Ezra Levant presents five stories defining Canada in 2026, including an Ontario ruling striking down the sex offender registry for pedophiles and rapists, a Supreme Court decision finding Quebec's asylum seeker daycare exclusion discriminatory, and a $750,000 penalty on a BC trustee opposing gender ideology. He contrasts these with Alberta's "Peterson's Law" and discusses Dr. Daniel Pipes' analysis of the U.S.-Israel "special police operation" against Iran, noting internal Persian nationalist tensions and China's absence. Levant concludes that such perceived denaturing drives patriotic Albertans toward independence while criticizing Pierre Poilievre's immigration approach compared to Reform UK. [Automatically generated summary]
A number of things, including an interview with Daniel Pipes, sort of the Middle East expert on what the heck is going on in Iran and what's next.
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.
It's eight bucks a month, which might not sound like a lot to you, but it sure adds up for us.
And, you know, we don't get any money from the government, so we really rely on you.
Please go to rebelnewsplus.com.
Tonight, five short stories about Canada in 2026.
If you were in Alberton, would you stick around?
It's March 6th, and this is the Ezra Levant Show.
Shame on you, you sensorious bug.
Hey, we've got a great discussion a little bit later in the show with Dr. Daniel Pipes of the Middle East former.
We're going to talk about Iran and what it means for the whole world, including for China, which I think is a big part of it that's coming up.
But first, let me show you five little news stories that have popped up in my Twitter feed, which is how I get most of my news.
A couple of these are a few weeks old, but some of them are very, very new.
I haven't talked about most of them before, so I just want to go through them fairly quickly.
This is a tweet from Ontario Proud, which is sort of a pro-conservative website or Twitter account.
It's very simple: Breaking Justice Davin Garg of the Ontario Court of Justice has ruled that the sex offender registry for pedophiles, rapists, and other sex criminals is unconstitutional.
He's just, you know, one guy has said, no, we're not going to do that.
And even though I would say 90, maybe 95% of Canadians support that registry, and obviously different parliaments and legislatures do, this judge knows better and thinks there's a human right not to be on the offender registry, even if you have committed those crimes.
And what are you going to do about it?
You know, there is something you can do about it.
It's section 33 of the Constitution of the Charter of Rights.
It's a notwithstanding clause, but we know that Doug Ford won't do that.
That's just the new norm.
That's just how it is now.
Get used to it.
Hey, here's another court story.
This is from Josh DeHaas, who's a civil liberties lawyer.
He says, The Supreme Court found eight to one that Quebec's decision to exclude asylum seekers from taxpayers' subsidized daycare discriminates against mothers.
Yeah, no, discriminates means to choose.
Like you could say, he has discriminating taste.
Discrimination, when we say it, it usually means something negative, but it means to choose amongst things and to choose to give your social services to Canadians as opposed to foreigners, including asylum seekers, the vast majority of whom are fake.
That's a choice made by the Quebec legislature that again, what does that have?
80, 90% support in the province.
But no, the Supreme Court, and eight to one, you can't just put it on the liberal judges.
There's some Tory judges, Harper-appointed judges who are going along with this.
I mean, why not?
You're a judge.
You're making, what, $400,000 a year.
You don't even have any kids anymore because you're in your 60s and 70s.
So you don't care about these things.
And yeah, if the little people have to pay more taxes to provide free daycare for foreign nationals who sneaked across the border from New York, what do you care?
You're a judge.
I mean, what are they going to do?
Fire you?
Here's a story from the Toronto Star.
It's just sort of incredible.
The headline and how they phrase it is pretty neat.
Canada launches new program.
That's not Canada, it's the Liberals.
Canada launches new program to grant 33,000 foreign workers permanent residents, immigration minister reveals.
They left out a word.
Those are temporary foreign workers.
So they've realized that they can reduce the number of temporary foreign workers in Canada and thus say, hey, we're reducing the number of temporary foreign workers by just making them permanent.
So they don't have to go home anymore.
