All Episodes
Previous Next
July 15, 2018 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
57:13
Sargon of Akkad BBC Interview⧸Debate at #TrumpProtest
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Who is the merchant floating in disguise?
How are you doing, man?
Very good, thanks.
How are you?
I'm Michael.
I am, yeah.
Apollo's the Brexit thing.
So I oppose Brexit, the way Theresa May is doing it.
We've got the stuff of nightmares about Donald Trump.
Because Donald Trump's a nightmare, isn't it?
Very much so, don't we?
Yeah, yeah, we do here.
Oh, are you pretending they're your view so that you can blend into the crowd?
Well, do you think I might be in danger if I don't?
If I wore a MAGA hat, would I be in a bit of trouble?
Do you think you'd be in danger?
I think I'd be a lot less safe if I was wearing a MAGA hat, don't you?
It's a freaking family affair.
There's kids here.
Yeah?
Do you think that means that nobody in the entire thing would do anything?
There's been a couple of people who have their MAGA man stolen off.
Yeah, I mean, the police had to cordon...
No, no, the police had to cordon off a bunch of guys with MAGA's.
They wouldn't even allow me to go and interview them.
So I think that might be something reason for actually wearing this.
I would call you a double agent.
For who?
Very high-profile.
Who am I a double agent for?
Trump.
Really?
I work for Trump.
Do I work for Trump?
You wear personally for Trump.
I do.
Personally, now I'll stop being simple.
How did you guys meet each other?
Activism, I think.
Yeah, pretty much.
Do you mind if I was the same?
No, you could.
I can't even remember.
Sargon runs quite a high-profile YouTube channel.
We might have quite a few events in Speaker's Corner.
And whenever he's in London, I try to help him out in any way, man.
Hey, for you.
Really good guy.
He was very helpful.
What do you think of the, you know, there seems to be a real detest for Trump.
Are you another colour?
Or are you just chilling in the background?
What is that doing?
That looks like that.
That's my own documentation.
Well, you guys are freaking kitted up.
Michael, your friends are freaking machines.
It's like a terminator or something.
It's all that rotten funding.
He's madness, I know.
Bladder may have put this penny for himself.
What do you think of the detest for Trump?
I think they're allowed to detest Trump if they want.
Yeah, obviously I'm saying why, you know, why is it that they feel like that?
Oh, Jesus, Trump's offensive.
The left entire platform at the moment is we're outraged.
It seemed like the people who have been most outraged today are the people about the big giant Trump balloon.
Where are they?
I mean, Piers, well, I mean, the balloon has gone.
Yeah, but where were they?
I was here when the balloon was up.
I didn't see anyone.
On the internet.
I mean, if you look at people like Piers Morgan.
If people on the internet are saying it, then it must be real.
Is your whole platform not based off YouTube?
Am I here?
Are you suggesting the internet isn't a valid place to share an argument?
I agree that the internet is a valid place to share an argument.
Sorry, people have offense on the internet.
I mean, if you're not afraid of the menu, Piers Morgan is a big fan of Donald Trump.
I read a full day's mail article.
He spoke on Good Morning Britain about how offensive the Trump balloon was.
Yeah, but is Piers Morgan credible?
Who is credible and what's the definition of credible?
Piers Morgan isn't credible.
Why are we bringing him up?
I didn't say he wasn't.
What's the difference?
Why are you bringing him up?
I'm not saying he's not credible.
Well, is he or isn't?
Who defines credibility?
Well, I don't find Piers Morgan credible, do you?
It's not only for me to decide.
I'm a journalist.
Oh, okay.
Oh, okay.
Why is a giant Trump balloon offensive?
I don't think it is offensive.
I think it's hilarious.
That's cool.
It's so embarrassing to the left.
Advance has taken its knocking.
So I personally don't find it offensive, I find it a bit...
I can see the humor in it, but I don't...
I don't technically agree with it, but I wouldn't go right to do it.
I mean, Nigel Farage was most definitely offended by the presence of Nigeria.
Yeah, he was.
Do you think Nigel Farage is offended by the Trump?
I don't know.
I don't think he should have been.
I think it was quite hilarious.
Do you think that's a good way to kind of operate about humiliation?
Trump seems to humiliate people.
You know, he's been accused of humiliating a disabled reporter.
Oh, really?
And then this baby balloon seems to be a way to try and humiliate Trump.
Why is it that that level of conversation has come into it?
I guess it's because it's very polar.
Polarised in society and politics is very polarised at the moment, so it's very technical here in that sense.
These people, the sort of, as people on my side might call the professional fancy takers, obviously get offended quite a lot and try and get back.
Nigel might have thought, well, this is an excuse for I can try and take offence.
So it sounds like you're saying that they're sinking to Trump's level.
I mean, I'm not really.
I mean, maybe they are.
Yeah, I mean, they could be.
No, I think that's bad.
I mean, I think that we should try and have a higher level of discourse regarding politics.
I mean, you know, he is the leader of our biggest ally.
Why would we try and alienate that?
You know?
That is a fair comment.
I mean, do you think that is part of the issue?
Is that if you have a giant baby balloon, you are alienating him?
Because Trump seems to be a guy who, when he gets offended, I think he will take offence, and he rushes out to him.
But, I mean, is it wrong to make a president take offence?
I mean, what is it?
Oh, no, not at all.
I think that's a good idea.
I think giving offence is sometimes entirely necessary.
I'm not saying it's wrong to put the baby balloon up.
I think it's silly, but like the mini one, isn't it?
It suddenly appeared again.
It's quite cute, really, isn't it?
Yeah, it's fine.
It's quite a sleepy baby.
How's it going?
All right.
Okay.
These gentlemen want you to wear this.
Oh, um.
I think I won't because I'm a bit nervous because the champs over there wearing them had to have a police escort.
So yeah, I don't think I'll wear it just in case.
You honestly feel that nervous.
What about wearing it?
The champs over there need the police escort.
I mean, I think if I don't wear it, I'm a lot safer.
So we know there's that.
I mean, did you get a shot at?
It was basically it was a MAGA hat, wasn't it?
Yeah, it was, yeah.
Who are you scared of?
What do you think will happen if you put that?
I'm not so scared of baby, but we know there's anti-class.
Who knows who's around in the crowd and what they'll do without warning?
How has it got to this point, guys?
Oh, it's a good question.
How has it got to this point?
I think there's a lot of demonization, don't you?
Maybe the media has contributed to that somewhat.
Do you think the BBC has contributed to that?
Do you think so?
I think there's a case that could be a bit of a difference.
Oh, really?
No, not really.
That's interesting.
What brought you guys together?
I think the free speech issue.
I was watching Carl's content for the past couple of years, but certainly the free speech crisis in this country, the Senator and Speaker's Corner, that's where Article 127, the Communications Act, that's the main problem for me.
He's being arrested over tweets.
I think that's a bit much.
Do you think kind of hate speech is an issue?
It turns out the public order can be arrested.
They're potentially jailed for seven years.
Yeah, I think that's a bit extreme, don't you?
What level of it is by the.
I mean, is it the criticizing people for hate speech against race, sex, religion?
I mean, all of them.
Oh, I don't think that speech should be criminalised.
I think that's ridiculous.
Short of violence, it's violence against man or property.
Of course.
I don't think it shouldn't be dealt with.
But holding a disgusting opinion, that doesn't actually hurt anyone.
And I don't think people should be jailed for it.
So you don't think that by normalising disgusting opinions, that could then go on to hit a lot of people because that's all.
Because they're not afraid of that.
You think our country's going to turn racist?
You think that's going to happen in Britain, do you?
When did I say that?
You seem to make a lot of assumptions.
Well, you're the one inferring that this is going to create a tidal wave of racism.
I've never asked you a question.
I know, but the question.
Yeah, but the question comes with certain assumptions built into it.
Does it?
Do you think that does?
How could it not?
Your question of do you think this country is going to turn racist as more assumptions for migration on?
Do you not think that potentially, if you normalize language that makes people seem less than human, you can then basically put them at risk as consequence because you basically dehumanise them in the same way that you're saying that they're not going to be able to do that people don't use this language anyway?
You're not really answering my question.
Yeah, okay.
What I'm saying is no.
People swearing, people using rude words, that's not going to start dehumanising people to the point where we end up like Nazi Germany or something.
It's not going to happen.
If you have two gay men walking down the road holding hands and a man starts saying to them, What the hell are you doing on our streets?
Get off our street.
You shouldn't be allowed to do that.
Is that something that you think is acceptable?
Well, that's harassment, isn't it?
Okay.
I mean, I'm not sure.
You seem to think I'm trying to catch you out.
I'm genuinely just asking you.
Well, no, I agree.
That's harassment.
And sure, that should be perhaps.
You shouldn't be allowed to just harass people.
Same thing, you shouldn't be allowed to arrest people for saying things you don't like, even if they're really offensive.
So, I mean, it seems like you guys kind of agree with the incitement to violence.
Absolutely.
If you say, I'm going to kill you for being ex, of course, that's a tough threat.
If you're threatening or trying to incite other people to cause damage or harm to person or property, then that's something where I would agree that the police and the laws should come into play.
But if someone just says, I don't like you because of this, this attribute or something like this like I'm it's not perhaps, I would say, red line.
When does it, I mean, genuine Christian, not trying to cut you off.
I mean, if you say, you know, black people are bad, is that an acceptable comment to make?
I mean, should that be policed?
Should that be a policy?
No, it shouldn't be policed, but I mean, I wouldn't personally find it acceptable.
I mean, I wouldn't associate it with someone who held those opinions, but I don't think they're scared of jailing, right?
Because I suppose, what is the purpose and what is the advantage of being able to say that?
Because what is the free speech element in that?
Microphonically, if there is an argument behind it, it can be aired.
It can be aired in the marketplace and ideas and it's also educational.
Explain to me the argument behind black people as a whole are like very sort of.
We don't support that argument.
No, no, no, I'm just saying you're saying if there's an argument behind it, it can be acceptable.
You've misunderstood.
No, no, you've misunderstood, right?
So we're not in favour of demonizing black people, but we're also not in favour of criminalizing people that do do that.
It's our job as citizens to address their arguments and actually show them why they're wrong.
And I think that we can do that.
I think the facts are on our side with that.
And criminalizing people who say that just makes them think that the facts are on their side and we're hiding something.
That's the problem.
When you demonise and push them underground, you don't address what they're actually saying.
And people who don't know either way find them more persuasive than you because you're not even making an argument.
But you're saying essentially they should be punished in the form of societal punishment.
Individual.
It's up to you.
If someone can support that view and they have an argument to back up that view, if you err in a debate, then you can find out why they hold that view and you can take what are the points that make it.
Well, I mean, what racist has ever been persuaded not to be a racist by locking them up?
It doesn't change their mind.
You can only change someone's mind through argumentation.
So we have to do it.
And so they have to be free to air really repugnant views.
Then essentially, how far can it go if you want to set up a school that essentially teaches black people as less than human, or you teach, say homosexuals are less than human beings?
I'm definitely against the school system teaching that black people are homosexuals at anything.
So there can be laws to kind of note.
Yes, anti-discrimination laws are fine.
They're not the same as anti-speech laws, though.
Interesting.
I mean, that's perfectly acceptable and completely.
Like, racism, sexism, homophobia, these are all affronts to individuals.
However, criminalizing people's speech is also an affront to individualism.
We're liberals.
We're like classical novels.
We're not in favour of the government having the kind of power to be able to lock you up for things you say, regardless of how ugly those things are.
But I suppose, you know, there is an argument to say, what is the advantage for being able to criticise a human being based on something that is unchangeable?
Well, that's irrelevant because it's my human right to be able to say whatever I like.
I mean, I'm not compromising my rights.
We're questioning the concept of human rights then.
It's subjective, isn't it?
It's human rights subjective.
It's a human right to say that you dislike black people.
It's a human right to be able to say whatever you like.
According to who?
I mean, it's subjective, isn't it?
It's all opinion.
I guess according to liberal theory, we're talking.
I mean, this is just what the country's based on.
It's all on something.
Yeah, but I mean, at this moment in time, clearly, this country is not based on that because you could be jailed for it.
I agree.
I completely agree.
That's what we're activists for, in fact.
We want to move back to a more classically liberal system of government.
Is there anything you guys disagree on, do you think?
Probably.
Yeah, but I don't think we're really active.
Yeah.
Not that often, really.
No, it's not.
We're kind of focused on these one or two key issues.
How much of an issue does a religion like Islam play for you in regards to kind of supporting Trump in terms of what you do in your free speech?
It depends on how it's being interpreted, doesn't it?
I mean, there are loads of branches of Islam that are fine, that don't do anything wrong.
But then you've got particularly conservative Islam that seems to despise non-believers.
And so what are you going to do?
Can we just allow that to proliferate?
For you, is that one of the issues that you kind of don't feel able to criticise a religion without getting it a job?
I think Lord Pearson does have a point when he says, you know, can we criticise Islam or not?
You know, it's a fine line and it's far too fine.
People should be offended.
