Donald Trump’s 2019 UN speech—packed with critiques of Obama’s Syria policies, $4B in prisoner exchanges like Bo Bergdahl, and warnings against globalist censorship—was overshadowed by media frenzy over Greta Thunberg’s address, despite its sharper foreign policy focus. The episode questions whether Thunberg, whose mother claimed she suffers from Asperger’s, OCD, and selective mutism, was exploited as a "child actor" for political activism while Trump faced selective scrutiny. Legal expert John Carpe argues Alberta’s Human Rights Commission, expanded under "lefty Red Tory" Justice Minister Doug Schweitzer, enables frivolous claims—like Todd’s babysitter dispute or Jonathan Yanev’s gender-affirming care targeting—stifling legitimate discrimination while prioritizing ideological litigants. The broader implication: media bias and weaponized human rights laws distort public discourse, favoring performative activism over substantive leadership. [Automatically generated summary]
All right, my rebels, today I'm going to give you a bit of a treat.
You may not think so, but I swear it is.
You must listen.
I'm going to take you through Donald Trump's speech at the United Nations.
Did you know he gave a speech at the United Nations?
I bet you didn't.
I bet the only speech you heard about was Greta Tunberg's speech at the United Nations.
She emoted a bit.
Yeah, fair enough.
But Donald Trump gave a barn burner of a foreign policy speech.
I'm going to show you about seven or eight clips from it.
It's a little bit long, but I think you've got to hear it.
And I'm just guessing you haven't heard it anywhere else.
So I hope you enjoy this.
I give a little bit of commentary in between, but really, there's not much more to say.
Trump said it.
Before I clear out of the way, can I invite you to go to premium.rebelnews.com.
Premium.rebelnews.com.
That's where you can become a premium subscriber.
And it's eight bucks a month, so it's not nothing, but that's not that bad, is it?
80 bucks for the whole year.
Type in podcast as your coupon code, get even more of a discount.
And the good news there is you get the video version of the podcast plus access to other shows.
So please go to premium.rebelnews.com.
All right, here's my commentary on Trump's speech.
Tonight, Donald Trump and that abused child, Greta Thunberg, both gave speeches at the U.N. Guess which one got more media coverage?
It's September 26th, and this is the Astron Levant show.
Why should others go to jail when you're a biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here, and you won't give them an answer.
The only thing I have to say to the government about why I publish it is because it's my bloody right to do so.
Greta Thunberg, she's that 16-year-old Swedish girl who looks more like 12 years old.
She's mentally ill, according to her mother, and according to herself.
She's been depressed, she's been suicidal.
She has other medical problems.
Here, listen to her say it.
So when I was 11, I became ill.
I fell into depression.
I stopped talking, and I stopped eating.
In two months, I lost about 10 kilos of weight.
Later on, I was diagnosed with Asperger syndrome, OCD, and selective mutism.
Huh.
Well, she arrived in America to spread terror and depression, actually.
Here she is at the United Nations.
Now, look at this girl.
She is still mentally ill.
She is being used and abused in part for her mental illness.
Take a look at this.
This is all wrong.
I shouldn't be up here.
I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean.
Yet, you all come to us young people for hope.
How dare you?
You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words.
And yet, I'm one of the lucky ones.
People are suffering.
People are dying.
Entire ecosystems are collapsing.
We are in the beginning of a mass extinction.
And all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth.
How dare you?
Yeah, get that girl to the kids' help phone or something.
Get child and family services.
That is a girl who was suicidal, who lost a quarter of her body weight.
She is still not right, and her parents have weaponized her.
They're abusers.
Now, by the way, she looks about 12, doesn't she?
She's not.
She's a mentally ill 16-year-old.
I'm not picking on her.
I'm not the one pushing her into a media hurricane for my own ends.
She's a puppet of lobbyists and extremists and of her crazy, crazy mother.
The Russian Kaviar is not as people think.
No, no, no.
No coincidence.
Yeah, that's Greta Thunberg's mom.
She's like those beauty pageant moms in the U.S., obsessed with turning their daughters into Miss America for their own emotional and financial reasons.
Yeah, I blame her mom, actually.
So, Greta, the mentally disturbed teen, was the big sensation at the UN, at least for the globalist crowd, the crowd that believes in global government, global taxes.
They love environmental extremism and emotion.
It's jet fuel for them.
But Donald Trump, he's pretty much the opposite of those ideas, isn't he?
One of my favorite things is reading old Donald Trump tweets mocking global warming as a scam.
This one here isn't even that old.
He mocks the financial aspect, mocks the carbon credits.
He calls it a scam.
What a laugh.
And I just love this video.
So young Greta with her faces being stunned into silence just by Donald Trump walking into the room.
Did you see this?
Yeah, that's the difference between real life and a child actor, I think.
Donald Trump vs. Globalism00:15:58
But here's my point.
We all heard about Greta.
For God's sake, she was compared to saints, to Joan of Arc.
Let me show you just one example.
This is from Sarah Silverman.
You think you will recognize Jesus when he comes back?
I see him all around.
He is this girl.
And y'all don't even see it as Sarah Silverman talking about Greta.
I don't think Sarah Silverman, a hardcore left-wing atheist Jew, knows a lot about Jesus, actually.
She just is emotionally reacting to a disabled girl being weaponized.
It's quite pitiful.
But let's let the Hollywood phonies talk about Greta the Ill.
Can I show you a few clips from Donald Trump's remarkable speech at the UN?
I bet you didn't even know he gave a speech there.
Certainly not if he followed the CBC, for example.
They were all Greta all the time.
So here, some clips from Trump's major speech at the UN.
I think you're going to like it.
I have the immense privilege of addressing you today as the elected leader of a nation that prizes liberty, independence, and self-government above all.
The United States, after having spent over $2.5 trillion since my election to completely rebuild our great military, is also by far the world's most powerful nation.
Hopefully, it will never have to use this power.
Americans know that in a world where others seek conquest and domination, our nation must be strong in wealth, in might, and in spirit.
That is why the United States vigorously defends the traditions and customs that have made us who we are.
I know all of that sounds obvious, but it's not.
Obama let our military waste away in terms of personnel and equipment.
When I say our military, of course, the United States military, but the whole NATO alliance.
More than that, Obama let things waste away morally.
He debased the military.
He insulted it.
Obama traded five Taliban generals for Bo Bergdahl, a traitor who defected from the United States to the Taliban.
Other U.S. soldiers died trying to rescue the traitor Bo Bergdahl, and Obama actually celebrated him as a hero at the White House.
Obama was the one who got a deal with Omar Cotter.
The jury in Guantanamo Bay had convicted Cotter and sentenced him to 40 years in prison.
Obama intervened to let him out in just eight, despite that sentence.
Of course, Obama simply used the U.S. military as a PR device, a plaything, to topple Mo Mar Gaddafi, an odious man, to be sure, but at least he was a bulwark against ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Obama could have destroyed ISIS itself in a month if he wanted to.
He let it live on for years.
He liked to watch the world burn.
Remember this?
Obama's senior advisors said they didn't want to attack ISIS because it would have a high carbon footprint or something.
We don't want to destroy these oil tankers because that's infrastructure that's going to be necessary to support the people when ISIS isn't there anymore.
And it's going to create environmental damage.
Environmental damage, people.
You can't have that.
We've got to let ISIS keep its oil money because we don't want environmental damage.
Yeah, finally, Trump is someone who respects the military and believes in making America stronger as a nation economically too.
Okay, back to Trump's speech.
Look at this.
Like my beloved country, each nation represented in this hall has a cherished history, culture, and heritage that is worth defending and celebrating and which gives us our singular potential and strength.
The free world must embrace its national foundations.
It must not attempt to erase them or replace them.
Looking around and all over this large, magnificent planet, the truth is plain to see.
If you want freedom, take pride in your country.
If you want democracy, hold on to your sovereignty.
And if you want peace, love your nation.
Wise leaders always put the good of their own people and their own country first.
The future does not belong to globalists.
The future belongs to patriots.
How refreshing to hear someone reject globalism in favor of nation states so clearly.
That's not just America first, that's Canadians being for Canada first, Brits being for Britain first.
Respect for the people, for democracy, for history.
It's so good.
Here's some more.
The future belongs to sovereign and independent nations who protect their citizens, respect their neighbors, and honor the differences that make each country special and unique.
It is why we in the United States have embarked on an exciting program of national renewal.
In everything we do, we are focused on empowering the dreams and aspirations of our citizens.
Are you jealous yet?
That could have been us, but we voted for a Hansie drama teacher in blackface instead.
Trump is a globalist only in one sense.
He wants to sell American goods all around the globe, and he is doing it, unlike Trudeau, who has incurred trade wars against us from China and India.
Here's Trump.
We have worked closely with our partners in Mexico and Canada to replace NAFTA with the brand new and hopefully bipartisan U.S.-Mexico-Canada agreement.
Tomorrow, I will join Prime Minister Abbey of Japan to continue our progress in finalizing a terrific new trade deal.
As the United Kingdom makes preparations to exit the European Union, I have made clear that we stand ready to complete an exceptional new trade agreement with the UK that will bring tremendous benefits to both of our countries.
We are working closely with Prime Minister Boris Johnson on a magnificent new trade deal.
Trump likes free trade, but not at any cost.
He has long held that China has been in a unilateral trade war against America for decades.
Only now Trump is fighting back against them, not for the sake of fighting, for the opposite, to make China stop fighting America.
The most important difference in America's new approach on trade concerns our relationship with China.
In 2001, China was admitted to the World Trade Organization.
Our leaders then argued that this decision would compel China to liberalize its economy and strengthen protections to provide things that were unacceptable to us and for private property and for the rule of law.
Two decades later, this theory has been tested and proven completely wrong.
Not only has China declined to adopt promised reforms, it has embraced an economic model dependent on massive market barriers, heavy state subsidies, currency manipulation, product dumping, forced technology transfers, and the theft of intellectual property, and also trade secrets on a grand scale.
Have you ever heard anything so honest and blunt about China before by anyone in high office?
Compare it to Trudeau.
There's a level of admiration I actually have for China because their basic dictatorship is allowing them to actually turn their economy around on a dime and say we need to go green as fast as we need to start investing in solar.
I mean, there is a flexibility that I know Stephen Harper must dream about of having a dictatorship that he could do everything he wanted that I find quite interesting.
Now, I'm going to skip a bit from Trump's speech, but I recommend that you watch the whole thing.
If you have the time, you can find it online, including on the White House website.
But listen to this.
You tell me who is the party of the working man, Trump, the blue-collar billionaire, or radical left-wing Democrats who actually hate industry and factories because of carbon dioxide or something.
The United States lost 60,000 factories after China entered the WTO.
This is happening to other countries all over the globe.
The World Trade Organization needs drastic change.
The second largest economy in the world should not be permitted to declare itself a developing country in order to game the system at others' expense.
For years, these abuses were tolerated, ignored, or even encouraged.
Globalism exerted a religious pull over past leaders, causing them to ignore their own national interests.
But as far as America is concerned, those days are over.
To confront these unfair practices, I placed massive tariffs on more than $500 billion worth of Chinese-made goods.
Already, as a result of these tariffs, supply chains are relocating back to America and to other nations, and billions of dollars are being paid to our treasury.
The American people are absolutely committed to restoring balance to our relationship with China.
Hopefully, we can reach an agreement that would be beneficial for both countries.
But as I have made very clear, I will not accept a bad deal for the American people.
That's amazing.
If you're working in a steel plant or a factory of any sort, how could you possibly not realize that this is not only the morally right approach, the legally right approach, the economically right approach, but that, frankly, it's the only thing that could possibly save your own factory job.
But it's not just money.
Listen to Trump talk about human rights, something the left used to pretend to care about.
Get a look at this.
As we endeavor to stabilize our relationship, we're also carefully monitoring the situation in Hong Kong.
The world fully expects that the Chinese government will honor its binding treaty made with the British and registered with the United Nations in which China commits to protect Hong Kong's freedom, legal system, and democratic ways of life.
How China chooses to handle the situation will say a great deal about its role in the world in the future.
We are all counting on President Xi as a great leader.
The United States does not seek conflict with any other nation.
We desire peace, cooperation, and mutual gain with all.
But I will never fail to defend America's interests.
Trump is making China fall.
It's likely that China is already in an economic recession.
He's taking on China.
He's supporting democracy in Hong Kong, all without firing a shot.
He's putting China on the back foot.
Trump also talked about Iran and Afghanistan and Yemen and other places.
But let me quote him a bit on mass migration.
Oh, this is good.
Let me play a few minutes because I don't want to leave anything out.
Give me a few minutes here.
Take a look.
Here in the Western Hemisphere, we are joining with our partners to ensure stability and opportunity all across the region.
In that mission, one of our most critical challenges is illegal immigration, which undermines prosperity, rips apart societies and empowers ruthless criminal cartels.
Mass illegal migration is unfair, unsafe, and unsustainable for everyone involved.
The sending countries and the depleted countries, and they become depleted very fast, but their youth is not taken care of, and human capital goes to waste.
The receiving countries are overburdened with more migrants than they can responsibly accept.
And the migrants themselves are exploited, assaulted, and abused by vicious coyotes.
Nearly one-third of women who make the journey north to our border are sexually assaulted along the way.
Yet here in the United States and around the world, there is a growing cottage industry of radical activists and non-governmental organizations that promote human smuggling.
These groups encourage illegal migration and demand the erasure of national borders.
Today I have a message for those open border activists who cloak themselves in the rhetoric of social justice.
Your policies are not just.
Your policies are cruel and evil.
You are empowering criminal organizations that prey on innocent men, women, and children.
You put your own false sense of virtue before the lives, well-being, and countless innocent people.
When you undermine border security, you are undermining human rights and human dignity.
Now, Trump obviously talks a lot about his own southern border.
I won't get into that because it's not quite as relevant to us here in Canada.
But I like this.
Trump talks about free speech, not just in countries like Yuba and Venezuela.
Get a little this.
Freedom and democracy must be constantly guarded and protected, both abroad and from within.
We must always be skeptical of those who want conformity and control.
Even in free nations, we see alarming signs and new challenges to liberty.
A small number of social media platforms are acquiring immense power over what we can see and over what we are allowed to say.
A permanent political class is openly disdainful, dismissive and defiant of the will of the people.
A faceless bureaucracy operates in secret and weakens democratic rule.
Social Media's Grip on Liberty00:02:02
Media and academic institutions push flat-out assaults on our histories, traditions, and values.
In the United States, my administration has made clear to social media companies that we will uphold the right of free speech.
A free society cannot allow social media giants to silence the voices of the people.
And a free people must never, ever be enlisted in the cause of silencing, coercing, canceling, or blacklisting their own neighbors.
Wow, I'm ready for him to do that anytime now in the U.S. and up here in Canada, too.
Now, this speech is so long, I'm sorry I can't show it to you all.
Trump takes on foreign regimes that criminalize being gay, for example.
So while Trudeau goes to every pride parade in Canada and does that weird stick-out his tongue thing, all right, thanks, buddy.
But Trump actually goes in front of the world's leaders and tells them, stop criminalizing gays.
One guy does the photo op.
The other guy does real diplomacy face to face with the world's leaders using the president's bully pulpit.
It's a 45-minute speech.
Patriotic and interested in America first, but it explains how such an ideology could work for every nation.
Standing up to evil around the world, but also holding out an outstretched hand for odious regimes to change.
I mean, that part about China's president, that was a carrot and a stick, wasn't it?
I think this is the best foreign policy speech I've heard a president ever give.
Which is precisely why the media party gave you short clips of Greta Tunberg emoting instead, isn't it?
Stay with us for more.
Twelve Years of Complaints00:14:59
Well, it's been more than a dozen years since I had my run-ins with Canada's Human Rights Commissions, you might recall.
I was taken before the Alberta Human Rights Commission for 900 days for having the temerity to publish in a news magazine the news of the Danish cartoons of Mohammed that caused so many deaths in riots around the world.
Well, I think we beat back the Human Rights Commissions a little bit a decade ago, but they've come roaring back.
And some of the craziest cases, as usual, are here in, or not here, sorry, I'm in Toronto now, are in Western Canada.
My cartoons case was in Alberta.
British Columbia is where the crazy cases of Jonathan Yaneve, the man who calls himself Jessica Yaneve and demands that he have aesthetic services provided by women.
Out of control, the BC Human Rights Tribunal, but there's a crazy case from Alberta that we've done stories about.
It's the case of a male babysitter who demands the right to babysit your kids.
Let me read a paragraph from an essay, and then I'll introduce a man who's doing something about it.
You know the story, but let me refresh your memory.
Todd is a single father with two sons who were ages five and eight at the time.
On August 31st, 2017, Todd posted an ad on Kijiji looking for a babysitter for an evening.
One of those who responded to the ad was the complainant, James Siernowski.
Todd replied to Mr. Siernowski asking some basic questions about Mr. Siernowski, including what town he lived in, what his age was, and whether he was male or female.
Mr. Siernowski answered these questions.
However, Todd's evening plans fell through, and so he canceled the plans to hire a sitter.
Todd didn't contact Siernowski further.
Mr. Siernowski did not follow up with Todd either, but get this, get this, here's the crazy story.
Rather than follow up with Todd, Mr. Siernowski filed a human rights complaint against Todd the very next day, alleging discrimination on the basis of age and gender in violation of Section 8 of the Alberta Human Rights Act.
I'm reading from a commentary on the subject by our friend John Carpeg of the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms, who is defending Todd, the single dad.
And John Carpe joins us in studio now.
John, great to see you.
Good to see you, Ezra.
have covered this story we sent reporters trying to find Mr. Sirinowski a grown man who thinks he has the human right to babysit your kids whether or not you want like I gotta tell you John I'm not averse to the idea of a male babysitter it's It's unusual, but I don't think it's wrong.
It might be wrong for someone.
It might be right for someone.
Well, Todd, in fact, is not adverse to male babysitters.
The reason Todd didn't get back to James Siernowski is because Todd's plans fell through, and he had some email exchanges with other prospective babysitters.
And, you know, you could argue it's rude, but, you know, in real life, you might have five or six conversations.
You don't get back to all six people to say, no thanks, no thanks, no thanks.
It's kind of the conversation trickles down, and that means it's a null.
Yeah.
Well, but here's the thing.
As soon as someone says, I'm so interested in babysitting your kids, I am going to go to the Human Rights Commission, and if that fails, I will appeal to a higher court.
And if that fails, I'll appeal to it.
I will have access to your kids.
And all of a sudden, something that's a little quirky, okay, male babysitter, grown man, babysitter, it's a little unusual, but it could be okay, all of a sudden becomes very dark when he says, I demand.
And he didn't shout it.
He did worse than shouting.
He went to the Human Rights Commission saying he had the human rights.
But he's not the culprit.
It's the legislation that allows that.
In the same way that he gave this, he's the weirdo.
I'm sorry, I'm going to say the word weirdo.
I know you're not going to say that because you're a proper lawyer.
But he's a weirdo.
He's taking advantage of something that's in place.
Same with Jonathan Geneva and re-elected the rights of the money.
Exactly.
So, you know, it's fine.
We can be critical.
He's probably upset over the fact that people, most parents want a female babysitter, right?
If he's upset about fight the world, fight human nature.
But, you know, this is the problem with the human rights legislation.
It needs to be amended because it's gone from a freedom from, when they talked about human rights in 1945, after the war, after the Holocaust, after everything, the human right was my right to practice my religion, my right to speak, my right to own and enjoy property, my right to educate my children as I see best, not as the government or some political activists.
Those were the human rights were those kind of fundamental freedoms.
But now it's been twisted into a claim against other people.
So I have a human right, or a person has a human right to have male genitalia waxed by women and to force the women to do that, or a human right to compel parents that want a female babysitter to have to hire a male babysitter.
This is the shift.
And so the problem is the legislation more so than I would say Yaniv or a Sieranowski or anybody else.
It's also the problem of these human rights commissions and tribunals that tolerate these shenanigans.
They could cut this short.
They don't have to continue.
Continue with this.
They like this shenanigans.
They positively go out to foment a litigation.
You know, I remember when I fought the Human Rights Commission a dozen years ago, the phrase I used was, it was designed to be a shield, it's become a sword.
Yeah.
And in this case, I think that James Syronowski has the human right to be a male babysitter.
Absolutely.
But he's not looking for that anymore.
He's got that.
He has the human right to be a male babysitter all day long.
He's not looking for that right, John.
He's looking for the power to have the state impose himself on others.
That is not a right.
That is a compulsion.
And that's the twisting here.
And that compulsion is characterized as a right to be free from discrimination.
But the problem with that is that we all discriminate all the time.
We discriminate in our choice of friends, who you do business with.
The phrase is a good idea.
He's got a discriminating palate.
That's a compliment.
Oh, he's got a very discriminating shopper.
He's got a very discriminating taste.
Yeah.
So we all discriminate, and the human rights legislation has gone too far.
And now it's prying into even people's homes.
I mean, there's a difference, I think, between, Say a landlord puts up a sign and says, I'm not going to rent any of my apartments to Jews or blacks or gays or women or whatever, right?
This is a businessman running kind of a public business.
It's even different, though, if you're having somebody come into your own home.
Like some of these aestheticians in British Columbia, in the Neve case, they're running business out of their home and they don't have colleagues there that can help them out if there's a problem.
Or a babysitter, I mean, this is a very intimate personal decision.
Who's going to look after your kids?
And even there, the legislation should, you know, if we're going to keep this stuff on the books, it should be within proper boundaries where you say, look, if you're a landlord and you're renting hundreds of apartments, you have a law saying, well, you can't refuse to rent to people because they're Jewish or black or female or gay.
That's one thing.
But if it's your own home.
Yeah.
You know, I'm thinking back to when I was a kid, there was a neighbor, a young boy who was a neighbor.
He was a guy.
He babysat us once.
It was no big deal.
I mean, we knew him, family, it was just a neighbor.
He came over, he did it.
But for this stranger to shop around, and here's the thing, I was quoting earlier from the essay that you guys published on this.
Here's what shocked me and is the reason I'm so confident saying he's malicious and a little bit weird.
I learned from you that this is not his first serial complainant.
Yeah, absolutely.
Let me quote from your essay.
I'd like you to expand on this.
One such complaint has already been completely adjudicated all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada as a test case.
In that case, Mr. Shinowski filed a complaint against the mother of a five-year-old boy who placed a Kijiji ad stating her preference for an older lady with experience.
I can understand why you want an older lady with experience.
Maternal, grandmotherly.
That is an absolutely legitimate, discriminating taste.
I have very discriminating tastes in babysitters.
I like gentle, old, grandmotherly ladies.
Imagine telling a mom you can't have that.
And a human rights investigator recommended that the mother be required to pay Mr. Siernowski $1,000 to $1,500 for damages to dignity.
Which is a lot of money for about 90% of the population to be ordered to pay $1,000, $1,500.
That is a huge sum.
For nothing, because someone said, I want to have a grandmotherly type babysit my kid.
No, I want a babysit!
Your kid!
You've hurt my feelings!
And I know I'm sounding very strange here, but that's how it looks to me, a man saying, I demand access to your child.
The demand is what makes me immediately say, you are a weirdo.
I don't want anywhere near my children.
Yeah.
I know you can't say that, and you're probably feeling uncomfortable.
But anyone who sues, anyone who sues demanding access to a child, oh, my dignity is hurt that you're not letting me play with your kids.
Who are you?
I still, I hear what you're saying, and I think the culprit here is not Mr. Siernowski.
Well, he is a culprit.
It's the human rights legislation.
If you have this kind of a law on the books, if it's not James Siranowski, it'll be Jessica somebody else.
So the problem is the legislation, not people.
First and foremost, the problem is the legislation that allows this.
And the Alberta Human Rights Commission, even though it decided in a previous case, the investigator recommended a penalty of $1,000 to $1,500.
That was quashed, kiboshed, by the head of the commission said, no, we're discontinuing the investigation.
How long ago was this?
About four or five years ago.
So this was after they allegedly were set back on a normal track after my big fight with the Alberta Human Rights Commission.
That's where they said, oh, we're going to fix up our system.
So this went all the way up.
So the Human Rights Commission five years ago said no to James Siernowski.
Said, you know, they started the investigation.
They concluded the investigation by saying, we're not going to proceed further to a complaint.
There will not be a hearing.
This is not going any further.
Okay.
Then he took that to the Court of Queen's Bench, then the Court of Appeal.
Who paid for his lawyers?
Who is this?
Did he do it on his own or did he have a lawyer?
Presumably, well, he would have been self-represented or he would have had a lawyer.
That would not have been paid for by the human rights.
Right, but I wonder who's bankrolling this, because to go to a court of appeal, and did that one go all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada?
They asked for leave to appeal and the Supreme Court turned it down.
So it didn't go.
That was a full hearing there.
They refused to hear it.
Someone with that kind of stubbornness, that kind of obsession, if I just heard that about someone, I'd say, yeah, no, thanks.
I don't want you in my life at all, let alone unattended with my kids.
I find it very weird.
And then the Commission, here's the problem.
So the Commission decided five years ago that Sieranowski's complaint was not valid.
They won three, at least two, arguably three court rounds of court proceedings.
The Human Rights Commission won in court.
The court said that that was an acceptable decision to refuse to take this further to a hearing.
Then a few years go by.
What are they doing?
They're investigating another complaint.
Like, they're not even adhering to their own precedent.
Their own precedent is that this was not valid.
They're just as stupid as when I fought with them a dozen years ago on the cartoon.
It seems you've got some, you know, activist ideologue types that, and I don't think they have any compassion for the victims of these human rights investigations because it's incredibly stressful.
You are more thick-skinned than the average person.
I know it was stressful for you to go through what you went through, right?
You got thicker skin than most, but imagine somebody that doesn't have very thick skin.
Yeah, like a normal person.
Or like someone who's busy and doesn't have a lot of cash, like a single dad.
And then you've got this human rights prosecution against you.
It's very stressful.
We're representing actually, there's Todd, and there's another lady as well, a separate, different case.
So this James Siranowski is a serial complainer, just like Jonathan Yanev is a serial complainer.
Yes.
I don't know if it's the same numbers, but definitely serial.
So he's gaining the system.
He needs to be smacked down so hard.
I'm glad you're on the case.
I'm glad you're helping out Todd and this other mum.
I've got a question for you.
I remember when I was dragged through the Human Rights Commission about a dozen years ago, and I sought to make myself sort of a self-taught expert in the Human Rights Commission.
I read about its history.
I read about the people on the commission itself.
And then you wrote Shakedown.
That's right.
Thank you for that.
And one of the things I did, and this was a dozen years ago when it was less to read, I read every single ruling the Human Rights Commission wrote.
Like I just went, started and worked my way backwards.
I read every single decision.
And what I found is that these really weird, punitive decisions were not their main body of work.
In Alberta, at least, where I focused on this, a lot of them were guys in the oil and gas industry and construction who didn't like taking a urine test for drugs or an alcohol test.
So they were really guys who got, they were fired and got whatever their union or employment law would offer them.
And then they went to the Human Rights Commission with a crazy claim just for an extra five or ten grand.
It seemed to me that these insane political cases were like the icing on the cake.
But the cake itself, what kept these people, these human rights commissions busy was just guys who said, what the hell?
I got laid off.
I got 20 grand.
I think I can get another five or 10 grand by saying they hurt my feelings.
That's what it looked like to me.
It's been 10 years since I've really gone through them.
Here's my question for you.
And my point is, there was never any legitimate work for them.
I never once encountered a genuine case where I thought, oh my God, this person has been so hard done by, so unfairly treated.
So are you saying that in my example of the landlord who's running a business who has multiple apartments?
Show me such a case.
Show me such a case in 10 years.
No Bogeymen Found00:08:01
That's my point.
I read all the cases, and I never found a case like that because those bogeymen don't exist.
At least when I sat down 10 years ago and read every single case, I never found one case like that.
And by the way.
Where somebody was denied an apartment.
I never saw their religious race.
And by the way, if you have a problem, in most provinces or cities, there's something called the landlord and tenant board.
Right.
So there's a labor relations board.
So if you've got a problem with employment, that's handled.
If you've got a problem with your apartment, that's handled by expert bodies.
And by the way, no sane landlord would dare do that.
They'd be flattened, not just by these boards, but by the court of public opinion.
Try, I mean, if you're a racist landlord in Toronto, good luck.
I mean, you'll be out of business in a moment.
My point to you, and it was a very long preamble, is I never once saw a case that made me think, you know, in this one example, thank goodness for the Human Rights Commission, they did justice.
I never actually once even saw, even once, this hypothetical you're talking about.
Have you ever seen a case in the Alberta Human Rights Commission, the BC Human Rights Tribunal, or anyone, and just tell me if you have, because I want to hear it.
Have you ever seen a case that made you say, you know what?
Justice was done here.
I'm glad of this decision.
99 others might be awful, but this one's good.
Can you name one good case?
Well, two-part answer.
Firstly, no.
But, you know, I also, I don't claim to have read every human rights decision.
That would be many, many hours, because you've got the federal and 10 provincial.
Yeah, I only read every one.
I read all of them in Alberta.
I read a lot in BC, and I read a number in Saskatchewan.
Okay, okay.
So you read all the Alberta cases.
I read every Alberta case, every single one.
And I never found anything that made me say, justice was done.
And I would tell you if I had.
John.
I know you would.
I think this is a case, you know, people have said the same thing about other things, about unions.
You know, there was a time and a place when it was appropriate, you know, but now there's excesses and abuses.
I think that the idea that Canadians cling to and like is that we should not have a country where some employer, business, landlord could say, we don't serve Jews, we don't hire blacks.
That you don't want that kind of bigotry.
But the problem is, right, the word discrimination can be legitimate, like parents wanting a female babysitter, or a religious organization wants to hire adherents who are members or practicing of that religion.
You have all kinds of healthy, legitimate, valid discrimination, and these laws need to be reformed so that they're targeting real bigotry, but they're not trying to stamp out legitimate discrimination like in this Syranovsky bysitting case.
If you watch some of these sensationalistic, dystopian works of fiction on TV like The Handmaid's Tale, you might think, oh my God, there's bigotry everywhere.
I think the Human Rights Commission likes to think of themselves as fighting against the Handmaid's Tale future, fighting against some horrific figures.
As the BC Human Rights Tribunal said in the Yeneve case, in a preliminary ruling on procedural matters, they actually said Yeneve has a right to gender-affirming care, including services like waxing.
And we have to balance that right against the rights of the US.
They're the monsters who are also.
They're the monsters.
And in particular, I tell you, more and more I see the victims of the trans extremists are women and feminists.
I mean, we can talk about that another time.
The war on women is not being prosecuted by Christian men, like in Handmaidsdale.
The war on women is being prosecuted by trans men to women, trans, extirpating women from sport, extirpating women from sensitive and private professions or occupations like waxing.
Brazilian bikini wax.
pushing their way, you know, kicking out the older lady with experience and saying, I'm the baby's deader.
No!
And I know you're probably saying, Ezra, why are you making that funny sound?
Because it's the sheer audacity of being so unneighborly, unnatural, and saying, I may be odious, and I may lack interpersonal skills.
I may be abusive, but I got the law on my side, so you're going to kiss the ring.
That's what makes me so frustrated with all these cases.
We're going to keep on, until the laws are changed, we're going to keep on seeing more of these cases.
And I'm hopeful that we can get the legislative reforms as more and more Canadians recognize that we've got a real problem with the law as it exists right now.
I got it.
One last question for you on this.
I appreciate your time, and it's great to see you in our studio.
Thanks for making the visit.
For four years, Alberta was run by the NDP, which is very much into the grievance industry and litigation and expanding rights beyond any normal conception.
Jason Kenney is very different.
Well, at least he was when I knew him.
And I would even call him a social conservative.
I know he was quite sympathetic to me during my own Human Rights Commission ordeal.
However, the justice minister in Alberta is an out-of-control, lefty, Red Tory named Doug Schweitzer.
He's coming for us, by the way.
Do you think there is any chance that Alberta, under Jason Kenney, or is he going to be thwarted by Doug Schweitzer, will do anything to fix it?
Because at the end of the day, the Alberta Human Rights Commission does not operate with its own money, its own staff, or its own authority.
It relies on Jason Kenney to fund it and Jason Kenney's statutes to give it its power.
Is there any chance of reform, or has Doug Schweitzer kaibosh that?
I think there's always a chance for reform if you don't know until you try.
There's a hopeful sign in Jason Kenney is appointed.
For example, Moin Yahya is a law professor at the University of Alberta, happens to be a Muslim, happens to be a strong libertarian.
I know Moin, good guy.
And he pointed him to what?
To the Human Rights Commission.
Oh, isn't that interesting?
And there's two or three others that are, I think, going to be decent, no, better than decent.
They'll be good commissioners.
Now, that's a separate question from legislative reform.
Right, because putting good people in a bad system probably means you'll see less abuse like this.
But the system remains, the muscles remain so they can still be used.
When Moin Yahya and the others are replaced in four or eight or 16 years, the powers that they perhaps used gently can be abused again in the future.
Well, there's one legislative reform that can make quite easily, which I don't even think Doug Schweitzer or other people in the caucus would really be opposed to, is to amend the legislation to expressly exempt services that are provided in the home or received in the home.
You can pass that legislative amendment very easily, and you then are on the way to better legislation.
So I think people should never be so pessimistic as to refrain from making the effort.
You don't know until you've tried.
And I think there is a possibility for improvements in Alberta and Ontario and other provinces to the legislation.
Even British Columbia, you could see changes to the legislation there after the Yaneve case.
Well, I hope you're right.
And I say it again, I've said it a hundred times, that you are one of the few good guys fighting in the court of law as well as the court of public opinion.
Routine Background Checks00:03:32
Thank you.
And you and I have done this together for many years now.
I remember when you helped us in that battle in Nanaimo, and that's five and a half years ago now.
You helped us fight for religious freedom in that case and freedom of assembly.
That was when Leadercast, a Christian conference, was kicked out of a public building.
You helped us there, and that set us on the track of many battles since then.
So I thank you for that.
And your website is jccf.ca, am I right?
That's correct.
And we are a registered charity.
We gratefully accept donations.
We issue an official tax receipt.
And our funding is 100% from voluntary donations, like the Rebel.
Yeah.
Well, I mean, and I've enjoyed crowdfunding for you in the past, and we've sent some dough your way.
And I would encourage any of our viewers who like what John has done.
And I know you like it because John's one of our fan favorites.
So feel free to go directly to his site as jccf.ca.
Keep us posted if you have cases that you think could use a little bit of juice, a little bit of more coverage.
I know we've crowdfunded for you before.
Happy to do so in the future.
We'd just like to know a little bit about the case.
I mean, even the case we're talking about today gets my blood boiling.
I'm sure it gets the blood boiling of our viewers too.
Thanks for having me on your show.
All right, it's great to see you again.
There you have it.
John Carpe, one of the good guys, fighting hard in the court of public opinion today, but usually he's fighting hard in the court of law, standing up for Todd, the single dad who is being sued for not wanting a male babysitter.
Well, actually, he didn't even not want him.
He just didn't hire him.
That's today's interview.
Stay with us.
more ahead on The Rebel.
Hey, welcome back on my monologue yesterday about a hero being smeared after raising over a million dollars for charity.
Jan writes, Let's ask the obvious.
The beer hero was Republican, wasn't he?
Well, you know what?
I think that is instinctively right.
A young man from Iowa, I'm just guessing he's Republican.
And I think you could see that the smearer was a Democrat.
I haven't checked back on the news today.
I wonder if that smearer is still with the Des Moines Register.
It would be shocking if he was, but not surprising.
Jay writes, going back and looking for old tweets or photos to undermine someone or something doing good is normal these days.
Yeah, you know, it's that phrase, oh, it was a routine background check.
Really?
You do routine background checks on guys donating their beer money to the cancer ward for kids?
Is that a routine background check?
Stop lying.
On my interview with Joel Pollock, Robert Wrights, many are stating that the Democrats want to impeach Trump for doing the same thing Biden did.
This is not true.
Biden threatened to withhold aid if the investigator conducting an ongoing lawful investigation of Biden's son was not immediately fired.
On the other hand, Trump merely agreed with the president of Ukraine that the Biden should be lawfully investigated.
Yeah, I mean, we just all lived through the Mueller inquiry two years.
And when I say we, I mean, it dominated Canadian news, too.
They found nothing.
Not even a trace of nothing, an echo of nothing, a shadow of nothing.
But Joe Biden, I showed you the clip yesterday, he's bragging about it.
He said to the Ukrainians, you fire this prosecutor before I leave in six hours, or you don't get a billion dollars.
What a bully and a weirdo.
All right, folks, that's the show for today.
Until next time, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, to you at home, good night.