Ezra Levant defends Quebec’s Bill 21, clarifying it restricts niqabs/burqas only in state-funded public services, not private spaces, while critics like Anthony Housefather and Adil Charkowi label it racist or "ethnic cleansing"—despite no such cases existing in their own predominantly white Jewish enclaves. Levant dismisses this as virtue signaling, noting Islam’s growth in Quebec (2nd-largest religion) and Arabic as Montreal’s 3rd most spoken language. Meanwhile, Lee Humphrey argues Canada’s weak enforcement of anti-terrorism laws, citing Omar Khadr’s $10M payouts, risks enabling returning extremists like ISIS-linked Farah Mohamed Sheardan. Levant also condemns CBC’s use of 9- and 11-year-old child actors on Twitter for climate propaganda, exposing hypocrisy in adult activists while questioning Trudeau’s legal team’s competence. The episode reveals a clash between Quebec’s secularism and perceived elite overreach, exposing systemic failures in counterterrorism and media ethics. [Automatically generated summary]
I think I go through Bill 21, which is the Quebec bill.
I call it a Burka ban, but it doesn't actually ban Burkhas except for in the public service.
It's actually called an act to confirmer from the laicity, the secularism of Quebec.
I'm going to read you some portions of the bill.
Now, don't click away now.
It's more interesting than it sounds.
And I'm going to show you who the leaders of the charge against the bill are.
And I think that is the most infuriating part of it all.
Hey, before we get to it, can you do me a favor and go to the rebel.media slash shows and subscribe.
Become a premium content member.
I know you don't need to do it to listen to the podcast.
I know that.
But it keeps us going because we get the eight bucks a month.
Thank you very much.
And you get access to the video form of the show too.
So you can see clips I play.
You can see pictures, charts, graphs, maps, excerpts from the bill.
I think it's a richer experience.
So please go to the rebel.media slash shows.
Sign up for premium content.
You also get shows from David Menzies and Sheila Gunrid, too.
All right, without further ado, here is my show.
Tonight, what the mainstream media isn't telling you about Quebec's proposed anti-Burqa law.
It's April 9th, 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.
The only thing I have to say to the government about why I publish it, is because it's my bloody right to do so.
It's unanimous.
Quebec's new anti-Burqa law called Bill 21 is racist.
Not just racist.
It is, get this, ethnic cleansing.
Here's a Montreal area mayor named Bill Steinberg at a press conference with other political leaders.
Steinberg said, quote, this is ethnic cleansing, not with a gun, but with a law.
It is racist.
Whoa.
Did you know that we do ethnic cleansing in Canada in 2019?
Not with a gun, but still?
If you look at that little press conference, something immediately stands out, at least it did to me.
You got Bill Steinberg.
He's the mayor of Hamstead.
You got Mitchell Brownstein.
He's the mayor of a small municipality called Cote St. Luc.
You got a Liberal MP.
You can see him there in the middle there with a red tie.
Anthony House father.
You got a staffer next to him who is with the office of a provincial politician named David Birnbaum.
So they're all left-wing Jews from Montreal's anglophone enclave.
I mean, seriously, I called Steinberg a mayor of Hampstead, but his town of Hamstead has just 7,000 people in it.
My high school in Calgary had almost 2,000.
Now, it's a 91% white city, speaking demographically.
Now, there's nothing wrong with being white.
It's also 75% Jewish.
Nothing wrong with being Jewish.
I'm Jewish myself.
So this town, bigger than my high school, is basically a little bubble of unreality in Montreal and Quebec in Canada.
It's the same with all of them.
Cote St. Luke, I mentioned their mayor was there.
It's just a little bit bigger.
I don't know, about 30,000 people.
Anthony House father, he was an anonymous liberal MP until he disgraced himself as the chair of the Justice Committee in Parliament last month.
He's the guy who shut down any further inquiry into the SNC Lavalin bribery scandal.
He's the MP from those parts.
So these are the folks who are saying that the Quebec government's proposed ban on burqas and hijabs in the public service is ethnic cleansing.
It's racist, but without a gun.
It's weird and it's masochistic.
These liberal, white, rich, Anglo-Jews living in their little ethnic bubble in the larger city of Montreal.
Talk about living in a fantasy land.
In the rest of Montreal, outside the leafy gated communities in Hampstead and Cote St. Luke, Islam is now the second largest religion.
It's more than 10% of the population in Quebec.
Arabic is the third most spoken language in Montreal, after English and French.
I know it probably isn't a factor in these little Jewish enclaves, but remember this, you know, outside of those little Jewish bubbles, this is the reality.
This is a photograph of a state-funded daycare in Quebec where the daycare workers are wearing full niqabs, and those are just neighborhood kids.
Yeah, I didn't hear a word from Steinberg about ethnic cleansing then.
Here's the Jewish Anglo-Enclave now saying they're going to stand up and fight for the rights of women to wear burqas and niqabs in the public service.
I love this headline here.
It's in the Montreal Gazette.
Cote St. Luke Freedom Rally to join groundswell of anti-Bill 21 protests.
The rally is going to be held this Sunday, April 14th, in front of Cote St. Luke City Hall.
Except there are no women wearing niqabs in the Cote St. Luke civil service.
There are no women wearing the full ninja in Hampstead running daycares.
I checked Statistics Canada, actually, and after English and French, do you know what the next most common languages are in that little Jewish town of Cote St. Luke?
Stats can, I'll tell you, Russian is third, then Hebrew, then Yiddish.
Yiddish!
3% of people in Cote St. Luke, Yiddish is their mother tongue.
I didn't even know Yiddish could be a mother tongue.
Isn't that the language of European Jews from pre-Holocaust times?
There's a thousand people in Cote St. Luke, 3% of the town.
That's their first language.
How is that even possible in 2019?
Well, it's not, except for in this little Jewish quarter.
Now, I have to tell you, if I ever moved to Montreal, I think I would want to live in Hampstead or Cote St. Luke, if I could afford it.
I don't know if I could.
It's my kind of people.
They speak English.
They go to synagogue.
They send their kids to Jewish schools.
I bet there's some pretty great Montreal bagel places and smoked meat.
I would absolutely live there.
They're my people.
But that's not Quebec, folks.
And when the Anglo-Jews from Hampstead or Cote St. Luke are rushing to defend burqas and niqabs in the public square in daycares and public service, they're not really because there are no burqas and niqabs in their little shtetls in their little Jewish ghetto.
It's the absolute summit of virtue signaling.
They really want other Quebecers, French Catholic Quebecers, to have burqas and niqabs in their neighborhoods because there are none in these Jewish neighborhoods.
I say, hey, Steinberg and Brownstein and House Father and Birmbaum, you go first, okay?
You hire people in niqabs and burqas in your offices, in your Jewish schools, in your little cute town hall in Hampstead for your 7,000 citizens, in your daycares, in your health clinics.
You go first, guys.
But they don't mean it.
But boy, are they ever carrying a lot of water for Islamic extremists?
It's so bizarre.
I say again, burqas and niqabs, that's actually not Islam.
That's radical Islam.
That's Islamism.
That's political Islam.
There are some very strong secular, moderate Muslims in Quebec who fight against Islamism, political Islam, extremism.
The liberal Jews here aren't for them, though.
The liberal Jews here, weirdly, are for the extremists.
Just like they're doing in Europe.
And I don't understand it.
In France, in the UK, Jews are in some weird coalition with Islamism.
I don't know.
Maybe they think that they'll be the last one eaten by the tiger.
I don't know.
I just don't really get it.
But what's interesting is the rest of Quebec, francophone Quebecers, they're just not shutting up because these Anglos are telling them to.
Bill 21, this Burqa ban, it's actually the most popular law to be introduced in the Quebec legislature in a generation.
It was actually introduced by the current CAC Coalition Avenue Quebec government to follow on from the previous Liberal government's bill and the Parti Québécois party in Quebec.
They say it doesn't go far enough.
So you've got three mainstream Quebec parties who amongst them have formed the last three governments in Quebec.
They all support this bill.
I don't know.
If I were an Anglo-Jew in Quebec, I'd probably do my part to be less separated, less ghettoized from Quebec society, less of an ethnic separatist.
I'd want to join the Maine.
I'd want to join the Quebec nation.
And that's what it is.
I'm not talking about a sovereign, independent country.
That's not what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about the history, the language, the culture, the customs, the French-speaking fact of that place that go back 400 years.
I would stop telling them what to do or not to do.
If I was the Lord Mayor of Hamstead with my 7,000 subjects, I don't think I'd be telling Quebecers what to do or calling them racist.
How can Anglo-Jews who teach their own children Hebrew or Yiddish, who send their own kids to Jewish schools and Jewish synagogues and Jewish summer camps, how can they condemn Quebecois for wanting to do the same, to preserve their Quebecois ways the same way these Anglo-Jews are doing in Hamstead and Côte Ste. Luc, and I would do if I lived in Quebec.
I'd be there with them.
It's gross to me, this snobbery.
I'm Jewish and I want to preserve Judaism.
I'm Canadian.
That's my chief identity, but I am also Jewish.
I want to keep it going.
Why can't Quebecois preserve certain aspects of their society too?
Including having a separation of mosque and state?
How's that ethnic cleansing?
It's got nothing to do with race or even religion.
You just can't wear ostentatious symbols of any religion now if you represent the state.
That's actually part of Quebec's culture.
What's that got to do with race?
It's got to do with Muslim extremism, I grant you, which the old fossils in Côte St. Luke live far away from.
Well, I hope the gates in their gated community are really tall.
By the way, there was a rally for the Burqa in Montreal, and it was led by Adil Charkowi.
Who is he?
Oh, no big deal.
He's a Moroccan-born Muslim extremist.
He was arrested in 2003 and held on an anti-terrorism security certificate.
Eventually he was let go by police.
Despite training in jihadist camps, he radicalizes young Muslims.
The Moroccan government says he fundraises for terrorist groups over there.
I don't know if it's true.
That's what they say.
Oh, but no big deal.
Sure, he's a good guy.
A real natural ally for the Jews of Amstead and Coat St. Luke.
So Adil Charkowi led the anti-Bill 21 march.
Let me quote from the Montreal Gazette of that rally.
A young woman wearing hijab who was interviewed on TV Sunday at the march organized by Adil Charkowi said, Quebec is not a country.
I won't obey its laws.
Meanwhile, some people were chanting, Allahu Akbar, God is great.
So these are the folks that the little Jewish enclave is standing out for.
Hey guys, if you want to do some virtue signaling, buy a Prius, okay?
Don't support jihadists.
By the way, take a look at Charkowi's march.
There's no women allowed to stand next to the men in the first rank.
They're off to the sides.
That's the kind of separation that I guess is fine by the liberal Jewish Anglos, but not banning the burqa, that separation is not fine.
Can you do me a favor?
Can I do you a favor?
I'm going to read Bill 21 to you.
I don't know if these virtue signalers in Anglo-Jewish Montreal have read the bill, so can I read it to you so you know more than they do?
And not only will, I think you'll support the bill, but you might actually want the bill for your own province too.
So let's just read the law and you can be the judge of it.
Do you agree with these liberal Jews that this is ethnic cleansing?
Or do you agree with most Quebecers it's not?
Here it is.
It's called An Act Respecting the Laicity of the State.
Now laicity is an English translation of the French word for secularism.
It's sort of a French word.
That's what this bill is about.
The words Islam or Muslim or Jewish or Christian or black or white, they do not appear in the bill at all, by the way.
Did you know that?
But sure, call it ethnic cleansing without a gun.
Let me read some of it to you.
I'll start with the explanatory notes at the beginning of this bill, which I think is pretty thoughtful.
Let me read it.
The purpose of this bill is to affirm the laicity of the state, to set out the requirements that follow from it.
To that end, the bill provides that the laicity of the state is based on four principles.
The separation of state and religions, the religious neutrality of the state, the equality of all citizens, and freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.
Sorry, I can't find the ethnic cleansing part in there, can you?
Let me read some more.
Masked Personnel Uncovered00:08:48
Under the bill, personnel members of a body must exercise, that means a government body, must exercise their functions with their face uncovered.
And persons who present themselves to receive a service from such a personnel member must have their face uncovered when doing so is necessary to allow their identity to be verified for security reasons.
Persons who fail to comply with that obligation may not receive the service.
However, those obligations do not apply to persons whose face is covered for reasons of health or handicap or because of the requirements tied to their functions or to the performance of certain tasks.
So by the way, a hijab that's just the scarf, that's not banned with that part.
It's just a full ninja.
So basically it's saying you can't wear a mask when you work for the government or when you get services from the government.
Pretty much a basic element of all Western cultures.
In fact, there are laws in many jurisdictions against masks for reasons of safety alone.
Try going into your bank with a mask on.
Now, Quebec historically is a Catholic place, and the bill says they're not going to erase their history.
Let me quote.
The bill's provisions prevail over those of any subsequent act unless expressly stated otherwise.
The bill may not be interpreted as affecting the emblematic or toponymic elements of Quebec's cultural heritage that testify to its history.
Again, those are funny words translated from French to English, aren't they?
Basically, it says, we're not going to knock down crosses and rename Montreal and things like that.
It seems sensible to me.
Let me know if you see anything racist yet, okay?
Let's jump into the formal part of the bill now.
These are the actual text of the bill.
As the Quebec nation has its own characteristics, one of which is its civil law tradition, distinct social values, and a specific history that have led it to develop a particular attachment to state laicity.
Okay, that's the preamble.
Can you doubt it?
More to the point, can any liberal like Anthony Housefather doubt it?
A liberal who has spent a generation telling us that Quebec is a distinct society?
That's all they're saying here.
Let me read some more.
As the Quebec nation attaches importance to the equality of men and women and men.
You know, I think most people still agree with that in Canada, but I'm guessing that in a few years to say that will be Islamophobic.
Okay, so far it's all just throat clearing.
Here's the actual law.
That was preamble.
Here's the law.
Section one, the state of Quebec is a lay state.
That means secular.
Two, the laicity, that means the secular nature, of the state is based on the following principles.
Number one, the separation of state and religions.
Number two, the religious neutrality of the state.
Number three, the equality of all citizens.
Number four, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.
Okay, so what does that mean?
It sounds pretty good to me.
The law explains it a bit.
Let me read some more.
State laicity, again, that's a funny word.
It just means secularism.
It means it's just not a religious state.
State laicity requires parliamentary, government, and judicial institutions to comply with the principles that they've outlined.
I just outlined the principle.
So you have to be religiously neutral.
You have to look religiously neutral too.
We talk about phrases, ethnic cleansing.
Where the heck did that mayor get that from?
Then the law lists various institutions that are covered.
And then it says this.
The persons listed in Schedule II are prohibited from wearing religious symbols in the exercise of their functions.
Pretty clear.
And you know what?
Pretty uncontroversial to me.
You don't see police officers pulling you over for speeding, wearing a huge honkin crucifix on a necklace, do you?
No, because that's not a uniform man.
They have to be a neutral agent of the state.
Let me read some more.
Personnel members of a body, a government money, must exercise their functions with their face uncovered.
Yeah, are you shocked?
Let me read some more.
Similarly, persons who present themselves to receive a service from a personnel member of the body must have their face uncovered where doing so is necessary to allow their identity to be verified for security reasons.
Persons who fail to comply without obligation may not receive the service requested where applicable.
I'll read a little more.
For the purposes of the second paragraph, persons are deemed to be presenting themselves to receive a service when they are interacting or communicating with a personnel member of a body in the exercise of the personal member's functions.
Okay, I'm getting technically here, but I can sum it up.
Take off your mask.
You're going to the driver's license office.
Take off your mask.
You're going to a government hospital.
Take off your mask.
You're in Canada now.
You don't have to be worried about the religious police beating you anymore.
You're free now.
You're in Canada now, unless you're worried about that here in Canada too.
But being beaten or attacked by some religious police if you take off your mask.
And if that's the case, then we have a big problem now, don't we?
Oh, and I think maybe we do, my friends.
I think maybe we do.
Maybe that's what the old Anglo-Jewish liberals are afraid of.
1.3 million Muslims in Canada.
Lots of nice folks, lots of liberal folks, lots of folks fleeing Sharia law.
But a fair share of Adil Charkawis now too.
Lots of Sharia law, lots of polygamous marriages, lots of niqabs and burqas now.
Here's how it went down in France.
Look at this.
A survey conducted in France in May 2003 found that 77% of girls wearing the hijab said they did so because of physical threats from Islamist groups.
That's 16 years ago.
More than three-quarters of women wore it just because they were worried of physical threats.
What percentage do you think it is here in Canada?
What percentage is acceptable to you?
Now, most of the rest of the law is technical provisions, amending other laws.
But then it lists the people who were referred to earlier.
I mentioned the different schedules or lists of categories of public servants.
You can see it basically covers all people who work for the government of Quebec.
This is the list of them.
Departments of the government, cities, commissions, schools that take money from the government, social services agencies that take money from the government.
And then Schedule II lists particular jobs.
Judges, prosecutors, cops, things like that.
And then Schedule III lists what they call persons considered to be personnel members of a body for the purposes of measures relating to services with face uncovered.
So this includes provincial legislators, it includes doctors, dentists who take government money, childcare places that take government money.
So this actually isn't a burqa ban.
I called it a burqa ban.
It's not a burqa ban, is it?
There will be as many burqas on the street in Montreal after this becomes law as before.
There will be women in burqas running daycares.
They just won't get government from the secular, money from the secular government anymore.
That's why this law is called what it is, an act respecting the laicity of the state.
In that way, it's a bit of a cop-out.
They're really only saying Quebec's government is secular.
They're too scared to say Quebec society at large is secular or even just not Islamic.
They don't have that courage.
This is a tiny baby step.
No burqas on cops.
Okay, thanks, you're so brave.
No burqas on doctors in government-funded hospitals.
You want to wear a burqa?
Fine, you can.
Just don't expect someone to pay you with tax dollars from the secular state.
So it's actually not as bold as you'll find in many other jurisdictions.
I mentioned France, where the burqa is actually banned in public in several Arab countries too.
So that's the law.
That's Bill 21.
No mention of ethnicity, race, or religion.
I checked three times.
Other than all religions must be absent from the government equally, except for things of a historical nature.
Yeah, tell you what, I'd like a bit of that law here in the rest of Canada too.
And if those left-wing, self-hating Jews in Cote St. Luke or Hampstead love burqas so damn much, I invite them to hire burqa-wearing extremists as their own kids' nannies.
Lead by example, you hypocrites.
And until you do, maybe shut up while Quebec is trying to figure out a way to save its 400-year-old culture too.
Stay with us for more.
This is a message to Canada and all the American tawagheet.
Terrorists Returning to Canada00:14:26
We are coming and we will destroy you, bidhnillahi ta'ala.
I made hijrah to this land for one reason alone.
I left comfort for one reason alone, for Allah Azza wa Jal.
And inshallah, after Sham, after Iraq, after Jazeera, we are going for you, Barack Obama.
That is an excerpt from an ISIS propaganda video.
If memory serves, that was from around 2014-2015, when ISIS was on the rise.
That's a Calgary boy, obviously, not born in Calgary, but he became a Canadian.
And as you heard him, he left Comfort to join ISIS to rape, pillage, destroy, and set up the Islamic Caliphate.
Now, I think that man, Farah Mohamed Sheardan, if I recall, I think he's dead now, but not before he wrought destruction.
And a new report by Stuart Bell and Global News has details and statistics showing that over the past several years, Canadian terrorists, that is, terrorists who came from Canada, like that fellow we showed you there, have murdered or wounded more than 300 people.
And joining us now via Skype from the West Coast is someone who actually worked at combating terrorists like that.
Our friend Lee Humphrey, a Canadian military vet who is now the president of James International Security Consulting.
Great to see you again, Lee.
Thanks for being with you, with us.
Good to see you, Azra.
Well, thank you.
You know, seeing that Farah Mohamed Sheeran there, and I think he was actually killed in combat, but there were plenty like him who went overseas to rape, murder.
We'll never know the true extent of the damage done.
But Stuart Bell has done some adding up, and he's got a pretty big number, doesn't he?
He does indeed.
And in fact, he's probably erring on the side of caution if we're being honest about this.
Now, the statistics from Global News, and I give them credit because these days, you know, it's all in vogue to talk about the risk of the alt-right or white nationalists.
And I'm not saying that doesn't exist at all.
But Christia Freeland the other day announced, our foreign minister announced that the greatest threat in the world, she said, was neo-Nazis and Islamophobia.
She said that.
But according to Stuart Bell, Canadian-based terrorists murdered 127 people and wounded 195.
So that is more than 300.
I think that, and that's only since 2012.
That's a huge number.
That's huge.
I don't think most Canadians know that.
Yeah, so I find it disappointing, Ezra, that our foreign affairs minister would focus on one specific threat and not understand you can focus your efforts on more than one threat.
Well, you know, the alt-right, neo-Nazis, white supremacists are a threat indeed.
You have to look at the probability or likelihood of them using violence and then the impact of that.
And we have seen cases where they have done such a thing.
But at the same time, the results of Islamic terrorism around the world perpetrated by Canadians and others at home and abroad are far, far higher.
They're far more likely, and the impact is far more deadly.
We're talking about large numbers of Canadians, some born in Canada, some who have immigrated to Canada, and then left again to perpetrate terrorism around the world.
And we can't ignore that or pretend it doesn't exist.
Yeah.
You know, and the organization, we just saw a fella there who was on a tank, I think.
So, you know, the geography, the military hardware, the collaboration, and the underlying ideological justification and the moral support.
I mean, ISIS was not a criminal.
I mean, it was criminal.
It was terrorist, but it also had the blessing of its own religious leaders.
Now, we could say whether or not that represents the true Islam, but they had, I mean, their leader, al-Baghdadi, was a PhD in Islamic studies.
So they felt that they were doing things with the blessing of a leader.
I wonder how many of these terrorists who have gone abroad and failed, because the Islamic State has basically been smashed over there, how many of them are going to come back to Canada and try and pick up their terrorist project here now?
What do you think that probably you were mentioning probabilities and likelihoods?
Of all the cases Stuart Bell studied, only 55 of them that we know of was the terrorist himself killed.
So we have hundreds of cases of Canadian terrorist murders where the terrorists themselves are still alive.
They might be trying to come back to Canada.
Absolutely.
While the Caliphate has been smashed as a physical caliphate, the ideology hasn't changed.
We've seen Canadians that have gone abroad to work with Hezbollah, to work with al-Qaeda, to work with ISIS, to work with al-Shabaab, all Islamic terrorists, but with slight variations on their interpretation of Islam.
At the end of the day, their ideology doesn't change when they come home to Canada.
They still believe that using violence to achieve a political and religious aim is okay.
And if we don't take action against these folks the minute they set foot in Canada, the minute we can get a hold of them if they're abroad, then they are going to, at some point,
attempt to recruit others and to continue the violence to achieve their aim, which is this pure caliphate that will lead to a global dominance of Islam against all non-believers.
You know, I remember after 9-11, I'm that old, Lee.
I remember Canada struggling to update our laws and the United States also.
And one of the problems is when you're fighting terrorism or even if you're dealing with crimes in a wartime setting, and of course, terrorists do not have the legal protections that a law-abiding soldier would have.
I mean, it's pretty apparent you can't use normal police or prosecution tools in a war zone or a terrorist zone.
You don't have the integrity of evidence.
The idea of beyond a reasonable doubt doesn't apply.
So we have all these laws on the books for almost 20 years now, Lee, that make it enough that we prove someone went over there to join a terrorist group.
We don't have to prove what they did, that they supported a terrorist group in a material way.
That's all that has to be proven because to prove who they murdered or who they raped in a battle is impossible.
Why haven't those laws that were actually drafted by the Kretchen liberals back in 2001, 2002, why haven't those laws being deployed against returning terrorists?
I say again, you don't have to prove they actually murdered someone.
You just have to prove they went there or even just tried to go there.
Yeah, absolutely.
And that's really the crux of the matter here is we do now have sufficient laws on the books as far as providing material support or attempting to provide material support to a terrorist organization.
And we have Canadians that have made videos.
We have travel records.
We have passport and immigration records.
But we need a political will.
And that's where we fall short.
So the Justice Department takes its marching orders from the Attorney General.
And then we've learned a lot about this over the SNC Lavaling case.
But the public prosecutors, they get guidelines from their political masters.
And unless the public puts pressure on the elected politicians, then they're going to resort to being afraid, if you will, to use these laws that exist on the books.
And eventually, one of these individuals is going to come back to bite us in the butt in a big way.
And then we'll all reflectively go back and say, gee, why didn't we do anything we didn't know about this?
And that's not the case.
We do know who these individuals are.
We do have the ability to track them.
And we do have the ability to lock them up indefinitely under the existing laws, as you say, that were created during the Kretchan administration.
You know, I've been watching, I don't want to say it's coordinated, but the timing sure is funny, how you have journalistic attempts to normalize ISIS terrorists who now just want to come home as if they regard the UK, the U.S., Canada, Australia as their home.
They renounced their home.
They went to their utopia, ISIS.
It turned out to be hell.
Now they're, it's just amazing to me.
It feels like a PR campaign, especially in the United Kingdom.
There's this ISIS bride, Shemaima Begum is her name.
And I can't believe the sympathetic coverage these terrorists, and the women may not have thrown grenades, but they had Yazidi sex slaves in their house with their ISIS husband.
It's just shocking to me.
What should be done with people who are over there?
Do we have to take them back here and put them to prison?
Should we leave them with the Kurds?
What should we do to a Shemaima Begum or the male terrorists who are now saying, oh, I didn't really know what I was up to.
Can I come home to America?
Yeah, well, I think, you know, if I had faith in the existing, that the existing laws that we have would be utilized and that these folks would end up in prison for the rest of their natural lives, then it would be much easier to accept that as Canadian citizens, if they were born in Canada, they must be returned.
If they were immigrants to Canada, they've broken faith with Canada and they can stay where they are and be dealt with by the authorities that captured them.
But I don't have faith that if they do return to Canada, that they will be properly adjudicated and end up in prison for the rest of their lives.
And that includes the brides, but not the children, of these fighters, because they provided material support to terrorist organizations and their terrorist husbands.
Yeah, you know, it's a catch-22.
We have the laws, but we don't have the will.
So right now, I'm more than happy to allow the Kurds to deal with this and leave them where they are.
Yeah, I got to be honest with you.
Not only do I agree with you that we wouldn't have the prosecutorial will to charge these terrorists, I'm worried the reverse would happen, that they would do an Omar Cotter and sue us somehow.
And Trudeau, I know he's made five payments now of $10 million.
The most famous is to Omar Cotter, but there have been four other payments in the $10 million range to other terrorists or accused terrorists whose rights have been violated.
I truly believe these ISIS terrorists, if they came back, would not only face no risk of prosecution, but they would quite likely win the Trudeau lottery.
Last word to you.
Is there a lesson we should take from this study?
And again, credit to Stuart Bell and Global News, because I think this kind of study is counter to the current liberal narrative.
What should we do?
What should we learn from this?
I'm just so glad it was reported.
Well, you know, I think first it's a wake-up call to Canadians who somehow believe that we're immune from creating or allowing radicalization to take hold and take foot within Canada, both with born in Canadian or Canada Canadians and in our immigrant population.
And we need to recognize that that risk exists and we need to deal with it in the harshest possible ways.
When we understand somebody is radicalized, when we receive notifications from imams or from family members that are concerned about the direction their children are going in, the government needs to do more than send a couple of people to try and talk them out of it.
They need to be really serious about what they're doing.
They need to dedicate resources to monitoring these people and monitoring the circumstances that might have led to their radicalization.
If they do get out of the country, they need to be arrested promptly upon return, held indefinitely, and when the evidence is available, put on trial and sentenced to very long sentences to deter future terrorists from attempting to follow the same path.
Serious About Radicalization00:04:32
Yeah.
Well, I agree with you on what we should do.
Whether or not we will do that is a huge question mark these days.
Lee, it's great to have you back on the show.
Thanks for your time today.
Absolutely, Ezra.
Thank you.
All right, there you have it.
Lee Humphrey.
He's the president of James International Security Consulting.
Of course, he is a military veteran himself.
Stay with us.
More ahead on The Rebel.
Hey, welcome back.
On my monologue yesterday about CBC's propaganda aimed at kids.
Deborah writes, using children to manipulate and deceive other children for a political agenda is disgusting.
You're right.
And it's so inappropriate.
And I saw that some of those child actors have Twitter accounts.
And I checked Twitter's terms of service.
And you have to be 13 to have a Twitter account.
So you've got 9 and 11-year-old kids on Twitter with their propaganda, which I guess, like, are they really even writing those?
Or are they just weird, weird prompts for whom?
Who are their parents?
Who's setting this up?
I know for a fact the CBC would not put a child of tender years on TV saying crazy stuff without the permission, cooperation, or even instigation of their parents.
This is a weird screw with your mind kind of move.
I'm sorry, it just is.
Bruce writes, traumatizing children is terrible and highly unethical.
Let's hope these kids grow up and realize that the earth isn't going to be destroyed by us wanting to keep warm and go places.
Yeah, well, I think besides learning the cult-like language of global warmingism, these kids are also learning something else along the way, hypocrisy.
Because they live in Canada, which means they burn fossil fuels to stay warm.
They burn fossil fuels to move around.
They wear items made of polyester, plastics, whatever artificial fibers we use.
So they're learning at a very early age not only the language of the climate cult, but also how to make mental reservations.
Do you remember a few years ago I went to some big rally in Toronto called Jobs, Justice, and Climate, and I actually bumped into Catherine Porter, who then was a reporter with the Toronto Star, talking about how righteous she is.
And I said, do you have a car?
She said, oh, yes, I do.
And I said, well, why don't you have a Prius?
And they always, every single person in that rally had a car.
I remember to this day, I would always ask them, do you have a car?
Yes.
Why?
Oh, because I need it.
Oh, okay.
Anyways, on my interview with Manny Monagrino, Paul writes, Trudeau's legal team is weak because they have to put up with Trudeau.
He's very arrogant, very incompetent, and seems to get quite angry when he doesn't get his way.
Right, well, that's one of the tough things about being a lawyer.
I remember in law school, I first heard the shocking comment by a professor, the client is your enemy.
I thought, what on earth are you talking about?
The client is our focus.
We are here to help the client.
And the answer was, no, no, they're not their enemy.
You don't hate them.
You just, they are going to undermine you.
They're going to undo you.
They're not going to listen to you.
They're going to go off course.
They're going to erect things.
That's what the client is your enemy means.
It doesn't mean that you morally oppose them.
It means they're going to screw it up.
And imagine trying to be a lawyer very slowly and calmly telling Justin Trudeau, this is a bad idea.
And him pouting and saying, do it anyways.
I don't know.
I can't imagine that Julian Porter.
Julian Porter is a lawyer.
That's the dad of that Catherine Porter I mentioned a moment ago.
Julian Porter is a lawyer for Justin Trudeau.
I can't imagine he needs the money.
I mean, maybe he thinks it's cool to be the prime minister's lawyer.
It sort of is cool.
But not when you're writing such a dumb letter as that.
I don't get it.
I just don't get it.
And I'm not just saying that because I lean conservative and I lean against Trudeau.
That is a dumb and crazy letter.
Grace writes, please stop showing that Catherine McKenna screeching about last summer clip.
I have to keep skipping over it to spare my ears.
Well, listen, if I agree with you, but part of what we do here is we look at the bad things and warn and explain why they're bad.
I mean, that CBC Kids News, for example, it is awful.
Stop The Screeching00:01:10
I don't enjoy it.
It drives me crazy.
It raises my blood pressure.
My kids don't watch it.
But the reason I do is because I want to ring the alarm about it.
So forgive me for showing you the crazy stuff we got to know about it.
But no, I take your point.
It's just so screechy.
All right, well, that's our show for today.
What do you think?
Do you think it was too tough on those Anglo-Jews in Montreal?
I just, I mean, I looked up those little towns they're from.
They're like little Jewish, shtetl is the word for the little Jewish towns in Europe.
It's like a caboose.
Like Hampstead, I think it's 75% Jewish.
They don't have daycares run by women wearing the cabs in Hempstead.
They don't.
And so for these all-white, all-Jewish communities to tell the rest of Quebec that they're not allowed to preserve the Quebec culture, sorry, that's just a little bit rich.
And speaking as a Jew, I find it a little bit embarrassing because Jews like to keep their ethnic identity, their religious identity, their historical identity.
Why do Jews in Montreal get to do that, but not Quebecois?
Anyways, you can let me know what you think about that in the letters.
Until next time, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, do you at home?