Ezra Levant and Barbara Kaye challenge a Public Policy Forum survey claiming traditional media dominates Canadian political news, despite Rebel Media’s 16% weekly reach—conservatives (22%) skew higher. They dismiss accusations of racism or Islamophobia as smears, citing censorship threats like Trudeau’s proposed five-person oversight board. Kaye argues trans activism often stems from fetishism (autogynophilia) rather than identity, while Levant warns of "velvet totalitarianism" evolving into outright suppression, comparing it to the silencing of dissent on transgender issues—more aggressive than past Islamophobia debates. The episode underscores Rebel’s growing conservative influence and the broader battle over free speech in Canada. [Automatically generated summary]
A think tank called the Public Policy Forum did a survey of Canadians of what media they rely on for their politics.
And they measured the Rebel, and I'm glad they did because you know what, our critics don't like to even talk about us.
We're like Voldemort.
They don't even say our name in public.
So to have it studied in a somewhat scholarly way was very, I was very curious.
It's the first time it's happened.
And I'm very pleased with the results.
And I'll tell you the results in a moment.
Before I do, let me invite you to become a premium subscriber.
That's $8 a month, $80 a year.
We'll give you a discount if you enter the coupon code Podcast.
You can do all that at the rebel.media slash shows.
You get the video version of this podcast.
That's good.
We've got a couple other shows for you too, David Menzies, Sheila Gunread.
And you know what?
I think, well, you tell me.
I think today's podcast has good news in it.
What do you think?
Here it is.
Tonight, how big is the rebel?
How many people watch us?
How many liberals do?
You might be surprised.
It's August 22nd, 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 is in government.
But why publish them?
is because it's my bloody right to do so.
You know, I tell you from time to time how many viewers we have of The Rebel, you probably get tired of hearing it.
It probably sounds boastful, and I guess it probably is, but I see it as other things too.
Proof that the mainstream media doesn't properly reflect Canadians, and that there's a huge unmet demand for the other side of the story, the side of the story that the CBC and the Toronto Star and others just don't meet.
I take it as proof that although a small chorus of haters smear us all the time, calling us every mean name the left has, racist, Islamophobic, transphobic, whatever the latest thing is, that's just a small clique of mean girls, often our competitors or people just jealous of our reach.
For every hater, there's 50, 100 fans.
I don't know.
I can see this almost every day, actually, literally, when I look at the likes versus dislikes button on every YouTube video we do.
You know, on YouTube, people can immediately give you a thumbs up or a thumbs down, right?
It's like Facebook.
It's not rare for our stats, and you can see this yourself, to be 100 thumbs up for every thumbs down.
And then there's just the raw view count.
We've had nearly half a billion views on YouTube, 2 billion minutes of video, and even more than that on Facebook and Twitter.
And that's huge.
On any given day, we have more views than CBC's The National, their flagship show, which is languishing at, what, like 250,000 views per night, maybe.
We've had a great week recently.
We've been covering very important stories in Hong Kong, exposing the bizarre story of Jonathan Yanie, that trans scammer.
We've had double, triple, quadruple what the CBC had every day.
They hate that at the CBC.
Our budget at the Rebel is not even 1% of what theirs is, but we have more viewers than them on any given night.
And our viewers' average age is just about 30 years old.
The average viewer at CBC The National is around 65 years old.
Now, I got nothing against people who are 65 years old.
I'm actually exactly halfway between those two milestones, 30 and 65.
I'm just saying, for all of their cringe-worthy efforts to seem relevant and hip and young, it's not working.
No one wants, no young people want to watch the CBC.
I've shown you the absolutely worst part of the CBC, their bizarre kids' news channel, which just obsesses over drug use and the hyper-sexualization of minor children.
It's so gross.
It's as if Gian Gameshi was never sacked from the CBC, and they put him and Jeffrey Epstein in charge of the TV programming at a kindergarten.
It is that gross, CBC Kids News.
Thankfully, so few Canadians watch it.
Seriously, on any given night, less than 1% of Canadians watch CBC news, but 100% of us have to pay for it.
So you've heard me say things like that before, but for some reason, It's more exciting for me to hear someone else say it because so few people say it other than our own viewers, as in the establishment is terrified to talk about us, let alone to praise us because they'll be demonized too.
I mean, the weirdest part is that we're obviously the most important conservative voice in Canadian media, certainly on the video side, but the two leading conservative politicians in the country, Andrew Scheer and Jason Kenney, they won't even talk to us.
They're afraid of being labeled the same mean names we are by the mean girls in the media party.
P.S. Guys, you're going to be called those names anyway, so you may as well talk to your base.
But just last night, Andrew Scheer said we wouldn't be allowed on his campaign bus.
I've got to be candid that wasn't exactly high up on our bucket list.
We'll cover this election campaign how and where we like, and that probably doesn't mean sitting in the back of his bus with all those CBC and Toronto star lads.
By the way, good luck with the CBC and the Toronto Star.
I mean, I know the conservatives like them more.
I'm sure they'll give you fair coverage in return.
It's so weird.
But back to us, if I may.
Campaign Conflicts00:14:40
I don't know if you saw this a week or two ago, something called the Public Policy Forum.
That's an academic-ish think tank based in Ottawa, funded by governments and lobby groups mainly.
They're bored.
It's a snapshot of the establishment, really.
CEOs, some bureaucrats on there, some scholars.
Well, they did a study about the Canadian media called the Digital Democracy Project.
Research memo number one, media, knowledge, and misinformation.
Okay, sounds interesting.
Let me quote a bit from it, if I may.
I'm just going to read from the study.
The project will study the media ecosystem in the run-up to and during Canada's October 2019 federal election by monitoring digital and social media and by conducting both regular national surveys and a study of a metered sample of online consumption.
The project will communicate its preliminary research findings publicly on a regular basis from August to October 2019 and will work with journalists to analyze the spread and impact of misinformation.
The study will culminate in a final report to be published by March 2020.
Both the project's preliminary findings and final report will be publicly available.
Now, the obsession with rooting out fake news and misinformation on the internet, I know enough to know that's code for deplatforming and throttling and silencing conservative dissidents.
I'm sorry, that's just what it means.
That's always what they say just before they delete your account.
The left are obsessed with the concept of fake news and misinformation, even though they're the purveyors of it, whether it's, I don't know, their conspiracy theory about the Russia collusion, which was debunked or global warming theories.
I don't know if anyone on the left believes that Jeffrey Epstein actually committed suicide.
I don't know.
I think conspiracy theories are rife on the left.
They just all share those views together.
Anyways, I see those who talk about, well, we've got to hunt down fake news, misinformation.
They never mean the fake news on their side.
They mean conservatives.
I saw it at that liberal Defend Media Freedom Conference in the UK that I went to in July.
It was not actually about media freedom at all.
I mean, Trudeau himself couldn't have been clearer when he threatened Facebook, remember, to either shut down his critics on Facebook on their own or he would force them to shut them down.
And I see that this study in particular was bankrolled in part by that left-wing media tycoon, Pierre Omidiar, the same one who managed to somehow select all the panelists at that same censorship conference in London.
Boy, they sure didn't like me asking them about that when I raised that obvious conflict of interest back then.
I don't know if you saw that video.
So the whole premise here is tilted towards regulation and government involvement in the media.
But still, it's a study done with at least some semblance of scholarly rigor.
And like I say, other than just tooting our own horn, we don't get a lot of industry feedback other than the weird passive-aggressive thing where some of our most agitated competitors at the same time pretend they don't even think about us, but also obsess about us at the same time and always always try to get other people to stop paying attention to us, even though they can't stop paying attention to us, like these two.
Rebel Media came in and did a crowdfunding project for you, raised about $200,000.
After Charlottesville and the riots, the protests there, many people cut ties with rebel media, including the conservative leader Andrew Scheer saying that it could be seen as giving hate groups a platform.
You still go on there.
So I'm wondering why do you go on Rebel Media after Charlottesville?
Why is he working with people who were associated with Rebel Media and Ezra Levant?
Your campaign director Hamish Marshall was a director of the corporation until he became your campaign director.
Stephen Taylor is working on social media with you, was also associated with Rebel Media.
To what point are you taking on the baggage of rebel media when you work with folks like that?
Easy, guys.
We know you're both taking Trudeau bailouts from the CBC directly, or McLean's get huge government money.
Guys, you'll both be fine even if no one watches your CBC show or reads your McLean's articles.
You'll both get plenty of money from Trudeau, guys.
Just calm down, okay?
I'll get back to both those two media in question in a moment, because this study compares us to them.
Are you interested about that?
Let me read to you a few of the study's political findings.
Here's one.
The findings of our first report are somewhat at odds with the now familiar story of a fragmented and low-trust media environment in which political actors and their partisan supporters have retreated to their own media echo chambers, creating fertile ground for disinformation and foreign interference to take root.
Instead, we found that Canadians are more likely to receive their political news from traditional mainstream media outlets.
All right, I guess so.
But I'm skeptical.
I mean, CBC viewership numbers continue to plunge down about 70% in 10 or 15 years, even though Canada's population is at a record level.
Newspapers are closing every month, every week, sometimes it seems.
And those that stay open have shrinking readerships.
I simply don't believe that mainstream media are dominant in real life.
I just doubt that people still consume them in significant quantity.
But I believe they do consume many antidotes to them online.
That's just my hunch, though.
This is a study.
I'll read some more.
They say alternative media sources that cover politics from an ideological perspective, e.g. the Rebel, Postmillennial, Rabble, do not crack the top 20 news sources in the survey.
However, they enjoy more prominence on Twitter among users of the top Canadian political hashtags who share links to news sites, which is an indication that the conversation on Twitter does not necessarily reflect the perspectives of the Canadian population at large.
Oh, well, I think the population at large isn't very political, which is a good thing about Canada generally.
Most people are normal and lead normal lives.
I'll get back to our ranking in a moment, though.
I like this point.
They say, the one troubling point seems to be that while social media exposure is associated with higher levels of misinformation, so is exposure to traditional or mainstream media, though to a lesser extent.
In general, it appears that simply consuming news, regardless of source, makes people susceptible to being misinformed about the issues.
So in other words, fake news or misinformation is everywhere that there is news at all because people are everywhere and people sometimes get it wrong and people sometimes misunderstand and people all have their biases.
But mainly, who gets to decide what's fake or not?
In this case, the study's scholars do.
How do they know?
I've shown you examples before of the CBC's fact check feature.
It's not a fact-check feature.
It's just liberal war room talking points shouting at conservatives, say, you're wrong about immigration.
You're wrong about global warming.
So that's not a fact-check.
That's not misinformation.
That's just called having a different point of view.
And the fact that the default is liberal means that anyone conservative is called misinformation, but it's not, guys.
But at least this study notes that the mainstream media gets it wrong despite their pretense otherwise.
Can I read my favorite quote from this whole study?
I'm going to read this to you twice and slowly because it's so gorgeous.
Ready?
Survey respondents who read or watched more traditional news media were less likely to express uncertainty about policy questions than those with low consumption, but more likely to give an incorrect response.
Did you get that?
Let me read that again.
Survey respondents who read or watched more traditional news media were less likely to express uncertainty about policy questions than those with low consumption, but more likely to give an incorrect response.
So if you're watching the CBC and CTV and Global, if you're reading a mainstream newspaper, you're more likely to get your facts wrong, but you're more likely to be extra certain about yourself.
So ignorant and arrogant.
Yeah, that rings true.
Ignorant and arrogant.
That could be the motto of the media party, I think.
Look, I'm skeptical of some things in the study, especially given Pierre Omidiar's funding of it.
I mean, that's a huge red flag.
That would be like George Soros funding it.
Omidiar really is a George Soros wannabe.
He's buying up media around the world, very partisan media.
Some of the cozy connections between the liberals and the think tank raise an alarm bell for me, but at least it's a study.
As opposed to just partisan talking points of the liberals and most of their Me Too echo chambers.
But really my point today is to show you how we're doing.
Let me show you.
Look at the chart on page six.
That's a big list of different Canadian media sources.
And it asks people, have you consumed certain media content in the past week?
Now, it's a weird chart.
They just have Facebook on there, but Facebook's not a publisher, really.
Every other media is on Facebook.
So I think that's weird.
CBC is on Facebook.
We're on Facebook.
So there's strange things on there like Facebook.
But they actually have some media companies.
And look at this.
42% of Canadians say they watch CBC at least once in the past week.
That's probably true.
CTV and global news are up there too in the mid and high 30s.
The big U.S. liberal website, the Huffington Post, is at 33%.
23% for the Global Mail, 21% for the National Post, 20% for the Toronto Star.
Those are huge companies.
Billion-dollar companies, or at least they used to be in the case of those newspapers.
Now it's probably more accurate to say they're worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
So 20% for the Toronto Star.
That's the largest newspaper in Canada by circulation.
One in five Canadians say they saw something in the starring last week, but look at the rebel.
16%.
That's just as big as McLean's magazine, that 100-year-old magazine owned by Rogers, the cell phone company, stuffed with government bailout money.
We were literally born four and a half years ago.
We live on a shoestring, no corporate money, no government money, and we have as many Canadians viewing us in a week as do McLean's.
I can see why Paul Wells is angry about that, that little guy.
Why is he working with people who are associated with Rebel Media and Ezra Levant?
Your campaign director Hamish Marshall was a director of the corporation until he became your campaign director.
Stephen Taylor is working on social media with you, was also associated with Rebel Media.
To what point are you taking on the baggage of Rebel Media when you work with folks like that?
Easy Tiger, don't be jealous now.
CBC Radio, the supposedly mighty CBC radio, it's listened to by 22% of people in any given week, at least for a moment.
Okay, they say so.
I think the CBC is just so ubiquitous in its propaganda and it has been for so long, 75 years of propaganda from the state broadcaster.
You probably think you've listened to it, even if you haven't.
You're just so used to it.
Whereas we don't spend a dime on advertising.
If you've heard of the Rebel, you've actually heard of The Rebel.
And we're just a hair behind these mighty names in terms of viewership.
But look at the chart on page seven.
That's broken down by party.
You see that?
Conservative, liberal, NDP.
Which party members view us the most?
Well, no surprise, conservatives do.
22% of conservatives watch us in any given week.
We're huge in conservative circles, no matter if Andrew Scheer doesn't talk to us.
I think conservatives trust us, maybe even more than they trust, you know, a dairy cartel supporting open borders, mass immigration, climate change booster.
Maybe they actually want us and watch us because they know we check up on Scheer and try and keep him on us.
We criticize him in good faith when it's a criticism, unlike the rest of the media, which has gotcha.
And we make sure he stays conservative, unlike the rest of the media who want him to move left.
Anyways, look at the liberal and the NDP numbers, though.
Only 12% of NDPers view us every week.
No problem.
That's actually amazingly good still.
I mean, for example, only 8% of them read McLean's, by contrast.
And look at that.
19% of liberals watch a Rebel video at least once a week.
Isn't that something?
I wonder if they watch because they want to hear the other side of the story, that's our motto, or just for the entertainment value of our presentation, or, I don't know, to know what their critics think.
I don't know, whatever it is.
Hey guys, you're welcome.
I'm glad you're watching.
I'm a little surprised, but you're very welcome here.
I am candid.
I want to try to convince you of our way of thinking, but I won't censor you or deplatform you if you don't.
Maybe that's why you like us.
One last stat.
For tweets using Canadian political hashtags that linked to media websites, the Postmillennial, Rabble, True North News, and Rebel Media are among the 20 most frequently shared websites, despite not placing in the top 20 news sources in the survey data.
Isn't that curious?
I've written to the think tank asking for a little more info on that.
But if I'm reading that right, it says that although we rank below, as I showed you in that first chart, we rank below the National Post of the World Mail when it comes to the sheer number of readers.
Of course we do.
It's amazing we're doing as well as we are.
But it's amazing that we're in the top 20 when it comes to things like normal people actually sharing our stuff on Twitter.
I'll see if I can get more info on that.
Wouldn't it be something if we had more natural organic sharing in social media than, say, CBC radio online at least?
I don't know.
We'll find out.
I don't have much more in this story.
I'm worried about the purpose of this survey.
I think it was designed to be used by liberals like Justin Trudeau and Karina Gould to silence their enemies.
Trudeau has said as much.
Gould has actually set up a five-man board of censors for new media.
It was going to be chaired by that gross Michael Wernick, clerk of the Privy Council, before he was sacked.
That's still happening.
That board of censors and Andrew Scheer hasn't objected, actually.
So I'm worried all this will be used for the purpose of silencing voices like ours and other small voices on the right.
Or maybe we're not so small after all, which is exactly why they want to silence us.
We'll see.
The Public Policy Forum, the think tank here, says they will do more studies, ongoing studies, through the election campaign.
Keep your eyes peeled.
I actually think it's our time to shine.
And apparently, millions of Canadians seem to agree.
Stay with us for more.
Pool Debates Divide00:09:37
Talk to be hosted at the Vancouver Public Library Central Branch in January by Megan Murphy is billed as a discussion on gender identity, ideology, and women's rights.
But Murphy's past writing on her feminist blog has upset many who say her ideas on gender identity are hurtful.
She disagrees.
Feminists are not going around attacking trans people.
We would never do that.
We're not against trans-identified people.
Again, we're just trying to have this conversation.
Murphy has been permanently banned from Twitter.
She says for a new policy that bans something called dead naming, referring to someone by the incorrect gender.
What does it mean to be transgender?
How does a man become a woman?
How does a person change sex?
What is a trans woman?
You know, these are, I feel like these are basic questions that I want to talk about.
I want to understand because, again, I find this conversation and this ideology really incoherent.
Well, there you have it.
A feminist activist, far left, I would say, dares to ask a few basic questions about, well, what is a man and what is a woman?
And she's banned from Twitter, denounced by the mayor of Vancouver as, quote, despicable.
There are attempts to ban her from the public library where she gave a speech.
And when the library didn't ban her, the library itself was banned from participating in the Vancouver Pride Parade.
If you thought all of that was too much to believe, then you won't believe what happened next.
A trans activist in British Columbia named Morgan Ogre actually pressured Vancouver City Council, and you're not going to believe this, but take a look at the tweet here.
Morgane Ogre says, City of Vancouver grants 2019 funding to the Vancouver Rape Relief as termination funding.
VRR is no longer eligible for funding until it makes changes to become aligned with the grant criteria.
Let me translate into English: since the rape shelter doesn't let men into the actual shelter, just women.
They will no longer get money, and the trans community is thrilled with this blow for justice.
Joining us now to talk about this insanity is our friend Barbara Kaye, columnist at the National Post and other interesting places.
Barbara, great to see you again.
Nice to be here, Ezra.
I am so disturbed by this story.
In my book on the Human Rights Commission's a decade ago, I studied the case of Vancouver Rape Relief.
It is an outstanding charity for the most vulnerable and victimized people in society, rape victims.
It's where they can go to be safe from a rapist, whether it's their husband or a man on the street or whatever.
It's a high-security facility, obviously, because sometimes predatory men try to get in.
And so they have a strict rule: no men are allowed in the actual rape shelter.
If men want to help, they can fundraise or do other things, but they may not enter its sanctum.
However, about 10 years ago, there was this six-foot-something trans man who called himself Kimberly Nixon who said, I demand access to the women because it was an affirmation that he was a girl too.
And they went all the way to the Court of Appeal, spent over $100,000 in legals before they won the right to say no to men.
Because you can imagine, Barbara, you're a woman in there and you see someone, is that a man?
Is that a woman?
Is that someone sneaking in?
It would be terrifying.
And they were rape victims who testified in court and said if they were trans men in there, they wouldn't have gone to this rape shelter.
They would go out on the street instead.
Well, now, Morgane Ogre and the trans activist community finally won and they've defunded this rape shelter.
Sorry, I'm ranting, Barbara.
Please take it away.
I couldn't be more angry.
And I'm supposed to be the right winger, but I'm defending a rape shelter on behalf of feminists.
I know, and I'm with you.
There are many things that Megan Murphy and I would not agree on, but we're certainly lined up on this one.
And I should say right away, this place, which is for women only, does not mean that men don't get raped.
Men as men.
There's plenty of men that get raped all the time.
There are gay men that get raped all the time.
They also don't have access to this place because this is a place for women only.
And I actually have spent a lot of time professionally promoting the idea of men's shelters.
There are very few of them because men do suffer violence from women, from other men, and they really need their own shelters.
And as a result of a lot of people agitating, they are starting to get them.
So that's just as a sidebar.
This does not only, you know, it's not just trans women that are excluded.
It's any male-bodied person.
So, you know, they're crying as though they are the only ones excluded.
That is not the case.
So the Supreme Court has said that women's shelters are an exception to the general rule of, you know, this gender expression thing and that physiology, anatomy does matter in certain instances.
This rape shelter serves Indigenous women, prostitutes, all kind of women who are afraid of men and for good reason.
And that when I say men, they are afraid of anatomical men, whether they're in a dress and lipstick.
It doesn't matter to women who are survivors of rape.
So it is scandalous, beyond scandalous, that you have officials like this idiot mayor who is calling Megan Murphy despicable because she wants to protect women, actual, real women, from being erased.
And that is a term, by the way, that is now being used or has been used for some time.
And I concur absolutely.
Trans women's rights very often mean women's erasure in spaces that were women's only, like prisons and locker rooms.
I'm ranting now too, Esri.
You better shut me up before I go off the deep end.
You know what?
I hadn't been paying close attention to this whole trans debate, and it's very hot in BC.
I just didn't feel like I wanted to get into that.
It just didn't feel like one of the most important quarrels of our time until I learned what Jonathan Yaniv, who calls himself Jessica Yaniv, but really other than wearing a muomu and putting on a fright wig, he doesn't, I mean, he hasn't got the surgery.
He hasn't, like, I think he, I mean, just a few months ago, he was a sexual predator speaking sexually to minor girls as a man.
It's so evident to me that he's just trying a new shtick and getting away with it.
Just the other day on Twitter, he posted a picture of himself.
Take a look at this.
It's Jonathan Yaneve.
I mean, he's calling himself Jessica, and he's saying, it's a pool party, but I can't go in because it's my period and I forgot my tampons.
Now, he's a male.
He does not menstruate.
He does not have a period.
That is delusional.
But the whole thing is a big dare, a big taunt.
Do you say the emperor has no clothes?
And it's not an abstract debate anymore, Barbara, because he forced himself on more than a dozen aestheticians.
He said, wax my genitals.
If you don't, I'll take you to court.
And now they're saying to a real rape shelter, allow trans men, trans women in, or we'll take away your money.
So it's not just a goofy debate anymore.
They're hurting people now.
Sure.
Like this Jonathan Yaniv, Jessica Yaniv, who is either delusional or some kind of performance artist who's testing the waters for some reason of his own, or he's a very troubled individual who fantasizes, but he seems to have a fetish about young girls menstruating.
And so he would like to see himself in a pool with young girls.
And he would like to see himself in a pool with young girls on the basis of the fact that he identifies with them because he is a woman.
So someday, perhaps we will see Jonathan Yaniv in a pool with young girls because, you know, the pool, the YMCA or whatever it is, gets their funds from officials that will say, if this guy identifies as a 14-year-old menstruating girl, who are we to say he isn't one?
And in the pool he goes with some, you know, with a bunch of young women.
So it's the same principle.
You know, when you allow your intelligence to be completely obscured by a theory that is based in the subjective belief of individuals who want to be affirmed in a belief that isn't a reality, then this is what you get.
And people suffer for it.
Real people suffer for it.
Real Women Suffer00:08:03
And in this case, it's real women who have to share intimate private space with anatomically male individuals who want us to believe that their belief that they, because they feel like a woman in their head, that the rest of their life must be mapped out in a way that never offends them, that never, where reality never intrudes on their fantasy life.
And innocent women suffer for this, and why should they?
It's the same in the sports world.
I'm sure you've seen lots of examples of male, physiologically male athletes who are now competing as women and erasing women, promising women athletes that would have been elite gold medalists, silver medalists are now losing those medals to physiological males.
Yeah, you know, you're so right.
And I want to talk about the gender affirming, that phrase.
And what that means is I, and it's a phrase here.
Let me show you a quick clip from when our reporter Jessica Svetanovsky interviewed Jonathan Yaniv.
She asked him, why do you have the right to force yourself on these women?
And he couldn't have been calmer about it.
He says, because I have the right to gender affirming services, as in I have the right, or what he really meant was the power to compel people to say, yes, you are a woman, by letting him do things that only women can do.
So it's proof he's not mad.
It's proof he's a woman because he's forced people to affirm it.
Look at this very quick clip from Jessica's 20-minute expose on Yaneve the other week.
Take a look.
Why is it a human's rights case in your situation and not for the women that are refusing service, either not comfortable for religious reasons or personal reasons or not trained in dealing with male genitals?
Basically, it's a human right because, you know, this is the gender affirming care service.
Barbara, I think that's the point there.
Why did Kimberly Nixon, a six-foot-something trans, want to go to a rape shelter?
Because that's the ultimate, ultimate, ultimate proof that he was a woman.
And so whatever the most extremely intimate thing you can think of, the most sacred feminine thing you can think of, whatever it is, it will be targeted by trans activists precisely because that's the ultimate proof that yes, I really am a woman.
So it's not a coincidence that Yaniv targeted 14 women who didn't want to wax his genitals, where he could have gone to someone who did.
It's because he wanted to prove to all of them that they had to.
It's not a coincidence that they're attacking this rape shelter because they'll extinguish any sector of society that won't go along with the delusion.
Yeah, this is it.
You're right.
It is about power.
It has nothing to do with gender expression.
These are extremely, they're not only deluded, physiologically male individuals, I find them quite misogynistic because they're angry.
They're angry at women who are born women.
They're angry because those women have an advantage over them in having the bodies that they wish they had, but don't.
And so if they can convince the rest of the world to say, but there is no difference.
There is no difference.
And bodies, anatomy, physiology is totally irrelevant.
It's all in your head.
If they can, and you're defining it as the emperor has no clothes.
I mean, it truly is.
We are truly witnessing this social situation of the entire systemically legal world, the social world, the cultural world is one by one, they're all falling over themselves to say, what magnificent clothes you are wearing, you trans people.
You are so beautiful.
Your raiment is so beautiful.
Except that they're saying, oh, you are a woman.
Oh, yes, you are a woman.
And don't listen to what these terrible people who say you are naked, they are despicable people.
Barbara, you know, I learned a word from our Sheila Gun Reid.
I did not know this word, autogynophilia.
Oh, yes, I know that word very well.
I didn't know that word.
Maybe you can define it because I think I know what it means.
I looked it up.
Yes, this is a sexologist, Dr. Ray Blanchard, who's been researching in this field, one of the longest researching sexologists, and who used to be taken very seriously by everybody because he spoke truth, is somebody that the trans people can't stand.
They don't like him at all.
He defined this term, autogynophilia, for those trans people, trans women, who take erotic pleasure in imagining themselves as a woman.
They don't want to be a woman in the sense of someone who lives life as either a lesbian or a heterosexual woman who has a mate, you know, who falls in love and has relationships with other people.
Their relationship is actually with themselves in their fantasy world of being the woman is satisfy or acting as a woman is satisfying enough in itself.
So this is a form of, I don't know what to call it, gender or sexual fetishism or whatever you want to call it, that is distinct from somebody who actually want is a trans person who then wants to live the life of a normal, you know, trans person, woman of the opposite or the person of the opposite sex.
And I have met a couple of normal, what I would call normal, trans women in the sense that once they have transitioned, they go about their life, they have a job, they have a partner or they don't have a partner or whatever, but they don't spend their life obsessing over their expressed sexuality as a woman.
I think somebody who fits that profile is Caitlin Jenner, you know, very fixated on the look, the glamour, the hair, that pose on Glamour magazine in the bustier.
You know, this is a 70-year-old woman wearing a bustier.
This is not normal behavior, but very, very, very, very focused on the glamour aspect of womanhood and a kind of glamorousness, by the way, that hasn't really been popular for the last 40 or 50 years.
I mean, it's kind of like a Hollywood in the 1950s sort of glamour that is typically expressed by these people.
You know, as part of our Jessica Sretonowski's study on Yanev, we talked to another trans person named Jen Smith, who goes by he still, who reminds us that about half of the people who transition, gender dysphoria is accompanied by other mental illness as well.
And in the past, these were called mental illnesses, but now it's called a political right.
I just, I think a lot of conservatives would normally say, live and let live, don't tread on me, ain't nobody's business but their own, just consenting adults.
Like there would be a lot of libertarian instincts to let someone be someone as long as it's just their own adult life.
Libertarian Instincts vs. Ideological Censorship00:06:14
But what I find terrifying is how, and the Human Rights Commission cases are the perfect example of this, that the law and social pressure and censorship is not being used as a shield to protect anybody.
It's being used as a sword to attack those who ideologically dissent.
And in that way, these sexual minorities that until the recent past were the victims of abuse are now becoming attackers and abusers themselves.
There's no way to look at Yaneve as anything other than a predator, whether a sexual predator, a political predator, a legal predator.
And I think this will not end well.
And I wonder how you think it'll end, because when I see the mayor of Vancouver condemning a feminist as despicable for wanting to keep trans men out of a rape center, I think this has gone pretty far.
When will it break?
Is it when we have an all-male lineup at the Women's Olympics event?
It's all trans?
What could happen?
Where does this insanity end?
I'm not sure, maybe not in my lifetime, but I will tell you this, that this Morgan ogre is a person who saw somebody, a protester, at a demonstration, some kind of, I forget what kind of demonstration, had a sign up saying a male is not a woman, or something like that.
A man is not a woman.
And Morgan Ogre tweeted out or put on Facebook to his followers: Can somebody find out who this woman is?
I want her name and address.
I want to take her to the Human Rights Commission.
In other words, this is somebody who was the deputy vice president of the NDP, the BC NDP.
And this is the kind of behavior doxing and threatening to harass and bring someone to the Human Rights Commission.
You know, two years ago or three years ago, when Jordan Peterson made those initial videos about Bill C-16, and he said, compelling people to use certain pronouns is the tip of an iceberg.
And someday it will end up, it could end up with people going to jail over this.
And everybody said, oh, please, such exaggeration and such nonsense.
Where are you going with that?
It's just ridiculous.
But I do see people going to jail over this.
I can see it quite easily.
And when you have a library that is being supposedly punished by not being allowed in a parade because they are exercising the law, they're performing their legal obligations to allow people on both sides of an argument to have their say.
We are very far down what a road that a psychology professor that I think very highly of, he's the late John Furty, said, he called it velvet totalitarianism.
And we are immersed right now in a scenario that I would label velvet totalitarianism.
But it's not so velvet anymore, is it, Ezra?
I would say now we're walking into a scenario that is what we might call actual totalitarianism.
Well, Barbara, it appears to be my destiny in life to be entangled in these free speech matters, whether it was the Danish cartoons a dozen years ago, various censorship issues today, or by covering Yen Eve, the threats he has made against us seem to be hurtling us towards a legal battle.
And I don't like it.
It's not my first choice, but neither will I run from it.
And in some perverse way, I think it's our destiny at the Rebel to fight these fights in a place that maybe a minimum wage aesthetician, new immigrant woman in Vancouver cannot.
Yeah, well, Ezra, you're one of the very few media outlets that has the, I was going to say, the balls regarding the male paraphernalia to call out this issue for what it is.
And while praising you, I'd also like to praise Maxine Bernier.
Because lately he tweeted about what kind of nonsense this is, and he would not stand for any of this nonsense if he were in power.
And I know he is not going to be in power this time around.
But I tweeted back to him.
I said, you know, thanks to Maxine Bernier for having the nerve or the whatever it takes, the courage to bail this ideological cat.
And for that reason alone, I would vote for him.
And I'm not kidding.
This is one of the big free speech issues of our time.
I think it punches above its weight in terms of the consequences it will have for society.
If we don't stand up to this, if everybody who doesn't see how nonsensical this is doesn't stand up and lend their voice to this issue, then we will regret it, deeply regret it.
We are already seeing stuff happening that we should deeply regret with regard to children and how confused they are being made to feel.
So yeah, big political issue, Ezra.
I applaud you.
I applaud you for the stance that you're taking.
And God speed to you.
Well, thank you.
And the feeling is mutual.
You are one of the few voices with access to the mainstream media in Canada who still courageously speaks out you and Rex Murphy.
And I'm almost on the list just with the two of you because we saw if a feminist like Megan Murphy can be just killed off Twitter, you really do risk.
If you think the censorship of Islamophobia mania is hard, it's nothing compared to the trans issue.
In my entire life, I've never seen censorship come quicker or with less notice than on the trans issue issue.
Yeah, and with more power, with more power to obliterate the opposition.
Courageous Voices Risking Censorship00:01:34
I've never seen anything like it either.
It's quite scary to me.
Well, good luck to you, and thanks for taking the time with us.
As always, it's great to see you, my friend.
Same here, Ezra.
Thank you.
There you have it, Barbara Kaye, one of the few courageous voices on this subject.
You could read her columns in the National Post and the Post Millennial.
Stay with us.
It's more ahead on the road.
Hey, what do you think of that public policy forum survey?
You can find the whole thing online pretty quick.
I'll see if we can put a link to it on the page.
It's a little scholarly.
I'm not sure if I agree with all the premises in it, and I'm worried about its purpose, but I think it makes us look sort of tough.
I mean, if we're as large as McLean's magazine, do you know how huge they are?
They used to be the big deal.
I guess part of it is they've fallen, but we've grown.
We're just like a nose behind the Toronto Star.
I think, what were they, 20% of Canadians follow them and 16% follow us from going from memory?
I'm sorry, they're monster huge, like almost billion-dollar huge.
We're one-tenth of 1% of that, maybe, maybe a little more.
And we're just like a tiny bit behind them.
I think we're rocking.
And forgive me for tooting our own horn, but it's just, I've never had anyone else toot it before, so I want to show you that.
Anyways, listen, thanks for watching this show.
Until next time, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters to you at home, good night.