Ezra Levant and David Mason mock Vancouver’s January 17th "climate emergency" declaration—pushed by Christine Boyle—as a political distraction from homelessness and housing crises, while questioning teen protests orchestrated by left-wing activists. They tie it to broader trends: Gillette’s woke ad alienating men, Quebec’s $40K fine for comedian Mike Ward’s jokes, and schools like Ben Levin’s teachers’ college indoctrinating kids on SOGI and political correctness. The episode frames these moves as a coordinated "war on parents," where government and corporations reshape culture under the guise of virtue signaling. [Automatically generated summary]
Tonight, Vancouver's City Council declares a climate emergency.
I guess it's easier than fixing their homelessness, housing costs, or drug gangs.
It's January 17th, and this is the Ezra Levant Show.
Why should others go to jail when you're the biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here, and you won't give them an answer.
The only thing I have to say is the government will water public is because it's my bloody right to do so.
When you think of the great political institutions of the world, I mean, there's the U.S. Congress, there's the Palace of Westminster, with the British House of Commons and the House of Lords.
Maybe you might throw in France's parliament.
Well, whatever you do, don't ignore Vancouver's City Council.
In terms of sheer effectiveness, in terms of changing the world, healing the world.
Don't laugh.
In 1983, Vancouver declared itself to be a nuclear weapons-free zone.
Do you see that sign there?
Scroll down a bit.
It says, welcome to Vancouver, a nuclear weapons-free zone.
It's actually, it's actually on a street sign.
So it's pretty official, people.
It was voted on and passed into law.
Well, fine.
All the law really did was issue a press release and make Vancouver taxpayers have to pay for virtue signaling street signs around the city.
It's about as effective as those gun-free zone signs are in deterring criminals.
Oh, shoot, it's a gun-free zone.
I won't take my gun.
But I'm here today to tell you that obviously it worked.
In the 30 years since Vancouver declared itself a nuclear weapons-free zone, there has never been a nuclear weapon in the city.
Am I right?
Well, actually, here's an image of the USS Ranger, an American aircraft carrier, sailing into Vancouver's harbor.
This is a couple years ago.
It just managed to squeeze under the bridges.
It's such a tall ship.
Now, the U.S. Navy's policy is to not announce whether there are nuclear weapons on any given vessel, but sometimes they publish photos of nuclear weapons on a given vessel.
Pretty sure there were nuclear weapons on the boat when it sailed into Vancouver.
But let's not be nitpickers.
The Vancouver City Council banned nuclear weapons from the city, not from the water next to the city.
And anyways, none of the nuclear weapons were ever used in Vancouver, and isn't that the important point?
And so I come back to you and say, do not underestimate the power or the vision.
Or if you're a bit more skeptical, the plain old craziness at Vancouver City Council.
And so let me announce to the world the next target of the City of Vancouver's aldermen.
I mean, these are the people who helped end the Cold War without a shop being fired.
So they like thinking big.
And I'm delighted to announce that the City of Vancouver's councillors have decided to solve the global warming crisis.
Vancouver City Council votes to declare a climate emergency.
Let me read a bit.
Vancouver City Council voted unanimously Wednesday night to declare a climate emergency, climate emergency.
The motion was introduced by one city councillor, Christine Boyle.
Now that the motion has passed, city staff will come up with new ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and set new climate change targets.
Boyle says her motion, passing unanimously, proves how important it is to be a greener city.
I think what she really means to say is this proves how important she is.
One more line from the story.
A rally was held earlier Wednesday outside City Hall with high school students demanding for climate change solutions.
Yeah, do you think that high school kids really decided to do that on their own?
Or do you think it was orchestrated by the hard left-wing teachers unions and other environmental activists in Vancouver who have been given full access to Canadian schools and the children within them?
You know, I see calls from time to time to lower the voting age to teenagers.
Well, actually, teenagers can already vote 18 and 19.
I don't know any high school kids who have the capacity to be thoughtful voters.
I know some high schoolers, like myself at that age, were politically precocious and could repeat political talking points like a party trick.
But when you still live at home with your parents and you have no responsibilities in life and you're still being formed in every way when you are still legally a child, 16, 17, you are not your own moral agent ready to shape the world.
The only reason the left wants children to vote is because they can then go to the classrooms during school time, during school hours, and put an entire class of kids on a bus and then take them to the polling station and telling them to vote liberal or NDP or Green.
I mean, the other week in Ontario, we saw teachers' unions bus hundreds of children to Queen's Park to protest against Doug Ford's decision to review the extreme child sex curriculum in this province.
Do you really think that the teenagers chose to do that?
Do you think they really understand the issues?
Do you think they know anything here?
Do you think their parents consented or even knew about that trip?
Of course not.
But children are the greatest prize, aren't they?
And that's not lost on political leftists.
Okay, back to Vancouver.
The city council, the people who single-handedly ended the Cold War by banning nuclear weapons.
Now they want to end the hot war or whatever they think is going on with the weather, which is weird because Vancouver's weather is pretty mild compared to the rest of the country.
And if you can stand the rain, it's great.
I mean, it's not a cold winter there.
They rarely have snow.
Do they not like it?
Nice and warm?
I mean, don't British Columbians know that the rest of Canada envies them their weather?
This is the motion that was passed.
I'm going to read some of it to you.
This is how it was presented to City Council.
It's called Ramping Up Vancouver's Climate Action in Response to the Climate Emergency Emergency.
And it was submitted by that Councillor Boyle.
Let me read it to you.
Let me just intro it a little bit.
I mean, climate emergency.
You know, I don't feel like it's an emergency, do you?
Because no one in the world is acting like it's an emergency.
And by that I mean the people who claim it's an emergency, they still jet around.
They still drive around.
In fact, the UN's global warming conferences are always in exotic locales around the world with tens of thousands of very important people coming to them by jet plane and supposed to, I don't know, even talking online over Skype or something.
Vancouver's great airport.
It's one of the busiest airports in Canada.
I love that airport.
Many long-range routes to the Pacific Rim.
It's never been busier.
The biggest coal port on the west coast of North America is right there off Vancouver.
A lot of American coal comes up there by train and then it's put onto ships to places like China.
So no one in Vancouver seems to be acting like it's a climate emergency.
None of the city councillors are, other than virtue signaling.
So it's an emergency for virtue signaling.
But here's what they say.
Let me read the motion.
Ready?
Whereas the British Columbia government declared a provincial state of emergency in 2018 over record-setting wildfires.
Okay, so that's the whereas is, that's the rationale.
I'll stop there for a second.
Wildfires are an emergency.
You could burn your house.
You could lose your house.
But that's a firefighting emergency.
And in the case of British Columbia, it's a crime emergency.
Here's a news story.
29 huge fires in BC in the past four years were caused by criminal arsonists.
Do you see that?
29 wildfires set by crooks.
So you can't just say that an arson is global warming.
Well, I mean, I guess the people who think they ended the nuclear arms race with a street sign might, but that's not a global warming thing.
I'll keep going.
Their next whereas is the Legislature of British Columbia and the House of Commons of Canada acknowledged the growing crisis of a climate breakdown by holding emergency debates following the release of the October 2018 IPCC report.
Well, if a political debate, if politicians talking about something isn't proof that something is a real emergency, I don't know what is.
Here's their third proof point.
Local governments around the world are taking new actions to avoid the worst impacts of climate breakdown.
That's a new phrase, isn't it?
And calling on senior levels of government for a more urgent emergency response.
So, so far, their rationale for declaring an emergency is a bunch of arson-caused fires, very important politicians debating in other legislatures, and very important politicians calling for an emergency.
So, I guess it's settled.
It's pretty circular, isn't it?
Politicians call for emergency, therefore other politicians call for an emergency.
This is the science-driven, evidence-based politics of the future, I guess.
Now, this next part of the motion is a mouthful, and I think it's designed to shock and awe with baffle gab and jargon.
So I'm going to read this really slowly, okay?
The Intergovernmental Panel ON Climate Change finds that limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius with no or limited overshoot would imply global net carbon dioxide emissions dropping to between 50 and 58% below 2010 levels by 2030 and between 94% and 107% below.
that doesn't even make sense, below 2010 levels by 2050.
Global net carbon dioxide emissions would need to be to continue, would need to continue to decline into the second half of the century, reaching negative net emissions in all scenarios.
Do you know what that means?
