Barbara Kay on Gender, Genital Waxing, Freedom, Marijuana, Integrity & The Election

♪ We are ♪ ♪ Shapin’ the nation ♪ – Barbara Kay, for any
committed follower of journalism in Canada, this will
be a familiar name. She has been a regular columnist
with the “National Post.” Her work has been featured
in publications worldwide. In her writing, Barbara
provides insightful perspectives on everything from current news to the sociological
factors of sexism. Most recently, she has written
about the Jessica Yaniv case where a trans woman,
born biologically male and retaining male
genitalia, has initiated Human Rights Tribunal cases against several
female waxologists who refused to wax
her male genitalia. She also has recently
written about the potential, long-term effects of the
legalization of marijuana, antisemitism, Islamophobia
and other provocative topics. Her work is featured
at, and she is with
me by Skype today. So Mrs. Kay, thank you so much for being with me
today by Skype. Let’s start with Jessica Yaniv. Obviously, you wrote
the article here. It’s about one week old as of
the taping of this interview. You’ve also had some back and
forth on the issue on Twitter. Talk to us about what you’re
seeing happening with this case and why you think this
has serious implications for our nation. – This case has,
it’s been a magnet for all kinds of
people to write about. Certainly on Twitter,
it’s been huge. One of the publications
I write for,,
has been front and center with this issue. It’s a real hot potato
because we have an individual. This Jessica Yaniv, sometimes
known as Jonathan Yaniv, is a biological male who is
representing as transgender who has taken a number
of women, 16 women, cosmeticians, to the
Human Rights Tribunal on the grounds that he’s
been discriminated against because they have refused
to wax his genitals. They do professional
waxing for women. Since he considers himself
a woman, that’s his gender, then he, of course, thinks he’s
being discriminated against. He is a very
troubled individual. He is a racist. He is a compulsive teller of. Well, I don’t wanna get
into all of his pathologies, but there are many. They’ve been evident
and demonstrated. So this is somebody that
the Human Rights Tribunal could have found
out very quickly was not a bonafide complainant and that the actual complaint
itself was frivolous at the very least and extremely, has very negative
implications at worst. They should not have
taken this case. The fact that they
did tells you that the law prompting
their understanding of why they should take
the case, Bill C-16, which makes gender identity
and gender expression a human right under our charter has led to the nonsense of
women being made to feel harassed because they do not
wanna touch a male’s genitals. And besides that, they
are not trained to wax. It requires a
different technique, but that’s besides the point. No woman should be forced
to handle a man’s genitalia if she doesn’t want to. That’s what. If they judged in his favor, that’s what they would
basically be saying, that if a man, biological
man thinks he’s a woman, then a woman should
be forced to handle his very real, not abstract,
but his very real genitals. – Wow, so I just wanna say as
a woman, I concur. (chuckles) So thank you for
your force of reason and the sanity that you’re
bringing into this conversation. So you mentioned. The title of your article was, “As Absurd As It Is,
The Jessica Yaniv Case “Has Serious Implications.” If Jessica wins, what do you
see the implications being? – Well, I see, for one thing, cosmeticians everywhere
would be at risk of being harassed by
men who would see this as an opportunity to have their
genitals touched by women. Men who don’t identify as
women might see this as, well, this is my right. This would force a lot of
cosmeticians out of business. A few of the women that he took
to the Human Rights Tribunal have already abandoned
their business because under this,
they feel anxious. They feel threatened. They just don’t wanna
do this anymore. Because a lot of
this was taking place in their homes, by the way. They were doing this
business out of their homes. Some of them were immigrants. They were vulnerable
people, the poorest people or people that don’t have
a huge choice of jobs. They don’t have a
lot of job skills. They don’t have a lot of
self-marketing opportunities. So here you have
a biological male taking advantage of
this vulnerability and everybody pretending,
everybody involved at the Human Rights
Tribunal, pretending that this is something that
should be taken very seriously. Because in this very
deluded and pathological male person’s mind,
they are female. What they believe
about themselves is now the arbiter of what
real women, actual women, are being forced to endure
in order to make them feel that their gender
expression is being honored. It’s a very serious case. And as I said in my
column, it could lead to, and I actually expect
it will lead to biological men
demanding treatment from gynecologists on the
grounds that since they believe they are women, gynecologists
need to treat them and to accept them as patients, even though they cannot
treat the anatomy of a male, even though this is an
anatomy-focused discipline. I could see the day when
the universities would, medical schools would say, “Well, it is an entitlement.” And it is unfair. It’s discriminatory for there
to be a branch of medicine that only deals with physically
or biological females. That’s discriminatory. And therefore,
gynecologists henceforth will have to study male
anatomy and male pathologies in order to deal with
transgender women who wish to be treated
by gynecologists. I could see that coming. – Wow, so really, this
invokes the question of, when does the
defense of the rights of one group of individuals
lead to the abuse of another group of individuals and potentially,
the sexual abuse of? I would call being forced
to touch a man’s genitalia sexual abuse. There’s people watching us
right now that are alarmed and maybe even feeling
a little bit powerless as we’re seeing this creeping
barrage of liberalism basically edge across our
nation on various frontiers. What would you say, Barbara,
to the average Canadian out there who’s
concerned and alarmed about what we’re
talking about today? – Yes, I mean, it’s a very
tough question to answer. Because on these issues, the average person does
not feel they have a voice because the space seems to
be taken up by activists and ideologically driven
people systemically, in education, especially in
the media and the academy which is, of course,
dominated by people who actually do believe that
this nonsense is, you know. They really believe in
the rights of people like Jessica Yaniv to be heard
or at least to get a hearing. So they’re very much
in their corner. Either that or if they can
see that it’s nonsense, and many of them do,
they keep silent. There are many media
people out there that are not even
covering this case because of how bad it looks
for the whole trans movement. So one of the things
that people can do is, they can write to the media that are not covering
it properly, like
“The Toronto Star” and the CBC and “Canadaland” that are keeping
fairly silent on this. Or else, they’re giving it not the kind of
coverage it deserves. And say, “Hey, this is
a very serious issue. “You’re not doing
your part here. “You know this guy’s crazy. “This should not be at
the Human Rights Tribunal. “Why aren’t you saying so?” That’s one thing. Another thing that everyone
has the right to do and the ability
to do is to write to their member of
Parliament and to say, “I don’t like what
I’m seeing here. “This is having a deleterious
and negative effect “on our culture. “You are my only avenue
to the government. “If you’re not prepared
to be a voice for sanity “on this issue, I
will give my vote “to somebody who will be.” If you can get a lot of people
to do that or petitions, these do have an effect if they’re properly organized. It does take time and effort. These are the traditional ways
to express your displeasure with a change in the
cultural environment. There are certainly a
lot of people out there who are really sick of this. Unfortunately, a lot of
politicians are very timid to put themselves out
there on this issue because they fear the
backlash from the activists, very powerful. They’ve infiltrated
psychological associations, endocrinology associations. They’re very strong,
throughout our culture. That does put the average
person at a disadvantage, no question. – Now would you call this
systematic, nationwide bullying? – Yes, it is bullying. Because a lot of innocent people and particularly children are
being harmed by this ideology. A couple of weeks ago,
I wrote up the case of the Buffone family who
have taken their case to the Human Rights
Tribunal against teachers and the superintendent
of their school district for the distress caused to
their daughter in grade one, who was told by her teacher, “There’s no such thing
as boys and girls.” And you know, girls aren’t
real, and boys aren’t real. She was teaching gender
fluidity to six-year-olds who have no ability to
absorb or understand such an abstract theory. It’s not even a scientific. It’s not even a fact. It’s a theory. So she’s taking them to
Human Rights Tribunal. I doubt that she’ll win because
the Human Rights Tribunals, as we see in the
Jessica Yaniv case, the fact that they are willing
to give it consideration tells you that they
already have a bias because no unbiased person
could look at this individual and look at what he’s
doing to these 16 women and say that this guy has a case for having been
discriminated against. So they should’ve just
tossed it out and said, “Look, you’re not well. “We’re not accepting this case.” – Now we also have the
case of the BC father who is not allowed
to refer to his child by their biological gender. If he does, he will be charged with inciting family violence. One thing that really
touched me, I wanna say, about this case is, his
