All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Dec. 14, 2023 - Uncensored - Piers Morgan
47:36
20231214_piers-morgan-uncensored-mark-regev-and-dilly-hussa
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Oprah's Weight Loss Drugs 00:12:33
From the news building in London, this is Piers Morgan Uncensored.
Good evening from London.
Welcome to Piers Morgan Uncensored.
Oprah Winfrey has enjoyed a long and storied career in the media spotlight.
Most recently, probably best known for performatively gaping at Harry and Megan's bogus claims of racism in one of the most poorly researched and challenged interviews in television history.
There's a conversation with you.
With Harry.
About how dark your baby is going to be.
Well, there's now a conversation, an awkward conversation between Oprah Winfrey and her own fans.
After she's missed, she's been telling them giant whoppers about her weight.
Oprah's long since railed against the use of medication for weight loss.
She's a poster goal of the body positivity movement, which basically argues you can celebrate being as fat as you like while simultaneously making a cottage industry of her own yo-yoing weight.
Well, recently, she's been spotted looking decidedly svelte on the red carpets, and she couldn't wait to tell her many followers that she'd done it all the hard way, and they could too.
I've got to do it the hard way.
I've got to keep climbing the mountains.
I've got to keep suffering.
I got to do that because otherwise I somehow cheated myself.
Even when I first started hearing about the weight loss drugs, at the same time I was going through knee surgery and I felt I've got to do this on my own.
I've got to do this on my own because if I take the drug, that's the easy way out.
Yeah, unfortunately, that was the easy way out because it wasn't true.
It was all very inspiring, that rhetoric, but that wasn't what was going on.
In a new confessional interview with People magazine this week, Oprah revealed she's been using the very weight loss drug she said she'd never used, most likely a Zempic.
I've released my own shame about it, she says.
I now use it as I feel I need it.
The fact there's a medically approved prescription for managing weight and staying healthier in my lifetime feels like relief, like redemption, like a gift, not something to hide behind and once again be ridiculed for.
I'm absolutely done with the shaming from other people and particularly myself.
Oprah revealed she took the medication in the build-up to Thanksgiving because in her words, she knew she was going to have to have two solid weeks of eating.
So having lectured her fans as the global face of Weight Watchers about the importance of hard work and not cheating and not taking these drugs, she was actually secretly already taking them.
And these are called the diabetes drugs.
And the express purpose of this is so that she could presumably get through Thanksgiving Fortnite and not worry about it.
Well, this is important because Oprah Winfrey commands legions of followers who do as she tells them to do and buy what she tells them to buy and act as she tells them to act.
She's given the green light for millions of people to stop exercising now and to stuff their faces and take the pills.
And let's not forget that Oprah is also a worldwide pioneer for the concept of my truth.
Speaking your truth is the most powerful tool we all have.
It is.
And once again, we're reminded exactly what my truth is.
It's that phrase that celebrities use when they want to lie through their back teeth and not tell the actual truth.
Because they think it's okay just to be feeling something, even if it's the opposite to what they're actually doing.
The truth is that Oprah Winfrey deliberately peddled a lie to her fans.
And today they're all reacting in exactly the same way as me.
What?
Yeah.
Well, for reaction to that, I'm joined by the author of the Case for Cancel Culture, Ernest Owens, and Professor of Clinical Medicine and Fox News contributor, Dr. Mark Siegel.
Well, welcome to you both.
Dr. Siegel, let me start with you, if I may.
I think at the heart of this just lies a really horrible conceit, which is that Oprah Winfrey went out there in September and proudly said, look, I'm losing all this weight the hard way, the hard yards way.
I don't want to touch those drugs.
That's not for me.
You shouldn't do that.
And now it turns out that as she was saying that, she was taking these drugs.
Yeah, I'm very disturbed about this for a lot of reasons, Piers.
First of all, back in 1988, she supposedly lost 67 pounds with dietary change and exercise.
As you've already said, she had the body positivity movement.
She was a big leader in that that said, accept people as you are.
Now she's out talking about the shaming got to me.
The fact shaming got to me.
Well, what about for people out there that don't, that it didn't get to, that already listened to her before and said they're going to accept themselves as they are.
Now she says this pill is a redemption.
What is it, a spiritual or a religious pill?
Instead of going to church or synagogue, you take this pill and you're redeemed.
She's also talking about being on it as a maintenance drug.
Well, I'm a physician who prescribes this.
I don't like the word maintenance.
How long is she going to stay on it?
These drugs have side effects.
There was 3,000 calls to poison centers in the United States last year from people who didn't know how to dose it properly because it comes in a very set dose.
One more thing.
There's a huge run on this drug.
It's not stigmatized anymore.
So if she thinks she's coming out as a celebrity to beat the stigma, it's not stigmatized.
There's a huge run on it and diabetics can't get it.
Yeah, I think that's a hugely important part of this.
All right, Ernest Owens, here's the problem.
I've known Oprah a long time.
She did the first interview when I launched the show at CNN and she was very gracious to me in that and very open.
But she prides herself always on being completely honest, not least with her fans.
And whether you like her or not or support her or not, she's been here clearly dishonest to her fans, hasn't she?
No, I don't think so.
I think she's evolved on the issue.
And if you actually read that interview and really thought about how she came to a place of how she wanted to choose this decision, it's up to her.
It's her body.
It's her choice.
I find it quite interesting that a bunch of men are debating on whether or not she's authentic as a black woman on how she chooses to treat her body.
What's it got to do with her skin colour?
Out of interest.
Well, who mentioned her skin colour?
I did.
I mean, you've mentioned other skin colors before.
What's it got to do with the problem?
I'm saying that it's...
So you throw me there.
We're talking about weight loss.
We're talking about people's skin colors.
Okay, but you're also talking, but have you ever talked about men's weight loss on this show, Piers?
Yes.
Who?
Me.
You.
Me.
And so what was your decision?
What was your weight loss journey about?
What I didn't do is lie to the public.
I said, you know what?
Here's how you lose weight.
You've put less stuff in your gob.
You eat less, you drink less, you exercise a bit more, you'll lose weight.
Or you can go on a Zempek, which is a cheat, which is a cheat used by diabetics, and it will work rather than the same thing.
In the United States, we don't know the side effects of states within the world.
The plan is open, lied, openly lied.
That's why she does with her body.
But Ernest, she lied.
That's the point.
I don't consider a lie.
I think that she's evolved on the issue.
And I think the reality is you should hold grace for people who evolve on their thinking of the matter.
She expresses that she's giving herself a little bit more grace, that she's being more kind to herself, that we have to realize that we're in a society where high-profile celebrities, specifically women, are oftentimes in a society where they feel like they have to do all types of things to their bodies in order to feel how they feel.
I think Oprah made the decision that works for her.
That's her choice.
That's her agency, and we should respect her.
All right, Dr. Siegel.
Piers, yeah, I want to jump in here because I noticed, first of all, I respect Ernest a lot, but I noticed he didn't mention the word physician once in there.
Let's remember, this is a prescription drug.
It isn't that even Oprah doesn't get to decide.
A physician has to prescribe this.
And unfortunately, there's way too many ways you can get this on telemedicine without a real physician.
And doctors have to discern.
And I'm telling you, there's a tremendous shortage here.
So when a celebrity like her, who's got a huge following, huge following, comes out like this late in the game, not early in the game, puts even more pressure on the situation where I can't use the drug for people who need it the most.
That's my issue.
I completely agree.
That is a very serious issue.
I don't know all the details.
We don't know all the details of Oprah's health.
And at the end of the day, she's a very smart woman.
She's a very wealthy woman.
And she has the resources to inform herself on her own personal choices with her body.
And so I think that it would be intellectually dishonest to act as though she's just rogueli getting this drug and not thinking about all the precautions and measures.
I think she's not.
You know what I think, Ernest?
I admire your efforts to try and defend her, but I think you're defending the indefensible.
The truth is she lost so much weight.
I know Sharon Osborne very well, great friend of mine.
She talked recently about how she lost way too much weight with a Zempic and is now desperately trying to put it back on.
That's a problem for a lot of people I've seen, right?
And Sharon's been very open about it.
Here's the thing.
Oprah's lost so much weight so far, she couldn't keep lying that she was doing it the hard way by yumping and hiking in the hills.
She wasn't.
She was taking a drug that stops you having an appetite.
She stopped eating because she was taking a Zempic.
That's the truth.
And as the Dr. Siegel said, with so many people now following her, they're all going to go out and want to do this because they think, wow, it worked for Oprah.
It's going to work for me.
But using a profile and a platform like this to shame her speaks into the same reason why a lot of people do not disclose how they go through their weight loss journey.
And that's actually fueling to the point that Oprah was making.
But Ernest, how about doing it honestly?
I mean, Dr. Siegel, I think, I mean, Oprah women.
How do you get to define how a person can honestly lose weight?
Don't say that.
No, That's not what I said.
I don't think.
In mid-September, in mid-September, Oprah Wintry told the world, I am doing it the hard way.
I'm not going to touch those drugs.
Now it turns out she was lying.
And maybe that was the way she chose to do it.
She lied, Dr. Siegel, back to you.
In her interview, that she has changed her perspective.
She is being soft.
All right, Dr. Siegel.
There's an evolution here that she has, that she's being able to do it.
Listen, listen, I know that.
Ernest, Ernest, Ernest, you made a good point here that I want to agree with.
It's a personal matter.
We don't know what her and her doctor are discussing, but she's coming out as a celebrity here, and she's voicing a huge as a leader.
And again, the word I don't like is maintenance, because as Piers is actually hinting at, she's already looking great.
And if she stops it, you know, the weight's going to come back.
We have a huge problem as doctors here.
What do we do with this drug?
People are on it.
They can't get off it.
They try to stop it.
The weight comes back.
This is not something that she should be on a podium with, in my opinion.
What she does for her health is between her and her doctor.
Yeah, and by the way, let's remind everyone that Oprah is an ambassador for Weight Watchers.
More than a million new members joined in one year because of her.
She makes gazillions from her 10% stake in the company.
And Weight Watchers, last time I checked, is not about taking a drug called a Zempic, Ernest.
Again, like I said before, there are various journeys and various ways that one can lose weight.
Some people might feel like they need Ozempic to help them with their journey for various reasons that we do not know, right?
But other people will choose to use Weight Watchers.
And I think we need to give Oprah the grace, the space, but we don't have it.
We don't have any Ozempic.
We're out of it.
