Piers Morgan Uncensored - Piers Morgan Uncensored: Right to Free Speech in Question

Episode Date: December 12, 2023

On Piers Morgan Uncensored tonight, Has Elon Musk lost the plot in letting Alex Jones back on X? Piers doesn't think it was the right decision - but does that make him a 'free speech hypocrite'? He'll be joined by rapper Zuby to discuss. 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

The NHS GP whose movement calls for jihad and denies the Hamas massacre was a terrorist attack. Does he really represent Muslim views? Is he fit to practice medicine in this country? Ritchie's Rwanda plan passes its parliamentary test, but will it ever actually work? Is he worth it? Can it save his skin or debate? President Zelensky is at the White House tonight with a powerful plea for more aid in his battle against Vladimir Putin.

I'll take on the pundit and the politician from the president. from the American Conservative right, who both say Ukraine shouldn't get another American sect. Live from the news building in London, this is Piers Morgan Uncensored. Good evening from London. Welcome to Piers Morgan Unsensored. Dr. Abdul Waheed is the leader of a controversial Islamist movement, which glorified the Hamas attacks and chanted for jihad on the streets of London. Astonishingly, he's also an acting, serving, long serving, actually, NHSGP. And last night, He came on my show, accepted an invitation to be interviewed after he was in the newspapers for his thoughts about what happened on October the 7th.

And while that interview caused last night a bit of a stir, do you think Hamas are a terror group? I believe it's a resistance organization. Do you think what they did in October the 7th of the terror attack? I believe that if civilians got killed on that day, it is appalling. If? You're a doctor, man.

It is appalling. You're a doctor in the NHS. What do you mean if? 1,200 people got killed. massacred. Well, very clearly, Dr. Waheed cast doubt on whether the atrocities on October 7th even took place. Also clearly, questioned whether any civilians had been massacred. He believes the Hamas attacks were an act of resistance and the people who did it are not terrorists, but they're fighting a resistance. I don't think they were. Twelve hundred innocent people were killed that day.

Women were raped, babies and the elderly were kidnapped. Some people were beheaded. It was a medieval orgy of indiscriminate violence. And we know that in no small part because Hamas filmed their attacks and gleefully celebrated them in videos they posted to the world. And Hamas has since publicly warned that it will not hesitate to repeat the attacks again. Israel, the country no matter. We need to be a deal it. Because, in fact, it's a matter of course of war,

and aiskeria and syssalmia, it should end end up. So we don't we don't think of that. In all the way, we need to addu it. and we'll add them a matter two and third. Whatever your view of this war, and I've tried to platform a lot of people on both sides of it repeatedly, so we can get a sense of what both sides are thinking. Denying that the massacre of October the 7th even happened

cannot be the basis for any sensible discussion. I have deep sympathy with the decades-long plight of the Palestinian people, which I've expressed many times. I've repeatedly called out Israel's occupation of both Gaza and the West. I have deep unease about the scale of Israel's response to the Hamas attack, unease that's now shared by the President of United States. But to deny that it was a terror attack at all,

it's quite frankly poisonous delusion. And I think it's entirely valid to question whether this man's views are compatible with being an NHS doctor in a publicly funded health service. I'm not calling for him to be fired or cancelled, as some have said today. I gave him a platform on this show, called uncensored to elaborate on his opinions, but I found a lot of his answers deeply concerning. And I do believe many members of the public,

not least his own patients, might also share my unease about the opinions he so willingly offered, just as they were about cries of jihad on the streets of London. There's been a backlash from some Muslim followers of myself on Twitter, mostly because I suggested Dr. Waheed wants women to be oppressed. Would you like,

Sharia law in this country. Last time I'm going to ask you. If Sharia law, if Sharia law, if Sharia law, if Sharia law means upholding family values, means looking after the poor. Means no gays, no feminists, i.e. women who get above themselves, right? That's your caricature. Oh, I know what Sharia law wants.

Why does so many women become Muslim these days? Why does they want to be oppressed? Is that what you're going to tell me? Well, I said that in the specific context of Dr. Wahee's desire for Sharia law in this country and his defense of a tweet from one of the members of his own organization

calling feminists and gay people filth. It's important to understand that context. I don't suggest for a moment that women who want to convert to Islam should do so for any other than perfectly good reasons. I have no problem with Islam as a religion or with Muslims. I have a problem, though, with people who endorse and support terrorism or who are blatantly homophobic

or who are blatantly misogynist. Now, many people have since accused me of being, as I say, anti-Muslim, but I'm not. No one who watches this show could possibly reach that conclusion. Let me be crystal clear again. I'm anti-terrorists, and I'm anti those who support terrorists. Well, joining me now from Televue is Douglas Murray, the Associated to the Spectator, the co-founder of the Muslim Debate Initiative, Abdullah al-Andalusi, and Dr. Isaldine Aboulaj, the Canadian-Palestinian medical doctor, who's joined me again in,

Thank you very much indeed for joining me. Let me start with you if I may, Dr. Abelage. When you saw that interview, what was your response to the fact that it's an NHS doctor working and living in this country who was saying those things? It's important. I am coming, you know. I heard it. I heard many of your interviews. Jihad. The word jihad. my presence here is jihad when I'm coming to meet with you to advocate for my Palestinian people and for saving lives of the people is jihad and this is the highest level

of jihad the resistance against someone who is invading you this is the lowest level of jihad but jihad when I am traveling when I am going to any place even someone who is dying because of fire away from his home is a kind of jihad.

When we are fasting, when we are walking, work is a jihad. And that's the most important we need to understand it, not to take it out of the context in the limited understanding of it. When I am invaded with the disease, COVID, what do I do? I have to resist the COVID. And that's when we face cancer disease, any cancer. With respect, you would not categorize October the 7th as a resistance. It's, you know, I condemned the killing of any innocent human being.

And for me, I was born. My daughters were killed before October 7th. Yes or no. I was born as a Palestinian refugee before October 7. My parents were refugees before 48th. They were born in Palestine. So the history didn't start. The world is not created October 7th.

That's what we need. And we are today. It's important. But let me, let me, let me. With respect, I don't think. Anyone who... Please. Today is the 12th of December. Today is the 12th of December where we have more than 23 Palestinians,000 are killed.

More than 45,000 are severely wounded. Even the damage in the Gaza Strip, as Borrell, the representative of foreign affairs in the European Union, it's far beyond the damage in Germany for six years. in two months more than that. So even, you know how many... That's not true, actually. Why? No, no, there was far...

He said that. Who said that? Borrell, the representative of the European Union, the foreign affairs. But if far more people died in World War II than have died... No, no. The damage. The damage. The destruction.

Well, there certainly would have been more damage in Germany in World War II. He mentioned that himself. That won't be factually accurate. But here's my question, though, for you. It all comes back to me. I'm very happy to platform anybody on this show right to the point where they try and convince me that what happened on October 7th

was not an act of terror. And when people refused to concede that point, I find it very hard then to have a civilized discussion. It's why I got so annoyed last night. Do you consider me as terrorists? Well, I think it was appalling. Do you consider it as terrorist? I do not consider Israel to be a terrorist.

I do not consider Israel to be a terrorist. terrorist organization. What? The killing of my daughters. I think here's a question we have to ask ourselves, which is, since you have defended Israel's operation in Gaza as self-defense, and since you have... Don't misquote me. I've defended...

So you don't say it's part of their self-defense? No, let me clarify it. Okay. I've defended Israel's right to defend itself, right? In fact, they have a duty to its civilians after Hamas's repeated threats since October the 7th to repeat it to defend the... So is the war on, is the war on self-defense? is it according to your perspective. Let me just clarify my condition so you know, right? However,

I have repeatedly questioned the proportionality of Israel's response as indeed their greatest allies of America. But not the response itself. But not the response itself, though. I think they're perfectly entitled to go and take out the mass. So may I continue my question then? Yes. So since, as I repeat, so since you have justified their response, maybe not how they've carried it out exactly, but you justify their response as self-defense. Their right to defend themselves by taking the terrorists who committed that atrocity, yes. And presumably you refuse to call Israel, and you have refused when you've been asked to call Israel, a terrorist organization government, or the idea for terrorist organization.

Well, the difference is, here we are. How? Let me finish my question, please. I have a question for you. I must clarify. You're making some statements are a bit misleading. Sure. This country considers Hamas to be a prescribed terror group.

They do not consider Israel to be a terrorist organization, and nor do I. So that's the position. But I'm not asking you. The United States, the United States, The United States is considered it. I'm not asking the British government. I'm asking you, Piers.

I don't think Israel is a terrorist government. I do not think there are terrorist organizations. Now let me finish my question. If I can ask the question as well, right, for us to discuss. So considering that you have justified the operation that Israel initiated a self-defense and that you refuse to call Israel a terrorist organization or a terrorist government, despite the fact that as many Palestinians, almost as many Palestinians have died, under Israel's precision bombing,

then as Londoners have died during the whole year of a blitz under German bombing, which wasn't precision bombing, and yet you still say that, well, Israel isn't a terrorist organization. I think the question we should be asking is, should you be suspended?

Is it responsible to have a person with your views speaking to the public when you clearly refuse to condemn that which needs to be condemned? which was worst in the London Brit, Blitz. With precision weapons, and the Germans didn't even have precision weapons. Perfectly reasonable question. Yes.

And you've asked me it on my show. Yes. The fact you're here and able to ask that, I think is evidence that I'm prepared to listen to people who will look me in the eye and ask me difficult questions. Well, you didn't know what I was going to say that, but anyway, yes. But that's fine. You're perfectly entitled to you.

We believe in unscensored free speech here. But let me ask you the question then, which I asked... He's answering my question, but you haven't answered it. Well, I have. I said I don't think there are terrorist organisation. Despite the fact that they've killed almost as many guys. As Germans did when they bombed London under the Blitz for one year with non-precision bombs?

I have given you an unequivocal answer. Now, let me ask you if you can give me one. Yes. Do you believe Hamas are a terror organization? Okay, and I'd like to ask you, what does that mean? No, no, just answer my question. Well, I need clarification. Well, this country has prescribed it as a terror group.

Do you think they are? Are you the British government? No, I'm talking to you. What do you think? Okay, so I want your, I want a clarification. I gave you a simple straight answer. What does it mean? No, you tell me.

I don't know. You're asking me a question. You don't think they are a terror group. No, I want your definition. What is a terror group? An act that commits acts of terror, a group that commits terror attacks, as they did on October. So one that commits terror attack, all right, fine. So define terror attack. Do you want to ask a question or not?

I do, but I just want clarification. No, no. We all know what terror is. Please, no, no. We're going to go somewhere with this. We're going to go somewhere with this, right? Are you going to answer the question? Yes, once I get your definition, what's a terror attack? The definition is, as is laid down an international law. which is committing an act of terror.

Which is? Which is terrorism. Are you asking questions you don't know the definition of? Well, why don't you tell me what you think of it? I don't know.

You're asking the question. You've no idea what terrorism is. No, I want to answer your question. I would say massacring 1,200 people on October the 7th and the way Hamas did is an act of terror. Do you agree? So killing civilians is an act of terror?

No, that's not what I said. Oh, so then killing civilians is not an act of terror. That's scary. So killing civilians is not an act of terror. You're not going to answer. Let me bring you. No, I want your definition. No, no.

I want you to be consistent. We have a third guest. No, but I want to be consistent. I'm going to say something. I want to say something. All right. You know, really, you know, United States recognized B.L.O. as a terrorist and it negotiates with BILO.

This is one thing. The second, October 7 happened and many things happened after. Are we here just stuck there as a snapshot and to discuss it? Or we want to discuss what after and what can be done to move away? We do. But actually. That's the most important. I think they're all important issues, but right now, because of what happened in the fallout from last night's show, I specifically want to discuss the definition of terrorism, Hamas, and whether a British doctor...

But you haven't finished. Hang on. Hang on. We have an exact definition. I'm going to bring in our third... I'm going to bring in Douglas Murray. You're sitting patiently here. Douglas, first of all, what was your reaction to this interview with an NHS doctor last night on this show?

Well, let me first of all say that it's necessary. to clear quite a lot of things up because we've heard quite a lot of hogwash in the last few minutes. Firstly, your guest last night is a member of an extremist organization, Hizbathir, which is banned in many countries, including in European countries. And it's also banned in many Muslim countries. It's banned in Pakistan. It's banned in Egypt. And that's because these Muslim governments recognize that it is an extremist group

that has a revolutionary ideology that wants to replace government in Muslim countries in Muslim. countries as well as in as well as do you know Germany one European countries banned in Douglas Murray I'm not going to let you lie to the audience like usually do I just you're going to justify everything you say on this show is Murray right please I just me one country Germany it's not bad in Germany it's not it's not Germany you're not listening you're not listening to the audience let me let me look it for yourself here's but it's Germany are they banned in an organization is Is this Mr. Al-Andalusi, can I just check?

I can't see you. It is. Is that him? Yeah. Okay. This is a guy, he's of no significance, but he's a guy who I have seen in studios for years spouting extreme Islamist rhetoric. Many years ago, he couldn't condemn the killing of the journalists at Charlie Abdo.

Last year, he wouldn't condemn the attempted murder of Salman Rushdie. Now he can't do this. He fails every single test. But let me get on to the question. Slander and lies. I'm not going to engage. I'm not going to engage in a bun fight with this Islamist. Let me answer the question that peers put to me before you try to interrupt again.

Only if you don't lie. Let him answer, please. First of all, I'm not going to keep being talked over by this Islamist blowhard. Let me speak. First of all, your first guest treated us to the first bit of mouthwash this evening by claiming that the word jihad can mean absolutely. anything. Nonsense. When a big-bearded member of Hizbathar says calls for jihad on the streets of London, then they are not calling for an inner personal struggle with the nature of the divine.

They are calling for violence. And anyone who can't recognize that should be questioned about their own motives. Secondly, we've just been treated to a monologue about casualty figures in Gaza. Where do these figures come from? I'll tell you where they come from. They come from Hamas. It's quite remarkable to me. This is a lie. Two months after the October the 7th massacre, the two months after the October the 7th massacres,

the Israelis still don't know the precise number of people murdered on October the 7th. There's a reason for that, because it takes time to work out massacres of that scale. One of the striking, you know, I just don't know if either of your guests are going to allow me a word in. Because you are lying. One of the striking things about that. from the IDF which are not accredited.

No. You will, you know, it's really interesting hearing somebody who presents themselves, who presents themselves as a moderate being a spokesperson for Hamas. So let me continue. They are Hamas figures. They are all provided by the ministries of Hamas, which is Hamas, which is a prescribed terrorist organization. If you want to reel off Hamas figures, then be my guest,

but you are not able to mislead the viewers of Peir's show by quoting Hamas figures at his viewers as if they are, I am not quoting. It's the Euromen. It's the United Nations. We've been treated third. Third, third, third, we've been treated third. Thirdly, where do you think they get the figures from?

I heard you and all of what you say is fake. Thirdly, thirdly, I will continue to speak if it kills you. Thirdly, World War II, it is nonsense that what has been happening in Gaza has, as you said in this endless list of fallacies, that there has been more bombing in Gaza, more deaths and destruction in Gaza than during World War II. Do you know anything about World War II? Almost, I said. In Dresden alone.

In Dresden alone, in Dresden alone, take one German city. Take one German city. The destruction was on a scale totally dissimilarly in Gaza. I'm taking London. I'm very, very interested. I'm very interested, and I will, once again,

I will finish this point. Even if both of these boy are going to talk over me. I will finish the point I wanted to make. I'm going to come back to you both. Let me ask the point I wanted to make. Douglas, specifically about the dot-set. It is very important for your viewers to hear the following definition.

The definition of terrorism is the deliberate targeting of innocent civilians. That is what Hamas specializes in. That is what Hamas did on October 7. And that's what is happening in Gaza also. Is what Israel is what Israel is doing terrorism? No, for the following reason. And again, you can lie about this if you want, but do not expect not to be challenged about it.

What the IDF is doing is the same manner of war as the British Army, the American Army, and all other armies in the civilized world. They target terrorists like Hamas, and there are civilian casualties. Yes, there are. But it is not the aim of the IDF any more than it is of the British or American armies. to target civilians. And anyone who pretends otherwise is lying to the public watching. All right, Douglas, final question

before I go back to the two in the studio here. And it's specifically about the doctor that was on last night, whether he should be allowed to continue practicing as a GP when he identifies Hamas as a resistance group wouldn't say that it committed an act of terror. He said he didn't even believe

that there had been a massacre and was also quite blatantly homophobic amongst other things. Well, he didn't actually. But not Douglas. Let me ask Douglas. No, please, please. Let me ask Douglas.

The medical association. I'll come both to. The medical association is the one who is assigned to. I'm asking Douglas. I'm asking Douglas. He's not a medical doctor. I'm not a bunch of opinion. Douglas.

Well, you don't seem to be much of an impartial observer of this. I have to say myself, I thought, I thought slightly highly of you before you started ranting as much as Mr. Al-Andalusie this evening. I'll tell you what I thought of it, Piers. I think our country has had enough of people like your guest last night. It's not just that he's in the NHS. Why is he in Britain? Why do we allow people in Britain to try to overthrow the state

who praise terrorism, members of extremists? What has Britain got from this guy exactly? What benefit have we got from him? I mean, I wouldn't want to be an NHS patient going to him. I don't know if any Jews would particularly want. to in Britain. I don't know if very many innocent people would want to go to this doctor. But my question is not just should he be able to practice. I want to know why our country of Britain has been such a soft touch for decades that we have Hamas leaders, terrorist spokespeople,

Islamist sympathizers like your guest, Mr. Al-Anda-Dalusi. And now, NHS doctors who are members of groups like Hizb utahir that stand on the streets of London, call for jihad, call for Muslim armies to arise. I don't think our country benefits anything from these people. I think people like that should leave. We have no need of them. Douglas Murray, thank you very much indeed for joining me. I appreciate it. Let's come back to you gentlemen

to wrap this up. Let me start with you, Dr. Ebelage. Look, passions run high here on both sides. I get that. There have to be certain points of agreement, don't there? And one of the things that I find very hard to deal with, like I said at the start of this debate, is when people simply won't accept

what we all saw with their own eyes because Hamas put it out on their own videos through their own social media platforms. What happened October the 7th was a terror attack? Can we not agree that? I am coming here as a Palestinian. Yes.

I am not belonging to any faction and Hamas is not representing the Palestinian people. We have to understand it. It's part of the Palestinian people. It was elected with a free democratic election in 2006. Since that time, we don't have any election.

We look forward to have election and we have to respect the election of the people and the choice of the people. If you in UK tomorrow to elect any right fanatic group, what do you think that other people will say to you? If they said, no, they are terrorists or they are not accepted, they are part of the Palestinian people. Whether we accept or not,

we need to have a new leadership, to have a new election, and then it's our choice to do it. What is happening, as I said it clearly, before October 7, October 7, after October 7 will never lead to any positive way. It only aggravates bloodshed, more animosity, more pain, more suffering, and more extremism. I think you may be right. And this has been my concern about the, in my view, increasingly disproportionate response by Israel, is it may have the opposite effect to what they want. It may actually lead to more radicalism.

destroying most of Gaza seems to be what the mission statement is now. I don't see how that helps the situation at all. But I do understand why they want to try and eliminate Hamas. And that's the conundrum. Well, I'd like to clarify firstly. Islamic law very clearly said, and there's no difference of opinion on this for 1,300 years or even more, that is impermissible in whatever a situation

to target women, children, elderly, or non-combatants or those not reservists in an army. So even the Hamas fighters, which were interviewed on Israeli TV, the broadcast was interviewed, or they interviewed, they said the same thing, that it is prohibited. The issue of October the 7th is that there's a big question mark regarding what exactly happened. I completely accept, let me finish what do I mean by this.

I completely accept that there was Israelis were killed, who were not combatants, is reprehensible in Islamic law, And likewise, is irreprehensible that non-combatants on the Palestinian side are killed, like, for example, an eight-year-old, Mohamed El-Hul and others in West Bank, who was shot by an Israeli soldier. But my point is this, right, and here's the issue, which is Michael Clark, who advises, might as seen him Sky News talking about Ukraine, war, he's a military advisor on Channel and also Channel 4. He described, he said that Hamas, the operation, they actually lost control of the operation, and it turned into a spontaneous terror attack.

I'm quoting him verbating here. I don't believe a word of that. Well, this is what he says as an expert. I'm giving you an expert opinion. It was clearly planned, orchestrated. And then they gleefully voted about it. They didn't. They did?

Where? Where did Hamas? Did you know that quote take hold of that? You see no Hamas people that day gloating about it? Are you watching the videos? Yes, I did. Did you watch that Hamas spokesman? You quoted that Hamas spokesman on TV.

Did you see what he said about the attack? He said that there had, there was no. order to target civilians. We know they did. A general consensus of analysts have shown that there was looters that came out of Gaza who were not part of Hamas. So my simple question. So my simple question is this.

My simple question is this. Was it a terror attack? Anyone who killed civilians, yeah, should be condemned. The terror attack. Anyone who killed civilians is a criminal act. Was it a terror attack? What? October the 7th.

And we now asked you, you said, what define the terror attack is that they You've had the definition from double. Yes, okay. You target civilians, right? So then I want to ask, I'll answer that question. I want to ask that question. But I just, just for say consistency,

when the British army targeted German civilians in World War II, was that a terror attack? No, because they were responding to Nazi Germany's attempt to destroy the world. So you're saying that, so you're saying that because of who they were fighting, it's not a terror attack to kill, to target civilians. Are you able to, is that what you're saying?

We have to wrap this up. I'm asking, because I only want consistency from you. I'm saying, there's no moral. equivalence between us defending ourselves against Nazi Germany who committed a holocaust that killed, in fact, they killed 12 million people? Did Britain launch war on Germany because of the Jews? Huh? Did Britain declare war on Germany because of for the sake of Jews?

Britain declared war on Germany. Did wisdom Churchill in his ultimatum to Hitler? Did he say, stop persecuting. Do you know why? Because at that time, anti-Semitism was so rife that people didn't care about the plight of the Jews. It was only afterwards, after they discovered the death camps and so on, so forth. Don't pretend that the Allies launched this war for the sake of Jews.

I didn't say that. Anti-semitism. We only discovered the full horror of the concentration camps towards the end of the war. We did it to save our democracy and freedom. And the idea of there's any moral equivalence. Hang on.

What are the Palestinians are doing? What are the people are doing? Listen, the policy of the truth is ridiculous. But let me come back one more time before we finish to my simple question. Was what happened on October the 7th of terror attack? And I'm telling you, that if you refuse to call the bombing of Burm...

All right. I tried. I tried. Then why... I've got to leave it there. Is that not hypocritical? I'm totally finally calling it a terror attack. If you're willing to call it a terror attack too. Listen. Let's join each other in condemning both things, including the IDF as a...

No. I do not believe... IDF is a terror attack. No, it's not. That's being hypocritical. I'm happy to condemn all this as a terror attack. Yeah, you're not. You have to be consistent.

It's not. Final word to you. Consistent. You know, yesterday I was listening to the chief of Mossad and the chief of Shempeth. And he said it's because of the failure of diplomatic and political issues. This is important. And there was negligence. And what can we do now?

And that's the most important as a medical doctor. We need to stop the bloodshed to go to serious negotiations to use it. What happened, October 7 as an opportunity to bridge the gap between. Palestinians and the Israelis and not to repeat it again and again. Doctor, I've got to end it there. Thank you. I don't think you should fire people from their jobs because they have difference of opinion in England. I don't think British GPs should be coming on national television in this country

and breaking the law by publicly supporting and endorsing a terror group. Where did he break the law? It's a criminal offence to support a terror group in this country. Yeah, of course. He did that last night. By what? When did he support it? by saying they were resistance not a terror group.

He justified what he did. He was talking about Palestinians in general. And that is a criminal. No. He was talking about Palestinians in general. Hamas. He was talking about Hamas. He didn't watch the interview.

Go back and watch it. He described it. Yes. He broke the Palestinians. He broke the law. He broke the law. Equal rights throughout the whole of Palestine. You ask me why.

That's why. Palestinians want equal rights around in Palestine. Again, thanks to Douglas Murray. To Dr. Abelage. It's good to see you again. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for coming in.

I appreciate Alesson. Next, President Zelensky is at the White House right now as he tries to convince the U.S. to provide more aid for Ukraine, U.S. lawmaker Byron Donaldson, since the U.S. to stop funding Ukraine, and joins me next. Welcome back to Onsensen, the Ukrainian president of Vodomir Zelensky came face to face with U.S. lawmakers in Washington today

as he attempts to win over Republicans resisting more funding for its country's war against Putin's Russia. Zelensky's making a last-ish effort to save a $61 billion aid package. Well, to debate with the U.S. to keep this ministry's port float, I'm joined by two people who don't agree with me to Conservative Talk radio host Ben Ferguson and the Republican Congressman Byron Donalds.

And I'll start with you, Congressman, if I may. Here's what I don't get. All the resistances is coming from people who historically would have been absolutely first in the line to try and stop a Russian dictator cutting a swathe of barbaric invasion through Europe. What's happened to you guys? Why are you prepared to let Putin win?

First of all, peers, I think that's the wrong way to even phrase the question. We're not prepared to let Vladimir Putin win anything. The only thing we're saying is that you have to actually take care of issues at home first. If you actually do that, there'd be a lot of ability to remove Ukrainian aid in Congress. I have some disagreements in that. Number one is there's no accountability with this money whatsoever. Number two, Joe Biden has had no view of what this mission actually is. He wants to cover up his own derelictions with his disastrous foreign policy that has led us to

point right now, not just in Ukraine, but in my view in other areas around the globe. But House Republicans and now Senate Republicans, our mission is clear. Secure our border. Get that business done. It makes no sense to give Ukraine upwards of $200 billion from the American Treasury while our nation is overrun by some number, some estimates of 6 to 8 million migrants. It makes sense. Just do both. Listen, to be truthful, nobody trusts. administration. They're flagrantly violating a border security law. But this comes back.

Not even immigration law, this is border security law. Listen, I agree with you that what's happening on the border is completely out of control, a dereliction of duty by Joe Biden, and it's got to be fixed. But America is, last time I checked, the number one superpower in the world, the richest and most powerful country on earth. You're telling me it can't control its border and at the same time stop a Russian dictator taking over European countries. Really? Not with, not with Joe Biden as president, because the man is the master of a disaster. It wouldn't be with you either, would it? It wouldn't be

if Republicans were in charge. Here's our responsibility right now is to hold the line and make sure our border is secure because Joe Biden is such a terrible leader. He won't even take care of first things first here in America. So if he won't do that, we have to force him to do that. And unfortunately, Ukraine is the leverage point to force him to do it. Because Joe Biden, let's go back in history, let's remember history. Joe Biden saw Russia amassing troops for six months at the Ukrainian border. He did nothing. Ukraine was asking for help during that six months.

He did nothing. When Russia invaded, Vladimir Zelensky was told, hey, get on a G5. And if he didn't tell Joe Biden, no, give me bullets. I'm not looking for a ride. Joe Biden wouldn't even be talking about it. It sounds like you think we should have seen American. It sounds to me like you think America should have been involved a lot earlier. What we should have done is done everything to make sure an incursion into Ukraine never occurred.

And Pierce, let's go back in time. Was Vladimir Putin thinking about invading Ukraine? Of course. But did he do it when Donald Trump was president? He absolutely did not. All right. Joe Biden's weakness has led us to where we are. Congressman, you have to go.

So final question. So you want to wrap things up in Ukraine? You just give Putin what he's stolen in terms of land? Listen, at this point, there's going to have to be a negotiation and a deal about what's going to happen over there. No, that's not what I'm saying. What would you give it? What I'm saying is they need to figure out a negotiation. But the number one thing that matters to us is border security here in the United States.

We take care of America at home, then we can talk about the world. But you don't care about the Ukrainian border security. It's that simple. So my question is Putin wants to rewrite the Ukrainian border and just take vast ways of the country for himself. And you would let him do that, right? No, I do not want to let him do that. What would you do that? I want to do everything. I want me personally, I want to do everything possible for Vladimir Putin to be defeated.

But I am telling you this. How do you defend him by giving him everything he's taken? Pierce, the American voter is demanding that our security is taking care of first. You can do both. That's the position of the House of Congress. I know you have to go. Hold on. Last minute, Pierce, last thing, Pierce. All Joe Biden has to do is undo what he did when he came into office. Secure our border. Then we can talk about Ukraine. Until then, there's nothing to talk about. All right, maybe too late by then. Putin may get his victory and you'll have helped him. Anyway, I appreciate you joining me.

Congressman, thank you very much. We turn to Ben Ferguson. Thank you. Ben, I just don't get this. I can't understand. Let me explain a different way. Yeah. Let me explain a little bit different way.

There's two problems here. One, there's zero accountability with the money we're sitting over there right now. There's massive amounts of corruption with the Ukrainian oligarchs and many of their families are in five-star hotels in Warsaw. We're paying an insane amount of money that's not going to the best. battlefield. So there's a problem here with accountability. That's one of the questions that must be answered before we send more funds. The second problem with this is if you have these people, Zelensky and others that are in charge, and they hear from American foreign policy

that they have an unlimited amount of time with unlimited dollars coming to the U.S., I'm not sure they're not going to drag this thing out because they're all getting rich and everyone around them with the billions that are coming into their country because of the corruption. It's been well documented. They're all getting killed. That's not true. Not the oligarchs. The oligarchs are getting killed.

They're not the ones fighting. How do you a Republican, let me ask you a question. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, for example, did you think it was right that America went to support and kick him out? I think it was right the way that we fought that war and we got them out quickly and we didn't stay forever on end. Right. But you agreed to when somebody invaded a sovereign country the right thing to do, even though

Kuwait was not a member of NATO was for American forces, including troops on the ground, should get involved to kick him out, right? Pierce, there's a difference between Kuwait. Did you agree with that? First of all. Do you agree, did you agree with that? Yes, because it was a quick interaction. So why don't you agree with, with helping you cover?

There's a never ending date here, and that's part of, I'm not dumb enough to give an open check and just say to a country that it has massive amounts of corruption, many believe worse than even Russia when it comes to corruption in their government. Here's a blank check indefinitely for decades on end. That's not what America's doing. America's given two years. That's exactly what we're doing. That's exactly what we're doing.

Hang on. No offense. It's not your tax hours. Hang on. Hang on. America's given. Ben, let me talk. America's given about two years of money so far, right?

And Britain's been the second biggest donor of money. No troops on the ground like they were in Kuwait. No tanks, nothing. just giving money to Ukraine to fund their military operation so they can try and defeat a Russian dictator who illegally invaded their sovereign country, just as Saddam Hussein did, to Kuwait. Two non-NATO countries being defended by America,

one you completely endorse and supported, and one you want to run away from and let Putin have a victory. They were a Republican. Why do Republicans want Russians to win like this? This is where you're wrong. I didn't say run away. I said accountability. I want there to be accountability for this check that I'm writing as an American taxpayer.

By the way, with money we don't have that we're then borrowing and then having to finance going to corrupt people in Ukraine. There is a huge difference between these two scenarios. Kuwait was a very short-term implementation of a process to win, and then it was over. You could have done 10 Kuwaits in the timeframe that you've done one Ukraine, which is an installment at best right now. How are you going to feel if you don't give the money, final question and brief answer, please, how are you going to feel if the money doesn't get given to Ukraine and Putin actually defeats Ukraine and then starts invading other countries near Ukraine? It's not on me.

That's on Joe Biden. No on you. Actually, it is on you. It's Joe Biden's foreign policy. It would be on you and everyone. It is Joe Biden for not securing the border. It would be on you. It would be the first time in modern American history where it was the conservative right that allowed a Russian dictator to

rampage his way through Europe and take what he wanted. When you're being held hostage. I find that staggering. Pears, peers, when you're being held hostage by a President of United States of America that allows for 8 million people to invade your country in the last year and a half since he's been president, then that is, and he refuses to do his job. And this is what you have to do to hold him to accountability. You do it.

So if you want to blame someone, don't blame me, say I'm cutting and running. I can't stand Vladimir Putin, right? I can't even travel to Russia if I wanted to in peace times. The reality is, this is this joke. Biden's fault that he's not held them accountable for the money we've already sent and refuses to ask questions about the corruption. Ben Ferguson, always good to talk to you. Thank you for joining Unsense. Good to see you here. Unsense. The next, the father of a Sandy Hook victim says that Elon Musk is a sociopath after he restored the massacre denying conspiracy theories Alex Jones to X. Podcast Zubi

thinks Musk is right, but I'm a free speech hypocrite. It sure has been exed. Welcome back to Unsensit, Elon Musk's reversal. Alex's response to X, the spot outrage. From a grieving father, he lost his son and a tragic Sandy Hook massacre, David Wheeler. His son, Benjamin, was the sixth when he was shot dead along with 20 others, the slammed Musk's associate path, the ex-owner, previously condemned Jones, for exploiting the death of children for personal gain, politics or fame, and ended a U-turn. I'm joined in the studio by my pack, a rapper and broadcaster, podcaster, Zubi,

broadcaster as well, talk TV contributor and family lawyer, Paul and Ron Adrian, and the journalist and former newspaper editor Emily Sheffa. Welcome to all of you. Zubi, you think I'm a flaming hypocrite about free speech, I want Alex Jones to be continually banned from X. Why am I a hypocrite? Do you support freedom of speech? Yes. So how do you reconcile that?

All free speech, even in America, which has probably the finest protection of free speech in the world with the First Amendment, has a number of things which are excluded, including defamation. He was just found guilty by several courts of the most egregious defamation in modern American history,

and it was because he targeted for years the poor families of the Sandy Hook children who were massacred in that school shooting. And he has not paid a dime to those families of the $1.2 billion he's supposed to be paying, and it's an absolute disgrace. And I agree with what Elon Musk said a year ago, which is anyone that seeks to benefit or gain

from the deaths of children for personal gain or fame or whatever, should not be allowed on X. Now he's changed his mind. I think he's being hypocritical, not me. Well, over the past decade, I know that for a fact that Alex Jones has apologized for that many, many times. We're talking about things that he said.

Only when he was facing financial oblivion. No, he apologized. No, no, only when he was actually being held to account for it. No, prior to that. No, he didn't. Never apologized prior to that. Yes, he did. No, he didn't.

Only when he was sued. No, no, no, he apologized prior to that. I know that as a fact. Listen to his Joe Rogan appearance about four years ago. You apologize very profusely. But that was after the lawsuits were coming in. I don't know about that. Anyway, I think if X is going to be a free speech platform,

it needs to be a free speech platform. Would you let Nick Fuentes back on? Yes. A white supremacist is anti-Semi? Yeah, as long as he doesn't break the rules. Well, those are breaking the rules. No, being, having views, having thoughts in your head is not against the law or breaking the rules.

On his show? If you say things on the platform that, violate the platform. And if you promote your show and you say them on your show? Well, if I started spewing white supremacist stuff in front of you, right? And I'll then tweeted a link to the show. You'd be happy with that? I'm not saying I would be happy with it, but I wouldn't want you banned from X for that. Really? So I could look down the barrel of this camera and say, I think all black people should be thrown out of this country. Watch it. Watch how they clip this one. Well, no. Okay. So someone will clip it, right? And I could say

that. Yes. And then I could tweet a link to this show to promote the show. And you would think I should stay on X? Yes. I would support your right to free speech. Wow. Yeah. That's not free speech, it's hate speech. No, it's freedom. Freedom of speech specifically exists to protect views and people espousing views. But there are six different criteria excluded under the First Amendment, including child pornography, including defamation, including all sorts of things.

You can't famously go into a theatre and shout fire if it's crowded theater, right? Sure, but you can see things that... So there are lots of restrictions already. Look, there are people who think that I engage in hate speech. There's people who think that you engage in hate speech. Hate speech is a very subjective. It's extraordinarily subjective term. And if anyone who has ever said anything over the decades... Anyone can say anything?

I don't think you can directly call to violence. Right. No. I don't think you could... Alex Jones's words led to direct violent confrontations. No, not directly. No, that's not... People were urinated on the kids' grades.

Okay. Because they believe Alex Jones... Let me ask the question. When he said it was a hoax? If someone... What do you think is the correct path to redemption? if someone has said something that you would disagree with. I think if you do what he did for that number of years

and you have a $1.2 billion award against you and you don't pay the family's one cent to clear yourself bankrupt to avoid it, you don't get to come back onto a social media platform and start earning money. Well, he does. He's come back on. I know, because Elon Musk, in my view, has made a terrible mistake.

Quick reaction from you to this. I think it's quite interesting hearing Zubi respond to you without once referencing responsibilities. We're all very good at identifying. my right to this and my right to that and when my right has been abused. But what we're not very good at doing is recognising how responsible we have to be when we are looking at exercising those rights. And clearly he hasn't been responsible.

Clearly his lack of responsibility has caused harm. And I just wonder what Elon Musk is hoping to achieve from this. Well, Emily, is Elon Musk a force for good or not on, since he bought Twitter a year ago? Well, he's not a force for good for Twitter itself or X. I mean, he's recently told advertisers to F off. And I'm afraid the real cynic in me... Which I quite like, actually. The real cynic in me, well, it's good.

But, you know, his debt payments on what he borrowed by X just must be crippling him at this point. I think what's... I'm afraid the cynic in me thinks that this is just sort of massive publicity stunt. Could be. It could be. And look, Elon must... What's his reasoning to reverse... Look, he does believe in free speech.

I believe in free speech. I think there have to be limitations. as the First Amendment has, but we'll see how this plays out. I think Alex Jones will live down to every expectation. Take a short break, we'll come back and discuss Rwanda next. Welcome back, still with my pact. Emily, Rishi Sunnak, big win tonight, actually,

after all the doom-laden forecast, not a single conservative MP in the end voted against his bill, many abstained, but no one voted against him. How big a win is it? Is it just a temporary victory? It's 44, so that is a big win. I'm sort of unfrust. in my view in that I think he is going to win this battle.

I think there's going to be a lot of work between now and the next reading. You know, obviously the right are wanting their amendments. Those more to the left, one nation, don't want any more amendments. If they're not, they might want to weaken it a bit. But I do think the right have a long history of causing a lot of trouble. They don't always go ahead with it. And I think, I hope they just keep repeating to them. One year in power is worth five years in opposition.

Here's my point, Paula. I don't know why he wants to die on his history. In the end, so a few hundred people get taken to Rwanda when you've got a much bigger problem with legal migration numbers going through the roof up to nearly a million. Yeah. And can we just set out what this absolute farce is? Quickly if you don't mind. Farses, go on the GovDop website, have a look at the skilled visas,

who they're looking for, who they need to come and do jobs. Everybody, they need judges, they need barristers, they need solicitors, you need public sex, they need everybody. Because 5 million people in this country have given up working. Because we're lazy, work shy. We are lazy on. work shy. This isn't about blaming people.

And people are now using, as I always predicted, they're using mental health as an excuse. Let me come to you, Zubhury. What do we do about immigration generally? The world's got the same problem. Immigration in general, the rule of law just needs to be followed and upheld and enforced. I think it's that simple.

You can't just have people coming in, whether this is in the States, people running over the border in the hundreds of thousands or this is... In Europe, people coming over on boats. The rule of law needs to be enforced. There should be immigration, but it needs to be fair.

There needs to be a process. And people need to follow that process. I think most people can get on board with that. The trouble is we're coming up against the rule of law, and that's what the right of the party was. That is. At the ECHR. Great to see you all.

We've run out of time. Love it to see you, Zubi. As always, when you're in town, please come and come back. That's it from me, whatever you're up to. Keep it uncensored. We do believe in free speech. I'm with you on that Zubi. Just not with Alex Jones.