compassion and genuine concern for his daughter. Because he was basically saying, “Listen, the science isn’t in “on gender conversion therapies, “gender conversion surgeries.” He said, “I just wanna see
this process slowed down “a little bit, so I can
dialogue with my child “on the potential
long-term implications.” Have you done any study
or given any thought to the long-term
implications of children having surgeries and taking
drugs to gender transition before the science
is really in on it? – Yeah, I have paid a lot
of attention to this topic. I have written a
fair amount on it. I do find it. Again, you’ve got
ideology-driven pseudoscience dominating the discussion. So that people who are
vulnerable to accepting what I call indoctrination,
you know, like teachers in teacher’s ed, teaching
these theories as facts. They are not science-driven. The one thing we
know from science is that children who present
as the opposite gender in early childhood, most of
them will, after puberty, return to comfort in
their biological sex. Many of them will turn out
to be either gay or lesbian. And to rush to, you
know, giving these kids hormones that
change their bodies, change their social integration,
change a lot of things on the basis of
childish perception is, to me, in many cases. I’m not saying that gender
dysphoria does not exist. Of course, it exists. It’s a real thing. And very often, children
who present very early, it turns out that yes, some of
them do have this condition, and it’s going to last
the rest of their life. But they are a minority. Most of the children
who will say, “I think I’m a boy,” or “I
think I’m a girl,” or whatever, after puberty, they
are going to say, “Well, you know, after
all, I’m pretty comfortable “with who I am.” That is something
to keep in mind. What we’re seeing now
is actual encouragement where there doesn’t need
to be encouragement. The father that you
mentioned is, to me, expressing a perspective
that any responsible, sane parent should be holding
with regard to their children because the first thing
is not to harm your child. Waiting to see if this is
gonna be a permanent condition, it seems to me the least
one could do to ensure. Once you’ve done surgery,
especially once you’ve taken cross hormones after puberty, your physical
characteristics are altered, some of them are
altered permanently, and you run the very
high risk of infertility, even if you stop
taking them later on. So I feel for that father. I really do. – Wow, wow, so we
have other things that are not accessible to
Canadians until they’re over 18. Perhaps this should be
one of those things. You mentioned earlier
about how we have a voice. This is an election year. The good news is that our
members of Parliament, current and candidates seeking
to be members of Parliament, are gonna be knocking
on Canadians’ doors. I would assume you would
maybe encourage people to be raising some
of these issues. Any other thoughts on
this before we shift into the marijuana conversation? – (chuckles) Yeah, I
would encourage people, parents, anyone who’s
concerned about this issue to raise it with candidates and to tell each candidate
that they are going to ask what they intend to do about it and that you’re going
to be giving your vote to the one you feel is gonna be representing your point of view. Certainly, they should be
very proactive in doing that. To be realistic, I don’t think a significant number
of Canadians are
tuned into this issue because it’s not affecting them. They hear things, but
they’re not digging into it in any great depth. And because they
believe that educators have the best interests of
their children at heart, so they tend not to challenge what their kids are
learning in school. Many of them don’t even know what they’re learning in school. Because unless a
child brings it home, and many don’t,
they have no idea that their kids
are being taught, there is not such thing as
real boys and real girls. – Wow, I wanna read a quote. This is the second to last
paragraph from your article in the Jessica Yaniv situation. “The trouble with democracy,
one trouble anyway, “is our complacency. “We’re too trusting. “We think our liberties
are well-protected in law.” So with that, talk to
your members of Parliament and candidates. Good summary? – Yes, that is a good summary. – (chuckles) There you go. Okay, so let’s talk. Let’s switch gears here and
talk about your other article that you produced recently, “Pot’s Legal. “But We Come To Regret That.” You know, this one really
smacked me in the gut because I actually live
in the Niagara Region. All around us, we are
smelling marijuana because of the growing, the greenhouses that
are being taken over by marijuana businesses. There’s a high school
that’s being built right next to a mega
marijuana warehouse. Unpack this for us. – Well, marijuana is legal. And in fact, Canada was the
second country to legalize it. So only one other
country, Uruguay, had legalized it before Canada. It was rushed. It was really rushed
in the sense that this is a drug that many
claims are made for it, many positive claims
are made for it. First of all, three claims
are made that are not true. One, that it’s harmless. Two, that it will end
illegal black market marijuana production and sales. And three, that it’s
actually therapeutic for any number of conditions. Only the third one is
even partially true because it does seem to
have a positive effect for certain quite
restricted conditions. I hear that it works
quite well for glaucoma. But then, so do real drugs. And that it can ease nausea
after chemo for cancer patients. But that’s only been
measured against a placebo. So measured against the actual
other drugs, I’m not sure. And of course, the
main ingredient is not the psychoactive THC
component, but the oil, the cannabis oil which
does not get you high. So without getting into
too much detail about that, the main claim is
that it was harmless. That claim is made by activists and those who have a stake,
usually an economic stake in the marijuana business. It is not harmless. We know that now
for a certainty. But a lot of the warning studies that are absolutely
credible, nobody is. Even those most engaged in
propagandizing for marijuana can no longer deny that the link between adolescent
use of marijuana and the onset of psychosis
is established and real. It is a deep concern
for researchers who feel that, at
least in Canada, their warnings were
given short shrift. They’ve been heard much
more in other places. In the United
Kingdom, for example, where a lot of these
studies were done, the warnings about the
advent of psychosis and the implications for
schizophrenia have been heard to the extent that
marijuana use is actually, even though it is not legal
in Britain, it might be. There’s a campaign there too. Marijuana use has gone
down in the United Kingdom, but it has gone up
significantly here. That’s largely due
to the fact that researchers here that were
investigating the link could not get
their voices heard. The people, it seems to
me, in Health Canada, were not, how shall
I say, receptive to some of the loudest
voices that were talking about the harms of marijuana. They were quite susceptible
to the blandishments of voices like the Emery
husband and wife team who are going to benefit
so much financially. They were heard. They’ve been campaigning
for years, of course. What’s the husband’s name? It’s Jodie and
sorry, mental block. Emery, anyways, the
one who went to. He was willing to go
to prison over it all. They were heard
by Health Canada. But some of the top researchers on the harms of
marijuana were not heard. So we’re finding
out more and more that I find very concerning. Women smoking to ease
nausea in pregnancy, that’s something they
should not be doing. There’s more and more
evidence suggesting that there are harms
associated with that. Marijuana is a fat soluble
drug unlike alcohol. Fat soluble drugs stay. Like alcohol, once it’s
out of your system, it’s out of your system. We know how long it takes for a certain amount of
alcohol to leave your system. Marijuana, since
it’s stored in fat and there’s a lot of fat
around your brain by the way, and it’s stored in fat
around other tissues and other organs, can stay
in your body for weeks, undetected, unknown. Really, there’s just. I’m not a researcher myself, but you don’t have to
be a rocket scientist to read the conclusions
of the research. You don’t have to be
all that brainy to know that when a government
study comes out from the National
Association of Medicine say, this is a study you
can give credit to. It’s not coming
from somebody’s blog who’s got a stake
in something that, you know, an
anti-marijuana drug. I don’t know. I mean, it’s easy to
find credible sources, and it’s easy to know which
are credible and which aren’t. Credible sources are
sending strong warnings about the negative
effects of cannabis, especially in young people. So it’s quite concerning. Because since legalization, many, many new users
have come on stream. In the first quarter of 2019, we know that 646,000 new
users have started marijuana for the first time
since it became legal. That’s a significant number. – Wow, now you alluded to
the document of research on the negative impacts
of the brain developments and the mental state of
particularly young people who use this, who use marijuana. I know Dr. Harold Kalant from
the University of Toronto has basically said
somewhere between 22 to 25 is probably the marker where the human brain has
developed to full capacity. He advised strongly, the
Parliamentary committee reviewing this, that it
should not be legalized before that timeframe
in an individual’s life. Parents that are watching
this interview right now, that have 14, 15-year-old kids, are you aware of any sources
that they could go to to educate their children,
seeing as this is, has been legalized
for 18-year-olds? – There are websites. I’m trying to think
of the name of. So I didn’t come
prepared with those names to this interview.
– No problem. – But I could send you
a few links afterwards. Yes, if you google around, you will find that first of all, there are many
organizations in Canada. I’m trying to
remember the name of. There’s one that foremost. The Drug Abuse Network
something something. Okay, so my bad. I should have come with
all these names written. – No, I’m putting
you on the spot here. It’s my fault, not yours. But we’ll research and put
it up on the screen here. So it’s all good. But there are resources, so Google is your–
– Yeah, there are. The trouble is, when you
mention the names of these, “Oh these people, these are
all prudes or they’re–” – Radical fundamentalists?
– Exactly, exactly. They’ll say all the same
things that, you know. I mean, I remember in
2008 when I was up against my editorial board,
and they teased me. They said, “Oh yeah, reefer
madness,” ha, ha, ha. They called me a Miss
Grundy that I didn’t. I was against people having fun. Actually, one of the
questions they put to me in an editorial was, well, would you have not legalized
alcohol and tobacco? I said, “If people knew
in 1600 when tobacco “was first cultivated or
cigarettes for inhaling.” I said, “If they had known
then what we know now, “I am sure it would
have been made illegal “at the very beginning.” And then, you wouldn’t have had millions and millions
and millions of people who enjoyed smoking and
who are addicted to it to contend with. You wouldn’t have
had all the money it brings into government
to be motivated not to lose. So as for tobacco, yeah, I
think we would’ve seen it banned if we had known when it was, before that barn door was
opened and the horse ran out. The difference between alcohol
and marijuana, presently, is that anyone who takes
their first drink today is absolutely aware of the
danger of falling into addiction or of abusing it or of
driving under its influence or working under its influence or doing anything except
relaxing under its influence. Nobody is trying to
hide any of the bad, the negative aspects of alcohol. Not even the people who
are, you know, Widdifields or who own vineyards
or who love wine. I happen to like wine very much. I have it almost every
night with my dinner. I have a glass of wine. But I would never. If somebody says to
me, “But alcoholism,” I would never say,
“Oh no, no, no, wait. “It’s not so bad as you think.” Of course, of course,
I’m right there saying, “Yes, we must do
everything we can “to reduce the harms
and try to get kids “from becoming addicted
and abusing alcohol.” So however we get. But the difference is
that with marijuana, you’re not hearing that. You’re not hearing that
from responsible people. You’re not hearing
it from educators. You’re not hearing
it from doctors, doctors even who
are prescribing it for pain relief or whatever. They don’t say, “Now look,
I want you to understand, “there’s a danger here.” So the government didn’t say, “We’re not regulating
this for the use of people “under the age of 25,” even though that is
what research is saying. So there’s a lot of misleading
or suppressed evidence around cannabis
that you do not find with other drugs like
cocaine or heroine or alcohol or anything
else, and that’s my beef. I’m not saying, “Turn it
around and de-legalize it.” That’s not gonna happen. What I’m saying is, I want the
government to be transparent. I want Health Canada
to be transparent and more than
transparent, proactive. They should be warning women. On their website,
Health Canada says, “We don’t advocate the use
of marijuana in pregnancy. “Women should be very
cautious and very prudent.” They say that. But you have to go to
their website to find that. Why isn’t there an education
campaign out there now, saying, “If you’re using
cannabis, marijuana, “for nausea in early pregnancy,
you are taking a risk. “And the risks are”? And then you would do
like low birth weight, premature birth. Then there’s a host of other
metabolic possibilities that honest research
is coming to. They just don’t know. I think in the next 10 years, we’ll see exponential growth
in the kind of research that shows that the editorial
board who laughed at me when I said we have
to be more cautious, we have to learn more, and
I linked with schizophrenia. They laughed at me. That was in 2008. They’re not laughing now. They’re not apologizing,
but (chuckles) they’re certainly not laughing because half the
research or most of it hadn’t even been
done yet in 2008. Now it’s there. Now it’s very, very
clear what the links are. We’ll find out links
to other stuff too. I’m quite sure. So all I want is the
government to be honest. I want them to be very upfront about the risks
that people take, and it’s not harmless. It is not harmless. – Wow, so insightful,
thank you so much. And thank you so much for
being a voice on this issue. So obviously, right
now, this is landing in the hands of parents and
loved ones to get informed, to make sure the people in
their world are informed about the potential negative
impacts of marijuana use. Government and honesty, I
wanna just talk about that for a second at
the close of this. And then, maybe we’ll
shift into some thoughts about the election
before we close here. But it seems like there has
been a repeated behavior of the current
administration anyway, and perhaps every
administration’s like
this in some way, of censoring anything
that opposes their agenda. Or maybe censorship is
too strong of a word, systematically
resisting anything that would oppose their agenda. Perhaps this is one
of those examples where we know that the
liberal government campaigned on the legalization
of marijuana. You alluded to the fact, many
times in your sharing there, that it seems like the
media is for some reason ignoring or has been ignoring the negative research
about marijuana use. Do you think there’s
a direct link to the fact that this
was a government policy that they had pushed
in the last election? – Well, I think there’s
a lot of synergy there. We have a government
that is led by an extremely progressive
prime minister who himself has these biases. He came to office
with these biases. I mean, this is a prime
minister who won’t allow in his caucus or even
to run for office anyone who believes,
who does not believe that abortion is a fabulous
thing, who is pro-life. So if you actually,
actively say, “You can’t run for
office in my party “if you hold those views,” then you’re the kind of
person who does believe in shutting down
freedom of conscience, freedom of thought,
freedom of expression. As a general rule, you think
that you have discovered the only way to
think on an issue, and anybody who disagrees
with you is not only wrong, but that their views
should be suppressed. So I think this is a general
message from government. But apart from that, I
think most of our media and even including, even on the “National
Post” editorial board which, of course, the
“National Post” is a right-of-center paper. But still, on the
editorial board, you have several people who
identify as libertarians when it comes to
personal behaviors. So they feel very strongly. They believe in
individual liberties. Because some of them, I
think, are very sympathetic to the marijuana campaign, they, I don’t think,
did their homework. They weren’t motivated
to do their homework because they already thought, everybody should have the right. Well, if you’re
allowed to drink, you should be allowed to smoke. It seems to me not
a lot of effort was put into investigating
the other side of the argument because they weren’t pushed to. So the media, in
general, is very liberal. But just to step back a moment and look at that word liberal. You know, Faytene, I sometimes
think that we have to. The words conservative
and liberal, honestly, maybe they’re a
little outmoded now. I personally, although I
identify as a conservative, I actually think I’m
a classical liberal. Because I don’t think
liberalism, as it
was once practiced and with which I
agreed when I young, I saw nothing wrong
with liberalism as it was practiced in my youth. But that doesn’t exist anymore. It’s progressivism. We have people that
have moved so far left that it’s wrong, I think,
to call them liberals. I think that many
conservatives who, you know. I hold views that I still
did many, many years ago. But I called myself a
classical liberalism. I believe in freedom
of expression. That’s one of my prime values. But liberals today, who
are actually progressives, they don’t believe in
freedom of expression. They believe in
not giving offense (coughs) to certain
groups, identity groups. So identity politics is not
what I would call liberalism. It’s progressivism, socialism,
Marxism, whatever you want. But it’s not what I used
to think of as liberalism. We can get caught
up in these words. What do they mean? Let’s define them. Classical liberals used to
believe in the individual as the metric for rights,
not entire groups. In the Jessica Yaniv case,
we see that trans women as a group have rights that
can invalidate the rights of other entire,
of the majority. This was never the intention
of the rights movement that liberals began. (sighs deeply) It’s
hard, nowadays, to choose your own label.
– (laughs) Well, if anyone could find
a new, appropriate name for the Liberal Party,
it would be you. So I nominate you. I nominate you to
write an article. – At least they call themselves
the Progressive Party. They should. – So let’s talk election. We’ve been talking a lot
about really freedom rights and freedom to have
full knowledge on
the marijuana issue, freedom to not wax
male genitalia if
you are a waxologist. Do you feel like the freedom
issue is one of the main issues that Canadians should
be concerned about at this point in this
national history? Or is there something else
that you’re tracking with? – Yeah, I think it’s huge. I think that a very pivotal
point in our cultural history occurred in 2016 with Bill C-16. That was the bill that
enshrined gender expression and gender identity in
the Ontario charter. That was when Jordan Peterson
made his trilogy of videos. That was the first time
that Jordan Peterson started to become
a household name. I had never heard
of him before that. Suddenly, I was
watching these videos of this psychology professor
from the University of Toronto who is saying, “I
will not be compelled “to use pronouns that
I don’t believe in. “You cannot compel me. “But I am telling you. “I’m warning you “that someday, people
will be compelled. “And if they don’t use them, “they will run the risk
of fines or imprisonment.” Everybody laughed at him
and said, “Oh, come on. “You’re being overdramatic.” Well, he wasn’t
being overdramatic because that father that
you alluded to before has been told that he
will be punished severely if he does not use his own
daughter’s preferred pronoun. We’re seeing the
results of this bill now in the Jessica Yaniv case. We’re gonna see
it more and more. We’re seeing it. Many parents have told me that
they have been threatened. One woman in Ontario actually
was more than threatened. The Child Services came
to her and told her that they were considering
removing her child from her home because
she was telling her child that gender fluidity
was not a thing. She was going against what
the teachers were teaching in school about gender fluidity. So she won her case. It was a case. She won it. But I’m wondering if
the next time around, parents will lose their child if they refuse to
affirm too early. And if they say, “Well,
we love our child, “but we’re gonna wait and see. “We don’t wanna give
permission for hormones “to a nine-year-old. “Like, we just don’t,” maybe that child will be
removed from their home. I think it’s quite conceivable. So yeah, I think the state
ownership of children has gone pretty
deep at this point. That’s a major issue. So freedom is a
big thing for me. Freedom of speech, especially
to me, is a very big issue. – Would you agree? You just mentioned the
clamp down on parents, parental rights. Would you agree that
we’re sort of in a repeat of the cycle of what happened
with the residential schools where the government
came in and said, “Listen, we know better. “We’re gonna take the
Indian out of the Indian. “We’re gonna reprogram
that, reprogram them”? Is that basically what’s
happening right now in the sex issue? – You know, a lot
of people might say that that’s a very
dramatic comparison. They might get very offended. They would say it’s
an appropriation of a cultural period
of true suffering. So maybe I wouldn’t make
that exact comparison. But it is an example
of the state saying, “We know better.” It is an example of
the state saying, “Well, we’re gonna set the terms “of what your child
learns about gender, “even if we don’t have a
scientific basis for it.” For example, parents
are not informed if their children come
out at school as trans of if they join one of those
gay/straight alliance clubs. In other words,
they do not include. Schools no longer,
in some cases, look to the parents as partners in dealing with a
child’s problems or bring the parents
in for collaboration on how best to deal with
a child who’s in distress about one thing or the other. They’re saying, “If
you do not believe “what we have decided
to believe about gender “and whatever else
goes along with it, “then you’re not fit to parent.” That’s basically
what they’re saying. You’re not fit to parent. We’re better fit to parent
your child than you are. – Wow, alarming. Okay, so the good news is, we’re still free enough that
I can interview somebody like you, and I can record it. I can put it on Facebook
and on our TV show. You can write about it in
the “National Post” next week if you choose to. So that’s good news
is that we still have a measure of freedom and
being able to be a voice. I wanna close this interview with a little bit of a
sentimental question. You are in your 70s
as I understand. Am I correct about that? – Yes, 76.
– 76 years young. I am 44, gonna be 45 this year. There’s a whole generation.
– That’s a good age. That’s a good age to be.
– Okay. (chuckles) There’s a whole
generation of thinkers and commentators,
articulators coming up. What would your advice
be to the next generation of nation builders in Canada, in addition to anything
that you’ve already said? – I think, right now, that
the most important job that the new generation has, for those who are, excuse
the expression, woke to the fact that certain
freedoms have been hijacked and that they are going to
be educated in institutions that are dominated by
a single point of view, and they will not know,
even in some cases, that they’re not getting
other points of view. It’s very. It’s really obligatory
for those people like you, Faytene, and others
like you who can see that you’ve been
duped and bluffed, to encourage other
young people or parents to badger the universities. The universities have to change. We need a change of culture
at the universities. That’s where it all happens. This is where. Well, it happens in
the high schools too. It starts happening
kindergarten, obviously. But the main, I
would say, activation of young people’s will
to change the world to make the world
a better place, it’s usually in university
when they get that urge to make a difference. But they don’t know that
what they’re learning is very one-sided.
(clears throat) So whatever efforts
could be made to change what’s going
on at the universities or even to boycott
the universities and to tell universities,
“I’m not going to a university “that does not give
me a full education, “that does not give me
the spectrum of thought, “that doesn’t give me a
home, an intellectual home “in which free
inquiry is possible.” This is what people like
you, of your generation, have to be activating for so that the incoming
crop of young Canadians are getting a fair
shake, intellectually, in these institutions. Otherwise, they go
through the universities. Then they go into the law
school, and they become lawyers who believe in compelled speech as we’ve seen in the Law
Society of Upper Canada. That was a whole other side bar where they wanna
compel all the lawyers to sign statements of diversity and inclusivity and whatever. Then you see them in. They are the educators that
are teaching the teachers. So the teachers are learning
from ideology-driven people at OISC, for example, extremely ideologically
driven school of education. (sighs deeply) So it has to
change at the university level. How that’s gonna happen,
honestly, I don’t know. Because culture,
there is such a thing as a cultural zeitgeist. There is a thrust. It’s like a tide. You can’t stop the
tide coming in. You can stand there and hold
up your hands against it, like King Canute. There’s only so much
individuals can do. Sometimes, you end up
becoming a witness to history, rather than a player
because there was no way in. There was no way to
force back this tide. I feel like that sometimes,
that we’re living. We’re swimming
against the current, but we’re not going anywhere because it takes
all our strength just to stay in place
and not to be washed up, along with all the
other wreckage. So this is a very pessimistic
message I’m giving you. I’m very sorry, Faytene. I’m sure you were hoping
for something more practical and more optimistic
and more encouraging than what I’m saying. – Well, I wanna say this. There’s two thoughts
coming to my mind. One is that we need to be people
of principle and integrity and do the right thing, whether
we see the result or not. I think history judges
people of integrity and courage as heroes. History judges people
of lack of will, lack of integrity as cowards. So I wanna be judged as a hero,
hopefully, in some measure. So we can gird up our
loins in that regard. But the other thing too is, I
do have hope in the sense of that we have seen nations shift, literally on the hinge
point of elections. We’ve seen the United
States, obviously, shift. I’m not giving commentary
on it one way or another. But we’ve also seen. We saw Canada shift in 2015. I just have to have faith that, as much as we’ve seen it
shift in one direction, that we could see it shift
in other directions as well. – There’s a lot of
complacency in Canada. There’s a lot of, we’re
not like the United States. We would never have elected
that Donald Trump (chuckles) or anybody like him. Although, Doug Ford, I suppose, the fact that he got
elected does tell us that there’s a lot of
unrest around these issues. But will that translate
into a change at the polls? I think that, in terms
of population numbers, I’ll be very curious
to see the numbers that Bernier polls in and if he even
wins a seat or two. That, I think, would
be kind of momentous. – Yeah and if he does,
then those people would be effectively absorbed into
the Conservative caucus, functionally, at
some level anyway. – Like they would be conscience. But they would be a gadfly. – Well, such an
interesting time. Barbara, Mrs. Kay,
I just wanna say thank you.
– Barbara, I’m Barbara. – (chuckles) Well, I just
wanna say thank you so much to your service to our
nation for decades now. I’ve looked up to you for
decades and read your work and been impacted by it. I just, from my heart,
wanna say thank you so much. Thank you for your
insightful commentary today. You’ve given us so
much to think about. I really hope we
can do this again. Maybe after the election, we
can talk about what happened. – I hope so too. I’ve enjoyed myself. By the way, you’re
a hero, Faytene. What you’re doing
is the right thing. I admire you. (chuckles)
– Aw, thank you so much. It’s an honor to
sit at your feet. So have a great rest of the day. We’ll talk again soon. – Thanks so much. I look forward to it. (lively band music)

2 thoughts on “Barbara Kay on Gender, Genital Waxing, Freedom, Marijuana, Integrity & The Election

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *