Ezra Levant interviews Ben Scallan on Ireland’s March 15th constitutional referendum, where 70% of voters rejected redefining "family" and "mother" in Article 41, despite government claims of modernization. Minister Catherine Martin spread misinformation, while legal experts warned of unintended consequences like immigration loopholes or inheritance disputes. The result mirrors global backlash—from Toronto’s police advice to Vancouver’s prison-like housing—to Justin Trudeau’s divisive policies, exposing establishment overreach and NGO influence, including the state-funded National Women’s Council of Ireland. Scallan’s caution underscores how conservative principles demand stability before upending institutions. [Automatically generated summary]
We're going to talk to Ben Scallon from Ireland about the amazing double referendum win.
I don't know if you heard about it, but there was a referendum to change the Irish Constitution to take out the word mother.
Well, they lost.
The people won.
We'll talk to Ben about that.
And then I want to show you a couple of crazy videos.
One is a police officer in Toronto giving you advice on how to make it easy for home invasion robbers.
And then a comedy video from Vancouver about the cost of housing.
It would be comedy, but it's not funny.
That's all I had.
But first, make sure you get a subscription to the video version of this podcast.
We call it Rebel News Plus.
I really want you to see these videos I refer to.
You really have to see them with your own eyes.
And to do that, just sign up for Rebel News Plus, eight bucks a month to get all the video versions of the podcast.
Plus the satisfaction of keeping Rebel News strong.
All right, here's today's podcast.
Tonight, the Irish people answer the question, what is a woman?
It's March 15th, and this is the Ezra Levance Show.
Shame on you, you censorious bug.
I'm going to switch things around for this show.
Normally, I do a bit of a monologue, and then I interview a guest, but I want to interview the guest first.
It's about an amazing innovation in Ireland, the people standing up to the political parties.
Frankly, it reminded me of the Canadian Charlottetown Accord Constitutional Referendum.
About 30 years ago, you might recall that the entire establishment got together and wanted to make certain left-wing identity politics changes to our constitution.
The banks were in favor of it.
The media were in favor of it.
Every company felt the need to advertise their support for the Charlottetown Accord, and all of the established parties did too.
You would think there's no way such a thing could be defeated, but alas, it was.
6040, everyone was wrong except the people.
It was wonderful.
And I remember that as a young person.
Of course, the Reform Party of Canada, which at the time just had one seat, was on the right side.
Everyone was against it, but the people, sort of like Brexit.
Well, that happened in Ireland.
And the question wasn't about identity politics.
Well, I guess it was about identity politics.
And it was a constitutional change.
It was about taking the word mother out of the Irish Constitution.
Enough from me.
Let me show you my interview earlier with Ben Scallon of Gripped.ie and then come back because I want to show you some crazy, crazy news on the crime front.
Here, take a look at this.
Hey, you might remember a couple of months ago I was going through the Irish Constitution.
Well, that's an unusual thing to do, but Ireland is such an interesting country and they're trying so many crazy things.
It's like a laboratory of bad ideas.
I refer in particular to their censorship provisions.
But as I was going through their Constitution, you might remember this.
I came across the most interesting thing I've ever seen in a constitution.
And I'm very familiar with our Canadian Constitution.
Of course, I've studied the American Constitution.
But let me read to you Article 41 of the Irish Constitution.
And I read it and I shared this with you months ago and I thought, they're lucky to have this.
This is such a loving thing.
It's so emotional, which is odd for a constitution, which is quite icy and technical.
Here, let me read.
The state recognizes the family, capital F, 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 that means?
That means the family is before and bigger and above laws that parliaments would issue.
That's an incredible thing to say.
I'll read just a little bit more.
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.
And I've just got to read the next line to you, and then I'm going to go to our guest.
But isn't this incredible?
Can you imagine if this were in our constitution?
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.
And then this next sentence: when was the last time you saw the word mother in a constitution?
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.
It continues on in wonderful ways, but have you ever seen family and mother and woman and these words in a constitution in such held, I mean, literally put on a pedestal above grubby politics?
Well, grubby politicians didn't like that one bit.
And they proposed in a referendum to remove these words.
They said it was about progress and moving Ireland forward.
Well, the people had something to say about that.
Joining us now via Skype from Ireland, short days after the referendum on removing those words was put to the people, is our friend Ben Scallon of gripped.ie, my second favorite media company in the world, just behind Rebel News.
Ben, great to see you again.
Thanks for taking the time.
Great to see you again, Ezra.
Great to talk to you under these circumstances, too.
Well, yeah, I mean, I just read something that I think many people would find unusual.
And I'm not sure if even every Irish person knows it's in there, but that's pretty loving language for a law, don't you think?
Well, it's very interesting the cultural context in which that particular piece of text arose in our Constitution, because the Irish Constitution, as we know it, those articles were written in the 1930s.
And one of our main ministers who was campaigning the campaign to get rid of this text from the Constitution and to replace it with more modern, kind of up-to-date text, was he said that this was actually progressive.
This was him speaking many years ago.
He since has apparently changed his view on this matter, but he said that he thought it was a progressive addition to the Constitution because it was saying that women should not be forced to work for the benefit of business and the economy necessarily, that there is a higher calling, and that if women would like the option to stay at home with their children, the state should support and appreciate and thank them for that and make that a possibility for them.
Electoral Commission's Misinfo Role00:09:59
But in the modern context and in the view of Irish politicians, this was seen as somehow oppressive or relegating women to a domestic role.
Like it's almost telling them, oh, women need to stay in the kitchen and they shouldn't work, which is absolutely not what the text says if you read it.
It's simply saying that women do very important work in the home.
It's a reality that happened at that time in history and still happens today, and that we should acknowledge and appreciate that.
And so they held it on International Women's Day.
They thought this will be a nice, comfortable win for us.
People will be swept up in a kind of feel-good, lovey-dovey, sentimental sense of liberalism, and they'll vote in favor of this.
And both of these proposed changes were defeated by an overwhelming landslide, about 70% or so between the two proposals.
And I think, honestly, part of that is to do with the fact that it was the weekend of Mother's Day.
You know, we were literally proposing removing the only reference to the word woman in the constitution a couple of days, or sorry, not woman, mother, a couple of days before Mother's Day, which would have been a kind of an interesting gift to give your mom, I think you'll agree.
And so there was enormous pushback in some working class areas.
We saw no votes to the tune of 96%, which I don't think I've ever seen a referendum like that.
That's that's North Korea numbers when you start seeing figures like that.
So, yeah, very much an upheaval politically here in this country in the last week or so.
Now, I've read a lot of your coverage and very interesting interviews, and it was like the entire establishment was for the removal of these words.
By the way, can you be more precise?
The word mother was in there, the word woman was in there, where the word family was in there.
Lots of words that are triggering to the progressive left.
What exactly did they, what exactly was the proposal?
Was it specific?
Like, were they going to take the word mother, just delete it, or just say mother or father, or just be silent on that?
Like, what exactly did they want to do besides eradicate the word?
So, what they wanted to do was they wanted to make the recognition of mothers gender neutral.
So, they were going to say family members who care for one another should be respected and appreciated by the state.
So, that could be your grandmother or that would be tantamount to repealing Mother's Day.
I mean, because why should mothers have a day?
What about non-mothers?
I mean, what was the political rationale for this?
I mean, there's a saying in North America that's as American as motherhood and apple pie.
The phrase meaning that no one on the left or the right would be foolish enough to challenge that apple pie is wonderful and that mothers are wonderful, as American as motherhood and apple pie.
Who cooked up the idea in Ireland that the Irish were sick of treating their mothers nicely, that the Irish were sick of Mother's Day?
Like, where's the angle here?
It obviously failed spectacularly, three to one, the votes against it.
But who thought this was a winner and why did they think it would win?
Well, Ireland, as I'm sure you know, has had a number of referendums in recent history on progressive issues, and all of them passed comfortably for years now.
I mean, I believe, if I'm not mistaken, I think we were the first country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage by popular vote.
You know, other countries have brought it in through court rulings and government edicts and so on.
Whereas we were the first people that the Irish public at large voted for it.
Same goes for abortion and so on and so forth.
So, I think they assumed this was going to be another one of those.
And I think the reason they did it more than likely is because, as you and I have discussed on this show before, Ezra, the government is under intense pressure when it comes to certain controversial issues like immigration and like hate speech laws and things like that.
So, for the last year or so, they've really been feeling the heat.
And they thought, you know what, it'd be a great way to get the heat off ourselves, would be to throw out one of these nice liberal referendums that we always win.
And that will be a nice kind of comfortable distraction.
It won't really change much materially.
It's largely symbolic, but then we'll get a nice feel-good love-in once again.
And hopefully, that'll help us coming into the European elections and the local elections in June.
And obviously, that did not exactly pan out the way they would have liked.
I can only assume.
I have a theory for you, and you tell me if I'm right, right or wrong on this.
Sometimes a referendum can be a safety valve of a whole bunch of different issues.
In Canada, we recently had a special by-election in a district, and the Conservative opposition did tremendously well-57%, even though Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and a lot of his cabinet campaigned there.
And obviously, it was more than just the local campaign, it was like a lightning rod for all the various crises that Canada is going through right now: inflation, immigration, crime, corruption.
What do you think of the theory, the hypothesis, that, yes, this was about the government picking a fight with mothers and the word mother, but it was also a way for people to lash back at the establishment on some of the issues you just described: the immigration, the crime, some of the ways that the Irish government is perhaps getting too far ahead of their skis, so to speak.
So, this, sure, this was about defending mothers, but it was also a way for ordinary people to clap back at the establishment, because really, it was the entire establishment, wasn't it?
All the NGOs, all the big political parties, all the official people loved this, didn't they?
Yeah, and I mean, I think a lot of people who aren't familiar with the Irish political landscape will be shocked to know that even our biggest opposition party, Sinn Féin, which many people will remember from the Troubles as being this nationalist party that was fighting for Irish independence and so on and so forth, that party is now significantly more left-wing than the government.
And if I had to explain the Irish political system to a foreign audience, to maybe an American context, the current government we have is basically like the Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi wing of the Democrat Party.
And then the opposition, the Sinn Féin-type parties, are like the AOC, Rashida Tlaib branch of the Democrat Party.
But that's the range, that's the Overton window you're dealing with, where it's just left to radical left.
And so, all of them put their entire weight behind this thing.
And it seems like the voters have rejected them all.
It didn't go to anybody's favor, at least none of the major elected parties.
We had one political party that has a single seat aimed to, and they campaigned against it.
And, you know, it'll be interesting to see in the upcoming elections if they benefit from that.
But for the most part, it was pretty much uniformity, and the entire establishment was rejected.
And so, to your question, was this a rejection of something bigger than just the question of the referendum itself?
I think it's very telling that one big source of frustration that the public had was the amount of misinformation that was peddled by the government throughout the campaign.
So, just to give one example, this is a government that set up a group called the Electoral Commission as a kind of a misinformation arbiter.
Their specific purpose that the government set them up to do was to fight misinformation at election time.
And this is the first electoral event that they've existed for.
So, this was kind of the unveiling of this brand new group.
And during the campaign, they were fact-checking government ministers for false things that they were claiming about the constitution.
Our media minister, Catherine Martin, was saying things like, oh, the Irish government, or the Irish Constitution says that a woman's place is in the home.
It absolutely does not say that.
That text does not appear in the Constitution.
That's just a total and utter mistruth.
Yeah, we just read what it says.
It says a woman's place, if she chooses it, should be protected.
She shouldn't be obliged to leave it.
We just went through the text.
The minister was lying.
And so the Electoral Commission then effectively called her out for this and said that's not true.
And the government totally disregarded what they said.
I even asked her, I said, will you retract that statement now that you've been fact-checked by your own fact-checking body?
This isn't me.
This isn't Ben Scalin of Grip Media telling you you're wrong.
It's the authority that you set up to regulate the truth is telling you you're wrong.
Are you going to retract it?
And she refused.
She said, oh, no, that's the widely understood implication of the amendment, and I'm not taking it back.
And yada, yada.
So I think things like that in the run-up, people, I spoke to one government politician who he campaigned for the change.
He was on the losing side of the referendum and he told me that he thinks it failed due to government arrogance.
He thinks that people just had enough of the pride and the hubris and the sense that you can just say whatever you want, whether it's true or not, with no consequence, and that that played a big part in this thing's downfall.
By the way, the idea of a ministry of truth where any government appointees get to decide what's true or not is terrifying.
The fact that in this one case they condemn the government is cold comfort.
The fact that they exist at all, I mean, each one of us should be our own fact checkers and should come to our own opinion.
Durable Relationships Debate00:09:58
That's terrifying that Ireland has that in effect.
Hey, let me play for you a clip.
And I know you know the one.
It was a debate on what I believe is your state broadcaster, RTE.
And it was about what removing woman and motherhood might mean in terms of polygamy and other kinds of families.
I didn't quite understand this, but this apparently was a bit of a bombshell moment in a debate on the subject.
Here, take a look at this clip and help me understand what was going on here, because I've watched this twice and I need a little bit of help.
Take a look.
Is he going to tell a Muslim man who has fled persecution to make his home in Ireland with his two wives and children that they're not in a durable relationship and that his family is not a moral institution, as Minister O'Gorman suggested?
Well, again, in terms of immigration law, if that's what you're referring to.
No, that's not what I'm saying.
That's my point.
I mean, I'm not going to embroil the hot red subject of migration into this issue, which is about fundamental recognition of families in our community and the different types of modalities of family.
What I would say is in terms of the state always reserves the right in terms of migration and social migration.
So you don't recognize that family?
So I'm not making comments on social media.
We don't recognise this as a family.
It's not a red herring.
This is a reality in the new Ireland that we live in.
We have many new immigrants that are citizens of Ireland now.
Is his family a family or not?
Sorry, in terms of, we have many different types of relationships.
Yes.
And I'm asking, is it polygamous marriage in that case?
Sorry, bigamy is illegal in the industry.
Polygamy.
Polygamy is polygamy is also illegal in this country.
But so you're saying that it's legally.
It's illegal.
And the law prevents it.
But you're making a new law and you're saying that you're not making a majority.
So will this man have family rights?
Will his children have family rights?
What kind of compact in the constitution?
Will his children from the United States?
Can I come back now?
No, you know.
The rights are there in the Succession Act, the rights in terms of all of those legislation, the social welfare consolidation.
No, this is important.
Because this has been introduced.
It needs to be clarified.
The Succession Act of 1965.
The Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations happened in 2010.
Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005.
Texas Constitution Act 1896 and International Protection Act of 250.
They're all the laws that guarantee issues around inheritance, tax, social protection.
What we're doing here is the foundational document of the Constitution, which is about values and principles, and which the courts interpret as from the very beginning of the Constitution.
If I could speak, please, Michal.
Tóniste, you know that legislation can be overturned.
The whole point about introducing a constitutional amendment is that it trumps legislation.
And if you give somebody new constitutional rights, legislation can be overruled and can be declared unconstitutional.
Ben, that was very interesting because, of course, if you're saying mother is gone and just all families are there, well, there are polygamous families in Islam.
And, you know, there's hundreds, perhaps thousands of those in Canada.
And I didn't quite know who was arguing what there, but I think it's a live question.
If you undo the nature of a family, husband and wife, mother and father, any family could be protected by the Constitution.
And I think that the point Ms. Steen was making is that you're opening up Pandora's box.
That got a lot of light and heat, that part of the debate.
What was going on there?
So that was specifically referring to the other proposed change that the government wanted to make.
One was the motherhood issue that we discussed earlier.
The other one was that currently the Irish Constitution says that family is based on the institution of marriage.
And the government said, well, that's discriminatory and unfair because there are people who aren't married who are in a family.
You know, there are people who are raised only by their grandparents or one grandparent or whatever it might be.
And so they wanted to say that instead the family was based on marriage or any other durable relationship.
Now, what exactly a durable relationship is, is anybody's guess.
You know, the ministers tried to assure us, oh, no, this has specific meanings under law and it's narrowly interpreted and the courts will figure out what it means.
It's not a big concern.
But we had very senior legal people.
Maria Steen, who was speaking in that clip, is a barrister herself.
We had the former Attorney General of Ireland, who's currently a senator, Michael McDowell.
He raised serious concerns about this, saying that if you interpret a family as being anything based on a durable relationship, then that has all kinds of potential implications for having to be.
I mean, why not have some roommates?
That could be a durable relationship.
Does that even mean?
I mean, I've been on this show a few times.
Do you and I have a durable relationship?
We absolutely do.
If one of us kicks the bucket, maybe somebody else will be claiming inheritance.
You know, it's so, and then on top of all of that, of course, as we've discussed, immigration is a big issue in Ireland.
And a government minister went on the news several months ago before the campaign and he said that this change, and he was saying this is a good thing, by the way.
He was bragging about this.
He said that this change would have, quote, serious consequences for immigration law, because if you say you have a durable relationship and that makes you a family, that would help things like family reunification for refugees.
It would be easier for asylum seekers to bring their relatives over.
Now, after that, that comment naturally went down like a lead balloon.
And everybody was saying, oh, my goodness, this is going to open the floodgates.
And then ministers quickly came out and they said, oh, no, that's not true.
That's all misinformation.
But it was a government minister who said it.
It wasn't, we didn't come up with this.
You guys told us that was going to be the impact.
So anyway, that's basically the clip that Maria Steen was referring to there.
That's what a big part of the debate was about, that people were concerned that if you enshrine durable relationships as having family rights, God only knows what the legal implications of that would be once it hits the courts.
Yeah, and the judges would just take that as a starting point.
You know, this whole thing is really a lesson about what it means to be conservative.
It doesn't mean right-wing, whatever that is.
It means don't throw out something that has worked for generations, that contains the wisdom of our entire past.
Don't throw those things out lightly.
It's much harder to build something than to destroy something.
And the wisdom in the constitutional provisions that I read is the wisdom of decades and centuries, and I think you could say of thousands of years of all the generations that have gone before us.
So, if you're going to rip those out, if you're going to rip out those mighty oaks and plant new weeds, you bloody well better know what you're planting.
You better know what you're replacing the old tried and true with.
And it sounds like Irish people have had enough change for now, enough radical change imposed on them that they just didn't want to take on the institution of motherhood.
And I say, good on the Irish.
And I didn't know about this referendum until right before the end of it.
And I was delighted with the result.
Do you think it will have any long-term impacts?
Do you think it'll cause the government to be less radical?
Do you think it might encourage other opposition parties?
Or do you think they'll just try and forget this ever happened and quickly go back to their old ways?
I do think it's definitely giving them seeds of doubt and things to think about.
And one of the reasons I think that is very quickly after the referendum results, we had a government minister coming out saying that they're going to have to consider how representative NGO organizations, particularly the state-funded ones, are of the general public and their views.
Because one of the groups that kind of spearheaded this campaign was the National Women's Council of Ireland, which is one of Ireland's best-funded NGOs, of course, funded by the state.
I think they receive about 96% of their staff funding from the government, which is a weird kind of non-governmental organization that's almost exclusively held up by the government.
I'm not sure what kind of independence that is.
But anyway, that's a whole other issue.
They advocated very strongly for this, and then obviously it was overwhelmingly rejected.
And exit polling shows that even women rejected it by a very significant margin.
So I asked our equality minister after in the aftermath of the results, does this mean, would you say that these groups are not representative of women?
How can they claim to represent women when they were so clearly radically out of step with what ordinary women on the street think?
And he said, oh, no, I think they are definitely representative.
This is just a kind of an isolated incident, nothing to see here.
But I think there's other people behind him who are less radical, who are thinking, yeah, I don't know, we're backing the wrong horse here.
The people aren't really having what these guys are selling.
And maybe it's time to rethink how we're approaching these issues.
Well, it's all very interesting.
And Ben, we're so grateful to you and your colleagues.
We spoke to Fradaba Gunning the other day.
There's so much going on in Ireland.
And it's a small country, much smaller than Canada.
But we have, of course, historic ties to Ireland, a lot of Irish people in Canada.
But much more than that, I think we're going through the same challenges.
The war on women, which is a bizarre thing to say in the 21st century.
But I think this referendum was an attempt to eradicate the definition of a woman.
Immigration debates, censorship debates.
What's happening in Ireland is what's happening in Canada and around the world.
So we're grateful to have you as a source of information.
Thanks very much, Ben.
Thanks so much, Ezra.
All right.
Why Police Can't Detect Key Fobs00:05:32
There you have it.
Fence Gallon of gripped.ie, G-R-I-P-T.ie.
with us for more.
You know, I really love GRIPT and And if you look at their symbol, it looks like a fist gripping.
Gripped, G-R-I-P-T, is sort of an archaic past tense of grip, like to grip something strongly.
I really like those guys.
They've got a good grip on things.
Before I go, though, I just want to show you this absolutely insane news clip.
I'm sorry, I'm not laughing because it's funny.
I'm laughing because it's absurd.
It's an emotional explosion when I think of how insane this is.
Look at this clip from the news in Toronto City News.
It doesn't even matter where it's from.
The shocking thing is what the police officer says.
And it's not just one cop.
You can tell two different police forces in the greater Toronto area are giving the same advice.
And I'm sure this has been echoed in other cities like Montreal or Vancouver.
Take a look at the latest advice for you from your police.
Take a look.
There's also updated advice for all vehicle owners.
A message echoed by Toronto Police speaking at an Etobicoke safety meeting last month.
Constable Marco Ricciardi had a new message for vehicle owners who keep their fobs in Faraday pouches.
To prevent the possibility of being attacked in your home, leave your fobs at your front door because they're breaking into your home to steal your car.
They don't want anything else.
A lot of them that they're arresting have guns on them and they're not toy guns.
They're real guns.
They're loaded.
That's why Galinsky says they will be installing the doorstops and taking YPR's advice seriously.
But she'd like more action from police as well.
Did you get that?
So the first thing they say is to hide your key fob in what's called a Faraday bag.
That's a fancy bag that means that people cannot detect electronics.
So they can't detect a key fob.
They can't detect a cell phone.
That's a really strange piece of advice because your key fob is in your house.
Like when you park your car, you go into your house, you lock your door, you put your keys down, you go to bed.
But you heard what that cop said.
He said, no, no, no.
There's so many break and enter home invasions.
Make your keys easy to find.
Hey, these people aren't bad.
They're not here to hurt you.
They just want to steal your car.
So make it as easy as possible so they don't accidentally hurt you.
Their advice was for you to make it easier for you to be robbed.
That's what they're saying.
They're saying these people are going to smash through your door when you're in the house.
And it has to be that way because if you're out working or whatever, you have your car with you.
They want to smash into your house when you are at home because that's when the key is there and the car is there.
And this cop's advice is just let them have it.
Just let them have it.
Whose side are the police on?
I find myself asking this a lot these days.
Remember a couple of months ago when the pro-Hamas supporters blocked a bridge into a Jewish community in North Toronto.
The police literally brought them coffee.
Remember this clip?
Okay, I'll just ask because I want to say this coffee.
Sorry, it's jihad.
Yeah, I'm sorry.
Yeah, you're not supposed to be helping the people illegally blocking roads.
I mean, at least I remember last time when the truckers blocked the roads and they actually just, you know, didn't actually block full roads.
Justin Trudeau called in the Emergencies Act of martial law.
Oh, by the way, here's Justin Trudeau today saying, oh, no, no, no.
He's fine with all the street protests.
He has no quarrel with any of them.
Take a look.
And we've seen some incredible increases in anti-Semitism across the country.
I'm wondering what you think the role of the federal government is to help stamp that out.
Well, the government has continued to step up in pushing back against the rise in hatred that we're seeing around the country, whether it's working directly with police services across the country, whether it's making sure that community and religious centers have the right kinds of protections, or whether it's just reminding Canadians of who we are.
Yes, the freedom to protest is sacrosanct and a really important part of our free, robust democracy.
But that doesn't give you the right to make a fellow citizen feel unsafe in their own home, in their own community, in their own neighborhood.
And we need to make sure that even as people are feeling extraordinarily impacted by what's going on at the other end of the world, they don't take it out on their fellow Canadians because that's not the kind of country we are.
Yeah, Justin Trudeau's fine with actual criminals.
He saves the police work for peaceful trucker protests.
It's just astonishing.
And I think it is safe to say, based on their conduct, the Toronto police are actually assisting the criminals.
They're telling homeowners to make it as easy as possible for the criminals to get the keys.
I mean, the only thing they didn't say was leave your doors unlocked.
Welcome to Canada in decline.
Toronto's probably worse than most.
Is It for Rent or Prison?00:01:26
Vancouver is atrocious as well.
I want to leave you with one quick video.
I found this on TikTok.
Here's a young person.
Boy, she's got a sense of humor, a very dark sense of humor.
Look at her comparing housing in Vancouver with prison cells.
She does it in the form of a quiz.
She shows you a room and says, is this a rental unit in Vancouver or a prison?
Look at this.
Today we're playing a game called Is It for Rent in Vancouver or Is It a Norwegian Prison?
Up first is the single bed desk closet combo.
That is for rent in Vancouver, $1,200 a month.
Next up, we have a similar vibe, beautiful natural light, single bed desk.
This would be a room at the Halden Prison in Norway.
The bars on the window might make this one pretty obvious, but it is in fact for rent in Vancouver.
Three, two, one.
Prison.
It's prison.
Lastly, another small room with a small window with a small bed and a small desk.
Of course, we all know this is for rent for $800 in Vancouver.
How many did you get right?
It would be funny if it weren't true.
Hey, by the way, do you think that young woman is going to be voting for Justin Trudeau anymore?
Maybe if Trudeau tries to equate Pierre Polyev and Donald Trump or whatever his latest scheme is?
No, I think Trudeau is toast when you have people like this making videos like that.