Leighton Smith Podcast #253 - August 28th 2024 - Jill Ovens and Behnam Ben Taleblu - The Leighton Smith Podcast

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
You're listening to a podcast from News talks it B.
Follow this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio.
It's time for all the attitude, all the opinion, all
the information, all the debates of this US. Now the
lighton Smith podcast, Now it by news talks it B.

Speaker 2 (00:29):
Welcome to podcast two hundred and fifty three for August
twenty eight, twenty twenty four. Without an anchor in biological reality,
laws based on sex become meaningless and justice cannot be served,
so wrote evolutionary biologist Colin Wright. Jill Ovans, national secretary
co leader of the Women's Rights Party, responds to the

(00:51):
decision of an Australian judge's ruling that sex is changeable
in a case involving gender identity, and I might say
that common sense rules mightily in her favor. After the
Stephen Rainbow interview in two five to two, this discussion
with jill Ovans is a natural follow on. And then,
exactly five years to the day after we interviewed Ben

(01:15):
Tellablue on the Middle East, especially Iran, he returns with
much insight to the current crisis, or should I say crises.
It is one of the most rewarding interviews that I
think I've done. You judge for yourself and the mail
room as a result of last week's podcast is one
of the best. Now, because this is a lengthy podcast

(01:38):
with two interviews, I'm going to cut my comments to
an absolute minimum outside of those interviews in the mailroom.
So Jill Ovans is next. It was last Friday, when

(01:58):
I was reading the Australian newspaper a little later in
the day that I made a discovery I suppose to
some degree now, I have to say, but angered me
more than amuse at the time because it was yet
another step in the idiotic direction that the world is taking.

(02:19):
It was the case of a transgender woman, Roxanne Tickle,
who won a novel gender discrimination case in the High
Court in Australia, in the Federal Court of Australia actually,
and it was in Sydney on Friday. I want to
for those who don't know much about it at this
point of time, I want to quote a law lecturer

(02:40):
from Australia name of Rachel Wong who wrote the following
I'm sitting here reflecting on this morning's verdict in Tickle
versus Giggle and flipping between being outraged at the fact
that women and girls have no sex based rights in Australia,
are not even recognized as a legal category anymore in
Australia and sort of being like, well, we've already known

(03:03):
this for some time. I still feel like I'm in
the twilight zone after sitting in the Federal caught this
morning and listening to a judge declare the erasure of
women and our sex base rights in Australia in favor
of the feelings of a man he calls miss Tickle. Now,
that was an introduction to it from the spectator a

(03:25):
little later, but the point being that there is a
very big battle that's going on and it looks like
that this particular point of time, it's being lost. One
who is not prepared to sit by and watch that
loss take its place is Jill Ovens. Jill Ovens is

(03:45):
a shall we say, a retired Labor Party member. She
has had much to do with this particular scene and
she's picked up the battle yet again. Jill. It's very
good to have you on the podcast.

Speaker 3 (03:59):
Thank you, thank you for having me.

Speaker 2 (04:01):
When did you find out the result of this? By
the way, just to put it in place.

Speaker 4 (04:07):
Well, it came out New Zealand time at eleven o'clock
on the Friday, so it was all over social media
very soon afterwards. That that's when I became aware and
subsequently went to the judge's summary, in which he says
that there's been thirty years of law cases proving that
sex can be changed. We would say, biologists would say

(04:32):
that's not the case.

Speaker 2 (04:34):
Well, I would say there's not a single illegal case
that has decided that sex can be changed. They may
have opinionated on it, but they certainly haven't decided it, because,
as you point out, it's the biological argument that the
rules on it.

Speaker 4 (04:49):
Nevertheless, the Australian Human Rights Commission interceded in the case,
as they're required to do under their legislation and claim
that gender trump's sex. And that's because in twenty thirteen,
under Julia Gillard's government, the Federal Government of Australia took

(05:10):
sex out of the Sex Discrimination Act and replaced it
with gender identity and expression. And they define gender identity
expression in terms of appearances and mannerisms and say that
it doesn't matter how you were assigned at birth in
terms of your sex. We don't agree with that terminology

(05:32):
assigned at birth.

Speaker 2 (05:33):
By the way, well, there is one point i'd make
Kaitanji Brown Jackson, who was appointed by President Biden to
be the most recent member of the Supreme Court associated
of the Supreme Court two years ago, I was asked
that question when she was being when she was being

(05:54):
questioned over her attitude to things, and you would be
well familiar with the answer that she gave when she
was asked to describe could she describe a woman?

Speaker 4 (06:04):
I think I saw it on TV, but I don't
remember what she said.

Speaker 2 (06:09):
She said, she said no, I can't. Yeah, she's a mother,
but she can't describe. She could not and would not,
And it was more than would not, of course, because
she didn't want to fall out of favor with those
that she would fall out of favor with with if
she if she had said yes and gave a description

(06:31):
of a woman.

Speaker 4 (06:32):
Yes. Unfortunately, the Democrats, as as many other well hard
to call the Democrats left leaning, but anyway, left leaning
political parties across the world have actually been totally captured
by the trans community and their lobbyists and allies at academia.

(06:54):
So yes, the Biden administration has a very big weakness
in that respect.

Speaker 2 (07:02):
Why is it that they have been captured? Do you think.

Speaker 4 (07:05):
It's this whole idea of the values of kindness which
seemed to override common sense and I would suggest as
actually losing these parties at a New Zealand, the Labor
Party at the Greens a lot of their previous supporters,

(07:28):
but they don't seem to recognize that extraordinary.

Speaker 2 (07:31):
So you mentioned you may mention the Hosey Parker.

Speaker 4 (07:34):
Oh, yes, I was there in Albert Park. I hadn't
actually intended to go because I could see that it
was going to be, you know, a disaster because I
saw what happened in Melbourne and Hobart. But we ended
up going and I couldn't see any police presence right
for the starts, I knew we were city ducks. Yet

(07:58):
when the barriers were broken down by the trans allies.
I don't call them the trends gender people themselves, because
I think a lot of the people there probably heterosexual
and defined as that. But anyway, so I was there.

(08:19):
I was completely traumatized by it. Couldn't work for about
a week afterwards. Still can't listen to the videos with
the sound on because it was so loud it was
really traumatizing.

Speaker 2 (08:31):
Did they have a go at you?

Speaker 3 (08:33):
Oh, yes, they were.

Speaker 4 (08:35):
I went over to say, don't push those barriers it
or words to that effect, probably a little bit more
stronger than that, but got pushed back towards the rotunder
itself and tried to talk to some of them, but
they just were screaming at the top of their voices

(08:56):
and we left. Posey Parker was there on the rotunder
and had been standing there for quite some time trying
to get the police to intervene, and she was doing
a live stream but the police he still didn't do
anything until she got through the crowd and was about
to be bundled into the police car out of the country.

Speaker 2 (09:17):
Seeing that you've raised at at this point, let me
ask you what your opinion of the police was on
that day, and the secondly, what your overall opinion of
the police and their approach to such matters is.

Speaker 4 (09:32):
I was quite surprised that they were so.

Speaker 3 (09:38):
Ineffective.

Speaker 4 (09:39):
I didn't realize they were even there. I was next
to a TV three reporter and camera person cameraman, and
I was yelling at.

Speaker 3 (09:49):
Where are the police? Where are the police?

Speaker 4 (09:50):
Ad the reporter said, yeah, it's crazy, but we could
see in later videos that they were hanging around Princess
Street in their van and doing nothing. Turns out that
the police liaison officer is himself a transgender calls himself
a transgender woman trans woman, but the police. I blamed

(10:12):
the police and the Labor Party because I thought labels
and government at the time that they had given a
signal to the police not to intervene like that. Turns
out I was probably wrong because I don't think they're
allowed to do that. But at the time, that was
my main motivation for leaving the Labor Party that particular night,

(10:34):
even though I'd had some issues with them over these
particular issues going back for the previous hit.

Speaker 2 (10:41):
What do you mean, I suppose it's fairly self evident,
but I want you to tell me what you mean
by you don't think they can tell them things like that.

Speaker 4 (10:51):
Well, when I put it out there that that I
thought the Minister of Police may have given them a
signal not to intervene, others informed me that the government
can't intervene in police operations. You know, you can believe
that or not. At the time, I strongly believed that

(11:12):
they had intervened and so then subsequent to that. They
have been effective in some of the let Women Speak
events that have been held at Parliament for example, although
they also have Parliamentary security which seems to be quite
effective in keeping the trends activists apart from women who

(11:39):
wish to speak on the steps of Parliament. But a
recent event we had in Wellington with Sel Grover from
Australia who is the defendant in Tickle versus Giggle.

Speaker 3 (11:53):
I did go to the police.

Speaker 4 (11:55):
It asked them to when I heard that the transactivists
were planning to protest at our event at Rutherford House
at Victoria University. I did go and make a report
to the police. I didn't to talk to a police
liaison officer, only got to talk to the woman on
the reception desk who's not a what do you call

(12:16):
it uniform police person And a report was made and
she said, oh, well, we've got a community policing team,
they'll do a drive by. Yeah, And at that time
I had the security of the people from Victoria University.

Speaker 3 (12:35):
The man that I was dealing with had.

Speaker 4 (12:38):
Said that the doors are shut automatically at six o'clock
and we'd be able to let people in or out.
So I was comfortable with that because I thought the
protesters would be on the other side of Bunny Street
outside Rutherford House. But then on the day of sell
Grover's event, at lunchtime, I got a call from campus
security at Victoria University telling me she had talked to

(13:02):
them and they were going to be peaceful. But I
had seen on Twitter that they were intending to come
into Rutherford House completely disrupt our meeting with noise, and
so I went and reported that to the police. The

(13:22):
campus security told me that they couldn't stop the students
coming inside the event, and that the police can't come
into Rutherford House without permission of Victoria University, and it
was clear the Victoria versy had no intention of allowing
the police to come in. As it happened, we made

(13:42):
a decision to shift to another alternative event, and I
put an email out telling everybody to come at five
o'clock instead of six o'clock.

Speaker 3 (13:52):
It's a bit like, you know, this little piggy went
to market.

Speaker 4 (13:56):
And so we were at the alternative event and we
were well underway by the time the protesters inside Rutherford
House realized because we had a spy there that we
weren't going to be at that event, and started hunting
us down around the inner city of Wellington.

Speaker 2 (14:19):
I have no evidence to say that they were the
police were instructed by the government. But I have learnt
over a period of time from other parts of the world,
in particular, that you don't have to tell people who
you appoint to positions of some authority what they have

(14:40):
to do or what they're wanted to do. They get
appointed because they have similar attitudes and they understand what
the overriding pinion of their employer, as in the government
is and they tend to fulfill it. And there's meant
multiple examples of that.

Speaker 4 (14:59):
Yes, I think the appointment of a trans woman, as
you might say, to the police liaison role with respect
to the Albert Park event, which was known to be
become problematic, would indicate that that also pick up the

(15:20):
general vibe of the government of the day. I should
note that in Melbourne they had police there on horseback.
They kept all the different groups because there were like
three distinct groups of protesters away from the women who
were speaking. And that's what you want, you know, you
don't want to stop protesting. I haven't got a problem

(15:43):
with that. It's just that the people who are protesting
should not be able to completely shut down the other side,
or more importantly, physically come into contact in a violent way.

Speaker 2 (16:00):
Resort to violence. The Women's Party is a party of
women and men I note, who believe, who believe in democracy,
the equality and biological reality. Sex is binary. Human beings
cannot change sex. Women are adult humans of the female sex. Now,
you'd been an active member of the Labor Party, but

(16:22):
you got frustrated over the attitudes. How much did you
get to talk to other Labor Party members about all this?
And I'm going back to the earlier part when you
were still in the party.

Speaker 4 (16:37):
Yes, so it might have been twenty twenty one. I
knew of a group of women within the Labor Party
who are what we call gender critical. They were on
a zoom talking about public facilities. There was a remit
from the Rainbow sector of the Labor Party that all

(17:01):
new buildings had to have gender neutral toilets. So some
of my women that I knew with the party had
engaged in debate in the chat and ended up before
the council with a complaint against them for what basically
was accused of being hate speech. The following year, I

(17:23):
wasn't involved in that particular complaint because I ham to
be on a different zoom at the time. But the
following year, in twenty twenty two, I had organized a
whoey of labor women. Over one hundred attended that whoey
and what we were to do was to go through

(17:43):
the policy remits that related to women, which I have
to say is most policy remits, and we broken to
commit into groups, and there was a health group and
that health group suggested an amendment to gender reassignment surgery
being the rainbow sector and wanted it to be more accessible,

(18:07):
and our amendment was for those aged over eighteen because
there was no age limit in it anyway. The person
who facilitated that health sector group put forward the amendment
and when she before she actually got the amendment into

(18:30):
the she submitted it, but before the deadline there was
a lot of pressure put on her by the Labor
Party hierarchy to pull that amendment, which she did at
the eleventh hour, so it never went to the conference,
and what was passed is a remit that doesn't have
any age specifications in it. There was also an amendment

(18:53):
from the group that I convened, which was about infrastructure
in the environment, and that was to do with the
disability sector, and said we need more public toilets for
those with disabilities, and we wanted to add also formen
and children and for people who are older and we
were thinking then of elderly men and having to go

(19:16):
to the loo quite frequently and getting caught out. So
I went to make that amendment on a zoom call
just before the twenty twenty two conference, and somebody who
is actually on the Women's Council that she is in
a relationship with a trans woman. She said, she said,

(19:41):
oh no, hang on, stop there, women and toilets.

Speaker 3 (19:46):
That's code for transphobia.

Speaker 4 (19:49):
And so the person who was running the zoom muted me,
and when I tried to come back on, wouldn't allow
me back on. So I was, you know, absolutely, How.

Speaker 2 (20:02):
Would you describe them now that you've exited the party,
how would you describe the Labor Party?

Speaker 4 (20:10):
Well, I think it's pretty ineffective right now. It's lacking
in leadership and it is completely captured by various sectors. Actually,
so when we are in our constitution of the Women's
Rights Party, we have not got networks or sectors because

(20:30):
we can see how groups of people within a party
can actually push their agenda and in ways that can
get the majority to shut up basically, and that was
an example of how I was forced to shut up.

(20:50):
So yeah, so it's really problematic, and I'll give you
an example of how it is. The Labor Party has
various councils within it for each of the sectors, and
the Women's Council on the Women's Council at the time
that I was there, the Rainbow rep on the Women's
Council identifies as a trans woman but as an effect

(21:13):
as actually biologically a male, and the Environment Rep on
the Women's Council as his partner.

Speaker 3 (21:22):
So you could see.

Speaker 4 (21:24):
And then everybody wants to be kind, you know, and
so I think at the time Jacinda was the Prime
Minister setting that example, and so you know, nothing could
be said on that Women's.

Speaker 2 (21:39):
I want to suggest to you that being kind has
its place, but it's also it's also it's also capable
of doing a lot of damage if it's employed incorrectly.

Speaker 4 (21:56):
Yes, that's correct. I mean, I myself don't really like confrontation.
You might think that's rather odd for someone who's spent
thirty six years in the Union movement and had a
history before that of activism and political movements. But on
a personal level, I avoid confrontation. So you know, I

(22:17):
did observe at one of our Cell Grover meetings that
there was a man identifying as a woman.

Speaker 3 (22:23):
You could tell.

Speaker 4 (22:25):
He came up and spoke to us at the at
the end, and we we were really polite, of course,
and nothing was said, you know that would be unkind
at all. We were all very accepting of his presence there.

Speaker 2 (22:44):
Well, let's get something straight. You you would believe this,
I know, And my attitude is one of freedom. And
if you want to dress up as a woman and
knock around that way, then go for your life if
that's what. If that's where you're at and that's what
you want, But to enter the realms of changing the

(23:08):
law and the rules of life and nature to accommodate
that particular approach ain't acceptable.

Speaker 4 (23:19):
Yes, that's right. I'd be in the private sphere. Even
in a public meeting like that was where we had.
It was open to men and women, and so there
was no problem. That's what I'm trying to say, actually
that it's when you get into women wanting to have
our own spaces. And you know, I go back to

(23:41):
the nineteen seventies at Auckland University. We had women's groups
which would meet and there were gay rights groups which
would meet. Well, I wouldn't go to one of those
as a person who is heterosexual, not because I've got
anything against gays, but I think that they deserve to

(24:04):
have their own spaces too. So it's mainly around that,
and there of competitive sport where we could see that
there is male advantage, it can't be denied and it's
very unfair on women, particularly in those combat or sports
that require explosive power.

Speaker 3 (24:23):
Two.

Speaker 2 (24:24):
Yeah, so you've we've we've just been through the Olympic Games.
That of course is the boxing and and some other things.

Speaker 1 (24:31):
But that.

Speaker 2 (24:36):
It tell me how you tell me how you think
that has become acceptable that you can have a man
punching up a woman and that's what it is in
a in a ring, in an international well the ultimate
and international competitions.

Speaker 4 (24:57):
You could argue, yes, so particularly when there is a
major problem worldwide of a violence and assault against women.
So New Zealand is not immune to that. And so
we were watching that spectacle and there's all sorts of

(25:20):
assumptions made about the sex of those two competitors, which
we actually don't know. All we know is that they
have x Y chromosomes, they were tested twice. They particularly
in the case of Calieph, have clearly gone through male puberty.
And we know from the science that we read that

(25:46):
the male who is of the same weight as a
female has one hundred and sixty percent more punching power
than a woman. And this has to do with all
sorts of bodily changes that happen puberty, like bigger shoulders,
longer arms, bigger body, and obviously a lot more strength

(26:10):
and power. And this is the result of testosterone. And
we know from Kayleev's coach that his testosterone levels are
so high that they've had to use testosterone suppressants. And
we also know from the science that the testosterone level
in women is well below the range, well.

Speaker 3 (26:34):
Below that of men.

Speaker 4 (26:37):
I was looking at the figures last night, and it's
like fifteen to seventy of testosterone per it's mng dash
dl or so, they compared with men who it goes
up to a thousand at the top of the range
and the bottom of the range is two hundred and
sixty something. My figures might not be completely correct, but

(27:00):
that's the that's the thing. So a woman with high
levels of testosteroid still is nowhere near a man with
low levels of testosterone. And it's just, you know, people say, oh,
what about you know, they'll quote Valerie Adams, who's obviously
very strong and tall, but even if you know, at

(27:24):
her testosterone levels were clearly within the range of females.
Because and this is one of the points, we all
accept that athletes, particularly at World Championships and the Olympics,
get tested for testosterone because they're looking for the performance

(27:46):
enhancing drugs. We all accept that doping testing. And yet
since nineteen ninety nine, there has been no attempt at
looking at sex testing for eligibility for the female category.

Speaker 3 (28:01):
And some sports have done this.

Speaker 4 (28:04):
Anyway because the IOC said they could, but boxing was,
you know, it was there's a big political staut between
them and the International Boxing Association. So they allowed these
two boxes to come into the female event based on
what their passport says, and that that actually goes back

(28:25):
to this whole thing about sex self id which we
have now in New Zealand where you don't have, you
can just apply for it and you don't have to.

Speaker 2 (28:35):
Have any yourself self declared.

Speaker 4 (28:39):
Yes, that's right, So you should know that that's on
your on your now, on your certificate. There's no going
back to see what you actually your sex as it
was observed at birth and recorded I should say recorded
at the birth.

Speaker 3 (28:56):
That's not there anymore.

