Piers Morgan Uncensored - Piers Morgan Uncensored: Republic Threat, Hollywood Hypocrisy, Identity Row

Episode Date: May 3, 2023

On tonight's episode of Piers Morgan Uncensored, Piers debates the controversial decision the Met Gala made in celebrating fashionista Karl Lagerfeld. Piers also asks, should the king say sorry for slavery in order to combat republicanism. There is also a discussion about a county politician in America that has proclaimed himself a 'lesbian woman of colour'. 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

I'm Piers Morgan, uncensored tonight. Another bombshell poll shows half of the king's realms want to ditch the monarchy, with many citing colonial sins as the reason for divorce. So should King Charles apologise for the past, maybe even pay reparations? Or with that, just fan the Republican flames. And Hollywood's nauseating hypocrisy lay bearers met Gala stars pay tribute to the late Karl Lagerfeld, a venomous provocateur who disagreed with them about pretty much everything. Should these wokeies practice what they preach?

Or maybe just stop preaching. We'll debate that. And an elected official in America sparks fire and thunder by coming out as a woman of colour. Of course, he did it as a prank to test this concept of limitless self-identity. So what's the problem? Well, the black lesbian representative for Delaware,

who's a white bloke, will join me live to explain. From the news building in London, this. Is Piers Morgan uncensored? Good evening for Monday. Welcome to Piers Morgan Uncensored. Hollywood loves nothing more than telling the rest of us how we should live and how we should think. It's heavy on the preach, light on the practice.

This week stars and supermodels flew in on private jets taking a very well-earned break from hatreds about their carbon footprint, attention for detail for the Met Gala in New York, and what is now routinely a nauseating annual romp of tone-deaf extravagance, became a glistening exhibition of holly woke hypocrisy. Well, the whole event was billed as a tribute to the late-fashioned king,

Carl Largerfeld. Indisputably, one of the all-time great designers. A visitor from out of space would be forgiven for thinking he was some kind of hybrid, non-binary fusion of Mother Teresa and Nelson Mandelao by the time. This is not I'd finish the other night. But let's compare and contrast some of Largerfeld's opinions with those peddled by the stars oozing their tributes to him on the red carpet.

Here's Margot Robbie. This is actually, yeah, this dress was worn by Cindy Crawford in 1993. They remade it for me and it's obviously a Carl design and I feel really great in it actually. It's incredible. Obviously, the Mets always an exciting night, but I had the great privilege of getting to know Carl to an extent. I was the last Chanel ambassador that he picked. What an honor. Yeah, it is an honor. Now, nobody bows in admiration more to Munger Robby than me.

of the great actresses in the world right now, and a lovely lady, made her a couple of times. But that's the same Margot Robbie, who's a vocal advocate for gay marriage, famously wearing a pro-gay marriage t-shirt for an appearance on Saturday Night Live. I've got no issue with that, obviously. But Largerfeld did. I'm against gay marriage, she told Vice magazine, the same year, before launching a stunning broadside against gay parents adopting children. Surely some mistake, Margot.

And then there was Jared Leto, dressed up as a cat in homage, apparently, to Carl Lagerfeld's beloved pet. And yet here is Mr. Leto in 2015, giving an impassioned speech about refugees of the Syrian crisis. By the way, many of us here are the sons and the daughters of immigrants. And Steve Jobs, the son of a Syrian immigrant. Very moving, very laudable. But what about his hero, Carl Largafel? Well, in a shocking interview on the same refugee crisis, he evoked the Holocaust to attack former German Chancellor Angela Merkel

for taking in too many refugees from Syria or the enemy of the Jewish people, as he effectively called them. The list of the double standard goes on. Kim Kardashian joined the sycophantic parade. Of course she did. She turned up at the opening of a paper envelope. But despite Lagerfeld saying she was to blame, for a robbery that she suffered in Paris

because she flaunts her wealth on Instagram. He literally victim blamed her. But she forgave him because she gets a chance to wear a nice dress in a tribute to Karl Lagerfeld and be the center of media attention, which is really what she loves doing most. Never mind the hypocrisy. And then there's up my old friend Emily Radachowski,

a vocal body positivity advocate, lioness of the Me Too movement, who appeared to have forgotten that Lagerfeld must describe curvy women as fat mummies and send models, should expect to be groped. This is the same ridiculous hypocrisy that leads to fugitive paedophile,

Roman Polansky, bagging an Oscar on a standing ovation after his conviction, an ovation led by Meryl Streep, while the rest of us are just invited to forget about it. Now, I've had many run-ins with the British actress and activist Jamila Jamil.

She can be incredibly irritating, and she would say exactly the same thing about me. But today, she wrote this in response to the Met Gala. This isn't about cancel culture. It's not even about Carl. It's about showing how selective council culture is within liberal politics in the most blatant way so far.

It's about showing why people don't trust liberals because of slippery double standards like this. Well, for possibly the first time ever, maybe the only time, ever. I agree with her. She's right. If you're going to use your positions of privilege to preach woke morality for the minions back home, you should start by practicing yourselves

and maybe avoid treating as your human being. hero, somebody whose opinions are the complete opposite to everything you preach. Well, we'll debate that later in the program. But first, a new bombshell poll published today shows that nearly half of the king's realms would vote to become republics if they had the chance. Caribbean countries cite colonial ties as a reason for wanting to part with the monarchy. And pretty disturbingly for King Charles, 10 of the 14 countries polled say they back the Sussexes, say Megan's treatment exposes racist views.

It's ignited debate about whether King Charles should apologise for Britain's past sins, maybe even pay reparations. Would that make any difference? Would it just fuel the fire of republicanism? Well, here will be now to debate this. The former Royal Butler to Princess Dinan, Paul Burrell, the activist and organiser of Black Lives Matter protests, Imman Aiton, and the historian and royal author Dr. Tessa Dunlop.

Well, this will be a quiet debate, won't you? Well, you brought your earplugs, Paul. I won't get a look in. Paul, let me start with you. I've got a problem with this constant looking back in history, feeling guilty for stuff that none of us in this era actually did, and then having to say sorry for everything that we didn't do, and even now, apparently having to pay people today

the stuff that happened to their ancestors many generations before. I don't really get what that achieves. We should learn from lessons of the past. We can't change anything, and we should move forward. But the Queen's greatest achievement, his mother's greatest achievement, was the Commonwealth of Countries.

She was very proud of that. I think if she could beam her down now, she would say, my Commonwealth, that should survive intact into the King's reign. So he should do whatever he can. Now, bear in mind, I've known this man for a very long time. He has a voice, and he will say what he feels.

Here's the real problem he's got. There's another voice yapping away about racism, two voices, his son Harry and Harry's wife, Megan, who for three years have branded the Royal Family a bunch of Calas racist. That is now turning up in these holes because, understandably, frankly,

black people in the Commonwealth around the world are going, whoa, really? They're racist, these people? And yet they haven't produced a shred of evidence for any of it. You and I know the Royal Family are not racist, and you and I know that they press the racist button on the Oprah-Rimfree show. And they never apologised.

to the Queen. Never. She went to her grave thinking there was a racist in the rural family. And after she died, they said, what happened? We never. Didn't say that. The press said that. We didn't mean to say it was racism? Why didn't you correct it, Harry? Why didn't you tell you? Well, we know why. Because it made them, it made them, they weaponized racism and mental health to make themselves extremely rich. I totally. All right. This is my problem. This has always been my problem with this racism narrative that these two have spun without any evidence is that people around the world, particularly people of color, they believe it. And why wouldn't they believe it? They're hearing the first person who wasn't a white royal bride say they're racist for these people.

So the damage is palpable, it's tangible. And it will lead, I think, if we're not careful, to a load of these countries becoming republics and the beginning of the end of the monarchy. Thank you for your soliloquy. No, thank you. All right, no problem. So first and foremost, my feelings on the royal family and racism

are not predicated on Harry and Megan's willingness to identify it. That's the difference between me and you. We are talking about a country that was built off of racism, and we are referring to the oldest institution in this country that started at all. So that's the first thing. In terms of why black people and many others feel the way that we do, while the monarchy is a symbol of white supremacy. Okay, white supremacy.

That is the reason. Why does it make any difference if King Charles says sorry, or why does it make if he pays money? What difference does that make? Okay. So reparation. How does that combat racism? No, it actually does.

The guy has got a racist bone in his body. He's done more for racism than any public figure in the country. Why should he be paying for the sins of people hundreds of years ago? Okay, so can I finish? Yes. Thank you very much. So, the monarchy is a symbol of white supremacy, which is what black people have had to contend with for the last 400 years,

notwithstanding the fact that Elizabeth, or every king and queen from Elizabeth I think the last late queen was a model of white supremacy. Let me finish. Let me finish. Let me finish. Let me finish. Let me finish. Well, that's a question there. I'm getting there, so just finish. Let me just finish, okay? Hurry out. So, every king and queen from Elizabeth I, first, William the 4th, has supported and profited off of slavery.

So this is about the fact that this country was built off of racism, and that's the point. Wait, hold on a second. This country stems on. No, because I haven't even finished my point here. You can't just make outlandish statements about our royal family. Not going to jump in. Pierce, you keep interrupting.

Can I finish my point? This country also led the world out of slavery. Okay, so can I finish my point? A long time ago. Can I finish my point? Yes. Perfect. So please finish it. I will. No problem. Just be patient. So every single king and queen from Elizabeth first,

willing, the fourth, over a 270 year period, supported the enslavement of Africans and profited as a result. So it doesn't, it doesn't take any genius. Hold on a second. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that this country was built off of racism and it stems from white supremacy, all of which is directly attributed to the crown, slavery and colonialism. To answer your point, let me finish my point. You can't just keep talking. Here's, you keep interrupting.

Answer my question. Let's have a conversation. Answer my question. Let's have a conversation. In immediate, sir, guys. spoke about slavery. Let me answer my... I know. I asked you a specific question. Why should King Charles be either apologising for what happened centuries ago or paying

money for it? Okay. So, what you're talking about is slavery. I'm not talking about slavery. Slavery can be traced back to Europe. The Greek stage trade to be specific in 400 BC, then the Roman Empire, and then we get to the Muslim conquest of the 7th century back into the United States. So what we're talking about, exactly. So I'm not talking about slavery here. So slavery comes in many forms. I am not talking about slavery around today. So I tell you what I'm talking about. I'm talking about colonialism, neon colonism, racism,

racism, racism, racial disparities in the racist system of oppression and exploitation of black people and white supremacist attitudes, which have been re-banded under the guys. What's that got to do with King Charles? I am telling you why he needs to apologize and pay reparations. What did he do?

What did he do? I'm telling you, colonialism, neo-colonialism. He didn't do that. Racist and racial disparities in a racist system and white supremacist attitudes. That is the legacies of the crown, slavery and colonialism must still remain to the same. Let me finally get my point across.

Lord. You've got your point across, but here's my point, my counterpoint to you. What's any of that got to do with King Charles? Okay, so I actually has been, I think, one of the great standard bearers in royal history for actually promoting racial inequality and tackling racial injustice. Yet you want him to be issuing groveling apologies for people hundreds of years ago, and you want him to pay money. Okay, so I think black people would be far more inclined to get over it

if it wasn't for the fact that the legacies of the crown, slavery, colonialism still remain, which includes racism, racial disparities, and the racist global system of oppression and exploitation of black people. All right, you're not asking my question. I am, but you don't want to accept it. That's different. You haven't explained why... You also have the world of people as a result of exploitation of black people.

And you also have... Let Tessa speak now. Hold on. You haven't even let me finish this. No problem. No problem. You've done nine tenths of the talk. No, you didn't let me do. Tessa.

You didn't let me... You've heard the debate. I think you're both wrong, actually. On the one hand, we celebrate, and you certainly do peers, the idea of monarchy is continuity. Yeah. Going way back when. I mean, I read an article this week that traced the anointing oils to the Old Testament and King Solomon. You can't pick and choose which bits of that continuous historic line you like.

Yes, I can. Well, how is that I'm wrong? You can, but it's hugely problematic. And I would counter to you where we have the face of history and the physical form of history in our royal family. When, for example, France, the Republic, outlawed slavery much later and in the civil wars in America,

that's what it took in America, much later. So my point is, let me finish my point. Let me finish my point. See, you want to interrupt with me civil trance here. You did all the talking. I see your hypocrisy right now, it's fine. I did all the talking, you get interrupting me.

What we're doing here is for conflating an individual family with institutions of state. You can't expect a king to apologize. He doesn't have that power. He would have to be told to apologise by the government. He's already apologised, Catherine. Do I have to, all right. He's talked about sorrows.

Excuse me. Time out. He hasn't. He hasn't. He hasn't. Time out. Hold the second. You keep talking about slavery. Let's just be clear about slavery.

Yes, you did end slavery. You've made that point and you've made that point, so let me address it. You did end slavery. And there was a clause in the contract that said, for example, that Jamaicans had to work up to 45 hours a week for the following four years, whilst you simultaneously paid off the slave owners and left the enslaved in their countries to what? And then you transitioned to colonialism.

where slavery still continued and then you transition to the Commonwealth, where you continue to assert your dominance, exploit back people and do it in a fine, dignified way, what's still... I agree, Mark. There are also... Excuse me. Can we all stop... Can we all stop...

...arets about what now, Tessar, you're really sure. Can we please, time out. The biggest problem of slavery right now is there are between 7 to 10 million slaves in India. Last time I looked, that is not as a result of white supremacy causing modern-day slavery. I would rather we expend all our energy on current slavery issues than going back in the past, as we now do with... We now go back in the past for everything.

Wallowing in self-guilder about stuff, that had nothing to do with us. Paul, yes. Jump in. Jump in. Legacies of the Crown Saving colonialism. You ignore that conveniently. This is such a negative.

Legacy is going back, how far do you want to go back? I told you 100 years. Black people have been concerned. Okay. So I want... Okay. So do you think that? So do you think the Vikings should be paying me money for what they did to me?

So you're talking about slavery. I am not. I'm not talking about slavery. I'm talking about colonialism. You're not listening to me, Iran. Racism or racial disparities. That's still content. Stop shouting.

You're not listening to what I said. You're not listening to me. Should the Vikings and the Romans also, through their modern day ancestors, be paying me reparations for what they did to my family? So I'm not talking about slavery. I'm talking about colonialism. It's not slavery. You're not listening to me.

Yes, I am. The Vikings and Romans didn't make us slaves. Yes, I am. No, yes. You're talking about the. Roman Empire, which included... No, I'm talking about the Romans and the Vikings coming over here and causing a measurable harm

to my ancestors. Yes, which is... Should Italians and Norwayans be paying me reparations. In one sentence, one sentence, Imman, in one sentence... Go ahead. What do you want? In one sentence, what's your idea? You want money? You want money.

You want money. You want money. You want money. You want money. But I want money from the Vikings and the Romans. Paul, I think... Paul would be very patient. No, but the Commonwealth is a force for good. Yes. Oh, really. Yes, it is. They do. They work for each other. It's a family, a community of families that help each other. That's why it was formed.

No, you benefit more. That's why it's formed. No, we don't benefit more. They benefit as well. They do benefit. Of course you do. Paul. Yes, they do. I'm not saying that they don't. What I'm saying is that we benefit, you benefit. You benefit more. Exactly. You benefit. You benefit. You benefit. You benefit more. How much money do you want from me? That's what I keep talking about. How much money do you want for me? on reparation said that Jamaica, for example, is... How much do you want from me?

How much do you want from me? It's not about my feelings. And not from you. We've all got to chip in, right? But you want to... How much money could I give you for something that had nothing to do with me? Right?

How much money could I give you to make... To make racism better? Nothing is the answer. We're talking about the legacies of the crown saving clothes and which includes racism... I don't know why you've come on deciding to speak like a robot today, but it's not really working.

Listen. Because you don't listen, that's why. Nor does talking to me like that. It doesn't work. Okay, well, how about listening? But I will happily pay... If you could convince me that it will change racism, one iota in this country,

I will pay you a check for the damage inevitably that was done by my relatives when they weren't being attacked by Vikings and Romans, I will pay you reparations if I think you have any argument for why I should. And you know what? There isn't one. Can I give you a response? No, we've gone out of time. That's the point.

Thank you all very much indeed. Unsense said next is the king's coronation of final hurrah for Brand Britannia or Tina Brown. The Queen of Royal Commentary weighs in from across the pond. That's next. And breathe. Well, welcome back to Piers Morgan, Unsense. Assessing Britain's monarchy as a brand

might seem superficial, even sacrilegious, but not to the royals who have seen themselves as a family business ever since George the 6th, nicknamed them the firm. The British monarchy has long been a global juggernaut as a brand of the late Queen was its brand ambassador and an amazing one at that. But will the monarchy,

under King Charles continue to stoke global intrigue. Some commentators have huff that the coronation will be the monarchy's last imperial hurrah, and a decline in the number of US media crews the Saturday's event indicates maybe the royal sparkle is dimming. Well, joining me now is Tina Brown, author of the Palace Papers, alongside Paul and Tessa.

Tina, great to talk to you. I can't think of anyone better. I'm very happy to hear you, you know, trashing the Vikings, you know. Well, you know what? It's time they got cancelled. Absolutely. You know.

Don't ever get me started on the Romans. But once you go back in history, looking for people who've invaded places and demanding you want money for it, we're all going to get quids in and the entire world goes bust. Anyway, that's not why I've got you on. Tina, put me into proper perspective

about where we are with the monarchy, with King Charles and the future. Because it seems to me we've reached a real, a difficult moment, I think, for that, for the monarchy's institution, for the country, and anything could happen. Well, it is a very sort of pivotal moment that Charles has taken over.

I actually think it's probably a good thing. It was him, not William, because in a sense, he's going to be this kind of sorbet course between the two reins, right? And he's got to somehow get out of the last reign's sort of extraordinary charisma that it had and position in the next reign for William. And actually, I think he's going to be much better

than just a transitional monarch because he is a really accomplished statesman. I think one of the things I think people here are quite surprised at, those who pay attention, which isn't very many, I'll be honest. But those who do are quite surprised at just how well Charles has handled this whole interregnum, if you like, between the Queen's death and him taking over,

starting right when he came out of the box, right after the Queen died, wonderful, human, excellent speech, terribly dignified during the funeral and actually has weathered the whole kind of Sussex Grudgeonaut with tremendous kind of aplomb, actually. Well, he has, but here's the butt I would put in, the spanner in the works, if you like.

There's no doubt that he's worked, I think, in this country. The latest poll shows still a significant majority in favor of a monarchy, many echoing the points you've just made about how Charles has handled it so far, totally concur with that. But there's a pretty worrying poll about the rest of the Commonwealth where a lot of countries have fed into this Sussex narrative that the royals are racist, and they're moving fast towards a republic. I interviewed the prime minister of Australia. Yes, he's a diehard Republican. No doubt there's going to be a referendum, I think, probably in his

second term, if he wins it. And that could well go the wrong way for the monarchy. And that could be like a domino effect, we're not careful. I'm not so sure, though, that the sovereign realms are in anybody's expectations that that's going to continue. I mean, if there are any sovereign realms by the time William takes over, I'd be very, very surprised. And actually, I think that Charles is fairly sanguine about that, you know, inevitability of that happening.

The fact is that this is a time of huge transition. I mean, the Queen, you know, the Commonwealth was the Queen's great love. and it made her a kind of a global monarch. But those times have changed. I mean, you saw how terribly they've changed. I mean, how amazingly they've changed just by that whole, you know, messed up royal tour of William and Kate when they went to Jamaica.

They were doing all the same old things, but suddenly they were in the wrong movie. You know, it just suddenly looked like, wait a minute, the world has changed, you're doing the same things. So I don't think that the Commonwealth as sovereign realms will continue, But I do think that the Commonwealth as a club of nations, you know, allied by trade, you know, values, shared values, shared sense of, you know, fair elections, all of those things.

That is going to be still, I think, a very powerful club. And I think Charles is probably quite reconciled to that, actually. What should he do about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex? Should they remain able to use their titles to generate such huge income? Oh, Tina, I think you've lost contact. We'll sort that. Don't want to come back and sort Tina's mic. There's a quick mind with me now, isn't it?

Well, no, quick, quick. Yeah, what should they do? I'll tell you what, react to first of all what Tina said about this. Commonwealth. Do you agree with that? I do think it's inevitable. We will lose Australia and Canada. I do.

And Jamaica? Huge land masses. I don't know about Jamaica. But I do think the Commonwealth... I think quite a few Caribbean countries will go. The Commonwealth should stay together. It works. Does it matter?

Yes. What really infuriates me is how bad the reporting is. nobody fully seems to understand the difference between the 14 realms, which I don't think Charles will end up remaining head of state of, and the Commonwealth, by the way, in which countries who cast off our king

remain in the Commonwealth. It's this grouping, and do you know what's so crucial about it? It's away from the hoof of America, something we do, and many of the countries are smaller and peril by climate change. Together we're greater than some of our past. No, that's a good point. Okay, we've got Tina back.

Tina, we left the viewers on a cliffhanger of whether Charles should strip his son, Harry and Megan of their titles. Should they be allowed to continue to exploit the royal titles whilst causing clearly demonstrable damage to the institution that afforded those titles on them? Well, I mean, I think that, you know, there's probably quite a lot of personal, emotional desire to do that.

But anybody smart advising Charles would say, don't do it. Because the fact is that if he strips them of their titles, they have a whole new grudge match to go to town, with. And right now, they're sort of fading, is the truth. Both, I think, in the US and in the UK, certainly as kind of fascination figures. I mean, they're now in their next kind of phase where they're simply going to have to prove themselves in terms of celebrity content. I mean, it's all going to be about what's next. You know, I know that Megan is scrambling very hard now

to kind of figure out what is she going to do now with this huge deal she had from Netflix to, you know, create content. She actually hasn't done any content except for the documentary. So people are looking at them and thinking, well, okay, we had that. That was great. You were a massive celebrity for, you know, the rest of the whole of the end of last year. What's next? What's next?

They're now having to manufacture product. Yeah, I mean, there's a limit to how much whining. There's a complete limit. Well, it limits to how much whining you can do and how much the public will stomach. I mean, their popularity has absolutely plummeted on both sides of Atlantic. Their USP is being royal. Right. And whilst ever they're royal and have titles, they can make money because they are considered to be the royal family in America.

Charles cannot, he can't take the titles away from them because Harry was born a royal prince. So that makes Meghan a princess. He didn't change the letters. The bigger role, and Tina said this at the beginning of the interview, was not many people really care about King Charles. And I think we talk all the time about Harry and Megan because we don't want to face the truth, which is the dude at the top at the moment, the guy who's going to get coronated. on Saturday just isn't frankly that

interesting. Okay, Tina, the other person who's getting a crown on Saturday, of course, is Camilla. What an amazing journey has been for Camilla. I mean, if you go back to... Our daughter Diana died, she was the most reviled woman in Britain and now she's going to be crowned.

She was so reviled. You remember they called her old boot, old bag, vampire, I mean, the list of epithets that were used about it. There was even in a restaurant dish called Smoked Howt had at Parker Bowles at one point, She was in such terrible repute. But, you know, she's exactly proved about just playing the long game.

You know, she has got Elizabeth II-like sort of durability and, you know, sort of patience, quite honestly, which has really been remarkable. Interestingly, she hasn't really broken through in the United States at all. One of the problems for Camilla here is that, first of all, she still really, if anybody does think about her, they think about her through the prism of Diana, you know, who always saw her as the user. the Rottweiler. That has kind of faded. The trouble is that she can't do a TV interview because that will be very unwise and Camilla is not as unwise as everybody else in her family have done

TV interview. She's not going to fall into that trap and do it. So how does she, in a sense, you know, project the sort of warm, human, humorous person that she actually is in the United States. They don't get it at all. They think that she is a sort of... They get her completely wrong here. I mean, they think that she's a kind of a, quote, battle acts, you know, a sort of a wannabe. I mean, they use the most extraordinary adjectics about it when they talk about it to me.

I said, no, you get her completely wrong. You know, she's not like that at all. But quite hard for her, I think, now, to break through. And I don't think she's probably ever going to here. Finally, Tina, will you be watching tomorrow? Sorry, I'm going to be commentating with CBS, so I shall be speaking to the great American public. Well, I'll be anchoring for Fox. Well, I hope so.

We'll both have our vantage points. But it's going to be an amazing event. And I think, I mean, the one thing it will do, it does remind people that we might not be great in many other ways now, but boy, can we put on some pomp and pageantry. Apparently, the procession on Saturday will be twice as big as the one for the Queen's funeral

and three times as big as the one for the Platinum Jubilee. It's going to be absolutely glorious. And the truth is that, of course, for all the kind of so-called lack of interest here, once that starts, people will be sitting there in their pajamas at 5 o'clock in the morning, completely glued to it and just marvelling.

Will you be saying the oath of allegiance? I'm not so crazy about that oath of allegiance. I don't think anybody is. Oh, my God. When did we become North Korea? I just don't think he's going to fly. I hope it's not going to just be this sort of giant national raspberry that's kind of you here to length and strength,

length and breadth of the country, because whoever got over-excited and suggested that, I think it was a... I think the blame is being parted with the Archbishop of Canterbury. Tina, great to talk to you, and best of luck on Saturday. It's going to be to have a lot of Saturday. a hell of an occasion.

Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate you taking time to join us. Thank you very much. Thank you. And thanks to my excellent pack, as always. Well, on Sensor next, a US politician takes the brave decision to come out as a lesbian woman of colour.

Sparking calls for them to resign. But why? Why was he not entitled to re-identify himself? Well, he, she, they will join me live after the break. Welcome back to Piersborg and Unsens, the county politician in Indiana in the United States, He's making headlines this week by, well, exploring his identity. A councilman is coming out as a transgender, as transgender and a woman of color. Delaware County Councilman Ryan Webb announced that he now identifies as an Indian American woman.

Since that announcement, he's received some support, but a lot of backlash, many calling him childish, despicable, even calling for things like execution. Yeah, that's always how the woke left response, isn't it? You must execute him. Now, he issued a statement after the furority, Ryan Webb. He said, after much consideration, I've decided to come out and finally feel comfortable announcing my true authentic self. This is Ryan Webb.

He said, it is with great relief that I announced to everyone that I identify as a woman, not just any woman, but as a woman of colour as well. I guess this would make me gay lesbian as well since I'm attracted to women. Whew, that felt good to finally get that out there and start living my life as my true self. Well, Ms. Webb's statement has not been met

with the empathy and gushing support normally extended by the woke community. Some have even demanded that he resign. They resign. He has basically made a hate speech in this post on April 11th. And I feel that he should resign. And if he doesn't, I would look at county council to talk to legal and see what they can do about removing him because he has created some hate and discord and divide

with the transgender population here in Muncie. He must be executed. You must be cancelled. You must be fired. It's the usual predictable response to what was obviously a joke, but it was a smart joke. Because actually what it did was expose the farce of limitless self-identity. I myself identified on International Women's Day as a black lesbian. Why shouldn't I be able to?

If you can identify anything you want, Esther's cackle when I said that, went around the world. Well, Ryan Webb joins me now alongside Talk TV's Nicola Thorpe, Esther Cracker, as I just said. Well, Ryan, thank you for joining me. So I did chuckle because I had a similar thing myself, which you may or may not have heard about, when I did a similar stunt. But you were making the same point, I think, which is if we really want to have a world

where anyone can identify as anything, well, why shouldn't you be able to identify as a woman of color? Well, Pierce, you're absolutely right. And I appreciate it. I want to thank you for bringing me on the show. And as a fellow lesbian woman of color, I feel we have a deep connection here. But you're right.

They've laid the groundwork. They set it up where anybody can be anything that they want just by simply declaring it. And that's what we're doing here. And it turns out that they don't really feel as strongly about that and believe it in their soul as they would make you believe because I wasn't really as accepted in the beginning as you would think someone in my stature would be.

Yeah, and the reaction was unbelievably vicious. People calling for you to be executed. Of course, they wanted you fired. Of course they wanted you canceled. and all entirely predictable, because it's fine for them on the other side of this debate to identify as whatever they want. But the moment you dare to identify as what you decided

you wanted to be for that day, all hell breaks loose. It's the double standard. Well, predictably, the political left, they always implode on their own ideology. I've made a statement that I'm just holding up the mirror to them and they're doing all the damage themselves. I've just stepped back and with their own words and their own actions, they're just dismantling their entire ideology that they've worked very hard to build up to this point. And in my opinion, they've turned the clock back two or three years.

You know, just a few days ago, all you had to do, if you wanted to self-identify as anyone as you choose is just declare it. And it was a universal truth that that had to be accepted. But now the truth is clear that that's not the case. Now, I'm being told you have to do hormone treatments. You have to start dressing the park. You have to wear the makeup. You have to change your identification. So, you know, they've turned the clock back on their own movement a few years.

It's disappointing to see them give up so quickly on something that they said they believe in so strongly. You know what, Ron? I had to chuckle watching genuine news reports having to report this legitimately because how else could they do it without obviously disrespect? you without respecting your right to self-identity, which it just made me love. Ryan, I appreciate you joining me for Pierce Morgan & Sensor. Thank you. What are you currently identifying as? I'm currently, at the same time, I'm still identifying as a woman of color.

And I've said in a few other times, these journeys are often complex. And, you know, sometimes we never know where they're going to take us. We could end up right back where we started. I'm just riding the wave. And wherever it takes me, that's where I'll be. Well, I wish you all the very best with your journey, Ryan, and thank you very much indeed for joining me. Thank you. All right.

It's a good laugh. I'm watching my news reports was hilarious. But Nick, like I say, you've fulminating as you were listening to this. But why? Because just as I was doing, all he's really saying is, look, if we genuinely are moving to limit the self-identity, this is where it can go. We're not moving to limit self-identity. There's male, female, non-binary. That's it.

That's not it. BBC teaches there are 100 genders. Genders is different. Genders is different. What sex is non-binary? Those... But somewhere between male and female is somebody identity?

That's not non-binary. You have 100 gender identities. Non-binary is not... Non-binary is not biological sex. The BBC and various other outlets have said, I hear the 72 genders quite often. That's just 72 different ways of describing something. You could also argue there's only three colors.

Red, yellow and blue. But a mixture of all those make multitudes of colors. It's the same thing with... How did you feel, for example, how did you feel about an American cyclist, Austin Killitz, becoming the first transgender athlete to win a women's professional stage race? Yes. Right? This has caused complete outrage. And apparently, the vast majority, you see, towering over the female competitors.

But here's to say that height necessarily gives you an advantage. Clearly. But a lot of people will take years. Because like all these trans athletes, when you look at how they competed as males, they didn't compete with anything like the success. So clearly they have a physical, biological advantage purely from having gone through puberty. It is indisputable. So anyone who tries, the moment I hear anyone on this side of the trans activist argument, I support trans rights to fairness and equality, but the moment I hear anyone on that side of the argument

trying to defend what's happening in sport and women's sport, they lose me. Because you're denying biological facts. But do you know how many trans athletes that have competed in the Olympics? More and more. One. Okay, so here's what you do with the Olympics. Let's remove any specific gender from Olympic qualification. Okay.

What do you think would happen? Well, that's... What would happen? Yeah. How many women would compete in the Olympics if it was gender neutral? Probably just as many women would compete, but on certain sports... No, no, they wouldn't qualify. No, they wouldn't qualify.

Okay. Apart from equestrian and shooting, I think. Everything else... You're taking it... No, Nicola, here's my point. There is a reason we separate the sexism. Absolutely, yes, because men, generally speaking, stronger and more. Because it's unfair. Because women

wouldn't win any medals. Yes, because it's unfair women. So why is it fair for people who are biological males to put their hand up and say them a woman and compete against biological females? Because you're being disingenuous. It's cheating. They don't have to just put their hands up and say I'm a woman. They have to transition for two years and for two years

they have to be on hormone replacement therapy. Can I ask the question about that? Esther. Because I feel how is this in line with the doping, anti-doping legislation? Because on one hand, you have people like Serena Williams, who actually failed a drug test for taking too much aspirin, but you're allowing biological males to pump their bodies full of all sorts of hormones. So they are at testosterone levels, which is not all women are, by the way.

We're much more than just testosterone. Exactly. I agree with you. I wish it wasn't down to just testosterone. Well, Austin Killis won't be having periods every month, which will affect training. For example. I don't have periods every month. You're unique. I'm sorry. No, a lot of women don't have periods any month if you're on your coil.

Right. But a lot of sports women have told me that is rarely. mentioned is one of the reasons why it's also incredibly unfair. But you just have to see Austin Killips towering over the biological thing. I understand that, but let's talk about what was his name. Ryan Webb, you know, Piers, that Ryan Webb is not being genuine. And that's why the people on the left, such as myself, what is the standard of genuine?

No, he's genuinely sending up the hypocrisy. He's sending up the hypocrisy, as you were, saying, you know, I want to identify as a black lesbian. Yeah. Okay, so nobody is saying that you can identify as a different race or you can identify as... Even though it's more logical. Why can't you?

Because race actually is a spectrum. Exactly. Sex isn't. I actually had my DNA done and I discovered I had no English DNA whatsoever, mainly Celt. So it was like Scottish, Irish, a lot of Irish. But then it's just genuine.

Hang on, that's 6% Middle Eastern. So am I an Arab? Yeah. 6% of you, it? So I could identify as Arabic. Yeah, but ultimately you are... And you would say, and most Arabic people would say, what are you talking about?

You're not. You're born in England. a white guy, you're not Arabic, right? However, it's more complicated, far more complicated than biological sex. Yeah, biological sex. Can you define for me then what is a biological, what is a man? Yeah, it's an adult male. And what is an adult male? And what is it? And an adult male, it's a biological, it's a chromosome, it's a problem. It's based thing. But what is, what makes for that? It's like the Prime Minister of Australia. Ask the Prime of Australia. What is a woman? And he replied, it's an adult female. This is not difficult. But what defines a man?

The chromosomes. Any cell in a male's body. And what are the male chromosome? Let's play as the Prime Minister of Australia. Here we are. Very easily. What is a woman, Prime Minister? An adult female.

How difficult was that to answer? Not too hard. He was just on Time magazine's 100 most influential list named by Justin Trudeau, the wokenest human being in the history of planet Earth as the champion of progressive politics around the world. Even he understands what a woman is. You know what's happened to him today?

all around Australia, absolutely buried with abuse from the trans activist mob who say what he said there was transphobic. Transphobic for saying a woman is an adult female. It's nuts. Let's take a break. When we come back, we will discuss the world's most privileged pampered pre-Madonnas, not these two, who turned out in their droves to honour the late Karl Lagerfeld, the assertie designer, who was, of course, the antithesis of everything that they stand for. This is Hollywood hypocrisy, and its best. Okay, well, I'm going to talk about this staggering hypocrisy of the Met Gala stars all pouring in to pay tribute to Carl Lagofeld

who was the least woke human being ever. Great designer, but he had outrageous views about almost everything that that lot would have normally hated. So, Nicola, incredibly, you read a column I wrote about this for New York Post and you found yourself agreeing with me. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. And I found myself agreeing with Jamina Jamil, which the words I never thought I'd use, because she rightly pointed out,

If you are on the left, if you're a woke left, and this is the double standard you deploy, you lose all credibility when you try and deploy it against the other side. It was enraging. I was flicking through my Instagram over the weekend and seeing photos of people who I admired, people I looked up to, people who had been outspoken on issues of fatphobia,

issues within the Me Too movement. Homophobia. Precisely. He mocked Me Too victims. He mocked models who complain about being groped. was openly homophobic. He was, you know, he abused Muslim refugees in a vile manner, called them the enemy

of the Jewish people in Germany and evoked the Holocaust. And yet there they all are. He's my hero. If that had been Donald Trump saying that stuff, they'd be marching to the streets. So many of them dressing as him as well. And it goes to show when money's involved

or a career advancement is involved. Or a nice dress in a party. Well, for them to drop their morals. And it annoys people such as myself, of people who genuinely do believe in these causes, because we will get a bad name. We'll get called the woke left. Well, you see yourself as a principal cancel cultural.

Okay, principal. Cancel cultural. Yeah, that sounds good, isn't it? I don't know what I was like. I completely understand it, but I think for people that make this their raison d'être, I think how far does it go? Like, who would actually be?

Because no one is blameless, right? You can always dig up something from someone's past and find something you disagree with. So I just, I'm curious where the standard is. Yes, Carl Lagerfeld was a horrible person. But I just think there's so many people. Don't get me wrong. I think, look, I think a lot of people are flawed, right?

And they should be taken in totality. He was obviously a brilliant designer, legendary designer. However, really, the column I wrote wasn't about an attack on Carl Largoffield. Even though some of his views were clearly pretty reprehensible, I don't agree with him. He's entitled to his views. My attack was on the hypocrisy of all these very woke Hollywood stars who are openly all the time preaching about all these things and yet are happy to call him a hero.

They are not truly well. And I use the word woke. Well, I agree, they're shallow. This is the thing. It's because it's now become a church. I don't have a problem with these people, you know, saying the things that they do and, I suppose, supporting Karl Lagoffod in the way that they do.

But that just means that the public shouldn't take what they have to say. And by the way, I don't think anyone is truly woke. Woke. Wokery is an invention of the ultra left, which is built on sand. It doesn't exist. The way that we use, define the word woke now has changed. And it's been defined by people. like yourself.

Woke originally is being aware and having an awareness of social injustice. What it now means is you don't mind if a six foot four inch bloke gets in a swimming pool and demolishes women's swimming records. That's what being woke means. You know what? You can stick it. Love it to see you, Nicola.

Love it to see you, Esther. That's it from me. I'm going to leave you again with the fantastic Catherine Jenkins singing Jerusalem. If this doesn't get your heart pounding with British pride, what will? Keep it uncensored.

Good night.