Ezra Levant and Janine Eunice of the NCLA dissect the leaked U.S. Supreme Court draft overturning Roe v. Wade (1973), with Justice Samuel Alito’s majority arguing abortion lacks constitutional precedent, returning authority to states—a 5-4 shift. They contrast this with Canada’s government-funded, unrestricted abortion model and warn of left-wing violence targeting judges, while noting COVID-era mandates similarly eroded public trust in unelected power. Trudeau dodges questions on the U.S. Disinformation Governance Board, but Canadians reject state-led oversight, fearing bias. The episode frames judicial clarity as a democratic corrective to decades of imposed policies. [Automatically generated summary]
You probably heard that the U.S. Supreme Court had one of its decisions leaked by someone before it was ready, and it shows that they're striking down the nationwide abortion ruling called Roe v. Wade.
I'll take you through the ruling, very interesting, and some of the political ramifications.
Then we'll talk to Janine Eunice, our favorite U.S. lawyer, about it.
I'd like you to get the video version of this podcast.
Go to RebelNewsPlus.com and click subscribe.
It's $8 a month.
And not only do you get my show every day, but on a weekly basis, there's four other shows we do.
So really, in any given month, that's 20 shows from me, another 16 shows from my friends, that 36 shows for $8 a month.
Come on, that's pennies a glass.
Go to RebelNewsPlus.com because I want to let you know the $8 a month.
We don't get any government money, so we really rely on that to keep going.
All right, here's today's podcast.
Tonight, a leaked document from the U.S. Supreme Court says that judges have overturned Roe v. Wade the abortion ruling.
It's May 3rd, 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 that happens is government.
But why publish them?
It's because it's my bloody right to do so.
Last night, a draft court judgment from the U.S. Supreme Court was leaked to a journalist who published it.
It's unprecedented that such internal deliberations are leaked to the public.
To be clear, the draft ruling hasn't been finalized yet.
It hasn't been published yet.
It was leaked.
That's really no different than hacking something.
It's theft.
It's not just theft, though.
It undermines the integrity of the courts, undermines their reputation and prestige.
And of course, it must make judges and clerks of the court not trust each other.
This truly is a scandal.
The court ruling is this one here.
You can see it on the Politico website.
It's called Dobbs versus Jackson Women's Health.
It's from Mississippi.
It's an abortion case.
So you can see why there's political intrigue.
And the draft ruling, which was dated in February, repeals Roe v. Wade, the 1973 court decision that declared abortion to be a constitutional right in a 7-2 ruling back then.
Until that point in time, abortion laws varied from state to state.
This was a federal court, the Supreme Court of the United States, that just took that power away from the states.
It was an immensely political decision back then, still is, obviously.
And this leaked draft document, if it's to be believed, and if the five judges who support the new ruling are not scared off now, it will be undoing Roe v. Wade because of that.
I want to read parts of this draft ruling to you now.
This is written by Samuel Alito, who was appointed to the court by George W. Bush.
I really learned a lot from this ruling.
I find U.S. Supreme Court rulings to be so clear and understandable as opposed to Canadian court rulings.
Let me read passages of it to you, just because I'm going to guess that if you rely on the Globe and Mail or the CBC, you probably won't ever know what these five judges actually said.
You'll probably hear that they're just banning abortion.
That's actually the opposite of what they're doing.
They're just saying the Supreme Court of the United States does not have the power to make decisions on such matters.
It's up to the states.
Let me read from the beginning.
Abortion represents a profound moral issue on which Americans hold sharply conflicting views.
Some believe fervently that a human person comes into being at conception and that abortion ends an innocent life.
Others feel just as strongly that any regulation of abortion invades a woman's right to control her own body and prevents women from achieving full equality.
Still others in a third group think that abortion should be allowed under some but not all circumstances.
And those within this group hold a variety of views about the particular restrictions that should be imposed.
For the first 185 years after the adoption of the Constitution, each state was permitted to address this issue in accordance with the views of its citizens.
Then in 1973, this court decided Roe v. Wade.
Even though the Constitution makes no mention of abortion, the court held that it confers a broad right to obtain one.
It did not claim that American law or the common law had ever recognized such a right, and its survey of history ranged from the constitutionally irrelevant, e.g. its discussion of abortion in antiquity, to the plainly incorrect, e.g. its assertion that abortion was probably never a crime under the common law.
After cataloguing a wealth of other information having no bearing on the meaning of the Constitution, the opinion concluded with a numbered set of rules, much like those that might be found in a statute enacted by a legislature.
