Derek Sloan kicked out of Conservative Caucus： Exclusive Interview
Episode Stats
Words per minute
176.54965
Harmful content
Misogyny
1
sentences flagged
Toxicity
11
sentences flagged
Hate speech
10
sentences flagged
Summary
An exclusive interview with Derek Sloan, the Member of Parliament who was just kicked out of the Conservative caucus in a secret vote. I talked to him just minutes after that vote, and then I interviewed him via Skype from his home.
Transcript
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?
00:00:58.660
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
00:01:36.740
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
00:09:08.800
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?
00:14:33.740
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.
00:20:42.560
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
00:27:24.920
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,
00:36:17.660
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
00:38:08.800
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
00:44:52.180
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.