Keean Bexte and Sheila Gunn Reid expose media bias in the Winnipeg smear campaign against him by Emily Leedham, where unproven claims went viral despite contradictory video evidence. They link this to a BC Supreme Court case forcing a father not to use female pronouns for his 14-year-old "transgender" child, citing potential health risks and secrecy shielding activists. Similar trends appear in Kentucky, where Jamie Smith faced censorship demands over LGBTQ-themed t-shirts, and Scotland’s maritime museum altered displays to avoid gendered language. The episode reveals systemic efforts to silence dissent while prioritizing activist agendas over parental rights and free expression. [Automatically generated summary]
Welcome to the 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.
Well, talk about fake news.
Recently, a smear campaign was orchestrated by the usual suspects against our very own Kian Bexte.
Kian was supposedly harassing a leftist reporter in Winnipeg, but guess what, folks?
The video evidence paints an entirely different picture.
Sheila Gunread shall explain all.
Speaking of Mr. Bexty, he was in BC recently to seek insight into an incredible court hearing in which the father of a 14-year-old girl has been ordered by a judge not to use female pronouns when speaking about his own daughter, given that she now evidently identifies as a he.
Just will you hear the details about this clampdown regarding parental rights and freedom of expression.
And finally, letters.
We get your letters.
We get them every minute of every day.
And I'll share some of your responses regarding my commentary about a Kentucky food truck owner who incurred the wrath of the SJW community.
His crime, he was selling t-shirts that offered a humorous interpretation of the LGBTQ initialism.
Wow, how dare he embrace the First Amendment.
Those are your rebels.
let's round them up.
Because this case and this man, my client, is challenging them as they've never been challenged.
And we're going for broke.
This is not a once-a-day thing.
And these questions have never been dealt with by the Supreme Court of Canada.
Why does the father not want this to go forward?
Good point.
The father's position is that he says he knows his child.
And he knows.
He knows.
It's not just a belief or a fantasy.
He knows the child does not appreciate what she's getting herself into.
He knows that she doesn't understand the incredibly high suicide rates, all the things that can happen, becoming infertile, not being able to go back.
He knows that 80% of children, school-aged children, anywhere from 80 to higher, if they're allowed to go through puberty, they come out in their older teenage years and they abandon the idea.
He knows those as a fact.
So his position is, wait till she turns 18, she can do what she wants with my blessing, but not now.
Say, did you hear the one about a father who was ordered by a court not to call his daughter she or her?
This is no joke, folks.
Rather, it's actually a story playing out right now in British Columbia.
Recently, Kian Bexte was able to interview that father's lawyer, and Kian joins me right now.
Welcome to the Rebel Roundup, my friend.
Thanks for having me.
You got it.
So as I understand things, Kian, activists have convinced a girl to transition into a boy.
And if the girl's father uses female pronouns to describe her, this will be considered as, quote, family violence, end quote.
Please, Kian, tell me this is fake news.
I only wish, David, I only wish this was fake news, but it's not.
I'm literally sitting right outside of the lawyer's office right now.
I just interviewed him, and that video is probably going to be coming up soon.
It's absolutely disgusting what is happening to this father.
His parental rights have been stripped.
That's awful on its own, but it's not just that.
His freedom of speech, his freedom of expression, freedom of conscience is being taken away from him by a judge who, I'll note here, and I don't want to say too much, I think has a questionable history in feminism.
So I don't trust the judge to be impartial.
I am not sure if the father does either, and I don't think Canadians will once they hear about this court case.
And the judge we're speaking of, this is Justice Gregory Bowden, I take it.
And I believe, Kian, he is trying to justify this clampdown, not only on parental rights, as you so adroitly pointed out, but in terms of freedom of speech, freedom of expression.
He's trying to justify this because the girl allegedly is at a high risk of suicide.
It's for the child's protection.
Are you buying that?
Not one bit.
And the lawyer isn't either.
I'll tell you what he told me.