And how do you reduce something by, how do you reduce something by more than 100%?
Okay, so let's say I'm an eighth of a ton, rounding.
I could lose 10% of my weight, 25 pounds, that's a good idea.
I could lose 50% of my weight, that's not a good idea, I'd be down 125 pounds.
But you can't take more than 250 pounds away from a 250-pound guy.
How do you reduce something more than 100%?
Well, the same way you just make the nuclear war go away by passing a resolution.
I just want to explain a few things here.
The Internet Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that's the United Nations, of course, politicians.
And look at that weird wording there.
Did you see that part?
Would imply global warming, net carbon dioxide emissions dropping 50%.
That's not even sound grammar.
It doesn't even mean it.
It's a word salad.
Because they're trying to say that if you reduce your man-made carbon dioxide by 50%, that implies you'll stop the world from warming.
That didn't even make sense, but the UN doesn't actually say that ever, anywhere, not even in their craziest moments.
And I've been following this closely for 20 years.
No United Nations study or even their political emanations have ever said that reducing the human emissions of carbon dioxide will stop global warming.
They don't say that because even they know man-made emissions, even if they do contribute to global warming, are a tiny fraction compared to natural warming, natural emissions.
And the greatest greenhouse gas of all water vapor, you could delete every human from the planet and it would still warm.
I'm not trying to get science-y on you.
I'm just saying there's a reason they wrote that paragraph in such a word pretzel.
Because not even the crazy United Nations would ever say that if you ban cars, you'll change the weather.
No one, not even Justin Trudeau or Rachel Notley or Catherine McKinna says that a carbon tax, for example, will change any weather.
Their language, if they're ever pressed, which is rare that they're pressed, their language is that it's a moral symbol, that it sets an example for the world, but an example of what, since it's useless, an example of having more money than brains, an example of the kind of suckers we would be while China, India, Brazil, all the OPEC countries emit as much of whatever emissions they like while we waste our time and money on this stuff.
They never quite explain it, do they?
And Rachel Notley's explanation that putting a carbon tax on Alberta will appease Vancouverites into allowing a pipeline through social license, well, obviously that didn't work.
They just demanded more.
So I'm not going to go through the whole rationale.
The motion is three pages long, and a lot of it's baffled Gabby, but let me just read the action plan.
Therefore, be it resolved, the council recognized the breakdown of the stable climate and sea level under which human civilization developed constitutes an emergency for the city of Vancouver.
Hey guys, we are about to be swallowed up by the sea.
And I don't think Vancouverites actually believe that though.
I just don't think they really believe that.
Because if they did, those expensive houses right on the waterfront, including David Suzuki's, one of his four properties, his favorite property, they would not be the most expensive parts of the city.
Suzuki literally lives right on the water.
That's his house on the left there.
And so does the former mayor, Gregor Robertson, lives on the same street.
Gregor Robertson was also on the Tides Foundation Canada board.
They live on the same street, right on the sea.
They'd be the first to go if the sea were to rise up, an angry sea.
So I don't think they believe it.
If I thought my $20 million house, and Suzuki's house is worth, I don't know, I haven't checked the property assessment.
Last I did, it was over $10 million.
If I thought my $10 million house was going to be swamped by the sea, and if I thought that it was really emergency, I'd sell it and head inland.
And David Suzuki is not.
Is that what you do in an emergency?
Here's a photo.
I love this photo.
Here's a comparison of sea levels in Sydney Harbor more than 120 years ago.
Sydney, Australia, by the way.
Sorry.
There's this little outpost called Fort Denison.
Do you see it there?
That's a photo from 130 years ago.
Do you see the water level?
Look very carefully.
You see the water level there?
Now here's the water level, same fort.
Now.
And the sea level is unchanged.
Sorry, that's not quite true.
Side to say, the sea level is changing at about one millimeter a year.
That's the thickness of a dime.
I don't know how you'd even know, because that's like a drop of water.
So if that continues, it will take 300 years for water to rise a foot.
300 years.
Yeah.
So no, it's fake.
90 Days to Save the World00:03:23
It's not an emergency.
Sydney, by the way, has even more expensive housing than Vancouver, and all the expensive stuff is right on the water too, obviously.
Okay, back to the resolution.
Further, I've got big plans here.
Further, that council direct staff to report back within 90 days on opportunities to increase ambition and or accelerate timelines for existing actions under the Renewable City Action Plan and Climate Adaptation Strategy.
Add new actions to help the city achieve its targets.
Add new actions that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions beyond the scope of the city's current climate targets.
Oh, so they don't really have a plan.
They want the bureaucrats just to come up with some plan in 90 days.
Yeah, I don't know if that's going to happen.
I mean, maybe they could cure cancer in 90 days too, but at least curing cancer is scientifically possible, I suppose.
People changing the world's weather, the UN itself says that will not happen.
But maybe the very last sentence of this motion is what this is really about.
That council direct staff to establish a climate and equity working group to provide guidance and support to the city's efforts to transition off fossil fuels in ways the priorities, again, weird wording there, that those most vulnerable to climate impacts and most in need of support in transitioning to renewable energy.
So it's not really about controlling the weather.
It's about controlling people or climate equity, which really means changing how we live, changing the law, changing spending, using the climate emergency as the excuse for spending for more government.
That's what this is about.
Do you think they should work on their drug problem on East Hastings Street?
Do you think they should work on their housing pricing problem?
Do you think they should work on their gang problem?
Come on, that's boring.
They want to talk about global warming because they want to control people, but you see the threat of a millimeter a year sea level rise or the threat of arson fires as an excuse.
At least the last, at least the last threat, nuclear war was a real threat.
Hey, here's a helpful suggestion.
It's from Trudeau's state broadcaster, the CBC, two weeks ago.
Look at this story.
Vancouver Homes $2,000 cat door built as part of package to fight climate change.
And then underneath it says, West Vancouver residents showcases technology that will soon be part of Canada's building code.
Hey guys, spend millions of dollars on an eco-friendly home.
Spend $2,000 on a global warming-friendly cat door because it's an emergency, guys.
Yeah, whatever it takes to make you feel, what was that politician's phrase?
Important.
Yeah, that's it.
I mean, once you save the world from the nuclear threat of the Soviet Union, or was it saving the world from America?
They were never really clear who the enemy was.
Saving the world from the wrath of the sun.
Well, that's just the obvious next step of crazy.
Stay with us for more.
Welcome back.
Comedians And Their Rights00:13:12
Well, we've been talking about the joke of Vancouver City Council, but actual professional jokesters, comedians that is, well, they're having a really tough time because you can't really say anything offensive.
And what joke isn't other than, I suppose, why did the chicken cross the road?
And I'm sure that the animal rights activists would have something to say about that.
I bring two cases for you today.
The first is the case of Zach Poitras, who's a white man who wears his hair in the black tradition of dreadlocks, those very, very tight braids.
I think white people with dreadlocks is actually a fashion faux pas, but I would never ban them, but Zach Poitre, as you can see in the story here, has been banned from performing at the well-named Snowflake Comedy Club and the Soié de Humoring Anger because of cultural appropriation.
And also from Quebec, and I'm about to introduce our guest to help me talk about this in a second, Mike Ward, a bilingual comedian, and that's tough, is at the Court of Appeal in Quebec because he told a joke a few years ago.
And let's call it a mean joke.
He made fun of a kid who has a disability, and he was punished by the Human Rights Commission with more than $40,000 in fines just for making a joke.
And joining us now in studio is a man with a great sense of humor, my friend David Mason.
David, great to see you.
Great answer.
Not anymore.
I'm a little gun-shy in case I say something off color that triggers a Ontario Human Rights Tribunal investigation into my thought crimes.
Yeah, I mean, this isn't the first time that comedians have been fined in Canada by the Human Rights Commission.
I remember the case in Vancouver of someone who made jokes about two lesbians who were right in the front row necking.
And if you're going to do that at a comedy club straighter again, if you start necking, kissing, making out right in front of the comedian, don't be surprised if he makes a joke about it.
I mean, that's just, if you don't want that, don't go to a comedy club.
Don't sit in the front and don't make a scene.
Oh, and that's the infamous Guy Earl case that you're referring to, Ezra.
Not only necking, but heckling.
Oh, yeah.
You know, I mean, imagine somebody coming into your workplace and standing over your shoulder and starting to yell at you typing a monologue, right?
When you walk into a comedy club, I think you surrender your rights to dignity, to your self-expression, your honor, everything else.
You're fair game.
The tragic thing about the Guy Earl case is that the two lesbians started it.
After the show, one of them threw two drinks in Guy Earl's face.
So that's not a thought crime anymore, Ezra.
That's a crime crime.
That's assault.
Nevertheless, the BC Human Rights Tribunal awarded the lesbian complainant $22,500 in damages.
And I'll tell you, for a stand-up comedian in this country, that's like a death sentence eventually.
So that was in BC.
That's got to be 10 years ago now.
Mike Ward's case is before the courts in Quebec.
I think he's a better litigant and he has better lawyers than Guy Earle had.
But let's just talk for a second about that first case of Jacques Poitrat.
I mean, I find dreadlocks on a white guy to be unaesthetic and frankly repulsive.
But that's my own taste.
And to ban someone saying it's appropriation, I mean, one of the great forms of comedy is impressions.
And one of the things you do in an impression, you don't just mimic someone's voice.
You often mimic their accent.
I think of Robin Williams, who is a master of accents.
I think of, I mean, there's people who all they do are impressions, a Chinese accent, an Indian accent, a French accent, a German accent.
Like any form of acting, you're being someone else other than who you are.
That's the difference between fiction and nonfiction.
People who would say a comedian can't be someone who he's not, they would probably rule out most jokes that people would make too, because most jokes that a comedian tells are not actually their true life experiences or true opinions.
They're an exaggeration, an appropriation, a thought experiment.
Why even bother to have comedy if you're not allowed to be someone who you're not?
You know what, Ezra?
You've nailed it.
Here's the saddest thing about all of these stories about comedians being hauled in front of a kangaroo court and fined tens of thousands of dollars.
You know that because of the way of the days have shaped right now, the political world, the world of academia, basically the business world, every facet of life, everything has to be buttoned down.
You have to be politically correct.
You have to watch every single word you say.
Comedy was this realm that was the, you know, to use the words of the Snowflake generation, the safe space.
This is where everything went.
You could mock, you could use profanity, you could be vulgar, you could be distasteful.
Yeah, no one's saying that what these guys are saying is 100% kosher.
But the point of view, my point of view, Ezra, is that you can choose to laugh or not laugh or boo if you want.
And that's the way that realm used to be.
Now these politically correct MAVENs are getting their talons into this world and they're ripping it apart.
And I mean, you know, it's funny, you mentioned that the University of Quebec, the name of the comedy club, the Snowflake Comedy Club.
At first I thought, oh, that's brilliant.
That's obviously people that get the joke that what they're going to do, we're going to call it the Snowflake Comedy Club and book guys like Andrew Dice Clay.
Oh no.
It's truth in advertising.
They don't want you to say anything upsetting and they don't want you to wear your hairstyle in a so-called cultural inappropriate fashion.
Yeah.
You know, anyone with kids knows that you try and find jokes that are funny but kid-friendly and there's a lot of them online.
I mean, I'll just tell you a joke for a five-year-old.
Why were the strawberries crying?
Because its parents were in a jam.
That's about the level of comedy, if you don't want to be offensive.
But even there, well, parents, you're implying that, you know, I mean, you could do some gender thing.
You should be caregivers.
That's right.
I mean, if you aren't allowed to ruffle a feather, there is almost no joke.
There's almost no joke that could possibly be allowed.
Well, Ezra, it's been said by many that the definition of comedy is tragedy multiplied by time, right?
That the line between comedy and tragedy is razor-thin.
And also, some of the best stand-up comedy speaks to truth, I think.
You know, uncomfortable truth, unsettling truth.
And I think that that is indeed the case of the other comedian, Mr. Ward, who is being vilified and prosecuted and fined multiple thousands of dollars for going after somebody who is disabled.
And I mean, his jokes were, you know, and it gets back to the, you know, speaking to the truth of the matter, that because this individual is young and has what was thought to be a terminal disease, therefore he's getting all these singing gigs with famous celebrities, whereas if he was just a normal kid of that age, he wouldn't be.
Now, you may laugh at that or you may not.
But the fact of the matter is, there's a hell of a lot of truth in that, Ezra.
Well, I mean, this young kid, he's got some deformities.
And he was sort of given a nickname Little Jeremy.
Everyone was sort of treating him as like a perpetual make-a-wish foundation.
And I think one of the jokes was, okay, well, you're still around.
You're not dead yet.
And that's a terrible thing to say.
But you know what?
I don't think it is.
But let me say, Bill Kid, you can make the case that wasn't terrible for you.
But let's say that from his point of view, it was terrible.
Because he's saying, you hurt my feelings, you hurt my mom's feelings.
Let's say that's true.
I don't doubt it hurt his feelings.
I don't doubt that.
I don't doubt it hurt his mom's feelings.
But since when do we invent a counterfeit human right not to be offended?
That's my point.
I think Mike Ward is actually fairly funny.
I don't know a lot of his stuff.
Let's say this joke was funny but mean.
You can be funny and mean.
Yeah.
You can be both.
Oh, yeah.
So what?
And that's the fact that you have three judges of the Quebec Court of Appeal weighing to a nicety.
Well, this joke was funny but not mean.
That joke is not mean but not funny.
We prefer not funny, not mean jokes or funny, not mean jokes.
But you can't be funny and mean.
You definitely can't be unfunny and not mean.
So it's like we need a chart of what's funny or not or a 1-800 number we can call to get advice from the joke tester general if something, I mean, it just doesn't work.
And I can imagine that if I was a family member or a friend or just of this Jeremy Gabriel, I would be upset by the jokes about, why aren't you dead yet?
But I'd either laugh it off or I'd ignore it or I'd be really mad about it.
But the idea of running to the state to have someone punished, that is un-Canadian and I hope it's un-Quebecish also.
I hope you're right too, Ezra.
But you know, the judge in the original ruling against Ward, he said that Ward had violated Jeremy Gabriel's right to, quote, dignity, honor, and reputation.
And again, I go back to what I referenced earlier.
I think when you're in a comedy show, you waive those rights.
I mean, it's open season.
And tell me this, too, Ezra.
Now, he wasn't in the comedy show.
Yeah, he was in the audience.
Oh, was he?
But that's what I understand.
I don't think he was.
But it doesn't matter anyways.
It's even worse if he's just not there.
So you can't make really making fun or ridiculing.
Yeah, it hurts the feelings.
But I mean, if you're defaming someone, I get it.
If you're saying Jeremy Gabriel is a thief.
But if you're making fun of him, how on earth can we have the government of Canada stop people from mocking people?
I mean, can we mock judges?
Can we mock the judges that are stopping us from mocking people?
Are you not allowed to mock the judges, or you're only allowed to mock the judges?
What a bunch of stupid rules we're making.
And could you imagine, Ezra, the screening process for the bureaucrat in Ottawa who's going to be in charge of the Canadian Ministry of Comedy Appropriation Approval?
I mean, can you, I mean, the very antithesis of comedy, of stand-up, is a government bureaucrat.
And having someone judging what is and is not funny, it's like the Latin phrase that translated in English, who watches the watchers.
You know, it is, we have lost our minds on this.
Like I said, Mr. Ward is not a politician.
He's not a head of state that made these remarks.
He is a comedian.
This is the bailiwick of what comedians do.
They mock, they make fun of people.
And you know what?
Not every joke rings 100%, Ezra.
I think of the government comedians in Canada.
Of course, the CBC has a whole comedy channel, comedy network.
It's not a channel, it's the comedy shows, the Severus 22 Minutes, they have comedy department.
Generally unfunny because they're afraid of hurting some political sensibility.
But when they have an approved government enemy, used to be Stephen Harper, now it's Jason Kenney, and especially Donald Trump.
They're vicious.
They're not funny.
They're vicious with a laugh track, which is a different thing.
So there'll always be mockery in the state.
The question is, can you mock the state itself?
And I think that's what's, that's what's really, I mean, this guy, this white guy with dreadlocks being banned, it's an embarrassment.
It's foolish.
But it's not the government.
What the government does to Mike Ward, I think, is much more telling.
Last word to you.
You know, going back to the Quebec part, Ezra, I would always have liked to think that things are a little different in Quebec in terms of comedy.
I mean, Montreal has hosted the Just for Laughs Festival.
The TV show Just for Laugh Skags is a worldwide phenomenon.
You can watch it in airplanes.
There's this joy of life.
There's this idea of taking the piss out of things.
Radio Canada was in the news, of course, earlier this month, their bye-bye show.
They did a brilliant mocking sketch on Justin Trudeau's trip to India, the disaster.
And of course, English media raked them over the coals for how insensitive and culturally inappropriate.
So, it really saddens me that I thought that this last bastion of political incorrectness, of comedy at its true roots, is now even there in the province of Quebec under attack.
Taking the Piss Out of Things00:03:08
It's just a shame.
Well, that's 2019 for you.
Although, who knows, the Quebec Court of Appeal might surprise us, but that would be a surprise.
David, great to see you again.
Thank you, Ashley.
All right, stay with us, folks.
final remarks while your letters really are next.
Hey, welcome back to my monologue yesterday.
Liza writes, We don't need the ads for any products we buy moralizing and preaching to us.
It doesn't make us want to purchase those products.
Try entertaining us instead and showing us what a good product it is and why.
I think that's generally true.
But some products people buy for the feeling.
And what I mean by that is, what does the product say about you to you and to the world?
I think a lot of buying a car is about expressing your personality to the world, who you think you are.
I think that's what a lot of fashion is about.
We don't choose our clothing just for function.
In fact, we assume it's got the function covered.
We buy it for what we think it says about us.
In fact, a lot of fashion is impractical, but we like what it makes us look like.
I guess what I'm saying is the feeling.
I mean, what's the difference between Coke and Pepsi?
It might be the flavor and the taste, but it's really who you think you are.
I think that Gillette could have talked about romantic themes of manliness, could have talked about what great men are like.
It could have shown us great men through history.
And that's feelings-based and aesthetic and psychological and unrelated to a piece of metal to scrape your face.
And it would have reinforced the good feelings men have about being a man, I guess.
Instead, they chose a kooky, kooky feminist.
And it's one thing to be feminist, but to hate men, as I think she does, as evidenced by her other videos, that is Gillette deciding that it hates itself, it hates who it's always been, and maybe it hates the men who buy stuff from them.
That's what I don't get.
Betty writes: if I were a man, I guess I wouldn't like that commercial either, and I wouldn't buy the product anymore.
I'd look for other brands, or maybe a straight-edge or electric razor.
The left has definitely gone too far.
What I don't get is what the payoff is.
What's the payoff?
As I asked Michael Knowles, is it because maybe some women buy razors for their husbands or boyfriends when they're at a drugstore or something?
Maybe.
I think it's just a disconnect between the corporate head office, which has its own social culture, and the grassroots.
I see this all the time in companies that are really woke.
PR side of the industry doesn't understand what made them great and strong to begin with.
Look at Silicon Valley.
An industry built on freedom and technology and math is now all about censorship and control and social justice warriors.
The Scariest Part of Political Correctness00:01:47
Judy writes, I agree with Michael Knowles that we need to see how serious this attack is on our culture.
It is everywhere now from marketing and advertising to scriptwriting for TV and films to educating of children.
This is more than just an irritation.
When Gillette wants to re-engineer what it means to be a man, we are in trouble.
We need to push back.
I think you're right, and I really do see this in the schools.
And that's the scariest part because the schools, I mentioned this, I mentioned this in the monologue today.
To me, the scariest, I mean, listen, I was joking around about Vancouver's City Council.
It's a joke.
They declare a climate emergency, and really that's just a press release saying we're going to spend more money and regulate.
It's not a climate emergency.
What bugged me the most about that story was the little item that there was a high school protest in the middle of the day outside city council.
That's actually the scariest thing about the story, and that is completely normal now.
If your kids are at school six, seven hours a day, And let's say maybe half of that is learning stuff.
The other half is just being accultured.
And I would put it to you, the craziest people in all of academia are those teachers' colleges.
That's where Ben Levin, the pedophile, was.
It's just a fact.
The craziest theories, the transgenderism, they call it SOGI, sexual orientation and gender identity.
The craziest political correctness comes from the schools, but of course it does.
When they have your kids for six, seven hours a day, they've got 18 years to work on them that you're not there to observe and to counteract.
It's a war on parents, really.
That's our show for today.
I've got some news for you tomorrow.
You want to tune in for that.
Until then, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, see you at home.