Ezra Levant critiques transgenderism’s sudden normalization, contrasting it with past Hollywood tropes like Tootsie and Mrs. Doubtfire, and questions the APA’s 2012 DSM-5 reclassification of "gender identity disorder" to "gender dysphoria." He highlights cases—such as a Seattle man’s sexualized cross-dressing defense, "Busty Lemieux," and a Quebec man amputating fingers due to BID—as troubling trends of medicalizing extreme behaviors. The episode ties this to broader societal shifts, forced pronoun policies, and access to women’s-only spaces, while also dissecting the Freedom Convoy protests’ labeling as "illegal," police misuse of leaked $12M donor data (including Constable Michael Briscoe’s $50 donation), and allegations of Trudeau’s government installing partisan loyalists in law enforcement. Listener letters underscore concerns about systemic corruption and foreign-born officials, with recent leaks exposing deeper issues. [Automatically generated summary]
I know you're still getting used to the idea of transgenderism, but I got to tell you, there's a new thing out there.
Oh, my God.
Like, what's next, right?
What could possibly be next?
Well, there's a new surgery out there.
There's a new mental disorder that's being normalized.
It'll have all the details for you.
And it is so nuts, but really, you can see how inevitable it is.
I won't give it away now.
I want you to watch the show.
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, click subscribe, eight bucks a month.
You get my show every weeknight, and Sheila Gunread's show every week.
And you get the satisfaction of supporting Rebel News because we don't take any money from Trudeau or any other government.
This is how we pay our bills.
All right.
Here's today's podcast.
Tonight, what's the next thing after transgenderism?
I've got the mind-boggling answer.
It's April 5th, and this is the Ezra Levant show.
Shame on you, you censorious bug.
A Decade Late00:03:20
It feels like we never heard about transgenderism until like five minutes ago.
It was so rare.
I remember growing up, there were a couple of Hollywood movies about transvestites, but they were just plot devices.
The movie Tootsie, Dustin Hoffman couldn't get ahead in showbiz as a man, so he became a sassy woman and had great success.
Mrs. Doubtfire, same thing.
That was a Robin Williams role.
A man wanted to spend time with his kids after a bitter divorce.
Again, a plot device and a comedy.
The character wasn't actually trans.
I think the only glimpse of transgenderism that most people saw until about a decade ago was a glimpse into some gay nightclubs.
That's where Madonna got her inspiration for her music video, Vogue, if you remember that song.
The style of dancing was called Voguing, but it was an activity.
It was a fetish.
It was a very adult, very separate scene, a million miles away from children and schools, to state the obvious.
And then suddenly it was here, and then suddenly it was everywhere.
It was a political decision, by the way.
Here's a headline from 2012 when it happened.
Here's the NBC story.
Being transgender no longer a mental disorder.
APA.
Transgender people will now be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, which means emotional stress related to gender identity.
Let me read the story.
Transgender people will now be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, which means emotional stress related to gender identity.
The American Psychiatric Association has revised its diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, and it no longer lists being transgender as a mental disorder, among other changes announced this past weekend.
Transgender people will now be diagnosed with gender and dysphoria, which means emotional stress related to gender identity.
Gender identity disorder had been listed as a mental disorder since the third edition of the DSM more than 20 years ago.
So it was a decision that was announced.
There was no new research.
It was a political decision.
A decision by whom?
Well, it was a vote of a small group of trustees of that lobby group, the American Psychiatric Association.
Here's another report of it from a gay newspaper.
Said the American Psychiatric Association has voted to eliminate the term gender identity disorder and replace it with gender dysphoria when diagnosing people who are transgender.
The board of trustees of the APA meeting in Arlington, Virginia, on Saturday, approved the change as part of the soon-to-be-published fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM, the definitive guide to psychiatry used by mental health professionals in the U.S. and worldwide.
So it was a vote.
I didn't know you could just vote for something to become an illness or vote for something to make it not an illness and who gets to vote and in what country and how many.
Gender Dysphoria Controversy00:07:40
And like it's just, did you know that that's how it works?
Who paid them and who lobbied them or anything?
It just was done and then it was just announced and now you're living in that world.
Hey, I saw this video for real this morning.
This is a criminal lawyer named Stephanie Mueller in Seattle.
This is 100% real.
I know the reporter who filmed it.
Let me check on that.
Yeah, yeah.
So we were talking in A6845?
That works for me.
All right.
Do I need the song in here?
Nope. Just out of here.
My comment about my client.
Yeah, I just met her.
She's really nice.
She's really smart.
She sounds like she's got the right idea about things.
I really support what she's up to, and I think it's fabulous.
How about that?
Do you?
She's accused of what is it, criminal trespass.
In the first degree.
Yes.
Is she innocent or guilty?
She's innocent, of course.
She's innocent, okay.
Well, she's caught on video being arrested and protesting and allegedly protesting in front of.
So I'm trying to get all sides.
My client has pled not guilty.
My name is Stephanie Mueller.
I'm in the directory for the Washington State Bar Association.
You can look me up.
Stephanie, thank you for your time.
At this point, your client is being arraigned, though.
It's all just happened.
Her hearing is over.
Got it.
It's done.
All right.
Do you know when her next court date is?
I do.
I'd like to maybe just keep tabs if they're.
Uh-huh.
I think that's a great idea.
Could you tell me when that is?
No.
Take care.
Thank you, Stephanie.
Yeah, can I say something obvious?
That's not actually a woman.
That's a man.
But here's something that I think is also obvious.
That's not a man even dressed up as a woman.
That's not Tootsie or Mrs. Doubtfire.
That's someone dressing up as a bizarre caricature of a woman, an objectified, sexualized mockery of what a woman is.
No woman looks like that or would present like that, even if they did have the underlying geometry like that.
It's like that teacher that David Menzies has reported on, named Busty Lemieux, that's the nickname, with the extreme prosthetic breasts.
That's not a woman.
That's not someone trying to look like a woman.
That's not psychologically normal to do that.
That's an extreme deranged fetish of a man pretending to be a woman.
That is a mental illness.
I don't care what a vote in Arlington, Virginia 12 years ago said.
It's absurd.
It's a dare.
It's a challenge to all norms.
It would be like if a female to male transgender person dressed up with a crazy two-foot-long fake penis under their pants or something and just trotted around a courthouse or a school and demanded that you call her a man and that you pretend that's what men look like or what men do.
Tootsie and Mrs. Doubtfire didn't force you to call them women.
They tried to be so much like women that you couldn't tell the difference that you actually thought they were women and treated them as such.
But this, Stephanie Mueller and Busty Lemieux, aren't trying to convince you.
They're doing the opposite, actually.
They're trying to force you against your will and against your judgment, against your instincts, to say, yes, ma'am, you really are a woman.
I accept that.
I'll call you by your pronouns, she, her, and I'll pretend this is all really normal.
I'll participate in your sexual fantasy by affirming it.
And then that's not enough, of course.
They demand access to women's only places like bathrooms and swimming pool changing rooms.
We see a lot of that.
Even men getting into women's prisons by saying they're trans, even sex criminals saying they're women so they can get put into prison with women.
This is a million miles away from the obscure gay dance club scene of 30 years ago that Madonna emulated in her music video Vogue.
Just 12 years ago, a vote by some political doctors at some meeting in Virginia suddenly waved a magic wand and all of this became normalized.
And now Justin Trudeau has ordered our army bases to put tampon dispensers in men's bathrooms at Canadian forces bases.
And God forbid you say anything about any of this.
You'll be prosecuted by a Human Rights Commission.
So what's next?
I mean, really, I've told you nothing new in the last five minutes.
But what's next?
Because something's next.
Well, here's what's next.
It's a story in the National Post.
The headline is, Quebec man has two healthy fingers amputated to relieve body integrity dysphoria.
It's not the first time amputation has been used as a treatment for the rare condition.
Yeah, I don't think it's going to be rare for very long, do you?
Do you see, though, they call that a treatment?
They said cutting off perfectly healthy fingers is a treatment.