Under this scheme, each trimester of pregnancy was regulated differently, but the most critical line was drawn at roughly the end of the second trimester, which at the time corresponded to the point at which a fetus was thought to achieve viability, i.e., the ability to survive outside the womb.
Although the court acknowledged that states had a legitimate interest in protecting potential life, it found that this interest could not justify any restriction on pre-viability abortions.
The court did not explain the basis for this line, and even abortion supporters have found it hard to defend Roe's reasoning.
One prominent constitutional scholar wrote that he would vote for a statute very much like the one the court ended up drafting if he were a legislator, but his assessment of Roe was memorable and brutal.
Roe was not constitutional law at all and gave almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.
At the time of Roe, 30 states still prohibited abortion at all stages.
In the years prior to that decision, about a third of the states had liberalized their laws, but Roe abruptly ended that political process.
It imposed the same highly restrictive regime on the entire nation, and it effectively struck down the abortion laws of every single state.
That's all very interesting history, isn't it?
It kind of puts things into perspective.
It was a judicial coup in 1973.
It was seven men deciding to make a decision for 50 states instead of letting those 50 states rule themselves.
Let me read a little bit more.
I find this very interesting, don't you?
We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled.
The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely, the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.
That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.
The right to abortion does not fall within this category.
I won't read much more, but boy, does it go into the history of abortion and the history of abortion laws?
It won't surprise you to know that it has generally, even universally, been illegal until the sexual revolution.
If you have time to read the ruling, please do.
You can find it very easily online.
But what you will find is that although the five judges are clearly against abortion, morality is not the basis for their ruling.
They're simply saying the 1973 ruling that invented a constitutional right to abortion out of thin air is junk law, and it's for the states.
I'll read some more.
The inescapable conclusion is that a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the nation's history and traditions.
On the contrary, an unbroken tradition of prohibiting abortion on pain of criminal punishment persisted from the earliest days of the common law until 1973.
Now, of course, Democrats and prohibition advocates will hate this rule, but surely this comes down to the question, do you think that you should be ruled by a vote of seven unelected judges or nine or whatever?
Or should millions of people get to make these decisions together?
Joe Biden had something to say about that today.
There's so many fundamental rights that are affected by that.
And I'm not prepared to leave that to the whims of the public at the moment, in local areas.
Well, some people like to be ruled, I guess.
I mean, I guess we have to be ruled in some way, but I think the American way is a more democratic way, a grassroots way, a way of checks and balances, not of kings and tyrants.
I know that for two years, King Anthony Fauci had his way, but I note that the Supreme Court struck down many of those fiats and orders for that very same reason.
You just simply can't cook up a law on your own, whether you're a judge or a bureaucrat.
There are rules.
There is democracy.
It's a republic.
If you believe in an abortion law, one that bans abortion, one that limits abortion, one that permits abortion, whatever, at least do it according to your system, according to the law, according to the Constitution.
Of course, here in Canada, we don't have as much democracy as they have in America.
Let me read from the very end of this ruling.
We end this opinion where we began.
Abortion presents a profound moral question.
The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each state from regulating or prohibiting abortion.
Roe and Casey arrogated that authority.
We now overrule these decisions and return the authority to the people and their elected representatives.
There you go.
So it's not an abortion ban.
I wonder how many people think there is or think there will be if this draft ruling is ever actually issued.
People are just going nuts, though.
Here's, and for good reason.
But don't forget that it started with the crime.
Let me read from the Chief Justice.
He issued this statement today.
He said he's going to get police to investigate the leak.
But I'm going to make a prediction right now, the leaker will reveal himself before he's caught.
I'm guessing that the leaker is a clerk to a left-wing judge.
I'm guessing that within hours he will have a GoFundMe crowdfund that'll raise millions of dollars for him from every pro-abortion activist in the country who now thinks of him as their hero.
I think he'll be given the best Democratic Party lawyers around.
I don't think he's going to be banished or denounced.
I think he'll do the opposite.
I think he'll do the talk show circuit.
He'll do the law school circuit.
He'll be a millionaire, a hero.
Biden has said he'll immediately call for a law doing what Roe v. Wade did.
But not every Democrat supports that.
Or at least not every Democrat supports how that would have to be forced through the system.
I mean, two conservative-leaning Democrats have already said they won't go along with this procedural sledgehammer required to do that.
Joe Manchin, a senator from West Virginia, that's the most conservative state in America, but he's a Democrat.
He's a fit for the state.
Even if New York and D.C. agree with him, that's America for you.
50 states that get to make up their minds.
Other states think abortion is a sacrament.
I mean, look at this story.
Breaking.
Newsome lawmakers say California Constitution should explicitly protect abortion rights.
They're pitching a constitutional amendment on the November ballot.
Now, I don't know if that will work.
I think Newsome might be mistaking woke opinion for general public opinion.
I'm not sure, for example, that abortion is quite as loved by, say, the Latino community, who are generally more Catholic.
But again, that's really what the court was saying here.
Each state can make up their own rules that fit with their own state.
So that's the substance of the ruling.
But what about the politics of it?
Well, within hours, protesters started to surround the Supreme Court itself to protest, sure, but I think there's more than a whiff of menace about it.
I mean, when Trump's supporters all came to the Capitol, it was called an insurrection.
But Trump was evil in the eyes of the media.
What will the media call this public uprising?
And what will they say if it gets violent as so many left-wing protests have in the past?
I mean, look at this.
This is stunning.
This is a Democrat running for attorney general, the top law enforcement man in Florida.
He says, it's time for a revolution.
Oh, really?
Here's a top Democrat.
You probably recognize the name, Maria Shriver.
She says, but here we are.
So you say you want a revolution?
Well, we have one here right now.
I mean, there's some weirdness too.
Look at this New York Times contributor here, Amanda Duarte.
Look what she says.
She says, I do wonder how these white supremacist lawmakers would feel if their little white daughters were raped and impregnated by black men.
Holy moly.
Sister, I think you might be the racist.
Or are you saying that the judges are racist?
Who?
Clarence Thomas?
Is he the racist?
One here?
How weird is that?
That's his wife, Ginny Thomas.
You know, the left used to love the court when it did political favors for them.
Now they hate it when it undoes their politics.
By the way, that may well be Trump's greatest legacy in the addition of the Middle East peace.
He appointed a number of those judges.
Watch for the Democrats try to emasculate the court to undermine its morality, to pack it with more judges.
It's going to be a big battle, and I'm jealous of that battle.
At least Americans are allowed to debate these things in the media, in the courts, now in the legislatures.
Good for Gavin Newsome.
At least he's being democratic about it.
Now, some are going to win those arguments, or some are going to lose those arguments.
I think it'll be different in different states.
West Virginia is going to be different than Massachusetts, but everyone in America will know that they have the chance to be heard and to try to convince their neighbors of their point of view.
That's what democracy looks like.
We are not allowed those rights here in Canada.
Not in the courts, not in the media, not in our legislatures.
It's an artificial unanimity up here.
Abortion Legal Until Viability00:03:58
Look at this.
In a memo to Conservative MPs, Candace Bergen's office instructed MPs that the party would not comment on the leaked U.S. court decision that could overturn abortion rights in that country.
Oh, okay, got it.
By the way, Canada's current legal position is far more extreme than Roe v. Wade, which says that abortion is legal until the fetus becomes viable.
In Canada, I'm not sure if you know this, but abortion is legal at any moment from conception until birth for any reason or no reason.
You could abort a baby girl if you don't like girls.
It's funded by the government even.
And that's the Conservative Party's position, too.
Identical to the Liberals and the NDP.
Joe Biden doesn't believe in that.
He's not that extreme.
But you have to laugh.
The people who just spent two years telling you that you have no privacy about your medical decisions, medical procedures, are now saying women should have privacy about their medical procedures.
People who spent two years telling you you had to submit to political decisions about your body are now saying that that's immoral.
The people who say there's no such thing as a woman now say there very much is such thing as a woman and that men should shut up.
Really, stay with us.
We'll talk to our favorite U.S. lawyer about this thing.
Welcome back.
Well, holy cow, what a big issue.
I mean, abortion is really the keystone issue for Democrats in the United States and for liberals and New Democrats in Canada.
It is an essential, it's almost a sacrament.
Funny enough, according to the ruling itself, in every state of the union, abortion was criminalized just 100 years ago.
Different states had different approaches until Roe v. Wade dealt with it all from a federal level.
This is a shock to the political class in America, where lockdowns and inflation in Ukraine, there were a lot of issues.
I think this is going to be what the Dems want to campaign on.
Here's our friend Janine Eunice on Twitter today.
She says, if this draft decision turns out to be the real decision, there is now a real chance Republicans will not sweep the midterms as they undoubtedly would have.
They may even lose.
This means that Democrats will believe that they can implement COVID restrictions with no consequences.
Janine Eunice joins us now via Skype from the headquarters of the new Civil Liberties Alliance, where she's a lawyer.
Great to see you again, Janine.
Great to see you too, Ezra.
You know, it's funny.
I bet there's a lot of overlap between people who today are saying, my body, my choice, keep your laws off my body, and people who 10 minutes ago were for mask mandates and vasks mandates, people who now are talking about privacy, who demanded that every American and Canadian reveal their personal health choices to clerks and doormen.
I tell you, I'm dizzy from the acrobatics.
What do you make of this?
Well, yeah, it's the sort of hypocrisy I've been talking about the entire time.
The only thing I disagree with your statement there was until 10 minutes ago, I think these people are still pro-mask mandate and pro-vaccine mandate.
I don't think they've changed at all, or I don't think they're willing to recognize the hypocrisy of their position.
And actually, one really interesting thing I think is worth pointing out is, I mean, the vaccine has, COVID vaccine has not been tested.
There have been no randomized controlled studies conducted on pregnant women.
And yet these people were fine with mandating vaccines for pregnant women, but now all of a sudden they care about pregnant women's right to choose.
And, you know, I should make clear, I actually, you know, I'm probably in the anti-mandate camp.
I'm a rare person who is actually pro-choice, philosophically speaking.
Unenumerated Rights Revealed00:04:30
I don't think Roe v. Wade was a legally sound decision.
So this doesn't bother me that much.
And again, this is assuming that this is the real decision.
We don't actually know.
This is an unprecedented leak, and it may not end up being the decision that comes down from the court.
Yeah, it was dated in February, which is interesting because I guess I never really thought carefully about how these decisions are crafted and how there's a back and forth amongst the judges and their clerks.
This may be the first time that a leak like this, at least in modern times, has happened.
And it feels a little bit like a political operation designed to switch the conversation nationally, designed to undermine political support for the Supreme Court, maybe to set the stage for Joe Biden to pack the court.
I don't know.
It feels like it's a challenge to the court itself.
I mean, the Chief Justice today says he's going to hire marshals to look into the leak.
Boy, I hope he didn't come from an actual judge.
Hopefully it was just a clerk, but that would be quite something.
What do you make of the move to break the, I mean, listen, it was interesting to me that Justice Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who were so opposite ideologically, had a genuine friendship during their whole, like, I think there is a collegiality on that court, despite ideological differences.
This feels like that was smashed a bit today.
Yeah, well, I think times have changed too since then, but I suspect it was a clerk.
And I think there are two interpretations.
One is that it's a pro-choice clerk who saw themselves as sort of a hero for breaking this and possibly being able to change the course of things by doing so or getting, you know, Democrats very riled up about it.
The other interpretation is it's a right-wing clerk who sought to sort of solidify the decision by leaking it.
I tend to think it's probably the first one.
That's just sort of what my gut tells me.
I might be wrong.
And it could be entirely different.
I would be really surprised if it was a judge, really surprised.
Yeah, well, I hope that's not the case.
That would, I mean, there's a lot of institutions that have debased themselves over the last two years.
The Supreme Court, I think, has actually conducted itself fairly admirably.
I think both sides of the aisle might say that.
If it were a judge, God forbid, I think that would shatter a lot of trust in the institution.
Now, I see immediately that the deep blue states, California, for example, they're saying, well, they're going to fill the gap right away.
I think that's true.
I think Gavin Newsome, he mentioned he wanted to make a ballot initiative.
I wouldn't be surprised if in the blue states, those pass handily.
And I mean, what I read from this ruling is the judges are saying, sorry, we can't do this.
We don't have the power to do this.
We have to be on guard for our own ideological enthusiasms.
Let the states and their people do this.
And Gavin Newsom of California is saying, yeah, we'll do it.
That's sort of how it's supposed to work under the Constitution, isn't it?
So if you had all the blue states saying we're going to do this, and you have the red states saying, well, we're not going to do it or we're going to limit it in this way, 50 different states, 50 different approaches.
I think that's the American way.
I think so.
And that's one reason that even though, as I said, I'm philosophically pro-choice, I'm not upset by this at all if it turns out to be the real decision.
I actually think I've always disagreed with Roe v. Wade's legal reasoning.
I don't think it's very sound.
I mean, essentially, Roe v. Wade said that there's a right to privacy in the Constitution that recognizes the right to abortion, even though it's not enumerated.
And I can't get, I just can't get on board with that.
Now, I do agree with that in certain other contexts.
