The Ben Mulroney Show - Targeted attack in NYC/Political Panel breaks down latest headlines

Episode Date: March 9, 2026

Guest: Dimitri  Soudas, Former Director of Communications for Prime Minister Stephen Harper   Guest: Max Fawcett, Lead Columnist for Canada's National Observer -  If you enjoyed the podcast, tell a friend! For more of the Ben Mulroney Show, subscribe to the podcast! ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://link.chtbl.com/bms⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Also, on youtube -- ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/@BenMulroneyShow⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Follow Ben on Twitter/X at https://x.com/BenMulroney Insta: ⁠⁠⁠@benmulroneyshow⁠⁠⁠ Twitter: ⁠⁠⁠@benmulroneyshow⁠⁠⁠ TikTok: ⁠⁠⁠@benmulroneyshow⁠⁠⁠ Executive Producer:  Mike Drolet Reach out to Mike with story ideas or tips at [e-mail] Enjoy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This podcast is brought to you by the National Payroll Institute, the leader for the payroll profession in Canada, setting the standard of professional excellence, delivering critical expertise, and providing resources that over 45,000 payroll professionals rely on. All right, this is what we're looking at on our podcast today. The anti-Semitism debate is an attack by Muslims, Islamophobic. I kind of go off on this because there was a Toronto star, a journalist who, with a bullet hole, visible in one of the three synagogues that were attacked, he asked about Islamophobia. As far as I'm concerned, that is an expression. That's all sidesing it. That's all lives mattering it. And five years ago, that kind of stuff got you canceled.

Not today. We also have our political panel, and we went deep on all sorts of topics with Dmitri Soutis and Max Fawcett. So let's get right into it. The Ben Maloney Show podcast starts now. Over the weekend in New York City, there was a rally by a rally,

a right winger that was co-opted by a couple of, by an attempted terrorist attack. There's no other way to say it. So here's what happened. There was a guy who was having a rally and two Pennsylvania men, Emir Balat and Ibrahim Cayumi, 18 and 19, were accused of, it's on video too, accused of throwing improvised explosive devices that did not go off. But they could have, right? They could have.

And New York City police apparently worked very quickly and apprehended these two young men. And the official say the suspect targeted these right wing protesters at what was being described as an anti-Muslim rally organized by far right activist Jake Lang. Now, look, I don't know anything about Jake Lang. from what I heard in that very short clip, which I'm sure is not indicative of his entire worldview. He wasn't saying anything beyond the pale. And then these guys came in and threw these devices that didn't go out. But here's where the plot gets lost.

Okay. So a man exercising his constitutional right to propose. protest. And we've, we've all heard stuff on streets that we don't like. So you may not like this guy. I'm sure I'm sure most of what he says would not be my cup of tea either. But his constitutional right to protest. And then two guys come out with explosive devices with the intent to so harm. This is a an ISIS inspired terrorism attack. here is how the mayor of New York City reference it. This is the first thing out of his mouth.

This was a vile protest rooted in white supremacy entitled Stop the Islamic Takeover of New York City. I'm the first Muslim mayor of our city. Anti-Muslim bigotry is nothing new to me nor is it anything new for the one million or so Muslim New Yorkers who know this city as our home. While I found this protest appalling, I will not waver in my belief that it should be allowed

to happen. Let me also be clear about something else. New York City will never tolerate violence, whether from protests or counter-protests. You buried the lead, dude. There were terrorists in your midst at a legal protest. That's it. But you decided to make it about right-wing extremism. Sorry, man. You're wrong. You're just wrong. You made it about something it wasn't, and you focused on the wrong thing. Eventually you got there, but not before you decided to label a, it doesn't matter what you label it. It was a constitutionally protected right. And two men decided that they would be inspired by ISIS, and they tried to kill people.

Fortunately, they did not succeed. This guy might very well espoused disgusting. perspectives. Welcome to 2026, dude. Like, I don't know what to tell you. I've heard some, I've heard the most disgusting vile things chanted all across this country, North America and Europe and Australia for years. And I'm told that's their right. They can say it, free speech. There were terrorists in your midst. And you decide to make it about the constitutionally protected right to protest. I'm pretty sure the bomb should have been your focus. The parents of Ibrahim Kiyumi arrived from Afghanistan in the mid-2000s.

They own a convenience store and a massive home. I have no doubt that people are going to be digging into their lives. They've naturalized citizens. These guys, if they weren't born here, these two young men, they've been here most of their life. The issue is, what the heck happened to these guys? What the heck happened to these teenagers whose parents are entrepreneurs and they live in a massive home

that they drove across state lines with the hopes of killing people? That's the issue. Not the guy saying something you don't like. But the guy who decided that he heard something that you didn't like and he was going to kill people because of it. That's where your head should be at, Mr. Mayor.

Meanwhile, closer to home, look, if you keep normalizing this, this sort of thing, then the abnormal becomes normal. And after three synagogue shootings across the greater Toronto area in one week, three synagogues, three places of worship were shot at in one city in one week. The Toronto police and the Jewish community held a joint press conference, condemning the violence, pledging increased protection.

I think it's important to note that the mayor was not there. Now, she did her own separate presser with the police, but as somebody said, a mayor can't be everywhere, but she has to be somewhere. And yet again, she chose not to be there. Myron Demkew, the police chief in Toronto, I think struck the right cord and the right note by saying that these incidents are going to be treated with,

quote, the utmost seriousness, specialized units, and York Regional Police are actively investigating. But, like, justice, these people need to be brought to justice. They have to be. And the full force of the law needs to be thrown at them. Again, three synagogues shot up. And I'd like to point out that at this press conference, do we have the audio? Yes.

Okay. You're going to love this, Canada. Three synagogues shot up in one week. Here's what the Toronto Star asked the police chief. Just wondering if there's been an uptake in attacks against the Muslim communities. Well, I heard from the National Council of Pitting of Muslims, that there has been an effort that is going to confirm with you. If there has been and if the same sort of deployment of office is going to be.

You all lives mattered it. That's what you did, Toronto Star. Do you remember? Remember during Black Lives Matter? If somebody deigned to say, well, I think all lives matter. Racist. You're a racist. Sit down, shut up, you've been canceled.

You toxic POS, all lives matter. We're focused on the victims of systemic racism. How dare you minimize that by making it about everybody? That's exactly what the Toronto Star did right there. Three synagogues shot up in one. And by the way, yes, yes, every minority deals with the negative aspects of being a minority. Right? During COVID, it was the Asian population. After 9-11, it was Muslims. And Muslims have dealt with more than their fair share of violence against their community, racism, all sorts of stuff.

But the anti-Semitism that has been on the rise for this small group, it's orders of magnitude bigger than anything any other group deals with. By a country mile, they are not the same. And in this moment where three houses of worship were shot at, they decided to all lives matter it. What about the Muslims? And again, I'm not minimizing what they go through. This was not about them. And the fact that the Toronto Star didn't get that, shame on you. Shame on you for all lives mattering this. Because five years ago, you would have had your ass canceled. You would have been called a racist. You would have been shamed. You would have been canceled. You would have lost your job. But because it's Jews, we got to ask about Muslims.

Got to do it. It can't just be about the Jews in that moment. Always got to bring it back to the other people that suffer. And by the way, the code is because of the Jews. Let's not forget that. Let's listen to Olivia Chow, the mayor, who was not there but said her own thing. Once again, a synagogue in our city has been targeted. Shaw that in the middle of the night.

this is a violent act of intimidation and part of a pattern of emboldened anti-Semitism that has no place in Toronto. It must be stopped. Yes, it does have a place in Toronto, Madam Mayor. It does because you gave it a place. You let it fester. You let it take root by doing nothing when the attacks were coming, when the insults were coming, when the blood libels were coming, when the threats of violence, were there for you to see you did nothing.

And it took root and it grew. And now you can't rip it out. You can't, because you gave it a home. You gave it safety. You gave it refuge. And here it is. This is who we are. This is who we are because we let it happen.

It's Monday. So you know what that means? It's time for this week in politics. The Monday edition with Demetra Suda, former Director of Communications for Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Max Fawcett, lead columnist for Canada's National Observer. Happy Monday, guys. Happy Monday and happy birthday, I gather. Yes, thank you. I'm 50 years old. My knees feel 85 and I've got the food taste and the of a 12-year-old and I've got the musical taste of someone stuck in the 90s. And I would

have it no other way. Gentlemen, the liberals are planning a debate in the House of Commons on Iran. And the question I have for both of you, I'll start with you, Dimitri, very simple. To what end? I think that the parliament needs to speak on this issue. Last week, we heard every possible position from support to diplomacy, to ceasefire, to support with reservations, to possible military action. So I think that not only the government needs to clarify its position, hopefully it won't be the position of the day. But since Parliament was not sitting when the war broke out, every single political party should stand up,

be counted in the sense that where does everybody stand? Max, same question for you. Yeah, I agree with what Dimitri said. I think Canadians deserve to know where all the major parties stand on this issue and how they see things, how they understand are fitting in with them. I think part of the reason why the prime minister's position shifted around a fair bit the last little while is just because this situation is so completely confusing and confounding. I mean, you had oil prices this morning at $120 a barrel. Right now they're at $87 a barrel.

So there's just pieces that are moving more quickly than we're accustomed to. Obviously, Pierre Pollyab wants to get back into the conversation and a debate like this would be a good way to do it. But I don't see anything wrong with it. I think we should get everyone on the. record. This is so important. And neither, neither do I. I like the idea of it. I wish we had done it before we recognize the state of Palestine. I would have loved that a debate or a conversation in the House of Commons so we could have found out what the, what the motivation of the prime minister was and why it was needed to be done when it was done and how it was getting

done. So I'm, it's, I listen, it's, I'm better late than never. But yeah, I would have like to have seen it back then too. Okay, let's, let's move on. I had Andrew Lawton on the show a little while ago talking about the conservatives issue with Bill C9 and how the filibuster looks to be broken and looks like the liberals have found a way to get that thing moving and for their law, their anti-hate law to become law. As you guys see it, and Max, I'll start with you. Do you have any issues with Bill C-9? Not any major issues, certainly not compared to the issues I have with what it seeks to address. You know, I think we're in a moment right now where the proliferation of online hate,

whether it's against Muslims, whether it's against Jews, whether it's against trans people, is moving way faster and with way more sort of lack of care than the policy debate is. I don't think that the legislation has to be perfect. It can be tweaked if we find that there are any issues with the way it's applied, but we need to get something in place because the threats that are out there are clear, they are obvious, we keep seeing them crop up. And, you know, this is a country where section one of the charter says that all of our rights are subject to reasonable limitation.

So, you know, those who are going around suggesting that, you know, that any sort of abrogation of free speech or the right to free expression is unacceptable, they don't understand how their own constitution works. We need to get something in place here. And, Demetri, look, if it's... If it's going to address a real problem, I have no problem with legislation, generally speaking. But Andrew Lawton suggested that this could lead us down a path that will find us on the same path as the UK. I don't know about their anti-hate laws, but I do find it a little concerning that old ladies are getting arrested for reposting a meme.

and like I get that there are, if we had a Westboro Baptist church in this country, yeah, something like this would deal with that. But I get called hateful all the time for the opinions that I think are fair to express on this show. And my fear is something like this. And I don't know. I'm just putting it out there. My fear is something like this would give teeth to those people who call me hateful. And next thing you know, I'm defending myself against a hate charge.

Right. And then there's the flip side of the coin, which I think it is Parliament's responsibility to protect those who, for example, oh, you know, you said something you're hateful. No, if I call you ugly, it's just my opinion. But let me give you a quote. And the quote goes something like this. Allah, count them one by one and kill them all. And do not leave a single one of them. This is a quote that belongs to Adil Sharkewi, an imam in Montreal. who said that during a rally. And because of current laws, there were no charges that were laid. This did not constitute as hate speech. So I understand some of the preoccupations by my community, the Christian community, the Jewish and so on and so forth. But Parliament has a responsibility to protect those who express an opinion,

those who read the Bible, the Quran, the Torah. But Parliament also has a responsibility so that when somebody says, count them one by one and kill them all and do not leave a single one, that somebody who says that cannot hide behind religious texts. Yeah, oh no, and absolutely.

But what about, and then Max, play this one out for me. Like I said, the easy ones are the extremes, right? Of course we will like easy to identify those everybody should agree on those. It's the ones that where people that I think used to be subject to debate, right? And for example, if you are a practicing Christian Catholic and you believe that a marriage is between a man and a woman and that homosexuality is a sin, like those are fundamental precepts to truly practicing Catholics.

what do you think would happen to some guy who says that out loud in the wrong place under legislation like this? Well, I would challenge your interpretation of Catholic beliefs there. I mean, I think we've had successive popes who have said that, you know, same-sex marriage is not an affront, an affront to Christianity or to Catholicism. But, you know, we pay legislators, we pay judges to draw fine lines. That is their job in these sorts of. circumstances. And I have confidence that they can draw the lines where we want them to be drawn,

not in cases like what you suggested, where it's a difference of opinion based in religious belief, but clear hatred. And we can't let the existence of those fine lines scare us away from the duty that we have to protect people from abject and very real hate. And that's hate that is being directed, again, at the Jewish community, at the LGBTQ community. There's a lot of people who are in the firing line here. And we have a duty not to. to sit on our hands because there might be some edge cases out there. I mean, anyone to make a slippery slope argument. No, to me that is.

Max, I want to be clear. If this is written in a way and executed in a way that solves the problems that you're talking about, I'm all for it. I'm all for it. But I have to be weary of it given we're living in odd times. We're living in times where you make a point. and somebody says, well, because you made that point, then that automatically,

they will infer a raft of things that you never said. And it's really hard to fight against that. We're also living in a time, Demetri, where I don't know that you can make the point that Max did that our judges are demonstrating that they're living in the same world that we're all living in. I've seen a lot of hot takes from a lot of judges. I was going to say absolutely, Ben, we've seen rulings.

I'll give you an example. A ruling that has nothing to do with hate speech, but it was a ruling recently. I think it was in Ontario where somebody who is not yet a permanent citizen committed a criminal offense, and he was given a lesser sentence than what a Canadian citizen would receive. Why, the judge said that if I give you the strictest sentence, then it would be impede on your path to permanent residency and citizenship. So I understand that people are weary of some of the rulings that I've come down. And it's come to the point where people are afraid to speak up.

People are afraid to express an opinion. So I leave it. I truly leave it to Parliament and to the common sense of Parliament to protect against true hate speech, which occurs and goes unpunished. versus people expressing an opinion. All right, we're going to take a break when we come back. Are we dealing with very bad news for government transparency? And with what's going on in Iran,

is that going to focus us back on everyone roan in the same direction as it relates to Canadian energy policy? This is the Ben Mulerney show. Every family tree holds extraordinary stories, especially those of the women who shaped who we are. In honor of International Women's Month, ancestry invites you to shine a light on their legacy. until March 10th, enjoy free access to over 4 billion family history records and discover where they lived, the journeys they took, and the legacy they left behind.

Start with just a name or place and let our intuitive tools guide you. Visit Ancestry.ca to start today. No credit card required, term supply. Welcome back and welcome back to my panel of Demetre Soutis and Max Fawcett. Now we're talking access to information. and Max, the library and archives, which houses so much vital information for journalists and for historians to get the historical record right in the moment, but also for posterity. It looks like they're cutting their access to information team. And look, I know that the promises of the Trudeau liberals shouldn't apply and do not apply to his successor. Trudeau promised us a government that would be open by default,

the most transparent government of all time. I highly doubt that the next guy coming in would want to take a step back from that promise, even though Justin did not deliver on that. But this doesn't look good. This is, if you're going to be making any cuts, why would you make cuts here? It's funny how every government that comes in says it's going to be the most open and transparent ever and then consistently doesn't live up to that bargain. It's almost like there's something inherent to being in power.

Yeah, it's not good. You know, it's difficult to do access to information requests here in Alberta. It's difficult for my colleagues to do them at Ottawa. It's just, it's too difficult. This information should be made public as quickly and easily as possible. This seems like an opportunity to apply artificial intelligence, frankly. You know, rather than having bureaucrats sort of comb over these things and decide what to redact and whatnot, you could train an AI to do that for you in ways that would be much faster and more efficient.

So, you know, we have to do better. This is about more than just one government, one party. We need our democracy to be as transparent and open as possible because that way people can trust the system. But it hasn't been a good week for sort of for sunlight as a disinfectant in Ottawa. I mean, if I'm not mistaken, last week, there was a story of the COVID files being closed for 15 years. and a lot of redaction as it relates to the money that was handed over for the investigation into the unmarked graves at the residential schools. And now this, Dimitri, what do you make of it? So this decision hits three pressure points.

The first one is government transparency. The second one is academic research credibility. And the most important one, as far as I'm concerned, is public trust. Max, you're right. I also remember campaigning on more transparency. And once you form government, it's not that you want to be less transparent. It's that in many cases, first of all, the majority of these documents, if not all of them, are reviewed by bureaucrats. And they decide what gets redacted and doesn't.

And oftentimes, I remember saying, can we not give more information? And bureaucrats say no because of this law and this regulation. So I have an idea, especially as it relates to, Library and Archives Canada. I'm not sure if you guys know, but in Canada, unlike other countries, we actually don't automatically release records after 20 or 25 years. So why doesn't Parliament, specifically to Library and Archives Canada, pass legislation whereby automatic release of documents occurs 25 years later?

I like that. I absolutely like that. Max, thoughts? I'll co-sign that. I don't see anything wrong with that at all. I mean, I expect that this is probably not the top priority for the government right now, but there's no reason why they couldn't fit it into an omnibus bill. This is something that everyone should be able to agree on.

You know, after 20 years, whatever privacy concerns might exist, except in exceptional circumstances, have more or less disappeared. So, yeah, let's get it all out there so that our academics can study so they can do better research. and so we can have more trust in government. Well, if there's one thing that we learned during the, at the beginning of Donald Trump's term, is that a crisis can really bring people together across the aisle. And there was, and there still is on good days, a willingness to not be, you know, conservative versus liberal, but conservative and liberal versus the problem.

And it seems like what's going on in this, we are presented with a similar opportunity today, with what's going on in Iran and the craziness as it relates to the price of oil. I know that G7 finance ministers are getting together for an emergency meeting with the International Energy Agency to talk about, you know, aligning. And I believe that there is some sort of consultation in the offing in Ottawa to come up with some sort of plan that everyone can get behind. I like things like this. I like it when parties.

work together, Max? Yeah, me too. You know, I think these are opportunities to kind of break through the reflexive partisanship that often defines our politics. I think on this one, we have to be careful because it looks in the near term like this is, this is a reason to produce more oil and gas. I would argue when I have, and other people that pick this up, there was a piece in the globe, there was a piece in the Financial Times making the same argument that over the

long term, this is actually bad for oil demand. because big customers, whether they're in Asia, whether they're in Europe, are looking at this just like they looked at the Russian invasion of Ukraine as yet another example of the ways in which decisions that are beyond their control can make their oil and gas prices go up by 20, 30, 40 percent, almost overnight. And this is not the world of, you know, the 1970s with OPEC or even the early 2000s with, you know, with the Bush invasion of Iraq. People have alternatives, alternatives that give them more energy security rather than depending on imports. So, you know, in the near term, this is good for the bottom lines of Canadian fossil fuel companies. I don't think it justifies more pipelines than we're currently planning or building. I don't know, Demetri, it feels like you can make a pretty good case for the stability of the Canadian democracy and the oil that lives underneath our feet. Yeah, and I suspected Max would say that.

And I respect his position, his opinion. and in some cases Max can present facts as to why this may be a good idea. I'll present facts as to why had we built pipelines, Energy East, and the pipeline to the west coast of British Columbia, not necessarily the northern shore, I'll give in on that, but had we built at least pipeline for both oil and gas to the East Coast, part of it getting refined in Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritimes, we wouldn't have to be selling our oil and our gas, specifically our oil to the Americans,

at a rebate where they refine it and then resell it at a gargantuan profit. Also, right now, some of the European countries may have to start buying gas from whom? From Russia. Again, we have it, and I go by the principle of use it or lose it. So one day, yes, maybe oil, maybe gas will no longer be needed. But right now it is, right now it is a valuable commodity. and Canada has lost at least a decade. We only have a very short period of time left,

so I want to blow through this with you. Some new polling says that the liberals have a 14-point lead, but the toughest one for the conservatives is Carney's approval rating is at 64%. Pierre's is a net unfavorability at minus 18. They got three by-elections coming up. What would you recommend to the conservatives if they want to do the, have the best showing they possibly can? Do they take Pierre's name off of the lawn signs, Max?

I don't think it matters because the two, the two are clear liberal holds. And the third is in Quebec where the conservatives aren't really a presence. So I think they should hope that the liberals win all three of these and that we don't go to an election anytime soon. Because if we go to an election, I mean, the polls are pretty clearly signaling that Pierre and the conservatives are going to get wiped out. Dmitri, I got to give the mic to Dmitri, Dmitri, 20 seconds to you. Well, if they win all three, and we're really talking about Terbonne, Carney gets a functioning majority and he gets control of all parliamentary committees where the block and the conservatives will lose the majority and Carney gets the control committees.

Gentlemen, thank you so much. I always love chatting with you. Cheers. And just a reminder, if you want more, BMS, we put out a podcast every day. You can find even more content on X, on Instagram, and on YouTube. My name is Mickey Fox. Friday, February 27th on Global. I'm sheriff of Edgewater. For her, keeping the peace.

Cartel's moving in. Means every investigation. People are getting threats. It's close to home. At the end of the day, I'm responsible for this town. Secrets, loyalties, and small town justice collide in the new hit drama. I'm a damn good sheriff. Sheriff Country returns Friday, February 27th on Global.

Stream on Stack TV.