Justin Trudeau’s branding of Canada as a "genocide" nation—while deflecting blame for his own controversies, like firing the first Aboriginal Attorney General or attending gender-segregated mosques—marks a sharp shift from past Liberal leaders’ patriotic embrace. His 2019 campaign ignored domestic crises like illegal immigration and hostage negotiations with China (e.g., Meng Wanzhou’s detention sparking retaliation against two Canadians), instead lecturing U.S. officials on abortion laws during Mike Pence’s visit, exposing political opportunism over substance. Critics argue his foreign-focused identity politics and extreme rhetoric—comparing Canada to Hitler or Pol Pot—undermine national unity while enabling censorship of dissenting voices like Lindsey Shepard-Markstein, raising questions about whether Canadians will tolerate such divisive leadership. [Automatically generated summary]
Today I tell you my unified theory for why Justin Trudeau calls us a country of genocide.
Present tense, by the way.
He's not talking about something in the far past.
Normally he likes to apologize for things that were done decades or even over a century ago.
But this, now it's no apology, he's just saying we are a country of genocide in the present.
I have a theory about that, and it goes to Justin Trudeau's history as a pickup artist, as a male feminist, and how he would manipulate single women as a pickup artist would.
I'll tell you my amateur psychological theory in just a moment, and I'll do my best to prove it to you.
Jean Gameshi, if Jean Gameshi hadn't gotten caught, that's, I think that's, I'm not saying that Justin Trudeau engages in physical violence like Gameshi, but he's a psychological manipulator in the same way.
Before I get out of the way, can you do me a favor and go to the Rebelot Media slash shows?
And you can subscribe to become a Premium Member for $8 a month.
And you get the video clips, and we show a bunch of video clips today.
You get Sheila Gunnarid's show, and you get David Menzie's show.
And I recommend all of those.
Of course, we could use the $8 a month too to help pay the bills here.
All right, without further ado, here is today's podcast.
Tonight, when did the Liberals go from the party of loving Canada to the party of hating Canada?
It's June 5th, and this is 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 to the government about why I'm publishing it is because it's my bloody right to do so.
For more than half a century, a strategy of the Liberal Party of Canada was to slowly absorb all the symbols of Canada itself into the Liberal Party, to brand themselves as the Canada Party.
to make it seem as if they are the natural governing party, and any other party is just an aberration, a temporary anomaly, almost un-Canadian.
An obvious example is changing the Canadian flag from the old Canadian red ensign to the Liberal Red Pearson pennant, as it was nicknamed.
Canada fought in all our great wars under the red ensign.
It shows our history and our allegiances, but the Liberals wanted the country's flag to look more like their party flag, so they just changed it.
In the 1990s, the Liberals put on their Captain Canada cape during the Quebec referendum.
It was a very close-fought affair.
I don't know if you remember.
The yes side of that referendum, the separation side, got 49.5% of the vote.
It could not have been closer.
Jean-Cretchen and all the Liberals had this one big last-ditch push, a huge rally, a rally for Canada, as they called it.
And the centerpiece was this massive, massive, massive Canadian flag that everyone was holding up.
I mean, you could see all the individual Canadian flags.
Anyways, I'm not sure that big rally actually convinced anyone to change their minds from separatism to federalism, but it probably motivated the pro-Canada team to show up to vote.
And of course, it was such a near-death moment for the Liberals and for Canada itself that from that crisis, Jean-Cretchen, if you remember, invented the sponsorship program, whereby the Liberals would brand everything they could in Quebec as part of Canada, just to try to make the case that everything nice, everything good, everything that gave them wealth was because of Canada, the government.
So they just put signs and sponsorships on everything.
Of course, when you merge the party and the state that way, it's no surprise that, what, a quarter billion dollars of all that sponsorship money was stolen by liberals.
But my point here is this.
The Liberals tried to brand themselves as Canada, as Canada's essence.
And they always said that Canada was the best place in the world.
Jean-Cretchen said that especially.
And you know, putting aside his partisanship, I mean, I think he's right, isn't he?
Or at least he sure made it easy to believe.
Party of the flag, party of the anthem.
They love changing our anthem.
Party of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Party of the color red, party of all the national symbols.
That was how the Liberal Party rolled until Stephen Harper finally dispatched the Liberals.
So what is it?
What is the Liberal Party about now under Trudeau?
Well, obviously it's about the man himself, Justin Trudeau.
The whole party is built around Trudeau and his personality.
They don't even really say liberal anymore.
They say Team Trudeau.
It's perfect for a vain narcissist like him.
So obviously Trudeau agrees that Trudeau is great.
But what does Trudeau have to say about Canada?
That's where it's getting a bit weird these days, don't you think?
Trudeau frequently disparages Canada as having no culture or no identity at all.
He usually does that when he's abroad, which I think is extra weird.
It's like gossiping about your spouse to strangers instead of taking up a problem with your spouse directly and privately with them.
I mean, who goes to foreign countries to speak poorly about Canada?
Trudeau does.
He tells foreign media that we're a post-national country with no central identity of our own.
Maybe that's because he thinks he personally is better than we are.
Maybe it's because he really doesn't even see himself as Canadian per se.
Do you remember when he told an Iranian newspaper that he had visited 90 countries on some quest for self-understanding?
You've never been to it?
Not yet.
Not yet.
We've been to about 90 different countries.
Yeah.
How...
How do you travel to that many countries?
He was about 40 when he said that.
He probably went to a few countries as a child when his dad was prime minister.
But the country he was talking about, the 90 countries were as an adult, as in, I don't think he actually really spent a lot of time with us here in Canada, did he?
I truly think he prefers foreigners, especially these days since foreigners don't follow his scandals, since they're not as disappointed in him, since he doesn't rule over them.
If you're from, let's say, Gabon in Africa, you love this pretty white boy coming over to smile at you and give you foreign aid.
If you're from Grassinaros, you're angry that this pretty white boy didn't actually follow through with anything after the photo op there was over.
They're mad now.
Those are the folks with Mercury poisoning.
More and more people are mad at him.
There are more and more places he can't go in Canada without being heckled.
He's not used to that.
It happens even in his safe places, like fundraisers.
Thank you.
Thank you for being here.
Thank you very much for your donation tonight.
I really appreciate the donation to the Liberal Party of Canada.
It even happens in Ottawa.
Do you know how long you've held up people picking up bags?
I've been waiting long down the road.
I mean, he's got an offer for 30 minutes while you've been here soaking up the race.
Thank you.
You know, excuse me.
Excuse me.
You're not getting my boy.
This is a free country.
It's a free country, and I'm trying to speak to him, and he won't even acknowledge me.
Yes, sir.
Thank you.
I'm sorry for your challenge.
It's not my challenge.
I'm a volunteer trying to help someone save their home.
Yeah, they don't shout at him at Davos, do they?
And even his fan base, the media party, is not as uniformly loving anymore towards him, am I right?
So yeah, he likes foreigners more than he likes Canadians now.
They don't ask tough questions and he doesn't have to actually follow through on anything.
He just has to be a mascot, his favorite role.
I think he truly would spend the rest of his days dancing in fancy costumes around the world if he could.
As in, I think he loves other people more than he loves his own country.
Trudeau, as you know, is a former substitute drama teacher and he loves to dress up.
Zorro, Superman.
Trudeau's Drama Costumes00:14:22
It's endless.
Part of it is vanity.
Part is self-love.
But part of it is, I think, him pretending to be someone else to get away from who he really is.
That's my attempt at amateur psychology.
Because we need some sort of psychology to explain things.
Because riddle me this, since when did the central liberal brand move away from the sweet, blind patriotism of Pearson and Kretchen to the self-loathing of Trudeau?
Because I think that's actually what's happened.
It took me a moment for it all to fall into place.
It was that genocide statement yesterday from Trudeau.
He literally said that Canada was committing a genocide, not just past tense.
It's happening now.
It was the absurd on the face of it.
He's talking about a thousand Aboriginal women who over the past 40 years have gone missing or were murdered.
Now that's a tragedy.
It's a crime, but it is not a genocide.
It's about 20 murders a year, really.
Now, of course, that's too many murders, but it's not some ethnic cleansing and it's not racially motivated.
It is just domestic crimes.
As I showed you yesterday, RCMP have solved 88% of those murders of Aboriginal women.
They're just ordinary murders.
Now, I know that's sad.
I know it's terrible.
It's a crime.
It is a crime wave, a slow-motion crime wave over 40 years.
But it is not a genocide and it is not actually a mystery.
According to the RCMP, who have solved 88% of the crimes, most of the murderers are also Aboriginal.
Most of the murderers are the boyfriends or husbands or other family or friends of the victims.
I know that is very sad.
And there's a lot to talk about there, but to call Aboriginal men killing Aboriginal women in domestic disputes, to call that a genocide, just is not true.
And I think it's because it's too difficult to have a conversation about the true facts here.
You either sound like you're racist or you sound like you're blaming people.
Maybe you're blaming the women or maybe you just don't know what to do about this problem.
And maybe you do know what to do about it, but it's too hard to do.
Starting with rethinking the Canadian legal system's approach to Aboriginal men who have been convicted of crimes, which is to release them early because they're Aboriginal.
So it's actually that legal affirmative action, that racial preference that lets violent Aboriginal men back into their communities early.
I'm sorry, that's to blame for so many of these murders.
I don't know if you saw that stat yesterday, but 71% had a criminal record and 62% of the murderers of Aboriginal women had a previous violent encounter with the victim.
62%.
So that's what's happening.
These are battered women who were killed.
I'm sorry, that's what's happening.
It's terrible, but it is not a genocide.
But Justin Trudeau says it was and it continues to be.
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.
So Trudeau said we're a nation of genocide.
Worse than that, his remarks indicated that that genocide is going on until he himself puts a stop to it somehow.
What countries in the world have condemned themselves as genociders?
Germany has taken account of its Nazi past.
So has Rwanda for their genocide a quarter century ago.
Turkey has not done so yet for the Armenian Holocaust, the Armenian massacre.
The former Soviet Union hasn't for the whole odomor, the strategically engineered famine in Ukraine.
Maybe Cambodia has too, and I think that's about it.
I think it's like four countries, three or four countries in the world.
Most of the evil regimes in the world actually don't admit that they're evil.
China and what they're doing in Tibet.
Muslim Arabs purging Christian Arabs from places like Iraq and Egypt.
But Canada has copped a plea here we're guilty.
Trudeau has put us in the same garbage can with the likes of Hitler and Paul Pott.
That's who Trudeau thinks we're like.
It doesn't even make sense.
Even bleeding heart liberals like Romeo Dallaire, the former Canadian general who was in the midst of the Rwandan genocide, he says it makes him sick to see the word genocide abused like that.
Even the former liberal justice minister, another bleeding heart liberal named Erwin Kotler, he says it's too much to use the word like that.
He says people need to avoid applying the term too broadly, quote, because then it will cease to have the singular importance and horror that it warrants.
That's what Cotler said.
So why is Trudeau doing that?
Why is he smearing us, our country?
That means you and me.
Why is he smearing us in a way that we would never accept if the smear came from a foreign leader?
Speaking of which, do you doubt that China, which actually has committed various genocides, I would argue, do you doubt that China will now use Trudeau's accusations against us?
Themselves against us?
Trudeau just said we're genociders.
Well, China doesn't admit that about themselves in Tibet, for example, or in Xinjiang, the Muslim Uyghur province.
But I bet China will now throw that back in our face a thousand times if we ever even try to lecture China about human rights again, or for that matter, ask for our two hostages back.
How's that going, by the way?
Will we really let that go a full year?
We're coming up at half a year now.
So we're genociders.
We're also sexists, apparently.
Here he is, just a couple days ago, bad-mouthing us to another international conference.
Bad-mouthing us to strangers, saying hatred of women is creeping into the public debate in Canada.
Really?
What on earth is he talking about?
Now, if he's talking about honor murders, like the murder of the four Shafia women, or the murder of Aksa Parvez in Mississauga at the hand of her brother and her father for not wearing a burker, or the recent honor murder of a doctor in Toronto by her own husband, maybe he's right, but I'm pretty sure that's not what he means.
He would never talk like that about that.
He doesn't even talk about that.
He gives that kind of gender apartheid a shout out when he goes to mosques and the women aren't allowed to meet him.
Remember this?
As I look at this beautiful room with the sisters upstairs, everyone here, the diversity we have just within this mosque.
Yeah, the sisters upstairs.
Yeah, no, he for sure would never mean foreign immigrants who don't believe in women's rights because they're bringing a rape culture with them.
He means you, racist old stock Canadians.
He thinks you're racist.
He thinks you're racist if you're worried about illegal immigrants just walking in from New York State and demanding free everything.
I'm not just making that up.
He will literally call you a racist if you ask questions about who's paying for those illegals.
He called her a racist and he said she had no place in Quebec.
He says we're all sexist.
He says we have a big problem with Islamophobia.
So do we have a problem with Islamophobia in this country?
Yes, we do.
Do we have a big problem with Islamophobia in Canada?
If so, someone had better tell the Muslims because 100,000 more each year immigrate to Canada.
Somebody had better warn them about the terrible place they're coming to.
Maybe our Muslim immigration minister can tell us how Islamophobic we are.
Oh, right, he already has.
Asylum seekers are processed in a separate queue at the IRB and all the other regular immigration programs are processed by IRCC.
And conflating the two knowingly is irresponsible, it's divisive, it's fear-mongering, and it is not Canadian.
Boy, he was angry.
All right, let's recap.
We are now in the elite group of countries that have confessed to genocide, and it is an ongoing genocide.
Now, he's allowed to fire the first Aboriginal Attorney General in history and still complain about the genocide of Aboriginal people for the same reason that he's allowed to go to gender apartheid mosques and he's allowed to fire woman after woman from his cabinet and he's allowed to sexually assault Rose Knight, that young reporter in Creston, B.C.
But he's allowed to do all that, but also say there's a hatred of women in public life that's not him.
He says we're racist.
He says we're sexist.
He says we're Islamophobic.
He says we're Nazis.
He says we're white supremacists.
And of course, we're also climate haters or climate criminals or whatever.
We're burning up the world and we are guilty of that, but definitely not him.
Folks, what can I say?
The Justin Trudeau campaign in 2019 is not a patriotic campaign.
It's an anti-patriotic campaign.
I think he actually dislikes us.
Oh, he likes the perks.
He likes the perks.
He likes the power.
He likes all the luxuries.
He likes the private jets that he gets.
He likes the mannies on the taxpayers' expense.
He likes the secret private vacations on the Aga Khan's private island in the Bahamas.
He likes that part.
Don't get him wrong.
He just dislikes, well, he dislikes Canadians.
We're never good enough for him.
But you see, when he denounces Canada, he's carving out an exception for himself.
He's the only one noble enough to say the rest of us are genociders.
He's the only one noble enough to say we're sexist pigs.
We're racist.
Every time he apologizes for Canada or smears Canada, the implication is that he alone is the only one elevated enough to see that about us, to know that.
He's never apologized for anything that he has done, just for what he says we have done.
You know, I point out that Justin Trudeau refused to vote for a statement in the House of Commons that ISIS was engaging in genocide.
He would not acknowledge that ISIS was engaging in an anti-Christian genocide.
But he says we are.
We're worse than ISIS.
You know, this is all an interesting psychological trick.
Trudeau is a lifelong pickup artist, one of those creepy men who call themselves male feminists who manipulate women.
He's like his dad that way.
He's using a pickup artist's psychological trick to do a strategic insult, a neg to knock down your self-confidence a bit to change the power dynamic.
If he were in a bar, Trudeau would go up to a beautiful woman and say something like, huh, yeah, did you do your makeup yourself?
That's interesting.
He'd say it to a pretty girl to knock her down a bit so he can manipulate her.
That's just like Gianca Meshi did.
All these male feminist creeps are using the same manipulation.
But I think they're doing that trick that they used to do in bars.
They're doing it to the whole country.
Nice country, yeah, but you sure seem to be racist, aren't you?
Knock us down a bit, shock us a bit, negate us a bit, break our confidence a bit, tell us we're racist, sexist, all these things, and then offer himself as the one who will accept us and fix us.
I bet he did that a hundred times in a bar.
I think that's what it is for us now, too.
I think that's the new liberal brand.
Jean-Cretchen loved Canada in his own way.
He certainly understood Canada in his own way.
And you know, he won three back-to-back majority governments.
He bounced the budget, by the way.
He let the oil sands grow and flourish, by the way.
Trudeau, what has he actually done in four years except legalize drugs and start a dozen diplomatic wars?
Well, he's demonized us.
He's smeared us.
He's insulted us.
He's negged us.
It's a psychological test, really.
Do we have the self-respect to walk away from this manipulator?
Or will we really fall for this pickup line all over again?
Stay with us for more.
Isn't that gorgeous?
That is a White House mini video of Donald Trump arriving in the United Kingdom.
Very fancy.
He did, of course, meet with Teresa Main, the lame duck prime minister who has days left in her tenure, but it was a meeting, actually, a state dinner with the head of state.
Trump Meets Farage00:14:42
And as Canadians know, that means the queen herself.
Very fancy, very regal.
And of course, Melania Trump looking absolutely amazing like the supermodel she is.
On the other end of the aesthetic spectrum, though, I simply cannot let it pass without reading to you two delicious, brutal, and hilarious tweets that Donald Trump issued as he was landing in Air Force One, taking pot shots at Sadiq Khan, the diminutive Islamist socialist who is the mayor of London.
Let me read those tweets to you for your delectation.
The first one says, Sadiq Khan, who by all accounts has done a terrible job as mayor of London, has been foolishly nasty to the visiting president of the United States, by far the most important ally of the United Kingdom.
He is a stone-cold loser who should focus on crime in London, not me.
And a follow-up tweet, he said, Khan reminds me very much of our very dumb and incompetent mayor of New York City, de Blasio, who has also done a terrible job, only half his height.
In any event, I look forward to being a great friend to the United Kingdom, and I'm looking very much forward to my visit landing now.
Oh, did he throw a cat amongst the pigeons?
Of course, National Public Radio said, actually, he's several inches taller than half de Blasio's height.
I think you may be wrong on that, Mr. President.
Okay, so we showed you the pomp and circumstance, and we told you the brawling tweets, but did anything actually happen?
Joining us now live iSkype is our friend Joel Pollock, the senior editor-at-large from Breitbart.com.
Joel, what do you make of this?
I mean, Trump and his Manhattan nicknames and name-calling tweets and the fancy queen are about polar opposites when it comes to aesthetics.
But Trump occupies both worlds, doesn't he?
Oh, he really does.
And it's interesting to see him comparing Sadiq Khan to Bill de Blasio.
I think it's clever.
I'm not sure people in the United Kingdom know who Bill de Blasio is, but in the United States, there's been quite a bit of coverage of him the last few weeks because he's decided in his infinite wisdom to run for president.
Now, he was re-elected New York mayor, so New Yorkers liked him enough to put him back in office.
But when he decided to run for president, he was greeted with jeers and chants of worst mayor ever.
And that got national attention in the United States.
So Americans understand that Bill de Blasio is bad.
Even though he's been re-elected as a presidential candidate, he's been a flop so far.
And so comparing the London mayor to Bill de Blasio achieves two things.
One, it reiterates Trump's earlier criticisms of the London mayor.
And two, it tells Americans just what they ought to think about this London mayor.
So Trump having a bit of fun.
I think that British Conservatives were delighted that he spoke with such freedom about this mayor and honed in on his most vulnerable issue, which is the rise of crime in London.
Yeah.
And of course, the Trumpy way is just to make fun of his height.
I mean, that's just that Manhattan brawler style.
He just can't help twist the knife a bit.
Substantively, though, I mean, I'm not sure how much substance there is.
Brexit is the big question in the UK these days.
I note that Trump met briefly with Nigel Farage, which is very interesting because it's incredible to see that the Brexit Party, which came in first in the recent European elections, is now polling in first place for the British parliamentary elections.
If this holds up, Nigel Farage, Trudeau's best chum, theoretically could be the prime minister.
I know it sounds such a long shot, but the polls say it's a possibility.
It is a possibility because it's the central issue in British politics right now, and it's the platform on which the Conservatives were elected, but which they have failed to deliver.
So it's essentially the British public saying, we want this issue resolved.
And particularly those on the pro-Brexit side, which are a plurality of British voters, they're saying we want this resolved as the top priority.
And that's why they're voting for Farage, because say what you will about him, like him or not, he has delivered.
He delivered a victory in Brexit.
And that was his life's mission as a former member of the UK Independence Party.
He was the leader of that party.
And he led the effort to bring Brexit to fruition, at least in terms of the vote, the plebiscite.
in terms of actually executing it, the current parties seem unwilling and incapable of doing it.
So he's it's possible he win.
I mean you could see you could see the same thing perhaps happening in the United States during a moment of political crisis.
The Democrats are betting on it by the way.
The Democrats believe that Trump's style is the issue in American politics and so they're all running against Trump's style.
Ironically, many of them are imitating what they think is Trump's style and they're throwing insults around and so forth.
But they're basically putting that front and center.
They think that's the issue.
And the reason they're focusing on that is he's actually succeeded on every other issue.
So they're basically focusing on that.
Now, if the American public agrees, they may vote for a Democrat next year.
But in Britain, it is different where you've already had a public affirmation in the form of the Brexit referendum in 2016 of the pro-Brexit stance.
So Nigel Farage has boosted himself and his candidacy by sticking to Brexit.
And we'll see if that pans out in whatever elections happen further down the road.
And I think him coming back and starting the Brexit party, which dispatched UKIP, UKIP did not win a single seat.
I like Gerard Batten, the outgoing leader of UKIP, but he did not have the charisma and the national platform and the strength of Farage.
Farage coming back, winning the European Union elections, it was like a second Brexit referendum, I think.
It showed that the people of the UK really did want to go.
And the punishment that both the Labor and mainly the Conservative parties took at the hands of the Brexit Party shows that that political realignment is truly continuing.
Joel, I want to show you a very quick video.
This is Boris Johnson, who's announced that he wants to run for the leadership of the Conservative Party.
Boris Johnson, former mayor of London, big personality too, colorful character.
He, you know, funny guy, loves the photo ops.
He put out this campaign mini video, and I was excited because I really like Boris.
But I got to say, I've never seen anything quite so lame.
Here, take a look at this.
Hello, good morning, Labe.
Yes, of course you can.
If I get in, we'll come out deal or no deal on October the 31st.
We'll do that.
Thank you very much.
Would that make you come back and vote conservative again?
Yes, that's the spirit.
But we've got to have the courage to tell the people of this country that we can do it if we really want to.
That's the only way, actually.
And you're the only person that can do that.
Joel, I was ready to love Boris Johnson.
I've been rooting for him for years, but it just feels so half-hearted compared to Nigel Farage.
Farage has a bigger personality, if that's what you care about.
Farage is much clearer on Brexit, if that's what you care about.
I just think that that was sort of pitiful.
I really think, and maybe I'm asking you something outside your expertise.
Maybe I go to the UK more than you do, I think, for my following of Tommy Robinson.
But I think Farage will actually borrow votes not just from the Conservative Party, but also from the Labour Party, working-class Brits, who are ignored by the extremist Jeremy Corbyn.
It's the Trump phenomenon.
Trump got blue-collar rust belt working men who are supposed to vote Democrat, but they voted Brexit.
I think there's something very Trumpy going on.
I think so too.
And I think it's a sign to American voters as well that if you ignore the will of the people and if you refuse to enact the agenda Trump was elected on back in 2016, which many of the Republican establishment are resisting, then you will see a public backlash.
I mean, the reason Theresa May is leaving her post at the end of the week is because she failed to deliver, and she failed to deliver because Westminster and London and all of the elites in British politics and the economy were pushing against Brexit, even though they had lost.
They made their case, they lost, but they hoped to undermine Brexit in the negotiation process.
And you're seeing the same on immigration in the United States.
Trump is going at Mexico, saying there are going to be 5% tariffs unless you close your southern border and stop this migrant caravan.
that keeps coming through the country.
And all of a sudden, you have Republicans complaining about it.
You have business leaders complaining about it.
They're all trying to undermine it when immigration and stopping illegal immigration was central to Trump's promise to the voters.
So one way or another, they're going to learn that they have to get on board, that the people have essentially spoken about this issue very loudly.
And Trump is, or has a mandate to do something about it.
And I think what's happening in Britain could very well happen in the United States.
You could see some sort of public backlash against the attempt by the elites to undermine the president, and he will come back stronger than ever.
Let me ask you one last question.
I mean, I like Trump's style.
I like the analogies with Brexit.
I think Nigel Farage has a Trump-sized personality.
I'm excited by it.
But that's all sizzle and style.
But I mean, there's that underlying democratic substance there, too.
But did Trump have an actual message?
Was this just a state visit just to cement ties?
Or was there something meaty that was dealt with?
Was that even possible with Theresa May heading out the door?
Was this just a symbolic visit?
No, I think it's a very serious visit for a couple of reasons.
One, both British and American press had increased speculation that the alliance was fraying because of Trump's style and because of some of the things he's done and some of the things Theresa May has disagreed with publicly.
I think it was very important for him to show the world that the alliance is strong.
That's an important foreign policy goal.
Of course, he has a domestic audience for that as well.
He wants to show American voters that he is respected and liked by our most important allies.
And so having such a warm reception from the Queen and the British public was very important.
The other thing is there are some very important issues on which they have to coordinate.
The British are less far, or I should say closer to the Trump administration on the issue of Iran than other European nations.
And the other thing is Huawei, the Chinese technology company, Britain and the United States are mounting a united front against Huawei.
They are working to make sure that it does not use its current technological advantage in areas like 5G to get a foothold, in a sense, for security purposes or spying purposes inside the West.
So they really want to do something about that.
So that's very important to show a very public commitment to limiting Chinese involvement in American and British high-tech is very important because these are the two leading nations in high-tech and finance in the Western world.
There are some others who are players as well, Israel being in terms of the technology very, very important player.
But Israel is working with China.
And that's, by the way, a point of friction between this administration and Israel, a rare point of friction, because the Israelis have gotten used to working with China and working at times with Russia.
They're a small country and they can't afford to be on anybody's bad side.
But Trump and May essentially said this week that we are going to deal with this problem.
We're going to find a way to move together on it.
And once they do that, once they set the tone, other countries will follow, Germany, Israel, others.
They will follow because if the United States and Britain are in lockstep on dealing with Huawei, then I think you will see this push against Chinese influence begin to advance.
You know, that's so interesting, Joel.
And I doubt that you and our other American friends are aware of the depth of the Huawei crisis in Canada.
I don't know if you know this, but at America's request, Canada arrested the daughter of the founder of Huawei when she was passing through Vancouver.
She's also a senior executive there.
She has been held.
She's out on bail under house arrest in Vancouver.
This has led to a diplomatic crisis.
Two Canadians have been taken hostage by China.
There's no other word for it, including a former diplomat, the Canadian, the ambassador to Canada from China, is issuing threats of all sorts of retaliation.
It's caused a shocking crisis in this country that Trudeau has mismanaged in many ways.
And yet Canada is still contemplating using Huawei.
But the biggest thing this makes me think of is we need America's help up here very badly because we don't have the diplomatic and political and moral capital to get our hostages back the same way Donald Trump has repatriated hostages from all around the world and in fact indeed the remains of deceased soldiers from North Korea.
Like he really has emphasized that.
I note that this is what Donald Trump's second visit to the United Kingdom and yet I don't think he's made a single visit to Canada other than a quick visit to the G8 summit a year ago, which he sort of had to come here.
But he has not made a state visit to Canada.
He's not had a state dinner.
He has not shown a friendship with Justin Trudeau.
And we need that friendship now more than ever.
And there's Donald Trump yucking it up with the Queen.
It's just a sign of how far we Canadians have fallen out of the American good graces.
Joe, I want to show you one more video, and I'm showing you so many videos, but this is when Mike Pence, the vice president, came up here a couple weeks ago in Trump's place to smooth things over a bit.
And our Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, thought that was a good time not to talk about NAFTA or Huawei, but to lecture Mike Pence on abortion laws in Alabama.
Here, take a quick look at that.
Consensus Clash00:04:35
I highlighted to the vice president that there was a significant amount of concern amongst Canadians on the new anti-choice laws being passed in a number of American states and highlighted that Canadians and indeed this government will always be a staunch defender of women's rights and a woman's right to choose.
It was a cordial conversation, but it is one on which we have very different perspectives.
Well, let me say, I think one of the great things about the relationship between the United States and Canada is that we're able to be candid with one another.
We're able to share our perspective on a broad range of issues and different approaches.
But let me be clear.
I'm very proud to be part of a pro-life administration.
And our administration has taken steps to stand for the sanctity of life at home and abroad.
So that's what we're doing with our Canada-U.S. relationship.
I'm sort of jealous of the British relationship with the U.S., Joel.
Yeah, it's interesting that Trudeau came here and lectured Pence about that.
He's obviously pandering to domestic constituency in Canada and taking sides in a very contentious internal debate in the United States.
It's not going to be resolved anytime soon.
Many pro-life activists would dispute the idea that they're taking away women's rights at all, because after all, a large number of the babies that are aborted are girls.
And while Mike Pence was governor of Indiana, he actually signed a law that banned sex selection abortion.
So one can argue that it's actually a woman's right to live.
A girl's right to life is paramount here.
Now, the Supreme Court did not uphold that law when it was struck down by a lower court.
They upheld part of the law, not that one, mostly because I said the other circuits hadn't come to any sort of conclusion about that sort of thing.
So it will come back to the courts.
But the idea that abortion is as simple as a woman's right to choose is partly what fuels the conflict.
I think there is actually a broader consensus in the United States about abortion.
But when pro-choice activists completely rule out the possibility that the unborn child has a right to life, or they describe it solely as the choice of the mother, I think they foment further conflict.
I know they want to reframe it that way, but it's very hard to reframe something about which people already know.
People know a lot about abortion.
They know how they feel about it.
So when pro-choice advocates do that, people who disagree with them, either vehemently or even just modestly, feel irritated by it.
And one can even agree that it could be primarily the woman's choice, but that the father is involved in some way and that there's another life at stake.
The recent pro-choice laws passed by New York, Virginia, and about to be signed and enacted in Illinois basically rule out the child's life in late stages of pregnancy.
That is to say, they allow a woman to abort a child abort pregnancy even until birth.
That's not a consensus position.
That is actually an extreme position when it comes to how Americans feel about it.
Generally, Americans are uncomfortable with late-term abortion, uncomfortable with restrictions on early abortion.
And in the middle is where the states essentially take different approaches or have until recently.
Now we see this split, each going in different directions.
Liberal states going towards pro-choice and the conservative states moving more aggressively towards pro-life.
Part of it is because of the national hysteria over the Supreme Court and the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh.
It's been hyped by many Democrats as the end of Roe versus Wade.
And some conservatives have begun to notice and said, maybe we should challenge Roe versus Wade.
Maybe now is the time.
But actually, there is a consensus in this country that was ironically expressed quite admirably, I would say, by Barack Obama, who said, can we all agree on reducing the number of abortions?
Though I give Obama credit there.
I think he actually formulated the issue in a way that would be acceptable to most Americans.
His policies were another matter, of course.
Obama, always very good on rhetoric, not so good on policy.
But that's basically, I think, where the consensus in the United States is.
When you come to this country and lecture Americans about how to feel about something so deeply personal and emotional, you're really not helping Canada.
Of course, everybody here likes Canada.
Lecturing Americans About Genocide00:04:46
We're watching the Stanley Cup finals just as you are.
And most of the players, or most of the good players are Canadian.
But, you know, we're basically, I mean, we're all in one family, really.
But it doesn't help Canada's case with the administration to do things like that.
You know what, Joel?
I was listening very carefully to what you just said.
And you have just put, in the last five minutes, more thoughts into the question of abortion laws and policy and communications than I can assure you Justin Trudeau has thought in his entire life.
All he thought was, I'm left-wing, let me score some points against Mike Pence.
And he just proved the reason why Donald Trump has not visited Canada for a state dinner and will not.
I predict he will not visit Canada.
Why would he come here and be abused?
It's the only thing I'm envious of Theresa May, perhaps the world's worst prime minister of.
At least she hasn't screwed up so badly that Trump won't darken her doorstep.
Joel, you're generous with your time.
We'll let you go.
Thanks for covering so many issues with us today.
Thank you.
All right.
There's our friend Joel Pollack, Senior Editor-at-Large of Breitbart.com.
We started talking about Trump landing in the UK.
We moved on to Boris Johnson, and by the end, we were talking about Trudeau.
Cover all the bases for you today.
Stay with us for Ahead on the Rebel.
Hey, welcome back on my monologue yesterday about Trudeau calling the murders of Aboriginal women a genocide.
Jan writes, Genocide, another redefinition by the leftists.
Yeah, you know, this was started, of course, by Beverly McLaughlin, who used the phrase, when she was Chief Justice.
I mean, how can anyone take her as a neutral judge after she made that declaration while she was still sitting on the bench?
That's what all the Indian industry, lawyers, bureaucrats have been saying for several years, of course.
But when the prime minister says it and declares it in the name of the country, that's like declaring someone guilty in a court of law because it actually has a legal meaning to be a genocide-guilty country, political class.
There are actually war crimes trials prosecuted against genociders.
Why would you literally plead guilty to a crime against humanity?
I come back to my theory earlier today.
It's just his way of nagging, negating, disparaging.
It's a psychological manipulation trick to say, oh, I believe you're not great, but if you vote for me, I can pick you up.
It's gross.
Stephen writes, Canadians since 2015 are bigots, racists, homophobic, isomophobic, useless old thought Canadians.
Now the Pierce de Résistance, we as a society are genocidal.
We as a country have become this in four short years.
Yeah, yeah.
We had the wisdom to vote for Justin Trudeau, but not the wisdom on any other matter, apparently.
My interview with Lindsey Shepard, Paul writes, letting the liberals censor without putting up a fight is unacceptable.
This censorship committee is a farce.
They're trying to pretend that they're listening to different viewpoints when I bet they made the decision before it started.
Absolutely.
Now, we knew that about the Liberals, and we knew that about the NDP.
Trudeau is a control freak over his image.
We know he's a control freak, especially in regards to the media.
He personally sparked the whole witch hunt against Vice Admiral Mark Norman.
So we know that about Trudeau, and of course the NDP is authoritarian by nature, as many socialists are.
But the great disappointment, I must say this, is in Andrew Scheer's conservatives.
The one conservative there who's pushing back against the slander, Michael Cooper, was kicked off the committee.
And I just can't get over the fact that conservatives on that committee voted to turn the cameras off on Lindsey Shepard-Markstein and John Robson, voted to deplatform them from those platforms.
The conservatives did that.
And I challenge you again.
And if I'm wrong, you let me know.
I have yet to see Andrew Scheer or any of his MPs come out against the regulation of the internet, this committee that would censor the internet during the election.
I have yet to see that.
I simply don't think that Andrew Scheer cares about free speech, or if he does.
It's so low on his priorities compared to, I don't want to offend the mainstream media or the social media mob.
That is terrifying to me, and it should be angering to any member of the Conservative Party.