Rebel News Podcast - EZRA LEVANT ｜ Thousands of hate speech complaints filed in Scotland after passing of draconian censorship bill

00:00:00.000 Today, a very interesting show. I talk at length with a Scottish member of Parliament who was hit

00:00:06.740 with their country's new hate speech censorship law. Crazy. And these secret complaints and

00:00:15.760 something called a non-hate crime incident or something. Just really, holy moly, is it a

00:00:23.140 cautionary tale. You're not going to want to miss this. But first, let me invite you to get a,

00:00:26.940 what we call a Rebel News Plus premium subscription. It's the video version of this

00:00:33.300 podcast. Just go to rebelnewsplus.com, click subscribe. You get the video version. Every

00:00:39.040 weekday I do the show and Sheila Gunn-Reed does it every week and you get access to that video

00:00:44.400 version. But more importantly, you support Rebel News because we don't take a dime from Trudeau

00:00:49.060 and it shows. That's rebelnewsplus.com. All right, here's today's show.

00:00:56.940 Tonight, a feature interview with a Scottish MP, one of the first people to be hit with the new

00:01:14.880 censorship law in that country. It's April 9th and this is the Ezra LeVant Show.

00:01:19.300 Shame on you, you censorious bug.

00:01:34.460 It seems the whole world is bent on censorship. It's really increasing. Ireland is looking at deep

00:01:40.920 censorship. Of course, in Canada, Justin Trudeau has proposed Bill C-63. Perhaps the most

00:01:47.760 draconian censorship bill in the free world, we see in Brazil, Twitter is being banned and Elon Musk

00:01:56.420 criminalized by a judge who doesn't like the free speech on that platform one bit.

00:02:01.840 Well, same with Scotland. You might recall a video I did a couple of years ago when I went through an

00:02:07.440 astonishing bill championed by the first minister of that country, Hamza Youssef. He's an unusual

00:02:15.720 figure to be calling for censorship of hate speech, given this absolutely bigoted speech that he

00:02:24.440 himself gave, dripping for contempt for what he called white people. Take a look at this.

00:02:30.580 But why are we so surprised when the most senior positions in Scotland are filled almost exclusively

00:02:37.120 by those who are white? Take my portfolio alone. The Lord President, white. The Lord Justice Clark,

00:02:44.840 white. Every High Court Judge, white. The Lord Advocate, white. The Solicitor General, white. The Chief 0.78

00:02:52.100 Constable, white. Every Deputy Chief Constable, white. Every Assistant Chief Constable, white. The Head of 0.82

00:02:58.860 the Faculty of the Law Society, white. The Head of the Faculty of Advocates, white. Every Prison Governor, 0.87

00:03:04.900 white. And not just Justice. The Chief Medical Officer, white. The Chief Nursing Officer, white. The Chief 0.61

00:03:11.700 Veterinary Officer, white. The Chief Social Work Advisor, white. Almost every trade union in this

00:03:17.600 country headed by people who are white. In the Scottish Government, every Director General is

00:03:23.460 white. Every chair of every public body is white. That is not good enough. How can someone who is so 1.00

00:03:31.780 clearly driven by racial animus then pass a law that would trap others for what he considers racial

00:03:39.120 animus? Shouldn't he be the one charged under his own law? Or preferably, shouldn't we all be allowed to

00:03:45.460 have freedom of speech? And shouldn't we be able to judge for ourselves what is odious and what is

00:03:50.020 impermissible rather than having the police do so? Well, that's my opinion, but that's not the law.

00:03:55.080 Hamza Yosef's censorship bill is now law in Britain. And wouldn't you know it, one of the first people 0.70

00:04:02.260 complained about is a Member of Parliament. His name is Neil Hanvey, and let me read to you a tweet that he

00:04:09.600 published last week. So my office got a call from Police Scotland today advising me that I had been

00:04:16.680 reported for a hate crime based on an undisclosed tweet. Can you believe that? You don't even know

00:04:22.560 the case against you. It's an undisclosed tweet. They had assessed the complaint that were notifying

00:04:27.580 me that they were taking no further action as they did not deem it necessary, but still a call from the

00:04:32.840 police. That's a way of saying, we've got our eyes on you, buddy. Police officers are already under

00:04:38.260 enormous pressure, but now they are having to spend their precious time assessing the perceptions

00:04:42.500 of how offended someone feels over others' lawfully expressed opinions. This is utterly

00:04:49.200 ridiculous, illiberal, wasteful, and unacceptable in a supposedly liberal democracy, where political

00:04:54.740 discourse should be free and open. The tweet continues, I recall when I reviewed this bill a

00:05:00.500 couple of years ago that the police took the unusual step of coming out in public against it,

00:05:06.660 saying that it would stress their relations with ordinary Scots, it would lower the police's

00:05:12.000 reputation in the community, and divert them from more important work. Well, joining us now via Skype

00:05:17.660 from the United Kingdom is Neil Hanvey, the MP who received that phone call from police. Mr. Hanvey,

00:05:25.620 what a pleasure to have you join us. Thanks for taking the time. Thank you, sir. Lovely to be with you.

00:05:31.080 I am not surprised that a political leader such as yourself was one of the first targets of the

00:05:38.540 censorship bill. But in fact, thousands of complaints have been filed in the very first week. Am I right?

00:05:44.200 Yes, you're correct. And referencing your earlier comments about what is commonly referred to as the

00:05:51.940 white speech by Hamza Youssef in the Scottish Parliament, that received the most complaints of those many

00:05:59.460 thousands of complaints. So it's quite interesting that the architect of this legislation has actually

00:06:06.020 ended up being one of the targets in its first week since launch. But yeah, I mean, I was expecting,

00:06:14.020 I wrote about the potential impact of this legislation back in October in a newspaper article setting out my

00:06:21.120 concerns about how it would be used for, say, vexatious purposes to attack political opponents or

00:06:27.120 indeed anyone with whom you disagreed with. And so it has come to pass that I was reported to

00:06:35.320 Police Scotland, who had to waste their precious resource assessing the complaint, contacting me

00:06:42.540 to tell me that I hadn't done anything wrong and that they weren't going to take the matter any further.

00:06:48.860 However, a political opponent of mine, somebody from the Conservative Party in Scotland,

00:06:54.060 Myrtle Fraser, also found out in recent weeks that he has a non-crime hate incident recorded

00:07:01.140 against his name. And so the question I have to ask is, well, what was the tweet? You know,

00:07:07.280 how was it investigated? Who made the complaint? And do I have a non-crime hate incident against my

00:07:13.340 previously unblemished character? That's a great question. I'm so glad you raised it.

00:07:19.520 In Canada, we don't have such a thing as that, a non-crime hate incident. What I think that means,

00:07:27.260 correct me if I'm wrong, is that you've done something, quote, wrong, but it hasn't risen to

00:07:33.240 a level where the police or the prosecutors think there's a reasonable likelihood of conviction.

00:07:39.180 But it's still on your record. So I find this an astonishing thing for police to have

00:07:46.000 at all. It goes on your record, not your criminal record, but a record. And it implies that you're

00:07:52.320 a hater. And in in your case, it sounds like you still don't even know what the complaint

00:07:57.840 against you was for.

00:08:00.960 That's correct. So the the police have been challenged on these non-crime hate incidents

00:08:07.580 activity. But the the there's a real possibility that members of public, the public, the public,

00:08:13.900 the police have been challenged on these non-crime incidents down south in England and have been asked

00:08:15.900 by the secretaries, the whole secretary rather, to stop that practice because it's deemed to be

00:08:21.020 unlawful and against human rights of citizens. And so the the same argument should prevail in Scotland

00:08:29.020 with this non-crime hate incidents activity. But the there's a real possibility that members of

00:08:36.300 public, the public could have a non-crime hate incident recorded against their name, and that

00:08:41.140 could potentially impact on their employment, their current employment or indeed any future job that

00:08:46.720 they go for. It's a really concerning issue. And the fundamental problem with this is it you

00:08:54.700 mentioned that there needed to be some assessment of whether it reached a criminal threshold. Well,

00:08:59.980 that's not actually the case. It all rests on the person who's offended's perception.

00:09:07.180 And that is the only test that is required for a non-crime hate incident to be recorded against your

00:09:14.700 name. OK, thank you for that information. This is an alien concept here in Canada, even though we

00:09:20.380 inherited so much of our legal system from the UK. Now, let me ask you a personal question before

00:09:26.060 we get back to the law. You said the police phoned you to say, oh, we're not proceeding. But I mean,

00:09:32.940 you're a sophisticated man. You're a member of parliament. You understand laws and police.

00:09:37.340 You're confident. You have a media profile. You're a tougher nut to crack than an ordinary Scott who

00:09:44.540 probably has no interaction with police or lawyers or the court system. And if they got such a phone call,

00:09:50.060 I would suggest it would be terrifying. Even if the official message was, don't worry,

00:09:57.500 we're not coming from you now. The subtext would be, you're on our radar. We know who you are. We

00:10:03.740 know where you are. We know something about you. You better watch your P's and Q's. So let me ask you, 0.96

00:10:09.100 do you feel like this phone call to you by the police was a kind of warning or like, I mean, what was it

00:10:15.820 like? Well, the reality was they didn't speak to me directly. They spoke to a member of my team. So

00:10:23.420 the message was relayed to me via a third party. I mean, there's somebody that I absolutely trust. But

00:10:31.340 you know, that in itself is not particularly great practice. But yeah, I mean, I mean, talk about,

00:10:37.420 I mean, that's a confidential matter, you would think. And you would think they would say, may I

00:10:43.100 please have an arranged conversation with Mr. Hanvey directly. That's insane that they were leaking

00:10:51.100 this gossipy, defamatory fact about you. I mean, like you say, you trust this person,

00:10:57.340 but that's sloppy practice. Or maybe that too is deliberate.

00:11:01.580 Well, indeed. I mean, the fundamental issue with the Hate Crime Act as it stands is that

00:11:09.340 the report can be made based purely on perception. And the argument that the first minister has

00:11:15.100 advanced in recent days has been that it's important to get a sense of what kind of hate is out there.

00:11:21.260 And that's why non-prime hate incident reporting and recording of it is important because it helps

00:11:26.780 tell us about the prevalence of so-called hate. But actually, all it does is it tells us how vexatious

00:11:32.780 certain parts of the population are and how many complaints they're prepared to make against an

00:11:37.660 individual. And the first minister has found out on the back of his white speech that the hate can

00:11:44.700 be targeted in that way also. But there's a really important point here with the legislation. So

00:11:51.180 the criminal test is really quite high. And there is a freedom of expression

00:12:01.340 provision within the act. But what there isn't is a detailed explanatory note that gives people

00:12:09.500 information about how that test may be made, met, and what kind of speech would not be classed as hate

00:12:18.060 speech. And that's really important for two reasons. One, there is no carve out for what is generally

00:12:25.020 referred to as gender critical views. And that's not been clarified. Sex is not protected

00:12:33.660 characteristics within the act. So therefore, women's rights are fair game. And those are two 0.97

00:12:39.980 significant issues that I'm very concerned about personally. And the reason that those provisions

00:12:47.580 are not there, and this is my view, and the reason that the explanatory notes are not clear, is that it

00:12:53.820 would take someone a very arduous process through a criminal trial to discover that what they did was

00:13:01.180 not criminal and didn't meet the criminal test than what they said was covered by the freedom of

00:13:09.420 expression provision. And the reason, as I said, those clarifications were not there was because it's

00:13:15.740 my belief that the Scottish government had the very clear intention of exerting a chilling effect

00:13:21.660 on the people of Scotland to stop them talking about some of the important political issues that we face,

00:13:28.220 particularly around identity politics. And that chilling effect could have been could have been

00:13:35.260 exerted very powerfully had it not been for people like myself and more prominent people like J.K.

00:13:42.460 Rowling testing the law by making sure that we continue to speak freely and to challenge this regressive 1.00

00:13:51.580 illiberal legislation. You're so right. I have been following J.K. Rowling. By the way,

00:13:57.100 she causes reverberations even here in Canada. But in the west coast city of Vancouver, on the Pacific

00:14:05.340 side of our country, a young nurse put up a billboard that just says, I heart J.K. Rowling,

00:14:11.900 and she's been prosecuted ever since for conduct unbecoming. So J.K. Rowling is a fascinating

00:14:20.220 person with such a huge platform, and she exerts herself for freedom. I saw the other day she tweeted

00:14:26.220 that if anyone gets in trouble for, say, misgendering someone, because I think you're right. This is

00:14:32.300 about one of the things they're going to do if they if they're not protecting sex, but they're 0.92

00:14:36.940 protecting gender identity. Seems pretty clear to me this is a transgender censorship act. J.K. 0.83

00:14:43.260 Rowling said she will re-utter whatever someone who is charged with a hate speech says. She's basically

00:14:50.620 saying, come and get me, pick on someone your own size. And she's got an enormous size in terms of 1.00

00:14:57.580 reputation, a following, and of course, money. She won't be as easily picked on as an ordinary person.

00:15:05.580 No, I think what she's she's done is incredibly courageous and really important because she's

00:15:13.980 really called out the chilling effect. And she's made it quite clear that she will stand with anyone

00:15:21.660 who is targeted by the gender ideology mob. And, you know, this is, you know, queer theory,

00:15:30.380 I call them queer theory extremists because they are one strand of the critical social justice 1.00

00:15:36.540 movement, which is an inversion of everything that they purport to stand for. And so I think

00:15:44.540 it's incredibly important that people like J.K. Rowling row in behind ordinary citizens. And I certainly

00:15:50.540 have made it absolutely clear that I will not be silenced. I will not be stopped speaking up about

00:15:55.660 child safeguarding, speaking up about women's rights and the protection of LGB people, sex-based

00:16:03.340 rights, which have also been brought into this so-called LGBTQI, et cetera, movement without any

00:16:13.100 sort of consideration of whether we want to participate in this nonsense or not.

00:16:18.140 But isn't that interesting? Because, of course, you as a elected member of parliament

00:16:23.660 government have parliamentary privilege. And what does that mean? One of the things it means is

00:16:29.100 that your speech is protected. It's protected absolutely when you are in the chamber of the

00:16:35.740 House of Commons. That's something that we inherited from you here in Canada. But there's also an argument

00:16:41.740 to be made that what you do in the service of your constituents as an MP, when you make comments on

00:16:48.220 Twitter or outside the chamber, there's an argument that that would have privilege as well.

00:16:53.260 This seems to me to be an attack, not just on ordinary people, but if you yourself have been

00:16:58.300 targeted and if police followed up with a bizarre communication, I wonder if you have ever given

00:17:06.940 consideration to filing a point, to making a point of privilege, a privilege complaint to the Speaker of

00:17:14.460 the House of Commons. That strikes me as you would be one of a small number of people who would be able to

00:17:21.020 do that because you are, you know, an MP. Well, I mean, we do have parliamentary privilege,

00:17:27.500 but it's something that parliamentary privilege is not an absolute right to say whatever you want.

00:17:31.020 Of course, you still have to behave within the rules of parliament. And outside the chamber,

00:17:39.260 you're not covered by some of the protections of privilege. So you do have to be careful about what you say.

00:17:45.340 But the basic position that I've taken is that I will continue to tell the truth. I will continue to

00:17:54.300 speak clearly about my political views, my lawfully held political views about some of the thorny issues

00:18:02.220 that we're dealing with. I will continue to stand up for young people who are being subjected to the

00:18:09.180 most horrific medical and surgical interventions without any proper care or consideration of their

00:18:16.460 rights. And they're accelerated onto these vast track paths into transgender clinics. And, you know, 0.74

00:18:24.940 I feel that that's my absolute responsibility to speak loudly and clearly about this. And if the police

00:18:31.660 and the government deem that unlawful and they want to arrest me, then they can do that. But that will

00:18:37.820 open a Pandora's box because, you know, certainly in the last week, we've started a petition, the Alaba

00:18:43.820 Party, my party have started a petition to repeal the Hate Crime Act. And so far, 68% of the Scottish

00:18:51.020 population agree with us. So these these laws are not popular. I'm sure you've experienced

00:18:57.420 this much more profoundly in Canada. You've been on quite a torturous journey under Justin Trudeau

00:19:05.420 over the last few years. And, you know, and I stand in solidarity with, you know, you know,

00:19:11.500 Chris Ensign. I've met Billboard Chris personally. I had a good chat with him last year. But many,

00:19:17.900 many, many campaigners who are standing against this and a liberal movement, which seems to have

00:19:24.140 afflicted governments across the world. And we really must stand united to defeat this liberal

00:19:30.780 movement. Well, that's very interesting to me that you've been following what's going on in Canada.

00:19:35.180 And we know Billboard Chris well, because he's the pointy edge of the spear on that issue.

00:19:41.500 Unfortunately, you're ahead of us in terms of legislation. Justin Trudeau's proposed censorship

00:19:46.700 bill is only just introduced in Parliament a few months ago. Let me ask you one question about

00:19:52.220 going back a bit to the 8000 or so complaints that were filed right away. Yeah. You mentioned that

00:19:58.220 the man who proposed this bill, the first minister of Scotland, Hamza Yousaf, had the most complaints

00:20:03.820 against him. I'm not surprised. But here's my question to you. Who judges whether or not

00:20:11.660 a complaint will get the non-hate crime incident marking, or if it'll be kicked up a notch and

00:20:19.180 actually be investigated and prosecuted by police? Is that a police decision? Is there some hate

00:20:27.180 finder general? Is there some panel of activists? In Canada, different hate crimes have a different

00:20:35.100 answer for that. There's something called the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, et cetera.

00:20:39.340 If they were to proceed against you, who would make that decision? And I guess my follow-up question

00:20:46.220 is, does that mean if Hamza Yousaf appoints the hate finders that they'll never accept a complaint

00:20:55.420 against him? Maybe you can tell us a little bit about how this process works, or maybe it's still

00:21:00.380 a bit of a mystery. Well, it absolutely is a mystery. And that's one of the issues about the position

00:21:07.980 or lack of the legislation, is it doesn't even mention non-crime hate incidents. This is a matter

00:21:15.500 of mystery. And it seems to rest in the hands of whoever the police officer is that is investigating

00:21:23.740 your specific complaint. And what's interesting about non-crime hate incidents and how they will or

00:21:32.380 will not be recorded is that the minister responsible for the legislation, Siobhan Brown,

00:21:38.540 who has done the rounds of the various different media channels in the UK since the bill was

00:21:44.860 introduced, is unable to clarify any of this detail. And there are no planetary notes that set out how

00:21:51.180 this would be recorded and what the threshold is to trigger a non-crime hate incident. So none of that is

00:21:58.220 clear. But what has become clear is that the first minister has stated in the media that neither he

00:22:05.660 nor JK Rowling will have a non-crime hate incident recorded against their name. Now, you know, that is

00:22:13.180 that is simply a question of equity. So if you're a first minister or the most famous author in the world

00:22:21.740 and you don't have a non-crime hate incident marked against your name, then why is a member of the

00:22:28.300 Scottish Parliament able to have one put against his name or indeed any other person in the country

00:22:34.700 without being informed or, more importantly, being able to defend themselves? What happened to a right

00:22:41.580 to the right to a fair trial? Well, it sounds like a prejudgment and a selective enforcement of the law.

00:22:49.900 One of the things about the rule of law is that no one is above the law, no one is below the law,

00:22:55.740 and it sounds like they want to go after the easy pickings. It's very perplexing. Let me ask you a

00:23:02.540 quick question about this non-hate crime incident, just because I'm learning about it really here. I

00:23:07.420 mean, we don't have it in Canada. Can any member of the public access your file to see if you have a

00:23:15.820 non-hate crime incident? Or is it only other police who can? Like, if there's a black mark,

00:23:22.140 is it like a credit rating at a credit bureau that people can check? What happens if you get one of

00:23:27.580 these black marks on your record? We don't know. We really don't know because there's not a piece

00:23:35.340 of legislation that describes how this operates. There's not a published police guideline that

00:23:41.660 explains how this operates. And it's really quite impenetrable, the system, to understand who, how,

00:23:52.300 and why any such stain would be put against someone's name. So as part of my work in my

00:23:59.820 professional life, I've always had what's called enhanced disclosure here. In other words,

00:24:04.060 you have an organisation that goes through any potential criminal record that you might have

00:24:10.220 to give you a clean bill of health for your employment. And I continue to have that because

00:24:15.100 of a relationship I have with an organisation separate to my parliamentary duties. And that came

00:24:21.180 back clean as a whistle, as usual, last week. But prior to that, following Myrtle Fraser's

00:24:26.860 discovery that he had a non-crime incident marked against his name, I submitted what's called a

00:24:33.020 subject access request, which is a request into Police Scotland asking them what data they held

00:24:39.020 on me. So that will establish if one of these non-crime incidents has been marked against my name

00:24:44.940 previously. But it should also uncover if the report that I posted a tweet about last week has

00:24:53.260 triggered a non-crime incident. But, you know, that again, you know, if more and more people

00:24:58.460 who are concerned about this issue start writing into the police asking for a subject access request

00:25:04.460 and which data they hold against that individual's name, then the police will be fighting on two

00:25:10.380 fronts. They'll be dealing with vexatious, thousands of vexatious complaints from people who should have

00:25:16.220 something better to do with their time, frankly. And they'll also be receiving a whole tsunami of

00:25:24.620 subject access requests from people who are concerned that these queer theory activists have decided to

00:25:32.780 pick on them and target them and report them to the police. So, you know, this will just grind the whole

00:25:39.260 police force to an absolute standstill. And of course, that benefits absolutely no one. This legislation is

00:25:46.860 so ill-conceived and badly delivered, so badly drafted. It's an absolute dog's breakfast and it needs to be

00:25:55.420 repealed and there needs to be a fundamental question about how we moderate our language as a society, how we look

00:26:03.260 after each other, but most importantly, how we tolerate and engage in free and open political and social

00:26:13.020 discourse so that we can enhance society and not operate as a totalitarian or a liberal non-democracy.

00:26:24.780 I mean, I think of Scotland. I think of Braveheart. I think of freedom. I think of people who would

00:26:29.980 never allow the government to weigh their words and say, that's hateful and that's done. By the way,

00:26:36.380 hate is a human emotion. You can't ban hate just by passing a law any more than you can pass a love

00:26:43.100 each other law that forces people to feel love. It's, you know, we don't want hate to transform

00:26:49.020 into violence. Of course not. We don't want it to transform into an actual threat. But by the way,

00:26:54.700 you are allowed to have hate in your heart. I mean, it's not a, it's not a pretty emotion,

00:27:01.100 but banning a feeling is even stupider than banning words and even harder to define, I guess.

00:27:08.620 I don't know. It just seems very unscottish to me. Let me ask you a question about that.

00:27:13.900 If I recall the bill, I haven't read the final version that was passed, but I remember when I

00:27:17.900 studied the bill a little while ago, it seemed like it had a special section to deal with playwrights

00:27:23.660 and comedians. Is that still the case that this whole section about, about plays like theatrical

00:27:29.980 plays? And I thought it was very weird. And I don't know, maybe that's not in the final draft.

00:27:35.740 What's that all about? Well, I mean, that's, that's a bit of a legislative hokey

00:27:40.300 cookie. Um, you know, because it was in that it was out, uh, and then it was in again. And last week,

00:27:48.060 it was, what on earth is this all about? Uh, and, uh, what, what has, you know, this, again,

00:27:54.460 the position has shifted from the Scottish government, but yes, uh, if you, uh, perform a

00:27:59.980 piece of satyr or comedy, uh, that is deemed hateful, you're in scope for this, uh, for prosecution

00:28:08.060 under this law. And then he said, Oh no, no, it's not. So again, the, there is absolutely no

00:28:13.500 clarity. The government ministry responsible for the legislation cannot set out the parameters

00:28:20.220 under which this law comes into force. And again, I go back to that point about the provision of

00:28:26.380 freedom of expression that exists within the legislation. The bar, the threshold to reach

00:28:31.260 that is extremely high. Michael Foran, who is, uh, a lecturer in public law at Glasgow University,

00:28:37.980 set out that case, uh, really eloquently last night on, uh, GB news. Uh, and so, uh, you know,

00:28:45.260 the, the score, the Scottish government have done is they've been very cagey with the truth. Uh,

00:28:49.740 they've used, you know, the threat that you might be prosecuted for putting on a play or telling a joke,

00:28:54.540 uh, and that, uh, uh, that, you know, that chilling effect that they've been deliberately pursuing,

00:29:00.060 uh, is really the, the key aim of all of this disinformation that has been allowed,

00:29:07.020 uh, to, uh, pervade Scottish society. Um, but you know, last week on the, the first of April,

00:29:13.980 April fool's day, uh, uh, as we, I don't know if you have that. Yeah, we do. Yeah. So it was the

00:29:20.140 perfect day to launch a fool's bill, uh, uh, our fool's act. Uh, but on that evening, there was a

00:29:26.300 fantastic comedy event put on by Andrew Doyle and comedy unleashed in Edinburgh, uh, effectively to

00:29:33.020 celebrate this nonsense legislation, uh, and to have a great evening and tell jokes that some

00:29:39.340 people might be offended by, but that's part of comedy and part of comedy, the, uh, the element

00:29:46.060 of surprise. And sometimes the element of surprise is offensive. Yeah. Uh, and, and, but that's not hate,

00:29:52.540 you know, and I think we have to rediscover, uh, what it is to be human, uh, and, and allow ourselves

00:29:59.980 the right to express ourselves freely. Uh, as you say, as long as there's no incitement to violence,

00:30:06.140 there's no deliberate attempt to target any specific group, uh, in a threatening or deliberate

00:30:13.340 way, then, you know, what's the harm in speaking freely? Yeah. I, you know, I, I heard of that, uh,

00:30:21.260 comedy show and it's impossible to tell comedy without goring some ox. Um, I, I think it was, uh, 1.00

00:30:27.980 Orwell who said every joke is a little, it's a little act of rebellion, a little revolution. Um,

00:30:35.100 I think one of the reasons why comedy is disappearing is that you can't make fun of

00:30:40.540 all the things that normal humans do because if this is politically unacceptable or that,

00:30:44.780 I think that's why woke comedians are so unfunny. Boy, you're right. It touches on so much more in

00:30:50.700 society than just political life. It touches on all life. Let me ask you one last question. You'd

00:30:57.180 be very generous with your time. I really appreciate that. I, I didn't mean to keep you

00:31:00.780 so long, but, but you've said so many interesting things. We care about these in Canada because we are

00:31:06.380 in some way, a daughter of Scotland. Our, our first prime minister was born in Scotland and,

00:31:10.780 and the Scottish people really helped build Canada, but also because the themes that you're going

00:31:16.860 through the same as in Ireland, by the way, they have a censorship law, the same as just into Ardern

00:31:22.220 tried to push in New Zealand. The same as Joe Biden is talking about in America, Justin Trudeau.

00:31:28.060 We've already talked about him. I see this as a global theme and of course, social media. So let me ask you

00:31:35.580 this. Is there a way that this can be legally challenged? I see that the free speech union has

00:31:44.380 hired a law firm on standby to help anyone who's charged. And I'm, I'm by the way, I'm a member

00:31:50.540 of the free speech union, even though I'm over here, but that's just stamping out fires where they break

00:31:57.100 out in Scotland. I'm unfamiliar with your legal constitution. Is there a way to challenge the

00:32:04.220 constitutionality of this right away? Is there a way to go to a high court and say,

00:32:11.100 my Lords strike this down. It is contrary to our basic law, our common law, our constitutional

00:32:17.740 tenets. Does that kind of thing happen in Scotland? Yeah. Well, there's, there's two,

00:32:22.780 two separate mechanisms that you could avail yourself of. The first one, which is open to

00:32:28.700 the Westminster parliament is to issue what's called the section 35 notice, which they did on

00:32:33.420 gender recognition reform legislation from the Scottish parliament. So that blocked that piece of

00:32:38.780 legislation, uh, because it was incompatible with, uh, reserve matters to Westminster.

00:32:45.260 That was the argument that they made and they did that to court and won. Uh, so that's one mechanism.

00:32:50.460 And what, how, what that does is it prevents the bill from becoming law. So it, it denies it royal

00:32:56.700 assent and therefore it, it, it doesn't necessarily nullify it, but it, it keeps it on the shelf. Now,

00:33:02.060 Scottish government have insisted that they will bring this forward again,

00:33:05.740 if a labour government come into power in Westminster after the next general election,

00:33:10.140 and they're likely to support that. So self ID would be delivered to Scotland with a labour 0.55

00:33:16.060 government. Um, the other way to, uh, to deal with legislation that's unlawful, and there's been

00:33:21.900 very good examples of that, uh, recently, uh, is to fundraise and, uh, take place legislation for judicial

00:33:29.020 review. Uh, um, and, uh, that would allow you to then challenge provisions within the legislation

00:33:35.500 that you believe are incompatible with, for example, the human rights act or the, uh, European

00:33:41.020 declaration on our convention rather on human rights. Uh, and so there are mechanisms that you can

00:33:47.420 use to challenge legislation, uh, for women's Scotland, which is a feminist, uh, fantastic, uh,

00:33:54.220 feminist, uh, organization that was established in Scotland, um, because of the, uh, march of, uh, 1.00

00:34:02.140 the, uh, queer theory lobby under Nicola Sturgeon. Um, they fundraised and they have taken, uh, pieces 0.51

00:34:09.340 of legislation for judicial review and they've been successful in some and, uh, not so successful in

00:34:15.340 others, but certainly, uh, on what constitutes the makeup of, uh, uh, uh, a board, uh, uh, a male

00:34:22.620 identifying as a female would count as a female member of that board. That was struck down by the, 1.00

00:34:29.100 the courts in, uh, in Edinburgh and the Scottish government, uh, I think last week or the week

00:34:34.060 before, uh, it might have been the week before, uh, had to amend the legislation to correct that

00:34:38.700 anomaly because, uh, I think this fair to say that Nicola Sturgeon has been more on a, uh,

00:34:45.100 uh, uh, a campaign, uh, of introducing queer theory legislation rather than in any way a campaign

00:34:52.300 for independence for Scotland, which is people like me incredibly frustrating because what she

00:34:58.620 effectively did was use the cause of independence to gather enough support to get the members that

00:35:05.260 she had in parliament, but she's used them to repeatedly advance queer theory doctrine through

00:35:11.980 various strands of, uh, legislation. Uh, they, they have been successfully challenged as I said,

00:35:17.740 uh, through a section 35 order and through judicial review. So there are ways and means,

00:35:23.740 but they're protracted, they're expensive. Uh, and what you really want is a government

00:35:27.820 that doesn't make up nonsense laws. Yeah. Very interesting. Well, you've educated me

00:35:33.820 and I think our Canadian viewers, which is most of our viewers will find this fascinating.

00:35:38.460 Uh, I'm glad that you're standing up in Scotland and, you know, I, I've only been to Scotland

00:35:44.940 briefly, but you can feel the history just walking through Edinburgh or Glasgow or Aberdeen.

00:35:50.860 And when I think of the great Scots over the centuries, I can't imagine that they would support

00:35:57.740 a law that would allow police to investigate a joke or a play or even an emotional comment. So I wish

00:36:05.900 you good luck and we'll continue to follow it. And I know that you have a petition at albaparty.org,

00:36:12.540 a-l-b-a-party.org. For those of our viewers who are in Scotland, of course, they should feel free to

00:36:19.340 visit that and sign the petition and the rest of our viewers can visit it just to see what you're doing

00:36:25.100 and learn more. I'm so grateful for you being with us today. You're most welcome actually. I love

00:36:30.300 it's needed. Thank you. You too. There you have it. Neil Hanvey,

00:36:33.660 Member of Parliament. Isn't that fascinating? And very closely tracks what's happening here in Canada.

Rebel News Podcast - April 09, 2024

EZRA LEVANT ｜ Thousands of hate speech complaints filed in Scotland after passing of draconian censorship bill

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript