Piers Morgan Uncensored - Piers Morgan Uncensored: Lord Mandelson, Marjorie Taylor Greene

Episode Date: November 14, 2023

On Piers Morgan Uncensored tonight, Piers is joined by Lord Mandelson on his opinion on Jeremy Corbyn not saying Hamas were terrorists and Starmer's Labour. Also Piers is joined by controversial US Congresswoman, Marjorie Taylor Greene. Watch Piers Morgan Uncensored at 8 pm on TalkTV on Sky 522, Virgin Media 606, Freeview 237 and Freesat 217. Listen on DAB+ and the app.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On Pierce Morgan Unsensit after Jeremy Corbyn's staggering refusal to say that Hamas are terrorists or should lose power, can Sakeet Starmes Labour faced down the growing revolt over its general stance on Israel? Lord Mandelson joins me live for his Piers Morgan Unsensored debut. Star powerlifter April Hutchinson faces a two-year ban from her sport after comments she made on this show about competing against a biological man. She joins me live. Amarie Taylor Green is one of the most controversial politicians, It's not just in America, but the world. She has Donald Trump's ear.

The critics say she's a lunatic conspiracy theorist. Tonight, I'll test that theory. From the news building in London, this is Piers Morgan Unsensored. Well, good evening from London. Welcome to Piers Morgan Unsensored. The misery and bloodshed in the Middle East will never end unless people on both sides can accept some absolute truths. Israel has a right to exist and a right to defend itself after terror attacks.

Palestinians need a state too, with every freedom and every right that Israelis enjoy. And none of that will ever be possible with Hamas, a terrorist group which perpetrated and then celebrated an historic massacre of Jewish people. That is why I repeatedly asked Jeremy Corbyn last night if he believes Hamas is a terror group and if he believes they should stay in power. Are Hamas a terror group? Listen, can I... Are they a terror group?

Peers, can I speak? Answer the question. Can I speak? Are they a terror group? Are they a terror group? Peers. No, then. If you'll let me speak, I'll say something.

Go on then. A ceasefire means both sides. You said that. Are they a terror group? Listen, I said that because that's part of the process. Are they a terror group? Can we go? Why can't you say it?

Completely baffling or maybe completely telling. Because if you can't answer that very straightforward question, what possible basis is ever listening to your ideas about what should happen next? It's very revealing that Corbyn's long-time friend, Len McCluskey, himself, an icon of the British left, was able to answer both questions very easy and looked like he wanted to pretty quickly. I actually agree with Corbyn and the Palestinian supporters about many things. Israel's undoubtedly oppressed the Palestinian people for decades. Israeli expansion on the West Bank is plain wrong and illegal. There are grave concerns about the soaring death toll in Gaza, as Israel now seeks to eradicate Hamas.

But there can't be any moral ambiguity about Hamas itself. They are a terror organization who just committed one of the worst terror atrocities in history. Genocide is written into their founding charter. There's been a shock reaction from across the political spectrum. James Cleverly posted as Home Secretary, I can confirm that Hamas are a terror group. And here's what David Lammy, a Labour MP who actually nominated Corby to be leader, said in Parliament today. They committed the most brutal attack on Jews since the Holocaust. Now they're using innocent Palestinians as human shields.

I'd like to register my shock that not every member of this house can say this truth. Hamas are terrorists. I also asked Jeremy Corwin about the time he referred to his friends in Hamas. Ten years ago, 10 years ago, I was in a private meeting in the House of Commons with a number of people who were represented of different Palestinian groups.

It was an attempt to understand their views and to bring people together. For a short time, a person who was related to Hamas left the room. And I said, in a collegiate, a friendly and appropriate way, as you would at any meeting, where is our friend from Hamas gone?

If only that was all he'd said. But it quickly turned out, thanks to social media, which always keeps receipts, it was just a massive whopper. Tomorrow evening, it will be, my pleasure and my honour to host an event in Parliament where our friends from Hezbollah will be speaking. I'd also invited friends from Hamas to come and speak as well. And the idea that an organisation that is dedicated towards the good of the Palestinian people

and bringing about long-term peace and social justice and political justice in the whole region should be labelled as a terrorist organisation by the British government is really a big, big historical mistake. I think the big historical mistake was that belief. And that may explain, of course, why Jeremy Corbyn couldn't answer my simple questions last night. If you can't call them as a terror group, then frankly, I think you're a terrorist sympathiser. It's not difficult. All of this matters because Jeremy Corbyn retains a big following amongst left-wing people in this country. And he takes centre stage at the pro-Palestine marches.

