00:10:38.160It also contained 56 recommendations to address gaps that were identified
00:10:42.660and proposed changes that should be made if the Act were ever to be invoked again.
00:10:49.380The government's response focuses on ongoing and next steps as they relate to each of those recommendations.
00:10:58.760February 2022 marked the first time that the Emergencies Act was invoked since it became law in 1988.
00:11:07.100The hindsight provided by the Commission's work, as well as the work undertaken by the Government of Canada and parliamentarians, offers us a critical outlook on potential changes that could be brought to the Emergencies Act.
00:11:22.560As such, the government of Canada will engage directly provinces and territories, Indigenous partners, stakeholders and civil society on all 22 Emergencies Act related recommendations, including seeking views on potential legislative amendments as described in those recommendations.
00:11:45.060so he's saying oh yes we're we're going to have some consultations we're going to talk about it
00:11:52.320we won't do anything unless we talk about it we're going to have some some more chit chat we'll talk
00:11:56.440to indigenous groups i don't know why you need to talk to indigenous groups about the emergencies
00:12:00.040act we're going to talk to other stakeholders didn't really specify who those were i presume
00:12:04.940all people that will just rubber stamp what the government did will he talk to protesters will he
00:12:10.280talk to people in the Freedom Convoy? Will he talk to other people that the government might
00:12:14.980want to use the Emergencies Act to seize the civil liberties of? I'm not sure we didn't get
00:12:20.740that level of specificity from Dominic LeBlanc. Now, if you look at what the commissioner's
00:12:26.980report called for here, a lot of these things are very reasonable. One of them is they should
00:12:31.800eliminate from the Emergencies Act the section that refers to the CSIS Act definition of threats
00:12:38.700to the security of Canada. This ended up becoming really the linchpin of the government's argument,
00:12:43.600which was, what is the definition of a threat to the security of Canada? And the Emergencies Act
00:12:48.440outsources that definition to another piece of legislation, to the CSIS Act. And interestingly,
00:12:53.960it was the CSIS head who said, yeah, he didn't think that the threshold was met.
00:13:00.060So now the Emergencies Act is basically in the position that the government wants it in,
00:13:05.380which is there's a source of confusion around it, which the government can kind of leverage
00:13:09.860for its own political gain. A commissioner also called for a review to ensure that the definition
00:13:16.600of a public order emergency is exactly what it should be and what it needs to be. What else did
00:13:21.900he recommend here? That there should be a consultation requirement with the territories,
00:13:26.180not just the province. So that's more of a technicality. This one I find is quite interesting.
00:13:31.240the federal government should engage in discussions with indigenous communities
00:13:35.280to establish the appropriate parameters for consultations regarding possible recourse
00:13:40.660to the act. So they're trying to put in this race-based litmus test to how the act and how
00:13:46.440consultations are dealt with. That is, the government's only going to screw up. They
00:13:50.240never do anything on the indigenous file particularly well. That's certainly been
00:13:54.100true of this liberal government, as a great many indigenous advocates and activists have said.
00:13:58.180and they also say that the provinces and feds need to mitigate infringement on provincial
00:14:04.880jurisdiction. Well, mitigate is a bit of a weird one because you had all the provinces but Ontario
00:14:10.040saying, we didn't ask for this act. Why are you doing this act that basically lets you storm
00:14:15.320into our province and our provincial jurisdiction? So all of these questions, and more by the way,
00:14:22.360I just read a sampling, are questions that the commissioner put to the government that said,
00:14:26.540okay, yes, I'm siding with you in part, but here are all these things that you've got to deal with.
00:14:32.880And the federal government has now just said, we're taking our marbles and going home. We liked
00:14:37.540that you said we won. We wanted you to just end it there. We didn't really want all these
00:14:41.040recommendations. We don't want to deal with those. When the federal court came and smacked down the
00:14:45.920federal government by saying it was unconstitutional, the government just completely lost
00:14:50.260all interest in dealing with the Emergencies Act. The government turned around and basically said,
00:14:55.420all right. Yeah, we're kind of done with this now. We only liked this when it looked like it was a
00:14:59.860win for us. But now that people are starting to turn on that, we want you to pretend it never
00:15:04.320happened. So this is the Liberals in denial through and through. It's the Liberals not
00:15:09.140wanting to deal with what will become, maybe not in the next election, but certainly in the history
00:15:14.340books, one of the most profound failings of the Justin Trudeau government, because this was
00:15:19.980literally invoking the closest Canadian legal equivalent of martial law. I realize it wasn't
00:15:26.860military control, which is why I'm couching my language there. The closest Canadian equivalent
00:15:31.460to martial law and invoking that to deal with, again, bouncy castles and horns. And the horns
00:15:37.660weren't even that bad near the end of the protest, as police officials attested to in their testimony
00:15:43.640before the Public Order Emergency Commission. But everything else, it's the government was just
00:15:47.560embarrassed. And humiliation on a grand national scale is not, I guarantee you, a national
00:15:53.100emergency, not in any interpretation of the law. But again, the assaults of civil liberties do not
00:15:58.920end with Justin Trudeau's invocation of the Emergencies Act. Bill C-63, the so-called
00:16:04.280Online Harms Act, is the government's very direct way of reining in what it says is hate speech.
00:16:11.340And again, every time I talk about this issue, I have to put this caveat in. Hate speech is
00:16:16.840something that has a very specific meaning. It has a very specific definition. Hate speech is not
00:16:22.580just speech you don't like, except a lot of these measures are applied to that. This is what we see
00:16:28.780in social media speech codes from platforms like, not as much Twitter anymore, but historically
00:16:33.780platforms like Twitter and Facebook. So hate speech is supposed to be something that has a
00:16:39.720very significant, very strict meaning, but the government is muddying that and they're using
00:16:44.680the apparatus of the state. They're using the Canadian Human Rights Commission under
00:16:48.300Bill C-63 to go after it. The result is going to be online discourse, which is throttled and
00:16:54.000managed by the liberal government in this malign alliance between big tech platforms who are
00:16:59.160forced to basically uphold the government's so-called hate speech edict. So I want to talk
00:17:04.980about this, as I've said, continuously. I want to hit this issue from all angles because this is,
00:17:09.720for me, the big battle here. This is the hill to die on. Free speech, it always has been.
00:17:14.380John Carpe is the president of the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms.
00:17:18.420And just as a matter of disclosure, I will remind you that I am on the board of the JCCF,
00:17:22.800but this is not, for your sake, John, a performance evaluation by any stretch.
00:17:27.120Always good to talk to you. Thanks for coming on today.
00:17:31.180So you and I have spoken in the past about this.
00:17:33.800The government has done us the courtesy of being very transparent about what it wants to do for quite some time.
00:17:39.540And we've seen in the course of the last couple of years that this trio of Internet regulations from Bill C-11, which puts a podcast registry and brings the regulatory control of the CRTC to government and or to the Internet.
00:17:54.740And then you have C-18, which throttles online news.
00:17:57.800And now you've got this finishing move on online discourse here.
00:18:02.320And let me just ask first and foremost, when the government comes out and says, we are duty bound to protect the charter.
00:18:09.540does that pacify your concerns? Oh, no. Governments always claim to be, pretend to be
00:18:18.880in favor of charter rights and freedoms. It's almost unheard of that a politician's going to
00:18:26.680up front say, oh yeah, we're violating your charter freedom of expression. No, no, no. They
00:18:32.320insist that this is not going to have any adverse impact on free speech. And that's outrageous to
00:18:42.080assert that. That's false. We're going to have new powers given to the Canadian Human Rights
00:18:48.400Commission. We're going to have regulations passed by Prime Minister Trudeau and his cabinet
00:18:54.240colleagues, censorship regulations without input from parliament enforced by the online
00:19:00.320offline digital safety commission. We've got, you know, preemptive punishment for people where
00:19:08.660a judge can order you to wear an ankle bracelet and be under house arrest because you might
00:19:13.940commit a speech crime. It is just to suggest that this is, you know, has no impact on free
00:19:21.900expression is just ridiculous. It's outrageous to assert that. I wanted to ask you about that
00:19:27.360thought crime aspect? Because I remember when that Tom Cruise movie some years back, Minority
00:19:31.740Report, came out. It was literally a dystopian thriller. The premise of the movie was that
00:19:38.200police could see the future and they'd go around arresting people for crimes they were about to
00:19:42.520commit. And in this particular case, you literally have government taking the thing that was like
00:19:48.680the conspiracy theorist warning about what this dystopian futuristic government could do
00:20:18.520indeed there's a provision there where you can go before provincial court,
00:20:22.520a judge. You can say, well, I think my next door neighbor, let's call him Mark Smith. Apologies to
00:20:28.520any Mark Smiths out there. I think Mark Smith is going to commit a speech crime. He's going to
00:20:34.900promote anti-Semitism or he's going to advocate for genocide. I think he's going to do that.
00:20:40.260Mark Smith has to appear in court. Now, the judge does need a reasonable basis that the fear is
00:20:49.880is well-founded, that there's a reasonable basis for the fear. So it's not automatic. However,
00:20:55.160just the specter of that, that you could be hauled before a court where a judge, if a judge believes
00:21:02.440this complainant that you might commit a speech crime, already the judge can say,
00:21:08.520okay, it's an ankle bracelet, house arrest. We're telling you there's certain people you cannot
00:21:14.360contact or communicate with. There's places where you can't go. You have to turn in your legally
00:21:19.880owned legally acquired firearms you get all these conditions placed upon you without having
00:21:26.440committed any crime that's in the bill if it passes in its current form when we talk about
00:21:33.000the the speech aspect of this one of the things that has changed between section 13
00:21:38.760in its original uh form this is the the provision of the human rights act that
00:21:42.920uh was repealed by the previous conservative government the provision allowing the prosecution
00:21:46.840of online so-called hate speech and and now is that we have a bit more clarity from the supreme
00:21:52.520court of canada on what that uh what hate speech is and that came through a decision called the
00:21:58.120watcott decision which uh the government kind of copied and pasted in defining what hate speech is
00:22:04.360here and i wanted to ask you first off if you could just explain you're smirking so why don't
00:22:09.080you just go with whatever's on your mind right now about this decision well the supreme court
00:22:14.840devoted no fewer than 4,000 words trying to explain what hate is outside of the criminal
00:22:23.280code context. So what does hate mean when human rights legislation bars hate speech?
00:22:30.280And it is the most meandering, muddled, confusing 4,000 words you could read. There is zero clarity.
00:22:37.980The reason I'm smiling is because it's hilarious in a way, and it's also sad and twisted and sick,
00:22:43.640but it's hilarious that the government very proudly proclaims that they're going to bring
00:22:48.760laws into compliance with the great clarity that the Supreme Court provided in the Whatcott
00:22:57.600decision. Look, if you can't say what hate is in less than 4,000 words, there's a reason for that.
00:23:03.240It's because hate is an emotion and it is subjective. You and I could hear or see the
00:23:08.380exact same, listen to the same podcast, see the same YouTube video. You could say it's hateful.
00:23:13.320I could say, no, it's not. Or I could say it's hateful. You would say it's not. So the Supreme
00:23:18.060Court actually said that it is okay to ridicule and belittle and hurt the feelings of people
00:23:24.620and to promote dislike and disdain. However, do not cross the line into detestation and
00:23:31.340vilification. So you tell me, Andrew, what's the difference between detestation, which you cannot
00:23:38.000promote detestation that's hate speech but you can promote disdain which is not hate speech
00:23:44.720yeah i i read i've re i read this every time i talk about the issue and i'll read it again
00:23:49.440because i think it underlines the absurdity you're describing here john which is um that
00:23:53.680this is from the online harms act hate speech means the content of a communication that expresses
00:23:59.040detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited
00:24:04.160ground of discrimination for greater certainty. So we're supposed to be more certain at the end
00:24:08.800of this paragraph, the content of a communication does not express detestation or vilification
00:24:13.820solely because it expresses disdain or dislike, or it discredits, humiliates, hurts, or offends.
00:24:20.560So you can hurt, but you can't vilify. You can dislike, but you can't detest. You can disdain,
00:24:27.880but you can't vilify or detail. I mean, look, this is going to come down to that old, I think
00:24:34.240it was Oliver Wendell Holmes on pornography in the US Supreme Court. I know it when I see it,
00:24:39.400which is not exactly instilling a big dose of confidence in very rigorous, clear lines on free
00:24:46.100speech. No, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, if the bill passes, will once again have the power
00:24:53.540to prosecute Canadians, even based on anonymous complaints. So you could have like an atheist in
00:24:59.680Vancouver follows a complaint against a Christian lady in Halifax over having made disparaging
00:25:06.740remarks about a mosque in Toronto. Okay. And that could be anonymous. And even if the members of
00:25:14.820that mosque are not offended by it, it doesn't matter. And then you get these unelected,
00:25:21.380unaccountable bureaucrats, most of them progressive, woke, they're going to look at your speech and
00:25:27.080decide whether it's hateful or not, regardless of whether anybody was damaged by it. You don't
00:25:32.140even need a victim. You could just have the Human Rights Commission bureaucrat prosecute you because
00:25:37.820she thinks that what you said is hateful. It will go before the tribunal. And if you are found guilty
00:25:45.040of violating the new regulations through the Online Harms Act, then penalties could be
00:25:53.720paying up to $50,000 to the federal government, plus on top of that, up to $20,000 paid to the
00:26:01.680victim of your hateful speech. $70,000, you could be out of pocket, and that doesn't even cover
00:26:08.680a penny of your legal bills. So that's a new reality that we're going to be into if this
00:26:15.240legislation passes. I should point out it was not Oliver Wendell Holmes. It was Justice Potter
00:26:21.280Stewart who used that line. So with all due apology to Potter Stewart for attributing his
00:26:27.340quote to someone else. But I think he had lifted it from like Arthur Conan Doyle or something. But
00:26:31.140anyway, let me ask you about that fine. Because, you know, one of the things that strikes me from
00:26:36.260reading this is that you don't even really have to have suffered a loss or a harm to be eligible to
00:26:41.980be a victim and a complainant. Someone could make an inappropriate comment about some group that
00:26:46.680you're a member of, it wasn't applied to you individually, and you could be the one who found
00:26:50.840it and reported it and, you know, be the one who complains to the Human Rights Commission.
00:26:55.920And, you know, again, I don't want to be too, I don't even think it's a conspiracy at this point.
00:26:59.860I could see a bunch of people that check off all of these diversity boxes sitting on their computer
00:27:04.960all day and just mining Twitter to try to find something. And you could end up, you know,
00:27:10.480amassing like, you know, $2 million in the span of a few weeks of work, just trying to find these
00:27:15.340things that you can complain about. And again, that's not to say that the tribunal will go along
00:27:19.820with that, but it doesn't seem like the law itself would do anything to stop that because
00:27:25.280there is nothing saying that you couldn't just weaponize the complaints process or just profit
00:27:29.920from it. Well, that's what happened before when you have Mark Stein and Ezra Levant were
00:27:34.280prosecuted under Section 13 for Islamophobic or anti-Islam or whatever statements, whatever it
00:27:45.600was, but they were huge legal bills, and it's very stressful. The women that the Justice Center
00:27:54.180represented in British Columbia that were getting targeted by this person by the name of Yaniv,
00:27:59.460who identified as a woman and had the male body parts and wanted a Brazilian bikini wax and would
00:28:08.480phone these women, many of them working out of their own home with children. And the women would
00:28:16.020say, well, sorry, we only provide this to women. And then Yaniv would file a human rights complaint.
00:28:22.360And it was hugely stressful for these women that you get this letter from the BC Human Rights
00:28:26.980commission saying a complaint has been filed against you. Legal proceedings have been commenced
00:28:32.120and it's horrifically stressful. It's very time consuming. And if you don't have
00:28:38.220the justice center or another group that's providing a lawyer for you, it can be
00:28:44.140extremely expensive as well. Yeah. And I guess as we look forward here, obviously this is going to
00:28:51.480go before committee testimony. I hope that you're called as a witness to testify. I don't think it
00:28:56.780will be Justin Trudeau that calls you up for your counsel or or input on this but you know I hope
00:29:01.300they at least hear it but what are what recourse is even available right now obviously you've got
00:29:06.160a petition it's really politicians that have to be the one at this stage to stand up against this
00:29:11.540is it not well people should also contact senators uh senators are far less under the control of
00:29:19.200Prime Minister Trudeau than the Liberal Party members of Parliament. But people should contact
00:29:27.460their MP, regardless of what party affiliation, and particularly if your MP is a Liberal or New
00:29:35.920Democrat, if they're hearing from a lot of constituents that there's opposition to this
00:29:41.360bill, they care about their re-election, they're nervous, and you could contribute to their being
00:29:48.340internal opposition, you know, the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good people
00:29:53.680to do nothing. So let's not do nothing. Let's phone and email our MPs and let's, you know,
00:30:00.500sign petitions. Let's spread the word to our neighbors and let's foment, let's exercise our
00:30:07.860responsibilities as citizens in a democracy. John Carpe, Justice Center for Constitutional
00:30:14.180freedoms. Thank you very much, John. Thank you, Andrew. All right. Well, let's take a bit of a
00:30:19.020turn to the bigger picture here. With laws like this getting onto the books in Canada, it's easy
00:30:23.760to take a rather pessimistic view at the state of things. And I warn you that I oftentimes am
00:30:29.960guilty of being the source of pessimism. I try to be smiling about it, but then I read what I've
00:30:34.500said and I'm like, oh man, we really, as a country, went down that road, didn't we? But
00:30:38.280there is a little bit of a reason to be optimistic. And that is that spending time talking to real
00:30:42.960people, as I try to do as much as possible, real people will often give you more confidence in the
00:30:49.220country than reading headlines will. And it was interesting, this jumped up on my radar the other
00:30:54.140day. Eric Kaufman, who's been on the show a couple of times in the past, he's a Canadian, but he's
00:30:59.720living in the UK and he's a professor at the University of Buckingham, did a piece that was
00:31:05.860quite fascinating with the Macdonald-Laurier Institute that found, there you see it right
00:31:11.120there, the politics of culture wars in contemporary Canada. It found that Canadians are actually not
00:31:17.180as woke as you might be led to believe by many of those in positions of power in the media and in
00:31:23.800the political elites. I wanted to bring on Eric to talk about that a bit further. Good to talk to
00:31:28.780you again, Eric. Thanks for coming back on the show today. It's good to be here, Andrew. Excuse
00:31:33.220me, I've got a slight cold, but hopefully not. That's quite all right. Hopefully we won't strain
00:31:37.280you too much in the next few minutes here. You and I spoke about your desire to bring a bit of
00:31:42.120an academic focus to wokeness in the past. So it was interesting for this to come up here.
00:31:46.900What did you set out to question first off? Well, yeah, this was, I've done surveys on the
00:31:53.200culture war opinion in the US and Britain in 2021 and 2022. I was just interested as a Canadian to
00:32:01.000see what the Canadian public opinion looks like in relation to Britain and the US. Clearly in
00:32:06.700public policy terms, Canada has charted the kind of most what you might call woke or cultural
00:32:12.480socialist path compared to the other countries. And so I was wondering if we could pick up that
00:32:18.600trace in public opinion. And what really surprised me was that the Canadian public was basically a
00:32:25.200carbon copy of the British and American publics. There was really no consistent difference in
00:32:30.900their level of support for the woke position on whether that be um gender ideology critical race
00:32:37.680and history um it seems like there's no real difference what i find fascinating about that
00:32:44.380is that the institutional approach to these issues is vastly different in these countries i mean you
00:32:50.380live in the united kingdom i follow uk news quite a bit you have issues of police departments that
00:32:55.740are knocking on your door if you tweet the wrong pronoun there. And you have this non-crime hate
00:33:01.080incident thing that is incredibly chilling. Whereas in the US, you have kind of the opposite,
00:33:06.160which is, sure, you've got infiltration of school boards, but you've got strong First Amendment
00:33:10.160protections. You've got a very strong culture of debate and discussion. Canada is probably
00:33:15.040somewhere in between. So how does that happen? Where on one hand, you have just these institutions
00:33:19.780in these three countries that have wildly different approaches to these issues, but the people
00:33:23.940are the same in all three. Well, I mean, I would say that I, you know, I think in Canada,
00:33:30.500certainly on the gender issue, they were the latest to push back in the three societies,
00:33:36.220especially if you consider the red states. But certainly in Britain, on gender affirmation,
00:33:41.200there has been a very much more robust, you know, the Cass Review, they closed down
00:33:45.940a major, the Tavistock Clinic. So it's just been a lot more responsive to public opinion. And
00:33:52.900likewise on statues and history and there's now a review of sex education in schools in a way we
00:33:59.080don't see that level of policy responsiveness in Canada. I mean one of the reasons one of the
00:34:06.000things that jumped out in the data was that Canadians were more trusting of the media than
00:34:10.540say British people and Americans and so one possible explanation is that the greater sort
00:34:18.400of trust and leeway given to political elites by Canadians allows them to depart from public
00:34:24.020opinion more than might be allowed in other countries. Well, and I would also say in the
00:34:30.220UK, certainly you have a much more diverse media landscape. I mean, the British tabloids are all
00:34:36.320the stuff of legend, but you also have in general, I think in the UK, there's much more of a presence
00:34:42.140in mainstream media for conservative opinions. You've got the Daily Mail, the Telegraph and
00:34:47.180GB News and Talk TV and all of these. Whereas in Canada, the independent media landscape has been
00:34:54.880a more recent, it's a bit more nascent, I'd say. Yeah, I mean, you're right about that. I mean,
00:35:00.860I think there are some, you notice in Britain, the politicians like in Canada, the conservative
00:35:05.640politicians are quite timid on cultural issues and have been more focused on just that liberal
00:35:11.640conservative fiscal conservatism um but i think have felt pressure more from the press perhaps
00:35:18.740you're right i mean they've still been reluctant to move on a lot of these things but not as
00:35:22.940reluctant as the canadian conservatives um now of course canadian conservatives we're starting to
00:35:28.000see some movement uh starting in new brunswick with with premier higgs but but now pauliev has
00:35:33.340said some things what we haven't seen however is any challenging of the critical race and historical
00:35:39.720narrative so for whether that be the residential schools the genocide narrative and that approach
00:35:46.860to Canadian history whereas in Britain in France in the U.S. that's been much more robustly
00:35:51.760challenged and again what the survey data shows is Canadian two to one they're against removal
00:35:56.600of statues of Sir John A. Macdonald 70 to 30 they say Canada is not a racist country I mean
00:36:02.160more than Americans and Brits Canadians are reluctant to say their country is racist that
00:36:07.140that just isn't being reflected at provincial or federal level, even if the gender debate is
00:36:13.900starting to happen a little more. Yeah. And I was going to ask, because obviously the relative
00:36:18.520value of Canada compared to the US and UK is interesting, but I'm also fascinated by the
00:36:23.200absolute values in just Canada alone. And it is a clear majority that on all of these different
00:36:28.860questions, and I was wondering if you just give a few more examples of which questions you've
00:36:32.180probed here, but Canadians are overwhelmingly, if you can distill the binary into the woke option
00:36:37.800and the non-woke option, it's the non-woke option winning every time, isn't it? Yeah, I mean, not
00:36:42.820100% of the time, but on average, it's two to one against the woke option in public opinion. That's
00:36:48.520a good rule to use. Now, there are certain questions. Should kids be separated by race
00:36:53.540in school into oppressors and oppressed? 92 to eight against. Should school children be taught
00:37:00.100there is is no such thing as biological sex only gender it's like 85 15 again you know massive or
00:37:06.180which is quite massive because just to jump in on that eric if you because if you put that poll
00:37:10.680question to your average uh teacher i think you're going to see a huge mismatch there exactly yeah i
00:37:17.300mean the the i don't think a lot of canadians realize just how much these particularly the
00:37:22.680radical end of things is is running against public opinion i mean set by a 70 to 30 margin for
00:37:28.880Canadians to say they don't want teachers telling kids that Canada's a racist country.
00:37:33.560You know, that is a that's a pretty massive opposition to to a policy which is kind of
00:37:38.580running through a lot of schools, like the removal of Sir John A.
00:37:41.880MacDonald. Again, public policy, the elite institutions are completely out of phase with
00:37:47.580public opinion. And I think that really offers a lot of opportunities for the braver of the
00:37:54.000Canadian politicians. So just to circle back to the trans issue, and you mentioned that the timidness
00:38:00.600of Canadians, and I'd say Canadian Conservatives, this is one interesting one, because the UK Tories,
00:38:06.260I would say, have never been a particularly culture warrior party. But in the last couple
00:38:11.320of years, you've seen some movement on this issue. And I think there are probably some domestic
00:38:15.640political realities there that aren't necessarily of interest to delve into for people. But I think,
00:38:21.680You know, J.K. Rowling, I wonder if she plays a role in this in a lot of ways, because I think she has really given in Britain and I'd say around the world a face to the, you know, the right wing position, despite not actually fitting the mold of what people expect the right wing Haiti hate monger to be.
00:38:39.720Yeah, I mean, you have a sort of vocal left-wing, often lesbian, gender-critical feminist group.
00:38:46.860And, you know, it's interesting to watch because in The Guardian, they've been frozen out, which is the left-wing newspaper.
00:38:52.860But they have found a voice even to some degree in The Independent, which is also somewhat left.
00:38:58.260And so there is a kind of left-wing, gender-critical voice, which has been important, I would say, in Britain.