Justin Trudeau’s mandate to Heritage Minister Stephen Gilbor demands 24-hour removal of "hate speech" online, risking USMCA violations by penalizing American platforms like Twitter and TELUS. Critics argue Canada’s laws—rarely enforced against figures like Omar Cotter—will weaponize human rights claims, citing Jonathan Yaniv’s (aka Jessica Yanive) ideological attacks on women’s spaces and sports. Pamela Buffoni’s school board case, where a child was taught "girls are not real," highlights institutional complicity in pseudoscientific gender fluidity, while her website faces imminent censorship. The UK’s Conservative win signals backlash against "trans extremism," exposing activism as a divisive minority—yet Canada’s Conservatives may lack bold leadership to counter it. [Automatically generated summary]
Hi rebels, today I take you through a mandate letter.
That's a to-do list given from Justin Trudeau to his heritage minister, Stephen Gilbo.
And high up on that to-do list is a call for more censorship of the internet.
Now that's a bad idea, but it's actually illegal to under the USMCA.
That's the NAFTA deal.
I'll take you through the law.
Hey, before I do, let me invite you to become a premium subscriber.
It's eight bucks a month.
You get the video version of this podcast, plus two other shows a week, Chili Gunread Show and David Menzie's Show.
You can sign up at premium.rebelnews.com.
Okay, here's today's podcast.
Tonight, Justin Trudeau announces his plans to censor the internet.
And he probably doesn't know it, but he's just started a trade war.
It's December 16th, and this is the Ezra Levant Show.
Why should others go to jail when you're the biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here, and you won't give them an answer.
The only thing I have to say is government will want to publish them.
It's because it's my bloody right to do so.
Last week, Justin Trudeau published the mandate letters for his cabinet ministers.
Those are basically their to-do lists.
It's giving them their marching orders.
Now, most of these documents, since they're released publicly, read like liberal campaign pamphlets, vague, self-congratulatory talking points that are obviously just propaganda.
But there are some actual real things in there.
And today I want to focus on the mandate letter for one cabinet minister, the heritage minister.
His name is Stephen Gilbo, and he's an environmental extremist.
He used to run a far-left anti-oil sands lobby group called Equitaire.
He sort of styled himself as the David Suzuki of Quebec.
I think Trudeau showed a little bit of restraint by not appointing him as environment minister.
And judging by the literally hundreds of anti-Trump tweets that Gilbo has written over the past few years, there are hundreds.
Let's hope Trudeau keeps Gilbo far away from the United States and their diplomats.
I mean, there's so many of them calling Trump racist, calling Trump sexist, calling Trump a criminal, lusting for Trump to be impeached.
This is being said by a Canadian cabinet minister.
Had a conservative candidate said anything like that about, I don't know, Barack Obama when he was president, the media would have made it a national, an international scandal.
But the media party agrees with Gilbo on Trump, so they didn't cover it.
And if they did, they'd probably say it was a sign of his good judgment.
Anyways, here's my news today.
If you look at Gilbo's mandate letter as heritage minister, it's absolutely 100% guaranteed to put this anti-American, anti-Trump extremist on a collision course with the United States because it absolutely 100% guaranteed violates the new USMCA, the renegotiated version of NAFTA that looks like it'll soon be ratified.
Here, take a look.
Here's what most of it is, the unreadable grade school level baffle gab that was probably written by Trudeau himself.
It starts this way.
Dear Mr. Gilbo, thank you for agreeing to serve Canadians as Minister of Canadian Heritage.
On election day, Canadians chose to continue moving forward.
From coast to coast to coast, people chose to invest in their families and communities, create good middle-class jobs, and fight climate change while keeping our economy strong and growing.
Believe me, it goes on like that.
But let me skip past the boilerplate.
Do you see these little bullet points, these point form items?
Those are the official government priorities for the Heritage Minister.
Stephen Gilbo, the Trump hater, that's his to-do list.
There are 23 of those to-do list items.
The top one is this.
Work with all cultural and creative sectors on the successful delivery of initiatives and new funding announced in previous budgets.
Now, that's not really a thing.
It just means, hey, we've promised to give away corporate welfare, including, by the way, $1.5 billion to the CBC and $600 million to the newspaper bailout.
So the actual number one top priority that Trudeau wants Gilbo to do is to pay off the media and the celebrities.
That's number one.
I'm not even sure if that needed to be said.
It's so obvious for a liberal.
And believe me, every Can-Con charity case, every loser at the CBC who can't cut it in the private sector, every failing newspaper boss who wants a bailout, oh, they would remind Gilbo to deliver the funding.
