Liberal MP Majid Jowhari faced David Menzies in June 2019, denying support for Iran’s regime despite a tweet praising its "elected government" and past credibility issues like false engineering claims. Critics like Christia Freeland and Maryam Monsef also drew scrutiny for aligning with authoritarian regimes, including financial ties like Bombardier’s $100M Iran deal. The episode exposes the Liberal-dominated Justice Committee’s push to revive Section 13—removed in 2013 after a 100% conviction rate—risking government-mandated censorship without judicial review, despite witness opposition to free speech protections. With the election looming, the report could become a tool for reinstating controversial policies, raising alarms about Canada’s democratic safeguards. [Automatically generated summary]
Hello rebels, you're listening to a free audio only recording of the Ezra Levant Show.
Today I talk about how I ran into Liberal MP Masjid Johari to ask him why he has such admiration for the odious Iranian regime.
If you like listening to this podcast, then you would love watching it, but in order to watch, you need to be a subscriber to premium content.
That's what we call our long format TV style shows on The Rebel.
Subscribers get access to Ezra's daily show as well as other great TV style shows too.
It's only $8 a month to subscribe or you can subscribe annually and get two months free.
And just for podcast listeners, you can save an extra 10% on a new premium membership by using the coupon code podcast when you subscribe.
Just go to therebel.media slash shows to become a member.
And please leave a five-star review on this podcast and subscribe in iTunes or wherever you listen to podcasts.
Those reviews are a great way to support the Rebel without even spending a dime.
And now enjoy this free audio-only version of the show.
Tonight, I bumped into Liberal MP Masjid Johari and asked him why he has such admiration for the Iranian regime.
It's June 19, 2019.
I'm David Menzies and this is the Ezra Levant Show.
Why should others go to jail when you're the biggest carbon consumer I know?
You have 8,500 customers here and you won't give them an answer.
The only thing I have to say to the government about why I publish it is because it's my bloody right to do so.
Well, I had an enlightening run-in on the weekend with Liberal MP Masjid Johari.
Johari was not on Parliament Hill, but in his hometown riding of Richmond Hill, apparently getting a head start on his re-election campaign.
So it was that I made a detour from my original destination, that being the oh so retro cool three coins restaurant, and tried to engage in some political discourse with this whiz-bang member of parliament who seems to have an admiration for totalitarianism.
Then again, that makes him a kindred spirit with Justin Trudeau, doesn't it?
I mean, Trudeau has publicly stated his admiration for China's basic dictatorship because it allows Beijing to, well, you know, get things done efficiently.
What things?
Well, let's not get into the nitty-gritty details here because doing some of those things might have consequences like, you know, depriving people of their basic human rights, all of which kind of seems downright unliberal to me.
Anyway, speaking of dictatorships and curtailing human rights and whatnot, that brings us back to Mr. Jawahari.
Now, if you need a brief refresher course on this individual who the locals on the hill refer to by his nickname, the Persian Pinocchio, thanks to his fast and loose approach with the facts, such as his engineering status, our rebel commander Ezra Levant weighed in on this honorable member of parliament in January.
Ezra's commentary focused on why Trudeau and some of his Iranian MPs seem to have this cozy relationship with the regime in Tehran.
Well folks, it all boils down to this.
Three words, conflict of interest.
Check it out.
To this day, Justin Trudeau has not said a word about it.
Why is that?
Is it because Justin Trudeau's brother, Alexandra Trudeau, is an official paid propagandist for the Iranian regime, including producing this propaganda film.
It was called The Next Great Game.
He produced it in cooperation with Iran's state broadcaster, Press TV.
Justin Trudeau's brother does Iranian government propaganda.
Is it that Trudeau is an Islamophile and just plain old likes Iran and likes his basic dictatorship?
That's the phrase Trudeau used to commend China.
And we know how Trudeau loved the Castros and their dictatorship.
Maybe Trudeau just sides with the empire instead of the rebels.
I don't know.
Maybe it's to court Canadian Muslim voters.
Maybe it's bombardier, as it so often is.
You know, they have a $100 million sale of their airplanes to Iran.
Look at this.
The headline here, Ottawa to finance Iran's Bombardier Order.
Financed by Canadian taxpayers.
Is that why Trudeau is siding with the regime?
He wants this Bombardier deal to go through.
Not a word from Trudeau on this whole thing.
And from our foreign minister, Christia Freeland, just a three-line statement.
Canada is encouraged by the Iranian people who are exercising their basic right to protest peacefully.
We call on the Iranian authorities to uphold and respect democratic and human rights.
Canada will continue to support the fundamental rights of Iranians, including the right to freedom of expression.
That's it.
Now, of course, Iran has not upheld or respected democratic rights.
So now what's Canada going to do about it?
It's been three days since that statement.
Dozens have been killed, hundreds arrested, so nothing more.
What does it exactly mean when Christia Freeland says that Canada will support Iranians?
How?
And when's that going to start?
You know, there's an Iranian-born MP.
There's a couple of them.
One liberal named Majid Johari.
He continuously presses Canada to become friendlier with the Iranian dictatorship.
He took Christia Freeland's statement, I just read you her statement in full, and he added a few extra words to it, which was so bizarre.
Look at this, look at this.
You see, this is his tweet?
Look up at the top there.
He added, with the support of their elected government in a secure environment and without the fear of persecution, he's saying that Iranians have the support of their elected government.
Elected?
There are no free elections in Iran.
They're rigged.
But not to that guy, a liberal MP from Iran, whose statement has gone uncontradicted by the Liberal Party.
The Liberals are literally choosing to side with the Iranian regime over the Democratic protesters.
By the way, regarding Johari's resume, he has this penchant to describe himself as an engineer, even though he currently isn't a practicing engineer, and he certainly wasn't an active engineer during the 2015 election campaign either.
In fact, he hasn't been one since 1999, and it was only When he was called out regarding this fibbing, did he issue an apology?
So he's careless with the truth, making him even more of a kindred spirit with Justin Trudeau yet again.
So anyway, as I mentioned, I caught up with this learned liberal on Saturday.
I just wanted to know why he likes to tweet support to one of the most despicable regimes in the world, an odious administration that happens to be one of the biggest state sponsors of terrorism on the planet.
By the way, I should add, Johari's support of the mullahs in Iran has infuriated the vast majority of those in the Canadian Persian community, given that the reason they immigrated to Canada in the first place was due to the fact that living in Iran has become increasingly intolerable.
Well, here's what Jawahari had to say to me.
Hi there.
How are you doing, sir?
David Menzies, how's he doing there?
Are you taping something?
I am indeed.
I want to ask you, please stop.
Why did you support the Iranian regime in Iron Teeth?
I don't want to support the Iranian regime.
These are fake news.
It's fake news.
Don't you have any?
Do you have any proof?
Do you have any proof?
Yes, your own tweet, sir.
What is your opinion of Iran?
That is something that we could discuss later.
Oh, why not?
Right now.
We know it's one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism in the world.
Would you agree with that, sir?
There are terrorism going in there.
So do you support the regime?
Absolutely not.
Oh, then why did you tweet congratulations?
I'm not tweeting congratulations and you're faking your news.
No, I'm not faking myself.
Yes, you are.
You are.
You don't have any fact.
You haven't had any facts.
I haven't had any facts in local years.
And you're harassing me, and I don't appreciate it.
I'm not harassing you, sir.
I'm in a public place.
You are in a public place, and I told you I do not support and I do not support the regime.
I do not support the advocate for them, and you're accusing me of that.
And if you put that in formal writing, then we can have a discussion later on.
Okay, thank you.
Why is the local Richmond Hill Persian community?
Why don't you go ask them?
Well, because you've tweeted your support.
No, sir, you're faking, and that's not true.
So, yet again, when it comes to the federal liberals, denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
They sure don't like going on the record about the sordid stuff they support.
And when cornered, they engage in plenty of talking without, well, actually saying anything.
Kind of like that other Trudeau cabinet minister, Maryam Monsef.
Remember her remarks to us during an event marking World Press Freedom Day in Toronto before we were frog marched out of the building?
Because, hey, apparently embracing World Press Freedom Day, according to Ms. Monsef, is all about stifling freedom of the press, that the journalist isn't one of Trudeau's state-sponsored stenographers.
Check it out.
Just a quick question.
The United Nations, the United Nations told our reporters they were banned from covering their conferences due to a directive from the Canadian government.
Do you support that?
I hope you support what we're doing here today, which is ensuring freedom of expression and an independent free press for your colleagues around the world.
But that's precisely the point.
We traveled to Morocco, we traveled to Poland, and we were shut out of UN conferences because of an edict from your government.
Does that sound like world press freedom to you, Minister?
What we're doing today is supporting an independent and free press in some of the most troubled regions of the world.
And I have no doubt that you rejoice in this investment and this initiative.
Well, you know, but how do you square the fact that you won't even let Canadian journalists that might have a dissenting opinion about things like immigration and climate change?
And again, I ask, whatever happened to Sunny Ways, my friends, Sunny Ways.
What happened to that often stated promise of open transparency?
I think I know what you're thinking, folks, and I wholeheartedly agree, namely, October 21st can't possibly come soon enough.
Stay with us for more.
Well, it's like a cliche from a cheesy horror movie, isn't it?
You know, just when you think the monster has been slain and the exhausted protagonists begin to walk away, Presto, the creature suddenly has a new lease on life as if this unkillable thing is immortal.
Cue the screaming.
Well, that's how Mark Stein looks upon the possibility of the anti-free speech provision, Section 13, being restored to the Canadian Human Rights Act.
This incredibly flawed provision was rightfully tossed by the Stephen Harper Conservative government in 2013, but now a liberal-dominated justice committee wants to restore it.
What's more, it will be supercharged this time around with an additional focus pertaining to social media.
So in essence, folks, Section 13 is the polar opposite of the First Amendment.
It is anti-free speech and pro-censorship.
No wonder the left loves this thing.
Joining me now with the latest on Section 13's potential comeback is Andrew Lawton with TNC.news.
Welcome to the Ezra Event Show, my friend.
Good to be with you, David.
Thanks for having me.
It is always a pleasure, Andrew.
So in addition to, oh, I don't know, Freddy Krueger, Jason Voorhees, and Michael Myers, it would appear that Section 13, it just refuses to stay dead, doesn't it?
Yeah, and you know, usually horror sequels are bad.
I mean, in this case, the horror sequel is going to be more terrifying than the original.
I mean, this is one of the rare cases where the remake is going to have much more of an impact than the first one did, because now they're out for blood.
And one of the biggest problems with this is that, as you noted in your preamble there, the proposal from the Justice Committee empowers or I'll say coerces social media companies into being what I characterize in my writing on this as state enforcers,
because you see it in, I believe it's recommendation number nine, this idea on the committee's report that social media companies must have requirements imposed by the government on how they're going to get rid of what the government says is hate speech.
Now, the reason this is so relevant is because when Section 13 Part 1 was around, there was this sham of a tribunal you'd go to and the tribunal would determine if what you posted was hateful.
And that was bad enough.
Now you don't even get to the tribunal part.
The government is forcing social media companies to censor their users.
And, you know, Andrew, let's talk about the way in which Section 13 worked back in the battle days pre-2013 and why the Stephen Harper Conservatives got rid of it.
We know, well, at least those who follow this story know, that essentially Section 13, it was gamed by one individual, if you will, Richard Warman.
Sometimes he was an employee of the human rights racket.
Sometimes he was a complainant.
And he brought forth well over a dozen cases in which he always won, in which he went trolling for hate speech on the internet, posing as somebody else, and himself using hateful language in order to do his phishing, if you will.
And this is what I find disturbing about this.
Fundamentally Flawed Freedom Speech00:11:19
We know how inherently flawed this is.
So why bring it back in the first place?
What is the agenda of those who want to reinstate it?
Well, I think the agenda is very clear here.
You're talking about a movement of people that fundamentally believe speech should not be free.
And when you look at the witnesses that were testifying as part of this online hate study, there were 69 or 59 of them.
So nearly five dozen witnesses.
And all but about five were taking an anti-free speech stance or at the very least, a stance that was a lot more focused on where the limit to free speech should be rather than fundamentally putting the protection and preservation of free speech front and center.
So that's the agenda.
And trust me, you've got a lot of people that have very legitimate grievances, whether you're talking about Muslims or gays or transgender people.
I don't doubt them when they say that they see mean, nasty things on the internet and they are on the receiving end of perhaps mean and nasty and maybe emotionally hateful bars.
But something being emotionally hateful or something that you feel is hateful does not mean it should be illegal.
And that's the fundamental divide here is that we are criminalizing hurting feelings when we already have a mechanism in Canada called the Criminal Code that deals with speech that is sufficiently hateful to cause real harm.
And you know, Andrew, I think you nail it there on two fronts.
One, you do not have a right to not be offended.
You simply do not.
And secondly, as you said, there are provisions on the books, libel, slander, defamation, you name it, in which real courts, not kangaroo courts, i.e. human rights tribunals, can be used to implement justice when you really are criminally maligned.
So I'm with you on that.
Why can't we let the real courts and the existing laws take care of the really odious stuff?
Yes, and that Section 13 in its 32 or 34 years had a 100% conviction rate.
And this is astonishing.
And I know Mark Stein mentioned this in his testimony.
Even North Korea would be jealous of the 100% conviction rate that the Canadian Human Rights Commission had.
I mean, Saddam Hussein would say, no, no, no, that's too much.
This is insane.
Nothing has a 100% conviction rate.
I mean, government can't do anything right.
So if government's convicting people 100% of the time, there's a problem with the law itself.
But beyond that, I want to direct your viewers to two relevant people here.
Number one, David Arnaut.
Now, he is the chief commissioner of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission, and he testified before the Justice Committee and said, and this is a direct quote, that Canada has no unbridled right to freedom of expression.
And Dean Steacey, who was with the Canadian Human Rights Commission back when Section 13 was around the first time, said in a deposition, I think back in 2010 or 2011, I might be wrong about the year, but said in a deposition when he was asked by a lawyer, how much of an emphasis do you put on freedom of speech?
And he said, freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't pay any mind to it or something like that.
But it was freedom of speech as an American concept.
So you have people that are in this human rights bureaucracy that fundamentally believe freedom of speech is not something that Canadians have as a right or should have as a right.
And when they're saying that so brazenly, we have to be very mindful of what's going to come from what was supposed to be the ashes of Section 13.
And, you know, Andrew, back earlier this month when the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights was sitting, we bumped into each other in Ottawa.
You described that session as farcical, and I think that's an excellent word.
It began with us at the Rebel being denied press credentials to cover it, so we just went in anyways.
Secondly, when you looked at the witnesses testifying, Mark Stein, Lindsey Shepard, John Robson, I think the way they were treated was appalling.
And even in the preamble, before they got to say what they wanted to and the questioning, Mr. Cooper's remarks were completely expunged from the record.
It was like that season of Dallas, you know, where what's his name, Patrick Duffy, didn't die.
Oh, it was all a dream, honey.
You know, those words were never uttered in this chamber.
I mean, Andrew, I've never seen the likes of this in my life.
No, by the way, thanks for the spoiler alert.
I hadn't gotten around to watching that season yet.
But what actually I think is relevant here is that we're beyond parody.
We're beyond satire.
I mean, if I were to write a parallel universe in which I said, okay, and the committee studying free speech is going to pass a motion to censor someone, someone would look at me and say, oh, no, Andrew, that's not yet.
No one would do that.
That's not realistic.
But that's what happened.
A discussion on free speech.
And the MPs unanimously, because the Conservatives abstained, unanimously voted to censor someone's words from the record.
And I've got to tell you, David, it wasn't just that motion, which really bothered me on a visceral level, but it was when I went back and listened to the audio and found that even the audio, which was supposed to be a live raw feed of the meeting, had been retroactively edited.
Silence in the place of where Michael Cooper was speaking.
And you go back and you listen, and as he says, you know, I'm going to read from the manifesto of, and then you think your computer has died.
I mean, this is not something that is supposed to happen in a free and freedom-loving country.
This is literally censorship.
When you're going back and removing something from the record, it's not conjecture or hyperbole or exaggeration.
That is the literal definition of censorship.
It is appalling, Andrew, and it's unbelievable it's happening in Canada.
And what's more, another angle I wanted to pursue with you, it's how the Conservatives, and let's not forget there are dozens of Conservative MPs that were part of the Stephen Harper regime back when this ODIA section was lifted from the Canadian Human Rights Act.
And I don't know, Andrew, I don't see any strength on this issue.
It's either they're sitting on their hands or they're voting for something that was going to be carried anyways, because as you mentioned, it was a liberal-dominated committee.
I really wonder, where does Andrew Scheer stand on this?
Well, you know, it's funny.
I try to give criticism where it's due and credit where it's due.
And there was a lot of criticism due, in my view anyway, towards Andrew Scheer and the Conservatives over how they handled the Michael Cooper situation, how they handled really just a week later the Celine Mansur nomination.
And I know you did an interview on that in London.
So I think that there was a string of really bad decisions there by the Conservatives.
But I have to say, in the Justice Committee report, the Conservatives issued a dissent that was very positive, I'd say, in free speech.
They said, look, the Liberal recommendations are despicable.
They don't strike a balance between dealing with online hate and preserving free speech.
And bringing back Section 13 in no uncertain terms is a like that's just an absolute terrible idea.
So I do think that the conservative response to the report was what I would have hoped it would have been.
Again, that doesn't take away my misgivings about the conservatives in the procedural aspects of this.
I do think that Andrew Scheer is as a person on side.
I mean, this is a guy who, in the leadership race, said he wanted to cut federal funding of universities that don't protect free speech.
So I don't know if this has just been a political miscalculation or if this is about different advisors talking on different sides.
But I do think that if the conservatives can do more of what's in this response to the report and less of what they were doing in the mechanics of the committee, they're going to be on the right side of this.
But I want to see more of that before I can say, yes, they're allies in this fight definitively.
Yeah, well, at the very least, Andrew, I think they've really miscommunicated their position.
And I'm saying this in order to give you the benefit of the doubt.
When we spoke to Maxime Bernier that day after the committee hearing, he was very clear, crystal clear where he stood on it.
He compared this to something out of the pages of 1984.
And I think he's bang on.
But, you know, we're running out of racetrack here.
Andrew, takeaway question.
Look into your crystal ball for me right now, if you could.
Where does this go from here?
Is this going to be, is it an accomplished fate that this is going to be re-implemented while this government is still sitting before the election day of October 21st, or what's going to happen?
Well, listen, we have very little runway left between now and the election when you talk about sitting periods in the House of Commons.
And even if the Liberals were to throw together a law and implement it, there's no way that gets through the House and the Senate and gets royal assent before the writ drops.
So I don't think we have to worry.
I mean, the famous last words they may be, but I don't think we have to worry about something before the election.
But I do think we need to worry about what a re-elected Liberal government will do with this.
Because now that this report is on the record, Michael Cooper's words aren't.
This report is.
The Liberals have the opportunity to use this as a jumping off point immediately into a new term to say, yeah, it's time to start tackling this.
And, you know, if they win, I mean, nightmare scenario for Canadians.
If the Liberals win a majority, that means there's no one to push back against this.
So I don't think there's an imminent fear here, but I do think there is a genuine fear if the Liberals are re-elected that Section 13 comes back.
And it's not speculation or exaggeration to say that free speech suffers a blow.
Well, you just mentioned something.
Another liberal majority.
I think that's the kind of thing that would give Count Floyd white hair.
But Andrew.
If you need, we can go and remove it from the record, David.
Oh, if only that.
Yeah.
Hey, if it bothered you, I can say I never mentioned it.
Maybe I'll review this interview before it's posted.
And if I don't like anything you said, I'll take inspiration from this justice committee and just remove it from the record.
Oh, my goodness.
I can't believe it.
Well, let's hope that this doesn't come back.
And let's hope there's not another horror movie like cheesy cliché in October, i.e., the return of another majority liberal government.
Who knows?
Time will tell.
Andrew, thank you so much for weighing in on this very important subject.
A pleasure.
You got it.
And folks, keep it here.
more of the Ezreal event show to come right after this.
Gun Owners Not the Problem00:04:42
Well you know folks it's estimated that more than a million people clogged the streets of downtown Toronto today to pay homage to their basketball heroes winners of the 2019 NBA championship and
And Toronto was going to show the world, much like Toronto did in 1992 and 1993 with the Blue Jays winning the World Series, how it's done to have a huge street party without any serious crime.
Well, my cameraman, Efren, and I were here at the atrium on Bay, and this broke out.
Well, that was the aftermath, and I didn't catch it from the beginning, of people that ran into the atrium screaming.
I thought it was people just engaged in tomfoolery.
But no, those weren't screams of joy.
They were screams of terror.
And of course the reason for those screams of terror was due to a few savages who thought it was perfectly okay to bring handguns to a massive victory parade that saw as many as 2 million people clogging the streets of Toronto's downtown core.
As to motivation, was this all about settling a score?
Was it gang related?
Or were these just pathetic individuals who decided they would attempt to hijack a victory celebration for their own self-affirmation?
Those details will come out in the days ahead.
In the meantime, here's what some of you had to say.
Long Drives at Night writes, I grew up in Newfoundland and Labrador, plenty of gun ownership, very little amount of gun crime.
Now I live in New Brunswick.
Same thing.
It appears some folks in the inner city have bad upbringing and culture, and these folk are the reason libs and lefties want to pick on Canadian law-abiding gun owners, start jailing longer, and in some cases, deport them.
Well, Long Drives at Night, you touch upon a couple of good points here.
The knee-jerk reaction whenever there is any kind of crime involving guns is, of course, to go after legal gun owners who are not the problem.
As for upbringing and cultural issues, well, these are no fly zones for the left.
It's just way too culturally sensitive for them.
And finally, when are we going to have some real penalties?
And how about this?
If you're found with an illegal handgun in your possession, bang, that's an automatic 10-year sentence.
But in this day and age of restorative justice, it is far easier to go after the legal gun owners because that's an easy way to make it seem like the government is doing something to fix the problem, whereas in reality, they are doing absolutely nothing.
Charles Clements writes, David, you failed to identify the culprits.
Be careful.
You do not want to become mainstream media.
Do not be afraid to tell the truth.
Oh, Charles, how dare you?
The rebel is not and never will be a Trudeau-approved state stenographer.
We embrace the truth and we never shy away from telling it.
The reasons why the culprits weren't identified was due to the fact that when we filed our report, this information was not yet available.
But thanks to some excellent police work by Toronto's finest, three suspects are now in custody.
Shaquille Anthony Miller, 25, Adrakarim Karao, 18, and Thano Toussant, 20.
This threesome faces multiple firearms charges as well as several other charges.
The hunt continues for a fourth suspect.
In the meantime, let's hope that if found guilty, the judge sends a firm message by throwing the book at these guys.
We don't know yet if the shootings were targeted, but given the huge crowds that day, a bullet missing its intended target would have surely have hit an innocent bystander, and there were thousands of kids at this parade.
Like I said, let's hope the judge likes the idea of hard time in prison as opposed to sending human trash to some healing lodge in Saskatchewan.
Toby T writes, Nobody cares about the Raptors or whatever they are called.
Nobody even knew about it merely two months ago.
Nobody Cares Anymore00:01:53
The dumb millennials are biting into anything with a slight hype.
After a month, nobody will remember the news or care.
Suddenly, everyone is a basketball fan.
Basketball is non-existent in Canada.
Oh, gee, where do I even begin?
The numbers indicate that people do indeed care, Toby T, when you get about 2 million people out on the street waiting to catch a glimpse of a procession that was more than three hours late.
I'd say that's caring big time.
Granted, there were plenty of bandwagon hoppers, myself included, during the Raptors' amazing playoff run, but so what?
The owners of the team love bandwagon hoppers.
Hey, if you're going to buy all that pricey official merchandise, then the more the merrier.
As for your statement that basketball is non-existent in Canada, what do you even base that on?
Basketball is huge in Canada, and I would suggest that this nation is now producing world-class basketball talent that is second only to the USA.
They say everyone loves a parade, but if you don't, hey, that's fine.
Stay home, do your own thing.
I just don't get the idea of dumping on something that was truly a golden moment for Toronto and even Canada.
And even though there were a few thugs who tried to hijack this celebration with their gunplay, the fact is they ultimately failed to do so.
Unlike so many other victory parades in Europe and North America, for the most part, Hogtown lived up to its nickname of Toronto the Good.
There was no rioting, there was no mass vandalism and looting.
Police cruisers were not overturned and set ablaze.
All of this mindless crap has become a du régue occurrence at so many other sporting celebrations.