Off the Record - Poilievre continues to push back against trans ideology

00:00:00.000 No, I don't understand the folk thing. It's like F-O-L-X. It's like the, because the K-S is 1.00

00:00:06.760 apparently racist and colonial now. So you have to replace that with an S or with an X. I don't

00:00:12.200 get it. No, I really don't get it. I don't understand the X. Like what, could someone

00:00:16.800 explain it to me? I think it's because the X allows it to be singular. S means it's plural,

00:00:22.160 but this way you can have folks, it means only one person. When they're talking about like,

00:00:25.700 what about, why can't you identify a singular? Actually, it's a wonder X isn't more offensive

00:00:29.480 now with the Elon Musk rebranding. You'd think they'd want to like purge X from the dictionary.

00:00:34.480 That's an excellent point. Excellent. But even like, they'll say trans folks. So trans folks 1.00

00:00:39.820 with an X can just be referring to one person. Is that, is that it? Is that actually it?

00:00:43.940 Why not? I really don't get it. We'll do a deep dive next week,

00:00:47.020 an investigative feature into the colonialism of chaos.

00:00:50.780 We will get an expert. I'm sure there's an expert out there. An expert.

00:00:54.160 An expert. All right, guys, let's get started.

00:01:06.740 Hi, everyone. Thank you so much for joining us. Thank you for joining in and listening to

00:01:10.780 Off the Record, our newest podcast here at True North. Don't forget to like this video. If you're

00:01:14.540 new around here, please subscribe to our True channel. If you're listening to this podcast,

00:01:18.160 don't forget to leave us a five-star review if you enjoy the content. And finally, head on over to

00:01:22.400 our website, tnc.news to sign up for a newsletter so you never miss a story. So Andrew, I think you

00:01:27.940 were at this press conference on Wednesday with Pierre Polyev. He was out in Kitchener, Ontario.

00:01:33.060 I think that the purpose of the press conference was to talk about the rising cost of living and

00:01:37.580 how a Polyev government would be different. But really, just like every answer he gave at that

00:01:43.360 press conference, he was on fire. It was like, it was really exciting to see Pierre Polyev

00:01:47.560 just, I don't know, answering questions in an honest, sincere way and just knocking

00:01:52.480 one out after another. So let's play this first clip of Pierre Polyev talking about how he believes

00:01:59.820 that female spaces should be exclusively for females. Now, this seems earth-shattering in Canadian 1.00

00:02:06.540 politics. Really, this is just a view that every single person in the world held about five minutes

00:02:10.880 ago before we all got taken over by this crazy trans ideology. But let's let's play this clip 1.00

00:02:17.380 from Pierre Polyev. My question, sir, is should you form the next federal government? Will you make

00:02:24.740 female safe spaces safe again by introducing legislation that bans so-called transgender women 1.00

00:02:33.000 from participating in female sports and getting access into female shelters and female prisons? 1.00

00:02:41.700 Female spaces should be exclusively for females, not for biological males. You asked if I introduce 1.00

00:02:50.380 legislation on that. A lot of the spaces you described are provincially and municipally controlled.

00:02:57.840 So it is unclear what federal legislation, what would reach federal legislation would have to change

00:03:05.800 them. But obviously, female sports, female change rooms, female bathrooms should be for females, 1.00

00:03:13.900 not for biological males.

00:03:16.240 So Pierre Polyev giving the correct answer there. And pardon me, folks, I pardon my manners. I forgot

00:03:21.100 to introduce our guest today, which is Hamish Marshall. We're usually joined by Harrison Faulkner. He's down

00:03:25.500 at CPAC in Washington, D.C. this week. I was away last week. I was on a Disney cruise with my family. So we had

00:03:30.560 Sue Ann Levy filling in last week for me. And this week, we have Hamish filling in for Harrison.

00:03:36.560 And I think you're going to be gone next week, Andrew. So we'll have to find some.

00:03:38.920 Yeah. Actually, I think I was filling in for you. And Sue Ann, I guess, was filling in for me. 0.64

00:03:43.820 Right. Yeah. So I actually don't know. Hamish might even be filling in for me right now. We'll see.

00:03:48.720 I'm just going to do all three parts from now on.

00:03:52.500 Well, you audience should know Hamish well. He was our in-house pollster during the last federal

00:03:57.400 election. Hopefully we'll have you back to do that again during the next election, Hamish. But he is

00:04:00.980 a conservative insider and he has had a lot of fancy jobs inside the conservative party. I'll just leave

00:04:05.580 it. So anyway, what do you what do you what do you folks think of Pierre Polyev standing up for

00:04:13.100 females in female spaces? Andrew, I'll go to you first. It's funny. I kind of am of the mind now, 0.97

00:04:20.260 and Hamish probably will know this because he's on the other side of it, that I kind of get annoyed

00:04:25.640 that there's not really a lot of news at press conferences. You know, the idea that you're just

00:04:29.440 going to ask a question and you're going to just draw something earth shattering out of a politician

00:04:34.540 is pretty rare. Every now and then you get lucky. Like I remember in the 2021 election when I just

00:04:39.600 asked Aaron O'Toole at a press conference if the Canadian flag, which had been at half mass for

00:04:44.020 forever, should go back up. And he said yes. And that was the only real news story here. So I was

00:04:48.460 kind of surprised because the question was asked by David Menzies of Rebel News. And he had told me

00:04:53.160 ahead of time because we were just sort of making sure that, you know, we weren't covering the same

00:04:56.800 ground. And he was going to ask that. I'm like, oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, whatever. Like, I just didn't think there was

00:05:00.480 going to be that. Then he comes out with the money quote that then was like the story

00:05:04.520 everywhere in legacy media and independent media all day. And I've got to say it was a very

00:05:10.600 interesting move because I think a lot of the time people and I've been in this category of kind of

00:05:15.060 worried that Pierre Polyev was being too cautious on these issues, parental rights stuff. He's often

00:05:20.360 been very delayed in saying that he supports these things. When Daniel Smith came out with the policy,

00:05:26.640 he was, again, a lot more quiet at first about it. Then he said he'd supported it. But this is,

00:05:32.260 I mean, outflanking what any provincial premier has really said on this. And it really is putting

00:05:38.260 him in line with where conservative members said they were back in the fall when they voted in favor

00:05:43.180 of a motion, effectively saying what Polyev said on Wednesday.

00:05:47.740 What's your take, Hamish?

00:05:49.260 Yeah, I mean, I think I look, first of all, I think he's speaking common sense. And I think,

00:05:52.460 you know, Pierre has realized that, you know, one of his brand out there is common sense,

00:05:58.220 he's talking about common sense government. And so he's got to, he's given the opportunity to say

00:06:03.120 common sense things, he takes them, right? And I think that's what we saw today. What he said,

00:06:07.900 your point earlier, Candice, wasn't controversial, you know, like yesterday, but somehow, you know,

00:06:13.720 everything is now controversial. So everything he says makes good sense. And I think, I think,

00:06:19.220 honestly, also the thing that's happened is that we've seen the reaction to the laws that

00:06:25.220 Premier Smith has proposed in Alberta, and that Albertans and Kayeans are broadly supportive of

00:06:31.800 what, what she's proposing, and that the center ground in Kayean and Canada on this, on these

00:06:38.260 issues is not where the Toronto Star and Twitter think it is.

