Speaker 1: On scolds as Kodia.
Speaker 2: This is the Reader Panalty Show.
Speaker 1: Good evening and welcome to the Reader Panicky Show. Coming
Speaker 1: up tonight. Foreign billionaires funneling money to a taxpayer funded
Speaker 1: activist body to block Australian energy projects, The unintended consequences
Speaker 1: of Labour's under sixteen social media band.
Speaker 3: Senator Alex Antik will join me shortly to discuss Queensland
Speaker 3: Premier David Prisso Fooley under pressure to review.
Speaker 1: The state's radical gender laws, and will take a close
Speaker 1: look at the extraordinary scope of the Hunter Biden pardon
Speaker 1: and what it means for President Joe Biden's legacy.
Speaker 3: Josh Hammer will join me shortly and Left.
Speaker 1: Is Losing It features I rate hosts of the View
Speaker 1: having to issue yet another correction under legal advice.
Speaker 4: Of course, I have a fairy quick smart and it's
Speaker 4: not got be that quick. Pete had said has denied
Speaker 4: any wrongdoing.
Speaker 1: But first, it's early in the week, but we've already
Speaker 1: had two apologies. We've had one from the foreign to
Speaker 1: owned Australian venue company, the nation's second largest pub group,
Speaker 1: has apologized for its anti Australia Day activism. I'll be
Speaker 1: speaking to Senator Alex Antick about that shortly, about whether
Speaker 1: we should accept that apology and how to counter corporate
Speaker 1: virtue signaling. And this week we've also had an apology
Speaker 1: from Senator Lydia Thorpe. The former Green has apologized to
Speaker 1: Senator Pauline Hanson for calling her a convicted racist during
Speaker 1: a press conference last week. This is after Senator Hanson issued.
Speaker 3: A legal threat.
Speaker 1: Thorpe's apologized in a letter to Senator Hanson and also
Speaker 1: apologized publicly on the social media platform X.
Speaker 3: Channel nine and the.
Speaker 1: ABC have also apologized for airing the defamatory comments. Let's
Speaker 1: bring in News Corps Senior writer Patrick Carlin and Patrick.
Speaker 1: This apology from Lydia Thought must have been a painful one.
Speaker 1: She gets away with so much, but the threasher of
Speaker 1: legal actions saw her apologize and apologize very quickly.
Speaker 5: Yes, look, she got it wrong. She had to apologize,
Speaker 5: and I think it was what two sentences or about
Speaker 5: six words on X that actually constituted the apology. She
Speaker 5: obviously didn't want to do it, but I think it
Speaker 5: just goes to the biggest story of Lydia thought. You
Speaker 5: look at King Charles, when was that about a month ago.
Speaker 5: I think that was the moment where perhaps Australia said
Speaker 5: hang on, enough is enough. And I think she sort
Speaker 5: of jumped the shark at that point. And I think,
Speaker 5: you know, you're getting apologies, you're getting finger gestures in
Speaker 5: the Senate, you're getting papers thrown around. She seems you're
Speaker 5: getting angrier and even less constructive than she was.
Speaker 1: I think she has to do herself these days. Because
Speaker 1: she had the big stunt with King Charles, got so
Speaker 1: much international attention.
Speaker 3: She was on every TV network in the UK, and
Speaker 3: I think.
Speaker 6: She misses that.
Speaker 1: I think she wants a bit more of that kind
Speaker 1: of attentions. I think the type where any attention is
Speaker 1: good attention, whether it's negative or not. Now, this disturbing
Speaker 1: report was in Today's Daily Telegraph on the billionaire widow
Speaker 1: of Apple's Steve Jobs leading a foreign charge to funnel
Speaker 1: money to the taxpayer funded activist body, the Environmental Defenders Offers,
Speaker 1: which tries to block Australian energy projects in court. It
Speaker 1: often succeeds in delaying or stopping these projects. It's emerged
Speaker 1: the foundation, launched by Lourene Jobs as well as American
Speaker 1: clothing giant Patagonia, two of the top foreign contributors to
Speaker 1: the Environmental Defenders.
Speaker 3: Offers doesn't amount to foreign interference.
Speaker 5: Patrick, Look, possibly, I think the problem with this is
Speaker 5: the government doesn't know who is funding the EDO. The
Speaker 5: IDEO is going to court. They're making up stories according
Speaker 5: to this last ruling, trying to you know, they're acting
Speaker 5: like activists, like political operative to actually shut down big projects,
Speaker 5: big jobs, and it's ideologically driven, and they are being
Speaker 5: funded by people we don't know the full situation with.
Speaker 5: They could be funded as has been outed by a
Speaker 5: foreign government that seeks to sort of undermine Australia's energy security.
Speaker 5: And the fact the problem is a they're activists and
Speaker 5: b the government doesn't know it who's funning them.
Speaker 1: And another problem is we're also funding And I don't
Speaker 1: understand why a single cent of tax payer money goes
Speaker 1: into impoverishing us, into stopping much needed projects, particularly when
Speaker 1: it comes to energy, because we are paying some of
Speaker 1: the highest energy costs anywhere in the world despite having
Speaker 1: abundant reserves of everything coal.
Speaker 3: Gas, uranium.
Speaker 1: A report by the Business Counsel of Australia has ranked
Speaker 1: you'll be shocked to hear this Atric Victoria as the
Speaker 1: worst state to run a business.
Speaker 3: Who would have thought that.
Speaker 1: BCA Chief executive Brand Black said that Victoria must address
Speaker 1: its regulatory environment, which is putting a handbreak on the economy.
Speaker 1: He also said Victoria has some of the least competitive
Speaker 1: property tax settings, payroll taxes and business business licensing requirements
Speaker 1: in the country. It fundamentally needs to look at how
Speaker 1: these are holding back its economy. Yes, we've got also
Speaker 1: the biggest state debt by some margin.
Speaker 3: South Australia, which is.
Speaker 1: The country's most efficient planning system, came in at number one.
Speaker 3: I think that would surprise a few people.
Speaker 5: Oh look, it's not a shock that Victoria has been bad.
Speaker 5: Melbourne is called the fourth most livable city in the world.
Speaker 5: It's not in the top four Liverpool cities in Australia
Speaker 5: at the moment. This is just more of what Melbournians
Speaker 5: already known. It is not a good place to do business.
Speaker 5: It is not a good place to own a house,
Speaker 5: or run a restaurant or do anything.
Speaker 1: Everything invest We've got the number of mum and dad
Speaker 1: property investors selling out. You've got small business owners who
Speaker 1: are fleeing, and those state taxes, the payroll tax and
Speaker 1: the land taxes are just skyrocketing.
Speaker 5: They're goudgets and it sort of takes you back to
Speaker 5: nineteen ninety in Melbourne. We had the recession, we had
Speaker 5: a long term labor government that had completely buggered up
Speaker 5: the numbers for a long time, and back in nineteen
Speaker 5: ninety we had to wait until nineteen ninety two to
Speaker 5: actually vote out that government of the day. We're in
Speaker 5: the same position now. There is no blue sky ahead.
Speaker 2: At this stage.
Speaker 5: We're two years away from a state election. Nobody's happy,
Speaker 5: everybody's miserable, and it just feels like Melbourne really is
Speaker 5: on the nose in such a such a really tangible way.
Speaker 1: At least back then, the Victorian people had the option
Speaker 1: of a different party with a very different set of
Speaker 1: policies and a very strong leader. We had a Jeff
Speaker 1: Kennett on that and he was voted in and he
Speaker 1: transformed the state under his time there. Whether you loved
Speaker 1: him or hated him, he definitely had a strong impact.
Speaker 1: We don't have a Jeff Kennett in the Liberal Party now.
Speaker 1: We've got John Pursuit.
Speaker 5: On and that's part of the problem, isn't it.
Speaker 3: That's almost part of the problem.
Speaker 5: Yes, I was talking to a liberal person the other
Speaker 5: day who's talking about Pursuito being knocked off. And we're
Speaker 5: going to have this person or that person. You've got
Speaker 5: the defamation case coming out soon. That's going to distract
Speaker 5: and suck up so much oxygen. We need a decent
Speaker 5: opposition more than ever.
Speaker 1: You can't have good government without having a decent opposition,
Speaker 1: and we certainly have neither of those things in Victoria.
Speaker 1: Before you go, Patrick a report from Sky News his
Speaker 1: own Caroline Marcus on Sydney University referring one of its
Speaker 1: own academics to the police after he posted online threats
Speaker 1: about a Jewish group and Sky News Australia hosts, including myself,
Speaker 1: But the university says it cannot sack this character because
Speaker 1: the threats were made in a personal capacity.
Speaker 3: Joel Griggs wrote on.
Speaker 1: X of the Australian Jewish Association in August that the
Speaker 1: AJA r a fascist terror cell. If the government isn't
Speaker 1: going to move on these dangerous psychopaths, can we maybe
Speaker 1: pull something together on Twitter? Could it be too hard
Speaker 1: to find out where these people live? That's disturbing? He
Speaker 1: also replied to a Sky in his Australia post on
Speaker 1: X featuring Andrew Bolt saying will get you one day.
Speaker 1: He also called Andrew Bolt, myself, Rowland Dean, Peter Credlin,
Speaker 1: traitorous scum and great deal more there. Ah, dear me,
Speaker 1: he sounds like a charming learned fellow. Indeed, Australian academia
Speaker 1: this is this is a little bit disturbing.
Speaker 3: I've got to say, look, all of it is disturbing.
Speaker 5: He's made bold threats against a number of people and
Speaker 5: the university says, well, has nothing to do with us,
Speaker 5: even though we employ I think on a casual basis.
Speaker 5: But it's been there for a long time from what
Speaker 5: I've read, and he's sitting there. You have to wonder
Speaker 5: all the sort of post made after midnight or there's
Speaker 5: something that they are very disturbing, and they are threats.
Speaker 1: I think just as disturbing is that someone's academic future
Speaker 1: could be in the hands of individuals like this.
Speaker 3: Patrick Carline, thanks for your time tonight.
Speaker 1: Joining me now is South Australian Liberal Senator Alex Antiq
Speaker 1: Alex the foreign owned pup chain, Australian venues Co, the
Speaker 1: Band Australia Day celebrations and it's two hundred plus venues
Speaker 1: across the country is now issued an apology for causing
Speaker 1: what it calls concern and confusion. And of course this
Speaker 1: apology only came after there was a massive backlash and
Speaker 1: calls for boycotts. Let's roll the list of the venues
Speaker 1: this mob operates, Alex. It seems these corporate virtue signals
Speaker 1: signalers have learned nothing from the war referendum that continue
Speaker 1: to play these divisive political games.
Speaker 7: Yeah, reader, I mean it seems that the sort of
Speaker 7: the life cycle of wokenness now for the corporates is
Speaker 7: about twenty four hours, because that's about how long it
Speaker 7: took to turn the whole thing around, getting increasingly quick,
Speaker 7: and it's just staggering that any of them are still
Speaker 7: continuing to push these kind of agendas.
Speaker 3: Through their businesses.
Speaker 7: I mean, it's bizarre. Michael Jordan, of course famously once
Speaker 7: said when he was asked why he wasn't more politically
Speaker 7: involved words to the effect of well Republicans by sneakers too.
Speaker 7: But in twenty twenty four in these sort of businesses
Speaker 7: are learning that lesson very very slowly. I think my
Speaker 7: advice to them would be, if you're sitting around the
Speaker 7: bordroom table and you've got your advertising people there in future,
Speaker 7: just do the opposite of what they suggest and you'll
Speaker 7: probably be on a winner. Otherwise you're going to end
Speaker 7: up down the same track as as Gillette and with
Speaker 7: their toss toxic masculinity campaign you remember for a few
Speaker 7: years back, and then bud Light last year, who also
Speaker 7: on the receiving in they're very slow learners, reader, very.
Speaker 1: We've seen that right here in Australia only last year,
Speaker 1: where there was a lot of there were boycotts, but
Speaker 1: people were upset by the big corporates getting involved in
Speaker 1: the Voice referendum, advocating for one side exclusively and almost
Speaker 1: putting pressure on their customers, their staff, their stakeholders to
Speaker 1: vote a certain way in a divisive referendum and they
Speaker 1: were on the wrong side it turned out. And they
Speaker 1: haven't seemed to have learned anything. It'll be interesting to
Speaker 1: see if this is forgiven and forgotten or people like
Speaker 1: the bud Light experience going to say, stuff your apology,
Speaker 1: We're going to go elsewhere. There's lots of options when
Speaker 1: it comes to pubs and clubs now, Alex the Albaneza
Speaker 1: government did have a big win last week passing a
Speaker 1: world first social media band for under sixteens. You were
Speaker 1: one of the few in the coalition to vote against
Speaker 1: this bill and this legislation it's not really hair brained
Speaker 1: alex ideologically. It is confused, to say the least, and
Speaker 1: it comes with a whole bunch of unintended consequences.
Speaker 3: Tell me you know this bill better than most.
Speaker 1: How is a sixty five year old going to establish
Speaker 1: there over sixteen so they can use Facebook without submitting
Speaker 1: to digital ID or providing their passport or driver's license
Speaker 1: to the social media site to identify themselves.
Speaker 7: Well, this of course was the subject of what very
Speaker 7: limited debate we had last week on the bill, which
Speaker 7: was one of the main problems. I mean, this was
Speaker 7: extraordinarily complicated stuff that was rushed through in about an hour.
Speaker 7: We were lucky to get that as labor busted through
Speaker 7: about thirty bills at the end of the week. So
Speaker 7: that was one of the questions. The answer is less
Speaker 7: clear though, it has to be said, if it's not
Speaker 7: digital ID, which I think it still can be by
Speaker 7: the way, I don't think that's been completely ruled out
Speaker 7: by the amendment that was made. And it's not handing
Speaker 7: over documents. Then what is it? Well, I asked that question,
Speaker 7: and of course the answer to that is biometrics. These
Speaker 7: companies are going to scan our faces, our children's faces,
Speaker 7: and use that information to determine how old you are,
Speaker 7: and if you're close, if there will obviously be a
Speaker 7: margin of error, then they'll start asking the questions. And
Speaker 7: I mean, I don't know about anyone else, but that
Speaker 7: alone is enough for me to have crossed the floor
Speaker 7: on this. So I just can't support that. I can't
Speaker 7: support the speed with which it went through. We got
Speaker 7: the bill on a Thursday, It went to a very
Speaker 7: brief three hour Senate hearing on the Monday, The bill
Speaker 7: came to us on the Tuesday, and it was passed
Speaker 7: shortly after that. So, I mean, you know, by the way, though,
Speaker 7: we found time during that week to do all sorts
Speaker 7: of other things, censure motions and suspending people and you know,
Speaker 7: you know, valedictory speeches, but when it came to actually
Speaker 7: drilling down into this world first piece of censorship law,
Speaker 7: we didn't have the time. So what's going on up
Speaker 7: in that building, I don't know.
Speaker 1: I do wonder if it's ever going to be implemented
Speaker 1: given the massive issues with having any sort of adherence
Speaker 1: to this that is palatable to people because I think
Speaker 1: this is a sort of policy, particularly for those who
Speaker 1: don't really use social media, which sounds good in theory.
Speaker 1: Oh yes, social media does harm to under sixteen.
Speaker 3: Let's ban it.
Speaker 1: But as soon as you start scrutinizing the policy, you
Speaker 1: see it's comes with huge issues. What do you if
Speaker 1: the coalition wins, the coalition back this, most of the
Speaker 1: MP's back this, will you be implementing it? And will
Speaker 1: that mean that you're going to give the Office of
Speaker 1: the e Safety Commissioner even more power?
Speaker 8: Well, I mean I hope not.
Speaker 7: But this has passed. It will go through an implementation
Speaker 7: phase bureaucratics speak for let's see if we can make
Speaker 7: it work. And the idea is that it'd been in
Speaker 7: force by twenty twenty six. So what the hurry was
Speaker 7: the last sitting week of the year is anybody's guest.
Speaker 7: But you know the answer to that is we don't know.
Speaker 7: I mean, there are so many things we don't know.
Speaker 7: Within a space of a week, we were told YouTube
Speaker 7: was out, snapchat was in, then snapchat was in, and
Speaker 7: YouTube was out. So I mean, I don't think anybody
Speaker 7: really knows how this is going to work, or if
Speaker 7: it's going to work, and if it's going to fix
Speaker 7: this problem that we're talking about, which we're all sympathetic
Speaker 7: to kids getting bullied online. No one wants that. But
Speaker 7: the problem is throwing out the baby with the bath
Speaker 7: water here. And the other problem is kids are getting
Speaker 7: legitimate news sources from social media. There are many kids
Speaker 7: in remote locations that use this as a way of interacting,
Speaker 7: and there are many kids with learning difficulties that rely
Speaker 7: on a lot of these products as well. So look,
Speaker 7: I don't know if it's workable. I doubt that it
Speaker 7: will be, but we're we're going to let the bureaucrats
Speaker 7: take it from here over to you.
Speaker 8: Boy.
Speaker 1: Yeah, this is just SoC shortsighted.
Speaker 3: And you're right, people, kids, people.
Speaker 1: Of all ages get their news from social media, even
Speaker 1: if it's coming through a mainstream media network.
Speaker 3: And I'd much rather kids.
Speaker 1: Be watching podcasters on YouTube than I don't know, exclusively
Speaker 1: reading The Guardian or the ABC. They probably have a
Speaker 1: much more nuanced view of the world if they were
Speaker 1: watching YouTube as opposed to the ABC. Before you go, Alex,
Speaker 1: I want to get your thoughts on the ABC cheir
Speaker 1: Kim Williams and his bizarre attack against podcaster Joe Rogan,
Speaker 1: saying he's deeply repulsive and other slurs. He's now labeled
Speaker 1: the backlash against him as demonic. This man is prone
Speaker 1: to a bit of hyperbole, isn't he? What do you
Speaker 1: make of this entire bizarre episode.
Speaker 7: When I first read it, I could be wrong about this,
Speaker 7: but I read that he didn't really know much about
Speaker 7: Joe Rogan but then found him deeply repulsive or whatever
Speaker 7: the language was, which was current contradictory in its first step.
Speaker 7: But he clearly hasn't watched or listened to the Joe
Speaker 7: Rogan experience. I mean, Joe Rogan is the sort of
Speaker 7: guy who probably would share a lot of fairly left
Speaker 7: wing views libertarian views as well. I mean, he backed
Speaker 7: Donald Trump, but I don't know whether or not the
Speaker 7: left are now punishing him for that. Maybe who knows,
Speaker 7: But I don't see anything other than pretty considered, pretty sensible,
Speaker 7: and very very interesting commentary coming from there. I would
Speaker 7: spend more of my time listening to the Joe Rogan
Speaker 7: experience than I would opening up a newspaper or listening
Speaker 7: to talkback radio in this country and state, to be
Speaker 7: absolutely honest, and that's what the kids are doing. They're
Speaker 7: picking up their news that the generation, by the way
Speaker 7: that we were told had a ten second attention span
Speaker 7: and now listening to three hour deep dive discussions about
Speaker 7: serious subjects. So what's deeply repulsive about that is is
Speaker 7: anyone's guests. I think it'd do mister Williams the world
Speaker 7: of good to actually go and have a listen to
Speaker 7: one of these podcasts might change his mind.
Speaker 1: He embarrassed himself and I think he really put into
Speaker 1: question whether he is fit for that role. He seems
Speaker 1: to be so completely out of touch with the modern
Speaker 1: media environment and how people consume news, and to make
Speaker 1: those sorts of comments about a personality whose work you
Speaker 1: don't even know. Again, you've got to question his judgment.
Speaker 1: Listen to a podcast and then if that's your opinion,
Speaker 1: at least it comes from an informed position. Senator Alex Antick,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for your time this evening.
Speaker 7: Thanks reader.
Speaker 3: Still to come, A Lefty's Losing Ed plus the extraordinary scope.
Speaker 1: Of the Hunter Biden pardon and what it means for
Speaker 1: President Joe Biden's a legacy. Josh Hammer has the details.
Speaker 1: Welcome back now it's time for lefties losing it And
Speaker 1: another day, another apology delivered by Sonny.
Speaker 3: Houston on The View.
Speaker 1: You know these are happening so often that I'm not
Speaker 1: even featuring them all on this segment, but this one
Speaker 1: was particularly bitter and passive aggressive, so I had to share.
Speaker 3: I see you, I see you over there.
Speaker 4: I have a very quick sess and it's not gonna
Speaker 4: be that quick. Pete head Seth has denied any wrongdoing.
Speaker 4: His lawyer said he paid the woman in twenty twenty
Speaker 4: three to head off the threat of a basis lawsuit.
Speaker 4: No charges were ever brought.
Speaker 3: You rushed me for that. They're not a happy bunch,
Speaker 3: are they? Not much joy there?
Speaker 1: And remember when the Democrats tried to gaslight America in
Speaker 1: the world with the lie that they were the Party
Speaker 1: of joy, when we we all know they're the party
Speaker 1: of grievance, hysteria and screechy sounds.
Speaker 3: We will go back what are we not going back to?
Speaker 2: We're not going back to the past where women had
Speaker 2: no rights everever whatever to.
Speaker 1: A young man now desperate to play the victim, here
Speaker 1: is an American climate activist just bagging his country.
Speaker 3: I've got to say, dude, you know you're free to leave.
Speaker 8: I come from a country where we ban books for
Speaker 8: sport and where we tell children to hide in the
Speaker 8: corners to avoid the shooters. I come from a place
Speaker 8: where we bully LGBTQ kids in schools, and where we
Speaker 8: are actively taking away women's rights. I come from the
Speaker 8: United States.
Speaker 1: We have a lot to be grateful for after the
Speaker 1: US presidential election, including being spared the pain of having
Speaker 1: this young last shove down our throats for the next
Speaker 1: four years. Here is almost first daughter, radical leftist activist
Speaker 1: Ella M.
Speaker 3: Hoff. You sim girl, Sam, I can't even believe you
Speaker 3: know who I am and I'm are you.
Speaker 2: You cant believe me real?
Speaker 3: Are you?
Speaker 8: Well?
Speaker 3: You are like a breath of fresh air. Every kid
Speaker 3: I know is just like he knows your name is
Speaker 3: singing your praises.
Speaker 8: The way that you play with fashion and just unabattedly
Speaker 8: yourself is the most exciting thing I've ever seen.
Speaker 3: The most exciting thing she's ever seen.
Speaker 1: Seriously, and if you like most saint people have no
Speaker 1: idea who that woman is. She's Jenna Lyon, someone told
Speaker 1: me that I have no idea who she is, to
Speaker 1: be honest with you. Let's see now from American Democrat
Speaker 1: Party strategist.
Speaker 3: Julie Riginsky, who thinks she's going.
Speaker 1: To stop the military from deporting illegal migrants.
Speaker 9: Promise you with every fiber of my being, because I'll
Speaker 9: probably be one of those people that if anybody comes
Speaker 9: to these people and tries to drag them out by force,
Speaker 9: be protests of people like me, American citizens who are
Speaker 9: going to stand there and do everything possible to prevent
Speaker 9: these women and children, which is all who these people are.
Speaker 3: Remember when they found that cocaine in the.
Speaker 1: White House and somehow they couldn't figure out whose it was,
Speaker 1: and then the Secret Service destroyed the evidence. Clearly no
Speaker 1: obvious suspects came immediately to mind. Now to MSNBC and
Speaker 1: far far, far left commentator Molly Jong Fast, who was
Speaker 1: left speechless by.
Speaker 3: News of Hunter Biden's pardon.
Speaker 10: Hunter light on a mandatory gun purchase forum by saying
Speaker 10: he was not illegally using or addicted to drugs. According
Speaker 10: to NBC News, the President need the decision this weekend.
Speaker 10: Molly Fast and furious, what do you make of this
Speaker 10: new news?
Speaker 2: I just heard it. I have to process it.
Speaker 10: I don't have a take.
Speaker 3: I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I don't want to
Speaker 3: have a take. Lady, that's your job. You've got one
Speaker 3: job there and is to have a take.
Speaker 1: Watch now, as CNN subjects Democrat Dan Goldman to a
Speaker 1: humiliation ritual of sorts, this is a thing of beauty.
Speaker 1: They literally play him footage of himself on ABC lying
Speaker 1: his lefty butt off about how Joe Biden was never
Speaker 1: going to pardon his son Hunter.
Speaker 3: I got to say, I love CNN for this.
Speaker 4: This is what you said.
Speaker 3: I want to watch.
Speaker 10: Do you think a pardon for his son would be
Speaker 10: a mistake?
Speaker 7: Yes, And I don't think there's any chance that President
Speaker 7: Biden is going to do that, unlike his predecessor, who
Speaker 7: pardoned all of his friends.
Speaker 11: What does that feel like watching yourself back then reassuring
Speaker 11: people that Biden was not going to issue a pardon
Speaker 11: for his son.
Speaker 5: Yeah, and I think that if that Plea agreement and
Speaker 5: that Plea deal had gone through, there would be no pardon.
Speaker 3: That was a satisfactory outcome already.
Speaker 4: Fallen that.
Speaker 11: Sorry, when you reacted, this was when the deal had
Speaker 11: fallen through now.
Speaker 1: We were told again and again, not just by the
Speaker 1: Biden White House, but also its propaganda the overwhelming majority
Speaker 1: of the US media that Joe Biden would never pardon
Speaker 1: his crackadd old whore enthusiast son. He has too much
Speaker 1: integrity to do that. He has too much respect for
Speaker 1: the legal process.
Speaker 9: Major commitment from the President, accepting the outcome of the
Speaker 9: trial and also pledging not to pardon his son.
Speaker 3: Presidential promise to put the law before a family.
Speaker 12: Shod by the jury decision.
Speaker 3: I will do that, and I will not.
Speaker 1: Partner letting the world know that he will not wipe
Speaker 1: away the decision of twelve of his son's peers.
Speaker 12: One side, Democrats and Joe Biden protecting the justice system,
Speaker 12: and on the other Republicans in Trump protecting current president
Speaker 12: of the United States has so much respect for the
Speaker 12: law that he has said he would not pardon his son.
Speaker 12: I mean what you know again, it's all about the contrast.
Speaker 1: Joining me now is Newsweek Senior editor at Large and
Speaker 1: Article three Projects Senior Council Josh hammert Josh. Joe Biden
Speaker 1: has not only pardoned his son, this is the most comprehensive,
Speaker 1: far reaching pardon. I think we've seen Joe Biden signed
Speaker 1: a full and unconditional pardon for Hunter, covering all offenses
Speaker 1: against the United States which he has committed or may
Speaker 1: have committed or taken part in during the period from
Speaker 1: January one, twenty fourteen, through to December.
Speaker 3: One, twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: Four including but not limited to all offenses charged or prosecuted.
Speaker 1: The scope of this pardon is enormous.
Speaker 3: Josh.
Speaker 2: Reader, The scope is so annoy and indeed is so unprecedented.
Speaker 2: Truly impressed in that I've actually spent a lot of
Speaker 2: time trying to think over these past thirty six hours
Speaker 2: or so as to whether or not there is anything
Speaker 2: remotely resembling a clear president for a part in this
Speaker 2: sweeping and honestly, I come up blank. I mean, this
Speaker 2: is the kind of language that you put into a
Speaker 2: pardon that I think back to my time in law
Speaker 2: school here in the United States. I mean, I would
Speaker 2: if I were a constitutional law professor, I would literally
Speaker 2: put a pardon like this on a first year law
Speaker 2: student exam to try to question the students as to
Speaker 2: whether something like this is even permissible, as to whether
Speaker 2: it's even constitutional in the first place. The short answer
Speaker 2: is that it is, unfortunately, because the part and power
Speaker 2: is truly cleinary. But the point is that there's just
Speaker 2: there's no precedent for this. I mean, this has not happened,
Speaker 2: to my knowledge anytime in recent history or in history
Speaker 2: at all, let alone to actually do so to one's son,
Speaker 2: to one's literal next of kin. I mean, I'm somewhat
Speaker 2: flabbergast to read. I really don't necessarily have words for this.
Speaker 2: And the fact that you're tying about the January of
Speaker 2: twenty fourteen in particular, well you know what happened when
Speaker 2: you're twenty fourteen. Oh yeah, that's right. Well, Hunter Biden
Speaker 2: starts sitting on the board of BURISBA in the spring
Speaker 2: of twenty fourteen, just a few years after January twenty fourteen,
Speaker 2: no doubt read it for his subject matter expertise on
Speaker 2: Eastern European Baltic Sea oil and natural gas energy exports.
Speaker 2: I jest, of course, he has no expertise in this whatsoever.
Speaker 2: But I mean, you know, Joe Biden says that this
Speaker 2: was an example of a politicized prosecution. I actually agree
Speaker 2: with him, but for the exact opposite reason. The Special
Speaker 2: Council David Weiss deliberately slow walk this case. He did
Speaker 2: not look into far of the Foreign Agent's Registration Act.
Speaker 2: He deliberately let the five year statute of limitations toll
Speaker 2: on that particular statute. There and by the way, he
Speaker 2: tried to submit a plea deal in the summer of
Speaker 2: twenty twenty three that was such a sweetheart deal that
Speaker 2: the federal judge Mary Ellen Norieker rejected as just being
Speaker 2: too favorable to the criminal defendant. As a former federal
Speaker 2: law clerk, I can tell you not something that happens
Speaker 2: every day in court. This whole thing distincts from top
Speaker 2: to bottom. The fish rots from the head. The silver
Speaker 2: line here's a silver line now iant in a positive.
Speaker 6: No.
Speaker 2: The silver lining here is that when Donald Trump comes
Speaker 2: into power January twenty twenty five, any morsel of credibility
Speaker 2: at the Left had when they complained about Donald Trump's
Speaker 2: purported abuses of the justice system, it's over. They have
Speaker 2: no credibility whatsoever. You and I both know they had
Speaker 2: no credibility with the Jacksmith lawfair to begin with here.
Speaker 2: But this is the final nail in the coffin. This
Speaker 2: is really it. At this point, they have revealed themselves
Speaker 2: for the tyrants that they are.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm not even a little bit shocked by any
Speaker 1: of this. I'm a little bit shocked by the scope
Speaker 1: of the pardon because that is just astonishing, as you've
Speaker 1: just explained. But let's not forget Donald Trump was impeached
Speaker 1: for wanting to investigate what actually happened with Ukraine and
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden and Barsma just for wanting to have a
Speaker 1: look at things that are now beyond the justice system.
Speaker 1: Where Hunter Biden has just got this get out of
Speaker 1: Jao Freaka, And I do wonder whether that get out
Speaker 1: of Joao Frekat Josh is really for Joe Biden himself
Speaker 1: and other members of the family, because at the end
Speaker 1: of the day, Joe Biden was the product this entire
Speaker 1: pay for access scheme they were running. Joe was at
Speaker 1: the center of it. Without him, there would be no
Speaker 1: money coming in.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think you've nailed it. Is this pardon is
Speaker 2: only partially for Hunter Biden. It really is a pardon
Speaker 2: for the entire Biden family in general. Look, there have
Speaker 2: been many, many on the right side of the American
Speaker 2: political aisle, myself included, who have been calling for the
Speaker 2: Biden DOJ, or excuse me for the Trump DOJ, that
Speaker 2: is to reopen a new Special Council probe into Hunter
Speaker 2: Biden come day one, to look back into possible violations
Speaker 2: with the Foreign Agents Registration Act and various other overseas
Speaker 2: foreign dealings. Now, with this part and in place here,
Speaker 2: assuming that it is upheld in court, which again I
Speaker 2: believe it will be for better or for worse. But
Speaker 2: with this part and in place, you can't do that.
Speaker 2: And that ultimately is what Joe Biden trying to do here.
Speaker 2: I think he's basically taking an action rita to try
Speaker 2: to make a play for the presidential historians who will
Speaker 2: write books about his presidency fifteen twenty thirty years now.
Speaker 2: And what he's trying to do is he's trying to
Speaker 2: preclude his own name and his brother's name, Jim Biden,
Speaker 2: I guess Hunter's name from being revealed in a subsequent
Speaker 2: deposition or a judicial hearing or a House Republican subpoene investigation.
Speaker 2: He's trying to obviate all of that with the sweepy
Speaker 2: nature of this part. And little does he know, though,
Speaker 2: that in doing such a corrupt a venal, a grossly
Speaker 2: self serving hypocritical thing. After months and months of just lying,
Speaker 2: not even guess line, just straight up lying to the
Speaker 2: American people over and over and over again. Little does
Speaker 2: he know that he actually has sealed his faith with
Speaker 2: the presidential historians here in the US. That faith, though,
Speaker 2: is not what he hopes it will be.
Speaker 1: I do wonder, Josh, whether he's going to be cute
Speaker 1: now and try to pardon Donald Trump and his ridiculous convictions.
Speaker 1: The Trump top charge, as we saw in New York Kuja,
Speaker 1: ultimately going to be reversed on appeal.
Speaker 3: But do you think he will do something like that.
Speaker 3: He'll pull something like that in the final wakes.
Speaker 2: I can see it happening. I mean, but you know
Speaker 2: they've tried this trick before, Rita. I mean, you know
Speaker 2: they did this when they indicted Bob Menendez, the very
Speaker 2: corrupt senator from New Jersey, the Democrat, who is taking
Speaker 2: Egyptian literal bars of gold were found in his closet there.
Speaker 2: They did a similar thing when they indicted Eric Adams,
Speaker 2: the mayor of New York City there who apparently was
Speaker 2: taking some summer money from the country of Turkey. He
Speaker 2: was flying Turks shalens there, so they're actually.
Speaker 3: Very good at this.
Speaker 2: They're very good and basically dangling out these cheap objects
Speaker 2: and hoping to obfuscat into bamboozle the right here in America,
Speaker 2: trying to convince you that, oh, everything's above board. You see,
Speaker 2: we're prosecuting both sides, or hey, we're letting both sides
Speaker 2: off the huck. They're very good in that they've tried
Speaker 2: this tactic before. But at this point, Rita, I think
Speaker 2: the onus is on us on the right, those of
Speaker 2: us who are conservatives, constitutionals, pro America patriots, to see
Speaker 2: this for what it is, which an unprecedented act of
Speaker 2: self serving venality in American history.
Speaker 1: Now, Trump has announced his pick for the head of
Speaker 1: the Drug Enforcement Administration as a Hillsborough County sheriff, Chad Chronister.
Speaker 1: This man's record is very different to that of say
Speaker 1: Cash Ptel, his pick for FBI director, a pick that
Speaker 1: his voters were absolutely thrilled about.
Speaker 4: This pick.
Speaker 1: Conister Cronister is well his infamous for the relatively soft
Speaker 1: approach he took to the twenty twenty BLM riots. He's been,
Speaker 1: though tough onposing COVID curfews and even arresting a church
Speaker 1: pastor for holding services. Josh explain this selection to me,
Speaker 1: Is this Donald Trump's first mistake since winning the election?
Speaker 2: Rita, You know, let me first say that, not who
Speaker 2: I would pick to lead the DEA. I mean, let
Speaker 2: me just put my cards on table there, not who
Speaker 2: I I would pick, not who I would advise Donald
Speaker 2: Trump to pick. I say this, by the way, as
Speaker 2: someone who takes the DA's task very seriously. My cousin
Speaker 2: may his memory be a blessing overdose and died seven
Speaker 2: years ago now from fentanyl lace cocaine, no doubt traffic
Speaker 2: across the US Mexico border. So I take the drug
Speaker 2: issue here in the United States very seriously. So again,
Speaker 2: not the man that I would have recommended to Donald
Speaker 2: Trump and his team to pick if I had my
Speaker 2: word and my brothers. But I think that Donald Trump
Speaker 2: is entitled to a very large degree of deference when
Speaker 2: it comes to people like this, who will comprise not
Speaker 2: just his cabinet, but the DA is actually then a
Speaker 2: sub cabinet's second tier official. The DA technically sits below
Speaker 2: the Department of Justice. The DEA chief is basically he's
Speaker 2: basically subservient to the Attorney General. Of the United States,
Speaker 2: and from what I understand, this pick basically came from
Speaker 2: Pam Bondi, who is Donald Trump's pick for Attorney General.
Speaker 2: Pam Bondi and check Conis are both, they're both Floridians.
Speaker 2: They're both here in Florida where I live there, I
Speaker 2: think soon to be Attorney General. Bondi is very close
Speaker 2: with this sheriff in Hillsboro County there so she's probably
Speaker 2: entitled to her dea chief of choice. Again, not who
Speaker 2: I would necessarily pick there, but it is worth noting
Speaker 2: that Hillsborough County, where Kronister is sheriff, is a purple
Speaker 2: to late blue county, so if he's trying to get
Speaker 2: re elected as sheriff, he probably can't run a very
Speaker 2: very hard right jurisdiction there. He has been very tough
Speaker 2: on Prohamas protests. He's taken a stronger stance on illegal
Speaker 2: immigration in general there So there are definitely some things
Speaker 2: I think to look very fondly at. But again, having
Speaker 2: said that, wouldn't necessarily be my first choice, but I'm
Speaker 2: okay with the pick if that's who Pambindi wants.
Speaker 1: Talking about Hamas and being tough on terrorists, Donald Trump
Speaker 1: has today issued a stark warning to the terrorists holding hostages.
Speaker 3: I'm going to read from.
Speaker 1: This part of the post that he shared on truth.
Speaker 1: He said, please let this truth serve to represent that
Speaker 1: if the hostages are not released prior to January twenty,
Speaker 1: twenty twenty five, the date that I proudly assume office
Speaker 1: as President of the United States, there will be all
Speaker 1: hell to pay in the Middle East, and for those
Speaker 1: in charge who have a perpetrator these atrocities against humanity,
Speaker 1: though is responsible, will be hit harder than anybody has
Speaker 1: been hit in the long and storied history of the
Speaker 1: United States of America. Release the hostages and now in capitals. Josh,
Speaker 1: we haven't seen this sort of strength or clarity from
Speaker 1: the Biden administration. Certainly, this is pure Trump. This is
Speaker 1: Trump's pace through strength strategy.
Speaker 2: Look, I mean it's an amazing statement. I mean, it's
Speaker 2: truly an amazing statement.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 2: One of the funny things about Donald Trump is that
Speaker 2: he barely even has to act. I mean, as soon
Speaker 2: as he was elected by the American people, basically, the
Speaker 2: entire Middle East map already started to change. Effectively. Overnight.
Speaker 2: Has Balla started begging for a ceasefire. Hamas started begging
Speaker 2: for a ceasefire. Ran said that was going to tone
Speaker 2: down it's assault across the entire region. There, I mean, basically,
Speaker 2: just the mere presence of this man, the guy who
Speaker 2: achieved historical peace the Middle East's first time around, the
Speaker 2: guy who took out Kasam Sulimani at the bag at
Speaker 2: a Rock airport in January twenty twenty. There, I mean,
Speaker 2: the mere fact that he is there, let alone putting
Speaker 2: out amazing statements like this has already changed the entire
Speaker 2: dynamic of the region there. Look, the point is people
Speaker 2: think that Donald Trump is like a warmonger. They's looking
Speaker 2: at star wars. The Middle East was the quietest it
Speaker 2: has been in decades during his presidency because again, our
Speaker 2: enemies here in America no not to mess with us
Speaker 2: when Donald Trump is in office. The one thing I
Speaker 2: will say is that if you're going to talk like this,
Speaker 2: as Donald Trump has done in truth social you better
Speaker 2: be prepared to back it up with action. Having said that, though,
Speaker 2: I think Donald Trump is very clearly willing to do that,
Speaker 2: as he's demonstrated before there. So our enemies are now
Speaker 2: on standby. They are watching this with very close eyes there,
Speaker 2: and that is a very good thing. I said.
Speaker 3: I remember when he was Wow.
Speaker 1: I think it was the fourth or fifth presidential candidate
Speaker 1: who said he was going to move the embassy. He
Speaker 1: was going to move the American embassy, and he was
Speaker 1: going to.
Speaker 3: Acknowledge Israel's capital. And there was a promise that was
Speaker 3: made previously.
Speaker 1: Josh, I think Clinton made it, Obama made it, Bush
Speaker 1: made it.
Speaker 3: None of them followed through. They were all too terrified.
Speaker 1: Donald Trump followed through despite the hyperbole and the hysteria
Speaker 1: that we got from the media and experts telling us
Speaker 1: it was going to elite, lead to bloodshed and relations
Speaker 1: were going to sour.
Speaker 3: And what happened, Nothing really happened.
Speaker 1: They dealt with it because he followed through with a pledge.
Speaker 1: And I think we're going to see a lot more
Speaker 1: of that. I want to ask you about Meta CEO
Speaker 1: Mark Zuckerberg. He's met with Trump and their rumors that
Speaker 1: he wants to cozy up to the administration. He wants
Speaker 1: to be brought into the fold and be involved in
Speaker 1: the national reform and renewal. But should this character be trusted, Josh?
Speaker 1: Meta Instagram, Facebook have been notorious for suppressing, censoring conservatives
Speaker 1: that continue to do so, and he donates hundreds of
Speaker 1: millions of dollars of his own money to help fortify
Speaker 1: the twenty twenty election.
Speaker 3: Is he a character.
Speaker 1: Who has proven himself, who's showing that he has changed
Speaker 1: his mind about politics? Like Elon Muskaz and RFK and
Speaker 1: Tulsa Gabbett and some others.
Speaker 2: You know, I would not trust Mark Zuckerberg personally at all.
Speaker 2: I mean to put it mildly there, but he's on
Speaker 2: this current long, extended maya culpa apology tours. It's very odd, actually,
Speaker 2: I mean this started really over the summer. He put
Speaker 2: out some statement acknowledging that Facebook was complicit in censoring
Speaker 2: the Hunter Biden laptop story from The New York Post
Speaker 2: back in twenty twenty, and he said that he apologized
Speaker 2: for that. So he's been on this extended apology tour
Speaker 2: for a while now. I can't quite figure out exactly
Speaker 2: why he is doing this, though, to be honest with you,
Speaker 2: I find it very difficult to believe that his actual
Speaker 2: politics and principles and ideology have changed, rather as probably
Speaker 2: just a self serving measure when it comes to just
Speaker 2: trying to keep this company relevant. He probably sees his
Speaker 2: fellow Silicon Valley titan, Elon Musk, who is now in
Speaker 2: Mara Lago. He's taken photos with Don Junior and Eric Trump.
Speaker 2: He's basically, I mean Elon Musk is basically an adopted
Speaker 2: son of the Trump family at this point. And this
Speaker 2: is probably a little bit of just envy or jealousy. Frankly,
Speaker 2: from Mark Zuckberg. You know, from one billionaire to another there.
Speaker 2: If I had to put on my psychological lens, that's
Speaker 2: probably what I imagine what was going on here, belok.
Speaker 2: I mean, you know, from one Jew to another, from
Speaker 2: me to Mark Zuckerberg. Mark Zuckerberg actually had his bar
Speaker 2: mitzvah and the synagogue in my hometown back in New
Speaker 2: York there, So I would encourage him to spend a
Speaker 2: little more time doing what we call teshuba, which is
Speaker 2: which is atonement in Judaism, prior to trying to get
Speaker 2: in Donald Trump's good graces. I think I think a
Speaker 2: little more atonement might be in order for your previous mistakes.
Speaker 1: Frankly, I tell you, I'm with you. I would not
Speaker 1: trust him as far as I can throw him. And
Speaker 1: if he actually really has genuinely changed his point of
Speaker 1: view and waken up to some of the awful activism
Speaker 1: that he's been party too. Then you would think it
Speaker 1: would tackle that on his own websites, on his own
Speaker 1: sites Instagram and faceboo book, which are still routinely censoring
Speaker 1: anything that's right of left, I mean even centrist of
Speaker 1: finding themselves getting censored or suppressed.
Speaker 9: There.
Speaker 1: Before you go, We've got some good news. I've got
Speaker 1: conservative commentator Scott Jennings being added to the editorial board
Speaker 1: of The La Times, a publication that has been left
Speaker 1: to far left for a long time. Is this going
Speaker 1: to have any make any meaningful change though, Josh, Or
Speaker 1: is this just a token conservative who's been added so
Speaker 1: they can pretend to be balanced.
Speaker 2: So the La Times, it's you know, it's worth giving
Speaker 2: some credit or credits do. The La Times was one
Speaker 2: of the major publications that ultimately refuse to endorse in
Speaker 2: the twenty twenty four election, along the Washington Post in USA. Today,
Speaker 2: those really the big three liberal pepers which refuse to
Speaker 2: endorse Carmala Harris or Dald Trump in this election. So
Speaker 2: the fact that they refuse to endorse and now they're
Speaker 2: bringing Skytt Jennings is definitely a propitious sign for the
Speaker 2: future there, but ultimately the devil will be in the
Speaker 2: details there. I want to see what his columns look like.
Speaker 2: I want to see those voices actually represented on the
Speaker 2: editorial boards, in house editorials. I actually published one ibed
Speaker 2: myself at the LA Times about four and a half
Speaker 2: years ago. Now I haven't bothered to try again. It's
Speaker 2: been a very long time since that, since that was
Speaker 2: a hospitable place to publish conservative commentary. So I guess
Speaker 2: you know, the proof ultimately be here in the pudding.
Speaker 1: Look, Josh, I differ with you on that point. I
Speaker 1: don't give them credit for not endorsing Kamala, and same
Speaker 1: with the Washington Post because they run nothing but pro
Speaker 1: Kamala anti Trump material twenty four to seven, and then
Speaker 1: they don't endorse, pretending that that means they're balanced or
Speaker 1: they're then they're not committed to one side when we
Speaker 1: all know where their politics and their agenda runs. So
Speaker 1: we'll be watching and saying if Scott Jennings has an
Speaker 1: impact at the LA Times.
Speaker 3: Josh Hamma, thanks for your time tonight. Thank you. Rider
Speaker 3: still to come.
Speaker 1: Pressure on Queensland Premier David Chris of Fooley to review
Speaker 1: the states writing gender laws.
Speaker 3: Stephanie Bastian is up next.
Speaker 1: Welcome back, joining me now as the head of Advocacy
Speaker 1: at Women's Forum Australia. Stephanie Bastian. Stephanie, Let's begin in Queensland,
Speaker 1: where there is increasing pressure on Premier David Chrisafooley to
Speaker 1: reform the states so called gender care laws. Government MP's
Speaker 1: are set to be eager to pass legislation to protect
Speaker 1: kids from dangerous and sometimes irreversible gender treatments.
Speaker 3: What else can you tell me about this?
Speaker 6: Well, good evening, Rita. Well, we haven't seen anything come
Speaker 6: on the agenda just yet. I imagine David's been very
Speaker 6: busy implementing some of his other pre election commitments, including
Speaker 6: tackling crime and excessive government expenditure. However, I can't fault
Speaker 6: his ministerial appointments. We now have Fiona Simpson who is
Speaker 6: the new Minister for Women and unlike her preecessor, she
Speaker 6: actually knows what a woman is and she's advocated throughout
Speaker 6: her career for women's sex based rights. And of course
Speaker 6: the new Minister for Health, Tim Nichols, is also a
Speaker 6: very good appointment. During the birthdesths and Marriages debate last
Speaker 6: year in Parliament, he gave a very passionate speech on
Speaker 6: the harms of socially transitioning children and how that can
Speaker 6: lead to medical transition and the implications with that, especially
Speaker 6: the fact that they cannot consent even with support of
Speaker 6: their parents. The coma bit issues that come with genderice
Speaker 6: for including autism and other neurodivergencies, suppression anxiety, backgrounds of trauma,
Speaker 6: and of course the social contagent aspect.
Speaker 8: So he is well and.
Speaker 6: Truly across the issue. He's obviously invested time in looking
Speaker 6: into it, and I have full faith that he would
Speaker 6: be more than capable to lead reforms. I just hope
Speaker 6: that we see something on the agenda soon.
Speaker 3: Well, it would just be good to see a review, Stephanie.
Speaker 1: It would be good to see a review of these practices,
Speaker 1: see what the outcomes have been, how many are undergoing
Speaker 1: these treatments at what ages, and to do this sort
Speaker 1: of reviews that we've seen elsewhere in the world in
Speaker 1: the UK, Scandinavia, many parts of the US. Australia is
Speaker 1: a bit of an outlier right now. We're just blindly
Speaker 1: following this model without really any care of the consequences
Speaker 1: for the confused kids or undergoing these treatments.
Speaker 6: Oh, absolutely, we are behind the rest of the world.
Speaker 6: Even America now is making moves in the right direction,
Speaker 6: and New Zealand just a couple of weeks ago announced
Speaker 6: one of their health regulatory bodies has urged caution on
Speaker 6: using puberty blockers to treat children, and we are waiting
Speaker 6: for further announcements that are expected to come from the
Speaker 6: Health minister over there. So I think a review is
Speaker 6: certainly a first step, but I would be calling for
Speaker 6: a halt on these medical treatments that kids are receiving
Speaker 6: surgeries at a very young age. In Queensland, we know
Speaker 6: that they're going on puberty blockers before they're even twelve
Speaker 6: or thirteen, So I would be halting treatments and then
Speaker 6: organizing a review most certainly.
Speaker 1: I can tell you I think we're going to see
Speaker 1: lawsuits in the future, class action lawsuits, and I think
Speaker 1: they'll be very much deserved because I think a lot
Speaker 1: of confused kids have been prescribed treatments that are going
Speaker 1: to leave them with lifelong medical consequences. Moving on to
Speaker 1: how captured segments of the media are by radical gender theory.
Speaker 1: This passage out of The New York Times was incredible.
Speaker 1: They somehow managed to make women a subcategory.
Speaker 3: In their own sex.
Speaker 1: In a recent piece, they referred to women as non
Speaker 1: transgender women, and this has.
Speaker 3: Caused all sorts of backlash.
Speaker 1: Even leftists like Martine and Navrattel over the Tennis Great
Speaker 1: spoke out against ishes said, New York Times, you stink.
Speaker 1: We are women, not non transgender women, just women will
Speaker 1: do in the future.
Speaker 3: What's your reaction to this?
Speaker 1: Every now and then something comes along and you think,
Speaker 1: surely not. That has to be parody, it has to
Speaker 1: be satire, and it ends up being real.
Speaker 6: I know, it's ridiculous. I think people are realizing more
Speaker 6: and more just how ideologically captured these outlets are. Over
Speaker 6: in America, it's the New York Times. Here it's the ABC,
Speaker 6: And I think with the election of Trump and the
Speaker 6: whole campaign on the issue, more and more women are
Speaker 6: able to speak out and actually voice their opinions on it,
Speaker 6: which is increasing, which is very positive. But there are
Speaker 6: a number of issues with that piece. I mean, they
Speaker 6: were still disputing the science and the physiological differences between
Speaker 6: men and women in sport.
Speaker 3: My five year old knows the difference.
Speaker 6: In the playground quite frankly, and so I think that
Speaker 6: these publications are obviously ideologically captured. No one is going
Speaker 6: to take them seriously until they start reporting on these
Speaker 6: things properly.
Speaker 1: And just on the subject matter of that New York
Speaker 1: Times piece, the volleyball scandal we've spoken about previously on
Speaker 1: this program, it looks like the transgender player San Jose States,
Speaker 1: Blair Fleming, has played his final college volleyball game. Do
Speaker 1: you feel like the sports administrators learned anything during this saga,
Speaker 1: do you.
Speaker 6: Know, reader, I don't think they have, and they should
Speaker 6: probably be sacked the litigation. There's an impending litigation against
Speaker 6: them that started before the end of this season. It
Speaker 6: didn't make them think twice or change direction. They had
Speaker 6: a whole election campaign run on this issue. In fact,
Speaker 6: it was an injury within the sporting team that put
Speaker 6: it on the Republican agenda, and they haven't learned their lesson.
Speaker 6: I think that there are some people who are so invested,
Speaker 6: who are so politically invested in this, they are beyond
Speaker 6: learning lessons. Perhaps a slap in the face in court
Speaker 6: might do it. Unlikely, but still I think for the
Speaker 6: integrity of the sport, they all need to be dismissed
Speaker 6: in a new administration. Put in.
Speaker 3: Yes, I think one hundred percent right there.
Speaker 1: They are putting women at risk, they're putting athletes at risk,
Speaker 1: and it shouldn't be up to the individual athletes to
Speaker 1: take a stand to boycott games. But it's come to
Speaker 1: that because the administrators have proved themselves to be utterly
Speaker 1: gutlers or ideological. Stephanie Bastian, thanks so much for your
Speaker 1: time this evening, and that's it from me.
Speaker 3: Up next is Newsnight.
Speaker 1: I'll see you at eleven tomorrow with Douglas Murray