Juno News - Trigger Warning for the Canadian Flag

00:00:00.000 Welcome to Canada's Most Irreverent Talk Show.

00:00:06.740 This is the Andrew Lawton Show, brought to you by True North.

00:00:12.500 Coming up, the media thinks the Canada flag is controversial,

00:00:16.780 why diversity becomes tokenism, and the importance of self-defense.

00:00:23.260 The Andrew Lawton Show starts right now.

00:00:30.000 Hello everyone, welcome to another edition of Canada's Most Irreverent Talk Show.

00:00:34.620 You're tuned in to the Andrew Lawton Show here on True North.

00:00:38.280 We are going to have a little bit of a mini Canada Day show on Canada Day itself,

00:00:43.300 but this will be the pre-Canada Day edition of the program,

00:00:46.100 the penultimate show before we once again celebrate Canada's birthday.

00:00:50.700 And along that vein, I've got to talk about this just abysmal story in the Chronicle Herald.

00:00:57.320 It's not even really a story, it's like a blurb heard around the world,

00:01:01.200 where the Chronicle Herald, which is the newspaper record in Halifax,

00:01:06.220 decided to give people a trigger warning that a Canadian flag was going to be appearing in the paper.

00:01:13.560 This is something that, again, in the lead-up to Canada Day,

00:01:16.800 the Chronicle Herald had a little Canada flag that people could cut out and tape on their windows.

00:01:21.940 I don't know why you need to do that in 2020, but at the same time, people do.

00:01:26.200 I've driven around and seen these in the past.

00:01:29.180 And what the paper says on the front page of the Saturday, June 27th edition,

00:01:34.080 To our readers, inside today's edition, on page A9,

00:01:38.840 you'll find a Canadian flag to clip and post to help celebrate July 1st.

00:01:43.920 We understand the flag doesn't mean the same thing to everyone.

00:01:47.720 However, we hope our readers recognize their ability to play a role

00:01:51.500 in shaping Canada's future is a freedom worth acknowledging.

00:01:56.080 So what they've said here is that they effectively need to apologize to people

00:02:02.380 for putting a Canada flag in the paper before Canada Day

00:02:05.500 because the Canada flag doesn't mean the same thing to everybody.

00:02:09.400 Now, this is what happens when publishers try to be woke

00:02:12.440 and try to be hip to all of the social justice trends,

00:02:16.020 especially in the last few weeks.

00:02:17.500 They start bending over backwards to apologize for things

00:02:20.840 that no one sensible is even offended by.

00:02:24.240 And incidentally, I have not seen, I'm not saying it doesn't exist,

00:02:28.140 but I've not seen any or many people, actually, I don't think I've seen any,

00:02:31.780 respond to the Chronicle Herald's blurb by saying,

00:02:35.920 you know, I really appreciate this.

00:02:37.440 The Canadian flag is troubling to me.

00:02:39.240 Thank you.

00:02:39.960 The only response is mockery from people that say,

00:02:43.680 you know, what the heck is going on?

00:02:44.880 Now, I'm not a huge fan of the Canadian flag anyway,

00:02:49.580 except insofar as, yes, I support that it is the flag.

00:02:52.540 Like, as far as the design itself, I was a fan of the old red ensign.

00:02:56.160 I know we had several ensigns, but I liked the most recent one.

00:02:59.360 And I would have been just as happy if we had that now.

00:03:02.080 But in the absence of that, the Canadian flag is our national flag.

00:03:06.220 And the Canadian flag is therefore a symbol of national pride.

00:03:10.360 And to have the Canadian flag is a necessity

00:03:13.580 if you are going to celebrate your country

00:03:16.560 in the same way that you can't start changing national anthems

00:03:19.300 because you don't like the country.

00:03:20.480 So the people that don't like the Canadian flag

00:03:22.980 actually just don't like Canada.

00:03:26.280 And that's an important distinction

00:03:27.720 because I've talked to people like this before.

00:03:30.040 It's the people that have this just visceral hatred for this country

00:03:33.940 because they think it's the byproduct of colonization

00:03:36.400 and it's systemic racism and there's nothing good.

00:03:39.620 And people that honestly do not see that a country can grow,

00:03:44.380 can evolve, can develop.

00:03:45.820 They think that Canada is just this horrible place.

00:03:48.420 And the vast majority of these people are just so out there, so radical.

00:03:54.960 They don't deserve to be given any sort of special treatment

00:03:59.280 by way of a trigger warning of the Canadian flag.

00:04:02.860 These people are not the norm.

00:04:04.360 It's like what I've said in the past many times,

00:04:06.740 Twitter is not real life.

00:04:08.540 But now you have newspapers

00:04:10.120 that are basically editorializing themselves

00:04:14.120 into apologizing for the Canadian flag.

00:04:17.740 And this is now, when it's on the front page of the paper,

00:04:20.540 a statement that says,

00:04:21.660 you know what, we think Canada is a bit controversial to people.

00:04:25.740 And it almost voids the fact that they're putting the Canada flag

00:04:29.360 in the paper in the first place

00:04:31.620 because they are now apologizing for doing it.

00:04:34.380 It kind of undercuts what I hoped would have been the point

00:04:37.320 that they were embracing,

00:04:39.120 which was that, yes, this is a unifying symbol.

00:04:41.700 It's unifying to have the national flag

00:04:43.680 because everyone in Canada is a Canadian.

00:04:45.840 This is a flag that should bond us, not divide us.

00:04:50.160 But it's not your responsibility

00:04:52.260 as someone who is proud of your country

00:04:54.080 to apologize for other people who don't like your country.

00:04:57.160 For even people who are in the country,

00:04:58.880 who were born here,

00:04:59.660 who have lived here their whole lives.

00:05:02.120 A lot of these just, you know,

00:05:03.920 SJW activist types are never going to like Canada.

00:05:07.220 They're never going to be happy with the flag.

00:05:09.720 They're never going to be happy with the country

00:05:11.120 because they just do not see Canada

00:05:13.720 as anything other than the worst caricature

00:05:16.920 it could possibly be.

00:05:18.700 And we're seeing this idea unfold

00:05:21.060 as systemic racism becomes the term

00:05:23.480 that everyone has to use.

00:05:25.720 Everyone has to call something systemically racist.

00:05:28.180 Everyone has to accept that Canada is systemically racist.

00:05:31.880 And if you don't, then you're therefore racist.

00:05:34.440 And this is something that we saw last week,

00:05:36.360 and I won't spend too much time on it,

00:05:37.820 but I spoke about it on True North Update with Candace Malcolm,

00:05:40.860 a show that you should all check out every Friday.

00:05:43.420 But if you missed it, I'll share it here as well.

00:05:45.760 Brenda Luckey, who is the RCMP commissioner,

00:05:48.860 had at one point said,

00:05:50.320 ah, you know, she doesn't think the RCMP is systemically racist.

00:05:53.240 And then she must have gotten the memo from above

00:05:55.080 that said, no, you can't say that.

00:05:56.380 You have to say it's systemically racist.

00:05:58.360 And she was a good foot soldier.

00:05:59.840 She said, okay, I'm going to commit to the line.

00:06:01.900 I'm going to say, yes, the RCMP is systemically racist.

00:06:04.920 So what happened is Brenda Luckey was testifying

00:06:08.080 before the House of Commons.

00:06:10.120 She was speaking with one member of parliament,

00:06:13.580 who's actually a liberal, who asked her.

00:06:15.500 And she said that, yes, she's found a couple of examples

00:06:18.340 where the RCMP is systemically racist.

00:06:21.020 So then he asked the logical follow-up question,

00:06:24.740 name one.

00:06:25.840 And well, this is what happened.

00:06:27.440 I was also confused by your definition of systemic racism.

00:06:32.600 When this question was asked of you at the beginning of June,

00:06:39.220 I sincerely believe that people can change

00:06:44.540 and we have to give them the opportunity to evolve,

00:06:49.840 to change.

00:06:50.820 So congratulations.

00:06:52.560 But to come back to Mrs. Michaud's question,

00:06:56.200 I'd like to once again get your definition of systemic racism

00:07:01.440 because you said and you've introduced a notion of length.

00:07:08.960 You talked about the history of the RCMP

00:07:12.120 and you recognize that there was systemic racism.

00:07:15.840 Do you believe that there is systemic racism today in the RCMP?

00:07:22.160 Thank you for your question.

00:07:23.860 And first, thank you for your appreciation for our members

00:07:26.640 because it means a lot.

00:07:28.920 They're working hard each day in the communities that they serve in.

00:07:33.060 Yes, there's absolutely systemic racism.

00:07:35.740 I can give you a couple of examples that we've found over the years.

00:07:40.620 For example, we have a physical abilities requirement evaluation.

00:07:45.240 It's an obstacle course.

00:07:46.240 In there, there's a six-foot mat that you have to do a broad jump.

00:07:51.720 And when we put the lens on it and reviewed that physical requirements test,

00:07:58.000 evidence told us that the average person can broad jump their height.

00:08:03.180 So, of course, how many six-foot people do we hire? 0.77

00:08:06.980 And there are people in all different cultures that may not be six feet,

00:08:11.560 including there's not a lot of women that are six feet tall 1.00

00:08:15.620 that would not be able to get through that type of test.

00:08:20.660 So that would be systemic discrimination,

00:08:22.440 but I'm trying to think of systemic racism.

00:08:27.520 We have some questions, for example, in our aptitude test.

00:08:33.220 And you know what?

00:08:33.720 I might refer Gail because that is Gail's specialty in the HR world 0.98

00:08:39.500 because a lot of it has been brought out in our recruiting process.

00:08:44.300 So I'll ask Gail if she can...

00:08:48.020 I mean...

00:08:49.380 There's a part of me that finds this to be hilarious, clearly,

00:08:56.000 because she's trying to go through the motions.

00:08:58.480 She's trying to be woke.

00:08:59.520 She's trying to do the right thing by saying,

00:09:01.280 yes, the RCMP is systemically racist, and yes, Canada is.

00:09:04.540 But she can't actually commit to that fully because she doesn't believe it.

00:09:09.800 She doesn't actually have the evidence.

00:09:11.860 Now, you could say that the RCMP is systemically racist

00:09:15.640 and that the RCMP commissioner doesn't know it,

00:09:18.880 but then she shouldn't be saying it.

00:09:20.800 She shouldn't be saying it so freely

00:09:22.140 that she's presiding over a racist institution and a racist organization. 0.94

00:09:27.060 She's saying this because she has to,

00:09:29.100 and when she is pressed to come up with a reason why,

00:09:32.680 she has to bucket to poor Gail in human resources. 1.00

00:09:36.520 And I don't know what...

00:09:37.940 I mean, Gail didn't really give an answer all that much either,

00:09:40.340 but Brenda Luckey is the commissioner.

00:09:42.660 So she says, yeah, yeah, we've got examples galore.

00:09:45.360 And then what's the best thing she can come up with

00:09:47.700 that some people are taller than others?

00:09:49.800 Which, again, as Mr. Fergus said, the MP,

00:09:53.180 yes, you can make a case that that's discrimination,

00:09:55.600 but how is that racial discrimination?

00:09:57.580 And by the way, I would say that

00:10:00.800 if you are talking about police testing,

00:10:03.540 police physical testing,

00:10:04.680 this is the worst case to make about discrimination

00:10:08.940 because the physicalities and the physical requirements of the job

00:10:13.000 are not things that should change

00:10:15.340 depending on the identity of whomever is going through the police thing.

00:10:18.960 But anyway, if I don't know the answer to any question,

00:10:21.120 I'm just going to send it over to Gail in HR.

00:10:22.960 That's going to be my approach for the rest of the show

00:10:24.700 and perhaps even the rest of the year.

00:10:26.700 Who knows?

00:10:27.120 But this is what's happening now.

00:10:28.740 You've got companies,

00:10:30.040 you've got government agencies,

00:10:31.360 institutions that are just trying to survive.

00:10:35.000 They're just trying to get through the day

00:10:38.000 without being called racist,

00:10:39.540 without being canceled.

00:10:41.060 And the buzzword now,

00:10:42.340 you have to say that whatever you are doing,

00:10:45.520 whatever you are running,

00:10:46.820 whatever you are looking over,

00:10:48.100 overseeing is systemically racist.

00:10:50.340 And if you don't, you're a racist.

00:10:51.540 And this has become the litmus test here

00:10:55.320 that we talked about last week in the context of CBC,

00:10:58.720 acknowledging that they're now a racist institution.

00:11:01.560 The RCMP has to as well.

00:11:03.160 Justin Trudeau says Canada has systemic racism,

00:11:06.100 which is particularly bad when he is the guy responsible

00:11:08.820 for running the system itself.

00:11:11.200 And on it goes, on it goes.

00:11:13.620 And look, the point that I raise here is if you believe it, great.

00:11:16.180 If you actually believe this, go forth and have at it.

00:11:20.160 Have whatever discussions, debates, dialogues you want.

00:11:22.720 If you don't believe it, don't go along with it.

00:11:25.260 But I understand why people do.

00:11:27.220 Look at what happened a couple of weeks ago

00:11:29.180 when Rex Murphy, the longtime National Post columnist,

00:11:32.620 CBC personality, all of this,

00:11:34.640 had said in a column a pretty sensible point

00:11:37.360 that he did not think that there was systemic racism

00:11:40.860 rampant in Canada.

00:11:42.140 He concedes there's individual racism,

00:11:44.340 that racist ideas exist, that there's racial history,

00:11:47.220 but that he doesn't think Canada is, by and large,

00:11:50.240 when you remove everything else, a racist country.

00:11:53.260 And this started a coup, basically.

00:11:56.180 In the National Post newsroom,

00:11:58.440 you had reporters openly condemning him.

00:12:01.460 And what happened here is Rex Murphy

00:12:03.920 then ended up getting a trigger warning of sorts,

00:12:06.420 an apology on his post, on his column by the editors.

00:12:11.760 An editor's note saying that it didn't meet their standards

00:12:14.020 and yada, yada, yada.

00:12:15.400 There was like some town hall

00:12:16.920 with a senior editor of National Post.

00:12:19.260 Well, everyone just said, you know,

00:12:20.600 how dare you publish this?

00:12:21.960 And there was not only the death of ideas,

00:12:25.600 the death of being able to debate and discuss things

00:12:28.520 inherent in this,

00:12:29.720 but also there was something very dangerous

00:12:33.220 in that this becomes the position

00:12:35.380 that now everyone must have.

00:12:37.140 This has become one of these issues

00:12:38.620 where if you don't have the right position,

00:12:40.860 you don't get to be a part of society.

00:12:43.340 And this happened last week with Conrad Black as well.

00:12:47.220 Conrad's a great guy.

00:12:48.300 I've met him a number of times

00:12:49.220 and I've interviewed him in the past.

00:12:51.060 I should actually get him back on this show.

00:12:52.740 He has a weekly spot every Friday,

00:12:55.380 or had, as you'll learn in a moment,

00:12:57.320 on Toronto's Global News Radio,

00:12:59.740 640 Toronto, on the John Oakley Show.

00:13:02.360 And Conrad Black has been on that show every week

00:13:05.260 for however many times.

00:13:06.680 Two weeks ago, he was doing his appearance

00:13:09.820 and as he reports in the National Post,

00:13:13.020 ironically enough,

00:13:14.160 he said that Canada was not systemically racist.

00:13:17.280 He says there are instances of racial discrimination,

00:13:20.080 but that the overwhelming majority of Canadians

00:13:22.020 are unprejudiced and equitable towards minorities. 0.71

00:13:25.280 Now, as Conrad Black writes,

00:13:26.960 a cabal apparently arose within chorus

00:13:29.760 among the more belligerent adherents

00:13:31.500 to the systemically racist view of Canada.

00:13:34.260 And after a week of intense maneuver

00:13:35.880 that I was unaware of,

00:13:37.280 John Oakley called an hour before airtime

00:13:40.200 and said he had been non-negotiably told

00:13:42.420 to tell me that my radio visits with him

00:13:44.620 were canceled permanently.

00:13:47.060 I received churlish tweets from Charles Adler,

00:13:49.640 apparently still on air in Vancouver,

00:13:51.740 apparently one of the ringleaders

00:13:53.660 of the Putsch against me.

00:13:55.360 I will miss speaking with John,

00:13:57.340 but my voice is not exactly stalled.

00:13:59.040 I have two weekly national radio slots in the US

00:14:01.340 and four columns, yada, yada, yada.

00:14:03.080 I'm sure chorus listeners will get on all right without me,

00:14:05.900 but this is indicative of how absurd and nonsensical

00:14:09.080 the public discussion on these issues has become.

00:14:11.820 That to declare that Canada is not a racist country

00:14:14.460 is itself judged to be a racist comment.

00:14:18.740 And I thought Conrad Black was very eloquent there

00:14:21.500 as he so often is.

00:14:22.820 And I think there's a lot of truth in this idea right now

00:14:25.680 that if you take an issue

00:14:27.200 that Canada is not a systemically racist country,

00:14:29.540 you're just part of it.

00:14:30.380 I mean, it's like a conspiracy theory.

00:14:31.780 If you say the conspiracies not exist,

00:14:33.440 you're not existing,

00:14:35.320 you are now a part of the conspiracy theory.

00:14:38.860 And the thing with Conrad Black,

00:14:40.340 when I tweeted a defense of him,

00:14:42.380 I had a couple of people,

00:14:43.660 including a global news reporter,

00:14:45.500 say, well, you know, Conrad Black,

00:14:47.120 you know, is a privileged white man.

00:14:48.580 He can't say that there's no systemic racism.

00:14:51.160 To which I say all of that is irrelevant

00:14:53.000 when we're talking about open inquiry and dialogue.

00:14:56.000 Because in a civilized society

00:14:58.320 that respects free speech,

00:15:00.080 Conrad Black can be rebutted for saying that.

00:15:02.680 Someone can say, well, actually,

00:15:03.840 you from your position haven't experienced it.

00:15:05.880 I have.

00:15:06.700 Here's how I know what I know.

00:15:08.280 And then that's the dialogue.

00:15:09.660 And that used to be what talk radio was.

00:15:12.280 I worked in talk radio for several years.

00:15:14.580 I worked at Chorus.

00:15:15.540 I've guest hosted on 640.

00:15:17.260 That is what a good talk radio conversation is.

00:15:20.920 Someone says one thing.

00:15:22.500 Someone says another.

00:15:23.700 The listeners can decide for themselves.

00:15:25.580 And you don't even need to have both sides represented.

00:15:28.120 I think you need to have whatever side

00:15:29.760 the host thinks needs to be heard.

00:15:31.920 And in a culture where everyone is putting forward

00:15:34.900 the Canada is systemically racist narrative,

00:15:37.820 Conrad Black was actually the one

00:15:39.460 giving the opposing side of this.

00:15:42.140 But now he gets kicked off of a weekly radio segment,

00:15:45.600 which again is the right of 640.

00:15:47.940 It's the right of the station to do that.

00:15:49.940 But that doesn't mean it is the right decision to make.

00:15:53.700 And this is a dangerous, dangerous trend

00:15:57.620 where the whole point of having these dialogues

00:16:00.660 is that everyone can come together and say,

00:16:02.820 I think this, I think this,

00:16:04.020 and maybe meet in the middle,

00:16:05.440 maybe agree to disagree.

00:16:06.780 But now if you don't go along with the idea

00:16:09.500 that Canada is racist,

00:16:11.640 you yourselves are racist. 0.93

00:16:13.140 And that only proves that Canada is racist.

00:16:15.520 And we're seeing this in every culture imaginable

00:16:18.220 in every discussion.

00:16:19.060 So the whole point of this is that

00:16:22.540 now newspapers are apologizing

00:16:25.140 for publishing Canadian flags

00:16:27.180 because they think that these flags

00:16:29.820 are therefore symbols of this very thing

00:16:33.200 that everyone is so terrified to say doesn't exist.

00:16:36.000 And again, you can say that you don't think

00:16:38.160 Rex Murphy as a privileged white guy

00:16:40.020 should talk about racism.

00:16:41.480 You can say you don't think Conrad Black should.

00:16:43.340 You can say all of these things,

00:16:44.560 but that does not negate

00:16:47.300 the dangerous thought crime mentality

00:16:50.120 that's being completely furthered

00:16:52.380 in media, in academia,

00:16:55.260 just in civil society at large here.

00:16:57.640 And it's not going to end well.

00:16:59.660 In fact, we're seeing it.

00:17:01.060 I don't even know if it's going to end right now.

00:17:03.220 I do not know if it's going to end at this point

00:17:05.300 when anything and everything is racist,

00:17:08.260 when if you say the wrong thing, you're gone.

00:17:10.840 Take a look, by the way,

00:17:12.040 at this story out of the UK

00:17:13.680 where Graham Linehan, who's a comedy writer,

00:17:17.040 has been permanently banned from Twitter

00:17:19.700 and his crime was saying men aren't women.

00:17:24.040 That was what he did.

00:17:24.840 On Twitter, he said men aren't women.

00:17:26.980 He was referring to the trans issue.

00:17:29.500 Twitter has closed Linehan's comment.

00:17:31.860 And this is a guy who's a fairly well-respected writer

00:17:35.240 in the entertainment world in,

00:17:37.760 well, if he's Irish, not the UK, 0.66

00:17:39.500 but you know what I mean.

00:17:40.080 But what happened is he had said it in a response

00:17:43.480 to a tweet from the Women's Institute

00:17:46.060 wishing their transgender members a happy pride.

00:17:48.600 And he was a bit of a troll.

00:17:49.920 He said men aren't women, though.

00:17:52.240 And then a whole bunch of people started piling on

00:17:55.140 like they did with J.K. Rowling.

00:17:57.520 And before you know it,

00:17:58.600 Twitter has put it down there

00:18:00.700 and used their hate speech provisions

00:18:03.060 because on Twitter,

00:18:04.520 if you so much use the wrong pronouns

00:18:06.940 for someone, your account can be permanently banned.

00:18:09.900 I know my colleague, Lindsay Shepard,

00:18:11.540 has had her account taken offline

00:18:13.020 for scrapping with a transgender activist in the past.

00:18:16.640 And this is what's happening.

00:18:17.720 And this is why people are fleeing Twitter

00:18:20.320 at this point in large numbers.

00:18:22.920 There's this new website that's popped up

00:18:25.280 called Parler, which at first

00:18:27.360 I was like thinking it was all French.

00:18:28.720 And I was like, oh, Parler.

00:18:29.680 No, it's Parler, like a room.

00:18:31.560 And it started by conservatives.

00:18:33.520 It's a free speech platform.

00:18:35.340 That's the basis of it.

00:18:36.280 They say it's unbiased.

00:18:37.340 There's no algorithm to it

00:18:39.300 that's deciding who gets seen and who doesn't.

00:18:41.920 Now, I will say,

00:18:42.980 I signed up for Parler last week

00:18:44.780 just to check it out.

00:18:45.780 So if you want to follow me over there,

00:18:47.480 at Andrew Lawton is my username.

00:18:49.700 I don't know how long I'm going to be on there.

00:18:51.520 I've seen some concerning things

00:18:53.840 that have popped up with like user security

00:18:55.860 and also with aspects of the experience,

00:18:59.820 like the litigation aspects.

00:19:01.600 There are some stuff.

00:19:02.520 And I might do a deeper dive into it later on.

00:19:04.760 So I'm not endorsing Parler,

00:19:06.600 but I am saying that it's unsurprising

00:19:08.400 that everyone's fleeing right now.