He said that the girl was told to say that.
They're not sure.
The father was talking to the girl, and the father said, and sorry, you can't call her a girl.
I could get charged for that.
I'm not joking, David.
This is absolutely insane.
As nine, what's going on here?
But the child said to the father that if they don't get what they want, they'll commit suicide.
And then the father said, what?
You're kidding.
I know that you're a stable person.
You wouldn't do that.
And then the child said, oh, yeah, you're right.
They just told me to say that so that I get what I want, which is super troubling for a whole bunch of reasons.
Who has this child's ear so that they're able to manipulate them in this way?
Is it the judge?
Is it the doctor?
Is it a therapist?
We don't know because this case is behind a veil of disclosure.
Nobody's allowed to know who the kid is.
Nobody's allowed to know who the kid is associating with because the court is scared that the kid will be identified.
I can't even tell you what the father's name is.
That's how much they're protecting this court case.
I don't think it's because they want to protect the child.
I mean, it's important that children are protected in cases like these, but I think it's because they want as little information about this court case to get out because they know that if Canadians start putting pieces together about how their freedoms of speech, expression, and conscience are being slowly eroded away by this British Columbian court, I think there is going to be, you know, there's going to be a revolt if people realize what's going on here.
So they're trying to cover up as much of it as they can.
Oh, I agree, Kian.
I mean, it sounds less of a court and more of a star chamber, if you will.
And I mean, let's be honest here.
The age of this girl, and I'm going to keep calling her girl and he, or sorry, she and her, and not use any of those fake Zee-zer Zawa, you know, mumbo-jumbo pronouns either, because this individual is a girl, and it is about parental rights.
Child Abuse Controversy00:14:48
And at 14 years of age, let's face it, Kian, you can't smoke, you can't drive a car, you can't vote, you can't buy alcohol, you can't even buy lottery tickets, and yet, somehow, at 14, this judge and whoever's behind this transitioning phase thinks this is an appropriate age for this person to go through a gender switcheroo.
I mean, I think this is child abuse.
I would agree with you there, David.
You know, a kid can't get braces without the parents signing off on it.
Parents can't, you know, the state can't force a kid to get a polio vaccine, even though parents are putting their children in mortal peril by not giving them a lot of these, you know, a lot of these vaccines for preventable diseases.
The state won't force anything on that.
But when it comes to gender dysphoria, you can bet that if a kid wants it, they're going to get an injection of gonadotropin-releasing hormones so that their bone structure can fail when they're 30.
There's an ambulance that's driving by me, if you can hear that.
They can get injections of gonadotropins so that their bone structures fail when they're 30, so that they're infertile by the time they're 20.
And we're not sure what happens when they're 50 and 60.
What happens to their executive brain function?
Is there going to be early onset dementia?
We don't know.
We have no idea what happens to these kids who get these injections at the early age of 12, 13, 14.
What's going to happen to them when they're 50?
Are they going to be suicidal?
Are they not going to be able to reason properly like regular human beings?
We don't know.
But the state knows what's best.
So that's where we're going.
Well, I know.
It sure sounds like that judge thinks the saint knows best.
But Kian, how do we know anything in terms of this so-called transition, how far this girl is along into becoming a boy?
I mean, is there chemical therapy?
Has there actually been any kind of surgical procedures done to, you know, I guess, create the facade that she is a he?
So far, I do not believe that any physical surgery has taken place.
I don't want to just say they're just chemically altering her brain, but that's what they're doing.
They're chemically altering her brain.
And tell me, Keen, I'm sure everyone watching this interview is saying, where's the mother in all of this?
What is the deal there?
Well, the mother supports this, as far as I understand, as the lawyer told me.
The father does not.
They both share joint custody.
So I don't know if this is how, you know, I don't know if it's parenting by voting or what.
And the state is breaking the tie.
I'm not sure what's going on there.
The mother's details haven't been disclosed.
The mother, as far as I understand it, doesn't have her own legal counsel.
The father has legal counsel.
The child has legal counsel.
But I'm not sure if the mother is as invested in this litigation as the other two parties.
And tell me too, Keen, with all this litigation going on, this must be costing a fortune.
Do we have any idea what the father, for example, is paying out in legal fees?
I'm not sure how much the father is paying.
I mean, this is a very high level, like this is a very important court case.
As you know, it's being seen in the British Columbian Supreme Court.
And this case has SJW activists on the other side of it funneling money in it because they know if they win, they set a precedent across Canada that parents can't decide what happens to their children.
And the state can decide if a young child is going to get brain-altering injections.
It's really Orwellian what's going on here.
Yeah, and it's very disturbing, and it's part of an ongoing trend, isn't it, my friend, that this whole idea, it's almost that there's a saying out there, if it's trans, it's good, and if it's good, it's trans.
And I mean, I just did a commentary earlier this week where I talked about a Scottish maritime museum that they had their display, some displays, vandalized because they were referring to ships as she and her, a naval tradition that goes back centuries and it's international.
And instead of calling the police on these SJW warriors and having them charged and suing them for damages, the museum has decided that they are now going to de-gender all their displays.
Are going to take out, they're going to use gender-neutral language.
Kian, this is an outrage that we are acquiescing to the bullies out there.
Who's it going to be?
Is Zer Majesty's Canadian ship, Halifax?
Like, what are they changing these things to?
God, the world's falling apart, David.
No, I know.
And, you know, given that it was Scotland and some of the, I think it's some of the greatest ships that were ever built on the River Clyde and along Glasgow.
And now we've gone from that to de-gendering.
But this is an even worse case because this is somebody, I assume, that's just going through puberty.
And it sounds to me, Kian, I guess we'll wrap up with this question.
Do you think this little girl is being used as a pawn by the activists to prove a point?
Yes, absolutely.
I think that no 14-year-old girl thinks, you know, gets to this point where she's arguing a case at the British Columbian Supreme Court.
It's absolutely unheard of what's happening in this case right now.
There's no way that this child has gone the distance by herself.
She has people whispering in her ears.
And if it's not the parents, I want to know who that is.
I want to know what therapist, what counselor, what doctor, what lawyer is whispering in her ear, telling her, using her as a pawn, using her gender as a pawn, her sex, her future as a pawn to get some sort of social progress that they view as positive.
But who cares about what happens to this girl when she's 30, 40, 50, when she doesn't have, she might not have executive brain function at the age of 50.
She won't be fertile by the age of 20.
I mean, I think it's horrendous.
I know, and absolutely horrendous.
And to think Judge Bowden says that the father using female pronouns is tantamount to family violence.
This is the family violence going on right now, turning a girl into a boy.
And maybe the agenda here is political and social justice.
That's an absolute shame.
And Kian, I'm so glad you're following this case.
And we'll keep an eye on this to see how it turns out because to me, this is one of the most egregious things I've come across in the last several months.
For sure.
If your viewers want to check out what I'm doing here, they can go to www.rebelinvestigates.com.
My latest is going to be there.
And I'm going to make sure to stay on this case as it moves forward because, frankly, I don't trust the mainstream media to give this father a fair shake at things, but I also don't trust them to give Canadians the full unedited truth about what's going on here.
So I'm going to keep coming back to Vancouver as this case progresses.
Well, in Kian, we trust.
So, Kian, thank you very much.
And keep on this case, and we'll see how it develops in the weeks and months ahead.
Thank you so much.
No problem.
Thanks, David.
Thank God.
And keep it here, folks.
There's more of Rebel Roundup to come, right after this.
And the evidence is clear.
Kian was not the bully, but rather the bullied.
And the victim was not this young lady, but rather she was the victimizer, a conniver, a fake news peddler, now that all the evidence has rolled in.
But if not, for the mainstream media, this Emily Leedham would just be another insignificant left-wing woman obsessed with my friend Kian Bexty, in love with him the same way my 10-year-old is in love with unicorns.
The media pushed the hoax, Jesse Smollett style, Covington Catholic school style.
They wanted so badly to believe, and so they just did.
By refusing to acknowledge the role they played in spreading this lie and then by not admitting their mistake, the mainstream media are actually training the radical left like Antifa to continue to target us.
The mainstream media is demonstrating to the radical left that their lies and intimidation tactics are effective, which means the left-wing street thugs will do more of it as long as the media continues to call them the victims.
At the Rebel, we've pretty well all been assaulted at work.
And the assaults are enabled by the actions of the mainstream media, who can't see past their hate for us, to call what happens to us what it really is.
It's violence and intimidation.
Well, they say the camera never lies, and that's pretty much truthful.
But as always, the devil is in the details, or as the case may be, the devil is in the editing, which is to say, selective video editing can radically change the narrative, making, for example, the oppressor look like the oppressed and vice versa.
That's exactly what happened in the case of Kian Bexty and Emily Leedham, a so-called journalist who more closely resembles the Glenn Close character from Fatal Attraction, at least when it comes to her obsession with Mr. Bexty.
As for the mainstream media that fell for Leedham's hoax and refused to apologize when that hoax was revealed, does it get any more egregious than that?
And with more on the latest hoax that the mainstream media bought into, hook, line, and stinker is Sheila Gunread, host of The Gun Show.
Welcome to Rebel Roundup, Sheila.
Hey, David, thanks for having me back on.
Well, thank you.
That was an incredible commentary.
Maybe your best ever, Sheila.
And so many levels of, as you would say, weirdness here.
But once upon a time, Sheila, the mainstream media, they would retract a story and offer an apology when they got things wrong.
But now they seem to double down and refuse to acknowledge the truth.
What gives?
Well, yeah, that seems to be the most important part of this story.
I mean, Emily Leedham would just be some far-left-wing activist masquerading as a sometime journalist if she had not been signal-boosted by the mainstream media who put her attempt to smear Kian into, you know, a more mainstream light.
They moved it from, you know, the left-wing fringes into, you know, global news purview and Globe and Mail and CBC.
They lent credibility to what she did to Kian before all the evidence came out.
And then they refused to retract.
They actually doubled down because they hate Kian and they hate the work we do here at the Rebel more than they love the truth.
And, you know, Sheila, how things have changed.
I mean, I remember, you know, back in the day when I started in this business in the mid 80s, there used to be a saying which was, get it first, the it being the story.
So get it first, but first get it right.
And of course, mistakes make even when, you know, you double check things, even if you work for a publication that has fact checkers, which is increasingly rare these days.
But once it's identified you made an error, you got it wrong, you're supposed to fall on your sword and issue a clarification or a correction and God forbid an apology.
But that doesn't seem to be how the media business works these days when it comes to one particular narrative, does it, Sheila?
Well, the only skeptical journalist I saw in the mainstream media was the fabulous Joe Warmington.
He pumped the brakes and he waited for more information to come in.
And sure enough, Kian is always rolling either his camera or his cell phone camera.
He captures everything because, you know, at the Rebel, we understand how the other side works.
The other side looks to push a narrative.
And for the mainstream media who so frequently rush to judgment and get things wrong, they never seem to learn.
I mean, the Covington Catholic schoolboys, they're suing all of the mainstream media into the dirt.
And yet, the media hasn't learned to just wait for all the facts to come in.
It's just a constant rush to judgment.
But that rush to judgment only goes one way.
It's only directed at people on the right and never the left.
With the left, they're always looking for more nuance and more evidence.
And maybe it was this and maybe it was that.
But if you are on the right, and particularly a young male on the right, well, forget it.
Your goose is cooked.
And you know, Sheila, that should have nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the truth and what's fact and what's fiction.
You know, you, I mean, what I loved about your commentary was the fact that it was almost like a forensic files episode because you went back and you presented the snippet of tape that the media was so easily duped by.
And admittedly, it kind of looked bad.
It wasn't as though Kian was doing anything illegal or even outright harassing her, but just the idea of those other unidentified big guys kind of getting into her personal space.
Still, you know, no lines have been crossed.
But then when you took the lens to show that she was the instigator of this, she was crossing streets to get to Kian.
She was playing her little ghetto blaster to interfere with the interview and potentially set up a copyright trap for the video.
Once the media who have reported on this incident saw that, to me, Sheila, it's no longer a he said, she said incident.
They have the facts and they should be apologizing and they're not.
And no matter how I look at this, Sheila, I can't square this circle.
Sheila's Obsession With Kian00:05:09
No, you can't.
I mean, in my commentary, I even took it back a little further from back from that day, back from the context of that day, which even when you put it in context of that day, I mean, she was wrong.
She was harassing Kian, coming up to him, blocking him from doing his work, stopping him from talking to Jewish people, which that might be anti-Semitic.
But even when I pulled back the lens even further, that young lady has had Bexty in the bloodstream for the better part of six months.
She has been someone who intensely dislikes Kian for months and months.
She says things about his reputation.
She even drew a picture of him as a worm.
I mean, she really is obsessive about Kian.
And when he came to Winnipeg, she saw that as her opportunity to take her obsession with him out of the Twitter realm and the cyber realm into the real world.
And frankly, as, you know, I sort of have some sort of maternal instincts over Kian.
It makes me really worried about him when he's out there working.
Yeah, me too.
And he doesn't deserve this kind of crap.
And he got, he received it from a thug, I'll call him a thug in Edmonton last month who followed him around at some leftist rally.
But, you know, you raise another interesting point.
When you look at the chronology of her tweets, Sheila, this gal, as you said, seems obsessed by Keenan.
Do you think there's, I mean, we can't read somebody's mind, but do you think there's something more going on here other than just covering a story with whatever narrative you want to produce?
Well, you know, Kian is the target of, you know, a lot of left-wing thugs.
You mentioned when he was followed around Edmonton, when he went on the convoy to Ottawa, he was attacked by Antifa and they broke his phone.
Now this, before he got to Winnipeg, he had mentioned that he was going to Winnipeg and Antifa was threatening to harm him the whole time.
A writer for Vice suggested that people should take eggs down to where he was working in Winnipeg to assault him with eggs.
This is a writer for Vice whipping up Antifa against him.
I mean, either these people really, really, really don't like Kian, which I think is the case.
I think some of them are, like me, super fans of Kian who just are entering into fatal attraction territory.
But I think the way Kian handles it is a testament to his character.
I mean, when you saw Emily Leedham's video, Kian, you know, he didn't look aggressive, but he was stepping towards her.
But when you saw Keen's footage of her, he's joking, he's dancing.
He's sort of making fun of the situation.
And that's how he handles most of the confrontations that people have with him.
He's good natured and he doesn't let it bother him, which makes him a lot more patient than me.
Well, I'll tell you, Sheila, if Leedham has some kind of Glenn Close fatal attraction crush on Keen.
Is she in for a disappointment?
Then I'll leave it at that.
But one last question, Sheila.
If, you know, all these talking heads with the media party that were poo-pooing and retweeting her lies and her propaganda and her garbage, now that they can watch your video and see what the real truth was, I'd love to sit across from them from a table and say, how can you not correct what you said?
How can you not correct your support of this alleged victim when actually the roles were in reverse?
What do you think they would say to that question, Sheila?
I've been watching what they've been saying to that question.
And instead of retracting what they said about Kian, they're commending Emily Leedham for her censorship tactics.
They're saying, oh, that's an interesting way of blocking the rebel from posting their videos to YouTube if they're threatened with a copyright strike.
These people who are actually today celebrating Freedom of the Press Day or whatever it is, they're actually considering interesting ways to censor our work online and prevent us from doing the job we do.
Well, Sheila, we're going to have to wrap it there.
I'll close by saying you mentioned the Covington hoax that in the, especially in the U.S., mainstream media outlets perpetrated.
There are multi-million dollar lawsuits about that.
I hope he takes these media organizations for every penny that they're asking.
And maybe then, maybe when they feel it in their wallet, that you can't disseminate lies and pretend they're truth.
Maybe then some of these media outlets will get it.
You know, they really are the enemy of the people, aren't they?
Yeah, I would say some of them even hate the common person.
And we'll leave it at that.
Sheila's Great Piece00:04:22
Sheila, great piece.
I urge all our viewers to watch it if they haven't already done so.
And thank you again for joining me.
Thanks, David.
Have a great weekend.
You too, Sheila.
And keep it here.
More on a Rebel Roundup to come right after this.
But alas, it is the t-shirt subsequent copy that is causing the controversy because it turns out that LGBTQ stands for this.
Liberty, guns, Bible, Trump, and barbecue.
Oh, cue the outrage.
A CNN report notes the t-shirts created outrage on social media.
Arielle Lewis of Williamstown, Kentucky stated, quote, wearing that shirt is effing offensive, end quote.
Well, two things.
Why is it effing offensive?
And secondly, why is it that so many progressives can't make a salient point without falling back on profanity?
Facebook user Chad Reynolds wrote, quote, but here's the bottom line.
It's not just a simple acronym.
The GLBTQ are already waking up every day with a mountain to climb in terms of acceptance.
The last thing we need is a food truck mocking us, end quote.
Jamie Smith, owner of Bell Smoking BBQ in Kentucky, decided to have some fun with the LGBTQ initialism.
Too bad, Mr. Smith momentarily forgot that 2019 is supposed to be a fun-free zone, at least when it comes to certain segments of society.
And so it was that the SJW mob online went cuckoo, condemning Smith and even getting his food truck banned from a handful of events.
How sad.
In any event, here's what some of you had to say about Smith's unique take on those five initials and the crazy over-the-top reaction he received from the usual suspects.
Hidden Level writes, what mountains do the LGBTQ have left to climb exactly in 2019?
They are one of the most protected classes of marginalized in America.
So much so, in fact, that apparently you can't even wear a t-shirt they don't like without being shamed by the national media.
Well, indeed, Hidden Level, lots of tolerance for diversity when it comes to the left.
As long as we're not talking diversity of thought, that is.
All right.
Well, since you have learned absolutely nothing, I am hereby stripping you of all your princess points.
Insolent Stickleback writes, Bell Smoking BBQ, I salute your moxie and your tongue-in-cheeky, tasty creativity.
You should not have apologized.
Those little precedents only feed the beast.
That is the socio-political madness.
Make 1,000 more shirts and see what happens.
I support Liberty, Guns, Bible, Trump, and BBQ as well.
God bless you and your food truck.
Well, insolent stickleback, if he does indeed make a thousand more shirts, I'm betting he will sell a thousand more shirts.
Kim Wilson TV writes, you would think that the outraged would eventually ask, why am I so outraged?
Oh, I'm afraid not, Kim.
Remember the phrase, I think, therefore I am?
Now the SJW slogan is, I exist, therefore I am offended.
Jeannine Hill writes, you ask the question, why can't progressives make a salient point without falling back on profanity?
To quote my 85-year-old father, cursing is really just a small mind expressing itself forcefully.
Now start thinking, if possible.
What's wrong with you?
I'm trying to think, but nothing happens.
And Dr. Hannibal Lester writes: This is but another attempt by the tolerant libtard leftists to stifle free speech and trample the First Amendment.
Remember The Deviant Freak Squads00:00:35
Remember, the deviant freak squads do not own the letters of the alphabet.
Never apologize.
Oh, I agree, Doctor.
First of all, the SJWs, they're not going to accept your apology.
And second, even if they do, they'll still despise you.
And I'm not sorry for the things I've done.
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.