David Menzies examines Air Canada’s September 10th security screening of Fatima Abdel-Raham, where three employees demanded hijab removal despite policies allowing it, calling it "humiliation" while Western feminists celebrate World Hijab Day (since 2013) and ignore Iranian woman Saba Kord Afshari’s 24-year prison sentence for protesting mandatory hijab laws. He ties this to climate alarmism, citing Ted Turner’s 2008 cannibalism warning and Swedish scientist Magnus Soderlund’s 2024 proposal at a gastro summit, where 8% of attendees considered it viable. Menzies argues these tactics—from UN overpopulation scares (1982, 1989) to Greta Thunberg’s school strikes—expose a pattern of fear-mongering to push radical policies like socialism and wealth redistribution, now reaching absurd extremes. [Automatically generated summary]
You're listening to a free audio version of the Ezra Event Show.
I'm David Menzies, your guest host for today's show.
Tonight we discuss hijab hypocrisy and becoming cannibals to stop climate change.
Now if you like the podcast then you should become a premium content subscriber.
That gets you access to the video version of my show as well as my weekly Friday show, Rebel Roundup, and Sheila Gunread's weekly show, The Gun Show.
It's only $8 a month to subscribe.
And as a special bonus for you, we're offering a 10% discount if you use the coupon code PODCAST.
Just go to the Rebel.media slash shows to become a member.
Thanks for listening and now enjoy the show.
Tonight, a woman was forced to remove her hijab before boarding an airplane.
Is this Islamophobia?
It's September 10th.
I'm David Menzies and this is the Ezra Event Show.
Why should others go to jail when you're the biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here and you won't give them an answer.
The only thing I have to say to the government is because it's my bloody right to do so.
Hijabs are very much in the news these days.
And the mainstream media narrative would seem to be that hijabs are good, that they are empowering, that they are a fashionable proclamation of one's adherence to a particular religion.
And perhaps most of all, such headscarves are downright sacred.
And any criticism of the hijab is nothing short of Islamophobia.
Just witness the media smackdown that was directed at Air Canada employees in San Francisco who last month demanded that 12-year-old Fatima Abdel-Raham had to take off her hijab while passing through security for a flight to Toronto.
A National Post story notes that a total of three Air Canada employees insisted that Fatima remove her head covering because she wasn't wearing one in her passport photo.
I think this is what's known as making a positive identification, but then again, what do I know?
And in the spirit of reasonable accommodation, eventually a female employee escorted Fatima to a corner in a tunnel and had her remove the headscarf.
Don't you wish you got that kind of personal concierge treatment at the airport too?
But that wasn't enough.
It's never enough really.
So Q the Outrage said Fatima, quote, it makes me feel really angry.
I was humiliated, end quote.
But why is the removal of a headscarf a humiliating experience?
I assume this garment is removed when Fatima takes a shower.
It was certainly not on her head when she posed for that passport photo.
Yet naturally this being an Islamic incident, it was automatically elevated to federal case status.
The Post quotes Fatima's family members back home who were all predictably enraged by this so-called incident.
The Canadian Air Transport Security Authority wasn't involved, but this agency says passengers may keep their head coverings on during the screening process.
They may require additional screening if they set off a metal detector.
Now, folks, I've been doing a lot of flying lately and I can tell you with absolute authority that anyone who is donning say a baseball cap or a tilly hat or any other chapeau is told to take it off, put it on a tray, and have it go through the x-ray machine every single time, no exceptions.
Surely there's a reasonable expectation that one's rights will indeed be curtailed somewhat when one enters an airport.
That's why we are prodded and poked and x-rayed and patted down.
That's why one can't enter a terminal brandishing a firearm even in a state where it's legal to own one.
It's all about trying to ensure that planes aren't hijacked and or used as weapons of mass destruction.
Tomorrow, we will be observing the 18th anniversary of 9-11.
How sad that whatever lessons we supposedly learned on that dark day back in 2001 already seem to have been sacrificed upon the altar of political correctness.
Which is to say, if you have a problem with the hijab, even for security reasons, you are automatically labeled a bigot and an Islamophobe.
But gee, I wonder if anyone sent that particular memo to Saba Kord Afshari.
For this Iranian woman was just recently sentenced to 24 years in prison for protesting against wearing a hijab.
In a global news report, it is noted that, according to FIDH, an international human rights NGO, Afshari is one of the many activists who have been protesting against the mandatory hijab laws in Iran on social media.
It's all about freedom and a woman's right to choose, after all.
You remember those off-repeated chestnuts, don't you?
Or do these caveats only apply to the abortion debate?
Regardless, on August 27th, this 28-year-old Iranian received a notice from the Islamic Revolutionary Court of Tehran stating that she had been sentenced to 24 years in prison.
Just like that.
Part of her penalty includes 15 years for, quote, encouraging people to commit immorality and or prostitution, end quote.
Yeah, so the mullahs in Iran deem a woman to be a poor.
Should her head remain uncovered?
Fascinating.
And where exactly is the feminist movement regarding the Afshari affair?
Well, the silence is deafening.
In fact, today's feminists are more concerned about promoting the hijab, even in Western nations and even for those who are not even Muslim.
Since 2013, February the 1st has been promoted as World Hijab Day in which everyone is encouraged to don a hijab, even non-Muslim men, if you can believe it.
And this very questionable virtue signaling exercise isn't just happening on college campuses.
Oh no, it's even being embraced by government agencies.
Last year, for example, officials at the UK's Foreign Office even invited staff to wear hijabs for the day, laughably claiming that such headscarves symbolized liberation, respect, and security.
It's also unsettling, this notion of any Western government using taxpayer money to prop up something that is essentially a symbol of Islamic oppression of women.
And at the same time, the same people promoting such diversity would really prefer not to comment on the plight of Sabakord Afshari, who will be languishing in an Iranian prison for 24 years simply for choosing to go hijab-free.
Then again, going to bat for Miss Afshari might be deemed by some as being Islamophobic.
And in today's political climate, nothing could possibly be worse than that.
Not doing it will be catastrophic.
We'll have eight degrees, we'll be eight degrees hotter in 10, not 10, but in 30 or 40 years, and basically none of the crops will grow.
Most of the people will have died, and the rest of us will be cannibals.
Civilization will have broken down.
The few people left will be living in a failed state like Somalia or Sudan, and living conditions will be intolerable.
The droughts will be so bad, there'll be no more corn growing.
Not doing it is suicide.
Just like dropping bombs on each other, nuclear weapons is suicide.
So we've got to stop doing the two suicidal things, which are hanging on to our nuclear weapons.
Cannibalism As Climate Solution?00:11:24
And globalization.
And then after that, we've got to stabilize the population.
When I was born, there was a lot of people.
So what's wrong with the population?
I mean, with too many people.
That's why we have global warming.
We have global warming because too many people are using too much stuff.
If there were less people, they'd be using less stuff.
Wow, who knew that Ted Turner was such a clairvoyant climate Cassandra all the way back in 2008?
Because now a Swedish scientist is proposing that mankind indeed needs to embrace cannibalism so that we can effectively fight back against global warming and greenhouse gas emissions.
That's right, cannibalism.
What a lovely future awaits our species, apparently.
And joining me now with more on this real life version of Soylent Green is Mark Moreno of climatepot.com.
Welcome to the Ezra Event Show, Mark.
Thank you very much.
Happy to be here.
Always a pleasure.
But Mark, first things first, what do you prefer, white meat or dark?
Well, I always like dark meat, but with humans, I don't know, unless I'm on a soccer team that crashes in the Andes, I am not eating humans.
Of course, no disrespect to the dead.
That was a serious story.
But there have been a few cases of human cannibalism, including tribes in Papua New Guinea.
And they've had something called, I guess it's called the laughing death or different ailments that they've attributed to humans eating other humans.
It's not a pretty thing to do.
And there's really no reason to ever do it unless you're like that team in the 1970s that crashed in the Andes Mountains and were starving and were forced to resort to cannibalism to survive until they were rescued.
I don't even know why anyone's talking about cannibalism.
You know, I mean, the idea, Mark, you know, first of all, it's so outlandish.
It's so far out there.
It really does belong in the realm of science fiction almost.
But you raise a good point.
Has there been actual studies done about whether or not it is indeed healthy or a person can get by on eating human flesh without any kind of adverse side effects in the first place?
Well, as I said, in the 1930s, the tribes in New Guinea were studied, and there was this weird ailment that they attributed at the time to cannibalism.
I can't imagine with all the pathogens.
There have been other scientists who flirted with the idea and one was even a hoax about talking about eating human feces because of global warming and then the need to do it.
Let's review why we're even here.
The United Nations in about 2007 issued a report saying that cow emissions were more dangerous to the climate than all of the transportation sector, planes, airplanes, boats, and vehicles combined.
Cow emissions were killing the planet.
Thus, our love of eating meat was destroying the climate.
Then you go a few years further.
Top UN officials, advisors were saying things like a successful UN climate treaty will skyrocket the price of meat.
That's what we need to do.
Then you had a whole eat insect movement that I don't know why failed to catch on.
You had people saying that eating insects was the only sustainable way forward.
There's a great source of protein.
At one point, you even had the actress, what's the name, married to Tom Cruise at one point, who's Nicole Kidman, doing a video for Vanity Fair about how yummy insects were.
And she actually compared it to eating a hairy nut.
You know, is one of the things she said.
I think she was eating crickets or some kind of weird animal.
And so they started with, you know, banning meat, making meat more expensive.
Then they were trying to promote insects.
Fast forward, then they were even flirting with eating feces.
Now they're back to talking about eating humans.
Now, when I say back, Ted Turner warned of it in 2008.
Paul Ehrlich, the overpopulation guru who's been wrong about every prediction, warned about eating humans in 2014.
They're just trying to shock the public so that we'll take action on climate, turn to central planning, give up liberty, give up free markets in order to save us from a climate calamity and apparently now cannibalism it'll save us from.
So if we go socialist, hey, you don't need to eat humans.
You know, and it's kind of incredible.
Again, Mark, as we always discuss the double standard and the hypocrisy, I mean, Ted Turner making that comment because we're using too much stuff.
I'm sorry, but when I have a billionaire telling me we're using too much stuff, that's not kind of resonating in my camp.
But getting back to this guy in Sweden, Magnus Soderlund, he's the one suggesting this.
We should point out, Mark, he's a behavioral scientist.
So his bailiwick really has nothing to do with the science of climate at all.
Why does he think he has the intellectual authority to suggest this as a solution to a problem that he's not all that well versed in in the first place?
Well, because he accepts the consensus, and that's the whole point of the 97% consensus.
You can study butterflies, social sciences.
You can study anything you want, but you rest assured you don't have to study climate because you've been told that 97, and now, by the way, Al Gore says 99% of scientists agree.
So he comes out, this is a gastro summit in Sweden, this behavioral scientist, sociologist, whatever you want to call him.
And he starts talking about how even, I think it was 8% of the attendance of this conference were willing to try eating humans in order to save the planet.
These are very high-minded individuals.
They're willing to go that extra mile to save the planet.
And he said he himself hesitated, but he didn't want to be seen as too conservative.
It's now a conservative position to not want to eat your fellow human.
And so this is what they're doing.
I think it's more for shock value.
It's more to get attention.
It's more to scare people.
If you're not careful, we're going to be doing cannibalism.
Florida's going to be underwater.
Our major cities are going to be wiped off by superstorms, et cetera.
So, in order to prevent us, all these catastrophes say, let's not kill the polar bear.
Let's go central planning.
Let's go global governance.
Let's go socialism.
Let's go massive wealth redistribution.
That's the only way to save us from eating your fellow humans' thighs or buttocks or whatever part they want to eat.
And, Mark, tell me, what do you think is really the unspoken strategy of this particular person?
Is he just trying to be outlandish and outrageous to generate headlines?
Or if you had these climate scientists in a room and you propose the idea of, hey, guys, what do you think about cannibalism as a food alternative and a way of fighting back against greenhouse gas emissions?
What percentage of consensus of them would say, hey, sounds like a good idea?
I can't imagine any scientists would even want to be associated with this.
Although, popularly, the overpopulation group, he's still winning awards, even climate awards.
He's considered one of the prestigious climate alarmists.
This is the guy that wrote the overpopulation bomb book in the 1960s.
He actually was just quoted all over the media this year with the UN species report.
He loves the, it's a way, there's a whole strain in the scientific community.
The more we scare people, the more they'll have to act.
And we have had former United Nations climate chiefs and other top UN officials actually announce, similar to Babe Ruth announcing where he's going to hit the baseball, announce years ahead of a UN report saying essentially an almost verbatim quote, just wait till the next UN climate report.
It'll be so alarming, the world will have to act.
So they're trying to telegraph action and they think they can scare people into action.
And one of the ways to scare them is to say, hey, you're going to have to be eating your fellow human if you're not careful.
Cannibalism is our future unless you listen to, hold on, pregnant pause, the science.
We must all bow down to the science.
And if you don't, you're an anti-science denier and you're headed toward cannibalism.
But you know, I'm thinking, Mark, aren't they doing themselves a disservice?
I mean, I've heard all kinds of very short-term, you know, projections.
We've got 12 years left.
We've got a dozen, you know, 10 years left.
Some say a matter of months even.
It's almost like that clichéd cartoon of the grizzled old man on Times Square with the placard saying the end of the world is nigh.
And yet the years keep going on.
I guess what I'm saying is that how soon is it before people look at these climate Cassandras and just say, these are just a bunch of boys crying wolf?
Well, it's a good question.
The world is very divided on this issue.
So about 45% of the population does exactly what you say.
They recognize the climate Cassandra's.
They know that in 1982, the UN issued tipping points.
They know 1989, the UN issued a 10-year tipping point.
They know Al Gore issued a 10-year tipping point in 2006.
They know Prince Charles issued a 100-month tipping point that expired and nothing bad happened.
So I don't think there's a certain segment that you're never going to convince, but I think what they try to do is rally the base.
And I do think, if you watch that CNN town hall they had of the U.S. Democrat presidential candidates, every single candidate, including CNN ad nauseum, repetitively referred to the 10, 11 years we have left as though there's never been a tipping point.
In my book, I go back to the 19th century.
There were climate tipping points back in, I think it was 1867.
That's how absurd this is.
It's just an old tactic they, at this point, they're using not only to rally the base for action and motivate their side, but I think it has a big impact with millennials, the 20-something, 30-somethings of today, and teenagers of today who are willing to go to school strikes, who are being led by Greta Thunberg.
They're just ignorant enough to believe that we have 10, 11 years and that this has never been said before and that we have to listen to the world's finest scientists, as Greta Thunberg says.
There's no reason to go to school because there's no future that'll be no more because our politicians aren't listening to the science.
So we'll be eating each other and all dying soon unless you listen to the science and follow the tipping points.
It never gets old.
In other words, overpopulation, same kind of fears, resource scarcity, the global cooling.
In fact, global cooling had the exact same fears.
It was causing extreme weather.
It was causing wars and national security problems.
I mean, you go back and the solutions, the man-made global cooling in the 70s are the same solutions as today.
That's what's shocking too.
Nothing changes.
It's just a new set of activists.
And this time they hope to convince the rest of us or they hope to impose their will, which is more likely.
They seem to be pretty successful.
President Obama in the U.S. tried that with his executive orders.
Luckily, President Trump reversed them.
But if Trump doesn't win re-election, we go right back via executive order to a lot of this nonsense in the United States.
Ezreal Event Show Wrap-Up00:01:16
Wow.
Well, you know, Mark, we're going to have to wrap it here.
But, you know, this whole idea of a behavioral scientist suggesting cannibalism, a 15-year-old girl sailing across the Atlantic to preach to us on the future of the planet.
This is exactly why, my friend, Mad Magazine stopped publishing last month.
It's beyond parody.
You can't out-parody the headlines of today's news.
It's just so outrageous.
But as always, thank you for weighing in with your insight.
It's always appreciated.
Thank you very much.
Appreciate it.
Thank you.
And that was Mark Moreno of climatepot.com.
Keep with us, folks.
More to come on the Ezreal Event Show.
Well, that wraps up this edition of the Ezreal Event Show.
Thanks so much for watching.
Ezra should be back in this space tomorrow.
In the meantime, please check out campaign2019.com to support and donate to the Rebels federal election campaign coverage because, folks, you know we're the only ones bringing you the other side of the story.