Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott were expelled from Justin Trudeau’s Liberal caucus in 2019 without a secret ballot, despite recording key conversations—like Wilson-Raybould’s call with Michael Wernick over SNC-Lavalin’s deferred prosecution push—that critics argue proved justified. Five attorneys general and two cabinet ministers later demanded an RCMP inquiry into Trudeau’s interference, while Quebec’s Bill 21 passed with broad support, reflecting secularist values many see as distinct from Canada’s multiculturalism. Trudeau’s rally-style directive—"stand together or we’ll hang separately"—prioritized party unity over accountability, raising questions about whether his actions cross legal lines ahead of trials and elections. [Automatically generated summary]
At today's show we talk about Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott being sacked by Trudeau.
There's two things I think you'll find interesting.
First of all, we look at the Parliament of the Parliament Act, Parliament of Canada Act.
Section 49, I was not familiar with this.
I never paid much attention to it.
But Section 49 says how you go about firing someone from your caucus in Parliament.
And you have to have a secret vote on it.
Did you know that?
I show you the law.
And I also talk about the funniest thing.
Trudeau said he can't trust Jody Wilson-Raybold anymore.
That's a funny thing.
I find they're the most trustworthy MPs, frankly, of any party.
And I'm not a liberal.
They're extremely trustworthy.
So I think he really means he can't trust them to be untrustworthy.
He can't trust them to cover for him.
I explore that a little bit.
Anyways, before I cork it and let you listen to the show, I would once again ask you most kindly if you would consider subscribing.
Go to the rebel.media slash shows.
It's eight bucks a month, and that really pays the freight around here.
And you get the added bonus of getting the video version of these programs and Sheila Gunnread and David Menzies, too.
So please consider going to the rebel.media slash shows and signing up for eight bucks.
All right, here's today's podcast.
You're listening to a Rebel Media podcast.
Tonight, well, he did it.
Trudeau fired all the whistleblowers in his caucus.
But the question remains, did he commit a crime?
It's April 3rd, and this is the Answer 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 to the government about why I'm publishing it is because it's my bloody right to do so.
Well, last night we taped the show just before Justin Trudeau had an emergency caucus meeting to deal with Jody Wilson-Raybould.
And he did deal with her.
He kicked her out of the Liberal caucus and stripped her of her right to run in the next election as a liberal, even though she had just been confirmed as the candidate a few weeks ago.
And then he did the same to Jane Philpott.
Trudeau said he just couldn't trust them.
Jodi Wilson-Raybold and Jane Philpott are no longer members of the Liberal caucus.
The trust that previously existed between these two individuals and our team has been broken.
Whether it's taping conversations without consent or repeatedly expressing a lack of confidence in our government and in me personally as leader, it's become clear that Ms. Wilson-Raybold and Dr. Philpott can no longer remain part of our liberal team.
So he can't trust them.
I suppose that's technically right, but it's more specific than that.
It's just that he can't trust them to shut up when he's trying to do something illegal, like pressure a prosecutor to drop criminal charges against his corrupt friends at SNC Lavalam.
So it's an ironic use of the word trust.
In fact, they are very trustworthy, Jane Philpott and Jodi Wilson-Raybold.
They are more trustworthy than he is.
Both of them quit cabinet on a point of principle, that they don't trust Trudeau and his obvious lack of respect for the rule of law.
I honestly can't recall in my whole life of 47 years, where I've been following the news for probably 30 years, I just can't recall a Canadian politician acting as trustworthy as Jodi Wilson-Raybold and as her cabinet colleague Jane Philpott, as in they had everything going for them.
They were cabinet ministers.
They were the toast of the town in Ottawa.
They were powerful women.
They were beloved in the Liberal Party.
Had it all, but they willingly and voluntarily chose to quit, not for personal advancement, but because they actually thought their boss was doing something wrong.
I mean, we've all heard of whistleblowers before, people who report corruption to authorities, but I think they tend to be mid-level or even low-level staff.
These are high-level executives in the Trudeau cabinet, the justice minister, for heaven's sakes, who was a prosecutor before she ran for office.
So she obviously in her life has thought a lot about the rule of law and following the law and right and wrong and even good and evil.
If Trudeau wanted someone who would go along with his Montreal Trust Fund clique, his little club of insiders, he probably shouldn't have hired a prosecutor as his justice minister.