Well, why wouldn't it be?
Cutting off, I'm so gross, I don't even like to say cutting off the breasts of women to transition to become trans men or cutting off a man's penis to transition and be a trans woman.
That's insane also.
And now it's called a treatment, a gender-affirming medical care is what they call it.
This guy just had his two fingers cut off as a affirming care, as a treatment.
I read the whole article.
I don't want to read that much of it to you.
I will gag if I do.
I'm sorry.
I don't have the stomach for this.
The story talks about a man who had this mental illness.
And the story reports, quote, a surgeon at his local hospital agreed to an elective amputation.
Those are two words that should never go together.
An elective amputation in what is being called the first described case of digits amputation for body integrity dysphoria or BID, a rare and complex condition characterized by an intense desire to amputate a perfectly healthy body part, such as an arm or leg.
You know that medical proverb, the motto of the profession is do no harm, right?
Do no harm.
But once you have agreed to cut off body parts for sexual dysphoria, why wouldn't you cut off fingers?
Is body integrity dysphoria still a mental illness?
Or did an obscure committee of the American Psychiatric Association have a vote one weekend and vote to make it a lifestyle or an identity protected by the Human Rights Commission, no doubt?
And maybe your schools will start showing your kids books about choosing their bodies and not feeling like they're in the right bodies because they're not meant to have 10 fingers.
Are your fingers bothering you?
Well, we can do something about that.
Just don't tell your parents.
I know that sounds nuts.
But isn't that what we're doing right now about gender dysphoria?
Stay with us for more.
Michael Briscoe's Charter Rights00:15:02
One of the things that always bothered me about both the way Justin Trudeau talked about the trucker convoy and the way the regime media did is they called it an illegal occupation or an illegal protest.
They used the word illegal to describe the entire manifestation of people, but that's actually not true.
There's no such thing as deeming a protest illegal.
I suppose you could read the Riot Act and say anyone in this area is guilty if they don't immediately disperse of a crime.
I mean, I suppose that's one way to deem a protest illegal, but that didn't happen.
The Emergencies Act, when it was invoked, specifically excluded peaceful protests.
In fact, that was an essential part of both the Emergencies Act and its invocation.
So whenever people said the truckers were illegal, that was a lie.
In the case of the media, they might just simply not have known and they went along with the flow.
But when the government did it, they absolutely knew what they were saying was false.
And the reason I say that is that police, especially the interim police chief in the city of Ottawa, he tried to terrify ordinary Canadians into not donating towards the truckers.
You may recall there was a large Give Send Go donation crowdfund.
$10 million was raised.
Under political pressure, they froze those funds.
They briefly threatened to donate it to causes of their own choosing before they finally refunded them.
Then Give Send Go, a U.S.-based, Christian-based fundraising engine, raised $12 million.
And that was hit with an order as well by Ontario courts.
And the trouble is the list of names on the Give Send Go donation was hacked and leaked, a criminal act.
In fact, there was a hacker who boasted about it online with some proof.
Take a look at this.
Nothing scares me.
Nothing.
Yes, I doxed the truckers.
I did it.
It was me.
I hacked Give Send Go, baby.
Can I do it again?
I did it.
I did it.
Come at me.
What are you going to do?
epic hosting I hacked Barler!
I hacked Gab!
I hacked Truth Social!
I hacked Go!
Give, Send, Go!
Don't care.
You can literally put my name into the news tab on Google and you can find everything I've done I am literally in every mainstream media publication for the things that I do.
I'm not an unknown actor.
I'm literally a famous fucking cyber terrorist.
And you think that you can scare me?
Well, there's no way that hacker would be able to boast about a hack and claim he had the approval of police and simply not be arrested if it weren't true.
And it dovetails with the threats by Ottawa's police chief at the time to hunt down anyone who dared to give money to the truckers.
Here's that odious, odious clip of a disgraceful cop.
Take a look at this.
As I indicated earlier, we will have the opportunity to review all of those files.
There are complaint mechanisms for people to enter into if they feel that there is excessive use of force by members of our police service.
What I will also say is we have been here for three weeks.
I have been at this podium for the last five days, imploring people to leave, asking them to get out of our streets.
This occupation is over.
We have advised them that if they peacefully leave, they may go home.
That still exists.
We also indicated that we would escalate and forcefully remove people from the streets if they did not comply.
Some of that is what you're seeing.
So I will stand here today again and say this demonstration is over.
Go home.
If you don't go home, we will remove you from the streets.
Well, wouldn't you know it in the hacked list of thousands of donors was one police officer himself, Constable Michael Briscoe of Windsor.
He donated 50 bucks to the peaceful protest, a legal protest.
He did so privately.
He did so lawfully, but he was targeted by his police force.
He was charged with discreditable conduct.
And we're here to talk to his lawyer who's fighting for him, James Manson of the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms, joins us now.
Vice Grab James, great to see you.
Thanks for joining us.
Did I accurately tell the story of Constable Briscoe?
He's just an ordinary guy donated 50 bucks on one of these completely legal crowdfunds to a completely legal protest.
And yet for two years now, he's been prosecuted by his own police force.
Is that right?
That is right, Ezra.
Thanks again for having me on the show here today.
Michael Briscoe is one of several police officers who were, I guess, targeted because they gave money to the Freedom Convoy protests.
And so what we have, what basically happened was, as you said a few minutes ago, Ezra, somebody hacked into the Give Send Go database illegally, of course, and they found this donor information and they put it on the internet somewhere.
What happened apparently was the OPP, the Ontario Provincial Police, somehow got themselves this information.
And what happened apparently was they began to contact police forces around the province, among them the Windsor Police Service.
That's where Michael Briscoe was a police officer, still is a police officer.
And they said to police organizations like Windsor Police, they said, hey, we have this name here and it looks like there's a Michael Briscoe that's on your police force.
So maybe you might want to investigate this.
And so they did.
And so what happens, just so that the viewers understand here, is that, number one, Ezra, it is, as you say, totally legal and proper for a police officer to donate to a political cause.
Now, Constable Briscoe in this case was on leave.
He was on unpaid leave.
Why?
He didn't want to take the COVID vaccine, and so they put him on unpaid leave.
And while he was on unpaid leave, of course, the convoy came to Ottawa and he was very interested.
He had nothing else to do at that point.
So he was motivated to donate $50.
And so he gave that through the online web portal, whatever you do.
And the regulation says that you can do that.
Sorry, this is the regulations under the Police Services Act.
This is the law that governs what police do in Ontario.
So, anyways, the regulations say that you can donate as a police officer, as long as you don't donate it as the officer.
So it can be Michael Briscoe, but not Officer Michael Briscoe.
So ultimately, what happened was he did that.
And he donated in his own name or as a cop, which did he do?
In his own name.
That's right.
Okay, so he didn't lend any authority to this.
He didn't claim this was a police activity on his part.
He was on leave anyways.
Correct.
So they charged him, I understand, with discreditable conduct.
Is that right?
Right.
So what happened to them then was the OPP got this information.
They funneled it somehow to the Windsor Police Service.
Then it gets transferred to an investigating officer.
In this case, her name was Sergeant Leah McFadden.
Sergeant McFadden then goes into an investigation phase.
And what she does is she downloads and she looks at 20 or so newspaper articles.
And these newspaper articles are the ones that we all remember from back in the day when chief of police slowly in Ottawa and Premier Ford, Prime Minister Trudeau, all these official people were calling the protests illegal.
Some people referred to it as a siege.
Other people referred to it as lawless behavior, things like that.
None of that was true.
Ezra, I totally agree with you in what you said a few minutes ago.
You can't just deem something to be illegal in this province if you're a public official.
That's called tyranny.
We don't have tyranny in this province.
Maybe a judge could do it by making an order if somebody actually asks the judge to do so.
Perhaps parliament itself could declare something illegal by law.
Otherwise, you're talking about maybe the riot act, as you said as well.
None of that happened, of course.
So there was no declaration of illegal activity.
There still hasn't been at all in this province.
So anyway, she, Sergeant McFadden, she reads these articles and she says, well, good enough for me.
Everybody is claiming that this is an illegal protest.
Therefore, it's illegal.
Therefore, Michael Briscoe arguably donated money to an illegal activity, period.
That was the extent of her investigation.
And so then what she was allowed to do, Ezra, is she was allowed to drag Constable Briscoe into an interview on the record, and he did not have the ability to refuse questions.
You have to answer the questions when you're in an interview for disciplinary purposes.
The reason that you don't have the right to remain silent as you do in a criminal context is because this wasn't a criminal issue.
He wasn't being charged criminally.
He was being charged with discreditable conduct under the code of conduct for police officers.
That's just a disciplinary hearing that could maybe cost you your job or something, but it's not going to land you in jail.
So there is no right to remain silent, if you will.
So he had to answer the questions.
The only reason she knew about all this is because she downloaded, because the OPP, pardon me, downloaded the illegally hacked information.
That sounds like discredible conduct to me.
I think whoever downloaded it in the OPP should face discredible conduct.
And maybe Officer McFadden, her conduct was discreditable for using stolen private information.
I'd like to file a complaint against Officer McFadden.
Well, one of the things that we tried to do and we're still trying to do in the course of our legal representation of Constable Briscoe is to advance a claim of abuse of process.
And so it's a complicated subject and there's a lot of details, but basically there is a way in the law to get these types of things thrown out if you can show that the justice system is thrown into disrepute.
if it's allowed to go forward.
And one of the arguments I'm trying to make, and now we're actually taking this case into the court system.
So just so that the viewers understand, we haven't been in court about this yet.
This entire investigation culminated in a hearing before a retired superintendent of the police board himself or the police force himself.
And that person doesn't have to be a trained lawyer.
So, you know, they're used to the process, but they're not necessarily trained in the vagaries of evidence and all these things.
And just so that the viewers understand, relying on newspaper articles is not admissible normally in court.
That's called hearsay.
And usually you can't base a conclusion on hearsay evidence.
In this system, you can.
The rules are a bit relaxed.
And that's why we are where we are.
But anyways, ultimately, we were arguing all of these things as appeal counsel.
So what happened was Sergeant, sorry, the Constable Briscoe's hearing was before this hearing officer.
We were not counsel for him at the time.
Did he have lawyers at the time or did he go on his own?
He had a lawyer.
For reasons I'm not sure, the lawyer did not raise any of this stuff.
He didn't really raise the abusive process argument.
He didn't complain about the way that this evidence came into the hands of the police.
Maybe had we been involved, it might have been different.
But anyways, just so the viewers understand, when you're taking a case to the appeal, so what happened next was we got involved and there's an appeal process from the hearing officer's ruling.
What happened was the hearing officer found him to be, have committed discreditable conduct.
He basically went hook line and sinker with respect to the illegal activity, didn't really care about the hearsay nature of the newspaper articles, didn't care about the fact that nobody in those articles has the authority to declare anything illegal anyway.
The CBC didn't care about any of that.
According to the CBC, it was illegal, and that's good enough for the Windsor Police, I guess.
Right.
So ultimately, he just basically convicted Constable Briscoe of discreditable conduct and ordered him to pay basically 80 hours of salary.
He had to forfeit two weeks' pay, essentially, for making a $50 donation, which he had every right to do.
So we took it to an appeal and one of the appeal arguments was, hey, this entire thing smells.
This entire thing should never have happened.
It should never have come to light at all because nobody investigated where the illegally hacked information came from, who did it, why was that?
Why are we relying on nothing but hearsay evidence?
There's got to be a limit to that.
We were making all these points.
The appeal committee, it's a body called the Ontario Civilian Police Commission.
Appeal Body Rejection00:07:34
It basically is an appeal body.
They were not very interested in the arguments either.
We had some other arguments as well, including whether or not people were considering Constable Briscoe's charter rights appropriately, because in a case like this, you have to do that.
Essentially, none of my points were really accepted by the commission at the final analysis.
And so, what we've done, Ezra, is we've now launched into the court process.
And so, there is a way to take the appeal decision from this commission into court.
There is a court called the Divisional Court in Ontario.
They are a panel of three judges.
Different judges sit as panels of three judges.
And we will be taking it again.
And we're going to be putting it before the divisional court.
We're going to be saying again that this was an outrageous abusive process, that Constable Briscoe should never have even been called into that interview because that evidence that was setting it all up was wrong.
Yeah, it was basically stolen property.
Well, that list was stolen property.
It was violated as privacy rights.
There's the hearsay, and there's a general BS that this was illegal because the CBC said so.
There's so many issues here.
And you know, I don't know Constable Briscoe.
He sounds like my kind of guy if he was a conscientious objector on the forced vax and then chipping in 50 bucks to the truckers seems like a good egg, especially if he was unemployed at the time.
Right.
But, I mean, I'd like him to be saved from the 80 hours fine.
But this is really about the reputation of the police.
I think that in the last five years, the police have murdered their own reputations.
They've been excessively partisan.
They've run political errands.
We're seeing now in the foreign influence investigations that police and other security services like CSIS doctored their reports to suit the liberals.
I think if the police want the trust of Canadians across the spectrum, left-wing, right-wing, liberal, conservative, whatever, they have to be nonpartisan.
And this is clearly a political vendetta against someone who embarrassed the government.
Yes, I want Constable Briscoe to be made whole here and to be redeemed and vindicated.
But much more than that, I want the Windsor Police and the OPP, the Ontario Provincial Police, to remove the stain of partisanship and abuse from them.
That's what's important.
I agree, Ezra.
And let's just have a thought for a moment about the rank and file members of these police forces across the country.
You can't tell me that they agree with what's going on.
You can't tell me that even a small percentage of them do.
Maybe a small percentage of them do, but I would bet you the vast majority just want to do their jobs, protect their communities, protect the citizens, do the jobs that they were signed up to do.
I mean, maybe some of them want to run these investigations against people for these political purposes, as you're alleging, which may in fact be true.
But I bet you the vast majority just want to do their jobs without any of this nonsense.
And I certainly, as a citizen, want to have a police force that is nonpartisan, that is going to be there to have my back when I need it to, when I need something to happen, and otherwise butt out.
Yeah.
You know, of, you know, I think that's pretty reasonable to expect a police force.
You know, so many institutions drove their best people out.
I mean, again, I've never met this cop, but he's 15 years on the force, so he's got some experience.
He's safe hands, as they say.
He's an independent thinker.
He thinks about freedom and privacy.
That's why he was an objector to the forced vaccine.
You're purging guys like this.
You're punishing guys like this and you're promoting the woke political police.
That's a reason why institutions, first of all, have trouble recruiting new members, and second of all, have trouble maintaining the support of the public.
The common sense rules of modern policing that Sir Robert Peel rolled out over a century ago, I can sum them up in one sentence.
You need the support of the community.
Only in a totalitarian regime can you police against the will of the people.
In democracies like Canada, the police must do the will of the people for them to succeed.
And that is that we're losing that.
When do we expect the next hearing to be here, either of the appeal for the conviction or for your proactive lawsuit on abusive process?
Have either of those, the wheels of justice, started turning yet?
Yes, yes, they have.
So the appeal process before that commission is over, it's finished.
Now, the actual mechanism is called a judicial review.
It's not technically an appeal.
It's like an appeal.
And that's at the divisional court.
That's correct.
Have you filed that yet?
We have.
Yeah, we filed it about a couple of weeks ago.
And what now needs to happen is the people on the other side, so the police force and the actual commission itself is actually a party in the case.
So they need to get their wheels turning.
And they have to put together the record of all the evidence that was put before the commission and the hearing officer.
That's on them to do that.
So anyway, we have been in contact with them.
It looks like we're aiming for a hearing somewhere probably closer to the end of this year.
It's going to be a while.
Well, keep us posted on that because if it's an open proceeding, if it's like in a courtroom, I think we'll definitely want to send a reporter there.
This is of interest to our people, not just because we covered the trucker convoy so carefully when it happened, but because of the issues we've been talking about.
