Rebel News Podcast - Derek Sloan kicked out of Conservative Caucus： Exclusive Interview

00:00:00.000 Hello, my Rebels. An exclusive interview with Derek Sloan, the Member of Parliament who was

00:00:05.820 just kicked out today from the Conservative Caucus in a secret vote. I talked to him just

00:00:11.900 minutes after that vote. That's ahead. But first, let me invite you to be a subscriber

00:00:16.480 to Rebel News Plus. It's just eight bucks a month, and you get the video version of these podcasts.

00:00:23.180 And today's video is so cute because Derek Sloan's kids come on the show,

00:00:28.660 and they are so lovely. It's my favorite part of the program, and you can't see that on an audio

00:00:33.420 podcast, of course. Just go to rebelnews.com and click subscribe. Eight bucks a month, and you know,

00:00:39.640 you keep our lights on here because really we don't take any money from governments,

00:00:43.060 so it's from our viewers like you. Eight bucks, that's what, half of a Netflix show?

00:00:47.860 All right, here's today's podcast.

00:00:58.660 Tonight, the Conservative Party votes to throw out Derek Sloan. We'll have an exclusive interview

00:01:10.860 with Sloan himself. It's January 20th, and this is the Ezra Levant Show.

00:01:15.920 Why should others go to jail when you're a biggest carbon consumer I know?

00:01:21.860 There's 8,500 customers here, and you won't give them an answer.

00:01:25.940 The only thing I have to say to the government about why I'm publishing it is because it's my

00:01:30.520 bloody right to do so.

00:01:36.740 On Monday, Aaron O'Toole announced in a tweet that he wanted to fire a Conservative MP named Derek Sloan.

00:01:43.260 You might remember Sloan as a Conservative candidate for the leadership of the party,

00:01:48.280 a rival to Aaron O'Toole. Now, during the campaign, O'Toole came to Sloan's defense,

00:01:54.220 saying that just because Sloan had some Conservative ideas doesn't mean he should be

00:01:57.760 cancelled or deplatformed. In fact, O'Toole went much further, saying he was against

00:02:02.560 cancel culture in general. Well, all that ended on Monday when O'Toole used a trumped-up excuse

00:02:09.060 to say he wanted Sloan out. I won't go deep into the excuse now. We've talked about it in the past

00:02:14.180 few days. It's basically this. One of the many thousands of online donors to Sloan's campaign

00:02:21.360 was a Frederick P. Fromm, which was a nom de plume of Paul Fromm, a racist. Who would possibly know that?

00:02:29.520 Well, as soon as Sloan heard about it, he refunded the money. But Aaron O'Toole, in that tweet,

00:02:34.120 said that was an atrocious and unforgivable, gross lack of judgment and due diligence. No, it wasn't.

00:02:41.240 And now Aaron O'Toole has set such a low bar by which he will be expected by the media and the

00:02:46.460 liberals to sack his own MPs. Well, it came to a vote today. That's one of the new rules of the

00:02:51.700 Conservative caucus is the leader himself can't kick anyone out. And in the end, the caucus did vote

00:02:59.420 to kick out Sloan. Moments after that vote, I interviewed the man via Skype. Here's that

00:03:07.060 interview. Come back afterwards, because I did another interview today, too. And joining me now

00:03:12.500 via Skype from his home is Derek Sloan. Mr. Sloan, welcome back to the program. We spoke to you last

00:03:19.740 during the Conservative leadership campaign. As of now, you are no longer a Conservative MP. Is that true?

00:03:26.380 That is definitely true. As of about an hour ago, or even slightly less, I was notified that

00:03:33.520 I am no longer a Conservative MP. Now, tell me about the process by which

00:03:38.420 you were terminated. I understand there was a caucus meeting via Zoom. Is that correct?

00:03:44.640 Were you a part of that meeting? How did that meeting go?

00:03:48.240 So I was a part of that meeting. And in that meeting, basically, and I should say up front that

00:03:54.100 the procedure, procedurally, it was entirely fair. You know, I was able to make it at as much time as

00:04:00.660 I wanted to make an opening and closing statement. And then in the intervening, others had, you know,

00:04:05.840 some time to make comments as well. Obviously, the outcome is ridiculous. And of course, will damage 0.97

00:04:14.280 the party immensely. But they've made their bed and now they have to lie in it.

00:04:18.860 Now, I'm unfamiliar with the process by which an MP can be ejected from a caucus. Were there rules?

00:04:27.440 Was there a prosecutor? Who made the case? What was, how was the resolution framed? Can you tell us a

00:04:34.420 little bit how it went down? You say you felt it was a fair process. What exactly was that process?

00:04:41.720 Well, there were some changes to the Reform Act, or I believe the Reform Act made these changes

00:04:50.120 several years ago. And what it did was, at the beginning of every parliamentary session,

00:04:56.060 each party gets to decide several things. One, whether caucus will have the ability to eject a

00:05:03.320 member or the default positions that the leader can unilaterally do so. The other thing that they

00:05:10.080 decide is whether the caucus can eject the leader, for example. And then there's a third thing

00:05:16.100 relating to interim leaders and another thing relating to, I believe, the caucus chair.

00:05:21.180 Now, our party is one of the only parties that consistently votes to allow caucus to have that

00:05:26.760 prerogative. And typically, that's a good thing as far as democracy goes, because, you know, it's better

00:05:34.720 that, you know, a plurality of caucus has a decision over one member than just the arbitrary whims of the

00:05:40.560 leader. Now, you know, no one else really says how they vote on these things. And there was some

00:05:44.980 speculation as to whether the Liberals had done this or not in the last Parliament with regard to Jody

00:05:49.560 Wilson-Raybould. But in any event, that's the process. So our party has always voted that we would

00:05:56.620 give caucus the right to determine whether a person should stay in it or not, which is actually a

00:06:02.580 positive thing, because the default is that the leader on his whim could kick somebody out.

00:06:07.040 They typically, we have not chosen as a caucus to be able to give the leader a review. And the

00:06:12.320 rationale for that is typically, well, listen, it should be up to members who the leader is. And so,

00:06:18.720 you know, if caucus kicks out the leader, then you may have a situation where you have a leaderless

00:06:23.980 party, but the members have elected a certain leader. And I understand that process. And I'm

00:06:29.340 somewhat familiar with the laws and their rationale. But tell me a little bit more, I'm sorry to

00:06:34.240 interrupt you, but tell me a little bit more about how it went down today. Was there a prosecutor? Was

00:06:40.040 there a particular accusation or a charge? Was there a list of quarrels with you? Or was it all just vague

00:06:47.820 and holistic? Yeah. So basically to kick off this thing under the Reform Act, you need to have a

00:06:55.960 certain number of signatures. So I believe, so for our caucus, it's 25 signatures will trigger this. So

00:07:03.220 I suppose that might mean 20% of caucus or something like that. So our caucus chair got a sheet of paper

00:07:09.520 and it didn't have any list of charges. It just was the following names want to review the status of

00:07:15.660 Derek Sloan in caucus. And now those names were not revealed to me other than the person whose

00:07:21.740 name was on the letterhead itself. And so that person, I do know. Everybody else, I do not. But

00:07:29.420 25, I think it was 28 signatures were submitted, which got the ball rolling on this. Okay. Are you

00:07:35.040 at liberty to tell us whose letterhead it was? Right now, I'm at liberty to do anything, Ezra. That's

00:07:41.220 one of the bonuses of being an independent MP. Right. And will you tell us who put together

00:07:47.040 the letter? Was it Aaron O'Toole himself? It was not Aaron. It was Phil McCollum, an MP from the

00:07:54.840 Brantford area, who has had a vendetta against me since the Dr. Tam comments in the spring.

00:08:01.300 If you say there were 28 names on it, now in any votes, you want to have a scrutineer,

00:08:09.180 you want to check the integrity of the vote. Did you have a scrutineer? Was there some sort

00:08:15.400 of authority who counted the votes? I mean, you say you think there were 28 names on it,

00:08:22.240 but it sounds like you don't know there were. So right there, my instincts as a former lawyer would

00:08:28.860 be who checked, who confirmed, who verified. Was there some sort of presiding judge over this whole

00:08:35.860 process? So the judge, as it were, was the caucus chair. Who's that? So that is Tom Kimmich.

00:08:44.080 Okay. He is an MP from Alberta. I would say that I get along quite well with Tom, and I trust him,

00:08:51.960 and I don't believe that any foul play occurred in any element of this with respect to process.

00:09:00.040 So you made an opening statement, I think I heard you say, and then various MPs criticized you. Is that

00:09:07.540 correct?

00:09:08.800 Yeah. So both Phil and I were given opening and closing statements. The leader was able to talk

00:09:16.040 twice, and everybody else was able to talk once. So in the intervening time between closing and ending,

00:09:23.440 anybody could talk that wanted to for up to two minutes. And so, yeah, and so the bulk of the

00:09:31.620 comments, nearly all the, many comments were critical. Now, you know, caucus meetings are a

00:09:37.620 weird beast because, you know, those who may be in favor of me, you know, may have, may very well

00:09:43.000 have voted in favor of me, but wouldn't necessarily have wanted to make comments publicly for fear of

00:09:47.800 being targeted in the future. So, you know, so it doesn't, just because it was predominantly negative

00:09:53.360 doesn't, you know, necessarily mean that every single person was against me. But the comments, yes,

00:09:57.820 were largely negative. And, you know, the interesting thing is that, you know, the common

00:10:03.720 understanding is that the communications on this have been completely botched. Nobody bought into this

00:10:09.160 donation garbage with the Paul Fromm. It turned into just a, well, we don't really like the way 0.53

00:10:15.180 Derek operates. He's always getting us into trouble. He's going to, you know, we're going to

00:10:18.780 lose, you know, lose the next election. You know, to borrow a quote that you may have seen when you

00:10:24.720 watched The Passion a few days ago, you know, is it better that one die for the nation? Or in this

00:10:32.280 case, is it better that one person be sacrificed for the safety of the party rather than that we all

00:10:37.720 suffer? And of course, I don't agree with that logic, but that was essentially what came forward.

00:10:42.880 Now, I think I heard you say we are unaware of the vote count, or do you know how the vote

00:10:48.900 split at the end of the day? I do not know. I know that, you know, again, I trust the process.

00:10:56.980 We use some sort of a company, not Dominion Voting. I was going to ask. We use some Alberta company

00:11:03.880 that's apparently owned by conservatives. Frankly, I don't in any way doubt the results. And I do trust

00:11:09.480 Tom. Tom Kimmich is an honorable person. I know him. I mean, he's a good egg. And, you know,

00:11:14.440 I would never trust any politician. But if you had to trust one, I'd probably put him on the list.

00:11:19.560 Well, let me ask you this, because I think there's a lot of problems with the way you were sacked

00:11:24.980 and the way you describe the criticisms of you. It sounds like the donation from Frederick P.

00:11:34.060 Fromm was just a fig leaf for, you know, other pre-existing, you know, disagreements with you.

00:11:44.540 The thing is, being done in the name of that trivial donation that no one caught. I mean,

00:11:51.860 I follow anti-Semites because I'm Jewish and I'm interested in it. And I know the name Paul Fromm. 0.96

00:11:56.340 I do not know the name Frederick P. Fromm. And I think I follow this stuff more closely than 99.9%

00:12:02.280 of people. So I think that's, I don't think anyone credibly thinks that that's the real charge against

00:12:07.680 you. Here's my point. And you tell me, was this addressed by anyone in the debate? Aaron O'Toole

00:12:14.260 has just set the most ridiculous hair trigger standard by which I don't think other MPs will 0.59

00:12:21.000 be sacked, by which the party will be hoist on its own petard. If you take a donation from anyone,

00:12:26.940 even if they're using a pen name, even if it's trivial, even if it came in online, you now have

00:12:32.700 that entire person's baggage put around your neck. And I think that's insane. Please tell me some MPs in

00:12:40.660 the Conservative Party pointed out that having that kind of a hair trigger standard is nuts.

00:12:47.440 Everybody recognized that. And that's why they tried to make it about, you know, me personally

00:12:52.840 or other things. You know, I will say this, Ezra, what I believe this is all about, I have been

00:12:59.040 working hard to recruit grassroots members to be delegates in our upcoming convention. And I've been

00:13:06.120 very successful at that. And I believe higher ups were terrified at the, you know, the possibility

00:13:14.280 of basically delegates that believe similarly to me when it comes to, you know, against the Paris

00:13:19.300 Accord and all these other types of things, actually going to the convention and, you know,

00:13:24.120 passing policies that would embarrass Aaron O'Toole. And so I believe that this was created exactly for

00:13:33.200 that reason. And frankly, a lot of MPs were saying, oh, well, you know, how dare you interfere in

00:13:38.920 my EDA? And, you know, MPs need to realize they're not the prince of their EDA. They're not

00:13:44.340 little earls of fiefdoms. They are the servant of the members of their riding. And if I have more

00:13:50.980 control over their EDA and their riding than they do, then that's a problem. And it's not my fault.

00:13:57.560 And so that is what this is about. It's about the influence that I have. And frankly, listen,

00:14:02.260 this isn't for nefarious purposes. I strongly believe that the principles I stand for are what will

00:14:08.040 make this party strong and I will fight. I will use my influence, whether it's Facebook or whatever

00:14:12.440 else. So, you know, these people are jealous. They made a foolish error and they will see

00:14:20.140 the fury rain down. And, you know, it's just beginning. You know, you mentioned, I think you 0.99

00:14:26.780 said Phil McColeman was the one on whose letterhead the accusation was made. Is that right?

00:14:33.240 That is correct.

00:14:33.740 Okay. I am not well familiar with him. So obviously he was a condemner of you. Are you

00:14:41.100 willing to tell us any names of any other MPs who condemned you or senators or any who stood

00:14:48.720 with you, even if they disagreed with you? I saw online a lot of people who have had policy

00:14:54.340 disagreements with you or even personality disagreements with you saying this is nuts,

00:15:00.120 whatever you think of Derek Sloan. Are you at liberty? Is there any reason why you wouldn't

00:15:05.480 tell us some of the players behind the scenes? And the reason I think it's relevant is because I want

00:15:12.020 to know as a small C conservative who believes in cancel culture and who doesn't, who believes in due

00:15:18.560 process and who doesn't. I want to know who has the courage to stand up to Aaron O'Toole when he's wrong

00:15:24.400 and who doesn't. That's a real question. And I want to know who's sticking the dagger in your back

00:15:29.540 for what I think is a trumped up charge. I want to say something I haven't heard you say. I'm going

00:15:34.340 to come back to that question, but let me interrupt myself. I have not heard you say something

00:15:40.920 which surprises me. Your wife and your beautiful children, who I've never met, I just see pictures.

00:15:49.200 You know what, Mike? Jen is right here. Come here, Jen. They're visible minorities. Like, I mean,

00:15:53.320 let me just say, let me just talk about the elephant in the room. You are married to a woman of color 1.00

00:16:00.120 and your children are the same. And the idea that you would take 130 bucks from some washed up,

00:16:08.660 you know, septuagenarian racist failure as some secret symbolic alliance is so absurd.

00:16:19.200 But you don't mention that. I mean, why didn't you, you didn't play that card? It's not a 0.66

00:16:23.480 conservative card to play. You don't, you don't like to mention that your whole family is minorities.

00:16:29.200 You know, listen, this was so ridiculous. I didn't, I didn't want to drag them into this, 0.87

00:16:34.460 but you're, you're right. I mean, listen, I, I, I was joking earlier today. My wife has a West

00:16:39.260 Indian background. I eat more curry at home than I do other types of food. So listen, the idea that I'm,

00:16:44.840 you know, uh, uh, you know, some kind of racist or something is just, is, is, it's preposterous.

00:16:50.520 And people know that. I mean, my family has been in all kinds of photos that I post publicly. Uh,

00:16:55.800 so this, I mean, this was just so absurd. I didn't want to, you know, drag them through the mud and,

00:16:59.980 and be like a, see, I have a, I have a, you know, uh, uh, such and such friend, or I have a this or

00:17:05.720 that. I mean, you know, it was ridiculous, but you, you raise a great point.

00:17:09.200 You know what? I just think it's atrociously unfair. Uh, and this is done to conservatives 0.89

00:17:15.140 all the time. Conservatives who live a colorblind life are accused of that, which the other side

00:17:21.280 does. I mean, hearing that from blackface, Justin Trudeau gets my dander up. Now I interrupted myself, 1.00

00:17:26.360 which is not rare. Uh, I was asking you if you were in a position to tell me and other viewers who

00:17:33.560 have a public interest in knowing the character of the conservative party caucus, do you feel

00:17:39.440 motivated to tell me and our viewers any of your attackers or defenders? Uh, and if they made

00:17:47.040 particularly thoughtful or cruel remarks? Well, I will say this. Um, I will be dropping names as time

00:17:55.760 goes on. Uh, when it comes to those who defended me, I actually, um, I actually don't want to do them

00:18:01.760 any disservice in terms of having them targeted. I will say that, um, there were, uh, a group,

00:18:09.420 uh, a group of people, the same types that defended me before or many of them, uh, who were actively

00:18:15.560 calling around and, uh, actively defending me. And I have, uh, there are certainly some very close

00:18:21.240 friends that I have in caucus, but I don't want to make their, uh, their current life miserable by

00:18:25.660 pointing them out. But, uh, I will certainly, as time goes on, be dropping more names, uh, of those,

00:18:32.680 uh, turncoats who, uh, are using, um, you know, fancy words and caucus solidarity and, oh, you're not

00:18:41.040 playing as a team as cover for, uh, basically, uh, trying to sideline a large part of, uh, uh,

00:18:49.100 hardcore conservatives that support them. Yeah. I just don't get it. I mean, you know, I'm,

00:18:53.720 I think I'm older than you, uh, back in the day, I was Calgary Southwest when the party was fractured

00:19:00.160 when it was called the Canadian Alliance. And I remember when Stephen Harper came in,

00:19:03.860 the first thing he did was he bolted back on the splittists and the democratic representative 0.95

00:19:10.060 caucus. You might remember Monty Solberg, Jay Hill, Deborah Gray had split off. Harper welded them

00:19:15.520 back on. Then he met with Peter McKay, welded that part back on. And he spent years adding,

00:19:21.780 not subtracting, not subtracting. I just don't get it. How do you move from minority opposition

00:19:28.180 to majority government by splitting and pushing out? I don't get the math. I, I don't understand

00:19:36.040 how throwing, not just you and your squad and maybe people who affiliate with you, but anyone

00:19:42.140 who hates this splittism and this cancel culturism, how is that going to win things for Aaron O'Toole?

00:19:49.260 I, I don't even get it. Yeah. In all honesty, they think if they sacrifice me,

00:19:54.620 they're going to win some more soccer moms in the nine Oh five. That's, that's literally the 0.99

00:19:57.980 calculus. And we'll see how wrong they are when this next election happens. Yeah. You know what?

00:20:02.800 I know you probably have a gazillion other calls to take. Um, I'm sure Rosemary Barton is next on

00:20:08.420 your list of people to call if, if, if she's not suing you already, looks like you have a little

00:20:12.660 person there. Yeah. Oh, those are cuties. Who, who do we have there? Hi, Fiona. Nice to meet you. And

00:20:22.960 who, who's on your other side? Who are you? Um, Nora. This one is Nora and this one is Calum.

00:20:30.980 Well, aren't you cute as a button. The three of you is like peas in a pod. Lovely,

00:20:36.540 lovely family, lovely children. Thanks for saying hi kids.

00:20:41.540 That's perfect.

00:20:42.560 What a beautiful family. And you know what? I mean, in these wretched days of ugly, dirty politics,

00:20:51.960 I am absolutely certain just looking at those cherubic faces that that is solace for any slings 1.00

00:20:59.320 and arrows that can be thrown at you in that dirty building called parliament. I'm sure you come home

00:21:04.100 to those beautiful kids and you really don't even care. That's a fact. That's a fact. Well,

00:21:09.880 listen, beautiful family. Um, I do have one last question and I'll let you go cause, um, it's a very

00:21:15.620 busy day for you. I hope your answer is yes, because I like to be an optimist at the end of

00:21:22.280 the day. Please tell me that there were people in senior positions, senior critics, long time

00:21:29.500 conservatives, shadow cabinet positions of note. Please tell me that there were people of influence

00:21:36.180 in the party who talked not about your personality or quarrels and not about this trumped up charge of

00:21:42.680 taking 130 bucks from some anonymous crank. But please tell me there was someone senior in the

00:21:48.260 party who was talking about fighting against cancel culture and deplatforming. Can you give me that?

00:21:54.880 And I'm not asking for a name. I'm just saying, please tell me that there is something conservative

00:22:00.540 left in the conservative party. The, the, the only people who were fighting for me and who spoke up at

00:22:06.800 all were, were some rank and file. Um, I'm not aware of any, uh, uh, high level person that, uh,

00:22:14.100 that, that actively defended me. And I don't know what happened behind the scenes. I can't speak to

00:22:18.980 that, but to my knowledge, just rank and file. Well, I am deeply, deeply disappointed to hear that

00:22:27.180 answer. I was so hoping that you would have thrown me a bone there. I am deeply disappointed

00:22:33.060 in the shadow cabinet, but I should not be surprised. Um, that is very frustrating. How

00:22:40.920 many people were, were on the call? Was it, uh, you got 141 MPs and senators. How many folks were

00:22:46.820 on the zoom call altogether? You know what? Uh, I think it was in the one thirties. I forget the

00:22:52.200 exact number. So everyone was engaged. It was pretty, pretty involved. And my guess is that some of the

00:22:57.540 senators may not have been there because under the rules of this legislation, they don't actually vote.

00:23:01.880 They can talk if they want, but they don't actually vote. So they could be that the missing

00:23:06.120 numbers were senators. So you had about 130 out of 141. That's an incredible turnout. Clearly it's,

00:23:12.960 uh, well, I mean, I, it's, it's the most important issue in the party right now, because I think it

00:23:19.980 goes to the character of the party. I think that the party failed the character test. Derek, I don't

00:23:24.680 know what you think about it, but, uh, I mean, I'm, I'm a fan of yours. Um, I, I think you,

00:23:31.020 uh, your policy stances in the leadership were excellent. I think people are being politically

00:23:37.100 correct about your comments. I think you're really one of the few conservative MPs who

00:23:42.020 criticizes the government. Um, and so we, uh, have set up a website. We call it stand with

00:23:50.420 sloan.com and we just launched it about five minutes ago and I can see it has 188 signatures

00:23:59.900 on it. And this is for people who either stand with you personally, stand with your ideas,

00:24:06.380 stand with your projects, or simply stand against the cancel culture. I, I'm going to sign this 0.95

00:24:13.420 petition myself. I'm not a party member. I'm just someone who thinks that you should never cancel

00:24:19.460 an MP this way. And I understand you were actually, that you weren't actually ever called by Aaron O'Toole

00:24:27.620 before he announced he was going to seek your termination. Is that true? Yeah, not before and

00:24:33.580 not after. Aaron O'Toole had still not contacted you other than his general remarks on the zoom

00:24:39.420 call today. That's correct. You know, firing people is an unfortunate job that every boss has

00:24:45.520 to do. And, uh, I think it's a, a sign of someone's character to at least call someone, if not look at

00:24:53.740 them in the eyes when you fire them. Has he sent you an email or a text? I've had no communication

00:25:00.420 with him at all, uh, before this event or through and, and, or after.

00:25:08.360 I am very disappointed in that answer. If you, if you're firing a man for good reasons or for bad,

00:25:13.600 you look him in the eye and you tell him, and maybe you listen to what he says in reply. I'm deeply

00:25:18.660 disappointed in that answer. But again, I'm not surprised if you stand with Sloan, go to

00:25:25.480 standwithsloan.com. I see we're now up to 244 signatures. Derek, thanks for being here today.

00:25:32.160 Thank you for showing us your beautiful family. I know that you'll be fine because you've got them

00:25:37.640 and, uh, I don't know what the future will hold for you. The future for independent, uh, candidates

00:25:43.720 in Canada is lean, but, uh, perhaps there are other important jobs for you left to do. I don't know

00:25:51.740 if you have any thoughts of what you'll do next right now, if you're going to think about it for a

00:25:54.920 while. There are no thoughts other than I'm staying here to fight and I'm staying here to

00:25:59.740 be even a more vocal advocate than before. In fact, I've been unleashed in a way to fight for

00:26:05.300 the things that matter to all of us. So I'm not going anywhere. Well, I hope you'll continue to

00:26:10.260 talk with us. I've enjoyed our conversations over the year. As always, we extend invitations

00:26:15.400 to your former boss, Aaron O'Toole. He did talk with me in an email interview and then he was scared

00:26:22.260 of his own shadow in a strange way. I think that may have, uh, been a snowflake that turned

00:26:27.980 into an avalanche for 10 days. The party's been devouring itself and it has not been a pretty

00:26:32.320 sight. I think he should have a little more courage, but I don't think you can get a courage

00:26:36.440 transplant at his age. Oh, well, he's welcome to come on and, uh, and make his case. I doubt 1.00

00:26:42.500 he will. Let me reiterate our invitation to any conservative MP or Senator to come on the

00:26:47.980 show on the same terms everyone else is invited on. Derek Sloan, great to talk with you. Good luck.

00:26:54.080 Thank you. Talk to you soon. Well, you can watch the rest of that live stream where

00:26:58.080 I go in depth in the issue and take viewer comments. You can find that at our YouTube page.

00:27:04.780 Up next, a review of the inauguration of Joseph Biden, including a review of his speech

00:27:10.820 with our friend Joel Pollack. That's next.

00:27:24.920 This is America's day. This is democracy's day, a day of history and hope of renewal and resolve

00:27:35.160 through a crucible for the ages. America has been tested anew and America has risen to the

00:27:42.920 challenge. Today, we celebrate the triumph, not of a candidate, but of a cause, the cause

00:27:51.340 of democracy. The people, the will of the people has been heard and the will of the people has

00:27:59.580 been heeded. Well, that's a clip from Joe Biden's inaugural address today. I watched it.

00:28:04.380 I found it fairly, well, I have to say I didn't find it convincing because the whole time I was

00:28:10.080 thinking he looks like someone who didn't write a speech, barely understands it as he reads it,

00:28:16.100 and will forget it as soon as he's done saying it. I truly believe that Joe Biden is not at the

00:28:21.700 height of his cognitive powers and that this is something that will actually be used by the

00:28:27.000 Democrats to their advantage. They'll trot out this friendly old man who smiles and reads a few

00:28:32.460 pre-printed lines in a teleprompter. He'll answer few of any questions and he'll be trotted off

00:28:37.480 while the real work of the Democratic administration is done by other people off screen. So I don't have

00:28:44.120 much to say about the inaugural address because I don't think it means anything other than what some

00:28:48.660 speechwriters thought. I don't think it truly represents a vision of the president. In fact,

00:28:53.580 those things that did have any meaning seem to me to be a bit of a lie. Talks about unifying America,

00:28:59.680 red and blue, didn't ring true with the extreme divisiveness and the hunting down of Trump with

00:29:05.840 an attempt to impeach him a second time in his final days and the vetting of soldiers in the

00:29:11.780 National Guard now for political ideology and just the ratcheting up of the rhetoric in real life,

00:29:17.640 not the ratcheting down. That's my point of view. But look, I'm just a Canadian up here

00:29:21.280 in Toronto. I don't know what's going on. But one of my favorite guys to help us navigate these

00:29:26.900 politics is a Republican who lives in a very Democrat state. You know who I'm talking about?

00:29:31.740 Our friend Joel Pollack, senior editor at large at Breitbart.com. And we've caught him now on the

00:29:37.560 highways of that very state. Joel, you got to promise me that you'll keep your eyes on the road.

00:29:43.120 I appreciate you talking to us while you're driving, but don't crash, okay?

00:29:47.260 If I keep my eyes on the road, that'll be an improvement from my normal practice.

00:29:50.760 That's very funny. Now, I'm sure you watched the inauguration or at least listened to it on the

00:29:54.780 radio as you were driving. I'm not going to pay a lot of attention to it because I don't think it

00:29:59.820 reflects the president. Am I wrong? Well, let me give you my assessment of the speech as a speech,

00:30:06.420 first of all. I thought it was a very good speech. And I think it was probably the best speech Joe

00:30:11.320 Biden has given that I can remember. There were some weak points and very concerning things in the

00:30:17.760 speech that I'll get to in a moment. But let's just talk about the good, first of all. I think it's

00:30:21.760 good that he talked about unity. And he didn't just talk about it as a line or two. It really

00:30:27.000 was the entire speech. And I think that's important. I think he has a lot to do to unify

00:30:33.100 the country. He ran a very divisive campaign. His party is busy trying to punish Trump out of office,

00:30:39.800 you know, post-presidency. And of course, there was the Capitol riot two weeks ago.

00:30:44.720 So given the setting and given the context, I think the speech was very good in terms of its

00:30:52.880 focus on unity. I think he had some very good lines. We must end this uncivil war. I think that

00:30:58.360 was the line of the speech. And I think that'll be remembered. I think that he'll be remembered for

00:31:03.440 that. I think that's the way he wants to be thought of as a president. And I think he did himself

00:31:10.280 a really good turn by making unity the focus of the speech. Now, the negative part of the speech

00:31:18.680 was a section about truth. And Joe Biden has promoted this conceit that somehow he represents

00:31:28.100 truth and the opposition represents lies. And he went after what he called lies for power and for

00:31:34.400 profit. I'm paraphrasing slightly. It may have been the other way around, lies for profit and for power.

00:31:40.280 But first of all, it's not true that other people lie and Joe Biden tells the truth. I mean,

00:31:45.940 Joe Biden is one of the most notorious liars in the history of American politics. He dropped out 0.94

00:31:50.840 of his first presidential race because he faked his resume and he plagiarized the speech.

00:31:55.180 He also campaigned on the fine people hoax and many other lies. He continues to lie. A couple weeks

00:32:00.840 ago, he lied about the president holding a Bible upside down. I mean, Joe Biden can't tell the truth.

00:32:05.860 But aside from the hypocrisy, it was a subtle endorsement of the cancel culture. The idea that

00:32:13.160 the social media platforms are going to try to get rid of users and groups that hold alternative views

00:32:22.660 that the left considers untrue. But on issue after issue, like climate change, for example,

00:32:29.620 you're going to find that what the left considers untrue is simply skepticism or an alternative view

00:32:35.240 that might actually turn out to be correct. So I was very concerned about Joe Biden's

00:32:40.220 line or paragraph about going after lies and pursuing lies. He didn't specify what he would do.

00:32:47.760 He said, we have a responsibility to tell the truth. Well, that's fine. But he did not emphasize

00:32:51.800 free speech. And that was a big problem. In Trump's farewell address yesterday, he spoke about the

00:32:57.320 importance of free speech. It would not have been difficult for Joe Biden to do the same.

00:33:01.220 He didn't really do that. So I think that's very concerning. That's why if you look at the

00:33:06.140 Breitbart headlines today, they're all about how Joe Biden called for unity and then demonized his

00:33:11.080 opponent. I think that's perhaps a less charitable reading than the one I just gave, but it's not

00:33:15.660 untrue. I mean, I think that is actually pretty accurate. After making this great call for unity,

00:33:20.820 he signaled that there's going to be a kind of intolerance for views that he considers to be untrue.

00:33:26.040 And that's where the fight is right now. So that's why there's division, because Democrats

00:33:31.440 insist they have a monopoly on truth. And of course, they don't. Many of the things they believe

00:33:35.500 are simply false. And they think they're true because they live in a media echo chamber that

00:33:40.300 doesn't encounter an alternative perspective. So that was what was bad in the speech.

00:33:45.300 The other noteworthy thing about the speech is that it had no policy in it whatsoever.

00:33:50.460 This is one of the few inaugural addresses that I can remember. It may be the only one

00:33:56.520 in recent memory that had no declarations of policy or even policy goals, really. It was just

00:34:04.200 completely bereft of any kind of policy. And that might have been fine, given the context. Maybe we

00:34:11.220 don't want to talk about policy when the country is trying to come together. That's the most important

00:34:15.480 priority. But there are going to be some big policy moves. There already are some underway on his

00:34:20.900 first day in office. So it was kind of interesting that he didn't signal a policy direction the way

00:34:26.300 Obama did, for example, and the way Trump certainly did in his inaugural address. So I don't think it

00:34:30.900 was a remarkable address on its own. I don't think it was particularly well written. But it was a very

00:34:35.820 good speech in that it emphasized unity. And I do think Joe Biden believes in it. I'm not sure he knows

00:34:41.460 how to do it. And his party is busy making everything worse with this continued impeachment

00:34:46.640 and so forth and the pursuit of dissident views, the attempt to stifle free speech online that he's

00:34:52.400 kind of endorsed. In fact, it's more than kind of. He actually has endorsed it. His campaign pushed

00:34:58.080 Facebook to get conservatives offline and that sort of thing. So I think it remains to be seen if Joe

00:35:04.680 Biden can follow through on that commitment for unity. But it wasn't a bad start. And one other thing I'm just

00:35:09.760 reminded of, he asked the nation to join in a moment of silence or public prayer over the victims

00:35:15.740 of coronavirus. Now, I'm not so sold on the idea of public mourning for the victims of coronavirus in

00:35:22.600 quite the way the Democrats want us to do it. It's almost as if they want us to be continually mournful.

00:35:27.480 Joe Biden talked about, I think he called it a dismal winter or something like that. I'm not into that.

00:35:32.960 I do think people need to be remembered and honored and so forth. And there need to be memorials,

00:35:37.120 but it can't be a constant memorial. We can't walk around under a dark cloud. But I do think it's

00:35:42.420 important that he said his first act as president would be to offer a prayer. That's really a social

00:35:46.820 conservative thing to do. And so if there's any hope that he can follow through on this promise

00:35:52.100 of unity, it was in that gesture. So I would grade the speech as very good. I don't know if it means

00:35:56.780 anything for the future of his presidency. In fact, I said earlier today that this will probably be the

00:36:00.560 best day of Joe Biden's presidency because it was the one thing he was supposed to do,

00:36:05.080 right, was supposed to win the election and take Donald Trump out of the picture. So he's done

00:36:09.560 that now. And I don't think there's much left for him to do. But I think it's a good start,

00:36:15.800 a better start than I anticipated.

00:36:17.660 Huh. Well, you're always optimistic. And that's one of the reasons we like to hear from you.

00:36:22.360 Hopeful might be another word. You know, it's funny, because I remember when he was talking about

00:36:26.300 truth. And whenever a politician, whenever a government starts implying it will be the truth,

00:36:32.440 that's when I get nervous. And we see in Canada, Justin Trudeau tracking a parallel track just two

00:36:39.380 days ago in the Globe and Mail, senior Trudeau officials announcing that they plan to create a

00:36:43.460 new department that will be in charge of social media regulation. So obviously working in tandem

00:36:50.420 with the Democrats on that, no doubt about it. But I was thinking about his talk about truth

00:36:55.160 and a little bit about reconciliation, which I didn't believe. And those two words reminded me of

00:36:59.940 something from South African. I know you're originally from there a long time ago.

00:37:03.580 After apartheid, there were a truth and reconciliation committee. And you correct me if my memory is

00:37:09.560 wrong, Joel. But the idea was to air things out, not in a way to inflame things, but just to let

00:37:16.860 people have their say, to let people put on the record their grief and grievances, to let people

00:37:22.200 face opponents they could never face before and speak truth to defrock power. I don't know.

00:37:29.000 It just seemed like it was, at least with the reports we got in Canada, that it was a healthy

00:37:34.200 airing out of the history, something that maybe should have been done in the Soviet Union after

00:37:39.180 it fell, something that was done to some degree after the fall of Nazi Germany. A truth and 0.99

00:37:45.780 reconciliation committee, not a vengeance committee. I think that Joe Biden and the Democrats are

00:37:52.760 going to be the opposite of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Committee. I don't think

00:37:58.680 they want the truth. I don't think they want reconciliation. I think they want to say what

00:38:02.500 they believe in is the truth. And the only reconciliation that is offered to the right

00:38:06.460 is the reconciliation of surrender.

00:38:08.800 I think that's probably true. And let me talk about the Truth and Reconciliation Commission

00:38:15.920 for a second. And if you want to read more about it, by the way, let me plug my book,

00:38:20.240 which is new, just came out a week ago, called How Not to Be an S-Hole Country, Lessons from

00:38:25.660 South Africa. So you can find that on Amazon. It's done quite well. And the whole first chapter

00:38:30.200 really is about this idea of reconciliation. So South Africa had the Truth and Reconciliation

00:38:34.580 Commission. And you're right. Part of the point of it was to allow victims of the apartheid

00:38:40.580 regime to confront people who had committed human rights abuses. But the reason that the

00:38:46.000 TRC, as it was known, was successful wasn't just that. That's the part that got reported

00:38:52.000 in the Western press, especially in the United States and Canada and elsewhere in Europe. But

00:38:58.020 the reason the TRC was important to South Africans goes beyond that. It was also a chance

00:39:03.880 to admit that the liberation movements, the African National Congress and others,

00:39:10.380 also committed human rights abuses in the anti-apartheid struggle, that they themselves

00:39:15.980 had committed acts of terrorism. They had killed innocent people. They had bombed bars and restaurants.

00:39:22.720 They had their own system of prison camps where they tortured suspected informants and suspected

00:39:27.880 dissidents, often innocent people. There were reports of ANC fighters outside the country

00:39:33.860 in these military camps, raping women from local communities. All of that got aired out as

00:39:39.780 well. Now, the ANC was not happy about that. And they argued, there was a book by a couple of

00:39:45.620 ministers, future ministers in the Mandela government, who argued that you cannot judge the liberation

00:39:51.740 struggle by the same moral standard as you judge the apartheid regime, that these were good versus

00:39:57.980 evil. And you can't judge the good struggle by the same standard that you would judge the evil regime.

00:40:05.820 The TRC, under the leadership of Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who's also a morally complicated figure, but

00:40:11.420 in this regard, he was really in the right. The TRC said, no, we apply a common standard to human rights

00:40:18.980 abuses, no matter who commits them and for what purpose. And that was why the TRC succeeded.

00:40:24.900 What the Democrats in this country don't understand is that they are accountable to the same standard.

00:40:30.500 So it's not okay only to condemn the riot at the Capitol, unless you also condemn the Black Lives Matter 0.89

00:40:38.100 riots that caused one to $2 billion of damage, claimed several lives and destroyed cities like the city I'm

00:40:44.900 in right now. I'm in the city of Santa Monica, California, where the downtown area was completely

00:40:49.460 devastated during Black Lives Matter protests. It's not the same. It won't be the same for years.

00:40:54.420 And the Democrats allowed that to happen. In fact, they condoned it. Some supported it.

00:40:58.580 So it's not okay just to say these people who stormed the Capitol are evil and so forth. You have to

00:41:05.780 apply a consistent standard. Now, Democrats don't want to do that. They believe that violence in the

00:41:10.420 service of their cause, in the service of racial justice is justified and necessary.

00:41:15.780 And they will point to examples like the Stonewall riot in the gay rights movement. They will say,

00:41:20.340 without violence, you don't get anywhere when you're looking for equal rights.

00:41:23.620 And that's a misreading of history. As James Kirchick pointed out in the Wall Street Journal

00:41:28.820 on the 50th anniversary of Stonewall, there was actually a nonviolent gay rights movement that

00:41:33.540 existed before Stonewall. And the problem is the way the left tells history is that it's always

00:41:38.740 these uprisings that create change. And it happens in history that change only happens as a result

00:41:49.380 of confrontation. But you can't excuse the things people do. And it's always better to use nonviolence.

00:41:56.980 Nonviolence creates a moral basis to make the change and to make it permanent. You can date the

00:42:03.060 death of the civil rights movement in this country to the point where it became militant. The Black 1.00

00:42:07.940 Panther Party really alienated a lot of Americans, whereas Martin Luther King had reached out with

00:42:12.980 love and nonviolence and tolerance and so forth. So Democrats don't understand this idea of truth

00:42:19.060 and reconciliation. They use that term because they want Donald Trump to be considered on the same level

00:42:24.420 as the apartheid regime. They want Donald Trump to be considered guilty. And they want to use that

00:42:29.540 commission to kind of create a show trial of anyone who supported Donald Trump. It's the most ridiculous 0.99

00:42:33.940 idea. And it basically criminalizes opposition in this country. But if they want to take the positive 0.99

00:42:42.420 idea that everyone is judged by the same standard, I'm fully on board with that. If you want to

00:42:46.980 reconcile, you have to say, look, everybody needs to obey this common standard of rejecting political

00:42:54.020 violence. I tweeted today, I don't want to hear any complaints about insurrection when you spent four

00:42:59.060 years mounting what you call the resistance. You know, and that's what they did. I don't think they're

00:43:03.380 aware of it. It really has to be emphasized because they've only just now awakened to the idea that

00:43:09.940 political violence might not be good. They spent a year justifying it, defending it. And now that was

00:43:16.100 a drawback in Joe Biden's speech. He talked about the forces that divide us. He named racism, nativism.

00:43:21.860 Okay, but how about leftism? How about anarchy? How about socialism? I mean, how about all these

00:43:27.700 forces on the left that pit one group of Americans against another? How about identity politics?

00:43:33.220 I mean, if the forces that divide Americans are not just extremists on the right, there are extremists

00:43:39.780 on the left. And those extremists have the ear of the governing party and the mainstream media. So

00:43:46.020 I didn't think he did enough to really put his own side on notice that he was holding them to the

00:43:50.500 same standard. And that's a consciousness I don't think he has. And that's why I think

00:43:55.380 I'm very, I mean, I'm very skeptical of his calls for unity, because that's what

00:43:58.660 unity would require. It would require that kind of self-criticism, that kind of humility.

00:44:04.740 And the Democrats, as you, as you say, are not interested in that. They're interested in maximizing

00:44:09.220 the opportunity that power has given them. They're not interested in bringing both sides together.

00:44:14.180 Having said that, it was a good speech. If you wanted to start on a good note, that was the way to do it.

00:44:18.580 But I agree with you. The proof is in the pudding. And so far, there's not much pudding there.

00:44:23.460 I know you've got to go. I think you've pulled over in your car, and I don't want to make you

00:44:26.420 late for your appointment. Let me just ask you one last question. The article you write today,

00:44:31.300 you do a lot of articles. One of them is called, Where Trump Supporters Go From Here. I think part of

00:44:37.140 that is answered from, where does Trump go from here? There's chatter. Maybe he'll create a new

00:44:44.180 party. Maybe he'll have a super back. Maybe he'll try and get back into business. I'm skeptical about

00:44:50.500 that. What do you think he's going to do?

00:44:52.180 If I were Donald Trump, I would enjoy a few months of quiet in Florida, and I would build a

00:45:00.900 presidential library. Barack Obama still hasn't built his presidential library more than four

00:45:06.740 years later. And it says a lot about Obama. He was always very good at oratory and argument and

00:45:15.060 concepts, but never good at executing anything. It's why he wasn't an effective president. It's why he

00:45:19.940 wasn't a good world leader, really, and a good leader of the United States. I would like to see

00:45:24.260 Donald Trump get a presidential library up and running. It can be different from the other

00:45:28.340 libraries. It can be a resort in Florida. You know, it can be beachfront property. It should have

00:45:32.900 archives and so forth, but it should also have a kind of foundation of scholars. It should have a

00:45:38.660 resident think tank that should promulgate the ideas of the Make America Great Again movement,

00:45:45.060 the MAGA movement. And I think that's a first step. I think create that foundation for your legacy,

00:45:51.380 which Obama hasn't done. Donald Trump is a builder, and now I think he needs to build institutions.

00:45:57.220 Beyond that, whether he gets back into the political race, whether he becomes a kind of

00:46:01.460 Republican kingmaker, I think people will seek his endorsement. But I think it would be healthy for the

00:46:07.140 party to find its own way for a while to figure out how it's going to conduct itself. There are a number

00:46:13.460 of leadership changes that are probably necessary, particularly in the Senate where Mitch McConnell

00:46:18.660 led the party to defeat, okay? The party lost three seats in the recent elections. That's usually a

00:46:24.020 prescription for leadership change. So hopefully that'll happen. And Donald Trump, I think,

00:46:30.340 needs to let it happen while creating, hopefully, an institutional basis that'll carry his legacy

00:46:37.060 forward beyond this next coming election and really beyond his lifetime. I think that these

00:46:43.460 principles and policies that he stood for are the keys to American success and really the guarantors

00:46:50.740 of freedom around the world. If we go the way the Democrats want, I think all of that is at risk.

00:46:55.220 All right. Well, we'll let you get back to your day's journeys. Thanks for talking to us from your

00:47:00.580 car. And I'm glad we didn't cause a car accident. Joel Paul, great to see you again. Thanks for your time.

00:47:06.580 Thank you. All right. There you have it. Senior editor at large at Breitbart.com. Stay with us.

00:47:11.140 Well, it was great to have Derek Sloan on the show. I find him intelligent and thoughtful.

00:47:27.700 The idea that he's racist is a laugh. Weren't those cute kids? I loved having him on. I think

00:47:32.820 Aaron O'Toole is making a very bad decision. You know, he survived this vote, which was really

00:47:39.300 him or me was the showdown. But I don't think it's going to do him well. I think he's demoralized

00:47:45.060 so much of the party's base, even if you don't like Derek Sloan. I find him likable enough.

00:47:50.340 How can you support this kind of cancel culture process? I just don't think it makes sense. The

00:47:54.660 saddest thing I heard from Derek Sloan is that not a single critic or shadow cabinet minister stood up

00:48:01.940 for his freedom. I find that deeply, deeply disappointing. Well, that's the show for today. Until tomorrow,

00:48:07.780 on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, to you at home, good night, and keep fighting for free.

Rebel News Podcast - January 21, 2021

Derek Sloan kicked out of Conservative Caucus： Exclusive Interview

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript