EZRA LEVANT | How Indigenous activists are repeating a key gay-rights mistake

Summary

Rebel News Podcast: "How Indigenous activists are repeating a key gay-rights mistake"

Host: Ezra Levant
Date: December 10, 2025
Episode Type: The Ezra Levant Show

---

Episode Overview

Ezra Levant draws a provocative parallel between recent developments in Indigenous activism and the overreach he perceives in the modern LGBTQ2S+ movement, particularly in their transitions from demands for equality to what he frames as demands for compliance and supremacy. Using the example of a newly renamed bridge in British Columbia with an Indigenous name rendered in a linguistically complex script, Levant argues that efforts for reconciliation may be backfiring, risking public goodwill by pushing beyond reasonable recognition. The episode also features a detailed legal discussion with John Carpay of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, focusing on free speech suppression on campuses and contentious gender-identity policies in women’s prisons.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. LGBTQ Movement Overreach – Parallels Drawn

• Rise and Fall of Support:
  Levant opens by noting falling support for LGBTQ2S+ rights in North America, citing sources like The Guardian and PBS.
  (01:25-03:17)

• From Equality to ‘Forcing Participation’:
  He contends that the movement, after achieving legal equality with gay marriage, overplayed its hand by pushing into transgender politics, which he claims shifted the focus from privacy and acceptance to compelling others to participate in what he characterizes as “extreme sexuality.”

  “It’s now about forcing other people, against their will, to accept intrusions into their own privacy. Forcing themselves into your bathroom, into your change room, even into women’s shelters.” — Ezra Levant (04:40)

• Example Provided:
  Levant cites the ‘Busty Lemieux’ case—a teacher with prosthetic breasts—as emblematic of this forced participation and says such extremes have driven a backlash.
  (03:17-05:38)

2. Indigenous Activism & Renaming Controversy

• Canadian Reconciliation Fatigue:
  Levant asserts that, similar to LGBTQ overreach, the Indigenous rights movement risks alienating mainstream Canadians by exceeding reasonable recognition—from solidarity to what he describes as “race hatred” and politicization.
  (05:38-08:38)

• Bridge Naming as Symbolic Flashpoint:
  He spotlights the replacement of Vancouver’s Pattullo Bridge with a new structure named in an Indigenous language and rendered in complex script. Levant argues that this is not about reconciliation, but about deliberately excluding non-Indigenous Canadians and “pushing you around.”

  “This is designed to push you back, to push you around. There’s no chance this would ever be named Pattullo.... Even naming it Stallo Awesome isn’t enough. It has to be written in a made up scientific language that actually not a single indigenous person learned in school because it was made up by white linguists.” — Ezra Levant (10:10)

• Objections to Public Input:
  Levant criticizes how questions about the choice of Chinese steel for the bridge were brushed aside during the public event, suggesting an atmosphere hostile to debate.

  “Can you please just weigh in on that?...Please keep those questions for a side–a side press conference. We’re here to celebrate. Please don’t take that beautiful, beautiful, day away from us.” — Chief Gabriel (12:23-13:19)

• Reflection on Reconciliation:
  Levant clarifies he isn’t opposed to Indigenous place names per se—citing examples from Calgary—but opposes what he sees as opaque, impenetrable gestures that shut out the majority.

  “I come from Calgary, where the famous streets have names like Crowchild Trail and Deerfoot Trail… I’m not even against renaming certain things using traditional languages... but the deliberate choice to make it absolutely inscrutable… we are well past reconciliation now. We’re in the danger zone.” — Ezra Levant (14:10-15:30)

• Main Warning:
  Levant warns of “overreach” and urges Indigenous activists to “declare victory,” drawing analogies to the pride movement’s current unpopularity.

3. Legal Segment with John Carpay – Free Speech & Trans Policy Lawsuits

A. Case: Frances Widdowson (17:00-21:29)

• Overview:
  Frances Widdowson, an academic critical of residential school mass grave claims, was arrested for trespassing at University of Victoria during a speech—Levant and Carpay see this as a free speech issue and indicative of double standards.