He probably should have hired the opposite, which I get the feeling he has done now.
Trust.
Could you imagine actually firing Jody Wilson-Raybold by claiming she was untrustworthy?
I say again, I disagree with her political ideology.
She's too left-wing for me.
But I would absolutely trust her word on anything, I think, wouldn't you?
Now, Trudeau said what really tipped things for him was that Jodi Wilson-Raybold recorded a conversation on the phone where Michael Wernick, the disgraced former clerk of the Privy Council, was threatening her.
I think this was by this point.
I think this was the 17th meeting or phone call that Jodi Wilson-Raybold was subjected to.
And it was long after she had made her decision to prosecute SNC Lavland, or rather to uphold the actual prosecutor's decision.
And Wernick was pretty much threatening her now.
And she said she didn't like it.
She told Wernick that.
But not just that.
She said it was illegal and she was trying to protect the Prime Minister from doing something illegal here.
Listen just to parts of that recording just for a moment just to refresh your memory.
So he's quite determined, quite firm.
He wants to know why the DPA route, which Parliament provided for, isn't being used.
And I think he's going to find a way to get it done one way or another.
So he's in that kind of mood.
I am trying to protect the Prime Minister from political interference or perceived or otherwise.
So yeah, this was illegal.
Jody Wilson-Raybold was telling the clerk that meddling like that was illegal.
You bet she recorded it.
You'd be nuts not to.
17th or 18th time they were pressuring her.
And obviously Trudeau denied it later that they were pressuring her.
You bet you get that on tape just to make sure you're safe.
And remember, Jody Wilson-Rabel didn't actually release that tape until last week, only in response to outright lies that Wernick and Trudeau and Gerald Butz and other liberals were saying about her.
Yeah, that tape was probably the smartest thing she ever did.
And it wasn't illegal, by the way.
It's not illegal to tape a conversation you're a part of in Canada.
Even if you don't tell the other person, now it could be weird.
It could break down trust.
I wouldn't like it if someone did it to me.
But then again, I'm not trying to commit a crime.
If I were trying to commit a crime and the person I was threatening taped me, I really shouldn't be that surprised.
But that act of recording Trudeau's errand boy, Michael Wernick, that was Trudeau's main reason given for firing her last night.
If a politician secretly records a conversation with anyone, it's wrong.
When that politician is a cabinet minister secretly recording a public servant, it's wrong.
And when that cabinet minister is the Attorney General of Canada secretly recording the clerk of the Privy Council, it's unconscionable.
Yeah, no, it wasn't unconscionable.
In fact, it was the act of someone with a conscience.
By the way, Michael Wernick is not a lawyer.
He's not a cabinet colleague.
He's not her boss.
He's an errand boy.
His title is literally clerk.
He's a clerk of the civil service whose job is to give effect to laws and instructions from cabinet ministers like Jody Wilson-Raybold.
He's not a lawmaker.
He's not a decider.
He's the guy who's supposed to enact the decisions of lawmakers and deciders.
And in this case, he stepped outside his job and he was basically threatening a cabinet minister on behalf of Justin Trudeau.
It wasn't unconscionable to record it.
It was a tremendous act of conscience.
Today, the CBC tried to spin that recording by interviewing a bunch of lawyers and law professors.
And they came up with this conclusion.
They said, sure, there was nothing illegal about the recording, but it crossed ethical lines.
You see that headline there?
Wilson Raybold may not have broken the law, but her Wernic tape crossed ethical lines, lawyers say.
Oh, okay.
Well, I actually read the story, and it doesn't actually quote any lawyers saying it crossed ethical lines.
The CBC state broadcaster just slapped that headline on it because they served Justin Trudeau.
They couldn't get any lawyer to say it broke any ethical rule, so they just made it up.
Look, the CBC's made their choice.
They prefer a white, rich, liberal, trust fund kid who tried to get his friends and get out of jail-free card to an Aboriginal woman of accomplishment who was upholding justice.
Because Justin Trudeau pays their bills at the CBC, and Jody Wilson Raybold doesn't.
That's super gross of them.
But even so, why was Jane Philpott fired?
She didn't tape anybody.
She just said she didn't trust Trudeau to do the right thing.
Yeah, I don't think anyone does.
Well, that's the point.
This wasn't about anything other than loyalty to Trudeau himself.
Above loyalty to the law, above loyalty to your own conscience.
Bit of a pattern here, I think.
Sorry to point it out.
And I don't know if I normally would, but it's Trudeau's brand.
Remember this?
And I understand one of the priorities for you was to have a cabinet that was gender balanced.
Why was that so important to you?
Because it's 2015.
Yeah.
So that's Trudeau, eh?
But a few months ago, Justin Trudeau drove out a liberal MP named Leona Alislev.
She said Trudeau just didn't respect her, didn't listen to her, didn't care about what she said, didn't let her speak, only used her as feminist window dressing.
She was fairly conservative in her nature and her background, so she crossed the floor to the Conservative Party.
It was interesting.
You don't normally see someone leave government for the opposition.
I thought that was odd.
And then there was Jodi Wilson Raybold.
And then there was Jane Philpott.
And then there was Selena Cesar Chavan, who said Trudeau shouted at her, raged at her when she said she was not going to run again.
He was furious with her.
Why does Mr. Male Feminist have such a problem working with women?
What's that?
Four out of four of the problems he's had are women.
Surely that's a pattern.
That's more than a coincidence.
You know, John McCallum is an awful, incompetent old man who's got a serious drinking problem.
But when Trudeau fired him for incompetence two years ago, Trudeau gave him a soft landing as our ambassador to China, which he then screwed up again.
But do you see my point?
When a man screws up with Justin Trudeau, he gets a reward, a luxurious appointment.
Here's another guy, Raina Sarkar, friend of Justin Trudeau, friend of Gerald Budds, screws up massively, gets a diplomatic posting to Silicon Valley, and Trudeau literally interferes to get him double the salary that normal diplomats would get paid.
Now, I'm not a feminist.
I'm not the kind of guy who's into gender quotas and the whole grievance industry, but for a guy who says he's a male feminist, there sure seems to be a difference, doesn't there?
He fires any women who challenge him, who are problems for him, and he gives huge golden parachutes to men who are problems for him, but he just pays them off.
It's a bit of irony.
You know, there's a feminist lobby group on Parliament Hill today.
Here's a picture of some of them last night at the flame on Parliament Hill.
And they wrote, Dear Justin Trudeau, we are here in Ottawa as young women participating in a conference, and we wholeheartedly condemn you ejecting Jody Wilson-Raybold and Jane Philpott from caucus.
Respect the integrity of women and Indigenous leaders in politics.
Do better.
Well, they were reportedly given a lecture by their lobby group that they were there with.
About their meeting with Trudeau, they were told not to pull any stunts or to embarrass him because otherwise their funding would be jeopardized.
So really the same message that liberal MPs were given last night.
If you criticize the boss, the generous white male patriarch, Justin Trudeau, the precious one, the dear leader from whom all gifts come, if you dare embarrass him, the giver, he will stop giving and he will take.
He will take your job.
He will take your pride.
He will take it from you.
I should say, I should say that they were taught this lesson last night.
Best to learn it now, girls.
Best to learn how to obey Justin Trudeau.
I should tell you, though, that 47 of those 338 girls, when they were listening to Justin Trudeau in Parliament, they stood up and turned their back on him.
Wow.
Wow.
So much for the male feminist day.
But hey, can I show you one last thing?
It's from a law called the Parliament of Canada Act.
Sounds pretty serious, but Trudeau would say that's boring.
Laws and stuff.
I mean, come on, what's more important?
A law or Justin Trudeau's mood, as Michael Wernick said.
Well, look at Section 49.2 of the Parliament of Canada Act.
I'm just going to read the law.
It's called expulsion of a caucus member.
And it has to do with how Parliament works.
Section 49.2 says, a member of a caucus may only be expelled from it if A, the caucus chair has received a written notice signed by at least 20% of the members of the caucus requesting that the membership be reviewed, and B, the expulsion of the member is approved by secret ballot by a majority of all caucus members.
Now, Jodie Wilson-Raybold already said she was given no opportunity to make her case, to respond to accusations.
It was just the precious one, the young prince, the dear leader, the great white giver who made the decision.
But a plain reading of Section 49.2 of the Parliament Act says Jodi Wilson-Raybold and Jane Philpott should have had written notice that they were going to be kicked out of the Liberal caucus, signed by 20% of Liberal MPs.
I don't think that would have been hard for Trudeau to muster.
But then there would be a secret vote.
I don't think either of those two legal requirements happened, do you?
Now, not a soul in that liberal caucus cared.
They were too scared.
Bill and Support for Freedom00:07:57
They know the only law that matters now.
Shut up or be kicked out.
They're all submissive.
But Jodi Wilson-Rainbow herself seems to care about the law and know a little bit about it too.
Personally, I think a party leader in Parliament, just my own view, probably should be able to kick out a member for any reason or no reason.
I think so.
That's just maybe what I'm used to customarily.
But that's not what the law says, does it?
Again, under Trudeau, what the law says really doesn't count for much anymore, does it?
Stay with us for more.
Canada, and indeed Quebec, are places where we are a secular society.
We respect deeply people's rights and freedoms, including freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion.
And it is unthinkable to me that in a free society, we would legitimize discrimination against citizens based on their religion.
Well, there you have it, Justin Trudeau talking about a new bill in Quebec that is moving through the provincial parliament, the National Assembly, as they call it there, a bill that would instill laicity, which is sort of an anglicized version of the French word for secularism in the public sector.
It would ban any symbols of religiosity.
I'm quite sure that the precipitation of this was the Muslim hijab.
I can't imagine that in the entire province of Quebec, there would be more than a few dozen Sikh turbans or Jewish yarmulkas in the public service.
But anyone who walks through Toronto, Montreal, or Calgary these days sees thousands of hijabs joining us now via Skype from Montreal to talk about this is a woman in the heart of Quebec, our friend Barbara Kay, a columnist with the National Post.
Barbara, great to see you again.
Hi, Ezra.
Thanks for having me.
Well, it's a great pleasure.
This is a religion-neutral law, as in it doesn't just target burqas or hijabs or things like that.
It's anything.
But I've got to think it was sparked by the ubiquity of the hijab these days.
Would you agree with me on that?
Yeah, I would agree with you, except I would say it goes back further.
It goes back to Bill 62, which was specific as to face cover.
So it actually starts with the niqab, which is very repellent to most Quebecers.
And that was going to pass, but then the Liberal government fell.
So this is picking up where it left off in the charter of values.
This has been discussed in Quebec for so many years now, religious accommodation.
In any case, it's something to do with Quebec society, Quebec culture that most people in the rest of Canada do not understand, including, by the way, our prime minister who is so, so solicitous of religious freedoms.
Is he the same guy that wasn't going to give money for suburb jobs to people that didn't believe in abortion in this free country?
That's a good point.
You know what?
And of course, not just that, not only did he make Christian groups sign an attestation that they support his views on pro-choice, for example, but he also barred any pro-life Catholics from running again for his party.
So suddenly he gets a case of religion when the religion in question is Islam, I think.
Yeah, I mean, we've seen a lot of hypocrisy on his part anyways in the last, you know, so maybe he should have kind of taken a break and not commented on Quebec's legitimate right to pass laws regarding this type of limitation on freedom of speech or freedom of expression, if you like.
So, and by the way, he wasn't, where was he, well, I guess he was too young.
Where were all the people commenting on the depravity, as Andrew Coyne put it, of this bill when Bill 101 came into, you know, in this free country, when Bill 101 came in and told people that, you know, whose first language wasn't French, that too bad you couldn't get a lot of jobs in the civil service if your French was not impeccable.
So there are limitations on everything.
And the Supreme Court of Canada actually said Bill 101 actually defies the Charter of Rights, but we're going to put our stamp of approval on it because we feel that when a culture is concerned about its fragility or its, you know, its future survival, then that's a greater good.
And it's okay then to limit certain rights.
So, you know, we've been through this rodeo before in Quebec, but nobody cared about Anglophone rights.
Now it's Muslim rights and everybody's hysterical.
It's kind of double standards, wouldn't you say?
Right, but I want to zero in on that.
When you say everyone's hysterical, I would agree with you that the Anglo media, including some of your colleagues, you mentioned Andrew Coyne, are hysterical.
But in Quebec, you mentioned that the Liberal government had introduced a similar motion, a bill.
This is introduced by the Coalition Avenue-Quebec Party.
I know that the Parti Québécois, I understand, has been even more aggressive in what they want.
So it's almost political common ground in Quebec.
Every party, I would say, I mean, not every party, I don't think there's a hard left-wing party there that's a little bit Islamist that probably wouldn't support it, but I don't even know that.
So I think that parties representing about 90% of the electors support this.
I think that's why, Barbara, you don't see Trudeau or his other henchmen, especially his Muslim MPs like Ikra Khaled and Omar Al-Jabra.
They're not calling Quebecers racist, Islamophobes, alt-right.
If they were Anglos who wanted to do this, they'd be called hateful.
But yeah, I mean, we saw some gentle criticism there a moment ago from Trudeau, but I haven't seen any of the Muslim MPs in the Liberal Party call this a racist or hateful law.
Have you?
No, that's a good point you're making.
And of course, they really shouldn't if they value their election chances in Quebec, because you're right.
It is widely supported.
I mean, it's not perhaps not universally supported, but in the French, in the francophone sector, it's what's called a landslide approval.
And even amongst Anglophones in Quebec, close to 50% support it.
So even though the media, the Anglo media in Quebec, the radio stations and all that are very hostile to the act, ordinary people, and if my mail is any indication, which I'm getting tons of, very high approval ratings, even amongst Anglophones and amongst Muslims.
Isn't that interesting?
Of course, I remember, and I'm going to tell you a memory from a dozen years ago.
I remember when I was with the Western Standard magazine and we published the Danish cartoons of Mohammed, and we started getting letters of support from Muslim Canadians, including some who were subscribing.
And I thought that our phone receptionist was mistaken.
I said, oh, you're surely wrong.
Wearing Islamic Principles00:09:25
It's not.
It can't be a Muslim person subscribing to our magazine after we just publish.
No, it was.
In fact, to this day, Barbara, it's been a dozen years.
But I remember one of the letter writers.
Her name was Rawakhaled.
I don't know why I remember that, but I just do.
And she said, I didn't, I mean, I'm paraphrasing here.
She said, I didn't cross the ocean and leave an Islamic hellhole to have Sharia law follow me to Canada.
I'm paraphrasing.
But that, we had, I'm going to say dozens of Muslim Canadians subscribe to the Western Standard magazine precisely because we did stand up to Sharia culture.
And I think that there's probably a lot of secular Muslims who say finally there's someone who gets it and isn't bowing down to the radicals here.
Yeah, I mean, look, I'm not saying, I have never said that most or all, I don't know how many people, women in Quebec are wearing the hijab because they want to.
I don't know how many are wearing it because they feel politically aligned with Islamic causes.
It doesn't matter to me.
To me, it is a private belief.
The state has every right to say we don't want people broadcasting their beliefs to the people they're serving because, you know, some of those beliefs, we don't even know what they are.
But this is something that is part of your private life.
When you work for the state or you're paid by tax, you know, tax dollars by your fellow citizens, our common value, our common principles is integration into the common culture, vivre ensemble.
We live together.
So in order to live together with optimal peace and harmony, it's best that people are not broadcasting their faiths, beliefs or their faith or their belief systems.
You know, for many Muslims, there is no separation in church and state in Islam.
And so many people that are wearing these, the niqab or the hijab are actually have certain political beliefs that are attached to being Muslim that are uncomfortable, not a good fit with a society that believes in total separation of church and state and in the state being totally secular.
Look, it's not racism to have a common cultural value system.
And the fact that the rest of Canada is married to multiculturalism, fine, let them be.
And, you know, Justin Trudeau is post-national and he wants to see Canada develop any way it does develop.
Like he wants to see it just, you know, diversity is our strength.
So it doesn't matter what the common culture looks like in 20 years, whether it's still the same, it has the same basic principles, or whether the principles have shifted maybe a little.
He doesn't care.
And a lot of our elites don't care either.
But in Quebec, they do care because they want their culture to reflect common values and principles that took many, many, many years to establish, that they like, that they feel comfortable with, that are democratic, and they don't want to see them erode it.
And they see this as a protection of that set of principles.
And I agree with them.
Well, I mean, the whole word uni form, a uniform, is that there's one look, and it's a national look.
There's a police uniform, so you know you're being arrested by an agent of the state, not an agent of Islam or Judaism or Sikhism or whatever.
That's why cops don't, it's not just hijabs or niqabs.
You don't wear a big gold cross necklace as a cop.
You just don't have an you don't have a display like that because the whole point is you're being arrested by someone who's implementing the secular law, not a religious law.
I was actually pulled over in Toronto by a trainee cop wearing a hijab.
And all I can think about is what are you, who are you representing here?
Like, on whose part are you acting?
And if you knew that in my life I was a critic of radical Islam, given how ostentatious your display of Islam is, would that impact whether or not I'm going to get a ticket?
And it was like a trainee moment.
And I, frankly, I gave my point of view most vigorously.
But I don't want to have religious police.
I don't care what religion the police is in their private life.
I just don't want someone who looks like they're a religious cop wielding a gun.
I don't know.
I mean, call me old-fashioned.
Yeah, I mean, look, my beef is I think this attitude that that is a Quebec value and that this makes it one of the things that makes Quebec distinct is also what makes certain countries in Europe distinct.
As I pointed out in my column, countries in Europe, Austria, Denmark, the UK, France, Switzerland, they've all been wrestling with this discussion about religious symbols for years.
And as I mentioned, the European Court of Human Rights judged on this issue and said it's perfectly okay.
It doesn't go against human rights to limit display of ostentatious symbols.
And by the way, one of the people that applied, one of the countries that applied to that court for a judgment was Turkey, which in 2004 wanted a judgment on whether they could ban the hijab at universities.
And so this is an Islamic country, for goodness sake.
So, you know, if it's that disputed as a religious symbol in Islamic countries, then I think we understand that it's more of a cultural symbol anyways, not, or a political, or a political statement anyways.
So we shouldn't be taking this as giving it the stamp of religious approval.
Let me throw one last thing at you.
And I appreciate your time, Barbara.
And I'm so glad that you are flying this flag, so to speak.
You're one of the few columnists in the English media who has the courage and the knowledge to stand up on this.
By the way, it was from you, and I don't even know if you remember this, it was from you that I originally learned that a survey of Muslim women in a Paris suburb some years ago, 77% of them, and I later found this survey and confirmed it, 77% of them said they wore the veil because of pressure, of threats of either social marginalization or outright violence.
That's the only survey I've seen done of its sort.
It was in Paris.
77% of women who wear the veil do so under threat.
Surely a feminist would come to their aid.
Well, yeah, you would think.
You know, it's not just in France.
Ezra, in every country where the veil is worn in proliferating numbers, anyone who lives in that area, whether they're Muslim or not Muslim, starts to feel pressure to wear the veil to the hijab, or even Muslim women feel bound to wear the niqab if they live in certain enclaves.
And the fact that this pressure we know is being felt should not, it's something that should be troubling us.
It certainly troubles me to think of any woman feeling that she has to wear the hijab or be marginalized or worse.
So it's not something that I think we really want to encourage in the next generation.
I think Quebec is sending a strong message to newcomers.
We want you to integrate into our culture.
And That's our idea of how society is best served, is when newcomers integrate, not when they live in their silos and their religious silos and they keep propagating cultural practices that are antithetical to gender norms and gender principles that we uphold here.
And everybody else I read in the Anglo media, you know, they absolutely gloss over what these symbols, oh, they're religious symbols, but they just assume everybody's wearing them because they want to.
And it absolutely has no deeper meaning or no deeper significance.
There's nothing to see here, folks.
And look, I don't mind them disagreeing with the law.
That's fine.
You know, if the rest of Canada has a multicultural ideal, they think it's awful, then let them say, I think it's a bad law.
This is not a law that I think makes for a good society, blah, blah.
But when you start calling it a depravity, when you start saying that it's hellish or a horrible or immoral or unethical, you're getting onto a kind of arrogant ground and saying, oh, you can't be a democracy and have these rules.
Media Caution Needed00:05:42
Please, there's plenty of democracies that have much more stringent rules than we do, and they're still democracies.
So this is, you know, I think that media people should be very careful what they say, because if you want to get the partique bequire revived, and if you want Quebecers saying, you know, maybe we really do need our own country because the rest of Canada thinks we're immoral or unethical and that we can't be a democracy here, even with this law, they're doing a fine job of it by expressing themselves with such virulence and such righteous indignation and high-handedness.
It's not a good look on them.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that Justin Trudeau and Sophie Gregoire Trudeau are not going to send their daughter to a school where hijabs are ubiquitous.
You just know they're going to go to an elite private school that's as white as the wheat board, as I like to say.
You know, girls these days have a really tough time, Barbara, and you cover both sides.
On the one hand, you have males saying they're women and crowding out women in sport, crowding out women in female safe places like a change room, like a bathroom.
So on the one hand, you've got trans men saying, oh, no, I'm a woman.
And on the other hand, women are told, well, you've got to cover up in the hijab.
I think it's probably the toughest time to be a young woman in a century.
Last word to you, my friend.
Yeah, I think you've nailed it.
Cognitive dissidence, dissonance, cognitive dissonance on the whole idea of what is a woman, you know, and people getting their points on the backs of women who are veiled, some of them forcibly.
And on the other hand, women erasure in sports so that trans women can be appeased.
All I see is a lot of appeasement of a lot of people and a lot of women suffering as a result.
Yeah, it's very strange.
Well, it's great to see you again.
And folks, if you haven't read her article yet, it's in the National Post.
It's called What the Anglo-Media Misses About Quebec's Religious Law.
We've been talking to our friend Barbara Craig.
Great to see you, my friend.
We'll talk again soon.
Thanks, Ezra.
All right, thank you.
Stay with us.
more ahead on The Rebel.
Hey, welcome back on my monologue yesterday about Jody Wilson-Raybould, Justin Trudeau and the SNC-11 scandal.
Peter writes, It is hilarious to see the liberals fighting among themselves.
The longer they do that, the less likely they will take office again.
Grab the popcorn.
Well, like I say, last night, the caucus meeting happened after, just before we had, we just finished taping and we were just uploading it to the internet, so we missed it.
Trudeau turned it into an election-style rah-rah rally, and he actually got a standing ovation from his remaining caucus members.
So I'm not sure if there's going to be any more public griping, at least from those, although I can't imagine that Jody Wilson-Raybold, Jane Philpott, Selena Cesar Chavan, or some others will stay silent.
We don't know what local liberals in Vancouver-Granville will do.
And I forget right now where Jane Philpott is from.
Maybe her writing too.
I think it's in the GTA.
So Trudeau has basically said, stand together or we'll hang together or we'll hang separately.
And I think that rings true for liberals.
That's really all they care about.
All they care about is power.
It was an anomaly to have a couple of MPs like Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott who care about something other than power.
I wonder if the revolution's over.
We'll find out.
Stephen Wrights was six months to go before the election and the Admiral Mark Norman trial up next.
I'm sure Trudeau is going to make a fool of himself a few more times.
Yeah, but you know, I see the CBC is in absolutely full damage control mode.
And remember, that is larger than all other media in Canada combined.
I think you're going to have some reporters like Bob Fife of the Globe and Mail still dig in.
He owns this story.
He's the one who broke the Jody Wilson-Raybould story in February.
But yeah, that Mark Norman thing is going to be interesting.
I wonder if the government will just settle that to make it go away.
I think I'm going to go out to that trial.
I understand the trial is happening in Ottawa.
I actually once thought the trial was in Halifax, but I think it's in Ottawa.
I might go there and live blog it.
You know, I do that for some of Tommy Robinson's cases in the UK.
If I'm going to court to cover court cases in the UK, maybe I should go down and cover a court case in Ottawa.
It's a lot closer.
So I might do that because I find it very interesting, and we haven't really dug into that yet.
And I think it is important.
Alright, so when exactly will the RCMP be starting their investigation?
Well, yes, I think this is the key point.
Not because I want police to determine elections in this country.
That's not the kind of country we are.
I think the police prosecuting Mike Duffy, police and prosecutors going after Mike Duffy for an expense account that Nigel Wright paid back in was much ado about nothing, and the judge said as much by acquitting Duffy.
But surely we have much more here.
In fact, there were five attorneys general from across the country who wrote to the RCMP saying you should investigate.
You have two cabinet ministers, including the Justice Minister herself, saying this is wrong.
I just don't know how the RCMP cannot make inquiries.
But I should point out that Gerald Butts and Michael Wernick and the rest of them have lawyered up, which tell me that maybe the RCMP have slowly begun asking a few questions.
We'll find out.
Well, that's the show for today.
Tomorrow I'm going to try and get back onto non-SNC Lavland stories.
There's a lot of them out there.
I just felt this was something we had to talk about today.