In my view, he does no favours whatsoever. Left-wing politics had long been dogged by claims of anti-Semitism. because it so easily strays into the narrative of oppressors and the oppressed, with all the nuances trampled out. Now, Seqia Stama, quite possibly our next Prime Minister, is facing a revolt of his own position on the Israel War. He's refused to back calls for a ceasefire. 50 councillors have quit in protest, a shadow frontbencher,

Imran Hussein, resigned his post in protest too. Labour relies on Muslim voters, and many of them are furious. That could make the difference between a majority and a hung parliament, or even a loss at the next election. Well, Starma's worked hard to drag Labour out of the Corbyn crisis, but the Israel-Hamas war has created a new one for him, and it's not yet clear that he has the answers. Well, my first guest tonight is Labor Grande, Lord Madelson.

He served his first Secretary of State in 2009, as the leading advisor to Tony Blair, of course, during his tenure as Prime Minister. And he joins me out. Lord, Madelson, good evening. Hello, Pierce. It's been a while. It has, but it's nice to be back with you.

It is, it is. and I share the joy. I was watching intently the Corbyn sort of fiasco last night. What did you make of that? It wasn't a fiasco. He was telling the truth. Which is what? That he doesn't believe Hamas are terrorists,

that he can't find it in himself to condemn utterly, utterly the cynical, sadistic, gleeful, cold-blooded murder that Hamas undertook on October the 7th. He sympathises with their aims. And to be perfectly frank, I think it's because he doesn't value the continued existence of the state of Israel. And because of that view of his, that he's no longer leader of the Labour Party.

He no longer has the Labour whip in the House of Commons, and he will not be a Labour candidate at the next election. He is an MP. Let me ask you, he remains an MP. Of course, because he was elected at the last election. So is there any other mechanism? Given his position clearly looks like it's supporting a terror group, is there any other mechanism for him to be removed? None that I can think of.

I mean, there are recall petitions, but that is, I think, in particularly prescribed circumstances. So no, at the next election, he won't be standing as a Labour candidate. If he chooses to stand as an independent, then it will be up to the people of his constituency in Islington to turf him out, and I hope they will. I mean, it sort of shines a light, I guess, on the big debate about the marches, particularly the one that's just happened at Armistice Day and so on,

where you have a large body of people genuinely marching peacefully who genuinely want to ceasefire in Gaza, and I completely respect that opinion. But you have sprinkled among them in quite large numbers, people whose rhetoric or regalia, whatever it may be, is clearly a step further, and in some cases blatantly, supporting Hamas or chanting things like death to the Jews or jihad or from the river to the sea. They're even calling for a free Palestine. And what they mean by a free Palestine is free of Israelis.

So what should we do about these marches? I think you have to, because we are strong in this country and we have a very robust democracy. And we live and let live and respect other people when they express their views. allow them to continue unless they cross the line. And when they engage in racial hatred, if they break the law, the police should go in and prosecute them. If, as they are, Hamas are a prescribed terror group in this country, if you're a politician who refuses to call them a terror group,

is that a crime? I'm not a policeman. I'm not a member of the Crown Prosecution Service. I can't say. But, you know, the government, Parliament has agreed to prescribe Hamas. And let me make this absolutely clear, Pierce, if I may. There's a very, very big distinction and separation between the marginal people who share Jeremy Corbyn's view,

which is basically that everything is the West's fault. Everything sort of starts with the corruption and collapse of the capitalist system, and everything everyone else does is excusable on that basis. That is a marginal view. It's his world, anti-Western worldview. There's a completely different and separate view, which is shared by many of us in the Labour Party, which is, of course, appalled at the humanitarian catastrophe that's going on in Gaza. As you yourself said, in your opening remarks, the scale of civilian death is terrible.

The lack of utility supply to the people of Gaza is unacceptable. The continued holding of... the hostages is completely unacceptable. The violence on the West Bank is unacceptable. Now, we can all unite around that view. But the idea that somehow we in, you know, the British Parliament can impose a ceasefire on two combatants in this war

is, of course, completely ridiculous. We could, in fact, we decided to abstain when the UN had a vote on this, but we could have voted, We could have voted as part of the UN to say we supposed it. Well, the government chose to abstain. Yeah. Okay.

Well, they no doubt had their reasons. Is that moral cowardice, not to say either way? Personally, I would have voted against a ceasefire because we know that the only ceasefire that is possible is one that is unilaterally called by the Israeli side. Hamas had never going to call a ceasefire because it is in their constitution. It's their whole purpose of being existing. to destroy the state of Israel.

What does Keistama do about this rising, grand swell of opposition from within his own ranks, his own party, who do want to cease fire and don't like the fact that their leader is being so resolute against it? Well, he doesn't... There may even be a vote apparently as early as tomorrow. No, no, there may well be a vote.

But the Labour Party, the Labour Front Bench, the leader, Kirstama, who have tabled a very good, amendment to the resolution which has been debated in the House of Commons tomorrow, which sets out why the Labour Party supports a total, comprehensive, pause in the hostilities for humanitarian reasons. But that is not the same as a ceasefire, because a ceasefire by definition is one that has to be agreed, negotiated and agreed by both sides. Hamas will never agree to that. And so if the Israelis were unilaterally to declare one,

they essentially would be handing on a plate to Hamas the very victory that they won. They would come out shooting their guns, replenishing their stocks, continuing to fire their rockets into Israel. Why on earth should the Israelis? How can the Israelis accept that? Of course they can't.

You are a good number, cruncher. You know about polling. Interesting and quite worrying polling about Muslim support for the Labour Party has been plummeting. and accelerating down as a result of this war. What do you think of that? And what does Kirstama do about?

I understand the sentiment, Pierce. I understand there's huge emotion firing people up, and I completely understand why. Now, in due course, this civil war between Israel and Hamas will fight itself to a conclusion. I believe that to be the case. It may not extinguish Hamas, but it will certainly reduce Hamas and remove their ability to kill innocent civilian Israeli people.

And that's what Israel has got to do. It has to continue until this is seen through and the job is done. And I think most people in the country will understand and accept that. But I fully understand why there are such powerful emotions when people see the pictures on their television of this humanitarian catastrophe, what is happening to families, to mothers, to children and babies,

in hospitals which, as we know, are used by Hamas as civilian shields with their command posts in tunnels underneath the very hospitals which the Israelis are trying to get at. It's horrible, but I'm afraid it is a consequence of what Hamas did in the first place on October the 7th.

Is Muslim distrust in the Labour Party a consequence of what you were part of with the Iraq war? You weren't Tony Blair. You were an advisor. I wasn't in the government at the time. I know. You were an advisor, but you were part of the team. No, no, I voted for it. I voted for it in the House of Commons originally.

And as you know, I was violently opposed to it and campaigned against it. And as it turned out, the war happened. It was pretty much a disaster. I've never thought that Tony Blair deliberately lied, but he got it massively wrong. And there was a massive breach of trust then I felt with Muslim people and the Labour Party. Do you accept that?

I do accept that a lot of people lost a lot of faith in the Labour government at the time. You could argue that a mistake was made, but that it was an honest mistake in a sense that that's what you have said. in different words. But we've built back that faith and that trust in the Labour Party

and I very strongly believe that we'll do so again when the sort of sheer emotionalism and intensity of this time has passed. You've got a podcast with the Times called How to Win an Election.

You talk to Keir Stama all the time. He's in a great position. But is he in a great position as Tony Blair was in 96-7 or is in a position that looks like great, but may not be like Neil Kinnock in 92? No, it's not 92.

I stood for election in 92, having been the Labour campaign director during the 1980s. No, this is not 1992, but nor would I say it was yet 1997. And I think what Kirstalmer and the Labour Party have got to do

over the coming year is having people tuned out of the Conservative government. I mean, they're not listening to the Conservatives anymore, but they're not yet committed fully to the Labour Party. And I don't believe that will happen until next year. People won't start focusing on the alternative.

They won't start focusing on the election until we're much near it. And it's likely to come in the autumn of next year. One of the problems that the party may have other than dwindling Muslim support is this. A woman can't have a penis. I don't think that discussing this issue in this way helps anyone in the long run.

Is it transphobic to say only women? have a cervix? Well, it is something that shouldn't be said. For the vast majority of women, this is all about biology, and of course they don't have a penis. We all know that. 99.9 something percent of women, it's all biological, and it's very straightforward.

My position is, as I've set out, as I say, for 99.9% of women, it's a matter of biology. I completely support that. Who are the 0.1%? Can you fill the blank for me? I guess what he's talking. Of apparently women who have penises?

Do you know who they are? Who he's talking about? Less than 1% of women who have penises. I assume that he's talking about women who choose to identify as women. Are they women? But are not biologically different. No, they're not. So it's wrong?

Well, I believe that they are essentially in a transition between having a male, identity that they started with and a female identity that they chose... How long you put words in your mouth, your percentage would be 100? My view is really quite straightforward. If you have a penis, you're a man, but you can self-identify as a woman should you choose to do it? It doesn't make you a woman? In my view, no.

So you agree with Rishi Sunak, not Kirstama? I don't know what Rishi Sunnets's view is. But if he has said, he said... exactly the same words as I have used, then it would certainly appear to be that we're in the same place. Did you ever think you'd agree with a Conservative Prime Minister over your own Labour leader in election year, Peter?

It's not the worst crime in the world. On a positive note to end, congratulations on getting married. Thank you very much. To your long-time partner, Ronaldo, the Marlabel, old Marlabel Town Hall, literally October the 27th, guest Tony Blair, Derek Draper,

our mutual friend, has obviously been going through utter hell with his wife Kate. And Keir Starma joined us later. And Keirstom joined us later. Congratulations. Thank you. It's really, really nice. Enjoying married life? Heaven knows why, after 27 years I left it so long.

Who proposed to who? Shall I tell you how it happened? Yes. He said, you've got a big birthday coming up in October and we're going to give a big party. I said, no, you are not going to give any big party for my big birthday. He said, oh, well, hold on. Don't be such a killjoy.

we'll get married instead and we'll have an even bigger party. Really? Yes. That's true story. It's a nice story. Good to see you again, Peter. Nice to see you. Appreciate you coming in.

Lord Madison. Unsensored next, the female power lifter who was suspended for standing up for women's rights and sport on this show. I'll talk to April Hutchinson next. Welcome back to Unsensor. Canadian female power lifter April Hutchinson's been suspended from the sport for two years. We're taking a speaking out actually on this show about trans athletes, competing in the sport, clearly in Powerlifting Union.

These comments she made against her rival, transgender record-breaking powerlifter and Andres, right here on Uncensored, as part of the reasoning for the suspension. Here's what she said that apparently was so awful. So he is a 40-year-old, a 6-foot 250-pound man. Well, that national record that he broke,

athletes have been chasing that for years. So it just goes to show the advantages, the physiological advantages that a male has over a female. Well, April joins me now. April, first of all, I'm appalled that you've been suspended. And I'm even more appalled that you've been suspended for stating what appears to be a simple fact. You were talking about the fact that a biological male

who identifies now as a woman and is a trans athlete was getting an unfair advantage because of their physiology over you. for stating the bleeding obvious, you're the one now who can't compete. Yeah, exactly. I guess saying truth and fact, calling Andres a biological male is considered hate speech

and goes against their social media code. When talking about sports, Pierce, you would know this. You have to state what the person is. So I was actually thinking I was being polite saying a biological male. And I was, in fact, saying the, truth. So bodies play sports, not identities. So when we're talking about sports, especially powerlifting, a strength sport, you need to say, call a man a man, call a woman a woman.

Right, because physiology, I'm afraid, is physiology. There's nothing to get away from it. It just seems completely ridiculous to me that for calling this out, this shocking unfairness towards women born with female bodies in women's sport, you can now not compete. I mean, How do you feel about this? I'm actually, I mean, this was a week ago that I found out. I was sitting there on the couch. I opened the email from the Ethics Committee. I was blown away.

Two-year suspension is very harsh. It's a suspension you would give someone that got caught for doping. Put it that way. So, I mean, everyone's still shocked about it. I'm very upset. I'm very hurt by my Federation. And I do feel that this suspension was issued, let alone focusing on my terminology to deviate from the real topic at hand,

which is unfairness in sports. Yeah, I mean, I saw Megan Rapino, the football player, soccer, of course, over in America, who has just retired. And right at the moment of her retirement, she said, oh, what I really want is to see trans women playing in the US women's national soccer team, which is great because it means her plays won't get taken. And my response would be, okay, so what happens if Leonel Messi, who's playing in the MLS in America, what happens if he decides to identify as a woman? A, he can, if you want to. B, there'll be no law

against him prohibiting him from playing for the American women's national team. Is that the way we're going to go? Where Leonel Messi suddenly says, I'm a woman, and breaks even more records, but makes it irrevocably impossible for an actual woman to compete. That is where this is going, if we're not very careful, isn't it? It's true. And you said it, Pierce. It doesn't affect Rapino anymore. So have fun virtual singling.

That's exactly what she's doing. For my sport, it affects many lifters. I know four lifters off the top of my head that will be competing against Anne coming up and that have a problem with it, that have actually written the Federation. Two people have dropped out. One person cut weight

so they don't have to compete against Anne. It's not consensual. And, I mean, it only takes one person to not consent. And the federations that are allowing this, you know, it's disgraceful. It is disgusting that they're allowing this to happen. Yeah, but it's basically licensed cheating is what it is. And it's like saying that certain competitors can dope. You know, if that was the case, everyone would be up in arms and saying, well, it's unfair because you get an advantage.

This is unfair. You get an advantage. I mean, there's another story over here, which I know you're aware of. which has really just staggered me, a health charity in the UK, that helps women specifically suffering from endometriosis, which is a condition about the lining of a womb, has now appointed as its chief executive, a trans woman, so a biological male.

What do you think of that? I heard that, and I mean, what a huge insult to women. You know, I went for a test yesterday. I went from my first mammogram, and, you know, I was just sitting there thinking, like, how would I feel if there was, A, a man in there with me? You know, it's a very private issue. Even just going into locker rooms, women are very private.

Like, I'm always covering myself up. And that's in front of women. So you take something like so private, like a health condition, and you appoint a man in charge, a huge slap to women's faces. Yeah, it's nuts, isn't it? April, are you going to appeal against your suspension? Yeah, so the first step, I have a great lawyer. Lisa Biltie is my lawyer.

We will be appealing it. We do have 10 days. And then after that, we will be pursuing other legal avenues, which I can't announce right now, but we will be seeking legal action. Well, I'm very sorry again that it's come to this and this show has played a part of this ridiculous suspension. I wish you luck with the appeal.

We'll follow it. We'll keep in touch and I wish you all the best. Thank you so much for having me again. Good to see. Well, on says the next, my PAC's reaction to that interview and that extraordinary suspension and to Home Secretary, all the, ex-home secretary, Suella Braverman,

and her scathing resignation letter. Bitter Braverman. What do you make of it? We'll find it after the break. Welcome back. I'm joined by my Stella Pack, political journalist Ava Santina, talked to the contributor, Paula Rohn, and talk to the presenter, Alex Phillips. Welcome to all of you. Thank you. Rather sexist to have three women in tonight, but there we are. Thank God there's one man here to keep the control of them all.

Right, Ms. Santina. What do you make of, well, first of all, would you make of the Jeremy Corbyn interview and Mandelson ripping into him. But let's take another little look at what Corbyn said last night. Are Hamas a terror group? Listen, can I... Are they a terror group? Peers, can I... Answer the question.

Can I speak? Are they a terror group? Pears? No, no. If you let me speak, I'll say something. Go on then. A ceasefire means both sides... You said that.

Are they a terror group? Listen, I said that because that is part of the process. Are they a terror group? Well, can we go... Why can't you say it? Why couldn't he say it, Ava? It's not a shining moment for him, is it? I've got no qualms at all with calling Hamas a terrorist group.

I think the argument from the Corbyn camp will be that calling them a terrorist group invites Western opinion to then ask, well, why on earth would you do negotiations with a terrorist organization? But he wouldn't. But obviously, the conversation now is about opening a dialogue and finding a way to a peace process. And then he also doesn't like the idea. You can't have a dialogue with Hamas, can he?

Well, I mean, even the Conservative, there are many Conservative MPs who are now calling for dialogue. Not with Hamas. But because how on earth ends you get Hamas to release hostages? You don't. You don't negotiate with Hamas. But what do you mean? That means the hostages just stay there. They're a terror group who have a stated mission to eradicate Israel, kill all the Jews they can kill,

and they've just perpetrated an atrocity of such scale and just medieval barbarism. They're done as a political force. There is no negotiation with the mass. Whatever side of this you're on, surely we all agree that, don't we? Well, no, I don't deny anything that you just said, apart from the latter portion of that, which is you have to have open dialogue with them, otherwise you're not going to get those hostages back.

You've also got, you know, nearly two million people on that strip. But, you know, they've just built a grave this evening for 180 bodies. How on earth do you stop what is going on right now? How on earth do you get to an inevitable situation if you've got open dialogue with them? Okay, Paula, I would flip it around and say, how on earth do you get rid of a mass, which most people agree has to happen without doing what Israel's currently doing.

I mean, obviously it's horrendous, the civilian casualties. Obviously, it's horrendous that Gaza has a particularly high volume of children. It's heartbreaking. It's terrible. It's awful. But how else do you get rid of Hamas? By talking peers.

To Hamas? To Hamas. Of course you have to. Of course you don't. You don't want to, but you're going to have to. We didn't talk to ISIS. We didn't talk to al-Qaeda. And we know what happened in Afghanistan.

No, actually, with ISIS, with ISIS, we wiped them out pretty much. And we did it, unfortunately, the way the Israelis are doing it. I mean, that's true. We didn't work with Afghanistan. Well, we attacked ISIS all over the place, and there were lots of civilian casualties. But we abandoned Afghanistan. But now ISIS doesn't really operate, right? So, again, I come back, what's the difference in Hamas and ISIS?

You say that, but you know, you understand how ISIS has been able to infiltrate certain African countries and the difficulties that are being caused. Of course, they're not completely finished. The caliphate is pretty much been destroyed. We're never going to get rid of Hamas by simply utilising bombs. Are you seriously suggesting... As much as that disgusting to say that? Are you suggesting that we seriously have political dialogue with Hamas

about some kind of settlement? How are we going to get the hostages back, peers? Alex, am I going mad or is this lunacy? I'm with you. You have to have a surgical operation. You infiltrate the tunnels. You wipe as many of the tunnels as possible. You try and find your hostages. And when you come across someone who's ISIS, you arrest them,

you interview them, you get information out of them. you do whatever you can and you have to wipe them out. Look, there's no point of being tolerant. I'm not suggesting that what you're saying shouldn't be done. What I'm suggesting is it's not the only argument. There's one thing about negotiating with Palestinian authorities. But the bombings, that must have killed most of them as well. You cannot, you just can't.

I mean, actually, you can sometimes, right? And we do. And I think it's naive to suggest that we don't, here. We do negotiate with ISIS and now Hamas. When they have a nihilistic view, which means, eradicating everyone that they oppose completely, which is what Hamas want to do to Jewish people and Israel. When that is their mission statement,

there is no negotiation to be had. And they've now shown what they will do, if given the chance. And they said last week through their spokesman, if we can do it again and again and again, that's what we'll do. You cannot negotiate with these people. Accepting that premise for one moment,

then accepting that you might storm the tunnels and destroy the tunnels, what about the Israeli hostages that are there? What are you going to tell to the families of those? Hamas should release the hostages. But then you've got to talk to them, peers. We're going around in circles. You've got to have an open dialogue with them, haven't you? I'm talking about a peace settlement.

There is no dialogue to be done on the peace settlement. Well, I think we're at cross-perpsies. Yeah. I'll be going a little bit around it. I think we're at the moment. I think the conversation that we're having at the moment is getting to the point of a ceasefire, right? Or getting to the point of returning the hostages and, you know, trying to halt what is going on in the answer at the moment. The only people that benefit from a ceasefire are Hamas.

No, no, but you've also got the Israeli hostages who will benefit from that, because they will be. return. And the Palestinian people who are currently dying. Why are we putting words into the mouths of Hamas? I don't think Hamas are even offering to return the hostages. The idea that they want to and not do they want peace. Nor do Hamas won peace. And Hamas will kill as many Palestinians as it takes. They don't care. Let's just turn to something else. Let's turn to this issue of this power lifter, right, who has now been suspended for two years for having the audacity to say it's unfair that a biological male

is smashing them all in powerlifting in the women's category. I actually don't know the details of the story. I've got to be really honest with you. I mean on the face of it, look, I think if you are a trans athlete and you have been allowed to compete in that arena, I can see why you... And why should the biological woman who cries foul about this

and says, as it is, it's a biological male competing as a trans athlete, why has she been suspended? But if they've been allowed by the board to compete... Why is she been suspended? The actual woman in the situation? Well, I don't know. I don't know.

I thought we were talking about endometeosis. I was ready for that. Well, let's talk about that, Paula. Endometeotiusis. Why? Why have a trans CEO? Why have a biological male for a charity

which literally only, only applies to women with a condition only women get? Okay, so let me answer that question. And I'll do that with some analogy. So are you saying to me that as a white, man, you cannot sympathise or empathise with me suffering from racism. Are you saying to me that because you're a man, you shouldn't be able to treat me as a doctor for endometriacios or you shouldn't

be able to campaign on my behalf or if I had pants of the womb. I'm saying if you're running a charity, you have to be a... So you're going to campaign for me passionately. Push, push my cause, but you shouldn't be... But Alex, my question would be... Piz, you're cutting me off. Are you saying that that's wrong? I'm asking Alex to answer the question. I just think it's all a madness. Can we just stop playing this fantasy game where men can suddenly be women? I mean, maybe it's stop is utterly ridiculous.

To what job you do. To me, it's just, you know, it's woke. It's woke to a hyperactive thing. Your gender is woke. It is trolling women, quite frankly. And I'm sorry, look, if you're going to say, I'm now a woman, that's almost like saying, well, biology doesn't exist, and endometriosis can happen to anyone.

I've been really struck by the number of women who've been incensed about this, who are not normally that incensed about stuff. who've said to me, I'm enraged by this. Look, I think that it's confected outrage. Because if you look at, you know, who are the normal, you know, who are normally treating women in a maternity ward? You've got male nurses there. You've got male gynecologists.

We've never had an issue before with, you know, a different gender treating biological women. For some reason that there's been this sort of confected outrage against the CEO, look, if she's going to be up there and she's going to speak about Andrew Matreus, by the way, has not been talked about for the best part of what? Forever. I don't care. As long as she actually does something, does some scientific research into it.

Great. Okay. Well, there we have it. If even women were a stand up for women's rights, why should I poke my nose into it? Thank you, Pat. Good to see you all. Unsense, the next one of the most controversial politicians in America,

Marjorie Taylor Green, joins me live. Welcome back to Unsend. So thousands of people rallied in Washington today against surging anti-Semitic attacks since the Israel-Hamas conflict began, incidents in the US has spiked by nearly 400%. People from all over the nation have traveled to the March for Israel, which also demanded a release of hostages taken by Hamas.

We're from Washington. I'm joined now by Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Green, whose new book called MTG is out soon. Well, welcome, MTG. You are a very... Hi. Thank you for having me on. My pleasure.

You're a very controversial character. Depending who I talk to, they say you're an absolute firebrand, the female Donald Trump. Others say you're a conspiracy, theory whack job. How do you plead? Well, I'm only controversial because people like you made it that way, peers. And that's why I wrote my book, MTG. What have I done? People in your industry, they created a character of me that doesn't exist. And so I wrote my book, MTG,

so that I could tell my country and tell the world exactly who I am and what my real views are, which are not radical, they are not controversial. They're actually very American. and they represent the views of not only my district, but most Americans who are sick and tired of being sold out by Washington. So you never promote ridiculous conspiracy theories? Well, if you mean by Russian collusion, absolutely not. Those are the conspiracy theories and the lies of the Democrats and the media. Well, I agree with you about Russian collusion.

So no. I never promoted those. I agree with you about that. It was ridiculous. I said so at the time. Well, there was no, yeah. And we were born out. But for example, I want to play a clip from a guy called Bassam-Yusef. He was known as the Arab John Stewart,

and I interviewed him recently about the war, and he said this about you. The saddest thing that I saw is the people that were in so much support of Israel are anti-Semite themselves. MTG, MTG, MTG, MTG, Marjorie Taylor Green. She said, like, oh, those are I send my AIDS, and they took pictures of the protesters. Basically, she's surveilling protesters.

And Mary Taylor Green is very known for a very famous post in 2018, where she blamed the California wildfires on a Jewish space laser gun. Now, you did, didn't you? Because I've read that post. I went and got it, and I read it. November 17, 2018, you posted a long thing on Facebook that was just complete. Gobbled it gook. I mean, you made out that the Ross-Chiles.

I talk about Jewish space lasers in my book because that's something I never said. No, excuse me, Pierce. I never said that phrase. That was a lie about me. If you read my original Facebook post, I never said, and that's why I had to write this book because people like you and whoever that guy was, he sounds like one of the trolls in my social media, attacking me and calling me names when he's never met me. I'm not anti-Semitic at all. I support Israel, and I am outraged at Hamas attacking innocent Israeli citizens. women, children, slaughtering babies. I'm not calling you anything. I'm just saying that you did post this crazy post,

basically alleging that... No, you know, the media lied about it, and that's why I wrote my book here, because I'm setting the record straight. And I hope people order my book at mtgbook.com. It's a great reading. People need to know exactly who I am, who I am and what I really believe in support.

It's a very good plug for the book, but you did suggest in this post, which I've read very carefully, you did suggest that the California wildfires at the time had been started by PG and Ian in conjunction with the Ross Charles using a space laser in order to clear room for a high-speed whale project. Your words, not mine. Well, you know, people have twisted my words nonstop,

and I guess that's what you're going to continue to do. But we're working hard in America to straighten out our problems. You are. You're doing a great job of it, peers, and that's what you and your colleagues do all the time. I just don't handle it. I don't deal with it and I cast it to the side. You know, there's a lot of issues happening that we could talk about. I'm going to come to those.

Before we move on, though, you have to just accept what you wrote yourself, don't you? You deleted this. Obviously, you were embarrassed by it. Well, that would be like me asking you to accept the fact that you defended prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, but never say anything about January 6 defendants who are having their rights abused and are rotting away in solitary confinement here in our country, and especially in the D.C. jail, you know, if we're going to talk about each other's words, let's hold each other to account and to issues that really matter,

not social media posts from the past, okay? I don't know what you're referring to on Guantanamo Bay, but what I would say about Guantanamo Bay is it's clearly ridiculous that America kept this open-ended camp where people were kept without trial sometimes for more than 12 years. It's completely ridiculous in a civilized Democrat. society that you would do that. Now, let's move on from my words. Well, in a civilized Democrat society, we shouldn't be holding American citizens that simply walk through the capital,

grandmothers and mothers and veterans, walking through the Capitol, never doing anything wrong, and they're rotting away in jail and being persecuted by our Department of Justice and our government that has completely gone out of control. So if you're going to talk about one, we should talk about the other. Let's talk about January 6th, by all means. I mean, I know what I'm going to do. I know what I'm going to do. eyewitness with my own eyes. And it was a huge violent mob. Oh, wait, were you here? It was, sorry? Were you here? No, I watched it on television. You weren't here. Oh, I was here. Peers, let me tell you, I was here. I was actually in the House chamber because I objected to Joe Biden's Electoral College votes. Yeah. I'm very proud of that. I would object again today if I could.

And I was there. You did suggest that people use violence to thwart democracy, didn't you? Well, you mean like in 1776 when we beat your country? Is that what you're talking about? If you want to reference? No, I didn't talk about violence on January 6th. What I did talk about is objecting using my constitutional duty that I have as a member of Congress to object to fraudulent electoral college votes. Absolutely, I did that. Let me play you what you said. Let's play what you said. Your own words. This is an important time in our history. We can't allow the. this just to be gone, you know, just to let it go. You can't allow it to just transfer power peacefully like Joe Biden wants and allow him to become our president because he did not win

this election. It's being stolen and the evidence is there. So there can be no peaceful transfer of power. So what's the opposite of peace? That's why we objected, peers. That's why we objected. And that's why, Marjorie, a gigantic mob of... have as a member of Congress. Okay, but let me make my point. You know, there was a law firm that tried to take me off the ballot, and they were laughed out of the courtroom in Georgia. And you were giving their talking points.

I can't tell you how much people in Georgia would think this is ridiculous. Let me give you my talking point, which is that a huge mob of people, many of whom were violent, crashed into the Capitol to try and thwart democracy. Wait, do you mean like, because people like you, Marguerite? People like you said two things. You mean like the pro Hamas writers? No, no. No, no.

I'm talking about Jeremy Sik. We've had our capital on October 18th that Rashida Talibh herself led. Answer my question. No, wait, we're in 2023 peers. Marjorie, answer my question. We just had a pro-Hamas mom. You've written a book in which you talk about these things. And Rashida Talibu led it.

Can I ask you a question? Can I? Let me ask you the question. I want to ask two questions. One, presumably when you say there could be no peaceful transfer of power, you mean there has to be some violent objection to it, which is. exactly what we then saw on January 6th. I didn't say violence.

You said you're putting words in my mouth and I'm not going to let you do that. You said there can be no, peers, I'm not going to let you, you're lying. I'm not letting you put words in my mouth that I never said. Absolutely not. You want to know where the real election interference happened. Let me ask you.

With Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Russian inclusion. I'm not talking about that. And America went through hell for four years because of that. I've agreed with you about Russian collusion. Let's agree about that. But let's not agree about the stolen election. I told Donald Trump to his face, and he didn't like it, called me a fool seven times, that the election was not stolen from him.

He has singularly failed to produce any actual hard evidence that there was any stolen election. Do you still believe that election was stolen? Pears, you're not even a voter in our country. And I can tell you right now, as a Georgia resident and a member of Congress, in Georgia, our Secretary of State illegally changed the laws. So did Wisconsin, so did Pennsylvania, to allow our states to be flooded with absentee ballots. We have cases in court today. You should look them up, Fulton County case.

These are cases that are about to be heard. In the next few months, peers, excuse me, that we're about to prove those cases. It wasn't stolen. You can think that all you want, but you live over in Britain. It's not just me saying it. I'm an American, I'm a Georgia voter. I'm a member of Congress. I've seen the evidence.

Our election was stolen in 2020. And we are going to re-elect President Trump in 2020. But just for the record, I do have a home in America. And I spend a lot of time in America. And I have lived and worked in America for 20 years. I love America. I love Americans. I particularly love your democratic system.

And I don't like to see elected officials in America, whether it's you or Donald Trump, pretending you had an election stolen when there is actually no evidence it was stolen. And in fact, many senior Republicans degree. There's plenty of evidence. It wasn't stolen. And if you want, if you are an election,

able to, if you aren't capable of believing the truth, that's your problem. Prove it in the courts. It is being proven. It's not been proven in the courts. Look up the court. No court has upheld. They're in the courts right now. Pears, don't lie to your viewers. There are cases right now. Marjorie, I wouldn't call you a liar. Oh, so you're telling me suitcases of ballots being pulled out from under the table. Marjorie. I don't think, I'm not called you a liar. Have you watched the videos, stacks of ballots being put through the, as I said to Donald Trump counted over and over. As I said to Donald Trump, I'm not saying you're lying.

I'm just saying produce the evidence because no court in America has so far established any evidence that that election was stolen. It's for the birds. It's clow cuckoo stuff. That's because those cases were dismissed on standing, but we have cases coming up, peers. Pay attention so that if you really want your viewers to know the truth. If you prove me wrong. Pay attention to these cases happening right now. Let's have a bet.

But let's talk. Do you have anything in 2023? Yes. Because we've done January 6th stolen election. Yes, I do. Okay, what do you got? I've got a book. How about my book?

MTG, this is going to be great. MTG book.com. Let's talk about your book. You can't wait for people to read it. You plugged it enough. Let me ask you, is Donald Trump going to win the election? Absolutely. He's blowing it out of the water.

The primary is a joke. And he is winning poll after poll on the general election. And if he gets convicted of one of the myriad criminal offenses he's been charge with. And if, I'm not saying when, if, if he is convicted and he gets a jail sentence, will he be president from a prison cell? Absolutely. People are going to vote for him even if he is in jail. I would vote for him even if he's in jail because we have communism in our country, peers. We have the Biden administration that is using the Department of Justice like the campaign arm of the Biden campaign. It's unbelievable. And Americans know this. That's why people that are

Democrats. Many voters are switching over to supporting President Trump because they're seeing it for the first time in their lifetimes. Okay, Marjorie, we've got to leave it there. It was a lively encounter. Come back again. And thank you for coming on. I appreciate it. Thanks, Pierce. That's it from me, whatever you're up to. Keep it uncensored. Good night.