The state of free speech in the UK is sparking global debate - especially in the United States. Joe Rogan’s guests have raised alarms over arrests for social media posts, and U.S. Vice President JD Vance has warned Britain is “heading down a dark path.” That debate exploded this week after comedy writer Graham Linehan, co-creator of Father Ted, was arrested at Heathrow by armed police over three posts about trans women. The government says police should focus on “streets not tweets,” while the Met insists only lawmakers can change the rules. What’s striking is how many of Linehan’s critics have defended his right to speak, signalling a possible shift in attitudes on the trans debate. Even Malcolm Gladwell admits he felt pressured into his earlier views. So - are we now at a watershed moment in this generation-defining issue of free speech, identity, and censorship? Piers Morgan is joined by Host of Gaines For Girls, Riley Gaines, YouTube commentator Blaire White, founder of Gender GP Helen Webberley, author and activist Laurie Penny and author and journalist Lionel Shriver. Piers Morgan Uncensored is proudly independent and supported by: Birch Gold: Visit https://birchgold.com/piers to get your free info kit on gold. Pique: Get 20% off your order plus a FREE frother & glass beaker with this exclusive link: https://piquelife.com/PIERS Oxford Natural: To watch their full stories, scan the QR code on your screen or visit https://oxfordnatural.com/piers/ to get 70% off your first order when you use code PIERS. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Two-Tier Free Speech System00:06:11
Isabelle Brown.
Isabel Brown.
Isabel Brown.
The wait is almost over.
She's joining Daily Wire Plus with the Isabel Brown Show.
Cannot wait for you guys to see how hard we've been working.
I could not be more excited for this new adventure.
You can expect larger-than-life guests, see for questions to the nerds.
Meeting the President of the United States and the Vice President and now meeting our new American pope.
This is crazy.
Let's jump in.
Join me every weekday for the Isabel Brown Show on Daily Wire Plus or wherever you get your podcasts.
What worries me is that there seems to be a two-tier system of free speech here where it's free speech for people who attack transgender people and set themselves up as victims.
The Graham Lenahan story really makes me nervous on my own account.
I had a completely selfish reaction to that story because I'm worried that given what I have put into print, I could be arrested.
In the wake of Graham Linehan's arrest, you posted this.
Let this be a sage warning to those who think it's okay to have views that are hateful towards trans people.
Your time is coming.
And you had some emojis, a clock, an ambulance, and a coffin.
If you don't mind me saying, I think you're a flaming hypocrite because you are clearly inciting violence.
And in fact, that's a clear, demonstrative death threat against Graham Lenin.
The state of free speech in the UK has become a matter of global debate, nowhere more so than in the United States.
Many guests of Joe Rogan have highlighted the high number of arrests for posts on social media, for example.
And Vice President JD Vance has directly admonished the British government for, quote, heading down a dark path.
The arrest of award-winning comedy writer Graham Linehan by armed police at Heathrow this week has only poured fuel onto that fire, making headlines across the world.
Well, Linehan was arrested on suspicion of, quote, inciting violence, close quotes, with three ex-posts about trans women back in April.
The government says police should focus on streets, not tweets.
London's Met Police say it's the government's job to change the law.
The fact that so many of Linehan's critics have rushed to his defense is probably more evidence of the profound shift in attitudes on the trans issue and its previously untouchable status.
In the US, the renowned public intellectual and author Malcolm Gladwell has renounced his own opinions on this issue and says he felt pressurized into holding them in the first place.
If we did a replay of that exact panel at the Sloan conference this coming March, it runs in exactly the opposite direction.
And it would be, I suspect, near unanimity in the room that trans athletes have no place in the female category.
I don't think there's any question.
I just think it was a strange.
I mean, I felt, I mean, I was the reason I'm ashamed of my performance at that panel because I share your position 100% and I was cowed.
The idea of saying anything on this issue, I was in a, I believe in retrospect, in a dishonest way.
I was objective in a dishonest way.
So have we now reached a watershed moment in misgeneration defining toxic issue?
Or should we brace for a backlash from those who want to police our pronouns and our speech?
Here to debate all this.
It's Riley Gaines, the host of Gaines for Girls and a fierce campaigner for women's rights in sport.
Dr. Helen Weberly, an expert and advocate in transgender healthcare, author and journalist Laurie Penny, YouTube commentator Blair White and the award-winning author and journalist Lionel Shriver.
Well welcome to all of you.
Lionel, let me start with you because you've gone on a similar kind of journey to Malcolm Gladwell in the sense that you have regrets yourself.
You wrote in The Spectator in May, I'm not proud of having kept my own counsel in print for three years, but this radical fad emerged inexplicably in tandem with the stern message that a single discouraging word would end your career.
I delayed writing about this topic because I was cowardly and regarding my self-interest smart.
And that tallies, Lana, with so many high-profile women that I know, journalists, actresses, and others, who simply were not prepared to put their head over the parapet in the way that, for example, Riley was or I was, but are now coming around to realizing that that was in its way, I guess, a form of moral cowardice, albeit one based on a reality that there was a mob coming with its pitchforks.
Yes, I should clarify that I first started sticking my neck out on the trans issue in 2016, and that made me unusual.
I'm still not proud of not having written about the issue for a solid three years when it was all over the news.
And at the same time, yes, we all got the message that if you said anything negative about this exploding phenomenon, your career was over.
And I'm a little, I'm fascinated, actually, how that was successfully communicated, because it wasn't explicit.
It was like in the tiny print at the bottom of the contract.
But it wasn't a joke.
This was a correct perception.
And I did take my career in my hands when I wrote a piece for Prospect arguing that the whole business of a gender spectrum was based on gender stereotypes and saying that if I do not believe that the soul has a sex,
that your self is sexed.
Personal Power to Convict00:08:16
And it was aimed at the transgender movement.
And since then, I have published any number of columns that have become more candid about my real views.
And therefore, the Graham Linehan story really makes me nervous on my own account.
I had a completely selfish reaction to that story because I'm worried that given what I have put into print, I could be arrested the next time I come.
Well, that's the fascinating thing because I, look, I don't find everything Graham Linehan says that funny.
I can see some of it's a bit sharp.
A lot of my favorite comedians are a bit sharp with their humor.
He is a comedian.
He wrote, founded one of the great comedies in British television history.
So let me bring Laurie in here.
Whatever you think of Graham Linehan, the idea that he was met by five armed police in the UK at one of our airports and arrested over three clearly comedic intended jokes, albeit, I guess, moderately offensive if you wanted to be offended, but they're jokes that he put on social media.
That he is arrested by five armed police.
Surely that sends a shudder down your spine, doesn't it?
Okay.
I'm confused because what Linehan wrote was he directly encouraged people reading his Twitter feed to attack transgender women.
Well, he said it was.
No, Let me read it.
So those who haven't seen it will know what you're talking about.
He said, if a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he's committing a violent abusive act.
Make a scene, call the cops, and if all else fails, punch him in the balls.
That is obviously intended to be a comedic mockery of a...
Explain.
Well, yeah.
What's funny about it?
Well, punch him in the balls is a joke.
Because the point he's making is that this person is a biological male who is in a women's space, and that actually, to many women, is a lot more offensive and threatening than a joke on Twitter.
I'm sorry, I'm still failing to see where the joke is.
Though I think this is...
Oh, if we're saying this is a joke and not an incitement to violence, I'm just not sure why it's funny.
Here's my point.
You may not find it funny, but the reality is, is that an arrestable offence to you?
Is that something you feel comfortable that five armed police officers go and meet Gremlin and off a plane at a London airport and arrest him?
Well, the law doesn't exist to police what does and does not make you or me.
But I'm asking you personally, do you feel comfortable with that?
Do I feel comfortable with people going onto planes and arresting people for things they put in the public domain, unless that person has committed a crime?
Yeah.
No, no, I don't think that's good at all.
No, excuse me.
No, but that's important.
So you don't agree with what happened.
That doesn't mean I am a supporter of what Gremlin said.
I'm not asking you to support it.
Nor does it mean.
Listen, Laurie, as Winston Churchill said, you know, the whole point of free speech, it's not about you agreeing with stuff that you agree with or accepting that.
It's about actually allowing people to say offensive things and respecting their right to say them.
I thought the whole point of free speech was for everybody to be able to express themselves freely, not to say offensive things.
I mean, I'm confused if all we're doing...
Free speech surely has to mean more than just the right of bigots to say whatever they want and nobody to be able to do it.
How do you police it then?
How do I police freedom of speech?
Yes.
Well, personally, in my personal life, how do I police?
How would you propose we police it then if you think there should be limits?
Look, it's what limit do you think there should be on inciting violence in the transition?
I don't think it incited violence.
He was making a joke about the fact that trans women are biological men and therefore have male genitalia.
May I speak?
And a lot of women, a lot of women, by the way, find that really offensive and wrong that they should be allowed in women's spaces.
May I speak?
Sure.
U.S. national debt is more than $37 trillion.
And these are uncertain times for the global economy.
It's enough to make you think maybe now would be a good time to buy some gold.
Whether it's a hedge against inflation, peace of mind during global instability, or just sensible diversification.
Birch Gold Group believes that every American should own physical gold.
They've created something special.
Until the 30th of September, if you're a first-time buyer, Birch Gold is offering a rebate of up to $10,000 in free metals on qualifying purchases.
To start the process, request a free information kit now.
Just text Piers, P-I-E-R-S, to 989-898.
Make right now your first time to buy gold and take advantage of a rebate of up to $10,000 when you buy before the end of September.
Text my name, Piers, to 989-898.
Claim your eligibility and get your free information back.
Again, just text Piers to 989-898.
There are two separate issues here.
One is whether or not you think that Graham Linehan committed the crime of inciting violence.
The second is, do you think that that should be a crime?
There are two very separate issues.
Well, what's your answer to those questions?
To which of the questions?
Both.
Do I think that, well, it's a bit difficult to say what I think about whether or not Graham Linnehan committed a crime because there's an active case going on.
In fact, there are several.
That's a separate case.
Can I please answer separate to this?
If you want me to answer, can you please let me know but that's a separate.
I'm just pointing out tomorrow for a separate offence.
For a separate offence.
Separate things.
This is not even the first or second time that Graham Linehan has come to the attention of the police for posting extremist content online.
This person...
Let's be serious here.
And I think quite a lot of your guests might not have taken the time to actually read what Lunahan has said.
I'm one of many, many people who Lunahan has personally threatened with legal action because I have said something rude to him.
What have you said to him?
I said I thought he was a bigot, and I do.
Right.
So you have a right to call him a bigot.
Absolutely.
But Graham Lenahan doesn't think he literally wrote on his blog that I do not have a right to say that.
So he clearly thinks that free speech is for some people and not others.
But what worries me, what worries me is that that attitude seems to be reflected by the public at large.
The public at large seems to be not outraged at all when transgender people are attacked physically and attacked and insulted in the media.
No, please finish.
At some stage, you do have to finish.
Would you like me to finish?
There's to be a time limit.
We've got five guests.
Of course.
What worries me is that there seems to be a two-tier system of free speech here where it's free speech for people who attack transgender people and set themselves up as victims.
But when people, when transgender people like me are attacked in public, are attacked either physically or harassed, Graham Linnehan is on trial for physically harassing an 18-year-old.
You can't talk about the trial.
I can't.
We can talk about what he's on trial for.
He's just physically harassing an 18-year-old girl and smashing her face.
Allegedly.
Sorry, allegedly.
Just to be clear, he is alleged to have committed some offences for which he was denied.
He's denied smashing herself.
You're very careful to police language.
Just police your own language.
What am I policing?
But you just accused him of being guilty.
But accused him of being guilty of humanity.
You said he did it.
Of physically harassing somebody.
He has denied it.
Well, I'm sure he has.
I think he's allegedly.
Well, if you understand British law, you'll know that he's innocent till proven guilty.
Which of the many criminal cases is he?
What you've just said.
You just said he harassed somebody.
He's denied it.
He's been accused of it.
He's denied it.
He's going through a formal process in a courtroom.
You've just convicted him.
So you should withdraw.
Look, I don't have the power personally to convict a person.
You just said he was guilty.
But I don't have the power.
That's different from convicting.
You're very wary about policing his words.
You're not so worried about policing your own.
You just convicted him of a crime.
Superior Biology Debate00:04:11
I don't think that's actually literally the case.
You said you.
I think you're just wrong here.
You said he...
Well, I think that's...
Let me explain.
Listen, I was a national newspaper editor for 10 years.
I understand the law very, very well.
You just said that he harassed and did this to this woman.
But that's what he's accused of.
But if I did that, so let me clarify.
Graham Linehan is accused of harassing an 18-year-old girl.
He is accused.
But you explained that.
Graham Lenahan has not been convicted of violence against a transgender person, but crucially, not in the same way that you and I haven't been convicted of violence against a transgender person.
Actually, it's exactly the same way.
Actually, it's actually the same way.
I think it's quite different.
No, no.
It's exactly the same way.
Everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
That's the point of the law.
Let me bring in Riley Gaines here.
Riley, you and I have talked a lot about this whole issue.
It just seems to me what Malcolm Gladwell said is so significant because he's basically done a complete U-turn on this and understood that even he, one of the smartest brains in the world, got kind of traduced into thinking it was perfectly normal and acceptable for a biological male identifying as a trans woman to compete in women's sport.
You yourself, having lost out to a trans athlete in a swimming pool at a high level, understood immediately from that experience that men have superior biology to women.
Therefore, if they compete against women, it is grotesquely unfair because they have superior muscle mass, power.
Well, surely, hang on.
I'll come to you in a second, Riley.
Sorry, no, Laurie, just to be clear, you're not disputing men have superior biology, are you?
Superior.
I just think it's quite offensive to say that an international people have superior sports.
There's a reason in the Olympics we have women's sport and men's sport is because the men, if they competed against the women, would win everything.
Do you understand that?
Okay, I just question your use of the word superior to describe male biology.
Superior biology, their biology, their physical biology.
When they're competing in sport, they have superior biology.
They have an advantage from their bodies.
Do you understand?
You accept that.
Let me clarify this.
I think superior in strength and athleticism and how far they jump and how high they can jump, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
If we're talking about biology, I'm about 38 weeks pregnant now, and I would certainly say that my biology compared to my husband's in that way is superior.
And I would agree with you.
So why don't we just accept that what I was talking about was superior physical biology in terms of competing in sports.
Men are faster, they're stronger, they have more lung capacity and so on.
That is why we separate the sexes.
That's what we should all agree.
110%.
110%.
Yeah, I don't take offense to the word superior.
Certainly, I believe there are things women are superior at.
And certainly I believe there are things that men are superior at.
I don't think this is something to, again, say that women are less than necessarily, but just to, again, reiterate the fact that women and men are very much different.
I don't think there's anything wrong in saying that.
And so to your point, Pierce, this comment that was said by Michael, you said now he's come out and kind of done this full 180 here.
I don't think he ever believed that women or that men should be in women's sports.
He's just now finally courageous enough, if that's the word you can even use.
It's amazing to me.
It requires courage to publicly declare that men and women are different.
What a sad state that we are living in where it requires courage or bravery to say such.
But that's the case that many, many people have felt over the past, I would certainly say five, six years.
But as indicated, really, this has been going on much longer than that.
So that's my thoughts on that.
The majority of, I'll speak for the American people, the majority of American people, as proven by every single Gallup poll, whether even in states like California, California, I believe they had 40% of voters turn out in support of Donald Trump.
Even still, I believe it was 70% of people said that men shouldn't be in women's sports.
So this is like a no-brainer for most people.
Free Speech vs Transphobia00:02:57
I want to go back really quickly to what we're talking about on the free speech side of things.
If you can remember, Piers, I was physically attacked, like violently attacked by a mob of radical, psychotic, crazy trans activists who kidnapped me and held me hostage for five hours, all while our police force sat and did nothing as they said they couldn't.
They weren't allowed to because they weren't allowed to be seen as anything other than an ally to that community or else they would lose their jobs.
So I absolutely and entirely reject the notion that there is a double standard that is in favor of people like me.
That is not at all what we have seen.
Again, people who unapologetically speak the truth.
Now, what we've seen, what we've seen is people like you and J.K. Rowling and other women who put their head over the parapet to fight this battle to protect women's rights.
And that's what the battle was really about.
It wasn't anti-trans.
It was with some people.
There are transphobic people out there.
I don't doubt that for a moment.
There are always, here's a point I'm going to make.
Of course, there are.
But actually, the core debate for me, certainly, and I think for you, was that you wanted to protect women's rights to fairness, equality, and safety.
And particularly in the sport issue, but also in the case of, for example, the male rapist in Scotland, who suddenly, having been convicted, puts his hand up and says, I'm now a woman and gets put in a women's prison, which led to the series of events that led to Nicola Sturgeon, the First Minister, actually having to resign because people were like, you're a woman.
You're allowing this?
You're putting the fox in the hen coop to attack other women because he just put his hand up to game the system.
That is what offended people.
Now, everybody knows how much I enjoy my tea.
And I'm very happy to say that today's show is sponsored by Peak's Pure Fermented Teas.
These are not your average brews.
They're sourced from 250-year-old wild trees in the Himalayan foothills, which are untouched by modern farming.
No pesticides, no fertilizers, just nature at its best.
Pure delivers a full spectrum of prebiotics, probiotics, and postbiotics, just like the fermented foods found in longevity hotspots.
It comes in crystal form, so there's no messing around.
Just dissolve, sit, and feel the difference.
It's trusted by health experts, including Casey Means and Dr. Mark Hyman.
There's teas for all occasions, and they all support your gut health, metabolism, and cellular renewal.
The next time you put the kettle on, ask yourself, is my tea working as hard as me?
Peak's Pure Fermented Teas for the gut of a Brit and the longevity of a Himalayan monk.
You're 20% off for life, plus a free frother and glass beaker with the Pure bundle.
Visit peaklife.com slash peers.
That's peak, P-I-Q-U-Elife.com slash peers.
You put your hand up, very polite of you, by the way.
Thank you.
What was you about to say?
Non-Binary Identity Issues00:15:34
I'm just confused because I was told I was being brought on to discuss a free speech issue and an issue about whether or not it should be okay to incite violence against a protected minority group like transgender people.
But we seem to now be talking about whether or not it's okay to be transformed.
Oh, no, because the whole put them explained that.
Hang on.
Let me just explain because Laurie's raised a point.
The point is that Graham Linehan's become the poster child, poster boy, for abuse and shaming and attacks and vilification and cancellation.
He has become the poster boy for this stuff for many years.
It's ruined his life.
It ruined his marriage.
It ruined his career.
And at the core of his argument was that biological men who identify as trans women should not be in women's spaces.
And I agree with him.
And Malcolm Gladwell agrees with him.
And Wiley Gaines agrees with him.
Now, we have gone through.
I was going to bring in Blair because Blair, you're a YouTube commentator, but you're also, you're trans.
What do you think about this?
I mean, were you offended by Graham Linehan's tweets?
Not at all.
First of all, I have to say that it was fascinating listening to you guys talk about free speech as a concept, like as Brits.
Coming from an American, you know, when she said that she didn't know that free speech covered offensive speech, that's absolutely what it covers.
That's the most important part of what it covers.
That's not what I said.
And what did you say exactly then?
I said that I wasn't aware that it was only people who have particular bigoted views who are protected by the notion of free speech.
The notion of free speech is protected by the people.
Nobody's argued.
He's fine because he was arrested.
No one's arguing that, but the actual point of free speech is you have to tolerate and allow people to say things you don't like.
That is the point.
100%.
Unless you're actually inciting a crime.
And nobody could have read that Gremlinen tweet and not thought he was just cracking a rather craft joke.
I think a lot of people did.
No, if anything directly encourages.
Blair's a trans woman.
Why don't we let her answer?
I'm also transgender.
I know.
Go ahead.
I'm not sure.
Which trans are you, if you don't mind me asking?
I'm non-binary.
What does that mean?
I'm a non-binary person.
I use they-them person.
Sorry, are we going to spend, do we really want to spend the rest of this discussing my personality?
All the while you mentioned it, I didn't even know.
Well, now you know.
Okay, so now I know.
I'm just asking you what that means.
Like, do you really want to discuss this?
You raised the subject of yourself being trans.
I'm simply asking what you're saying.
Can I finish my point of view?
No, what's the non-binary transaction?
It's really interesting to me.
You raised it, not me.
I didn't even know.
So now you've raised it.
What does that actually mean?
What do you mean you're non-binary?
Are you really, really just going to be a significant person?
Can you explain?
Are you going to cut Blair off now?
I'm just asking you to explain it.
I'll come back to Blair in a moment.
Well, you were the one that cut me off, sis, but I will say that.
Hang on one second, Blair, Blair.
Sorry, Blair, wait one second.
I just want to ask, what do you mean by non-binary?
When I say I'm non-binary, I'm expressing my identity in a way that's the right to do.
I'm sorry.
What's your sexuality?
My sexuality.
This doesn't have anything to do with my sexuality.
The UK government now says that people are male or female.
The British Prime Minister says people are male or female.
I don't think the UK government should have the final say on how I expressed it.
Well, they determine the laws of the country.
I'm just curious what you mean by non-binary.
What does that mean?
I'm curious.
Well, firstly.
What are your pronouns?
They, them.
What does that mean?
This is only one of you.
What does they, them?
Actually, they, them has been...
The collective they has been used to refer to individual people for centuries and still is.
So I mean, if you don't understand basic grammar, that's on you.
I don't really understand.
I don't understand.
I've got to be honest with you.
I don't understand the concept of what non-binary means or why you would use it.
Really, why you would use a plural pronoun to describe a singular person.
To me, this is the problem with the whole woke thing, is it's inexplicable.
Nobody really knows what it means.
I don't know what you mean by non-binary, they, them.
There's one of you sitting here.
And you look to me female.
You're a female?
Okay.
Are you a female?
If you don't understand what non-binary means.
Are you a female?
If you don't understand what non-binary means.
I don't.
Then I'm not sure you're in a position to lead a debate.
So just tell me.
But if you can't explain it in simple language, then what's the point?
Well, explain what I'm saying.
Because I can tell you exactly what being a trans woman.
Gender identity is something other than man or woman.
I'm a non-binary individual.
But you accept you're a female.
I don't think that I'm here to discuss the contents of myself.
I didn't mention anything about what you were.
You did.
You said I'm trans.
This has really become uncomfortably personal.
Has it?
You said it, not me.
If you think this is uncomfortably personal, try undressing in a locker room with a six foot four naked man.
Right, exactly.
That's the point of this.
It's like, what is uncomfortable?
We're having a conversation here.
And I'm slightly offended because no one asked me my pronouns.
Exactly.
I think we should get rid of all pronouns.
I think they're ridiculous.
Blair, let me bring Blair, baby.
Be very patient, Blair.
Over to you.
You're a trans woman.
So let's get back to you.
You weren't offended by what Graham Lenahan said, no?
No, I'm offended by the phrase arrested for tweets.
You know, as an American before anything else, the idea that that's something that's happening over there is scary considering oftentimes what happens there is only a couple years off from happening here, as is the trans kid issue, which is something I've stood against since the beginning.
You guys are sort of the canary in the coal mine as far as what laws are coming here.
And it really makes me value the free speech that we do have here and how, you know, even the most uneducated American typically knows that free speech does cover offensive speech.
And for me, I'm disgusted that trans is used by the state as a means to bully people and clamp down on free speech.
Free speech is infinitely more important to me than anything to do with trans and certainly non-binary.
I'm in the same camp.
I don't even know what it means.
And for me, you know, I don't know if any other trans people have like publicly stood up for Graham, but I'll do it.
I don't really know much about him.
My understanding is he's much more famous across the pond, so I don't know.
But I saw the tweets and the closest thing to inciting violence was the joke, like you said, kicking someone in the balls.
And so it's kind of like it's scary that this conversation is even happening and trans people are being used as this weapon against people.
Like I never asked for that.
I feel like here in America, I see it all the time.
I feel like there's constantly new laws, new, you know, social codes being imposed on people that I didn't ask for as a trans person.
No trans people I know ask for that.
But it will always be a woman, you know, unfortunately sitting up under a camera calling herself non-binary, trying to advocate for things that should be in place that I supposedly am supposed to be grateful for.
But also, I think the interesting point is...
Which actually just incite more hatred against trans people.
Well, I think this is a concern.
And Laurie, I would say to you, I don't give a damn what you want to identify as, genuinely.
I don't care.
And if you want to use pronouns for yourself, absolutely fine.
The problem I have, and what I've had in the last few years, is me being ordered to say things like they, them, which I find preposterous, or me not being able to ask you what is non-binary and you professing to be offended.
I don't mind you identifying as all this.
I never said I was offended.
Please stop putting me in.
But you did.
I'm feeling really uncomfortable.
I said it was uncomfortably personal.
I didn't say I wasn't.
You raised the issue of your transgenderism.
I didn't.
I didn't even know you were transgender.
Honestly.
I actually had a conversation with your producers before I was.
I didn't.
No.
I'm just telling you what I knew.
I didn't know.
I knew Blair was.
I didn't know you were.
So my point is, though, I don't care.
You can identify as anything you want.
The debate here is twofold for me.
One is that Graham Linehan has said some comedic stuff that some people find offensive, other people laughed at, and is now being treated like a serious criminal and being arrested.
I think that's an abuse of his free speech rights, which shames my country.
And secondly, I just think on this whole issue of transgenderism, I look at what Malcolm Gladwell said, and I do wonder how many people now feel that they were bullied and threatened by the trans lobby into not expressing an honestly held opinion about this issue.
And that, again, is an infringement of their free speech because they were being bullied and threatened and cancelled, like Graham Lennon and others, into not being allowed to say what they actually thought.
And I think that's wrong.
Okay, so you think there's no distinction between the state actually intervening, the police intervening to police people's tweets, which I'm really not comfortable with, honestly, since you asked, and people being criticized on the internet.
You think that people shouldn't criticize people for saying transphobic things on the internet?
They should, because that's bullying.
Well, it depends what you think is transphobic.
You see, the argument Malcolm Gladwell and I think Lionel made and others, and I saw it many times, J.K. Rowling's a good example.
I don't think J.K. Rowling is remotely transphobic.
I'm certainly not.
I want trans people to have exactly the same rights as me.
But my problem is where the trans activists wanted to erode women's rights in the process of promoting trans rights.
Today's show is brought to you by Oxford Natural, makers of the Optimum Day and Optimum Night, all natural supplements.
Thousands of Brits and Americans are already taking them with incredible results.
Optimum Day is designed to boost your energy and support weight loss throughout the day.
Optimum night helps you relax and get deep, refreshing sleep.
And don't just take their word for it.
Here are just a few of their success stories.
England football legend, Michael Owen, lost £40.
Robbie, the face of AFTV, dropped over £100.
Linda, a top laurel firm executive, lost £50.
And Danita, an immigration lawyer, shed £60.
to watch their full stories and find out more, scan the QR code on your screen or visit oxfordnatural.com slash peers.
And here's the best part.
Use the code peers, P-I-E-R-S, and get 70% off your first order.
You're 70% off with the promo code, Peers.
Let me bring in Dr. Helen Weberly here.
What did you think about Graham Linehan's tweets?
Well, you called them moderately offensive to some.
I think to the trans community at large, Graham Linehan has been exceptionally offensive.
And when we talk about inciting hatred, the trans community are four times as likely to be the victim of a violent crime than cisgender people.
And that is increasing and it has increased over the last decade that your other guest was talking about.
And so we have a problem.
And you call it free speech, but is it free speech when?
Yes.
For example, he is saying that call the cops, because actually you call the cops when someone's committed a crime.
So he's inferring that transgender women in a women's toilet have committed a crime, which they haven't.
He's talking about encouraging people to punch them in the balls, which you find amusing, but it's not.
Again, it's encouraging violence.
So just to be clear.
Okay, Dr. Weber, just to be clear.
Just to be clear, though, so you don't think anyone should post stuff which is potentially encouraging violence?
It's the long history.
He's been...
No, no, no, I'm just asking just as a general...
Hang on, just as a general principle.
Hang on, Dr. Weberly.
As a general principle, let me just ask a simple question.
As a general principle, that's all I'm asking.
Do you think it's wrong that you can't do that?
People should not incite violence on social media.
Is that what you're saying?
The general principle that we're very clear on in the United Kingdom is that minority groups, and they're listed, people with a disability, people, sexuality, race, religion, transgender identities.
We are inciting hatred against that minority.
No, no, it wasn't my question.
My question was whether you felt that people should be allowed to incite violence on social media.
Towards a minority group, absolutely not.
So you can incite violence against people.
What about everyone else?
You can incite violence against other people.
So you're only protected from violence if you're in a minority group.
Is that your position?
I don't want it.
Sorry, that's not the law.
Hang on, don't all talk.
Don't all talk.
I've got this.
I've got this.
Dr. Weberly, it's not the law.
The law protects everybody, minority and majority groups, from threats and incitement of violence.
And the reason I'm asking you, and you probably are ahead of me here, aren't you?
Because yesterday, in the wake of Graham Lenihan's arrest, you posted this.
Let this be a sage warning to those who think it's okay to have views that are hateful towards trans people.
Your time is coming.
And you had some emojis, a clock, an ambulance, and a coffin.
Well, actually, Pierce, it's a police car, so not an ambulance.
But the coffin is...
And a coffin.
And a coffin.
Yeah, well, if you want to say that.
So you want Graham Lenihan dead, do you?
That coffin signifies the end of this behavior is coming.
The end of the social media.
No, it doesn't actually.
Your time is coming.
Clock.
Are you asking?
Police ambulance and a coffin emoji.
Well, you realise Graham could say it isn't feeling it, but I haven't answered what it is.
Dr. Weberly, I think, if you don't mind me saying, I think you're a flaming hypocrite because you are clearly inciting violence.
And in fact, that's a clear, demonstrative death threat against Graham Lenin.
You're urging your followers.
Your time is coming towards people like him, followed by a clock, and you say it's a police car, and a coffin emoji.
So if you don't mind, I won't take any lectures about language towards minority groups, as you put it, who seem to be so protected, but nobody else is from threats of violence and stuff, because you're literally wanting him dead.
I think he's like, hang on, I didn't ask you.
I asked Dr. Weber.
I'm a doctor.
I don't want anybody dead.
But what I tell you is that you're not going to be able to do that.
You literally posted a coffin.
I want the death of a coffee.
You posted a coffin.
It's terrible.
Your time is coming.
The situation that we have in the United Kingdom and further afield.
Yeah, I think it is terrible, but I think your own behavior is terrible.
And therefore, you are a hypocrite, aren't you?
Well, you've said that before, and it didn't rile me last time.
You can say it again if you want.
It didn't rile you, but everyone agreed with me.
If you were talking about the movement, you would say the time is coming.
You were referring to a specific person when you say your.
That is like a possessive pronoun there.
Your time is coming.
I know we had the pronouns.
I don't know whether you've got it in front of you or not.
To all those, all those who think it's okay to have views, okay?
Those views are coming to an end and that time is coming to an end.
And I am absolutely delighted.
Doesn't have the police have taken action against somebody who is blatantly transphobic.
Should they take action against you?
What about the dissenters at the Pride protests who call to kill all TERFs?
I'm looking at a sign right now.
It says, every time you punch a TERF, a trans kid gets more rights.
Would you say this person should be met with armed guards at their front door as well?
Or people who can't do that.
I don't know who that is.
I don't think that's a good question.
Let me explain what that was about.
Hang on.
Let me explain what that was about.
There was a complaint in Scotland after a sign calling for TERFs, trans-exclusionary radical feminists, which is a ridiculous phrase anyway, to be decapitated.
Hypocrisy in Policing Hate00:05:09
That means have their heads cut off.
This was a pro-transgender rights rally.
So the question, Dr. Weberly, which Riley is rightly asking, is, presumably, all of those people carrying that placard and laughing with it should all be arrested now for inciting hatred and violence.
Should they or not?
I don't think inciting violence against any group, whether they are a TERF group or a transgender group, is acceptable.
What's worse do you think?
Decapitating somebody or punching them in the balls?
I don't think either is acceptable.
Which one's worse?
Which one is worse, do you think?
Unacceptable.
Which one's worse?
I'm not putting any store on which one's worth it.
Well, you're a doctor.
You should know what is potentially more harmful.
Severing somebody's head or punching them in the balls.
Or people in this world.
But as a doctor, give me your medical opinion.
Punching anybody or decapitating.
From a medical perspective, what is more dangerous?
Punching someone in the balls or decapitating their head?
Well, from my medical experience, I would suggest that decapitating loss, but I don't really...
Okay, good.
So we're agreed that they should all be arrested by five armed police each, yeah?
The armed police, you can say that, right?
But I don't know whether you've been through Heathrow.
They carry arms in Heathrow.
I don't think that they really had the guns.
Actually, there are lots of unarmed policemen at Heathrow, too.
There's a completely spurious argument.
There are many unarmed police at Heathrow.
I've seen them.
I've spoken to them.
And there are armed police who are normally called because people are terrorists, not because they've cracked a joke on Twitter.
Let me bring Lionel back in.
Lionel, my cut of point about all this, there's a lot of hypocrisy.
There's a lot of hypocrisy on, by the way, on both sides.
And there are transphobic people who genuinely hate trans people.
But there are people like Riley, like me, who just feel that the trans activism has eroded women's rights to the point where it had to be stopped.
And that actually it eroded women's rights to fairness, equality, and safety.
How big a moment do you think this Graham Linneher moment is?
I've been struck by the outpouring of support he's had, which he certainly hasn't had in the past, that the overreach by the state here about his right to have an opinion has now struck a chord with people in Britain who are just like, no, we're done with this.
I have to say, all the response I've seen, with very tiny exceptions, usually from activists, has been horrified.
And that is also in the United States.
In some ways, the response in the United States has been even more powerful because it's such a violation of American principles.
And these are principles that we got from England, from the United Kingdom.
We didn't make up freedom of speech.
The British did.
And therefore, Americans are really upset to see our inheritance being corrupted and, in fact, destroyed.
I mean, the United States, yes, does have a First Amendment for freedom of speech, and the UK does not.
So freedom of speech has never been exactly codified in the UK.
And unfortunately, that has made it possible for the law to violate the UK law to violate the prime principle of liberal democracy.
And that is equality under the law.
That the law is equally applied to a prime minister and a homeless person on the street.
We all have to obey the same laws.
Not in the UK anymore.
This whole idea of having protected characteristics means that there are special laws for special people.
And that's the beginning of the end.
I totally agree.
Let me bring Blair back in.
Blair, I mean, you touched on something I think is really important that most, like, I wouldn't say the word average trans people because I don't think anyone's average, actually.
But, you know, a lot of trans people that I happen to have talked to or discuss this with, they're not interested in this kind of trans war against women's rights.
They think it's put back trans rights.
They think it's made trans people the subject to more mockery.
It's made their lives, you know, in some cases intolerable because people laugh at them all the time because of this nonsense.
Do you think we're going through a corrective period now where hopefully out of this, trans people can be let to just get on with their lives, hopefully equally, fairly, safely, but not at the expense of an erosion of women's rights?
100%.
I think people are trying to navigate that nuance and understand we're all here together and have to figure out how to coexist.
And the idea that the trans movement as a political movement was going to be able to get away with sex changes for children, men beating up women in women's sports, all the unfairness that people like Riley and other female athletes have come forward to talk about.
Forced Pronoun Compliance00:13:39
The idea that there was never going to be any sort of swinging back of the pendulum from that.
I mean, I've been warning against that for people my entire career, saying these are all nonsensical positions.
Nobody can meet these expectations.
If the expectation to not be considered transphobic is things like child sex changes, men and women's sports, no one is, no one's going to meet you there.
And I also have to say, you know, no offense to the two women on the panel who are on the other side of this, but with allies like you guys, who even needs transphobes?
Who needs anti-trans people?
Who needs anyone who hates trans people?
The sorts of positions that you guys hold are the exact reason why there is a whiplash, a backlash against trans people.
It's these nonsensical, you know, completely unprincipled positions.
And I mean, the idea that you guys can't even say, okay, it's not cool that like armed cops arrested somebody for a transition.
I said exactly that.
Okay, okay, but you couched it with, you know, being very vague.
I said directly, and I will say it again.
It is not a problem.
Okay, but okay, but let me ask you this then, Laurie, because NBC News in America issued a correction for using the wrong pronoun in identifying the mass shooter who murdered two children and wounded many more during the mass at a Catholic school in Minneapolis.
In an article on Friday, NBC News initially used male pronouns to detail how the killer who was born male and petitioned for a name change in 2019 successfully amassed an arsenal of guns in the years before the attack.
Why do we give a monkey's cuss about this person's pronouns when that person has allegedly gone outside of Catholic church and tried to murder as many children as they pray as they could possibly do?
Well, I believe that associate holding any group collectively responsible for the actual crimes that one member, the horrible crimes that one member of that group commits, or anything any member of that group might do in the future.
I think that is the essence of prejudice.
I think transgender people are increasingly all treated as person.
So was it correct for NBC News to apologize for using the wrong pronoun about this mass shooter?
I honestly haven't been following this story much.
I'm not as online as you.
The person identified as the person I did, the mass shooter identified as a trans woman, right?
And was apparently misgendered by NBC News.
My point is: have we not moved to a place where this is just garbage?
I don't think so.
Where a major news network has to issue a public apology for getting a personal pronoun wrong for somebody who decided they want to identify in a different way.
I think it's ludicrous, Riley.
It's worse than that.
It's getting a personal pronoun right.
I mean, I actually did my spectator column on this.
This tradition, and the BBC follows it, as well as the New York Times, of using people's so-called preferred pronouns, even in instances where they are mass murderers, is, you know, it's cloaked in deference.
It's supposedly being nice to them.
But it's worse than being nice.
It is implicitly an endorsement of transgender ideology.
So that it means, oh, we're not going to acknowledge this person's real biological sex.
We're going to defer to their delusion.
And that is to embrace an entire way of thinking which is unhinged and separated from reality.
And so it's not a neutral thing to do, and it's not just a nice thing to do.
And the same thing happened with NPR when they were interviewing Senator Amy Cloverchar.
And she referred to this deranged killer as he.
And the interviewer corrected her and said, we don't know the sex he is.
We're not sure.
Well, actually, we were very sure.
It was already on the record that he was born male.
And one of the things that, one of my problems with this whole movement is the way that it is imposing requirements on us to, you know, in using the pronouns that this person prefers, that we are being forced to lie.
It is, you know, you look at this person, he's a man, but you're required, this is compelled speech, as Jordan Peterson would point out.
You're required to call him a woman, and you will be arrested.
will get police at your door in the UK if you observe biological reality in public.
Yeah, Dr. Webery, this is extremely offensive.
I just want to put a line it is extremely extremely glad you agree.
It is, yeah.
Dr. Weber, I agree.
I agree.
You mean it's offensive that NBC News felt the need to apologize to one of your guests is really openly denying the existence of people who reassign their gender.
Okay, what about the topic of change sex?
What about the topic of that person's voice?
Can I say one thing?
They're pronounced.
Yeah, right.
I just want to put a line in the sand to say that I find that extremely offensive.
Oh my God.
And many people do.
Do you find shooting lots of children in a church offensive or not?
That crime is something that that person did.
And like you were saying at the beginning of your program, we have alleged and we have, you know, we have court cases to come.
So I think we need to apply the same standard.
Sure, I just do.
Denying transgender identities is a very offensive thing to do.
And this is God.
We're talking about kids being murdered and we're talking about misgendering being offensive.
This is the disgusting.
That the shooter in this case is a victim.
For goodness sake, no.
Nobody believes that.
Sorry?
Well, let's see.
Do you believe that the shooter in this case is a victim?
Hold on.
Just, it's really simple.
Yes or no.
Do you believe the shooter in this case is a victim?
A victim of what?
A victim of what?
Sorry?
Just a victim in general.
I would like to hear your thoughts.
A victim of, you need to be a little bit more specific.
This isn't a yes or no answer until you give me a victim.
Well, do you think that victimization ultimately drove someone to commit this crime?
I have no idea why that person, person that we think did committed that crime.
Well, I'm looking at a tweet that you put out right here, and it says, shame on anyone centering the gender identity of the person who shot people dead in Minneapolis.
The focus should be on what drives someone to such horror, the abuse, the hate, and the victimization.
Ask yourself, have you abused, hated, or victimized?
That feels like you were trying to guilt trip someone like me into believing that I have blood on my hands because this person went out and shot a bunch of kids.
And I will not be victimized or made to believe that I am a morally guilted person in this case because of the crime of what someone else did.
That's a tweet.
Nobody thinks it's a problem.
What she just said in her tweet is: ask yourself, have you abused, hated, or victimized?
Yeah.
Yeah.
And I'm a doctor, and I've met many, many people who are.
I'm a doctor.
That's the third time you've said that.
And victimized.
And I'm a woman.
I'm a woman.
And it causes difficulties.
Sorry.
Sorry.
You said you're a doctor.
It's the third time you've said that.
If that's the qualifications to speak on a certain subject, then guess what?
I'm a woman.
That would disqualify.
I mean, people from this panel, peers from talking about.
Sorry, I thought you were asking me about the effects of bias, hatred, harassment, prejudice on the human psychology, which is what my tweet was about.
And yes, they hurt, they cause pain, and sometimes they cause severe pain.
But you don't even know.
I cannot say what I want.
You don't even know if that's the case.
You're inventing a narrative about this person before they did what they did, that it involves some sort of bullying.
And even if so, in what world were these young Catholic children the perpetrators of that?
I don't think, absolutely not.
Absolutely not.
Okay, let me run out of time.
What is the implication of your post?
Because it's not making sense.
So make it make sense.
It sounded like you were making a victim out of that.
The implication of my post is that people who incite hatred, incite violence, harass, show bias, prejudice, they have effects.
It hurts.
And at the moment, which is the topic we're talking about, is it hurts transgender people and that's not nice.
Okay, let me ask you.
But how is that even nice?
Unlike everybody else on the panel, Laurie's been putting her hand up very politely, I have to say, and I have to recognize the inherent politeness in your activity on this panel.
I've got a Scott question, though.
So is your position that anyone can identify as whatever they want?
Yeah.
Why not?
And it has to be respected by everybody else.
Well, I'd prefer that it was.
It's good manners and being a basic, decent human being.
So if I said my personal pronouns are hot, hotter, hottest.
I would think you were silly.
Okay.
See, well, that's a bit bigoted.
But if you did know they were my pronouns, would you now feel compelled to call me that?
I would probably struggle to keep a straight face, but sure.
If you really...
Because you think it's ridiculous.
Do you want that?
But is it because you think it's ridiculous?
Because I call you hot hot.
Well, you call yourself they then.
Hang on.
Is that any more or less ridiculous?
I think people should be able to identify how they like.
And I think we're here to discuss a serious.
But you were mocking my choice of personal pronouns, weren't you?
Oh, is that actually your pronoun?
Hot.
Yeah, it's in my Twitter bio.
Hot hot.
Hot, hot, or hottest.
Why are you laughing?
No, no, no.
It's funny.
It's fucking.
I think it's funny.
You're openly mocking me.
You see how easy it is to fall into this trap?
My point being, the moment you go...
I'm not offended, Prison.
I'm really sorry.
I'm not offended.
Of course I'm not offended.
It was a joke.
The whole thing is a joke.
But to me, this is the problem with the personal pronoun thing, is that it works right to the point that someone goes, oh, right, you can identify as anything you want.
Okay, I'm a giraffe and my pronouns are hot, hot, or hottest.
And people go, now you're being ridiculous.
And I go, well, yeah, that's the problem.
Is that if you allow limitless self-identity, limitless personal pronouns, and you get offended when people don't call you by what you think you should be called, and it's mandated on people, that in the end has the opposite effect to what you think.
It doesn't lead to more respect.
It actually leads to more open mock.
It sounds like people here are very, very keen to find, to be victims of trans bullying and trans harassment.
I'm not a victim of anything.
I don't think anybody here is a victim of that victim.
Who is?
I'm sorry.
Who's a victim?
I don't think anybody on this panel is a victim.
How do you know?
Actually, no, I don't know.
Go ahead.
That's an amazing presumption.
Apparently the shooter is a victim, according to the doctor here.
Well, isn't that just about?
That's not what she said.
That's not what she said.
Nobody is defending that.
And I think it's...
That's what I heard.
So maybe completely re-explained.
It is reprehensible.
It is reprehensible to deliberately misrepresent people who are just trying to stay.
Sorry, but Laurie, do you think NBC News should have issued a public apology for misgendering the mass shooter who's now dead?
I do not care and nobody does.
Well, then why did they do it?
Why did they do it?
I have no idea.
You didn't work for NBC.
Should they have been compelled to do it?
I don't care.
What's your view?
I think my lack of thinking that this is an important subject is my view.
Fantastic.
My view is that we should.
So you actually agree with me.
You don't care about personal pronouns.
I'm sorry.
I just don't think this is the thing.
You seem to care when I question you calling yourself they, them.
You got very upset then.
So my point is, if you don't care about personal pronouns, I'm with you.
I care about the fact that kids got shot dead.
That is important.
Are you suggesting that I don't?
No, I'm just saying that you cared about your own personal pronouns, but you don't care about this other person.
You think I should care about how we're killing them?
I think you've got to be consistent.
You either think personal pronouns...
This is absolutely a lot of fun.
You either think personal pronouns are a sacrosanct thing and NBC News was right to be bullied and shamed into apologising for misgendering a mass shooter or you don't.
That's a nonsensical answer.
No, no, it's completely logical.
The logical is that Pronouns are either sacred or they don't matter at all.
They're either people should either be mandated to use them or not.
NBC News only apologised only apologised because people kicked up a fuss that they had misgendered a mass shooting.
Okay, look, what is happening here is that Mr. Morgan is having a conversation with himself about...
Actually, I'm having a conversation with millions of people.
On one side, you're saying that...
You're inventing people who are mandating and bullying you, and then you're asking me whether or not I agree with them.
I don't even need to be here because you've already decided what people like me think.
I don't know what, well, we haven't even established what people like you are.
Never mind what you think.
I'm so sorry to confuse you, but people like me exist.
There are hundreds and people who are not.
And you know what?
Do you know what, Laurie?
I respect you to live the life you want to lead.
Bullying Language Users00:01:08
Thank you.
Just don't bully everybody else into using language.
If you don't care, then stop telling people to use pronouns.
Simple.
You have I bullied.
Am I bullying you?
I felt victimised, yeah, but I've got over it.
I'm glad.
Thank you for coming on.
I appreciate it.
And thank you to all my panelists.
It's an interesting debate.
Lots of nuances.
As with all these debates, it's complicated.
No one prevents easy.
But I do think the reaction to Gremlin and Fallout has been fascinating.
You know, this is a guy who no one was supported a year ago, and now everyone is racing to support him, with a few exceptions, two of which are on my panel.
But that's why we have people with different views on this show.
Thank you all very much.
We'll see.
Piers Morgan Uncensored is proudly independent.
The only boss around here is me.
If you enjoy our show, we ask for only one simple thing.
Hit subscribe on YouTube and follow Piers Morgan Uncensored on Spotify and Apple Podcasts.
And in return, we will continue our mission to inform, irritate, and entertain.
And we'll do it all for free.
independent on censored media has never been more critical and we couldn't do it Without you.