So I don't know if you guys have anything similar, but we have, you know, what are called unenumerated rights.
They're considered so fundamental that the Constitution doesn't explicitly mention them, but we understand them to exist, such as the right to parent your own child.
Now, if a state came and, you know, a state came down with the law and said, we can take your kids away anytime if we think it's in their best interest, I think most people would agree.
Well, the Constitution doesn't allow that.
But that's, you know, sort of fundamentally different from abortion, which is controversial, has always been controversial, hasn't even been, you know, historically, has been conducted in certain ways, hasn't always been possible in a safe way.
So I think to read that into the Constitution in the same way, for example, the right to parent your own children is, is just not, it's not really honest.
And so, yeah, it's a political, it's really a political thing.
Their decision was political.
And so I actually don't think overturning it is the worst thing.
Worrisome Supreme Court Decision00:07:10
Yeah.
I learned a lot from the ruling.
I mean, it was a lot of history about the history of abortion and the law.
And I think the reason why Justice Alito went to such lengths is that these, you know, discovering new freedoms tucked away in the Constitution that were not enumerated.
You mentioned the right to parent your own kids.
It has to be so open and so obvious and so historically Like the backdrop to our lives, that no one could possibly for a second say, Hey, you're trying to smuggle in your own agenda.
Something so obvious, we didn't bother to mention it because, of course, that's the way it is.
And I think, I mean, what struck me by the depth of historical, you know, well, here's what happened with the law of abortion, here's how abortion has been treated historically.
I think that was the justice's way of saying, Look, this is not one of those super obvious things that you know was too obvious to put into print.
This is a very novel thing, and it should be left to legislators in the states.
I don't know if anyone is taking that nuanced position other than you.
I mean, the democracy, I mean, I'm just sitting here, I just got an email from the ACLU.
I guess I'm on their list.
They're fundraising, they're very excited.
They're going to make a mint off this.
And the Democrats finally are changing the subject from the price of gas or from supply chain issues.
I think a lot of people are getting their itches scratched.
They're happy to be back on this turf again politically.
Yeah, I agree.
And I mean, one thing that worries me, as I said in the tweets, is that a lot of people, this is a very important issue to a lot of people, a lot of libertarians and a lot of moderate Democrats and even moderate Republicans, who I think were very sick of the COVID restrictions, did not want their kids in masks, didn't want to be forced to take vaccines, and were ready to vote Republican.
And now maybe we'll think twice.
So that's the way in which I see this could be a problem.
Yeah, I think you could be right.
This will definitely be emphasized.
I mean, the media is going wall-to-wall.
This is you would think, because it really is a stunning thing to have someone within the close circle.
It's almost like the Vatican.
It's almost like a conclave of the cardinals, and someone leaked the vote for the new Pope or something.
I mean, that's how it looks from the outside.
What's interesting is that there are some states that are very much against abortion.
I think I saw a clip from Joe Biden saying this is too important to be left to the public.
Well, there's different publics in different places.
I mean, I think there are some states, I'll just West Virginia, where Joe Manchin's from, where pro-life is the view of the people, and others like San Francisco.
I mean, that's most of California.
It'll be interesting to me.
I think people who want abortion restrictions will get them, and people who don't won't get them.
And who knows?
I mean, I think you're going to see a race to fill the gap.
I wonder if this will still be a hot issue in November if all the blue states go ahead and enact their own rules.
Oh, I think it will be.
I mean, it's such a people feel so strongly about it.
So I think it will continue to be an issue.
I think that Democrats will still be upset if it's illegal in red states, and the red states will be upset that the Democrats are allowing it.
I don't actually think this issue is really going to go away.
But I do think that this is the best possible solution to it.
And another very interesting thing about it is that the court very, very, very rarely explicitly overrules precedent.
And it did so here.
It said we are overruling Roe v. Wade.
We think it was wrong.
And in very sort of scathing terms, which I haven't seen before, actually.
I mean, the closest example is Plessy versus Ferguson that was overruled in Brown versus Board of Education about segregation in schools.
But, you know, other than that, the sort of explicit and scathing overruling is really rare.
Yeah, it's very interesting.
I tell you, one thing I can say about your American Supreme Court, in which it's much superior to our own Canadian Supreme Court, is the clarity of the writing.
And I mean, your judges are intelligent.
Those clerks are the best of the best in America.
I mean, if you're a Supreme Court justice clerk, you are truly a star.
And the clarity, I mean, maybe, and I say this not just for the judges, I agree with.
I mean, reading those court cases is typically a pleasure.
In Canada, I mean, it's not as bad as it used to be, but you might have a 300-page ruling and dissents from the dissents, and it's just so bloody complicated and abstruse.
You know, so many U.S. Supreme Court rulings are actually a pleasure to read and accessible to the layman, I think.
I think it would be a bloody shame if the Supreme Court was smashed.
over this.
I see crowds gathering.
I see security barricades going up around the Supreme Court.
I think this was, as you suggest, likely an attempt to pressure the judges to, you know, maybe some of the wobbly judges not to do this.
I'm sure there will be death threats.
I'm sure there already have been.
How does this square with the talk of the January 6th, oh my God, Donald Trump wanted an insurrection?
Oh my God, they were charging the buildings.
I think now you're going to see, if not violence on the left, you're going to see tremendous public pressure and threats from the left targeting judges.
I'm actually worried there's going to be violence.
Yeah, I mean, that very well could be.
And it's indicative of sort of an increasing political divide and hostility.
I mean, you mentioned this friendship between Scalia and Ginsburg, which was famous.
And the toxic political divide in this country is just, it's becoming more and more of a problem.
I mean, as you know, I've lost most of my friends.
I really have almost no friends from before COVID because they disagree with me about my views on this.
And there's just no, there's no understanding that people could view these issues differently, that it could be reasonable.
I mean, look, I said to a couple of my friends today who are very upset about the decision, reasonable minds can differ.
I understand why you feel that way.
I don't feel that way because this is how I see it.
But most people don't seem capable of doing that anymore.
It's all very personal, and you're a bad person if you don't see things the way that I do.
So yeah, violence could very well be the result.
You know, and I mean, I hate to say that, and I'm not lusting for that in any way.
I'm actually genuinely worried about it.
I think that, you know, I look at the footage of the January 6th insurrection.
A friend of mine calls it the great meandering.
You had sort of that guy with the moose hat or whatever just sort of wandering around and some people put their feet up on Nancy Pelosi's desk.
It was more, oh, we're in here.
It didn't feel like a burn the place downride.
I'm not minimizing it, but I'm just saying I think that if violence comes on this issue, there will actually be flames and smashing.
And I don't know.
I think that that would serve the interests of a political class that wants to shift the topic of conversation.
What Is a Woman?00:02:33
It is funny, though, that one of the questions that the newest Supreme Court justice was asked in her confirmation is, what is a woman?
And her answer was, well, I'm not a biologist.
All of a sudden, there's some clarity about what a woman is.
And by the way, if you're not a woman, you're not really allowed to have an opinion on this subject.
Yeah.
I made a joke about that on Twitter, actually, because, you know, there's been all this clips about how women aren't the only one who can get pregnant and blah, blah, blah.
So, or, you know, whatever, all this confusion over the trans stuff.
So, yeah, I made a joke about how this, it's offensive to call this a women's issue since trans women can't get pregnant.
I'm sure some trans men can.
So now I think all of a sudden the left is realizing there actually is something that gender does mean something or biological sex.
You know, I mean, when these issues are taken away from the public square before the debate is fully hashed out, I think there's some pent up emotions and intellectual arguments.
I mean, for a generation or two, everything was frozen because of this precedent.
In Canada, again, it was decided, there was a tie vote in the Canadian Senate.
And so the abortion law failed.
And there is no abortion law in Canada whatsoever because it ended in a tie vote.
And the law was struck down by the Supreme Court.
It went back to the legislature.
ended on a tie vote and it's never been brought up again.
I think people want to talk about them.
I think people can accept rules and laws that they disagree with if they feel like they're heard, if they have a way to influence the world.
That way, if they lose the debate, they know that maybe they weren't convincing enough.
It wasn't a stitch-up.
It wasn't an inside job.
I think that in some ways this could be a healthy thing.
If 50 states allow a rollicking debate on this, allow people to say their will and let people shape their own laws, shape their own states and their own world.
I just think that's morally superior than having seven men in Roe v. Wade invent a constitutional right that maybe hadn't ever been conceived of before.
I don't know.
I think this is a healthy thing.
It's going to be a disaster in the short term politically.
But I don't know.
I can't help but thinking this is the American system working yet again where our own Canadian system fails.
Justifying Means Morally?00:03:05
Last word to you, Janine.
Well, yeah, I agree with that as well.
And I actually think, you know, this sort of comes back to a lot of the COVID stuff where it was agencies making these decisions, agencies using their power in abusive ways, which they really weren't granted by Congress.
And people felt, you know, they were left out of the process.
Why is this exact?
Why is either a governor, a mayor, or an agency saying that I have to wear a mask forever and ever, my kid has to wear a mask forever and ever.
We all have to get vaccines when I don't have any part of this process.
This isn't my elected official.
And so I think you're right.
And it all goes back.
It all goes back to the same issue there.
Yeah.
Well, listen, it's great to see you.
And I know that this isn't really the core of your work.
You've been fighting for freedom on vaccine lockdowns and mandate issues.
But I enjoyed your take on Twitter.
It's great to see you again.
And you guys are one of the true civil liberties groups left in America.
For folks who don't know, it's called the NCLA, New Civil Liberties Alliance.
And Janine, you fight for freedom every day.
It's great to see you again.
Thank you so much.
All right.
All the best.
There she is.
Janine Eunice, stay with us.
more ahead.
Hey, welcome back.
Your letters to me.
Fred Kay says, such a fine representative of the woke left.
They're so confident until they're challenged on the stupid things they say.
Then they panic and throw a temper tantrum, laugh out loud.
Thanks so much for the entertainment.
You're talking about David Menzies interviewing that lady.
I think she was, I think that was a witch's hat.
I think it was a witch's hat with a flower in it, which is a nice springtime touch.
But who was that?
I don't know.
Billy 98 says CBC is more than misinformation hoaxing.
It is real hate speech.
Oh, and those cartoons I showed you yesterday from the Hamilton Spectator, just crazy.
You know, I'll never forget the front page of the Toronto Star, though, when they put up all those hate messages against the unvaxed.
I mean, never give the left the moral authority.
Never grant them, you know, that they're morally better than you.
They're not.
In fact, they're immoral.
You know, it took me a while to realize that accusing the left of hypocrisy, and that's what I did in my monologue.
I said, look, these hypocrites just spent two years saying you don't have the right to bodily autonomy, and now they're all for bodily autonomy.
Ha ha, caught you in hypocrisy.
They don't care about hypocrisy.
You know, if a double standard, accusing someone of double standards, only hurts the feelings of someone who believes in standards.
The hardcore left will do anything, say anything, climb over any dead body, metaphorically speaking, to get their way.
So pointing out their hypocrisy, again, it's a good point, but they don't care about that.
They know they're hypocrites.
They just care about any ends justifying the means.
Turn the end justifying any means.
Someone nicknamed Angry Atheist says, here's a good question.
Would Ezra Levant ever considering hiring an ex-employee from the CBC?
Well, I would, and I did.
Bias and Free Speech Concerns00:07:26
In fact, we had a young lady join us the other day who comes from the CBC, and we had someone else that we hired a few months back, and they accepted, and then they got another offer elsewhere.
Yeah, and if someone's from the CBC, obviously we're going to ask questions about their worldview and about their approach to journalism.
We have some employees that come from unusual backgrounds.
And just last night, actually, I came to terms with a very interesting person from public life who I'm not, he needs some more time to tidy things up before we can announce him joining us.
But I think I would judge someone by the content of their character and their belief and their own personal track record.
Just because someone was affiliated with the CBC doesn't mean that that's a deal breaker.
It certainly means we're going to be skeptical because, you know, if you're working for the state broadcaster, there's certain ideological and narrative requirements there.
Working for Revolution is very opposite.
We're freedom-oriented and we don't take government money.
But the answer to your question is yes.
That's our show for today.
Until tomorrow, let me say goodbye and encourage you to keep fighting for freedom.
But let me invite you to watch this video by Andrew Chapatos.
Would you trust a Justin Trudeau disinformation board?
I'll leave you with that video.
See you tomorrow.
Bye-bye.
Hey guys, Andrew here.
We're at the Yorkville Royal Sinester waiting for Justin Trudeau to arrive.
We want to ask him about the disinformation board the Department of Homeland Security developed in the United States.
And if he agrees with that, we'll see if we can get a question in.
So today we're just asking people about, they just started a disinformation governance board in the United States government.
So the government's going to determine what's disinformation online.
Would you support something like that in Canada?
It's scary.
I understand what they're doing, but it's scary to give them a power to do that.
How do you feel about that?
I feel the same way.
I don't want the government telling me what's disinformation or not.
I don't trust them, to be honest, quite frankly.
I don't think so.
Why not?
I personally don't have some opinion about that, so probably can interview someone else.
Well, you said you don't agree with it, though.
Okay, you can tell me.
You don't trust the government to decide?
No, I don't think so.
Yeah, given a lot of a chaotic situation, I think it's better for people to make our own decisions instead of just have a unionize a voice for sure.
If you've got $800, you can go inside tonight just to let you know.
Oh, that's fine.
So you're okay with the government deciding what's misinformation online and what is not and potentially fining people for posting something they deem as misinformation?
No, so the government wouldn't, that's what I was saying.
There needs to be a private public collaboration where it comes to something like this because again, unfortunately, those in power, the lawmakers in power, don't have an idea of how technology works and misinformation.
And you can't have the watchman sort of watching over that, right?
Then that comes into like censorship and then covering free speech.
So, you know, it's an interesting challenge.
So that's why it needs to be probably like outside the purview of the government.
Like maybe, you know, have an independent board or something.
But yeah, I mean, the government cannot definitely have full autonomy over this.
No, unfortunately, I believe in free speech, period.
So you wouldn't want Justin Trudeau in charge or his people in charge of what's disinformation online?
No.
Any other reasons why?
It's too much power within one organization.
And I just don't trust that with any organization, with any government.
I don't believe the government has rights to do so.
I mean, people have right to talk about what they believe to be true.
So no one had a right to judge if that's misinformation or not.
Like, people choose to believe what they believe.
And it's like right of speech, free speech, right?
For sure.
Any other reason why you wouldn't want to, would it be just Justin Trudeau or any government in general you wouldn't trust?
I say like every government in general.
Not just one particular, but everyone.
It depends.
So you're saying that the government is going to find these people?
Yeah, it's Homeland Security.
So that was established like 20 years ago under the Bush administration, I believe.
And they have a board now headed by one lady who's going to determine what's disinformation online.
Yeah, well, absolutely.
I think that misinformation can be as harmful as anything else.
So, I mean, if the government has to take care of it, I mean, I'm fine.
I'm fine with it.
So, you don't do you see any problems with a bias coming from one government?
Let's say it was Donald Trump's government versus Justin Trudeau's government.
Do you think there would be a bias in either direction?
It will be.
I mean, no matter what, it doesn't, regardless of the platform that you post anything, if they are going to be overlooking this kind of thing, there's going to be bias either way.
So, I don't think there's an issue with that as long as, I mean, if it's an established institution and it doesn't change every government, okay.
So, we mitigate the effects of the bias, but I don't think there's an issue in overlooking what people post online.
It's just a matter of having a reliable and trustworthy institution taking care of it.
Okay, thanks a lot.
Anything else you want to add?
No, that's right.
Have a great night.
All right.
I mean, what does that include?
It's pretty vague right now what the definition of misinformation is, but it's online misinformation is what they're saying that they want to combat.
Yeah, I mean, I think there's a lot of dangers in that, right?
Like, how is it managed and who are the people managing it, right?
Like, for the most part, no, I would say.
I think I'd be a proponent of free speech, but there's limits to that as well.
So, I don't know.
So, would you be afraid of there being a bias, whether it's a Trudeau government or a Biden or somebody else that maybe you or I don't agree with?
Do you think there would be too much bias for the government to decide what's misinformation?
Yeah, of course.
I mean, of course, there's always going to be, like, whoever's managing that, it's just going to be a political bias, like, let's be honest.
Would you be surprised or not surprised if Justin Trudeau tries something like that?
I wouldn't be surprised at all.
Okay.
Any supporters of Justin Trudeau, do you want to say?
Do you think he would try to implement something like that?
I don't think he tried to implement something like that.
I don't think it would go over.
I think he'll test the waters to see if he thinks people will go for it, then he'll go for it.
Okay, $1,800 to get in there tonight if you guys are interested.
Have a great day.
Thank you.
We're stopping all pedestrians.
Okay.
For the arrival?
For sure.
Yeah, I'll just.
Yeah, very cool.
But we're just going to stop everybody in this corner from pedestrian stuff, too.
All right, cool.
We know you're not going to do anything to hurt someone, but we don't know about pedestrians.
Right.
You just have to stop everybody.
Oh, no problem.
So just so you know.
For sure.
Hey, guys, thanks for watching.
Unfortunately, we couldn't get a question into the prime minister.
He didn't come through the front entrance.
Kind of predictable.
Kind of sad from the RCMP that it's that predictable.
But in any event, we did get questions into people about the Disinformation Governance Board at Homeland Security in the United States.
Thankfully, almost everybody we spoke to here in Canada doesn't want to see that.
They think there's too much bias and they don't trust the government to take care of their online content and possibly fine people.