I mean, we've got a long tradition in this country of criticising religions.
This is where the idea of tolerance comes from.
We should be able to criticise these things freely, no matter how offensive it is.
And then what are the things for you that some of Trump's policies, what would you like to see in the UK?
Similarities to what he kind of practices?
I'd like to see immigration reduced.
It's definitely something that, I mean, if you look at like the Brexit polling after the election, you see the north of England is really suffering because of mass immigration.
And I mean, I'm not from the north of England, but I look at what's happening there and they seem to be desperate.
And so I think, okay, why shouldn't we listen to them?
Why shouldn't we accept that there are problems because of mass immigration?
What are the exact problems?
Well, there are quite a few.
I mean, the first one is just the numbers.
So that puts load on services, transport, NHS.
Then you've got wage depression because of increased competition.
And then you've got the cultural clash between two societies of different values.
I mean, like the Danes are doing at the moment, they've recognised that there are parallel societies in their own countries.
And they're actually taking actions to stop it.
We're going to have to consider something like that in the future, whether we like it or not.
What would those actions be?
Well, currently the Danes are having sort of Danishness classes.
And maybe something that's necessary.
We briefly spoke about this, Michael.
I mean, what for you is the definition of Britishness that you?
Oh, localism.
Accountability.
And what tells me what are British values?
Localism and accountability.
Everything else is negotiable.
So why are migrants unable to have localness and accountability?
Generally, because they have different sets of beliefs.
I mean, you're not suggesting someone from Syria has the same belief as someone from North Wales or something.
I mean, someone from Ireland can have radically different views to live next Lord and Labour and Ireland.
Everyone has quite different beliefs, I suppose.
But do you not think that creates sort of low trust communities?
People who don't share beliefs don't understand one another and therefore don't really trust each other.
But I mean, at what points do you, I mean, this country is pretty, um, well, integrated.
I mean, you could say there is quite a varied group of people.
Is it well integrated in Rotherham or Luton?
Would you say they're well integrated?
Do you live in Rotherham?
No, but do you.
Explain to me why it's integrated.
No, I think that we are seeing, like they're seeing in Denmark, an emergence of parallel societies with different norms, different cultures and a different de facto legal system.
We have to address this.
How do you address that, those decisions?
Well, I think that we should follow the Danish model.
Start promoting their culture, start promoting their values.
There's nothing shameful about our own values.
I know, but you're saying the maximum definition of our values is accountability and localness.
Yeah.
I mean, surely that can include quite a lot of people.
Yes, you consider British values.
I mean, yes, you've got tolerance, and then you've got sort of like stereotypical, you've sort of moving to more caricature realms.
But the fundamental values, they're the two that really matter.
And they're the two that are being compromised.
And that people are reacting to having compromised.
I mean, you mentioned the monarchy.
Personally for me, adhering to respect for my genius is a major part of my identity.
Excuse me, excuse me.
Excuse me, could you move backwards a little bit?
You're bumping into me.
Oh, sorry.
Thank you.
Sorry, yeah.
Have you tried to speak to any of these guys about your views?
It seems like one of the issues with Trump as a whole is science don't really have reasoned conversations.
It's all quite aggressive.
I mean, you guys are in a place now surrounded by anti-Trump supporters.
Why don't you try and share your views with some people?
What do you think we've been doing all morning?
I don't know.
I haven't been here all day.
Tell me.
Well, yeah, but you assume that we hadn't.
We have been doing that all day.
Why do you think your immediate response is to be offended by my question?
I'm not offended at all, but what you don't understand is that you're not.
The implicit assumptions underneath your questions are actually a form of a trap.
Yeah, you could call them leading questions.
Isn't it trap?
Yeah, I would suggest that you're actually trained in this way to know.
Yeah, we've been tactically trained to target you.
I thought you were a journalist.
Listen, you must know what you're doing.
You don't defend me, but it's terrible to tell.
Basically, we have two cameras here.
Yes.
I only have one.
Why don't you try and demonstrate to people, you know, that you can have a reasoned debate at them?
I have.
I have a lot.
Okay.
But again, you assume that I haven't because you don't know what's going on.
Obviously, I wasn't here.
Well, then why did you assume that I haven't?
Alright, this is a ridiculous conversation.
Have you tried to talk to anybody else from the moment?
I've tried to have a conversation with a couple of people.
What was it like?
Well, I didn't try to reveal my allegiances too much, but one of them was quite current, just fuck Trump.
Fuck KKK, fascist USA kind of thing.
And then the other one, we had a very brief discussion about his immigration policy while we were in the crowd.
I just asked him what his views were, and he said, well, he fucked the child being put in the cage was liberal Nazism and I was like, oh, you do know what was faked.
We had a bit of a dialectic there, but unfortunately, the crowd, I sort of lost him in the crowd while we were moving down.
What was your inspiration for coming today?
I mean, are you hoping to try and basically persuade people to put the views?
Are you hoping to just well, one, I was helping out Carl Mitten and there's a few of my friends here who I sort of do a bit of work for.
It's an interesting day out nonetheless and considering we've got the party tomorrow, I think it's a good lead up to that.
So I've also got some other events in Central with Republicans overseas tonight which I'll be attending as well.
So it's convenient just to be in Central anyway and immerse myself in the local culture.
Is there anything that these anti-Trump demonstrators could say that you would feel some kind of understanding of?
Is there any common ground?
I'm sure there could be, I'm sure there's lots of it.
But then I'd probably have to speak to each of them in the future.
Do you even recognise them as human, Michael?
Yes.
Yeah, I'm sure there is common ground, but obviously a demonstration like this, surrounded by radical feminists as we are suddenly, I can imagine that the tolerance for a fair and willing discussion and debate would probably be a bit more much to ask more.
People are probably feeling quite strong in their opinions.
Where does your mega distrust of the media come from?
Oh, the constant lies about me personally.
Are you that much of a focal point that the media constantly focuses on you and making lies?
Apparently so.
Give me some of the lies they have told us.
Oh, okay, yeah, I joined UKIP the other day and I was called a Nazi.
That's a pretty strident lie, don't you think?
International news, incidentally.
I didn't realise that was that controversial or interesting, frankly.
Why do you think?
I mean, do you think the media does not understand where you guys come from?
I think the media deliberately doesn't understand.
I think the BBC has got quite a left-wing bias, hasn't it?
I don't really think it has.
I mean, do you think that the BBC operates in a way where we get like a briefing every morning and we are told exactly what to say in that time?
No.
How do you think it works?
It's just intriguing.
You constantly hear a lot about this media bias as a manual.
We had this discussion the other day.
It's more like a sort of words, I word not quaker class, it's sort of like a convenient narrative because it, well, obviously yourself might not go into it, but the heads of policy and the editors and stuff would probably go to the same bars, from the same background, and then obviously in the editorial suite and sort of deciding how you're going to frame things.
Well, more the news, the actual news production side that there, as well as the sort of the entertainment side, the whole, I believe it was recently, the BBC director said that Monty Python couldn't be produced today because it wasn't diverse enough for the BBC's current audience.
That itself is quite Italian statement.
But do you realise?
I mean, media is a lot more micro than you seem to think it is.
How do I seem to think it is?
It's not, again, I'm going to talk to Michael Carl.
Oh, okay, sorry.
Or you make assumptions.
Okay.
But it's not like you have a meeting and you have all your stuff.
Oh, yeah, I do think that.
You're guessing hard.
You have a much smaller group of people working on something, all with quite contrasting views.
So, I mean, all I can say is there's not really this media bias you speak on.
Really?
Are you saying there's.
Okay.
Are you saying?
No.
I'm amazed.
Thank you.
That's great.
Are you saying that it's like an inherent bias because of the backgrounds of individuals in the media sphere?
I think it's sort of like a culture.
There's sort of culture in shop and not just in shop across the entire world, but across a lot of the industry.
Could you argue that maybe you guys also have quite a considerable bias?
No, I'm saying we're activists.
It seems like, you know, things like the rebel media, for example.
I don't know anything about rebel media.
You don't even know what that is.
I've heard of it, but I don't know.
Is it a Canadian thing or something?
Oh, oh.
Edge for the banana.
Yeah.
Tommy Robinson.
I don't know anything about British.
Okay, Breitbart, etc.
You sure, yeah.
Do you think part of the issue is I'm going to be entirely honest, the BBC is not like Breitbart.
I mean, it has a lot of policy to get to that number.
But it seems like media has got very, very partisan in the form, especially of Trump.
Yeah, indeed.
And it seems like, you know, you're filming this, it seems like it just all contributes to that.
And the reason debate no longer exists.
It's all like, I'm going to be really aggressive, shout at you.
You're going to be really aggressive, shout at me, and that's all it is.
The reason the debate is currently happening on YouTube.
I mean, I do like three-hour live streams talking to people who I disagree with, and we actually have long-form, reasoned conversations.
You don't get that on places like the BBC or Channel 4 or whatever.
All they want is 10-minute soundbite-style, like aggressive, abrasive interviews.
It's all happening online.
Do you think, I mean, I'll let you go in a second.
Do you think there's any truth in comments that Trump is racist?
I wouldn't say he's racist.
I think he's bore.
You know, he's borish, he's uncouth, he's offensive.
But I actually don't think he's a racist.
What do you think?
I mean, what are the advantages of saying things, you know, saying some Mexicans are rapists, others, etc., etc.
What's the advantage of doing a ban on exclusively Muslim countries?
You know, why do you think unless you have a narrative?
I don't think that's true.
Okay, you had El Salvador in there, I think.
The majority are not.
But even then, there are Christians in these countries who can't travel, atheists who can't travel.
And these are actually the persecuted minorities.
And these are the persecuted minorities of those Muslim majority countries.
They are Muslim majority countries.
Yeah, but they're not only Muslims.
Why do that?
Unless there is something.
Well, I mean, I think he's probably pandering to a face, but I don't think you can call it racist to be opposed to Islam.
I mean, that's kind of ridiculous, isn't it?
Can it be racist to be opposed to Mexicans?
Of course.
So why say that?
Because there's a lot of illegal Mexican immigration, I understand.
So why not say that?
Because some Mexicans are rapists.
Trump is a 70-year-old man and he's not exactly the world's greatest speaker, is he?
Well, could you say I love a speaker secretariat?
But he sounds like an idiot.
Would you be happy to say, you know, so it could be perceived as being quite racialized to say a comment like that.
I can understand why people do interpret it that way, but I think that honestly, if you have a particular bias in one direction, you'll interpret it according to your bias.
If you want to think that Trump's a racist, you can find anything to say anyone's a racist, really.
I mean, holy crap, I mean, like, look at the...
Especially in the highly racialized society we live in.
Yeah, and especially in America, which is an even more racialized society, you know?
Do you think it's ridiculous that I don't know what the hell is going on?
Yeah, it's nice.
Yeah.
Can you even hear anything now?
That's not great.
Oh, it's a shame.
It's a good conversation.
Yeah.
Yeah, we could walk a little bit away.
I've only got a couple more questions, but you want some.
Yeah, yeah, I can hear you.
So you're doing this interview, but this is a women's march, guys.
Sorry, will the man just leave?
Or you just shot off the moment.
Should the men just shout?
It'd be really great if you let women have a voice here.
But there is a mother, and there is another one.
It's actually our interview at the moment.
I'm sorry.
This is our interview at the moment.
Is that okay?
Is that okay, though?
Yeah, yeah.
Okay, do you mind giving us five minutes then?
That's a little bit aggressive.
Not really.
I think that's just a service, but I think that's a talk and you're talking about it.
Yeah, but we're in the middle of our conversation and she's interrupting.
That's very rude, don't you think?
It's not necessarily rude.
She's come across saying this is a women's march.
I understand.
I don't know what you're saying.
It is quite rude to just interrupt someone else's interview, isn't it?
Was it that offensive?
We did look like we'd finished.
It is quite rude, guys.
We did look at it.
I actually said we've been waiting actually back 10-15 minutes.
We've been waiting 10-15 minutes.
And then you finished.
We haven't yet finished, I'm afraid.
Sorry, I don't know.
I mean, I guess we may as well now.
We may as well now.
See, what is the need for the aggression?
You know what I mean?
It's like, you've just had a very, you know, you had the intellectual conversation.
Why then turn into like, well, I think she's being very rude, don't you?
I don't necessarily think it was that rude.
Okay, I do.
I do.
I guess different values, different standards.
It's not fair to say that he's being aggressive now.
No, I don't think so.
Exactly what his point is.
There are lots of camera people around.
I was interviewed by the Guardian early, so there are people filming women who implement them.
Did that not look like we had finished when we did put the camera's man?
I don't agree.
We just arranged to speak over there.
I can't say BBC and say, you have some interviews.
I mean, that's quite entitled, really, isn't it?
You could say that if you wanted.
Yeah, but that would be very rude, wouldn't it?
She lost favourite.
I don't think that would necessarily be raw.
She wants to have her say that.
Amazing.
I think that's very rude.
I understand that.
I think that would be very rude.
If she wants to talk, she can talk, I get it.
Some people get passionate about this part.
They do?
I'm saying that he can talk.
I'm not saying that you don't have the right to talk just because you are people agreeing.
I thought it was human rights.
I mean, you have the rights to do whatever the hell you want.
So there's no such thing as a women's right then?
I do.
Women are humans, unless you do that.
But why would you distinguish?
Because they're not the men and other gender.
So there are human rights?
So there are no rights just for women.
Why would that make sense?
Surely that means why.
Why does that make sense?
A human right means that rights are inclusive of women.
You understand that, right?
Yes, that means that there are women's rights as well.
Yeah, but there aren't women's rights, because they're not exclusive to women.
If there are human rights, you can respond to this.
There are human rights, but they're not exclusive to women.
Should a man not be able to get an abortion?
Should a man not be able to get an abortion?
Are you anti-trans?
What a ridiculous thing.
Wow, that's really transferable.
Oh my god.
How many men are you?
So are you?
At least one, actually.
Are you anti-trans?
But you really do sound anti-trans.
I mean, I can't explain how I am.
Do you think that men could never need an abortion?
But if a female-bodied person transitions into a male-bodied person and then becomes pregnant, then that man will definitely need an abortion if they want one, will they?
Why are there exclusively male rights, though?
I thought that there were any human rights.
I thought that there were any human rights.
There aren't exclusively male rights.
I mean, do you think that there are women's rights?
What do you think?
My circumstance is right.
He doesn't think that there are women's rights.
I only think they're human rights.
I'm sorry.
Do women get equal rights?
Yes, they do, yes.
Yes.
Tell about people working at the BBC.
I will, they do get equal pay, yes.
They do.
Yes, they do.
But equal value.
That's what the European women work.
The problem is, women just work less hours than men.
That's really the problem.
Sorry?
Women work less hours than men.
Because women are looking after the children.
Well, I don't care why it is, but then you don't care.
What difference does it make?
But that doesn't mean you're not being paid equally.
That just means you don't work as many hours.
I wouldn't want to work as many hours, you know.
So they are there.
But they are.
That's not true.
If you're someone who's working 40 hours and someone who's working 32 hours, should they get paid the same?
She's asking a question.
But should someone working 40 hours?
Is there anything she's saying that you feel as though you could try and understand?
Oh, I completely understand what she said.
What do you understand?
I just want to see a bit more of your face.
Sorry.
Okay, but I'm talking to this lady.
I said, you know, is there anything she's saying that you feel as though you could try and understand?
Oh, I understand everything she said.
I understand where it's coming from.
I mean, this is my job to.
I just want to go here.
Okay.
Hello.
I'm a Labour MEP for the North West of England.
I'm a feminist.
I'm an LGBT supporter.
I'm a child rights campaigner.
I'm a women's rights campaigner.
I'm an environmental campaigner.
I met Trump.
And I'm here today because Trump and Brexit are inextricably linked.
The fact that Trump supports Brexit, that Marin Le Pen supports Brexit, that Nigel Farage supports Brexit, tells us everything we need to know about why we need to stand against Brexit.
No.
Our democracy, excuse me, our democracy is hijacked by foreign interference.
So our democracy was hijacked by foreign interference.
We are now understanding all the interference that happened through Facebook, Book Analytica, through a whole load of money that was illegally put into the leave campaigns.
Now, in other democracies, it's interesting this because I do election observation in fragile democracies.
I was in Kenya last year doing election observation and exactly the same kind of interference that has happened in the Trump election, but also here in the UK and in the presidential elections in France.
Exactly the same interference through online media and targeting and psychological profiling and data mining, illegal data mining.
All this was also happening in Kenya.
One week before the Kenyan elections, the head of the electoral board, Digital Democracy Unit, was murdered in dodgy circumstances.
One week after the Kenyan elections, the Supreme Court of that country annulled the elections because of cheating.
We here in the UK were subject to exactly the same kind of interference.
And we are somehow saying this is democratic.
It wasn't.
Our democracy was hijacked.
And it's really important that people understand this.
These guys probably have a more favourable view of Trump's market.
Would you like to speak to them at all?
Well Trump is a danger to women.
He's a danger to children.
He's a danger to the environment.
He's unfit to be a leader.
He's unfit to govern his country.
And it's an outrage that he has come here to this country to shake hands with our Prime Minister.
I mean, you know, it's an appalling.
I wouldn't want to defend Theresa May.
It's an upraiser.
What did you say?
You said Trump is racist, he's sexist, he's a misogynist, he's a climate change denier, he's also anti-child rights.
What he's been doing regarding the children refugees on the border with Mexico is frankly appalling.
He's also anti-abortion, he's homophobic.
This guy is now in charge of the most powerful country in the world and he's a danger to humanity.
And I'm really proud of the diverse people who've turned out today, older people, younger people, families, white, coloured, gay, straight, trans, incredible people who've come out today against the Trump, against the Trump.
Well, I mean, because this guy's in our film anyway, I mean, what is it that you make of her arguments?
Is it possible to try and just have a rational debate with Ireland?
I'm not angry at all.
I think you're doing a fantastic job re-electing Trump.
Thank you very much.
I mean, she's from Britain.
How could she re-elect Trump?
She's all the way to the United States.
The internet's very international.
What do you say to her comments?
Well, they're not on arguments, are they?
What assertions or policies of Donald Trump does that refute?
Well, certainly his policy of blaming Muslims for terrorism is an appalling racist, Islamophobic policy.
So stop.
Do you think that Islam has no connection to terrorism?
Can I just point out that the man who murdered Joe Cox a week before the Brexit vote was a white Christian racist terrorist?
So when we talk about extremism, we need to talk about extremism in all its forms.
And we have to stand against all forms of extremism.
I'm very proud to represent Manchester.
It's my constituency.
I represent the northwest of England.
And the Muslim community in Manchester were absolutely extraordinary after the arena bombing.
When the floods happened in Cumbria, which is also in my constituency, in December 2015, that would have been, the very first community who came out to support the flooded communities were the Muslim community.
They went up there to support them.
So the people who choose to scapegoat Islam and Muslims instead of attacking the real problem, and the real problem actually is globalisation.
The real problem is the elite like Trump, okay?
Let's talk about who are the real elites.
Nigel Farage, Trump, and the Tory Party.
Yeah, these are the elite.
Trump isn't even an MP.
Sorry, who?
He's not even an MP.
I talked about globalisation.
We're talking about a globalised world.
And he happens to be here in our country right now.
So are you a nationalist?
Me?
I'm a global citizen, sir.
So you're a globalisation advocate?
No, I'm a global citizen.
What's the difference between the two?
I'm a European and I'm a global citizen.
And I stand up for equality for people all around the world and for social justice.
And when people like Trump get into power, what we end up with is all our rights are being attacked.
We haven't yet talked about the anti-abortion campaign that he's been running and about the way that families, that women in developing countries will die as a result of the gagging law.
So let's talk about all the things that he's done to destroy women's health and safety.
It's an appalling manifestation of a human being.
Would you recommend that women should flee the West?
Do you think that's a silly comment?
Why?
I mean, it makes it sound really, really bad.
I mean, I'm genuinely worried about the state of women's rights now.
Should women be fleeing the West?
Do you think there's any truth in the comment that Trump is anti-trans?
I don't know.
I don't know anything about his trans policy apart from they're not in the military.
Yeah, I mean, does that seem discriminatory in your?
No, you're the transphob.
You tell me.
I mean, to answer the question: do you think you seem to discuss that question for a while?
I don't know.
It seems like there's ever a chance for criticism of Trump.
You can tell you don't know.
Go ahead.
You criticise Trump what you want.
He's got manifesting thoughts.
Originally, I think his call was blank and bananas in the military.
Do you think that is slightly discriminatory?
Well, to be honest with you, I mean, the military is a bit of a unique case, isn't it?
I mean, how exactly are trans people faring, say, if they were deployed to Afghanistan?
I mean, don't they need medication and stuff like this?
Yeah, a lot of people need medication either by agriculture.
Well, yeah, but that's why we don't let sick people in the army.
There is medication and there are medical costs.
Yeah, but when you're trapped in a bunker in Afghanistan and there are Taliban all around you and you need your medicine.
I'm not saying all trans people are unable to operate.
No, I'm not saying that at all.
No, I'm not saying that.
It sounds like that's what you're saying.
Okay, but I'm not saying that.
And I don't take lectures with trans people.
Thank you.
He's transphobic.
You want to be careful.
Ask him, I mean, is there anything else you'd like to put to him?
Please.
He's here.
He's a Trump supporting.
He's came here for conversation, supposedly.
Have a conversation with him, you know?
Yeah, please, I would love to.
He's branding out.
He's seriously worried.
Branding out threatening.
No, I'm really, really, seriously worried for his mental health.
Are you a doctor?
I can't.
You know, when I look at you, when I, when I, me, I'm.
She's an airline.
I'm a member of the European Parliament.
Are you qualified to make judgments about people's psychological state?
No, but I am.
Then why are you doing so, sir?
Because I really worry about the people who have taken it upon themselves to be so unkind, so lacking in compassion.
Is it compassionate to call someone a racist when you don't even know them?
Yeah, I know.
I'm Trump's right-hand man was banned.
Yeah, but I'm not banned.
Breitbart.
I'm not banned.
I don't work at all for her.
But you know that.
Has she calls you a racist?
She's implied that I'm a racist for supporting Trump.
I've said that I seriously am concerned for the people who support Trump because all they're doing is supporting somebody who is anti-human.
He's anti-human.
Michael, have a comment to Michael.
I comment.
You are an elected MEP.
You have constituents.
You are elected people.
And you are now right now.
I don't know.
It's your constituency.
You've just written about the psychological condition.
You've classified Trump because they have a different political opinion for you.
That's what you're saying.
You can't be a racist and say it's a billion.
You can't demand a death total people.
So who's demanding the death of the people?
It's not worth it.
This is why we can't have a conversation.
This is like a big reason for the issue.
Oh, it's hot war.
Well, yeah, but who's ending the conversation?
I mean, we're in here, I'm trying to.
She's calling me.
I feel like you've talked about this transition.
You used to say you're a transphobia.
Yeah, you're trying to get rid of mental illness.
It's like, I say that.
I mean, I know, I know.
The point is, you've walked into her ideology.
I'm just challenging.
No, no, no, no, but you actually have.
By saying that men can't.
No, no, listen, right?
By saying men won't ever need abortions, that's an actively transphobic statement by what she believes.
Okay, but move beyond that.
Oh, yeah, I'm happy for you.
I don't actually think you're transphobic.
But you're saying to me, you know, the conversation is always like this.
It is.
It's always like this when it comes to Trump.
It's always aggressive.
I mean, you're always an inability to be aware of that.
It's not at all.
Today has been the most amazing.
It's a carnival.
It's a carnival of resistance.
It's completely creative.
It's incredibly diverse.
And I think that shows you where the support, the anti-Trump support comes from.
It comes from a wide base of people in society who you are.
The very middle class.
No, there are refugees here.
There are refugees here.
Where are the refugees?
I'm a refugee.
I'm a range.
And do you represent most people here?
Listen to me.
Nobody represents here most of the people.
This is the birthday.
I think you'll find that mostly middle class.
You're so wrong.
I am.
I actually have loads of footage and I have.
I'll send you a link when I upload it if you like.
Haven't you asked every single person?
Of course you can judge class by appearance.
What?
Just by looking at people.
And speaking to them.
You think class has no signifies.
You can judge class by looking at people there.
There's a whole site of things.
So you can judge what the social or economic or class situation of anyone is by just looking at them.
I can't.
No, no, no.
Really?
You can't tell them.
I didn't talk to them.
Listen.
Listen.
You talk to them and you can tell them anything about their class from the way they speak and the way they act.
Like, and how do you judge them all?
Well, you've got accents, mannerisms, actual patterns of speech, things they actually say.
You can definitely distinguish someone's class.
I mean, are you from Britain?
Are you from Britain?
So how do you say class?
Are you from Britain?
Well, yes and no.
When you say class.
No, no, but I'm Master Heracles.
I'm from Britain.
I'll conduct my interest I like.
And if you don't, if you don't want to leave, then you can leave, aren't you?
Then you can leave.
Leave them.
Don't argue with me.
I don't care what you're saying.
I don't hold to your standards.
Go away.
If you don't like them, go away.
So is that how you deal with someone who doesn't agree with you?
No, that's how I deal with someone who's just interested in being disruptive.
If you're not interested in having a conversation with me, I thought it was here because he said your name.
I'm interested in having a conversation so closely.
Then be silent.
Then silence.
You're not interested in talking to me.
Why are you talking to me?
He obviously is interested.
Exactly, so why is he lying now?
Why am I lying?
You said you're not interested in a conversation.
I know you must hate it, don't you?
Are you going to punch me?
Are you going to punch me?
So, can we go back to his classics?
How is it that you and why is class such an issue here?
That's a good question, isn't it?
That's a big question.
But how do you think that you can judge what class someone is when you just speak to some class?
That's not a judgment, that's just an assertion.
Well, an assertion or a decision.
It's an assessment.
Or an assessment.
Whatever words you want to pin to it, how do you think you can judge that just by talking to people?
By having knowledge of this country.
And that's the level of discussion.
Yeah, but I'm asking you for the criteria that you use.
I just gave you.
What, the way they speak?
So what, if someone speaks in a certain way, you're going to judge that they want a higher class?
What do you mean by class?
What do you even mean by that?
Now we don't even know what class means.
No, I'm asking you.
I know, but the fact that you're asking implies that you don't even know what it means.
No, I'm asking.
I mean, if you want, I can.
It's about a social status.
And it's about a certain kind of culture that you find at different levels of society.
I mean, you wouldn't say that Jacob Reese.
Yeah, yeah, of course.
You wouldn't say that someone like Jacob Reese Mogg sounds like he's from the east end of London, a working class family in the east end of London, would you?
I mean, by looking at Jacob Reese Mogg, you know he's not working.
So when you refer to class, you're simply referring to monetary status then.
No, it's a whole collection of different traits.
You can use social status.
That's part of it.
Yeah, but don't you agree that social status and monetary status go hand in hand anyway?
Someone who was born into a better economic family has got a lot better social mobility services more options.
Yeah, that's kind of why I find the middle class out protesting a democratic election rather hypothetical.
Look at this crowd and say that they are all middle class.
No!
They're mostly middle class.
Oh, don't be ridiculous.
Well, what do you think?
Talk to most of these people.
I've spoken to quite a few.
I mean, do you think most of these people are working class?
What class do you think they are?
I'm not even interested in what class they are.
What does that have to do with any of this?
It has something to do with it.
It's a British thing.
It's a British thing.
Oh, and you're there by assuming that I'm not British.
Well, you said that you're not.
I didn't.
I did not say that.
Are you British?
I'd said yes and no.
Well, that's partly not, isn't it?
So, what does that have to do with that?
You just seem to be misunderstanding the sort of cultural way Britain operates.
That's all.
That is what you mean to say.
I mean, it's not an attack.
No, no, no, I'm misunderstanding why you perceive that most people are here, most people who are here are middle class, which you say you can tell just by looking at them.
Yeah, you can.
That's what I'm misperceiving.
Yeah, you can.
Most people, like, when you look at people and they've got, you know, particular sort of clothing that's expensive.
Oh, is he?
Oh, now I understand.
What's that, sir?
You're a member of UKIP.
I am, yes, yes.
Yeah, proud member of UKIP.
Thank you.
What do you stand for?
Individual rights, liberty, freedom of speech, in sovereignty, obviously.
Are these a problem?
And what else?
That's what I stand for.
Anti-immigration?
Problems.
Yeah, mass immigration anyway.
I like obviously selective, beneficial immigration, obviously.
But mass immigration definitely has problems.
May I ask?
Do you agree with UKIP's view on the NHS?
No, I'm pro-NHS.
You're pro-NHS.
So what's your position on UKIP's position on the NHS?
I disagree.
Disagree with it.
Okay, cool.
So, and is it right, is it true that yourself and the other individuals, high-profile individuals who have joined UKIP, plan to take it over?
No, I don't.
We don't want to take care of it wrong.
We want to support them in their goal to get the Brexit that we voted for.
To get the Brexit rules.
I'm not saying anything else.
No, I'm not going to discourse.
Speak up.
He's asking questions.
You're interrupting her all the time.
You're asking her questions constantly.
You're asking her to define things.
Yeah, but the thing she's saying is a bad faith.
Asking to define things is bad faith arguing.
Come on, you didn't come here in good faith, so don't sit here making that sound.
I can come in in good faith.
You didn't.
You didn't.
You're not interested in conversation.
I came in when you were interrupting her and I interrupted you because I thought it wasn't.
Okay, let's have a good faith conversation.
Is there too much immigration in the UK?
No, immigration is a good thing.
Really?
Yes.
Really?
Okay, so what's he based on?
Because immigration is.
Why are you talking to the other one?
Because you're not.
Because you're rude, you're not.
No, I'm not.
I'm doing it for this.
You're arguing in bad faith racing.
Okay.
It only contributes to the economy as a more of a workforce.
So it doesn't depress wages.
Oh, my God.
Buddy, come on.
No, no, no.
Answer the question.
It doesn't depress wages in your view.
It doesn't in my view.
Right, okay.
It doesn't.
You disagree with the Bank of England, just so you know.
Good, I do disagree with the fucking Bank of England.
Are you an economist?
Oh, my God, no.
So you're kind of ill informed?
No, but I listen to the Bank of England.
Okay, I read by academic journals.
What do you want?
I'm sure you do.
So, okay, well, Islam.
Is there a problem with terrorism in Islam?
Is there a problem with terrorism and Christianity?
Sure, any terrorism is a problem, but do you think disproportionately it's Islam?
I don't know.
Oh, well, so you don't know, but you could look at the stats on your phone if you want.
But most of the time, somewhere like 90%.
No, that's not a good idea.
Okay, well, let me tell you, somewhere like 90% of all terror attacks in the world are Muslim.
Or at least Islamists.
Let's not.
Who's defining them?
They're defining themselves.
So moderate Islam does not align itself with those fundamentalists anyway.
You know, so you can't just say terrorism is Islam.
It's not.
I didn't say terrorism is Islam.
No, you said the word Islam, and then pretty soon afterwards, you said 90% of terrorists are a Muslim.
Yeah, but that's not.
But that's data.
That doesn't mean that terrorism and Islam are leaked.
The vast majority...
I didn't quite say hello, but we'll let it happen.
You did say 90% of terrorists are Muslims.
Terror attacks are committed by Muslims.
Yeah.
But just, I mean.
Isn't that a problem?
Yeah, but it's not a problem with Islam.
The vast majority.
No, the vast majority of Muslims and Islam, they do not align themselves with all of these terrorist attacks.
How do you know that?
Because I trust them, I believe them, and I have met many Muslim people.
I work with Muslim people.
I've seen how, as that lady said before, how Muslim people rallied together in the aftermath of the Manchester attacks.
I'm not opposing Muslims.
Where are the attacks happening?
I'm sorry?
You say 90% of terror attacks are by Muslims.
Where are they having problems?
Mostly the Middle East, because that's where most of the world's Muslims are.
Right, so in other words, when occupied Palestinians attack Israel for occupying their territory, we're talking about suicide bombings and like actual jihadi attacks.
Well, if it's a suicide bombing, do you liberate an occupied territory?
We're not talking about Palestine.
We're talking about Iraq, we're talking about Afghanistan, we're talking about Syria, we're not talking about Palestine.
We're talking about North Africa.
That's okay.
Yeah, no matter.
Like, it's just the same.
It's just.
Oh, is it totally wrong?
Do you think there's no connection between the sort of jihadi ideology and terror attacks?
No, the greater jihad is convincing people and doing good things in your life.
The lesser jihad is violence.
Okay, but the lesser jihad definitely persuades some people to follow it, doesn't it?
No, they choose to twist its intended meaning.
It's not, you know, these people who go out and do terror attacks aren't just like following a, you know, some kind of creed that's there.
There's something, they are like...
Really?
Do you think they're not, there's nothing religious behind it?
Well, they use religion to support their own insanity.
Sure, I agree.
It's not in the Islam faith.
It is not written there for people to do that.
The vast majority of Islam faith is to live a generous, supportive, etc., etc.
So you think that there's no suggestion to kill the unbeliever in Islam?
Okay, thank you very much.
Anything like that in the Quran or the Hadith?
Well, they're possible.
I don't know.
You tell me.
There is.
Hang on, hang on, say, man.
Just two texts.
I'm very sure.
The point is right, if you believe that the Quran and the Hadiths are the received word of God Then you can't just pick and choose from them, can you?
And so that means that anyone...
Well, you obviously can!
You obviously can't pick it up.
Can you stop interrupting me, please?
If you are a true believer and you actually think this is the received word of God, then you can't pick and choose.
Now, thank God, most people aren't zealot-style true believers.
Exactly.
Of course, and I'm on your side on that.
But that doesn't mean that there isn't a connection with Islam and terrorism.
No, I've not said that the Muslim is a good idea.
I'm just trying to go where you're going with this.
That's what you're saying.
No, I think.
No, I don't think that's pointing.
I'm wondering why you're talking about the question.
No, no, no, listen, right?
That's what I'm saying.
No, listen.
So we can agree that there is a link between jihadi ideology, which is from the Quran, from the Hadith, it's Islamic, and terrorism.
We can agree that, can't we?
No, I don't actually agree there.
Right, but you don't know.
Because most Muslim people have brought their practice into the 20th century or 21st century.
Yeah, I agree.
So I don't actually agree with that.
Those people who still choose to live in that kind of mindset, they choose to do that because of who they are, not because of a book that has got some stuff written in it.
But that's probably because you're not a Muslim, isn't it?
No, it's nothing to do with who.
No, but I don't think a Muslim would just dismiss the Quran like that.
I think they hold it in slightly higher reverence.
Yeah, but as you just said before, most Muslims choose not to take that thing.
They do.
Of course they hold the Quran in reverence, but they will recognise which parts of the Quran are outdated and essentially violent.
They will recognise those parts and disregard them.
But there are, say, like 10% that don't.
And that's the problem.
It's the 10% that don't think those parts are outdated and think that they are still legitimate with the God.
Well, just roughly the sort of Muslims in the world.
No, no, yeah.
If you look at the Pew Polling data, people are not aware of that.
I'm sorry, no.
I think it's actually about 200 million total, but like, you can look at it.
Where's that from?
Pew, research.
You can Google it.
I'll Google it later.
You guys Google it.
10% of violent Christians in the world are suffering, and I don't see anyone banning the Bible or calling for a Christian down around.
The Bible actually doesn't support terrorism, does it?
I mean, like, for example, when the First Crusade was called, when the First Crusade was called, the Patriarch of Constantinople actually repudiated.
Listen, I'm on biblical grounds.
I'm American.
The KKK is strictly based on strong interpretations of a white supremacist vision, religious doctrine.
And I disagree with the KKK.
Right.
But my point is that a lot of people base their discussion on Trump in saying that he's justified in making these large generalizations about Muslims because they're the only inherently violent religion.
But all religions have inherently violent sex.
Every person can become violent.
But they're not all the same, though, are they?
Some are more violent than others.
No.
You don't think so?
No.
You don't think so?
think that they're all exactly the same?
I think that because of things like poverty and racism and banning people from other countries, you're much more likely to exacerbate things like terrorism.
You think if we don't agree to their demands, they'll blow us up?
Yeah, maybe.
I didn't catch that.
As in, you think that if we say they can't come into the country, they'll try and kill us.
I think if someone's radicalised and you say to them, or if there's a young boy, right, in the Middle East, let's say, and he is vulnerable to something like extremist Islamic interpretations, it is so much more likely that that person will turn to the US if they say, solely because you're Muslim, you will never be able to come into the US.
And I think that you are so much more likely to become a terrorist of some sort if that's the case.
I mean, that's me, and I think...
So, hang on, let me just...
So, as I understand what you're saying...
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
If we say no to a certain person, they're going to try and kill us.
I'm not going to say kill.
Well, that's what terrorism is.
So you're more likely to see someone try to kill us if we just refuse to let them in.
I think that you're more likely to see strong anti-American sentiments.
And if that leads to violence, which it has in some cases, I think.
That's probable.
But isn't that a good case to not let them in?
No.
No, because we're not coming because they're human beings.
They're certainly not that easily radicalized.
Well, listen, if you're running away from terrorists, if you're running away because there's famine, climate change, and there's dire circumstances, I don't think that you're going to be more likely to, or you definitely are going to be more likely to hate the place that says, you can't come in because you're probably going to kill us.
Because you're not giving any context to the fact that the US has one of the most strenuous screening systems to let people in in the entire world.
So that's pretty much how it is.
But do you not think it would be a bit irrational?
I mean, if France didn't let you in, how much are you going to become radicalized from that?
Are you likely to carry out attacks on French people?
I don't plan on carrying them.
it sounds like you're really condescending towards muslims it sounds like yeah it does It sounds like you think of them as basically animals who can't control their emotions.
And so if they're told that, like, for example, if I'm told I can't go to North Korea, which I am, I'm not going to start waging war on North Korea.
There must be some other component there, right?
So it's not just the fact they don't let them in.
So what if I'm going to say that if you, and being an American, we have a giant statue of liberty that says, bring me your poor, your weak, and your huddled masses.
And I don't think you should have a statue like that if you're also going to elect a president that says, nah, basically stay out.
Because it's very hypocritical.
But listen, have times changed?
I think, well, I mean, that's an old statue.
Times have changed.
That's a very broad statement.
But I have to go because we're going to get discussed.
Thank you very much.
Have a good day.
Nothing.
No, no, no.
You sure?
Yeah.
Oh, come on.
I did that.
Have a good day though.
You too, man.
▲
Export Selection