Juno News - Trans activists want to ban Fox News in Canada

00:00:00.000 Welcome to Canada's most irreverent talk show.

00:00:04.980 This is the Andrew Lawton Show, brought to you by TrueNord.

00:00:14.860 Welcome to you all, the Andrew Lawton Show here, April 11th, 2023.

00:00:20.180 Where I am in southwestern Ontario, it is a plus 23 degree day right now,

00:00:28.580 which is why I'm in such a chipper mood.

00:00:31.420 I dislike the cold weather immensely.

00:00:33.760 I lost out on the climatic lottery by being born in Canada.

00:00:37.860 It was a great thing for many other reasons,

00:00:40.020 but I've never actually heard one person say I love the weather in Canada.

00:00:45.560 I mean, I guess conceivably if you were from, you know,

00:00:48.780 I don't know, the tip of Sweden, the northern tip,

00:00:51.020 you might find Canada to be slightly more balmy.

00:00:54.020 But I've never heard anyone celebrate the weather of Canada.

00:00:56.380 So now that we are not just in double digits, but above 20 today, I am awfully happy if you are in...

00:01:01.780 Now I've got to look. What's the weather in Edmonton today? Edmonton weather.

00:01:06.540 See, in Edmonton, it's three degrees right now.

00:01:08.880 So I love Alberta, but the weather there is not ideal.

00:01:13.060 Nevertheless, weather aside, lots going on in the country and the world today.

00:01:17.540 I thank you so much for tuning in.

00:01:19.220 I'm going to be speaking very shortly with lawyer Lisa Bildy, who is organizing a takeover,

00:01:25.640 Not in the hostile coup d'etat sense, but a democratic takeover of the Law Society of Ontario, pushing back against political overreach in that regulatory body.

00:01:36.680 And as we've seen in the last little while with the College of Psychologists and Jordan Peterson, these regulatory bodies have a tremendous amount of power.

00:01:46.020 So we will talk about that with Lisa very shortly.

00:01:48.840 Also going to talk about this story of Justin Trudeau giving what I think is the worst financial advice I have ever heard, which is probably not surprising if you've looked at this federal government's track record on spending and budgeting.

00:02:04.400 So I can't say I'm shocked by it, but we still have to talk about it. And what else is going on? I don't know if I'm going to get to this Dalai Lama thing. Everyone's talking about the Dalai Lama, which is not normally what happens in my line of work.

00:02:18.300 So if we if we have time, I may talk about the Dalai Lama thing. If you really don't want me to, I don't want to either. So let me know in the comments and then I can just skip over that grotesque story. But I do want to talk about the CRTC here, which is again, I know a big snooze fest a lot of the time. But the CRTC is the body that regulates television and radio stations in the country.

00:02:41.440 So if you want to go and open up Joe's radio station, if you want to, you know, CJOE, I guess would be the radio station.

00:02:49.260 I don't know if those call letters are taken.

00:02:50.980 You would need to get permission from the CRTC.

00:02:53.560 You'd need to get a license.

00:02:54.720 This license governs what type of radio you can broadcast.

00:02:59.100 It governs the wattage at which you can broadcast, all these things.

00:03:04.080 And they have the control entirely.

00:03:06.060 So when Sun News Network was on the air, they actually needed to go hat in hand to the CRTC and demand permission to get the same treatment that other news networks in Canada had.

00:03:16.920 Now the CRTC turned them down and ultimately this was what, among other things, cost Sun News their business, which is why they had to fold up and go home.

00:03:26.780 So the CRTC is the gatekeeper, to use the Pierre Polyev language, of being a broadcaster in this country.

00:03:34.100 And that just doesn't stand for Canadian companies that want to broadcast, but even foreign TV stations that want to be on the airwaves in Canada, like Fox News.

00:03:46.520 So an LGBT activist group in Canada, a gal Canada, is calling on the CRTC to rescind the broadcast license of Fox News.

00:03:58.700 So a gal has published a letter calling on the CRTC to begin public consultations on the removal of Fox News from the list of non-Canadian programming authorized for distribution in Canada. 0.98

00:04:10.600 So they're basically saying, just, you know, get out of there, you dirty foreigners, we don't want you. 1.00

00:04:14.360 You're the wrong kind of content. 0.99

00:04:16.520 You are transphobic, basically, is the crux of their argument.

00:04:21.380 Now, if you read the letter from a gal, which is directed to the chairperson, because you can't have a chairman anymore, the chairperson and CEO of the CRCC, Vicky Etreeds, I don't know the pronunciation, but they specifically take aim at this clip of Tucker Carlson on his very popular primetime show, Tucker Carlson Tonight. 0.63

00:04:47.100 The trans movement is targeting Christians, including with violence. 0.70

00:04:54.060 Most Christian leaders in this country don't want to admit that. 1.00

00:04:57.500 Admitting it might force them to take deeply unfashionable positions. 1.00

00:05:01.660 But it is true, and anyone who's paying attention knows that it's true.

00:05:10.220 Now, this was part of a longer discussion that took place on Tucker's show.

00:05:14.700 His crux was that there is a trans activist-led crusade against Christianity.

00:05:21.180 Obviously, he was talking about the horrific Covenant Christian School shooting in which it was a transgender shooter that went in and killed all those children.

00:05:28.800 And I didn't talk about that because I don't feel there's any need to join in on the politicization of a tragedy that seems to be the left's go-to after everything.

00:05:37.700 Anything is just prime gun control fodder for them, and they don't actually care about human life the way they say they do.

00:05:44.560 But all of that aside, a gal Canada looks at Tucker Carlson talking about this story and they say, you know what, the time has come to get him off the airwaves, to get Fox News off. 0.86

00:05:55.580 They say the coverage is aimed to provoke hatred and violence against 2SLGBTQI, or it's the Roman numeral for one.

00:06:06.820 You can never be too careful. Communities, particularly those who are two-spirit, trans, non-binary, and gender non-conforming, which is an acronym I've never seen, 2STNBGN.

00:06:19.960 So we have significant bigotry from Tucker Carlson towards the 2SLGBTQI and 2STNBGNCUMMUNITIE, sorry, communities. I can say that one without acronymizing it.

00:06:36.080 But they say it's a clear violation of Canadian broadcast standards, has no place on Canadian broadcasting networks.

00:06:43.480 They say he's made false and horrifying claims.

00:06:46.320 He's painted trans people as violent and dangerous. 0.67

00:06:49.500 He's made the inflammatory claim that they are targeting Christians.

00:06:53.560 To position trans people in existential opposition to Christianity is an incitement of violence against trans people that is plain to any viewer.

00:07:03.440 which is not actually playing to any viewer and i say is actually playing to no viewers except for

00:07:09.720 those of a gal who are writing these letters but they go on to the technicalities of this and say

00:07:14.780 that if you want to have a tv station that is authorized for distribution in canada

00:07:21.380 it is the crtc that is responsible for authorizing that they don't license it but they say that

00:07:27.820 non-canadian broadcasters have to be held to the same standard and there's a little line in here

00:07:33.340 that they cite that you can lose your license or be fined if you broadcast, quote, any abusive

00:07:39.880 comment or abusive pictorial representation that, when taken in context, tends to or is likely to

00:07:47.320 expose an individual or a group or class of individuals to hatred or contempt on the basis

00:07:53.140 of race, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, yada, yada, yada, yada.

00:07:58.620 So all of the human rights lingo there. And they say that there is firsthand,

00:08:03.340 experience on their part of hate from that single segment on Fox News. By the way, before I get on

00:08:11.020 with this letter, they're not even trying hard. I mean, if they really wanted to take down Fox

00:08:17.320 News, I watch Fox occasionally. I like some of it. I don't like some of it. I don't really care about

00:08:22.620 the substance of it. I find what MSNBC broadcast to be tremendously objectionable, but I don't want

00:08:28.100 them taken off the air. And the thing is, like, if you really wanted to go after Fox, you could

00:08:33.320 probably go and find a clip a night of Greg Gutfeld making this joke, Tucker Carlson making this point,

00:08:39.560 Laura Ingram saying this, and make like this whole compendium of content. They aren't even

00:08:45.260 doing that. They're saying, you know what, this one clip alone, this one clip alone should just

00:08:49.740 have Fox News vaporized from Canadian airwaves. They say they've experienced firsthand the hate

00:08:54.780 that this clip caused. Nowhere do they articulate in this letter what that hate was or how they

00:09:00.460 experienced it or who was harmed, who actually took this as a call to violence, like they say

00:09:06.120 it is. And then Helen Kennedy signs off and says that Fox News needs to be held to the same

00:09:11.720 standards in Canadian broadcasting. By that, I guess they mean it needs to be painfully boring.

00:09:15.620 But nevertheless, they want the CRTC to begin public consultations on the removal of Fox News.

00:09:21.580 Well, let me commence my own contribution to the public consultation. 0.96

00:09:26.540 Get bent, you disgusting censors. 0.70

00:09:29.780 These people who don't like anything that threatens their narrative and their stranglehold on the narrative, 0.98

00:09:36.560 they want vaporized.

00:09:38.120 These people that don't actually believe in debate.

00:09:41.160 They do not believe in free speech.

00:09:43.060 They do not believe that any opinions other than their own are legitimate

00:09:47.500 and therefore should be permitted within the bounds of society.

00:09:52.900 You know, I came across this quite recently,

00:09:55.540 and I may explain a little bit more about the context of it at a later date

00:09:59.560 when I have a bit more time to reflect on it.

00:10:01.880 But I had a conversation with someone with whom I disagreed on a lot of things,

00:10:05.620 and I hope that maybe we could come to some bit of common ground on something.

00:10:10.640 I didn't expect we would agree I was entrenched in my beliefs, she and hers,

00:10:14.520 But I thought that maybe we could just find some first principle on which we could agree.

00:10:19.080 And I realized we couldn't.

00:10:21.140 And the reason for that, as we agreed, I guess, we agreed on the source of the disagreement.

00:10:26.620 So yay.

00:10:27.380 But we agreed that she disagreed entirely with the idea that we should entertain a multitude

00:10:35.300 of views in society.

00:10:37.020 She fundamentally rejected that.

00:10:39.020 She was picking and choosing which views she thinks can legitimately express.

00:10:42.380 and coincidentally all of them aligned with her views and look this is something that we need to

00:10:47.640 be aware of that not everyone supports free speech that some people actually reject it

00:10:52.380 and the reason they reject it is because they know that free speech is the conduit through which

00:10:59.880 they'll be exposed to be complete and utter frauds they know that when people can speak freely and

00:11:05.480 debate freely and discuss they will turn on these positions that were being told to accept

00:11:11.560 at face value without questioning.

00:11:14.600 And that's why, I mean, a gal Canada,

00:11:16.540 look, I know they are tremendously passionate

00:11:19.360 about the work they do.

00:11:21.020 And if that is the case, own up to it.

00:11:23.100 Own up to it. 0.99

00:11:23.740 If you don't want the debate on transgenderism 0.74

00:11:26.560 and gender identity,

00:11:27.920 which is a lot more complex

00:11:29.440 than just standing up for human rights

00:11:31.320 for gays and lesbians,

00:11:33.180 if you don't want that debate,

00:11:35.300 you are in the wrong space.

00:11:36.760 And I would be remiss to not point out here

00:11:38.820 that EGAL takes money from the federal government.

00:11:42.160 EGAL is not just some political activist group

00:11:44.840 that is lobbing grenades from the sidelines,

00:11:47.680 rhetorical grenades.

00:11:49.100 I'm not making a call to violence here.

00:11:51.360 They're a group that gets millions of dollars,

00:11:54.100 millions in government of Canada funding.

00:11:58.480 Millions of dollars of government funding.

00:12:00.740 Now, for what?

00:12:01.560 Who knows?

00:12:02.180 They do training.

00:12:03.420 They do research.

00:12:04.160 They do advocacy.

00:12:05.020 The government gives the money for this service

00:12:06.860 and they turn around and then go to an organ of government the CRTC and say you guys should take

00:12:12.820 these people off the air because we do not like them now CRTC again to its credit has not responded

00:12:19.560 and said yes I agree we're going to do this they may reject it but why this is so important in a

00:12:24.360 current context is that Bill C-11 the bill we've been talking about so much for now a couple of

00:12:30.840 years, has a huge expansion of the CRTC's regulatory authority to include online content.

00:12:39.480 So all of a sudden, the CRTC won't just be responsible for TV and radio stations. The CRTC

00:12:45.200 will be responsible for online content, for YouTube videos. So how long until they're saying,

00:12:50.760 don't just take Fox News off the Canadian airwaves, take Fox News off YouTube, take Fox News off

00:12:56.340 rumble. And if rumble won't take it off, take rumble off the internet. That is what these people

00:13:01.940 are saying. That is what these people are doing. They are not interested in free speech. They're

00:13:09.300 not interested in, oh, you broke section 21.7, subsection C of the Broadcast Standards Act.

00:13:16.420 They want to outlaw dissent. They want to outlaw debate. And they're doing it so brazenly because

00:13:21.860 they know they're going to get away with it so do not let them do not let them i want to move to a

00:13:28.660 political battle that is taking place in ontario right now and before all the westerners tune out

00:13:33.620 i assure you this is something that has much broader implications than just for ontario the

00:13:39.560 law society of ontario has its venture elections which are basically the elections for its board

00:13:45.340 of governors coming up and there is one group of i don't know if i'll call them disgruntled lawyers

00:13:51.220 but I'll say very impassioned lawyers that are speaking up and saying that they want change.

00:13:58.340 They think there's been bureaucratic and political overreach by the Law Society.

00:14:02.600 They did this with some success in the last round of elections

00:14:05.620 with the efforts to stop this statement of principles that the Law Society was forcing on lawyers.

00:14:12.280 Lisa Bildy is, as always, the mastermind behind all the good things happening in law in Canada.

00:14:18.300 And she joins me now.

00:14:19.700 Lisa, good to talk to you. Thanks for coming on today.

00:14:23.520 Thanks, Andrew, for having me. I don't know about Mastermind, but I seem to get messed up and everything anyway.

00:14:29.000 Well, because you're not satisfied sitting on the sidelines, which is good,

00:14:32.340 because I think most people are ready to throw in the towel on a lot of these things.

00:14:35.740 So this is the campaign. It's called fullstoplso.ca, and people can check it out for themselves.

00:14:42.780 But explain to me, first off, what the issue is here,

00:14:46.000 Because I know there was a fair bit of momentum around the stop SOP slate that you had a few years back, and I think a lot of your candidates were successful, and I think a lot of people on the outsides probably thought, okay, great, the battle's won.

00:14:58.540 right well that was only just a small taste of the battle because if you you may recall the

00:15:05.980 statement of principles was one of 13 recommendations that were brought in in 2016

00:15:12.140 under the previous convocation which is the name for the the board of governors um so the these

00:15:19.460 were based on something called the stratcom report which was um basically it it concluded

00:15:25.700 that there was systemic racism in the profession it was questionable in terms of their methodology

00:15:30.420 and the statistical validity of all of this and then they of course uh they extrapolated um to

00:15:37.700 say that all equity seeking groups should be entitled to to the benefits of what they were

00:15:43.220 pushing forward which without defining which equity groups and you know so it wasn't really

00:15:48.020 just about racism but in any event uh there were 13 recommendations that were brought in by the

00:15:53.540 convocation one of which was the statement of principles actually there were uh and that was

00:15:59.380 only one of like a sub section so so there's like 12.75 more percent more or 12 12 and three quarter

00:16:08.020 more uh suggestions that need to be implemented they're just basically waiting in the wings

00:16:12.180 to to bring these back in some of them include things like an inclusion index where law firms

00:16:17.700 are ranked based on their um you know on all the boxes that are checked in the satisfaction of

00:16:24.260 of staff and lawyers who um who who happen to be coming from these equity seeking groups whichever

00:16:31.700 they are so basically it's a naming and shaming kind of exercise for for large law firms and of

00:16:38.100 course for a lot of large law firms this is part of what they do anyway uh they have you know edi

00:16:43.540 departments and this is this is the kind of thing that their clients expect and so on uh and so

00:16:48.340 basically it's free marketing then for those law firms to be given this stamp of approval by the

00:16:53.220 law society uh at the expense of of the smaller firms and sole practitioners i mean that's just

00:16:58.740 one more and then the statement of principles is supposed to be incorporated into the rules

00:17:03.300 of professional conduct and there's other other measures that i could go on um but there's an

00:17:09.700 an awful lot of data collection and processes involved that all emanate from the same source.

00:17:16.080 And so we did get rid of that statement of principles. And the opponents that we have

00:17:20.620 this time who have formed a slate of their own say that the SOP is dead. We will not be bringing

00:17:27.180 that back. But they haven't said anything about these other measures. One of the big things that

00:17:32.820 I brought up earlier on in the show that I think is important to note here is that regulatory

00:17:37.720 colleges have oftentimes operated in the shadows, because if you're not a lawyer, you think, okay,

00:17:43.000 well, what does the Law Society of Ontario matter to me? And I realize there's a bit of a difference

00:17:47.560 there if you're someone who has to make a complaint about a lawyer and all that. But we saw with

00:17:51.920 Jordan Peterson recently, when the College of Psychologists decided to go after him, that these

00:17:56.580 groups are very much politicized. And I think when the Trinity Western case came up a few years ago,

00:18:02.060 and the law societies were effectively blocking Trinity Western from setting up a law school,

00:18:07.920 you have people starting to see, OK, these groups are entering the culture wars.

00:18:12.480 These aren't just focused on, you know, do you have the right insurance and are you qualified to practice?

00:18:19.360 Right. And that is obviously a big concern. We are seeing it in a lot of other institutions.

00:18:23.760 I, having sort of taken the position I did on the statement of principles,

00:18:28.320 ended up attracting a lot of clients who were also being essentially punished for their views

00:18:33.580 in other regulatory bodies across the country. And so I'm seeing this in a lot of places. It

00:18:38.500 isn't just this institution. And what's happening is, you know, they're being weaponized in effect

00:18:44.920 by activists who don't like the views of members. And they've now discovered there's this disciplinary

00:18:50.700 process they can tap into. And so we saw this with COVID, we're seeing with gender issues,

00:18:55.360 if somebody expresses a view that doesn't fit with the orthodoxy of the day on on any of those topics

00:19:01.140 well then a group of activists or even a single activist can send a letter of complaint and then

00:19:08.020 suddenly if if it falls to you know on a receptive audience which it increasingly does as more of

00:19:13.500 these same thinking people move into the bureaucracy um then you know suddenly this this

00:19:19.660 licensee has has a whole disciplinary process to deal with as a result of their views in the public

00:19:25.880 square you have nothing to do with with patients or or what have you so uh so it is dangerous and

00:19:31.340 in fact the law society is proposing to bring in similar sort of powers to what we were seeing with

00:19:35.340 the jordan peterson case which uh um would would essentially force a lawyer when there's no

00:19:41.800 reasonable and probable grounds for discipline to still come before a committee of their peers to be

00:19:47.220 re-educated chastised whatever and that this will also be made public on their record without any

00:19:53.900 input from them so it's you know you like to think that it would be used for things like competence

00:19:59.560 making sure people are doing their you know they they aren't um you know handling mortgages badly

00:20:05.680 for real estate clients or or missing limitation periods or that kind of thing but the temptation

00:20:11.320 will always be there to use it for other purposes and that's really what our group is trying to do

00:20:16.520 We're trying to say, look, this has to be a neutral body.

00:20:20.520 If we want to self-regulate, it needs to be neutral.

00:20:24.600 And so we cannot be going down this path of regulating people's political opinions or amassing power in the bureaucracy to go off on all these other tangents.

00:20:36.680 I remember, it would have been however many years ago now, I can't recall, I was covering the Ontario carbon tax challenge before the Court of Appeal.

00:20:44.460 And it was at Osgoode Hall, which is this beautiful building that everyone only knows about now because of this fight over trees or something.

00:20:50.080 But Osgoode Hall is home to the Court of Appeal for Ontario and also to the Law Society of Ontario.

00:20:55.560 And there's like this, I recall this hallway that you go down.

00:20:58.560 And once you go down that hallway, you're on the part that the Law Society governs.

00:21:01.900 And I remember knowing that instantly because you pass this corner and it's the transgender washroom on one side and the Muslim prayer room on the other side. 0.70

00:21:11.380 and you sort of realize, okay, we're now in Wokistan here.

00:21:14.680 So I look at the three pillars that you have for this full stop platform,

00:21:19.060 stop bloat, stop creep, and stop woke.

00:21:21.960 Are there people that you're finding that aren't as happy with that third category?

00:21:26.040 They're saying, yeah, I'm on side with stopping the bloat, but I'm okay with the woke.

00:21:30.440 Or are you finding that the legal community is pretty much in these two camps of,

00:21:34.980 yes, this is all good, and no, we need to put an end to it?

00:21:37.960 Well, I think there are some who feel a little uncomfortable with it.

00:21:41.380 You know, again, it's a colloquial term that has taken on a whole lot of meaning and not perhaps the original meaning that it had back in the 20s and 30s when it was more of a, you know, a racial awareness campaign, which, you know, had some importance and value.

00:21:58.400 But it's become what I like to call social justice fundamentalism now.

00:22:02.740 And so a lot is being ushered in under that.

00:22:05.740 And there's always there are always going to be people who still want to believe that the words that are being advanced in this orthodoxy mean what we think that they mean rather than what they actually mean.

00:22:17.880 So, for example, equality, diversity and inclusion all sound like great words.

00:22:22.840 I don't think there's a single person that I've met or and certainly not on our slate who don't think that those words by their normal meanings that we all kind of assume we're talking about would have any problem with those things.

00:22:34.760 but those aren't the things that they actually mean and so when they say equality they really

00:22:38.840 mean equity they mean equality of outcome they mean everybody needs to end up in the same place

00:22:44.520 regardless of you know merit circumstances uh personal decisions whatever i mean you just need

00:22:51.560 to have we just need to have a head count basically we need to have everybody at the end of the the

00:22:56.080 finish line looking the way that they're supposed to look uh so that's what equity is and then

00:23:00.740 inclusion again we only include people who think like us okay so it's not really inclusive and

00:23:05.680 diversity well you know we can have an entirely female panel all females of the same you know

00:23:13.580 racial background and that's considered diverse but that's not what most people think when they

00:23:19.140 hear those words but the the activist meaning is really quite different and so to some degree it's

00:23:24.500 a failure of education I suppose to to help people understand what we're really talking about and I

00:23:29.020 I suppose we need to work on that. Yeah, I know. And I think that's fair. And I'm curious if you

00:23:33.960 could shine some light on what voter turnout on these venture elections is. Do you find that

00:23:38.720 historically lawyers just pay their ridiculous licensing fees and carry on and don't really

00:23:43.500 care who they are? Or do you find that they do take a really active role in picking these

00:23:48.260 ventures, as they're called? Well, you would think there'd be more. And the numbers have never been

00:23:53.520 great um i think last election they were just under 30 which was a was particularly low and

00:24:00.680 which was shocking to me when i heard that because yeah because that was the one that even non-lawyers

00:24:04.460 had heard about right i mean it was it was a galvanizing issue normally there's nothing to

00:24:10.020 even you know you just kind of vote for the names that you've heard of okay that lawyer sounds like

00:24:13.540 somebody i've i've come across you seem all right um you know the but but people actively came out

00:24:18.980 last time, I thought. But the numbers didn't demonstrate that. So I don't know what that says.

00:24:24.680 A certain amount of complacency in the profession, I guess. Or maybe people are just tired of the

00:24:29.320 conflicts. But, you know, if you're tired of the conflicts, then I think you want a neutral

00:24:32.800 regulator. So, you know, vote for us and we'll get things back on track is basically the position

00:24:37.580 that we're taking. Just to look at the bigger picture here, how is this battle playing out

00:24:42.160 in other provinces to the extent that you're aware? Is Ontario pushing further or is this

00:24:48.340 just kind of already accepted elsewhere it depends some i think there's a variety of experiences

00:24:55.180 i would say most institutions tend to attract the kind of people who who have an activist agenda

00:25:00.960 and so they're in various stages of that unfolding uh in terms of the legal profession i i believe

00:25:06.180 that you know ontario was was a leader in bringing a lot of this stuff in and and uh to the chagrin

00:25:12.420 of some who who wanted that move forward um it's been basically on hold while our stop stop ventures

00:25:18.140 have been around um you know this inclusion index for example was basically iced uh last year

00:25:24.540 because by now the data is kind of out of out of um you know it's it's not current uh and so they

00:25:31.820 they say well you know we're not going to do the inclusion index or they imply that they aren't but

00:25:35.820 they will be back they they basically just put it on hold tour out of the way um so i don't i don't

00:25:40.940 know where the others are starting to catch up a bit more but i haven't done an exhaustive analysis

00:25:45.900 I heard that New Brunswick is bringing in a climate change committee in their law society.

00:25:52.260 So it continues.

00:25:54.680 I don't even know how that applies to the law society.

00:25:57.980 Like, I'm not even sure what they'd be governing in that case.

00:26:01.480 I don't know.

00:26:02.920 Carbon offsets if you want to go and visit your clients or something.

00:26:05.620 Who knows?

00:26:06.400 All right.

00:26:06.740 Well, I wish you the best of luck with this, Lisa.

00:26:09.060 I know we'll certainly have your voice on about cases in the future, as you always have ones that are incredibly important.

00:26:14.960 But it's good to see you taking up this fight.

00:26:16.980 People can learn more about it at fullstoplso.ca.

00:26:21.180 And you've got, by the way, it's great.

00:26:22.520 When I look through the candidate list, I see like a third of them I think I've had on the show in the last year.

00:26:27.420 So it's good that you have the right people running or I have the right people coming on the show or a bit of both.

00:26:32.300 Good stuff.

00:26:32.900 All right.

00:26:33.100 Thanks for having me, Andrew.

00:26:33.940 Thanks very much, Lisa.

00:26:34.740 Always a pleasure.

00:26:36.460 This just breaking news just came in about a minute ago.

00:26:39.920 So I am learning about this basically in real time with you.

00:26:43.020 I am going to read to you a letter that I have not even read myself

00:26:47.080 because someone sent me a message and said you should read this letter.

00:26:49.940 So I'm hoping it's good here.

00:26:51.900 Pierre Polyev has sent a letter to Twitter.

00:26:55.820 It says the following.

00:26:58.440 I am writing in respect of Twitter's practice of identifying certain accounts

00:27:02.780 as government-funded media.

00:27:05.840 Twitter's platform use guidelines describe the practice as follows.

00:27:09.580 Government-funded media is defined as outlets where the government provides some or all of the outlet's funding

00:27:15.300 and may have varying degrees of government involvement over editorial content.

00:27:20.500 Twitter's platform use guidelines refer to a source that describes the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

00:27:26.600 as a publicly funded broadcaster.

00:27:29.380 It goes on to say that the annual report disclosed that it receives $1.24 billion, the vast majority from the government.

00:27:36.040 In the interest of transparency, I believe that Twitter should apply to the government-funded media label to the CBC's various news-related accounts, including CBC News and CBC Alert, Sincerely, Pierre Polyev.

00:27:56.320 Sorry, the Honorable Pierre Polyev, leader of the official opposition.

00:28:01.100 So just a little bit of context here.

00:28:03.700 If you look at the BBC's Twitter account, they actually had this little flare-up when

00:28:09.380 Elon Musk decided to be Elon Musk, and a couple of their accounts had the label put on it

00:28:14.920 that it was government funder, state-funded media.

00:28:17.960 And all of the journalists lost their mind.

00:28:20.040 They said, no, government-funded media is different than state-funded media.

00:28:23.560 And the really hilarious battle that was in the UK is that, no, the government doesn't

00:28:28.860 pay BBC.

00:28:29.560 They force taxpayers to pay a license fee to BBC.

00:28:32.980 and I was looking at that

00:28:34.760 I'm like that literally is government

00:28:36.940 saying that BBC needs to be

00:28:39.440 funded by taxpayers

00:28:40.700 so nevertheless in Canada

00:28:42.600 the funding is more explicit

00:28:44.260 the federal government gives CBC

00:28:46.240 a giant 1.3 billion dollar

00:28:48.920 whatever it is annual subsidy

00:28:50.480 and that money funds brilliant shows

00:28:53.160 like Little Mosque on the Prairie

00:28:54.700 and that one about 0.99

00:28:56.700 the transgender tomato

00:28:58.000 it was like a non-binary peach 0.84

00:29:00.640 or a transgender tomato

00:29:02.140 or something that was lecturing us about colonialism.

00:29:04.980 We talked about it on Fake News Friday,

00:29:06.960 however many weeks back.

00:29:08.180 And every time I'm so like,

00:29:09.980 I believe I'm just describing a strange dream that I don't do acid,

00:29:13.920 but I imagine if I did do acid,

00:29:15.280 that would be what it looked like or felt like.

00:29:18.380 So Pierre Baliev is saying to Elon Musk and to Twitter,

00:29:23.380 you should really put that state media label on CBC.

00:29:27.140 Now, this is, by the way, a cautionary tale to conservatives.

00:29:30.940 When you do the leadership thing and you talk a big game, and then in the general election campaign, once you're the leader, you ignore everything you previously campaigned on.

00:29:40.800 People don't like it.

00:29:41.900 Pierre Polyev has done the opposite.

00:29:43.860 He said he's actually been more aggressive on CBC since he became the leader of the Conservatives than he was when he ran for leadership.

00:29:52.620 So he's not backing down.

00:29:53.920 He says to Twitter, call CBC state-funded media.

00:29:57.460 And I say to Pierre Polyev, well done, sir.

00:30:00.820 I've got to like, once I get off air, tweet Elon Musk and make sure that Elon sees this.

00:30:05.620 So if you're prancing around Twitter, make sure to give that a retweet in about 10 minutes

00:30:10.440 or so.

00:30:11.440 I want to just talk about this horrible financial advice that Justin Trudeau gave.

00:30:16.240 This was, I believe, in Moncton on April 8th.

00:30:19.680 So just a few days ago.

00:30:20.860 No, was it Moncton?

00:30:22.140 And was it April 8th?

00:30:22.880 I can't remember.

00:30:23.600 It's a video that's recirculating that was posted on April 8th, I think.

00:30:27.440 And it's Justin Trudeau explaining like something to do with finances.

00:30:32.680 Take a look for yourself.

00:30:36.040 So, yes, you know, you know, if you're using your credit card the first time, you're using your credit card to invest in a huge flat screen TV home theater system for your basement.

00:30:49.220 OK, you know, that's going to be something you're going to be paying off for a while.

00:30:52.540 But if you use your credit card to go back to school, or if you use your credit card, you go into debt to build an expansion on your house, that you're then going to be able to sell your house for more.

00:31:04.620 If you're making investments that are going to return, that is how you grow a strong economy.

00:31:09.620 Because quite frankly, confident economies invest in themselves.

00:31:14.700 And that's exactly what Canada has done, and that's why Canada is looking so good for the future.

00:31:19.620 And our fiscal path is responsible, restrained, and is going to leave people with more opportunities, not burden, in the coming years.

00:31:35.220 You know, I went through a fair bit of my own financial struggles when I was younger.

00:31:43.180 I've talked about it in the past.

00:31:44.540 I had some mental health issues.

00:31:46.080 I wasn't making responsible decisions.

00:31:47.820 You give an 18-year-old a credit card, I think in general, and they're not likely to make responsible positions on it.

00:31:54.340 But you learn your lesson, you move on from it.

00:31:56.780 There are some people that by virtue of their situations and circumstances don't have the luxury of viewing, of treating credit cards the way they're supposed to be treated, which is, you know, emergency use only.

00:32:07.320 Maybe you just want to put stuff on there for convenience and to get the air miles off of it and you pay it off right away.

00:32:12.920 We have high, high consumer debt loads in this country, incredibly high.

00:32:18.300 The statistic I bring up on the show all the time because it's a pretty constant one is that the majority of Canadian or not a majority, but I think it's like close to half of Canadian households are less than $200 away from not being able to pay for their fixed monthly expenses with their standard revenues that they have coming in.

00:32:37.740 which means that everyone is one dental emergency or one pipe bursting or one car repair away from incurring debt.

00:32:44.680 So when Justin Trudeau says, yeah, if you use your credit card to buy a TV, that's not good.

00:32:48.560 But if you use your credit card to invest in something, that is good.

00:32:52.600 Well, let's talk about the 19% interest rates on those credit cards, Prime Minister.

00:32:58.580 If you do not have a path to actually make money on that, that is not sound financial advice.

00:33:04.920 And it's really the kind of advice that you get from a guy who believes that the country's credit card is his own personal slush fund and that anytime he just wants to blow money on something, he can just use the word invest.

00:33:19.060 And we're all to believe that it's prudent and responsible, which is far from the case at all.

00:33:23.440 So do not take your financial advice from a guy who could not tell you when the deficit will be reduced to zero.

00:33:29.760 I think that's the if I can reduce this episode down to a single lesson, that's it right there.

00:33:34.060 Don't take financial advice from a guy that has no plan to balance the country's budget,

00:33:38.960 which inexplicably he still presides over.

00:33:41.560 So that does it for us for today.

00:33:43.500 We will wrap things up there and talk to you all on, I believe it's actually tomorrow.

00:33:47.620 We're back tomorrow with another edition of Canada's Most Irreverent Talk Show.

00:33:51.220 Same time, same place here on True North.

00:33:53.220 Thank you, God bless, and good day to you all.

00:33:57.240 Thanks for listening to The Andrew Lawton Show.

00:33:59.320 Support the program by donating to True North at www.tnc.news.

Juno News - April 11, 2023

Trans activists want to ban Fox News in Canada

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript