Justin Trudeau and Joe Biden face accusations of equal submissiveness to Communist China, with Trudeau’s $4.8M Huawei grant and withdrawal from the AIIB under scrutiny by Liberal MP Wayne Easter. Biden, in a town hall, downplayed China’s crackdowns in Hong Kong, Xinjiang, and Taiwan while framing totalitarianism as culturally acceptable, despite Uyghur exile leaders calling it "genocide." Meanwhile, Canada’s 60th-place vaccine ranking and Trudeau’s gun control bill—banning toy guns and restricting airsoft—highlight policy shifts that may alienate conservative voters. Conservative leader Aaron O’Toole’s silence on key issues, including cancel culture and mass migration, risks losing base support while failing to challenge the government’s controversial stances effectively. [Automatically generated summary]
Before I give you the two cases for who is more submissive, let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
It's eight bucks a month or 80 bucks for the whole year in advance.
You get the daily show, the video version of this podcast, plus Sheila Gunn Reed does a weekly show, Andrew Chapados does a weekly show, David Menzies does a weekly show, and most importantly, you get the satisfaction of supporting Rebel News with your eight bucks a month because we don't take a dime from Justin Trudeau or Joe Biden.
Okay, here's today's show.
Tonight, who is more submissive to communist China?
Justin Trudeau or Joe Biden?
It's February 17, 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 is government go by others is because it's my bloody right to do so.
Seriously, who is more pro-China?
Joe Biden or Justin Trudeau.
You'd think it would be impossible for anyone to top this, Trudeau's super gross statement that China was the country he most admired, specifically because of its dictatorship.
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.
I mean, come on, how can anyone ever beat that?
That's the goat, as the kids would say, the greatest of all time.
Well, look at this from Biden's TV town hall last night.
You know, Chinese leaders, if you know anything about Chinese history, it has always been the time when China has been victimized by the outer world is when they haven't been unified at home.
So the central, vastly overstated, the central principle of Xi Jinping is that there must be a united, tightly controlled China.
And he uses his rationale for the things he does based on that.
I point out to him, no American president can be sustained as a president if he doesn't reflect the values of the United States.
And so the idea, I'm not going to speak out against what he's doing in Hong Kong, what he's doing with the Uyghurs in western mountains of China and Taiwan trying to end the one China policy by making it forceful.
I said, and by the way, he said he gets it.
He really said that.
Oh my God.
I shouldn't laugh.
I'm sorry I laughed.
He said China is the victim.
Presumably that means America is the oppressor.
He said China needs to tightly control its people.
He said he's not going to speak out for Hong Kong or the Uyghurs, Hong Kong, which has been semi-autonomous as part of their agreement with the UK for the return of that city.
He doesn't care.
And he lumps in Taiwan, a separate, independent, sovereign country.
Biden just lumped Taiwan in as if it's some province of China and they can do with it what they like.
And then he loses his train of thought for a minute and then just reaches for one of his catch-all phrases.
When he forgets something, he gets it.
What?
What?
But his key message is totalitarianism is a cultural norm in China.
And the leaders there have to be bullies and tyrants because their people want it and expect it.
I really think he meant what he said.
If there was any doubt about it, well, too bad.
CNN didn't feel like asking him any follow-up questions on that astounding statement.
Here's a reply from a Uyghur leader in exile.
That's the people in the western province of Xinjiang.
President of the United States should know that nothing can be a justification for genocide.
Hitler attempted to create a greater German Reich through aggression, invasion of neighboring countries, and the Holocaust of millions of Jews and others.
Xi, that's the president of China, is doing the same thing today and must be stopped.
That's pretty tough stuff, but it's true.
I think there are reasons to call what's going on in China a genocide against the Uyghur people in the western province of Xinjiang, against Tibet, really.
They have concentration camps in Xinjiang.
They have labor camps, forced labor camps.
I don't think they have death camps like Hitler did, so that's a distinction.
But on the other hand, there are credible reports of mass rapes and torture at the hands of the Chinese Communist Party and overlay on top the Chinese Communist Party's approach to ethnic cleansing.
They relocate millions of ethnic Han Chinese people into Tibet and into Xinjiang to dilute the local indigenous character of these different ethnicities.
China is made up of many different regions and peoples, really.
They're not all Chinese in the ethnic sense.
It is the explicit policy of the Communist Party of China to replace local identities, especially religious identities and ethnic identities, with an obedience to the Chinese Communist Party, which also happens to be dominated by the Han ethnicity.
I've seen a verified translation of this next video.
In Xinjiang province, children are separated from their natural families and reprogrammed to worship the state as their family.
Here's a tweet.
In this Xinjiang camp, Uyghur children are forcefully separated from their parents in order to chant, my mother is China.
We love our mother.
We love China.
So yeah.
So maybe Biden beats Trudeau in the Communist Olympics after all.
Speaking of Olympics, Canada doesn't have a bad word to say about the Olympics, which are being held in China again.
I know that it's not a government decision per se when it comes to the Olympics.
You're well familiar, I'm sure, about whether or not the call, sorry, to boycott the 2022 Olympics in Beijing.
Will this government be sending, if it does go ahead, representatives from the government to those games?
It's a good question.
I don't have the answer for you on that.
I can only speak to what you said about the Canadian Olympic Committee making the decision about the athletes themselves.
I would have to get back to you on that.
I don't know what the situation is with respect to that.
That is something that typically comes under the Minister of Heritage.
Yeah, or the Minister of Sport.
I'm just wondering, as Minister of Foreign Affairs, based on what you know so far about how China has treated its Uyghur population, if you think it would be appropriate to send a representative from your government to those games should they go ahead.
Well, that will be a government decision, and it is the Minister of Heritage, who is also the Minister of Sport, who ultimately will be at the center of that decision.
So you don't have a position on that at this point.
I don't have a position on that at this point.
That's leadership, eh?
So I think it's fair to say there is a genocide of the Uyghur people.
It's not in the same methods of the Nazi Holocaust.
Holocaust comes from the word meaning everything burning.
You wouldn't have seen concentration camps where the Jews in Nazi Germany were being brainwashed into good little Aryan Nazis praising Hitler.
So it's not kill all the Uyghurs.
The final solution for Xi Jinping is to undermine Uyghur history and religion and culture and identity and family and economy and demographics.
It really is ethnic cleansing, but they're not trying to murder every Uyghur.
They're trying to brainwash the identity out of their kids' minds.
And sure, they will kill and rape campus along the way.
I think it's a pretty good analogy.
And neither Biden nor Garneau have a problem with that.
And here's Justin Trudeau on that specific question of Uyghur genocide.
What more evidence does your government need to see before it concludes whether or not a genocide is occurring in China?
And given we're even discussing the possibility of a genocide, is Beijing an appropriate venue for the Olympics?
First of all, on determinations of genocide, the principles of international law and the international community in general, I think rightly takes very,
very seriously the label of genocide and needs to ensure that when it is used, it is clearly and properly justified and demonstrated so as not to weaken the application of genocide in situations in the past.
And that's why it's a word that is extremely loaded and is certainly something that we should be looking at in the case of the Uyghurs.
And I know the international community is looking very carefully at that, and we are certainly among them.
And we will not hesitate from being part of the determinations around these sorts of things.
We have been consistent in our concerns and our condemnation of human rights violations around the world, including situations in Hong Kong and in Xinjiang and elsewhere.
We will continue to work with the international community and move forward on making the right determinations based on facts and evidence.
So Trudeau doesn't think he wants to call it a genocide, eh?
Liberal MP Warns of China Threat00:03:24
That word has to be reserved for the truly nasty countries, right?
Yeah, like Canada?
We accept the findings of the commissioners that it was genocide.
Incredible.
He really loves the Chinese Communist Party, the dictatorship itself.
He really hates us.
I remember that question about which country he loves the most.
It was phrased, which country other than Canada do you most admire?
But I wonder if he actually admires China and its basic dictatorship more than he admires Canada itself.
He calls us genociders, but he won't say that about them.
I wonder how he'd answer that question straight up.
Which country is more admirable?
Well, maybe we have the answer.
You might have seen this story.
Trudeau is giving a $4.8 million grant to Huawei, the massive Chinese tech company controlled by the CCP.
It's also the company for which Meng Wanzhou is the chief financial officer.
Remember her?
She's the one arrested in Vancouver for fraud on trial to be extradited to the U.S.
And, of course, China kidnapped two Canadians in revenge.
By the way, I bet Biden lets Meng Wenzo go.
I just bet you that'll happen.
But Trudeau, he just gave Meng Wenzh a $4.8 million grant to her company for high-tech research that will benefit China's military apparatus.
It will probably be used to spy on Tibet and Taiwan and the Uyghurs.
Oh, and on us too.
Even top liberals are stunned.
Look at this story in the Globe and Mail.
Senior Liberal MP urges Trudeau cabinet to wake up and smell the roses on China.
The Liberal Chair of the Commons Finance Committee says a budget recommendation calling on Ottawa to pull out the Beijing-backed Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank should serve as a wake up and smell the roses moment for Canada.
So he's talking about a different grant to China.
Trudeau can't stop giving foreign aid to the world's richest country.
Liberal MP Wayne Easter, who also served as Solicitor General under Jean-Cretchen in charge of Canada's security agencies, told the Global Mail Tuesday that Canada needs to recognize the serious threat China poses to Western democracies.
He also criticized the fact that universities are still conducting research projects with Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei Technologies.
The Finance Committee, in a report Tuesday, made the recommendation to withdraw from the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which the Trudeau government joined in 2017, with plans to contribute $995 million U.S. Just one more line from this story.
It has got to be so frustrating for CSIS, Mr. Easter said.
China is trying to infiltrate itself into the university system.
They are playing a game, and we better recognize Huawei is just an arm of China.
Wayne Easter isn't just a junior guy.
Now, he's not an inner circle guy.
That's Gerald Butts and Katie Telford and some U.S. consultants.
So Easter's not really inner circle, but he's pretty senior.
28 years he's been a liberal MP now.
And he can't believe what Trudeau's doing with China.
And he's speaking out.
That is not common in the Liberal Party.
So yeah, like I say, who's more submissive to Communist China?
Justin Trudeau or Joe Biden?
Stay with us.
Conservatives And Guns00:15:11
Welcome back.
Well, as you may know, Canada is in the, I don't know, the 60th place in the world in terms of delivering the vaccine.
Now, there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical about a vaccine rushed to market, a vaccine that interacts with your own body's RNA, a vaccine for a disease that has a 99.9% recovery rate for the general population.
But for those who want it, let them have it.
Alas, they can't get it in Canada because Justin Trudeau has bungled pretty much his one job.
And it's something the media party actually cares about because they believe with perfect faith in these vaccines.
And like I say, if you want it, feel free to have it.
But Trudeau screwed it up.
I think it's so bad that he's possibly delaying what's so obviously his plan for a spring election.
So what do you do when you're in 60th place in the world for vaccine delivery, which has become the ultimate test of how progressive you are?
Well, you switch the subject.
You start calling people your enemies, Nazis.
You call the Proud Boys a terrorist group, and you go for that old standby.
You ban firearms again.
And joining us now via Skype from TrueNorth Wire is our friend Andrew Lawton, our friend and reporter over there, host of the Andrew Lawton Show, and a firearms expert.
I'm not going to say an expert, but certainly an aficionado who knows the rules.
Am I right?
Well, absolutely.
And you have to if you're a gun owner in Canada, Ezra, because the risk if you run afoul of those rules can be imprisonment.
So maybe you are an expert.
Certainly, I mean, I think everyone who has a firearm has to become an expert because the rules change and they're so weird.
I've got a great story by True North in front of me here.
The headline is, Liberal gun bill bans toy guns that look like real firearms.
Is that true?
So do we all have to be gun law experts, even those of us who don't have firearms but have like toys around the house?
Do we have to become an expert too?
Well, you may.
In fact, this is an interesting story because a couple of years ago, I think Apple was the first one to do it.
They changed the gun emoji to look less like a real firearm, and they changed it to one that was this like bright neon green squirt gun looking thing with an orange tip on it.
And it was so absurd because they were trying to avoid having, I guess, some sort of violent imagery, even though there are other things and emojis that you'd think would be more problematic.
But that's actually what's happening with real guns now.
When I was a kid, if you got a gun, you wanted it to look really cool and really like a real gun.
Whereas now, the only ones you're going to be allowed to have are the bright green neon Nerf gun or squirt gun type things.
Because one of the aspects of this, and again, it's a long bill, and this was just one paragraph, but it jumped out to me in the bill: update the criminal code to ensure that any device, including an unregulated air gun that looks like a conventional regulated firearm, is prohibited for the purposes of import, export, sale, and transfer.
So, if little Timmy has a realistic-looking airsoft gun, he can keep it.
But if he wants to give it to a friend, if he wants to buy a new one, that's going to be illegal once this law is passed.
Now, Airsoft, I'm not an expert in it, but I heard Sheila Gunread say that's a gun that fires soft things that actually don't hurt when you get hit.
Is that true?
Yeah, I mean, it's like a pellet gun, but not even with a BB.
They're meant to shoot each other like paintballs, except they don't cover you in paint.
They just hit you and maybe they sting a little bit, but they are, by definition, toy guns.
But this, just to be clear, goes beyond that.
This says any device.
I mean, theoretically, if you had just a you know, a paperweight that looked like a gun, even if it didn't shoot anything out of it, that would be illegal under this.
That's crazy.
Um, I don't think we have a problem in Canada with airsoft guns.
I live in Toronto, Canada's most crime-ridden city, not proportionally, but I mean, it's such a big city, there's so much crime here.
There's a very interesting website that is published by the Toronto Police Service, and they every day update their shootings in the city so far this year page.
It's quite a detailed page, and it compares it with past years.
A quick inspection of it shows that gun crime in Toronto under Mayor John Torrey has tripled.
So, I think there is a shooting problem in Toronto.
The stats sure say so.
But it's not the farmers and duck hunters that are being targeted by this law, is it?
No, and just to put that into perspective, we know that most gun owners tend to be in rural areas or smaller communities around the country, Alberta, Saskatchewan.
If legal gun ownership were correlated to gun crime, we would see gun crime in rural Alberta, in rural Saskatchewan, in southwestern Ontario, in eastern Ontario.
That's not where we're seeing it.
Where we see gun crime is in the cities, is in Toronto, as one notable example, also Montreal to some extent, places that by really any measure are very low in terms of lawful ownership of restricted guns like handguns.
So, you're very right to point that out.
The problem is not the law-abiding gun ownership.
And one as well, point that is missing here from the discourse tends to be that we do not even have any national tracking of where the guns used in crimes are.
Every now and then, an individual police force that recovers one will try to track where it came from.
Certainly, this happened with the Nova Scotia shooting, and they found out that not one of them was legally owned or legally purchased.
But the thing is, we do not, as a rule, track this.
So, when we are talking about guns being on the street, the government is deliberately ignoring that most of these are imported illegally from overseas, mainly from the United States, with whom we share an unprotected border.
But the reason they're not tracking it is because they know it will deflate the myth that guns purchased by people like me are somehow meandering their way through the system to end up in the hand of a gangster when that just isn't happening.
Hey, can I ask you something?
Please.
Aaron O'Toole has been the leader of the Conservative Party for about six months.
I don't see a honeymoon for him in the media or the polls.
I was looking in a poll from the innovative research group that's Greg Lyle's Poll and Company, and he's actually dipping down.
I think all the polls show that.
And so I'm looking at Aaron O'Toole.
I'm saying, is he going to fight for these things?
When Trudeau banned the Proud Boys as a terrorist group, it was unanimous.
It was after a unanimous vote in Parliament.
Every Conservative voted for it.
I see there's censorship moves afoot by Stephen Gilbeau.
I don't see any opposition to it from the Conservatives.
Maybe I've missed it.
And now I'm worried and wondering.
I mean, and they, you know, shuffled out Pierre Polyev, got rid of Derek Sloan.
They're being mean to us at the rebel again.
And so I wonder, and I'm hoping you have a positive answer here.
Has the Conservative Party of Canada challenged this new gun grab?
Or is this something else they're afraid to talk about because it's too right-wing?
Well, gun ownership has always been a safe and solid issue for conservatives.
I don't think you pick up votes by being pro-gun because I think most gun owners tend to already be conservative, but you do energize your base and you do give people a reason to show up.
Whereas if a gun owner feels like the conservatives aren't going to do anything for them, they just aren't going to be there.
They just aren't going to show up in the polls.
They aren't going to volunteer.
They aren't going to donate.
So this is something that conservatives need.
And as much as I say they aren't going to get votes on guns, you will lose votes by not standing up for gun owners, by not standing up for your base in general.
Yesterday, a conservative MP in the shadow cabinet, Shannon Stubbs, sent out a statement condemning this and the party put it out.
But I haven't heard anything from Aaron O'Toole yet.
So I always find it interesting when the Conservative Party decides to put someone who's lesser known as the voice on an issue rather than having Aaron O'Toole get out there and say, listen, this is something we need to push back against.
So it's not to say he won't run against it.
I know he was in the leadership, generally speaking, pro-gun in my conversations with him and ones that I saw elsewhere, but I haven't heard anything just yet.
Well, I'm a little bit nervous of what you just said.
I know Shannon Stubbs.
I like her, but she's not, I don't think she's the justice critic or the public safety critic.
And I'm embarrassing myself.
I don't know who those critics are, Andrew, without Googling it because they haven't exactly made a mark.
I mean, I could literally Google it right now as we're talking.
I'm a little embarrassed.
Do you know who the public safety critic is for the conservatives?
I want them to speak.
She is the public safety critic.
Oh, she is.
Shannon Stubbs is the public safety critic.
Okay.
Well, that's better than nothing.
And I'm sorry I didn't know that.
And I'm a victim of my own joke because I always ask people, can you name this critic or that critic?
And I'm not trying to trick anyone.
It's just I haven't seen her really in the news a lot.
Okay, I'm sure.
No, but I think your point's well taken.
I mean, when you look at who the high-profile members of the Conservative Shadow Cabinet are, I'd say the only one that comes to mind or the only two would be Michelle Rempel and Pierre Polyev, who was up until last week in finance and then got shuffled out of that.
So I still think the point stands.
Well, and that's the thing.
I've been following this thesis now that Aaron O'Toole wants to tack to the left.
He's willing to sacrifice the more rambunctious conservatives, the most populous conservatives, if it gets him some breakthroughs in Ontario, or as it's more commonly referred to in the media, vote rich Ontario.
And my point is, if we actually saw that strategy having a chance of working, I could respect it for its pragmatism.
I could say, all right, I don't like the fact that they're de-emphasizing conservative values, but if they're actually going to stop Trudeau, I'll put some water in my wine, maybe.
But I don't see the pickup in Ontario to match the deflated conservative base.
Do you think he's, I don't know.
I mean, I bet Trudeau wants to trick and trap the conservatives into being a caricature of a right-wing party.
But I think they should be sophisticated enough to be a smart, calm, appealing right-wing party.
I think there's a middle way between being rock-rib conservative and being a liberal me too.
There should be a smart way to communicate conservative message like Ronald Reagan did.
A beautiful way of talking about conservative values that actually picks up votes.
I don't know.
You've depressed me a little bit by saying Aaron O'Toole himself hasn't weighed in.
The challenge is that I think conservatives are always chasing after the 2011 result.
This is the year Stephen Harper went from a minority to a majority, huge gains in the 905 and huge gains in, to some extent, even in BC, and ultimately held on to the base in Alberta, Saskatchewan, a lot of Manitoba, and so on.
But there were a lot of factors there that we can't necessarily replicate, chief among them the NDP surge in Quebec, liberals that tended to not have much enthusiasm.
Whereas whatever we say in our circles about Justin Trudeau, he does still have an energy and does still resonate with the base, which is why through all the scandals, he was reelected pretty handily, even if it was in a minority in the last election in 2019.
At the same time, conservatives have to understand that there's a difference between expanding the tent and moving the tent.
And the ideal thing, and this is what I think we saw in Reagan, and I'm glad you brought him up as an example, is to better communicate and articulate what you believe, why it's the best vision, not to just change your beliefs.
And this is a trap into which a lot of conservatives fall, where they think that, oh, well, the people on the far right, so to speak, are always going to be there.
We can just shift this over to New Window ever so slightly to the left and people won't notice.
The left will like it and the right, well, who else are they going to vote for?
But what we've seen in the era of the Jim Carahalioses, the Maxine Berniers, and even just people staying home, a lot of people are completely content to disengage if they don't feel like there's a conservative party that's representing them.
And this is why the conservatives cannot abandon their base, no matter how tempting it is to pick up votes in what you term, I think very accurately, because we hear it in the media, that vote-rich Ontario.
Yeah, you know, you remind me of what Stephen Harper did when he took over the party about 20 years ago.
First thing he did was he spoke to the breakaway MPs, Monty Solberg, Jay Hill, Deborah Gray, who were mad at Stockwell Day.
They had created a little splittist party called the Democratic Representative Caucus.
That's a piece of trivia for you.
But so there was about a dozen of them.
He brought them back in.
Then his next project was merging the Canadian Alliance with Peter McKay's progressive conservatives.
So Stephen Harper didn't just win by being conservative.
He won by building a coalition, putting things together.
He wasn't a splittist.
He actually was a coalescer, a coalition builder.
I don't know if we're seeing that now.
Last word to you.
Do you agree with me on my thesis that Aaron O'Toole is tacking to the left and shucking off more controversial aspects of the party in an attempt to appeal to the center in Ontario?
Would you agree with my assessment or do you think I'm misreading it?
It's tough to say.
I don't know if he's tacking left, but I will say that he's choosing to elevate stories that don't need to be stories.
And I think the Derek Sloan expulsion is a great example of that.
People are going to kick and scream about Derek Sloan because people on the left don't like him.
Had he not been kicked out of caucus, they would have continued, but it ceases to be a story after a certain point.
So you make it a story by going into that.
You make enemies and you don't make any friends because the people that wanted you to get rid of him were still not going to support you.
They just scored a political win.
And that's, I guess, the one thing I would be very concerned about.
Listen, it was not even a full year ago that Aaron O'Toole laid out what he said was the true blue vision.
There was a lot in that leadership platform that he can be held to when his actual platform comes out, whenever the next election is.
So I think that there is still going to be a lot that we need to see.
One of them is defunding CBC.
That was a very key plank.
You can't walk away from something that unequivocal.
Yeah, well, I remember you did the masterful interview of Aaron O'Toole in what would have been the leader's debate, and we had a couple of candidates chicken out.
Take A Stand Against Cancel Culture00:02:51
So you probably interviewed Aaron O'Toole more deeply and more fairly, I might add, than anyone ever has done.
So I very much look forward to your analysis of the party's platform and to compare it to his leadership platform when that time comes, because you'll be the key authority on that.
Listen, it's great to chat with you, my friend.
And I give you full points for knowing Shannon Stubbs' critics title, and I did not.
I'm embarrassed by my own joke that I should have known who the public safety critic was, but I just didn't.
Good for you for knowing it.
I look forward to talking to you in the weeks ahead.
Likewise.
All right, there you have it.
Andrew Lawton of the Andrew Watton Show, and he's with TNC.
Stay with us.
Hey there, on my show last night, James writes, O'Toole is a no-win candidate, I suspect worse than Shear.
Well, look, the polls say it's going to be worse.
Look, it's tough to beat an incumbent during the pandemic.
So far in Canada, incumbents are winning and strengthening their majorities.
And look, the media is so in love with Trudeau, they'll give him a big boost anyways.
Thomas Wright, sad to say, maybe O'Toole losing will be what it takes to get rid of him.
Andrew Sheer got more votes than Justin Trudeau last election.
Aaron O'Toole will get less.
Okay, so let's say that happens.
Who is in the wings?
Peter McKay.
I'm getting depressed just thinking about him.
Denise writes, the obvious problem is that Aaron O'Toole has yet to make clear what difference it would make if his party were governing rather than the Liberal Party.
If he fails to help rein in the COVID hysteria, which is destroying our country and participates in cancel culture, he's just a knockoff, not a competitive brand.
Yeah, I mean, can I know what you stand for?
How about that?
And it's a good idea because you're honest then.
If you say, well, here's what I actually stand for.
Here's what I'm going to fight for.
You're honest.
Now we can make a decision.
But also, you're choosing your controversy.
And what do I mean by that?
The other side in the campaign is going to try and label you, name you, brand you with a controversial appellation.
So you can't avoid controversy.
So why don't you choose the controversy that you want?
Take a stand against cancel culture.
That's controversial, but in a good way.
Take a stand against unlimited mass migration.
That's controversial, but in a good way.
Take a stand against lockdown mania.
Controversial, but in a good way.
If you think you can avoid controversy, you misunderstand the nature of politics.
The answer is to choose good controversies that you actually believe in that get support from the people and say, yeah, we want someone to fight back on these issues.
I haven't seen that from Aaron O'Toole.
Have you?
That's the show for today.
Until tomorrow, on behalf of all of us here at Rubble World Headquarters to you at home.