All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Sept. 26, 2023 - Uncensored - Piers Morgan
46:50
20230926_piers-morgan-uncensored-rupert-everett-army-colone
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Colonel Forced Out Over Gender 00:14:14
Tonight, Piers Morgan Uncensored, a British Army colonel, was forced out of the military for agreeing that men can't become women.
He joins me live.
Bradley Cooper faced a massive backlash for wearing a false nose and playing a Jewish character in his new movie.
Should star roles be reserved for actors who actually lead the lives of their characters or is it just acting?
I'll talk to Rupert Everett.
Plus, rock star psychologist Steven Pinker made his name by saying the world has never been in a better place after a global pandemic, economic collapse and a raging war in Europe.
Does he still believe that?
He'll join me live too.
Live from the news building in London, this is Piers Morgan Uncensored.
Well good evening from London.
Welcome to Piers Morgan Uncensored.
When I launched this show, I promised to cancel our insidious cancel culture.
The usual suspects sneered.
Cancelled culture is fake, they said.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with the real world.
It's a populist argument.
I see and hear it every day.
Cancel culture is not real, said Time magazine.
CNN thinks it's time to cancel this talk of cancelled culture.
The new statesman rasps that cancelled culture does not exist.
But it does exist.
Apart from anything else, I wouldn't be doing this show if canceled culture didn't exist.
It's everywhere.
It's the creeping fear now stalking all of us that we're only wearing one mistake away or a perceived mistake away from a scandal that can end your career.
Acting legend Rupert Everett is coming up later on the show.
Earlier today, he described it perfectly.
Nowadays I'm absolutely terrified every time I have to do an interview.
I come out in hives and I never ever dare read them because it's so scary.
You know, you can't really, you have to be so careful what you say.
You can't really just chat and have a lively discussion with someone.
You always have to watch what you're saying.
And I find that very, it's very alien to me because I've spent my life really having a lovely time with journalists and chatting about everything.
And now that's a little more complicated.
How sad, how pathetic, frankly, that society has taken this turn.
And it's no longer just celebrities or public figures who need to be afraid.
Take Colonel Kelvin Wright, who's a bit of a British hero.
As a reservist army medic, he ran the emergency department at Camp Bastion in Afghanistan.
He flew in Chinook helicopters across enemy lines to rescue soldiers and civilians suffering the gruesome injuries of war.
He saved many, many lives over 14 years of service.
But then Colonel Kelvin got cancelled, forced out of the British Army.
His crime?
It was to share a social media post by a woman's rights campaigner called Helen Joyce.
And all it said was, if women cannot stand in a public place and say men cannot be women, then we do not have women's rights at all.
You might agree with that statement.
You might not agree with it.
But last time I checked in a democratic society, you're entitled to your opinion.
And regardless, it wasn't his comment in the first place.
He just shared it.
But a formal complaint was, of course, made.
LGBT activists dragged a colonel into a disciplinary process.
A seven-page letter signed by these activists said his supposedly anti-trans views, he hadn't expressed any anti-trans views, had no place in the military.
So he walked away.
The biggest misunderstanding about cancel culture is it has to involve a celebrity being expunged from public life.
And there are many examples of that happening.
But the reality is we're now so used to righteous mobs throwing tantrums about other people's opinions that everybody is at risk.
Employers are so afraid of being shamed for being on the wrong side of a tribal argument, they'll gladly hang you out to dry sooner than take any risk.
Well, the damage already done, it's been revealed this week that Colonel Kelvin Wright has now been cleared of any wrongdoing by an official inquiry.
But his army career is over.
Forced out by virtue signalling busybodies with nothing better to do, and certainly people who never did what he did in a war zone serving his country.
It's a disgrace.
Well, I'm joined now by Colonel Dr. Kelvin Wright.
Well, great to have you, Colonel.
I really, you know, I come from a family with lots of military.
My brother retired as a colonel after 37 years recently.
And when I mentioned your story to him and told him what you'd done in Afghanistan, he said that was pretty hardcore duty, flying in all those helicopters to go and rescue people who'd been severely wounded.
So thank you, first of all, for your service to your country.
I don't know how many times you've been told that in recent months, but it suspect not enough, right?
Interesting enough, in recent months, quite a few times.
I mean, I joined at the height of Afghanistan.
My mission was to go and practice medicine in a war zone.
I felt as a consultant in a background of emergency medicine and intensive care, I had something to offer.
And I was working in hospital at the time where a lot of my trainees were military, and I felt it was time for me to do my bit.
So it's one of the proudest times, and there's no way that I'm going to let these events overshadow what I say is the proudest medicine I've probably ever done in my time.