Exactly.
We can't find it.
It's not in pharmacies.
We're out of it.
So now people that are morbidly obese.
You know what's going to happen, Ernest?
Ernest, a final point on this.
You can take this to the bank, and Dr. Siegel's hinted at this.
The truth is, there's a run on Azempic and these other drugs like it.
Diabetics are going to end.
Hang on, let me finish.
Diabetics are going to end up not being able to get the crucial drugs they need because Oprah Winfrey fans are going to go out in their hundreds of thousands and now try and emulate her weight loss using this drug.
And there, right there, is the problem.
Dr. Siegel, great to have you on Uncensored tonight.
Thank you.
Ernest, always good to have you on, even if you're normally defending the indefensible.
Thank you.
Thank you.
West Bank Target Numbers 00:15:24
Welcome back to Uncensored.
Israel's ambassador to the UK has emphatically rejected any prospect of a two-state solution.
Here's what she told Sky News is Mark Austin.
Is there still a chance for a two-state solution?
I think it's about time for the world to realize the Oslo power down failed on the 7th of October and we need to build a new one.
And in order to build a new one...
Doesn't that new one include the Palestinians living in a state of their own?
Is that what he's saying?
I think the biggest question is what type of Palestinians are on the other side?
Is what Israel realizes?
The answer is absolutely no.
Well, her comments followed a stark warning by President Biden that Israel's indiscriminate bombing, as he put it, in Gaza is weakening international support.
And the Prime Minister Netanyahu's right-wing government is making the prospect of peace increasingly impossible.
Joining me now is Mark Regev, senior advisor to the Israeli Prime Minister.
Mr. Regev, thank you very much indeed for joining us again.
Just start first of all, if we could, with Israel's ambassador to the UK, Tibet Hotavelli, coming out very strongly in this interview with Sky in which she said there's no prospect of any two-state solution.
And that's gone around the world.
Do you agree with her?
I mean, is that it?
That's done.
Is that Israel's position now?
Well, we're obviously not close to peace at the moment.
We're fighting a war against Hamas and we're focused on winning that war.
But in a long-term arrangement, we have a formula that is simple and it works, I believe.
And that formula is as follows.
The Palestinians should have all the rights, all the capabilities to govern themselves, and they shouldn't have the powers that can hurt or threaten Israel.
I think that's a sensible formula.
They shouldn't have their own state.
Well, it depends how you define the term state.
I'll give you a...
Should they have the same rights as Israel, for example?
Well, I'll ask you the following question, Piers.
Should the Palestinians, if they have a state, should they be able to sign, let's say, a military agreement, a military treaty with Iran?
Should they be able to have an army, an air force?
Should they have all those military powers that could theoretically threaten the state of Israel?
And the answer, in our view, is clearly no.
Why should they have to be limited?
My question would be, why should they be prohibited from having exactly the same rights as a state to Israel?
Wouldn't that be ultimately the way you actually achieve peace?
Not allowing the Palestinians to have the same rights as Israelis has just not worked, has it?
I mean, demonstrably not worked.
On the contrary, if this is going to work, it has to be based on realism.
We can't base peace on assumptions that just aren't based founded on reality.
And Yitzhak Rabin, the Prime Minister of Israel who wanted to make peace with the Palestinians, who was the prime minister at the time of the signing of the Oslo Accords, he gave a speech and he was very clear.
He said that the Palestinians will have less than a state.
Yitzchak Rabin said, the man who was shot for his efforts to move forward on the peace process.
He said that the future Palestinian areas will have to be demilitarized.
He said that Jordan Valley, that area on the eastern edge of the Palestinian territories, would have to remain under Israeli control.
The idea that a Palestinian area will have to be demilitarized in any future settlement, that's common sense.
And it's been reported, and the ambassador said yesterday the same figure, that the Israeli Defense Force has so far killed 7,000 Hamas terrorists.
Do you agree?
Is that the figure that you think is correct?
And if so, again, I think I've asked you this before.
How do you know?
Well, this is what our intelligence is telling us.
This is more or less the figure.
We've been hitting Hamas and we've been hitting their military machine very hard, and we will continue to do so until we've dismantled their military machine and taken out their top command structure.
How many civilians have you killed?
Once again, that number is, we're relying here on Hamas numbers.
We don't want to see a single civilian killed.
You know that, Piers.
Well, what does your intelligence tell you if it's so sure about the number of Hamas that have been killed?
How many civilians have been killed?
You must have the same intelligence, surely.
I agree, but I told you I wasn't sure of the first number either.
We're working on approximations.
What I can tell you as a matter of policy is we want to keep the number of civilian casualties to the bare minimum.
But we face an enemy that deliberately wants to see those numbers rise because they see that as a way to pressure the world to pressure Israel for a ceasefire because that's the lifeline for Hamas.
We are destroying Hamas spirit.
In the north, we're seeing more and more Hamas terrorists surrender.
You've seen pictures today from a particular hospital where we saw 70 Hamas fighters come out with their weapons above their heads and surrender to the IDF.
But what we're also seeing is that if I may just pick you up on that, we're also seeing the President of the United States, your biggest ally, coming out and saying that Israel is using indiscriminate bombing.
Now, that is a breach of international law.
He's basically accusing you of committing war crimes.
So we are not carpet bombing the Gaza Strip.
We are not indiscriminately targeting Arab.
Why does America's president think you are?
Well, I think the people who are familiar with the information know that we have a rigorous process of targeting.
He said he's not getting good enough intelligence.
I don't know because his remarks weren't recorded.
They were just reported.
And I don't know exactly how he said it or in what context.
But I do know.
But he used the phrase indiscriminate bombing.
And as you know, that is a war crime.
If that is the case.
So that is not correct.
That is not correct.
Israel does not indiscriminately bomb Gaza.
You can actually see the pictures.
You see a house that is standing next to a house that has been destroyed.
When there is a Hamas target, we go after that target.
We do not, I repeat, not indiscriminately bombing Gaza.
CNN has reported today that 40 to 55% of the 29,000 air-to-ground munitions used by Israel have been unguided dumb bombs, which have a lack of precision and therefore expose a much higher threat to civilians in densely populated areas.
Is that figure correct?
No, first of all, I would reject the use of the term dumb bombs.
There are different types of munitions, and we don't target a facility.
We don't target a site unless there is clear intelligence that there is a Hamas target that needs to be taken out.
I want to stress that again and again and again.
We have rules of stages that must be met before we target, before we use munitions.
There's a process of identification, of intelligence analysis, of then a discussion what is the correct munitions for that particular target, and only then will we act to destroy the target.
New British Foreign Secretary David Cameron, former prime minister, of course, has come out today and said that extremist settlers, by targeting and killing Palestinian civilians, it means on the West Bank, are undermining security and stability for both Israelis and Palestinians.
Israel must take stronger action to stop settler violence and hold the perpetrators accountable.
We are banning, this is the UK, those responsible for settler violence from entering the UK to make sure our country cannot be a home for people who commit these intimidating acts.
Strong words from Mr. Cameron, your response?
Well, we're, as a government, we're opposed to any sort of vigilante violence and we will arrest people who are involved in it.
From our point of view, anyone who acts that way is acting against the law and we'll bring the justice system down against them.
We'll make arrests and people will go to jail.
But I think it must be said that if one looks on the violence in the West Bank, and of course we condemn and we act against vigilante Jewish violence, but the overwhelming majority of the violence, 99% of it, is in the other direction.
And that has to be, it has to be put in perspective.
Do your intelligence figures, what do they tell you in terms of the number of Israelis killed on the West Bank by Palestinians since October the 7th, and conversely, the number of Palestinians killed by Israelis?
So first of all, we had that terrible attack in Jerusalem just last week, which you recall.
I just wonder whether you know what the relative figures are.
No, no, we've taken out many more Hamas terrorists because what we've tried to do over the last few weeks since this crisis...
I thought Hamas didn't operate on the West Bank.
I've been repeatedly assured.
Peers, of course it does.
Peers, of course, they operate on the West Bank.
They're not the government on the West Bank, the way they are in Gaza.
So what are the numbers?
You have Hamas cells.
You have Hamas cells across the West Bank.
Right, but what are the numbers that come from?
How many Palestinians have died on the West Bank since the start of this?
And how many Israelis?
I can't give you a figure.
I didn't bring that to the interview, and I apologise.
Maybe you have a figure for me.
I just know that it's, I don't have the precise numbers, but I know it's a massively higher number of Palestinians.
Yes, it is.
But once again, we're not talking about civilians.
We're not talking about uninvolved people.
Many of them are civilians.
Hamas terrorists.
And I disagree.
And honestly, we are being a surgical.
Listen, as you know, I've always said Israel has a right to defend itself after what happened.
I stand by that.
The proportionality of that response, I think, is becoming increasingly concerning to everybody, including the American president.
But I think on the West Bank, it is inarguable that the behavior of these settlers, the extremist settlers, is completely out of control now.
And surely you would see that that is, aside from everything else, that is the least justifiable part of all of this, isn't it?
But I'm not justifying it.
Neither is the government of Israel.
If people are acting in a vigilante way, the state will act against them.
They'll be arrested and they'll go through the courts.
And if they've committed crimes, they'll go to jail.
There's no excuse for it.
No one's justifying it.
All I'm saying to you is the government of Israel acts firmly against extremist violence.
But to be fair, I can ask you, does the Palestinian authority on the West Bank do they act against their extremist violence?
And the answer is no.
Do you know, we're talking, what is it?
We're close to 70 days since the October 7th massacre.
And the Palestinian Authority, the so-called moderates, have yet to condemn that terrible, atrocious attack against civilians.
That's the difference.
We condemn extremism.
We fight extremism.
What do they do?
Last time you came on, I asked you whether we could have an interview with Prime Minister Netanyahu.
He's not given one yet to any European television network, as far as I'm aware, outside of Israel.
And he's also talked to American networks.
I ask you again, will he come and talk to us?
I have to tell you, he hasn't done an interview at all since we spoke last.
So don't feel discriminated against Piers.
He hasn't done a single interview.
When he starts doing other interviews again, your name will come up.
Thank you.
Mr. Ruggier, thank you very much indeed.
Appreciate it.
Now, should you boycott Piers Morgan?
That's me, of course.
A number of people seem to think so online.
The hashtag's been trending all week, pushed by several high-profile Muslims and pro-Palestinian accounts.
That's despite the show, in my opinion, doing more to give a platform to pro-Palestinian voices since this war began than any other, probably in the world.
End the blockade, the end the apartheid, the end the occupation.
The notion that Israel is defending itself is as absurd as the notion that the rapist is defending itself from the victim.
That's a big charge to make about the presidential.
He has just lied before getting any evidence.
But dealing with Israel is so difficult.
It's like being in a relationship with a narcissistic psychopath.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Have you never heard that?
Bullshit.
Palestinians are just numbers.
They are not numbers.
They are human.
Well, despite this, the campaign against me has been led by the AN Institute and backed by several prominent voices in the community.
Here's what lawyer Mohammed Akunji, the former lawyer of ISIS Bride Shamima Begum, had to say.
The fellow's just acting like a petulant child.
He might as well, frankly, interview himself with a mirror on his show at this point.
Absolutely no manners behaves appallingly.
It's actually an embarrassment.
So until and unless he can demonstrate that he knows now how to interview people with a bit of good manners and grace, then I just don't want to hear it anymore.
I suggest everyone boycott him.
Well, tonight I thought I'd face this boycott head on in uncensored style with as much good grace and manners as I can muster.
Joining me to discuss this is the deputy editor of Muslim News website Five Pillars, Dilly Hussain, which has written and spoken a lot about this week about why Muslims should be boycotting me.
So Mr. Hussein, thank you for joining me.
Why should I be boycotted?
My position is, as I've just shown with that mashup, genuinely, genuinely do not think there's a television news show in the world that has given a more consistent or bigger platform to pro-Palestinian voices.
And honestly, the only interviews that have got fractures have come when I've asked the question, do you view Hamas as terrorist?
Do you condemn what they did on October the 7th?
And if people prevaricate then, I have got angry because I just think that's non-negotiable.
To their credit, many pro-Palestinian voices haven't tried to do that.
They've accepted it was an appalling terrorist attack.
And then we move on to often very civilized debate.
But if you can't assess what happened then for what it clearly was, I have a problem with that.
Now, I just think overall, I don't get the boycott.
Why would you want to stop people watching a show that has so many voices giving your side of this story?
Is our segment going to be as courteous as the one you just did with Mark Ragov?
You think that was courteous?
I think it was courteous and respectful.
Yeah, but do you think we can have that engagement?
Do you think I asked him good questions?
You gave him enough time to answer that interjection.
You know what I think about Mark Ragov?
He's always very respectful to me.
He answers the questions.
You may not agree with me.
He'll answer all your questions.
But when people come on, Jeremy Corbyn, the doctor, earlier this week, and people come on and simply won't give a yes or no answer to a yes or no question, that also can be aggravating.
You know, I don't, look, sometimes I get a bit intemperate.
Sometimes I do get a bit emotional about stuff.
It's an emotional story, right?
Do you want to use this opportunity to apologise to one billion Muslim women?
No.
Why is that?
Because it was completely misconstrued.
Because he was in response to the whole filth conversation.
Yes.
So the context of my question was that if you want to treat women in the way that this member or his organization.
Like your instinctive response, because I felt that that quote was so disgusting that one of his own group had talked about needing to get rid of a secular law, bring in Sharia law so you could get rid of Lgbt filth and feminist filth.
And then the first reaction of a doctor was to say, I agree.
And I was like, really, that's how you want to treat women, you want to treat women as feminist filth.
Now it got clipped up purely as me, saying, well, you oughtn't to be oppressed.
That wasn't what I said.
People I don't think actually anyone who watched the whole thing like you've seen your monologue.
Taliban Sharia Law Debate 00:11:34
People have seen your monologue.
Yeah yeah, they've seen your clarification.
Yeah, and they're still and it's still trending.
Yes, because the original clip was so misleading.
It made out that I think all women who are Muslims are oppressed, or all those who want to become Muslims would be heading towards oppression.
So I don't feel that.
So you don't want to.
So you don't want to apologize to those Muslim women who were affected.
No, I want to apologize to anybody who watched the clip that was put out and was and was and listen and, in my view, was deliberately misled.
But let's get to Sharia law.
Do you hate sharia law?
I don't hate sharia law.
You said you.
You said you know about sharia law, so what credentials?
I know, I know that sharia law operates in a number of countries around the world and I know that in somewhere like Afghanistan yeah, the women who, under Sharia law imposed by the Taliban, are deeply oppressed.
Would you agree with that?
Qualifications, would you agree with that?
What qualifications would you agree with that?
Let's try and reach points of agreement.
Do you agree that the way the Taliban treats women is oppression?
I want to.
I'm going to answer your question.
Can you answer it?
Oh, I will answer you.
I'll answer it, but I want to know why.
Don't ask the supplementary first?
Answer my question.
You said you know about sharia law.
I've just asked you a specific question.
I just want to know what your credentials are.
I'm just speak about this.
I'm just asking you about the situation in Afghanistan.
There are the Taliban interpretation and implementation of sharia law.
In my opinion and the opinion of most people outside of Afghanistan who's most people?
Well, i'm about to ask you whether you agree with it.
Do you think the way women are treated in Afghanistan by the Taliban there are aspects is oppression or not?
There are aspects of misapplication of sharia law, no education.
There's a piece.
We're going down that road again, aren't we?
Well, you tell me.
I've just said to you there are misapplication of sharia law, not just in Afghanistan, across the breakfast.
Is the Taliban misapplying it?
I'm asking you, what is your expertise?
Do you comment on it?
It's my show.
I do the question.
Are you inviting me?
I'm just asking you a question you haven't answered it, is the Taliban implementing sharia law accurately or not?
Not entirely and comprehensively?
Okay, so we can agree that there there is oppression of women.
There is most certainly aspects to reform and right view in the education system of Afghanistan, would you?
Would you say the way women are treated in Afghanistan right now by Taliban is oppressive?
I don't appreciate this line of questioning piercing.
Of course you don't.
I don't, because you know why.
Do you know why?
And it is different.
Someone will clip up, you say the Taliban are oppressing women.
Before you know it is this.
You will be trending worldwide.
Everyone will go wow, Dili Hussein says Muslim women are oppressed.
It is difficult.
You see how easy it is to misappropriate this type of questioning.
What makes people think you're Islamophobia?
Yeah, this is why you want to boycott me, because you don't want me asking difficult questions.
You don't want me asking difficult questions.
So the reason why people are calling for your boycott is because you offended one billion Muslim women.
No, I didn't.
Yes, you did no.
Yes, why is?
Why is it trending?
Okay, as i've just said to you, I could you actually stand by?
I could now clip up you criticizing the Taliban wait, criticizing the way Taliban treat women under Sharia law.
I could clip just that bit of you stammering and looking awkward and conceiting.
It's not right, right?
And then before you know it, it becomes Delhi Hussein whacked the Taliban.
This is wrong.
Women are being oppressed, blah, blah, blah.
And you'll sit there going, hang on.
But that's how it works.
It's misleading.
It's deliberate.
It's antagonistic.
I don't have forms.
You have four.
No, I don't.
You have four.
No, I don't.
Do you want to give me the example?
You want me to give you the example?
Let me give you a better example.
Let's go back to 2003 when this country, my country, launched an illegal invasion of Iraq.
Who stood up then, right, for Iraqis?
Who stood up for innocent people in Iraq and launched the biggest media campaign against the British government in modern times?
Me.
Right?
Do you know that?
Do you remember that?
Do you give me any credit for that?
Or do you look at me as the Muslim basher?
Because I'm not, and you know I'm not.
So we're going back to 2003.
Why don't we talk about 2019?
Why don't we talk about the fact that you have no qualifications to talk about jihad?
You don't even have a primary principles basis to talk about.
No qualifications.
I've been a journalist for 35 years.
I've had to cover this for 35 years.
And you never pose these such questions to any of your Israeli guests about why you've just heard 10 minutes asking questions.
Netanyahu are senior diplomats who have used biblical verses.
Biblical verse of Amalek to carry out genocide.
Have you questioned anyone about that?
Did you watch my show last night?
Did you question that?
Did you watch my show last night?
No, I didn't.
Okay.
You wouldn't have seen Norman Finkelstein then for half an hour talking exactly about that.
I'm talking about yourself questioning your guests.
You've just literally heard me.
Grilling Netanyahu's spokesman.
You call that agrillion.
Let's go over the stuff that was contentious with the doctor, right?
I asked him, was what happened October the 7th a terror attack?
Was it?
I believe it to be a military offensive by various factions of Palestinian groups, not just Hamas, and many of them are not even banned under UK law.
Was it a terrorist attack?
Pardon?
Was it a terrorist attack?
Have you come to an agreement about what it means to be a terrorist?
I've got the full rundown of what terrorism is, as I had at the time.
You didn't.
No, no, I had it.
I wanted to know what the doctor's interpretation of.
What's your interpretation of terrorism?
Terrorism is an act of violence targeting children and civilians to advance the political.
Correct.
Is that what Hamas did on October the 7th?
Is that what you think?
Is that what you think?
I'm asking you.
I don't believe it was an act of terrorism now.
You don't?
No.
Okay, even though they literally did what you just articulated as a definition of terrorism.
You have proof that they targeted women and children and civilians specifically.
What's the proof?
I'll tell you the proof.
What's the proof?
Oh, the GoPro videos.
Oh, you don't think it happened?
Oh, the GoPro videos.
So also, like the doctor, you deny the videos.
I'm the journalist.
I've authenticated the videos.
I've seen the videos.
But show me the proof that women and children were specifically targeted as opposed to homes.
Okay, where's the proof?
People were beheaded.
Proof.
Babies were killed.
Name me one child.
One child was beheaded.
Name me one child that was beheaded.
And I will mourn and condemn with you.
I just said people were beheaded.
I didn't say a child.
No primary subject.
No, no.
So just to be clear.
No primary source.
So to be clear, like the doctor, you do not believe that anyone was beheaded, that children were killed.
Let me clarify where I'm wrong here.
Were these things happening?
Israeli civilians were killed.
How many?
I don't know.
Mark Regina doesn't even know.
We need to fast aside.
No, they do know.
How many of you know?
We know at least 1200 people around 400 soldiers.
So we're assuming 800 civilians were killed.
And we know at least at least another 200 odd civilians were taken hostage, right?
Men were killed by Israel.
How many do you think?
A lot higher than that.
Yes, it is.
There's no evidence of that.
Of course it is.
No, it's not.
Just look at the Nova.
Just look at the Nova Music Festival.
And look at the burnt out cars.
Hamas doesn't even know what I'm saying.
See, this is the problem, isn't it?
The real reason you want me boycotted is I'm telling the truth and what you're doing is trying to convince viewers and maybe your Muslim fan base, I don't know.
You're trying to convince them that what we saw through the eyes of Hamas's own technology where they gloated and boasted about what they'd done didn't happen.
No, what?
And you want me to think about me to think that even though you articulated, hang on, you articulated a description of terrorism and then said that didn't apply to October the 7th, even though that's exactly what happened.
You see, I would say that's delusional.
I would say it's deliberately misleading, as was the attempt to try and make me apologise to Muslim women.
I've made it abundantly clear.
It was a military offensive by various factions, not just Hamas.
It wasn't a military offensive.
What was it?
It was a terrorist attack against predominantly civilians who were brutalized, they were tortured.
But 7,000 children.
Decapitated Palestinian children is in terrorism, is it?
7,000 children dead.
With that head, actually, with that head.
Again, if you had that limb.
Again, if you had watched my show last night, you would have heard exactly what my view of this was.
But here's the thing.
The President of the United States thinks they've been indiscriminately bombing.
So basically, you're just going to parrot whatever Biden says.
No.
No, I'm going to say...
Do you not have a consciousness?
If the President of the United States has intelligence of indiscriminate bombing, that is a war crime.
So can I just ask you just one last thing?
Sure.
One last thing.
The act of Great Britain in liberating Europe under Nazi occupation was resistance.
Yes, it was.
It wasn't resistance.
Of course it was resisting.
We were defeating.
You're resisting a foreign invader in the continent.
Right, we were taking down the Nazis.
Okay, we'll take it out.
Well, guess what?
According to the Palestinians, they're taking down the Israeli-occupied colonial settlers.
Do you see where we can just carry on?
What do we want to do?
Here's the thing.
What do we do?
I want to have that conversation.
Can we have it more respectfully?
Yes, we can.
We could.
But don't try and launch a boycott to stop the one guy who's putting up more Palestinian voices than anyone else in the world.
Why do you interrupt every 27.3 seconds with most of your Muslim guests?
If you'd watched last night for the whole show, you would have seen I didn't.
It depends who the guest is and how they're behaving.
Have I told you today?
Well, only when you don't answer questions.
Which question of this have I not answered?
A lot.
You won't even realise it.
Go back and watch it.
Yeah, and you didn't answer a lot either.
Go back and watch it.
But here's the point.
We've reached a point of a bit more of a civilised dialogue, right?
Yeah.
We can do that.
I would like to have that.
You treat your Muslim guests better.
I do.
With dignity.
You're not watching enough of the interviews.
No, I've seen Abdul Wahid.
I've seen Ahmad Hijab.
I've seen Loki.
I've seen Sam Zomla.
I've seen all these episodes.
No, you're not watching.
You're not watching isolated shows with people who come in and, by the way, are very aggressive with me, which is fine.
If they're going to be aggressive with me, I'll be aggressive back.
If people want to be calm and respectful, as Norman Finkelstein was last night, I'll be calm and respectful back.
If you chose to be like that tonight, I'd have been the same way with you.
It's been a bit of Misha Masham.
It's been a bit of match.
Come back again.
Let's keep having the dialogue.
It's important.
Welcome back to Uncensored.
Last night, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to launch a formal impeachment inquiry into President Biden.
Republicans accused the president of corruption and accepting bribes, other than his current role when he was vice president between 2009 and 2017.
Biden released a statement condemning the impeachment inquiry, saying instead of doing their job on the urgent work that needs to be done, they're choosing to waste time on this baseless political stunt that even Republicans in Congress admit is not supported by facts.
Well, I'm joined by Fox News host and author of Teddy and Booker T, two American icons blazed a path for racial equality, the great Brian Kilmead.
Hunter Biden Impeachment Inquiry 00:05:30
Brian, great to see you.
Now, was the great in the prompter, or did that come from the heart, Piers?
That came from the heart.
It wasn't scripted.
I just literally put it out there because I saw your face peering at me from New York, and the word great immediately sprang to mind.
I didn't have time for the second part of that phrase, but great will do for now.
Brian, I'm going to come to your excellent book in a minute.
It really is an excellent book.
I want to talk just about Joe Biden first of all, this impeachment.
For those who've not followed the intricacies of the Hunter Biden scandal, summarize it very quickly.
Why all roads, in your view, lead to the president on this?
Again, I'm so glad for that question.
Everyone should forget about the hookers and the crack and the horrible behavior of somebody who has signs of addiction.
Out of control, tons of money, was able to capitalize on it, exist way too long.
You could decide on that.
Put that aside.
Was he going around from country to country, Kazakhstan, China, Ukraine?
Yes, yes, and yes.
Was he talking to the richest woman in Russia?
Yes.
Was he doing business with them?
Yes.
What was his business?
It was the influence and leverage his dad had in Washington for being there since his late 20s.
This guy was vice president of the United States, formative chairman of foreign relations when he was in the Senate.
And it looked like he was queuing up to run for president.
We know he would do that and win.
And all people wanted to find out is: was he in fact compromised?
Shouldn't you just become come clean and say, Mike, we know Donald Trump's got a hotel in Turkey.
You might not like that.
He's got a building on 57th Street.
You might not like that.
He's got influences in Scotland.
You might not like that.
But we knew what we were voting for.
All people wanted to know is what were you doing with this country and will that affect your foreign policy at all?
Instead, you got denials.
If you tweeted that, they'd passively suppress your social media.
They destroyed the New York Post for six weeks, or excuse me, for two weeks, for quite a long time for different writers.
If you brought this up or had proof and had some questions about these overseas business dealings.
So now we find out the President of the United States now said I had nothing to do with it.
Then he said I knew about it.
Now, yesterday we find out, or this week we learn, that he said, my dad did not benefit financially from my business dealings.
Excuse me?
You are evolving this story in real time.
And I think it's important for people to know before they vote, is their president compromised and why haven't he, as he told the truth since 2020?
Yeah, it all stinks.
Let's listen to a bit of Hunter Biden yesterday.
We hadn't heard from him for quite a while.
Listen to this.
And in the depths of my addiction, I was extremely irresponsible with my finances.
But to suggest that is grounds for an impeachment inquiry is beyond the absurd.
It's shameless.
There's no evidence to support the allegations that my father was financially involved in my business because it did not happen.
Do you know what I was thinking, Brian?
If you swapped Hunter Biden for Donald Trump Jr., right, and this was about Trump and the Trumps, can you imagine anyone who's currently defending Hunter and Joe Biden about this defending the Trumps?
Absolutely not.
They would be baying for blood.
There's no question.
I mean, 39-year-old Eric Trump, who's running the company, say he's been subpoenaed more than anybody he knows.
He doesn't drink, he doesn't smoke, he goes home and plays with his kids, tries to run the company the best he can, been subpoenaed over business practices that took place even before he was the executive vice president of the company.
You know, the key thing I always come back to on this, other than the suppression of the laptop story, which was a complete disgrace, the way the New York Post was basically banned, vaporized before the last election to stop Joe Biden potentially losing over that scandal.
But if you think about just one fact, that Hunter Biden was put on the board of a company called Barisma, energy company in Ukraine, despite having absolutely zero experience of anything in that sector whatsoever.
He's put on the board and earning, I think it was like $100,000 a month or something crazy, like a million a year.
I mean, obscene amounts of money with zero expertise.
And who happens to have the responsibility for Ukraine and the administration of Barack Obama?
His father.
I mean, just that fact alone stinks to high heaven.
It does.
And it was Joe Biden's decision after Crimea was taken, the Donbass region was infiltrated, to only give the Ukrainians blankets and MREs instead of javelins that we all know would have turned the Russians around.
Do you know, and you know this because you, like me, think this is a worthy cause for the West.
Do you know that they've taken out over 300,000 Russian troops, 90% of the original invading army is now dead or casualties of the war?
You wonder if Joe Biden, I just would like to know this.
Were you compromised at all about a deal you made with the wife of a Russian mayor in order to, two weeks later, after this meeting, next thing you know, there's an invasion?
I would just like to know if your meeting had anything to do with that.
Why is that a bad question to ask?
Why can't we follow that trail?
Yeah.
I think there's so many unanswered questions and this protestation of total innocence from the whole Biden family is ridiculous.
Favorite Fox Book Thanks 00:02:26
Let's turn quickly to your book, Brian.
Teddy and Booker T have two American icons blazed a path of racial equality.
It's a fascinating story.
Based around 1901, President Theodore Roosevelt, of course, is at the White House and he welcomed the country's most visible black man, civil rights activist and educator Booker T. Washington, into his circle of counselors at the White House.
It was 30 years, I believe, after that before another black man was greeted that way at the White House.
So it was extraordinary in two ways.
One, that it happened when it did, and two, that it didn't happen again for 30 years.
Tell me what motivated you to write the book.
You know, it's so funny, I said, no one's ever pointed that out, that nothing happened after that, except for Piers Morgan, because I know you always think what's next.
So what happened is if you, I read up from slavery, Booker T. Washington's book, and when you were born a slave, you don't have shoes and slept on the floor every day, lucky to have one meal a day, and at nine years old, you remember being called to the main house on a plantation and remembers hearing from a Union soldier that you're free.
And you from that moment become, eventually become one of the most influential men in America, known around the world, treated as a celebrity when he went through the UK and throughout Europe.
You got my attention.
And I started researching everything he wrote.
And all he wanted to do was spread this horrible thing called education.
He thought education was a great equalizer.
It's an amazing story.
It's a great book.
It's such an interesting, different kind of subject matter and one that's not really been properly written about.
So I commend you, Brian.
I also commend you on being the single hardest working man in world news.
Man, woman, non-binary, you take your gender.
You are it.
You are the hardest person in terms of work rate I've ever encountered in world television.
So the fact you found me a fragment of your day to come on uncensored is a matter of great personal joy for me.
Wow.
Am I your favorite at Fox?
I asked your whole staff.
I could not get a commitment.
You know what?
You are my Fox.
What is your favorite?
You are my favorite Fox talent who's on my show right now.
And I will look forward to seeing you in New York very soon.
Brian, and before I let you go, Merry Christmas.
Let me be the first to wish you a Merry Christmas.
Thanks so much, Pierce.
Congratulations on the success of your show's heard around the world.
And I love being on it.
Thanks so much.
Great to see you, Brian.
Export Selection