Ezra Levant critiques the Smithsonian’s Queer Space podcast for pushing "woke" LGBTQ+ narratives over traditional history, like Neil Armstrong’s 1969 gendered language now deemed offensive. He opposes Canada’s proposed Holocaust denial ban—passed via Liberal-NDP budget deal—arguing it stifles debate rather than combating misinformation, while warning of broader censorship risks like UK anti-Islamophobia laws. Levant insists courts may still protect free speech but fears institutions are quietly surrendering to authoritarian trends under pressure. [Automatically generated summary]
Tonight, why is it that the Uber progressive cancel culture mob, you know, the ones who are telling us to follow the COVID-19 science, are going to war against real science?
It's Tuesday, April 12th, 2022.
I'm David Menzies, and this is the Ezra Levant Show.
Why should others go to jail when you're a biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's nearly 500 customers here, and you don't give them an answer.
The only thing I have to say is government.
It's because it's my bloody right to do so.
Houston, we have a problem.
Namely, even science-based organizations are being targeted by the cancel culture mob as progressives embrace wokeism and, of course, the radical transgender movement.
Folks, fasten your seatbelts, take your protein pills, and put your helmets on.
This just in, the Smithsonian Institute is, alas and alack, becoming increasingly woke.
And there is pressure afoot by the usual suspects, of course, to get the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, aka NASA, to also get more PC and less, you know, science-y.
I know what you're thinking, folks.
If any organization should be immune from the epidemic of political correctness, wokeism, and cancel culture, it is surely the Smithsonian and NASA.
Just consider the mission statement for the Smithsonian, quote, our mission is to promote understanding of the natural world and our place in it.
The museum's collections tell the history of the planet and are a record of human interaction with the environment and one another, end quote.
Now, here's the NASA mission statement, quote, to drive advances in science, technology, aeronautics, and space exploration to enhance knowledge, education, innovation, economic vitality, and stewardship of Earth, end quote.
Well, I guess that was then and this is now.
For starters, according to the Washington Compost, the Smithsonian has just launched a brand new podcast called, wait for it, Queer Space.
QueerSpace is devoted to aviation, space, and of course, gender identity.
Fascinating.
So instead of covering real achievements in the realms of aviation and aerospace, I speak of the Wright brothers or Neil Armstrong, we are being served up such scintillating subjects as, how did gay male flight attendants fare in the early days of air travel?
Can science fiction with LGBTQ plus characters make space more inclusive?
And what are the Air Force and Space Force doing to address LGBTQ plus issues?
Yikes, 4321.
Please exit the capsule, Major Tom, and make way for Leah Thomas to take control of the cockpit.
Evidently, the topics and subjects covered in Queer Space, in the words of the podcast introduction, have, quote, been historically and intentionally ignored in the intersection of aviation, space, and LGBTQ plus history and culture, end quote.
I'm a surgeon, not a psychiatrist.
Gee, I guess we better get around to reimagining one of the most profound speeches of the 20th century, you know, so that we don't insult the ever-tolerant members of the LGBTQ plus community, at least when it comes to space travel.
I speak of those 11 words Neil Armstrong uttered as he set foot upon the sea of tranquility on July 20th, 1969.
That's one small step for man.
One science for man.
Okay, granted, Mr. Armstrong flubbed the line.
He meant to say amen as opposed to man, but more than a half century later, the bone of contention would seem to be that Armstrong had the utter temerity to say man in the first place.
Excuse me, it's ma'am.
It is ma'am.
Oh, by the way, the Smithsonian Institute aside, there is growing pressure for NASA to get woke and embrace cancel culture too.
I speak of the ongoing manufactured controversy over the name given to the most powerful telescope in the solar system, the James Webb Space Telescope, which was named after a former head Honsho at NASA.
According to Scientific American, quote, during his time at NASA, Webb oversaw the legendary Apollo program that landed humans on the moon, but also fostered the agency's focus on science, end quote.
Wait a second here.
By using the word but, is Scientific American implying that Webb's commitment to science was somehow a negative?
That Webb should have ensured that the agency was committed to what?
Social justice?
Regardless, Webb, who passed away in 1992, allegedly didn't like homosexuals during his tenure at NASA.
Now, while the space agency has been resisting the cancel culture mob to rename the telescope due to a lack of evidence that Webb was anti-gay, nevertheless, the heat is on by the Alphabet Soup community and their useful idiots in the mainstream media to get NASA to rebrand the James Webb Space Telescope.
Gee, taking inspiration from those who topple statues these days, why don't we altogether skip the renaming process and just blow this homophobic telescope right out of the sky?
Wow.
You know, it used to be that NASA and NASA's fans, well, they were all about recruiting the greatest minds in the world so that this agency could, you know, venture out into the final frontier and maybe one day discover strange new worlds.
And yes, their bailiwick is indeed all about rocket science.
But today, well, the pressure on NASA isn't about, say, having a manned mission touching down on Mars.
No, these days it's all about gender pronouns and bending the knee to witch hunts carried out by the spirit unicorn mafia.
And what's next for NASA, being forced to embrace critical race theory?
You know, I think that might be a good thing, actually, folks.
I mean, why are the spacesuits and rocket ships always white in color?
Obviously, we got a bunch of white supremacs running the show at Mission Command.
And say, when will the climate change mob come for their pound of flash?
I mean, just look at the carbon footprint created by those rockets upon liftoff.
One Plus One?00:05:35
Surely, somewhere a certain Swedish teenage girl with mental issues weeps.
How dare you?
So you might ask, why should we care?
Well, here's why, folks.
The inexplicable war on science and scientific institutions is also affecting your children.
Case in point, a TV Ontario article, and by the way, why does the province have its own TV station?
Noted that in June 2021, the province revealed a new de-streamed grade 9 math curriculum containing a preamble that stated, quote, mathematics has been used to normalize racism and marginalization of non-Eurocentric mathematical knowledge, end quote.
Claudette Rutherford lauded the edition, said Rutherford, quote, with respect to anti-racism, anti-colonial language being added to the curriculum, it felt like there was an understanding of our experiences, end quote.
Rutherford, by the way, is the co-founder of something called Parents of Black Children, a Toronto-based advocacy organization.
Now, I have read and reread her quote.
I have no idea what the hell she is talking about, folks.
Indeed, how can something so definitive, something so exact as mathematics, be labeled as racist and colonialist?
One plus one equals two.
It always has and it always will.
Are the anti-racism folk suggesting that sometimes one plus one can equal three or maybe four or five?
After all, a multitude of answers, as opposed to just one concrete answer, albeit the correct answer, is diverse.
And these modern-day Marxists promote that diversity is our strength, no matter what, even when it comes to mathematics, which exclusively deals in absolutes.
It's downright disturbing, assuming you are someone who embraces academic excellence, to see that the math and sciences classes are becoming more like, well, the English classes these days.
You know, grammar is a forgotten art form and spelling doesn't count anymore and nobody fails, of course.
Even if little Johnny or little Janie can't spell cat if you spotted them the C and the T. Don't want to hurt their self-esteem or their feelings after all.
How odd, especially since this anti-science claptrap comes from the same people, I imagine, who have admonished us to, quote, follow the science, end quote, when it comes to COVID-19 protocols these past two years.
You know, wear useless non-medical masks, get jabbed with an experimental vaccine, stay two meters away from one another, etc., etc.
Yet when it comes to long-established science, it appears that even proven ancient equations can be deemed racist and/or colonialist?
Is this a joke?
You know, once upon a time, we could tell the people preaching this hot garbage to take a long walk off a short pier or to kindly check themselves into the local insane asylum.
But today, that too would be considered racist or colonialist or transphobic or something.
So instead, we listen to this deranged mob and we even act on their demands so as not to be seen as insensitive.
But as we continue to cave to these Marxist maniacs hell-bent on social engineering, wokeism, and cancel culture, we do ourselves and society a great disservice.
The world is an increasingly competitive playing field.
Put another way, do you think kids in China are being told there are multiple correct answers for one plus one?
Or that aviation and space travel needs to conform to an LGBTQ plus narrative?
Indeed, when we cozy up to the preposterous idea that one plus one can equal anything other than two, we are increasingly becoming, in the words of John Kennedy Toole, a confederacy of dunces.
Well, the thing about freedom of speech, it's funny that way.
If you want it for yourself, you have to give it to your worst opponent, the person you most detest.
It's funny that way.
And that's the only way freedom of speech works.
You don't need freedom of speech when it's for something innocuous, like the weather or sports, something about which, you know, you're not going to deeply offend someone.
Freedom of speech only counts when it trumps other dear values, values like not offending people, like not being cruel to people.
If we say in advance that those values are more important, then the speech is not free.
Why Freedom of Speech Matters00:15:21
Free, free from what?
Free from the imposition of other values.
That's why it's tough being a free speech advocate.
It's tough being a free speech absolutist, because by definition, the only cases people come to you about are the most atrocious things said.
Joining us now to talk about one such case is our friend Andrew Lawton, host of the Andrew Lawton Show on TNC.news and a good friend of ours.
Andrew, great to see you again.
And you've got your own Substack now, too, don't you?
Yes, over at andrewlawton.substack.com.
Very creatively titled, I know.
Well, and Substack, for folks who don't know, it's a website, but it also emails it to you.
So it's just, it's a great, and they have a real emphasis on free speech.
I just wanted to say that for folks who are curious what Substack is.
Now, Andrew, it's nice to see you.
Your latest item is entitled, Holocaust Denial is Atrocious, but it isn't a crime.
And I would tweak that and say it shouldn't be a crime, because, of course, it has been treated like a crime in Germany.
You can understand there's some historical reasons for that.
But now comes a statement in our liberal government's budget saying that they will make Holocaust denial a crime.
And funny enough, they cite a private member's bill originally drafted by a conservative MP.
Tell me a little bit about this censorship provision sort of tucked away in a weird place in a budget, which is normally about dollars and cents.
Tell me a little bit about this liberal plan.
Yeah, and I think you're right to point out the budget aspect of it.
One of the things that I raised alarm about when the Liberals and NDP announced they were getting into bed on budgetary matters is that if the NDP is agreeing to support any liberal budget, what this actually means is that anything that the Liberals want to get done, they can just slip into a spending bill and the NDP will have to go along with it.
And I said that not realizing how right I would be.
I don't believe government should be in the censoring business at all, but certainly not if you're doing so to do it in a way where you aren't actually going to have the scrutiny and debate as if they were to just come right out and do what they're doing here, which is a bill that will make it a criminal offense to deny the Holocaust, except for in private conversation.
They'll let people privately deny the Holocaust, but not in any public way.
Now, of course, I do not deny the Holocaust.
I believe that the Holocaust is a fact.
In fact, I've led several tours to Israel, and one of the key stops we make every time is to Yad Vashem, which is the Holocaust Memorial and Holocaust Museum.
I've been to the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. several times.
It's quite impressive, too.
I've studied a lot about the Holocaust and about the Second World War in general.
I think there is no doubt that it's true.
In fact, I'm much more certain that the Holocaust happened than I am, say, of the moon landing, which I also, of course, believe happened.
And I think that if someone denies the Holocaust, they're factually wrong.
I think if they're denying the Holocaust, there's a good chance they're doing so to undermine Jews and Jewish claims of persecution, perhaps to justify future claims of persecution.
As Ron Rosenbaum said, a second Holocaust is more likely than a first one because the first one was so unthinkable.
Now it's thinkable.
And now the technology is so much more advanced.
So I think that if anyone is a Holocaust denier, there's a good chance there's a malign purpose to it.
But I also know this, Andrew.
If you don't know the story of the Holocaust like I do, and like I presume you do, I mean, I was taught it as a child in Jewish school by Holocaust survivors.
So I know it in my bones.
But if you've never heard of it before, if you're, let's say, a newcomer to Canada from, I don't know, I'm just going to say from Africa or from Southeast Asia, a place that was very far removed historically and ethnically from the European Holocaust.
If it's not part of your culture, if it had nothing to do, if you're from Burma, if you're from Ghana, really the Holocaust had nothing to do with your country or people.
You may have gone to school without hearing about it.
You come to Canada and you don't know anything about it, and it's this dramatic thing.
I think it's okay to ask questions about it, even skeptical questions, because you're learning about something and you should be allowed to be skeptical.
And not everyone knows it in their bones.
I think to, in advance, say this is something you may not question, that is anti-intellectual.
I think it's unfair to people who actually have some questions about it.
And frankly, it's something Hitler would do.
Yeah, I mean, I don't even take the view that there is a practical reason that, you know, Holocaust denial or an innocent reason behind Holocaust denial.
I take the view that in no way is censorship ever the answer to a problem.
It is the creation of a problem.
And in this case, you have government citing anti-Semitism, which we know is pervasive.
Anti-Semitism is always at the very top of hatred, of hate crimes that do come out.
If you allow censorship to be a response to that, all you're doing is endorsing unfreedom.
You're endorsing this idea that government is the one that gets to decide what people should be allowed to say.
And the concern that I raised with this practically, in that, you know, all of us could say, yes, anti-Semitism is a bad thing.
But to link from that to banning it only endorses government to then ban other things that they assert are bad things.
So conservatives were up in arms, rightfully so, about the anti-Islamophobia motion, M103, back in 2017, I think it was.
And that didn't actually have a direct criminal sanction on speech like this ban on Holocaust denial does.
But you know that this would be used to justify a criminal ban on Islamophobia down the road.
You know, I'm trying to remember the name of the person, but in the early 2000s, there was a Gentile man who, as his major hobby, had, I think it was called the NISCAR Project.
His name is Ken.
I can't remember his last name.
And he basically was a one-man rebuttal machine where he would tackle lies about the Holocaust online.
And he was against censorship because he wanted to answer people's skepticism.
And that's why I gave the opening comments I did, Andrew.
If you say to someone, you may not question this, and they come up with a question that they believe is based on a valid piece of research, or if they have some reason to genuinely be skeptical, the answer is to meet the skepticism with facts and debates and proof and rebuttal.
If you then say to this person, even asking that question is so offensive, it is a crime, you have actually only confirmed for him that it was true.
And you've actually, along the way, confirmed that the Jews have this cosmic control over the world, that you can't criticize the Jews, and that the Jews run the world.
Like one of the anti-Semitic troops, the tropes is that the Jews run the governments, the Jews create the wars, the Jews control the banks, the Jews control, control, control.
And if you ask a question and the answer is a Jewish interest controls you, you have confirmed, you have, and I see people, and I don't know I'm just telling personal stories here instead of really interviewing you.
I have seen people who are omniskeptical, skeptical of everything.
It's a personality trait.
And they ask questions and they indulge in theories.
And if the one thing they get smashed in the face for is challenging the Holocaust, it's going to turn that omniskepticism into a particular anti-Jewish skepticism.
And by the way, I think there's an answer to every question, to every skeptic, to every challenge to the Holocaust.
There's an answer.
So why not answer that?
I just think that this is a fool's errand.
It's anti-intellectual.
It does what an anti-Semite would expect the Jews to do.
And I think also this precedent will be used against the Jews themselves.
Don't think that this is where it'll stop.
Soon it'll be against the criminal law to be Islamophobic, which will be defined as being skeptical of Islam itself.
I don't know.
I just think that this is very appalling.
And I'm especially appalled that it was a conservative MP who came up with the idea.
Yeah, and also, I mean, we mentioned the Islamophobia case here, transphobia.
In the UK, you have examples of police knocking on people's doors because they tweeted something insanely controversial like, oh, you know, men are biological men or something like that.
Women are biological women.
So what happens when transphobia becomes something that we have a specific criminal sanction for?
All of a sudden, you have this idea that has been licensed to government.
Government has a license to censor and purge anything they think are bad thoughts or bad questions from discourse.
And there's a political dimension to this, too, because like you, I absolutely believe the proof of the Holocaust that 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis is irrefutable.
I've spent time at the Holocaust Museum in Jerusalem.
I've interviewed Holocaust survivors.
Holocaust denial is a perfect example of this because I don't believe that Holocaust denial is constructive speech in any way.
I don't believe it contributes anything to the marketplace of ideas.
But I believe that free speech is inherently good because freedom is inherently good.
And what the liberals are doing, we know their favorite pastime is calling everyone Nazis and racists.
So, I mean, they're doing this because anyone who opposes it, they'll just say, oh, well, they must be a Holocaust denier.
Yeah.
You know, I was deeply involved in some of these free speech battles almost 20 years ago when the Western Standard magazine, which at the time was a print publication which I ran, when we published the Danish cartoons, it was a whole big debate.
And back then, there was still some freedom in the cultural industries.
Most journalists were still for freedom back then.
The pendulum has swung 180 degrees in those 15 years.
But I still remember the head of the gay lobby group, Egal.
His name was Jilmar Schildin.
And to this day, I remember his principled statement because he came out against censorship.
And I don't think that the, I mean, you mentioned the trans movement.
They're extremely about censorship now.
But here's what Jilmar Schildin, the gay activist, said 15 years ago when these issues came up during the battle over the Danish cartoons.
He said, here's three reasons, he said, not to ban hate speech.
Wow, coming from a gay activist, I'd like to hear this.
Well, I remember what they are because it made such an impression on me.
The first thing he said is he wants to know who the bigots are.
If you ban people from saying mean things about gays, about Jews, well, then they're sort of having it in secret.
You haven't changed their mind.
You just made them more careful about it.
So the first thing is he wanted to know what people thought so he could adjust his behavior accordingly.
The second thing, and this is sort of what I was alluding to about someone coming to Canada who doesn't know about the Holocaust for bona fide reasons, or someone who grew up and just maybe missed that day in school, like just genuine questions.
How do you know it was 6 million instead of 5 million or 7 million?
On the face of it, that's not a malicious question.
It's a real question.
How did you get, is it 6 million exactly or 6.1?
Did you round down or round up?
Like, I know those sound like crazy questions, but they're real questions, or they at least could be.
And what Jilmar Schildin said was, every time someone asks a question, that's a moment to educate them, a moment to tell them, a moment to show them.
And if someone gets it wrong, instead of smashing them, show the 10 people watching or the million people watching why it's wrong.
So reason number one, he wanted to know who the bigots were.
Reason number two is every act of, quote, hate is actually a teachable moment, and not everyone knows the answers.
Why don't we stone gays to death?
Why don't we throw Jews in the why is this anti-Semitic about the Holocaust?
And then the third reason he said I think is my favorite.
He said, when you criminalize something, you outsource to government, which should really be something that we each do in our own lives in our own sphere of influence.
If someone says something racist or anti-gay or anti-Semitic, the answer is not to rush to the phone and dial 911 and start a two-year criminal investigation and prosecution.
It's to say, whoa, buddy, we don't tell jokes like that in the office, or whoa, that's wrong.
We don't talk that way here.
It's to personally be involved in setting the customs of politeness and tolerance, whether it's your workplace or your sports team or a restaurant or whatever.
To outsource to the government this personal problem is absurd, unworkable, makes a federal case out of what could be solved locally, and it actually relieves you from your own duty.
So I just thank you for giving me a minute.
Wanted to remind you those three compelling reasons.
They were said by Gilmar Shildon 15 years ago for why he was against the censorship of anti-gay commentary.
And I adopt completely his arguments for why I would not censor any Semitic commentary.
I'm not saying I would roll over and enjoy it.
I want to know who the bigots are.
I want to debate them.
And I don't want to outsource to the government, you know, what's right and wrong.
Yeah, you're right that everyone wants to abdicate their own responsibility to government.
And this is true of cancel culture.
I mean, I obviously am vociferously opposed to cancel culture, but the absolute worst form is state-mandated cancel culture.
So, you know, we can have all the libertarian discussions about, you know, venues that decide I don't want to host this type of speech.
But we can all agree that the very worst thing is when government says that type of speech is not allowed.
And a lot of these censors don't just want the free market to operate.
They want government to be the censors.
And cancel culture advocates, most of them would say they actually want the state to be censoring people, but it's in the absence of that that they try to go the cancel culture route.
So I think that's true, whether you're talking about Holocaust denial.
A lot of the Jewish groups that are speaking up that have a very narrow focus on anti-Semitism, understandably, I would tell them to be very cautious about going down the road of endorsing censorship just because you feel it serves that immediate end of getting rid of anti-Semitism.
Censorship does not ever, ever purge the underlying thoughts and the underlying bigotries.
Yeah, I mean, one of the things a lot of people know is that Hitler himself was prosecuted, or sorry, the laws of the Weimar Republic had a form of hate speech laws as well.
And they were censorship laws and they were anti-sedition and anti-incitement laws.
Obviously, they didn't work.
You know what?
When I was still polite company, I was invited to a student conference about censorship and freedom of speech.
Anti-Hate Laws and Dictatorships00:06:17
And there was even a Supreme Court judge there at the time.
And there was a kid in the audience who said he came from Rwanda, and I believe him.
And he talked about the civil war there, the Hutus and the Tutsis.
And he said to me, you know, the teacher called on people of any ethnicity, put their hand up in the class, and there was a demonization.
And he said, boy, I wish we had anti-hate laws there.
And I want to tell you what I said to him.
I said, if there was an anti-hate law there, who would be enforcing it?
It would be the government that would enforce it.
And they would enforce it against you, not against the teacher.
The teacher would be the instrument of the government.
And if there was an anti-hate law in Germany in 1940, Hitler would use it against the Jews.
If there was an anti-hate law, like whoever is in power, like you're not going to have an anti-hate law in a dictatorship that's used to protect you from the dictator.
It'll just be an excuse that the dictator uses to get you.
I mean, everyone thinks that they're going to be holding the whip or the gun when there's censorship, but it is by definition going to be the biggest bully in the room.
It's going to be the government, the imposing, punishing, violent government that holds the stick.
I don't know.
I'm not sure if I convinced him, but I don't think he had ever thought it that way.
He thought this piece of paper with these words on it would have stopped the bullets that were being shot at me and my family.
No, mate.
They would have been used by the people with the bullets shooting at you.
Andrew, I've talked more than I've listened to this interview, but let me ask you this.
How certain is it that this will pass, given the coalition between Trudeau and Jagmeet Singh?
Is this pretty much a done deal?
I fear it is.
I mean, it's always possible that once the committee process unfolds, that there may be some pushback on this, which is why I think there needs to be a lot of pressure to groups that have been supporting this because they're against anti-Semitism.
People like Seeja and Erwin Kotler and other voices that I think need to understand that you're not going to prohibit anti-Semitism by prohibiting Holocaust denial.
All you're doing is giving government license to further expand over time its creep of censorship, which we know is going to be applied to a lot more people than just those who deny the Holocaust.
And the line that I used in my newsletter here, if I can plagiarize myself and share it here, is that it's a very simple point and it's very childish for a reason sounding: that if you don't defend the rights of bad people, the rights aren't there when the good people need them.
Yeah.
Well, let me ask one last question on that note, and thanks for sticking around while I yap so much.
But, you know, I mean, I just have been thinking about these things for really, really my whole life, ever since I was in law school and they tried to throw me out for writing a column in the student newspaper.
Are there any people opposing this in the whole country?
I mean, 30 years ago, you might see the Canadian Civil Liberties Association against it.
I'm sure they're not against it now.
30 years ago, you'd probably see some members of the Liberal Party saying, I don't like this, but I'm for free speech.
I don't think you're going to see a Conservative Party MP speak out against this because they would be worried about being called a Nazi.
Is there a single institution or person in authority or power in this country who will stand up against this and say, obviously, they're not for Holocaust denial, but neither are they for censorship?
Is there a single person in the country who will be against this?
I haven't heard it yet.
I'm not saying there isn't, but I haven't heard it yet.
Yeah.
Well, Andrew, keep up the fight for freedom.
You're one of the few and the brave.
Great to see you again.
And likewise.
There he is, Andrew Lawton.
Sign up for his sub stack.
If you don't know what that is, that's basically a blog that gets emailed to you.
It's great.
And they believe in free speech still, thank goodness.
And of course, you can see Andrew at tnc.news.
Stay with us.
Well, folks, lots of feedback regarding last night's monologue by the big boss man, Ezra Levent.
Michael Carrera writes: Rebel is one of very few places left in Canada when you can get the truth about what's happening in our country.
Well, thank you very much for that, Michael.
And isn't it funny there are forces afoot?
Yeah, Justin Trudeau, I'm talking about you that are enacting legislation so that we can't get the truth out.
Little wonder, seven years ago, Justin Trudeau said he has admiration for the basic dictatorship that is China.
He's trying to turn Canada more into a China than what Canada really is and should be.
Wokeness is nothing more than an excuse to give people a shield to be mean and cruel to each other.
Armor for false virtues.
Who said this, you may ask?
It was Elon Musk.
Indeed, you know, I think Elon Musk is becoming a champion for free speech these days.
He has almost 10% of Twitter.
I hope he gets more.
I hope he gets control of that company and reverses the outrageous censorship we have seen on that platform in the last few years.
Europe Europe writes: How can Trudeau do it without agreement of parliament?
Trudeau wants a dictatorship, not a democracy.
Well, one of the factors, of course, is Jugmeet Singh endlessly propping up the prime minister who would be dictator.
But as much as Justin Trudeau has an ambition to make Canada more, you know, China-like, well, we still have the courts.
We will still challenge outrageous and egregious decisions by this government all the way up to the Supreme Court if need be.