Ezra Levant exposes Ireland’s new censorship law, which bans speech causing "deep discomfort" or inciting hatred—even without harm—while targeting gender identity debates. Green Party Senator Pauline O’Reilly defends it as a "common good" duty, but Levant counters with historical absurdities like equating memes to Holocaust-level violence. Ottawa protests by Muslim parents against transgender curricula reveal a clash: while some oppose gender ideology, others reject homosexuality entirely, with 60-90% of students boycotting Pride-related lessons. Trudeau dismisses parental concerns as "far-right," ignoring broader cultural shifts where immigrant communities may reshape LGBT acceptance, undermining progress through authoritarian overreach. [Automatically generated summary]
I'll take you through it and show you some of its promoters.
But first, let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
That's the video version of this podcast.
Just go to rebelnewsplus.com and click subscribe.
It's eight bucks a month, which might not be a lot to you, but it sure adds up for us.
That's how we survive without Trudeau's grant money.
We'll never take money from Trudeau.
Please go to rebelnewsplus.com.
All right, here's today's show.
Tonight, Ireland jumps ahead in the race to have the most censorship in the free world.
It's June 16th, and this is the Ezra Levant show.
Shame on you, you censorious thug.
Listen to this short clip of a speech from Ireland's legislature.
It's just 41 seconds long.
This is Green Party Senator Pauline O'Reilly.
When you think about it, all law, all legislation is about the restriction of freedom.
That's exactly what we're doing here, is we are restricting freedom, but we're doing it for the common good.
You will see throughout our Constitution, yes, you have rights, but they are restricted for the common good.
Everything needs to be balanced.
And if your views on other people's identities go to make their lives unsafe, insecure, and cause them such deep discomfort that they cannot live in peace, then I believe that it is our job as legislators to restrict those freedoms for the common good.
All law is about the restriction of freedom?
Yeah, no, no, it's not.
Most laws actually don't have anything to do with freedom.
If you skim Canada's Constitution Act, you can see all the things the law deals with.
Unemployment insurance, postal service, census, the military, navigation and shipping, fisheries, currency, coins, banks, weights and measures, bankruptcy, marriage, immigration.
I'll stop there.
Now, of course, some of those absolutely do limit our freedoms.
I mean, if you're jailed under the criminal law provisions, that absolutely does limit your freedom of mobility, for example.
And I'm not here to say the government doesn't infringe our freedoms.
It absolutely does way too much.
But it is an insane thing to say that by definition, all laws are about shrinking your freedom.
And that she said it as if that was the happy point of it, that that was a quality, not a feature, not a bug.
That that's normal and has to be accepted.
She was happy about that.
I mean, I suppose every law does in a way limit our freedom, but not the way she meant it.
And she was thrilled about that.
That's a bully's idea.
It's a madman's idea.
An authoritarian dictator's idea.
There's someone, that's someone who doesn't trust her friends and her neighbors, but wants to rule over them.
She says the word common good so many times, it's like it's a magic spell, like it is sufficient to say that before taking away your neighbor's rights.
I'm doing this, Abra Cadabra, for the common good.
You have to stay in your homes for months.
You have to do that for the common good.
You can't go to school or work or to a park.
You can't have a wedding or a funeral.
You can't go to church for the common good.
You can't have your family over.
You can't have Christmas dinner because of the common good.
Presto.
And these tyrants alone will decide what is or isn't in the common good.
We just lived through three years of that and we found out it wasn't for the common good.
It hurt the common good.
The lockdowns had no scientific basis or benefit.
Neither did the masks.
And the vaccines certainly didn't vaccinate.
These people had no special knowledge.
They just used COVID as the latest excuse for the common good.
They'll use climate as an excuse for the common good.
Now you can see they're using people's feelings as a reason to take away your rights.
Did you catch that part where she said, if your views on other people's identities go to make their lives unsafe and insecure and cause them such deep discomfort that they cannot live in peace, then you can restrict those freedoms.
What?
So if you merely have views that are wrong in the eyes of the law, you must be restricted.
Views.
If your views are wrong, and she'll decide that.
You heard her.
Views about other people's identities.
What?
You can't have an opinion because that will make other people uncomfortable, she says.
She said that.
So you must have your freedom limited because your views cause someone else discomfort.
She said that.
But what if they cause you discomfort, too?
Is only one side of a debate allowed to cause discomfort and only one side, the other side of the debate, required to endure discomfort?
This is madness.