00:06:43.160 Well, it's so refreshing that Polyev has come to this conclusion, because I know,

00:06:47.040 under previous leaders in this party, the safe thing is, is the sort of, you know, perspective that

00:06:53.180 you're going to get, especially now, because, you know, Pierre Polyev won the conservative

00:06:56.480 leadership race in a landslide. He has the party already, like, like, the base of the conservative

00:07:01.200 party is going to vote for this guy, no matter what. So he doesn't have to, doesn't have to take

00:07:04.600 risks when it comes to social issues. But the fact that he is, I think, is a good sign, because he

00:07:11.380 obviously has a very good sense of the country, he understands that the sort of medium voter or,

00:07:16.340 you know, the common sense perspective. And so the fact that he feels emboldened to speak about

00:07:21.820 stuff is very refreshing. And, and you had another, you, you, you had.

00:07:27.800 Yeah. But before we go to that, I just wanted to jump in on that point, because I actually don't

00:07:32.340 agree that the conservative base can be relied on to always vote for the conservative leader.

00:07:38.540 And I think that that was the big problem we saw with Aaron O'Toole. And to some extent,

00:07:43.720 no offense to present company, I think to Andrew Scheer's campaign is that there's an expectation that,

00:07:48.560 okay, we've already got our base, we don't need to do anything to keep them on side. And I think

00:07:52.540 there's really no comparison between Sharon O'Toole on the top line of that. But O'Toole really took 0.75

00:07:58.620 his own party's base for granted. And it's no surprise that we saw the PPC triple its vote share

00:08:05.020 from 2019 to 2021, because there was another party presenting itself as an alternative to that. So

00:08:10.140 I think, well, you know, Pierre Polyev is a lot more popular than O'Toole as a conservative leader.

00:08:14.580 And I think the Canadians, there is something that he is telling his side, no, no, no, I haven't

00:08:20.500 forgotten about you. And I think it's been refreshing how consistent he's been from leadership

00:08:25.460 to leadership race to post leadership race, because that's a pivot that oftentimes is not smooth for

00:08:31.600 conservative leaders.

00:08:33.640 You're absolutely right. And when I said that the base is going to vote for Pierre, I didn't mean that

00:08:39.340 the base is going to vote for any old leader, because I don't think that's right. But I think that Pierre

00:08:43.140 has done enough at this point to earn the respect and credibility of the base that he didn't have

00:08:49.480 to come out and say female spaces are for females only, even though it's like the obvious thing.

00:08:52.980 I just mean, like, generally just like what he's done or the past. But I think you're right. I think

00:08:57.060 that the very presence of Maxime Bernier in the opposition party means that conservatives have to

00:09:02.120 be conservatives a little more. If nothing else, Maxime Bernier does a great service in that way.

00:09:08.580 Hamish, do you want any final thoughts on this topic?

00:09:11.300 Yeah, I mean, I think broadly speaking, you're right. I think Pierre understands that you have

00:09:15.520 to do things to keep the base engaged. The most important thing I think in politics is underrated

00:09:19.660 isn't who people vote for. It's who decides to stay home or vote whatsoever. There's lots of people,

00:09:25.320 and we saw this in the 2021 campaign with O'Toole, there's lots of conservatives who didn't vote for

00:09:31.360 the PPC, but just didn't vote because they were turned off by it. And the biggest threat is, you

00:09:36.700 know, while Trudeau is desperately unpopular, the reason people have not to be motivated to come out

00:09:42.180 and vote. And if you give people nothing, they might say, well, I really hate Trudeau, and some

00:09:46.360 of them will come and vote, but maybe not all of them or not all of them in all the writings that you

00:09:50.740 need. So I think, you know, doing things to keep conservatives fired up is a really good strategy

00:09:57.880 because you want those people fired up and making sure they go and actually vote

00:10:01.100 whenever this election rolls around. Another great point. Okay, in that press conference,

00:10:06.660 I mean, like I said, Pierre Polly was on fire on Wednesday morning, and he gave us a lot. I think

00:10:10.660 he did an entire show, Andrew, on the response that he gave, and you could see he was just kind of like

00:10:14.440 warming up and getting like hotter and hotter and hotter in terms of like where he was going. But

00:10:19.500 one of the other things he mentioned rather briefly, but he still mentioned it, was talking about this

00:10:24.200 new story about Pornhub. So Pornhub is a big, I think it's the biggest porn distributor on the

00:10:30.680 internet. And it's a Montreal-based company that does it. And basically, they're considering pulling

00:10:36.060 the plug on their Canadian access. I think this is similar to the way that Facebook has pulled

00:10:42.220 access to news because they don't like the government meddling. And they said, you know,

00:10:44.900 it's easier for us to just turn the switch off completely. And to that, Jordan Peterson responded

00:10:52.340 to that news story, Jordan Peterson responded just saying that Pornhub is run by and serves

00:10:58.040 scum. I'm not sure if he was talking about because they would dare to take porn access away from

00:11:03.700 Canadians. I'm presuming that that's not what he meant. And what he meant was that it's run by and

00:11:07.960 serves scum because he doesn't agree with porn from a moral perspective. Anyway, I just bring it up

00:11:13.160 because Pierre Polly have also commented on this. Andrew, why don't you let us know? What did Pierre say

00:11:19.320 about this topic? He said yes. He said yes. That was his answer. Yes. The question,

00:11:25.800 it was from the Canadian press. They asked if a conservative government under Polyev would

00:11:29.520 basically require age-based verification to access online porn. I mean, technically,

00:11:36.420 I think on these sites, they probably have in their terms of service that you need to be

00:11:40.060 18. But there really isn't a mechanism to verify this. So there's a Senate bill that's been getting a

00:11:45.860 lot of discussion on this that would effectively require you to verify your age with these porn

00:11:51.880 providers, Pornhub being one of the biggest ones. And he was asked if he supported such a thing and

00:11:57.600 he just said yes. Now, this is where I get into very dicey territory because on one hand, you know,

00:12:04.040 I'm totally on board with the arguments that online porn is a moral harm. You look at the effect it has on

00:12:09.920 young people in particular. I'd say on a lot of people, but on young people, on young girls who

00:12:15.500 are, you know, forced to live up to these, you know, things that their, you know, boyfriends in

00:12:19.720 high school are seeing. You have people that are accessing this as young as like nine and 10 years

00:12:24.260 old now. It's horrific. And but then you get to the other side of it, which is not to mention the

00:12:30.260 young men that get addicted to it. And yeah, cripples their life because they get physically

00:12:34.880 addicted to, you know, everything about the website is, is so based on algorithm that traps

00:12:40.260 you in there. And it just like destroys these young men's lives. So yeah, it's like anyone who's ever

00:12:44.100 been sucked into like watching YouTube clips for hours and hours, but you know, worse. And the thing

00:12:49.520 that you see then is though, is that the arguments in favor of this age-based verification to keep

00:12:55.520 miners away, they're, they're going to butt up against privacy concerns because all of a sudden

00:13:00.840 you now have to, according to some mechanisms of doing this, you know, provide your identification

00:13:05.620 to a site that is basically proliferating online porn. And I don't trust any of these companies with,

00:13:15.160 with people's data. I don't trust a government to maintain some registry that's going to work with

00:13:22.020 these companies. And, and let's be real. I think that this is something that is morally harmful,

00:13:26.320 but I think it is a by-product of a free society. Porn is the unfortunate but inevitable consequence

00:13:32.380 of free speech. So I've yet to see a proposal for how to do this thing that doesn't create issues that

00:13:39.360 I think are bigger than the one they're trying to solve. Yeah. And I, and I think I, I could,

00:13:44.160 I'm pretty sure that Pornhub was the one that was implicated in this, that a lot of the problems with

00:13:47.840 them that I think Dr. Peterson was referring to is a lot of user uploaded content of minors was,

00:13:55.380 was, was appearing on the site and people were using it for things that may or may not have been

00:13:59.720 criminal to watch things that may or may not be criminal acts. And they were very slow to take it

00:14:04.300 down. And people were putting up, you know, revenge porn and all this sort of thing was

00:14:08.140 happening. And Pornhub was like, Oh, I don't know if we can do too much about this. And we're working

00:14:12.020 on it, but nothing would ever come down. And the danger of course, and all of these things,

00:14:16.480 this is always the argument of regulation. And there is no easy answer is if, you know,

00:14:20.840 a company like this that exists, that has servers in Montreal, that presumably the Canadian government

00:14:24.640 can interact with, it has, has come, has, goes down. Other providers will flood the space that

00:14:35.140 perhaps are based on servers in, you know, God knows where that the Canadian government can't deal

00:14:39.800 with. And there's no requirements for, and the situation just gets, gets worse. I don't think

00:14:45.520 there's an easy answer to this. You know, some sort of age requirement. We're also seeing this

00:14:49.860 everywhere. I mean, there's a whole bunch of American states that are talking about age requirements

00:14:52.980 and how that manifests. I think, well, I think there could be an opportunity for a new standard

00:14:59.160 that evolves across chunks of the Western world, but it's not going to be solved just in Canada,

00:15:04.920 just with this.

00:15:06.360 You two are both far too practical. Okay. You just need to ban it. Just ban it all. Get rid of it all.

00:15:11.160 Just throw it away. We tried it. We tried the whole liberal thing where people could use porn

00:15:15.820 and access websites, destroyed an entire generation. They're not having sex anymore. 0.69

00:15:19.540 They're not getting married. They're not having children. Let's just throw it out, ban it,

00:15:22.920 try something else.

00:15:23.800 And the libertarian Trump card to that argument, my wonderful and intelligent friend, Candace,

00:15:29.440 is that if you give government license to ban things outright that it sees as harmful,

00:15:35.040 all of a sudden you're licensing the next government to ban things that we would argue

00:15:40.140 are not harmful. All of a sudden they're going after our online speech, which by the way,

00:15:44.300 the liberals are doing in the same legislation. So that's the problem here is that when government

00:15:49.000 gets to regulate harm, it also gets to decide what harm is.

00:15:53.220 No, you're right. I mean, sometimes you just take a step back and you look at so many of the things

00:15:56.900 in our society that are just absolutely detrimental, that don't have any upsides. It's like,

00:16:00.560 you know, the, the, the, the, this is really sad, tragic story, but the son of the CEO of YouTube

00:16:06.820 died of an overdose. He was a student, 19 year old student at Berkeley. And the drug that he was

00:16:12.200 consuming that he died of an overdose was, was weed. He smoked a joint. It was laced with fentanyl,

00:16:17.920 fentanyl, and he's dead now. And it's like, you just have to imagine like, like what world as a

00:16:25.500 society, are we just okay with like kids dying and like taking fentanyl because we decided that weed

00:16:30.980 was okay. It's like, there's, there's some things in society that are just bad. And I know like even

00:16:36.380 an earlier me would have been like, no, drugs are fine and whatever. If someone wants to put something

00:16:40.100 in their own body, they can. But it's like, we're, we're at a stage now where there's just so many

00:16:43.700 externalities, there's so much uncertainty. You don't know like what has fentanyl in it. You're saying

00:16:47.600 to kids like, it's fine to smoke a joint. It probably is, but not if it has fentanyl. In that case,

00:16:51.760 the young man is dead. And it's just, it's just tragic. There's, there's so many things in our

00:16:56.320 society that we, you know, we've, we've allowed and, and, and defended in terms of liberty, even

00:17:01.740 as conservatives that we personally don't agree with. And I think maybe it's getting a time where

00:17:05.900 conservatives just need to like take a more moral stance and say like, these things are wrong.

00:17:10.080 They're bad. Fine. You can have them, but we oppose them and we're going to do everything we can to

00:17:13.800 stop them. You know, look, I'm a conservative, not a libertarian. So my instinct is very much along

00:17:19.400 your lines, Candace. And, you know, I think we, we've always lived in a society where certain

00:17:25.500 unhealthy things have been banned, you know, a complete libertarian free for all. I mean,

00:17:30.240 you can move to Somalia and have that if you want, but count me out. You know, I think that we,

00:17:37.200 you know, we obviously have to ban things. The problem is, is that, you know, I also just admit

00:17:41.680 that realize that we live in a perfect world and we're never going to actually get to a perfect

00:17:45.320 world. So it's about having a medium between what works and most of all, that when we change things

00:17:50.880 like this, we do it slowly and in a considered fashion and not all at once. And that's what scares

00:17:55.880 me, frankly, about both, you know, the lefty sort of year zero folks who want to say, well,

00:18:01.600 we'll change everything, rip everything up. And frankly, some libertarians that are along the same

00:18:05.800 ways that say, well, all government things must be destroyed immediately. You know, I'm skeptical

00:18:10.980 of big government too, but I'm more, most in favor of let's take small steps, especially when it comes

00:18:17.020 to the harm of children. And let's, let's, let's be, let's be, let's be more cautious than, than we

00:18:22.200 should be to get this as not never perfect, but as close to right to balance those things out as we

00:18:28.660 can. Yeah. I mean, look, the idea of creating a regulatory regime that makes Pornhub say, you know

00:18:33.500 what, we're just going to pull out of Canada. I think, okay, great. But you know, we railed against

00:18:38.000 the same thing happening with news when it came to Facebook. And, and I would argue that probably

00:18:43.800 some of the things masquerading as news are probably just as bad for you as what's on Pornhub,

00:18:48.900 depending on the outlet. But the point that I would raise on, on this is that we talk a lot

00:18:54.100 about parental rights and that's been a big issue for True North. It's been one we talked about a

00:18:58.040 little earlier on the show. There are also parental responsibilities. And I think there needs to be a

00:19:02.320 call to action for parents here to be a lot more aware of what these sites are, of the harms of

00:19:08.500 them. And I know that it's a perennial problem that kids will always outsmart their parents on

00:19:13.720 technology. So whatever, you know, parental blockers and controls you have when, when kids

00:19:18.920 get a cell phone, I mean, it's basically like you're just putting, you know, throwing caution to

00:19:22.740 the wind. So I think that this is a big issue though. And I think that, you know, the civil society

00:19:27.340 approach that I would advocate is one in which parents are equipped with the tools they need,

00:19:32.000 both technical and moral to actually have these conversations and do what they need to in the

00:19:38.100 homes. Because frankly, I trust that far more than I trust whatever government legislation is going to

00:19:43.440 achieve on this. You're both far too practical, but no, Andrew, I completely agree with you. Like

00:19:47.340 even just looking around, you go out for dinner these days and you just notice that like families are

00:19:52.620 sitting at the table and they're all on their cell phones. I notice this so often that it'll be like,

00:19:57.340 mom and dad on their phone, two kids with like headphones on, on the iPads and everyone's

00:20:01.720 just like independently, like staring at their screens. And now, now it's going to be Apple

00:20:05.780 vision pro. Everyone will just go out for dinner and they'll all be just like watching movies and

00:20:09.540 their goggles at the dinner table. My husband brought one of those things home. I'm like,

00:20:13.440 I don't even want to try it, but yeah, like the whole augmented, but it's like, I think a lot of

00:20:17.100 times parents give their kids devices and screens because it's kind of like easier. And it's just like,

00:20:22.020 here, take this. And you're right. Like you have no idea what they're doing. Like you put them on

00:20:26.040 YouTube kids and like three videos later, they're watching some creepy video of like adults playing

00:20:30.460 with Barbies. And it's like, what? Like, I think, I think you're right.

00:20:34.400 What is your tube algorithm saying? I haven't seen those.

00:20:37.200 I haven't run into that one yet.

00:20:38.800 That's not even my story. That's like a story that I saw someone else talking about, but,

00:20:42.440 but no, it's like, it's just, yeah. Once, once they're, once they're on that, you know,

00:20:47.300 black hole device, you don't really know. And parents need to take a much more instructive role.

00:20:53.260 Okay. Let's, let's hop back to the political world. Cause I did want to, I came across this

00:20:57.460 video and I really respect, I have tremendous respect for Dr. Jordan Peterson. Although

00:21:02.700 sometimes he talks about Canadian politics and I think he's just wrong. So here's one of those

00:21:06.060 instances. I'm going to play this clip and I'll get everyone to react. So this is Jordan Peterson

00:21:09.660 predicting the future of Canadian politics and just note how sure he is that this is what's going

00:21:15.160 to happen. So let's, let's play this clip.

00:21:17.260 The biggest fear I have right now for the country is that Trudeau will hang on for another year

00:21:22.040 because getting rid of that man is like trying to get a fly out of sticky paper.

00:21:30.640 Yeah. With all the mess that would entail. And then Pierre Polyev will be elected

00:21:36.360 and then we'll find out just how bad things are and that'll be dumped on his shoulders and his

00:21:45.880 government will fail because of the cataclysm that he's inherited. The conservatives will have a one

00:21:51.960 term shot at it. And then like Mark Carney will be the new prime minister of Canada.

00:21:58.420 That's the most likely outcome. And by that time, Canadians will make 40% of what Americans make 0.62

00:22:05.720 instead of the 60% they make now. Yeah. Yeah. So, you know, that's, that's rough and likely.

00:22:15.400 Okay. So let's just go through the claims here. Cause I think he's partially right. You know,

00:22:18.580 Trudeau will hold on to a power for another year. That's probably right. Uh, Pierre will win the

00:22:23.280 next election. I think that that's the way that we are headed. Uh, and then at that point we will

00:22:26.900 discover the mess, the true mess, because you don't really know from the outside. You don't know

00:22:31.300 how bad the numbers are. And that is true. So he thinks that Polyev will get elected, realize the

00:22:36.880 huge mess and that that will lead his government to fail and that he'll have one term and then we'll

00:22:41.640 have Mark Carney. I don't think that that will happen. I think that typically in Canada,

00:22:45.040 governments are elected for a decade or a generation and that Canadians would rather

00:22:50.440 have the devil they know. So once the conservatives are in power, the conservatives will stay in power

00:22:54.100 and that Pierre will have more than just like a four-year term to, to try to fix things and turn

00:22:58.960 the country around. And I, and I don't see anything compelling about Mark Carney. I think sometimes like

00:23:03.460 elites see fellow elites and say like, wow, look at their credentials. Wow. He went to Harvard.

00:23:08.400 He's definitely going to be prime minister. And it's like, uh, no, there's one country out there

00:23:12.460 that doesn't like this sort of banker elite Harvard type. And that's like a really hard

00:23:16.580 type to get elected. So I think that that's where Peterson's prediction falls apart. Uh,

00:23:22.420 let's, uh, let's, uh, go over to you, Hamish. What do you, what do you think of Dr. Peterson there?

00:23:26.940 Yeah. I mean, I look, I think, I think predicting the future is always when it comes to politics is

00:23:30.180 really, really dangerous, especially because everybody assumes the patterns that exist today will

00:23:34.720 continue to exist. Right. I remember people saying exactly the same thing in the lead up to

00:23:39.260 Stephen Harper getting elected in 2006. Harper will win one term and win a minority. I'll be in

00:23:43.460 for two or three years. The liberals will be back forever. Harper was in power for nine and a half

00:23:47.120 years. Right. Um, and ended up continuing winning more and more seats in every election until he won

00:23:52.500 a majority. Um, uh, the fact of the matter is, is that what's most interesting things happening right

00:23:57.440 now is that the dynamic in Canadian politics is changing. The conservative vote is beginning younger

00:24:02.660 and younger and younger. Uh, conservatives aren't doing as well, uh, with people over 65 as they had

00:24:08.260 previously as, as, as, as voters are, uh, younger voters are coming on board. Conservatives have been,

00:24:13.240 in some polls have been leading women under 35, which has never happened in my lifetime and a

00:24:18.640 different coalition is being built. And the one thing you'll say when different coalitions are

00:24:22.140 built and whether that's, you know, in Canada, the reform, emergency reform and block, when party

00:24:27.500 systems begin to change, just things really change and where that will lead, you know, in,

00:24:32.540 in five or 10 years is extremely difficult to say. But right now, if the polling continues,

00:24:37.680 you know, uh, Pierre is going to win a majority government, which is fantastic.

00:24:41.940 I think that in many ways, Canadians be looking for something very, very different from Trudeau.

00:24:46.100 And I think there'll be, there'll be, uh, expecting a, a style of leadership very different

00:24:50.220 from Trudeau. The liberals are going to be in disarray. The thing that we all forget,

00:24:54.040 and this matters so much in parties is the liberal party as it exists right now is so much the creation

00:24:59.060 of Trudeau after he rebuilt, after he became leader in 2013, that, you know, very few of their MPs

00:25:04.900 of any experience before Trudeau, they're going to become this weird Trudeau tribute act incapable

00:25:10.060 of doing something different, which I don't think will sell in the future. We'll see where it goes,

00:25:14.840 but I have no reason to be, maybe I'm just more optimistic than Jordan Peterson, but I have no

00:25:19.680 reason to be as pessimistic as that. And I think we've got the chance of, you know, a good decade of

00:25:24.200 conservative transformational rule and hopefully a real realignment of the Canadian political system

00:25:28.940 that, uh, puts conservatives, uh, more on the upper hand more often.

00:25:33.640 Well, and even just, I'll go to you in a second, Andrew, but even just that claim that Canadians

00:25:37.340 will be 40% as rich as Americans and that we're 60% as rich. Now I, I, I, I mean, again, I look back

00:25:43.620 to Harper when Canadians had the richest middle class in the world and the New York times was touting it

00:25:48.040 and the average Canadian made more than the average American. Like that wasn't that long ago and

00:25:52.160 that's not that far out of reach. And I don't think that Pierre has like magical powers to fix the

00:25:56.940 economy and we're in pretty rough shape right now, but I do think that like solid free market

00:26:02.140 economic framework can do wonders, um, for, for, for government and Canada's government is small

00:26:08.860 and nimble enough relative to the United States that you can make changes that can have an impact.

00:26:12.880 Uh, Andrew, what's your perspective on all this? Yeah, just on the predictive aspect itself,

00:26:17.800 I think that intellectuals make bad pundits and pundits make bad intellectuals. So I think that

00:26:22.600 Jordan Peterson, who I've got a lot of respect for any time he's pulled into a

00:26:26.920 pundit role, which happens often because I think people look at him as this sort of Oracle that

00:26:31.340 knows everything. I, I find it it's his weakest material, uh, because you know, there are realities

00:26:36.800 that are just different from the intellectual realm. And it's not to say he can't observe those

00:26:43.100 things, but I don't think that's a strong suit. So I think the reasons you mentioned about Mark

00:26:47.120 Carney, like this was the same attitude that led to Michael Ignatieff, who was one of the most dismal

00:26:52.540 liberal leaders in, well, I'd say the most dismal in recent memory.

00:26:56.960 So it ever, yeah. And it's the John Kerry thing, uh, where, you know, like I remember one of the

00:27:02.520 stories that I, it comes out of the 2004 was when John Kerry's wife was in a, I think it was a Wendy's

00:27:08.140 or something for a photo op. And she asked her aid, what's chilly? Like these people just exist in a

00:27:14.060 completely different realm. And you're right. The elites love them because they're, they're in that

00:27:18.420 crowd, but they're the types of candidates that you could ask them like, how much does milk cost?

00:27:23.020 And they would just have no idea whatsoever because they don't do their own grocery shopping. They're

00:27:27.620 not in that world. So that's not to say the liberals wouldn't love Mark Carney, but the idea

00:27:32.280 that Mark Carney is going to unseat Pierre Polyev who has a very specific agenda. I mean, I see Pierre

00:27:38.560 Polyev as being Mike Harris 2.0 in a lot of ways in terms of going in with a very ambitious agenda,

00:27:44.740 delivering on it very quickly. Um, and Mike Harris, I mean, obviously had a rockier second

00:27:50.200 term, but he wasn't just a one-term premier. So that would be my prediction. But as Hamish

00:27:54.880 mentions, you, you can't, the future is, is not entirely based on the world as it is right now.

00:28:02.000 It's based on whatever happens in the next, I'd say six years, you know, a year and a half

00:28:06.520 to an election and then a four-year term beyond that. Yeah, no, absolutely. And I think I, you have

00:28:12.780 to have faith in Pierre that he is going to get into office. He's going to appoint the right people.

00:28:16.820 He's going to have the right team in place. And again, I think that there's such a big power of

00:28:21.240 the incumbent, like whoever's in power, that's, you know, Canadians will put their trust in that.

00:28:28.580 And, you know, it's interesting because historically it's sort of been the media that have done such a

00:28:33.900 huge job in undermining the trust of a conservative government. And I just think the media is losing so

00:28:40.560 much of its power. And I don't, I don't think that will happen this time around. All right,

00:28:44.020 let's move on to the next story. Cause this is something that I've been reading a lot and it's,

00:28:48.940 it's truly tragic. So this story is about a 26 year old woman in Vancouver Island who is preparing

00:28:55.360 for medically assisted deaths. So she's apparently eligible for MAID. And basically she, she partially

00:29:03.720 blames Canada's healthcare system for failing her. She has a malfunctioning immune system. I believe we 0.99

00:29:10.040 have a clip. This is from city news over on Vancouver Island. Speaking with city news's

00:29:16.700 Lisa used to Lana says sometime after her 27th birthday at the end of the month, she will have

00:29:22.240 a medically assisted death. I am unbelievably grateful. I have this option because there's

00:29:29.700 one other outcome if MAID weren't available for me. And that's for me to take this into my own

00:29:36.040 hands and do this alone. Lana says she wants to be clear that pursuing MAID isn't a choice,

00:29:41.700 but a realization. It came in October as her pain in part from a malfunctioning immune system

00:29:47.240 peaked. So it's incredibly sad. And what a state of affairs in Canada where we have beautiful young

00:29:53.900 women choosing to die. And even just some of the language that are used in there saying it wasn't a

00:29:59.020 choice. It was a realization. That sounds like kind of religiously cultish to me. I don't,

00:30:03.080 I don't understand that. And that saying that if she wasn't able to use this government assisted 0.90

00:30:08.160 suicide program, we, you know, we euphemistically call it MAID medical assistance and dying, but it's

00:30:14.160 really a government suicide program. I think that is, I mean, that you sign up the government,

00:30:19.580 you know, through the government, they give you drugs, you take them or you go into your office and

00:30:23.660 they give you a shot and it kills you. I mean, I don't know how to describe that in any way other

00:30:27.480 than suicide. But she, you know, she says it's because she has this pain. And if it wasn't for

00:30:33.940 this program, she would take life into her own hands. So she would kill herself. If it wasn't

00:30:37.460 for this program, she would kill her. She says it's all right in the clip. So before I get your

00:30:42.100 reaction on this, I just want to tie it to a news story and clip that happened in Ottawa. Right around

00:30:47.920 the same time, we had a conservative MP, Garnett Janis, asking a liberal government about, you know,

00:30:54.820 they're having a conversation about this program, medical assistance and dying. And he asks them,

00:30:59.660 you know, how the government intends to exclude people who are suicidal or mentally ill. Anyway,

00:31:05.440 let's play this clip and then I'll get both of your reaction to both stories.

00:31:10.460 Questions and comments of the Honourable Member for Sherwood Park for Saskatchewan.

00:31:15.020 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the government about their so-called MAID policy.

00:31:20.420 Now, they've said repeatedly that especially as it relates to mental health challenges,

00:31:24.820 their MAID policy would aim to exclude those who are suicidal. But I want to understand from

00:31:32.120 the government, isn't any person who requests MAID suicidal simply by definition, since they're

00:31:38.320 requesting MAID?

00:31:39.660 The Honourable Secretary. The Honourable Parliamentary Secretary.

00:31:45.120 Your very important question. I think it's irresponsible and untrue, honestly, to claim

00:31:49.960 that MAID has anything to do with suicide. The Government of Canada recognizes the importance

00:31:55.460 of all Canadians to have access to critical mental health resources and suicide prevention services.

00:32:01.360 I am a member of the special MAID committee and not one witness that I heard when I was there said that

00:32:10.280 this is suicidal.

00:32:13.360 So it's hypocritical and untrue to say that the government program that kills people has anything

00:32:19.620 to do with suicide. Okay. Can someone explain it to me? Andrew, can you maybe help me understand this?

00:32:26.940 How can I? No, you can't explain the inexplicable. By the way, I love that our like lighthearted

00:32:30.780 weekend show has been like fentanyl overdoses porn and MAID today. So let's just like throw in a

00:32:36.260 segment about a Holocaust remembrance and really chipper everyone up for the weekend. But

00:32:39.680 the, no, it's a serious issue. And, you know, it's one that I've talked about on my show a lot,

00:32:44.860 just given my own personal experience with mental illness. And when the government expands the criteria

00:32:50.440 as it's doing and is still committed to doing to include mental illness of which the desire to end 0.58

00:32:56.740 your life is oftentimes a fatal symptom, you can't say that it has nothing to do with suicide because

00:33:02.720 all of a sudden in those cases, the desire to end your life is in fact a symptom that the government

00:33:09.140 is trying to treat with ending your life. And there's a reason we used to call this assisted

00:33:14.740 suicide because it is taking your own life with assistance. The only reason they call it MAID is

00:33:19.940 because that was a euphemism that was, pardon the pun, made to make it sound better and more

00:33:25.460 palatable to people. So to turn around and say, oh, nothing did nothing to do with it. No,

00:33:29.800 taking your own life has nothing to do with taking your own life.

00:33:35.660 Yeah. I think the idea of this medicalization of suicide, I think is where we've gotten to. And

00:33:41.800 it's trying to say, well, it's not this gross, icky suicide thing. It's this other thing. It's just a

00:33:47.540 procedure like anything else. And this case of someone with terrible pain, that's sort of the

00:33:52.520 poster child of what we were all told that MAID was for. The really crazy thing isn't that story

00:34:00.080 in BC. It's some of the other stories in BC where the medical establishment now pushes as an option.

00:34:05.100 So there's this terrible story from, I think just before Christmas, where this woman got some form of

00:34:09.920 cancer in British Columbia and she couldn't get treatment, you know, the wait lists because the

00:34:14.560 cancer care in BC is a travesty. She couldn't get treatment. And she was said, they said, well,

00:34:19.820 you're not going to get treatment in a reasonable amount of time. Why don't we schedule you in for

00:34:24.440 MAID instead? So it wasn't, you know, your pain's unbearable. You've come to the logical decision

00:34:29.880 that ending your life is the best for you. It's the healthcare system is breaking down under the weight

00:34:35.060 of its own problems. So therefore, you should, why don't you just, you know, end your life?

00:34:41.280 So she ended up going to the United States, paying a whole bunch of money personally,

00:34:45.340 got cancer treatment, is now cancer-free, which is a fantastic outcome. And she's back in BC,

00:34:52.320 cancer-free, and she gets a phone call saying, so when do you want to schedule your MAID treatment? 1.00

00:34:56.040 They still had her down for being on the list. She's like, no, I don't need that anymore.

00:34:59.540 I got fixed. And that's what I think is really, really, really dangerous, is it's now being pushed

00:35:05.760 as another method. The outcome of medicalizing suicide is it's now being used as another outcome

00:35:11.500 for your, as part of a medical, you know, a plan. Well, we're going to try this treatment or this

00:35:17.660 treatment, or then we'll try MAID. And I think that's dangerous, disgusting, and a real, real problem.

00:35:23.500 That's where we really have to draw the line. Well, again, it comes down to like,

00:35:27.040 what kind of society do we want? Do we want a society where the government is pushing death, 0.88

00:35:31.500 and you get like calls from the state saying, are you ready to die now? We've got a spot for you.

00:35:37.560 Come on down. I think there's a similar story to when you described Hamish out of Montreal,

00:35:41.260 and it was like the story of a Paralympic hero and a star who needed a new wheelchair,

00:35:48.800 and she couldn't get one. And she made an offhand complaint saying, you know, it's hard for me to live

00:35:55.000 without a new wheelchair. You know, I don't know how much a wheelchair costs, 800 bucks,

00:35:59.780 and the Canadian government wouldn't hand one over. And so instead of getting her a wheelchair

00:36:04.660 and giving her the respect she needs, they offered her to kill herself again. And we don't even use

00:36:10.100 the word kill. Like everything about medical assistance and dying, every single word in that

00:36:14.080 phrase is a euphemism because it's not dying, it's killing. The government is killing you.

00:36:18.680 And calling it medical assistance, and it's like, no, it's state-sponsored killing. That's what it is.

00:36:26.380 Bizarre that the liberals, it's like, you know, the typical kind of Orwellian thing where they're

00:36:31.460 just changing the language so much that they've confused themselves and they don't even know what

00:36:35.560 they're talking about anymore. And it's offensive that you would even suggest that it means the

00:36:39.300 original thing that the words meant. I mean, there's just so many things about this program that I feel

00:36:44.700 like we haven't thoroughly discussed as a society. So I give the conservatives, again, credit for

00:36:49.340 bringing this up and continuing the conversation. And hopefully, you know, the government trying to

00:36:54.620 extend this program so far so that it includes people with mental illnesses, it includes minors 0.77

00:36:59.940 and children. It'll come to a point where it'll become like the transing of the kids thing where 0.85

00:37:05.340 the topics, the debate is like shoved in our face so much that we realize what's happening.

00:37:11.000 We realize that it's not the kind of society we want to live in. And more and more people

00:37:15.340 and more and more people oppose it. Andrew, did you have any more thoughts on this one?

00:37:20.480 No, I think that it's one of these issues, though, that's a very big crossover issue for a lot of

00:37:26.120 people. It's I mean, euthanasia assisted suicide have traditionally been the domain of social

00:37:30.540 conservatives. But this one has people sharing discomfort with the status quo in many, many

00:37:37.780 different sections. And it's kind of like parental rights, and that it's one of those things that may

00:37:41.300 have its roots in a voting niche, but actually is a pretty broadly appealing policy. So I think it's

00:37:47.880 politically wise, but I would just say morally right to take aim at this.

00:37:53.100 Well, Andrew, you listed all the topics that we were talking about on this Friday afternoon

00:37:57.020 lighthearted show. We're not going to talk about Holocaust survivors, but the liberal

00:38:02.120 liberal journalists in Ottawa did accuse conservatives of being anti-Semitic and using an anti-Semitic

00:38:07.840 dog whistle. So I didn't want to ask you guys about this tweet in this story, because it seems

00:38:13.120 to me that so just a background Dale Smith, who's a freelance journalist, he quote tweeted a conservative

00:38:18.500 MP, and basically said, once again, the quote, UEF globalists, unquote, is an anti-Semitic dog

00:38:27.060 whistle, and the conservatives keep using it and acting surprised at the rise of anti-Semitism.

00:38:31.660 So this is mainstream media journalism here. And basically, the implication is, if you

00:38:38.120 criticize the UEF and globalists, it's actually because you hate Jews. And that's what they 1.00

00:38:45.400 say with a straight face. They accuse conservatives of hating Jews. And not only that, but that

00:38:49.520 conservatives opposing the WF is somehow the real reason behind the rise of anti-Semitism,

00:38:55.760 which is kind of like an enormous statement.

00:38:57.940 Yeah, it's not the October 7th attacks that triggered anti-Semitism. It was me covering 0.92

00:39:02.160 Davos. That was the real cause.

00:39:05.000 Nothing to do with Israel, all because of Andrew Lawton's coverage. It's almost laughable. I don't

00:39:11.280 even want to cover it because it's so stupid, but it's actually surprising that this is what they're

00:39:15.860 still putting out in February 2024. Andrew, it's not as bad as when Yara Sachs said that Hong Kong

00:39:23.400 meant Heil Hitler. Like, it's not quite that level, but we're getting there. We're getting there. When 0.59

00:39:28.760 you talk about, you know, the World Economic Forum and globalism, which all have meanings that have

00:39:34.360 nothing to do with Jews, that is supposedly anti-Semitism. I mean, look, the one good thing is 1.00

00:39:41.280 that if people think that it might actually cause them to criticize anti-Semitism, which they've been

00:39:46.260 pretty silent on a lot of the people that believe this nonsense.

00:39:50.900 Yeah, I would say, look, what I really object to is this term dog whistle. When somebody uses dog

00:39:56.500 whistle, it's saying that they believe in conspiracy theories. I've spent my entire adult life being

00:40:03.260 involved in political communications. Getting your message across with a megaphone and spending

00:40:08.660 millions of dollars in advertising is hard. The idea that with a few slightly hidden word choices,

00:40:16.780 you can communicate secret messages to large numbers of people who are waiting and listening

00:40:21.940 for these triggers is like it is the realm of conspiracy theory. That's not how the world works.

00:40:29.140 Like politicians are direct because they have to be direct because otherwise people don't know what

00:40:33.580 the hell they're saying. So like the idea that this is a way of somehow spreading secret messages

00:40:40.620 is is totally is total lunacy. Right. You know, when we worry about anti-Semitism, we should worry

00:40:47.660 about the people marching up and down on the streets of Toronto, you know, calling for for Jews to be

00:40:53.920 hurt and for people to be to be kicked out of their jobs for supporting Israel and everything else 0.84

00:40:59.380 that that like, but that's the whole idea that there's these secret dog whistles is just reflects

00:41:05.560 a fundamentally unserious view of how the world actually works. And yet these journalists take

00:41:10.260 themselves so seriously, and they think that they're really exposing something true here that that that

00:41:15.440 the real anti-Semites are somehow the conservatives, despite, you know, to your point, you know,

00:41:21.320 conservatives are the clearest on their support for Israel as the other two parties that have a very murky

00:41:25.160 position. And no, I like it. Anyone who uses the word dog whistle, that is a dog whistle for

00:41:31.480 conspiracy theorists. So I believe if someone uses dog whistle, I now just call them out and say

00:41:37.200 that's a conspiracy theory. Well, I'll follow up with you, Hamish, on that kind of line of reasoning,

00:41:42.000 because it seems like certainly this happened to Harper, it happened to Andrew Scheer, to a lesser

00:41:46.880 extent, but it still happened to him that as soon as it was like general election time, the media just

00:41:52.380 like came out with all the conspiracy theories, like this is what the conservatives, hidden agenda,

00:41:57.700 secret agenda, they're bigots, they're homophobes, here it comes. Do you think they're just going to

00:42:02.060 use the same playbook? Like, do you see that coming for Pierre Polyev? I mean, obviously, we see the

00:42:06.400 weird Trump comparisons that we talked about this on the show before, that it's so weird to compare

00:42:11.320 Pierre Polyev to Donald Trump, because they're such totally different political figures. But do you think

00:42:17.320 that's coming? Or do you think the media has kind of learned that doesn't really work?

00:42:19.560 No, it's all coming. They've learned nothing. And liberals have learned nothing on this. You know,

00:42:24.420 it's what did Talleyrand say about the Bourbons, that they've learned nothing and forgotten nothing.

00:42:29.380 It's all the same, everything they believe, this is their whole worldview, that the conservatives have

00:42:34.180 this hidden agenda, they're all secretly, you know, members of the RNC or something. And it's all coming,

00:42:41.500 they're going to say all the same things that they say every other time. And then they will be

00:42:45.520 mystified when it doesn't work. And then they will try to blame the fact that it didn't work

00:42:49.840 on Canadians being tricked, on an institute that, you know, there was some electoral fraud.

00:42:55.480 We wait for it. It's all coming. And that's what we have. That's what we'll spend 2025.

00:43:01.960 You know, after, you know, should conservatives win the next election, I look forward to the

00:43:06.520 hand-wringing panels and CBC's dying days about, you know, what this, you know, how Canadians were 0.80

00:43:13.520 actually tricked into voting conservatives.

00:43:15.520 Well, people forget that the, you know, the first election deniers were, well, I mean, I don't know

00:43:20.100 if they were the first, but there were a very prominent group of election deniers. And it was

00:43:24.320 in Canada after the 2011 election, where they invented a story that it was somehow robocalls that

00:43:29.320 had completely fooled the public into not voting. And that was the only reason that Stephen Harper

00:43:34.260 was our prime minister. And it was like a, you know, two-year conspiracy theory that led to

00:43:39.600 hundreds of news stories, I think news awards and journalism awards that basically led us nowhere.

00:43:46.000 So. Right. We saw the same thing in the UK after Brexit, all the Facebook hacking, all that stuff,

00:43:52.600 you know, it's all been proven to be massively overstayed. There were in some cases not true.

00:43:58.300 And that's the only way they can explain that the British people would want to be out of a 0.94

00:44:02.120 malignant super state. Andrew, any thoughts on this? Any final, final thoughts on this?

00:44:09.360 Just that the conspiracy theorists, the real conspiracy theorists are the ones who spend

00:44:14.720 all day accusing everyone else of being a conspiracy theorist. And I think that's the whole point. And

00:44:19.080 you look at people like this, we were just talking about it. It's the same sort of thing where

00:44:23.180 the amount of, the amount of conspiratorialization that they need to have in their mind

00:44:28.620 to think that everyone else is doing it. It's just massive.

00:44:32.840 Right. No, absolutely. All right. I have one file story that I want to talk about just because it's

00:44:37.200 so deliciously ironic. And, you know, we usually cover Canadian stuff. This is an American story,

00:44:42.220 and it's about Donald Trump. So basically, I don't know if people have been following it too closely,

00:44:47.520 but Donald Trump recently lost a $354 million civil case where they basically accused him of inflating

00:44:54.320 his assets in order to get bank loans. And he used those bank loans to buy real estate deals.

00:45:00.440 Basically, the banks gave him the loans, and he was still in good standing with the banks. He paid

00:45:04.940 back the loans. So I have a really hard time wrapping my head around how this was a crime. But

00:45:09.940 anyway, basically, he got found guilty. And I think that this has caused a chill in the New York

00:45:16.140 kind of banking and commercial real estate community because this is kind of what they all do, right?

00:45:19.740 And so the governor of New York was trying to basically allay the concerns of investors.

00:45:27.640 She went on a radio station and just assured the New York business community that, no, no,

00:45:33.360 don't worry. This was specific to Trump. You don't have to worry about doing this kind of thing

00:45:38.200 because this was just about Trump, basically. And saying, you know, that the radio host said,

00:45:44.420 you know, if they can do this to the former president, can't they do this to anyone?

00:45:46.960 And Governor Hochul was like, no, no, don't worry. Trump was a special circumstance, which I think,

00:45:53.480 you know, does exactly what Trump is accusing them of, which is basically leading a witch hunt

00:45:59.360 and applying the rules separately. So I think this is just one of those scenarios where people who are

00:46:05.280 so into the political realm of like, Trump is evil, everything we do against Trump is justified,

00:46:11.540 and everything that, like everything we get him on is a victory. But they miss it. You take a step back

00:46:17.780 and it's like how this impacts just how regular people view the world and how regular people say

00:46:22.720 like, wait a minute, this kind of shows like a corrupted system where rules aren't really applied

00:46:28.320 evenly. I just thought this was a wild, wild story. I wanted to get your guys' thoughts on it. Hamish,

00:46:35.200 what do you think? Well, and it does exactly what presumably she wants not to happen, which is it

00:46:39.500 helps Trump. It's now a proof point that he can say this is all politically motivated. They're using

00:46:44.400 Trumped up charges to try and stop me from running for president, et cetera, et cetera. And he will now

00:46:52.880 use that quote and say it applies to any and all the prosecutions that has to do with him, whether it

00:46:58.140 does or not. And so she's any victory that anybody thinks they had over him by winning this suit is

00:47:04.860 completely null and void because he's now got proof that he can run around saying that, of course,

00:47:09.460 they're bending the laws to go after me and that they're, you know, the deep state, everything else

00:47:13.440 he wants to talk about. And it's proof of that. And so she's undone any good that she thought that had

00:47:19.720 been achieved by this. It's unbelievable. Andrew, final, final thoughts on this? Yeah. I mean,

00:47:24.100 I just take the view here that, you know, the whole system is terrified of him winning,

00:47:30.680 which is why they go through all of these steps and processes to prevent it, because if they were

00:47:35.460 sure that, you know, Joe Biden could somehow find his way to a podium and become inaugurated on or

00:47:41.900 re-inaugurated, then they would need to do all this stuff because they know that Trump will lose the

00:47:46.220 election. He'll be a two time loser. Biden wins and that's it. So you see instead very, very dirty tricks.

00:47:52.940 And, you know, I'm a firm believer in never give your opponent martyrdom. Never give your opponent

00:47:59.320 martyrdom. Don't give them an opportunity to get up and claim. Don't give them evidence in support of

00:48:06.520 their primary claim against you. And that's the thing that Hamish said. I mean, I've been clear.

00:48:12.100 I mean, I think that Trump was a vastly better candidate than Hillary Clinton. I think he was

00:48:16.880 a vastly better candidate than Joe Biden. Wouldn't have been my first choice under any normal

00:48:20.900 circumstances for president. But the thing is, is that you can't deny he has been targeted by the

00:48:27.520 system and targeted by the state. And I think that what's fascinating here, like just completely and

00:48:32.660 utterly fascinating, is that they just completely hand ammunition to him by doing what he's accused

00:48:40.800 them of doing. Yeah. Yeah. It's like he couldn't have written it any better. I mean, when I saw that

00:48:44.860 headline and I heard what Kathy Hochul said on radio, it's like, you just you just want him to win.

00:48:49.460 Like part of you must just want Trump to win so that you can like, you know, jack up your

00:48:54.240 ratings and your TV ratings. Yeah. He's the embodiment of that old line about you show me

00:48:58.860 the man, I'll show you the crime. Like we've decided he's the bad guy. So let's just what

00:49:03.360 can we do? Oh, yeah. Let's try this one. This will this will work. It's it's really it's really

00:49:07.940 entertaining. We've got got a lot of good content in the year to come with the election season. So

00:49:13.320 we won't talk about too much because we like to focus on Canadian stuff. But every once in a while,

00:49:16.820 it's just too interesting and juicy not to cover. Well, Hamish Marshall, thank you so much

00:49:22.400 for joining us. Andrew Lawton, always a pleasure. And thank you to the audience for tuning in.

00:49:27.200 Remember, everything that you just heard is off the record. Thank you so much. Have a great weekend.

00:49:31.500 Did we actually forget viewer comments again? Oh, yeah, shoot. They were in the dog.

00:49:45.500 We keep this is like the segment we have done like one out of four episodes, but we keep telling people

00:49:50.280 we're going to do it. We'll have to do a viewer comments only episode. Yeah, that way I won't

00:49:54.460 forget. Yeah. Well, I was I was sitting so still in my office for 15 minutes straight that the motion

00:50:01.480 detector didn't take movement turned off the lights. Oh, I thought I thought maybe it was like

00:50:05.420 when your kids ran up and turned off the lights and ran away or something. I just I was just like

00:50:09.760 not moving. I guess I move around more often than that. I had I was doing an interview at the

00:50:14.900 Conservative Party headquarters on whatever street it's on now a while ago. And the big boardroom like

00:50:20.060 just shut down midway through the interview because I guess we were too still. So yeah,

00:50:24.460 we'd like find our way to I was out here sort of like waving my arm around off camera.

00:50:28.260 I saw I was going to comment on it, but you were midway through a serious point. So

00:50:31.740 we get to have the fun interjections on this show. So I'm usually like a hand talker. So I'm usually

00:50:37.260 just like bobbling around. It actually affects my audio because like they always lean in and then I

00:50:42.860 lean out and lean in. You know what I actually think it is? It's because I've raised my laptop up and

00:50:46.780 the detector for it is directly pointed at me normally, but the laptop is blocking that when

00:50:51.920 it's raised up like this. You have to do what JJ does and just sit on a bouncy ball and then you

00:50:57.580 That's right. That's exactly right. Hi, everybody. Welcome to the show.

Off the Record - February 23, 2024

Poilievre continues to push back against trans ideology

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript