Canada’s Elections Commissioner Yves Côte abandoned a $6M taxpayer-funded probe into foreign "fake news" ads—later exposed as clickbait—targeting NDP leader Jagmeet Singh during the July 19 Burnaby South by-election, despite Singh’s calls for stricter penalties ahead of October 21’s vote. Meanwhile, John Carpe of JCCF criticizes Jonathan Yaniv’s use of BC’s Human Rights Code to coerce 14 immigrant women into affirming his gender identity, comparing it to state-mandated pronoun enforcement. Media bias and legal overreach, from CBC’s silence on hearings to Twitter bans at Yaniv’s request, reveal a system prioritizing ideological protection over free speech, raising concerns about Canada’s evolving political and social discourse. [Automatically generated summary]
I think it's in the eye of the beholder, but the government of Canada thinks that they should investigate anything on the internet that's just not quite right.
Well, it's a crazy story I got for you today.
I'll let you hear it because it's really funny.
But could you do me a favor and become a premium subscriber of The Rebel?
I know you get these podcasts for free and that's fine.
But for eight bucks a month, you really help us keep the lights on.
And I'd be grateful.
It's 80 bucks for a year, or you even get a discount if you type the coupon code podcast in.
And you don't just get the moral satisfaction of knowing you're paying our bills.
But you get the video version of this podcast and Sheila Gunread's show and David Menzie's show too.
So please consider going to the rebel.media slash shows and signing up.
Thanks.
Here's today's show.
You're listening to a Rebel Media Podcast.
Tonight, the Federal Elections Commissioner gives up chasing an internet rumor after spending millions of tax dollars trying.
Why did he do it?
It's July 19th, 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 is government a lot of publishing is because it's my bloody right to do so.
I want to tell you a ridiculous story, so obviously it's about Trudeau's government.
I want to tell you about some fool's errand, a wild goose chase of some bureaucrats spending your money to track down what was obviously a joke, a rumor on the internet.
It reminds me of this classic cartoon headlined, Duty Calls.
Someone out of frame, as in his wife, says, are you coming to bed?
And the man at the computer says, I can't.
This is important.
And she says, what?
And he says, someone is wrong on the internet.
That's pretty funny because it's so true.
And you will never be done correcting what's wrong on the internet.
And you yourself are, probably, in someone else's view, the wrong one.
And you need to be corrected.
And that's the beauty of being a free person.
You can disagree.
But the liberals tried to hunt down someone who was wrong on the internet.
And it didn't work out very well for them or you and me, the taxpayers.
Look at this headline from my favorite independent news source in Ottawa called Blacklocks.
Fake news probe collapses.
The federal commissioner of elections yesterday collapsed a first ever fake news investigation.
The office confirmed foreign individuals planted a false story to discredit new Democrat leader Jackmeet Singh, but could not find out who was responsible or why.
Fake news, I love that word when I use it, and I hate it when others use it, which is what everyone says, because of course we all think that we know what's real news.
Our point of view is usually what we're talking about.
And we all know what's fake, our opponent's point of view.
And they say the same about us.
It's just a pejorative way of pointing out a difference of opinion most of the time.
I mean, sometimes news really is fake, and we can all agree that it's fake.
Before the age of the internet, we got our fake news in the form of supermarket tabloids.
Look at this one.
Look at these.
Literally fake news, often hilarious fiction posing as fag Bigfoot.
I'm not quite sure why those tabloids did so well for so long.
Did people actually believe them?
Did they just read them for a laugh?
Were they an escapist fantasy?
I don't know.
But my point in mentioning them is hopefully obvious.
We all survived as a society with those supermarket tabloids.
And you know what?
No one denounced them or banned them or deplatformed them.
There were no campaigns to have supermarkets ban the tabloids.
We didn't have government investigations of them as fake news.
We all laughed at them.
Some of us bought them.
Must be if they lasted for so long.
No big deal.
So why shouldn't it be allowed?
I mean, I suppose there might be some defamation.
I suppose calling a president an alien from Mars or you saw that Dick Chinese robot.
Maybe that's technically defamation, but really who would care?
No one would ever sue.
Elvis Presley spotted on Mars, people.
But look, this is from a UK tabloid called the Daily Star, but now it's on the internet too, obviously.
So is that fake news?
Well, yeah, but look, it's an entertainment, right?
I mean, it's goofy.
It's obviously not really Elvis.
I don't think they were actually pretending it was Elvis.
They're just pointing out something in a photo that looked like Elvis if you squint it hard enough.
That's goofy.
Slightly less goofy, but still goofy and fake are the lobbyist panels on CBC and CTV.
They literally pay lobbyists to come on TV to talk about politics.
They have a conservative lobbyist and a liberal lobbyist, all the lobbyists to debate, but those lobbyists never disclose who their clients are.
So it's not real political commentary.
It's fake.
They're, I don't know, promoting their clients or their clients' interests or they're sucking up to the government to get access for their lobbying clients or they're just advertising to prospective clients about how connected they are to get more clients.
I actually think those lobbyist panels on the CBC State Broadcaster and the CBC CTV wannabe state broadcaster are just as fake news as the Elvis story.
But that's the nature of the internet.
It's wild, it's unregulated, but we're used to that as people.
Have you ever seen a bulletin board in a public community center or a college campus or even on the wall of a local coffee shop?
You have everything and anything posted there from guitar lessons to meetings of political groups to little rants about life.
It's unregulated.
It's natural.
It's human and we love it.
And if we don't, we ignore it.
So what?
So fake news is as old as the printing press.
It's older, of course.
Fake news can be oral, too.
I remember reading stories about censorship in the medieval ages.
And people were actually prosecuted for telling jokes about aristocrats.
That can actually happen today.
I recall one case, though, where someone who was prosecuted for laughing at a joke.
That's pretty interesting.
And Human Rights Commissions are bringing that back.
I was doing all that research when I was investigated by the Human Rights Commission.
My point is, you know, we can handle freedom, but the urge to censor is centuries, millennia old.
Can you give me one more minute on fake news in the edge of the internet before I get to the news today?
I mean, underneath that Daily Star story I showed you about Elvis on Mars.
It was an editorial story.
That was written by a journalist, right?
And you can see the pictures that they say is Elvis on Mars.
It's funny.
But you see there's a bunch of ads, obviously, lots of ads on the right-hand side there.
And these are ads now.
Those ads, that's an ad.
They're pretty well targeted.
They know who their customer is, people looking for unusual news, right?
So look at that photo of Air Force One.
Now, you know that's a fake, right?
I mean, you know that.
Air Force One was never put on a barge like that.
But who wouldn't want to look at that fun picture?
That's sort of goofy, did that happen?
And here's a story about celebrities, and there's something about Ontario pensioners.
And there's all these, you know, it's a UK tabloid, but they can tell that when I went there, I was from Ontario.
So they personalize their ads for Ontarians like me.
It's weird and wonderful, and it's full BS, and I bet it all gets clicks, whether for laughs or curiosity or boredom or whatever.
You know that Air Force One was done on a barge like that.
Here's the Daily Mail, another great UK tabloid.
I could do this with Canadian papers too, U.S. websites, but the Brits are the best at tabloids.
This story here is hilarious.
It's about a shaggy dog that went paddling.
I mean, that's not even news, people.
But so what?
It's fun to look at.
And scroll down, look at the ads underneath.
It's a story about a shaggy dog.
But the website must know I'm Canadian because it has these terrifying pictures of Celine Dion.
But can you see?
That's an ad.
Now, is that Photoshopped?
Or is that real?
Does it really matter?
I mean, is it news or is it an ad?
Some of these stories are news.
Some are marked as ads.
This is an ad.
But they're all fun, I think.
None are really serious.
It's supermarket tabloids.
It's your right to read them.
If you don't want junk food like that, you can eat your spinach and read just the New York Times or the other proper papers, but don't think you won't be getting their spin and their choice of weird stuff, too.
It's wonderful and terrible to have so many choices.
And it's better to have those choices than for the have the government choose for you.
And thank you for listening to me talk about fake news for a while because I want to show you an ad, a junk ad, like the ones I've been showing you, like those junk ads about Celine Dion.
Now, the junk ad about to show you appeared in the Independent newspaper in the UK, which I think is actually a fairly snobby, reputable newspaper.
It's not a supermarket tabloid.
I think I'd call it Siri.
Actually, it's leftist, of course, but they all are over there.
So it's a real story on the left there.
But on the right, do you see that picture?
Those pictures are all ads, right?
You can see the credit card ad.
But in the middle, it's an ad, and it's marked as an ad, but it shows Jagmeet Singh with a yellow turban on, and he's a very handsome man.
And it says, Jagmeet Singh shows off his new mansion.
Now, it's not actually true.
If you click through that, it didn't actually show you his mansion.
It was a tabloid story.
It was fake, like the Elvis story.
It was clever, though, because it only served up that ad to Canadians, even though it was a UK newspaper.
Had it been a reader from Italy, I don't know, maybe it would replace Singh with some Italian politicians.
It was just trying to get you to click.
Now, saying that Jagmeet Singh had a new mansion, and they actually showed a picture of a mansion that wasn't his, and they claimed it was, that's not really a crime.
It's not really defamation either, other than maybe some people would say, hey, Jagmeet Singh, you're a socialist, but you're a hypocrite living in a $5 million mansion.
But, you know, in fact, he really is rich and glamorous.
He's a millionaire, and he's married to a millionaire.
And here's a story in Toronto Life magazine.
And I'm just going to quote, he owns two Rolex watches, an Oyster Perpetual Date Just and a Submariner.
Both were gifts.
A crimson BMW coupe and six designer bicycles.
I have just an absurd number of bikes, he said.
More than one person should have.
Singh has become one of the city's most devoted partygoers, a regular at King West night spots and gala fundraisers at fashion shows and Raptors games.
He's a jet setter.
I mean, these are pictures.
Here he is having himself photographed shopping in Europe.
So yeah, it was fake news about the mansion, but it's true that he's rich and he's a show-off and he's a clothes horse and he loves designer bicycles.
But the bikes are just for show.
He drives a fancy BMW.
So right now you're thinking, okay, so what?
Me too.
So what?
Okay, so someone is wrong on the internet.
I can't come to bed.
You see, someone's wrong on the internet.
Someone said he has a fancy mansion, but it's actually not $5 million.
It's $2 million or whatever it is.
But he's got a BMW.
I mean, you're not going to correct everything on the internet.
But Justin Schrudo's Election Commission, actually, get this, get this, get this.
They actually engaged in an international manhunt for the people who put up that fake news ad and others about Jagmeet Singh like it.
It was an international manhunt of the kind that chased Pablo Escobar.
Here, let me read from the CBC story at the time.
They were really excited about this manhunt, and I'll tell you why in a few minutes.
NDP asks Elections Watchdog to investigate slanderous ads targeting Singh.
Ad claims NDP leader owns a multi-million dollar mansion.
By the way, the average house in Toronto costs a million dollars, I hate to say.
Now, for some reason, they didn't ask Elections Canada to investigate that big show-off article in Toronto Life where he boasts about his BMW and his jet-setting lifestyle.
So, I guess that wasn't slanders.
Let me read some more.
The NDP is asking Canada's election watchdog to immediately launch an investigation after a series of ads claiming Jagmeet Singh lived in a multi-million dollar mansion popped up online in the lead up to the Burnaby South by-election later this month.
As the TIE first reported, an ad claiming Singh owns a $5.5 million mansion ran below a story in the Vancouver Courier, a community newspaper.
That link took articles to an article titled, 13 Super Luxurious Celebrity Houses.
They surely know how to spend their fortune on the website Attorney Cocktail.
Oh, okay.
Now, folks, just a professional tip from a friend.
If you're getting your information about the world from a website called Attorney Cocktail, that might be your first clue that you're just getting junk.
Let me read some more in a letter to Commissioner of Elections, Yves Côte.
The NDP's Director of Operations, Jesse Streen Calvert, writes that the party is very concerned about the slanderous ads and asks Côte to investigate possible breaches of the Election Act.
These patently false statements are damaging to our leader, our party brand, and most importantly, threaten a free and fair election currently underway, reads the letter obtained by CBC News.
I wonder how they got that.
These advertisements are clearly false and are intended to affect the outcome of the upcoming election.
Yeah, no, I think the reason Jagmeet Singh is going to lose the next election is because he's a socialist and he's empty and he's always underinformed.
He's terrible in interviews.
He's always vague and wishy-washy about so many things.
The only things he's passionate about are the ones he's most wrong about.
He wants to shut down the oil sands.
He's unpopular or wrong.
He's a weak campaigner, and he's a radical leftist, and that's why he's going to lose.
Not because a website called Attorney Cocktail had some clickbait ad with a picture of a handsome Jagmeet Singh and a slightly provocative headline.
But still, this was big news to the left.
A left-wing lobby group called the TIE.
Now, they would call themselves a news site, but I know that they're funded by the Taiwanese Foundation.
So to me, they're about as credible as a supermarket tabloid, but they think they're the New York Times.
You see how this works.
Meet Singh's Losing Formula00:05:45
So they were really excited about this investigation.
I'll tell you why in a moment.
Here's what they reported a few months back.
They said, the commissioner responsible for ensuring the Elections Act is followed has been investigating the origins of the ad for months, according to the website Black Box Reporter, which shared documents it obtained in a Freedom of Information request with the Taiye.
The documents show investigators sought a judicial order requiring Tabula, the company that hosted the ad that appeared on the website of the Vancouver Courier, The Independent, The History Channel, and likely others, to produce information about the advertiser and campaign.
But it wasn't a political ad, people.
It just used a political name and a handsome picture as clickbait just to get you to go to their site.
It was just to drive ad revenue.
It wasn't a campaign ad.
And the ad was brokered through different ad server companies.
It wasn't an attempt to influence the election.
It was an attempt to get bored people to click on a handsome picture and throw some mansion talk around.
But our government spent months trying to track it down in foreign lands.
And hey, good luck with that, guys.
I got a few other things on the internet maybe you can help me chase down.
So they finally gave up.
And here's today's story from Black Locks, which has done great reporting on this.
They say, the federal commissioner of elections yesterday collapsed the first ever fake news investigation.
I told you that.
The office confirmed foreign individuals planted a false story to discredit new Democrat leader Jack Meet Singh, but could not find out who was responsible or why.
Individuals outside Canada played a key role in the creation and dissemination of the advertising, wrote Milene Zhiju, Director of Investigations for the Commissioner.
However, despite our best efforts, it has not been possible to determine the identity of the person or entity that paid for the advertising.
I'm just going to read a little bit more.
MP Singh earlier complained the investigation appeared slow through the cabinet proposed to spend millions to combat a feared influx of fake internet postings and foreign meddling in the October 21st general election.
What we're seeing right now is not strong enough, Singh told reporters.
It's not satisfactory in terms of making sure people know their news is reliable.
We've got to do better.
Just one more line.
There was an attempt to interfere in a way with that by-election, said Singh.
The measures being put forward are not as robust or as strong as Canadians expect and need.
We need to strengthen that with harsher penalties, stronger oversight, and a much more active way to actually tackle fake news.
I'm not coming to bed tonight, honey.
There is someone wrong on the internet.
Say, do you really think that little ad, probably seen by maybe a few hundred Canadians, probably not seen by a single person in that little by-election area?
Do you really think that's why, I mean, just to pick another by-election, do you really think that's why Jack Meet Singh's NDP came in third in the Nanaimo by-election?
You think maybe that's why?
Do you think you could find a single Nanaimo white who recalls seeing that ad, let alone says it caused them to change their vote?
No, that's making excuses, like Hillary Clinton did for why she lost Wisconsin and thus the presidency.
But why is everyone so excited about this?
Why is everyone pretending that the 2019 version of those supermarket tabloids is so important?
Why is the NDP, the Tais Foundation-funded Thai newspaper, see, I call them fake news.
They'd call me fake news, vive-le difference.
Why is the Liberal Election Commissioner, why are they all so hung-ho, gung-ho, about investigating someone who was wrong on the internet, about hunting down a website called Attorney Cocktail?
Oh my God, all the kids, they're going to attorney cocktail to learn about no, they're not.
Well, I think it's obvious, right?
They're not worried about attorney cocktail.
They're not worried about supermarket tabloids talking about Elvis, fake news.
What they're doing is they want to normalize censorship, normalize the government going on hunts for who said what and for the government to determine what's politically acceptable and not.
And they don't care about a claim that Jack Meet Singh lives in a $5 million mansion.
He probably does, by the way.
He's a rich clothes horse who rubs his money in your face every day.
He's got a BMW and you don't.
He has custom-made suits and you don't.
Yeah, he's not embarrassed by his wealth.
He brags about it.
He's not worried about people saying he's got a $5 million house.
He's probably is thrilled about that.
But he and Trudeau and most of the media, by the way, what they do care about is they care about the idea of creating scares about unregulated ideas on the internet.
They love creating a moral panic about online news, about fake news.
Because once it's normalized for Trudeau's handpick appointees to investigate and prosecute people who are just wrong on the internet in the name of political hygiene, well, hey, who do you think they're going to go after?
I'm not talking about defamation or crimes.
We already have laws for those.
I'm talking about this new Trudeau-appointed partisan elections officer, a political cop, going after things he says are fake.
They don't care about attorney cocktail.
They care about censoring your Facebook posts, your Twitter posts.
They care about conservative websites like our friends at tnc.news or the post-millennial or about Canada Proud or The Rebel.
That's what this is about.
They're warming up.
A tourney cocktail.
They're coming for me.
And then they're coming for you.
Stay with us for more.
Affirming Gender Identity00:14:17
Welcome back.
Well, sometimes troubled people indulge in fantasies, and that's fine.
Sometimes they say there's something they're not, that's fine.
I could say I'm the king of Spain.
It doesn't make it so.
Sometimes fellas say they're girls and you know what?
It doesn't bother me.
I don't want to pick on someone who has challenges in life, thinks they're a woman trapped in a man's body.
Until very recently, that was called a mental illness until a small political committee of the American Psychiatric Association decided otherwise in a vote.
I didn't know medicine was decided by votes.
But since then, there's been an explosion in transgenderism.
And again, my point of view is that these folks are very troubled.
In fact, various studies show that men who are transitioning to become women, when they finish that transition, either through surgery or through hormones and chemicals, it does not stop the problems.
And in fact, the suicide rate for transgenders, male to female, is about 50% and it grows to 60%, the attempted suicide rate.
They find no comfort in having mutilated themselves with the aid of doctors and the political system.
I tell you all this because of a terrible thing that's been happening in Vancouver.
A man named Jonathan Yaneev decided that he was in fact a woman and that he would call himself Jessica Yaneev.
But he still has his twig and berries, or at least his berries.
And as so many transgender men do, they want to prove to the world that they are in fact women.
And they prove it by forcing other people to confirm that they're women.
There was a terrible case at the Vancouver Rape Relief Institute where a transition man, transgender man, said, I demand to be allowed access to the rape shelter to counsel rape victims.
I demanded, and he sued them because he knew that was a place men were not allowed.
And it was a form of therapy for him to have access to the real women because then he would have proof that he was a real woman.
I'm sorry, that's mental illness and that's abuse.
Back to Jonathan Yaneve.
He has a strange hobby of calling up aestheticians, women who wax the genitalia of other women.
It's a girl thing.
And signing up for appointments.
And then after he has an appointment saying, ta-da, I'm a transgender man to woman, but can you give me a wax on my meat and two veg?
Can you wax my wedding tackle?
Can you do to me as a man transgender what you do to women?
And of course they do not want to do so.
They either regard it as too intimate an act.
They didn't sign up for waxing a man.
They feel tricked.
They are not trained in that.
Or they're culturally or morally offended by it and they say no.
And so, time and again, Jonathan Yaniv takes these women, many of them minority women, newcomer women, immigrant women who are earning a living this way, and he takes them not to a court, because a court would throw him out and wag their finger at him and say, shame on you for attempting to expose yourself sexually to these women.
No, he takes them to a kangaroo court.
What i've always said is the worst kangaroo court in Canada, the BC Human Rights Tribunal.
Not once, not twice, not three times, but again and again.
It's like he's going through the yellow pages, contacting every aesthetician in the city and tricking and trapping them and bizarrely, until just two days ago, he managed to do all of this in the Human rights tribunals in secret.
He actually managed to get the Human Rights Tribunal to put a publication ban on his name, almost as if they were helping to hide his identity so he could sneak and trap other aestheticians.
Well, that press publication ban was finally lifted, and joining us now via skype is the Justice Center FOR Constitutional Freedoms, John Uh, John Carpe, who is representing one of these aestheticians.
Welcome, John.
Did I more or less accurately describe what Jonathan Yaniv is doing to immigrant women throughout the Vancouver area?
Yes he he filed complaints against 14 women 14 women.
He did this 14 times and the Justice Center uh represented two women back in 2018 and, in both cases, as soon as Yaniv found out that the women had legal counsel, he withdrew the complaint.
Uh the Human Rights Tribunal actually took a dim view of his pattern of um of of withdrawing the complaints uh.
So there were three hearings that took place in July of 2019, and our staff lawyer, Jay Cameron, was in Vancouver.
And on three separate hearings for three separate women, he represented the women.
And we're now waiting for a human rights tribunal ruling on these three cases.
And as you said, it is a very intimate service.
We actually had somebody on Thursday, July 4th.
on the first of the three hearings, we had an expert witness uh testify and uh this lady runs a salon for men in Vancouver who want to have this Brazilian bikini wax.
Uh, it's it's called a Manzillion or a Brozillian.
I'm told, and this woman testified before the Human Rights Tribunal, that this is a very different procedure.
It requires different wax, it requires specialized training.
So not only were these 14 women not willing to wax male genitalia, but they're also not qualified, not trained and not competent to do so, and that's evidence that's now before the tribunal.
Well, that raises the obvious point, if there is an aesthetician, Esthetician in Vancouver who will do this, who is trained to do this, who makes money off this and has staff who are ready to go.
Why would this man go to 14 women who don't do it, who don't want to do it, for either moral or technical reasons?
Why would he go to 14 women who don't want to touch his junk instead of the one who says, hey, yeah, come here, I'll take your 50 bucks?
Well, one of the arguments that Yaniv raised, and I don't, obviously I don't speak for Yaniv, but the argument is that under BC law, because the BC Human Rights Code prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender expression and gender identity, Yaniv's argument is that under the law, Yaniv is a woman by identifying as such.
Therefore, Yaniv ought to be able to go to a women-only place.
In fact, Yaniv has stated that Yaniv attends a female-only gym, and I guess the gym allows that.
I'm not aware of that being a court case or anything.
But that seems to be the argument: is through the Human Rights Code, recognizing gender identity and gender expression, if you're a woman according to the BC Human Rights Code, then you ought to be treated as such.
And so Yaniv is advancing this argument that Yaniv has a human right to have male genitalia waxed by female estheticians who want to provide services to women only.
Well, John, what you've done there is you've given me his legal excuse for it.
And that's sort of obvious.
He's trying to make the case as offensively and abusively as I could possibly imagine it being made, that he has the right to do this.
Actually, the only thing worse would be that case of the Vancouver Rape Relief, where a man insisted on having access to rape victims.
That's even grosser than Jonathan Yaniv.
But my question was actually a little bit different.
And maybe give me a try.
And I know you can't speak for this creep, but he's saying I should legally be allowed to.
I get that.
That's his argument.
He's trying to change the law.
But why wouldn't he, just as a personal choice, go to the person in town, this expert you referred to, who's willing to do it?
Like, why I know you're saying he's arguing he has the right to do so, but why would he do so?
I mean, is the answer that he's trying to offend people, that he's trying to have some sort of psychotherapy by if he can do something that he knows only women are allowed to do, it makes him feel like a real woman?
Is it that he's trying to destroy societal notions of men or women?
Or is he just generally an asshole?
Well, the BC Human Rights Tribunal released an interim decision on May 30th just dealing with some procedural issues.
And the BC Human Rights Tribunal in that ruling said something to the effect of that transgender women have a right to gender-affirming care.
And so that Yaniv's complaint should be taken very seriously.
They didn't really tip their hat as to whether they're going to rule for or against Geniev, but they did say that it's a real issue that transgender women should have access to gender-affirming care.
So gender-affirming wife-care.
Gender-affirming care.
Care, C-A-R-E, care.
Gender-affirming care.
Oh, care.
Okay.
I didn't see that last word.
See, I understand what people say when they say tolerance.
Tolerate someone different.
You may not like something, but you can tolerate.
I'm a fan of tolerance.
Then there's acceptance.
I get that.
There's respect.
I get that.
I think we're moving up in orders here.
Affirming, gender-affirming care, if that's what you said.
So now I don't have to tolerate something.
I don't have to accept it.
I don't have to just respect it.
I have to affirm them.
I have to say what they're doing, I must be a part of now.
And of course, I'm some guy in Calgary who doesn't do that sort of thing.
But we're talking about, and all these 14 cases, is it accurate to say they're all immigrant women or they are in the main, young immigrant women who come to Canada and he's basically a predator seeking them out?
It's all women and they're mainly immigrants.
Is that correct?
The majority of them are immigrants.
And I think you hit upon a good point there that there's a distinction between a man or a woman dressing up as the opposite sex, claiming to be the opposite sex, identifying as the opposite sex.
All of that is part of freedom of expression.
If Yaniv was being prosecuted or persecuted by a government telling Yaniv, well, you must use a male name and you're not allowed to wear female clothing, I would go to bat for Yeniv's right to freedom of expression and say you can express yourself as you wish.
And, you know, it goes both ways, whether it's a woman identifying as a man or man identifying as a woman.
It's one thing to express yourself.
And in a free society, we have to be tolerant of expression that we might find offensive.
But it's quite another to use the law to coerce somebody to affirm that which you believe, right?
So it's one thing for a guy to claim to be a woman.
It's quite another to say everybody else has to also pay lip service to that notion and go along with it.
And I think this was a point Jordan Peterson hit upon when he was testifying against putting gender identity, gender expression into the human rights legislation because that would coerce the use of honorifics, misses, ms, miss.
And it's the state coercion that's the issue.
I mean, it's one thing to be polite.
And as a matter of politeness, you choose to perhaps refer to somebody with the gender pronouns that that person wishes to be referred by.
That should be an optional thing that people can choose to do or not.
It becomes a problem when you have state coercion.
Yeah.
You know what?
I have so many bad memories coming back to me now of the Human Rights Commission because the Human Rights Commission and the tribunal in British Columbia, similar to that in Alberta and Ontario and federally, was designed originally, if you believe the original framers of those laws, to be a shield to protect individuals, not to be a sword to attack individuals.
State Coercion Problem00:08:09
And this creep is using and abusing the human rights law as a sword to go after 14 women.
And basically, in the 70s, we'd call him a streaker or a flasher.
In the New York subway, someone's wearing a raincoat and they go, ta-da, and they're naked underneath and they run away.
That's essentially what he's doing.
But instead of being, you know, running away out of shame, he's walking right in the front door and say, all right, ladies, get busy waxing.
I know this is a lady's aesthetic shop, but I'm a lady.
And if you don't agree with me that I'm a lady, I'm going to sue you.
I don't understand why women's groups or immigrant aid groups, or let alone Christian or Sikh or Muslim groups, I don't know the ethnicity of these women, why they're not pushing back.
Is there anyone else coming to these aid of these immigrant women other than you, John?
Well, to her credit, Megan Murphy, who's one of the leading Canadian feminists, she has a website called Feminist Current.
And she was actually barred from Twitter, removed from using Twitter.
And that was at the behest of Yaniv.
Yeniv complained that this feminist, Megan Murphy, had said something along the lines of trans women are not women or trans women are men, men are not women, some comment to that effect.
And Yaniv persuaded Twitter to ban Megan Murphy.
Lindsay Shepard, tragically, was also banned from Twitter for referring to Yaniv as a man.
So Twitter is a problem.
And the media have boycotted this to a large extent.
It's only in the past week or so that we're getting some media, not the CBC, but some other media, are starting to write about the case.
In spite of the fact that we had public hearings in Vancouver that were open to the public and the media, of course.
We had public hearings July 4th, July 5th.
Not a single media person was present.
And I think the reason is that this hurts a left-wing progressive narrative about human rights and political correctness.
The media do not want to report on this because it shows how the human rights laws have been twisted and perverted and taken to a place where they should never go.
And Yaniv effectively makes a good case as to why we need to reform the human rights proceedings.
And that's not something that the media want to cover on.
Well, John, first of all, thank you for being there.
And it sounds like you're representing two, is it?
Two of these women who were abused?
A total of five.
And I have to interject.
I have to tell you as well, one of our clients tried, approached 26 different lawyers and law firms seeking help to defend against Yaniv's complaint.
Now, some of them had good reason for turning her down.
They said, we don't practice in the area of human rights law, so we don't really know what we're doing.
So you should go find somebody else.
But amongst the 26, many of these lawyers and law firms said, we will not represent you because we fear the wrath of the powerful transgender lobby.
And we don't want our name drawn into being called hateful and transphobic and bigoted and all the name calling.
Unbelievable.
Absolutely believable.
You know what?
It reminds me of when we were trying to get a lawyer for Tommy Robinson.
The first six law firms in the row said, no thanks.
And literally, I had to find a lawyer whose website said he represented war criminals, John.
And I called them up.
Jonathan Grimes was the name.
I said, your website says you represent war criminals.
Can you represent the citizen journalists?
They had a firm meeting and they said, fine.
So maybe there's some war criminal lawyer in Vancouver who said, well, you know, I only represent people who commit genocide and actual Nazis.
I'm not going to represent an immigrant woman who doesn't want to touch Jonathan Yaniv's junk.
I'm so frustrated to hear that.
But let me say this.
I'm glad you took the case.
And I happen to know where I was on July 4th because that date rings by.
I was actually in the United Kingdom that day covering Tommy Robinson's latest trial.
So that's where I was.
And I know some of our staff, I mean, we only have five reporters.
But I promise you, we'll cover any future cases.
Are there more cases like this coming?
The ones, there's a few more hearings.
Some of the women have been terrified into shutting down their businesses.
We actually have tried to contact all 14, or at least the ones that we were able to find out the name of the woman or the name of the business.
We've tried to contact all of them.
In some cases, there's no more phone number.
There's no more website.
It's been a horrific process for our clients.
14 families now are in poverty.
14 immigrant women are thinking, why did I come to Canada?
John, I promise you we will cover these in the future, but I want to talk about one last thing.
And please let me know when the next hearings on any of these cases are.
But there's one thing that I mentioned earlier.
Until a couple of days ago, the identity of Jonathan Yaniv was a secret, a court-ordered secret.
And I want you to tell me why that was.
Why did the courts agree to keep this predator's name secret from other women who ought to have been warned about him?
It's Yaniv presented to the going way back, Yaniv filed the complaints back in the spring of 2018.
Yaniv claimed that having the full name out there would hurt Yaniv's business.
And however, about 10 days ago, within the past 10 days, Yaniv on Twitter admitted to being the complainant.
And only at this point did the tribunal step in.
We drew that to the tribunal's attention.
And it was the Justice Center that applied to lift the anonymization order.
And we presented to the tribunal Yaniv's public comments to the effect that Yaniv is the complainant in these cases.
But prior to that, Yaniv has a very prominent public profile on the internet.
And it was our submission to the tribunal that there were not valid grounds to make this anonymous, in part because one of the pillars of our court system is transparency and openness, and that we do not have secret proceedings, right?
Secret proceedings is what you have in dictatorships and police states.
So an open, transparent courts process, including for human rights tribunals.
So we did eventually persuade the tribunal to lift that anonymization order.
But what really tipped the scale was that Yaniv said publicly that Yaniv was the complainant in these human rights proceedings.
It's a disgrace and a shame upon the human rights tribunal that they would have kept it secret in the first place.
Part of litigation is accepting the fact that you are going to the government to ask for some sort of relief, in this case, to have the government act as a sword to spear these women, to do so secretly.
I mean, there are some cases where we give secrecy if there is a minor child involved, for example, or if there's a national security secret.
Speaking the Truth00:03:13
But this is a political extremist who was looking to hide his shameful work, and he surely knew that's a disgrace.
You know, John, in British Columbia, there's another case right now where a father has been ordered by the court not to refer to his daughter as her or she to anyone.
And in fact, the lawyer for this father has been ordered to do the same thing.
Now, we interviewed this father, and because it's so absurd to call a girl he, he accidentally called her she a few times, and the judge has actually demanded that the lawyer ask us to take that video down.
So it's not just the extreme bizarreness of transgender activists.
It's that they want to cover their tracks and ban people from thinking and talking and debating and ban people on Twitter and have it secret.
That is the sign of a deep rot in our legal system.
And I am horrified to hear how far this went and that you are the only one standing with these 14 abused women.
The trans ideology is very aggressive.
And I will defend to the death the right of anybody to promote that ideology, to seek it, to try to persuade other people of its truth.
But, you know, this is just one of those issues where people are missing the forest for the tree because whether it's Islamophobia or transphobia or homophobia, you've got a problem where free speech gets curtailed in the name of not hurting people's feelings and in the name of some higher good.
The government never attacks your rights and freedoms without putting forward what is claimed to be a good reason for doing so.
And so the transgender lobby is extremely powerful.
And the only thing to do is for people to resist and speak the truth and not be intimidated by it.
And that holds true, whether it's a trans lobby or anything else.
You simply have to continue to speak the truth as you see it or the truth as you believe it and not be intimidated.
And that's a daily job for everyday citizens to carry out in their lives.
It's not just leaders of organizations or public interest lawyers that need to do that.
I am so angry, and I regret that I was out of the country during that hearing.
And I know the rest of our team is so busy every day.
But I assure you, John, that we will cover this case going forward.
And I can assure you, as God is my witness, I swear that I will go to prison rather than have some court tell me, as they told that dad, that I have to call a girl a boy or a boy a girl.
It's straight out of Orwell.
Andrew Scheer On Trump00:05:38
How many fingers?
How many fingers am I holding up?
Say it's three.
Say it's three.
I will not say it's three if it's two.
And that is where we are in Canada.
And John, you're the only one standing between us and that.
And I would encourage all our viewers to go to jccf.ca.
That's your website, right?
Yes.
Learn more about the case and chip in because you, like us, don't take a dime from government.
You're just you rely on grassroots people, and we like what you do, John.
And in the past, we've crowdfunded for you.
I know we've sent you some money over the years.
If there's anything here that we can do on the crowdfunding side, we can talk after the show because, boy, I'm mad about this, and I bet our viewers are too.
Well, we appreciate any donations, and we issue official tax receipts as well.
We're a registered charity.
Right on.
Well, that's jccl.ca.
John, I'll let you go.
I've kept you so long.
Thanks for fighting the good fight.
Thanks for having me on your show.
All right, there you have it.
John Carpe, he's the leader of the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms.
And you heard the story.
He's in there fighting for these immigrant women and their right not to have to, what was the Ferd, affirm Jonathan Yaniv's gender expression.
All right, stay with us.
There's more I have on The Rebel.
Hey, welcome back on my monologue yesterday about Trudeau and Scheer, both condemning Trump's tweets.
Phil writes, from personal experience, I know that many Canadians hate Donald Trump, a sentiment whipped up by the CBC.
Trudeau probably feels his electoral chances in October are improved by continuing his attacks on Trump.
I think you're right.
I think it's a very safe opinion to have.
I don't know if it's going to work, though.
I think that Canadians have fallen out of love with Trudeau, those who had an infatuation with him.
I really haven't met anyone who loves Trudeau, who's not sort of on the payroll anymore, you know.
There used to be all these what Lennon would call useful idiots.
I think of Paul Wells of McLean's as the perfect archetype of that.
But those are the ones who have fallen the hardest because that was a pure love they had.
The only ones who still love Trudeau are the ones whose love he has to buy.
It feels tinny.
Drew writes, I don't understand why Andrew Scheer reckons it's a good idea to condemn Trump.
It doesn't seem very smart to take a stab at Trump for his comments on Twitter because if Scheer wins this election, and I hope he doesn't, then he would have to deal with him.
What relationship would that be?
My best guess is that it will be a very salty one.
Well, first of all, let's just speak very practically.
Is any Trump hater in Canada likely to vote for the Conservatives or Andrew Scheer?
I'd say no.
Maybe someone who's, like, I know a fair number of Conservative, sort of Canadian moderates, rather, who say, well, I don't feel great about Trump.
Right.
But by bashing Trump, is Andrew Scheer going to get one single vote extra?
No, he will not.
If you're a Trump derangement hater, it's taken for granted that you hate Andrew Scheer and the Conservatives.
In fact, Andrew Scheer and the Conservatives are less likable than Trump.
At least Trump's entertaining and not boring.
So pragmatically, it's not going to get him one more vote.
And what if he wins?
He's going to have this track record of stupid things that he said about Trump he's going to have to deal with.
And you know what?
I think it actually does turn off that percentage of Canadians who like Trump.
It doesn't make sense.
Chris writes, up until 12 years ago, I smoked my share of pot and was around many who did also.
As I watched Justin commenting on Trump tonight, I was absolutely sure that Justin was stoned out of his wits, which are limited.
He stumbled, hesitated, and repeated himself.
Do Justin's handlers say, smoke this, and then say this?
Justin should be the poster boy of how booze and pot affect your brain.
Well, let us stay away from the realm of fake news and gossip and stick just to the facts.
Fact number one, Justin Trudeau's issue that he cares most passionately about is and was drug legalization.
Fact number two, Justin Trudeau has said repeatedly that he's smoked pot for decades.
Fact number three, Justin Trudeau has admitted that he has smoked pot even after becoming a member of parliament, before it was legalized even.
And fact number four, we know that he spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on liquor on his flights.
Well, now that pot's legalized, do you doubt they're smoking too?
So those are the facts about Justin Trudeau.
We saw that drunken wobble at that David Axelrod event in Chicago.
Do you really doubt that he's hitting the bong now?
I mean, come on.
It's all he cares about and talks about with passion.
I think Justin Trudeau is a drunk, but I think he's also smoking.
I think he hates his job, to be honest.
He hates the reading.
He hates the bad news.
He hates the fact that the world's turning against him everywhere from China to India.
He hates it.
He just wants to be a mascot.
And I think he's dealing with that and his gold-digging wife with booze and pot.
I don't know.
Is this unfair for me to say?
Hates His Job00:01:20
Well, let me tell you one thing.
It's one-tenth the questioning that Donald Trump and Melania Trump get, or even Stephen Harper and Lorene Harper.
You know, Melania Trump wasn't seen in public for a few days, and the mainstream media was going crazy, they're divorced.
No, she was in the hospital, mate.
Look, I think that Justin Trudeau is not morally or constitutionally appropriate to be the prime minister.
He should have been the governor general.
That would have been a good job for him, you know.
All right, well, thanks for letting me indulge my little rant there.
And that's stone cold sober, people.
Without further ado, let me say goodnight to you.
Have a great weekend.
I'm doing five shows next week, obviously, Monday to Friday, but I'm going to sneak in a trip to the United Kingdom on Tuesday.
Now, don't worry, I'm also going to have a show on Tuesday.
But I'm going to go to the UK.
I'm doing a crazy flight there because I'm visiting Tommy Robinson in prison.
And I'll give you a report.
And you can see that report on a website called prisonreports.com.
And I have one purpose.
I can say hi to the guy and give him a hug.
But my real purpose is to make sure he's not being mistreated in prison as he was last time.
So I'll give you a full report at prisonreports.com.
If you want to help cover my flight, I'd be grateful you can do that there too.