.
Not one word about his dubious past.
Good work, Ezra, for exposing some of the truth.
Thanks, Keith.
I want to say again, I don't believe in murder.
There are some cases I believe in capital punishment, I should say.
But that's different than murder.
Capital punishment is a trial, a law, an independent judiciary.
It's methodical and it's done very sober-minded.
I don't believe in murder.
But if we're going to cancel a diplomatic relation with a very momentous and important country, important economically, important geopolitically, important militarily, important as a counterweight to Iran, it has to be over more than a foreign citizen who is deeply entangled with terrorist groups.
It has to be more than that.
Otherwise, we would have no diplomatic relations with anyone other than maybe the Swiss.
Tyler writes, could care less about Khashoggi, more worried about the $500 million tax dollars that Justin is giving his pet media.
Need you more than ever, Ezra.
You have my support.
Good show, PPC 2019.
Thank you very much, Tyler.
You know, I think of our staff here at the Rebel, our on-air staff, our behind-the-scenes staff.
We got to make payroll every week.
I know how hard it is to be a media tycoon.
You know, Canada's largest media tycoon, the Thompson family, they own the Global Mail, Thompson Reuters, you've probably heard the name.
That's Canada's richest family.
They're worth, I don't know, $25 billion.
Other media, of course, the government owns the biggest media.
But it really is difficult to be a CEO, which I could call myself of a media company.
I know how tough it is.
And sometimes you daydream, I wish there was some miraculous solution.
But that's just a daydream.
If someone walks in and says, here's a bushel of gold coins for you, that's not real life.
If it happens, there is a string attached.
And the string attached to the $595 million that Justin Trudeau is shoving in front of the Thompsons, the CTVs, the Globals, Paul Godfrey of post-media, it's not free money.
It comes with the condition that they be loyal and obedient, or to use his word, trustworthy.
If someone were to bring in a wheelbarrow of a million or $5 million in here, and I saw it with my eyes, and I rolled around in it for a bit, and I, you know, I admit it would be tempting because I have to make payroll every two weeks here.
Kaufnicht Signs in 30s Germany00:03:06
But there is no point in being a government journalist.
If you have that adjective in front of the word journalist, you are actually not a journalist.
And nothing called the rebel can take money from the government.
So I have to say, because I know what it is to make payroll every two weeks and to worry about costs, I understand why Paul Godfrey is doing a victory lap.
But understand he and I are different.
His job, and he gets paid over a million bucks a year to do it, is to bring home the bacon for his hedge fund bosses, and he does that well.
I think my job is to, as honestly and candidly as possible, tell the other side of the story to the political narrative in Canada, which is why I cannot, even if it would be offered to us, it would never be offered to us.
But if it were, we simply could not take the money because that is our crypt tonight.
You cannot be a government rebel is what I'm saying.
On my interview with Joel Pollock, Bruce writes, that Airbnb rule reminds me of 1930s Germany.
You know, I made that point myself.
1930s Germany didn't start with the Holocaust killing Jews right away.
The final solution did not come immediately.
There was a denormalization of Jews in advance, softening up the population to accept the theory that Jews are lower than them.
The Nuremberg Laws of 1935 banned Jews from certain professions, banned Jews from marrying non-Jews, banned a lot of things.
And then there was the boycotts.
And in German, my pronunciation is not good.
It's Kaufnicht Beijuden.
These Nazis would stand outside Jewish-owned stores saying, don't buy from the Jews.
So it's less crude and less overt now.
But when Airbnb says you can't rent from Jews in Hebron, you can rent from Muslims.
I don't think there are any Christians in Hebron.
But you can't rent from Jews.
How can I not think about the Kaufnicht by signs from Germany in the 30s?
I'm sorry.
It's just immediately what comes to mind.
Well, that's our show for today.
Hey, can you go to youcan'buyus.com, poke around there, forward it to friends, because we could use some help.
Look, we don't take any money from the government, never have, never will, never could.
So unfortunately, that means we've got to ask you, and I know you get sick of it.
But I've got to tell you, your pocket was picked yesterday for the other media, and you might not even know it because it comes at tax time.
You don't have a choice in it.
Maybe this is a choice you'd make to help us out.
I'd be grateful if you would.
That's our show for today.
Until tomorrow, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, good night.