They can stay here and compete against Canadians, especially young Canadians.
Many of these temporary foreign workers are not specialists brought in because Canadians can't do it.
They're just specialists in one thing only, undercutting Canadians, especially young Canadians, looking for that first job.
And what are you going to do about it?
Here's another tweet.
Aboriginal law expert Tom Isaac on the recent Musqueam First Nation agreements, quote, it is, from a process point of view, it's, and I'll say it again, absolutely unacceptable that public democratic governments are entering into agreements acknowledging Aboriginal title in any form when it's an exclusive right to land, according to the Supreme Court of Canada, without consulting in some way with their constituency, which is the public.
Okay, there's a lot of words there, but basically, and we'll talk about this a little bit later, the federal government had a secret negotiation and a secret deal with an Indian band in BC that now gives them Aboriginal title, a kind of right to the land over vast swaths of the province.
And they did it in secret.
The public were not, there was no advocate for the public, certainly not the British Columbia public.
And that's just how it is now.
What are you going to do about it?
I keep asking.
Here's another tweet.
This one's a little bit older.
We've talked about this one before.
$750,000.
That's the price for saying biological sex is real.
Former Chilliwack trustee Barry Neufeld just got financially crushed for opposing gender ideology in schools.
Disagree with the narrative?
That'll cost you three-quarters of a million dollars.
And that's from the BC Human Rights Tribunal, which is just an absolute madhouse.
I mean, a $750,000 penalty like that, that's enough to destroy a man.
I have never heard of a fine that large other than when it's to recoup some money that was stolen.
I have never in my life in Canada heard of a fine of $750,000.
I can't even think of a fine that large in the criminal code.
The only reason you would say that is if some fraudster scooped that money and it was taken back.
That's larger than a murderer would get.
We don't really fine murderers now, do we?
Now, it's not that I selected these on purpose, but it just happens that every single one of these is not Albertan.
Now, that doesn't mean to say Alberta is immune from this stuff.
Alberta still has a Human Rights Commission, though it's a little less crazy than some of the others, certainly less than British Columbia's.
Alberta has crazy courts, often where the judges are appointed by Ottawa, it's true.
But I think Alberta is tending to go in the other direction.
For example, they're strengthening freedom of speech for the professions.
So, that case of Barry Neufeld, he's not really a professional, but he's an elected official.
He had a political point of view about transgenderism.
They fined him $750,000.
In Alberta now, they're calling it Peterson's Law, named after Jordan Peterson.
You can have a spicy political opinion as a doctor, a lawyer, an accountant, or an engineer, and not be kicked out of your profession if it's just a political opinion that's got nothing to do with your work.
So, Alberta actually is moving in the opposite direction.
Alberta has treaties covering all its land.
So, I don't think that that musqueam deal would be afoot in Alberta, but you never know.
But these issues that the whole country sees they're on the minds of Albertans, even though the stories I told you typically happen in Ontario or BC.
And if you're in Alberta, are you thinking of this as a reason to stay in Canada or a reason to separate from the rest of Canada, to separate from the madness?
I've been visiting Alberta quite a lot.
I was there recently in various cities, such as Edmonton, Calgary, Lethbridge, Medicine Hat, listening to people and their concerns.
And the paradox is the people in these meeting rooms are actually the most pro-Canadian people in the country.
They're the ones who would fly a flag over their home.
They're the ones who would lament stripping Sir John A. MacDonald off the $10 bill or changing the lyrics to the national anthem or saying that Canada are genociders or they would object to tearing down statues.
The people who are most pro-independence in Alberta are the most patriotic.
How can that be?
Well, because they're seeing that the rest of Canada, in the five examples I just gave you, are tearing down anything Canadian about Canada.
They're denaturing the country.
And so, if you're an Albertan considering independence, you know, there's traditional historical reasons, and there's the acute reasons of, you know, Mark Carney and what he's doing to Alberta and blocking pipelines.
You may not like the new pivot towards being a Chinese colony, or as Carney calls it, a new world order.
But you don't think looking at this madness every day is yet another reason for Albertans to say, how do we get out of that mess?
And it could be that on October 19th, they vote to get out of that mess.
Stay with us.
Dr. Daniel Pipes is next.
Chinese Regime Shift00:15:00
You know, you read about battles, wars in the Bible, and sometimes they're just, you know, they strain credulity.
That's where I suppose the faith part comes in.
Or maybe sometimes you think, well, this story was probably altered over the course of time and mythologized a little bit, because what is reported in the Bible surely meets the definition of a miracle.
And I am thinking, of course, about the U.S. and American attack on Iran that I think it's fair to say has gone miraculously.
There has been some loss of life.
And of course, even losing one person is a tragedy, and certainly for the family.
But in terms of the history of warfare, I don't think I can recall a battle so lopsided other than perhaps Israel's dogfight with the Soviet-made fighter jets over Lebanon's Baka Valley some 40-odd years ago.
I guess what I'm saying is we live in miraculous times, even though it's 2026.
But where do we go now?
It's not done yet.
The war is not yet over.
Iran is still lobbing ballistic missiles and drones, not just at Israel, but at, oh, I don't know, a dozen other Muslim nations, including the latest, Azerbaijan.
And what happens if the regime crumbles?
What will fill its space?
Will Iran break apart into different countries?
Will Kurdistan or Balochistan be independent countries?
Is this about Iran, but also about China?
What will China and Russia do if Iran falls?
So many questions.
I've got my guesses, but someone who has spent a lifetime studying this is our special guest today.
His name is Dr. Daniel Pipes.
He's the founder of the Middle East Forum, and he joins us now.
Dr. Pipes, I'm so glad to have your time because I think we're living in an age of miracles.
Why don't you bring me down to earth a little bit and tell me what's really going on?
Well, miracles is one way of putting it.
I prefer to call it a special police operation.
In other words, when Israel, the United States take on enemies such as the Palestinians or Hezbollah or Iran, it's more like a police operation than a war.
A war is what we see in Ukraine.
We don't know the outcome.
We don't know who will win.
In the case of Iran, we do know who will win, and it's only a matter of what the implications are.
How many casualties?
Who is responsible for the girls' school?
What is the cost in terms of oil revenues?
What are the implications for the Persian Gulf Arab states?
And so forth.
So it's a very different thing from a war, in my view.
It is an enhanced police operation.
That's an interesting terminology.
I think the number one difference is what you alluded to.
In Russia, you have the meat grinder of Russia versus Ukraine.
Some would say the death toll or the casualties is over a million.
I wouldn't be surprised.
Trench warfare, brutal, whereas it's the technology and the methodology, but you can't occupy a country from the air and the sea.
And that's really the you can flatten the Iranian regime, but at the end of the day, someone else has to step up.
I mean, I look at what the U.S. is doing in Venezuela, and they managed to convince the rest of the regime to go along with America, but that's because they're not ideologically and religiously motivated.
They just want to survive and have some power.
In Iran, you can't find some mullah to take over because they're part of the ideological Islamic theocracy.
You need something to emerge from the rubble to take over, don't you?
Yes, indeed.
And I agree with you that it's very unlikely that a Venezuela-type solution can be pursued in Iran.
There's so many differences.
And now there does seem to be the beginnings of a land campaign in that the Kurds who are based in Iraq and in western Iran are beginning to take steps with American and Israeli encouragement and perhaps armaments to take on the regime.
Now, how well they can do against the regime is an open question.
That is a war.
That's not a police operation.
But it does bring a new level of fighting to the conflict.
But as many have pointed out, the Americans and Israelis have done brilliantly on the battlefield, but nobody quite knows what the goal is.
Is it a Venezuela-type situation?
Is it a change of regime?
Is it to knock out the nuclear and ballistic capabilities for years to come?
What is the goal?
What are these two governments looking forward to accomplishing?
Well, in Trump's first address to the nation, he laid out the goals, I think, destroy the Navy.
He did.
Destroy the missiles, destroy the regime.
He's scotched the Navy.
I mean, there was footage released by the Department of War the other day that showed the first torpedoed vessel since World War II.
The Americans torpedoed an Iranian vessel and they took on an aircraft.
Like, it's just destroying all those assets.
I think you can measure blowing up ballistic missiles and measure blowing up the Navy.
Regime change is a little bit hard.
That could come in many forms.
Let me ask you a question.
What do you think of the Shah's son, Reza Pahlavi?
Many diaspora communities wave his flag.
I've seen here in Toronto a large number of Iranian Canadians express a desire that the son of the Shah take a role, at least on an interim basis.
Maybe that's the answer, a symbolic placeholder while some other structure is put in place.
What do you think?
I'm a big supporter of Reza Pahlavi.
I look back to 1979 and how quick and easy the transition was from the Shah's regime to Khomeini's regime.
Why?
Because Khomeini had such widespread support.
There was essentially no opposition in his way.
It would be wonderful if there could be something similar, and the only candidate for that position is Reza Pahlavi.
I think he's competent.
I think he has got good politics.
I don't think he is trying to resurrect the Shah, you know, the king of kings position, but he sees himself as a transitionary, transitory figure.
I trust him.
I think he's the best option there is.
That's interesting because we were just talking about Venezuela.
There was a candidate for the Venezuelan elections who, according to international observers, actually won.
She later went on to win the Nobel Peace Prize this year.
And Trump did not choose her as the placeholder leader.
He said she doesn't have the clout.
She doesn't have the roots.
I think he's probably right on that.
Does the candidate you just mentioned, Reza Pelavi, have, does he seem to be close to the U.S. administration?
Because really, this is Trump's world.
We're just living in it.
Does the son of the Shah have the support of Marco Rubio and Donald Trump?
Because we saw just yesterday Trump saying, I'm going to choose the new leader.
He said it.
Yeah.
He also dismissed Reza Pahlavi in similar wording as he dismissed Ms. Machado a couple of months ago.
So it doesn't look favorable for Reza Pahlavi.
But Trump is mercurial and he might change his mind.
I don't know.
I can't predict.
There's another feature that did not exist in Venezuela, which is that Iran, and I think this is crucial, Iran is a small empire.
Iran is an empire.
Russia is an empire.
China is an empire.
Ethiopia is an empire.
These are land empires, and we in the West tend not to be aware of them.
We're aware of the British and French and Portuguese and Spanish and so forth empires, overseas empires.
And those were dismantled 50, 60, 70 years ago.
The land empires, which are less visible, still exists.
And in Iran, the Persians, people who speak Persian as a native language and adhere to Persian culture, form about 50% of the population, which is to say that the Azeris, the Kurds, the Baluch, and the many other peoples constitute another half of the population.
There is an extreme tension between the Persian nationalists, you can even call them Persian chauvinists, who want to sustain this empire, and the non-Persians who want out.
And that could well be a major, major issue in the years to come if there's not a smooth transition to someone like Reza Pahlavi.
Very interesting.
I saw an essay online by Melissa Chen who said, yes, this is about Israel and Iran and the region, but it's also about China.
And I've seen other commentators say there's sort of two simultaneous strategies of what Israel wants, along with the local Arab states, wants to remove the threat of Iran, especially the ballistic missiles and the nukes.
But America, in addition to that, wants to remove China's influence from the region and Russia's too, but China more acutely, the source of oil, a way to keep America on the back foot.
Do you have any thoughts on China and this conflict?
I mean, China and Russia both basically said we're not getting involved.
How much have they lost here?
And speak to China, if you would, the Chinese aspect of this battle.
If I could just speak to Russia for a second first.
There is news breaking that the Russians have supplied Iran with intelligence about American assets, be they military or commercial or otherwise, and that the Iranians have relied heavily in recent days on this intelligence from Russia.
So that has got lots of implications, particularly since Trump has been quite chummy with Putin.
This could change that dramatically.
China, in contrast, has not been involved so far as we know, has not provided intelligence, has not sped up arms deliveries, has not provided money.
They are proving, the Chinese are proving to be, the communist Chinese are proving to be a fair weather friend.
This probably has implications, both in the case of Russia and China, for other anti-Western regimes like North Korea and, of course, Cuba.
You know, I think one of the most demoralizing moments in Joe Biden's presidency were the images of the hasty retreat of the U.S. military from Afghanistan, the images of people clambering on jets as they went down the runway, leaving behind billions of dollars worth of equipment.
It really felt Jimmy Carter-esque in terms of a big, dopey government that couldn't even handle itself.
I think it showed weakness.
And I have a sense that this war is being prosecuted in a manner to undo that reputation and to terrify America's enemies.
I think it actually started amazingly with the insertion and the snatching of Nicolas Maduro without a single casualty in two hours.
Just come in, snatch the guy, use new and strange weapons.
I hear one's been called the discombobulator, a sound-based weapon that caused enormous pain.
And like just the shock of that.
And I think some of the moves of the Americans, sinking ships in the manner they have, just the technological awesomeness.
I think that's designed to win, but I think it's also designed to put fear in the hearts of every tyrant that maybe they could be snatched from their bed in the dead of night by special ops.
I think it's a lot more than just Iran that's about to be crushed here.
I think Donald Trump is trying to teach the world who America is these days.
What do you think of that?
Maybe that's an obvious point, but I think I'm not going to call it a cruelty of war, but a total approach to war feels new.
I have no doubt that you're right, that this is in part a reaction to the Biden years.
And indeed, the fact that Trump was president before and had four years to meditate on what he didn't do and what he could do probably is also a factor.
I mean, he's a very different president than he was the first time around.
And he got angry and got ambitious in a way he had not been the first time.
And we're seeing results.
So partly it's Trump's own evolution and partly it's a reaction to the Biden years and the ignomy of fleeing Afghanistan as we did.
By the way, it was not Jimmy Carter, but it was Gerald Ford when the United States fled Vietnam.
Oh, sorry, you know what?
If I said Vietnam, I probably meant to say the fall of Iran the first time around.
I was mixing up my debacles.
Sorry, I got it wrong.
Okay.
Okay.
You know, there are so many moments where America was so mighty but looked so weak because I think it was led.
I think it was a lack of will.
And I saw a Chinese observer saying the only limit on American power is its willpower.
And I think there's some truth to it.
Speaking of which, I just want to ask you about one particular thing.
I saw Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of War, use a phrase that was quite deliberate because I've seen it repeated several times in official publications since.
He said that U.S. and Israel are the two most effective, most powerful air forces in the world.
So not the UK, not Russia or China, but America number one and Israel number two.
And I thought about that and I thought, you know, that's probably true.
I would never have thought it until Hegseth said it.
I always would have assumed the mighty RAF, they've got a couple of aircraft carriers, they have modern jets, but maybe it's that willpower thing.
Israeli Air Force Dominance?00:08:55
I mean, Keir Starmer has just been a puddle.
The Brits have not really been active.
The Royal Navy is a wall.
What do you make of Pete Hegseth saying Israel is the second most powerful air force in the world?
It's certainly plausible.
I don't think the RAF, the British Air Force, is in contention.
We don't really know about the Chinese.
Chinese have not deployed forces in action since 1979.
So we really don't know about them.
Russia clearly is not it.
As the witticism goes, it used to be thought that Russia was the second most powerful military in the world.
Now it's the second most powerful military in Ukraine.
But beyond that, I think what is remarkable, this is the first time since World War II that the United States is working with another military on a roughly equal basis.
The fact that the United States has 330 million population and Israel 10 million doesn't seem to be important.
But in all other prior engagements, the RAF, the French, the Canadians, you name it, were junior partners.
You know, the Danish would send 54 soldiers to Afghanistan sort of thing.
This time, the Israeli participation is not symbolic.
It's not political.
It is very substantial.
The problem lies in the fact that the Israeli government, the American government presumably have different goals.
And at any point, Donald Trump could declare victory and just leave the field, in which case the Israelis would be left holding the bag, and it could be a very inflammable situation still.
So I think the Israelis are wary of Donald Trump and his leaving the field at will at any moment.
What do you make of Keir Starmer in the UK and other countries like the Prime Minister of Spain announcing that he would not allow the Americans to use Air Force bases there to launch attacks?
Actually, that was Keir Starmer's point of view for a while, too.
Sort of undoes the point of having an Air Force base forward, you know, on the other side of the world if suddenly when you need it, you can't use it.
That seems to defy the purpose of it.
But it certainly doesn't feel like something an ally would do.
I'm completely convinced that that is solely a domestic politics decision by Starmer and the Spanish government, that they have a domestic population of Muslim activists who, at the very least, would be politically opposed to this, and they're very politically active in the UK, and perhaps even would engage in violence or at least mass protest, but possible terrorist attack.
I think the only reason why these NATO allies have not helped America is because they're afraid of their domestic Muslim migrants.
Am I being too harsh?
I'd agree with you in the case of Great Britain, less so in the case of Spain.
I think the Spanish Prime Minister has taken a, is a far leftist and is hostile to Trump in a fundamental way and sees opposing Trump as a politically advantageous step.
I don't think it's so much the domestic Muslim population as the domestic leftist population that he's appealing to in Spain.
I agree with you.
Well, I hear what you're saying.
And they have done, like just the other day, they announced they were going to normalize and naturalize half a million migrants, most of whom are Muslim.
That's astonishing to hear from the country that at great cost liberated itself from the Muslim-Moorish invaders after centuries of domination.
It's sort of, I wonder what Ferdinand and Isabella would say if they were around.
Let me ask you about when Trump goes, because he will not be president in three years' time.
And it's tough to predict, but you may not have a Republican.
If you have a Republican, it might be JD Vance.
Can you look beyond Trump and give us some sort of a prognostication?
It's my observation that anti-Israel and even anti-Semitic views are on the rise on the woke left, but I also see it on what some people are calling the woke right.
Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens being examples of that.
Those are insurgents right now.
They don't control the levers of government.
But what do you see three, four, five, ten years from now?
Two points of interest.
First is the parallel civil wars on left and right in the United States.
On the left, it's between the liberals and the woke faction.
On the right, it's between the traditional conservatives and the MAGA crowd.
And these are major, major disputations that are only growing with time.
I don't know who's going to win them, but they are going to be very powerful debates.
The second point would be that I think the American public will have a choice between Donald Trump style politician, whether on Republican or Democratic ticket,
who is going to continue with being outrageous and doing whatever he wants and the like, or whether American voters will rather go to the opposite than someone who is quiet, polite, restrained.
We saw this, for example, with Clinton.
Bill Clinton was all over the place and all sorts of corruption issues and so forth, sex issues.
And so the Americans voted for George W. Bush, who was the opposite.
No scandals whatsoever.
They wanted something different.
Will the Americans want a continuation or a rebuttal?
Or will they want to get away from this pattern entirely?
I don't know, but I think it's an important issue in the next election or two.
Last question.
One of the issues that I see debated in the U.S. by the woke right is American aid to Israel.
And it's less than 1% of Israel's GDP.
And Israel is doing economically well.
The growth in the country this year alone is startling.
Do you think Israel could go it alone if that aid were removed and if America was less involved with Israel?
Like even if America wasn't involved in this war, I think Israel could possibly have achieved many of the goals, not all of them.
America doesn't have all the weapons like the B-2 bump, B-2s, and their special bunker buster bombs.
But I think it's plausible to say that Israel could have neutralized Iran on its own without America's help and without America's hindrance.
Is there a future where Israel is sort of an independent country with Arab allies, by the way?
And it's a regional power that's not so tightly tied to America if America is tiring of its international connections it's worth pointing out that the Israel has its own second war underway at this time, which is against Hezbollah.
The United States military has no role there.
I've been arguing for three decades and more that Israel should reself from American aid.
You said it's 1%, yeah, even half a percent of GDP.
Yes, of course, you can do without it.
And the political cost is high.
And there are economic costs as well.
You know, anybody who gets free money, it's distorts economy, it distorts political decision making and so forth.
Yeah, absolutely.
And indeed, one of Benjamin Yahoo's early campaign was to achieve just that.
He doesn't talk about it too anymore, but I think in principle, he is in agreement.
And it's a matter of finishing.
Oh, there was a deeper agreement under Obama that is about to conclude.
Maybe this will be much better off with it.
Dr. Daniel Pipes, Middle East Forum, great to catch up with you.
Thanks for your insight and hopefully we'll talk again.
Thank you for the invitation, Israel.
Right on, there he is.
Daniel Pipes, stay with us.
your letters to me next.
Hey, welcome back.
Kearney Joining the War00:03:41
Your letters to me on my weird experience with that security guard at the Calgary airport and the panic by the bureaucracy who read it.
Zamrider said, How many Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, IRGC, are working security at the airports?
Hopefully, an explosive doesn't get on a plane now that Kearney is joining the war.
Yeah, I don't think Kearney is joining the war.
I don't think he could because I think our armed forces are so denuded.
Yeah, you know, I think the main thing about that guy wearing a Palestine pin is not just him, it's that every single other person there was cool with it.
His bosses, his colleagues, how many else?
I mean, it's just totally normal, I guess, to work in the airplane and airport security business.
And you're a Palestine activist.
How could that possibly end well?
Next letter from Kasud Brisalassi.
Canada, a country with 700 plus IRGC terrorists, are dancing around in major Canadian cities.
And when politicians tell you Canadian values are Islamic values, we know we are cooked unless Canadians take drastic measures to put this madness to rest.
Well, that's the thing is we've lost our ability to be shocked.
We're just numb to what's normal these days.
It is completely insane that there are mass gatherings in Canada memorializing the life of the terrorist Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
That's just normal.
I think if you were right after 9-11, people would have a proper reaction to it.
But after 25 years, we'd be numbed.
We'd been conditioned, don't you think?
Next letter.
Dwayne French says, that mosque video, the one from David Menzies, had my blood boiling.
We are a little behind the U.S. Donald Trump sees this, sadly.
Many native Canadians do not.
Many of the other Western countries are starting to see he's correct.
He is revolutionary.
You know, it's interesting.
I look at the UK because the Reform UK Party, led by Nigel Farage, is winning by-elections or coming in a strong second that they had never had a chance in before.
In the most recent by-election, believe it or not, the Conservative Party of Britain, which is ancient, got less than 2%.
And it was Reform UK that came in second.
The Greens came in first, terrifying.
So the UK is very far gone, but they are finally getting around to a political antidote to it.
I wonder if Pierre Polyev will come around to a proper antidote to mass immigration.
I don't think he's quite found the courage yet, but I hope he will.
And as I've been saying since the last election, the media are going to find a controversy, and they're going to find a reason to hate you and to attack you.
You have a choice.
Let them choose the outrage or you choose the controversy.
In the last election, it was, you're not being anti-Trump enough.
You're not being anti-American enough.
Well, yeah, and that managed to convince a million people in Ontario and Quebec to switch back from conservative to liberals.
I think if Pierre Polyev were to say, you know what, we're going to freeze immigration.
We're going to freeze asylum claims.
We're going to deport those who no longer have the right to be here.
We're going to cut international students down by 90% and give Canadians access to those schools.
We're going to cut temporary foreign workers down almost to zero, only if there's a really clear case that you need a seasonal worker just for a short period, say to pick a crop while there's a short window of time, something like that.
I think the media would be so apoplectic, but every time they squawked about it, you'd go up in the polls.
That's my theory for how the Conservatives can win.