00:00:00.000Welcome to Canada's Most Irreverent Talk Show.
00:00:05.800This is the Andrew Lawton Show, brought to you by True North.
00:00:14.480Hello everyone and welcome to you all.
00:00:17.520This is Canada's Most Irreverent Talk Show, the Andrew Lawton Show here on True North.
00:00:22.120On this Tuesday, May 9th, just after 4.02 Eastern Time.
00:00:27.200Every now and then we had, well, maybe it just happened the once, but I'm going to roll with it as every now and then we get like the truthers that think it's not actually live.
00:00:35.220And I keep meaning to get like a print copy of a newspaper, except I try to avoid leaving the house and I don't want to get a subscription to have one delivered here.
00:00:43.980So I can instead show you the, I can't show you the date on my phone because I have like texts that I don't want you to read that are on my home screen.
00:00:51.200There we go. So we are actually live today, and we try to be as much as possible simply because things happen at such a breakneck speed, it's difficult to otherwise keep up with them.
00:01:02.240But I do want to today take a little bit of a look back at the Liberal Convention this weekend and some of the policy resolutions that the Liberal Party members of Canada have decided to call on their government and their Prime Minister to put into effect.
00:01:18.420I also want to talk about some other things that are happening.
00:01:20.520We'll get our friend Rachel Emanuel back on for a check-in on what's happening in Alberta politics
00:01:25.360and the politicization of the horrific wildfires that are taking place there.
00:01:30.480But I want to begin by talking about something that I hope, in spite of everything else in the world,
00:01:35.900we can all unite on, and that is that the World Health Organization needs to just butt out,
00:01:41.060shut up, and go take a long walk off a short pier.
00:01:45.040I don't know if you criticize the World Health Organization, if you get like the misinformation label slapped on you now, but we'll see.
00:01:51.420It might even be appearing in real time below on YouTube and Facebook.
0.61
00:01:55.780But the Killjoys at the World Health Organization came out with this observation just this past weekend.
00:02:04.500They say there is no safe level of alcohol consumption.
00:02:09.400Their argument is that the risk of cancer increases even with low levels of alcohol consumption.
00:02:16.740So you are not allowed to have any alcohol, apparently, even just a little bit.
00:02:21.200You were supposed to keep that graphic up.
00:03:58.900So the one little joy that someone might have, which is being able to, I don't know, just sit back and have a cocktail with a friend or have a glass of wine over dinner or have a beer when you sit at the side of the pool because you're not allowed to go anywhere else, to which they now say, even that you shouldn't do.
00:04:14.820That's just too dangerous, too much of a risk.
00:04:16.860Well, the one way we delegitimize authority is by not abiding by authority.
00:04:21.900I'm like drinking on principle right now just to spite the World Health Organization, and I would encourage you to do the same.
00:04:28.560Let's talk about some of the more pressing issues of our time, though.
00:04:31.980If you follow British media, which is sometimes very significant,
00:04:36.200I mean, I know we have our own problems here,
00:04:37.780but you get a lot of a glimpse of what comes ahead and what comes down the road
00:04:44.860if you pay attention to other countries and specifically Europe.
00:04:48.380But the British broadcast regulator, which is the British answer to the CRTC,
00:04:53.640It's called Ofcom, has decided to sanction GB News over a broadcast it did in October featuring my friend who's been on this show in the past, Mark Stein and Naomi Wolf, who is formerly a darling of the left, a feminist author and scholar who's now become very endeared to the right because she has gone against much of the progressive orthodoxy on things like vaccines and individual choice and your health care decisions and all of that.
00:05:21.420And Mark and Naomi Wolf, who I suspect disagree on a great many things, had a discussion in October about what they were arguing were the harms of vaccination.
00:05:31.240And Naomi Wolf, a practicing Jewish woman, said that I'm not even actually, to be honest, I don't even want to say what she said because then I'm going to get this show banned from YouTube.
00:05:40.040But she made claims, which you can look up for yourself in the full context.
00:05:44.480And I'm not talking about those things here.
00:05:48.020So this discussion seven months ago, seven months ago, is subject to this prolonged investigation by Ofcom, which this morning issued a finding that their conversation was essentially unlawful, that it violated the British broadcast regulations on protecting the audience from harmful opinions, effectively.
00:06:09.720That is what they said, that the audience must be protected from her views and that radio stations, TV stations have an obligation to protect people from their views.
00:06:19.960Now, this, I wrote a substack about which you can check out today.
00:06:23.600And I mentioned in the headline there, soon only official narratives will remain.
00:06:28.480And I believe wholeheartedly in that because we are seeing the decreasing bounds of debate.
00:06:34.420You are allowed to have the official narrative, the official position, the government-approved position, and anything else is misinformation.
00:06:42.440Again, YouTube, for example, outsourced for much of the pandemic, and I think to a large extent still today,
00:06:48.540its decisions on misinformation and what you're allowed to say in YouTube videos to the World Health Organization.
00:06:54.920So if you are in noncompliance with the—I mean, maybe just by drinking wine I'm in noncompliance with the YouTube World Health Organization regulations.
00:07:03.300But this is, I think, a huge problem that right now we are seeing and we are going to see more of.
00:07:08.880So why do we as Canadians, mostly Canadians, care?
00:07:12.360Because Ofcom is, I think, what Justin Trudeau wants the CRTC to be.
00:07:17.360An organization that doesn't just deal with the bare decisions to do with compliance.
00:07:22.960And are you setting up the right wattage for your transmission tower?
00:07:26.920And are you making sure that you're on Channel 7 and someone else is on Channel 8 and we don't have three people on the same channel?
00:07:32.640but actually regulating content, which is what the CRTC is now able to do thanks to Bill C-11.
00:07:40.400They are expanding just from being a facilitator and to being an active participant in content,
00:07:47.780manipulating the algorithms as the CRTC now expands its power from the realm of TV and radio to the realm of the internet.
00:07:56.800And CRTC, if you look at this from the CRTC website, this was yesterday,
00:08:02.280C11 passed a week ago, and CRTC has already announced its plans to modernize the broadcasting system.
00:10:27.200It's supposed to be more secure than your cell phone SMSs are.
00:10:31.720It is probably not as secure as Signal, if you're a user of Signal, but very similar idea.
00:10:37.100And this means that even WhatsApp is unable to read your messages.
00:10:41.200This is the pitch that they make to users.
00:10:44.480Well, WhatsApp is saying that when the UK's regulations come in, which will put reporting requirements in place for so-called unlawful content for social media companies, they're saying that they would actually no longer be able to use end-to-end encryption because all of a sudden they have to start spying on what people are saying in their private messages in order to officially endorse what the government is expecting them to do,
00:11:09.920which is report if so-and-so sends an illicit or illegal missive to someone else.
00:11:17.440And when WhatsApp said to the UK government,
00:11:20.780listen, we may have to pull out of the UK market over this,
00:11:23.980you had a bunch of conservative MPs, again,
00:11:26.800who are predisposed to online censorship, apparently,
00:13:02.060And they say that mainstream media no longer has as many reporters as they used to.
00:13:07.520So all of this is bringing us to their resolution.
00:13:10.280Be it resolved that the Liberal Party of Canada request the government provide additional public funds
00:13:16.260to support ad-free news and information reporting by Canadian media
00:13:20.520through an arm's-length non-partisan mechanism.
00:13:23.500So be it resolved that the Liberals subsidize media more than they already are today.
00:13:28.820And more importantly, request that the government explore options to hold online information services accountable for the veracity of material published on their platforms and to limit publication only to material whose sources can be traced.
00:13:43.560So the two prongs of that, number one, that we hold online platforms accountable for the veracity of material.
00:13:51.920So when someone says, well, actually, World Health Organization, you can stuff it.
00:17:13.180You can't perhaps as an anonymous source talk to the Globe and Mail because, oh, well, this is information whose source cannot be traced by the government.
00:17:21.440It's almost as though sources that can't be traced by the government are the great selling point of the Internet.
00:17:27.540And, you know, there's a bigger picture problem here.
00:17:30.440And when I said in that substack of mine that only official narratives will remain in the future, I'm talking about both a cultural problem and a legal problem.
00:17:40.160The cultural problem is one that I spoke about a couple of weeks ago, the decline of debate, the dwindling confines of debate.
00:17:48.660But the legal problem is when things that would normally be rejected and denounced by people,
00:17:55.240things like misinformation and hate speech, become terms that are weaponized against dissent.
00:18:01.340I mean, I'm against hate speech, I'm against misinformation, I'm against dishonesty, I'm against all of these things,
00:18:06.560and I deplore these things, but I'm also very distrustful of government's ability to define
00:18:12.800these things in a way that is fair and not weaponized or politicized. Like I had a conversation
00:18:19.900with someone, not a particularly pleasant conversation a few weeks ago, who very much
00:18:24.300does not believe in free speech and was completely open about this. And what this person said is that,
00:18:30.020well, you don't get to debate facts, which fair enough. I mean, if you have two people that are
00:18:34.880standing in the street in a torrential downpour, soaking wet, and they're debating whether or not
00:18:40.000it's raining. You may look at this and be like, well, this, I mean, this is, why are we giving
00:18:43.640false equivalents to this, these two positions? Why are we letting someone say it's not raining?
00:18:48.720But the only way that you, if you take that argument to its natural end, you get to really
00:18:54.480do anything about that is if you decide to make someone the arbiter of what is true and make
00:19:01.440someone the arbiter of facts and give someone the power to decide which things cannot be debated so
00:19:07.600i would say as a free speech lover let the two people in the street in the rain debate whether
00:19:11.660it's raining and let us all laugh at the guy who's soaking wet trying to tell us that it's not raining
00:19:16.240because every now and then you may find out that guy ended up right maybe someone was dumping
00:19:20.160buckets from above and we couldn't see it at the time but even if not even if not what we see here
00:19:26.380is the only way to avoid government shrinking free speech and shrinking debate is to allow
00:19:32.200the debate and allow the debates about things, even when we are offended by an argument that
00:19:37.180someone puts forward, or even when we believe that they're so wrong, they don't even deserve
00:19:41.600a fair hearing. Because the alternative is Justin Trudeau and his liberal cronies getting to decide
00:19:48.120this issue is settled. You don't get to debate it. It's Ofcom saying, well, actually, Naomi Wolf,
00:19:53.720you don't get to talk about vaccine harms.
00:32:16.080So Charles is the guy right now, and she's saying it's a symbol of white male privilege and entitlement.
00:32:23.540I should have just pulled up the picture of her late majesty's coronation,
00:32:28.220which I don't think you would look at and see as being evidence of male privilege.
0.68
00:32:32.320Certainly Queen Victoria, I think, would be mortified to learn that her reign,
00:32:36.340which prior to that of her late majesty Queen Elizabeth II was a record,
00:32:41.080was also a bastion of white male privilege and entitlement.
00:32:44.760So it's basically like these people play Mad Libs using the same word in every slot.
00:32:51.400And whether it works or not, they're just going to keep using it where it's like you would just be like on Jeopardy and you'd be like, you know, this was the longest river in Asia.
00:33:01.020And they would say, what is white male privilege?
00:33:03.380And you say, well, OK, you lose on that one.
00:33:05.340This is the bestselling novel by Margaret Atwood set in a dystopian land.
00:33:10.200And they say, what is white male?
0.81
00:33:11.220Well, that one actually works, I guess.
0.61