• Carpay on Double Standards:

  “It’s just a double standard because she is pointing out that there’s just no evidence to substantiate the claim... this is a very important point on principle.” — John Carpay (18:40)

  “Pro-life groups on campus... they get harassed and intimidated... And then they get censored because they’re supposedly a threat to security.” — John Carpay (20:30)

• Contrast with Pro-Hamas Encampments:
  Levant and Carpay note that activist encampments face less censure than “unpopular” individual speakers.

B. Women’s Prisons & Gender Identity Policy (21:29-30:38)

• Heather Mason’s Experience:
  Levant and Carpay describe government policy allowing self-identifying males into women’s prisons, even with no physical or behavioral transition. They highlight the problems this raises for the safety, dignity, and rights of female prisoners and guards.

  “If you’re a sex predator convicted and Sent to prison. Why on earth wouldn’t you immediately declare that you’re a woman?... Imagine a man being allowed into a women’s prison.” — Ezra Levant (24:21)

• Legal Approach:
  The Justice Centre is representing a women’s group (CASBAR) in a legal bid against the policy, arguing it violates Charter rights to life, liberty, and security of the person, and equality.

  “We argue that the policy should be struck down because it violates the charter, section 7, right to life, liberty and security of the person. You still have these rights in prison...” — John Carpay (27:50)

• Disappointment with Traditional Feminists:
  Levant notes that mainstream feminist legal organizations like LEAF aren’t involved, interpreting this as abandonment of women’s rights by traditional feminists.

  “The fact... well, oh no, that shows how outdated I am... now they are not opposed to men transferring into a women’s prison simply by declaring themselves to be women.” — Ezra Levant (30:05-30:38)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Overreach in Social Movements:

  “Stop. Declare victory. Do not press on further. This is your man in the girls swimming change room moment.” — Ezra Levant (08:12)

• On Imposing Indigenous Language Place Names:

  “Why are you imposing that weird alphabet and spelling on a bridge that not one in a thousand Vancouverites could read or pronounce?... Because it’s about pushing you around.” — Ezra Levant (10:06)

• On Free Speech Double Standard:

  “It’s just a double standard because she is pointing out that there’s just no evidence to substantiate the claim... this is a very important point on principle.” — John Carpay (18:40)

• On Women’s Rights in Prison:

  “We’re seeking to have the policy struck down... women are not getting the same level of safety that men are getting in men’s prisons. But I think that the strongest one is the security of the person argument.” — John Carpay (28:39)

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

| Timestamp | Segment | |-------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------| | 01:25 | Discussion of falling LGBTQ2S+ support & “overreach” | | 03:17-05:38 | Shift from privacy/equality to compulsion in LGBTQ politics | | 05:38-08:38 | Transition to Indigenous issues, comparison to gay rights | | 08:38-10:10 | Vancouver bridge name controversy, explanation of pronunciation | | 10:10-13:36 | Critique of naming/steel controversy and suppression of questions | | 13:36-15:30 | Broad critique: reconciliation giving way to resentment | | 16:00-18:40 | Introduction of John Carpay and Frances Widdowson case | | 18:40-21:29 | Carpay on campus censorship and legal challenge | | 21:29-25:16 | Introduction of women’s prisons and trans inmate policy | | 25:16-30:38 | Legal challenge details: Charter argument, feminist response | | 31:03-33:08 | Listener letters on AI, tech, and social trust |

---

Summary Tone & Language

Levant’s commentary is polemical and sometimes sarcastic, deploying combative and provocative phrasing (“pushing you around,” “jumping of the shark,” “supremacists now in their own way”). Guest John Carpay is more formal and legalistic, with clear emphasis on rights and principles.

---

Conclusion

This episode of The Ezra Levant Show functions as a cultural warning, using events in LGBTQ and Indigenous activism as case studies in perceived progressive overreach and backlash. The legal update with John Carpay provides a substantive look at the current frontlines of free speech and gender identity law in Canada, with the through-line that societal goodwill can be rapidly eroded by actions seen as vindictive or exclusionary rather than reconciliatory. While firmly rooted in Levant’s conservative editorial stance, the episode underscores contemporary divides in Canadian public discourse.

Transcript

[A]

Oh, hi, everybody. There's a new bridge in British Columbia and I can't really pronounce it, but it's actually impossible to spell it because it's spelled in a made up language. It's sort of like the English letters, but it's not really. And all this is done in the name of aboriginal reconciliation. I think it's actually going to have the opposite effect, and I think that's the point. I'll get into it and I'll show you the video from on location, which is why I'd like you to get the video version of this podcast. Go to rebelnewsplus.com it's eight bucks a month, which may not sound like a lot of dough to you, but boy, it adds up for us. You get the video content every day and you keep Rebel News strong because we take no government money and it shows. That's rebelnewsplus.com.

You're listening to a Rebel News podcast.

Tonight. The indigenous rights movement is making the same mistakes that the gay rights movement did. Let me explain. It's December 9th and this is the Ezra Levant Show.

Shame on you, you censorious bug.

Did you know that support for the LGBTQ2SL plus has fallen in recent years in North America? Fallen. Here's a story about it in the left wing Guardian newspaper. Here's a story about it in the left wing PBS publication. It's actually the website and the broadcaster. There's various explanations for it, but I think the most compelling is when you think of what has changed in the past 10 years. What's been the gay rights issue in the past 10 years that's defined it, not gay marriage. That's been the law in Canada for 20 years now and more than a decade in the US and the UK. I think the problem, if I may, is that instead of declaring victory 20 years ago, the gay rights movement, sometimes called the gay pride movement, well, they kept going. They won everything they could possibly win. Changes in the law, parades, even affirmative action. If you can believe it, Hollywood is disproportionately gay. All the institutions, especially academia. Pride Month at every bank in North America feels like a full tilt political campaign. But instead of declaring victory, the LGB movement added a T, transgenderism. And that fundamentally changed the movement from being about equality to about leaving people alone, letting them be themselves, about letting people be about privacy. It quickly became the opposite. Transgenderism, at least as it's expressed in politics and the law these days, has become not about equality or privacy or letting people be who they are. Or as we used to say, consenting adults or the privacy of your own home. Those are all things that we said back then. But today, the LGBT 2Q SL.

Is about foisting extreme sexuality on other people. It's about violating other people's privacy. The most insane example of this is the teacher, nicknamed Busty Lemieux, who wears enormous prosthetic breasts to school to teach children, turning girls and boys in his class into a captive audience, actually, in a way, participants in his bizarre fetish. That's not gay pride. That's not being private. That's turning other people against their will into part of your sexual fantasy. That's the most shocking example. But it's only slightly less shocking. The transgenderism that has affected millions of people, especially in sports. Failed male athletes suddenly declare that they're women and then compete against women, which is cheating, and they beat women. And in the worst cases that go into changing rooms with women, it's actually worse in our prisons, where men who claim to be women have the right to be transferred into women's prisons, where they now have access to women who are ordered not to misgender their new fellow prisoners on pain of various punishments. So suddenly, gay rights isn't about letting people choose who they love, people living their own life, their own way and privacy. It's now about forcing other people, against their will, to accept intrusions into their own privacy. Forcing themselves into your bathroom, into your change room, even into women's shelters. So, yeah, LGB was hijacked by the T. They overplayed their hands. That's why they're falling in popularity. Well, I'm here to say that Canada's Indian bands are doing the same. For a generation, there's been a near unanimous political status quo in Canada that we can go above and beyond for Indigenous people spending favorite status, respect. And it all felt good for Canadians to do so. Even Stephen Harper, the great conservative, increased the budget for Indian Affairs. And then I think things started to change. I don't blame Indigenous people for this one. I think it's more white liberals and lawyers and bureaucrats and opportunists. But soon, instead of focusing on building and being positive and creating jobs and things, we can all get behind.

The leading edge of Indian affairs became about race hatred, sort of imposing a US Black Lives Matter narrative onto our country, but with Indigenous people instead of black people. So Justin Trudeau called it a genocide. He called Canadians genocide. He said it's still going on. He actually said that. He took our first Prime Minister, Johnny McDonald off the $10 bill. Because of that reason, statues started coming down across Canada. Incredibly, the head of our own Supreme Court said the same thing. Genocide. People started noticing when judges sent back violent offenders right back into their own communities without jail time or without significant jail time because they're Indigenous, which obviously forgets about the rights of the Indigenous community into which these violent men were being placed. My point is things started to move away from solidarity and equality and respect and friendship into rivalry and accusations and sourness. I really think it's been politicized in a new way in the last decade. How many events do you go to in your community where before things begin, at a town hall meeting or a sports event, even you're told you're on Stolen Indian Land Remembrance Day in Toronto. They started their Remembrance Day ceremony by talking about land back and then talking about Canada's slavery history. It's absurd, especially when where treaties have clearly extinguished any existing rights to the land. Most of Canada is covered by such treaties. But it's a new religion, this land back acknowledgement. Just like LGBTQism. And let me show you what I mean, and here's why I'm talking about this. My friends who care about Indigenous people and goodwill. This is the time to stop. This is the time to declare victory, because you're now entering the overreach moment. This is the jumping of the shark. This is where you go too far. This is your man in the girls swimming change room moment. Stop. Declare victory. Do not press on further. You know about that bizarre court case in B.C. a few weeks ago where a judge just said out of the blue that Indians may still have a right to land title underneath hundreds of B.C. homes. Surprise. Did you think all those land acknowledgments were meaningless? A judge thinks they're meaningful. Otherwise, why would you be saying it? So people, especially in B.C. are on edge already because of this. But look at this now. Pure joy in sticking it to the man. There was an important bridge in greater Vancouver, almost a century old, named the Petullo Bridge, named after the former B.C. premier, Duff Petullo. I didn't really know about him. I should tell you that bridge was replaced with the new bridge and they've decided not to keep the old name. The new bridge gets a new name. And here's how to pronounce it.

[B]

All right, so this was a name that was selected by Musqueam and Quanlong Stallo. Awesome translates into English roughly as place to view the river, or river view. And the name can be broken down into four syllables. The first is stall. Stall as in that's a beautiful bridge. I hope my car doesn't stall.

Second syllable is O. O as in oh, that's not too hard to pronounce.

Third syllable is ah.

[A]

Ah.

[B]

In Hunt Caminum, we would say ah, Siyampasiyah. And the as in sum, like the sum total.

[A]

Did you get that? Now, if you say Riverview Bridge, people know how to say that, how to spell that, what it means. But look at that other word. Look at how it's spelled. Do you see how it's spelled there? What? That's not a sort of English. But it's not. What's with the upside down E's? What are those apostrophes? Now, the government put out a video on how to pronounce that word. Here's how you pronounce that E and.

[C]

That W. The next two letters together are schwa and a glottalized W, which make an O sound.

[A]

You know, I think I could remember how to say stall O. Awesome. I think Stall O. Awesome.

There's some unusual names like that across Canada. You might be wondering why it's written in a version of our own Alphabet. Though there was no indigenous Alphabet, there was no custom of writing things down. They call it an oral tradition. So that is a borrowed written language. It's a kind of English made up by white linguists. I have no beef with that. Really? But why are you imposing that weird Alphabet and spelling on a bridge that not one in a thousand Vancouverites could read or pronounce or write? How do you even do a backwards E? Why aren't you even just using regular Canadian letters in English to write the sound of the word? I'll tell you why. Because it's about pushing you around. That's the whole point here. This is not about reconciliation anymore. It's not about equality. This is designed to push you back, to push you around. There's no chance this would ever be named Petullo. Of course not. We're long past that. But even naming it Stallo awesome isn't enough. It has to be written in a made up scientific language that actually not a single indigenous person learned in school because it was made up by white linguists. But that's all the better. You can't pronounce it because it's not yours. Your own language isn't yours, let alone the land. Oh, by the way, the bridge was made with Chinese steel. Of course it was. Which caused a lot of construction problems. Here's a story in The Vancouver Sun. Chinese steel contributed to delays in construction of Petula bridge replacement, says advocate welding problems and steel from overseas can create headaches for local workers and increase expenses, says Canadian Institute of Steel Construction CEO.

But when someone tried to ask about boring things like, oh, is the bridge built okay with foreign steel? They were told to shut up. You see, you can't ask any questions. That's some white man's tradition. Just shut up and get with the program. Here's a video clip of that.

[B]

My question is about the materials that.

[D]

Went into making the bridge.

[A]

There has been some controversy about the steel in particular that went into making the bridge. Some people have alleged that it caused.

[D]

Delays or more added costs took away.

[A]

Jobs from British Columbia workers. Can you please just weigh in on that?

[D]

Sorry again. Chief, MD. Gabriel Kwame, First Nation I thank you all for coming out celebrating with our nations, the Musqueam and the Kwantlen people.

We're here to celebrate.

For our people.

This is the first.

Bridge named.

From our beautiful Dear Elder Larry Grant Qualen has the utmost respect for you and the Qualman people. I always. It hurts me, I have to tell you. It hurts me.

You have them all day.

Please keep those questions for a side. A side press conference. We're here to celebrate. Please don't take that beautiful, beautiful this beautiful day away from us.

[A]

So, yeah, don't ask any questions, certainly not about the steel. Don't ask why it's written in a weird made up English language that no one knows how to spell or type or read. No typewriter or computer can type that. Don't ask why Duff Petullo is thrown into history's garbage can. Don't ask. Don't ask why the government bought steel from China instead of from Canada. And don't you know that your role is simply to pay for all of this and to nod along and to call yourself a settler and a colonizer and a racist and a genocider. You know, it's almost, but not quite as stupid as Toronto renaming their version of Times Square. It used to be called Young Dundas Square. Now the government calls it Sankofa Square, after the allegation that Mr. Dundas was somehow pro slavery, which he wasn't. And the laugh is that Sankofa, which has no connection to Canada or Toronto, is the place of African tribes who actually practiced slavery. But at least they'll spell Sankofa in English letters for you to abase yourself when you say it. I say again, there's a lot of goodwill in Canada towards indigenous people. And I'm not against renaming certain things after indigenous things. I come from Calgary, where the famous streets have names like Crowchild Trail and Deerfoot Trail and Crowfoot and all these beautiful names. Think of the city Medicine Hat. That's an English translation of an aboriginal word. I'm not even against renaming certain things using traditional languages, although I'll never stop calling it Deerfoot trail. I'm not 100% opposed to renaming things, but the deliberate choice to make it absolutely inscrutable or impenetrable to anyone other than some government paid activists and to do so with a hubris. My friends, I tell you, we are well past reconciliation now. We're in the danger zone now because the activists have flipped the script. They're becoming the supremacists now in their own way. Don't do it. Don't rub it in. Don't go on the offensive. That's not reconciliation like the gay pride movement. Declare victory. Don't spike the football in the face of the people who pay your bills. Just don't. Stay with us for more.

Well, my favorite civil liberties public interest law firm is of course the Democracy Fund. But a very close second place are my friends at the justice center for Constitutional Freedom. And frankly, they've been doing it for more than a decade. They really wrote the book. Joining us now to talk to us about two of the most interesting cases that they've recently taken is our friend John Carpe, the boss of the Justice Center. John, great to see you again.

[C]

Glad to be with you and with your viewers and listeners.

[A]

Well, you're doing such interesting work. I want to talk to you about two cases. The first is Frances Widdowson, who is the professor who was illegally drummed out of her position at Mount Royal University in Calgary for being a skeptic of the wild claim that in amongst others that there are 215 dead children buried outside a former residential school in Kamloops, bc. No such thing as being proven. And she keeps raising inconvenient questions. She recently went to the University of Victoria to challenge the unchallengeable to become what the left is calling a denier. Let me just show you a little bit of footage about that shocking day because it's very relevant to what we're going to talk about here. Take a look. This is Victoria a few days ago. I will not leave on my own.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

So right now you are arrested.

[A]

Okay, so you're going to arrest me and you're going to take me into the downtown off the Property, off the.

[C]

Property and then we'll go from there.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

Back off as well. All of you over there.

[A]

No idea.

[D]

This is pathetic.

[A]

I can't even believe. You can't even.

What are your words? For the public watching. This is what we've come to.

[D]

At academic institutions these days, you are.

[A]

Not allowed to explore ideas on campus. And if you do, you will be arrested. Well, not the people coming to harass Francis Widowson, but Frances Woodson herself was ordered off the property under threat of a trespass prosecution. She declined to go. She is being prosecuted. And John Carpe and the justice center are representing her in court. John, great to see you again. Tell me a little bit more about the case. Is it just a simple trespass ticket or is there more behind it? What are they doing to Frances Widdowson?

[C]

Well, right now it's just a trespassing ticket. And I must say I find the double standard rather disgusting. When people are building tent cities, that's outside of, you know, universities can impose reasonable rules that regulate the freedom of expression on campus. That's okay. So for example, no tent cities, no overnight displays. There's reasonable rules that the university can create and can enforce. But this is somebody going on campus to speak. This is a taxpayer funded institution. The B.C. government itself says that it's carrying out a governmental purpose. And it's just a double standard because she is pointing out that there's just no evidence to substantiate the claim that there's 215 children buried at the former Kamloops Indian Residential School. So right now it's. It's trespassing charges that we're going to be fighting back against as hard as we can in court on principle. You know, it's not. I mean, the fine is up to $2,000. That's just not really the issue. I'm sure generous Canadians would, would kick him, you know, for the $2,000. But this is a very important point on principle. Yeah.

[A]

Now, are you aware were any of the thugs, and I call them thugs because they came to get physical and more importantly to threaten the police, stood by as that happened. Our own reporter, Drea Humphrey, who was on the scene. I'm not going to say she was assaulted, but there was some very aggressive conduct. Were any other people to your knowledge charged for their misbehavior or was it only the victim, Francis Widowson, who was charged?

[C]

It's a victim and it's a pattern I've seen for decades, you know, in particular pro life groups on campus who are putting out an unpopular message, and they get harassed and intimidated and bullied and. And sometimes physically assaulted. And, you know, police just stand by and pretend that somehow it's the fault of these students peacefully expressing their opinions that they are the problem, that they are the threat to safety. And then they get censored because they're supposedly a threat to security. And it's just. It's very, very twisted thinking because, yeah, there is a threat to safety. There is a threat to security. It's coming from people who are thugs, who don't want to engage in debate. They don't want to listen to an opposing point of view. And it's high time for provincial politicians to read the riot act to the universities and tell them to clean up your act or else you're not going to get the taxpayer funding.

[A]

Yeah, speaking of the riot act, I mean, you point out that there were pro Hamas encampments across Canada for weeks or even months. No trespass tickets there, but a slightly elderly female professor standing politely will better put the police on her. That's pretty gross. University of Victoria has always been a bit of a censorship leftist place, I regret. And they lived down to their reputation. I want to talk about another case that you guys are taking on, because I think it involves a friend of Rebel News named Heather Mason. She's a former prisoner who has very bravely talked about what it's like in women's prisons in 2025 and actually for several years now, Justin Trudeau, in one of his first reforms to corrections Canada, allowed anyone to simply declare that they're a woman. They don't even have to be, you know, appearing as a woman. They just have. They don't have to express as a woman. They just have to identify as a woman. They can have a beard, they can have a baritone voice, and they immediately get treated as a woman. For example, any body searches, and of course, there are searches in prison all the time, must then be done by a female. If a male prisoner says, I'm a gal now, now, the guards who search him have to be female. Many of the people who suddenly declare that they're women are actually sex convicts who committed some sexual offense and who know that they would be targeted by other, let me say, more moral prisoners. There's even a moral hierarchy in prison where if someone is a child molester, very often they have to be segregated because the regular prisoners would kill them. Believe it or not, there are some ethics that even murderers and robbers have. So if you're a sex predator convicted and Sent to prison. Why on earth wouldn't you immediately declare that you're a woman? You get out of the more dangerous men's prison. You get to go to a women's prison. And if you happen to be a sexual pervert yourself, well, what a delight to be engaging with your victims who are forced to deal with you. Imagine being a female prison guard being forced to deal with a man in an intimate way, such as a search. And one thing I learned from Heather Mason before. I'm coming to you, John, in a second. I'm just telling you the stories I know is that in at least one prison in Canada, female prisoners who are new mothers can keep their children with them until I think they're age 4 or something. So you have prisons that are more like a kind of a dorm where moms and their babies are in prison together, which sort of makes sense. Imagine a man being allowed into a women's prison. Well, John, tell me a little bit about the case because I have a press release from your organization here called Women's Rights Group Seeks Court Approval to challenge policy allowing biological males in women's prisons. So tell me a little bit about that, because that's been going on now for pretty much a decade. But who cares, right? No one stands up for a female prisoner, and they're not allowed to stand up for themselves. Heather Mason also told me that if you speak out against this in prison, you get your rights taken away. You're punished if you don't call these men ma', am, if you don't use their new names, if you don't say, you know, if you don't, if you misgender them, you'll be punished by the prison. So you're not even allowed to act in your own defense if you're a female in prison. What are you doing? What's. Tell me what the JCCF plans to do.

[C]

Well, it's not just whether or not you get punished, but it's also a fear of jeopardizing your chance for parole for early release if you are deemed to be transphobic. That does not reflect well on you. So there's kind of a self censorship component to it as well, where the female prisoners are not going to speak out. As you described. The policy was changed in 2017, and this was the bill that added.

Gender identity and gender expression to the criminal code and to the Canadian human rights code, and not long thereafter, the federal prisoners to comply with Trudeau's legislation. It became instantaneous that if you were in.

Male prison and you declare that you identify as a woman, that declaration by itself is enough to get you transferred the way it used to be. Prior to 2017, there were transfers, but.

[A]

Only.

[C]

Serious men who were quite serious about their transition, who had the surgery, no longer had their male parts. They were allowed to transfer into women's prisons. And that did not pose a threat to other, to the, to the women in women's prisons because, you know, these guys took their transgender surgery journey very seriously and they were not a threat. But starting in 2017, so it's been going on for eight years and the federal government so far is not backing down. They could get rid of the court action simply by changing the policy and they would succeed in having the court action declared moot, and it would be moot. But they're not budging. So. So the justice center is providing lawyers for women's group.

To, to. We've, we've held our papers and what's coming up next in March is, is a hearing to confirm that it can be the women's group that moves forward and that we will not be required to have individual female applicants because that's, it's a lot harder and it's a big privacy violation.

[A]

Got it. And that group again, Rebel News, we're familiar with them. Canadian women's sex based rights cause bar. Sort of hard to remember acronym. Well, I hope they're successful. What is your argument? What is your cause of action? Is it a charter complaint saying that women's rights are being violated? What are you trying to tell the court that the government got wrong?

[C]

So we argue that the policy should be struck down because it violates the charter, section 7, right to life, liberty and security of the person. You still have these rights in prison. I mean, being sentenced to a jail term obviously impacts your, your liberty rights, but you know, it's justified if, if there's been a fair trial and you've been fairly convicted, but you still have a right to life, liberty and security of the person. In particular the security of the person. You have that in, in prison. So women should not be subjected to what is going on. Sexual harassment kind of keeping Tom's men hanging around the, the, you know, change rooms and bathrooms and showers and, and so on. Cases of sexual assault. We're familiar with one instance where there was a support group of survivors of sexual abuse, childhood sexual abuse, so a women's survivor groups group. And this is pretty much 100% the perpetrator was male. They have to put up with a trans identifying male to come in to their support group for women recovering from childhood sexual abuse. They've got to have a guy sitting there pretending to be a woman. It's just outrageous. So we're seeking to have the policy struck down. There's also a charter section 15 equality rights argument that the women are not getting the same level of safety that men are getting in men's prisons. But I think that the strongest one is the security of the person argument.

[A]

Well, I think this is a very important case. Do you have a date yet for the hearing or is it still too preliminary?

[C]

It's going to be in the, the hearing is going to be in March. So this is a preliminary hearing to confirm that the action can move ahead with the plaintiff being the casbar, the women's, the, the group advocating for sex based rights, meaning biological reality, sex based rights. That's going to be heard in March. And then, you know, we'll see what happens and go from there.

[A]

Well, it's a very important case and it's the kind of case you would think feminists would take, the traditional civil liberties groups would take. And the fact. Oh no.

[C]

Oh no.

[A]

Yeah, that. That shows how outdated I am. Anything you're not going to have the.

[C]

The leaf, The Women's Legal Education Action Fund, you know, this feminist group that was at the forefront of all kinds of issues. Abortion and defense and.

Sorry, divorce. Abortion laws. Divorce laws, custody and access. They've been these, these leading feminists and now they are not opposed to men transferring into a women's prison simply by declaring themselves to be women.

[A]

Yeah, yeah, it's, it's sort of pitiful how the traditional feminists have absolutely abandoned real women with this onslaught of trans extremism. John. Keep up the good fight, folks. If you want to learn more about these two cases or other cases taken by John and his justice center, go to JCCF ca. Thanks a lot, John. We'll talk to you again soon.

[C]

Have a good evening.

[A]

You too.

[C]

Cheers.

[A]

Oh, hey, welcome back. Your letters to me, some of them are about my rambling rant about robots. Oswald, JH says not to worry. Since AI is a human invention, it will do what humans do best. Fail. Well, maybe if you think of it as a super smart chess playing computer. I mean, we're at the point where I think a computer can beat even the best chess master. And that was years ago. I think computing is so much faster now. I don't know. I just see evidence that it's smarter than people. It knows more than people. I'm not saying people can't beat it, but I just think expecting it to fail on its own, I just. I don't think that's likely to happen. And there's competing AIs too. There's the North American ones, but then there's Chinese AI. I'm worried about that.

Next letter from sunsun108 says AI isn't causing the collapse, it's exposing it. People yell at robots because they've lost trust in institutions and lost control over their lives. Robot girlfriends and sex dolls aren't a tech trend. They're a symptom of loneliness, social decay, and people retreating from a world that is no longer makes sense to them. The tech isn't fucked up. Excuse me, the state of society is. Oh, I'm not denying any of that. In fact, that's part of my point, is that this tech solution, this replacement for people is coming at a time when we've been atomized worse than ever. I'm agreeing with you in a way. The fact that young people are so insular they're addicted to their phones, that Covid taught us to stay isolated. Yes, of course, I agree all that. That's why we're particularly susceptible now. And enter into that robots who already right now can be great conversationalists who never run out of patience for you, and then add in the physical touch element. I'm very worried.

Janice Z. G says a thief will only rob you. A politician will even rob your unborn grandchildren, enriching themselves. None of them deserve even a penny. Well, you know, there's some government control of AI, but there's also corporations with control over AI. I really like Elon Musk, but I mean, he and some of these other gazillionaires, they're operating on levels that we don't sometimes even understand. What I like about Elon Musk is he's fighting for freedom of speech through Twitter. That I think he's been a good force for fighting against government waste and corruption. I think he's an important voice against mass immigration that is culturally misfit. I don't understand some of his projects. I don't know the final state of affairs with robots or neuralink. I know that the future is coming faster than ever and I'm not sure if we're ready to handle it. I know that's not a very decisive and conclusive thing to say. I'm still trying to figure it out. That's our show for the day. Until tomorrow, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, to you at home. Good night. And keep fighting for freedom.