Don Cherry’s Hockey Night in Canada firing on November 11th—after SportsNet and co-host Ron McClain approved his divisive poppy remarks—exposes media hypocrisy, with 65,000+ signatures demanding his reinstatement. Guest Yasmin Mohamed contrasts this censorship with the mainstream embrace of Megan Phelps-Roper, despite both critiquing extremism, exposing Western liberal fears of discussing Islam’s radical elements. Her book Unveiled faced publishing resistance, while similar critiques of Christianity go unchallenged, revealing a double standard. The episode argues Cherry’s dismissal reflects systemic suppression of conservative voices by the CRTC and Trudeau’s government, not genuine offense. [Automatically generated summary]
I learned something last night and that was that Don Cherry's broadcast was not live to TV.
I guess I should have known that.
It was pre-recorded and in fact it aired on three separate occasions over the weekend.
And the reason that's relevant is because on none of those occasions did SportsNet object.
Not at the executive level, not at the show level, not even at the co-host level, Ron Judas McLean.
And that's interesting and that teaches us a little bit about where this outrage mob came from.
I'm going to talk a bit about that today.
Can I interest you in becoming a premium subscriber though?
That lets you see the video version of this podcast and there's some interesting video in today's story, including the second part of Don Cherry's commentary, which shows him in France at a cemetery for Canadian soldiers.
Please consider becoming a premium member.
You get access to the video slide, as well as Sheila Gunread and David Menzies, their shows, which are weekly.
Mine's daily, of course.
All right.
Oh, by the way, I didn't mention you can get that at premium.rebelnews.com.
Premium.rebelnews.com.
It's eight bucks a month.
And I think it's great TV.
Okay, here's the podcast.
Tonight, what the media party won't tell you about Don Cherry.
It's November 12th, and this is the Ezra 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'm publishing it is because it's my bloody right to do so.
So Don Cherry was fired for pointing out an observable empirical fact.
Not a lot of Canadians wear Remembrance Day poppies, and new Canadians often don't understand the importance of them.
I'm not really sure how you would even argue against either of those facts.
Actually, I am.
You would call Don Cherry a racist, even though he didn't talk about race.
You could say he divided Canadians, even though his purpose was obviously the opposite, to unite us all in the custom of remembering our war dead who sacrificed.
He wants to teach newcomers our ways.
Watch this again.
I remember when I first saw it on the weekend, I swear my first reaction was, oh, there's got to be another clip that got him into trouble.
This isn't the one, obviously, because how could this be the one that got him in trouble?
Is there another one?
No, this is the one.
You know, I was talking to a veteran.
I said, I'm not going to run the poppy thing anymore because what's the sense?
I live in Mississauga.
Nobody wears, very few people wear poppy.
Downtown Toronto, forget it, downtown Toronto, nobody wears a poppy.
And I'm not going to wait.
He says, wait a minute.
How about running it for the people that buy them?
Now, you go to the small cities and you know, those, the roles on roles, you people loved.
They come here, whatever it is.
You love our way of life.
You love our milk and honey.
At least you could pay a couple of bucks for poppies or something like that.
These guys pay for your way of life that you enjoy in Canada.
These guys paid the biggest price.
Anyhow, I'm going to run it again for you great people and good Canadians that bought a poppy.
I'm still going to run it.
Anyhow, I love you for it.
Here we are, November 11th.
We're in Trelincan British Cemetery in France.
On November 11th, I want everybody to remember when you're buying a poppy and you see row after row of our Canadian dead here.
And I'm going to put here, we visited Thomas William McKenzie Military Medal and Bar Canadian Field Artillery.
He died seven days before the end of the war, 27 years old.
So when you're walking by and you see our great legions, guys standing there and they offer you a poppy, think of all this.
These guys gave their lives.
At least you can buy a poppy.
Here's what I didn't know about that broadcast until last night.
Now, obviously, this segment he taped in the cemetery was pre-taped, but that first clip where he was with McLean, that was pre-taped too.
The live commentary that Ron McClain said, we love you for it, and gave him the thumbs up, that was pre-taped too.
Because of how their broadcast schedule works and the time zones, apparently that was actually broadcast three times that night with no incident.
And what I mean by that is everyone liked it.
No one was offended by it.
It was Don Cherry being Don Cherry, being a bit of a character, Dr. Dodd, talking the way he does that patented way.
And what a great message.
Let's all support the veterans and the Legion and buy poppies and remember the war dead.
Imagine a 27-year-old dying just seven days before the war ended.
Supporting Veterans and New Canadians00:14:57
How sad is that?
Oh, and hey, new Canadians, get with the program and join us to learn our customs.
He'll do a little teaching, which is something that in a normal country would be taught to new citizens anyways.
But this is Canada and we don't do it, so Don Cherry does.
A bit of a tangent.
Remember that Syrian refugee who came to New Brunswick under Justin Trudeau?
He was the hero in a documentary about how awesome Syrian refugees are.
And then not long afterwards, he was convicted of, I shouldn't laugh, of beating his wife with a hockey stick for half an hour.
And he told the judge, I'm not kidding, he said, the Syrian who was the hero of that documentary, who beat his wife bloody with a hockey stick for half an hour, he told the judge that no one had told him he couldn't do that in Canada.
How is he supposed to know?
Now that's deception, of course.
That's a lie.
He surely sensed that he couldn't do that.
He's not in Syria anymore.
But technically, technically, literally, I'm sure it's true.
I'm sure that no one ever said to him, you can't be a savage.
You can't take a hockey stick and smash your wife because we all just, you know, we assume it.
But how could you assume that?
Assuming that someone knows something, that's only if we come from the same place, speak the same language, read the same books, have the same history, believe the same things, share the same heroes and villains, have the same values.
There's a word for all that, culture.
But we are told that Canada doesn't have a culture.
We're post-national.
Trudeau himself says it.
The only culture we have is multiculturalism.
Diversity is our strength.
It's racist and Islamophobic to tell a man he can't beat his wife with a hockey stick, so no one told that to the man, and he beat his wife with a hockey stick.
And even in court, he was saying, no one told me.
So how is someone new to Canada supposed to know why and how we wear poppies?
If they don't know, don't beat someone with a hockey stick.
What's that poppy about?
This little flower.
Why is everyone wearing a flower?
No one told him.
Perhaps if they came to Canada from a European country that was involved in World War I, but otherwise, how would you even know what a poppy symbolizes mean?
What would it even symbolize?
Look at the top 10 countries from which Canada takes immigrants.
Now, France is one of them.
The UK is another, way down on the list there.
But the other eight, they don't know where Flanders is.
They don't know what Flanders Field is.
If you asked them what the Great War was, they wouldn't know you were talking about World War I in Europe.
They wouldn't know what Vimy Ridge is.
They wouldn't know what Ypres is.
Few enough Canadians know that.
How would someone who just came here from China or India or Pakistan or Bangladesh know those things?
And who is teaching them?
Well, Don Cherry is trying to teach them.
That's who.
But that's racist, you see.
It's racist to say to newcomers, you love the good stuff.
You love our milk and honey, but hey, spare a moment for people who years ago gave their lives to make this wonderful country.
Let me teach you about it.
Let me show you a video from a graveyard in France.
So no one at Rogers SportsNet was offended by this.
No one was.
It aired three times that night.
No one was offended.
Ron McClain was not offended.
You saw him give him the thumbs up.
We love you.
The cameramen, there were probably several cameramen, they were not offended.
No one in the control room, that's where the producers and editors were watching, probably half a dozen people there.
No one in the executive suites at Rogers SportsNet who were surely watching their flagship show.
No one in the whole company objected at all because there was nothing to object to.
There was no real problem.
It was not offensive, certainly not more than any 85-year-old man is who says things that aren't exquisitely up to the minute of rhetorical fashion.
He doesn't say it's lit fam or whatever the latest millennial jargon is.
I think, let me give you an example of what I mean.
The phrase indigenous.
It's replaced the word aboriginal, which itself replaced the word Indian.
And if you say the wrong term, you're clearly a racist if you say Indian.
Unless, of course, if you are Indian, here's Chief Clarence Louie.
If you're Indian yourself, you're allowed to use those words.
Most Indians I know actually love Indian brand clothing, you know, the Indian motorcycle brand.
They love to wear the Atlanta Braves ball cap, that sort of thing.
I mean, why wouldn't you?
Those show Indian-ness as something strong and cool.
But if you use the wrong word, you're a racist.
Don Cherry said, you people.
But not in a negative way.
He wasn't talking to anyone out there who was of this race or that race.
He was saying, you people who aren't wearing poppies.
Newcomers, let me help show you.
But is that racist?
Where's the race part?
Of course, that's not racist.
But he wasn't exquisitely perfect.
He was like someone saying Aboriginal instead of Indigenous.
He wasn't quite fashionable enough.
Of course, what he did was not racist, and no one real thought so, and no one really thought so.
It took help from professional liars, professional offense takers, like Don Cherry's longtime rival at the CBC, Peter Mansbridge.
He said, the notion that Canada's veterans were all white is dangerously wrong and an insult to thousands, says Peter Mansbridge.
Who said any of those things, liar?
Poppy-wearing newcomers challenge now fired Don Cherry's immigrant rant.
What?
What immigration rant?
Challenge what?
Here, watch it again.
You know, I was talking to a veteran.
I said, I'm not going to run the poppy thing anymore because what's the sense?
I live in Mississauga.
Nobody wears, very few people wear poppy.
Downtown Toronto, forget it, downtown Toronto, nobody wears a poppy.
And I'm not going to wait.
He says, wait a minute.
How about running it for the people that buy them?
Now, you go to the small cities and you know, the roles on Rose, you people loved.
They come here, whatever it is.
You love our way of life.
You love our milk and honey.
At least you could pay a couple of bucks for poppies or something like that.
These guys pay for your way of life that you enjoy in Canada.
These guys paid the biggest price.
Anyhow, I'm going to run it again for you great people and good Canadians that bought a poppy.
I'm still going to run it anyhow.
I love you for it.
Yeah.
Where was the racist part?
Where was the no immigrants part?
You're lying again, CBC.
You just can't stop lying.
I saw the Canadian Legion actually try to embarrass and slander Don Cherry.
Look at this tweet from their official account.
Mr. Cherry's personal opinion was hurtful, divisive, and in no way condoned by the Legion.
We do remain appreciative of his passionate support for veterans, though.
First of all, no one said you condoned it, you busy bodies.
Second of all, you're almost as disloyal as Ron McLean, who disparaged Don Cherry to please his corporate masters and save his own job.
I wanted to address what happened last night on Hockey Night in Canada.
Don Cherry made remarks which were hurtful, discriminatory, which were flat out wrong.
We at SportsNet have apologized.
It certainly doesn't stand for what SportsNet or Rogers represents.
We know diversity is the strength of the country.
We see it in our travels with our show and with Hockey Night in Canada.
So I owe you an apology too.
That's the big thing that I want to emphasize.
I sat there, did not catch it, did not respond.
Catherine Tenise, it's a son of First Nation, once said, in any wrongdoing, the real key is recognition and acknowledgement.
And I wanted to let you know that first.
And then you work on the relationship so that it isn't a visit, so that something can be a unifying event.
Idle Know More was a great lesson to all of us.
Last night was a really great lesson to Don and me.
We were wrong, and I sincerely apologize, and I wanted to thank you for calling me and Don on that last night.
You Judas, you Brutus, you liar, you betrayer, you disloyal fake friend.
You just said you didn't notice it.
You didn't respond.
Stop lying.
We saw you.
You nodded.
You gave a thumbs up and said, that's why we love you, Don.
You threw your friend under the bus to save yourself.
You coward, Ron McClain, you coward.
At least we know why Ron McClain is disloyal.
He wants to fit in at SportsNet.
He wanted to save his own job, which obviously was on the line.
He values money more than loyalty or friendship or, frankly, the truth.
It's true that he approved of Don Cherry's statement.
We saw it.
And SportsNet did too.
They aired it three times with no objection.
What's the Legion's excuse?
Who signed that anonymous attack on Don Cherry?
I'm a member of the Legion.
That anonymous Twitter account doesn't speak for me.
Was that just a social media intern who approved that tweet?
I didn't.
I think the Legion needs to find out what's going on.
I can tell you if there was a survey of Legion members, it would be 10 to 1 in Don Cherry's favor.
I mean, there was probably no Canadian who did more for veterans and serving soldiers and the memory of fallen soldiers than Don Cherry.
Can you think of anyone else who did?
Who went over there as much as Don Cherry did at his age, mind you, into a war zone, mind you?
Yeah, not the CBC.
They don't support our troops.
They support al-Qaeda terrorists.
I'm not exaggerating.
They literally threw a champagne party for Omar Carter.
Look at that disco ball.
They have disco standing ovation.
Woo!
Terrorism!
We love you!
Yeah, have some champagne!
Champagne!
That was Omar Cotter on the CBC this year.
That's whose side they're on.
Have you seen the kind of rage against Don Cherry?
Have you seen that kind of rage against anyone who actually is evil?
Instead of just maybe used a word imperfectly.
Have you seen the media party rage against al-Qaeda, against ISIS, against a foreign dictator in that way?
Yeah, no, me neither.
Now, on paper, SportsNet is a private company.
But of course, in Canada, there are no truly private TV companies.
It's owned by Rogers, which is a TV company, and a cable company, and a cell phone company.
Other than maybe a cigarette manufacturer, there's certainly no other industry that is as closely regulated by the government and that is so completely at the mercy of the government.
An unkind word from the CRTC, that's the TV cable cell phone regulator, could cost millions or even billions of dollars to Rogers.
The CRTC are the ones who killed the Sun News Network five years ago.
So yeah, I guess SportsNet fired Don Cherry for business reasons, but really, when liberal MPs, including cabinet ministers like Harjit Sajjan, start tweeting that he has to be fired, it's not a case of free speech or corporate decision-making anymore at SportsNet.
It's about making sure your political regulator is pleased with you.
And when liberal MPs say, fire him, if you're regulated by the liberal MPs, you fire him.
Here's the editor of the Globe and Mail, the executive editor over there.
His name is Derek DeClowet.
He has a theory.
He says SportsNet just grabbed an opportunity to save some money.
Cherry made a ton of money.
He was long past his best before date.
Everyone knew that.
He wasn't going to retire on his own.
Eventually they were going to have to move him out.
And then he presented them with the perfect opportunity to do so.
Really?
You know, it was a $5 billion broadcast deal.
What's Don Cherry getting?
A couple million bucks a year?
And they didn't know what they were getting, and they don't know.
You're just making that up.
You can't sack someone like that in a humiliating manner, by the way, without paying them a massive severance.
I'm sure Don Cherry had a meticulously lawyered contract with all sorts of built-in protections for Cherry.
SportsNet couldn't claim, they had no idea they were hiring a controversial person.
They couldn't claim they were truly upset with what he said.
They aired it three times in a row without comment.
They weren't reacting to Don Cherry.
They didn't fire Don Cherry for anything he did.
They fired him because of the mob, or more to the point, because the Trudeau liberals told him to.
I showed you the tweets.
No, I don't think SportsNet did this to save money on their contract.
They probably had to pay him out his entire contract to sack him.
They fired him to please the Twitter mob, including the liberal MPs.
Again, not because they're worried that Don Cherry fans are going to stop watching Don Cherry because he had a Don Cherry moment, but that Justin Trudeau would punish them like Justin Trudeau punishes anyone with whom he has a quarrel.
He punishes them, even his own attorney general.
I believe we're seeing what life is going to be like in a second term of Justin Trudeau.
It's what life would be like in the United States had Hillary Clinton won.
You know, the Japanese have a word, I haven't heard it recently, but it was all the rage in the 80s and the 90s.
The word is kiritsu.
Karitsu.
Here's the definition from Webster's.
A powerful alliance of Japanese businesses often linked by cross shareholding.
So a bank would own shares in a car company and the car company would own shares in the bank and both would own shares in the shipping company.
You see what I mean?
It's more than just a company.
It's more than a clan or a fraternity.
It's less than a religion.
It's definitely a big team or a big family and everyone's got each other's back.
That's a kiritsu.
Why Pop Culture Ignores Me00:17:43
Justin Trudeau and the social media companies, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and the news companies, CTV Global, Rogers, SportsNet.
That's a Karitsu.
It's all an inside job.
It's all friends.
Don Cherry just had to go.
The liberal MP said so, and so it happened.
The other part of the Karitsu listened to the first part of the Karitsu, and the CBC helped.
They backfilled it by manufacturing the fake reasons later.
And who stood up for Don Cherry?
Well, that's the thing.
In Japan, there are rival Karitsus.
There's more than one bank.
There's more than one car company.
It's an oligopoly there, not a monopoly.
Standing up to one Kuritsu would be a different bank, a different car company.
There's Toyota, and there's Honda, and there's Nissan.
It's not just one big blob.
In Canada, there's just one big blob.
Andrew Scheer has been AWOL in this whole debate.
He doesn't want to be Don Cherried.
He made that decision long ago.
He'll be quiet.
I'm not saying he should have gone full tilt for Don Cherry.
But how about even a reasonable, really moderate statement?
Support for veterans, support for immigrants, and then become loyal, informed citizens.
A real opportunity to say something like that.
A support for free speech.
You could find a moderate way of talking about this, but Andrew Scheer is too timid.
He's lost his nerve.
Not that he ever had much to begin with.
He's terrified of this mob, the Karitsu, that just took Don Cherry out.
They're the same Kuritsu he's tried to appease and please with no luck.
Don Cherry was the last of the mainstream media pop culture conservatives.
He was the last one.
There are no more.
Trudeau knows it.
The legacy media know it.
Yeah, they'll just go in and mop up the few irregulars left, probably like us here at the Rebel.
We'll see.
I guess my point is, you don't truly think that Don Cherry will be the last conservative to be silenced.
Do you?
Stay with us more.
Up next, an interview I do with Yasmin Mohamed.
did it a few days ago, but we've held it until today.
Welcome back.
Well, it's been too long since we've spoken to our next guest, our friend Yasmin Mohammed.
And the good news is she has been busy working on a new book called Unveiled, How Western Liberals Empower Radical Islam.
And the book so far has a perfect five-star rating on Amazon.
What a pleasure to have you back on the show, Yasmeen.
Welcome back.
Thank you so much for having me, Ezra.
Really appreciate it.
It's my pleasure.
I remember when you told me you were working on this book and it's out now.
Let me read just one sentence from the blurb of it, and then I would like you to take off from there and tell our folks what's inside.
But I love how it's described here.
Ready?
Let me read.
Part Ayan Hirsi Ali's Infidel, part the handmaid's tale.
Yasmin's memoir takes readers into a world few Westerners are privy to.
As a college educator for over 15 years, Yasmin's goal is to unveil the truth.
Is FGM female genital mutilation Islamic or cultural?
Is the hijab forced or a choice?
Is ISIS a representation of true Islam or a radical corruption?
And why is there so much conflicting information?
Wow, those are issues we think about all the time.
I don't want you to give away all of the answers online.
We want people to buy the book, but tell us a little bit about how you worked through these issues.
Well, I worked through them by basically telling my story.
So it's a memoir, but also a polemic.
So throughout my story, I'm also highlighting all of the other people around the world who have gone through similar things.
So there are major themes, you know, like hijab, like the things that I mentioned there, FGM, child marriages, you know, all of the themes that you'd expect to hear somewhere in the Middle East or somewhere in the Muslim world.
And I'm just clarifying to readers that that kind of thing happens all over the world because these ideas cross borders.
You know, they don't just stop in the countries under Sharia, but the people that believe these things travel to other countries and they continue with having their own little, you know, mini Sharia's.
I lived under Sharia in my household in Canada.
So, you know, the people that I relate to the most more than anybody are women in Saudi Arabia because that was the life that I kind of lived.
And it's unfortunate now online.
I mean, it's fortunate and unfortunate, but we get to hear all of the stories of all of the people all over the world that we really thought these kinds of things just happen in Afghanistan.
No, they're happening in our very own backyards.
Wow, little islands of Sharia that we don't even know about or don't even see.
Well, I think we see them actually.
We have glimpses of them more and more on the street.
Let me come back to the subtitle of your book, How Western Liberals Empower Radical Islam.
I think I know what that means, but I'd like to hear what you mean by that.
Well, I think it's just that we, for some reason, we put our common sense on the back burner when it comes to Islam.
It's the most ludicrous thing.
So when we talk about the niqab, for example, or the burqa as it's sometimes called, so it's the full face covering, head to toe, you know, just eyes showing.
Women are even wearing gloves.
And a lot of the times it's happening in countries where the, you know, the summers can go upwards of 50 degrees Celsius.
And we look at something like that, and somehow people can say that that's empowering or worse, it's liberating.
I mean, the most atrocious things, like these are human beings covered in death shrouds.
And then you have somebody like PJ Harvey, who is a musician from the UK.
She goes to Afghanistan to film one of her music videos.
And she said that her favorite part of being in Afghanistan was wearing a burqa.
She called it liberating.
I mean, it just defies all logic.
They would never, ever consider it liberating if they were living in a country where they were forced to cover themselves head to toe.
They would be, they would, I mean, for goodness sake, women here are fighting for the right to go topless.
But when it's women over there, somehow for them, it's considered empowering and it's liberating.
How are they any human, you know, any less human than we are over here?
We're all human beings and nobody wants to be covered in a death shroud like that.
You know, it's funny.
The phrase in the blurb, it's the infidel meets the handmaid's tail.
I'm so frustrated when I watch that handmaid's tale.
And I don't watch it a lot, but I know it was revived as a counterpoint to Donald Trump and the theocracy he wants to impose on America.
And I haven't seen any evidence of women being having their rights taken away in America and turned into nothing more than a, you know, dehumanized pod from for male pleasure.
I haven't seen that in America, but I believe that's happening in places like Iran or Saudi Arabia.
And yet all of the popular culture, all of Hollywood is saying, ha ha, the handmaid's tail, up yours, Trump.
They're not, they're styling it as an American Christian Western problem.
And I think it's a kind of placebo or a way of misdirecting away from the real.
We have a handmaid's tail crisis in the world.
We've had one for 40 years and in Iran, that's what I don't get, is how they can talk about the threat to women's rights in America and ignore Saudi Arabia and Iran.
That is the million-dollar question.
And not only are they ignoring those women, but they are actually empowering or supporting the oppressors of those women.
Because when they throw hijabs on every flat surface in every advertisement being sold in Banana Republic, being sold at Marks and Spencer, when they do that, what they're doing is they are celebrating this fundamentalism.
They're celebrating this tool of misogyny, this tool that perpetuates rape culture, this tool that gets women killed and imprisoned all over the world.
And they're taking this atrocious, disgusting thing and they're putting a Nike swoosh on it.
So, I mean, it's bad enough to ignore those women in Iran and to pay more attention to fictional women and to get all up in arms over fictional women on a fictional TV show and to ignore the actual real-life human beings.
I mean, that's disgusting enough.
But then just the added layer, just the added salt on the wound of not only are we going to ignore you, but we're going to support the thing that gets you imprisoned and killed.
It's very strange.
I have three theories.
And let me just put them to you.
Why would a Western liberated woman, I don't know PJ Harvey, but I know plenty others who would say the same thing.
Why would a Western liberated woman support something so obviously denying and dehumanizing of women?
And I have three theories.
One is that some Western liberated women are post-religious themselves, don't really have a belief, and so they see Islam and they say, oh, they don't have the same spiritual void I do.
I should respect that because, you know, I can play act like I'm part of their community.
I don't know, it's theory number one.
Theory number two is what I call otherism.
I want to show how open-minded I am as a liberal.
I will take the opposite side of my own just to show how open-minded I am.
I'm going to, I'm a liberated woman.
I'm going to support the exact opposite of my own interests just to show how open-minded I am.
And the third theory I have is they're afraid.
They're afraid of being called Islamophobic.
They're afraid of being, who knows, maybe even being attacked.
And it's sort of like, if I support the tyranny, will you eat me last?
Will you come for me last?
I don't know what you think of those three theories, but I'm trying to understand why a Western liberated woman would support a tyrant, not just any tyrant, but a tyrant with a specific hatred for independent women.
I mean, I would love to be able to sit down with one of these women and actually get a straight answer out of her, because like you, it's very perplexing to me.
And I also have thought of those theories and others.
And for each one, I mean, if you would just sit down with this woman who thinks that, oh, these Muslims have a, you know, they don't have this spiritual void that I have, therefore there must be something enlightened about them.
Why doesn't she feel the same way when she looks at Christians?
She doesn't feel the same way when she looks at Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons or Amish women that are covered up or in those insular fundamentalist Christian societies.
She doesn't get that same feeling.
So what is it about Muslims that somehow they have some spiritual enlightenment that the rest of us haven't reached?
And then the second thing you said about othering, I think you're absolutely correct about that too.
There is like this Orientalism of, you know, we see that a lot with Justin Trudeau, with looking at others as if they're like this quaint little, you know, noble savage.
You know, he gets to dress up in their clothes and dance like them.
And oh, isn't this fun?
And that kind of othering is, you know, that's the epitome of racism right there when you're not treating other human beings as human beings, but as caricatures, as little characters for you to, you know, pet on the head and be condescending towards.
And, you know, I just find this whole thing to be so insidious because those same women that would support these things in other women would never support those things for themselves.
Right, right.
It's like she would never want to wear hijab.
She would never be wanting to live in a country that treats her as a second class citizen, that, you know, controls her every aspect of her life, including what she puts on her body in the morning.
You know, but for those women over there, oh, it's lovely and it's wonderful and let's support it.
Well, we're talking about liberal women.
And in many ways, I think liberal women, liberated women, run the world in many ways.
I mean, in terms of pop culture and consumerism and ads.
I mean, even in a household, typically it's the mom who would buy the clothing and buy.
So these ads, like you mentioned, the Nikes, the Reebok, or whatever those ads are, they're targeting Western liberated women who spend, you know, who do the shopping.
In terms of pop culture, consumer culture, retail culture, I do think women run the world.
There's other aspects that men run the world in.
One of the exciting things for me, Yasmeen, has been seeing how you have access to the mainstream culture, including liberal pop culture.
I mean, we here at the Rebel, we're conservative and we have a very strong flavor to the right.
But so it gives, so we're, I believe that we're your ally because we share these concerns, but from a hardline political point of view, but what a delight for me.
I sometimes see you interacting with pop culture, liberal, popular journalists who are not ideological.
And if you press them, they'd probably say they're liberal, they're left of center.
And I'm thrilled with that.
I feel like you can break into this other world that we can't.
Can you tell me, how has your book been received by the cool kids, by the daytime TV shows targeting the moms of Canada and America, by pop culture folks, not political activists like us?
Have you been well received by the mainstream women of America?
Well, unfortunately, the answer to that question is no.
And, you know, a friend of mine, Megan Phelps Roper, who left the Westboro Baptist Church, essentially her family, it's a church of about 80 to 90 people.
And she wrote a book and it was released around the same time as mine was, just, you know, a couple weeks after.
And she's been on Good Morning America.
She's been on Sarah Silverman.
She's been, you know, everywhere that you could possibly imagine.
And, you know, the rights to her book were purchased.
The movie rights to her book were purchased before the book was even written.
I mean, you know, Hollywood's all over this.
And that kind of difference between how she is being received and how I am being received is really, you know,
It's just like that clear indication for us right now to see why is it that popular culture, mainstream culture, is so comfortable talking about Megan's story and they are so uncomfortable talking about mine, when both of us have very similarly born and grown up and raised in fundamentalist environments and both of us were able to leave those environments and are now talking.
out against the hate that was in those communities that we left.
So we have that in common.
The only difference is the fundamentalist community that she left was Christian and the one that I left was Muslim.
And so they're willing to embrace her and they're willing to support her.
But for me, anything that I say is Islamophobic and bigoted.
But yes, having said all that, there are some people within the left and within the mainstream media that are willing to hear my story, but they're always very careful about it.
Majid Nawaz Controversy00:06:02
It's not with open arms the way it is for Megan.
Right.
Well, your book is described, and I haven't read it yet, and I intend to read it.
I'm very, very curious about it.
And I guess I'm lucky I'm getting a preview briefing from you, and then I'm going to go and read it.
I know that when we last spoke, you were starting to interact with Ayan Herciale, if I'm not mistaken.
How is that going?
Because there's someone who also has a story of fleeing tremendous jeopardy.
And last time I saw her was years ago, she had so much security.
I've almost never seen anyone other than a head of state have as much personal physical security as her.
And I can only imagine the threats under which she lives today.
Has she been of help?
Are you doing projects with her?
She gets doors open.
Yeah, she's amazing.
And yes, she's been very helpful.
She's been very supportive.
But for example, she got me in touch with her literary agent when I was trying to get this book published, and that went nowhere.
Sam Harris, same thing, got me in touch with his literary agent.
That went nowhere.
What's happening is there is this, because of Trump and everybody feeling like there's this rise of the right wing and there is this rise of Nazis, there is this fear of speaking out against any brown culture or any non-white considered non-white religion.
And so things have changed now.
There's a very different, very full of fear, I think, out there in the literary world and in the mainstream media world.
Nobody wants to talk about these problems.
But of course, what ends up happening when you don't talk about these problems is they just get worse.
They don't only get worse for the people that are living under Sharia, but they get worse for you and me over here in the West as well.
And we can see that with the trucks of peace and everything.
We can see that with the rise of anti-Semitism all over Europe.
We can see that when you don't address these issues, they only fester.
And so it's very important that we have a nuanced take when we talk about these things.
And that when we talk about all of the issues with Islam and all of the oppression that it causes, that we're not demonizing all Muslims.
And we're saying, you know, nobody has ever said that, but that seems to be the counter argument constantly.
Not all Muslims.
It's like, nobody has ever said that 1.7 billion people specifically believe this.
What we're saying is that this religion itself teaches this.
And when it's being taught to 1.7 billion people, a certain percentage of them will follow what their doctrine tells them to do.
And even if it's one or 2%, that's millions of people.
That's way more people than we want to be following that doctrine.
So it's very important that we do talk about these things, not just because of the victims all over the world, but for us as well in the free world, in the Western world.
These kinds of things, there's, like I said earlier on in this interview, these ideas cross borders.
Yeah.
Well, you know, you made me think of something that Majid Nawaz in the UK said.
He is a Muslim progressive.
He's got a radio show in LBC.
And he was talking about Tommy Robinson, who's, you know, he's a buddy of mine.
He's not everyone's cup of tea.
He's a little bit rough around the edges.
And Majid Nawaz.
Here, let me play the quick clip.
I'll let him speak for himself.
Take a look.
From fear of appearing racist, there was a silence across the country as multiple cases of grooming gangs emerged up and down the country, as evidenced now due to multiple prosecutions, successful prosecutions, but sadly and unfortunately too late.
If we hadn't all been silent, if we had all addressed this issue head on when it needed to be addressed, when it was time to address it, then the void would not have emerged for the populist agitators to fill that gap and become popular, actually, as a result of addressing what is a legitimate issue.
They ended up hijacking what should have been the concern of every right-minded citizen in this country.
So his point, Yasmin, was that if mainstream establishment people, liberals, moderates, whatever, refuse to talk about the prickly things.
And in the UK, the prickliest are the rape gangs.
I mean, that's extremely tough to even say that word.
If you don't say the word, you're never going to deal with the issue because everyone was afraid of being called an Islamophobe.
Only Tommy Robinson was talking about that.
And like I say, it's not everyone's cup of tea, but as Maji Nawaz said, well, where was the rest of you?
And I think that they're, I think that was a very wise observation.
Absolutely.
There's so much truth to that.
And the saddest part of that is while these people, you know, whether they're the authorities or journalists or politicians, while they were wringing their hands, too scared to say anything because they didn't want anyone to call them a bigot or an Osamophobe or a racist, what they were doing is they were essentially allowing girls, girls as young as 11, to continue to be raped.
So that's the thing that people don't recognize that when you're too scared, when I was talking about before, about you're too scared to talk about these things and it only makes it fester and it only makes it worse.
These rape gangs in the UK are a perfect, you know, incredibly unfortunate example of exactly that.
I Hope Western Liberals Read This00:04:29
Yeah.
Well, I tell you, I very much look forward to reading your book.
And I think the subtitle is what's so interesting to me: how Western liberals empower radical Islam.
I hope that Western liberals will read the book.
I'm sure our rebel viewers, who are typically Western conservatives, will.
We will make this video available on YouTube and we'll send it out to our people.
And I'd encourage them to click the Amazon link below.
Your book is available on Amazon.
It's called Unveiled, How Western Liberals Empower Radical Islam.
And I hope you have much success with it, Yasmin.
Good luck promoting it.
You're always welcome here.
And I hope you keep us posted on your journey because we're relying on you.
You can say things having lived through it and come from it that we on the outside cannot.
So we wish you much strength.
Thank you so much, Ezra.
I'm going to send you a signed copy as soon as I hang up right now.
Okay, that's great.
Well, good luck, my friend, and I hope this becomes a bestseller.
Me too.
Thank you.
Right on.
There's our friend Yasmin Mohamed.
The book is called Unveiled, and you can get it at the Amazon link in the description under this video.
Stay with us.
More ahead.
Hey, welcome back on my monologue yesterday about Remembrance Day and Sportsnet firing Don Cherry.
Andrew writes, It's ironic that Don Cherry got fired on Remembrance Day, standing up for people who fought and died for the freedom to speak.
The only thing these corporate goofs understand is money and hurt feelings.
I will hurt their feelings by withholding money by canceling Rogers cable and not tuning into Hockey Night in Canada.
Well, that's hard to do if you're a hockey fan.
You want to watch the hockey games.
And I bet it's hard to get rid of Rogers in your life too, because they're, like I said earlier in the show, they're part of the Karitsu.
They're like a moss covering so much of the Canadian landscape, protected and subsidized by the CRTC.
So that's why they bent the knee.
That's why you'll never see anything truly interesting or truly conservative in Canadian media, because at the end of the day, they may not be owned by the government like the CBC is, but they are just as controlled by the government as the CBC is.
John writes, many Canadians are every bit as guilty as new immigrants for not acknowledging our military history.
On the West Coast, too, immigrant communities embrace the wearing of poppies at levels greater than the average, Sikhs and Chinese.
Having said that, firing Don Cherry was over the top.
You know what?
I take your point about the Sikhs and the Chinese.
I know that Sikhs have been an important part of the British Empire's military for hundreds of years.
In fact, Sikhs were disproportionately part of the British Army in India and served in various wars around the world for the British Empire.
I'm not as familiar with the Chinese Canadian community, although I have with my own eyes seen Chinese cadets selling poppies.
So you're exactly right on that.
But empirically speaking, I think very few Canadians at all wear poppies, and I think it's just a plain old fact that we don't inculcate Canadian values to newcomers at all.
Don Cherry was trying to do that.
Lou writes, this sad event reminds me of sportscaster Damian Goddard, who was fired by SportsNet for tweeting that marriage was between a man and a woman.
This censorship of conservative voices must stop.
If it doesn't, it will not end well for Canada.
I did sign the petition.
Thanks, Lou.
You know, some people think that it might be possible for Don Cherry to get his job back at SportsNet.
I mean, we have last I checked over 65,000 signatures on the petition.
I don't think it matters.
I don't, if we had a million signatures on the petition, I think the more, I mean, listen, I want the names on the petition.
We're going to deliver them to Don Cherry.
We're going to send it to Judas McLean, and we'll also send it to SportsNet to let them know.
But even if there was one million signatures, is SportsNet more scared of a million Canadians or of Justin Trudeau?
Well, the answer is Justin Trudeau, because he controls the CRTC, and that controls them.