Tonight on the Ezra Levant Show, Ezra highlights a recent incident involving a Liberal MP, George Chahal, that has made the rounds on social media.
Chahal took to Twitter to share a distasteful voicemail he received at his office, with claims of racism, homophobia, misogyny, and purported death threats.
A sound decision would be to report such a case to the police, but instead, Chahal chose to publicize it on Twitter, prompting questions about his motives.
Upon hearing the audio, it is evident that the same individual is responsible for the series of offensive remarks.
While the caller uses strong language and derogatory terms, the death threat is ambiguous at best. The reference to "corporal punishment," for instance, could be interpreted as a threat, but it is not definitively so.
Chahal's reaction to this incident is telling. He talks about fighting back, but his approach seems to be more about censoring and vilifying non-Liberals than about taking legal action against the caller.
The public sharing of the voicemail raises several questions: Why did Chahal opt to publicize this voicemail instead of reporting it to the police? Why did he wait two months before addressing it? And crucially, where is the clear death threat he mentions?
In a related media coverage, political science professor Keith Brownsey suggests the incident could be considered a hate crime.
But according to the Criminal Code's provision on hate speech, such statements need to be publicly communicated and incite hatred against an identifiable group, potentially leading to a breach of peace.
In this case, the offensive remarks were directed at Chahal, not communicated publicly until Chahal himself decided to do so. The caller's main gripe seems to be against the Liberal party rather than against any particular racial or sexual orientation group.
Furthermore, the incident has been compared to remarks made by Prime Minister Trudeau about Albertans or the unvaccinated, with some claiming that Trudeau's comments are actually closer to hate speech.
Interestingly, the media coverage also features security bars in the neighborhood where Chahal's office is located, insinuating that they were installed due to the voicemail incident, even though they have been in place for a long time. Could this be an attempt to stoke fear and gain sympathy?
And it’s worth noting that Chahal himself was involved in a crime previously. He confessed to stealing his opponent’s campaign literature, a punishable offense under the law. Yet, this issue seems to have been swept under the rug, again raising questions about the double standards at play.
As Russian revolutionary Vladimir Lenin famously said, "Who, whom?" - implying that someone will always be the perpetrator and someone else the victim. This incident seems to be a case of Chahal employing Lenin's principle. He doesn't seem to mind the harsh words or the crime, as long as it serves his narrative.
Author and historian Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn once wrote about the hypocrisy of punishment, stating that the same act could be seen as mere misbehavior for one person, but as terrorism for another.
It appears that Chahal, Trudeau, and their media allies are free to call their opponents names, but when the tables are turned, the response is different.
This incident seems less about addressing hate crimes and more about censoring the public, particularly those who dare to challenge the Trudeau regime.
It is a stark reminder of the need to critically examine the narratives we consume and question the motives of those who craft them.
GUEST: Lorne Gunter, Senior political columnist on recent polling showing the Alberta NDP taking the lead over Danielle Smith's United Conservatives.