Pretty sure Gilbo didn't need Trudeau to remind him.
But look at the second point out of the 23.
This is the second priority.
Create new regulations for social media platforms, starting with a requirement that all platforms remove illegal content, including hate speech, within 24 hours or face significant penalties.
This should include other online harms such as radicalization, incitement to violence, exploitation of children, or creation or distribution of terrorist propaganda.
Now, we already have criminal code provisions against distributing terrorist propaganda.
For example, after 9-11, Canada's criminal code was beefed up with lots of new anti-terrorism laws.
Anyone who promotes a terrorist group, who assists a terrorist group, even who plans to go overseas to join terrorist groups, that's all a crime now, has been for almost 20 years.
You don't actually have to prove that a terrorist killed someone in Iraq or anything like that.
They just have to try to go there or give some sort of help.
That's how easy it is to prosecute an ISIS terrorist, certainly those who have come back to Canada, and yet Trudeau hasn't prosecuted a single one.
The opposite, actually.
He says we have to listen to their wisdom.
I think it's now that in Syria and Iraq they've been declared defeated.
There is a question of them coming back to this country, and you can't possibly monitor all of them, can you?
Yes, we have security agencies that are engaged on this file very much, but there's also a lot of community outreach going on.
We know that actually someone who has engaged and turned away from that hateful ideology can be an extraordinarily powerful voice.
Got it.
So we have all of these criminal code provisions against terrorists that have never been used.
And dozens of terrorists have actually come back to Canada, including an al-Qaeda terrorist named Omar Cotter that Trudeau gave $10.5 million of our dollars to, and a public apology.
So he won't use the criminal code, but he now thinks Facebook and YouTube and Twitter have to deal with the problem.
He won't.
Yeah, no, it was actually Trudeau's own CBC state broadcaster that had a propaganda moment for Cotter.
Look at them, giving a champagne and disco festive welcome, a standing ovation to the terrorists.
Look at that.
That was on the CBC.
So gross.
But YouTube and social media is apparently the problem for Trudeau.
My point on the real crimes, the terrorism, the child pornography, the incitement of violence, that's already covered by the criminal code.
Trudeau and his prosecutors just choose not to enforce those criminal code provisions.
But what about the first part there?
Create new regulations for social media platforms, starting with a requirement that all platforms remove illegal content, including hate speech, within 24 hours or face significant penalties.
So that's not for crimes.
I mean, hate speech is not a crime.
There is a provision in our criminal code called public incitement of hatred, but that has to lead to a breach of the peace.
It has to actually incite something or likely to cause a breach of the peace.
There's another provision for willful promotion of hatred, but it's a very specific crime with a very specific meaning and with specific defenses.
Look at the defenses.
For example, you're not guilty if what you say is true or if it's part of a bona fide religious debate or a debate about a public issue.
And finally, it's such a rare and careful prosecution, this hate propaganda, that the Attorney General himself has to personally sign off on any prosecutions because the law recognizes how dangerous it is to put a man's opinions on trial.
So I say again, all of the crimes that Trudeau wants to tackle, they're in the criminal code now.
If the government really wants to prosecute someone for hate speech, they have to prove a lot of things beyond a reasonable doubt.
The defendant has all sorts of legal offenses, and none of that happens without the decision of the Attorney General.
It's so rare and it ought to be.
But now Trudeau wants hate speech, which he's not defining, but it's obviously different than what's in the criminal code.
Trudeau wants hate speech to be adjudicated within 24 hours by companies?
What?
Yeah, let me read this a third time.
Create new regulations for social media platforms, starting with a requirement that all platforms remove illegal content, including hate speech, within 24 hours or face significant penalties.
So it's not a new rule that targets a thought criminal himself.
It's a new rule that targets social media companies.
So this would not throw a hater in jail or anything.
It just roughs up companies, and it requires those companies to remove illegal content within 24 hours.
But how would they possibly know if something is illegal within 24 hours?
I showed you a few of the elements required to prove that something is illegal under our criminal code hate speech provisions.
You can't have a trial in 24 hours.
That's not a trial.
Even in places with sham trials, with show trials like China or North Korea, they at least take a few days.
Imagine some complaint is made, I don't know, at midnight on a Saturday night.
And then maybe some intern at Twitter reads that complaint on Sunday morning, and now they have to take it down, I guess, by that night, or they'll face significant penalties.
But who would say, who would determine that any content was illegal?
No court would.
Judges don't usually work on Saturday nights, nor do most lawyers.
So it wouldn't be illegal in any judicial sense.
It would just be an accusation, an allegation.
This mandate letter from Trudeau to Gilbo requires that justice be meted out within hours.
But that's not a thing.
Not in a free country anyway.
So that imaginary Twitter intern on Sunday morning, well, he'd probably take down everything and anything, wouldn't he?
Because if he kept something up that Trudeau or Gilbo didn't like, his company could be on the hook for millions of dollars.
Why risk it?
Because who would be the judge?
Well, there wouldn't be a judge.
They would just be an accusation.
See, in a real court, under that Section 319 of our criminal code, if you're charged, you would know the case against you.
You'd know all the facts.
You would know who your accusers were.
You could mount a defense.
You could hire a lawyer.
You could make the case.
You could have an appeal if you lost.
I don't like censorship laws, but Section 319 at least has some procedure there.
But a 24-hour window for justice?
That's not justice.
And massive fines for the companies?
Not even for the alleged thought criminal himself, but for the platforms they're on.
It shows that this isn't actually about justice.
It's just about bossing around the companies to turn them into censors for Trudeau.
I really think Trudeau has been listening to Angela Merkel too much.
I want to tell you that I've been to Germany several times.
I actually really love the country.
I like the language.
I like the people.
But I get the willies when a German chancellor starts pounding the table and shouting about punishing people for having the wrong opinions.
I don't know.
It's just rubs me the wrong way.
Now, Trudeau's mandate letters only came out last week.
I haven't heard the Conservative Party's response to it yet.
I'm hopeful.
They have a good egg as heritage critic, Stephen Blaney, so hopefully they'll speak up.
Now, in the last parliament, Stephanie Cussy just nodded along happily with all the censorship ideas put forward by the Liberals.
But I'm not too hopeful.
And it hasn't been a peep from the so-called free speech groups in Canada, like the Canadian Civil Liberties Association or Canadian Journalists for Free Expression or Penn Canada or Amnesty International or Canadian Association of Journalists, because they all agree with Trudeau.
Because they all know it's not going to be leftists who are censored under this mandate letter.
And leftists being censored is the only censorship they really oppose.
So I'm pretty sure this would proceed if its only opponents were the Canadian media and the Canadian Conservative Party and Canadian civil liberties groups.
Trade Treaty Censorship Concerns00:07:45
I'm pretty sure this would be a done deal, even though Trudeau only has a minority government.
Really no one's going to push back against this.
Except who owns these social media platforms that Trudeau is targeting?
Well, you know.
They're called Twitter and Facebook and Instagram and YouTube and Snapchat.
They're almost all American companies.
And Donald Trump and Justin Trudeau and the Mexican president just spent a year renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement.
It used to be called NAFTA.
Now it's called the USMCA.
And it looks like it's finally moving towards ratification.
Now we know that Trudeau doesn't really read briefing notes.
He prefers comic books, especially if they're about him.
That's actually what he told the ethics commissioner.
It was part of his excuse for taking an illegal free vacation from the Aga Khan, who had a lot of business dealings with Canada.
Trudeau argued that he couldn't have been corrupted because he never gets into any details on any file.
He leaves that to others.
So he couldn't have been bribed because he didn't even know what the Aga Khan would be talking about.
But maybe someone in the Prime Minister's office, maybe Christy Freeland, who has been given the role of super minister and is still in charge of the U.S. MCA deal, maybe she has read the treaty.
Maybe someone has read the treaty.
Because here's what section 19.17 of the US MCA Trade Treaty says.
And it's simple enough that even Trudeau could understand it with a little bit of help.
Here, I'll read it slowly for Trudeau's benefit.
No party, that's what they call countries, no party shall adopt or maintain measures that treat a supplier or user of an interactive computer service as an information content provider in determining liability for harms related to information stored, processed, transmitted, distributed, or made available by the service, except to the extent the supplier or user has, in whole or in part, created or developed the information.
Okay, maybe I can understand why Trudeau didn't get it, but let me take you through it.
When it says no party shall adopt a measure, they mean no country can pass a rule.
Okay?
So Canada cannot treat an interactive computer service.
That's what they call Facebook or Twitter.
They can't treat a service like that as an information content provider.
They're just a platform for users.
It's like a community bandstand that anyone can play on.
It's neutral.
It's like a bulletin board on a street.
Anyone can post something on it.
You can't sue the billboard itself.
So under the treaty, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, they're not the creators of the words on the platform.
So they can't be held liable for harms related to anything that's published on their platforms unless they actually wrote the words themselves, the companies.
So for example, this treaty gives immunity to Google for anything Google links to.
I think that makes sense.
Google didn't write everything on the internet.
It just organizes what's on the internet.
I mean, every day, over a billion hours of video are watched on YouTube.
Making that company liable for content they didn't actually create would be like making, I don't know, phone companies responsible for what strangers say when they talk in a phone booth or on a cell phone.
Now, I think in some cases, YouTube and Facebook and Twitter and other social media companies do get involved in determining what content is published.
In particular, they throttle conservative sites and they boost liberal sites and they say so.
But putting that exception aside and getting back to Trudeau's mandate letter to Gilbo, the government of Canada is stripping American internet companies of all of their immunity.
All of it.
Let me read Trudeau's mandate letter one last time.
Create new regulations for social media platforms, starting with a requirement that all platforms remove illegal content, including hate speech, within 24 hours or face significant penalties.
Yeah, no.
No, you can't hold Facebook, Twitter, Google, YouTube, Instagram, Snapchat liable for what's on them.
The treaty says so.
You can't blame the phone company for words someone else says on the phone to you.
That's against the treaty.
Now, Mexico negotiated a three-year exemption from that part of the treaty.
I guess there's still censors down there, a little bit heavy-handed, like Angela Merkel, I guess.
A lot of third world countries still have that authoritarian instinct.
So Trump is giving Mexico three years to fix that.
But even then, it's clear that what Mexico is most concerned about is keeping their laws that, and I quote, protect against online sex trafficking, sexual exploitation of children, and prostitution.
So Mexico has a three-year exemption, which they wanted to fight pedophiles.
Okay.
Trudeau wants an exemption to fight conservative critics, except that he forgot to negotiate for it like the Mexicans negotiated for their exemption.
And Christia Freeland's crack team of negotiators apparently forgot too.
Now, in some ways, I bet these American tech companies would love to censor anyone that Trudeau wants to censor too.
And indeed, they do already sometimes.
But that's their own censorship choice.
They're not obeying direct orders from Trudeau or Catherine McKenna or Gerald Butts, who obviously spend their time searching for mean things that people say about them on Twitter.
I mean, we've seen what Catherine McKenna says and does after a few drinks at the bar.
So imagine she's out drinking one night and gets upset about some tweet, gets really mad about some comment someone makes online, and she phones in a bunch of angry requests to Twitter on a Saturday night complaining against hate speech.
I'm sure she has done that many times before.
But now, if the companies don't jump and censor within 24 hours, they'll have to pay millions of dollars in fines.
They can't just ignore Catherine McKenna.
They better jump within 24 hours.
Yeah.
I don't know if they're going to do that.
I mean, Canada's media party is fine with this.
Canada's conservative opposition is probably fine with this.
Canada's civil liberties groups are absolutely fine with this.
But Donald Trump and his trade negotiators, I'm going to guess they're not fine with some second-rate Canadian politicians giving huge fines to U.S. companies because they got their feelings hurt online.
So get ready for a trade war before the USMCA is even officially ratified.
And all because Trudeau and his team have such a thin skin and they couldn't even be bothered to actually read their own free trade treaty.
Us Welcome Back00:02:46
Stay with us for more.
Welcome back.
Well, the other day we told you that a national survey commissioned by the gay rights group called GLAD found that the number of millennials in America who call themselves allies of LGBT has fallen almost in half from about two-thirds of American millennials to barely one-third.
And my thesis is that it is the extreme trans agenda which has turned off so many young people.
Anyone who has, for example, competed in women's sports, anyone who thinks it's a little bit creepy for men to change in women's locker rooms.
I believe that is why the generation of growing support for gay rights has stopped because it's not so much gay rights that's being challenged or resisted, but the T in the LGBT.
And joining us now to talk about one case of trans extremism is our friend Barbara Kay, who joins us via Skype.
Nice to see you again, Barbara.
Were you aware of that GLAAD survey that showed for three years in a row, the number of millennials that call themselves allies of LGBT has plummeted?
No, I was not aware, but when I heard it, I agreed with your assessment.
I do think I've been saying for years, get the T out of that acronym because you've got colliding interests.
The interests of the trans activists are sometimes actually in collision with what gays and lesbians, the rights they want to have.
So I think that the trans activists have really gone off the deep end and so that the rational people in the rest of the movement are being harmed by their presence.
And I agree with your assessment.
If I was an L or a G or a B, I would be furious with one Jonathan Yaniv who calls himself Jessica Yaneve.
He's the British Columbian who foisted himself upon so many women aestheticians who's now saying he's going to go after gynecologist for not examining him, even though he has no lady parts.
I think that no one person has done more damage to that cause than Jonathan Yaneve.
And I don't even go along with calling him Jessica because even his own mom calls him he and him.
Trans Activists Gone Off the Deep End00:14:58
The whole thing's a scam in my view.
That is the setting, but let's talk about another case that you've been following.
It's the case of a young girl in Ontario who was taught in her classroom, quote, girls are not real and boys are not real.
It's junk science to begin with.
It's false.
It's fake news.
It's just untrue science-wise.
But it really screws up young people who are conditioned to trust teachers and other people in authority.
Tell me a little bit more about the case of Pamela and Jason Buffoni and their daughter.
Yes, this case came to my attention a few months ago, and I did write about it once before, but I'm writing about it again because the principal in this case, Pamela Buffoni, has taken her own experience to a much more positive level.
But just to recap her case, her daughter, N, as she's referred to, came home from grade one class very upset, very distraught, because the teacher had told the kids, she put up a big diagram, where are you on the gender spectrum?
And do you feel like a girl or a boy or somewhere in between, encouraging the kids to take a position that was not entirely one side or the other?
So she said, I'm a girl.
And then the teacher said, oh, well, girls aren't real and boys aren't real.
Meaning, this was for her shorthand for gender fluidity, but how she expected the six-year-olds to understand this, I don't know.
So this child was very upset by it.
And in subsequent lessons, the same type of thing was being said again and again and producing great anxiety in this child.
The upshot was eventually they did take her out of the school, but the parents tried to reason with first they went to see the teacher, then they went to see the principal.
Nobody saw anything wrong with these lessons being taught.
Thought, well, perhaps she phrased it badly, but and we're very sorry that your daughter is upset, but no these, we have to teach these things because this is this is how it is, and we have to be inclusive and we have to make sure everybody feels accepted the usual stuff anyways.
They got no satisfaction at all.
Going right up to the superintendent of schools, who just said too bad about your daughter, she'll basically, in other words, have to suck it up.
So they, They have taken a human rights claim.
They are challenging the district school board in a human rights claim.
They're represented by the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms, on whose board I sit with a very able lawyer, and I hope that they can make headway there.
I'm not at all sure they will because probably the human rights tribunals usually are going to represent an entire school board.
If they win their case, it means the school board is going to have to revise their curriculum in the end.
Remind me, is this a public school or a Catholic school?
Yeah, public.
It's very public.
So it's a government school.
And now, we hear a lot about science and science-based policy and evidence-based policy.
And, you know, we see in the sex ed curriculum the six genders.
Facebook says there's 53 genders.
I forget how many the city of New York says.
71, I think.
Yes, 71.
71, there you go.
So hyperinflation in genders.
Look, they can't all be true.
And I would put it to you, none of those things are true.
But these are, this is not, I mean, this is opinion, but it's been taught to children of tender years as fact.
Is there anyone, I mean, yes, we could take on the school bureaucrats, but surely this goes much higher up the chain of command.
Surely this goes right into the Education Minister's office, the Premier's office even.
One of the things that Doug Ford, the Premier of Ontario, campaigned on was reviewing these excesses.
So I'm glad that this student and her parents are taking the school to the Human Rights Tribunal.
I think they're going to lose.
I think it's a kangaroo court.
I think it's an activist group.
But I don't think they should even have to go there.
I think they should be pulled out by the root by the Premier and the Education Minister.
Where are they on all this whole thing?
Oh, as far as I know, they have not really done much on this file to change things yet.
I don't know if it's still under review.
I'm not really getting any information about if and when and how much is going to be changed.
Or maybe I don't think they're going to stop teaching trans ideology.
I think maybe the goal is to put it off for a few years.
But it's very hard to, as you say, pull it out root and branch.
You've got the teachers' unions.
The educational establishment is all on side for this.
And of course, the people teaching the educators in places like OISE, they're the first ones to be on side because this is considered very progressive, you know, and very science-based.
I mean, it's not based in the kind of science you and I respect, but it is based in pseudoscience, which is good enough for them.
It's maybe a very uphill battle, but I would like to add that Pamela Buffoni and some of her allies, she's done remarkable work in starting a new publication, an online publication called the Canadian Gender Report.
And they are, this is all fact-based-based stuff with resources for parents, for parents to understand what their children are being taught and how to push back against it in an intelligent way and with evidence, not just, you know, frustration and anger.
So I really applaud.
She's kind of a hero to me because she's doing what has to be done in a very rational way.
Yeah.
For folks who want to check that out, they can go to genderreport.ca.
I just want to clarify one thing.
You mentioned OISI, and some of our viewers who aren't from Ontario might say, what's OISI?
That's the education school affiliated with the University of Toronto.
I think it stands for the Ontario Institute of Studies and Education.
Am I right on that?
Yes.
So it's basically where the most radical educational theories are cooked up and then sent into the schools.
You know what, the other day I thought that something's going to snap when soccer moms say, hey, who's that boy on the field shoving our girls around?
And then they're told, no, that's not a boy, that's a trans girl.
And they say, the hell he is.
And when this gets very real, when there's a high school where a boy says he's trans and goes into the changing room and gropes a girl or, God forbid, even rapes a girl.
I think this is going to get extremely real, extremely quickly, when it moves out of the realm of the OZs and the, you know, the classroom and into the real world manifestation of this ideology.
And I think that any politician, they don't even have to be conservative.
They just have to be listening to their constituents.
I think this is the sleeper issue.
Anyone who has courage to take this on, not in a mean way, not in a bullying the trans people way, but just in the, you have gone too far, now you're the bully kind of way.
Whoever speaks to this clearly and fairly, and with some compassion, by the way, whoever takes this on, I think will have tremendous political success.
I hope you're right.
I have to say that, you know, I said a year or two ago, well, sports is going to be where the rubber hits the road and where this is going to come to a grinding halt.
But in fact, it has happened in sport.
And so far, nobody is stopping it because, again, like the educators, the sports establishment people, the theorists in the sports world are also on side.
And the rules have gotten looser, not tighter.
In high school and university, the rules are you don't even have to be on testosterone reduction.
You can be a male and walk in and say, I feel like I'm a female and do not even be socially transitioning.
And you're allowed to play on the women's sports teams.
So, you know, I can't quite figure out why it's gone on so long.
You have girls with dreams of track and field making it in amateur sports.
And they're not because there are guys in male bodies in that sport running and jumping and anything that requires power and speed.
They are winning.
And I don't know.
The parents, they all seem too intimidated.
When is the revolution coming?
I'd love to see it on the athletic field.
I really would.
Yeah, well, I think it will come.
I mean, I think it's like when the sky is humid and it's hot and it just needs something and then downpour is going to come.
The air is pregnant with it.
That's what I think.
But, you know, I want to tell you, I mean, we publish a lot of political commentary that's politically incorrect and some of it is on the edge of these controversies.
We talk about radical Islam.
We talk about feminism.
Talk about a number of things that gets us in a little bit of trouble with social media censors on YouTube, Facebook, Twitter.
But I have to tell you, Barbara, there is nothing as ferocious as censorship around the trans issue.
When we sent our reporter Kian Bexty to cover Jonathan Yaneve's criminal trial in BC the other day, he had an illegal weapon.
Anytime Kian would say he or him or Jonathan, his account was immediately frozen and suspended.
It's like they had someone assigned to watch him in real time.
His account was suspended five times in one day.
And then another reporter who was reporting on his being suspended, she was suspended, your colleague at the postmillennial, Anna Slatz.
In my entire life of provocative speech, shall we say, going back even to the Danish cartoons a decade ago, I have to tell you, Barbara, I have never seen censorship as fast and furious as I have on the trans issue.
I would tell you if I had, whether, not even- No, I think somebody is actually on it, like on a full-time basis looking for this stuff.
And I agree with you.
I was suspended for 24 hours on a trans tweet.
And I thought, wow, you know, they really are on everybody.
So it's a kind of mania.
And I think you're right.
It's going to burn out suddenly because there's too much craziness in this movement.
And by the way, what I'm starting to see now are articles by trans people who say, I feel threatened by the activists, the trans activists, because I feel that people are looking at me.
I just want to get along.
I just, I can compromise.
I don't have a problem with male bodies not being on female sports or in rape crisis centers or in locker rooms.
I understand, but these activists are making me look bad.
And I wish they'd stop.
So maybe within the trans community, they're going to be able to shut these people up because they've gotten so out of bounds.
Yeah, I mean, we've talked to some people like that.
Our former reporter, Jessica Svietanovsky, did an in-depth biography on Jonathan Yaniv, and Jessica interviewed a trans person who just, that's how they want to live.
And okay, fine, don't pick on them.
But he or she, I'm so confused, was so different than Yaniv, who's clearly an activist using it as a weapon.
The phrase I use, and I use this way of thinking when I was prosecuted for publishing the Danish cartoons a dozen years ago.
I said the Human Rights Act, the Human Rights Commission, if you take it on good faith, which I suppose we have to, it was created to be a shield to protect people, not a sword to attack people.
And the difference between a shield and a sword, this normal trans person that our Jessica interviewed, don't pick on him.
Don't bug them.
Don't attack him.
Whereas Jonathan Yaniv doesn't want a shield to be protected from bullies.
He is the bully who's gained the system and is using it as a sword.
These boys joining the girls' sports teams, they're not using it as a shield to protect themselves.
They're using it as a sword to push their way in to get some easy wins.
I think that's the way to think of it.
They've turned human rights into a sword instead of a shield.
Well, it's an excellent distinction, and I think you're absolutely right.
And I think the Jonathan Yaniv story, that was a kind of tipping point because that was the moment when if they were smart, trans activists would have said, you know what, we dissociate ourselves from this person because this is irrationality.
This is combativeness.
We don't want to have anything to do with this because we want compassion for trans people.
And we realize that in standing behind him or saying nothing, we're endorsing this kind of behavior.
And it's really so reprehensible to, and he is a bully.
You're absolutely right.
So.
Well, let me make a prediction.
And it's an unhappy.
I'm sorry, going.
No, is this going to be suspended or something?
Because I said he?
I don't know.
Well, it could be.
I want to make a prediction.
It's an unhappy prediction, but I've been in the free speech business for over a dozen years now, as you know.
I predict, I have not poked around genderreport.ca that Pamela Buffoni has set up, but I will predict that before the end of the year 2020, in the next 12 months, that site will be blocked on various internet service providers.
Nigel's Unhappy Prediction00:06:39
For example, you might not be able to get it if you're a TELUS or a SHA internet subscriber.
It will be downranked in Google searches.
It will be throttled.
Its Twitter account, if it has one, will be shut down.
And I predict, and I say this without even having gone through the material.
And I say that it may find itself booted off the internet, its domain name taken away, and they may actually be hit with either a human rights complaint or even a nuisance lawsuit in civil court.
I say all of this, Barbara, without having even gone through it, simply the fact that they dare to speak out and have it in some sort of form on the internet.
I predict that Pamela Buffon will be the target again of a sword of someone using trans to get her, to shut her up.
That is my unhappy prediction that we will see harm, legal harm, financial harm, come to Pamela Buffon in the next 12 months.
And I'm so sorry to say that.
That's just my observation and my hunch.
Well, I pray that you're going to be proven wrong, obviously, because it's not just Pamela.
There's other people out there doing great work on setting the record straight and on presenting real science.
But if you are right, by that time, we'll all be in deep trouble.
Yeah.
Well, Barbara, you're one of the bravest journalists in the country.
You've been on this beat before just about anybody.
Every time I see you published in the National Post, I breathe a sigh of relief because I can only imagine the pressure they're under to jettison you.
It's a bit of a miracle they're holding out, and I don't want to jinx it by calling attention to it.
And I'm glad you're also dipping a toe into activism, too, with the JCCF and our friend John Carpe, we know him well, actually helping the Buffonies.
I think that's very good news.
Last word to you, my friend.
No, thanks for having me on about this issue, Ezra.
I guess you've made me kind of a little bit depressed.
And I'll have to deal with that.
I really hope you are wrong.
I think we just have to keep writing and you have to keep broadcasting as though we're going to win this battle because who knows, maybe we will.
Hey, take heart from the fact, take heart from the fact that the Conservatives in the UK had such a big victory.
I think in part the people were rejecting the kind of small-mindedness and anti-decency, anti-norms and fair play.
People want a level playing field, I think, in democracies.
And they got fed up with what they were being told was the right way to vote.
So I take a little bit of hurt from that.
Yeah, you know, I mean, I am so glad you mentioned that.
Let me show you a super quick clip.
This is Jeremy Corbyn announcing his pronouns.
I've never seen such a thing.
Here, take a look at this.
Hi, I'm Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the Labour Party.
My pronouns are here.
I haven't seen that before, but that's how woke the Labour Party was.
Nothing but grievance groups, nothing but trans extremism, every other form of extremism.
And to see them get absolutely shellacked shows that you shouldn't take these woke activists as the majority.
They're just a very noisy minority.
They are a very noisy minority, but they are a minority.
So, you know, parents, everybody who's upset about this stuff, don't feel you have to be quiet.
You know, speak up and you'll find allies.
And go for it.
I think you're right.
All right.
Well, thank you so much.
Once again, the website is called genderreport.ca.
It's a part of a fightback project by Pamela Buffoni, whose own daughter was told girls are not real and boys are not real at a tender age in public school.
We've been talking with our friend Barbara Kay.
Take care out there and keep up the fight.
Thanks, Ezra.
All right.
Stay with us.
More ahead on The Rebel.
Hey, welcome back.
On my monologue Friday about Boris Johnson's win in the UK election.
Anderson writes, he won because Nigel cares more about British independence than having power himself.
Nigel is a British patriot.
Absolutely.
I think Nigel Farage was the essential man for that period of time.
I mean, there are some things where people are dispensable.
You know, there's a saying, graveyards are full of indispensable men.
It's a way of saying don't be too proud of yourself.
In the end, we're all dust.
Or is, I don't know, the concept that we're all here for a limited time, it's true.
But every once in a while, there is an indispensable man.
I think Winston Churchill was clearly an indispensable man.
And I think Nigel Farage was in his own way.
Would you agree with me that even though millions of Brits wanted to be free from the European Union, only Nigel made it happen and could have made it happen.
First having the Brexit referendum, then winning the Brexit referendum, and then pressuring the Conservatives to make it their core election platform plank.
I truly think that this result is 100% dependent on Nigel.
I mean, others helped too, obviously, including Boris Johnson himself.
But without Nigel, he was essential.
Maybe not sufficient on his own, but he was essential to it.
And the irony is he didn't win a single seat in this last election.
Well, I'm sure he'll get his reward in other ways.
Kevin writes, I live in a poor working class town in the north, and even the unemployed and nurses voted conservative for the first time ever.
Well done, Corbyn.
Yeah, that's quite something.
He was just so radical.
And of course, I haven't been there.
I mean, I haven't been to the UK in a month, and when I'm there, I'm usually focused on Tommy Robinson, not on the politics.
But I follow the UK much more closely than I ever did before.
And when I'm there, I get a feeling for it.
And I really think that Jeremy Corbyn, his center of gravity was either the faculty lounge at some left-wing university or a mosque.
Jordan Peterson's Political Potential00:02:06
Those are sort of his two bases.
Not a working-class factory or a pub.
I just don't think it was.
And I think it showed labor was no longer about laborers.
On the resignation of Andrew Scheer and finding a new conservative leader, Pat writes, We need a disruptor, like Trump was a disruptor.
Someone who has a big social media following, someone who can think quick on their feet and has no problem putting the media party, interviewers in their place.
The first person who comes to mind is Jordan Peterson.
You're right about a disruptor, and that's a very key point, because so much of the free advice that the media is giving the Conservative Party is, oh, you need to stop objecting to our official narratives.
You need to be more urbane and cosmopolitan and be more like us.
And the thing is, it's hard to be a disruptor because the establishment takes it so personally.
The establishment likes nothing better than a happy loser who fights but not hard enough to win and accepts all the premises in advance.
I think Jordan Peterson has the mind to be a disruptor, but he doesn't think like a politician.
He doesn't speak in short enough sound bites.
I don't know if he's built for the hustings and the and most importantly, I think he's got an amazing career as a public intellectual right now that suits him, his personality.
It's very financially rewarding.
I can't imagine Jordan Peterson would agree to do that.
Maybe I'm wrong.
I mean, he once wrote in some school yearbook that he might be a prime minister or something like that.
I don't remember the details.
But I think he's moved on from that.
There's also the question, however unfair it is, of French.
And I'm not a pro-bilingualism guy.
I just believe, though, if you want to talk to a quarter of the country that speaks French, you've got to speak to them.
Not because of any rule, but just because that's, I think, a political reality.
So I don't think Jordan Peterson's the guy.
I hope Pierre Polyap throws his hat in the ring.
Political Reality Matters00:00:39
I see Aaron O'Toole is putting up trial balloons.
I think Michelle Rempel will probably throw her hat in the ring.
I hope Candace Bergen does.
And hopefully some people not currently in the caucus will too.
Remember, Trump came out of business and showbiz out of nowhere.
I'm not sure what the analogy to that would be in Canada.
Most of our top talent like that goes to the United States to make it big time.
We'll see.
But I can tell you one thing.
I'm looking forward to the Rebel being part of this conversation.
All right, that's the show for today.
Until tomorrow on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters.