All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Dec. 11, 2023 - Uncensored - Piers Morgan
50:08
20231211_piers-morgan-uncensoredalex-jones-returns-to-x-abd
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Limits on Free Speech 00:09:20
Live from the news building in London, this is Piers Morgan Uncensored.
Well, it's certainly uncensored now because I was about to say something which would be really uncensored.
But you know what?
It's my first day back at the studio after a week in COVID hell.
So I'll forgive the miscreants that just created that little drama for us and we'll move on.
I'll kill them after the show.
Well, good evening from London.
Welcome to Piers Morgan Uncensored.
Tonight on the show, Rishi Sunak is grilled at the COVID inquiry as the Rwanda plan backlash raises fresh questions about his leadership.
There's even talk of a Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage dream ticket, which strikes me as the opposite of a dream.
Abdul Wahid is the leader of an Islamist movement which glorified the Hamas attacks and chanted the jihad on the streets of London.
He's also, in his day job, an NHS GP.
And he'll join me live in the studio.
Well, I'm a passionate defender of free speech.
There's a massive clue in the name of this show, Uncensored.
And I believe in it.
I believe that all honestly held opinions, however offensive they are, belong in the open, where they can be challenged, debated, and exposed.
But there are limits on free speech.
There are laws and there is a line.
I've always said that Alex Jones is a perfect example of where that line got crossed.
He's the conspiracy theorist and shock jock in America who made hundreds of millions of dollars by peddling outrageous lies that the Sandy Hook school massacre shooting was a hoax.
For the uninitiated, this is him shouting at me a week after that massacre on CNN.
The tyrants did it.
Hitler took the guns.
Stalin took the guns.
Mao took the guns.
Fidel Castro took the guns.
Hugo Chavez took the guns.
And I'm here to tell you, 1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms.
Doesn't matter how many lemmings you get out there on the street begging for them to have their guns taken.
We will not relinquish them.
Do you understand?
He kind of won that debate, actually, because the only response in America to the Sandy Hook massacre was to do nothing.
In fact, they continued to sell a lot more guns.
A million new guns get sold in America every month.
And there are already over 400 million in circulation.
So if you're wondering, if you're curious why there are so many more mass shootings in America than there used to be, that's why.
And if you're wondering what's going to happen in the next few years as a million new guns enter circulation and nothing gets done to stop mass shootings, my guess is there'll be a lot more mass shootings.
I've covered a lot of them, especially when I was at CNN in America.
Very few of them, in fact, none of them actually, were as soul-crushing as Sandy Hook.
20 children aged between six and seven were murdered by a mass killer with a semi-automatic AR-15 rifle.
Alex Jones' reaction to this absolute appalling atrocity was to tell his followers on his InfoWar show it was all a government hoax set up by the Obama administration, a deep state plot to justify new gun laws that would take away their guns.
He said the grieving families were all crisis actors.
Sandy Hook, it's got inside job written all over it.
Sandy Hook is a synthetic, completely fake with actors, in my view, manufactured.
I couldn't believe it at first.
People just instinctively know that there's a lot of fraud going on.
But it took me about a year with Sandy Hook to come to grips with the fact that the whole thing was fake.
Well, as a direct result of his lies, those grieving families were harassed and threatened with death by his followers.
Erica Lafferty, daughter of the murder principal Dawn Hochsprunk, got death and rape threats from people who said her mother was fictional.
Robbie Parker, who lost his daughter Emily, was chased down the street by a Jones supporter asking him how much he'd earned by lying about the death of his daughter.
Mark Barden, father of seven-year-old victim Daniel Barden, says that one of Jones' followers urinated on his dead son's grave.
Some of these families have successfully sued him now for defamation, which is explicitly not protected by America's First Amendment.
Jones was ordered to pay record damages, more than a billion dollars in total.
He's yet, of course, to pay a penny.
He actually declared himself bankrupt to avoid doing so.
Nevertheless, Elon Musk has inexplicably decided it's time to restore Alex Jones to X, formerly Twitter.
I'm a big supporter generally of Elon Musk.
I think the work he's doing to eradicate bias and protect free speech in the place where so many debates now originate is an important, very important one.
But this was a profoundly disappointing and wrong decision.
I'd like to remind Elon what he said about reinstating Alex Jones when he first took over.
He said this.
He said he wouldn't restore him and said, my firstborn child died in my arms.
I felt his last heartbeat.
I have no mercy for anyone who would use the deaths of children for gain, politics or fame.
Well, that is precisely what Alex Jones did.
He literally used dead children for gain, fame and politics.
So what's changed in a year, Elon?
Well, there's now a big movement to rehabilitate Alex Jones online.
Many argue he's right more often than he's wrong when all the evidence points to the complete opposite.
And in the case of Sandy Hook, it wasn't just one little mistake that he owned up to.
Andrew Tate tweeted, Alex Jones is an effing hero.
Really?
He's not my kind of hero.
He's the opposite of a hero.
This is a man who repeatedly and deliberately lied about the mass shooting of children at school to enrich himself.
He called it all as phony as a $3 bill.
And yet that's what he is.
Yes, he's now apologised, but he did that under legal duress because his business was about to go to the wall.
This wasn't something he blurted out once and instantly regretted.
He did this for years.
And every time he lied about Sandy Hook, he made more money, night after night, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year.
And he knew what was going on to these families as a result of his harassment on air.
To see him back on X selling his book, his merchandise, his website, his info wars, frankly makes me want to puke.
Every opinion should be heard, but inciting harassment and violence to profit from unspeakable grief, to pour into the wounds of those families yet more misery and pain.
That's not free speech.
It's deliberate hate speech.
And it's disgusting.
Well, kicking off the week, I'm talking about my PAC, talk to you contributor Esther Krakow, Associate Editor of the Mirror, Kevin Maguire, political journalist, Ava Santina.
We're going to get into British politics, but just your reaction, Kevin, first of all, to that.
We're going to be debating it later on the show.
But Elon Musk bringing back Alex Jones, who is still not paid a dime of that $1.2 billion of damage.
It's one of the record defamation settlements in American history.
But given the people that he defamed, what do we think of this decision?
Yeah, where's Musk's humanity?
Where's his culture?
Well, he had it a year ago.
It's gone.
In fact, he compared it to the death of his own child and his aunt.
It's gone, I'm afraid.
He's thrashing around.
Like, Twitter's worth, oh X, as he's renamed it, is worth less than half what he paid for it.
He's desperate to get people on.
He thinks he'll get controversy and followers.
And somehow, if he thinks he's going to attract advertisers and make money from that, he's utterly wrong.
He deserves, Musk deserves to fail now on TwitterX.
I'm on it, you're on it, everybody's on it, on it here.
Well, Lester, we're all on this platform.
It's beyond yours.
If you're going to be the champion of free speech, you're going to have unsavoury characters like Alex Jones.
If you've backed yourself into a corner by saying you're the person that has this platform that's going to champion free speech, you effectively.
You have to let him back on.
I have no interest in serving Alex Jesus aligned with free speech.
And I do think my experience of X has really gone off a cliff since him buying it.
But this is a matter of principle.
If you're going to say that I'm the king of free speech, well, this is what you have to do.
Lester he takes off people who mock him.
Apparently, it counts about him.
So he defends himself.
But also, the point about free speech in America, there are many things the First Amendment does not protect when it comes to free speech.
Incitement to any violence, defamation, as we've discussed.
What he was saying that he was found guilty of is not covered by free speech.
Fraud, obscenity, child pornography, fighting words and threats.
There are many things you can't say and be covered by even America's First Amendment, widely acknowledged to be one of the broadest supporters of free speech in the world.
So this idea that somehow Alex Jones is a free speech warrior, it's just nonsense.
Yeah, well, they'll probably deem that the First Amendment isn't adequate anymore.
But look, you know, this is also something we're importing over here.
I think we're seeing free speech and the apparent merits of free speech is diluting our politics over here.
It's something that a lot of the National Conservatives are getting into, and it's really worrying.
Okay, let's turn to UK politics.
Laundering His Reputation 00:09:19
Let's turn Kevin to the COVID inquiry, Richie Sunak.
I mean, this is a guy right on the ropes at the moment.
I watched about two hours of the inquiry today.
And I have to say, it's sort of confirmed my view.
If Richie Sunak had been the leader before he became leader, he might have stood a much better chance.
He came over to me as pretty diligent, intelligent, calm, talked his way through the various issues, accepted, you know, things had gone wrong, accepted things had gone right, whatever.
He was a kind of, you know, an impressive, I felt, an impressive witness.
Yep.
Am I wrong to think that?
But for a man who says he's a master of detail, there must have been more than 20 times he couldn't recollect, he couldn't recall, he couldn't grasp it, he didn't know.
It was as if he hadn't been in the room.
So I thought, look, he decided he'll make the apology, try not to be tetchy, not attack those who disagreed with him.
I thought that was all clever strategy, but I felt the number of times his memory failed him and the number of messages he'd lost when supposedly changed.
The stuff on the WhatsApp messages, the number of them now who are claiming, well, they all disappear when I change my phone.
I've changed mine, but let's watch what he said, the Prime Minister.
You don't now have access to any of the WhatsApps that you did send during the time of the crisis, do you?
No, I don't.
I've changed my phone multiple times over the past few years.
And as that has happened, the messages have not come across.
As you said, I'm not a prolific user of WhatsApp in the first instance, primarily communication with my private office.
And obviously, anything that was of significance through those conversations or exchanges would have been recorded officially by my civil servants, as one would expect.
No, what I don't understand.
Boris Johnson said the same thing.
When I've changed my phone, the WhatsApp messages just come over automatically.
And also, by the way, if you're the Chancellor or the Prime Minister of his country, why aren't all your messages automatically preserved for the country that is paying your salary?
I think the bigger question is: why are politicians using WhatsApp?
I think it's deeply unpopular.
Well, but they can use it, but it should all be saved.
Well, but the thing is, they are saved.
In America, you can't circumnavigate.
They're all public records.
The thing is, if the police are conducting a criminal investigation, they will have access to your WhatsApps, even if you physically deleted them off your phone, right?
So they're not lost.
If it warranted a police investigation, they would be able to retrieve those WhatsApp.
But I do think Rishi Sunak handled himself very well.
I think during the inquiry, there was a question about whether he mocked Rashford's sort of plan to give kids free school meals.
That's completely irrelevant to the inquiry.
I mean, most of us are watching this thinking, I really hope there was a point to this.
There are four more modules of this inquiry.
And to ask a politician at the time of Paula's initial cause is irrelevant.
It's all going to take too long, right?
By the time this is finished, we're all half dead anyway, right?
Ironically.
There'll probably be another pandemic by this.
It all takes far too long in this country.
In Sweden, they've done and dusted already.
They finished in 2020.
But I also think the limits of the inquiry have really been tested by these WhatsApps.
I think it's, you know, fun and trivial to look at and just go, well, how on earth do you delete them?
But quite seriously, if you really cared and you wanted to retrieve those messages, you would have a list made of everyone that they ever message and you would retrieve those messages from the recipient of police.
That is possible to do.
You would use it.
And it's hard to imagine a more serious collection of messages than the people running the government at the start of a pandemic.
I mean, this is serious historical record we're talking about.
Hillary Clinton's use of private ED 2016 was a huge contribution of her losing against Donald Trump.
In fact, there was no evidence she misused it, but she used it when she shouldn't.
And of course, here you have Boris Johnson, you have the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
How can they get away with it?
She was sacked because she was using a private email to communicate.
So why on earth is that any different when Rishi Sunak when he's in the middle of the day?
Yeah, I don't think it's...
In the grand scheme of things, these WhatsApp messages, frankly, are irrelevant.
I want to know about the PPE contracts.
I actually want to know where money was.
They're not the lessons.
No, but there's a record of actual contracts.
Yeah, but I think Ava's right.
A lot of his stuff is probably there, but it's disappeared, right?
Because they don't want to be held accountable for it.
When you smell a rat.
Well, talking of smelling rats, Nigel Farage came third in.
I'm a celebrity.
Get me out of here.
I have absolutely no truck with a little snake because of what he did to me over Donald Trump, right?
Which just to remind viewers, when I launched this show, having three months earlier texted Farage, my personal congratulations, when he got an interview with Donald Trump, he then tried to sabotage mine in the most despicable, snake-like manner.
So I found his true colours then.
He's a snake, right?
And it was brilliant last night to see him not only losing again a public vote, he's lost, this is the seventh, six elections he's lost.
Seven.
This is seven now.
And he came third, and the winner was a bloke I've never heard of.
He used to be in a reality show called Made in Chelsea years ago, apparently.
My son knows him on the nightclub circuit.
I want to challenge your son, by the way.
I don't think he's quite as nice as your son.
Really?
Really?
He is.
Yeah.
Well, Spencer assures me he's a good lad.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I haven't met him, but I mean, just the fact I've never heard of him.
And somehow this is a glorious triumph for Farage.
What triumph are we talking about?
Farage lost to a reality TV star, ended up covered in snakes appropriately.
Why does that make him more electable?
Am I missing something?
Yeah, but he's now got one and a half million pounds, so he can reopen his bank account.
Yes.
A very elite bank.
He's got enough cash.
Finishing third is where Matt Hancock, the discussion health secretary, finished.
He's just the new car.
I think we're experiencing a bout of collective amnesia here to suggest that Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage are the dream tickets.
Has everyone forgotten the last four years?
Well, I don't know.
Also, it's quite interesting because if he is going to potentially run for office again, I mean, he is still in a political party.
He's in the Reform Party.
Is this not a question for the Electoral Commission?
Because this has not been free publicity for him for the past couple of weeks.
He's been able to parade himself and launder his reputation.
And look, you know, of course he got on well there.
He is a very amiable person.
He's one of the most well-known people in the country.
He doesn't need this free PR.
The biggest problem, it seems to me, for Rishi Sunak, is this business about Rwanda, which I think is a failed policy and has been from the very start.
And I think it's not going to work.
And even if it does work, it'll be tiny.
And the cost it's cost the taxpayer to generate a few people getting on a plane for the optics seems to me completely obscene.
Oh, it's a zombie policy.
It's finished.
What, 290 million pound worth of money?
What will happen?
I mean, is it likely that enough Tory rebels are going to actually try and bring him down?
I've often seen them bottle it at the end.
So maybe tomorrow they don't bring him down then, but then they have a go in January, February.
He can't escape this now.
If this policy is as unworkable as it seems, I think the Tories should let it fail on its own merits instead of ousting Rishi Sunak as leader.
Because honestly, you know what I would do, Father Jim?
I would just announce tomorrow, the right after Christmas, it's done.
We're pulling out.
Sorry, we've had a good go at this.
The only way to actually make it properly work, probably as Robert Jennerick rightly identified, is to break international law.
I'm not prepared as British Prime Minister for us to do that.
Nor is Rwanda.
Right.
The authoritarian leader of repressive research.
Let's end with a bit of fun with Rishi Sunak.
This is artificial intelligence, having a bit of fun with me and him in a clip that's gone viral on TikTok.
Shortly, I'll be having a word with the Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, after Rishi had decided to block the greedy BBC from implementing their largest increase on their license fee in 40 years.
He will now be telling us why he decided to take this action.
So Rishi, why have you decided to block this huge increase on the television licence fee?
Well, Piers, to be frank, I'm sick of them taking the f ⁇ ing.
They're literally trying to make the likes of the British public pay the wages of Gary f ⁇ ing Lineke and Zoe f ⁇ all.
I mean, come on.
Who the f ⁇ watches the telly anymore anyway?
He's won my vote.
Yep.
Final word on.
It's pretty scary.
None of that is real.
I mean, that's quite scary.
Look, you know, if it's labelled as comedy, political satire, then that's fine.
But when it's passed off as genuinely... Quick word about Lineke, who's back in the headlines again for expressing an opinion.
I don't care.
I mean, Gary's a maid of mine.
I don't care what he says.
Why do we care so much about his views?
Because it's a lot easier to put on the front page that you're upset with Gary Lineke rather than you're upset with the Prime Minister, who you are in bed with.
Esther, can you put up the BBC pretends to be impartial?
Listen, at the end of the day, I actually wonder why Gary Lineke continues to work for the BBC if he feels this strongly and he knows.
I think he likes talking about football.
For the BBC.
I wonder why he chooses to work for the British.
Look, I'm quite pleased he's not complaining about foreign players coming over here and taking our corners.
But you know what it is?
It's papers like the Daily Mail on the right always denouncing cancel culture.
But the moment somebody says they don't, something they don't like, they want to cancel it.
It would be quite interesting to see what they'd be doing if Lineke suddenly did a complete U-turn and started saying, I'm fully in favour of the right.
I mean, you can almost do it for fun, right?
BBC Impartiality Questioned 00:15:01
If you started tweeting everything that the Conservative right agreed with, of course, none of them would be furious.
I don't think that's it.
I think it's because the BBC license fee is going up.
I'm going to have to pay for this.
They shouldn't attack his right to say it.
As you rightly said in the monologue, free speech, that includes hearing what you don't like and you don't agree with.
It does.
But you know what?
Free speech does have limits.
And a society that even a free democratic society that doesn't impose limits on free speech is not actually a thriving democracy.
It becomes something else.
Thank you, Pat.
Good to see you all.
Uncensored next, I'm joined for an exclusive interview with the suburban NHS doctor, who's been revealed to be the leader of an extreme Islamist group.
Is a GP calling for jihad something we should tolerate?
That's next.
Welcome back to Uncensored.
My next guest has been a GP with the NHS for 25 years, working as a mentor for recently qualified doctors at his surgery in Harrow, Northwest London.
Dr. Wahid Azif Shader has another less wholesome identity as leader of an Islamic extremist group, which was recently caught on camera, calling for jihad at an anti-Israel demonstration.
Dr. Shader, also known as Abdul Wahid, joins me.
No, welcome to you.
Thank you for coming in today.
You've come from your work as an NHS GP.
Let me first just ask you your reaction to the clip we just played.
These are members of your organisation and they're allowed chance of jihad on the streets of London.
Do you think that's acceptable?
That demonstration was a very carefully planned demonstration where the placards, the banners, the speeches from the platform were calling for a military intervention of official armies of Muslim countries to rescue the people of Gaza with a situation of a civilian population of two million who are being massacred and slaughtered.
Anywhere else in the world, you would find it a completely straightforward thing for people calling for military intervention.
But they weren't chanting, we want military intervention.
They were chanting jihad.
So my question for you is simply, do you support the chanting of jihad?
The chanting of jihad by somebody that unscripted...
Well, quite a few people there.
Actually, actually, no, it's about two people.
So you would condemn that?
Of course I wouldn't condemn that.
You wouldn't?
No, because jihad in that context is, as they understood it and they were chanting, is for the official armies of Muslim countries to enter and intervene.
We're in a situation now, Piers, where 1% of the population of Gaza has been killed in the space of two months.
1% of the children of Gaza have been killed.
Anywhere else in the world, you yourself called for military intervention in Ukraine by NATO with probably less legal and moral cause than there is in Gaza.
When we stand...
Oh, absolutely.
Do you think when Vladimir Putin illegally invaded Ukraine, the moral right of Ukrainians to respond is somehow equivalent to the moral right of people in Palestine after October the 7th to do the same?
Is that what you're saying?
I'm saying that the people of Ukraine have actually one of the most powerful armies in the region.
It doesn't change the fact that they were illegally invaded, does it, Doctor?
The people of Gaza have nobody helping them.
Well, they do, they have Hamas.
They have nobody helping them.
Hang on, hang on.
They have a terrorist organization called Hamas.
They have nobody helping them.
They've got 30,000 terrorists.
They have.
Who committed on October the 7th?
Activized terrorists.
They have lined up against them, the murderous Israeli defense force.
They have lined up against them the United States, who this week, today in the Washington Post, it was said that the white phosphorus that's being used by the IDF is supplied by them.
They have lined up against them, the Britain and the EU.
They have lined up against them, the Arab rulers in the region, who carry on their trade cooperation.
Listen, as I've made clear, Doctor, I think a lot of the response from Israel, particularly right now, I would deem to be testing everyone's sense of what is proportionate.
There's no question.
I do not subscribe to the view it's genocide.
That is actually the understatement of the central.
Possibly, but I think they have a right to defend themselves against a terror group who have gone on record in the last two weeks as saying they want to do what happened again and again.
I understand.
It's horrific.
It's horrific.
It's beyond beyond horrific.
What is it?
It's horrific.
Literally what we are watching, what we are watching on our phones, on our laptops, on our TVs, is an extension of what's been happening since 1940.
Let me play you your reaction.
All right, I understand.
Let me play you, after October the 7th, a few days later, you took part in a talk on YouTube and you said this.
Brave Mujahideen, they gave the enemy a punch on the nose.
All right?
And it's a very welcome punch on the nose.
How can you categorise a terror attack in which 1,200, mostly innocent civilian people were brutally attacked, raped, tortured, beheaded, and murdered?
How can you, a British NHS doctor or an NHS doctor in Britain, how can you say that's a welcome punch on the nose?
Will you let me answer fully?
Yes.
I will be frank.
I'll be as concise as I can be.
But if you give me the courtesy of letting me answer fully.
Okay.
I will defend the right of the Palestinians to resist an occupation.
When you look at that...
That's not resistance, that's terrorism.
When you look at what happened on the 7th of October, as if that is the day that everything started...
I didn't say that.
You didn't say that, but when people look at it...
Do you think what happened that day was a terrorist attack?
When people looked at the- The word terrorism has become so politicized.
Actually, not really.
The story doesn't.
You're deeply sympathetic to the pride of Palestinian civilian, which I am, by the way, and have expressed many times.
What you can't do is be weasily mouthed about what happened on October the 7th.
I asked you to ask you to finish.
Yeah, but you're equivocating about it being a terrorist attack.
I'm not equivocating, and I will explain why, okay?
The word terrorism, by the way, in India last month.
We're going to talk about India.
The word terrorism.
In India, people who supported the Australian cricket team have been arrested onto terrorist offences.
In the West Bank, people who are revealing, have been told, if you reveal what happened in the prisons, you will be arrested on terrorism.
Do you think what happened on October the 7th was a terrorist attempt?
It's a resistance attack.
It's a resistance.
Not a terror attack.
Piers, if, if, and it's...
NHS if he.
If, I'm asking you to let me finish.
If, right, our Islamic standard in conflict, in warfare, our Prophet, peace be upon him, sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, he said, you can't kill children, you can't kill women, you can't kill the elder, you can't mutilate.
Hamas did all that.
If anybody did that, if...
What do you mean if?
I say if, because...
They literally broadcast it on their own streaming platform.
Well, I'll tell you what, a lot of us saw.
Hamas.
Broadcast it merrily to the world.
Here's us doing these terrible things.
What do you mean if?
What many of us saw on that day were videos coming out showing people saying, we will not harm women, we will not harm them.
Oh, do me a favour.
No, no, that's what.
Doctor.
I'm saying that.
I'm saying that.
Resistance is a right in Islam.
It's a right in international law.
It's even a right that Churchill said in his History of the English-speaking peoples.
He actually wrote in that book, it is a primary right of men to kill and die for the land they live in.
You literally read me a description of what people who follow Islam are not supposed to do.
And Hamas did all of those things.
But your response is to say, well, hang on.
I've seen videos of them saying, we don't want to do that stuff.
No, yes.
I find that pretty offensive, doctor.
We all know they did it because they boasted to the world with their own videos what they were doing.
I find it amazing that respected journalists like yourself seem to have suspended their critical thinking.
No, no, I'm believing what Hamas wanted me to see.
Well, you're believing what you saw.
No, no.
What Hamas themselves broadcast to the world because they wanted to take great glee in what they'd done.
There's no ambiguity about it.
I asked you to let me finish and I'm going to explain.
You've got to answer questions.
I will answer the question.
Let's agree on a principle.
If atrocities were committed, I will never condone them.
I will say that.
So do you condemn what happened on October the 7th?
If atrocities are committed, you know who's responsible for it.
What do you mean if?
Who they were.
Who's responsible for it then?
Oh, so you don't condemn it?
Okay.
Who is responsible for?
The Jews brought it on themselves.
Actually, I would say more than that.
I would say the powers that believe that Israel should be a colony for themselves in the Middle East, they are the ones responsible.
Do you know what?
I'm really struggling.
I've got to be honest with you.
I'm really struggling.
Do you know that a British National Health Service doctor of 25 years, a man who's supposed to be seeing patients all day, every day and putting them right, is incapable of saying what happened when it was literally broadcast to the world by a terror group?
Nor do you think they're terrorists.
You think it's resistance.
You seem to want to go either way to justify it.
You don't even believe what they showed us with their own technology.
And I'm just curious.
Do you think any of this is compatible with you being a doctor in the National Health Service?
You don't have to be a doctor.
Do your patients know that you don't have to be a doctor to care for the lives of 2 million people in Gaza.
You don't have to be a doctor.
I'm concerned about whether your patients here in this country were Hamas or a prescribed terrorist organization.
And I've said to you...
With the listening to Miss Internet, do these patients?
Do they know your views?
I don't talk to my patients about my views in a 10-minute confrontation, do I?
Nobody does that.
It's just a foolish question, isn't it?
That's a foolish question.
Nobody talks to people.
Why do you use a different name for that?
I use my name.
Well, you don't.
You have two names.
One, the leader of the group.
Abdul Wahid is a name that family, friends, and other people call me.
Actually, even some people.
That's not the name you use at work, right?
Even some people at work.
And Wahid al-Sifshada is my legal name, which people use in other forums.
That's not a very unusual name.
In May 2023, a prominent person.
You know, I'm going to ask you another question.
You did not give me the courtesy of the...
You know why?
Because your answers were so outrageous.
You censor.
That's your answer.
No, no, no, no.
I don't censor.
The person doing the censoring is you.
No, you are censoring.
Who wants me to try and understand and believe that what Hamas showed us, boasted about with their own technology, broadcasting it to the world, was not what we saw?
That's called censorship.
Well, that is actually the purest personification.
I tell you, you're censoring the truth I've ever encountered.
When you bring Mark Regev onto the show and you question him, lightweight questioning, albeit, lightweight questioning about the atrocities that were happening.
What do you think it's lightweight?
I actually asked you a difficult question.
Actually, you don't ask difficult questions.
You completely accept, you sit there and listen to the most ridiculous explanations and your answers, you mean?
Well, you don't give me the chance to say that.
No, I've heard your answers.
No, you didn't.
Oh, I have.
You didn't.
I have.
You didn't.
You don't.
Okay, let's do a little quick result.
You're telling the answer.
Let's do a little quick fire recap.
Do you think Hamas are a terror group?
I believe it's a resistance war.
Do you think what they did on October the 7th was a terror attack?
I believe that if civilians got killed on that day, it is appalling.
It is appalling.
You're a doctor, man.
It is appalling.
You're a doctor in the world.
I also believe that.
What do you mean?
1,200 people got massacred.
And 1% of the population.
I can share your concerns about what's happening.
No, you know you don't.
Oh, no, I do.
Oh, no, I do.
16 years.
16 years.
If a doctor is saying the word 16 people got victims of atrocity.
If, if, on October the 7th.
How can you say that?
So what, you tell me this.
What is a proportionate response to 16 years of the city?
No, no, no.
Think in a cage.
No, no.
What is a proportionate response?
Not a terror attack.
What is it?
Not a terror attack.
If they just attacked IDS.
I've asked many times what is proportional to responsibility.
So do you accept that?
So you're saying just to attack the IDF would have been acceptable?
I personally do not answer that.
I'm answering that.
Let me answer your question.
I'm going to say this.
They're not able to agree.
I think the strategy at the moment.
Can we answer that?
Let me answer the question.
Just answer military targets.
My view of what they're doing is I don't think it's going to work.
I don't think the IDF is going to eradicate Hamas.
And if that is the mission statement and in the process, they kill tens of thousands of innocent men, women, and children.
If they do that, I think they will radicalize an entire new generation and make it worse.
That's my honest view of what I'm now witnessing.
But let me come back to that.
That's why.
Hang on.
That's why when we talk about a military intervention, actually, what happened?
But doctor, what happened on October 7th wasn't a military intervention.
No, no, what happened?
It was a terror attack.
What we want as a military intervention.
And you don't even think it happened, do you?
What we want is a military intervention from Muslim armies to rescue a beleaguered people and replace anti-Palestinian people have to be given the same human rights respect.
They have to be given...
No, no, I will interrupt you.
It's not your show.
You don't just talk forever.
What's the point of asking?
I'm going to tell you what I think about the Palestinian plight, which I've talked about many times.
You've obviously missed it.
I think they should be given the same human rights as everybody else.
I think that's the right thing.
And it's particularly the same rights of the Israelis.
I think it's been a 75-year conflict with conflict.
Yes, a conflict.
Conflict.
Yes, where people have been driven out of the Prime Minister.
Yes, conflict.
750,000 people in the Israeli state.
It's wrong.
That was wrong.
Encroaching on more and more of the people.
That was wrong.
So have been all the wars launched against Israel.
That's been wrong.
All of it is wrong.
The history shows this is a conflict riddled with wrongs on both sides.
No, it didn't.
I never said it did.
Well, you seem to.
No, you don't even think it happened the whole seventh.
The framing of the debate.
You don't even think it happened.
I do think it happened.
Oh, you did, it did happen.
1,200 people were massacred.
I think 1,200 people were killed.
Were they massacred?
Yeah, they were killed.
Right, by terrorists.
They were killed by people who were resisting an occupation.
Bullshit.
They're terrorists.
Desire for Sharia Law 00:04:22
Yeah, well, that's your view.
It is my view.
Yeah, by the way, it's the view of any person who is not Israeli or Palestinian, right?
Anyone can go...
I don't disagree with that.
I disagree with that.
Have you not heard one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter?
Have you never heard that?
Have you never heard that?
Let me just play, I want to just read you this.
In May 2023, Lukmar Makim, who's a prominent member of your organisation, called for an end to the secular order so that, quotes, the UK will no longer be able to pump its liberal filth, its LGBT filth, its feminist filth into the heart of the Muslim world.
Do you agree with him?
I agree that the West is pumping secular democracy into the Muslim world.
Doing LGBT filth.
I agree that actually what we want to see in the Muslim world is a system with an accountable government, right?
An elected leader, upholding family values, right?
We want to see an economic system where wealth is circulated.
Do you believe in equal rights for gay people?
I believe that actually the Islamic standard of law should be the standard of law in the country.
Obviously, that's the standard I believe in.
And I believe in what is your view of homosexuality?
I believe homosexuality is a sin.
A sin, it's wrong.
So when gay people come to your practice, do you treat them?
Oh, of course.
Why?
Because I treat all my patients with kindness and without discouragement.
Do you tell them that you think what they do is a sin?
What an absurd thing to say.
Why wouldn't you do it?
Why would I?
Why don't you say that?
Why wouldn't you say that?
Because they don't come to the bottom.
Why don't you try going back to your surgery tomorrow?
Why don't you go to surgery tomorrow?
Before we go any further to your patients, I want you to know what I think.
I think that I agree with the guy who said that this country is full of LGBT filth.
Feminist filth.
I don't think Hamas are a terror group.
I don't think what they did on October the 7th was a terror attack.
And by the way, do you want me now to treat you?
Do you understand what professional integrity is?
You think that's professional integrity?
No, I think professional integrity is treating the people I treat with respect and with kindness.
How do I know you do?
Well, they know I do.
Do they?
Oh, yeah.
Do they?
Oh, yeah.
Do they know you think they're filth?
I didn't say that they're filthy.
You agreed with what he said.
I didn't agree with what he said.
You said, I agree.
No, I agree.
You can play the tote back if you like.
I agree with the fact that the Muslim world should have the Islamic system.
Yeah, I didn't say I agree with that.
I don't use words.
Do you want full Sharia law for this country?
For this country.
I'm working for...
Our group works for the restoration of Islam in the Muslim world.
But here?
We work to uphold Islamic values in our personal life and in the Muslim community.
Do you want Sharia law here or not?
I would love...
You know what?
You'd love it?
No, I tell you what.
In this last two months, one of the strangest things has been where people here have been looking at the people in Gaza and they've been going and looking and reading the Quran.
And they've been looking at it.
And I'd invite you and your audience to do that.
Just to clarify.
I would do that.
Just clarify, you would like Sharia law here.
And they are not convinced by these neo-constructions.
Would you like Sharia law here?
Actually, I don't think...
All I've done is ask you straightforward questions.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
You've revealed your beliefs in the answers.
Yeah, you have.
You may not even realise what you've done, but you have.
I believe in Islamic law, and I don't believe in the caricature that you try and present of Islam.
Would you like Sharia law in this country?
I would love to see you want Sharia law in this country.
I don't want Sharia law in this country.
Well, that's your wish.
So you would.
Yeah, but I know.
Would you?
I believe it's the best system, but I'm not working.
Would you like it in this country?
I'm not working.
Yes or no?
I believe in Islamic.
Yes or no?
You know, the Islamic civilization was the only civilization.
You'd be very quick to answer everything else.
Yes or no?
Islamic civilization was the only civilization that brought peace to the Middle East for Muslims, Jews and Christians.
I would love to see that system there.
Wouldn't you like to see a system?
Who pays your salary?
Wouldn't you like to see a system where Muslims, Jews and Christians would live in Israel?
I don't want this country to live under the Sharia law.
It's not talking about this Middle East.
I'm talking about the Middle East.
But you suggested you wanted it to be under Sharia law.
No, you suggested...
Do you or not?
Well, do you or not?
What's funny?
What's funny is your approach of questioning.
Why?
Just answer the question.
Because you know why it's funny.
Yes or no?
You either do or you don't, right?
I ask a question, the answer is yes or no.
Why can't you say yes or no?
I believe in the Islamic system.
Would you like Sharia law in this country?
I would love to.
Yes or no?
I would love to see you want Sharia.
Social Media Heroes 00:11:57
No, no, answer the question.
Never mind what I want.
What do you want?
I want to see the Islamic system re-established.
Would you like Sharia law in this country?
Last time I'm going to ask.
If Sharia law, if Sharia law...
Do you think if Sharia law means upholding family values, means looking after the poor.
It means no gays.
No feminists, i.e. women who get above themselves, right?
That's caricature.
Oh, I know what Sharia law wants.
Why do so many women become Muslim these days?
Because they want to be oppressed.
Is that what you're going to tell me?
No, no.
Why does so many women?
Because they want to be oppressed.
Women in the world become Muslim these days.
You tell me.
You better ask them.
Why don't you tell me what you think?
They seem to find it something that attracts them, Islam.
Really?
Yeah.
Many, many, many women in the West become Muslim.
And for some reason, they seem to like the fact that it's not...
Do you work with women doctors?
Yes, I do.
How do they feel about your views on this?
I keep a very strict professional line between my views.
Do they know what your views are?
When they watch this, they're going to be surprised.
Some of them will know, some of them will not know.
Some of them will know, some of them will not know.
Okay.
Doctor, thank you for coming here.
I appreciate it.
You've been enlightening with your responses.
You may not realise quite how enlightening, but you might find out when you see the reaction.
But I appreciate you coming in.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
Ansense, the next conspiracy theorist Alex Jones is back on X, formerly Twitter, a victory for free speech or a big mistake by Elon Musk.
Debate next.
What about Alex Jones?
He's a conspiracy theorist who made hundreds of millions of dollars spreading the outrageous lies at the Sandy Hook shooting.
It was a hoax.
The grieving families finally sued him for defamation and they were awarded more than a billion dollars, but so far he hasn't paid them a dime.
This is what happened last time I tried to hold him to account.
Do you feel a sense of personal regret and remorse that your actions on it, that your actions on it inspired a lot of people to think these people were actors and their kids didn't really die?
Do you feel genuine remorse?
You let me talk for anything.
500,000 Iraqi children starved to death.
That Melano did it on purpose.
No, I feel way less.
No, I legitimately questioned Sandy Hook and I stand by what I did.
He said it was a fake and a hoax.
You let me finish.
I'm not going to come back on your show in 10 years and you'll say, do you now apologize?
If I sat here and slit my throat on air, it wouldn't be enough for you.
On Tuesday's weekend, Alex Jones was banned from all mainstream social media platforms.
Now Elon Musk has restored him to X, formerly Twitter, extolling his commitment, he says, to free speech.
Where is the line on free speech?
And does Alex Jones cross it?
Well, here's a debate.
It's the journalist Glenn Greenwald, progressive commentator Namaki Const and YouTuber Mark Meachin, also known as Count Dankula.
Welcome to all of you.
Okay, Mark, you're with me.
So let's start with you.
What do you feel about this?
I mean, I've written a column for the New York Post saying I think it's an outrageous decision by Elon Musk, who only a year ago himself said that because one of his children had died in his arms, his own kids, that he never wanted to see anybody who would profit from the death of children for personal gain, for fame or politics.
Now he's done a U-turn on that.
Is he right?
Yeah, I think he's completely right in doing it.
It's Elon Musk's company.
So if he wants Alex Jones back on the platform, then he absolutely can.
And he did put it to a poll to the public, you know, Vox Populi, Dr. Vox Day, and people said they wanted him back in the platform, so he's brought them back on the platform.
Well, it's an amateur poll.
Two million of his followers voted.
We don't know how many times each one voted, et cetera, et cetera.
It's not a sophisticated person.
Each couple can only vote once.
Yeah, but my point is, is there a line though on free speech at all for you?
For me personally, no.
Nothing, no.
No, I think that Alex Jones should be able to go on Twitter.
If they want him there, then that's fine.
They can have him there and he can.
Do you think what he said about the Sandy Hook massacre was justified then?
Justified?
Like, he has the right to say it.
I don't when you say it was justified.
I mean, $1.2 billion worth of damages awarded against him for one of the most serious.
I think his biggest civil suit against an individual in the history of America.
One of the worst defamations, actually, in terms of damages that America's ever seen.
Damages and defamation is not protected by the First Amendment.
And yet you think he was entitled to say it.
I think he had a right to say it.
He's a right to say that a mass shooting that killed 20 young kids was a fake and a hoax, that the parents of the grieving dead were crisis actors.
These were statements which he repeatedly made, which led to actual intimidation, harassment, death, and rape threats, and people in the street going up to these people and confronting them, these parents.
You think all that is fine?
I don't think it's fine.
I never said it's fine.
He said he has a right to do it.
Does he have a right to do it?
Yeah, agreeing that someone has a right to do it.
Do you think he has a right to do that?
Yeah, I think he has a right to do it.
Agreeing that someone has a right to do something isn't the same as agreeing with what they say.
No, no, I agree.
Yeah, you actually think he has a right to do what he did with the consequences we now know happened.
Yes, basically, yeah, a bunch of nutters did do a lot of awful stuff after the fact, but that's basically going down the same route of, you know, remember back in the 90s, they wanted to ban video games in Dungeons and Dragons because they thought it caused violence and devil worship.
Oh, you can't, you know, engage with this type of, you know, media, otherwise it's going to cause XYZ, like rap music causes violence, all that other nonsense.
If we'll say, you know, this guy's not allowed to see his conspiracy theories or whatever you want to call them because some crazy guy out there may do something mental, then nobody can talk about anything at all.
Well, you can.
There are limits to free speeches or everything else.
Even First Amendment America has a number of limitations to it.
Let me go to Namaki Const.
Namaki, what is your response to Elon Musk putting Alex Jones back on X?
What I find so fascinating about Elon Musk is he uses a very loose absolutist definition of free speech for his needs, but for his company, but doesn't use the same standards for, say, the algorithm.
I mean, he has no problem giving Russian bots that boost some of these guests on the show with the free speech rights, but does not give people of color and women the same rights.
So this is not an equal playing field.
Number one, they're not the government.
Number two, they're not following the United States free speech laws.
There are limitations, as you said, incitement, defamation, fraud, threats, child porn, obscenity.
Those are the limitations to free speech.
And there is a whole lot of that going on on Twitter.
So if he wants to be an equal playing field free speech absolutist, then clean up the bots, clean up the algorithm, make it completely transparent and democratized, and let people like me and then people of color and smaller accounts have the same effect as, say, someone who's being boosted by Russian bots.
Okay, let me bring in Glenn Greenwill.
Glenn, you know, you like me, you're a big supporter of the principle of free speech.
And let's just lay that on the table.
I call this show uncensored because I want it to celebrate free speech, but I've always been aware there are limitations.
And under the First Amendment, which is one of the greatest protectors of free speech anywhere in the world, defamation is not protected under the First Amendment.
And this was clearly one of the most serious defamations of a body of people that America has ever seen.
So I don't understand why, just for that reason alone, why Elon Musk has performed this U-term with Alex Jones.
I think the issue, Piers, is what they do on the platform.
We have all kinds of terrible people using social media.
We have people who lied the United States into a devastating war in Iraq, including the current president of the United States.
We have people who defame all the time, like the guest I just heard in my ear tried implying that she wasn't courageous enough to say who she meant, that one of the people on this panel is somehow promoted by my ear because I'm not actually done talking yet.
So the standard, Piers, that Elon Musk enunciated when he first bought Twitter is one that I supported, even though he hasn't always adhered to it, which is as long as people are using that platform in ways that the law allows speech to persist, to be able to be expressed, then everybody should be able to be heard.
What they do outside the platform, I don't think we want social media, Facebook saying, oh, this person did something terrible off the platform.
Now we're going to ban them.
Otherwise, we're going to have big tech censors who sit in judgment of everybody's behavior.
And Mr. Glenn, on the platform.
Right.
But on this, Alex Jones did use Twitter to amplify his disgusting lies about Sandy Hook.
And he will now be able to monetize all of his conspiracy theories to his heart's content on X without having paid a single dime of the 1.2 billion damages awarded against him, which should be going to the families of the Sandy Hook victims that he so cruelly defamed.
That's my problem with this is he's not just any old Joe who got deplatforms, got brought back.
This is a guy at the center of the biggest defamation case in recent times who hasn't paid any of his dues to these people.
But Piers, if he monetizes his platform on X, that is income that those plaintiffs will easily be able to get.
And if he uses the platform to spread conspiracy theories or defamation, that falls outside of what free speech absolutism is.
And I think Twitter would be justified in banning him.
But what do you do?
You ban people forever if they say something defamatory?
Like I said, there are people who have done a lot worse than Alex Jones who are using Twitter, including bringing about wars, lying to deceive the public in elections.
And I don't think that we want this standard that says anything other than as long as you say things that are within the First Amendment, you should be entitled to use social media.
Once you don't, you should have a just punishment.
He's been banned for many years now.
And I think Elon Musk is saying, okay, it's time to bring him back and see how he uses the punishment.
You see, my criteria has always been that if you were a world leader or an elected official, actually, of any kind, any level, then I think everything that you tweet should be left on the historical record in perpetuity, right?
We've had a big issue here with ministers losing their WhatsApp messages at the crucial part of the pandemic.
Shouldn't be allowed.
It should all be public property, this kind of stuff.
So I'd separate elected officials from ordinary people like Alex Jones.
But what Alex Jones says.
But what about journalists?
What about journalists who wied the UK and the US into war?
There are plenty of those people who still are doing those things.
They're still lying people into wars.
They're still lying about wars.
Are you comfortable with having judgment?
Glenn, what about Nazis?
I mean, you've defended Nazis in the past because you're a free speech absolutist.
I was a lawyer.
So why is it some people get more power when it comes to free speech, more rights when it comes to free speech, but others don't?
Again, this is a level playing field action.
She's complaining because nobody has an interest.
She's complaining because nobody has an interest in watching her show or listening to her on Twitter.
So she's complaining that the algorithm somehow suppresses her.
We're talking about algorithms in which people do not have equal rights.
So you're using that.
That's not the case at all.
That's not her watching one at all.
Assuming that, you're assuming that Alex Jones has the same rights as everybody else on Twitter.
And that is just a good question.
It's a very interesting debate.
I wish I could talk about it longer.
We've run out of time.
Thank you, all of you.
All I would say is personally, there has to be a line with people like Jones who commit atrocious defamations, are not held remotely accountable for it, and are then welcomed back like free speech heroes.
They're not free speech heroes.
He's a hate speech monster for me.
But anyway, on uncensored, you can disagree as you have.
So good to see you.
That's it from me.
Whatever you're up to, keep it uncensored.
Good night.
Export Selection