All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 14, 2019 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
19:39
Everything Wrong with Justin Trudeau’s Security Scare
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So, something's not right.
My friend, something's not adding up with this whole Trudeau security bulletproof fest situation.
I don't know what happened, of course, and we may never know for sure.
But for those who don't know, this is an article from the National Post.
John Iverson wrote, Trudeau's security scare is a dark turn for an election filled with online threats.
See, now you see political violence, threats of political violence, Are a huge problem for the Canadian media.
I'll get into why I'm particularly skeptical of that claim in a few minutes, but let's go to the article.
The article says, The tone of this campaign, and the venom expressed towards Trudeau in particular on social media, has heightened fears that Canada could go to a very dark place.
Now, I'm no newspaper editor, but it wouldn't be my first choice to talk about Canada going to a very dark place.
Right after Justin Trudeau's endless blackface scandals.
But anyway, the article says suddenly the warning that somebody's going to get shot doesn't sound so preposterous.
Michael Wernick, the former clerk of the Privy Council, cautioned last spring that the state of public political dialogue in this country could result in assassination.
The admonition was dismissed as hyperbole.
But the events at a Mississauga conference hall on Saturday night, just yesterday, where Justin Trudeau emerged 90 minutes late for a mass rally wearing a protective vest had borne him out.
The election that has been about nothing was in danger of becoming about everything.
Okay, it's terrible writing.
Like, what is this guy's problem?
What does that mean? Useless deepity.
Anyway, the article continues, Trudeau was due to take the stage at 5pm to speak to the biggest liberal rally yet in front of 30 candidates and around 2,000 supporters.
Okay, so just to set the stage for what's going to be coming in this article and in this little podcast, you've got 2,000 people.
Packed into a hole. Which is, just keep that, I guess people pressed in cheek by jowl, crowded into a hole.
With not a lot of exits, I assume.
Anyway, the article goes on. After an hour, the Liberal leader had still not shown up and the crowd was getting restless.
Navdeep Bains, who was MP for Mississauga-Moulton and host for the evening, started in on another anecdote about how great it is to be Canadian before being shouted down by his own supporters.
Another local MP, Omar Al-Ghabra, admitted he was filling time and started up a listless chant of four more years that petered out quickly.
It was clear that something was badly wrong.
Trudeau finally emerged 90 minutes late and launched into his stump speech, but his embargoed remarks had him thanking his wife Sophie for introducing him, yet she was nowhere to be seen.
So that's kind of odd, right?
So I guess he had a prepared speech, a written speech on a teleprompter where he thanked his wife who wasn't there and hadn't introduced him.
I mean, talk about a brill-creamed automaton.
My God, this guy can't speak off note to save his life.
I mean, I don't have notes for what it is that I talk about 95% of the time.
I've given entire hour-long, hour-and-a-half-long speeches without any notes.
You can just look at my speeches in Australia for examples of that.
But this guy thanks his non-existent wife for introducing him because Trudeau off the cuff is Trudeau out of his mind.
But anyway, the article continues.
What was visible was a handful of large men wearing green shirts, sporting backpacks, arranged in a protective phalanx around the liberal leader.
Officials said they are members of an RCMP tactical unit who have been with Trudeau at certain events on this campaign, but they have never, in my experience, been this visible.
When asked later what they were carrying in their backpacks, one said a pastrami sandwich and a squash racket, the reality was probably more incendiary.
So Trudeau, in the aforementioned very crowded hall, without a lot of exits, was surrounded, the article implies, by men who were extremely well armed.
This is all too bizarre for words.
I'll get into why, but I'm sure you're getting it, right?
Nobody from the Liberal Party would comment, says the article, on the security issue, but officials recognized the incident was so public it required an explanation.
There was, it emerged, a specific threat in the room against Trudeau personally as opposed to a general threat to the public.
A specific threat in the room.
What does that mean? In the room.
Does that mean somebody said, I'm going to come to this...
And do something, right?
And come to this meeting and do something.
Did they have suspicion that there was an armed man in the room?
What was the plan?
Maybe there was a bomb threat.
What was the plan? See, here's the thing.
Trudeau's wife and children were sent home because the threat was credible enough or dangerous enough.
So why, oh why, would they not inform the liberal supporters, the 2,000 liberal supporters, tightly packed in the room, that there was a massive security threat that had Trudeau be 90 minutes late and arrived surrounded by a small army of guys packing heavy heat?
Like, why wouldn't they tell people that?
If there's a credible threat to the Prime Minister...
Why don't you just, you've got 90 minutes, right?
Why don't you just take everyone out of the hall and then search them as they come back in?
What's the plan? If there's a bomb, can you imagine a bomb going off in that kind of crowded Room?
I mean, there would be a stampede.
There would be a panic. People would be climbing all over each other.
People would be blown up.
I mean, this would be carnage, for God's sakes.
Carnage! What is going on?
Wouldn't you, like, if you're at a political rally and there's been a very credible, like, credible enough to haul out the RCMP, a credible security threat of assassination or a bombing or something, don't the people who were there have a right to know to choose if they want to stay or leave?
I don't understand.
Like, they sent his wife and child home.
Are they so much more important than the audience?
Because... Justin Trudeau had his phalanx of guards, right?
The RCMP, Tactical Unit, whatever.
So he had his phalanx of guards protecting him.
His wife and children had been sent home.
So who was protecting the members of the audience who weren't even informed of the dire danger that they were in?
I guess they can infer it from this team up front, but aren't you supposed to tell people?
I mean, they evacuate schools and movie theaters and malls and you name it, right?
I am very confused.
Let's say there's a shooter.
Is there supposed to be a shootout in a tightly packed room with 2,000 people?
What the hell is going on?
Is that the plan?
Crazy. Anyway, the article goes on and says the RCMP's recommendation was to put on a show of strength to deter the threat and to send Trudeau's wife and children back to the hotel.
Yeah, but you see some of the guards or the RCMP appeared to have these kind of blankets that you throw around someone if there's a bomb threat.
So if it's a bomb, I don't see how having the RCMP around is going to deter that if it's going to go off.
Anyway, I'm not an expert at this.
These are just questions floating around in my head.
The decision was also taken that the show must go on, which must have been terrifying for the Liberal leader, knowing there was the very real prospect that someone in the room was trying to kill him.
So if they believe that that person is actually in the room...
So if there's this assassination threat, and they genuinely believe that the person is in the room...
I mean, don't go ahead with the damn speech.
Catch the person who's made the threats, for heaven's sakes.
Anyway, the article goes on to say Trudeau made a reasonable fist of it in the circumstance, giving a speech heavy on the cuts of public services that he said would be made under an Andrew Scheer conservative government.
He looked at Doug Ford's cuts and said, hold my beer, was one of his better lines.
Oh, God. Oh, God.
I mean, that's the chilling originality of, if you criticize women, you're an incel who can't get laid, and sir, this is a Wendy's, and hold my beer, this is like, this is ancient in the memes of production, right?
I mean, this is one of his better lines.
I mean, how much of a toady to the money-dripping dark prince of political power do you have to be to call that one of his better lines?
So he said, The only comment about the incident Trudeau would make at a Sunday morning event was that his concern was for his family and other people in the room.
It won't change how I campaign, he said.
His concern was his family and the other people in the room.
But you see, he sent his family home, and he himself was protected by the bulletproof vest and a phalanx off-guards.
So I fail to see how he's equally protective of himself and his wife by having all the other people in the room exposed to some political terrorist who was going to do heaven knows what, right?
It's really, really crazy.
And you can look at the whole discussion or article.
I'll sort of link to it below.
But it's very strange to me, this kind of thing.
Now, I mean, Trudeau wants to sign up with this Christchurch thing where the government takes control of social media and bans whatever it doesn't like that it considers to be hateful or whatever, right?
Which is terrible, crushing, crippling censorship and is only going to escalate things.
But, you know...
So, I don't, again, I'm not an expert in this area, so I'm just kind of puzzling through this in my head, which is...
There are pictures of the entrance to this event.
There's not even a mall cop out front.
There's no police. There's no security that I could see.
There's nothing. So if you have credible threat of someone coming to assassinate, you stop, you question, you search, you name it, right?
If you think someone's coming into the room, like, why would you not even have a cop out front?
This makes absolutely no sense to me.
I mean, there are some who are saying, oh, it's political theater and so on, and...
Yeah, I mean...
If I had to put my money...
Well, you know, I guess I'll leave that in speculation land, but...
It is a very strange situation that so many people would be put in so much danger while Trudeau would protect his wife and children and himself.
That's very strange to me.
I mean, can you imagine the lawsuits that would erupt if Trudeau was in possession of knowledge that there was a shooter or a bomb and did not inform the audience but only protected himself?
I mean, that's staggering levels of entitlement if people got hurt, right?
And nobody had been told.
And there was knowledge, right?
I mean, can you imagine?
I mean, can you imagine if a movie theater got a credible threat of violence and then just let people watch the movie anyway?
But the ushers were all protected?
I mean, this would be complete madness.
So this bothered me just because none of it really makes any sense to me.
And again, I'm really open to hearing how it does make sense.
I just can't puzzle it out.
But here's the thing that really bothered me.
I mean, I've been opposed to political violence forever, and I've consistently talked about the need for peaceful and rational solutions.
But here's the thing. So now the media is swallowing this hook, line and sinker.
They're not asking any tough questions.
And that's natural because the media in Canada is getting a $600 million bailout from the government because it can't compete with online media.
I mean, in America, CNN in the sort of coveted 25 to 54 age group demographic just gets a couple of hundred thousand viewers.
I mean, I get that in my living room, for heaven's sakes.
So it can't compete with the quality of the unbought, unpaid-for media.
So in Canada, they're running to the government and Getting buckets of cash, dipping their nose in the trough of forced taxpayer money.
I mean, this was originally the case with the CBC. The CBC gets, what, $1.5 billion from the Canadian governments.
Of course, they're not going to rock the boat.
They're never going to be pro-free market.
They're never going to question the leaders.
You've got state-sponsored comedy that couldn't bring a smile to a dead man.
And now you have this bought and paid for media that's following this whole thing hook, line and sinker without asking a single critical question.
I mean, could they question the RCMP Commissioner Brenda Luckey?
Well, no. I mean, she's been handpicked by Trudeau.
She stopped any inquiry into SNC-Lavalin and there are pictures of her giving Trudeau a big old nice hug.
And people say, well, the RCMP aren't going to get roped into something fake.
But here's the thing. Where do online threats come from?
You know, people say to me, oh, one of your followers said this, that, or the other, right?
It's like, you don't know that.
You could have created that account.
You could have gone through a VPN. You could have come in through whatever, right?
And you could have written something and then said, ah, Steph, one of your followers.
I mean, nobody knows, right?
Certainly not this quickly.
It's unlikely. And of course, if they knew who it was for sure, then they would have arrested him in the room or in his house.
Now, people are these threats are coming in.
Nobody knows where they're coming from. I mean, think of the number of hate crime hoaxes that turned out to have been hate crimes, hate crimes phoned in by the people claiming to be the victims.
Think of Jussie Smollett, right?
Jussie Smollett can't find enough racism in America to get himself attacked, so he has to outsource the job to two Nigerian bodybuilders, apparently.
So, who knows?
Who knows where this threat is coming from?
Who knows what it is?
But if they have enough information to take it credibly, then I would assume they have enough information to track it down.
I mean, if it's coming from the Seychelles or Nigeria, then it's probably not too credible.
They must have tracked it down to some degree.
So... Can't ask any of these questions, you see, because you're getting fed $20,000...
Well, you're getting fed $600 million over five years by the government.
You can't ask any real question.
But here's the thing, right? This is reality.
I think four or five years ago I gave a speech in Detroit at a men's rights conference and I spoke with a woman who used to be a Canadian senator and there were pretty credible bomb threats phoned into that because people hate men's rights because men are exploited in the modern world and so people who are being exploited can't organize,
they can't get together and try and protect themselves, they can't share information and strategies And the mainstream media had no problem with that.
In fact, there were a couple of reporters there who were there just to dig up dirt and write hit pieces on the event.
So the Canadian media had no problem with that, even though there was also an ex-senator there.
Canadian ex-senator, not American, Canadian.
They had no problem with that. When Lauren Southern and I were de-platformed in New Zealand, when we were de-platformed We were not allowed to speak.
Our speeches were chased around from place to place and then cancelled in Vancouver.
Canadian media had no problem with that.
They celebrated it. They loved it.
Ah, all right, white supremacist Nazis, shut down, right?
So if it's people that the media don't like, and of course they unjustly label me with all of these terrible phrases, right?
If it's someone the media doesn't like, they celebrate and cheer on these kinds of political threats.
Ah, but you see, suddenly, when it's someone that the media likes and is dangling $600 million now, even the most vague threats that haven't been verified and nobody knows anything about are 100% true and represent a dark new chapter in Canada.
They're terrible hacks.
I can't imagine. Can you imagine working for a newspaper and then saying, oh, we're getting hundreds of millions of dollars from the government, so good luck being critical of the government?
I mean, anybody with any honor would have quit long ago.
So here's the reality.
Look, now that I'm 53, I've just come to a conclusion, and the conclusion is this.
There are many groups in the world Religious organizations, religious belief systems, political organizations that openly say they're going to lie to you.
They openly say. They have no moral universal requirement to tell the truth.
Environmentalists have promised they're going to lie to you because sensationalism gets their cause.
Leftists, liberals, Marxists, socialists have all said that they're going to lie.
There are religions out around the world that are perfectly content with lying to outsiders.
Christians, they can't do that.
Thou shalt not bear false witnesses, universal.
And that's why, in the modern world, I trust myself, I trust my friends and my family, I trust my listeners, I trust those in hot pursuit of philosophy, rational, empirical, universal, ethical philosophy.
▲
Export Selection