Piers Morgan Uncensored - Piers Morgan Uncensored:Alex Jones Returns to X, Abdul Wahid

Episode Date: December 11, 2023

On Piers Morgan Uncensored tonight, Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, who lied about the Sandy Hook Massacre for profit, has been allowed back on X by Elon Musk. Where is the line on free speech - and did he cross it? Glenn Greenwald joins the debate. Abdul Wahid is the leader of an Islamist movement which glorified the Hamas attacks and chanted for Jihad on the streets of London. He’s also an NHS GP. Tonight he joins Piers Morgan in the studio. 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

Live from the news building in London, this is Pearce Morgan uncensored. Well, it's certainly uncensored now, because I was about to say something, which would be really uncensored. But you know what? It's my first day back at the studio after a week in COVID hell.

So I'll forgive the miscreants that just created that little drama for us, and we'll move on. I'll kill them after the show. Well, good evening from London. Welcome to Pierce Morgan Unsensored. Tonight on the show, Rishi Sunak is grilled at the COVID Inquiry.

As the Rwanda plan backlash raises fresh questions about his leadership, as even talk of a Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage dream ticket, which strikes me as the opposite of a dream. Abdul Wahid is the leader of an Islamist movement which glorified the Hamas attacks, chanted for jihad on the streets of London. He's also, in his day job, an NHS GP. And he'll join me live in the studio. Well, I'm a passionate defender, a free speech.

There's a massive clue in my name of this. show, uncensored. And I believe in it. I believe that all honestly held opinions, however offensive they are, belong in the open, where they can be challenged, debated and exposed. But there are limits on free speech. There are laws, and there is a line. I've always said that Alex Jones is a perfect example of where that line got crossed. He's a conspiracy theorist and shock jock in America who made hundreds of millions of dollars by peddling outrageous lies at the Sandy Hook School Massacre shooting was a hoax. But he uninitiated, this is him

shouting at me a week after that massacre on CNN. The tyrants did it. Hitler took the guns. Stalin took the guns. Mal took the guns. Fidel Castro took the guns. Hugo Chavez took the guns. And I'm here to tell you, 1776 will commence again if you try to take our

firearms. Doesn't matter how many lemmings you get out there on the street begging for him to have their guns taken. We will not relinquish them. Do you understand? You kind of won that debate. actually, because the only response in America to the Sandy Hook massacre was to do nothing. In fact, they continued to sell a lot more guns. A million new guns get sold in America every month, and they're already over 400 million in circulations.

If you're wondering, if you're curious why there are so many more mass shootings in America than they used to be, that's why. And if you're wondering what's going to happen in the next few years, as a million new guns enter circulation and nothing gets done to stop mass shootings, My guess is there'll be a lot more mass shootings. I've covered a lot of them, especially when I was at CNN in America. Very few of them, in fact, none of them actually, were a soul-crushing as Sandy Hook, 20 children, age between 6 and 7, were murdered by a mass killer with a semi-automatic AR-15 rifle. Alex Jones's reaction to this absolute appalling atrocity was to tell his followers on his Info War show, it was all a government hoax set up by the Obama administration, a deep state plot to justify new gun laws that would take away their guns.

He said the grieving families were all crisis actors. Sandy Hook, it's got inside job written all over it. Sandy Hook is a synthetic, completely fake with actors, in my view, manufactured. I couldn't believe it at first. People just instinctively know that there's a lot of fraud going on. But it took me about a year with Sandy Hook to come to grips with the fact that the whole thing was fake.

Well, as a direct result of his lies, those grieving families were harassed and threatened with death by his followers. Erica Lafferty, daughter of the murder principal, Dawn Hoxbrung, got death and rape threats from people who said her mother was fictional. Robbie Parker, who lost his daughter, Emily, was chased down the street by Joan's supporter,

asking you how much he'd earned. by lying about the death of his daughter. Mark Barden, father of seven-year-old victim, Daniel Barden, says that one of Jones's followers urinated on his dead son's grave. Some of these families have successfully sued him now for defamation, which is explicitly not protected by America's First Amendment. Jones was ordered to pay record damages, more than a billion dollars in total. He's yet, of course, to pay a penny.

He actually declared himself bankrupt to avoid doing so. Nevertheless, Elon Musk has inexplicably decided it's time to restore Alex Jones to X, formerly Twitter. I'm a big supporter generally of Elon Musk. I think the work he's doing to eradicate bias and protect free speech and the place where so many debates now originate is an important, very important one. But this was a profoundly disappointing and wrong decision. I'd like to remind Elon what he said about reinstating Alex Jones when he first took over. He said this.

He said he wouldn't restore him. said, my firstborn child died in my arms. I felt his last heartbeat. I have no mercy for anyone who would use the deaths of children for gain, politics or fame. Well, that is precisely what Alex Jones did. He literally used dead children for gain, fame and politics. So what's changed in a year, Elon? Well, there's now a big movement to rehabilitate Alex Jones online. Many argue he's right more often than he's wrong when all the evidence points to the complete opposite. And in the case of Sandy Hook, it wasn't just one little mistake that he owned up to. Andrew Tate tweeted Alex Jones is an effing hero. Really? He's not my kind of hero.

He's the opposite of a hero. This is a man who repeatedly and deliberately lied about the mass shooting of children at school to enrich himself. He called it all as phony as a $3 bill, and yet that's what he is. Yes, he's now apologised, but he did that under legal duress because his business was about to go to the wall. This wasn't he something he blurted out once and instantly regretted. He did this for years, and every time he lied about Sandy Hook, he made more money, night after night, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year. And he knew what was going on to these families as a result of his harassment on air. To see him back on X selling his book, his merchandise, his website, his info wars, frankly, makes me want to puke.

Every opinion should be heard but inciting harassment and violence to profit from unspeakable grief, to pour into the wounds of those families, yet more misery and pain. That's not free speech. It's deliberate hate speech, and it's disgusting. Well, kicking off the week, I'm talking about my pact, talk to a few contributor to Esther Cracker, associate editor of the mirror, Kevin McGuire, political journalist, Ava Santina.

We're going to get into British politics, but just your reaction. Kevin, first of all, to that. We're going to be debating it later on the show. But Elon Musk bringing back Alex Jones, who is still not paid a dime of that $1.2 billion of damages, one of the record defamation settlements in American history. But given the people that he defamed, What do we think of this decision?

Where's Musk's humanity? Where's his... Well, he had it a year ago. It's gone. In fact, he compared it to the death of his own child and his arm. It's gone, and I'm afraid he's thrashing around. Like, Twitter's worth, or X, as he's renamed it, is worth less than half what he paid for it. He's desperate to get people on.

He thinks you'll get controversy and followers. And somehow, if he thinks he's going to attract advertisers and make money from that, he's utterly wrong. Look, he deserves, Musk deserves to fail now on Twitter X. I'm on it. You're wrong. on it, everybody's on it here. Well, that's the rule. We're all on this platform.

It's beyond. The thing is, if you're going to be the champion of free speech, you're going to have unsavory characters like Alex Jones. If you've backed yourself into a corner by saying you're the person that has this platform that's going to champion free speech, you affect me. You have to let him back on. I have no interest in anything Alex Jones has to say. And I do think my experience of X has really gone off a cliff since him buying it. But this is a matter of principle.

If you're going to say that I'm the king of free speech, well, this is what you have to do. But that's though he takes off people who mock him, apparently accounts about him. So he defends himself. But also, I mean, David, the point about free speech in America, there are many things the First Amendment does not protect when it comes to free speech. Incitement to any violence. Defamation, as we've discussed. That what he was saying that he was found guilty of is not covered by free speech.

Fraud, obscenity, child pornography, fighting words and threats. There are many things you can't say and be covered by even America's First Amendment, widely acknowledged to be one of the broadest supporters of free speech in the world. So, you know, this idea that somehow Alex Jones is a free speech warrior, it's just nonsense. Yeah, well, they'll probably deem that the First Amendment isn't adequate anymore. But look, you know, this is also something we're importing over here. I think we're seeing free speech, and the apparent merits of free speech is diluting our politics over here. It's something that a lot of the national conservatives are getting into, and it's really worrying.

Okay, let's turn to UK politics. Let's turn Kevin to the COVID inquiry, Ritchie Sunaq. I mean, this is a guy right on the ropes at the moment. I watched about two hours of the inquiry today. And I have to say, it's sort of confirmed my view. If Rishy Sounak had been the leader before that he became leader, he might have sort of much better chance. He came over to me as pretty diligent, intelligent,

calm, talked his way through the various issues, accepted, you know, things had gone wrong, accepted things had gone right, whatever. He was a kind of, you know, an impressive, I felt, an impressive witness. Yep, it is. Am I wrong to think that? But for a man who says he's a master of detail, there must have been more than 20 times he couldn't recollect,

he couldn't recall, he couldn't grasp it, you didn't know, it was as if he hadn't been in the room. So I thought, look, he decided you'll make the apology, try not to be touchy, not attack those who disagreed. I thought that was all clever, strategy, but I felt the number of times his memory failed him and the number of messages he'd lost when he supposedly transferred phones. This stuff on the WhatsApp messages, the number of them now who are claiming, well, they all disappear when I changed my phone. I've changed my, but let's watch what he said, the Prime Minister.

You don't now have access to any of the WhatsApp that you did send during the time of the crisis to you. No, I don't. I've changed my phone for multiple times over the past. few years and as that has happened, the messages have not come across. As you said, I'm not a prolific user of WhatsApp in the first instance, primarily communication with my private office and obviously anything that was of significance through those conversations or exchanges would have been recorded officially by my civil servants as one would expect. Now, what I don't understand, Boris Johnson's is the same thing. When I've changed my phone, the WhatsApp messages just come over automatically. Well, yeah, your account. I think the thing is that... And also, by the way, if you're the chancellor or the

Prime Minister of his country. Why aren't all your messages automatically preserved for the country that is paying your salary? I think the bigger question is why are politicians using WhatsApp? I think it's deeply unprofessional. They can use it, but it should all be saved. Well, but the thing is, they are saying...

In America, you can't circumnavigate it. If they're all public record. The thing is, if the police are conducting a criminal investigation, they will have access to your WhatsApp. If you physically deleted them off your phone, right? So they're not lost. If it were warranted a police investigation, they would be able to retrieve those WhatsApp. But I do think Rishi Sunak handled himself very well.

I think during the inquiry, there was a question about whether he mocked Rashford's sort of plan to give kids free school meals. That's completely irrelevant to the inquiry. I mean, most of us are watching this thinking, I really hope there's a point to this. There are four more modules of this inquiry. And to ask a politician at the time what his opinion of footballist initiative was, is irrelevant. It's all going to take too long, right? By the time this is finished, we're all half dead anyway, right? Ironically.

it's probably been our pandemic by this. It all takes far too long in this country. In Sweden, they've done and dusted already. They've finished in the public inquiry. I also think the limits of the inquiry have really been tested by these WhatsApp. I think it's fun and trivial to look at and just go, well, how on earth do you delete them?

But quite seriously, if you really cared and you want to retrieve those messages, you would have a list made of everyone that they ever message and you would retrieve those messages from the recital. That is possible to do. You would use the resources.

And it's hard to imagine a more serious collection of messages than the people running the government at the start of a pandemic. I mean, this is serious historical record we're talking about. Hillary Clinton's use of private email in 2016. Huge scandal. It was a huge contribution.

Cost of the election. Of her losing against Donald Trump. In fact, there was no evidence she misused it, but she used it when she shouldn't. And of course, here you have Boris Johnson, you have the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time. How can they get away with it? At home as well, this happened with Suella Ravenman.

She was sacked because she was using a private email to communicate. So why on earth is that any different when Rishi Sooner? Yeah, I don't think it's good. In the grand scheme of things, these WhatsApp messages, frankly, are irrelevant. I want to know about the PPE contracts. I actually want to know where money was spent. They're wrong the messages. No, but there's a record of actual the contract.

I think Ava's right. A lot of his stuff is probably there, but it's disappeared, right? Because they don't want to be held accountable. When you smell a rat. Well, talking of smelling rats, Nigel Farage came third in. I'm a celebrity, get me out of here. I have absolutely no truck with a little. snake because of what he did to me over Donald Trump, right? It was just to remind viewers, when I launched this show, having three months earlier,

texted Farage my personal congratulations when he got an interview with Donald Trump, he then tried to sabotage mine in the most despicable snake-like manner. So I found his true colours then. He's a snake, right? And it was brilliant last night to see him not only losing again a public vote. This is the seventh. Six elections. He's lost.

Seven. This is seven now. And he came third. And the winner was a bloke I've never heard of. He used to be in a reality show called Made in Chelsea Years ago, apparently. My son knows him on the nightclub circuit in Chelsea. I want to challenge your son, by the way.

I don't think he's quite as nice as your son's... Really? Really? He is. Well, Spencer assures me, he's a good lad. I don't know. I don't know. I haven't met him. But, I mean, just the fact I'd never heard of him.

And somehow, this is a glorious triumph for Farage. What triumph are we talking about? Farage lost to a reality TV star and ended up covered in snakes, appropriately, why does that make him more electable? Am I missing something? Yeah, but he's now got one and a half million pounds so he can reopen his bank account.

Yes, a very elite bank, he's got enough cash. Finishing third is where Matt Hancock, the health secretary, finished. He's just the new... He's a fellow carcob. I think we're expecting a bout of collective amnesia here to suggest that Boris Johnson and Nijia Farage are the dream ticket. Has everyone forgotten the last four years?

Well, I don't know. Also, it's quite interesting because if he is going to potentially run for office again, I mean, he is still in a political party, is in the Reform Party? Is this not a question for the Electoral Commission? Because this has not been free publicity for him for the past couple of weeks. He's been able to parade himself and launder his reputation.

And look, you know, of course he got on well there. He is a very amiable person. He's one of the most well-known people in the country. He doesn't need this free PR. The bigger problem seems to me for Rishi Sunak is this business about Rwanda, which I think is a failed policy and has been from the very start.

And I think it's not going to work. And even if it does work, It'll be tiny, and the cost is cost to taxpayer to generate a few people getting on a plane for the optics. It seems to me completely obscene. Oh, it's a zombie policy. It's finished, what, $290 million now? What will happen?

I mean, is it likely that enough Tory rebels are going to actually try and bring him down? I've often seen them bottle it at the end. So maybe tomorrow they don't bring him down then, but then they have a go in January, February. You can't escape this now. If this policy is as unworkable as it, it seems. I think the Tories should let it fail

on its own merits instead of ousting Rishi Sunak as leader. Because honestly, the judicial you know what I would do if I was in, I would just I would just announce tomorrow the round of Christmas, it's done. We're pulling out. Sorry, we've had a good go at this. The only way to actually make it properly work, probably as Robert Generic rightly identified,

is to break international law. I'm not prepared as British Prime Minister for us to do that. Nor is Rwanda. Right. The authoritarian leader of repressive Rwanda won't break it. Let's end with a bit of fun with Rishi Sunak. This is artificial intelligence. Having a bit of fun with me and him in a clip has gone viral on TikTok. Shortly, I'll be having a word with the Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak.

After Rishi had decided to block the greedy BBC from implementing their largest increase on their license fee in 40 years, he will now be telling us why he decided to take this action. So Rishi, why have you decided to block this huge increase on the television license fee? Well, peers, to be frank, I'm sick of them taking the f***. They're literally trying to make the likes of the British public pay the wages of Gary Frike Linnaker and Zoe Fri-Ball. I mean, come on. Who the fuck watches the telly anymore anyway?

He's won my vote. Yep. Here, yeah. Final word on. It's pretty scary. None of that is real. I mean, that's quite scary. Look, you know, if it's labelled as comedy, political satire, then that's fine.

But when it's passed off, it's genuine... Quick word about Linneker. who's back in the headlines again for expressing an opinion. I don't care. I mean, Gary's a made of mind. I don't care what he says. Why do we care so much about his views? Because it's a lot easier to put on the front page

that you're upset with Gary Lineke rather than you're upset with the Prime Minister who you are in bed with. Esther, can you put up some outrage? I think it's because the BBC pretends to be impartial. Listen, at the end of the day, I actually wonder why Gary Lunica continues to work for the BBC

if he feels this strongly and he knows... I think he likes talking about football. He's allowed to express himself, I wonder why he chooses to work for the BBC. Look, I'm quite pleased he's not complaining about foreign players coming over here and taking our corners. You know what it is? It's papers like the Daily Mail on the right,

always denouncing cancel culture. But the moment somebody says they don't, they don't like, they want to cancel it. It would be quite interesting to see what they were doing. If Linneker suddenly did a complete U-turn, I started saying, I'm fully in favour of the... I mean, you should almost do it for fun, right? We started tweeting everything that the Conservative right

agreed with, of course, none of them would be furious. I don't think that's it. I think it's because the BBC license fee is going up and we have to pay for this. They shouldn't attack his right to say. As you rightly said in the monologue, free speech, that includes hearing what you don't like and you don't agree with. It does. But you know what? Free speech does have limits. And a society that even a free democratic society

that doesn't impose limits on free speech is not actually a thriving democracy. It becomes something else. Thank you, Pat. Good to see you all. Unsensor next, I'm joined for an exclusive interview with the suburban NHS doctor, who's been revealed to be the leader of an extreme Islamist group. Is a GP calling for jihad something we should tolerate? That's next.

Welcome back to Unsensored. My next guest has been a GP with the NHS for 25 years, working as a mentor for recently qualified doctors at his surgery in Harrow, Northwest London. Dr. Wahid Azif Shada has another less wholesome identity as leader of an Islamic extremist group, which was recently caught on camera, calling for jihad and an anti-Israel demonstration. What is the solution to liberate people

in the concentration cast from Palestine? Jihad! What is the solution? Jihad, also known as Abdul Wahid, joins me. Now, well, welcome to you. Thank you for coming in today. You've come from your work as an NHS GP. Let me first just ask you,

your reaction to the clip we just played, these are members of your organisation and they're a loud chance of jihad on the streets of London. Do you think that's acceptable? Bismillah, al-hhhah, al-habilah, s'hcala-salam, that demonstration was a very carefully planned demonstration where the placards, the banners,

the speeches from the platform were calling for a military intervention of official armies of Muslim countries to rescue the people. people of Gaza with a situation of a civilian population of two million who are being massacred and slaughtered anywhere else in the world you would find it a completely straightforward thing for people calling for military intervention but they weren't calling you weren't chanting we want military intervention they were chanting jihad so my question for you is simply do you support

the chanting of jihad the chanting of jihad by somebody that unscripted well quite a few people Actually, actually, no. It's about two people. So you would condemn that? Of course I wouldn't condemn that. You wouldn't? No, because jihad in that context, as they understood it, and they were chanting, is for the official armies of Muslim countries to enter and intervene. We're in a situation now, Pierce, where 1% of the population of Gaza has been killed in the space of two months. One percent of the children of Gaza have been killed. Anywhere else in the world, you yourself called for military and intervention in Ukraine by NATO with probably less legal and moral cause than there is in Gaza. When we stand... Really? Oh, absolutely. Because... Do you think when Vladimir Putin illegally invaded Ukraine, the moral right of Ukrainians to respond is somehow equivalent to the moral right of people in Palestine after October

the 7th to do the same? Is that what you're saying? I'm saying that the people of Ukraine have actually one of the most powerful armies in the region. It doesn't change the fact they were illegally invaded, does it, Doctor? The people of Gaza have nobody helping them. Well, they do. They have a mass. They have nobody helping them. They have a terrorist organisation called a mass.

They have nobody helping them. They've got 30,000 terrorists. They have. They have. They have lined up against them. They have lined up against them, the murderous Israeli defence force. They have lined up against them. The United States, who this week, today in the Washington Post, it was said that the white

phosphorus that's being used by the IDF is supplied by them. They have lined up against them, the Britain and the EU, they have lined up against them, the Arab rulers in the region, who carry on their trade cooperations. As I made clear, Doctor, I think a lot of the response from Israel, particularly right now I would deem to be testing everyone's sense of what is proportionate. There's no question. I do not subscribe to the view it's genocide. That is the understatement of the century. But I think they have a right to defend themselves against a terror group who have gone on record in the last two weeks

as saying they want to do what happened on October of the 7th again and again. I understand. It's horrific. It's horrific. It's beyond horrific. Because literally what we are watching, what we are watching on our phones, on our laptops, on our TVs, is an extension of what's been happening since 1940s. Let me play you your reaction. All right, I understand.

Let me play you after October the 7th, a few days later, You took part on a talk on YouTube and you said this. Brave Mujahideen, they gave the enemy a punch on the nose. All right. And it's a very welcome punch on the nose. How can you categorize a terror attack in which 1,200, mostly innocent civilian people were brutally attacked, raped, tortured, beheaded and murdered?

How can you, a British, NHS doctorate, an NHS doctor in Britain. How can you say that's a welcome punch on the nose? Will you let me answer fully? Yes. I will be frank. I'll be as concise as I can be. But if you give me the courtesy of letting me answer fully.

Okay. I will defend the right of the Palestinians to resist an occupation. When you look at that... It's not resistance. That's terrorism. When you look at what happened and the 7th of October as if that is the that everything started. I didn't say that. You didn't say that, but when people look at that... Do you think what happened that day was a terrorist attack? When people look... Do you? Do you? You know, the word terrorism has become so politicized. Actually, not really. The slow,

doesn't. The word... You can be deeply sympathetic to the plight of Palestinian civilian, which I am, by the way, and have expressed many times. What you can't do is be weasily mild about what happened on October the 7th. I asked you to let me finish. That was a grotesque. I will ask you to finish. Yeah, but you're equivocating about it being a terror attack. I'm not. I'm not equivocating. and I will explain why, okay? The word terrorism, by the way, in India last month... We're going to talk about India. Talk about what happened in India.

People who supported the Australian cricket team have been arrested under terrorist offences. In the West Bank, people who are revealing... have been told, if you reveal what happened in the prisons, you will be arrested on terrorist charges. Do you think what happened October the 7th was a terror attack? You did say no? It's a resistance...

Not a terror attack? Pierre, if... If, and it's if, if, if, I'm asking you to let me finish, if, right, our Islamic standard in conflict, in warfare, our prophet, peace be upon him, so Allah, Allah, He said, you can't kill children, you can't kill women, you can't kill the elderly, you can't mutilate. Hamas said all that. If, if, anybody did that, if, what do you mean if? I say if, if, because... They literally broadcast it on their own streaming platforms. And, well, I'll tell you what, a lot of us saw. Hamas, broadcast it merrily to the world. Here's us doing these terrible things. What do you mean if?

What many of us saw on that day were videos coming out, showing people saying we will not harm women, we will not hold children. Do me a favour. No, no, that's what I'm saying that. I'm saying that. Resistance is a right in Islam. It's a right in international law. It's even a right that Churchill said in his history of the English-speaking peoples.

He actually wrote in that book, it is a primary right of men to kill and die for the land they live in. You literally just read me a description of what people who follow Islam are not supposed to do. And Hamas did all of those things. But your response is to say, well, hang on, I've seen videos of them saying, we don't want to do that stuff.

No, yes. I find that pretty offensive, doctor. I find... We all know they did it because they boasted to the world with their own videos what they were doing. I find it amazing that respected journalists like yourself that seem to have suspended their critical faculties. I'm believing what Hamas wanted me to see. Well, you're believing what you saw.

No, no. What Hamas themselves broadcast to the world because they wanted to take great glee in what they've done. There's no ambiguity about it. I asked you to let me finish. And I'm going to... You've got to answer questions. I will answer the question.

Let's agree on a principle. If atrocities were committed, right, I will never condone them. I will say that. So do you condemn what happened on October the 7th? If atrocities are committed, You know who's responsible? What do you mean if?

No, they were. Who's responsible for it then? Ah, so you don't condemn it? Okay. Who is responsible? Well, the Jews brought it on themselves? Actually, I would say more than that, I would say the powers that believe that Israel should be a colony for themselves in the Middle East, they are the ones responsible. You know what?

I'm really struggling. I'm really struggling. Do you not? That a British National Health Service doctor of 25 years, a man who's supposed to be seeing patients all day every day and putting them right. is incapable of saying what happened when it was literally broadcast to the world by a terror group. Nor do you think they're terrorists.

You think it's resistance. You seem to want the only way to justify it. You don't even believe what they showed us with their own technology. And I'm just curious. Do you think any of this is compatible with you being a doctor in the National Health Service?

You don't have to be a doctor. Do your patients know that you believe these things? You don't have to be a doctor to care for the lives of 2 million people in Gaza. You don't have to be a doctor. I'm concerned about whether your patients here in this country were Hamas already prescribed to terrorist organizations. And I've said to you, do these patients know your views? I have said to you. Do they know your views?

I don't talk to my patients about my views in a 10-minute consultation, do I? Nobody does that. It's just a foolish question, isn't it? That's a foolish question, yeah? Nobody talks to patients. You use a different name. I use my name. Well, you don't. You have two names. One, the leader of the group. Abdul Wahid is a name that family, friends, and other people call me.

Actually, even some people at work. Even some people at work. And Wahid Asif Sheda is my legal name, which people use in other forums. That's not a very unusual thing. In May 2023, a prominent... No, no, I'm going to ask you another question. You did not give me the courtesy. You know why?

Because your answers were so outrageous. Okay, so you censor. That's your answer. No, no, no. I don't censor. The person doing censoring is you. No, you are censoring. Who wants me to try and understand and believe

that what Hamas Shodas boasted about with their own technology, broadcasting into the world, was not what we saw. That's called censorship. That is actually the purest personification of censoring the truth I've ever encountered. When you bring Mark Ragev onto the show,

and you question him, lightweight questioning, albeit lightweight questioning, about the atrocities that have happened since then. I give you, I actually ask me difficult questions. Actually, you don't ask difficult questions, yeah? You completely accept, you sit there and listen to the most ridiculous explanations. Unlike you, and your answers, you mean. Well, you don't give me the chance to say that.

No, I've heard your answers. No, you didn't. Oh, I have? You didn't. You don't? Well, let me just, okay, let's do a little quick fire. You're telling the answer. Let's do a little quick fire recap.

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 a terror attack? I believe that if civilians got killed on that day, It is appalling. It is appalling. You're a doctor, man. You're a doctor in the NHS. What do you mean if?

1,200 people got massacred. And 1% of the population. I can share your concerns about what's happened. You know you don't. Oh, no, I do. No, you do. 16 years. I do.

I cannot believe a doctor is saying the word if people got victims of atrocity. If, if, on October the 7th. How can you say that? So what, you tell me this. What is a proportionate response to 16 years of living in a cage? No, no. What is a proportionate?

Not a terror attack. What is it? Not a terror attack. If they just attacked IDF... I've asked many times what is proportional, right? So you're saying just to attack the IDF would have been acceptable? I personally do not... Answer that.

I'm answering this... Let me answer your question. I'm going to say this. We might be able to agree. I think the strategy... No, at the moment... Can we answer that? Let me answer the question.

Let me answer the question. Let me answer the question. Let me answer the question. Yes or no? If they had just to step military targets, it's unacceptable. My view of what they're doing is I don't think it's going to work. I don't think the IDF is going to eradicate Hamas. And if that is the mission statement, and in the process,

they could agree on that. We could agree on that. Men, women and children. If they do that, I think they will radicalise an entire new generation and make it worse. That's my honest view of what I'm now witnessing. But let me come back to... That's why. That's why when we talk about a military intervention...

It's actually actually what we want. But doctor, what happened on October of the 7th, wasn't a military intervention. No, no. It was a terror attack. What we want as a military intervention. And you don't even think it happened, do you? What we want is a military intervention from Muslim armies to rescue a beleaguered people and replace an apartheid system. The Palestinian people have to be given the same human rights.

Did you do me the respect? They have to be given. No, no, I will interrupt you. It's not your show. You don't just talk forever, right? What's the point of asking? I'm going to tell you what I think about the Palestinian people. which I've talked about many times. You've obviously missed it. I think they should be given

the same human rights as everybody else. And particularly the same rights of Israelis. I think it's been a 75 year conflict with... Conflict? Where people have been driven out of the home? A conflict. 750,000 people in the Nakbah. That was wrong. Encroaching on the West Bank, more and more and more. That was wrong. So have been all the wars launched against Israel. That's been wrong. All of it is wrong. Right. The history shows this is a conflict riddled with wrongs on both sides, right? No, it didn't. I never said it did.

Well, you seem to. No, you don't even think it happened. The whole framing of your debate here. You don't even think it happened. I do think it happened. Oh, you did happen. It did happen. 1,200 people were massacred, well they? I think 1,200 people were killed. Well, they massacred?

They were killed. Right, by terrorists. They were killed by people who were resisting an occupation. Bullshit. And they're terrorists. Yeah, well, that's your view. It is my view. Yeah. By the view of any, any person who is not Israeli or Palestinian, right? I disagree with that.

I disagree with that. Have you not heard the adage? One man's terrorists is a non-man's freedom fighter. Have you never heard that? Bullshit. Have you never heard that? Let me just play. I want to just read you this.

In May 20203, Luka Mahm, who's a prominent member of your organisation, called for an end to the secular order so that, quotes, the UK will no longer be able to pump its liberal filth, its LGBT filth, its feminist filth, into the heart of the Muslim world. Do you agree with him?

I agree that the West is pumping secular democracy into the Muslim world. I agree that actually what we want to see in the Muslim world is a system with an accountable government, right, an elected leader, upholding family values, right? We want to see an economic system where wealth is circulated. Do you believe in equal rights for gay people? I believe that actually the Islamic staff. of law should be the standard of law in the country. Obviously, that's the standard I believe in.

So just to clarify, what is your view of homosexuality? I believe homosexuality is a sin. A sin, is wrong. So when gay people come to your practice, do you treat them? Oh, of course. Why? Because I treat all my patients with kindness and without discrimination. Do you tell them you think what they do is a sin?

What an absurd thing to say. Why wouldn't you be up front about that? Why would I say that? Why would I say that? Why don't you try going back to your surgery tomorrow? They don't come to me. Why do you go to surgery tomorrow and say, before we go any further to your patients, I want you to know what I think. I think that I agree with a guy who said that this country is full of LGBT filth, feminist filth.

I don't think Hamas are a terror group. I don't think what they did in October the 7th was a terror attack. And by the way, do you want me now to treat you? Do you want, do you understand what? I don't understand any of that. Professional integrity is. Oh, you think that's professional integrity? No, I think professional integrity is treating the people I treat with respect and with kindness and with fairness.

Well, they know I do. Do they? Oh, yeah. Do they know you think they're filth? I didn't say that they're filth. You agreed with what he said? I didn't agree with what he said. You said, I agree.

No, I agree. I can play the tape back in your life. I agree with the fact that the Muslim world should have the Islamic system. Yeah, I didn't say I agree with that. I don't use words. You want full Sharia law for this country? For this country.

I'm working for our group works for Islam, the restoration of Islam in the Muslim world. What about here? We work to uphold Islamic values in our personal life and in the Muslim community. Do you want Sharia law here or not? I would love, you know what? You'd love it?

No, I'll tell you what, in this last two months, one of the strangest things has been where people here have been looking at the people in Gaza, and they've been going and looking and reading the Quran, and they've been looking at it, and I'd invite you and your audience to do that. Just to clarify. You would like Sharia law here. And they are not convinced by these neocon, neo-Islam. Would you like Sharia law here? And caricatures of Islam, are they?

Actually, I don't think. All I've done is ask you straightforward questions. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You've revealed your beliefs in the answers. Yeah, you have. You may not even realise what you've done, but you have. I believe in Islamic law, and I don't believe in the caricature

that you try and present of Islam. Would you like Sharia law in this country? I would love to see... I would love to see you want Sharia law in this country. I don't want Sharia law in this country. Well, that's your wish. But you would? Yeah, but I believe it's the best system,

but I'm not working... Would you like it in this country? I would like... Yes or no. I believe in Islamic... Yes or no. You know, the Islamic civilization... Yes or no.

You'd be very quick to answer everything else. Yes or no. The Islamic civilization was the only civilization that brought peace to the Middle East for Muslims, Jews and Christians. I would love to see that system there. Wouldn't you like to see a system? Who pays your salary?

Wouldn't you like to see a system? Who pays your salary? Where Muslims, Jews and Christians would live side by side of the Middle East. It's not talking about this. I were talking about Middle East. You suggested you wanted it to be under Sharia law here. You suggested...

Do you or not? You... Do you or not? What's funny? What's funny is your approach of question? Why? Just answer the question. Because you know why it's funny about it.

Yes or no. You either do or you don't, right? I ask a question. The answer is yes or no. Why can't you say yes or no? I believe in the Islamic system. Would you like Sharia law in this country? I would love...

Yes or no. I would love to see you want... No, no. Answer the question. Never mind what I want. What do you want? I want to see the Islamic system reestablish... Would you like Sharia law...

your 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? No, no. Why do so many... Because they want to be oppressed?

Women in the world become Muslim these days. You tell me. Well, I don't, you better ask them. Well, why don't you tell me where you tell me, where you're, why don't you tell me, why They seem to find it something that attracts them Islam. Really? Yeah. Many, many, many women in the West become Muslim. And for some reason, they seem to like the fact that it's... Do you work with women doctors?

Yes, I do. How do they feel about your views on this? I keep a very strict professional line between my... Do they know where your views are? When they watch this, they're going to be surprised? Some of them will know, some of them will not know. Some of them will know. Some of them will not know. Okay.

Doctor, thank you for coming here. I appreciate it. You've been enlightening with your responses. You may not realise quite how enlightening, but you might find out when you see the reaction. But I appreciate you coming in. Thank you. You're welcome. Unsense, the next conspiracy theorist Alex Jones is back on X, formerly Twitter, a victory for free speech.

Or a big mistake by Elon Musk. We'll debate next. Welcome back. Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist who made hundreds of millions of dollars spreading the outrageous lies at the Sandy Hook shooting. Was a hoax. The grieving families finally sued him for defamation, and they rewarded more than a billion

dollars, but so far he hasn't paid them a dime. This is what happened last time I tried to hold them into account. Do you feel a sense of personal regret and remorse that your actions on air, that your actions on air, inspired a lot of people to think these

people were actors and their kids didn't really die? Do you feel genuine remorse? You know, let me talk for any? 500,000 Iraqi children starved to death. No, that's something. Albright did it on purpose and said, oh, no, I feel way less No, I legitimately question Sandy Hook, and I stand by what I did.

You said it was a fake and a hoax? You let me finish? I'm not going to come back on your show in 10 years, and you'll say, do you now apologize? If I sat here and slipped my throat on air, it wouldn't be enough for you. Well, today's weekend, Alex Jones was banned from all mainstream social media platforms. Now, Elon Musk has restored him to X, formerly Twitter, extolling his commitment, he says, to free speech.

But where is the line on free speech? And does Alex Jones cross it? Well, here's a debate. It's a journalist Glenn Greenwald. Aggressive commentator Nomicki Konst and YouTuber Mark Meachan, also known as Count Dankula. Welcome to all of you. Okay, Mark, you're with me, so let's start with you. What do you feel about this?

I mean, I've written a column for The New York Post saying, I think it's an outrageous decision by Elon Musk, who only a year ago himself said that because one of his children had died in his arms, his own kids, that he never wanted to see anybody who would profit from the death of children for personal gain, for fame or politics. Now he's done a U-turn on that. Is he right? Yeah, I think he's completely right in doing it. Why? Elon Musk's company, so if he wants Alex Jones back on the platform, then he absolutely can.

And he did put out to a poll to the public, you know, Vox Populate Dox Day. And people said they wanted him back on the platform, so he's brought them back on the platform. Well, it's an amateur poll. Two million of his followers voted. We don't know how many times each one voted, etc., etc., it's not a sophisticated... Each account can only vote once. Yeah, but my point is, is there a line, though, on free speech at all for you?

For me personally, no. Nothing. No. No. I think that Alex Jones should be able to go on Twitter if they want him there then that's fine. They can have him there and he can... Do you think what he said about the Sandy Hook massacre was justified then? Justified? Like, he has the right to say it. I don't... He does? I mean, 1.2 billion dollars

worth of damages awarded against him for one of the most serious... Biggest civil suit against an individual in the history of America? One of the worst defamation actually in terms of damages America's ever seen. Damages and defamation is not protected by the First Amendment. And yet you think he was entitled to say it. I think he had a right to say it. He's a right to say that

a mass shooting that killed 20 young kids was a fake and a hoax that the parents of the grieving dead were crisis actors. These were statements which he repeatedly made which led to actual intimidation, harassment, death and rape threats and people in the street going

up to these people and confronting them, these parents. You think all that is fine? I don't think it's fine. I never said it's fine. I said he has a right to do it. Does he have a right to do it? Yeah, agreeing that someone has a right to say something. Yeah, I think he has a right to do that. Agreeing that someone has a right to do something

isn't the same as agreeing with what they say. No, no, I agree. Yeah, I agree. But you actually think he has a right to do what he did? With the consequences we now and now happened? Yes, basically, yeah, a bunch of nutters did do a lot of awful stuff after the fact, but that's basically going down the same route of, you know,

remember back in the 90s, they wanted to ban video games and Dungeons and Dragons because they thought it caused violence and devil worship. Or you can't, you know, engage with this type of, you know, media, otherwise it's going to cause X, Y, Z, like rap music causes violence, all that other nonsense. If we're saying, oh, this guy's not allowed to say his conspiracy theories or whatever you want to call them, because some crazy guy out there might do something mental, then nobody can talk about anything at all. Well, you can. There are limits to free speeches or everything else. Even First Amendment, America has a number of limitations to it. Let me go to Nomiki Kahn.

What is your response to Elon Musk putting Alex Jones back on X? What I find so fascinating about Elon Musk is he uses a very loose, absolutist definition of free speech for his needs, but for his company, but doesn't use the same standards for, say, the algorithm. I mean, he has no problem giving Russian bots that boosts some of these guests on the show with the free speech rights, but does not give people of color and women the same rights. So this is not an equal playing field. Number one, they're not the government. Number two, they're not following. the United States free speech laws, there is, there are limitations, as you said, incitement, defamation, fraud, threats, child porn, obscenity. Those are the limitations to free speech. And there is a whole lot of that going on on Twitter. So if he wants to be an equal playing field free speech absolutist, then clean up the bots, clean up the algorithm, make it completely transparent

and democratized, and let people like me and then people of color and smaller accounts have the same effect as, say, someone who's being boosted by Russian bots. OK, let me bring in Glenn Greenwald. Glenn, you know, like me, you're a big supporter of the principle of free speech. And let's just lay that on the table. I call this show uncensored because I want it to celebrate free speech. But I've always been aware there are limitations. And under the First Amendment, which is one of the greatest protectors of free speech anywhere in the world, defamation is not protected under the First Amendment. And this was clearly one of the most serious defamations of a body of people

that America has ever seen. So I don't understand why, just for that reason alone, why Elon Musk has performed this U-Term with Alex Jones? I think the issue, peers, is what they do on the platform. We have all kinds of terrible people using social media. We have people who lied the United States into a devastating war in Iraq, including the current president of the United States. We have people who defame all the time,

like the guest I just heard in my ear, tried implying who she wasn't courageous enough to say who she meant, that one of the people on this panel is somehow promoted by, I'm sorry, I don't know why I'm hearing a voice in my ear because I'm not actually done talking yet. So the standard peers that Elon Musk enunciated when he first bought Twitter is one that I supported, even though he hasn't always adhered to it, which is as long as people are using that platform in ways that the long, allows speech to persist to be able to be expressed, then everybody should be able to be heard. What they do outside the platform, but I don't think we want social media,

Facebook saying, oh, this person did something terrible off the platform. Now we're going to ban them. Otherwise, we're going to have big tech sensors who sit in judgment of everybody's behavior. But Glenn, on this, right, but on this, Alex Jones did use Twitter to amplify his disgusting lies about Sandy Hook, and he will now be able to monetize all of his conspiracy theories to his heart's content on X without having paid a single dime

of the 1.2 billion damages awarded against him which should be going to the families of the Sandy Hook victims that he so cruelly defamed. That's my problem with this, he's not just any old Joe who got D Platforms got brought back. This is a guy at the center of the biggest defamation case in recent times who hasn't paid any of his job. to these people.

But peers, if he monetizes his platform on X, that is income that those plaintiffs will easily be able to get. And if he uses the platform to spread conspiracy theories or defamation, that falls outside of what three-speech absolution is, and I think Twitter would be justified in banning him. But what do you do? You ban people forever if they say something defamatory. Like I said, there are people who have done a lot worse than Alex Jones who are using Twitter, including bringing about wars lying to deceive the public in elections. And I don't think that we want this standard that says anything other than, as long as you say things that are within the First Amendment, you should be entitled to use social media. Once you don't, you should have a

just punishment. He's been banned for many years now. And I think Elon Musk is saying, okay, it's time to bring him back and see how he uses the possible. But it's so what to me. Okay. But you see, my criteria has always been that if you were a world leader or an elected official actually of any kind at any level, then I think everything that you tweet should be left on the historical record in perpetuity, right? We've had a big issue here with ministers

losing their WhatsApp messages of the crucial part of the pandemic. It shouldn't be allowed. It should all be public property, this kind of stuff. So I'd separate elected officials from ordinary people like Alex Jones. But what Alex Jones was so... But what about journalists? What about journalists who lied

the UK and the US into war? There are plenty of those people who still are doing those things. They're still lying people into wars. They're still lying about wars. Are you comfortable with having Elon Musk and Marks, Judge, Glenn, what about Nazis? I mean, you've defended Nazis in the past

because you're a free speech as a lawyer. So why is it some people get more power when it comes to free speech, more rights when it comes to free speech, but others don't. Again, this is not a level playing fielded. She's complaining because nobody has an interest. She's complaining because nobody has a voice. She's complaining because nobody has an interest in watching her show or listening to her on Twitter.

She's complaining that the algorithm somehow client her suppress her. I'm talking about algorithms in which people do not have equal rights. So you're using three-st-based. That's not the case at all. That's not who wasn't about at all. Assuming that, you're assuming that Alex Jones has the same rights as everybody else on Twitter. And that is just not true. Okay. You know what?

It's a very distinct debate. I wish I could talk about it longer. We've run out of time. But thank you for all of you. All I would say is, Personally, there has to be a line with people like Jones who commit atrocious defamations are not held remotely accountable for it and are then welcome back like free speech heroes. They're not free speech heroes.

He's a hate speech monster for me. But anyway, on unonsensored, you can disagree as you have. So good to see you. That's it from me. Whatever you're up to, keep it uncensored.