This is not law.
This is totalitarianism in the name of safety.
You know, Jordan Peterson would say this is the modern manifestation of authoritarianism in a female way, a different shade of bullying compared to the typical male authoritarianism, which we've had an eternity of experience.
It's a more recent thing to see female totalitarians, isn't it?
But just think about what we went through during the lockdowns.
Teresa Tam.
Remember her?
If there are people who are non-compliant, there are definitely laws and public health powers that can quarantine people in mandatory settings.
It's potential you could track people, put bracelets on their arms, have police and other setups to ensure quarantine is undertaken.
It is better to be preemptive and precautionary and take the heat of people thinking you might be over-reactionary, get ahead of the curve, and then think about whether you've overreacted later.
But it's such a serious situation that I think decisive early action is the key.
Toronto's public health boss, Eileen Davila, very butch, sending in the riot horses against her restaurant?
You're freed up!
Alberta's Dina Hinshaw expropriating, seizing a church and turning it into an armed garrison.
BC's Bonnie Henry, women can be as vicious as men, I'll have you know.
They frame their bullying in the same sort of way quite often as each other.
This is about safety.
This is about compassion.
It's a different way of being totalitarian than men typically are.
I'm only hurting you because I care more than you.
I'm only being a bully because I'm more compassionate than you.
It's the common good that makes me do it.
In fact, look, it is not for the common good, and all laws should not be about restricting freedom.
Nay, I direct your attention to Canada's basic law, the Constitution, the Charter of Rights, or the U.S. Constitution, or the Magna Carta, on which both were built.
All the laws I just listed are about limiting government power, not limiting citizens' freedom.
The Magna Carta was about forcing limits onto a king.
Here's my favorite part of our Canadian Constitution.
It's section two of the Charter of Rights, which is part of our Constitution.
It's called fundamental freedoms.
I'm going to read them because I love them.
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms.
A, freedom of conscience and religion.
B, freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.
C, freedom of peaceful assembly, and D, freedom of association.
Those are laws that strengthen people and limit the government.
That's the kind of law I like.
By the way, the freedom they mean, freedom of association, freedom of speech, means freedom from government, by the way.
Here's another woman who wants the power to silence people because she cares more than you.
And this is how she shows it.
This is Justice Minister Helen McKentie.
And by the way, only haters hate hate speech laws, you hater.
Take a look.
Minister, yesterday you indicated that the only people who oppose your government's hate speech laws are, quote, fringe commentators.
But of the thousands of replies to your own government's public consultations, 73% were negative.
And according to the last poll done on the subject, 65% of people oppose such laws.
So is it not, in fact, your government that's endorsing the fringe position here?
What I think is very clear, and this is coming from the significant amount of public consultation that we've had in the last four years, consultation that started back in 2018, is that there is a very clear group of minority people in this country who are simply targeted and who are being either victimized or harassed, assaulted, who are victims of hate speech and hate crime simply because of who they are.
So that is very clear.
That is based on fact and that is also based on reports that we have.
Minister with requests.
That's not what I asked.
But I'm sorry, that's not what I asked.
And also, I've gone through every single one of the consultation responses.
There were about 3,600 of them.
And that's really not what they said.
The vast majority of people said they don't want this.
So where are you getting the idea that there's public outcry for this other than government-paid NGOs?
So that's incorrect to say that the vast majority of people don't want this.
I think even if you were to listen to the debate last night in the Shannon and certainly the debate in the Dole, the vast majority of people do want this.
But those are politicians.
We're talking about the general public.
Where's the public at?
I can either answer the question or not.
But I mean, what I'm basing this on is very clear factual evidence.
If you speak to Angarda Shia Kona, there has been a 29% increase in hate crimes across this country.
So while we don't have hate crime legislation.
Recorded hate crimes.
So I didn't quite get the statistic there.
Was it 65% or 73% oppose this hate speech law?
And this justice minister says that people are victimized or harassed or assaulted by hate crimes.
Well, those are three different things.
Victimized, harassed, or assaulted.
Which does she mean?
Which is she banning?
Does she even know?
Here's another censor.
Ireland's full of them, apparently.
Here's Senator Joe O'Reilly.
He actually says that the Holocaust and street violence is really just speech run amok and jokes.
And that jokes have to be censored.
He actually says without this law, which has never been in effect in history, it would be like Lord of the Ring, Lord of the Flies, excuse me, out there, just unlimited violence and cruelty.
Take a look.
The Holocaust began in the very early 30s with hate speech.
It progressed from hate speech to hate crimes.
And that progressed ultimately to the Holocaust.
The attacks on the traveler community do not begin with on the night of the attack.
They begin through the hate speech in pubs and the warm-up and the remarks around the place that give a legitimacy to all this.
The attacks, the homophobic attacks in parks, do not begin on the night.
They begin with homophobic remarks.
They begin with smutty jokes.
They begin with exclusion.
But what happened in Navin, those children didn't get up some morning.
And, you know, they were conditioned.
It's a jokes, it's stuff online, it's stuff from television screens, et cetera.
It's a conditioning that brought them to that dreadful position.
A sort of a Lord of the Flies thing or something that's fed into.
And that has to be considered.
Well, thank God he's here to fix it.
I mean, how has Ireland managed to escape the Nazi Holocaust or the Lord of the Flies wild anarchy without his guidance in this law?
It's amazing that Ireland hasn't had a Holocaust because this law is what would stop the Holocaust.
What a grandiose buffoon.
By the way, this is all about being a battering ram against parents who are concerned about transgenderism being pushed in the schools.
That is what this is all about.
That's the front line of the free speech battle now.
Shutting up parents, which is interesting because Ireland, I read its Constitution today.
It's a very interesting constitution.
It's quite unlike ours.
They have a whole section about the family in the Constitution.
Have you ever heard of that before?
I have not.
Let me read to you Article 41 from the Irish Constitution, which is published in both Irish and English.
I think Senator Pauline O'Reilly, and frankly all of them ought to read it again, it doesn't limit freedom.
It strengthens the family against other forces.
I'm going to read to you, here's Article 41.
It's called the family.
Imagine the Constitution that says that.
One, the state recognizes the family as the natural, primary, and fundamental unit group of society and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.
Do you know what those big words mean?
It means you can't touch it.
It's bigger than and predates and more important than all laws.
I've never seen anything so pro-family in my life.
Number two, the state, therefore, guarantees to protect the family in its constitution and authority as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the nation and the state.
This is in the Irish Constitution.
Are you blown away?
Two, in particular, the state recognizes that by her life within the home, woman gives to the state a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.
There's that term, the common good, and it's by respecting a family and respecting moms.
This constitution says the highest position in the world is a mum.
It's in the Irish Constitution.
Have you ever seen this before?
Protecting Family Values00:11:19
Check it out for yourself.
This is hard to believe, isn't it?
Because we've never heard of such a thing.
That's the common good, isn't it?
The state shall, therefore, endeavor to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labor to the neglect of their duties in the home.
That's interesting.
That is pretty pro-family.
It is indispensable to the welfare of the nation and the state.
That's a bit more oomph than Senator O'Reilly's vague common good.
In fact, it takes ownership of the phrase common good.
But let's look at this proposed law.
And I put it to you that this proposed law will be a battering ram against the family.
That's what it's being used for today.
So this law, it's a reform to a bunch of other laws of criminal nature.
It's got a list of things that you cannot criticize or insult anybody about.
So you can't say something that might offend someone else.
I mean, you heard the senator.
So I'm going to read to you from the law, meaning of protected characteristics.
So you can't pick on anyone for their protected characteristic.
And what does that mean?
In this act, other than in Section 8, protected characteristic in relation to a person or a group of persons means any one of the following, namely race, color, nationality, religion, national or ethnic origin, descent, gender, sex characteristics, sexual orientation, or disability.
But of course, the key is the next section.
They clarify in particular.
Gender means the gender of a person or the gender which a person expresses as the person's preferred gender or with which the person identifies and includes transgender and a gender other than those of male and female.
They don't dare try and list what those are.
Now, so they're basically, they're telling you what this is about.
Gender expression is how you show yourself, but gender identity is just what you say you are.
You can have a big old bloke with a beard and biceps, and you can say, I'm a gal now.
That's called gender identity.
And if you insult that, criticize that, or offend that, you are a criminal under this law.
Hey, but it's for the common good.
Now, look at this funny wording.
The law bans incitement to violence or hatred.
Now, I don't believe in violence at all.
Violence and hatred couldn't be more different in their expressions.
I mean, I suppose they're related because violence sometimes has hatred behind it, but they're very different.
Hatred is a human emotion you feel in your heart.
It's a natural feeling.
It's a subjective occurrence.
We all respond differently to different things in our minds and our hearts.
That's hatred.
The other one, violence, is an act, a criminal act usually, of attacking another person.
You can't compare a feeling in your heart with an action against another person.
You can't compare hate with violence.
But it's obviously done deliberately.
It's criminalizing feelings.
There are surely very, very few actual violent acts in Ireland that would fall under this law.
So this law will keep everyone busy dealing with feelings crimes instead.
They're lumping them together.
I'll read some more.
Offensive incitement to violence or hatred against persons on account of their protected characteristics.
Subject to subsections two, et cetera.
A person shall be guilty of an offense under this section if the person communicates material to the public or a section of the public or behaves in a public place in a manner that is likely to incite violence or hatred.
Well, those are two pretty different things against a person or group of persons on account of their protected characteristics or any of those characteristics.
And the person does so with intent to incite violence or hatred against such a person or group of persons on account of those characteristics or any of them.
I won't read all the fine print there, but basically they're blurring feelings and violence, and then they're adding a likely to.
What does any of that mean?
Like, would you know how to conduct yourself in Ireland now?
If you behave in a way that could incite bad feelings, you're a criminal now.
What does that mean?
Does anyone know what the test for that is?
Well, no, that's the point, isn't it?
So everyone's guilty.
They just have to charge you.
And again, it's a future crime.
Did you see that likely to incite feelings?
So you don't have to actually incite bad feelings.
It just, you know, certainly not past tense.
He did incite feelings, but maybe in the future, it's likely to incite feelings.
How do you even defend against that?
You can't say, Your Honor, it didn't make anyone feel bad.
Well, it could have.
You're guilty because it could have.
You can do or say something that literally has no effect at all in the world, doesn't cause bad feelings, certainly doesn't cause a violent action, and you'll still be guilty.
Do you see how this law is written?
It's a future crime likely to incite feelings, not even likely to cause violence.
This is like no crime we know of in the Western world.
Oh, and the punishment for breaking this law is up to five years in prison, plus a fine, by the way.
Here's an interesting wrinkle.
Offense of condonation, denial, or gross trivialization of genocide, etc., against persons on account of their protected characteristics.
So, subject to section 11, a person shall be guilty of an offense under this section if the person communicates material to the public or a section of the public or behaves in a public place in a manner that condones, denies, or grossly trivializes genocide, a crime against humanity, a war crime, or an act specified in blah, blah, blah, the International Military Tribunal.
All right, but who gets to decide?
The Armenian genocide, which I believe happened, millions of Armenian Christians killed by Turks.
But Turkey does not believe that happened.
They deny it.
Could the Turkish ambassador deny the Armenian genocide?
Would he be charged with a crime?
How about the Uyghurs?
Do you know who they are?
That's the Muslim minority in Xinjiang province in China.
So they're Chinese Uyghur Muslims.
That's what they're called.
And there is a case to be made, and I think it's fairly well documented, that China has committed a kind of a genocide against them.
They haven't killed them all, but there is a brutal human rights violating slow-motion war against the Uyghurs.
There's concentration camps there.
It's atrocious.
There's certainly atrocities.
A lot of people believe that's a genocide.
Some people deny it.
Justin Trudeau would never say it.
He says Canada has committed a genocide, and other people deny that.
Who gets to decide?
Can I prosecute Justin Trudeau under this law for denying the Uyghur genocide?
I mean, who gets to enforce that?
Here's the craziest part.
You think this law is crazy?
Look at this.
You can have something, literally just have it on you.
Have it on your phone, have it on your computer, have it in an email, have it on your Instagram page, and be guilty just for having it, just for possessing it.
You know what I mean?
Like a meme or a joke or a picture, whatever.
Let me read the law to you.
Offense of preparing or possessing material likely to incite violence or hatred against persons on account of their protected characteristics.
Subject to subsections two and three in section 11.
A person shall be guilty of an offense under this section if the person, A, prepares or possesses material that is likely to incite violence or hatred against a person or group of persons on account of their protected characteristics or any of those characteristics, with a view to the material being communicated to the public or a section of the public, whether by himself or herself or another person.
Okay, just stop for a second there.
So you didn't have to make this meme.
You didn't have to write this joke.
You didn't have to say these words.
You just have to be in possession of it, like it's some, I don't know, some gun or bomb or some hard drug.
Are you in possession of drugs?
Are you in possession of dank memes?
Are you in possession of dirty jokes?
You didn't even have to create it.
You just have to have it.
And you don't even have to share it.
Someone else might.
B, prepares or possesses such material with intent to incite violence or hatred against such a person or a group of persons on account of those characteristics or any of those characteristics, or being reckless as to whether such violence or hatred is thereby incited.
So you don't even have to mean to hurt any feelings.
Just be wreck.
I was recklessly sharing a joke, Your Honor, and someone got hurt feelings.
Actually, I say again, they don't actually have to have hurt feelings.
Just maybe they were likely to have feelings.
No one was hurt.
No one even complained.
You didn't write this goofy meme.
You didn't have any, you know, you just had it in your phone.
You're guilty because it could have caused someone hurt feelings.
Oh, and get ready for your full cavity search.
Oh, for the common good, though.
Let me read this next part.
A member acting under the authority of a search warrant under this section so they can search you, A, operate any computer at the place that is being searched or cause any computer to be operated by a person accompanying the member for that purpose.
And B, get this, require any person at that place who appears to be the member to have lawful access to the information in any such computer, to give to the member any password necessary to operate it and any encryption key or code necessary to unencrypt the information accessible by the computer.
Two, otherwise to enable the member to examine the information accessible by the computer in a form in which the information is visible and legible.
Or three, to produce the information in a form in which it can be removed, in which it is or can be made visible and legible.
So they can search your stuff and force you to give your passwords.
But hey, it's for the common good.
That's Ireland.
How did a place that came up with so much banter, so many jokes over the centuries, how did a place like that with such a humor, such a reputation for banter and jokes and limericks?
Limerick's a place in Ireland.
We named the dirty joke poem after them.
How did that place come to where it is now?
That's too bad, isn't it?
Stay with us for more.
Migraine Flag Protest00:14:48
Well, the word rainbow coalition predates the use of the rainbow as a gay pride symbol.
But now the rainbow doesn't look like any rainbow I've seen in the sky.
There's so many other symbols and colors and shapes on there.
I got a check-a-lot of it the other day when Lawrence Fox called it the migraine flag.
I think he was right.
But the left has been a rainbow coalition for a while.
Different people who all in some way had a place in the progressive constellation.
But I wonder if that rainbow coalition is coming apart.
Remember this video from about a week or so ago when there was a protest in Ottawa against the transgender sexuality being taught in schools to children of tender years.
This image shocked people who saw it online.
And for good reason, the media party did not put it on their front pages, even though it was such a riveting image.
These are young Muslim kids with their mom stomping on the gay pride flag.
Take a look at this.
All right, we're here currently at the protest.
We got a bunch of young kids here with their Arab parents, and they are stomping the pride flag here at the protest.
The Arab community is sending a message, I believe, to the woke that they are not accepting of this, ladies and gentlemen.
Yes.
Yes.
Any message you'd like to send today to just leave your kids alone?
What is Daddy Walker?
Yes.
Leave the kids alone, she says, ladies and gentlemen.
Leave the kids alone.
All right.
That's exhibit A. Here's Exhibit B. Remember this?
A teacher in a school in Edmonton, a recording of her in class, lecturing Muslim kids who were making fun of Pride, saying, Hey, we supported you during teachings about Ramadan, and in return, you must support our transgenderism here.
Stop laughing.
Remember this?
Well, I'll tell you, you were out to lunch.
If you think it's acceptable to not show up because you think there's some pride activities going on at school, right?
Oh, that's fine.
You know, because I'm going to show my opinion by hanging out at the mall.
But meanwhile, all those kids who are, you know, involved in, say, the Gay Street Alliance or whatever, I don't even know if we have that anymore in our school.
They're here when we did Ramadan for Lion Time.
And they're showing respect in the class for your religion, right?
For your beliefs.
It goes two ways.
If you want to be respected for who you are, if you don't want to suffer prejudice for your religion, your color of skin, your whatever, then you better give it back to people who are different from you.
That's how it works.
It's an exchange.
And it isn't like that in all countries.
As I told you, in Uganda, literally, if they think you're gay, they will execute you.
If you believe that kind of thing, then you don't belong here.
Because that is not what Canada believes.
We believe in freedom.
We believe that people can marry whomever they want.
That is in the law.
And if you don't think that should be the law, you can't be Canadian.
You don't belong here.
And I mean it.
I really mean it.
And it's not a joke, Manzuer.
I said, back and forth.
You want it?
You got to give it.
It just makes me angry.
Sorry.
I don't really work with you.
What is happening?
Well, I know someone who's hot on this story.
Her name is Rupa Subramania.
And her latest story in the National Post is called The Progressive Left Discards Muslims as Un-Canadian.
She joins us now via Skype.
Rupa, this is very, very interesting.
And it's very difficult for the left to talk about.
Well, I think it's difficult for the right to talk about also.
How do you reconcile these things?
Tell me a little bit about what's going on as these Muslim families express their objections to some of the more extreme sexuality teachings.
Well, thanks, Ezra.
It's great to be back on your show again.
And yeah, it's quite fascinating what's happening in the culture war space.
So suddenly, you know, when I was at this protest last weekend, one of the things that struck me about the protests, I mean, it is striking to anybody who was there, is that you had devout Muslim parents facing off against a woke progressive left standing up for trans rights.
And, you know, it was a little, I would say there was a bit of a cognitive dissonance happening there as far as the progressives were concerned because they didn't really expect what they imagined,
you know, they didn't expect the people, they thought that this would be white, far-right, white supremacists in attendance protesting against gender ideology.
But it turns out these were people that the left has supported under the guise of Progressivism, especially when it comes to things like what is perceived to be Islamophobia.
So that was pretty interesting.
And the reaction to the protests, I shared some of these videos that I shot on Twitter.
And the reactions from some very prominent progressives on social media was that, you know, perhaps we should reconsider immigration.
We should, these people don't represent Canadian values.
Perhaps it's time to put a hard stop on immigration from countries that don't share Canadian values.
And some even said, I think you should go back to where you came from.
Now, typically, these comments are associated with the far right.
Typically, that's what the progressive left has been saying.
But this actually came from them.
And that was pretty striking to me.
Yeah, I mean, on the one hand, I believe in a cultural test to come to Canada.
We want people who believe in pluralism.
And on the subject of gay rights, we don't want people who absolutely have a rage against gay rights.
I mean, some of these countries, homosexuality is punishable by death.
Iran hangs gays.
Saudi Arabia stones them.
I don't know how frequent that is these days.
So on the one hand, I sympathize with some, not just economic questions for immigrants, but are you cool with the way we are as Canadians?
But I think that what is being pushed in these schools is so radical, so extreme, that I think it's so much further than anyone historically has said, well, this is Canadian values.
And so it's not a surprise to me that socially conservative Muslims are the first to speak out and say, whoa, that's not what we thought we were coming to.
I don't know.
I can, for a little bit, I can understand it, but it's shocking to see how quickly the left turns on visible minorities, immigrants, Muslims, who until five minutes ago, they would have said, how dare you talk about a Muslim ban?
I mean, that's Donald Trump stuff talking about a Muslim immigration ban.
It's fascinating to watch.
No, absolutely.
And to be very, very clear here, you didn't see devout Muslims protesting against the pride flag or pride or even gay rights for that matter, you know, a few years ago.
This is all pretty recent.
And this goes to the point that you're making, which is gender ideology has become so pervasive now.
And it's literally being shoved down their throat.
And this is what they were protesting.
They were protesting against the indoctrination of their kids with radical gender ideology.
So it's very important.
Look, I mean, these people came here and many immigrant Muslims come here knowing full well that this is a country that stands for certain things.
And so they've already agreed to that.
They've already accepted it as a fait accompli.
But what's happening now is that we've unearthed, we've, you know, the progressive left, you know, this is their doing really, they've kind of, you know, brought out Muslims who, you know, out and outright reject homosexuality because it goes against Islamic teachings.
Look, I mean, it's their right to believe whatever they want to believe in.
They want to protest against it, that's also fine.
Freedom of expression and all of that stuff.
But it is, for me, it was a bit disturbing to see kids stomping on the pride flag and the parents cheering them on.
And I also want to make it very clear that the protest, as organized by Chris Elston, Billboard Chris, and Josh Alexander was to protest against gender ideology, not against gay rights.
That's a very important point to make, and one has to keep making that repeatedly.
Because the other side will often, I think, deliberately will mischaracterize such protests as being against gay rights, which is not the case.
A lot of these people just reject gender ideology being taught in schools and the way it's being taught.
Yeah, you know, I think one thing that Chris Elston, and I've interviewed him a few times, says is no one's born in the wrong body.
And in fact, a lot of this gender ideology says if you're gay, no, no, no, you're in the wrong body.
We've got to chop off your body parts, give you certain hormones.
So I think in some ways that the LGBT, the T, is contrary to the L and the G. As in Chris Elston is, I don't think he's anti-gay at all.
He's saying stop trying to change people's gender, especially if they're young.
Let me play a clip of what the mom and the sister of those Muslim kids dancing on the pride flag said.
It's very interesting, and I paid close attention to what they said, at least in the clip that I saw.
There may be others.
They didn't say we're anti-gay.
They said, leave the kids alone.
Here, take a look.
Leave the kids alone!
Leave the kids Yeah, I mean, just to push back a little bit on that, Ezra.
I did speak to that same mother and daughter and their little boy.
And they, I have to be honest here, they were also against homosexuality.
That was very clear in my interview with them.
Did they like this?
No.
It's, like, too disgusting.
It's too disgusting.
And, like, this stuff?
No, they're going to hell.
They keep on doing this.
A puppet, you know?
A puppet.
And so that's, you know, that was one of the reasons why I wrote this column for the National Post, because inadvertently religion has come into the picture.
It was always going to be there.
It was always there in the background.
But now, we've, you know, people who had initially just accepted these as, you know, this is part of part and parcel of being in this country.
This is, this is what this is, these are Canadian values and, you know, they're here and they've accepted all of that.
But because of how things have gone recently, the direction in which we're heading, they've just, you know, they just don't want anything to do with this at all.
And my concern is that there's a risk here that there might be a regression in this consensus that had been built over the years over gay rights.
And I worry that there might be a regression as far as that's concerned.
Isn't that interesting?
Well, first of all, I accept obviously you were on the ground there.
You talked to these people.
I was just relying on little clips I found.
It's very interesting.
And Muslim immigration to Canada is very large.
I think the Muslim community is well over a million people.
And it's concentrated in certain cities and certain districts.
For example, in Ottawa, some schools had 60% of kids stay home for Pride Day, 60%.
And we know that when a more gender, extreme, transgender curriculum was brought in a few years back, there were some schools into the Toronto area where 90% of the kids were kept home.
So I think that we are coming apart.
You talked about sort of a commonality.
I think it's coming apart.
And I think we can look at other places in the world to see how this will end.
Coming Apart?00:03:59
I've been to Malmo, Sweden, and I've been to parts of northern England where the vast majority of certain communities, like over 90%, are Muslim.
And in Sweden, you'd think that's the most gay, positive country in the world, right?
But in Malmo, in Rosengard, kids born in Sweden are talking about banning homosexuality.
And I think that the left cannot hold its coalition together.
And if I have to guess which part of this coalition is going to win, I'm going to guess it's the Muslim part just for sheer demographic numbers.
That's my observation from Rosengard, Sweden, and from parts of Manchester and the greater London area.
What do you think of that?
Yeah, no, I really, you know, Sweden is a great example, and I'm glad you brought that up.
And I really hope that we don't head in that direction because I've been to Sweden, I've been to Malbo as well.
And, you know, there are these no-go areas, as you know, and that's not what I would like to see in Canada.
We have tons of problems, but I really wish that that's not going to be one of them in the near future.
But, you know, but it all goes to this, you know, the fact is that when you push something as aggressively as gender ideology and a lot of prominent gay people have also spoken out against radical gender ideology.
And so, you know, there's wide support, I think, apart from sections of the mainstream media, especially the legacy media, which seems to have taken this on as like, you know, this is, you know, we must keep promoting this.
And, you know, most people, I think, really feel that this is just too much.
And, you know, they're just speaking out.
And, you know, I just, I think, I think, again, it's worth repeating this.
Muslims did not have the Muslim community, as far as I'm concerned, and I cannot speak for them, obviously, but this is just based on my observation, had no issues with this.
It was a live and let-live approach.
You guys do what you want.
We do what we want.
We have our beliefs.
We have our values.
We have things that we strongly believe in.
And we go by the Quran.
And this is what Islam teaches us.
And of course, leave our kids alone.
That last bit has not been happening for the last two or three years at least.
This whole radical push on gender ideology is not that old.
Right.
It's really picked up in the last two to three years during the pandemic.
So, so this is a recent phenomenon.
And I have a lot of faith in the Muslim community in Canada.
I think, you know, there are, of course, a few radical elements in every community.
But I do think that they just want to be left alone.
They just don't want their children to be taught these things, which they really object to.
And ultimately, it comes down to parental rights, which Justin Trudeau said was a far-right thing.
So, whether it is a Christian, an atheist parent objecting to the use of pronouns in schools or a Muslim parent objecting to the use of pronouns in school, it comes down to the same thing.
It's about parental rights.
They just want their kids to be left alone.
And that was the message.
Ultimately, that was the message I think from the protests this last weekend in Ottawa.
Yeah.
Well, it's, you know, you raise a lot of very good points here.
Parental Rights Protest00:04:05
I want, I'm going to reread your column.
It's called The Progressive Left Discards Muslims as Un-Canadian.
And you're right.
This, I think, the one side here has gotten more aggressive and more pushy, and it's the transgenderism side.
And I think that the tools of their enforcement, the cancel culture, the public shaming, the banning people from Twitter, that doesn't work on immigrant moms from Muslim countries who can't be fired from a job because they're homemakers.
They can't be canceled from Twitter because they don't waste time on Twitter.
You can't socially marginalize them because their social circles are other Muslim moms from the immigrant community.
So the tools that are used to keep old stock white Canadian liberal families in line, oh, don't embarrass me, don't make me look like a hater, those tools are not effective against Muslim moms.
This is going to be an amazing thing.
Rupa, I'm going to continue to cover your to watch your journalism because you're on the ground, you go and report what you see.
You did that during the Trucker Convoy, which is when you won so many super fans.
And I'm one of those super fans, by the way.
So thank you.
And you really brought the nuances here.
And you're right.
I can see both sides, believe it or not.
And I want to figure this one out myself.
And thanks for helping us.
Thank you so much, Ezra.
Thanks.
Great to see you.
And by the way, I want to give a shout out to your new project.
Rupa does write for the National Post, of course, which you've absolutely got to read every week.
But she's also with a great new project called The Free Press.
And the website for that is thefp.com, T-H-E-F-P.com.
And it's a great source of news and opinions.
So make sure to catch Rupa there.
Stay with us.
More ahead.
Hey, welcome back.
Your letters to me.
Dalvania's Tiv says his ads have a strong Chinese influence.
That alone is not trustworthy.
Well, you're talking about Edward Gong.
There is sort of a strange diction or cadence to his campaign videos.
They do sound a little bit like they're translated into English, but written in a different language.
I'm not going to hold that against him because he is born in China and English is his second language.
I don't have a beef with a Chinese Canadian running for mayor.
There are a lot of Chinese Canadians.
The Chinese Canadian mayor of Vancouver.
I think the next mayor of Toronto will likely be a Chinese-Canadian woman.
Her name is Ms. Chow, Olivia Chow, the widow of Jack Leighton.
The questions with Edward Gong are his connections to communist China, his interactions with that government.
Why would that government come and regulate an industry here in Canada?
I think there's also questions about overspending and campaign finance.
I don't think Edward Gong is going to win.
He might come in the top 10 just because he's dumped so much money on ads.
But it is proof that the Chinese government is in our politics.
There's certainly friends of his.
Lawrence Lawrence, 3920, says, notice that most of the aggressive questioning and shouting that were thrown at Mendocino were by women reporters.
When it came to violent sexual attacks by Bernardo, they became very vocal.
When it comes to aborting pre-born babies, crickets were attacks on those who object to the killing of babies.
You know, it may be that the Paul Bernardo story is so shocking and terrifying to women that that's what motivated those reporters.
So I won't discount that.
But I think that it may be just a coincidence that it was the women who were hollering at him because I think they were trying to get him.
Aggressive Questioning Patterns00:01:06
He refused to, he canceled the scrum the previous night.
You might be right, but I think that they're just showing an exasperation with him.
Leslie Ross, 9729, says, we have spent eight years investigating the Trudeau regime scandal and crime, the time and money that could have been spent governing Canada.
I'm going to disagree with you politely.
I don't think we've spent eight years investigating them.
The mainstream media certainly has not.
The RCMP certainly has not.
CSIS, well, I think they did some poking around, but they were told to shut up and they finally started to leak to the Globe and Mail.
So no, I don't think we actually have spent eight years investigating Trudeau.
He certainly wasn't vetted to any extent.
The other day in Parliament, when Pierre Polyev made an oblique reference to Trudeau being fired as a teacher midway through his school, there was an absolute lack of curiosity by the mainstream media to look into it.
Remember, this is a prime minister that all the media were sitting on pictures of him in blackface.
They had the dirt on him.
They just weren't going to use it.
So no, he has not been investigated for eight years, I don't think, at all.