Justin Trudeau’s 2019 genocide claim against missing and murdered Aboriginal women—backed by the National Inquiry—faces skepticism, as RCMP data shows 1,017 murders (88% solved) among 23,313 total Canadian cases, often linked to alcohol abuse, unemployment, and prior criminal records among Indigenous perpetrators. Free speech activist Lindsay Shepard’s lawsuit against Laurier University remains unresolved a year later, while her parliamentary testimony was censored by conservative MPs turning off cameras, mirroring Stalinist tactics. Critics like Howard Levitt warn of judicial partisanship, and Andrew Scheer’s shift toward globalism raises fears of anti-democratic policies, including climate censorship. Trudeau’s framing risks oversimplifying systemic failures while empowering legal consultations over real solutions. [Automatically generated summary]
Well, my rebels, I talk about something difficult to talk about today, and that is genocide.
What does it mean?
And did Canada really commit a genocide against missing and murdered Aboriginal women?
Trudeau said so.
A government commission said so.
Is it true?
Well, I show you some statistics, and I show you a very, very troubling factor, namely who did it?
Who did the killing?
It's not happy.
All right, before we get to that, can you do me a favor and go to the rebel.media slash shows and sign up to become a premium member.
It's eight bucks a month.
Helps us pay the bills.
You get the video version.
I show all sorts of charts and graphs today, people.
You're going to want the video version.
And you also get access to Sheila Gunread's show and David Mency Show.
All right, here's the podcast on missing and murdered Aboriginal women.
You're listening to a Rebel Media Podcast.
Tonight, Trudeau says it, so it's official.
Canada has committed a genocide against Aboriginal people.
It's June 4th, and you're watching the Ezra Levant Show.
Why should others go to jail when you're the biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here, and you won't give them an answer.
The only thing I have to say is government about why I published it is because it's my bloody right to do so.
Do you know what genocide means?
You can see it in the word.
Homicide means killing a man.
Regicide means killing a king.
Genocide, same root.
It means to kill an entire ethnicity, an entire race, actually.
That's what it means, to kill a gene.
Hitler's Holocaust against the Jews had that as its express goal, total annihilation of the Jews, and he killed six million Jews.
The Muslim Turks had an express goal of killing every single Armenian Christian.
1.5 million killed.
Stalin's enforced starvation of Ukrainian farmers, the whole odomor, untold millions.
That's what genocide looked like.
You've surely heard at least of some of those.
But have you ever heard that Canada has committed a genocide?
Us, Canada.
You know, the good guys?
No?
Well, you're wrong.
Here's Professor Scholar Dr. Justin Trudeau making it official.
I'm going to play a clip with a few parts to it.
I'll explain why I've had the before and after, but here he is, basically saying that we are morally equivalent to Stalin and Hitler.
We are genociders.
Just over a month after forming government, we announced the creation of a national inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls following the recommendation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
An inquiry that we launched based on the steadfast advocacy of families and survivors.
We promised Canadians that we would start this process, a process that would ultimately chart a path for the future.
Earlier this morning, the National Inquiry formally presented their final report in which they found that the tragic violence that Indigenous women and girls have experienced amounts to genocide.
The strength of the families and survivors who bravely shared their truths has shown us the way forward.
We will do a thorough review of this report and develop and implement a national action plan to address violence against Indigenous women, girls, an LGBTQ and two-spirit people.
So you heard him say genocide.
A genocide against Aboriginal people.
What, like centuries ago when European explorers and settlers first set foot in North America and had wars against the local Indian tribes they encountered?
No, that's not what he means.
He means Aboriginal women who have been killed in individual criminal acts in the past few decades.
He calls that a genocide because some partisan committee that he handpicked with lawyers and activists feasting for four years on a $100 million gravy train because they said so.
And did you listen to the various parts of his statement there?
I included them for a reason.
He started by referring to another shockingly expensive study called the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
That made a recommendation to have this missing and murdered women's commission.
And did you hear Trudeau's plan to do more consultations and to come up with an implementation plan?
And that plan will surely lead another plan.
Gee, it's almost like the only people being helped here are lawyers and lobbyists and partisan appointees, many of whom are white, by the way.
Most of whom are fancy city dwellers, never set foot on an Indian reserve if they can help it.
Did you see our reporter Kian Bexti the other day try to ask Carolyn Bennett, the super white downtown Toronto Indian Affairs Minister?
I mean, how bizarre is that choice for Cabinet in the first place?
Kian asked her why she was paying consultants on this commission as much as 300 bucks an hour.
Do you see that?
Minister Bennett, Minister Bennett, would you be able to tell me what you spent $300 an hour on in consultants for the Missing and Murdered Aboriginal Women Commission?
Wait, you're way too close.
You're way too close.
You're waiting.
You don't have an answer?
Yeah, Kian, it's called the Indian industry.
Helping the Indian industry is completely different from helping Indians or other Aboriginals.
There are 600 First Nations in this country.
If you went to any given reserve and asked them what the best use for $100 million is that this commission spent, or that the last commission spent, or the one before that, or the next one that Trudeau proposes, if he asked them if hiring more white lawyers to have meetings in hotels is the best use of that money, they'd laugh at you, but that's what Trudeau calls action.
There's still no clean water up there at Grassy Narrows, First Nation.
That's still poisonous.
There's still boiling water advisories in many reserves, still sky-high unemployment, still drug use and alcoholism and other dysfunction.
But by God, the lawyers are getting paid.
But really, a genocide.
Really, a genocide?
Well, there's an old liberal hack named Romeo Delaire.
He's a former general, you know.
I think he's in the Senate now.
He served in Rwanda, where there really was a genocide 25 years ago.
In the course of just a few months, nearly 1 million people from an ethnicity called Tutsis were murdered by the Hutus.
Half a million rapes, too.
Shocking, horrific.
Joseph Conrad, Heart of Darkness stuff, child soldiers, amputations, horrors.
And a man who was there was Canada's Romeo Delaire.
I'm not going to get into his own role there in the midst of the genocide.
That's not my point here today.
My point today is that man actually knows what a genocide looked like, looks like, because he was standing in the middle of one.
In Canada, we don't have one.
Delaire positively denounced the use of the term.
You can see it here in La Presse today.
He denounces the use of the term genocide.
He says it's miserable.
It's unacceptable to call it a genocide.
He's not anti-Aboriginal, I can tell you.
He's not racist.
Of all his flaws, I think he proved his anti-racism bona fides.
He's saying it's not a genocide because the missing and murdered Aboriginal women, it's a crime wave.
But it's not actually a racist crime wave because, and I've told you this before a few years back, when I first looked at the numbers, I'm sorry, but there's no other way to put it.
The people who are killing Aboriginal women are Aboriginal men.
In fact, in the plurality of cases, it's their husbands or boyfriends who are Aboriginal too.
The RCMP has done exhaustive research into missing and murdered Aboriginal women.
They do exhaustive research into anyone who is missing or murdered.
So let me tell you the facts.
These are all RCMP images, I should tell you.
The RCMP looked at the data going back nearly 40 years.
I'm going to go through some of the stats at a particular moment in time as per the RCMP snapshot.
I've shared these stats before back when the latest commission was proposed because frankly the police already asked all the questions and they came up with some pretty clear answers.
The $100 million was just a gift to Trudeau's lawyer friends.
According to the RCMP, out of 6,420 missing persons in Canada, you can see the stats five years old, but the numbers are similar to what they were back then.
They don't have up-to-date numbers for 2019, I should point out.
And the RCMP doesn't have clear graphics like this anymore under the liberal regime.
So out of the 6,420 missing persons, 1,455 are women at all, and 164 are Aboriginal women.
And 105 of them are missing in unknown or suspicious circumstances as opposed to non-suspicious circumstances.
And that's still a lot.
100 women.
But if police can't find these 100 women lost over the last 35 years, how can Justin Trudeau and his rich lawyers?
Police don't ignore missing or murdered Aboriginal women.
This isn't Chicago, where most crimes go unsolved forever.
In Canada, police solve fully 88% of Aboriginal murders, which is almost identical to the 89% solve rate for non-Aboriginal women murdered.
It's the same.
Police aren't ignoring it.
They're solving it almost identically the same rate.
In the past generation, out of 23,313 total murders in Canada, 1,017 of them were Aboriginal women.
You could say 6,551 were women altogether.
Just over 1,000 were Aboriginal women.
Now, that's a lot.
Over 35 years, it's still a lot, but I am sorry.
That is not a genocide.
That is not the Holocaust.
That is not the Armenian Holocaust.
That is not the Holodomor.
That is not Hutus and Tootsies.
That is not a race or ethnic cleansing.
It is not a government plot like the Holocaust or the Holodomor and the others I've mentioned.
It is a slow-motion crime wave.
And 88% of those crimes have been solved.
Say, did this $100 million commission solve any of those outstanding crimes?
Maybe that $100 million might have better been spent on police.
Just an idea.
So who killed these women?
Well, we know the answer in 88% of the cases.
And it's tragic and it's sad.
It's a crime, but it's sad too.
I'm sorry, but their husbands did it.
Their boyfriends did it.
Other family members did it.
Other friends did it.
People who they know did it.
These are the stats based on the 88% of murders that the police have solved.
You can see there, the red lines are for non-Aboriginal women.
The blue lines are for Aboriginal women.
In almost every case, they knew their killer.
In 90% of the cases, they knew their killer.
They were usually married to them.
There are other factors involved in these crimes that we should not ignore.
44% of the murderers of Aboriginal women are drunk when they commit their crime.
That's triple the rate of murderers of non-Aboriginal women.
74% of them are unemployed.
71% already had a criminal record.
53% had already been convicted of a violent offense.
62% had a history of violence with the particular victim.
62% of the people who murdered Aboriginal women already had a police violent incident with their victim.
They came back later and killed them again.
Killed them.
They had another violent incident in which they killed them.
So they had a violent incident.
Police knew about that.
And yet they were put back in the situation where they killed that woman later.
You want an inquiry into the facts about these murders?
You're in luck.
The police already made the inquiries with police officers and detectives, and I just showed you the facts.
Alcohol abuse, social abuse, a lack of jobs, high welfare rates, that's part of it.
That's part of it.
Now, I'm sorry to say it, but why should I be sorry to say it?
I'm sorry about the facts themselves.
I'm not sorry to say the facts, especially when the alternative narrative is that this is some sort of political racist genocide that has been committed against Aboriginal women as some sort of racist plot.
90% of Aboriginal women murder victims knew their attacker.
In many cases, they were married to their attacker.
That is not racism because the attackers were Aboriginal men.
I'm sorry to say it, but let's solve the problem, not lie about it, and not slander other people who had nothing to do with it.
Solve alcoholism, solve the drug abuse, easier said than done, I know.
I grew up not far away from an Indian band called the Blood Reserve that was a dry reserve, as in alcohol was banned.
It's prohibition.
Now, I know that's not cool.
I know Trudeau himself, he loves to drink, he loves to smoke marijuana.
It was the only policy he really cared about.
Okay, thanks very much.
He's legalized marijuana.
Okay, he's so cool.
But maybe, maybe in the case of an Indian Reserve in the rural parts where there's nothing to do and the kids get bored, maybe it's not a bad idea to ban alcohol and ban marijuana.
I don't know.
That band thought so.
My point is that there are real solutions to tackling real problems, calling it genocide as fake news.
Blaming white people.
Yeah, that's not going to solve the problem on a reserve, is it?
Unemployment.
That's what the left would call a root cause.
That's surely part of the real problem here.
Look at the profile of the murderers, three times as likely to be drunk, half as likely to have employment.
But there's another point, and it's hard to say, but we have to say it, as I mentioned.
Calling It Fake News00:03:17
According to the RCMP inquiries, most of the killers of Aboriginal women have been convicted of violent crimes before, and many of them against that same woman they went on to kill.
And yet, they were dumped back into the community by the justice system, just dumped back earlier in the community than a white criminal would have been.
As a result of Canada's affirmative action criminal justice system, ever since a precedent-setting court case called GLADU became law, Aboriginal criminals have had a form of affirmative action for sentences for serving time for their crimes.
For violent crimes, because of their race and only because of their race, Aboriginal criminals get more leniency.
They get shorter sentences.
They often get non-custodial sentences and they don't have to go to jail at all.
You know, healing lodges instead of prison.
Again, there might be some thoughtful way to handle Aboriginal incarceration.
There might be a thoughtful way to have a different cultural track for Aboriginal criminals.
You know, I'm open-minded to the idea, by the way.
But when violent criminals are sent right back into the community where then they go on to kill Aboriginal women, women in particular that they had violence against before, I'm sorry, don't call that genocide.
Unless you're specifically blaming the liberal white judges and liberal white politicians who thought they were so noble, thought they were helping people by releasing dangerous men back to be predators on women.
And the men and women both happen to be Aboriginals.
So why is Trudeau doing this?
Why is he calling it a genocide?
I mean, he's a liar, but why is he doing it?
It's not a genocide.
These women are not being targeted because of their race.
The murderers are of the same race.
They're murdered because they're in the same house as the murderer.
Race isn't the factor.
Violence, alcohol, domestic disputes, that's the problem.
It's horrible, but I'm sorry that is not a genocide, or I'm glad it's not a genocide.
Calling it a genocide allows Trudeau to keep the grievance industry going.
It's easier to rail against genocide than to tackle real crime and real alcoholism and real unemployment.
It's easier to talk about how we're all guilty of racism, look in your heart, than to figure out what to do with Aboriginal offenders.
Right now, they're being released early from prison out of mercy to them, it's said, but how does that show mercy on the women that they have gone on to kill?
That is harder to talk about than calling people names, racist, genocide.
All Trudeau knows how to do is call names.
He doesn't solve problems.
He blames others and apologizes for others, but he never fixes a problem himself.
Look, don't call everything a genocide because you devalue what really was a genocide.
And if you care about missing and murdered Aboriginal women, prove it.
Trying to fix the problem.
Don't lie about it.
Just to make your white liberal lawyer friends rich.
Stay with us for more.
I am concerned about the potential return of legislation such as Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act because what that legislation does is punish Canadians who, in exercising their right to peaceful free expression, might offend a member of a protected...
Concerns Over Section 1300:15:00
marginalized group.
If someone with a marginalized identity experiences commentary they find offensive, they can claim the offense is an attack on their identity rather than being legitimate expression.
Human rights tribunals become the tools by which those who speak their mind peacefully and nonviolently are silenced.
Well, we've told you that the Liberal government wants to bring back Section 13, the censorship provision of the Canadian Human Rights Act that was repealed by Stephen Harper's government back in 2013.
That is no surprise to me, as only one liberal MP at the time, Scott Sims, voted to repeal it.
What is surprising is how timid the Conservative Party is being this time around.
We just played for you a clip from Lindsay Shepard, the free speech activist and student who got into a terrible trouble at Laurier University for daring to even discuss Jordan Peterson, who I think most Canadians would say is fairly mild-mannered.
She testified before the committee about her experiences on free speech and censorship.
But it so agitated the committee of so-called grown-ups that they had a vote.
And they voted to turn off the TV cameras.
The conservatives voted to turn them off too.
Joining us now via Skype from Ottawa, and hopefully no one will turn off her TV camera here, is Lindsay Shepard.
Lindsay, thanks for joining us today.
Did I accurately represent what happened?
Is it true that, I mean, of course the liberals and the NDP did it, but did the conservative MPs actually vote to turn off the cameras while you and Mark Stein and Job Robson were testifying for freedom today?
I had to re-watch to make sure that that happened, but yes, indeed it did.
They literally invited you there, and when they got uncomfortable or got some panicky email, they voted to turn off the camera on you.
Did they make eye contact while doing that?
Like, that's like inviting someone to a birthday party, and then someone saying, well, if she's here, I'm not going to be here.
Tell them to leave.
Like, that's not just politically outrageous.
It's just socially cringy to invite someone to come all the way to Ottawa and then to say, yeah, we're sort of embarrassed by you.
We're going to turn off the camera.
Like, did they even do that with a straight face and eye contact?
You know, I mean, they were pleasant to me, the three conservative MPs, while I was there.
The liberals and NDP, less so.
But I think the conservatives, they were probably feeling the heat from the Michael Cooper situation.
All right.
Well, that's, I mean, that's politics.
That's got nothing to do with principle and freedom of speech.
Let me ask you, aside from the graceless, anti-social conduct of the conservative MPs, was there any substantive progress today?
Do you feel that you, Mark Stein or John Robson, told this committee anything that might illuminate their thinking or guide their thinking?
Or was it, or is this a done deal?
Is Section 13, the censorship provision, coming back?
Well, you know, in my opening statement, I think I gave a lot of food for thought to the members of the committee.
And I think out of the total 57 witnesses, including today's, us three, Stein, myself, and Robson, I was the only person who had experience with being censored online, with my being kicked off of Twitter for seven days, which relatively isn't even that bad.
But I think I was the only one with that kind of experience.
And I feel like I gave them food for thought.
And still, when it came to the Q ⁇ A, the NDPs and liberals, they just, they already knew what they wanted to say.
And it was based off of a little video clip that went around Twitter.
And then, you know, obviously my detractors tagged all of the liberal and NDP members of the committee.
And that's what they decided to question me about.
It wasn't about my ideas of what I presented today.
It was just on what Twitter mobs think, essentially.
Well, I think that the MPs themselves have joined the Twitter mob.
And that's the thing.
I've seen it happen with my own eyes.
The Twitter mob approaches someone and says, disavow this person and join us and be safe, or stand with this person and we'll devour you too.
You've got five seconds to decide.
So I think that's how Twitter mobs work.
And I would put it to you, that's working on the conservatives right now.
They were pressured into turning off the TV cameras on you.
You just said, oh, they're under some pressure about Michael Cooper.
I don't care what the pressure is.
It's the mob.
And you say, if I heard you correctly, that out of 57 witnesses on the subject, you're the only one who's actually been censored.
I know that the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedom also spoke out for free speech.
And to their credit, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association did so, if in a tepid way.
Are you aware of anyone out of the other 57 names?
So we've got the three of you today and the two names I just mentioned.
Are you aware of anyone else who spoke out on the free speech side of this?
There was one LGBT organization that kind of seemed like they were pro-free speech because they recognized that people of even marginalized, the most marginalized communities, need to be able to communicate their ideas openly and in a free manner.
But overall, from all of the statements that I looked at, I was the only one who actually gave direct experience with censorship online and being accused of hate speech myself.
You know, you might be referring to Egal, and I remember them from a dozen years ago when their former executive director, Gilles Marshildon, I remember this because it made such an impact on me.
He was a gay rights activist, but he said the reason why he wants hate speech to be legal, and I still remember his reasons, a dozen years later, he said, number one, he wants to know who the haters are.
He doesn't want them driven underground.
Number two, it's a teachable moment because not everyone knows why this word is bad or this idea is bad.
And you have to teach people in every generation.
I mean, no one's going to know about, let's say, the Holocaust or slavery for blacks or whatever, unless you talk about it.
And just because someone has a skeptical question doesn't mean, like, a debate is usually a teaching moment.
And the third point he said is that if you outsource to the government censorship, you're really outsourcing part of your personal civic duty.
If someone says something really wrong or hateful or racist, the answer is not to call 911 and get a bureaucrat sent over.
And maybe in two years you'll have some legal resolution.
It's to say, hey, we don't talk that way around here.
It's like to have a community that takes care of it.
So I thought those were three compelling arguments.
If it's that same group, Egal, that you're referring to, I'm glad they haven't succumbed to this censorship, but pretty much everyone else on the left has.
Yes, and I don't know if you were listening to MP, the NDP MP Randall Garrison's statement, but he took up his whole Q ⁇ A time to talk about all the online hate he's experienced and told me, Mark Stein, and John Robson, that we don't live in the real world because we don't experience online hate.
And I just don't know where he gets off on thinking he's so special and unique.
And he experiences hate and none of the other people here do.
Of course, I experience online hate.
I just don't think I need to wear it as a badge of honor or something and use time in parliament to talk about that in front of a standing committee.
Yeah, he's one of the most powerful men in the country, one of 338 members of parliament.
He's on the Justice Committee.
He has private armed security on Parliament Hill that none of us would have in our lives.
He is not just the top 1%, he's the top 1 in 100,000, if you do the math.
For him to whine how marginalized he is is a little bit gross to begin with.
But hate is a human emotion.
The idea that you can outlaw hate, hate is hardwired in our minds, and we don't want to indulge it.
We don't want to act on it violently.
We can transform it into something positive.
But the idea that you can ban this human emotion of hate, I think that argument has been allowed to take flight.
Mark Stein tried to rebut it by saying hate speech is free speech, free speech is hate speech, but I don't think most people even get it.
Was there any sense?
Did any of the MPs, even the conservatives today, have any understanding that, you know, although hate is not a nice thing, it is a natural human emotion.
And if you tell people to stop feeling a certain way, they probably won't just stop feeling that certain way.
No, I honestly don't think any of them understood that.
And there was quite a powerful exchange right at the end between the liberal MP Ali Asassi and Mark Stein.
And I was so thankful for Mark Stein for really sticking out for himself because I think the MPs saw me as the weakest link.
And I completely accept that because John Robson and Mark Stein are established.
They're older.
They've done this before.
I'm pretty new to all this.
So I was the one to kind of attack.