Speaker 2 (28:57):
It's just do you think that this this is like
some of the other things over the years, that this
is a trend that will eventually be stymied.

Speaker 4 (29:10):
I think that what happened in the boxing was a
wake up call because there couldn't be a more graphic.

Speaker 3 (29:19):
Exhibition of the unfairness. And it's not just unfairness.

Speaker 4 (29:26):
Those women were put at who were competing, were put
in danger and I'm not exaggerating to that because there
was a Spanish camp that was held just before the
Olympics and the women who were sparring with Khalif were
being so hurt that they had to put him with
one of their top male boxes in Spain to do

(29:48):
his sparring.

Speaker 2 (29:50):
Well, now we get into to an area that might
cause a bit of friction between us, is there, as
I saw in an article recently, is there an argument
that feminism over the years has contributed to this particular

(30:10):
place that we now find ourselves in.

Speaker 4 (30:14):
A lot of the people who are within the Women's
Rights Party are feminists from the nineteen sixties, nineteen seventies,
and nineteen eighties, and so we clearly saw that sex
was biological, but we also recognized that there are sex

(30:38):
stereotypes that actually were not good for women.

Speaker 3 (30:44):
They held women back.

Speaker 4 (30:45):
Some people would describe it as a prison, and so
we did actually fight against sex stereotypes.

Speaker 3 (30:52):
So we tried to bring up our boys.

Speaker 4 (30:54):
To if they wanted to play with dolls, well, cater pie,
that's okay. If our girls wanted to climb trees and
stuff like that, that was okay.

Speaker 3 (31:02):
We allowed all.

Speaker 4 (31:04):
That generation, and we are a large part of the
women today who what you would call gender critical. But
what's happened with this latest trend is completely regressive in
terms of feminism as I understand it. It hyper sexualizes

(31:29):
sex stereotypes.

Speaker 3 (31:31):
IBE. I heard that there was a.

Speaker 4 (31:34):
Trans woman at an event that was women I can't
remember whether psychotherapist or what, and he was the only
one in a dress in the entire room. You know,
my generation of feminists, we're the ones who broke the
sex stereotypes that you had to wear dresses to go

(31:55):
to work.

Speaker 3 (31:56):
For example, most of us wear trousers pants.

Speaker 4 (32:00):
And Helen Clark wore a pants suit to meet the Queen,
and at the time that was thought to be horrific,
but now it's normal. If I watch the Democratic National
Convention speeches the other night and all the women were
wearing pensuites. Oh, maybe maybe Michelle Obama had a dress on,

(32:23):
but you know, we broke down these sex stereotypes. Now,
if a boy wants to play with dolls or likes
to wear pink when he's three years old, we say, oh,
he's born in the wrong body. He must be actually
a girl, which is nonsense. And then we overlay that
with the impact of social media, and particularly girls are

(32:47):
susceptible to that because the other ones watching TikTok, which
glorifies removing your breasts, and women girls rather binding their
breasts and that sort of things. So that's nothing to
do with the feminism that I understand.

Speaker 2 (33:08):
Standard is it is it that feminism, Well, feminism the
definition of it has arguably changed.

Speaker 4 (33:18):
I don't think it is about feminism. I think that
it's about during the In the period between the nineteen
eighties and today, there was a development of what's called
critical race theory and an association with that queer theory.
Women's studies and universities got replaced by so called gender studies,

(33:41):
and the promotion of those theories has actually captured a
whole generation of those who have been through university, and
they're the ones you see at Albert Park and they
are completely captured by It's got nothing to do with
feminism as I understand it.

Speaker 2 (34:00):
And you'll get no argument from me. I want to
go back to this case in Australia. You say when
you were put out a press release, you said or
you wrote. A landmark case has been decided by an
Australian Federal Court judge who ruled that the exclusion of
a transgender woman from the female only app constituted unlawful

(34:24):
discrimination due to gender identity. The case illustrates why legislating
for both self sex id and the inclusion of gender
identity in sex discrimination legislation erodes boundaries that allow women
to meet in women only spaces. The Women's Rights Party says,

(34:48):
reading out a summary of his decision yesterday, Justice Bromich
said the defendants at Selgrover and her company Giggle for Girls,
considered sex to mean the sex of a person at birth,
which the defendant said was unchangeable. The judge said these
arguments failed because a long history of cases decided courts

(35:08):
going back over thirty years had established that in its
ordinary meaning, sex is changeable. Now we're recovering some ground
that we touched on earlier, but I just want to
finish with this. Renowned evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins has described
sex as being pretty damned binary. The judge to me

(35:30):
is out of line, out of place, and he is
what we call an activist judge. And I wonder whether
this case could be overturned.

Speaker 4 (35:40):
Yes, that's the intention is to go to the High
Court in Australia and it's only at that level that
the court can recommend that the legislation in the Sex
Discrimination Act in Australia has changed so that gender doesn't
trump sex when it comes to cases like this, and

(36:03):
that sex base rights of women for example too women
only spaces is PROTECHU did in that legislation and currently
in New Zealand, the Law Commission is undergoing a review
of whether there should be more protections for transgender non

(36:24):
binary people and they have included in this which we
believe is a distraction, those which they call innate variations
of sex characteristics that we would know more as differences
of sex development or intersex. So the two cases really
do That case really does have an impact on New

(36:45):
Zealand because we know the Law Commission is looking at
the outcome of what that judge has found. It was
it was quite interesting because he could only rule on
what's in their legislation. Apparently that statement that sex is
changeable is just such a nonsense, I don't think.

Speaker 2 (37:03):
But he's an idiot and a moron to put to me, yes,
to put it bluntly, and we have some we have
some of those in the legal system in this country too.

Speaker 3 (37:12):
Well, that's right.

Speaker 4 (37:13):
In the Wellington Women's Lawyers Association. They just changed their constitution,
which have been around since the nineteen eighties, to allow
those who identify as women to be part of the
Women Lawyers Association of Wellington. So you could just see
how the legal profession is captured and the judiciary definitely

(37:34):
looks to be captured in Australia and in fact, yeah,
so that's that is evident there. Well, it was interesting
though in that case that he did not find there
was direct discrimination. So the judge did not find that
the reason why Tickle was removed from Giggle for Girls

(37:57):
was because he was transgender. What the judge found that
it was indirect discrimination because in applying for to go
on to Giggle versus Giggle, you have to show that
you have the appearance of cis gender. They call it cisgender.

(38:19):
We reject that completely of women, and that intention of
that is to exclude men from the women only platform.
And the fact that he was a transgender, according to
this ruling was incorrect because he is according to the judge,

(38:42):
he is not a man. He is a woman. And
I don't know if you've seen a photo of him.

Speaker 2 (38:48):
The first thing I saw was the photo and you know.

Speaker 4 (38:51):
That he plays hockey with teenage girls and no, I
didn't know that. Well, he does, and it's quite common
in Australia. Now we're not talking about competitive sport at
the elite level. We're talking about recreational sport. Men identifying
as women are coming onto girls teams like soccer teams,

(39:16):
and they just beat them all the time. You know,
you get like nine goals to nil in the soccer
when this.

Speaker 2 (39:24):
Particular team, Well, how would you term that.

Speaker 3 (39:28):
Cheating?

Speaker 2 (39:29):
How would you term the desire to do that?

Speaker 1 (39:33):
Oh?

Speaker 4 (39:34):
Yeah, that's that In my view, it's not about winning.
It's a perversion.

Speaker 2 (39:42):
I couldn't I couldn't agree with you more.

Speaker 4 (39:45):
You know, even if you give even if you provide
gender neutral toilets as well as the women's toilets, these
guys who get their rocks off by pretending to be
women would go into the women's toilets or assert their
right too. They wouldn't take advantage of a gender neutral toilet.
It's not about that. But they're actually only a small

(40:06):
proportion of the community these days because of the explosion
of these teenage girls who are getting caught up in it.
And you know, they know from the evidence that of
studies that have been done that you get classrooms where

(40:26):
one girl identifies as a boy and next thing you know,
all her friend group have done the same thing. It's
just like anorexia, wise or cuttings.

Speaker 2 (40:38):
Once again, I agree with you.

Speaker 4 (40:40):
I want to make it clear that those teenagers have
been caught up in all this. It's not a perversion
with them, it's a really you know, it's a really
serious psychological and medical issue that's going to have profound effects.

(41:02):
It'll be worse than the unfortunate experiment.

Speaker 2 (41:06):
And how do you how do you think is the
best way to deal with it?

Speaker 4 (41:10):
Well, first of all, we have to make sure that
there's no resources in our schools that are available from
kindergarten upwards that tell children that their sex can be changed.
I mean, secular schools should be teaching scientific based evidence
and they haven't been.

Speaker 2 (41:30):
How did you spend so long in the Labor Party,
That's what I don't get.

Speaker 4 (41:35):
I started, I was the Alliance leader at one stage,
and I've been in the Alliance.

Speaker 3 (41:40):
For quite a few years.

Speaker 4 (41:42):
But I went to work for the Service and Food
Workers Union, which is a Labor affiliated union, and I
became the Northern Regional Secretary of the Service of Food
Workers Union, and so that's when I went to the
Labor Party. And so I was in the Labor Party
and on their council for several.

Speaker 3 (42:03):
Years and very active in South Auckland where I live.

Speaker 2 (42:09):
I want to conclude, though, with education became I became
aware recently of sex education that's taking taking place in
private schools, one in particular, where fourteen year olds are
being taught to question There, they're being taught to question

(42:32):
their sexual status. How do you know, for instance, that
you're not in the wrong body? And I've seen evidence
of it, and I can't believe it is It is
something that you wouldn't you would not expect to have
your child put through. That's right with the money that

(42:54):
you're paying that school to wear educate your kid.

Speaker 4 (42:57):
Yeah, it's one of the points that we're making in
our submission to the Law Commission is where are the parents'
rights in this? So you've seen your child to a
single sex school and then the single sex school admits
children of the opposite sex who claim that they are
part of that sex, and so where's the parents'.

Speaker 3 (43:17):
Rights in this?

Speaker 4 (43:18):
And you know, what they're being taught is just scientifically incorrect.
But the other thing that's worrying about it is that
you talk about the questioning. I was with a granddaughter
of someone else. No, I haven't got a granddaughter in

(43:39):
this age group, but she was in her final year
at high school. She's now in her first year at UNI,
and she was saying, you can't question this stuff.

Speaker 3 (43:48):
You're not allowed to question it.

Speaker 4 (43:51):
About a week later, we were at a funeral of
a nephew of Eddieway and his two sisters were telling
somebody that at their school, which is in total a
long way from the other school, I'm talking about no
connection between these kids. And the two girls were saying,
it's just ridiculous. We have to use our pronouns as

(44:14):
if it's obvious. I'm a girl, and she said the
teachers are encouraging it. And the two girls also said,
we can't question it. You're not allowed to question it. Now,
when you talked earlier about feminism, one of the big
things that I was brought up with.

Speaker 3 (44:33):
Was you are allowed to question.

Speaker 4 (44:36):
As a teenager in the Anglican Church, when I went
through confirmation, I said to the priest, do you really
believe that Mary was a virgin? And that priest sort
of accepted what I was saying and he gave me

(44:56):
an answer. Can't remember what the answer was, but obviously
didn't have much effect on me. But the point is
that we were allowed to question, and that's that's really worrying.
To me that a generation of girls who do not
go along with this and boys have to keep their

(45:18):
mouth shut.

Speaker 2 (45:19):
I think it's more than a generation now, it's stretching
into at least the second that's my opinion.

Speaker 3 (45:23):
Yes, I have sorry, no, you go.

Speaker 4 (45:28):
I have two granddaughters, one who's ten months old and
one who started school today, and honestly, I just do
this because I don't want them to be taught things
that are completely wrong and that could send them down
a pathway that is irreversible and cause huge damage to them.

(45:50):
And I think so I'm hoping by the time they
get to high school this is all gone.

Speaker 2 (45:56):
I think it's unlikely, but we've got an education minister now,
who I would suggest it probably probably gives it the
best shot of being being dealt with. But I have
I have a question for you, based on what you
just said when you were when you were talking to
the priest, and do you believe that Mary was a virgin?

(46:19):
There's no necessity here to believe in God or anything else.
This is an argument that stands on its own. The
answer to your question was, if God can create the
world and the universe, then Mary can be a virgin.

Speaker 4 (46:37):
Yeah, that's a religious belief and transgenderism is also a
belief system.

Speaker 3 (46:44):
I would suggest No.

Speaker 2 (46:47):
The point, the point I'm making though, is if God,
or if you want, if there is a God and
he created the world, then why couldn't he impregnate artificially Mary?

Speaker 4 (47:01):
Well, you're going to get me into trouble with lots
of people in our party who are Christians, So I
want to stay away from that.

Speaker 3 (47:09):
Is she? But you're assuming God was he?

Speaker 4 (47:14):
But of course if if there was, you know, the
ability to impregnate Mary, then must have had why chromosome?

Speaker 2 (47:27):
So where does that? Where does that?

Speaker 3 (47:28):
I don't know. I don't know that that leads us anyway.

Speaker 4 (47:31):
But there are people suggesting that the idea that Adam
came before Eve is not necessarily correct because it's you know,
Adam had to be born of a woman. Every every
person in the history of mankind has been born of
a woman.

Speaker 3 (47:49):
So who came first? There's my feminism coming through.

Speaker 2 (47:52):
Well, the biblical description of the creation of Adam and
Eve is therefore everyone to read.

Speaker 4 (48:02):
Yeah, and there are other cultural explanations, aren't they.

Speaker 2 (48:07):
I don't know.

Speaker 3 (48:10):
Anyway.

Speaker 2 (48:10):
All right, listen, it's it's been good talking to you,
and I congratulate you on your outspokenness. And I haven't
said that to somebody from the left for a long time,
but you do exist, and like I say, I congratulate you,
and more power to your voice and your arguments.

Speaker 3 (48:31):
Thank you, thank you very much.

Speaker 2 (48:39):
There are essential fat nutrients that we need in our
diet as the body can't manufacture them. These are Omega
three and Amiga six fatty acids. Equisine is a combination
of fish oil and virgin evening primrose oil, a formula
that provides an excellent source of Amiga three and Amiga
six fatty acids in their naturally existing ratios. The Omiga

(49:00):
six from evening primrose oil assists the Omega three fish
oil to be more effective. Equisine is a high quality
fish oil supplement enriched with evening primrose oil that works
synergistically for comprehensive health support. Source from the deep sea
sardines Anchovisa magrol provide essential Amiga three fatty acids in
their purest form without any internal organs or toxins. Every

(49:24):
batch is tested for its purity before it's allowed to
be sold. Equisin supports cells to be flexible, so important
to support healthy blood flow and overall cardiovascular health. Equisine
can support mood balance and mental clarity and focus in
children all the way to supporting stiff joints, mental focus,
brain health and healthy eyes as we get older. Equasin

(49:46):
is a premium high grade fish and evening primrose oil
to be taken in addition to a healthy diet and
is only available from pharmacies and health stores. Always read
the label and users directed, and if symptoms persist, seeing
your health care professional. Farmer Broker Auckland Laton Smith Beynum

(50:17):
ben Tabalu is a Senior Fellow with the FDD that
is the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, where he focuses
on Iranian security and political issues now. He previously served
as a research Fellow and Senior Iran Analyst at FDD.
Prior to his time at that organization, he worked on

(50:39):
non proliferation issues at an arms control think tank in Washington.
Leveraging his subject matter expertise and native Pazi skills, Benim
has closely tracked a wide range of Iran related topics,
including nuclear non proliferation, ballistic missile sanctions, and Islamic Revolutionary
Guard Corps and the list goes on and on. He's

(51:01):
been a very busy man. It is exactly five years
since we interviewed last time, and I have to say,
welcome back to the podcast. It's great to have your company.

Speaker 5 (51:11):
It's an honor to be back with you, and thanks
for having me again.

Speaker 2 (51:14):
Five years. So what can happen? What has changed in
the five years since we last spoke.

Speaker 6 (51:20):
Oh, my goodness, so many structural and political changes.

Speaker 5 (51:25):
One wonders where to start.

Speaker 6 (51:27):
But in Washington, where I live and work, there has
been a different administration. The Biden administration entered office in
twenty twenty one, reversing at that time the Trump administration's
maximum pressure policy towards the Islamic Republic of Iran, and
there was an attempt for the first two years of
the Biden administration to tempt Tehran with nuclear diplomacy back

(51:51):
into compliance with the twenty fifteen nuclear deal that has failed,
as has attempts to win over the Ietolas through sanctions,
relief and waivers and financial application. The regime's nuclear program
is escalating far beyond where it was both in twenty
nineteen as well as to when Biden entered office in

(52:11):
twenty twenty one. On the regional front. Twenty nineteen did
not see a major Israel gazo or Israel proxy of
Iran war, but moving into twenty twenty one, there was
an eleven day war in May, and then a brief
uptick in violence in twenty twenty two, and then starting

(52:32):
on October eight, twenty twenty three, following the October seventh
terrorist attack by Hamas against Israel, Iran back proxies began
to fire on Israel, creating the multi front ring of
fire that we see today has below to the north
starting on October eighth, the Iran Bakshia militias against US
forces starting October seventeenth, and then the Whosi's in Yemen

(52:54):
starting October nineteenth, and then just lastly, or perhaps second
to last, I should say, within Iran, in November of
the year that we spoke twenty nineteen, you had at
that time the largest ever nation wide protests against the regime,
where the regime turned off the Internet nationally and under
the six or seven day cover of internet darkness used

(53:17):
weapons of war against his own population, killing over one thousand,
five hundred people. Unfortunately, that brutality has been matched and
meant by the regime in a different iteration of street
protests that we saw in twenty twenty two twenty twenty three,
starting in September, known famously as the Woman Life Freedom movement,

(53:38):
and as this state continued to radicalize in Iran, the
society continued to push back and at that time over
one hundred and fifty different cities, towns, and villages protested
against the clerical regime.

Speaker 2 (53:51):
You know, this whole thing reminds me of a little
it just did of the Russian dolls. Were you unscrewed
the hit or whatever becomes another one? It just keeps unfolding.

Speaker 5 (54:04):
Ah Matryoshki.

Speaker 6 (54:05):
The only problem is, I think, should nesting dolls yet
smaller as they open up? These crises seem to get
larger and spiral out of control.

Speaker 2 (54:15):
So it's in reverse. The moves by the Biden administration.
Are they the responsibility of Biden himself. I don't know
that buck stops with the president, but are they his
actions or are they ones that have been simply imposed
by advisers. What's your thought?

Speaker 6 (54:34):
It's an excellent question, because I need no disrespect to
the current sitting president of the United States, who, after
a rather challenging, we can say debate performance pulled a
Lyndon Johnson and said he would not run again for
his party's nomination for the presidency, largely due to health considerations.

Speaker 5 (54:57):
But even prior to this statement.

Speaker 6 (54:59):
Which was just a few weeks ago, there were concerns
as to who was running things in Washington and who
was up who was down, largely but not exclusively, the
national security elite. With the exception of how Washington has
threatened the political needle on the Israel Hamas war, has
been in lockstep with broader Democratic Party dogma, at least

(55:24):
with respect to the big picture issues in the region.
For example, many people in the Biden administration, not just
President Biden, did not use the words Abraham Accords when
talking about the wave of normalization agreements between the Israelis
and the Arabs that we saw under President Trump. And
indeed you saw President Biden lead the charge against calling

(55:44):
Saudi Arabia a pariah state, and the Democratic Party, both
within his administration and within Congress, followed with castication of
Saudi Arabia, and only recently has tried to reverse course
and build bridges with the Saudis, both for strategic reasons
in the region, as well as for attempts to offset

(56:07):
the dip Russian crude exports, and then most importantly to
try to get normalization back on track in the heart
of the Middle East. So that's largely been Biden setting
the agenda and the elite following. But you are certainly
right to point out that there is a zeitgeist. And
this zeitgeist, much like the peace processing industry, has a

(56:27):
bureaucratic inertia of its own, and with respect to Tehran,
they believe that less is more, that you can pay
to play, that you can pay to delay, and that
it was a cardinal sin of the Trump administration to
leave the Iron Nuclear Deal. So whether you look at
big or small, public or privates elected or appointed, many
of these officials harbor that same zeitgeist, and I believe

(56:49):
are responsible for the current impast that we face today.

Speaker 2 (56:52):
If there is a change of administration in November, well
in January, would what you've just described, how much would
that affect the rearrangement of things under the new administration.

Speaker 6 (57:05):
Well, certainly if it is a change to a Republican
administration and President Trump comes back at the helm, at
least with respect to the big picture issues, you're likely
to see some major changes. I think with respect to
the Iran issue, you're likely to see one hundred and
eighty degree change, a resumption of what again the former
administration called maximum pressure sanctions. And while yes, these were

(57:29):
unilateral and punitive economic sanctions, in terms of their macroeconomic
impact on Tehran's theocrats, they far outpaced even a decade
of multilateral sanctions when looking at inflation value of the
real relative to the dollar, oil exports, and the general
health and well being of the Iranian economy. So on

(57:51):
that issue you can expect black and white, major non
zero sum changes.

Speaker 2 (57:56):
Question quick question, yes, in your opinion, is that desirable?

Speaker 6 (58:02):
I think not only is it desirable, it's a strategic
imperative and moral necessity. To disconnect the dots, particularly in
the post October seven Middle East, from the patron or
the arsonist of the fires of the region is political
malpactress and strategic suicide. To think that the threat only
exists because of the Huthis and Yemen and their localized concerns,

(58:25):
and Hezbollah in Beiruts in Lebanon and their localized concerns
is to miss the forest for the trees.

Speaker 2 (58:32):
So where does John Kerry sit now in the book
of fame or infamy?

Speaker 6 (58:39):
I think, with immense respect, there are some areas where
the legacy will be waning politically as well as from
a policy perspective. Politically, with respect to some of his
aim achievements, the Iron Nuclear Deal, the twenty fifteen deal
that he helped negotiate, was.

Speaker 5 (58:55):
Not all that it was billed to be.

Speaker 6 (58:57):
I think some of his rhetoric and views on the
US Saudi relationship now are seen as counterproductive. And even
when you look at some of his performance with respect
to the environment and the climate crist during the early
part of the Biden administration when he switched floors from
i think the seventh floor of the State Department to
the first floor of the State Department, and there was

(59:18):
much confusion there as to what is the former Secretary
of State doing in a different capacity? There was also
significant room for improvement.

Speaker 2 (59:29):
Shall we say, okay, look, there's a lot more with
regard to the Biden administration that I'd like to touch
on a little. At least, it didn't it didn't stop
with the initial changes. They kept They kept rolling the administration.
Biden himself turned the Iranian economy around. He did more

(59:51):
for them, in my opinion, than he did for much
of his own country in re establishing their place, their financial,
their economic place in the world. And to me, that
was treacherous.

Speaker 6 (01:00:03):
And if I may, the best defense the administration will
mount to that, and they know I'm a critic, is
that they would say legally, the bulk of the congressional
penalties and executive orders that were brought into force and
were implemented in the past remain on the books. Now

(01:00:25):
that is a clever legal slide of hands, because the
challenge has not been law, but has been enforcement of
the law.

Speaker 5 (01:00:33):
It's not a question of.

Speaker 6 (01:00:34):
Authorities, a question of maxing out and doing all that
you can and putting assets and national resources towards those authorities.
And that's precisely why you saw the Iranian economy change
significantly under Biden, as well as more importantly, the main
economic artery expand and go in the direction of China,

(01:00:55):
and that is oil exports. We have to remember that
China since twenty eleven has been the largest licit and
illicit importer of Iranian crude oil, and that is the
economic artery under which much of the threat vectors that
we face from Tehran, the repression at home, the aggression abroad,
has been based on, and the permissibility of that, and

(01:01:19):
the fact that it took a year and a half
to even begin slow Treasury Department designations of petroleum and
petrochemical smuggling networks as well as refining networks, it was,
in my view, a major, major, again own goal.

Speaker 2 (01:01:34):
Is it fair to say that the nuclear development that's
taken place in the last few years and the funding
of the proxy wars by Iran is the result of
essentially the Biden administration feeding wealth to the Iranian administration.

Speaker 6 (01:01:53):
It's the wealth, but it's the politics surrounding the wealth.
It's the permissibility of the environment. We know that when
this regime is put to the choice of guns and butter,
because it's an authoritarian regime with a revisionist ideology, it
will preference guns over butter. But the administration has not
been in the position of making them have to make

(01:02:13):
this choice repetitively over time, and therefore the permissive environment,
the oxygen that that financial flow provided the economy not
only trickled down to expand those threat programs that you
are rightly concerned about, such as Iranian drones which are
now found on four different continents by the way, as
well as bilistic missile testing transfers an increased usage such

(01:02:38):
that in the first four months of twenty twenty four,
a non nuclear country like the Islamic Republic of Iran
fired ballistic missiles overtly and directly from its own territory
against two nuclear armed nations, Pakistan and Israel, and live
to tell the tale. So such as the story of emboldenment.
This permissive political environment coupled with the financial wherewithal equals

(01:03:02):
this increasing capability and increasing resolve and willingness to stay
in the fight that we now see seating itself in
these multiple different iterations of proxy wars in the region.
So to be a bit short about it, yes, it
was the financial wherewithal plus the sense of permissibility that

(01:03:24):
the administration's Iran policy and larger Middle East shortcomings have
created that led to this Middle East disaster. In my view,
and these deterrement shortcomings are not limited to the region.
I think there was a real challenge with respected deterring
putin in Ukraine.

Speaker 2 (01:03:40):
Okay, just as a side by question. The American attitude
to the region has well, it's got differentials if you like,
and I'm thinking specifically of kata or Qatar, whichever way
you prefer to say it, and the role that that country,
by all reports is a supporter of a mass to

(01:04:03):
some considerable extent. And yet at the same time it's
flying it's very fine planes. I might albeit that I
haven't been on them yet, but it's flying, it's very
fine airline into all sorts of countries without some repercussion.

Speaker 6 (01:04:18):
And indeed, the Qatari relationship is a very interesting one
because it's played host to a whole host of terrorist organizations,
be it the Taliban or Hamas, and then on the
other side is trying to increasingly position itself as some
sort of regional mediator when when you look at money
flows or look at political inclinations, they seem to be making,

(01:04:40):
shall we say, a desire to hedge their bets in
every direction rather than double down in the pro Western direction.
And one would think that the country with the biggest
American Combined Air Operations Center for US forces in that region,
part of Sencom Central Command, as one of the major
American military command structures, would be wanting to double down

(01:05:04):
on the American side. So it seems like over time
the finance success of the Qataris has increased or has
increased their appetite for hedging away from this order.

Speaker 5 (01:05:16):
And what one would have thought that.

Speaker 6 (01:05:19):
Purisdictions that had bases and major American military centers and
facilities would be a tie that would bind and that
would provide Washington with leverage over these countries should they
decide to hedge away. Is now being weaponized in the
opposite direction, such that the presence of that base is
something I think that Kataris unfortunately.

Speaker 5 (01:05:40):
Can leverage over America.

Speaker 6 (01:05:43):
And it is leading to the very sort of ced precocious,
prickly situation where they're neither a full friend and neither
a full enemy. And there's different layers, and there's the
official and the unofficial, and there's the question more of
than Katari planes, is potential Katari money.

Speaker 2 (01:05:59):
It's a puzzle in fact, just going back to our
earlier conversation of five years ago, are you mentioned and
quite obviously that Iran was afraid of the American reaction
at the time, Is it afraid of any American reaction now?

Speaker 6 (01:06:16):
Unfortunately, there were many errors, even in the way I
think the Trump administration dealt with Iran on the way out,
such that the ad Washington signaled to Tehran that while
it had overwhelming military capability, it was increasingly hesitant to
use that capability, such that when we were speaking, you know,

(01:06:38):
just a few weeks later, in September of that year,
there was a major Iranian drone and missile attack against
Saudi oil refineries, and the Americans did not militarily respond,
such that a few months after that, the regime responded
to the US killing of Costumsulemani, who was the regime's
chief terrorist, by launching the biggest ever bailistic missile barrage

(01:07:00):
against US forces since the end of World War Two,
and again America did not respond, let alone the track
record of non responses an absorption we've seen from the
Biden administration, both from the patron as well as from
the proxy, such that today the Iranian kind of governmental
elite and worse than military elite, understand the conventional military imbalance,

(01:07:22):
but what they're banking on is the resolve of America,
meaning the resolve the lack of staying power. That's where
they hope to capitalize and that's how they hope to win.
So in the region today, fast forward to twenty twenty four,
you may have four thousand additional US forces. You may
have a squadron of F twenty twos and F thirty

(01:07:42):
fives and potentially two carrier strike groups and even one
nuclear powered submarine with Tomahawk cruise missiles. But that may
not be the cause of Iran not striking Israel directly.
Iran is actually prying and playing on American desire for
restraint because it's gambling that these are shows of force
designed to avoid the use of force, and in that situation,

(01:08:07):
we will have a hard time to turning our adversary
down the line. And that's because they understand, just like
anyone who pays attention to the language from this administration
will understand that the US has a contradictory mission in
the region. It is at once seeking de escalation and deterrence,
but if you are establishing or bolstering your deterrence, you're

(01:08:27):
under you are necessarily going to have to escalate, which
undermines the de escalation mission. But given the desire for
America to leave the region, which has been omnipresent, under
the Obama, Trump, Biden and whoever else will follow him administrations,
the Iranians are gambling that when push comes to shove,
America will prioritize d escalation over deterrence.

Speaker 2 (01:08:51):
So you're suggesting that Trump probably has lost some of
the mystique that he had about him and the unknowingness
of what he might be prepared to do if he
takes the reins again.

Speaker 6 (01:09:07):
And indeed it is not irreparable even for a Democrat,
let alone for former President Trump. But it is not
what it used to be. Per even when you look at,
for example, prior to the advent of the maximum pressure sanctions,
the Iranian economy was contracting simply because of the fear
and the uncertainty over what the future of his Iran

(01:09:29):
policy may entail.

Speaker 2 (01:09:31):
I want to quote you something and hitting in a
slightly different direction, but it involves it. Well, you'll see.
In August of twenty twenty one, the world watched this.
American forces scrambled to evacuate Afghanistan as the Teleban reclaimed power.
The paniced withdrawal reached tragic climax on August twenty six,
when thirteen American service members and more than one hundred

(01:09:53):
Afghan civilians were killed by a suicide bomber at Carvill Airport,
where security was a US responsibility. Four days later, when
the last military planes took off from that same airport,
hundreds of American citizens were left behind. A month later,
when the Defense when the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman

(01:10:14):
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Sentcom commanding
General were called before Congress to account for the failure.
They neither offered explanations nor accepted responsibility. The message was clear,
incompetence would be the new norm for the US military,
a predictably lethal status quo. Now. The only other thing

(01:10:37):
that I want to mention with regard to this is
the is the application of woke rules with regard to
the structure of the military. I mean, who are you
in the foxhole with question mark?

Speaker 3 (01:10:50):
Think how much?

Speaker 2 (01:10:51):
Sorry? How much? In your opinion? Is the state of
the American Defense forces having an influence on all of this?

Speaker 6 (01:10:59):
Certainly the establishmentarian nature of the American and American military
apparatus today. I'm hesitant to use the word military industrial
complex simply for folks thinking it to be a pejorative
that attitude leads it to actually, in my view, more

(01:11:22):
establishmentarian behavior, which means on balance, more restraint or pushing
away from the table. You know, there's long been talk
of the American military as a lumbering giants trying to
avoid conflict and then when it comes in, it comes
crashing and barreling in. That's a crass analogy, but there
is a kernel of truth to it now and again,
particularly when looking at the Middle East. But you mentioned

(01:11:45):
the withdrawal from Afghanistan, and that was botched in every
which way politically and militarily, as well as, of course
from an intelligence perspective, the failure to see the speed
at which the Taliban could reconquer the country, the failure
of their assessment of the Afghan domestic security forces, the
inability to save those who work with Americans for basically

(01:12:06):
two decades in that and the spectacle that Batch withdrawal had,
and the undermining of American deterrence which led to, in
my view, the invasion of Ukraine, as well as this
increased risk taking behavior that we see from the Islamic republics,
such that one month after that botch withdrawal, the commander

(01:12:26):
of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard course said, the America of
today is not the same America of ten twenty years ago.
And that's where I think the other element of your
question should enter, which is perhaps not just the woke elements,
but the cultural element of our politics, the cultural element
of our military. And that is a conversation that has

(01:12:49):
not reached its completion yet. Do I think we failed
in Afghanistan because of the woke mind virus? No? But
do I find this stuff to be seating itself in
establishmentarian institutions and like a virus spreading over time. Yes,
But that's why, Actually I think the front line policy
to push back on that, to immunize these institutions are

(01:13:14):
actually people. If it is a culture war, for lack
of a better word, legislation and regulation are not going
to do the heavy lifting. People are going to have
to do the heavy lifting. I know this is a
bit of a distant technology, so forgive me, but I
think it is relevant here. But how we adjudicate fights

(01:13:35):
between ourselves as left and right and center and partisan
and non partisan, not just in America but in every
single Western liberal democracy matters more than ever before today
because if we treat our neighbors and our fellow citizens
as enemy combatants. I think that's an on ramp to

(01:13:56):
the greater authoritarian interference that we've seen more than ever
before from Russia, China, Iran and their like minded axis
in our domestic politics. And whether it comes from the
far left or the far right, I don't care, but
I have noticed this corrosive effect. So the best immunization
is an informed citizenry. And we like to talk a

(01:14:19):
heck of a lot about rights, and the woke folks
love to expand the scope of applicable rights. But rights
come with responsibilities, and I think Western citizens, particularly those
in liberal democracies, have to, with immense respects, be somewhat
better about living out and carrying out those responsibilities in

(01:14:39):
the institutions that they work or live in.

Speaker 2 (01:14:42):
And I think that that was beautifully put fible things.

Speaker 5 (01:14:46):
Thank you, Ben.

Speaker 2 (01:14:47):
And this is something that I bypassed earlier on but
it belonged there. But will slot it in any way.
The Hooties. When Biden took power, the first thing he did,
I think, almost in this area, was to de register
the Hooties as terrorists, which at the time seems stupid
and at the prison time at the moment seems idiotic

(01:15:11):
and stupid, and I could think of a few more
words you say.

Speaker 5 (01:15:16):
It reminds me of where we just left off.

Speaker 6 (01:15:20):
Whereas the desire to spite another side of the American
political spectrum leads to the undermining of the American national interest.
I don't mean to impugne more political motives that may exist,
but I do believe that is politically motivated. The Trump administration,
on its way out, admittedly designated the Huthis under America's

(01:15:41):
Foreign Terrorist Organization Authority, so basically put it on a
list of other terrorist organizations, applying sanctions that come from
the State Department to this entity, and I think rightly so,
but dividen administration after seeing this move in January twenty
twenty one, in late January early February, said that they

(01:16:02):
would review the decision and then ultimately by the end
of February said that they would remove this organization.

Speaker 5 (01:16:08):
And they did so.

Speaker 6 (01:16:10):
And while they moved from that removal into something of
a contested and multiple times extended brokeer ceasefire between the
Saudi Coalition and the Houthi rebels in Yemen. Despite the
fact that the legitimate government of Yemen continues to not
be able to operate in Sana and indeed is an exile.

(01:16:31):
The administration thought it bought time with that delisting, and
indeed I thought it bought peace. But in Huthi military
parades that followed since the delisting, particularly in September, when
they commemorate their overtaking of the capital every year in
a large military procession in September twenty twenty two in

(01:16:51):
September twenty twenty three, while they believed, the administration believed
that this trade off for the delisting and the pausing
of the conflict was something worthwhile, I nearly fell out
of my chair every year when watching those military processions.

Speaker 5 (01:17:08):
The evolution and the long range strike.

Speaker 6 (01:17:10):
Capabilities in the hands of the Huthis was game changing
the Islamic Republic during those two years of a quote
ceasefire or broker deal. Broker peace deal flowed state level
capabilities into the hands of a non state actor, such
that the Hezbola in Lebanon that Iran created versus the

(01:17:33):
Huthis in Yemen which Iran merely co opted, now had
capabilities bigger and badder than many conventional European armies. To date,
the Huthis are the only proxy of Iran with medium
range ballistic missiles, with anti ship ballistic missiles. That is

(01:17:54):
a military capability that no other proxy in Tehran's axis
of resistance has.

Speaker 5 (01:18:00):
And this was brought to you.

Speaker 6 (01:18:02):
By that period of time, during a brokere ceasefire. That
was brought to you by this politicized, fateful delisting of
the Houthis as a terrorist organization. And while the administration
now has tried to atone for this mistake using a
different Treasury Department terrorist sanctions authority against the group, which

(01:18:25):
is somewhat weaker, but nonetheless is the application of terrorism
sanctions is too little, too late, in my views, such
that today, when you have combined American and even UK
military power against the Houthis, we are spending more, we
are intercepting more, but we are not at all dealing
with the heart of the crisis, which is on land

(01:18:47):
in Yemen. And that's a very precocious situation, one that
two can easily spiral out of control, and one that
is brought to you by many own goals and political mistakes.

Speaker 2 (01:19:00):
All right, So finally, to round that off, you've got
to the strikes now pretty well locked out, and the
ships are having to go around the cape again. This
is going to add to greatly to the cost of
imports and exports. It's going to probably influence inflation in

(01:19:20):
the United States, if not elsewhere as well considerably. Then
you've got the lack of outrage over the environmental issue
that's the result of the Hooties and their missiles. Where
does a new administration go to a Trump administration, it'd
be specific to fix this.

Speaker 6 (01:19:40):
For the entire region, but also in this Red Sea
Barbel mendeb Straight Gulf of Aiden crisis that you rightly
point to, which can effect ten to twelve percent of
global trade, potentially a bit more because it's not just
the East West corridor of maritime trade, but it's that
maritime trade that has been bloated by the lack of

(01:20:00):
airborne East West trade given Russia's invasion of Ukraine as well,
so some of that north Northern Northern corridor has moved south.

Speaker 5 (01:20:10):
In this world, the.

Speaker 6 (01:20:11):
Administration will need priorities and will need to prioritize the
myriad threats coming from the region, including this one, and
the principle by which I argue they should prioritize is
a zero sum approach given the strategic competition we find
ourselves in not just for hearts and minds the Middle East,
but for the assertion and defense and propagation of interests

(01:20:34):
and security and order in the Middle East, such that
the number one prism, I would argue the future Trump
administration should view the region through.

Speaker 5 (01:20:45):
The lens or the glasses.

Speaker 6 (01:20:47):
You could even say, is the strategic competition with the
Islamic Republic of Run. What is bad for them is
good for us. And that has to be the principle,
because for too long we have disconnected the dots, seeing
these as totally independent theaters. Try to deal with the
symptom and not the cause. And I think a strategy
of maximum support for the Iranian people who are increasingly

(01:21:10):
protesting this terrorist apparatus and maximum pressure on this regime
and escalating that pressure over time is going to be
the only way to approach this problem. And by taking
the arsonist out of this regional equation, you can begin
to deal with some of those localized threats like the
Red Sea one that we talked about. But if there

(01:21:31):
is merely the bureaucratic inheritance of the same policy where
we pay much more money to keep more forces there
to intercept projectiles that are cheaper to produce, cheaper to procure,
cheaper to proliferate, and cheaper to fire. Then we forever
will be behind the cost curve, and they will win
the war of attrition, not against our capabilities, but against

(01:21:52):
our resolve, and the political implications on the backside of
that defeat will be tremendous.

Speaker 2 (01:21:58):
At this point, the outcome of this presidential election Europe
part here at this point addiction for the outcome of
the presidential election.

Speaker 6 (01:22:13):
I was trying to avoid the prophetology prediction world. You know,
wise men are still struggling to predict the implications of
that which has already transpired. To really forecast in the
future would be much more art and science. But I
have to tell you I think there are some and

(01:22:33):
I'm more of a foreign policy watcher than domestic.

Speaker 5 (01:22:35):
But I'm just saying these views independently. As an American citizen.

Speaker 6 (01:22:40):
One could see the major spike in the Trump approval
rating and even in the confidence of the presidents following
the assassination attempt on his life, and many anticipated that
Biden at that point in time would not be dropping out.
But given that, indeed he did, and the baton was

(01:23:04):
passed to the Vice President, Kamala Harris. I think the
pick for vice president for President Trump was a pick
born out of confidence rather than a pick born out
of a desire to persuade or win over certain constituency.
And given that, and given that the polls have since

(01:23:24):
nearly leveled in some key battleground states, and given that
we have the electoral college in America, focus should be
on Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Nevada, and Arizona and Georgia
to get a good reading. And if one does take
a look at those states, it will largely be whoever

(01:23:45):
wins by a hair. And I don't know, and I
say this as an American, Unfortunately, I don't know how prepared
our society is at this moment to accept any margin
in any direction by a hair.

Speaker 5 (01:23:59):
And that's why I'm worried.

Speaker 2 (01:24:00):
And I think you have every right to me and
I am. I hope that we're both wrong. So with that,
I say, thank you. It's been five years. Maybe we
can make it a little shorter next time.

Speaker 5 (01:24:12):
That would be my pleasure. Thank you, So much.

Speaker 2 (01:24:14):
And thank you kindly. Light and Smith now into mail
room number two hundred and fifty three with missus producer.
And I'm not asking. I know how fantastic you are.

Speaker 7 (01:24:31):
Yeah, but you look a bit rough. You haven't even
combed your hair this morning.

Speaker 2 (01:24:34):
Well, you didn't do what I did this morning, early
in the pouring rain, ran.

Speaker 7 (01:24:39):
Out in the road to put the bins out.

Speaker 2 (01:24:41):
Yeah, not just for me, for the neighbors as well.

Speaker 7 (01:24:43):
I know he was three hours too early.

Speaker 2 (01:24:46):
How dare he at least? Anyway? Why didn't you take
the wheel?

Speaker 7 (01:24:49):
I will start. Chris is talking about Stephen Rainbow. She
said how nice it was to have him on your podcast,
and she says his answer to conflict is more valuable
and profound than he may realize, so she wanted to
emphasize what she said. Basically, he indicated that listening was
a way to build bridges, but extreme listening, says Chris,

(01:25:13):
is life changing. Deeply, listening to somebody you violently disagree
with is one of the hardest and bravest things a
human can do. It takes great courage and often requires
being willing to enjoy a barrage from both sides. For
simply taking the time to listen, and then she goes
on to address Stephen and says, I wish you well
in your new role as Chief of the Human Rights Commission.

(01:25:35):
May you two find the life change hidden inside extreme listening,
and may your example of that listening help others around
the world diffuse conflict in Ukraine and the Middle East
for starters, Actually, Chris was sorry, Chris, I did take
out a little bit of it because, as you guys
will know, some of your missives are very lengthy, and
she was saying that she was introduced to extreme so

(01:25:58):
called extreme listening by Da Kahan and her documentary White
Right Meeting the Enemy. If anybody wants to look.

Speaker 2 (01:26:07):
For that, Cam. I enjoyed your recent podcast interviewing doctor
Stephen Rainbow. I've found him rather uninformed though around the
issue facing or the issues facing Western nations over the
mass illegal immigration of people from Muslim countries. One of
the many issues, other than accommodating and finding work for

(01:26:27):
a mass influx of only fighting age men, is the murders,
as can be now observed in a dystopian nineteen forty
esque England and the number of English people murdered by
these immigrants has skyrocketed. It really sinks in when one
sees a montage of the murdered people's faces. Please find

(01:26:49):
an example attached And attached is that I haven't got
to the end of it because there's so many. Also,
I found him to be vague and when pushed on
a topic, he would retreat into a position of aren't
we lucky to be able to talk about it? This
does not surprise me, as he is apparently a gay
man that's somehow has a daughter. So was he once

(01:27:11):
not gay? This basic fundamental part of life of being
a father and a husband, And here he is where
he can't make up his mind what's what. Surely we
can have the ability to learn from history and also
observed mistakes taking place elsewhere without the need to have
a dialogue about Muslim fanatic immigrants from the Third World.

(01:27:32):
New Zealand deserves better than wishy washy, noncommittal people like
Doctor Rainbow in positions such as this. As ever, enjoy
your weekly podcasts. Thank you both from cam. I feel
I need to comment on that a little and I'm
going to say something that I wouldn't normally say. But
when I heard that they appointed a new chief commissioner

(01:27:57):
for the Human Rights Organization. I wanted to talk to him,
and I contacted somebody who I knew would be able
to assist, and he gave me his phone number and
I rang him directly, caught him at dinner on Friday
beating and asked him if he would come on a podcast,
and he readily agreed, and he had a talk with

(01:28:19):
me before we went to air and told me a
few laid out a few things that he wanted me
to know with regard to this. The major one of
which I will mention was that he is not yet appointed.
He has not yet had all the discussions that he
needs to have with other people, and he didn't want to,
shall we say, lay it all out, and he even

(01:28:40):
begged forgiveness for not doing it. I said, you just
say what you need to say, and I'll say what
I want to say, and we agreed on that and
off we went. So I had I suppose something that
some of you may object to, and that is I
had an understanding of where his head was at at
the time. So on occasions I didn't push him. But

(01:29:00):
by the same token, it's not my modus operanda to
necessarily do that. I draw at least I try to
draw people out and let you make the decisions that
you want to make. I mean, you are independent thinkers,
after all, you don't need me to bash someone around
around the ears to hear what you want to hear.
Does that make sense, missus producer?

Speaker 7 (01:29:20):
Yes, And I might say that he was charming to
deal with and very keen to come on the podcast
for that way, We're always grateful.

Speaker 2 (01:29:28):
And we will approach him. I don't know, nine months
a year down the track and if nothing comes up
before that, warrants it and have a further discussion with him.

Speaker 7 (01:29:37):
Absolutely late and Alistair says, another excellent podcast with doctor
Stephen Rainbow to borrow an age old Rugby quote, and
it felt like a podcast of two halves. I feel
very positive and quite optimistic for the first half, with
Stephen making comments to suggest that he would take on
the woke brigade in our tertiary institutions. He would remind

(01:29:58):
them that they have a role to play in societal
debate and sharing of ideas, and that their current pouchon
for censorship and the shutting down of free speech is
a front to the true purpose of a university and
quite simply bad for society. I liked the idea that
he was looking for his inner hero and hoped he
had the hutzpa to do the role justice. Finally we

(01:30:22):
have someone who will take the Wokesters to task. However,
the turning point for me started with Stephen's comments that
he was so glad he lived in a society where
our opinions were not silenced late, and I felt you
missed the opportunity to remind him that we have just
had six years where opinions that didn't support the narrative
were silenced under the totalitarian grasp of Jacinda and her

(01:30:46):
merry band. Doctors were deplatformed and deregistered for simply asking
questions of our disastrous COVID response. We had the podium
of truth, and as citizens, we were encouraged to dob
in our neighbors. Towards the end, when you asked some
direct questions, Stephen eloquently sidestepped them. In particular, when asked

(01:31:08):
his opinion on the latest assault of our freedom by
our very own government in cahoots with the WHO, whereby
we can now be forcibly made to make vaccinations. Stephen
felt he needed to read more and understand the subject
in greater detail before commenting, and I suppose latent that
goes back to your commentary. I mean I was surprised.

(01:31:28):
I think I said to you, he's not going to
want to do this interview prior to taking on the job,
and I was surprised that he was. So we're very
grateful for that. Alistair goes on to say there is
no more detail required to come to the only correct
position that a forced vaccination is an extreme violation of
our human rights, and Alistair says, on the whole, I

(01:31:50):
feel Stephen will be a step in the right direction,
but as to whether or not he has the hutzpur
and can find his inner hero to confront the woke
mind virus that we are plagued with remains to be seen.
Thank you for all you were doing.

Speaker 2 (01:32:04):
I think that was a fair comment on his partner. Well,
I'm not going to look, I'm not going to go
into that sort of explanation. You know me well enough.
You've known me for years and centuries even, and well
at least decades, and you know how I operate. In
the main. Having just completed my weekly ritual of Latensmith podcasting.
I was left with a couple of impressions. Mister Rainbow

(01:32:28):
has prioritized celebrating diversity over accepting truths or common sense.
I don't hold much hope for his tenure being anything
but a fully woke conversion experience. Ask him what a
woman is in twenty twenty six, behold the indoctrination. I
honestly pray that I am wrong for the sake of
my Kiwi family, But I know that his human rights

(01:32:52):
commission will be filled with the graduates from courses that
your respondent described as his attempted return to university. That
was another letter I read last week. Please find below
an example of woke detachment from reality. Only attempt to
read this article while exercising a firm grip on your key.

(01:33:12):
We common sense. My question, will a queer nuclear weapon explode?
Or will it just fizzle? With a lisp clinging on
to truth and reality? Your mate in Metri Let's carry
from Metri in which a suburb of New Orleans, and
he finishes up with his some with his emails these

(01:33:32):
days with they lied about tobacco, mercury, opioid's aluminum telcum
sweetness saturated avats, GMO's raw milk, cholesterol, fluoride a, glyphosate.
But now they're telling the truth really, and I think
it's very clever.

Speaker 7 (01:33:50):
Lad and Susan says, first, thank you so much for
providing me with connection and intellectual stimulation while I do
the menial work of the day. Cooking, housework, and exercise
are a pleasure with your podcast as my companion. I
just listened to your podcast with the new Human Rights
Commissionerief Stephen Rainbow. First, I commend you for having him

(01:34:11):
on your podcast and him for being willing to be
on your podcast. At least he's practicing what he preaches
when he says we need to have an open dialogue
and a free society. I was heartened to hear his
statements around fighting anti Semitism in this country, as incidences
are definitely on the rise, everything from school bullying of
the young to slurs and bottles being thrown from car

(01:34:33):
windows at the old. His firm statements around anti Semitism, however,
were a stark juxtaposition of his non answers around what
is a human, particularly the status of the unborn. I'm
all for celebrating open dialogue, in a tyranny free society,
as he suggests, and am anxiously awaiting a future podcast

(01:34:54):
where I get to hear him explain the process and
results of an official inquiry into the question of what
is a human? Thank you again, says Susan for all
of the highly informative and occasionally challenging podcasts.

Speaker 2 (01:35:08):
Susan appreciate that very good. Been listening about six years
since my mate Kumi YOUU Badger put me on to
you left New Zealand in nineteen eighty eight and arrived
in the US in nineteen ninety six after the obligatory
stint in Blighty, now based in Tennessee. Luggy Man now
based in Tennessee, and look forward to your podcasts every week.

(01:35:31):
May I just say at this point rather than at
the end, because I'll forget is One of my sons
was in Tennessee ten days ago. In fact, he and
a couple of mates went on a road trip and
included New Orleans and other places and they just loved it.
Loved it. Now. Of the many things I admire, one

(01:35:53):
is your willingness to have people on that disagree with you,
usually though you hold them tight to the line not
being pushy, but firm to explain their position. Mister Rainbow
is the consummate politician, a champion of obfuscation. The only
thing he actually took a position on was his perspective
as a gay man, which he said several times before

(01:36:15):
I stopped counting. Every other topic or question he just ducked.
He spoke in vague terms about the importance of freedom
of speech, but deftly avoided an actual answer on both
the author with the Swashtiger and Kim dot Com. Likewise,
he spoke in circles about late term abortion and what
is a human? I wish you'd actually asked him what

(01:36:37):
is a woman? Then held his feet to the fire.
Did you notice that he did his PhD in forming
green parties? And I'm sure you know a colloquialism for
greenies is watermelon, because though they are green on the outside,
they're red on the inside. The man, no, I think
they're mad on the inside. Now, the man is a
screaming liberal to use a US term, a lefty by

(01:37:00):
any other name. I don't hold out any hope of
him being a net positive in his new role. It'll
be more of the same, pandering to special interests and wakeness.
Thanks and keep up the good work. Maybe tighten up
the screws of notch ki We Jeff the ref in Tennessee.
Look again, I just say he deserves a rehearing when

(01:37:26):
he's been on the job for a lengthy period of
well long enough anyway, So I'll just leave it at that.

Speaker 7 (01:37:34):
Lady, Nellison says, your politeness is just too polite regarding
your gracious response to mister Rainbow, which he does not deserve.
Did he answer even one question you asked? Let's not
have his slippery answers again. He can swirm his way
out of everything. What a poor representative he will be
when things get tough for the people. He will do
to the plaintiff what he did to you. Give a

(01:37:55):
son cunning side step solution which has nothing to do
with their request or their plight. Keep on going later,
Your truth is vital to us all And that's from Allison.

Speaker 5 (01:38:06):
Well.

Speaker 2 (01:38:06):
I've saved this one my last, and I've saved it
purposely because it expresses my approach to this more than
any other. I can't believe that I would say this
in my lifetime. I love our new chief human Rights Commissioner. Well,
I wouldn't get carried away, but I take the author's intent. Why,

(01:38:31):
Because doctor Stephen Raindos stands for almost everything the leftists
and progressives hate. Here is a grateful conservative gay man
who believes who believes in free speech, builds alliances, explores
differences through difficult conversations, and has a Korean partner who
voted against same sex marriage, and values great historical figures

(01:38:54):
like Churchill. In short, this is a thinking gay man
the leftists cannot control. In a world where powerful elites
presume to lord over a population they deem as dumb,
it is truly treshing to hear a human rights commissioner
who dares to say, there is great wisdom in ordinary people,
and we need to pay far more attention to that.

(01:39:17):
I find it ironic that some of the most principled
and influential conservatives today happen to be gay men, Douglas Murray,
Dave Ruben, Stephen Rainbow being just three examples. This steady
exodus of some of the best people from the left
goes to show how far left the left has become,
and then goes on only just a few days ago,

(01:39:37):
RFK Junior, who left the Democrats to become an independent,
suspended his presidential campaign, and went on to endorse Trump.
Imagine that a Kennedy leaving the Democrats and endorsing a Republican.
RFK Junior pinpointed the whole problem with the Democrat Party
in his exit speech. I quote, how did the Democratic

(01:39:57):
Party choose a candidate that has never done an interview
or debate during the entire election cycle. They did it
by weaponizing the government agencies. They did it by abandoning democracy.
They did it by suing the opposition, and by disenfranchising
American voters. And my favorite line from RFK in his

(01:40:19):
speech is this, Ultimately, the only thing that will save
our country and our children is if we choose to
love our kids more than we hate each other. The
answer is in the loving, jealous, protective arms of the
nuclear family. Long may the Awakening continue. And I have
to I have to agree with virtually everything the author said.

(01:40:43):
Thanks Jin Layton.

Speaker 7 (01:40:45):
My last one from Susanna Leighton. Really enjoy your podcasts,
but always wonder why you and missus producer don't go
and live in Italy. I recall, as a listener of
your former nine to twelve gig. You loved Italy so much.
I'm in my late fifties and really thinking about packing
up and going. And I often think, whilst listening to

(01:41:06):
your podcast, why you are still in news? Answer that
one later.

Speaker 2 (01:41:11):
It's called feminist power. I am prevented. Well, i've got shackles,
he does.

Speaker 7 (01:41:17):
I as somebody who grew up in the Northern Hemisphere.
It's beautiful and I loved it, and I traveled a lot,
but I think it's sometimes it's only people who've grown
up over in that part of the world realized how
lucky we are down here. It's a bit broken, but
it's a beautiful place and we've got kids here.

Speaker 2 (01:41:39):
So I didn't I say to you the other day
after well, during the walk that we were on that
I noticed only over the last week or so, being
in various parts of the city, the number of aliens
who are footing it around here.

Speaker 7 (01:41:56):
Well, thankfully they're Peter be coming back.

Speaker 2 (01:41:59):
Well, I'm not sure whether some of them. I mean,
there was a couple sitting on a bench, seated, but
down by the beach the other day, the day that
I said this, And this is actually what prompted me
now that I think about it to make the comment
to you, and I said, what what language was he speaking?

(01:42:19):
Do you think? And what did you say?

Speaker 7 (01:42:21):
I thought it might have been we weren't near enough
to them. I thought it might have been French.

Speaker 2 (01:42:25):
I thought I was leading more Italian and were probably
both wrong. Point being that they looked like they were
right at home and they weren't going anywhere, and there
were lots and lots of people of different nationalities. I
was in the city one day during the week, walking
up the lower portion of Albert Street, and I just

(01:42:47):
kept seeing people who who were not natural kiwi shall
we say, and hearing them talk in there, in there,
all in their home tongue.

Speaker 7 (01:43:00):
I wish I had a dollar, however, for every time
we were on the beach and I would say to
you late and isn't it a fantastic day? How lucky
are we? And you'd say, I wish we were in Italy.

Speaker 2 (01:43:12):
No, I did not say that. I said I'd rather
be in Italy anyway.

Speaker 7 (01:43:17):
I love every day.

Speaker 2 (01:43:18):
It's been a regular quote, missus, producer, take these chains
from my ankles.

Speaker 7 (01:43:25):
I'm off to the beach. Thank you so much.

Speaker 1 (01:43:27):
Later, Leighton Smith.

Speaker 2 (01:43:31):
And that will take us out for podcast two hundred
and fifty three and don't forget. If you'd like to
correspond Layton at NEWSTALKZIB dot co dot nz or Carolyn
with a y at Newstalk zb dot co dot enz.
As you could tell, we love getting your mail and
we don't mind a bit of criticism, So go for
your life. Nothing else to say this week except thank

(01:43:53):
you for listening and we shall talk soon.

Speaker 1 (01:44:03):
Thank you for more from newstalkzied B. Listen live on
air or online, and keep our shows with you wherever
you go with our podcasts on iHeartRadio

All Episodes

Leighton Smith Podcast #253 - August 28th 2024 - Jill Ovens and Behnam Ben Taleblu

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

The Breakfast Club

Dateline NBC

Decisions, Decisions

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Leighton Smith Podcast #253 - August 28th 2024 - Jill Ovens and Behnam Ben Taleblu