Well, listen, I wish you well.
And I salute the JCCF.
That's the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedom.
By the way, I don't think I've mentioned it to our viewers yet.
I've actually been nominated for the annual award.
So I'm delighted I should disclose that because I mean, I've always been a fan of the JCCF and we've done journalism about them for 10 years.
But it's a special honor that they gave me a shout out this year.
So that's great.
Absolutely.
Ezra, just to interject, we are very proud to honor you this year.
I'll be seeing you at the George Jonas dinner in June here in Toronto.
And we're also extremely grateful for all the contributions you make to freedom and to shining lights in dark places.
It's awesome.
Well, you're very nice to say it in so many ways.
We model what we do after the JCCF.
You guys were the first.
You're the biggest, and you make the most difference.
So thank you for your kind words.
Good to catch up with you.
Thank you for the update.
And please do keep us in touch because if this moves forward through the court system, we want to do some journalism on it.
Absolutely.
We'll do, Ezra.
Thanks.
All right.
Thank you.
There you have it.
James Manson from the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedom.
Stay with us more ahead.
Hey, welcome back.
Your letters to me about my chat with Sheila Gonread yesterday.
Justin Trudeau's Loyalty Questioned00:03:36
Chris Proudlove says, how about we not let anyone not born in Canada serve in public office?
I think that's too extreme, but the United States has a rule, as you may know, that you have to be born an American to be president.
I think, you know, in Canada, Sir John A. McDonald, for example, our first prime minister, was born in Scotland.
And in fact, several other of our prime ministers were born in the UK.
I think that the problem here is Justin Trudeau sold out his loyalty to Canada, literally for cash and for votes.
That astonishing story of a busload of high school kids who weren't Canadians coming in from another district to vote for him in a liberal nomination is so astonishing.
You know, the fact that Handong, an ethnically Chinese Canadian, was the beneficiary of that, but it could have been anyone.
I mean, Justin Trudeau was born in Canada, but he was in fact the largest beneficiary of all this.
So yeah, they got this.
conservative candidate knocked out and they got that liberal candidate put in, but the net effect was to benefit a born-in-Canada white man named Justin Trudeau, which is why he turned a blind eye to it, which is why he turns a blind eye to Iran's mucking about on the Hamas stuff, because he wants the Muslim vote.
And he thinks that there are enough Muslim radicals in Canada to offset the Jewish vote he's losing.
It's so obvious.
Someone with a nickname WS2102 says, why wasn't this dealt with in 2020 when it was common knowledge?
Driving through the rearview mirror is pointless.
Nothing comes from these things.
Well, I'm going to disagree with you.
We're learning a lot about warnings that were given, and the warnings were given to the liberals, and the liberals refused to publish or do anything about it till after the election.
We're actually learning about the kind of corruption that is only alleged, but now it's being proved.
So something is coming from it.
Yes, we should have acted earlier, but I don't think we had the kind of evidence now of the absolute trickery that CSIS and the RCMP and the rest of the Alphabet Soup agencies engaged in at the direction of Trudeau.
And that's the problem.
When Jodi Wilson-Raybold was the justice minister, you can disagree with her ideology on a number of things, and I do, for example.
But I think she was ethical enough that she would have made better decisions, for example, with the Trucker Emergencies Act.
I don't think she would have gone ahead with that.
I use her as an example because Justin Trudeau replaced her with David Lehmetty, who would do anything for Trudeau, including break the law.
Justin Trudeau has installed within the government in the RCMP, in CISIS, in cabinet, throughout the government, installed people who are loyal to him, not loyal to their office or to the people.
That's, I think, one of the reasons why Trudeau himself has never been charged with various offenses that could rationally be put to him.
I think the RCMP in particular has disgraced themselves.
Remember, a lot of this stuff we're only reading about because it was leaked by some spy who said, we've got to tell the world about this because Trudeau's covering it up.
I think it's incredible.
I'm glad Sheila's covering it closely.
And you should follow her reports on our website.
That's our show for today.
Until next time, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, see you at home.