And so I'm glad that Mark Stein kind of got in a yelling match with one of them at the end.
Well, it's a yelling match that will be thrown down the memory hole.
I understand that the committee started off by doing something that I would only call a Stalinist.
They literally voted to expunge from the official transcript of Parliament comments that Michael Cooper made last week about in a debate with some Muslim censor.
And you can agree or disagree with Michael Cooper.
I frankly don't understand what he did wrong.
He corrected a false allegation against conservatives made by the Muslim censor.
But, you know, he said what he said.
It's on the record that he said it.
And for those words to be expunged from the record is like Stalin taking a photograph of someone who's been unpersoned, cutting it out, like they did before Photoshop.
They literally delete people from photographs.
The fact that a committee studying censorship censored one of its own, to me, is the perfect and horrible microcosm of this whole thing.
These people will only come to censorship if, and again, the conservative MPs, it sounds like, we're just fine with this.
Yeah, well, with the Cooper situation, so the person he supposedly attacked, I think his name is Faisal Khan Souri.
And that person, Suri, said, like, no Canadian should have their hands on the Christchurch manifesto.
It's banned in New Zealand, et cetera.
But isn't it completely appropriate for an MP studying online hate to be familiar with an online hate document?
Isn't that completely appropriate?
It's very strange.
Well, shouldn't all of us have that power?
And just because some guy doesn't like it, we're allowed to study things.
And I just, I find it incredible.
You know, I should tell you, Lindsay, I'm obviously older than you.
You just out of school yourself.
When I first went through this battle myself a dozen years ago with the Danish cartoons of Mohammed, there was a survey of Canadian journalists done by a reputable pollster called Compass.
And they called actual working journalists.
So it wasn't even like a poll.
It was like they just called journalists.
And 70%, 7-0% of working journalists in Canada, back a dozen years ago, said that not only was I right to have published the Danish cartoons of Mohammed, but every newspaper should have done so too.
Their own newspapers should have done so too.
I am certain that if that poll were to be done today about your remarks, the rebel, about anything controversial, that it would be 70% against, if not more.
I think we have utterly lost the media party.
We've utterly lost the political class.
I feel like they're going in for the kill.
Five people speaking for freedom out of 57 witnesses.
expunging the record.
I feel the lights are going out in Canada now.
Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
And I couldn't believe that these are the people who are running the country.
You know, the MPs in that committee.
I kind of had that thought to myself.
I can't believe these are the people running the country because they don't really have any intellectual depth.
They're not able to understand what's really going on here.
So that was very disappointing.
Or maybe, Lindsay, maybe they absolutely 100% do understand what's going on.
Maybe they say, this girl's just an irritant.
She's a roadblock.
Bulldoze through her, bury her, go over her, go around her.
Maybe they know exactly what's going on.
And maybe they can look around and see which way the wind is blowing and realize the conservatives.
And I'm sorry, I mean, I know so many viewers want to criticize Andrew Scheer, say, hey, we've got to stop Justin Trudeau and say, yeah, you're right.
But on this key, key, key issue, Andrew Scheer, at best, is passive and silent.
And when his MPs, do you know when the names of the conservative MPs there today?
I didn't catch it.
Who are the conservative MPs who voted to turn off the camera on you?
Michael Barrett was there.
I can't remember the other two names.
Well, I'll look it up.
What a disgrace that is, that actual conservative MPs would vote to turn the camera off on you.
And these are the people, these are the people who we pay to oppose Justin Trudeau.
They don't really want to oppose.
I'm pessimistic.
Lindsay, is there anything that gives you hope at all?
Is there any reason to be optimistic in this at all?
No, not really.
I mean, I was actually very disturbed by the liberal and NDP MPs because they would, you know, they were basically insinuating I'm a Nazi.
One of the liberals told me something like, he looked me dead in the eye and he's like, don't forget who the real Nazis are or something like that.
I'll have to review.
And then like these, not him necessarily, but these same MPs, the liberal, the NDP, then they walk by you at the end of the session and they're like, thank you so much for coming.
And they give you a smile.
And it's just, I know that's what politicians do, but it's very disturbing to be at the receiving end like that.
Laws Overpowered By Politics00:04:40
You know, you just attacked me and then you say, oh, thanks so much.
Yeah, well, I mean, politicians and fakeness, that's no surprise.
But what's, and I'm not even worried so much about their politeness or their gross lack of social mores to turn the cameras off on you.
What I'm actually worried about is the substance of that.
And it sounds like you, John Robson and Mark Stein, were testifying to deaf ears.
And maybe if you said something powerful, who knows?
Maybe they'll vote to delete that from the parliamentary record too.
Lindsay, we're very glad to have you on.
Can I take 30 more seconds before we let you go?
It's been a while, since we've seen you.
Are you at liberty to tell us anything about your lawsuit against Laurier University?
We love your lawyer, Howard Levitt.
I think he's one of the best in the country.
And I thought you suing Laurier was just the cherry on the cake.
Can you tell us anything about that?
Or even is it still proceeding?
Is it going to court?
How is that coming along?
Yeah, I mean, it's almost been one year since it's been filed, but there is still no statement of defense from Laurier.
Well, that's very unusual.
I'm sure Howard Levitt knows what he's doing.
He's a very sophisticated lawyer, but that does sound odd.
And I wonder if the university is delaying.
Well, I wish you good luck in that.
You are a freedom fighter, and we hope you stay strong.
Thanks, Lindsay.
Thanks so much.
Well, I should tell you that today, when Lindsay, John Robinson, and Mark Stein were testifying at Parliament, our own David Menzies was down there on the scene.
And he did a great interview with Mark Stein outside Parliament afterwards.
You can find that full interview elsewhere on our website.
Stay with us.
More ahead.
Hey, welcome back on my monologue yesterday about Trudeau bringing back Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Michael writes, just how far we have fallen since Canada was granted independence from Britain in 1867.
In 1689, British rights were codified, as including the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.
Through the Act of Settlement 1701, as British subjects, all those rights were acknowledged as inherited by British citizens.
Well, Michael, I'll take your word for it that those laws are as you describe them.
They ring true to me.
Look, a law is only as good as the people who are custodians of the law.
I should tell you that on paper, there were elements of the Soviet Constitution that were impressive on paper.
And in some other ways, you could say the UK didn't have a formal single document constitution, but which was the truly free place.
You need a constitution to have life breathed into it in every generation by people who keep the spirit of the document alive.
Yeah, I mean, it would be nice if we had stronger laws, but when the laws are ruled over by a partisan judiciary and when Parliament does what it's been doing, including today with Mark Stein and Lindsay Shepard, it doesn't matter what's written on a piece of paper.
You're lost.
How writes, I hope we learned in politics as conservatives that bending one's knee only gets us closer to the Liberal Party.
What scares me in the nightmares is Scheer becoming our prime minister and being a globalist.
Well, globalists is just the opposite of a nationalist, but globalist implies an anti-democratic streak also, and that you're in league with people who have certain views on everything from global warming to censorship.
It's not his globalism that worries me the much.
That wouldn't be my chief accusation against Scheer.
It's that he doesn't have the fight in him.
How he caved in for Michael Cooper, how today the Conservatives on the Justice Committee actually voted to turn off the TV cameras for their own witnesses, Lindsay Shepard, Mark Stein, and John Robson.
If you didn't want them to speak to the public, why did you invite them to Parliament?
If you don't believe in free speech, why are you pretending?
This scares me very much, and the campaign hasn't even started in earnest.
Robert writes, maybe Smiling Andy might stiffen his resolve if he gets elected, as Jason Kenney seems to have.
Really?
On what basis would you say that?
If anything, we've seen Andrew Scheer weaken himself since if you recall his leadership campaign, he talked about free speech and traditional conservative ideas.
Catherine McKenna's Potential00:01:02
He abandoned them pretty quick upon being leader.
Now he's talking about he wants the CBC, for example, to have more Canadian content.
Yeah, that wasn't in your policy, buddy.
And free speech has just been totally deleted.
I'm worried.
I'm sorry, I'm worried.
I'm worried.
On my interview with Mark Morano, Jerry writes, how about a cage match between Ole Yeller and Mark Morano over climate change?
Well, I'll give Ole Yeller this.
She is fit.
She's always running around, or at least it seems that way, because she's one of those people who never does anything without having her social media team there.
We learned that extends even to her drunken rants in Newton St. John's bars.
So I don't know.
I mean, Mark's looking pretty fit these days.
He's lost some weight.
He's looking in fighting form.
But I wouldn't rule out Catherine McKenna.
And yeah, I think that would be a fair fight.
be curious to see that.
Maybe we can have that as part of the welcome festivities when the garbage ship finally arrives from the Philippines.