00:19:10.580 And it actually proves the point

00:19:12.220 that I made a couple of weeks ago

00:19:13.760 when I talked about big tech censorship.

00:19:16.360 And I said, the answer to this

00:19:17.660 is for someone else to start a Twitter,

00:19:20.100 for someone else to start a Facebook.

00:19:21.660 And everyone said, oh, no, no, no.

00:19:23.840 But these companies have a monopoly

00:19:25.440 or an oligopoly.

00:19:27.300 And what Parler's doing has proved

00:19:29.660 that that is not in fact the case,

00:19:31.680 that if you get some venture capital behind you,

00:19:34.660 you can do it.

00:19:35.560 And right now it's overwhelmingly

00:19:37.140 a conservative platform.

00:19:38.720 That's their target audience.

00:19:40.400 So my concern would always be

00:19:42.020 you don't want it to become

00:19:43.220 an echo chamber of sorts.

00:19:45.140 But I also think if conservatives

00:19:46.580 are tired of getting shadow banned,

00:19:48.160 trying to get their,

00:19:48.900 tired of getting their accounts canceled

00:19:50.340 for saying men are women

00:19:52.440 or men aren't women or whatever,

00:19:54.260 or who knows,

00:19:55.140 maybe they'll start banning accounts

00:19:56.360 for people who say

00:19:57.640 that systemic racism isn't a thing.

00:19:59.840 I don't blame people

00:20:01.140 for wanting to find an alternative

00:20:02.720 where their social media platform

00:20:04.960 that they use,

00:20:05.680 even if they're not paying for it,

00:20:07.440 is actually a platform

00:20:09.220 that they don't feel

00:20:10.260 is going to censor them

00:20:11.500 or shut them down.

00:20:13.420 So that's where this thing is headed.

00:20:16.000 And it's not going to be pretty right now.

00:20:17.660 It's not pretty.

00:20:18.480 Everyone is facing the mob.

00:20:21.540 Everyone is facing mob justice.

00:20:23.620 And quite frankly,

00:20:25.280 this is not going to change

00:20:27.940 unless people start pushing back against it.

00:20:31.360 And there was at Wilfrid Laurier University

00:20:34.180 a case of this happening.

00:20:36.220 And I'm going to talk about it

00:20:37.560 in a bit more depth on Wednesday's show

00:20:40.800 because I'm actually going to be speaking

00:20:42.020 with David Haskell,

00:20:43.180 who is one of the two professors behind this.

00:20:45.500 But I'll give you a glimpse of it now

00:20:47.160 because it has happened

00:20:48.260 in the last couple of days.

00:20:50.920 There was a letter

00:20:52.700 that was put forward

00:20:53.740 by two Laurier University professors

00:20:55.800 who love free speech,

00:20:56.900 great gentlemen,

00:20:58.000 David Haskell and William McNally.

00:21:00.260 And they were pushing back

00:21:01.860 against the president of Laurier,

00:21:04.320 Deborah McClatchy,

00:21:05.600 who, speaking of Lindsay Shepard,

00:21:06.940 was the one that presided

00:21:08.260 over Lindsay Shepard's

00:21:10.120 just horrific treatment

00:21:11.420 at the hands of her school's

00:21:12.960 diversity office.

00:21:13.900 And McClatchy has said

00:21:16.100 that Laurier is,

00:21:17.440 like anything else,

00:21:18.400 systemically racist.

00:21:19.600 And they've pushed back against that

00:21:22.180 and wrote a letter,

00:21:23.740 a very brave letter,

00:21:24.700 that are saying,

00:21:25.240 listen, we're social scientists.

00:21:27.400 We are employed at Laurier

00:21:28.580 to research and teach.

00:21:29.700 We're here to think independently.

00:21:31.400 And we are not experts

00:21:33.820 in race relations.

00:21:35.040 However, we noticed

00:21:36.480 that your message

00:21:37.240 employed a concept

00:21:38.620 from critical race theory

00:21:39.840 called systemic racism.

00:21:41.160 This concerns us

00:21:42.560 for a number of reasons,

00:21:43.820 particularly the impact

00:21:45.220 it will have

00:21:46.140 on academic freedom

00:21:47.220 at Wilfrid Laurier University.

00:21:49.840 And they go for,

00:21:51.240 the biggest thing here

00:21:52.320 is that they say that

00:21:53.360 Laurier has systemic racism issues,

00:21:55.700 but they don't define racism.

00:21:58.000 And they do this

00:21:59.220 while suggesting an action plan

00:22:00.840 on something they haven't defined.

00:22:03.120 And we may all say that,

00:22:04.360 oh, well, we know what racism is.

00:22:06.020 But when you start talking

00:22:07.420 about systemic racism,

00:22:08.700 which is supposed to be racism

00:22:10.260 so bad that even

00:22:11.720 if no one is racist,

00:22:12.840 the system itself

00:22:13.840 will continue to be.

00:22:15.180 If you're going to put

00:22:16.420 a charge like that forward,

00:22:18.320 you better have

00:22:19.260 a solid definition.

00:22:21.060 Otherwise,

00:22:21.700 it's just like Islamophobia.

00:22:23.740 It's just like

00:22:24.520 all of these terms

00:22:25.540 that are used

00:22:26.480 that sound a certain way

00:22:27.980 that are used to justify

00:22:29.700 oftentimes things

00:22:31.160 that criticize free speech,

00:22:32.960 things that curb rights,

00:22:34.300 things that are used

00:22:35.180 to malign people 0.97

00:22:36.120 without really having

00:22:37.700 a solid foundation

00:22:39.000 for what is at stake.

00:22:40.800 So good for these professors

00:22:42.060 for pushing back

00:22:42.960 and doing it in a public way.

00:22:44.200 We'll talk about it

00:22:45.340 a bit more on Wednesday,

00:22:46.560 but I wanted to tell you

00:22:47.500 I had seen it

00:22:48.140 and that we are going

00:22:49.000 to focus on it a bit more

00:22:50.420 when we come back

00:22:51.660 in just a couple of moments

00:22:53.000 more of The Andrew Lawton Show

00:22:54.340 here on True North.

00:22:59.340 You're tuned in

00:23:00.460 to The Andrew Lawton Show.

00:23:02.000 We are back.

00:23:07.340 This is The Andrew Lawton Show

00:23:08.500 here on True North

00:23:09.620 and we are living

00:23:10.280 in crazy times.

00:23:11.760 I would say that we never

00:23:12.840 want to do anything

00:23:13.540 so drastic

00:23:14.380 that we will never be able

00:23:15.700 to reclaim what was lost.

00:23:17.960 You know,

00:23:18.300 tear down all the statues

00:23:19.280 you want,

00:23:19.820 but do not do this.

00:23:22.460 Activists are wanting

00:23:23.380 to get the national anthem

00:23:24.540 changed to John Lennon's Imagine.

00:23:27.660 Yes, this is a story

00:23:28.800 in the New York Post.

00:23:29.700 A historian, Daniel Walker,

00:23:32.280 author Kevin Powell

00:23:33.280 and others are calling

00:23:34.400 to, quote,

00:23:35.200 rethink the Star-Spangled Banner

00:23:37.480 as the national anthem

00:23:38.500 because this is about

00:23:39.580 the deep-seated legacy

00:23:41.180 of slavery and white supremacy

00:23:42.640 in America.

00:23:44.180 So the song,

00:23:45.560 which was originally

00:23:46.360 a poem written in 1814

00:23:48.200 by Francis Scott Key,

00:23:49.660 who himself was a slave owner,

00:23:51.640 was later set to music

00:23:52.860 and became the country's

00:23:53.880 national anthem in 1931.

00:23:56.280 And ultimately,

00:23:57.440 they left out the third verse,

00:23:58.580 which mentions a slave.

00:24:00.160 So yes,

00:24:00.560 there is a history there.

00:24:02.240 However,

00:24:02.920 because they're arguing

00:24:04.040 the song is,

00:24:05.160 quote,

00:24:05.260 problematic,

00:24:06.600 unquote,

00:24:07.560 I'm tending to just

00:24:09.120 count it out

00:24:10.340 like everything else

00:24:11.240 that we're told

00:24:11.720 is problematic,

00:24:12.720 like L'Oreal's

00:24:14.100 skin whitening cream,

00:24:15.100 which is now going

00:24:16.020 the way of the Dodo Bird,

00:24:17.160 or all of these other things

00:24:18.920 like Aunt Jemima

00:24:19.880 and Uncle Ben

00:24:20.680 and Eskimo pies

00:24:21.600 and these things.

00:24:22.280 So they're all problematic.

00:24:24.100 That's the word

00:24:25.100 that they use.

00:24:26.100 So they're trying to get it up

00:24:27.080 and they were trying

00:24:28.180 to figure out

00:24:28.700 what to replace it with.

00:24:29.760 So Powell argues,

00:24:30.760 why not replace it

00:24:31.680 with Imagine?

00:24:32.760 Because it's,

00:24:33.680 quote,

00:24:33.760 the most beautiful,

00:24:34.940 unifying,

00:24:35.700 all people,

00:24:36.520 all backgrounds together

00:24:37.660 kind of song

00:24:38.500 you could have,

00:24:39.800 unquote.

00:24:41.180 And they point to the fact

00:24:42.260 in the story

00:24:42.800 that a soccer club

00:24:44.240 in Kansas

00:24:44.720 has already done away

00:24:45.660 with a Star Spangled Banner

00:24:47.220 and replaced it with

00:24:48.680 This Land Is Your Land.

00:24:50.720 That's now

00:24:51.320 the national anthem.

00:24:53.700 Why not go

00:24:54.520 Party in the USA

00:24:56.640 by Miley Cyrus,

00:24:57.760 someone else suggested.

00:24:58.780 Look,

00:24:59.180 if you're going to be

00:24:59.720 getting rid of everything,

00:25:01.460 then why not?

00:25:02.160 I mean,

00:25:02.320 Lady Antebellum

00:25:03.100 is now Lady A.

00:25:04.500 Dixie Chicks 0.96

00:25:05.140 is now The Chicks.

00:25:06.280 Now that'll be changed

00:25:07.360 because it's sexist later on

00:25:08.760 or it's cis heteronormative

00:25:10.840 or something like that.

00:25:12.120 But you've got

00:25:13.740 Splash Mountain

00:25:14.740 being changed

00:25:15.460 because Splash Mountain

00:25:16.440 at Disney

00:25:16.960 was originally

00:25:17.960 something that had

00:25:19.520 themes from

00:25:20.120 Song of the South.

00:25:21.160 So if nothing

00:25:21.900 has survived,

00:25:22.840 I mean,

00:25:23.080 this is where

00:25:23.600 we were talking

00:25:24.260 earlier on

00:25:25.020 in the program,

00:25:26.180 I think a couple

00:25:26.640 of weeks ago

00:25:27.220 about how nothing

00:25:28.220 is going to be left.

00:25:29.460 They're creating

00:25:29.960 these voids,

00:25:31.040 creating these holds,

00:25:32.040 creating these

00:25:32.660 empty foundations

00:25:33.620 that statues

00:25:34.940 once stood on

00:25:35.720 but are creating

00:25:36.800 nothing in it.

00:25:38.700 Now,

00:25:38.920 I don't think

00:25:39.360 this is a serious

00:25:40.120 suggestion

00:25:40.700 but the fact

00:25:41.740 that the people

00:25:42.340 that are making

00:25:42.960 suggestions like these

00:25:44.020 are taken seriously

00:25:45.260 is itself part

00:25:46.860 of the issue here.

00:25:48.180 And let's be real,

00:25:49.240 Imagine is unifying

00:25:50.400 only in that it tends

00:25:51.460 to unify everyone

00:25:52.500 together and hating it.

00:25:53.560 I mean,

00:25:53.720 you could say

00:25:54.060 Nickelback is unifying

00:25:55.700 in the same way

00:25:56.440 because everyone

00:25:57.080 just hates it

00:25:57.880 together as one.

00:25:59.260 But Imagine also

00:26:00.240 is a British song

00:26:01.740 so the idea

00:26:02.240 of taking a British song

00:26:03.320 and making that

00:26:03.900 your national anthem

00:26:04.800 is flawed

00:26:05.920 and it's just

00:26:06.480 a terribly obnoxious song.

00:26:08.360 I mean,

00:26:08.520 why not We Are The World?

00:26:09.680 Why not abolish

00:26:10.520 national anthems?

00:26:11.440 So why not abolish

00:26:12.200 countries?

00:26:12.680 Because this country

00:26:13.420 is racist, 0.85

00:26:14.020 that country is racist,

00:26:15.320 this flag is problematic,

00:26:16.840 that flag is.

00:26:17.900 This is what people

00:26:18.800 are headed towards

00:26:19.580 because no one

00:26:20.740 can withstand

00:26:21.400 the scrutiny of 2020

00:26:23.040 that the activists

00:26:23.980 are putting on.

00:26:25.140 Certainly no one

00:26:25.880 from 1776

00:26:27.040 or in Canada's case

00:26:28.300 1867,

00:26:29.600 no one can withstand

00:26:30.920 this scrutiny.

00:26:32.100 So we're heading towards

00:26:33.400 having to just cancel

00:26:34.520 an entire country

00:26:35.500 because,

00:26:35.960 oh well,

00:26:36.560 the country had

00:26:37.380 a problematic past,

00:26:38.740 ergo it doesn't get

00:26:39.820 to be a country anymore.

00:26:41.000 That's going to be

00:26:41.680 where things headed.

00:26:43.840 So I'm fascinated

00:26:45.880 that all of these people

00:26:47.720 that would have been seen

00:26:48.560 as radical and fringe

00:26:49.820 a few years ago today

00:26:50.880 are not just seen

00:26:52.080 as mainstream,

00:26:53.260 but mainstream voices

00:26:54.800 are completely capitulating

00:26:57.080 and bending the knee.

00:26:58.400 And in some cases

00:26:59.420 when it comes to corporations,

00:27:01.200 this is just done

00:27:02.240 out of fear.

00:27:03.460 Like this story

00:27:04.220 I mentioned with L'Oreal,

00:27:05.540 they're removing words

00:27:06.460 like whitening and fair

00:27:08.180 from its products.

00:27:09.320 And the rationale

00:27:10.060 is that they don't want

00:27:11.660 to put forward

00:27:12.240 this idea that

00:27:13.080 to be white is better 1.00

00:27:14.300 or to be fair is better.

00:27:17.020 So when they say

00:27:17.900 skin whitening

00:27:18.680 or skin lightening

00:27:20.280 or all of these things,

00:27:21.580 what they're actually doing

00:27:22.680 is contributing

00:27:23.720 to systemic racism

00:27:25.080 or something like that.

00:27:26.660 But again,

00:27:27.320 you know,

00:27:27.540 the name is not the issue.

00:27:28.980 If the issue is the effect,

00:27:30.480 then get rid of the products

00:27:31.460 themselves.

00:27:33.200 If the issue is

00:27:34.560 that we don't want

00:27:35.500 to put forward this idea

00:27:36.480 that to look whiter

00:27:37.820 is a bit better,

00:27:38.600 to have your skin whitened

00:27:39.780 is better,

00:27:40.520 then why not get rid

00:27:41.360 of the products?

00:27:42.240 But it's completely

00:27:43.420 half-assed as it always is

00:27:44.940 because you've got companies

00:27:45.960 that they want to do

00:27:47.160 the bare minimum

00:27:48.020 to say that they're doing it,

00:27:49.840 to say that they're woke.

00:27:51.880 And by the way,

00:27:52.680 on the weekend,

00:27:53.500 I had to do

00:27:54.340 what no one should have to do,

00:27:55.460 which is explain

00:27:56.040 to my parents

00:27:56.660 what woke means.

00:27:58.000 Because like,

00:27:58.800 as I'm doing it,

00:27:59.700 I'm like,

00:28:00.280 because they hear this word

00:28:01.080 and they're like,

00:28:01.800 you know,

00:28:02.100 what is this thing?

00:28:02.820 And again,

00:28:03.280 it's a reminder

00:28:03.880 that Twitter isn't real life.

00:28:05.760 But I'm trying

00:28:06.820 to like explain this thing.

00:28:08.060 And as I do it,

00:28:09.120 it just reminds me

00:28:10.540 of how just ridiculous

00:28:11.800 it is.

00:28:12.600 And I'm having to like

00:28:13.740 seriously explain this thing

00:28:15.520 that actually is not

00:28:16.540 a serious thing

00:28:17.400 and actually doesn't make

00:28:18.940 much sense on its own.

00:28:20.040 But I think I got through it.

00:28:20.960 I think they know

00:28:21.480 what woke means.

00:28:23.440 Now,

00:28:23.800 I'll tell you

00:28:24.380 who else is woke.

00:28:25.500 The Ontario Liberal Party

00:28:27.060 is going woke right now.

00:28:28.980 They are changing the rules

00:28:30.700 and lowering

00:28:31.400 the nomination fees

00:28:32.920 to ensure

00:28:33.560 more female candidates.

00:28:35.060 This is according to

00:28:36.260 a Globe and Mail article

00:28:37.740 from Laura Stone.

00:28:39.500 In the 2022 election,

00:28:40.960 Ontario's Liberal Party,

00:28:42.400 which was the governing party

00:28:43.700 for about 15 years,

00:28:45.780 is going to look

00:28:47.000 to get more

00:28:47.840 female candidates running.

00:28:49.640 They're going to run

00:28:50.160 an aggressive search campaign

00:28:51.580 and if necessary,

00:28:53.680 restrict it

00:28:54.360 so only women can run 1.00

00:28:56.120 in certain nominations.

00:28:58.680 And this was something

00:28:59.540 that the new party leader,

00:29:01.220 Stephen Del Duca,

00:29:01.960 had promised.

00:29:03.020 If you're a woman, 0.97

00:29:04.260 you will get

00:29:05.360 a lower registration fee

00:29:07.380 and you will also,

00:29:09.540 if you're under 30,

00:29:10.540 get a lower registration fee.

00:29:12.900 And what's happened here,

00:29:14.240 this is just so ridiculous,

00:29:16.780 that they are going to

00:29:18.320 have females 0.99

00:29:20.220 have to pay 50%

00:29:21.860 of what males pay. 0.74

00:29:22.780 So if you want to be

00:29:23.460 a candidate,

00:29:24.340 you have to pay

00:29:24.920 a $2,500 filing fee.

00:29:27.280 When I ran for

00:29:28.240 the Progressive Conservatives

00:29:29.480 in Ontario,

00:29:30.000 I don't remember

00:29:30.560 the exact amount,

00:29:31.420 but it was something like that.

00:29:32.880 You've got to pay that fee.

00:29:35.120 And it's basically

00:29:36.080 going towards

00:29:36.860 background check,

00:29:37.760 a bit of an insurance policy

00:29:38.940 to make sure

00:29:39.540 you're committed to it.

00:29:41.140 Women will have to pay 1.00

00:29:42.320 $1,250.

00:29:44.020 Candidates under the age of 30

00:29:45.500 will only have to pay $500.

00:29:47.620 If you're a woman

00:29:48.260 under the age of 30,

00:29:49.100 I don't know if you pay

00:29:49.780 $250 or $5.

00:29:51.040 I don't know.

00:29:52.200 They're also going to create

00:29:53.640 a candidate search team

00:29:54.940 led by three women

00:29:56.040 to encourage more women

00:29:57.280 to run.

00:29:58.260 That,

00:29:58.780 I don't find it

00:29:59.540 as a bad idea.

00:30:00.440 If you're wanting to get

00:30:01.360 more diversity

00:30:02.120 in your candidates,

00:30:02.920 you want to give them

00:30:03.920 the opportunity.

00:30:05.140 I think recruiting

00:30:06.180 and saying,

00:30:07.140 hey,

00:30:07.300 just so you know,

00:30:07.800 have you considered?

00:30:08.900 That's fine.

00:30:09.800 But the part that I don't like

00:30:11.480 is that there is going

00:30:12.320 to be a plan in place

00:30:13.460 that the leader

00:30:14.480 can notify

00:30:15.440 a riding association

00:30:17.040 that they have to draft

00:30:18.780 a plan,

00:30:19.460 quote,

00:30:19.780 that includes

00:30:20.720 only female

00:30:22.240 nomination candidates,

00:30:24.000 unquote.

00:30:25.360 So,

00:30:25.960 if you are

00:30:27.260 a riding association

00:30:29.340 and let's say

00:30:29.920 you've got,

00:30:30.500 you know,

00:30:30.740 a couple of males

00:30:31.400 that are qualified

00:30:32.140 that are wanting to run

00:30:33.780 and a woman who's qualified

00:30:34.920 who's wanting to run,

00:30:36.020 the party may say,

00:30:36.900 you know what,

00:30:37.560 in the riding of Toronto Danforth

00:30:39.560 we need a woman 1.00

00:30:40.200 so only women 0.99

00:30:41.940 can be in this nomination race

00:30:43.460 and the two guys

00:30:44.320 are like,

00:30:45.840 okay.

00:30:48.120 And again,

00:30:48.720 if they're woke,

00:30:49.260 they can't complain about it.

00:30:50.220 They have to just start

00:30:51.000 knocking on doors

00:30:51.640 for the females. 0.52

00:30:52.780 And again,

00:30:53.320 this is a huge problem

00:30:54.920 right now

00:30:55.380 because oftentimes

00:30:56.260 we hear,

00:30:57.020 and there are reports

00:30:57.720 that come out every year

00:30:58.700 and every election cycle

00:30:59.840 about a lack

00:31:01.580 of representation

00:31:02.240 of women in politics.

00:31:04.720 And if you look

00:31:05.280 at the House of Commons makeup,

00:31:06.440 I forget the exact number,

00:31:07.880 but women are a minority 0.91

00:31:08.880 in the House of Commons

00:31:10.340 and they are

00:31:11.160 in most provincial legislatures.

00:31:13.060 But the problem

00:31:14.080 with all of these remedies

00:31:15.820 to correct it

00:31:16.740 is that they fail

00:31:17.560 to understand

00:31:18.280 why that is the case.

00:31:20.080 It's not that women 1.00

00:31:21.060 don't run

00:31:22.260 and women can't win. 1.00

00:31:24.260 It's that fewer women run. 1.00

00:31:26.320 And when women 1.00

00:31:28.040 are running,

00:31:28.880 a lot of the times

00:31:29.740 they are a minority

00:31:31.540 of overall candidates.

00:31:32.840 And it's not because

00:31:33.840 people are in nominations

00:31:35.820 voting for the man

00:31:36.720 over the woman. 0.96

00:31:37.580 It's because a lot of women 1.00

00:31:38.780 aren't putting their names

00:31:39.720 forward for it.

00:31:40.600 Same as when you look

00:31:41.640 at representation

00:31:42.620 as panelists

00:31:43.520 on TV and radio.

00:31:44.680 Steve Pakin did something

00:31:45.680 about this

00:31:46.200 a few years back

00:31:47.540 and he had said

00:31:48.280 that the agenda,

00:31:49.520 his show,

00:31:50.180 was having trouble

00:31:51.180 getting 50% women

00:31:52.680 on the show.

00:31:54.360 And that was the goal,

00:31:55.380 50% women. 0.99

00:31:56.960 And they reported

00:31:57.680 that women would be 0.99

00:31:58.600 more likely to say,

00:32:00.220 ah, you know,

00:32:00.680 I'm busy

00:32:01.680 or I have to look

00:32:02.760 at childcare needs

00:32:03.700 or I'm not the best

00:32:04.420 person for this.

00:32:05.480 And women were declining 0.98

00:32:06.640 and they were trying

00:32:07.360 to figure out

00:32:07.800 how do we empower

00:32:08.520 and encourage more people

00:32:09.660 to do it.

00:32:10.600 But you can't drag people 0.99

00:32:12.380 into something

00:32:13.020 that they don't want to.

00:32:14.640 You can't drag people in. 0.96

00:32:15.920 So if women are not 1.00

00:32:17.520 choosing this

00:32:18.520 for whatever reason,

00:32:20.080 there may be

00:32:20.960 some cultural factors there.

00:32:22.680 Maybe it's a fear

00:32:23.400 of sexism.

00:32:24.540 Maybe it's

00:32:25.160 that they're in a child,

00:32:26.540 maybe it's that

00:32:27.080 they're the primary

00:32:27.720 childcare provider

00:32:29.000 in their home

00:32:29.580 and that is in and of itself

00:32:31.120 something that's coming

00:32:31.940 from a place of sexism

00:32:34.160 if you want to go

00:32:34.660 down that road.

00:32:35.880 But if they're not doing it,

00:32:37.700 you can't force them to

00:32:38.960 and you certainly

00:32:39.560 shouldn't take away

00:32:40.540 all of the male competition

00:32:42.100 to manipulate

00:32:42.860 a path forward

00:32:44.000 for women.

00:32:44.760 And that's where

00:32:45.560 this has gone now.

00:32:46.600 So now that tokenism

00:32:48.800 has become just

00:32:49.720 something that they

00:32:50.840 take pride in,

00:32:52.420 this goes far beyond

00:32:53.540 what the federal liberals

00:32:54.600 did even when Justin Trudeau

00:32:56.480 was elected,

00:32:57.060 which is to do

00:32:57.540 the gender parity cabinet.

00:32:59.700 This is now saying

00:33:00.620 that we're going

00:33:01.540 to completely take people

00:33:02.980 out of the running

00:33:03.800 in certain constituencies

00:33:05.200 because we need

00:33:06.660 to meet this benchmark

00:33:08.080 that we've set

00:33:08.880 arbitrarily or not

00:33:10.220 to have more women candidates. 0.96

00:33:13.280 And the thing is

00:33:14.440 is that they can do this

00:33:15.500 in a way that makes

00:33:16.180 them look hip

00:33:16.800 and makes them look woke

00:33:17.800 and makes them look like

00:33:18.980 they are progressive.

00:33:20.800 But all they're doing

00:33:21.860 is now making women tokens

00:33:24.420 in the same way

00:33:25.340 that CBC,

00:33:26.540 whose policy by 2021

00:33:28.220 is to have minority candidates

00:33:30.380 promoted at double

00:33:31.860 the rate they are now.

00:33:32.980 It turns people into tokens

00:33:35.260 and it takes away

00:33:36.760 worthiness, qualifications,

00:33:38.600 merit,

00:33:38.920 all of these things

00:33:39.700 that a great many women possess. 1.00

00:33:41.940 And let's look at

00:33:42.920 the Ontario liberals,

00:33:44.040 for example.

00:33:44.680 Kathleen Wynne,

00:33:45.740 who was,

00:33:46.060 by a lot of standards,

00:33:47.880 a very unpopular premier

00:33:49.140 by the time she left office,

00:33:50.640 was still a female lesbian premier 1.00

00:33:54.360 of the largest province in Canada.

00:33:56.680 Whether you like her or not,

00:33:58.720 that is a trailblazing line item

00:34:01.780 in her biography

00:34:03.240 that she did that.

00:34:04.520 She overcame sexism.

00:34:05.800 She overcame homophobia.

00:34:07.360 She ran her party.

00:34:08.820 She ran an election and won.

00:34:10.960 And then eventually

00:34:11.600 she lost in 2018.

00:34:12.920 But does the party

00:34:14.300 that had a female premier 0.99

00:34:17.380 need to bend over backwards

00:34:19.720 to prove that it's doing more

00:34:21.640 to recruit and retain women? 0.99

00:34:23.620 I mean, if they want to,

00:34:24.600 fine, that's their choice.

00:34:26.700 But they already have proven

00:34:28.540 that, yes,

00:34:29.100 women can, 1.00

00:34:29.860 without these measures,

00:34:30.940 rise to the top of the party

00:34:32.160 and win.

00:34:33.320 The deputy premier,

00:34:34.500 by the way,

00:34:35.160 Deb Matthews,

00:34:35.920 a woman.

00:34:36.740 Now, I've got my own grievances

00:34:38.920 with Deb Matthews

00:34:39.760 that have nothing to do

00:34:40.560 with her sex. 0.98

00:34:41.640 We've got a bit of a history.

00:34:43.100 I can overlook that right now

00:34:44.400 and say, yep,

00:34:44.980 she was a successful female,

00:34:47.500 rose up through the ranks,

00:34:48.440 was health minister,

00:34:49.180 was deputy premier.

00:34:50.360 None of that came about

00:34:51.640 through having these little tokens

00:34:53.200 that, oh, well,

00:34:53.820 women can't pay the full fee. 1.00

00:34:55.600 And, oh, well,

00:34:56.240 women can't run against males 1.00

00:34:57.440 in nomination.

00:34:58.200 I mean,

00:34:58.520 how patronizing is that

00:35:00.580 to women?

00:35:02.620 It's massively so.

00:35:03.780 And this is now

00:35:04.920 what's passing for progress

00:35:06.820 in Canadian politics

00:35:08.340 or certainly

00:35:08.900 in Ontario politics.

00:35:10.580 We've got to take a break

00:35:11.600 when we come back,

00:35:12.280 closing things out here

00:35:13.520 on The Andrew Lawton Show.

00:35:14.680 Stay tuned.

00:35:16.840 You're tuned in

00:35:18.020 to The Andrew Lawton Show.

00:35:26.560 Welcome back

00:35:27.400 to The Andrew Lawton Show.

00:35:28.900 I want to talk

00:35:29.840 just before we wrap

00:35:30.880 things up today

00:35:31.520 about what I think

00:35:32.180 is one of the most

00:35:32.860 irresponsibly reported stories

00:35:34.820 I've seen

00:35:35.460 throughout the wake

00:35:36.640 of all of the

00:35:37.540 Black Lives Matter protests,

00:35:39.140 riots, demonstrations,

00:35:40.520 and all of this.

00:35:41.440 And it involves

00:35:42.240 a couple in St. Louis

00:35:43.860 who did what

00:35:45.260 many Americans do

00:35:46.360 when they feel

00:35:47.440 their home might be threatened.

00:35:48.580 They pull out their,

00:35:49.260 by all accounts,

00:35:50.020 legally owned firearms.

00:35:51.600 And what do you know?

00:35:52.480 It worked.

00:35:53.160 People kept walking.

00:35:54.720 Now, this is how

00:35:55.740 the story is reported.

00:35:58.160 St. Louis couple

00:35:59.080 point guns

00:36:00.080 at peaceful crowd

00:36:01.300 of protesters

00:36:01.980 calling for mayor

00:36:02.920 to resign.

00:36:03.860 That's in the

00:36:04.300 Washington Post.

00:36:05.260 In CBS News,

00:36:06.740 St. Louis white couple

00:36:08.540 aims guns

00:36:09.320 at St. Louis protesters.

00:36:11.260 And if you look

00:36:11.760 everywhere on Twitter,

00:36:12.680 people are taking aim

00:36:13.600 at this angry white couple

00:36:15.580 violently threatening

00:36:16.640 people that are

00:36:17.340 protesting peacefully.

00:36:18.760 What actually happened here

00:36:20.460 is the guy pulled out

00:36:21.740 a semi-automatic rifle.

00:36:24.260 The woman pulled out 1.00

00:36:25.220 a handgun.

00:36:26.120 What had happened

00:36:26.920 is they were

00:36:27.840 minding their own business

00:36:29.360 on their street

00:36:30.360 in a gated community

00:36:31.720 that the protesters

00:36:33.180 had already stormed.

00:36:35.220 The protesters

00:36:35.980 were heading towards

00:36:37.180 the mayor's home

00:36:38.800 because they were going

00:36:40.020 to demand her resignation.

00:36:41.720 It's not peaceful

00:36:42.700 when you are already

00:36:44.220 breaking down

00:36:45.400 a barrier

00:36:46.180 to,

00:36:46.920 not a metaphysical barrier

00:36:48.000 or a literal barrier

00:36:48.880 to get into a gated community

00:36:50.220 and you're on

00:36:51.420 a private driveway,

00:36:53.300 not a public road

00:36:54.340 as some of these videos

00:36:55.400 make it out to be.

00:36:57.300 And what happens

00:36:58.140 is these people are thinking

00:36:59.360 oh my goodness

00:37:00.020 this is our home

00:37:00.800 for all we know

00:37:01.540 they're coming here

00:37:02.260 who knows

00:37:02.760 we're going to stand out

00:37:04.220 and tell them

00:37:04.680 that we're not going

00:37:05.260 to have any of this

00:37:06.040 and you know what

00:37:06.820 it worked.

00:37:08.240 No one got hurt

00:37:09.100 they didn't get fired

00:37:10.000 and you better believe

00:37:11.220 the protesters

00:37:11.920 kept their distance

00:37:12.820 from those two people.

00:37:14.340 Now whether the woman

00:37:15.460 might have had a better

00:37:16.620 trigger discipline or not

00:37:18.060 than she did

00:37:18.820 is one question.

00:37:20.540 The guy it seemed like

00:37:21.540 he was fine

00:37:22.100 standing at the ready

00:37:23.020 without pointing his gun

00:37:24.540 at anyone

00:37:25.300 without putting people

00:37:26.480 in harm's way.

00:37:27.220 the protesters

00:37:28.380 you don't know

00:37:28.920 if they're armed or not.

00:37:30.140 I mean everyone's saying

00:37:30.800 that oh there was

00:37:32.020 the one story here

00:37:32.920 from the Washington Post

00:37:34.240 that I mentioned

00:37:34.820 that says

00:37:36.100 the protesters

00:37:37.160 were armed

00:37:38.160 only with posters

00:37:39.520 and chants.

00:37:41.440 Well

00:37:41.720 first off

00:37:42.900 you don't know that

00:37:43.840 when you hear

00:37:44.380 a loud mob

00:37:45.520 of people

00:37:46.100 that are on your street

00:37:47.420 when they aren't

00:37:47.940 supposed to be there

00:37:48.760 you have no idea

00:37:50.360 what you're dealing with.

00:37:51.860 You have no idea

00:37:52.640 what's going to be happening.

00:37:53.720 You have no idea.

00:37:54.740 All you know

00:37:55.340 is that you've seen videos

00:37:56.300 in the last few weeks

00:37:57.220 of this place burning

00:37:58.160 that place burning

00:37:59.020 this place being torched

00:38:00.180 this guy being killed

00:38:01.560 and I understand anyone

00:38:03.580 wanting to be

00:38:04.640 a bit protective

00:38:05.840 of their home

00:38:06.780 and of their family

00:38:07.640 so good for them

00:38:08.700 for standing up

00:38:09.460 for themselves

00:38:09.940 good for Missouri

00:38:11.340 for having the right

00:38:12.520 for people to do that

00:38:13.720 and shame in all the media

00:38:15.180 that wants to vilify

00:38:16.280 someone standing guard

00:38:17.920 over their home

00:38:18.980 because yes

00:38:20.220 peaceful protest

00:38:21.120 is a right

00:38:22.180 but the fact

00:38:23.240 that so many

00:38:23.820 of these so-called

00:38:24.560 peaceful protests

00:38:25.420 have been violent

00:38:26.260 tells us

00:38:27.400 that you never know

00:38:28.480 you never know

00:38:29.300 it's Schrodinger's protest

00:38:30.320 you don't know

00:38:30.840 if it's going to be

00:38:31.360 peaceful or violent

00:38:32.920 so you have to assume

00:38:33.900 it's going to be

00:38:34.440 either and both

00:38:35.540 until you know otherwise

00:38:37.220 and you know what

00:38:38.060 in a society

00:38:39.380 where people have

00:38:40.280 to protect themselves

00:38:41.440 because police

00:38:42.240 aren't going to do

00:38:42.800 the protecting

00:38:43.500 and they can't

00:38:44.560 in that quick turnaround time

00:38:46.240 of course

00:38:47.360 I stand by someone

00:38:49.060 who says

00:38:49.540 you know what

00:38:49.900 I'm going to stand guard

00:38:50.740 outside my home

00:38:51.480 they didn't fire a shot

00:38:52.940 and they didn't need to

00:38:54.020 being there

00:38:55.080 was enough

00:38:56.060 and when I say

00:38:57.680 police won't protect you

00:38:58.860 I'm not talking about

00:38:59.960 you know

00:39:00.520 I'm not making a slight

00:39:02.160 at police officers

00:39:02.920 by the way

00:39:03.360 I'm saying there are

00:39:03.960 some parts of the US

00:39:04.800 right now

00:39:05.300 like in Seattle's

00:39:06.980 Chaz

00:39:07.400 where police have said

00:39:08.400 we're walking back

00:39:09.820 we're not going to

00:39:10.700 govern this area

00:39:11.520 you've got

00:39:12.460 in other cases

00:39:13.260 just simply

00:39:13.840 a matter of timing

00:39:14.900 police can't get to you

00:39:16.080 before the damage is done

00:39:17.760 so they did

00:39:18.880 what any good citizen

00:39:20.320 would do

00:39:20.860 they didn't harm anyone

00:39:22.220 they didn't threaten anyone

00:39:23.220 but they said

00:39:23.780 if you make a move on us

00:39:25.060 we are going to defend ourselves

00:39:27.400 and the media hates that

00:39:29.080 the media hates that

00:39:30.200 because now these protesters

00:39:31.440 who were storming

00:39:32.940 a closed street

00:39:34.520 to harass someone

00:39:36.280 at their home

00:39:37.160 are just

00:39:37.560 oh they were just chanting

00:39:38.580 they were just singing

00:39:39.440 I mean

00:39:39.700 who cares

00:39:40.660 they weren't doing anything wrong

00:39:42.140 well the fact that

00:39:43.360 you never know

00:39:44.140 if that is going to change

00:39:45.820 in the last few weeks

00:39:47.120 is I think

00:39:47.540 why people should

00:39:48.420 have a right

00:39:49.180 to defend themselves

00:39:50.080 and do

00:39:50.660 and I'm glad

00:39:51.140 that no shots were fired

00:39:52.060 I'm glad that no shots

00:39:53.140 needed to be fired

00:39:54.060 I don't like

00:39:55.140 that it has to come to this

00:39:56.500 but I don't blame

00:39:57.600 the people

00:39:58.040 who have seen

00:39:58.680 the carnage

00:39:59.400 and have seen

00:39:59.860 the wreckage

00:40:00.480 on TV news

00:40:02.020 for saying

00:40:03.140 I don't want

00:40:03.920 our house

00:40:04.340 to be one of those

00:40:05.420 we've got to wrap things up

00:40:06.940 my thanks to all of you

00:40:08.160 for tuning in

00:40:08.980 the show today

00:40:09.520 we'll be back

00:40:10.740 in just a couple of days time

00:40:12.040 thanks

00:40:12.600 God bless

00:40:13.220 and good day Canada

00:40:14.020 thanks for listening

00:40:15.200 to the Andrew Lawton Show

00:40:16.400 support the program

00:40:17.460 by donating to True North

00:40:18.680 at www.tnc.news

Juno News - June 30, 2020

Trigger Warning for the Canadian Flag

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript