Ben Davies, Sheila Gunn Reid, and Ezra Levant critique Loblaws’ $12M taxpayer grant for energy-efficient refrigerators amid past controversies like bread price-fixing and tax evasion, calling it virtue-signaling. Reid slams Trudeau’s photo-op announcement, questioning why a $46B company needs government funding. Levant defends Quebec’s Bill 21 as culturally sovereign, not racist, citing its broad support and Mulcair’s 2015 electoral collapse over burqa comments. Davies boycotts Gillette for promoting unrealistic body standards while claiming moral authority, comparing it to the brand’s divisive "toxic masculinity" ad. Trudeau’s $1,600 fundraiser exposes hypocrisy—idling SUVs despite Toronto’s one-minute bylaw and unshaken corporate backers amid scandals like SNC Lavalin’s $12M taxpayer bailout. Their arguments reveal systemic favoritism toward powerful entities over accountability. [Automatically generated summary]
Welcome to Rebel Roundup, ladies and gentlemen, and the rest of you, in which we look back at some of the very best commentaries of the week by your favorite Rebels.
I'm your host, David Menzies.
Attention Loblaws shoppers.
There's an appliance special on right now in which $12 million of your tax money is going to enable this multi-billion dollar conglomerate to purchase new fridges and freezers.
Oh my.
Sheila Gunnreid has all the stone-cold details.
Quebec's anti-Burca law, Bill 21, is being deemed as racist and Islamophobic by the usual suspects.
Even though it's all about separating mosque from state, Rebel Commander Ezra Levant shall explain all.
So after that disastrous Me Too themed Gillette ad campaign earlier this year, you'd think maybe that parent company Procter ⁇ Gamble might have learned some advertising lessons?
Well, judging by a tweet for its Venus brand of female razors, the answer would seem to be a firm no.
Ben Davies has the skinny on PNG's latest virtue signaling marketing flop.
And finally, letters, we get your letters, we get your letters every minute of every day.
And I'll share some of your responses regarding Justin Trudeau's $1,600 a plate fundraiser in Toronto last week.
Two things.
Apparently, there are still liberal supporters who adore this guy.
Oh, and judging by his motorcade of SUVs that kept their V8 engines running for hours on end, it would seem that when it comes to carbon footprint reduction, Justin subscribes to the mantra of, do as I say, not as I do.
Those are your rebels.
Now let's round them up.
Loblaw gives money to an organization with direct ties to Notley's campaign team through Bryantop that in turn smears and character assassinates normal Canadians who don't have billions of dollars squirreled away after years of ripping off poor people and tax evasion.
Loblaw, through these generous sponsorships to the Broadbent Institute, funds attacks on Albertans who just want a job and maybe want to be able to afford to buy some groceries in a Loblaw store.
There is great irony in this NDP candidate here, Gerbichan Brar, accusing UCP leader Jason Kenney of taking bread from the mouths of the poor when the NDP research and media arm, Press Progress, is largely funded by a company that did just that, took bread from the mouths of the poor.
That's some ethical advocates for the poor, those NDP are.
While Rachel Notley rails about Jason Kenney's tax cuts to spur business reinvestment back to Alberta, the NDP research and media arm, Press Progress, takes a lot of money from a company that hid money in a Barbadian bank.
Wow, that's a superb resume, Loblaws has, eh?
But it looks like in Justin Trudeau's Canada, bad behavior gets rewarded, not punished, because this company that was part of a cartel that price-fixed bread for 15 years is receiving a $12 million federal grant to buy energy-efficient refrigerators to reduce its energy consumption.
And guess what, folks?
You are paying for it.
And with more on this latest example of corporate welfare run amok is the host of the gun show, Sheila Gunn Reed.
Welcome to Rebel Roundup, my friend.
Hey, David, thanks for having me on.
Well, always a pleasure.
So Sheila, let's check out the tail of the tape when it comes to loblaws.
This company had revenues of more than $46 billion last year.
It has a staggering 63% market share.
It is controlled by a family that is worth several billion dollars.
If they want energy-efficient appliances, why the hell can't they buy their own fridges?
Well, that's the thing.
Like Gayland Weston and the Weston family, they are $10 billion richer than Donald Trump, and the left won't shut up about Donald Trump.
But these people fly under the radar.
They get government handouts because, as I discovered in my story, they're washing money over to some of the conservatives' loudest critics at Press Progress and the Broadbent Institute.
So they get these handouts from the Liberal government and then for refrigeration.
I mean, pay for your own damn fridges.
I did.
But then they go and fund this massive machinery that right now in Alberta is really the research arm of the NDP party.
So, I mean, you want to talk about synonym billionaires?
This is it.
But you know what, Sheila?
Here is the perverse irony.
Both the federal liberals under Trudeau and Loblaw companies have really outsmarted themselves because $12 million to Loblaw Companies Limited is like you and I finding a couple of quarters in the couch.
It is chump change.
And yet look at the negative publicity this company is receiving.
And here, just as SNC Lavalin is just dying down for a 24-hour news cycle period, bang, another scandal all over in the big picture, a paltry $12 million for a multi-billion dollar conglomerate.
I think if they could redo the chronology here, they never would have gone through with this.
Yeah, you know, and the way we all found out about it is just so perfectly liberal.
I mean, the news broke on Climate Barbie Catherine McKenna's Twitter feed.
She did like a live stream video of her handing this money over to Loblaws.
And she was standing there, proud as a peacock, thinking this is something that Canadians are really going to embrace.
Look at us doing green things.
For all the people who manage her social media, it's over 20 most days.
Not a single one of them thought, you know what?
We sort of kind of did tell veterans that they were asking for more than we could give them.
And we basically told Grassy Narrows First Nations Reserve that they can kind of go screw themselves even though they're poisoned by mercury.
And here we are handing out money to billionaires.
It was so tone deaf.
It was so much from the inside the bubble of Ottawa, but it is perfectly liberal.
It shows just how out of touch they are with the concerns of normal people, people who were shafted by loblaws, by the way, with their price fixing scam.
Oh, yeah, no, that is the cherry on the Sunday for sure.
But here's the thing, Sheila.
I mean, Climate Barbie, she is an intellectual lightweight.
I mean, there's not any substance there for sure.
However, you would think that the people behind the scenes, the puppet masters, you know, the PR spinners, they would be saying things to the elected MPs.
Hey, listen, we've looked over this photo op, and you know what?
The optics could come up, could come back to bite us in the ass.
Don't go ahead with this.
But no, they are so blinded, I think, Sheila, by their virtue signaling, they can't even think of, you know, plan B if this goes awry.
These are the same people whose only concern about Catherine McKenna's tweets congratulating Syria when they joined the paradigm board was, let's make sure we get the French translation right.
I mean, they don't see things through the lens of normal people.
They never have.
They never will.
Really, it's just all about photo ops.
They thought Canadians would embrace this photo op.
Look, it's our local grocery store greening.
So we should green too.
And that's how the Liberals think.
They don't think like, hey, that's the company that screwed over poor people for 15 years and then offered them a pittance of a $25 gift card for their troubles.
And then late last year was caught using a Barbadian bank to skirt Canadian tax laws, all the while Bill Mourneau, Canada's finance minister, is cracking down on small businesses and farmers like they're a bunch of tax cheats.
Yeah, no, it is amazing.
And, you know, the funny thing too about the price fixing scandal, Sheila, as you pointed out, Loblaws went from a co-conspirator to use the parlance of organized crime to a rat and offered up the goods first so they would get immunity.
Usually in the world of the mafiosa, that's a death sentence.
But here we have corporate bad behavior not being penalized, but by being rewarded by this $12 million check for refrigeration.
This is Twilight Zone stuff.
Yeah, and I mean, the thing about loblaws, and you know, I'm not one to attack wealthy businesses.
I think good for them if you come by it honestly.
And that's in question, I would say.
But we can't really escape them, especially in places where there's not a lot of other grocery stores.
They're as close to a grocer monopoly, I think, as you can probably get in today's modern age.
They have, you know, their independent stores, which are like the no-frills superstore.
If you need to go to a drugstore, shoppers drug mart, they own whole Renfrew.
Like they own such a market share that you really can't, on a lot of days, say, you know what, I'm not going to shop at Superstore because for a lot of places in this country, they are the only game in town.
No, you pointed that out in your commentary.
I mean, for someone like myself in the Toronto area, I can seek out competition.
And I know Lady Menzoid, thanks to your commentary, she's now crossing the street from Loblaws to Longo's, and it's not much of a sacrifice.
But if you're in a small town, a Loblaw company grocer might be the only game in town.
And, you know, so you can't do a boycott.
You've got to feed your family.
But one last point before we wrap, Sheila.
What I really find staggering, again, because Loblaw is a multi-billion dollar conglomerate, is that there is already an incentive to buy that $12 million worth of refrigeration, because if these are energy-efficient fridges, as what's being told to us, well, they're going to make back that $12 million and more based on the electricity consumption rates that are going to go down.
So there was already an incentive to make money by buying this more efficient refrigeration units.
But no, they needed that welfare check from the taxpayer.
Disgraceful.
Yeah, you know what else?
My mother-in-law pointed out a good point.
She goes, why don't they just take all the money they charge me every time I walk in there for a grocery bag for five cents in the name of greening the environment and just put that into refrigeration, which is true.
Where the heck is that money going?
I mean, if they're doing it in the interest of greening the environment, then yeah, pay for your own refrigeration.
Why Quebec's Law Matters00:13:11
I have to.
If I want to, you know, take the old clunker in the garage offline that I put beer in and save a few bucks.
I've got to pay up front.
100%.
Why aren't they doing it?
Well, because you don't have liberal ties and they do, Sheila.
Sheila, we have to wrap it here.
I think it's a huge black guy.
If I were Loblaw or if I were their PR guy advising them, I'd say, give the money back and make some huge donation to some green charity and try to get on the positive side of the ledger.
But I think they might be just too arrogant, both the Liberal Party of Canada and Loblaw, to do the right thing.
So thank you again, Sheila, for a wonderful commentary, as always.
Great.
Thanks, David.
I just want to make a quick point.
Maybe they could donate some of that money to the food bank after they screwed over poor people for all those years.
But anyway, thanks for having me on the show, David.
Great idea.
Thank you, Sheila.
And that was Sheila Gunnread in Alberta.
Keep it here, folks.
More of Rebel Roundup to come, right after this.
The persons listed in Schedule 2 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 honking 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 members' functions.
Okay, I'm getting technically here, but I can sum it up.
Take off your mask.
You go 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?
So let's be honest about Quebec's anti-Burka law, Bill 21.
It's being deemed racist and Islamophobic by the usual suspects, including members of the media party.
But when one actually takes the time to read the contents of the bill, one finds that it applies to all religions and only those employees who are being paid by the taxpayer.
So it's really all about the separation of church and state, or more appropriately, mosque and state.
And somehow this is being preposterously spun as an example of ethnic cleansing.
Give me a break.
And joining me now with more on this subject is our very own rebel commander, Ezra Levett.
Welcome to Rebel Roundup, Ezra.
Thanks very much.
You know, I did something very dangerous.
Uh-oh.
And that is I checked a story for myself.
I didn't rely on the media party.
And so Quebec, even though it's a predominantly French province, they do publish their bills and laws in both languages, which is good, because of course about a quarter of, there's a lot of Anglophones in that province.
So I read Bill 21 for myself in English.
And I'm glad I did, because I was told by the media party it was racist, it was Islamophobic, it was all those things you just said.
So I just said, okay, let me just slowly read every word.
And it's not too technical.
It's not too much legalese.
It's a little bit of legalese, but the title of the bill, it's not even called the Burkhaban.
It doesn't even mention burqas or doesn't mention any religion.
It's actually a law to confirm the laicity.
That's sort of a, that's not really an English word.
That's a French word that means secularism.
So it's a law to confirm the secular nature of the government of Quebec.
So it's, I wouldn't call it an atheist law.
I would just say it does two things.
If you work for the government of Quebec, almost anywhere, you can't cover your face.
So that doesn't stop the hijab, which is like a babushka.
It doesn't stop the yarmaka or a Sikh turban.
It doesn't stop people from wearing a cross or a star, David.
But if you're a bus driver, if you're a daycare worker, if you're a doctor, and you get money from the government of Quebec, you can't cover your face.
And also when you get services from someone from the government of Quebec, you can't cover your face.
That's a pretty easy law.
So that's one part of the law.
But there's another stricter part of the law that applies to some other people.
And that says you just can't have any religious symbols at all.
And that's a smaller list of people.
So that's pretty much it.
The list, I mean, the law is pretty short.
It just says, well, here's the principles.
We have freedom of religion.
We have a separation of religion and state.
They don't even say separation of church and state or mosque and state.
They say everyone has their freedom to be whatever religion they want, but we're just going to separate it from the government.
So there's actually no Burqaban.
You will see Burqas on the street in Montreal the day after this becomes law.
You just won't see them in government offices.
You know, and here's the other funny angle I find about this, Ezra, is that for so many years, going back to Meach Lake, if you will, we've been told that Quebec is a distinct society.
We recognize it as a distinct society.
And then on this file of the separation of church and state, if you will, when they go out and do something that shows their distinctiveness, they get condemned.
And yet, let's be honest, two things.
The government said if there's a constitutional challenge, they're going to invoke the notwithstanding clause.
And secondly, there is massive public support for this.
Oh, for sure.
Now, the government in Quebec is a new party that's not even 10 years old.
It's called the CAQ or CAC Party Coalition Avigner Quebec, the Coalition for the Future of Quebec.
And so they've brought this law in.
But the government that they beat at the last election was the Liberal Party of Quebec.
They had a similar law.
And you, of course, remember the Partique Bécois.
They support the law.
In fact, they think it doesn't go far enough.
So the three main parties in Quebec, or at least the three that have governed it for the last 50 years or whatever, they all agree on this.
Now, there's a small Marxist Islamic party called, I just forgot what it's called, I think the description speaks volumes.
Amir Qadir is one of the, like, it's a really Marxist Islamist party.
They're opposed to it.
But them and all the multi-culty Toronto fancy pants media at McLean's and the National Post and the Throne Star, they're apoplectic about this.
But in Quebec, it's as close to unanimous as just about anything gets in Quebec.
And so you'll notice that Justin Trudeau, is he calling this bill alt-right, neo-Nazi, white supremacist?
No, he's not.
If anyone in English Canada would breathe a word of this, that's what they would be denounced as.
But in Quebec, Trudeau is being very careful.
I mean, he still goes to all his mosque rallies, and he says a few things about I support you, but he has not condemned this.
He has not campaigned against this, because in Quebec, it is unanimous.
And when you think about it, Quebeco, old stock Quebec, I don't want to say indigenous Quebecers because there were Aboriginal Indians there before the French came to Quebec 400 years ago.
But 400 years is a very long time.
I mean, people say Canada is such a new country.
Really?
There's been French in Quebec for 400 years.
Newfoundland is even older in some ways.
So you still have to say that the Indians, Aboriginal people were the Indigenous Canadians, of course.
But when you're in a place homesteading, logging, trapping, building, setting up cities and towns, settling, colonizing New France, you can call yourself Indigenous in your own way.
So when you have 400 years of Indigenous French Quebecois culture, by the way, that happens to be white.
And I would say that the most politicized license plate slogan in the country.
Yeah.
I remember.
What are you remembering?
Remember those old days.
Right.
So by any dictionary definition, they are an ethnic nationalism.
Yes.
Much more.
I mean, Justin Trudeau and his cronies throw around alt-right, racist, white nationalist.
Quebecois, and I'm not saying this in a pejorative way, I'm saying it in a descriptive way.
They are a nationalist, indigenous, white culture that has sovereignty over some areas.
And I'm not criticizing it.
I'm not condemning it.
I'm not even calling it racist.
I'm just saying if there is anything in North America that resembles a white nation that talks about itself as its ethnicity and nationalism, it's the Quebecois.
And I'm not condemning, I'm not saying they're racist.
I'm just saying that they want to keep their Frenchness.
And for most liberal politicians, that's always been okay.
And we're almost out of time.
One very quick question and hopefully a quick answer.
We must be honest and say that when you're pro-Burca, pro-Nikab, this is a third rail in Quebec.
And I've always loved your theory of what really happened in the federal election of 2015.
And that was Tom Mulcair going to bat for that woman in Mississauga, Ontario, who wanted to take the citizenship oath while in the Burke or the Nacab and supported her right to do that religious freedom thing.
That does not play in Quebec.
That resulted in, what, a 15% crater.
And that was the balance swung from the Conservatives to the Liberals.
So maybe this is really why Justin Trudeau isn't doing the alt-right, the white supremac card, because he will alienate those voters in Quebec for the next federal election.
The lying Anglo-media party will tell you that Stephen Harper lost the last election because of the Burqa ban and his barbaric cultural practices tipline.
That's what they want you to believe, because that's their narrative.
What actually happened is the opposite.
The Liberals and the NDP were perfectly tied for about a month in the campaign.
And that was almost perfectly splitting the ABC, anybody but conservative vote.
And Stephen Harper was on track to win a minority government until Thomas Mulcair, who, by the way, is probably identical to Justin Trudeau on the issue, but he wasn't as smart as Trudeau.
So like you say, he totally embraced it.
I think it was a 14-point immediately collapse of his vote in Quebec because the Francophones, the indigenous French nation, just said, no, thanks.
So you have a 14-point drop in Quebec basically overnight.
That's going to show up as a three or four point drop nationwide.
So the ABC voter was saying, well, do we vote liberal or NDP?
I say liberal.
I see NDP.
So they were like this.
And then like about a week or so before the vote, it goes.
So that just caused the avalanche.
And then all of these New Democrats say, oh, yikes, we're all coalescing around Trudeau.
Let's just do that.
And they went, boom.
So the Burka.
Thomas Molkair's embrace of the Burqa is what handed not just so many Quebec seats to the Liberals, but it was the cue to New Democrats in Ontario and BC to all get behind Trudeau.
Justin Trudeau owes his prime ministership to the Burka ban and Thomas Molcair's embrace of it.
Ironically, it was Trudeau who campaigned the hardest in the mosques, including the hate mosques in Canada that are so, you know, like the Asuna Wahhabi Mosque in Montreal that the Pentagon says was where terrorists were recruited.
So it was actually quite a trick.
Trudeau got the radical Muslim vote, but he didn't get the backlash for supporting the Burka.
Incredible.
Ezra, we have to wrap it here.
Fat Phobia and Razor Ads00:11:14
Amazing story.
Folks, keep your eyes on this one.
You're going to see hypocrisy galore by the liberal elites and the media party when it comes to this particular bill.
Keep it here.
more of Rebel Roundup to come right after this.
There have been no shortage of cringe level 1000 woke marketing campaigns thrown together for the sole purpose of enticing your dollar.
With the only goal being making people think these companies actually care.
Here are just a few classics.
The paper towel company, Bronny, took the iconic lumberjack dude wearing plaid off and replaced him with a woman wearing the same thing.
Fine, no one really would have noticed, but wait, they had to make sure you did.
So they had to stamp on the hashtag strength has no gender campaign.
You know, because nothing empowers women like paper towels.
I mean, right?
Was this moved to empower women to pursue the dangerous career of lumberjacking?
Ah, nope, it was to seem woke.
Another classic, Nike giving Colin Kaepernick an entire line with the slogan, stand for something, even if it means sacrificing everything.
I know what people tell you, but here's the truth here.
Colin Kaepernick was a losing QB for two years and lost his starting job.
And so he was benched.
This all happened before he took a knee.
He lost his job before he took a knee.
And even still, that same season with all the controversy, he still was allowed to play and was awful.
So what did he sacrifice?
Ah, nothing.
But Nike wants to fight bigotry and stand up to injustice.
No.
No, you don't.
You want to prop up a fraud to sell sneakers.
And don't get me started on the Gillette toxic masculinity commercial.
But just when you think Gillette couldn't get any more woke and ridiculous, they say, hold my beer.
I got one for you.
Posting this image with the caption quote, go out there and slay the day.
Glitter plus lasers, whatever glitter plus lasers mean.
And of course, any critics of this ad have been labeled fat phobic.
Remember the good old days when advertising was all about moving the merchandise?
Now it seems that certain companies have been infiltrated by social justice warriors.
Indeed, an increasing number of marketing campaigns seem to be far more keen on making some kind of virtue signaling social statement as opposed to enticing consumers to go out and actually buy the product being advertised.
And how weird is that?
Joining me now with more on this wacky SJW trend in the ad business is our Tinseltown rebel, Ben Davies.
Welcome to Rebel Roundup, Ben.
So good to be here.
Likewise.
Now, Ben, it looks like Procter Gamble, which of course is the parent company of Gillette, learned nothing from that Me Too-themed fiasco for male razors.
But now PNG seems hell-bent on destroying the female side of the razor business too, as they trumpet an image of a woman who is obviously morbidly obese.
Now, Ben, I am no fan of the anorexic supermodel look, but applauding obesity is not right either.
Obesity will make your life difficult.
It will lead to various health complications.
It will lead to a shorter life.
So, Ben, what in blue hell is behind this latest ludicrous Gillette marketing campaign?
Well, I think the basis of it is once you go loke, you can't go back.
Once you do the male toxic masculinity Gillette commercial, then all of a sudden you lose that marketplace and you better make sure you get everyone else, including body shame activists or fat phobic fighters or something, trying to like section off this niche as well for your company.
And that's what they're doing with this new Gillette campaign, which is opportunistic and dangerous and extremely shallow what they're doing.
Like you said, it's not a lifestyle that's conducive for anyone that has way more health complications than you can even imagine.
And right now, I didn't even know this.
Canada's obesity right now is at 30%, which is right on par with the United States.
This is an epidemic and encouraging people to go down this path that leads to so many harmful diseases and problems with your body.
It's nothing short of despicable.
No, I agree.
And I know, Ben, I'm going to get all kinds of comments and they're going to be saying about yours truly.
Oh, look at that fat menzoid talking about a fat woman.
Hey, listen, I am fat.
I admit it.
But if I didn't, you know, cut sugar out of my diet, if I didn't exercise every second day, I would be circus fat.
This is not something to triumph.
You know, we have this whole body image thing going now, Ben, where people are saying, yeah, you go gal or you go guy, you know, if you need quintuple XL, you know, clothes to get into, that's fine.
No, it's not fine.
It's unhealthy.
And Gillette, which is, let's face it, in the image, in the business rather, a body image, they shouldn't be adding fuel to this social justice warrior fire to begin with.
Oh, yeah, it's ridiculous.
It's like you see someone that's just drinking paint thinner.
It's like, hey, you go, dude, you've got this.
This is a problem that you need to work on.
It's like for you, it's like, yeah, you know, I lean towards more of the sweets.
I need to watch out for them.
What kind of friends would people be?
If they're like, yo, Dave, let me show you a cake party, man.
That's what you need.
You need to beat you, man.
Be the best person yourself.
It's like, no, it's dangerous.
And it's dangerous.
And the double standard is ridiculous because, yes, models and agencies and ad companies have been slammed.
The models are, I think they're too skinny.
Literally in the UK and the United States, ads have been pulled because they just think this girl looks too skinny for their taste.
Not that she's unhealthy, not that she's suffering from an eating disorder.
She looks unhealthy to me.
And saying this, you can't even be on screen for people to admire if you look too skinny for my taste.
That is insane.
Likewise, I'll also say, like, obviously, if anyone is suffering from eating disorder, that's something that also should not be encouraged.
You can't say hashtag BU when someone is suffering on the opposite end, not indulging, but removing food entirely.
You don't encourage any of those because it's detrimental to the person.
I just think it's crazy.
But that side of the equation, that's at less than, that's about 7% people that suffer from an eating disorder, which is still a problem we should address and talk about.
Don't get me wrong.
But we're talking 30% of people in the United States and Canada that are suffering from an eating disorder where they're overeating, where they're becoming obese.
Obviously, it should not be glorified.
No, 100%.
And it's staggering, Ben.
I mean, you know, how is this for a concept?
Just using real women with real curves and women that embody a picture of health as opposed to being on the extreme of ultra skinny or ultra fat.
Now, Ben, here's the thing, though, I don't get like you said earlier that basically Gillette has no choice but to double down.
I would dispute that with you, my friend, you know, based on the male razors campaign that they came out with.
When you look at going to YouTube, that campaign is registering a staggering 10 to 1 ratio in terms of negative to positive comments.
If I'm the Gillette marketers, I'm going, oh my goodness, what a misstep.
I wish we could take that back.
But instead, you're right, they are doubling down, but I think it's like shooting themselves in the foot.
Yeah, I mean, you would think any rational person would have taken that, but that's the left where you and I repeat myself.
You know, it's like the only thing I can think of is they're like, look, if we alienated this huge swath of the market, we had better get everyone on the opposite end.
Because that's the only reason Spank this is going to be flying with the marketing team.
And that's what bothers me.
I mentioned this in my video.
You better not believe for a second these companies actually care about empowering people that are suffering from an eating disorder of overeating to get out there and do more of it.
They're thinking, how can I get people to buy these cheap razors?
And that's it.
And playing on someone who's already dealing with an issue like this, that's evil.
And you know, Ben, when the next quarter statements come out for Gillette, I'm not sure PNG separates that or not, if that's public, but I would like to see if this is selling more razors or their sales are further going down.
I think they're going to further go down.
And don't forget, this is a company in the last 10 years that went from 70% market share to 50% market share, still a very healthy market share, but because of new competitors like Dollar Shave and Harry's and so forth, I don't think this is going to work for them.
But just to go back to the campaign, the other tricky thing I think for Gillette is people like me saying, how dare you make yourself the moral authority?
How dare you go out and tell men in the case of the male razors, you know what, it's not the best you can be anymore.
It's how dare you be a misogynist?
How dare you be a bully?
And then in the case of female razors, here's a wonderful body type to emulate, even though it's going to take maybe 25 years off your life.
What do you say to that, Ben?
I'm baffled by it.
I mean, it really makes no sense that you'd be willing to do this.
And as a consumer, I'm not going to take this for a second.
I work hard for my dollar and I'm going to take it somewhere else to get a product that I think mirrors my view of the world and cares about me in the same way that I would want my razor to care for me.
It just makes no sense.
And I really hope, like you said, the dislike ratio on YouTube.
I hope that is perfectly representative of the way that their stock will tank from doing this kind of stuff.
Indeed.
One last question, Ben, and I want to get your view on this.
It's kind of like, you know, in the Hollywood reference, you can love the art and hate the artist.
And I'm thinking of somebody like Roman Polonski here.
But in my case, until January, I was a huge fan of the Fusion 5 Gillette Razor.
I think it's the best razor on the market.
And I'm at the point right now.
I'm down to my last two Fusion 5s.
It's kind of like Elaine Bennis and Seinfeld.
I've got to determine who's spongeworthy or not.
And here's the thing, though.
Gillette has put me in a position where I'm going to boycott them 100%, but maybe I'm doing myself a disservice unless one of our viewers can inform me of a fantastic razor out there.
But that's, I guess, the price I'm going to pay because I just find it so distasteful to accept that marketing message, even if they make good products.
Yeah, I addressed the same thing when I talked about Chris Evans because he has political views that I think are absolutely absurd.
But his movies, everyone's welcome.
I love his character.
I love Captain America.
I enjoy it, you know, no end.
Separating the art from the artist.
Free Larson, on the other hand, she's the Gillette where she goes out and she says, no, no, this movie's not for you, you 40-year-old white dudes.
Like, I don't care.
You need to shut your mouth.
Other people need to see at the table.
I'm like, no, I don't care about your art.
You're telling me it's not for me.
When they market like this, that's what they're going to get.
Well, Ben, we're going to have to wrap it there.
I think ultimately, I'm, and maybe you should do this.
Let's just grow beards and not have to worry about racers anymore.
Idling Engine Law Debate00:04:18
But thanks so much for another great commentary, my friend.
I appreciate you having me.
You got it.
Thank you.
And that was Ben Davies in Hollywood.
Keep it here, folks.
More of Rebel Roundup to come right after this.
So Prime Minister Justin Trudeau dropped by Toronto last Friday to host a $1,600 a plate dinner for the Liberal Party of Canada.
And two things quickly became evident to us that evening.
First, there are still plenty of Liberal Party supporters who, for whatever reason, are turning a blind eye to the SNC Lavalin scandal.
And secondly, even though the federal carbon tax took effect earlier this month to ostensibly save the environment, it appears that when it comes to engine idling, the Trudeau Liberals follow the proviso of do as I say, not as I do.
In any event, here's what some of you had to say.
Digital aka David writes, clearly carbon tax doesn't matter to him because he's not paying to fill up those gas guzzlers.
Well, you are correct, David.
Who cares what a liter of gas costs as long as the taxpayers are footing the bill?
Scotian Coast writes, they're paying more for a dinner than I make in a month.
Bunch of rich snobs looking for a handout like Loblaws and SNC.
Indeed, Scotian Coast.
And I think one attendee at this wire called Justin Trudeau a man of the people.
Yeah, as long as you're the kind of people that can fork over $1,600 for a dinner.
Phil Tomlinson writes, there is actually an idling engine law in Ontario.
Three minutes, I think.
They should have been fined.
Well, actually, Phil, there is a city of Toronto bylaw for sure that limits engine idling to just one minute.
But talk about a catch-22 if bylaw enforcement did issue fines.
Guess who ends up paying?
In other words, those fines wouldn't be coming out of Justin Trudeau's pocket, as per usual.
YYC writes, wow, these people are absolutely clueless.
They likely don't keep up with current events or are just very dumb.
I'll ask the question is this, YYC.
Are there enough clueless individuals who will support the Trudeau Liberal Party come October and give this government a second majority mandate?
You know, three months ago, I would have said yes.
Today, given the ongoing scandals in Ottawa, I highly doubt there is still a critical mass of voters out there who will still be drinking Justin's Kool-Aid come October.
And get good rights.
So you, meaning fundraiser attendees, support Trudeau, but you have no knowledge of what's going on.
These are the people who get kickbacks from Trudeau and get excused from illegal activity.
Disgusting display of partnership in crime.
Corruption and ignorance is alive and well in the East.
Hey, get good.
You nailed it.
Law Blog Companies Limited admitted to price-fixing bread for 15 years.
And aside from doling out a few $25 gift cards to ripped-off consumers, what does this Liberal Party supporter receive by way of punishment?
Well, immunity from prosecution and more lately, $12 million worth of free refrigerators paid for by you, the ever-beleaguered taxpayer, geez, who said crime doesn't pay.
And finally, Less Than Perfect rights.
David Menzies says Trudeau left all his SUVs running.
Trudeau says, retract that statement or I'll sue you.
You know, if only that were the case, Less Than Perfect.
A lawsuit means disclosure.
A lawsuit means Trudeau finally answering questions under oath.
Believe me, if the Trudeau Liberals actually go ahead and sue Andrew Scheer, they would be doing a great service to the opposition parties and those Canadians who care about justice.
Well, that wraps up another edition of Rebel Roundup.
Thanks so much for joining us.
See you next week.
And hey, folks, never forget, without risk, there can be no glory.