Ezra Levant and Barbara Kay argue that activist-driven human rights tribunals in Canada have become weapons against free speech, citing vexatious litigant Jonathan Yaniv who allegedly silences critics through malicious complaints. They highlight severe penalties, such as a $750,000 fine on politician Barry Neufeldt and a $100,000 levy against X, claiming these unaccountable bodies function as national censors that terrify dissenters into silence. The discussion extends to broader concerns regarding transgender extremism, mass immigration, rising anti-Semitism, and the impacts of UNDRIP, ultimately suggesting that Canadian leadership has failed to address these demographic and cultural shifts while enabling institutional overreach. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, WAV2VEC2_ASR_BASE_960H, sat-12l-sm, script v26.04.01, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Feature Conversation With Barbara Kay00:02:18
Hello, my friends.
Big show today.
One of my favorite people, Barbara Kay.
We've got her for more than half an hour.
We're going to talk about everything I can think of it from transgender extremism to censorship to the liberal government.
One of the smartest people out there.
I'm so glad she writes for the National Post because that gives her an audience into places that maybe Rebel News doesn't reach.
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, and Bob's your uncle.
Not only do you get great video content, Content, but you get the satisfaction of keeping Rebel News strong because we take no government money and it shows.
Oh, yeah, one more thing.
Are you wondering how you can support your favorite independent news outlet while also sharing your opinions in a unique way?
Head over to RevenueStore.com and check out our merch.
We have got incredible t shirts, hoodies, mugs, and winter gear.
We ship.
Internationally, and if you use the code ALEX10, you will get 10% off your order.
Go and take a look today.
Tonight, a feature conversation with our dear friend Barbara Kay of the National Post.
We're going to talk about malicious lawsuits that half a dozen journalists have just been hit with.
It's May 1st, and this is the Ezra Levant Show.
Shame on you, you censorious bug.
When Rudy Giuliani was the mayor of New York City, I had the pleasure, it really was a privilege, of attending a policy meeting in New York to find out how he cleaned up the city, how he cracked down on the crime, how he turned it from the most dangerous big city in America to the most safe.
How Few Terrorize Many00:05:42
And one of the things I learned and it stuck with me, and this is more than 20 years ago now, is the knowledge that all it took to terrorize an entire city block.
Was one bad hombre, as Trump would say.
So just a very small number of full time antagonists could terrorize and terrify hundreds of people to keep them off their porches, to keep them locked behind locks and bars on their windows.
And there was a discovery that if they scooped up just actually quite a small number of bad guys in any neighborhood, it would be like the scales would fall and a sun would rise and the entire block would be saved.
I don't know.
I thought that was an interesting thing that I probably wouldn't have guessed how small a number of people can terrorize a large number of people.
And the reason I mention that to you today is because we have someone in Canada like that.
And I first heard about him with this aura of mystery because he was anonymous.
Word trickled out from the BC Human Rights Tribunal that there was this monster who was taking countless women to the Human Rights Tribunal, typically, Immigrant women, including those who didn't have a good command of English or know their rights.
What he would do, this man, is he would book a meeting with aestheticians for a waxing.
And most of these women worked from home.
It was a way to get a second income in the family.
And of course, they're used to waxing women.
And this big bloke would show up, this 250 pound man, and say, Wax my balls.
And if they didn't, he would say that's discrimination.
On the basis of gender expression or gender identity.
And the BC Human Rights Tribunal is the only thing crazier than him.
And so they took these cases.
And there were little rumors coming out of that courtroom because the man who had brought all these trumped up charges managed somehow to convince the tribunal to keep his name secret.
And it was only once that somehow broke that the name Jonathan Yaniv and his face and his monstrosity.
Became known to the world, and the embarrassed human rights tribunal resiled from the claim.
They were as much to blame as him, in fact, they were far worse.
He is some malicious, uh, vexatious litigant, but they were the ones that ran with it.
Well, that was about 10 years ago now, and we have been covering the case of Jonathan Yaneve for years as he has gone on his transgender journey, and along the way, he has assaulted probably close to half a dozen rebel news reporters.
He is a Violent man by nature.
He now has a criminal record.
I just want to show you some of the interactions he's had with us.
And whether it's Sheila Gunn Reed, Drea Humphrey, Keean Bexty, now our alumnus, David Menzies, Jonathan Yneve is a violent, abusive monster.
And let me show you the latest interaction between him and Drea Humphrey of our team.
And as you know, Drea is black.
Take a look at this disgusting man.
Take a look.
Nigger fuck you.
I have the picture of your kid on here by the way.
You want to see?
You like that?
Hey, Sheriff, this guy's up for assault.
Why aren't you protecting this reporter?
Do you know what fuck off means?
I'll give him the mic, you.
I'll give him the mic, you.
You threaten me.
I will fucking kill you.
You're gonna send another bomb threat to my phone?
I'm watching you.
Well, I'll just call her a nigger, flat on in her face.
I'll be like, fuck off, nigger.
Will you be pleading guilty?
What?
No, don't touch me.
Don't touch me.
Hey!
Stop!
Go away from me.
Go away.
My iPhone.
What is it now?
Go away.
You just smashed your cane over my head.
One thousand people.
Hey.
Hey.
Keep your hands off me.
Do you have any weapons on you?
Go away.
Hey.
Don't touch me.
Go away.
Don't touch me.
Go away.
Don't touch me.
The good news is that people are starting to wise up to Jonathan Yaniv.
He sued Rebel News in civil court a couple years ago, and we managed to get it thrown out.
As a slap suit, strategic litigation against public participation.
The judge agreed that it was not a real lawsuit.
It was just his malice showing through.
Well, since then, he's been wise enough to stay out of the real courts where you can get a slap suit thrown out.
And he's gone back to his original place the cuckoos at the BC Human Rights Tribunal, perhaps the stupidest quasi judicial tribunal in Canada.
Actually, they're not stupid.
I wish they were.
They're quite cunning.
What they are is.
And like Yaniv in his own way, they are so contrary to norms of the law.
Recently, Yaniv has filed a spate of vexatious complaints against any media who criticize him or his views of transgenderism.
I'm talking about the Western Standard, Juno News, Rebel News, and our dear friend Barbara Kay of the National Post, who joins us now.
Now, Barbara, great to see you again.
Cunning Judges Ignore Norms00:14:51
I have no doubt that what I've just said will yield yet another human rights complaint.
To hell with that.
Yeah.
Thanks for having me on.
And I know we're comrades in arms on this issue.
Truly, I don't want to prejudice my own case by saying anything about the BC Human Rights Tribunal or anybody on it.
But I do think, I do agree with you that I think they call him a prolific litigant.
But I think vexatious really is the word, and it's too bad.
That they're wasting time and taxpayers' money on hearing any more of his complaints, which, by the way, follow suspiciously quickly upon the heels of the massive damages decision against Barry Neufeldt $750,000,
an unheard of amount for damages in a complaint at the tribunal.
So, that to me.
Sort of is a little bit suspicious and suggests a certain, could be a certain motive in following on the heels of that.
I'm certainly not going to press you to say anything that would prejudice your case.
I suppose I've been through this rodeo so many times, I've got as many arrows in me as a porcupine.
So, you know, it's just throw another log on the fire.
But, you know, about 20 years ago, I read a book that really opened my eyes and I read it twice.
And, you know, I should go back and read it a third time.
It was called Rules for Radicals.
And it was written by Saul Alinsky, who was a communist activist, who was an inspirer of Barack Obama.
In fact, I think Hillary Clinton even sort of interned with him.
She wrote her MA thesis, didn't she, on him?
Good for you.
Yeah, you know your history.
Solomonski basically wrote the book, it's called Rules for Radicals, that was the strategy for the 60s counterculture revolution.
And I guess I would sum it up with one image you can protest outside the dean's office at your university, you can have a sit in, you can, you know, Have some sort of passive resistance protest.
You can do that.
Or, as Saul Alinsky would say, why don't you become the dean yourself?
And that's the thing I think with the human rights tribunals Jonathan Yaniv is the protester.
He's the radical.
He's the troublemaker.
But far more effective, far more dangerous is the tribunal itself that is staffed by a bevy of Yanivs who are just a little bit smarter and a little bit more disciplined.
And I'm glad you reminded me of the case of.
Barry Neufeld, I think is his name, who was hit with a $750,000 fine by the same BC Human Rights Tribunal for his critical comments about transgenderism, which you might argue, as an elected politician, he is paid to have those opinions.
And he's not in trouble.
And he's a person who is impossible for him to pay even a fraction of that.
He lives in a trailer.
He didn't criticize any specific person, he criticized a curriculum.
But they treated it as though it was a class action suit by teachers who felt aggrieved because they felt personally offended by the fact that he was critical of the curriculum.
So that mass, that huge number, it's as if each teacher, I think it is actually, each teacher in the Chilliwack Association of Teachers, Teachers Association, is slated to get a portion of that, which is never going to be forthcoming.
That was the general idea.
This was not what the human rights tribunals were meant to be.
Yeah, and that's not what it's allowed to do under law either.
They're just literally making it up as they go.
Barry Neufeld, as far as I know, has not been charged with any offense.
He's not charged with any crime.
And the size of that penalty is enormous.
It's the kind of thing that you would.
I mean, it's just.
It's unheard of.
Our charter would say that's cruel and unusual punishment.
It's certainly both.
And it's not the business of the human rights tribunal.
He has.
He has not been charged, let alone convicted of a hate crime or a hate speech.
These are just Yaniv style activists who, instead of protesting outside the dean's office, are the dean.
And I think that the BC Human Rights Tribunal is an enemy of the law.
I think they are rogues and renegades.
And I wonder how long they'll be allowed to continue because of this deference to authority that is so Canadian, isn't it?
We just don't even criticize our judges.
In the United States, Judges are politically accountable.
There's at least going into it, they're screened in the case of federal judges or senior judges, appeal judges.
They have to go before the US Senate and are grilled.
And sometimes they're withdrawn when bad stuff about them comes out.
Our Canadian judges are just as political.
They're just not held to political account.
Like you can probably even name some of the most famous cases of judges being kept out Robert Bork.
Being a very famous case from, I don't know, about 40 years ago, a very conservative judge who the Senate just said, we're not letting this guy in.
And we don't have that same political accountability in Canada.
Do you know?
I bet you could probably name more American Supreme Court judges than Canadian Supreme Court judges.
Am I wrong?
No, not at all.
They're appointed.
They're kind of very distant from us.
We don't, you know, they.
But I mean, the Supreme Court is the least of our troubles right now.
We have judges.
Every day in the National Post, I read another story about a judge making a crazy decision.
There was a judge that got very angry or annoyed with one of a defendant who had had 90.
Prior convictions, and who had an indigenous name but was not claiming an indigenous discount on his sentence, right?
Because he said he had no particular indigenous access to grind.
The judge was berating him and saying, Look here, you know, you've got to take this discount.
Yeah, uh, I think I, I mean, it's it's it's it's comic in a way what's happening, uh, but to the justice system, little by little, but I guess.
I guess it was inevitable that what was creeping up through the arts, you know, the arts courses, the humanities for all these years, eventually was going to arrive at the law schools.
And it did some time ago.
And now we're seeing the fruits of that ideological creep.
Yeah, I mean, take Yaniv.
There's an extremist in terms of transgenderism, he's an extremist in terms of how he deals with people.
That's why he's a convicted criminal.
You know, I mean, he brandishes prohibited weapons.
He's violent.
We know that from his interaction.
He's an absolute bigot, completely racist.
You saw his treatment of Drea.
And a man like that would normally be on the margins of society.
But because people just like him have done the long march through the institutions, there are people just like him in every university in Canada, but also human rights tribunals.
The BC one is the worst.
I would say in real courts, as you just mentioned, the criminal courts, and in other institutions.
I mean, we just heard about the absolute nuttiness in the Canadian military, some of their lowering standards just to juice the numbers.
I don't know.
I just think that the pendulum is swinging back in terms of public opinion.
But what does an unelected, unaccountable BC Human Rights Tribunal care about public opinion?
What does the Supreme Court care about public opinion?
They don't have to care.
They don't have to care because.
They're really not accountable.
And most of them, if I'm not mistaken, are not lawyers themselves.
I think you can get on these tribunals, you get appointed, don't you?
And you.
I don't even know what the criteria is.
None of them are judges.
Many of them are not lawyers.
And all of them, by definition, are activists.
You do not go to sit on a human rights tribunal if you're a neutral person.
They positively have a mandate to be, quote, progressive.
So, they've institutionalized one particular biased way of looking at the world.
And I say again, I mean, Yaniv would be a spent force.
He's discredited.
He's convicted of crimes.
He's been deemed by the courts of BC to be a slap lawsuit guy.
But the last resort is the Human Rights Tribunal, who is basically decided to be a national censor.
As I said at the beginning, Yaniv.
Weaponizing the human rights tribunal.
And the reason that's important is he doesn't have to hire a lawyer himself, he doesn't have to pay a bill himself.
So, the taxpayers of British Columbia have handed Yaniv a weapon that he is now shooting at anyone he disagrees with in the media.
You, me, Drea, Juno News, Western Standard.
I don't know who else.
How would we know if he doesn't?
There may be a hundred.
Just like he went after so, so many of these immigrant women who wouldn't wax his privates.
I phoned the Human Rights Tribunal when we got hit with a complaint from him a couple of years ago.
I phoned them.
I said, You know who this guy is.
You know he's just been deemed a.
A slap litigant, they say, Oh, yeah, we know.
Like they're not unaware of what they're doing.
They would consider it a feature, not a bug.
Yeah, which makes me think that if this does come to a trial, because I think they're pretty backlogged and they still have to accept it.
I've gotten notice of a complaint, but they still have to accept it.
And so it might take a few years.
And of course, As you say, it could easily go against us.
I have a Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms, very kindly, you know, are defending me.
And I spoke to their lawyer or the lawyer that's affiliated with them.
And he is defending four of respondents.
And Dallas Brody, maybe.
Right.
She's a provincial politician in BC.
Yes, she's brave.
Megan Murphy.
She's great.
She's a classical feminist, if I may.
Yes.
Derek Fildebrand from the Western Standard and me.
But there's others.
There's Chris Elton, you know, the Billboard.
Oh, Billboard Chris.
Yeah, we know him well.
Yeah.
And I'm sorry, I can't remember the others, but it's just a whole slew.
And really, that you're even allowed to do this, just sort of pick a slate of public facing people who've tweeted or whatever and misgendered you.
That this is now costing taxpayers all this money to process.
You know, I'm surprised if everyone you just listed got whacked with a $100,000 penalty.
I mean, why not?
If you give poor Barry Neufeld a $750,000 quote fine and nothing happens to you, no grown up pushes back, no, the premier doesn't say that's nuts, the justice minister doesn't say that's nuts, you're not defrocked by the law society.
Like if you do something as very, as, as, Clearly insane as punish an old man on a school board with a $750,000 fine because he said things about transgenderism that, frankly, most people would generally agree with, even if his language was a bit sharp sometimes.
If you do that and have no negative feedback from the universe, what are you to conclude other than you're on the right track?
And so, of course, it's going to happen again.
By the way, I read a story out of BC that.
The social media platform X, formerly called Twitter, was hauled before the BC Human Rights Tribunal because an anonymous complainant, I'll let you guess who that is, didn't like a post.
So X or Twitter geo blocked it.
So you cannot see that tweet in Canada.
So Twitter basically said, okay, if there's some Canadian rules, no one in Canada can see the tweet.
This anonymous complainant pressed on.
And this human rights tribunal said, we are fining X or Twitter $100,000 because they didn't take it down in America.
So, these BC Human Rights Tribunal fake judges, they're not real judges.
Why would they stop?
I mean, today, Barry Neufeld, tomorrow, the world?
I mean, and why wouldn't they?
Go ahead.
Can they force an American based company to pay anything?
I mean, I don't know.
We'll find out.
I think that Twitter is appealing the ruling.
But seriously, if you can, you know, you're these little human rights judges in Vancouver and.
You're on a roll.
You got Barry Neufeld for three quarters of a mil.
I'm just surprised they didn't hit Elon Musk with a billion dollar fine.
How about just say a gazillion?
We fine you a gazillion dollars.
It's, I mean, why not?
In for a dime, in for a dollar, in for a gazillion dollars.
I mean, the funny thing is that Yaniv is actually, with all the notoriety, he's bringing out every troll.
And he had, like, I saw one troll on X who was taunting him and saying, give it your best shot.
You know, I'm American, I've got the First Amendment, you know, you can't do anything to me.
Go on, go on.
And then he called him all kinds of names.
Trolls Taunt Jonathan Yaniv00:09:06
And I thought, you know, really, he is actually attracting more of what he claims to feel is so grievously offensive to him.
There's actually a whole website devoted to Yaniv.
Can I say the website's name?
Sure.
It's meowmix.online.
Have you seen it?
I don't know if I have, but that's a great name for it.
It's really something, I have to say.
I mean, some viewers might be saying, why are you guys talking so much about this fringe character?
Well, because it's a great question, because he's a kook.
He's normally the kind of person you would just sort of cross the street just to get away from him.
If you saw him on the street, if you were in the bus or transit, you would get off the bus and ride on a different car.
But he's managed to hijack the legal system first against these visible minority women.
Aestheticians and now against journalists.
So it's not just a story about one kook.
It's a story about how one kook has hijacked all these institutions and turned them into creators.
It's definitely a story about our culture and the trivialization of the law, the trivialization of freedom of speech, all of those things.
We are an international mockery.
And I should think that that should, in itself, be a reason for the tribunals to sort of.
You know, really do some self interrogation, saying, Are we, is this, is this really working?
Are we, are we achieving our goal?
I guess the goal is to set a standard for what is public discourse, the dignity of public discourse, or whatever, whatever they think their mandate is.
But it's having the opposite effect because it's inviting very vicious mockery online on social media.
And in my estimation, it's, it's a national embarrassment when that happens.
When people perceive that it always starts with good intentions, you know, we want to have dignified discourse on certain subjects.
And look where we are now it's become an international joke.
You know, I sometimes travel to the United Kingdom because I'm interested in Tommy Robinson and free speech, and I've always said that what happens there happens here five years later.
Sure.
And I think it's true with the censorship.
You heard Mark Miller.
Uh, the other day, saying that we're falling behind the UK and the EU in terms of censorship, that's exactly what I've been saying, and so he wants us to go down that road.
So, one of the things I've been.
Can we talk about Mark Miller for a minute?
Yeah.
Mark Miller, it was just a few years ago when he was Crown Aboriginal Relations, and he was online himself calling people like me, but also scholars like Francis Widowson and all the others who have gotten into trouble, denialists.
Yeah.
Because they, even then, you know, Kamloops, the whole Kamloops story is now five years old.
And it was during that time when scholars, true scholars of residential school history, were saying, look, you can't talk about these children's deaths unless we know for certain that they're there.
And so far we don't know and we have no evidence.
And anybody who would say that was considered a denialist.
And he himself, this was a minister of the crown, was online saying, these people are denialists.
They should be punished.
This is wrong.
He really got into it in a very Harsh way.
And I do worry that once Bill C9 is passed, the Online Harms Act, which is very near to passage, right?
I think it may have a different name.
I don't think they brought back the Online Harms Act yet.
What is it now?
It's gone through a couple names because it keeps expiring, but they have indicated they're going to bring it back.
I don't think it's got a new number.
It's had two different numbers, I think, so far.
Okay, but isn't it near passage?
It is not near passage.
Other bills are.
So if you were talking about the one that creates a new board of censors, that creates new powers for the Human Rights Commission, that used to be called, I think, B, there was 36 and then 63.
That bill has not been revived.
Other powers have, and I think C9 might be one of them.
I'm sorry I don't have it in front of me, but the one that was called the Online Harms Act, I do not believe it's being reintroduced yet.
I could be wrong.
It's hard to keep up because it's changed in the last year.
But Mark Miller says he wants to go back and he's revived his censorship panel of experts, which includes, for example, the former chair of the so called anti hate network, Bernie Ford.
Oh, yes.
Yes.
And remember, they took $25,000 from the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has just been indicted for propping up hate groups.
Anyway, we're getting a little bit far afield.
But let me just close the loop on Mark Miller, if I may, for one second.
It's not so much on him, but when I'm in the UK, I've detected something over there.
And you've probably heard of the Tavistock Center, that was a real transgenderism surgery place.
And you may have heard that they've sort of been rebuked and are pulling back.
And the UK Supreme Court has ruled that there's a man and a woman, there ain't nothing in between.
So the UK Supreme Court has clarified that men are not women, that transgender extremism has dialed back.
That's the UK.
In America, Donald Trump has pulled the plug on most transgenderism in sports and in other women's places.
If you look around the world, the pendulum is swinging back.
In the UK, one last thing.
I met a guy who was the leader of something called the Gay Men's Network.
And what is the Gay Men's Network?
It's the L, the G, and the B without the T.
And if you listen to those guys, they'll say they are undermining.
Gay rights.
The T is so wacky and so transgressive, and it's such a wrecking ball of Western culture.
And by the way, something I've heard time and again from people, not only the Gay Men's Network, but other places, they say, I'm a gay man.
If I were young today, I would have been told, No, you're not a gay man, you're trans, and they would have cut me up.
They would have chopped me up.
So, one of the reasons that the Gay Men's Network is active is they think that transgenderism has gone too far and it's not in their interest.
And they say, It is positively mutilating young gay men.
Come back to Canada.
We are the worst of all worlds.
We have not pulled back from the extremism.
We've doubled down.
We're doubling down.
Yeah.
And Yaniv is proof of that.
Exactly.
And the people, the most strident voices, the true believers who are in power, they are doubling down because to admit, even To give an inch to the idea that, well, maybe we went a little too far.
They can't, because once you've got that little wedge in the wall, it's a house of cards.
It'll start to crumble, and they know that.
So they are just hanging in there to the bitter end.
We've got bitter enders all through, in every institution, pedagogy, sport associations.
They just won't give in, and they're proud of it.
Well, they talk as though they're proud of it, you know.
That they call it inclusion, they're continuing to call it inclusion.
The right to participate in sports, even though this is, you know, there's nobody stopping trans people from participating in their sex category, their own sex category.
We are, in so many ways, one of the wokest countries on earth now.
And, you know, I was just thinking while you were talking there that the reason they hit Barry Neufeld with 750 grand is not because they think they can collect 750 grand from Barry Neufeld.
It's as they would say, pour encourager les autres.
It's to terrify the others.
It's to say, we'll do this to you too.
You want a piece of this?
It's sort of like the old saying, in your first day of prison, go up and fight someone.
Canada As The Wokest Country00:08:00
And if you win, you'll never have to fight.
You know, set an example, and everyone says, ooh, that guy.
Well, that's what the BC Human Rights Tribunal just did with Barry Neufeld.
And that's what they're doing by accepting these lawsuits against you and me, Western Standard.
And Juno and Billboard Chris Elston and Megan Murphy is they're trying to say, hey, if you talk about transgenderism in a way we don't like, we're going to put you through a $50,000 legal process.
So better shut up.
He's an enforcer.
Yaniv is a kook, but he's an enforcer and he's been weaponized by the system.
You know, I tell you, I think the pendulum is swinging back in the court of public opinion, but the institutions are hardlined.
I want to talk about one last thing.
I know you've been very generous with your time.
But I feel like it's related in some way.
And you've already touched on the hoax of the 215 buried bodies, which of course is not accurate.
You know, we were talking the other day with a lawyer from the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms about a mom and a daughter who objected to a land acknowledgement.
You know, you go to an event, they start off by talking about.
And by the way, I sit through those, I do not stand.
People are standing like it's some religious service or something.
Yeah.
And, you know, it's trite and it's, oh, it's the latest thing, it's the fashion.
I mean, it would be like, you know, wearing a Ukraine pin on your lapel or something shows that you're up to date.
But all of a sudden in British Columbia now, the land acknowledgement has a bit of meaning.
Someone actually listened to it.
And the concept of indigenous title is now throwing into question if British Columbians who are on land that was not ceded in a treaty do they even own your land?
And I think now thousands, perhaps millions, of British Columbians are thinking, oh my God, I've worked my whole life, all my savings are in my home.
And now, because the woke lawyers are now woke judges and woke politicians, you're saying, I don't even own my own home.
And you're making secret deals.
They call it DRIPA, it's about indigenous rights.
Yes, I always forget what it stands for, but I know exactly what you're talking about.
Yeah, it's the Declaration of.
There's a UN version, the UN Declaration of Rights of Indigenous.
UNDRIP.
UNDRIP.
That's right.
And part of the reason it's hard to remember and hard to say is to keep it obscure so most normal people don't bother reading.
About something called DRIP.
Who would waste time on that?
But all of a sudden, a bunch of British Columbians are thinking, oh my, including, by the way, a lot of newcomers who had nothing to do with battles 150 years ago, who are now being told that they may not own their land.
I think it's part of the same thing.
The courts are over there, the people are over there, and something's got to break.
Something's got to do.
Well, I think that's the issue that, I mean, when you tell people that you make them insecure about.
Their ownership of their own home.
People get more than a little, you know, they'll do more than raise their voice.
That's when revolutions start because you can't be fooling around with people's own homes and their ownership.
And that's their equity, as you say.
This is truly crazy stuff.
So it could end very badly.
I don't know.
It's so bad out there.
Yeah, I don't know how it's going to end.
I mean, that's why I was riveted recently by what was going on in Ireland.
Remember, the Irish have a bit of a rebellious streak.
I mean, they had a rebellion against the British Empire and incredibly managed to boot them out.
I mean, they talk about 800 years of resistance.
I mean, it's quite dramatic to hear the language.
And of course, they had the troubles just a generation ago.
So it was the first time in my life I was listening to a speech in Ireland by a protester against mass immigration.
And this was a political leader who said, Now it's not the time for violence.
And he sort of said, Yet.
Which is a shocking thing for a Canadian's ears to hear.
But in Ireland, the idea of getting physical and kinetic is not so deep in their past that they've forgotten it.
And it's still on the table.
So I go to the UK to be depressed.
And I go to Ireland to get a tiny flicker of hope of what might happen if a feisty, rebellious, cohesive country of just 5 million souls decides they've had enough.
So I think the jury is still out.
And then, of course, there's America.
Yes.
I don't know.
The world's a crazy place and Canada's one of the craziest.
Barbara, I'm really grateful that you are at the National Post because you have a large audience there.
Just give us one minute.
What are you working on these days?
Do you have a new column coming out or do I get to keep us in touch?
Yeah, I'm working on one.
I'm actually trying to decide between a couple.
I have a couple of topics.
They're all around the same topic, but so I haven't quite decided for next week.
But these days, I'm pretty absorbed with what's going on in the war in.
You know, Israel, anti Zionism, the escalation of violence here in Canada, the failure of Canada to deal with the problem.
I worry a lot about what happened in Australia could happen here quite easily because not much happening in the way of prevention.
Stuff like that.
Yeah, me too.
I mean, I remember saying very early after the Hamas attack on southern Israel, I said, I'm not that worried about Israel.
I think they'll be able to take care of themselves.
What does deeply worry me is what happens here in Canada.
Because although Israel has a larger percentage of Muslims in Canada, they understand some of the challenges there.
And Canada is pretending that diversity is our strength.
I don't know what this year's stats will be for mass immigration, but I'm sure they'll be high.
And until we shake our heads and splash cold water in our faces and realize we will not be ready.
And I think it's just a matter of time before there are murders in Canada.
I agree with you.
And no, we're not doing anything on the demographic scene.
Even if immigration stops totally tomorrow, it's kind of too late.
Demographically, we have invited in people from cultures where Jew hatred is pandemic.
And I don't see that anti Semitism is going to abate.
I think it's going to get worse.
And we don't have a whole lot of leadership on that issue that seems to.
They don't seem to understand that we're on the cusp of something.
And what I would say to my Gentile friends, and what I do say is of course, Jews are the first to go, they're the canary in the coal mine, but they're never the last.
I mean, Christians are next.
I mean, it's pretty simple.
I mean, if you want to understand why Iran is so intractable, they, like ISIS, believe in a global government that's a theocracy.
They don't believe in secular states.
Democratically elected.
That's why they call America the great Satan.
That's why they hate it so much because it's the bulwark against the rise of Islam.
And they have a millenarian aspect to it too.
So I would say to my Christian friends don't think that you're immune to anti Semitism.
Of course, you are in the immediate proximate sense.
But Jews today, Christians tomorrow, I'm afraid that's how it is.
Barbara, great to catch up with you.
We'll keep reading your stories in the Post.
Thanks, Ezra.
All right, there she is, Barbara Kaye, Calmist for the National Post.
That's our show for the day.
Until Monday, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, to you at home, good night and keep fighting for freedom.