Piers Morgan confronts Prince Andrew's renewed legal bid against Virginia Giuffre, debunking staged evidence and debating whether King Charles should banish the royals from his coronation. The discussion shifts to Tyre Nichols' killing in Memphis, where activists clash over internalized racism versus poor police training within a predominantly black force. Finally, Matt Walsh critiques Nicola Sturgeon's stance on trans women in male prisons and dismisses influencer traps regarding men being labeled creepy for normal social interactions, challenging progressive narratives on gender and policing. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Royal Family's Bathtub Stunt00:03:22
Tonight on Piers Morgan uncensored as Harry and Meghan broke at a deal to crash the king's coronation.
Prince Andrew's in hot water over this bizarre bathtub bid to clear his name.
Is it time for King Charles to banish the rogue royals?
Protests in the US, a shocking body cam footage shows 29-year-old Tyre Nichols beaten and killed by five police officers.
All five of them were black.
So why is this horror being blamed on racist white supremacy?
We'll debate that.
Thus, as SMP leader Nicholas Sturgeon faces the slew of scandal caused by her own inability to define females, I'm joined live by Matt Walsh, the man behind the smash hit film, What is a woman?
Maybe he can help Miss Sturgeon.
Live from London, this is Piers Morgan Uncensored.
Well good evening from London, welcome to Piers Morgan Uncensored.
Prince Andrew's ever been the brightest bulb in the royal box, but his decision to launch a legal bid to reopen his sex abuse case may be his dimmest move yet.
The Duke spent millions, much of it provided by the late Queen and therefore ultimately by you and I, to settle with Virginia Dufray out of court.
We were told that was to avoid the likely embarrassment of Andrew on the witness stand after the embarrassment of Andrew on Newsnight.
It was a shooting weekend.
A shooting weekend.
Just a straightforward, straightforward shooting weekend.
I was at home.
I was with the children.
I'd taken Beatrice to a Pizza Express in Woking.
She described dancing with you and you profusely sweating and that she went on to have bars possibly.
There's a slight problem with the sweating because I have a peculiar medical condition, which is that I don't sweat.
Well, you'd be forgiven for thinking the Duke's absurdest alibis of shockingly dry armpits and a shockingly memorable pizza was as bizarre as it could get.
Then along came this at the weekend.
A quite ludicrous staged photograph released by friends of jail sex trafficker Ghillaine Maxwell, friend of Andrew, which supposedly clear the Duke by proving there simply wasn't space in her bathtub for the alleged toe licking that took place there.
Well first, this is a taudery and madcap stunt, which is completely beneath anyone in the royal family.
But secondly, it actually proves the exact opposite of what Andrew's defenders claim.
Virginia Duffray, then age 17, underage in America at the time, in the States where she says Andrew committed the offences, says that he licked her toes in the bath before later having sex with her.
Well, not only does the photograph actually prove there was ample room for toe-related frolicking, it also shows the unchivalrous Duke made her sit at the tap end of the tub.
And with historically bad timing, apparent proof has now emerged that the infamous photograph of Andrew and Virginia Duffray in Ghillane Maxwell's house is in fact real.
Here's what Maxwell told Talk TV from behind bars last week.
Virginia Duffray's Allegations00:14:58
It's a fake.
I don't believe that.
I don't believe it's real for a second.
In fact, I'm sure it's not.
There's never been an original.
And further, there's no photograph.
And I've only ever seen a photocopy of it.
And here's what Andrew himself said.
I think it's from the investigations that we've done, you can't prove whether or not that photograph is faked or not, because it is a photograph of a photograph of a photograph.
So it's very difficult to be able to prove it.
I don't remember that photograph ever being taken.
Well, it seems now that the photograph is real.
This weekend, we learned from the mail on Sunday that it has a date and a time stamp, locating it to a convenience store just two minutes from Virginia Duffray's home in Florida, developed three days after the meeting happened.
Well, Guffray is now planning to write a book about her experience.
It's due out quite soon because there was a one-year ban as part of a settlement with Andrew before she could talk publicly.
The Duke is now threatening her, it's reported, with an £81 million lawsuit if she repeats her claims.
But these are the same claims he just paid her millions of dollars to avoid disputing in court.
In the court of public opinion, Andrew looks deeply embarrassing.
But the very serious consequence of all this is inevitable briefing and smearing by both sides, dragging the reputation of the monarchy into the gutter with Andrew again.
Meanwhile, Harry and Megan, who've done more than enough of that already, they're also haggling to now be at the king's coronation and celebrate with the best of British.
And the king is reportedly asking the Archbishop of Canterbury to broker a peace deal for his son to appear at the coronation.
Now, it's understandable that he wants to reconcile with his brother and son before the biggest day of his life.
But state occasions like the coronation belong not just to the royal family, but to the people of Britain and the Commonwealth.
If Harry and Megan refuse to apologise, and we think we know they won't, and if Andrew continues to embarrass himself and Britain by continuing to dispute something he's already settled, then my view is that King Charles should ban all three of them from his coronation.
Well, joining me is the royal editor of Vanity Fair, KJ Nichol, journalist and friend of the Queen consort, Perpetua LeWyd, and lawyer Alan Dershowitz.
He was also sued by Virginia Dufray, but she dropped her case and now acknowledges it was likely mistaken identity.
Well, welcome to all of you.
Alan, good to talk to you.
I've not spoken to you for a long time.
I appreciate you coming on the program tonight.
First of all, let me just ask you about this idea that Andrew may now go back in and try and recontest this case with Virginia Duffray because of what happened in your case with her, where you always denied all the allegations that she threw at you, and she ultimately admitted that it may be mistaken identity.
She simply got you wrong and mixed up with somebody else.
Is that enough for Prince Andrew to go back in and try and relitigate all this?
Well, I think it's part of a larger package.
I'm not going to comment specifically on the case, but I can tell you that you can undo deals if there was a fraud on the court, if the plaintiff alleged things that weren't true.
And one specific thing, of course, is that she swore under oath, and everybody swore under oath in the case, that she lived in Colorado.
And if it could be proved that she didn't live in Colorado, again, I'm talking hypothetically, that could possibly reopen the case.
Also, there was a deal made in which she agreed not to sue any associates of Epstein, including, quote, royalty.
So these are at least hypothetically the kinds of arguments that could be made legally.
I think my own case may add kind of an atmospheric to it.
She admitted after all these years, and I have it on the cover of my book.
I now recognize that I may have made a mistake in identifying Alan Dershowitz.
You know, years ago I wrote a book laying out all the evidence, but now she's made this acknowledgement.
That creates a kind of atmospheric, but less of a legal claim.
The legal claims tend to be more jurisdictional, procedural, fraud, that kind of thing.
Okay, I mean, I know that you've in the past also shed doubt over the veracity of this infamous photograph of Andrew with his arm round a young Virginia Duffray, but the man on Sunday here in the UK at the weekend had a pretty damning dossier in which they really revealed that this picture is almost certainly genuine.
It had watermarks on it.
They had examined them.
It was processed within three days of this alleged encounter, which she claimed with Prince Andrew, and so on and so on.
In light of that dossier they published, have you changed your mind about this picture?
Oh, I never said it was false.
I just said that the original was never disclosed so that it creates a difficulty.
I actually wrote an email to Ghulain Maxwell essentially asking her what she thought because she's in the picture.
I have no basis more than you do or any of your viewers do for knowing whether the picture was authentic or not, but I would hope that sometime they might produce the original picture which could finally resolve this issue.
The fact that she got it wrong about you, Virginia Duffray, that doesn't of course mean that she got it wrong about Andrew, does it?
No, of course not.
But it does affect possibly the certainty of any allegation because she certainly made the allegations against me with great certainty and assurance, saying that it happened, what, seven times in different places.
So it might be relevant to the case, but certainly not dispositive.
I mean, she now has a book coming out, which is going to reveal a number of new revelations, we're told.
Andrew, we're reading every day, is planning potentially to launch a new legal challenge to all these allegations.
And yet at the center of this, you have a guy who is the Queen's son who said repeatedly, I will clear my name in court.
I want to have my day.
I want to clear my name.
And then right at the last minute, he settled for millions of dollars to a woman that he claimed he'd never met.
That seems to me to be the central problem with his position.
Because if he genuinely had never met her and he genuinely wanted to clear his name in court, well, why didn't he?
Well, the question is what pressures the royal family, his mother particularly, experiencing her jubilee, might have placed on him.
Cases get settled for all kinds of reasons, and of course there was no admission of guilt in the settlement.
But the public has the right to take into account all of the factors.
I wish the media would do a better job in investigating accusations in general.
Women must be taken seriously.
And when a woman makes an accusation, it must be taken seriously.
That means it must be investigated thoroughly.
And I do not think today in the MeToo movement, many of these allegations are thoroughly investigated by the media.
They have usually a narrative and they go with the narrative.
They're terrified about investigating alleged victims.
I guess they'll be accused of victim shaming.
And I just don't think the media has done a sufficient job of investigating all these accusations and allegations.
It could do a great service by taking women very seriously.
What I would say to that is I think there are some cases where certainly they could have done more, but it was the media, of course, who did expose the likes of Harvey Weinstein and other serial predators.
Without that, the MeToo movement would never have started.
So I think you can argue this both ways.
I think the counterpoint I would make about Andrew and what he's done is that the best way, of course, to test all the allegations would have been in a courtroom.
And he, again, to report the power of the people.
He was adamant, I will go to court and clear my name.
And we all believed him.
And then at the last minute, he caved and gave someone he insisted he never millions of dollars.
I mean, it made no sense.
I wish he had litigated the case.
I wish he had had a jury trial.
I wish he had taken it to a court.
But I don't know the pressures that might have been put on him to settle.
But the settlement itself does not include an admission of guilt, and that has to be taken into account too.
But, you know, settlements are negotiated.
People want to end the lawsuit, and there are considerations on all sides.
So the public has the right to judge the totality of the circumstances.
I agree with you that exposing predators is a very important function of the media, but exposing people who make false accusations is just as important.
You know, Blackstone, the great British commentator, Belty, better 10 guilty go free than one innocent be wrongly confined.
The media has to look hard at the possibility that there have been some innocent people who have been charged, and the media has failed largely in its responsibility to dig deeply into accusations that are somewhat questionable.
Okay, well, I mean, talk, okay, look, I'll take a bit of a hit on behalf of the media, because on some cases that may be justified like criticism.
But then I would return the fire and say that like a lot of very high-profile, powerful, intelligent people, you were one of many who befriended Jeffrey Epstein.
You acted for him in the previous case, of course.
And none of you seemed to realize what he was really like.
I mean, I would say to you, Alan Dershow, just to return the criticism, if you with your legal brain had done a little bit more digging yourself, then he may have been stopped a lot earlier than he was because he was clearly a serial paedophile monster.
But remember, he met the Queen.
He met very prominent people.
He met presidents of the United States, Nobel Prize winners.
I was never a personal friend or acquaintance.
I was an academic friend.
Nobody had any idea that he had done anything wrong.
Once he was charged, I became his lawyer.
And as a lawyer, obviously my job was to defend him and tried to get a deal.
And I did inquire very deeply.
And I did find out ultimately what happened.
But at that point, I was his lawyer.
And lawyers cannot disclose confidences that they learn in legal representation.
But I did nothing wrong at all.
I acted like any lawyer would do when John Adams defended the people who were accused of the Boston Massacre.
He also found out what they had done, but he didn't quit the case.
The job of a lawyer is to represent some of the worst people.
I've also represented Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton and Natan Charansky.
And half of my cases of pro bono, I've represented innocent people on death row and I've saved their lives.
So I've had a career that has been filled with controversial people, but I don't turn in my clients and I certainly don't do anything but zealously represent them.
That's my job and I'm proud of that job.
I wish I had never met Jeffrey Epstein because I wish I hadn't had to go through eight years of being falsely accused for something I didn't do by somebody I never met.
But I was prepared to go to trial and I was prepared to litigate this thing to the end.
And then of course the charges were the woman admitted that she may have made a mistake.
Listen, I think you were defamed and justice was seen to serve its course, but eventually, it took a long time.
And in the meantime, you were dragged through the mud, which I think was extremely unfortunate.
Alan, good to talk to you.
Thank you very much indeed.
Likewise, nice to talk to you as well.
Thank you.
Let's get a reaction to this.
So, Petrano, I mean, this is a complicated thing because at the heart of it, it's really, we don't know, right?
We just don't know.
All we do know are the facts is that Andrew befriended this paedophile even after he was convicted initially of paedophile behaviour.
Andrew continued to see him, including for four days in New York infamously.
And we also know he vowed to clear his name and then never did.
Yeah, I mean, my problem is not that he befriended Epsom when he didn't know he was a paedophile, but after he was released from prison, in full knowledge of what he'd done, he then goes to New York to stay with them.
And it wasn't for academic legal reasons.
It wasn't acting.
Yeah, he was on a jolly with his mother.
And lots of women scene going on.
Exactly.
And that is extremely distasteful.
We also have the photograph, which is now real.
One of the weirdest things.
Well, which photograph?
Well, I mean, I thought, look, it looks like the mail on Sunday have nailed the fact that that photograph may be real.
But what about the bathtub?
I mean, the bath subject, it's one of the weirdest things I've ever seen.
It takes it into it.
We got it again.
Can we get it up on camera, but it now reminds me of the Duchess of Valgaria.
Look at this.
So these are friends of the Maxwells, Ghillaine Maxwell, right?
Who are pretending to be Andrew and this girl who was his, you know, the woman he's paid millions of dollars to while saying he never met her to prove that they couldn't have froliced in that bathtub.
This looks like proof of the complete opposite, Katie.
Yeah.
Yeah, it's an extraordinary photograph and clearly doesn't do anything to clear Andrew's name.
I mean, I think at the end of the day, he said he was going to go to court.
He'd be prepared to do that, be prepared to be investigated by the FBI.
He did none of that.
I think it sticks in the core for a lot of people that the settlement was deemed the easy way out.
I think Alan made a good point, though, because he was under huge pressure.
The Queen wasn't well.
She's coming towards the end of her life.
The last thing that the royal family would have needed was a big court case like this.
They had enough with what was going on with the court of the Sussexes across the pond.
But of course, Charles is now faced with all of this.
On the eve of his coronation.
Well, the last thing he says is Harry.
I mean, the trouble is it's always all about Andrew.
Charles Faces Divided Royalty00:02:58
It's all about him wanting to make his comeback into power.
About Harry.
You don't start even talking or thinking about this sort of thing until after the coronation.
Assuming he is innocent, then let's just play Dasbil's.
Let's just give it a half.
Let's give away the picture.
Why does any innocent person pay millions and millions of dollars?
But let's say they claim they never met.
It wasn't like he met her and there's a dispute.
If he was, it's hypothetical what I'm saying.
If he was, it wouldn't really matter whether he was trying to clear his name or not, because the point is that Charles's plan for a streamlined monarchy wasn't going to include Andrew at the helm anyway.
He was going to be demoted.
So this is just a disposition.
But what about the coronation is a great chance for King Charles to reset the whole monarchy after 70 odd years of his mother's reign, his glorious reign.
This is the big moment for him where he actually has a coronation and his queen consort coming to get her.
Yes, I mean, he must be sitting with his head in his hands wishing he had rather more amiable relatives.
But I would be saying, why on earth would he even countenance having Harry and Megan there with all their cameras making notes, repeating again more private conversations they had?
But he has to.
If he doesn't have to.
And why would he have Andrew if he's going to be if he's now going to try and be contesting the family?
I agree, Patrick.
I think there will be a bigger row if he doesn't.
They're absolutely not.
I don't agree.
Why would there be a bigger row?
Because they would make one.
The best answer to Harry and Megan is: shut up, go away.
You have nothing to do with us anymore.
You're missing the point.
The point of a royal family is it has to be united.
It projects.
They're not united.
Why should it be all one way?
Why should these two renegade because they're king?
Shovel dirt all over their family's teeth.
The king has to be magnanimous, Piers.
King has to be afraid of the family.
I don't agree.
And shows that.
And for this long, and this nasty about all the loved ones of the family.
Since Queen Victoria, the royal family is supposed to represent the idealised British family.
And they've always been conscious of that.
And it's something the taxpayer are conscious of too.
They do not like to see a royal family divided.
Charles doesn't have any choice.
William wants to punch Harry's lights out, I was told the other day.
Literally wants to pay for it.
He vayed very well.
But the thing is, what happens if he sees him at the coronation and decides now's the moment?
The heir to the throne punching his brother in the head.
But yeah, people have been knocking the ball.
Listen, if one of your family had done this, right?
One of your siblings or a child, if they'd done that, what would you do?
We're private individuals.
You keep it in the private domain.
Unfortunately, Harry hasn't done that.
Not only his father, I think his father and his brother will show that they can do better.
Oh, I think they honestly should cut him off.
Racism and Police Brutality00:14:42
Bang.
Done.
Gone.
You stay in Montecito.
You're not part of this anymore.
You don't get the good stuff.
You don't get the trinkets from the institution that you've been trashing and burying.
This poll in America last week showing massively reduced popularity of all the royals.
Yep.
But the most unpopular now, Harry and Megan in America, right?
Because they just don't know what they're doing.
They're doing stupid.
And Charles is riding top of those polls, Piers.
And I think to extend that finding out.
They're on a mission to destroy the monarchy, and we in this country should not accept it.
And by the way, it's not just Charles's coronation.
It is the people's coronation.
Of course it is, but I just basically paying for it.
But I think the people appreciate Charles acting with dignity.
A man who's risen the brother says so much.
The most dignified thing they could do is have the least dignified members of his family not there.
That's what I call preserving dignity.
The idea of Meghan, Markle, and Harry, after all they've done sitting there beaming away in the front row, would make me puke.
Well, they won't be in the front pew.
I mean, just look back to the Queen's service of Thanksgiving during the Jubilee.
They can be there in a police officer.
They can be there in a garrison.
Exactly.
All right.
Got to leave it there.
Thank you, ladies.
Appreciate it.
Well, coming next tonight, five black police officers beat a black man to death in Memphis in America.
Tyron Nichols was killed horrifically.
Was he killed by racism and white supremacy or by five black police officers?
We'll debate that after the break.
Well, Tyree Nichols loved sunsets.
He was a father.
He'd been out to photograph the twilight sky in his home city of Memphis, where five black police officers pulled him over.
The ladies said it was for reckless driving.
There's no evidence to substantiate that.
It's still unclear why they stopped him.
What is clear is that Tyree Nichols was subjected to a savage and horrific beating, taking sustained blows from the officers as he cried out for his mother, and he died three days later.
The beating was captured on body cam and CCTV and a warning.
Viewers may find this footage upsetting.
Well, that is just what it looks like.
It's five black officers beating a black man.
Horrific, appalling, incredibly hard to watch.
I'm not surprised by the global revulsion to this brutality.
But what I am surprised by is the immediate attempts by many high-profile liberal commentators to blame this on racism and white supremacy.
Here's CNN commentator Van Jones.
Black people are at risk from police no matter what colour.
Black, white, brown, you talk to African Americans, I'll tell you.
It doesn't matter.
There's this pervasive view from law enforcement that if you're black, you're dangerous.
Really?
So black people killed a black person, and that's racist.
Well, Black Lives Matter issued a statement saying that all police represent the interests of capitalism and impel state-sanctioned violence.
Anyone who works within a system to perpetuate state-sanctioned violence is complicit in upholding white supremacy.
So these five black police officers were white supremacists, apparently.
Jamil Hill from The Atlantic agreed, explaining the entire system of policing is based on white supremacist violence.
Again, apparently nothing to do with just five horrible thugs wearing police uniforms killing a black man.
It was apparently about racism and white supremacy.
Well, joining me now, Black Lives Matter organizer and activist Iman Ayton and rapper and podcaster Zubi.
Welcome to both of you.
Iman, I don't get this narrative at all that is coming out.
It's been coming here from people as well that somehow this is all about racism and white supremacy.
It's not.
It's about five poorly trained, thuggish black police officers killing a black man who did nothing to deserve it.
That's it.
Okay, so I just have to start with saying that video was absolutely disgusting, one of the worst videos I've ever seen in my entire life.
And it goes on and on.
Yeah, it was disgusting.
There were two versions of it, the body footage, and of course the poll from across the road.
Absolutely disgusting.
So I'm absolutely horrified at the fact that, of course, it was five black people.
But for me personally, this is about an abuse of power and a disregard of human life.
And those individuals need to be accountable for their actions.
That I need to...
Don't disagree.
What's it got to do with racism or white supremacy?
Why are white people responsible for this?
Okay, so people could also argue that this is due to internalized racism, which is a byproduct of societal or institutional racism, also referred to as white supremacy.
So black police officers become white supremacist racists who kill black people because they work in an atmosphere of white supremacy.
Is that it?
I can explain it a little bit better.
Okay, so anti-blackness is baked into society here and in the US and black people are not impervious to that.
And so what people fail to realize...
Black people are anti-black.
Yep, this exactly.
So let me explain it.
I know it's very confusing.
So let me explain it.
Let me explain it, Piers.
So what people fail to realize is that when black people have to contend with racism, they can end up internalizing it.
And that can result in low self-esteem, self-loathing, and rejection of one's community.
And when you combine those feelings, which as we know are also referred to as unconscious bias, when you have those feelings and they are compounded by hierarchy and power, it can lead to an individual abusing said power and projecting their self-hate onto another.
And this is why, in my opinion, why we see black and white police officers killing more black people than we do whites.
Reason why is because of racism, which includes internalized racism, Piers.
Right.
I think that's complete nonsense.
You wouldn't, because you're a white man and you don't understand.
Exactly.
I'm white.
Therefore, my skin colour means I have...
My skin colour means I have nothing to do with it.
All right, well, let me go to a black man and see if he's allowed to have a view.
Zubi, what's your view?
Okay, so I agree with the first half of everything that was said there.
I agree that the video was disgusting.
I agree that this is an issue of training, and I agree that this is an issue of the human heart.
I think that any attempt to put the blame on this in any way, shape, or form on racism or white supremacy or white people in general is absolutely ridiculous.
I also think it's pretty degrading because this sort of idea stems from the notion that black people, black men, black women, that we do not have full agency and responsibility and therefore accountability for our actions and our words.
We end up in these ridiculous situations where no matter the permutation, no matter what happens, even if there's not a single white person involved in this situation in the Memphis police force, even the police, the police chief is a black woman, the large percentage of the force is black, and people are still trying to lean on this white supremacy is the answer and the reason for everything.
And honestly, it's lame.
And as someone who's lived my entire life as a black male, certainly I've never been possessed by this sort of phantom of white supremacy that's made me want to attack anybody, let alone another black person.
And I think that we need to put the blame and responsibility squarely on the individuals who were involved in this.
I completely agree.
It's tragic that this young man died.
I completely agree.
I mean, just to note some statistics about the Memphis Police Department, that 65% of Memphis population is black.
58% of the entire police force in Memphis is black.
The police chief was a black woman, right?
And so on and so on.
So you take all that in totality, you think, working, well, where is this institutionalized white supremacy coming from, given the institution is actually served predominantly by black people for a population that is predominantly black as well.
So I don't get that point.
The second point I make is this.
I think there's a wider issue here.
The demonization of the police in America, calling them all a bunch of vile racists, has led to many older, experienced, good police officers who are not vile racists quitting the force all over the country.
And as a result, in Memphis, for example, they had a massive reduction, 20% between 2011 and 2017, of police officers.
20% went from the force.
And so to try and restore the numbers, they made it easier to become a police officer.
They reduced the restrictions, reduced the qualifications.
Two of the five officers involved in killing this poor young man went through that process in that period of not being required to have the same sort of qualifications that they used to to join the Memphis Police Department.
So you have a bunch of people being brought in who are poorly trained, who are not qualified to do the job, who end up committing this kind of crime.
That has nothing to do with racism or white supremacy.
That has everything to do, I think, with perhaps an over-demonized force in general with a lot of bad apples in it, but over-demonized force leading to many people quitting and being replaced with people just not up to the job.
I think it's, well, everything that you said, I don't disagree with.
I think it's not about conflating the two things.
It's just about presenting a different perspective, an alternative perspective that should be considered because internal racism is a real thing, so therefore it should be considered.
You just heard a black man, yes.
In a very considered way, say that basically you're talking nonsense.
So I'll ask that.
So Zubi, do you believe that internal racism is nonsense?
Do you believe that black people cannot internalize racism?
Do you believe that?
I don't believe that it's completely impossible.
I don't think it's impossible for black person.
I don't think it's impossible for a person of any race or ethnicity to harbor hatred or animosity towards people who may look like them or share some things in common.
What I completely disagree with is the idea that in every single one of these situations, that no matter what happens, we just jump to white supremacy as the problem.
We've seen this happen many, many times.
And I agree with you.
And I think one of the biggest issues with it is, okay.
I think one of the biggest issues as well is it's actually a distraction from a very important conversation which Piers was leaning into there, which is that when it comes to the police in the USA and also in other countries, there's clearly an issue of character, qualifications, training.
I don't know.
Exactly.
Yeah.
Prejudice is the foundation for all forms of discrimination, including sexism, misogyny, racism, and the list goes on.
So if you have not dealt with your political system, it will manifest in the middle of the day.
That's a fact.
A, you're talking over.
That's a fact.
I think I don't understand.
But secondly, you're bringing it to the point of view.
I think this is a history racism, none of which had anything to do with this particular incident.
What are you talking about?
I just explained to you internal racism, which is based off of prejudice.
I had nothing to do with why these people are.
And I said it should be considered.
I said it should be considered.
Well, let's let Zubi finish the point you were making.
Okay.
Okay.
Even following on from that point, I'd also say this is mind-reading as well.
So even trying to bring racism into this conversation, let's say these guys did not have guns and badges.
Let's say this was just a group of random thugs, five black men beating up another black man.
Even in that situation, even outside the police force, I've still seen situations where people try to blame this somehow on this specter of white supremacy.
And as I've said, frankly, it's embarrassing.
And as a matter of fact, as a black person, I have just as much agency and accountability.
Okay.
As I said, black people have full responsibility and accountability.
Just like it would be ridiculous to see a video of white people beating up a white man.
There are videos out there of white police beating up white people.
Well, I would also make the point.
Have you seen loads of videos of the white people?
I would also say that.
On that point, I would also make the point that if people genuinely believed it was racism, then given these scenes were as horrific as the George Floyd killing, in my view, no better, no worse.
I mean, this went on for a much longer period and was disgusting and abhorrent to watch.
Completely innocent guy just getting beaten and then he died.
Given that, if it was racism that people genuinely believe was the motivation, we would see the same scenes on the streets of cities all over America that we saw after George Floyd's death.
We would see the riots.
We would see burning cities.
We would see that kind of intensity of reaction.
But the truth is, even the people claiming this is about racism and white supremacy, they don't believe it.
Because if they did believe that, if they did believe that, they'd be out on the streets saying it.
And they're not.
They are saying it.
They are saying it because they do believe it.
But they're not protesting in the same way because in their heart they know it's not racist.
I agree with you in that.
I've always said that.
I don't subscribe to any type of hypocrisy, right?
So if white people are going to kill black people, we should be outraged.
If black people kill black people, we should be outraged.
So therefore, there are many things that Sabi have said that I agree with.
There are many things that you have said that I agree with.
But what I'm also trying to say is that firstly, this is about abuse of power and a disregard of life.
Individuals should make sure that they are accountable for the people.
But we can all agree on that.
That is clear.
But we also need to take into account that black people internalize racism and they can perpetuate that racism within institutions.
That is a fact.
Yeah, I'll tell you what is a fact.
This was five black police officers killing a black man, not because of racism or white supremacy or because of anything a white person has done.
But because they actually didn't know how to do their jobs, it got completely out of control.
They behaved like a mob, a frenzied mob.
Just like as well.
When white police beat up people, they're also thugs as well.
Because black people aren't just fugs when they beat up black people.
And white people can also be perceived as fugs when they're beaten up.
You can keep saying whatever you want.
This had nothing to do with racism or white supremacy.
And as Zubi rightly said, I actually think it's embarrassing.
They were black thugs.
Okay, but you don't call white people black fucks.
Can I say one more thing, Matt?
I call white thugs white thugs.
Of course I do.
There is far more emphasis.
I'm talking about.
There is far more emphasis.
This is the vanity of media.
It's not non-emphasis.
Final words, connotations like thugs.
Final word to both the US and in the UK, when we can have these conversations without the words white and black even being brought into the picture, then I think we'll be making some of the things.
So you're offering colourblinds.
Trans Women in Prisons00:11:06
We can have some serious conversations.
I totally agree.
Colourblind is the same.
I actually completely agree with that.
I'm fat.
If you clearly talked about the police brutality here in that context without mentioning skin colour, we would actually get somewhere to trying to help a situation.
But by making it about race where it doesn't exist, we actually cause more problems than we're already there.
Iman, thank you.
Zubi, appreciate you joining me.
Thank you very much.
Good to have you on the show.
Well, coming next tonight, Nicola Sturgeon ties herself in knots again about women.
She says a trans woman is a woman.
It may not be a woman in a prison context.
What on earth does that mean?
We'll talk to Matt Walsh, the maker of a Smash It Film.
What is a Woman?
Maybe he can give us some advice about what a woman is.
That's next.
Welcome back.
A double rapist to Scotland named Adam Graham was sent to a women's prison last week after transitioning into a woman named Isla Bryson at the beginning of his trial.
Rapist has now been moved, and the Scottish government's allegedly announced a pause on the transfer of violent trans inmates to women's prisons.
But Scottish First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, is still struggling with this issue.
Take a look at this.
Are all trans women women?
You haven't answered that question.
Well, that's not the point that we're dealing with.
Trans women are women, but in the prison context, there is no automatic right for a trans woman.
There are contexts where a trans woman is not a woman.
No, there is circumstances in which a trans woman will be housed in the male prison estate.
Is there any context in which a woman born as a woman will be housed in the male estate?
Look, we're talking here about trans women.
I'm now asking about women born as women.
I don't think there are circumstances there, but it's different for trans women.
Well, yes.
And I'm not.
So they're not equal.
That is not.
There is a risk assessment process done for trans women.
I mean, it's complete and utter gibberish.
And this is what happens when the woke mindset runs riot.
This is where it leads into complete and utter insanity that can't be explained, even by the people spewing it.
Well, joining me in today's pack, talk TV contributor Esther Krakow, broadcaster Jenny Clemen.
I'm tired of being joined by Daily Wild columnist and the man behind the Smash It film.
What is a woman, Matt Walsh?
Matt Walsh, I mean, every time I think this can't get more absurd, this simple question in terms of a response from women, we get something like that.
We're a leader of a country, Nicola Sturgeon, the leader of Scotland, simply incapable of explaining why if trans women are women, then they have to be kept in male prisons.
Yeah, I mean, if they weren't such frauds and cowards, you'd almost feel sorry for them.
They backed themselves into this corner and they're left with, as you said, absolute gibberish because that's the fundamental incoherence at the bottom of gender theory.
It's totally incoherent and all you have to do is ask some basic questions and that's revealed.
And by the way, this idea of, well, we'll do a risk assessment.
Well, look, if there are female prisoners, even very dangerous, if there's an actual female prisoner who was larger and stronger, you'd have to do a risk assessment there, but there'd be no thought about whether that prisoner goes to a woman's prison or not.
Obviously, that prisoner is going to be a woman's prison.
I think in a way, this case has really exposed this whole issue, actually, in the most sharpest possible way, because even this rapist's ex-wife came out and said he never mentioned any of this stuff when they were married for eight years.
And she thinks he's invented the whole transitioning simply to get himself a cushier place in a woman's prison, where, of course, he would then be able to prey on women, which is what he's done before, which is why he's a convicted rapist.
And I say he, because I just don't believe that he's a genuine transitioner at all.
I think he just scammed everybody, including the legal system.
Yeah, and I think he is right.
And by the way, even if he was a quote genuine transitioner, I'd still call him he because he means man.
That's what he is, no matter how he feels about himself.
I do think it exposes something because at the heart of this debate, whether we're talking about locker rooms or sports teams or prisons, it's always a question of, first of all, what is a quote-unquote trans woman?
How do you define it?
But then also, you have these competing claims.
You have the quote-unquote trans person who says that, well, if you don't do as I say, it's going to make me feel bad about myself.
But then you have all the other people who are affected who say, well, if you let them do what they want, then we are going to be unsafe.
And when you translate this over to a prison and you're talking about putting violent predators and sex offenders in with women, because if you don't, the violent predator will feel bad.
Yeah, it's like, okay, well, we can.
It's mad, as is the whole sporting thing, where you have six foot, three inch swimmers pulverizing women born to female bodies in the pool and breaking all women's records potentially irrevocably.
Jenny, can you defend any of this?
I mean...
I think it's a really stark example of where this begins to fall down because prisons are binary and sex is binary.
Gender is not binary.
Gender is a continuum, but sex is binary.
And whilst there is a kind of drive to be inclusive and to be welcoming, it gets to a certain point where when you're conflating gender and sex, when you have a situation where it's either a male prison or a female prison, that's where this all throws out.
I'm not going to try and defend it.
Do you agree with me?
Blind me.
Esther.
I know.
It feels really good.
We're turning the wokeies in real time here.
My point about it is I think the way you try and introduce limitless self-identity of any kind, this is where it goes, right?
It goes to insane places, which are actually dangerous.
This is dangerous.
But it's also state overreach.
And I feel like no one's pointed this out because the state is not in the business of, I'm sorry, accommodating the needs of trans-identifying prisoners.
That's not their business, right?
You can feel how you want.
Like you said, prisons are binary and they're binary for a reason.
I went to a gym this afternoon.
I was in the female gym showers.
I can't imagine a person born with a penis, i.e. a male, being in there.
It's horrifying.
So I think even the fact that people feel like it's the government's business to accommodate trans prisoners is completely preposterous.
The thing that I would like to know is I would like to know where trans men go to prison.
Nobody's talking about that.
Because they don't even know.
Listen to me.
No one talks about trans men in men's sports.
Do we talk about trans men in men's sports?
Did we talk about trans men?
That's a different thing.
It's not in the different ways because they don't think they wouldn't be able to qualify.
They wouldn't be able to qualify.
It doesn't work the same way because biologically...
But they don't exist.
Because biologically, the issue only works one way.
Thank you.
Right?
Biologically, in a swimming pool or sprinting or whatever it may be, people born to male bodies have an advantage over female bodies.
Predominantly, almost exclusively, right?
We separate the sexes at the Olympics and things.
There's no advantage with that.
I mean, it's not even an advantage.
They wouldn't exist.
Men go to prison.
And that would kind of really shed light on all of this issue.
Well, you mentioned gyms, Esther.
When we come back, we'll talk to Matt and then you guys about this new extraordinary viral digital craze of women shaming men for looking at them in the gym.
Is this perverted conduct which should lead to cancellation?
Or is it just people looking at each other in a gymnasium?
More from Matt Walsh in my pack next.
Well, a recent poll said more than half of men fear being labeled creepy for talking to women.
So-called digital influencers like Jessica Fernandez might be partly to blame.
Tens of millions of people watched a video she uploaded from the gym where she claimed a, quote, feral man was staring at her.
Fernandez has since apologized, but thousands of similar videos are circulating to huge audiences.
Well, back with my pack.
And first of all, Matt Walsh, I mean, you'd be following this, Matt.
It's a quite extraordinary trend where from most of the videos I've seen where people are claiming this is appalling behavior, it's just blokes in a gym looking at people.
But not in any way that I would describe as predatory or unpleasant.
No, of course not.
This is the trend is women, for whatever reason, are recording themselves at the gym.
That's the first problem is if you want to record yourself working out, maybe stay at your home and do that.
But then it turns out this is really a cover to basically entrap men who might glance over in their direction.
And by the way, there's a lot of reasons why somebody might glance at you in the gym.
Maybe one reason is they find you physically attractive.
God forbid.
It might also be that, I don't know, you're hogging equipment.
Maybe there's equipment that you're using while you're filming yourself and muttering to yourself like a schizophrenic, and they want to use that equipment.
So they're kind of lingering around so they can use it.
Those are all kinds of reasons.
But this is, this ultimately is why men are paranoid in just opening a conversation with a woman.
Yeah, but I get it.
Obviously, I get it the other way.
I've started going back to the gym and I get a lot of very hot women, obviously, almost fainting on site when they see them.
Naturally.
When they see the big guns coming out.
But is this a serious...
I mean, what is going on here, Jenny?
I think a lot of women feel that they're being stared at at the gym or having their phone.
A lot of the footage that's going out is people having their phone taken.
But aren't you going to a gym to make yourself look aesthetically more?
You're going to the gym to exercise.
Even if a man's looking at you, you know, like, wow, you look hot.
Why would that be wrong?
Isn't that what you want?
A gym is not a bar.
A gym is not a dating app.
It's not going to be.
Well, I think lots of women just listen to exercise.
I've heard of many romances that started at the gym.
Look, the thing is, I think we're being too clinical about this.
People meet in all sorts of different settings.
Again, like Matt said, you could look at somebody.
I'm not looking at me when I'm exercising.
Well, that's you.
I very much like to be complimented, looked at, asked out.
That's great.
If anyone is listening, but you know, the thing is, they could also be looking at, they could also be looking at you because your form is off, right?
They could be looking at you because you're hogging.
Do you look at other people at the gym?
Yes, if you're hogging, if you're hogging, Matt Walsh, this is the thing.
When I go to the gym, I don't think you could avoid looking at people because I'm looking at them to see what their form's like, how they're carrying certain weights.
Are they carrying more than me?
You know, male or female.
I don't really care.
I'm just, I'm quite curious about other people using a gym.
Am I now going to be something appearing on Instagram, influencers' sites in some sort of perv?
Well, it's possible.
By the way, I also, I don't mean to be a victim blamer here, but can we also say that if you're a woman and you don't want to, you don't want men to notice you in the gym, maybe wear more than your underwear to go work out?
I mean, that's the one thing.
These women in these videos, they're wearing sports bras and like hot pants.
I mean, how it puts any clothes on if you don't want people to look at you?
This is victim blaming.
And I'm sorry, I'm in a little bit of a moment.
I'm going to quote Robert Atwood here that men are afraid of women laughing at them.
Women are afraid that men are going to kill them.
It is not okay to say that it's a woman's fault for wearing the wrong.
Do you think that people looking over at people using some equipment in a gym are going to kill them?
I think that taking photographs is threatening.
Staring at people is threatening.
But the ones photographing it are these Instagram influencers.
No, they're not there.
They are videoing men taking photographs of them and listening.