The most inexplicable part of your story is not that a bunch of LGBTQ2 plus, the name gets longer by the minute, that these activists tried to cancel you over reposting a quote which many would agree with, certainly from a biological sex point of view.
The most scandalous part of this is that the army went along with this, launched a formal investigation into you, told you it was specifically about the fact you'd shared this post, this other person's opinion, you had shared it.
That seems to me extraordinary that the British Army would do this to somebody like you.
Well, I mean, there's two interesting points that you allude to there, actually.
The first is, of course, yesterday happened.
And when this first started, and I am so grateful to the help that I've had from the Free Speech Union at a really trying time, the advice from them and having someone on the end of a phone you can just say, actually, you're okay, that's what you should be doing, was phenomenal.
But this process, I said at the early stages, it makes you wonder who is running the army.
Is it the chief of the general staff or is it Stonewall?
This gender ideology and this fear of just common debate amongst professionals is absolutely drowning out our major institutions.
I mean, the irony is that people like you have served their country to safeguard free speech and freedoms.
Well, I agree.
I mean, every year, I've been a commanding officer, it's a great privilege for the last five years, two as a half colonel and three as a full colonel.
And every year as a commanding officer, we would stand in front of our troops and we would talk about the values and standards of the army, moral courage, most importantly, moral courage, doing the right thing, even when sometimes it's difficult around you.
And that's what really gets me a little bit on this.
Why did someone else higher up the chain not have the moral courage to say, actually, most of this complaint is absolutely vexatious.
The person complained that two or three years ago, I wouldn't let them wear their pronouns on their uniform.
The army has a uniform policy.
That's not me.
There's a uniform policy.
They complained that two years ago, my wife, who'd actually come to do casualty makeup for us at an exercise, stated she liked to see a man and a woman dancing on Strictly Come Dancing in the ballroom section.
And apparently that shows poor family values on my part.
And then there was this complaint, and those three elements are the key parts of the complaint.
And then there was this quote, which I think.
So it was actually even more ridiculous than we realized.
It was absolutely laughable.
And the fact that no one had the moral courage to say, you know, most of this is rubbish.
This should not get to a full colonel being investigated.
It should not get to someone being driven out.
Someone fearing for their civilian occupation, because this is the problem.
This kind of stuff overreaches into other aspects of the world.
What was the ticket point for you when you said, I'm done with this?
Literally, very early on, I received a phone call and I remember the words exactly.
It was, you're in a lot of trouble.
This has gone all the way to the top.
The complainant is very well connected in the diversity network.
And from that minute, I just felt there was no chance of getting a fair hearing.
You just think, actually, you're going to be investigated.
But within that process, I was never allowed to.
And what were you being investigated really for?
I don't know.
So the interesting point, I was never shown the complaint until after the verdict was in.
So I had to make a statement on a complaint of which I had never even.
Did the seven pages make any record of your war record?
No, I mean, no, it was the three key points I've talked about already.
And then there was just other, it was people just throwing mud, hoping something would, or one person throwing mud, hoping something would be.
Are you transphobic?
Do you have a problem with transgender people?
Not at all.
I mean, as a doctor, I just treat everyone as I find them and as they treat me as a human being.
I treat everyone as they treat me.
As a commanding officer, I'm more interested in someone's professional skills.
My patients have never said to me, excuse me, are you an LGBT doctor?
They're just, are you a doctor?
Are you good at your job?
And that's all I'm interested in.
Absolutely not.
Is society just going slightly mad with this gender ideology stuff?
It does feel that way.
I mean, when we've lost the concept of reasoned debate, we've lost the concept of, as you said, the army stands for free speech.
And the fact that many men and women over the years have paid a really high price for the privilege of someone having the right to speak.
And now we are trampling all over that.
So yes, I do think society is going absolutely crazy.
You had to leave a job that you loved and you've gone back to the NHS.
You're now working in another hospital in Mansfield and Nottinghamshire.
How do you feel that your army career was brought to an end like this?
Well, as I said when we were just chatting, I'm not going to let these events sour what I thought were 14 really fabulous years.
I met so many really good soldiers, sailors, air crew during my time.
I taught on trauma courses.
It was an absolute privilege to do that with young soldiers particularly.
It was a privilege to serve and treat those patients when they were having a really bad day.
So there's no way I'm going to let this spoil all of that good stuff.
But it does leave a rather sour taste that after 14 years honorable service, it's brought to a rather premature end.
In the finding, which cleared you of any wrongdoing, the final report said that your Facebook post was clearly not unlawful or duh, although some would find it disagreeable.
And when I read that, I was like, well, maybe they would, but so what?
So what?
In a democratic society, I find lots of things disagreeable.
I don't want people to lose their jobs over it.
Absolutely.
And in a democratic society, we have the right to have two people having a heated debate, but at the end of the day, those opinions can be held.
But for me, the crucial thing, and one of the things I'm really keen to this kind of conversation is a precedent has been set now.
The army has been forced to say, actually, we do have a responsibility under public sector equality duty.
The Forstada ruling is interpreted legally.
It's not interpreted how the gender champions might like it interpreted.
It's written down in law how it's interpreted, and we've got that established.
So future younger soldiers, sailors, air crew, and there are multiple cases of this already going on.
The Free Speech Union got other cases of service personnel who fall into this trap as well.
A precedent has been set, which hopefully will protect some of them in the future.
Colonel, thank you very much indeed for coming in.
You're a war hero.
You're a British hero.
What happened to you was a total disgrace.
And I'm extremely glad you've now been cleared of any wrongdoing.
You should never have been taken through this process.
And the Army's loss is the NHS's gain.
And I wish you all the very best for the future.
Thank you.
It's been an absolute pleasure.
Thank you for having me.
What a story.
What a disgrace.
How has our country come to this?
I mean, seriously.
Well, I'll send it to the next Rupert Everett on his former movie co-star Russell Brand and a lot more, including Cancel Culture.
What does he make of it?
Don't go away.
Welcome back to Piers Book on our Senate.
Bradley Cooper's become the leaders actor to face a major backlash for playing a character who doesn't share his real world credentials.
He's starring in a biopic of the composer Leonard Bernstein, who was gay and Jewish.
Well, Cooper's neither of those things.
And critics say it's culturally offensive.
He was also criticised for wearing a prosthetic nose to look more like his subject.
Apparently, an example of so-called dupha's.
Well, Bernstein's family say he'd have no problem with it.
Brian Cranston's previously been slammed for playing a disabled character despite not being disabled.
Eddie Redmain had to apologise for playing a trans character despite not being trans.
And the list goes on and on.
Michael Sheen joined in the Furore by insisting only Welsh actors can play Welsh roles.
Isn't this the entire point of acting?
That you play something you're not.
A little earlier I spoke to the great Rupert Everett about all this and more.
Rupert, great to see you.
Great to see you, although it's quite ghostly because I can't see you.
How are you?
You're looking a little like Michael Corleone in Godfather 2 with that backdrop.
Well, I'm covered in wigs.
You might not believe this, but I'm actually wearing two wigs at the moment.
Acting Criticism and Victimhood 00:10:22
Really?
Now, look, I read, I wanted to get you off.
I was just during the interview.
I read an interview you did with The Times this week that made me laugh out loud so many times.
I ordered the team to book you as a matter of urgency.
My first question is, when you read back interviews like that, do you chuckle like the rest of us?
Are you slightly horrified at the stuff you come out with?
Are you proud of it?
How do you feel?
Well, I think nowadays I'm absolutely terrified every time I have to do an interview.
I come out in hives and I never ever dare read them because it's so scary.
You know, you can't really, you have to be so careful what you say.
You can't really just chat and have a lively discussion with someone.
You always have to watch what you're saying.
And I find that very, it's very alien to me because I've spent my life really having a lovely time with journalists and chatting about everything.
And now that's a little more complicated.
It is, and it's a great tragedy.
That's why I did this show actually called Uncensored.
You can say what the hell you like.
Talking of saying what the hell you like.
It is a tragedy.
Well, yeah, I did notice at the end they did Everett's best put-downs as a little breakout.
And I appear in your best ever put-downs.
You called Madonna an old whiny barmaid.
You said Michael Jackson looked like a character from Shrek.
And Piers Morgan was hung like a budgie.
We've been through this, Piers.
We don't need to go through it again, do you?
We have, and you have admitted you had no evidence for that slur.
No one needs evidence anymore, not these days.
Exactly.
Exactly.
Let's talk about a few things on the news, because there's a lot going on, which I immediately thought of you when I hear these stories.
Notably, the Furoi over Bradley Cooper playing Leonard Bernstein in the biopic maestro, the great musical impresario.
And the Furore is simply that Bradley Cooper is not himself Jewish or gay like Bernstein.
Why should that be a problem?
Why is there a Fiori about this?
Piers, I don't know.
For me, it's ridiculous.
I think acting is about acting.
You don't have to be Jewish to play Jewish.
You don't have to be gay to play gay.
I think the thing that's irritating for gay actors is that quite often we don't get the chance to play straight.
But that doesn't mean to say that straight actors shouldn't be playing gay.
I felt deeply moved by Behind the Candelabra with Matt Damon.
I felt moved by the effort and the detail with which they attacked their roles.
I love, of course, seeing gay actors playing gay parts.
I'd like to see more gay actors playing straight parts.
I don't see this fear of cultural appropriation.
It doesn't make sense.
That's what acting is about, essentially.
Yeah, I mean, I've been saying this for a long time now.
The whole purpose of acting is to play something you're not, right?
So if the new rules are that you can only play roles which are literally you, that's not acting to me.
Well, it is acting.
There's one side of acting that is like that.
After all, the big movie stars, you know, of the past anyway, they more or less did play themselves.
But that's not the only side of acting.
There's lots of other things in acting, and particularly in the theatre and particularly in independent cinema, you want to see people doing different things.
It's exciting, it's fun.
You want to follow someone's career from playing, I don't know, Shylock to Romeo or whatever it is.
But to say that you can only, only a gay person can play a gay person or only a straight person can play a straight person is wrong.
After all, human beings aren't essentially that different from one another.
What was interesting to me was Leonard Bernstein's own family came out and said, we're certain our dad would have been fine with it.
So there's no offence by the people who everyone is getting offended on behalf of.
In other words, the Leonard Bernstein family, they don't have a problem with this.
The scandal, if you like, has been completely generated in the normal way by virtue signalers hitting social media and saying, I'm outraged.
No, absolutely.
And a very small number of people as well.
Most people I've talked to have really enjoyed the movie and loved him.
And I think he's an incredible actor.
And it's a great shame that the movie gets tarnished in a time when we really need movies to press on and do well.
Yeah, I completely agree.
I mean, it doesn't help to me for this debate when people like Michael Sheen, the actor, said he doesn't like non-Welsh actors playing Welsh characters.
He finds it hard to accept, given that he himself has played Tony Blair, David Frost very successfully, but they last time I checked weren't Welsh.
Right.
Well, I just think, you know, everyone's entitled to their opinion after all, but I don't agree about that myself.
You touched on earlier, people say or do things and bang, they get cancelled and so on.
You appeared in a movie with Russell Brown.
What do you make of this scandal?
In particular, not necessarily him or the allegations against him, but about the place we now find ourselves in a society when allegations get made, but before due process has been seen to be done, people get obliterated.
Is that right and proper?
Well, I think there's two things to say here.
Obviously, one of the things we have to always preempt this conversation with is rape is a horrible, terrible thing, and we're all against it.
However, I would like to quote to you the Magna Carta, which says, no free man is to be arrested or imprisoned or outlawed or exiled or in any way ruined, nor will we go against him or send against him except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.
And that is what we should keep to, Piers.
I agree.
I agree with that.
And I think it's really important.
And it doesn't matter what you think of Russell Brandt.
I mean, you were in St. Trinians with him, I think.
What were your recollections of him as a bloke when you were with him?
Well, there were a lot of beautiful women on St Trinians, and there was never any scandal to do with Russell Brandt.
And I'm quite a tittle-tattle, and I've always got my ear to the wall, so I'm pretty sure that there wasn't.
He kept himself to himself.
He ate funny food.
You know, he's one of those, he's a strange character.
He's one of those people who can swap heroin for bird food, you know, in the flash of an eye.
And I don't agree with actually more or less anything he says.
And I do think he's a character rather like Rob Spear, you know, who had to wait to meet the king for two weeks and then suddenly became a revolutionary through his own kind of thwarted bitter pride.
And I do feel that Russell Brandt has an envy of wealth, which is quite weird.
But he behaved perfectly well, very well on St Trinians.
You know, he probably had to concentrate on acting most of the time.
Yeah.
You say in the Times interview another thing which really struck me.
I come from a survivor generation rather than the victim generation.
You know, I love that because that is really, that's what I think, which is that if you go through enough stuff in previous generations, it tends to toughen you up, it hardens you up.
But what people didn't have time for or an inclination was to wallow in their own victimhood.
But we've now moved to a place where not only are people doing that in large numbers, but they're kind of monetizing it.
They're becoming famous off the back of it.
It's almost like being a victim now, something to be prized, which I find a very disconcerting way for society to go.
I agree with you.
I think, you know, in my youth, you know, it was quite a rough and tumble world.
And you had to be very vigilant and aware of what was going on.
You had to fight your corner.
You know, certainly in show business, as the actor Edmund Keene said, you know, theatre is not made for those who bleed easily.
You have to be tough in this business.
There's no point going into it if you're going to wilt at the first fence.
And I think that gives you a resilience, and that resilience is a great thing for your whole life, really.
I think to play to one's own weakness is often just not a good idea, really, because it just makes you weaker and weaker and weaker.
You said that you were excited by the thought of dying.
Explain yourself.
I am.
Why would that excite you?
I think the thing about pain and illness is horrible, of course, and being frightened is always horrible.
But the actual idea of death, I think, is exciting.
And I think what happens to you, for myself, I believe that there is an energy which is the energy that built or constructed the Big Bang.
And I think it's passing through all of us.
And I think we are that energy.
And somehow that energy keeps moving.
It's very difficult for us to grasp because we're so hung up on our own identity of me, Rupert, and I will never change my spots, et cetera, et cetera.
Our characters are very, very superficial parts of us.
They're just a kind of carapace, I think.
And inside that is the space of whatever you want to call it, God or the universe or the flow of energy that is constantly moving outwards and expanding.
That's what I think.
And if you could choose the manner of your death, what would you choose?
The manner of my death.
Well, obviously, it would be very nice either to die in my sleep or for someone to just shoot you in the back of the head while you're going to Safeways.
No, Safeways doesn't exist anymore, Waitrose.
I will make myself available as revenge for the budgie comment.
Anxiety, Complacency, and False Hope 00:09:06
Anyway, listen, Piers, what I came on to talk about, by the way, was my play.
It's called Voice Drive.
And it's on tour.
And we're in Bath now.
We're going to Chichester.
It's a very funny play.
It's like Chekhov, but it's also like Dad's Army.
It's written by John Mortimer, a great writer.
Brilliant.
Eloquent, Piers.
And eloquence, I think, is one of the things that's beginning to be missing.
I went out for tea this afternoon, and the girl at the table next to me was going, like, I mean, it just never stopped.
And we're letting our language disappear.
And language, which we've made over two million years, and it hasn't been easy, and we should cherish it.
And this play does.
I look forward to that, and I endorse everything you just said about language.
It's a bugbear of mine.
In fact, we actually have a lot of things that we agree about, Ruble.
It may be our old advanced age, but we've reached a place where I think we agree with more things than we disagree.
I agree.
I do agree with you on many things, Piers.
It's great to have you on Piers Morgana Censor.
Thank you very much, Rupert.
Particularly on your wife, who I'm very fond of.
Yeah, and she's very fond of you.
A little too fond for my liking, but there we are.
Thank you very much, Piers.
See you next time.
All the best, Rupert.
Welcome anytime.
Thank you very much.
Thanks a lot.
All the best.
Lots of love.
Bye.
If only all guests were like him, just say what they think.
On Sensor Next, talking of saying what they think, Professor Steven Pinker is a rock star intellectual.
He's famous for expounding that the world's making great progress.
Does he still believe that?
Have we really never had it so good?
He's up next.
Welcome back to Piers Morgan Censor.
It doesn't really feel like the world is making much progress right now.
The COVID pandemic killed millions, left many more of us locked up miserable for months on end.
The earth is apparently in the process of sizzling us all to death through climate change.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine brought war to Europe and nudged the world closer to nuclear Armageddon.
All of this while inflation is soaring, massive economies face recession and children start living with their parents until they're my age.
Well, if you believe what you read, then this broken and battered world of ours has never been more racist, sexist or divided.
Who better to put all this into proper context, though, than my next guest, Professor Steven Pinker, who coined the term progressophobia.
Professor, great to see you.
Thank you.
I've wanted to have you on this program for a long time because I actually quoted from you, from your brilliant book, Enlightenment Now, in my own book called Wake Up last year.
And it was like a clarion call to the world to wake up.
And one of the reasons was, as you rightly observed, actually, all things considered, there's ever been a better time to be alive.
Now, do you still believe that today?
Well, I don't know about this very moment and this very day, but certainly we're better off now than we were 100 years ago or 200 years ago.
There are always ups and downs.
So it's always dangerous to say today, this very day is the best day in history.
Probably isn't.
We've got an invasion in Ukraine that's turning back the clock.
We're still not over the effects of COVID.
But on average, looking at the overall trend, yeah, we're better off than we were 50 years ago or 100 years ago or 200 years ago or 1,000 years ago.
A lot of young people suffer from anxiety far more than has ever been recorded before.
And I believe one of the reasons is the constant dopamine exposure they get to negative imagery, whether it's the war in Ukraine, the pandemic, whatever it may be, that this sensory overload has created an atmosphere in their heads that things have never been worse than they are now.
What's the best way to realign young, impressionable minds about why, in your estimation, the trend's pretty good?
Yeah, it's, you know, it's not just the dopamine hit of the image every 20 seconds.
It's also the overall message.
A lot of young people are being told that the species is going to go extinct, if not from climate change, then from artificial intelligence or civil war.
So I think the news just has to put things in perspective because the journalism is a non-random sample of the worst things happening everywhere on Earth.
That's just kind of what news is.
The slow trends that creep up a few percentage points a year, like the reduction of extreme poverty, increased access to electricity and clean water, rising literacy, declining child mortality, declining maternal mortality.
All of these never burst on the scene on Thursday.
And so you never see a headline, but they transform the world because these changes compound.
Also, there are things that, good things that consist of things that don't happen.
Like just a few years ago, we were obsessed with terrorism.
It felt like there was constantly a terrorist attack.
Now they are far less frequent, but you never see a headline.
It's been several years since a European city has been shot up or blown up by terrorists.
So the news gives a non-random sample of the generally of what's going wrong.
And so more of a focus on long-term trends, on putting particular events in statistical context, so that a school shooting or a police shooting doesn't mean that you are in danger if you step out onto the pavement, just so that people can put the anecdotes and images in context of which way the world is going.
Also, when it comes to things that are creeping up on us, like climate change, some perspective as to what is, again, what is going right?
What are the changing estimates of the probabilities of the different scenarios?
A lot of young people can't get out of their heads the worst case scenario, which seemed disconcertingly too likely a few years ago.
But now the estimates are that the worst case scenario is much less likely.
That's the kind of news that needs to be highlighted.
And the people who are counseling young people, I have seen this even at my own institution, dealing with, say, climate anxiety.
They say, well, yes, it's such a serious problem that it's very good that you're anxious.
Well, no, your anxiety is not going to save the planet.
Your actions are going to save the planet if you develop clean meat or clean energy or better policies.
But simply being miserable is not going to help the planet.
And unfortunately, a lot of our counselors are conveying exactly the wrong message.
Well, funny enough, there was a report only last week about actually the incidence of depression and anxiety amongst young people.
And it established really quite clearly that if you could distract those people by making them think about positive things or other stuff, then the stuff, the negative things they were dwelling on, actually had a self-fulfilling prophecy.
They ended up feeling more positive and less depressed.
I don't doubt it.
And the reaction that you get to that kind of suggestion is, well, the world is burning and things are getting worse.
You don't want to instill complacency.
You don't want people to think, oh, everything is great.
I can lie back and relax.
Well, of course, that isn't the message.
The message is things get better only if you make them better.
But you've got to have the confidence that trying to make the world a better place might now and again work.
And the message that we've been sending is nothing is working despite everyone's efforts to make the world a better place.
Things are getting worse and worse until the species goes extinct.
And so the message can't just be, let's distract ourselves with, you know, with kittens and heartwarming stories of policemen who buys groceries for a welfare mom.
But that's not what constructive journalism would consist of.
It would consist of the growth of renewables, the new technologies on the horizon that might deliver abundant clean energy, the countries that have eliminated diseases, the new vaccines for diseases like malaria and other diseases, the rising literacy rates, the decline of coal.
There's lots of actually substantive positive developments that are simply not reported, except for a handful of sites that specialize in it, that I think more people should subscribe to for their mental health if for no other reason.
But also to involve countering the danger of complacency is the danger of fatalism.
Doesn't matter what we do.
The world's going to hell, may as well enjoy people or may as well just be musical.
Yeah, I totally agree.
Asylum Criteria and Persecution Claims 00:12:18
One of the other scourges of modern life, other than this constant obsession with all things negative, is the attack on free speech.
You went to Harvard University and it was just ranked the worst school for free speech in the United States by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.
It got zero points out of 100.
How do you feel as a Harvard alumni that it is effectively become a walking, talking enemy of free speech?
Yes.
Well, I'm not an undergraduate alumnus, but I am a professor, so I'm right there in the thick of things.
And together with some colleagues, we have formed the Council on Academic Freedom at Harvard in order to push back.
And in fact, those rankings were even a little bit convenient because when we met with the president last week and when we're meeting with the dean tomorrow, first thing we're going to do, and the first thing we did was to say, hey, we came in in last place in 248 universities.
Don't you think we should do something about this?
And I hope we will.
Why are university campuses all over America and it's happening in the UK, why are they not embracing free speech?
Why are they so insistent on trying to suppress people's views, deplatform people whose views they don't like?
How have we got to this place?
Well, I'd almost flip the question.
Free speech is a deeply weird concept as far as the human mind is concerned.
It's very unintuitive.
What's obvious is that people who disagree with me are spreading dangerous falsehoods and must be suppressed for the greater good.
That's just a natural way we think.
The idea of free speech, going back to a little bit the ancient Greeks and John Stuart Mill and the free speech movement, that constantly has to be renewed.
People need to be reminded of why they should ignore their instincts to suppress voices they disagree with, step back and realize, hey, it feels like I'm right, but you know, I'm not infallible, I'm not omniscient.
A lot of people in the past thought they were right, they turned out to be wrong.
A better system is one where everyone gets to voice their opinions and we get to argue about who's right and who's wrong.
Well, I do think, Professor Pinker, that as long as people like you are still at Harvard, there's a hope.
There's a tiny fragment of hope for them when it comes to defending free speech.
It's great to have you on the program.
I wish you luck in getting them all on site.
It's great to have you on Piers Borgen ISS.
Thank you so much indeed for joining me.
Fascinating guy, writes tremendous books.
On Sensor Next, Wella Braverman says that anti-gay or anti-female discrimination is not enough to qualify you for claiming asylum.
Has she forgotten her humanity?
Is this a kind of tough talk that will secure our borders?
We'll debate that next.
Welcome back to Piers Morgan on Sensor.
I'm joined by my pan, the political journalist Avisantina, Talk TV's Paul LaRone Adrian and the podcaster Ella Wheeler.
Welcome to all of you.
Hello, welcome.
We've seen these two, obviously, many times, but nice to see you here.
Just want to play a clip.
This is from last night's show.
It doesn't do you guys, but it's quite funny.
This was the fascinating debate I was having with this chess champion or wannabe champion who beat the world champion.
And there was this allegation that he had used anal beads.
And this is what he said.
Have you ever used anal beads while playing chess?
Not a question I ever thought I'd ask a guest, to be honest, but.
Well, you know, your curiosity is a bit concerning.
You know, maybe you're personally interested, but I can tell you no.
Okay, categoric no.
Of course, yes, categorically no.
Obviously, I didn't make the allegations.
I'm just repeating what was put to you at the time.
Well, aside from having to explain what anal beads are to a lot of people following that clip, Elon Musk decided to get involved, did a laughing emoji to that clip when we put it up, and then he added, frankly, if he did, just let him win, which is just quite funny.
And he has a point.
If you're going to go that far, you probably deserve it.
Anyway, it was fascinating.
Let's turn to Suella Braverman, though, because Suella Braverman has come out with some pretty, well, typical Bravan thoughts about asylum.
This is what she said about gay and female people.
Are we going to listen to it?
There are vast swathes of the world where it is extremely difficult to be gay or to be a woman.
Where Where individuals are being persecuted, it is right that we offer sanctuary.
But we will not be able to sustain an asylum system if, in effect, simply being gay or a woman or fearful of discrimination in your country of origin is sufficient to qualify for protection.
Right, okay.
Ella, your reaction to that?
Well, I disagree with Suella Braverman in terms of my approach to immigration policy is much more liberal.
But I think the point that she raises in terms of this sort of stumbling block that we seem to be coming up against democratically about how a government can enact immigration policy, what kind of decisions can be made, and this sort of perennial issue of the European Convention on Human Rights, which you know is basically talking about, I think it's a debate that has to be had out.
You know, whether or not she's right, of course, there are lots of places where, well, she used the term vast swathes, which would suggest that she still intends the kind of generosity of the asylum process to be quite vast.
And you would hope so.
But obviously, there are, you know, there are practical questions around whether or not the simple kind of tick box technicalities of signing up to the ECHR is relevant anymore, whether that's something that this country wants to do.
And I think at least we should have that debate.
I mean, Paula, every time she opens her mouth, half the country screams, you're racist, you're this, you're that.
I mean, she gets a hell of a lot of abuse.
Other people commend her straight talking and the fact she's prepared to sometimes say the unmentionable and not cares about upsetting people to encourage debate.
Where do you sit with this particular one?
I mean, there are going to be millions and millions more people seeking asylum.
We know this, seeking to be refugees.
No, but there are.
We know that.
No, Piers.
No, we don't know.
Yes, we do.
No, we don't know that.
There are people guessing that that is what will happen.
It is highly likely as a result.
Climate change, if nothing else, it is highly likely to go.
Where are they going to go?
We know, because the figures tell us, that most refugees go to the country next door.
That is where most, something like two-thirds, that's where they go.
That wasn't what I said.
But I said there's going to be a lot of people claiming asylum asylum where in the UK?
Well, all over the world.
Well, that may be the case.
But my point is, if the numbers are going to go exponentially very high, which seems likely, most experts believe that, is it not sensible of a British Home Secretary to say, well, maybe we should look at trimming the criteria, making it more concentrated on particular groups of people.
This isn't about the criteria, peers.
It's very simple.
The criteria says, are you suffering persecution?
That's what it's about.
It's the Home Office.
It's the infrastructure.
It's the system that is failing.
And that is under the watch of Swella Bravan.
That's what needs to be looked at.
So we don't point our finger at the 20,000 odd people who have made their way across the channel.
We point our finger at Swella Brotherman and we ask her, why is it that the Home Office is no longer fit for her?
Well, we can also point a finger at the smugglers who are making tons of money from making men, women and children get on little boats and don't care if they drown on it.
So why do we not then have a centre in Calais where we can properly process action?
We should, but that's a different kind of part of this debate.
I mean, she's got to do a tricky job, Swella Bravana, right?
Many people believe this country has not currently got control of its borders.
There are tens of thousands of people coming here illegally on these boats and so on and so on.
Other countries reporting similar stuff.
This specific point she's making, are we now in an age where a lot of people claim to be persecuted who are not actually, by the old definition, being persecuted?
I don't really know where she would have got that from because I mean my judgment would be that she actually doesn't really know at all what's going on with the figures.
I mean you said just now that she's very straight talking.
I would actually argue she was the master of deflection.
She gave that huge speech today which I think is just a right-wing dog whistle to the right-wing side of her party, the white nationalists who are in the Conservative Party.
And there's no policy there.
No idea what we're going to do next.
No proposition.
She's just a racist.
Is she a racist?
She is a racist.
Because what she's doing is she's hedging her bet.
She's going to become party leader, hopefully in her mind in the next 10, sorry, five years.
And she's whistling to that side of the party that might not have elected Rishi Sunak because they are also racist.
But isn't it true that absolutely anyone in this country who raises any concern about even the small boats coming in in such large numbers immediately gets called a racist in the same way that anyone who raises a red flag about any element of gender ideology gets called transfer because I would say that's a lazy whistle the other way.
Well then why you just hang out these kind of slurs against people and actually often it's just a wild exaggeration of what they're attempting to do which is have a debate about the best way to handle things.
But then if that was true why did she then identify being homosexual and why did she identify being a woman?
Why didn't she say for example seek an asylum as a political because you're a political activist?
Why didn't she say that?
She has specifically identified topics that she knows are going to get people riled up.
She wants us to fight with each other because then that means we can't.
Well, I would say to fight people are riled up anyway.
So I'm not sure they need much riling.
People do genuinely care about this stuff.
Let's move on to something else I think people care about.
Ella, does working from home make you fat?
This is this new survey because so many more people are now sitting at home.
Apparently they're all couch potatoes.
I work from home and obviously you can see.
I mean, clearly, disprove the theory.
But what do you think of this idea that we're now becoming a nation of lazy couch potatoes and it's being exemplified by the work from home phenomenon?
It's a bit like everything kills you.
Everything makes you fat these days.
I think we're unhealthily obsessed with being obsessed with our weight.
But so it's obvious that if you're not out in the world, then it's going to have an effect.
And I don't think we should be at all in the business of lecturing people about their lifestyle choices when it comes to weight or anything else.
I don't agree.
But I do.
I don't agree.
I think the nanny should, we should have a nanny state.
We do it all the time.
We did it with cigarettes.
We do it with the stuff that makes it.
It's pretty fat.
Why shouldn't we do it?
It's awful that we do it with cigarettes.
But the thing about working from home, it's not that it's bad for your waistline.
I think it's bad for public life.
I think we should be making actually a positive argument against working from home if I can't.
Okay, we've all made the effort to come in today.
Ava, where do you sit on this?
I mean, I think working from home has benefits, but it also clearly has negatives.
One of them might well be you don't move as much.
Apparently, it's statistically proven you don't do your steps that you should do.
I don't know.
I think you sleep a lot better if you're at home.
You've got more time with your kids.
I think you've got an all-round healthier life.
And I do think a lot of this policy comes out of the sort of, sorry, but the big corporations who'd like you to travel into work and buy from their sandwich shops and pay money on the train.
Well, there's a bit of that.
And I do feel for the small businesses who post-pandemic just have lost all their business because of traffic, you know, foot traffic.
But I also think that office life does form a far more creative entity for many companies, particularly creative companies, than the work from home phenomenon.
It does, Paula.
When we're all together, if we were all in a room together now, we would be more creative as a group than if we're all at home.
Fresh Air Beats Peloton 00:00:49
And that's why we're moving to this hybrid kind of format, aren't we?
When that research was done, that research was done in 2021.
And of course, we're all kind of sluggish, not really knowing where we were.
And yes, our backs ached because we sat in uncomfortable chairs.
Now we're moving into this hybrid stage.
We know what it's about.
Do you know the market for fitness apps is quoted as being £120 billion.
You know what I do?
I get on my Peloton.
Exactly.
And I watch Talk TV.
Exactly.
You're a Peloton man.
Absolutely.
Specifically, an Olivia Amato man.
Really?
Best trainer.
Thank you, Pat.
Great to see you.
You've got something you want to say before you go, Ella?
Got five seconds.
You know, wouldn't you rather be out in the fresh air than on a Peloton?
I would.
I'm going to go in the fresh air right now.
That's that from me.
Thank you, Pat.
Whatever you're up to, keep it uncensored.
Export Selection